Suzie

Something similar to what they did with Steve Benson and the interview he had with two Apostles. He went with a list of all his questions and two apostles sat down with him and went through them. Granted, he chose differently but I believe he was given a good chance. I suppose because he was the grandson of Benson himself, he had that golden opportunity.

Ordain Women Exposed.

I would love if Monson comes straightforward and says they prayed about it and they got "X" answer but it didn't happen (just yet). I understand your points JAG, and you know I respect you a lot and your views but I disagree in your overall view with how this issue was handled. I believe Kelly's excommunication could have been avoided if the Church engaged in a proper dialogue with her and OW. As a sister in the Gospel, I feel very sad for her and her entirely family and it frustrates me, angers me and saddens me all at the same time that there are groups such as OWE who are using this opportunity to attack Kelly and say horrible things that I believe a Latter-Day Saint should never say to someone going through an excommunication process. And then we wonder where do we get the "holier than thou" perception from. We have a lot of bullies in our midst.

Question to moderators: My last post was meant to be posted in the thread "Letter from the Office of the First Presidency", I posted my reply here instead by mistake. Can it be moved? Thanks.

How asking if they prayed about it equals demanding the Prophet to pray about and then come back and report?. You know, I have the impression (generally speaking) that a lot of members think we should just take an answer and don't ask follow-up questions or that asking them is somehow inappropriate because the First Presidency made a statement. Definitely, I see things very differently and I am very okay with it. As someone who studies and researches history, I am inquisitive by nature. Having said that, regardless of what the Church stated (that it is okay to ask questions), in reality when those questions are asked, members either assume you lack faith, you are perceived as being plainly rebellious or that you think you know more than the Prophet. Really? Asking follow up questions in order to get a better understanding of the issue equals all of that? I really don't understand this mindset. I am very cool if others are satisfied with the statements and don't care to ask follow up questions (for whatever reason) and I would hope others feel as cool when others do ask instead of assuming they lack faith or that the answer should be "enough".

Experience no doubt.

But that's the whole point, where in that statement does it say that a revelation was received or that they inquired to the Lord and he said that women cannot hold the Priesthood. It doesn't say or claim that such thing took place and I cannot think of anything really that would impede them/prevent them to make such declaration . And that's the main reason for all this confusion IMO. No clear answers are given but just the message "Only men can be ordained, women cannot". If we are going to quote Hinckley to support the idea that women cannot be ordained, we cannot discard the other part that I also quoted where he plainly states it can change. More dialogue needed to take place but it didn't and that's a pity.

I don't understand, how stating that they prayed to the Lord and he said no, women cannot hold the Priesthood is something so sacred that cannot be shared?

The quote of Hinckley on mormon.org comes from an interview, where right after he said: "RB: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that? GBH: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes. RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ? GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen. RB: So you’d have to get a revelation? GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife. So if more women in the Church seek for female ordination, will the Church consider it somehow? Back then OW was not in existence, now things seem to be a little different and there is definetly "agitation" for that...

And that's the point right there, a practice, not a doctrine and there lies the whole issue.

What do you mean?

Does the Church claim they asked the Lord if women can hold the Priesthood? I don't get that impression at all.

So you have this group of sisters who believe women should be ordained to the Priesthood. The reasoning behind it is that there is no scriptural basis that states women cannot. The statement of the First Presidency states: "Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices". Okay, I think the obvious follow up question is: "Where does it say that?" or "Is there a revelation where it states that only men are allowed to hold the Priesthood" and the answer that seems to be given over and over is "Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood, only men can". Yeah, I get that. So this groups says "Okay, but we saw X and X here and there that it is possible for them to hold it, etc". One would think, a thorough answer will be given to clarify once and for all what the Church believes to be misleading thoughts or opinions or even facts..but no...the answer and tone remain the same: "Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood, only men can". It seems to me that this sort of approach is unhelpful and doesn't lead to a proper dialogue and understanding of both sides.

Since it is not wrong to ask questions, I will give it a shot. Before I do, I want to make a small perhaps unnecessary disclaimer. I do not seek or care for female ordination but I do understand my sisters who do. Anyways, my questions: Can we get some scriptural sources for that where God states only men have be ordained to serve in Priesthood offices and if possible, any reasons? 1. How exactly Kate Kelly taught false doctrine? 2. How exactly she was in public opposition to the Church or its leaders? I am a bit confused to be honest. If my Bishop asks me to do something and I disagree and I don't do it, can I be excommunicated under the grounds of apostasy? Really?

We will see more and more infiltrators after these excommunications, meaning groups who hate the Church and they are pretending to feel empathy for Kelly and others so they can get people to resign from the Church.That's what I meant by "worse" and that's what I think the way the whole issue was handled was too extreme. Even the First Presidency made a statement, this is to show the extend of this issue. *smh*

I said it before and I will say it again, Kate Kelly's excommunication as well as others will make things worse. I don't even know if I am allowed to link to this web site (I guess not so I won't take the chance) but there is this group called "Strangers in Zion" that I believe was created recently, who is asking those who are against recent excommunications to ask their local leadership for a disciplinary action to show support and if doing that isn't something they want to do, they can also "help" (their words) by participating in a "mass membership resignation" taking place next month in SLC.

Never heard such a thing. Iol but I'm not surprised. If given the chance, some members will want us to dress like the Ingalls family lol. I know, we all love 'Pa' but we are in 2014 for crying out loud.

It's very refreshing to see so many willing and faithful Latter Day Saints men, willing to live Plural Marriage with our single sisters in the Church (60+ and over).

Urstadt, Where did you get that information from? (if you don't mind) about the people being asked to hand their temple recommend?

Ah yes, the Mormons and their preoccupation with the white shirt.

Breaks my heart. *sigh*

My two previous Bishops are family friends and I always called them by their first name outside Church and in Church "Brother..." I call my present Bishop "Brother..." as well. No particular reason (in case someone thinks Suzie is just trying to be difficult lol). It just cames natural to me and he is okay with it. As a matter of fact, if he calls and leaves a message he says "Hi, I am brother...please give me a call whenever you get a chance".

DellaMarie, I am very sorry for all the struggles you are going through specially because you lent that money in good faith, it is horrible to read that someone would take advantage like that. Not sure what to advise other than suing him? And even that will cost you big bucks. I understand why you are so angry and upset, I would be very upset as well but I don't think it is fair to judge a whole community of LDS members by saying "He is a stellar representative of your faith, is he not?" because of the actions of said individual. We interact with people on a daily basis who are Catholics, Protestants, Jewish and most of the time, we give little concern about their religion or even link their behavior to their religious beliefs. I know you are hurt which is natural based on the circumstances, but I hope you will understand that not all members of the Church are like that just because you had a horrible experience with one.

Generally speaking (and not about the specific post you was quoting) I think sometimes in Church culture, some members equal leadership callings with a person being somehow more worthy, more intelligent, more important or more special. "Oh he is a Bishop!" "Oh she is the Relief Society President!". I don't think they mean anything bad, it is just the way it is sometimes and how some members perceive callings, like if it is a career job where you get promotions. After many years serving in leadership positions, I moved to a new ward. A few months later, I saw a couple of people from my old ward who I haven't seen for a long time. Guess what was the question they asked me when they saw me again? lol Yes, "What is your calling?" with a big smile on their face lol. Determined to laugh a little bit, I said solemnly: "A mother ". Their smile turned to surprise and both replied seriously : "Ohhhhh, okay".

I never called a Bishop, "Bishop", is that bad? lol