The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
191
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
Feminist here.
Haven't voted yet but I have mixed feelings on the issue, I just don't feel strongly one way or the other, but would support OW if that was God's decision. Saying this, I also feel that RS is beneficial for the sisters and is a programme that gives purpose in highlighting some of our best virtues as women, like motherhood and nurturing, all vital parts in rearing the family and giving that special warm touch to investigators and new members.
There's an inconsistent logic to the idea that women can, all but physically, be anything that men can (mentally, emotionally and spiritually), but men cannot be the same in reverse.
-
...it will cause me to sit down on that beach again trying to figure out if the church is true.
I understand the sentiment, but would add, for the sake of discussion, that my own understanding of the church being true is centered in a witness from the Holy Ghost that it is true, and therefore, it would cause me to sit on the bench and do some serious re-figuring, but core to that re-figuring, I would still know the church was true.
-
If God reveals a different order, then, of course, I'll follow.
God has clearly revealed His order. And He has declared it eternal, in a myriad of ways. So whereas I agree, if God reveals a different order then I will follow, it would, IMO, undoubtedly require the changing of some pretty important revealed eternal truths, which the Lord himself has said will never happen.
-
Frankly I'm not sure Ordain Women (quite) falls under this umbrella. My understanding (explained to me years ago by a bishop, and reiterated by some historical surveys I've read since then) is that the question was added to the TR interview to ferret out polygamists who were trying to masquerade as faithful Mormons in order to participate in temple rites in some of the old pioneer temples (St. George, Manti, Logan, and Salt Lake), which they viewed as having some sort of peculiar priesthood attached to them. So I've always interpreted, and answered, that particular question within that larger context.
I'm not gonna pretend I wouldn't be tickled pink to hear an official announcement that the question does now include OrdainWomen, or Mormons for Marriage, or the Democratic Party (kidding!). But barring further instruction, I'd be very surprised to see a bishop deny someone a TR based solely on their participation in one of those groups.
A few issues with this. First, just because that (polygamous groups) was the prime reason does not make it the only motivation in adding the question. Second, just because something like this is introduced for one reason, the wording clearly means to incorporate all similar situations. Third, things like this can, do, and should evolve. When the Lord had His leaders add this question, He certainly knew that polygamous groups seeking entrance to the temple would not remain as the only group that held a stance contrary to the positioning of the church. He knew that as we moved further into the end of days that more and more contrary positions, groups, and organizations would form with the intent of tearing down His order. Really, if what you're insinuating is correct, the question would have been, "...do you associate, affiliate, what-have-you, with any polygamous groups..."
As pointed out, the wording is fairly clear in the question. If they meant it to be specific, they would have worded it specifically.
-
Even for LDS aren't they different things? If not then why have different definitions for them?
They are not different, per se. More like one is a subset of the other. Salvation includes anything that saves us from a worse state. Therefore it includes all forms of salvation, including exaltation. Any form of salvation other than exaltation, however, is a lesser salvation. One will have been saved from some things, but not from ALL things. The only complete salvation is exaltation because it is the only form of salvation with no denial of greater blessings.
The reason why I prefer the distinction in meanings is so that Christ's atonement and what it means does not get lost or forgotten when people speak of the essentials for salvation. It is through Christ that we are saved. And for LDS without Christ's salvation there is no exaltation.Your preference is fine for you. What I am talking about is the usage of the word in scripture and by prophets and apostles. Generally, when the term salvation is used, it is synonymous with exaltation. But there are exceptions.
-
I'll do what God wants as far as ordination of women.
But God has made it clear what He wants as far as ordination of women.
-
I see where you're going, and it's interesting that the link you cite says that those "saving ordinances" are required for exaltation.
The funky thing is that the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood says that those who receive it "receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him." (D&C 84:38) I don't think that can accurately be applied to someone who merely attains a Telestial or Terrestrial glory.
Moreover, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that "baptism isn't required for the broadest term of salvation, meaning anyone but those cast into outer darkness". Do you have a source for this?
D&C 76. Specifically vs 30-49.
Even more specifically, vs. 38-39
38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.39 For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made.
And 42-44
42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.
44 Wherefore, he saves all except them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment—
-
Please reference my first post: Ordination and administration are two different things.
Let me rephrase ever so slightly:
I just don't think that the men-would-all-quit-on-the-Lord-if-women-administrated reason has anything to do with the argument against women's ordination.
-
You are PAID in the workforce. That makes a little difference, doesn't it?
Isn't the whole point of joining the kingdom of God in order that we are "paid" with exaltation? I don't see the difference. I am motivated by my desire to return to God. Yes, some people are more motivated by money than by God. But that is not universally the case.
What I'm talking about is the supply/demand of volunteers for church callings. One of the messages we use in Home Teaching and in re-activation... is that we NEED them! Need them for what? For service and their spirit... and they need to want it too.There are certain callings that are only for men by revelation:
- Stake Presidency & High Council
- Bishop (and Priest Quorum President),
- Bishopric,
- Young Men Advisors (don't tell me that women can adequately do this as young men need good worthy male leaders),
- Elder's Quorum Presidency.
- Teacher's Quorum Presidency
- Deacon's Quorum Presidency
There are some callings that CAN be ambivilous, but have generally been gender-specific:
- Sunday School Presidency,
- Primary Presidency (women are traditionally better with children than men),
- Mission Leaders (probably to go out with the missionaries themselves).
If, however, the entire Relief Society could all serve in the same callings as the Priesthood (and vice versa for men in RS callings)... then we have a supposed ABUNDANCE of talent available.
You might say "where's the problem with that?" The problem becomes that we need less and less 'uniqueness' and needed to fulfill these callings... that we feel less and less special and needed as an INDIVIDUAL.
In addition, Men need to be led by other worthy men that they can look up to and emulate.
Women should be led by other worthy women that they can look up to and emulate.
I'm divorced... but if I want a woman to lecture me about how to live worthily... I'd rather listen to my ex-wife, than someone else within the Church. It's one thing to give a talk. It would be another to have a woman be my Elder's Quorum President for example.
I need a leader that I can emulate to help me grow. Gender-oriented leadership helps greatly with this... while minimizing resentments.
If this were to occur, I wouldn't bother showing up. I couldn't sustain a leader that can't understand and lead me and be an inspiring example for what men should be. That's why I would go inactive. I want strong and worthy male leadership to show me the way, and to lead and direct our efforts.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying generally. I just don't think that the men-would-all-quit-on-the-Lord-if-women-were-ordained reason has anything to do with the argument against women's ordination.
-
When you say salvation do you really mean exaltation?
M.
Your usage of the word "really" implies that salvation and exaltation are different things. Exaltation is one of the meanings of salvation. But that is irrelevant to my point. Priesthood ordination is, unquestionably, considered a saving ordinance. See the first paragraph here. Moreover, even baptism isn't required for the broadest term of salvation, meaning anyone but those cast into outer darkness. In general terms would anyone say that baptism is not required for salvation though? Whenever the term salvation is used generally within the church it means exaltation. Only when specified does it have the broader meaning(s).
-
Folks keep talking about the priesthood like it's optional. Whereas this is true in that everything in the gospel is optional (agency being the law), it is entirely false in terms of salvation. A denial to receive the priesthood is the same as denial of any saving ordinance - baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost, washing and anointing, endowment, and celestial marriage.
The idea that women and men could just randomly choose at their will and it wouldn't really have any meaning doesn't make sense. If women were given the priesthood, it would be required for their salvation as well. Those who did not have the priesthood would not because of unworthiness, or because they were preparing to receive it, being too young or too new in the church.
-
I'd like to think that I wouldn't. But, yes; I've learned through sad experience that I tend to be more involved in the wards that are quick to give me a job and make me feel needed. Hopefully someday I'll purge myself of that laziness. Until then . . . human nature is what it is; and lots of humans respond better when they feel that they're making a meaningful contribution to the whole.
I don't deny this. But I would contend it to be true of women too. Moreover, this point is irrelevant to the women/men thing. It would remain true if women had "leadership" (bishop/high council/etc.) callings. You would still be more involved in wards that were quick to give you a calling. That is good practice in a ward, for both men and women.
I fervently hope not, Church. I hope that my continual involvement in the Lord's church and my applying its teachings into my life--however imperfectly--will take me on an ever higher spiritual plane until I am at last the kind of man the Lord wants me to be.I should clarify what I mean by my statement that a man would give up anyhow. I don't mean it as directly as I said. What I mean is that if a man is headed in the right direction, struggling in the right direction, then he is struggling/headed in the right direction. Giving women men's callings (and vice versa) would not change that. A man headed in the wrong direction will continue to head in the wrong direction unless he repents (conversely true of heading in the right direction if he gives in to temptations). A man who is striving to live right, although certainly imperfectly, and who loves the Lord and the church should not magically become lazy because a woman is given a calling she didn't before have.
Realistically, what I think, is that the men who are not faithfully doing their hometeaching would continue to not faithfully do their hometeaching if women started doing it too and the men who are faithfully doing their hometeaching would continue to faithfully do their hometeaching even if women began doing it too.
You're a good man, Church; and I mean that sincerely. We need more like that, but until then; the Lord will make do with what He has.Thank you. But I, as everyone, have my struggles. I appreciate it though. But I certainly very often feel like the Lord is only making do with me.
-
I see where you're going, Church; and ideally it would be so. But I think the feeling of "being needed" does have a powerful effect on how much weight someone is willing to pull within an organization; so regrettably I agree with Skippy as well.
You're telling me that if they ordained women you would quit the church? Not because of rebellion, but because women were doing your job?
I do my callings because I am called to do them. Others doing their callings doesn't have anything to do with my doing my callings. Having a woman as a bishop would not alleviate my responsibility to be a hometeacher, nor would a woman being a bishop in another ward alleviate my responsibility in another ward if I were the bishop there. Having a woman as an Elders quorum president would not change my feelings of responsibility were I called to be one of the counselors to her.
I find the idea that if women were doing callings that they aren't now that the men would all just give up entirely ridiculous. Men are not that weak and lazy. And any man who would give up if that were the case is pretty much destined to give up anyhow.
I do my work in the church because I love the Lord and know that the church is true. Not because women can't do it for me.
-
If the women were to administer everything, the men would fall lower in activity because the duties are being fulfilled.
Nonsense. Is this the way men behave when women join them in the work force? Commitment is commitment. Testimony is testimony. Work ethic is work ethic.
-
And you are indirectly or directly assuming that these groups are praying that our leaders be on the "right path" and praying that they become as "wise and knowledgeable" as they are. How could you possible know the deepest intentions of their hearts? There is no way you can possible know. You call what you assume they do in prayer as arrogance, I call this assumption of yours, arrogance.
I am most certainly not. I am having a conversation with Prison Chaplin and directly replying to a thought he shared. Read the thread and the conversation before accusations of this sort.
-
I don't see praying for your leaders to be on the right path as arrogance. We should always pray for our leaders. They're just as fallible as everyone else.
I did not say we should not pray for our leaders to be on the right path, as is very clear from reading what I actually said, and your translating what I did say to this meaning makes no sense whatsoever. Praying for our leaders to be on the right path is obviously very different from praying that our leaders will be as wise and knowledgeable as we are.
-
Here's the official answer: http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/PP_The_Role_of_Women_in_Ministry.pdf
The shorter answer is that we believe that on the Day of Pentecost Peter proclaimed the fulfillment of Joel's last day prophesy--that men and women would prophesy (i.e. proclaim, or preach). In Galations we are told that there would no longer be slave or free, male or female. So, we conclude that if women can prophesy, and if we are now one in Christ, then they can hold leadership. This has been true since the founding of my fellowship, in 1914. The perspective is a uniquely pentecostal understanding of the passages.
This doesn't really work as an argument in the LDS world because of its lay-clergy. Everyone in the church, women included, may already teach, preach, prophesy, etc... So examples of women doing this in the Bible don't work toward an ordination ideology. Ordination, in the LDS church, is not requisite to preach. Now an example of a woman authoritatively baptizing someone...that might be used in said argument.
-
...Pray for them, ask God to turn their hearts, if you're convinced they have not yet grasped an obvious direction...
This approach for a church member who (theoretically) believes in a church that is led by God directly through revelation to it's leaders is ridiculously arrogant. Whereas it is more appropriate than public stances and protests, etc., it still doesn't quite fit the bill, IMO, of sustaining one's leaders and trusting that God does, actually, lead this church.
There seems to be a common assumption by these liberal groups that the leaders of the church are unthinking bigots who have never even bothered to ask God what His will is in such matters. Once again, I repeat...ridiculously arrogant. The very presumption is rooted in arrogance. The fact of the matter is that those not leading the church do NOT know better than those whom God has called to lead it.
I mean, seriously..."Dear God, please help the prophet to be as wise and forward thinking as I am, and help him to see the obvious truth that I see, because he is clearly blind where I can clearly."
Really?
-
From my perspective, the "prayer standard" of determining the right church has a major flaw in that the church uses a sort of circular logic to justify it. If you pray about the truthfulness of the LDS church, you'll get one of two answer, its true to its not. If you get the former answer, the church will claim its from God, and if you get the latter answer, it'll claim that its from either Satan or yourself. It seems like you could replace Mormonism in that scenario with any other group and get similar results. I would be curious to see if any sort of formal study had been done on that subject, but I doubt it.
The prayer standard is not a sociological standard, it is a personal one. Whether everyone else in the world claims they have received a revelation that their way/church is true or not is irrelevant. It is a personal promise to each of us from the Lord that if we sincerely and humbly seek Him, He will guide us to the truth. I doesn't matter how many people claim this to be true. It only matters what we find to be true when we act upon this promise. The church does not claim to be true because the members have acted upon this promise. The church claims to be true because it is true, but the evidence for the truth is individual. It is not an en masse case of, "we all got revelations so that proves the church is true". My revelation that the church is true does nothing for my neighbor. They must gain this knowledge from God themselves in order to know.
I guess my position then would be that we have to use our reason to find truth. Admittedly, reason can err, and that's where we do need an assist from divine intervention. The big difference as I see it is that, if you rely only on a feeling given from God, then the testimony dies with the feeling. If you rely on solid reason obtained with God's help, even if God feels far away during a rough patch, the sound reasoning remains sound.There is no such thing as sound reasoning by fallible (and often idiotic) mortal beings. We simply do not have all the information. How can we make reasonable conclusions without all the information? We can't. God, however, has all the information. Relying upon the "prayer standard" as you call it, is the only reasonable course.
-
I certainly agree that Joseph Smith having pride issues would be a stumbling block to people, though I disagree about is being as much of one as obfuscation. In the case of the former, on a gut level we have a tough time relating to people we feel negatively about, so feeling negative about Joseph Smith would make it hard for somebody to join the Church he founded. That being said, a person could not like Joseph Smith and still believe he's a prophet if the evident for his being one is compelling. Denial of a statement that appears to be legitimate, however, leaves a person only with the opposing sides interpretation, which usually isn't going to be favorable.
I appreciate that some people will never be convinced no matter how convincing the evidence. That being said, I also firmly believe that there are people who can be convinced if the evidence is compelling.
I don't really see the difference. But that's my take. Call the church a liar or call Joseph arrogant...it's all excuses to walk or turn away from the real objective of the church and Joseph, which point is to bring people closer to Jesus. And there is a specificity to HOW this is to be done, and it is not, nor has it ever been evidence. The clear message of both Joseph and the Church on the issues is the same. Ask God if the church is true. Everything else is a distractor.
Also, you mentioned that the church's stance was that Joseph Smith didn't say he was greater than Jesus. While I'm sure that is the position the church would take, part of the issue here is not that the church denies his having said it, but rather that fact that I haven't found any place where a general authority or anybody within the institutional church has addressed the issue at all. I appreciate that the church doesn't want to legitimize every wild accusation by officially responding to every one that pops up, but this seems like a case where a person of good faith could legitimately interpret the quote in an unfavorable way, and it is oft cited enough that it should probably warrant some response.Based on the current trend of publishing essays, I wouldn't put it past the church doing just so in the near future. It will be interesting if they do. However, in my experience, this doesn't seem to be one of the major detractors for people. I could be mistaken on that. But I'd say the things addressed are MUCH bigger issues for people. Polygamy. Blacks and the priesthood. And, thanks to the popularity of the South Park clods, the own-your-own-planet thing (which, actually, was only a side note in the issue being addressed--the belief that one can become like God).
-
As for the concern of the automatic recurring payments of tithes ... that was a concern that an individual at COB voiced several years ago when the church first started accepting billpay tithing.
I think these sorts of concerns are exactly why the church moves slowly with technology. And you may be right on the auto bill pay thing. But that's an easy enough thing to simply not include in the software dev that takes the payments. :) Time will tell.
-
Writing a check each time still requires a conscious Act each time you pay.
The issue with BillPay is that recurring tithing payments can be scheduled that happen every 2-weeks (or whatever time frame you schedule) without any further action or thought from the member.
5 minutes 1 time to set up the recurring payments & never worry about it again ... 100% automatic until you choose to change it, 5, 10, or even more years .... set it up & forget about it indefinitely.
Tithing (& the associated act of obedience) was not meant or intended to be so automatic that you can set it up & forget 100% about it for years & still have it paid every week.
I don't agree with that necessarily. I mean, I see your point, but if you make a very steady income I don't see anything wrong with autopay. Besides, say someone made 60k a year. 5k a month. They set up an autopay of $500 to tithing monthly. You really think they're going to be blissfully unaware of the fact that a very nice truck payment amount is leaving their bank account each month? Tithing is a sacrifice, regardless of whether you write out the check by hand or not.
Moreover, I think that within 5-10 years electronic tithe paying will be the norm. The church is and always has been a bit behind the times technology-wise. Carbon copy receipts is a thing of the past. The church will catch up.
-
Looking beyond the mark, as they call it, is a real issue, and becomes a true problem with some people. Beyond the good advice given by others, I can only add this thought. You cannot make others change. You can only change yourself. Start there. No more screaming, etc., all that other stuff that you admit yourself guilty of too. Fix that first. You may be surprised at how much changes when you start with yourself.
-
It's certainly been expanded before, from just the great Patriarchs holding it, to only Levites holding it, to Jews holding it, to Gentiles holding it, etc.
Actually, the priesthood was limited before. From the time of Adam all worthy males had the right to the priesthood. It was only limited (as in the lower Mosaic law) because of the wickedness of men.
there WILL be a time where BOTH genders will be holding and exercising Priesthood power.Both genders already do, as noted by JaG. But they do not, (nor will they ever, I believe) have the same rights within the priesthood.
The priesthood "power" is actually a right. It's not just simply the power of God. The power of God is exercised through faith, and women exercise faith to power all the time. Technically, all of God's power is the priesthood, so in that regard one might argue the women do exercise priesthood power. But that's a misdirect and not really what the point of the priesthood is. The priesthood is an order. An organization, if you will. It is the order of God, specifically, the order of the Son of God. Joining in the order gives one specific rights to do and have specific things. It also demands action on our part. (Hence, the Oath and the Covenant of the Priesthood). Part of those rights are things like baptizing and blessing the sacrament. Part of those rights are sealings and the like. One of the distinct and most important rights of the priesthood is the right to eternal life. That priesthood right is undeniably promised to faithful women as well as men.
Real life?
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by church
Yes, obviously this is an eternal truth.
Edit: Just in case I should clarify. ^ Sarcasm.