spamlds

I grew up in the South where Sundays are "fashion shows" for the various non-LDS churches.  In some of them, the ladies go all out with elaborate hats and the men wear all kinds of ostentatious colors.  It's not unusual to see the discount stores in African-American neighborhoods selling men's suits that are fluorescent green and purple.  The clothing worn becomes the object of gossip for the next week.  
 
In other non-LDS churches, there has been a movement away from formality, dignity, and reverence.  They have rock "praise bands" with loud guitars, amps, and drums.  The worshipers come to church in shorts, jeans, and whatever.  Reverence is not even a consideration. There is no expectation of hearing the "still, small voice" of the Spirit.  
 
In Virginia, there was one nudist church!  The ultimate in casual wear...
 
Our standard is that we should be modest, unpretentious, and subdued.  Our purpose at our meetings is to worship the Lord and make him the focus, not our apparel.  Do we always succeed in this?  Not always, because humans are weak.  Some people want to be the center of attention and be a distraction.  But we have a standard we try to maintain and that is to downplay our apparel rather than to play it up.

We often don't realize that what we do sets us apart from other churches in positive ways.  I've had nonmember visitors tell me that they liked the absence of the Sunday fashion show.  Our dress at church is largely "neutral"  and forgettable--like the Men in Black.   :)

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.

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.

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.  

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.  

I grew up in the South where Sundays are "fashion shows" for the various non-LDS churches.  In some of them, the ladies go all out with elaborate hats and the men wear all kinds of ostentatious colors.  It's not unusual to see the discount stores in African-American neighborhoods selling men's suits that are fluorescent green and purple.  The clothing worn becomes the object of gossip for the next week.  
 
In other non-LDS churches, there has been a movement away from formality, dignity, and reverence.  They have rock "praise bands" with loud guitars, amps, and drums.  The worshipers come to church in shorts, jeans, and whatever.  Reverence is not even a consideration. There is no expectation of hearing the "still, small voice" of the Spirit.  
 
In Virginia, there was one nudist church!  The ultimate in casual wear...
 
Our standard is that we should be modest, unpretentious, and subdued.  Our purpose at our meetings is to worship the Lord and make him the focus, not our apparel.  Do we always succeed in this?  Not always, because humans are weak.  Some people want to be the center of attention and be a distraction.  But we have a standard we try to maintain and that is to downplay our apparel rather than to play it up.

We often don't realize that what we do sets us apart from other churches in positive ways.  I've had nonmember visitors tell me that they liked the absence of the Sunday fashion show.  Our dress at church is largely "neutral"  and forgettable--like the Men in Black.   :)

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.  

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.