Would You Care (part Ii)

[Shawn]

In my first post I asked:

Just taking a poll. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much anxiety and trouble would you experience if Gordon B Hinckley announced that the BOM will no longer be considered scripture to members of the Church?

The responses varied, but I thought far too many people spent too much time explaining why this situation would never, ever happen.

In Part II,I'd like to preface my question by providing a example of two announcements many Latter-day Saints thought they would never hear (but did). First, that the practice of plural marriage was to be discontinued and, 2) that black men would be given the priesthood. With these situations in mind, here is "Would You Care Part II.

How would you respond/react if Gordon B Hinckley announced in the October General Conference that the Priesthood would be given to women?

In Jesus Always,

Shawn

[Setheus]

The first thing I would do is say "Ok, where's the real GBH and what has the RLDS authorities done with him"

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Setheus@Aug 10 2005, 06:13 PM

The first thing I would do is say "Ok, where's the real GBH and what has the RLDS authorities done with him"

LOL!!

But to be serious, this time I think it's a good question. I am a little biased and happen to be a fan of the CofC and respect the direction they want their church to go. Since I am non-LDS I do not view the LDS priesthood the same way a member would so, I think the priesthood for women in the LDS religion would be a good idea.

M.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Shawn@ Aug 10 2005, 06:03 PM

How would you respond/react if Gordon B Hinckley announced in the October General Conference that the Priesthood would be given to women?

I would Ask the Lord if that was His will or if GBH was only speaking as a man, and upon receiving an assurance from God concerning His will, I would continue to do all I can to build up the kingdom of God on this Earth.

And to keep up the tradition we seem to have of explaining things, I’ll say the reason I think this would “never, ever happen” is because the priesthood is after the order of the Son of God (even though it is now called the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek or the Melchizedek priesthood), and the order of Women is not the order of Men.

Or in other words, the priesthood is after the order of holy Men, with the Son of God (a holy Man) above all holy Men from this Earth, so it just doesn’t make sense that our Lord would tell Women that their order is the same as the order of Men.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Shawn@Aug 10 2005, 06:03 PM

In my first post I asked:

Just taking a poll. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much anxiety and trouble would you experience if Gordon B Hinckley announced that the BOM will no longer be considered scripture to members of the Church?

The responses varied, but I thought far too many people spent too much time explaining why this situation would never, ever happen.

In Part II,I'd like to preface my question by providing a example of two announcements many Latter-day Saints thought they would never hear (but did). First, that the practice of plural marriage was to be discontinued and, 2) that black men would be given the priesthood. With these situations in mind, here is "Would You Care Part II.

How would you respond/react if Gordon B Hinckley announced in the October General Conference that the Priesthood would be given to women?

In Jesus Always,

Shawn

Your questions are based on misunderstanding because your eyes cannot see eternal things. Your questions are like me asking you, "When will you stop abusing children?

Those that listen carefully to what they are taught at the temple know that women will hold the priesthood - it is only a matter of when. Those that understand covenants with G-d know that the covenant of marriage (polygamy) as G-d covenants and commands has never changed since Abraham and will not, for the things of G-d are eternal. It is the confusion of men that causes some to see with eyes that cannot comprehend eternal things.

It would seem you have the same problem as king Ahaz when Isaiah said to him, “im lo ta aminu ki lo’ te’ amenu”.

The Traveler

[Shawn]

THE TRAVELER WRITES:

Your questions are based on misunderstanding because your eyes cannot see eternal things.

I think if poygamy was eternal, it would never cease being practiced. I would hope thateternal life does not mean there will be spells where life ceases to exist only to start up again. Eternal is eternal, and all the twisting won't redefine what eternal means. What about black NOT having the priesthood? Was that eternal? Or is them now having it the eternal part of the principle?

Your questions are like me asking you, "When will you stop abusing children?

I missed the point here completely. I'm sorry.

It is the confusion of men that causes some to see with eyes that cannot comprehend eternal things.

Right. Sure. You get it because you are enlightened. I don't get it because I'm not. What a perfect system.

It would seem you have the same problem as king Ahaz when Isaiah said to him, “im lo ta aminu ki lo’ te’ amenu”.

What? How long have you waited to drop this piece of, of, vitally important insight on someone? Come on, Traveler. Be real.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Originally posted by Shawn@Aug 11 2005, 07:26 PM

I think if poygamy was eternal, it would never cease being practiced. I would hope thateternal life does not mean there will be spells where life ceases to exist only to start up again. Eternal is eternal, and all the twisting won't redefine what eternal means.

This just isn't that tough Shawn. The principle may be eternal, but the practice might be suspended while the secular laws catch up to the religious ideal, Doh!

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Setheus@Aug 10 2005, 06:13 PM

The first thing I would do is say "Ok, where's the real GBH and what has the RLDS authorities done with him"

I am slowly going to count backwards from 10. And when I reach 1, you will be completely asleep, but you will be able to hear my voice and do whatever I ask you to do.

10 . 9 . 8 . 7 . 6 . 5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1

You are now asleep. When you awake, you will declare that women will be ordained into the priesthood on all levels.

When I snap my fingers, you will awake and remember none of this conversation.

*snap*

You are awake, Brother Hinkley

[Shawn]

This just isn't that tough Shawn. The principle may be eternal, but the practice might be suspended while the secular laws catch up to the religious ideal, Doh! 

Snow, you're killing me, man! The twists and turns some people make to try and rationalize errant religious practices are absolutely flabbergasting! I mean it. And I really don't want to pick on the Mormons here, but I think most defenders of the LDS Church are prolific in "the twist."

"While secular laws catch up with the religious ideal?" Absolutely, categorically, fantastic.

[Que Sera]

Originally posted by Snow@Aug 11 2005, 10:08 PM

This just isn't that tough Shawn. The principle may be eternal, but the practice might be suspended while the secular laws catch up to the religious ideal, Doh!

DOH? You have a way with words, Snow.

I prefer contemplating the practice ceased (only openly, at least) in exchange for Statehood. Were it a true principal of God, what a cheap exchange, huh? Statehood for God's Truth . I like how Helen Mar Kimball's journal rated the practice--far less than favorable.

...and remain unconvinced the principal was ever perfect, godly, close to eternal.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Shawn@Aug 11 2005, 09:12 PM

This just isn't that tough Shawn. The principle may be eternal, but the practice might be suspended while the secular laws catch up to the religious ideal, Doh! 

Snow, you're killing me, man! The twists and turns some people make to try and rationalize errant religious practices are absolutely flabbergasting! I mean it. And I really don't want to pick on the Mormons here, but I think most defenders of the LDS Church are prolific in "the twist."

"While secular laws catch up with the religious ideal?" Absolutely, categorically, fantastic.

Who's twisting?

You've arbitrarily defined the word enternal to mean that the action called for by the eternal belief must be practiced without pause of else the belief is not really eternal.

That's twisting the language and the doctrine to fit your very specific purpose - which is to lambast Mormons no matter how much of a strech to have to make to do it.

I, on the other hand, have done nothing but state the obvious.

[shanstress70]

I am bearing my testimony that I 'know' that God did not command polygamy. I have prayed about it and prayed about it, and got the answer from God some time ago.

Heh, those of you who think He did just haven't listened to Him.

A God that is a loving Father would not command something which is so demeaning to women. Sure, I guess there were women who were happy with this way of life, but for the most part, their lives were sad and lonely (from all the journals I've read). It goes against the very nature of women to share their husband. It would be rare to find a woman who is OK with this 'principle'.

Many women in the LDS church that I have talked to absolutely HATE the thoughts of this and don't even like to talk about it. It's something that's looming in the backs of their minds. They push it out of their minds, hoping that when that day comes they will be able to understand it and be OK with it, should their husband be righteous enough to be granted more wives in the CK. A loving God would not make women wrestle with something like this.

I correspond with a few women who are or have been in this lifestyle via e-mail, and they are not OK with it. There are so many problems and bad feelings. I can't imagine what would make it different in the present day than it was in JS's time. It's just wrong, and always has been.

[Traveler]

Again there are those that cannot see. To my friend Snow – from a previous conversation some that do not see - do not know how to look or even what to look for – therefore even their questions display their folly and disrespect of sacred things as well as their inability to covenant or comprehend truth. This thread is another fine example.

In Exodus G-d gave Moses commandments written in stone. One command said “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet in other places in the Old Testament G-d commanded that those that commit certain sins or involved in certain battles be killed.

The point is that to the uncommitted, covenant and commandment is not at all understood. When someone covenants with G-d part of that covenant is to do or not do many things of their own choice. Even though, by commandment, a covenant child of G-d would not choose to do something on their own – kill for example – that does not exclude G-d commanding that it be done. The choice of man is to covenant with G-d or be taken in servitude by Satan. One way or the other we become servants of our master. That service reflects in every way the wish and desire of our master.

It is like the principle of compound interest – Those that understand the principle invest and receive compound interest by contract. Those that do not understand the principle are caught up and smothered in servitude of payments. In America over 90% of the population will die in debt. It was not because they loved dept but because they could not or would not see their way out of it.

The Traveler

[Ray]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Aug 12 2005, 04:24 AM

I am bearing my testimony that I 'know' that God did not command polygamy. I have prayed about it and prayed about it, and got the answer from God some time ago.

Heh, those of you who think He did just haven't listened to Him.

A God that is a loving Father would not command something which is so demeaning to women. Sure, I guess there were women who were happy with this way of life, but for the most part, their lives were sad and lonely (from all the journals I've read). It goes against the very nature of women to share their husband. It would be rare to find a woman who is OK with this 'principle'.

Many women in the LDS church that I have talked to absolutely HATE the thoughts of this and don't even like to talk about it. It's something that's looming in the backs of their minds. They push it out of their minds, hoping that when that day comes they will be able to understand it and be OK with it, should their husband be righteous enough to be granted more wives in the CK. A loving God would not make women wrestle with something like this.

I correspond with a few women who are or have been in this lifestyle via e-mail, and they are not OK with it. There are so many problems and bad feelings. I can't imagine what would make it different in the present day than it was in JS's time. It's just wrong, and always has been.

Just think, if there were an equal number of Men and Women, and all Men and Women were equally and totally righteous, it wouldn’t even be an issue because each righteous Woman could have her own righteous Man and all would live happily ever after.

Too bad we can’t live in a fairly tale world, huh?

[Traveler]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Aug 12 2005, 04:24 AM

I am bearing my testimony that I 'know' that God did not command polygamy.  I have prayed about it and prayed about it, and got the answer from God some time ago.

Heh, those of you who think He did just haven't listened to Him.

A God that is a loving Father would not command something which is so demeaning

Would G-d ever command a loving parent to kill their child in a ritualistic sacrifice? Would such a thing be more demeaning than polygamy?

The Traveler

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Ray@Aug 12 2005, 03:40 PM

Just think, if there were an equal number of Men and Women, and all Men and Women were equally and totally righteous, it wouldn’t even be an issue because each righteous Woman could have her own righteous Man and all would live happily ever after.

Too bad we can’t live in a fairly tale world, huh?

4. Ibid,. 113 (Taken from John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations)

5. D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, Extension of Power, 767

6. Ibid., 768

[Shawn]

Additionally, the whole theory that there "are more females in the celestial kingdom than males theory" fails in light of historical infant mortality rates. Seems male babies have died at an almost 3 to 1 ratio to females. Bad news for the theorists that the celestial realms are filled with qualified women.