Suzie

Bert, I am also interested as Margin wrote, if you are in fact saying that Joseph Smith was wrong in given the Priesthood to women in the early days.

Sorry that you feel this way. I wish you all the best!

I agree with what you are saying, so are we saying then President Hinckley, Harold B. Lee and others got it wrong ?

In my view I think there is a difference between an anti-Mormon and a Mormon critic, while the first one mock and disrespect some of the things we consider sacred, the second one usually have concerns with regards to some points of doctrine or church history and is looking for answers. We have lots of Mormon critics within the Church. I am not a believer of dismissing everything that these both groups say to "protect" my testimony (what would I needed to protected from?). I think it is very important for members to know those issues that some consider "taboo". We shouldn't be foolish either to think that ALL they say are "lies" because we may be missing some important things. Now, don't take me wrong, I am not advocating going to web sites and search anti-Mormon literature, however if you come across a Mormon Critic take the time to listen, don't quickly dismiss anything and see how much you truly know about the Church you decided to join. I believe that once we are more familiar with the past and present of this Church as well as its past and present doctrine, we can become better instruments in the Lord's hands in answering a lot of difficult questions non-members ask and that often times we do not know the answer for or brush it off as "lies from antis" when in fact, in some cases, are not. In my opinion, of course.

Bert, it would have been interesting to add in your post the Joseph Smith translation of some of your verses (after all women do speak in Church) as well adding a little historical background such as the fact that in the Church in Paul's day, women took no active part. We need to analyze scriptures in the proper context, IMO. However, it would be interesting to read your opinion concerning the posts about women having the Priesthood in the early days as documented within this thread. Thanks!

Pam, I think you know I did not mean that. My point being that if a thread is pointless to you then don't participate, whether we have facts or not on the topic at hand is irrelevant, IMO. We do not have to agree, right?

If it's pointless then maybe you shouldn't participate and let others decide what is pointless and what it isn't.

I don't think the point here is whether or not it matters the exact date. The point here (IMO) is whether or not as Church believed (doctrinally speaking) that He was born indeed on April 6th, teach about it from the pulpit, to each other, in general conference through the voice of our leaders, and even Institute manuals and what we make out of all this after reading the article that was presented on this thread. That's the issue here.

Exactly. Hence the issue of the Blacks and the Priesthood is such a controversial topic within the LDS doctrine since no revelation was presented for vote in general conference even though blacks held the Priesthood prior to the ban. Again, one of those topics people either don't know much about or rather not talk about it because the possibility of prejudice coming from Church leaders make some people uncomfortable. So I think the possibility is there, however if that ever happens I hope we (as members) get the possibility to decide by common consent.

I think this attitude maybe is purely psychological, a need to self-convince that it truly can "never" happen because if it does we will surely be in hot water. I think topics such as this that opens the possibility of the unthinkable make people very uncomfortable (hence the reply of "never..."). I believe it is very possible that it won't happen, however I cannot say what the Lord will think or do in the future. If we just take time to analyze some of the things He has done or instructed in the Old Testament, we will know that we don't always understand his purposes.

Exactly my thoughts.

Hiddentreasures, please keep in mind is pretty hard to give any sort of advise with such little information, you mentioned concerns that are affecting the child and the question is where is the stepmother in this picture?

Ooops. Too late! Sorry Pam! Anyhow, did you have a good time?

Do you have any safety concerns with regards to your kid's stepmother taking care of them while your ex-husband works? If you do not, the right of first refusal doesn't apply here, IMO.

I don't know what's the "sniff" test however I was thinking you may have been interested in reading the sources presented rather than Brother Quinn's conclusions. They are well documented. If you read it, you would have seen that said the "highest order of the Priesthood". I don't think this is a matter of LDS Femenists or scholars, it's a matter of whether or not those sources are accurate and so far, it doesn't seem to be the problem. Of course, you are free to believe as you wish (like everyone) however doesn't undermine what has been recorded. There is an explanation to it. If you have read early journals you will have seen that the word "Confer" is hardly used (if used at all). Usually their ordinations have been recorded, I believe with the assumption that we (those who read the journals) would understand that the Priesthood was given to them. Before the 1900's it was understood that a person being "ordained" was being given the Priesthood. It was then Joseph F. Smith who as Church President in 1901 said that conferring should precede ordination and after him Heber J. Grant made a few changes himself....(but that's for another thread) Why we didn't vote in general conference when the ban on black men holding the Priesthood was put in place? After all several black men at the time of Joseph Smith held the Priesthood and he even ordained at least one of them. Why the change? Who put it in place and Why we didn't vote? You may think there are two completely different scenarios but they are not. If women hold the Priesthood in the past, what happened? If black men hold the Priesthood in the past why then they were banned after Joseph Smith's death and until 1978? Many questions, few answers and even fewer that make sense to me. However, going back to to the topic I think the quotes and sources of Brother Quinn are valid and well documented, we may or may not agree with his conclusions but what has been recorded is very clear concerning women and the Priesthood.

More: Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Manual: Elder Tanner and others as well shared similar statements.

Adding to the one of Margin: President Hinckley, 1997: News of the Church

Just curious, how do you take when for instance President Hinckley said it was by revelation that we know he was born on April 6th?

You need to read D. Michael Quinn "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843" as well as study more (if you haven't) about the "Anointed Quorum" as well as references of Joseph Smith in his diary and in the history of JS that mentions Emma Hale Smith becoming the first woman to receive priesthood and its fullness. But just a couple of quotes: I hope this can just be just a jump start to your research, Church history is fascinating and complex at times that's why I try my best not to make absolutes such as "never...". You just never know. (no pun intended)

Kurt, I heard of similar accounts. I'm glad it has been a powerful experience in your life.

That's my point.

Traveler, my point is that I don't think I could say in surety that the Church will never change its stance on homosexual marriage (I am not for or against it, just to clarify). My main point being that the church has changed certain issues in the past despite the controversy so even though I think there is a big probability they won't, I don't think I could say that they will not.

Can we at this point of time with SURETY say so? Personally and seeing the CHANGE on certain issues in the past (that at time were thought as "unchangeable) I would say no, we cannot. My opinion of course.

If we have to accept ALL the teachings then we are all doomed.

Sure. However, we are talking about a book of scripture here.