classylady

Scriptures on how it is only men to hold the priesthood:
 
D&C 20
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20?lang=eng
 
38 The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize;
 
48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.
 
49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present;
 
50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize,
 
56 And he is to take the lead of meetings in the absence of the elder or priest—
 
60 Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him.
 
64 Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.
 
 
Notice the contrast in verse 73:
 
73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
 
74 Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.
 
 
I find it curious that up until that point, the Lord emphasized He, His, or Him.  Then later, it was Him or her, and himself or herself.
 
 
Resuming with verse 76:
 
76 And the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this manner shall he administer it—he shall kneel with the church and call upon the Father in solemn prayer, saying:
 
78 The manner of administering the wine—he shall take the cup also, and say:
 
 
 
Just in looking at Section 20, and seeing how it is written for baptism - including himself or herself - and the rest of it is he, his, or him... it appears pretty clear to me.
 
Abraham 1
 
3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.
 
 31 But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of Priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands; therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.
 
Now Pharoah sought to IMITATE the priesthood:
 
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
 
 
The Priesthood has always been a Patriarchal order, from these few scriptures that I've posted.

I think President Hinckley said it as plainly as it can be said.  This is on mormon.org:
 
Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:
“Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program.
 
http://www.mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church
 
If the prophet takes it to prayer and inquires of the Lord and the Lord tells him no through personal revelation...does it have to be written down or some kind of scripture?  Ir we truly believe that President Hinckley or President Monson or any of those great men before them aren't prophets and don't receive answers to their prayers...then...I don't know.
 
The why's of so many things hasn't been revealed to us.  Sometimes we have to be satisfied and have faith that we'll have answers in due time.
 
Right now I'm satisfied with what President Hinckley said..."The Lord has put it that way."

Some of the things I've given or received in the past:
 
Fancy soaps
Holiday kitchen dish towels
Candles
Home made cookies, candies, donuts, etc.
Popcorn with a recipe booklet for different seasonings/toppings for popcorn
2 liter bottle of soda pop with a fancy bow and a Christmas message
Container of gourmet hot chocolate
Mugs with hot chocolate packets
Ingredients and recipe for spiced hot apple cider
Small box of oranges or tangerines, etc.
Basket of fresh fruit tied with a pretty bow
Homemade jelly or jam, container of frozen strawberry jam
Cheese ball with crackers
Chex mix
Cookie cutters with recipe
Spiritual book
 
That's all I can think of right now.

I don't know about making things worse.  There have been far worse things that have happened to/in/about/by the church and it's still here.  I wouldn't hang the disposition of a worldwide church on one person and their action.  Look at the Catholic church, they're still around and they've had scandal after scandal after scandal.  Besides, I would surmise that the total number of members who let themselves be affected by this is a pretty small number. 
 
As for those who go to their church leadership and demand a disciplinary hearing, well, I dunno, it seems they let the beauty of the gospel be defined by one person.  I don't know about you folks, but I never and will never hang my fortunes on one, mortal person, especially the likes of Kate Kelly or John Dehlin.  I've said it before and I reiterate it here - I've listened to both and read what they have to say and I can come to only one conclusion - they are both wolves in sheep's clothing that will do nothing but devour for their own aggrandizement and conceit.  Been there, done that so I know their type and I know their slick methods.  Their fruits are not good.
 
If you're having a faith crisis, go listen to Bill Reel who runs mormondiscussionpodcast.org and the Fair Mormon Blog.  He had a faith crisis when he was a Bishop.  There may be nothing flashy or dramatic about his work, but that's how the Lord works, not by creating conflict, distention, and disharmony but by acknowledging and helping.
 
If the church survived the death of a prophet, an extermination order, the priesthood ban, the September 6 (which I believe some have come back into the church), the salamander letter, ERA, polygamy, Prop 8, ect, then I do believe the church will go on just fine after the excommunication of Kate Kelly and potentially John Dehlin.

I really don't like the word feminist. It has such a bad connotation. But, as a woman, I have never felt inferior to men. Nor do I feel like men are inferior to women. We have our own strengths and weaknesses. I love being a woman, a mother, a sister, a wife. I'm appreciative of my husband who still opens the door for me and takes care of some of the messier jobs around the house. That doesn't mean I can't do all those things myself, but my husband is protective of me. That doesn't mean he doesn't think I can't do them. He knows I can.
 
My father died when I was a young child. I saw my mother take on the provider role, and she managed to provide for seven children, along with still being the nurturing mother. With her example, I have always known that if I needed to I could provide financially for my family and get along without a man in the house. But, do I want to? From my point of view that would be idiotic. But, if it was necessary I could do it. I also see where my husband, after he received full custody of his two children after his divorce, that he could also do the nurturing role and raise his children on his own. Are these situations ideal? No. My mother could never completely fill the role of my father. She could take on his responsibilities after he died, but she could never replace him.
 
My mother raised a family at a time when there was still discrimination against women. She once went to the bank to get a loan but, was declined solely because she was a woman. She had a steady income and had worked at the same job for quite a few years. The bank told her they don't loan to women. Do I believe in equal rights for women?  You bet I do. But, that doesn't mean I want the priesthood or take on a man's role. I want my role as a woman and the inherent attributes and talents that go along with being a woman to be recognized as being just as important as a man's inherent attributes and talents.

I really don't like the word feminist. It has such a bad connotation. But, as a woman, I have never felt inferior to men. Nor do I feel like men are inferior to women. We have our own strengths and weaknesses. I love being a woman, a mother, a sister, a wife. I'm appreciative of my husband who still opens the door for me and takes care of some of the messier jobs around the house. That doesn't mean I can't do all those things myself, but my husband is protective of me. That doesn't mean he doesn't think I can't do them. He knows I can.
 
My father died when I was a young child. I saw my mother take on the provider role, and she managed to provide for seven children, along with still being the nurturing mother. With her example, I have always known that if I needed to I could provide financially for my family and get along without a man in the house. But, do I want to? From my point of view that would be idiotic. But, if it was necessary I could do it. I also see where my husband, after he received full custody of his two children after his divorce, that he could also do the nurturing role and raise his children on his own. Are these situations ideal? No. My mother could never completely fill the role of my father. She could take on his responsibilities after he died, but she could never replace him.
 
My mother raised a family at a time when there was still discrimination against women. She once went to the bank to get a loan but, was declined solely because she was a woman. She had a steady income and had worked at the same job for quite a few years. The bank told her they don't loan to women. Do I believe in equal rights for women?  You bet I do. But, that doesn't mean I want the priesthood or take on a man's role. I want my role as a woman and the inherent attributes and talents that go along with being a woman to be recognized as being just as important as a man's inherent attributes and talents.

It was very special when my two step children were able to witness the sealing of their half brother to my husband and me.

I really don't like the word feminist. It has such a bad connotation. But, as a woman, I have never felt inferior to men. Nor do I feel like men are inferior to women. We have our own strengths and weaknesses. I love being a woman, a mother, a sister, a wife. I'm appreciative of my husband who still opens the door for me and takes care of some of the messier jobs around the house. That doesn't mean I can't do all those things myself, but my husband is protective of me. That doesn't mean he doesn't think I can't do them. He knows I can.
 
My father died when I was a young child. I saw my mother take on the provider role, and she managed to provide for seven children, along with still being the nurturing mother. With her example, I have always known that if I needed to I could provide financially for my family and get along without a man in the house. But, do I want to? From my point of view that would be idiotic. But, if it was necessary I could do it. I also see where my husband, after he received full custody of his two children after his divorce, that he could also do the nurturing role and raise his children on his own. Are these situations ideal? No. My mother could never completely fill the role of my father. She could take on his responsibilities after he died, but she could never replace him.
 
My mother raised a family at a time when there was still discrimination against women. She once went to the bank to get a loan but, was declined solely because she was a woman. She had a steady income and had worked at the same job for quite a few years. The bank told her they don't loan to women. Do I believe in equal rights for women?  You bet I do. But, that doesn't mean I want the priesthood or take on a man's role. I want my role as a woman and the inherent attributes and talents that go along with being a woman to be recognized as being just as important as a man's inherent attributes and talents.

I really don't like the word feminist. It has such a bad connotation. But, as a woman, I have never felt inferior to men. Nor do I feel like men are inferior to women. We have our own strengths and weaknesses. I love being a woman, a mother, a sister, a wife. I'm appreciative of my husband who still opens the door for me and takes care of some of the messier jobs around the house. That doesn't mean I can't do all those things myself, but my husband is protective of me. That doesn't mean he doesn't think I can't do them. He knows I can.
 
My father died when I was a young child. I saw my mother take on the provider role, and she managed to provide for seven children, along with still being the nurturing mother. With her example, I have always known that if I needed to I could provide financially for my family and get along without a man in the house. But, do I want to? From my point of view that would be idiotic. But, if it was necessary I could do it. I also see where my husband, after he received full custody of his two children after his divorce, that he could also do the nurturing role and raise his children on his own. Are these situations ideal? No. My mother could never completely fill the role of my father. She could take on his responsibilities after he died, but she could never replace him.
 
My mother raised a family at a time when there was still discrimination against women. She once went to the bank to get a loan but, was declined solely because she was a woman. She had a steady income and had worked at the same job for quite a few years. The bank told her they don't loan to women. Do I believe in equal rights for women?  You bet I do. But, that doesn't mean I want the priesthood or take on a man's role. I want my role as a woman and the inherent attributes and talents that go along with being a woman to be recognized as being just as important as a man's inherent attributes and talents.

Ah, TFP, why did you have to say "a good healthy dose of polygamy coming back"?  Just say polygamy and leave good and healthy out of it.  Lol. Yes, I can see for men they might think it's "good and healthy". I don't think you'll get very many women agreeing with you. 

Congrats on your mission call. Missions always have trials......hang in there and all is well. You could always ask for a blessing and maybe that will help put your mind at ease.

I may be off in my thinking but I can't help thinking that the days of separating the wheat from the chaff have begun or is accelerating.

In my family history, the children usually called the other wife/wives), Aunt ___.  There were times when some of the wives would have to live together in the same house, but usually, if finances permitted, they would have their separate household. In my reading, even if the wives lived separately, they would often help one another. When my third great grandmother became seriously ill, (she was a third wife), one of the other wives took and cared for my 3rd great grandmother's baby for several months. Story goes she had a hard time giving the baby back.
 
Either my grandfather or grandmother, can't remember which, told me that there were separate chores the families had to do. One wife was responsible for the bread making, another would be responsible for the house cleaning, etc. 

My family has been given so much service.  I'm so grateful.
 
One of the sweetest services given was from my RS President and another lady in our ward. After the death of my 19 year old daughter, my time was consumed with taking care of her 2 month old baby and getting funeral services prepared. I had no time for anything. They took my 12 year old daughter to help pick out and buy a dress for her sister to be buried in. What a wonderful and tender act of service. My younger daughter was able to participate in a last gift for her sister.

I am going to have to buy "Grandma's Secret Spot Remover". 

Irishcolleen is not LDS.

It was just overturned by a judge in Indiana today, also.

Backroads:  Eliminating state-sanctioned marriage appeals to my libertarian instincts, but there are a lot of potential implications to this--not all of them necessarily foreseeable--and I don't like the idea of doing it rashly.  Moreover, the Church has encouraged us to protect the legal institution of the family--the Proclamation of the Family still applies--and I'm not sure our hopping on board with an "abolish legal marriage" agenda would really fit the counsel we've been given at this point.  I'm "asking questions"--uncomfortable ones, at that--but (unlike a certain ex-LDS feminist who shall remain nameless) I'm trying not to advocate any particular course of action at this point.
 
Slamjet, I have to reiterate that I haven't read the 10th Circuit opinion.  My observations were based on the idea of a liberty interest in conjunction with existing case law (I'm thinking Loving v. Virginia) which defines marriage generally as a fundamental right; and I'm not sure how traditional equal protection analysis factored into that.  I doubt it would limit a state's power to regulate anything except marriage. 
 
Equal protection jurisprudence basically asks two questions.  First, it asks whether a state law is discriminating against a "protected class".  If not, the state merely asks if the law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate government reason"--and if so, the law is permitted to stand.  But if the state is discriminating against a protected class, then depending on the nature of the class the Court will apply "intermediate scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny".  "Intermediate scrutiny" (applied to discrimination based on sex or content-neutral speech) asks whether the law substantially furthers an important government interest.  "Strict scrutiny" (discrimination based on content-based speech or race/national origin) asks whether the law is necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.
 
To apply that to your example of state bar applicants:  convicts aren't a protected class, so all you have to do is ask whether a state's requirement that a lawyer not being a convict is "rationally related" to a "legitimate government interest".  In this case, the state has a legitimate interest in making sure that lawyers are trustworthy (HA!), and it's rational to assume that barring convicts from law practice could further that goal.  So, the law passes equal protection scrutiny and is allowed to stand.  On the other hand, a state regulation that women or hispanics can't practice law would invoke a higher level of scrutiny, and would almost certainly fail traditional equal protection analysis.

I think Pam should get a cut of this since she advertized to us.

Thanks, Pam!  Been out of town (and checking in here instead of unpacking).  :)

Living in England, I have to listen to the endless talks of football. It's on TV, the radio, in newsprint. Because of this, I have to support someone.
 
But picking the wrong team will get you beaten up. So I have learned the best way to win:
 
Support a team no one likes.
 
I am very pro-Luxembourg. They have never made it to the World Cup - Never even qualified. Because of this, everyone assumes I am related to someone from Luxembourg. They also have no rivalries because they lose all the time. It is the safest thing ever.
 
And if you ever have a conversation about it, here is what you need to do pre-emptively:
 
Say, "Hey! Are you watching the World Cup? What a buncha bozos, huh? Yeesh."
 
This is a safe thing to say. Either the referees are blind or they hate the other team, or the team they like lost(In which case they're the bozos) or the team they like won(In which case the opposing team were bozos).
 
Someone, somewhere, was a bozo.
 
I have never failed with that line.

And that you had the sense to listen to her. 
 
Yes, please keep us updated.

Yes you are right.  From LDS.org; "Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage."
I guess what I was trying to say is that even if they "initiated the process themselves" it was looked at as a calling to do so, a responsibility, like going on a mission etc.

My great-grandmother was not "given" to her husband.  My great-grandfather met his second wife, and courted her. My great-grandmother insisted that she meet the first wife, and that they had a good relationship before she would consent to marry my great grandfather.
 
My great-great grandfather, when he married his third wife (my 2nd great grandmother), also met her at some point, courted her, and then married her. I do believe though, that my great grandfather's would have needed permission from the First Presidency to be sealed to subsequent wives.