Leaderboard

Here are the list I have done and I wanna ask some of your opinion what do I still lack 1. studied the scriptures+institute manuals 2. read Preach my Gospel 3. work with the Missionaries every week basically that's all, I do wanna study "jesus the christ" they say it's a great book for missionaries .

Pardon me if this new thread covers a topic that has been discussed before. I searched around the forum and I did not find this specific set of citations that might be useful on the topic of ordaining women. As I see the argument of the Ordain Women side (trying to understand their position), they claim that they sustain the leaders of the Church, but they are not satisfied that the question has been asked regarding the ordination of women. Their indirect assertion is that the Prophet hasn't told them that he asked the Lord and that the answer is no. In all the discussions and debates I've seen around the Internet, I haven't seen anyone make reference to statements Joseph Smith made that are applicable to the question that are recorded in a very common source of history and doctrine, the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Regarding some of the contemporary religious movements of his era, Joseph critiqued a couple of them that were founded by women. Johanna Southcott professed to be a prophetess, and wrote a book of prophecies in 1804, she became the founder of a people that are still extant. She was to bring forth, in a place appointed, a son, that was to be the Messiah, which thing has failed. Independent of this, however, where do we read of a woman that was the founder of a church, in the word of God? Paul told the women in his day, "To keep silence in the church, and that if they wished to know anything to ask their husbands at home;" he would not suffer a woman "to rule, or to usurp authority in the church;" but here we find a woman the founder of a church, the revelator and guide, the Alpha and Omega, contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Four, 1839-42, p. 209). This is the statement that so many of our fellow saints have missed. Having a woman hold priesthood authority is "contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order." The matter is settled. We have it from Joseph. Why does President Monson simply entertain the request of the Ordain Women group to satisfy them and/or silence them? Another principle comes into play here that we find in the TPJS. ...And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case; and that in a council of High Priests...It is a great thing to inquire at the hands of God, or to come into His presence; and we feel fearful to approach Him on subjects that are of little or no consequence, to satisfy the queries of individuals....” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section One 1830-34, p.22) The sisters and supporters of Ordain Women need to understand these two principles. First, Joseph Smith already considered the New Testament to have defined the role of women. They can enjoy spiritual gifts, and even be prophetesses, just like in the Bible. However, they are not called to the priesthood, to hold keys, or to lead the Church. Secondly, even though the Church does have continuing revelation, it is a fearful, awesome thing to approach the throne of grace and inquire of God to satisfy the queries of individuals, most especially when the matter is already settled doctrine. I thought it might be useful for Church supporters to have these two quotes because they are pertinent to the issues at hand regarding the ordination of women. If the Ordain Women supporters are sincere, they should recognize that things are exactly as the Lord has established it and accept it. Their queries have already been answered. The question is now whether or not they will accept the revealed will of the Lord or whether they will continue to badger the Lord's Anointed for something it would not be appropriate to ask of the Lord. If you would like to read more on the topic, please visit my article at the Examiner.

In other words, as Spamlds has hinted here--the RS fills the void left by the absence of the primitive office of "deaconess"? Latter Days Guy can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's saying that women were necessarily ordained to the priesthood in the primitive Church--just that women officiated in an office called "deacon" whose functions, in the latter days, have either been abandoned/relegated to the Relief Society (as they pertained to women) or folded into the actual priesthood (as they pertained to men). It would be like, in AD 3500, a new incarnation of the Church included new office of the Melchizedek Priesthood called "missionary"; and a subset of the Church then arguing that since in AD 2014 the term "missionary" included women, the Church of AD 2014 must have made a practice of ordaining women to the Melchizedek Priesthood. It's suddenly interesting to me that in the sixth article of faith, when Joseph Smith claimed the LDS Church followed the same organization that existed in the primitive Church--he did not include an explicit reference "deacons".

Let's say you are 100% correct, and that there were women ordained to priesthood office in the past. The current doctrine of the church revealed to the current prophet and apostles says that women are not to hold administrative priesthood callings. What say ye to this?

I've always found this to be the best explanation of who will be involved and what will happen https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-kings-malachi/enrichment-i?lang=eng

There is speculation that female deacons had roles relating to other woman only, maybe as the church grew this role diminished until it was no longer needed. This could be a reason for it not being brought back into use with the restoration of the church, as unlike those of the NT times who were encountering Christianity as a new faith, those in the restoration had some knowledge of the Christian scriptures so had a foundation for the restored gospel to build upon.

Actually it's all DHK's fault. He made such a big deal about how the mobile version was so much better. So the system said "I'll show you" and quit working.

If it's justified it's not murder.

Heya Rose :)... gona be exploding stuff on july 4th with femily

I assume you're referring to Phoebe in Romans 16:1. I used to be president of a small branch in rural Virginia and we had our own Phoebe. In the earliest days of the branch, there was only one priesthood holder who was the branch president. His job required him to travel a lot and many Sundays, he had to be out of town. On the weekends when he wasn't there, one of the Relief Society sisters would lead a scripture study, report attendance, visiting teaching, and other information to a stake high councilman. She visited members and did missionary work. She and a few other sisters were really the ones responsible for the branch surviving its "infancy" and surviving in a remote area some two hours away from the rest of the stake. This faithful sister would scoff at the very idea that women should be ordained to the priesthood, but believe me, no branch president or elder's quorum president would be stupid enough to discount this lady's wisdom and experience. If we were in biblical times, I'm sure Paul would have mentioned her in an epistle.

Thank you for this. I very much agree that our world is created from older worlds. I also very much agree that there is a problem with the translations of many of the words. I kind of agree with finding it pointless and kind of disagree. one the one hand, I see your point; on the other, I find it fun to speculate about the mysteries of the kingdom. But, that's just me. :)

I recall applying for teaching jobs years ago and being specifically advised by many people to not let one principal known in any way shape or form that I was LDS (no CTR ring, take BYU-Idaho off my resume) as she was severely anti-Mormon. As it stands, the law can say all it wants to not hire/fire based on religion, but it happens as proving it is hard.

I find that the creation accounts are focused on the "Whys" Why was the earth created, Why is our world the way it is now? Why do we need a Savior? etc. That is the information we really and truly need I find that the creation accounts are not focused on the "Hows" much beyond God did it. I find questions like the OPs to be very much a How question. So for me we simply have not been told How God did it, simply that he did, and they we need to have faith that when the time is right we can learn the How

The more I read, the more I wondered how things could go this wrong. This stuff would never happen in my ward. We've got HTs that you can't keep away from doing things for you, especially the few of us who are single women. I can't imagine a bishop who would comment on whether someone was healing fast enough after surgery. Geez Louise. If I'd been an investigator in this kind of ward, I would never have joined. If this kind of garbage was going on currently in my ward, I'd probably stop going or just sit in on another ward's Sacrament Meeting until they told me to stop. I might have to get up in somebody's face if they said something stupid/harassing to me. And, may I ask, where were the missionaires? They should have helped with the sprinklers if no man in the ward was willing to do so. Because this is a college town, our ward members are from all over. I've never heard anyone say they were in a ward, anywhere, with this kind of behavior.

Surely you must understand that "extreme" is a relative status. When the church says "extreme groups" they mean as compared to the church and it's teachings, not as compared to society as a whole. Clearly, the church itself is an extreme group if you compare it to regular folk.

The bloggernacle, with few exceptions, isn't much more welcoming to conservative/orthodox Mormons than MWS has been to OW. Millennial Star has had some thought-provoking posts recently on the "you attack, we defend--for a while" paradigm that seems to permeate the 'nacle and tends to lead to conservative burn-out.And it's worth noting that MWS doesn't exist merely to provide another forum for kvetching-- er, open discussion; and as far as I know, never claimed such a purpose. OW started a Facebook group for that--and after two years, it has garnered a little over one tenth of the "likes" that MWS got in two months. I can certainly understand why OW so desperately wants to turn the MWS Facebook page into its own mouthpiece to parrot its tales of woe and historical half-truths to a captive audience of actual believing, practicing Mormons that is tenfold as wide as anything it has managed to reach to date--but MWS' organizers are by no means "extreme" for their refusal to allow their resources to be thus hijacked. I'll take a look, thanks. You may be right, but my initial observation would be "if you don't want people to develop a bunker mentality against your ideas, don't try to assault/publicly humiliate them and don't pal around with people who do." It strikes me that the root of the problems bijulie cites are (unrighteousness use of) hierarchy, not patriarchy. I believe she even mentions an unpleasant run-in with an RS president. Ordaining women won't end that--unless you buy into the "females-are-inherently-more-righteous" argument that OW supporters are only to happy to mock when it is made by defenders of the status quo. The subtext I see in Otterson's letter is "this abuse-of-authority issue may well be a discussion worth having; but we won't be having it with them" (which should come as no surprise to OW, one of whose founders (Margaret Toscano, I believe) was excommunicated for trying to shame the church into "having a dialogue" on that issue).

I used to teach sexual harrassment classes to the military. For a male boss to comment on a pretty blouse or a dress to a female is actually not against the law. Unless he puts it in a way like "wow the style of that dress really brings out those curves and makes you sexy." If he is simply complimenting her on her dress or blouse is another thing. Or if she has been losing weight and he makes mention of it and congratulates her on her accomplishment is not against the law. It becomes a sexual harrassment issue if that female employee tells her boss that she is uncomfortable with those types of comments and he continues to do so after being told. Should he do it? That's the fine line. A sincere compliment that is nothing more than a compliment can be taken in so many different ways.

I don't understand how you see MWS as an extreme group. Their mission statement reads: Mormon Women Stand is a collaborative online effort to join like-minded female members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who share a desire to make a public stand as witnesses of Jesus Christ and in support of 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World'. We believe standing together will reflect the divine nature and power that LDS women are endowed with to influence others for good. We unequivocally sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—commissioned by God and sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. We support how the Lord has delegated priesthood authority to organize and administer the gospel among all of His children. What is wrong with a group that is standing together for the beliefs that many women in the church hold and that is supporting our leaders, supporting the Proclamation to the World regarding families and supporting the Priesthood as was organized here on earth under the direction of Jesus Christ himself?

Wingy, why do you feel if a boss (or someone with authority over you) compliments your physical appearance is harrassment? Obviously, if one feels uncomfortable with the compliment, then that is an issue. But, to make a blanket statement that something as benign as "that's a nice blouse" equates to harrassment confuses me. And for the record, I don't mind catcalls....on the other hand, the mooing is disturbing....

+1. While I know there are things like this that do happen (I've been mistreated myself by ward leadership, and I'm not a female or a feminist) I find that when there is a consistent pattern of supposed problems like this (assuming it isn't all fabricated to get a rise out of everyone) then there's something amiss with the offended more than the accused offenders. For example, we have a family in our ward that has gone inactive because of "abuse". I have been personally involved in much of the effort around them and there has been nothing but love, invitation, kindness, help, service, etc., etc. shown towards them. But according to them they are constantly abused, belittled, judged, mistreated, berated, hated, and marginalized. It's easy to throw one-sided accusations at church leadership. I wonder what the local leaders would say were they willing to accuse back. I wonder what would really come out in an honest, fair, both sides, legitimate assessment. These are easy, safe attacks on the church. The best the church can do to defend themselves is with content like in this letter, because the bishops and stake president don't publish the issues, tell their side of the story, etc., because it would break confidences and offend even worse. The church is, and has been, working to solve legitimate issues. The letter makes that clear for anyone who didn't already believe it (not that those who didn't believe it before will believe the letter). Frankly, the church is, and has been, working to solve non-legitimate, irrational issues too. It will never be enough. The efforts of Satan to tear down the church can never be satiated. No matter how many policy changes, doctrinal alterations, and management re-orgs occurred (even up to and including replacing the entire leadership of the church with women) it will NEVER be good enough for those unwilling to humble themselves and look past human imperfection to God's will, ways and means. We live a spoiled-brat existence in these latter-days. The current cultural climate breeds entitlement. Entitlement is not God's way.

I've been a member for 50+ years and I've never seen anything that even remotely comes close to this and I grew up in a military family as well and moved around. And was married to a retired military person. I've been in numerous leadership positions in the church and our opinions were taken seriously.

Thanks Pam this is really funny!!!! rflol