Beyond Pants

[Leah]

Wow lots of comments here coming from all angles. Don't want to fan the flame anymore on this , but i have looked alot into what these guys have to say and their points make perfect sense to me.

Are we not a church founded on continuing revelation? Did Joseph Smith not go to pray to God the father instead of accepting churches that people already thought were true? After which it was the right time for the gospel to be restored on earth?

Much like the blacks being allowed the priesthood back in the 70's after recieved revelation, after previously being denied, these ladies are asking their leaders to prayfully ask if perhaps women can have the priesthood restored to them again as was in Josephs time.

I dont see why the need for all the judgement when continuing revelations as we are ready for it is what sets our church apart from others.

Edit: I see I have already recieved some quick responses in a span of five minutes. I don't comment on this board often and don't wish to argue over petty statements. All I can say is I try to love and understand everyone. This is something important to these ladies, and they are asking of their leaders to prayfully consider having them recieve the priesthood much like people probably did before the blacks were not allowed priesthood. Isn't our motto line upon line, precept upon precept? From knowing how Joseph Smith restored the gospel he didn't receive everything all at once, and we are still receiving Revelation from the Lord even to this day. I don't see why there is so much mud slinging to followers of Christ asking for something that is important to them. But perhaps I just try to give people the benefit of a doubt. I just don't feel threatened by this and I am sure the leaders do not either.

Are you saying that these women are receiving "revelation" on this topic? "Revelation" that is coming to them instead of to any of the prophets..past or current? That our Lord is choosing not to use the system he himself established?

It's mind-boggling to me how many people think they need to instruct prophets on how to pray for revelation and what revelations to pray for. I suspect President Monson has a pretty good handle on prayer...on revelation...and has regular open and honest communication with our Heavenly Father. I even suspect this has been gong on for a number of years.

[Wingnut]

Are you saying that these women are receiving "revelation" on this topic? "Revelation" that is coming to them instead of to any of the prophets..past or current? That our Lord is choosing not to use the system he himself established?

I think what girlygirl was saying with regard to revelation was that just because this has never been before, doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future. That's the beauty of continuing revelation and living prophets: things aren't stagnant. Things can change! I don't think she's saying that these women have received greater revelation than the prophet has (I don't doubt that a handful of them might think the prophet is in fact wrong in this regard, but I don't think it's the majority), but rather that continuing revelation allows for this type of change.

She can correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think what girlygirl was saying with regard to revelation was that just because this has never been before, doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future.

Sure; but this open-mindedness only seems to go so far in certain quarters of the Church. For example, I know a few feminists who are absolutely certain that not only will polygamy never happen again on this earth; but it won't even be an option in the eternities--Young, Smith, Kimball, et al; and any other polygamist or widower who chose to remarry, will all have to choose just one companion (I think Euene England wrote an essay advocating this point of view). And no one seems to think it "possible" that the Church's priesthood policy might someday get more restrictive with regard to ethnicity (e.g. only "Levites" or only "Ephraimites" or only "Lamanites"). If we want to insist that what has never happened before is somehow possible, then a corollary of that is that what has indisputably happened before, may happen again.

I guess my point to all this is that we can only take the Church for what it is. If you choose to embrace it for what you hope it will become, you suddenly find yourself in company of a lot of folks whose visions you may find rather unpalatable.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

I would like to share a few thoughts about the topic. Please keep in mind that I have a few members on my “ignore” list, so if you happen to quote me and you don’t get a response you know why (just saying, so you don’t think I am purposely not answering you).

Surely, we can argue that those women who feel they should have the Priesthood misunderstand the gospel, but are we in position to tell them that they don’t feel what they do? I read about them being in need of “repentance” “Church discipline” and so many other things, yet nobody seems to be interested in addressing or perhaps find out the reasons for such feelings.

I am not here to state whether these groups are falling into apostasy or not (none of my business).

Personally, I find Quinn’s research about women holding the Priesthood since 1843 to be compelling. Like anything else there are flaws, no research is perfect but the fact that these sisters were dressed in Priesthood robes, and they were part of a priesthood quorum was indeed remarkable, just the fact that Joseph Smith brought them to the temple in the first place shows (in my view) a clear vision held by Joseph with regards to women and the Priesthood.

Now it is important to emphasize that the term “priesthood” has meant different things at different times. In early Mormonism, the word simply meant that someone was a “priest.” (quite different from our present terminology of “the authority to act in God’s name").

In Joseph Smith’s time, the offices of the Priesthood such as deacons and teachers were not considered to hold the “Aaronic priesthood,” or elders considered to hold the “Melchizedek priesthood.” The concept of higher or lower office did not exist from the start, It was actually a gradual process.

Back to the present time, I personally do not seek Priesthood ordination however, I do not see anything wrong with women holding the Priesthood or women who wish to be ordained (again, I am not speaking about this particular group but generally) I also do not understand how asking Church leaders if they could pray to Heavenly Father to receive a revelation about is “apostate”. As a matter of fact, it scares me to read how we shouldn’t question or ask anything because it is not “our place to instruct the Brethren”. Since when asking them something suddenly becomes an instruction? We could argue whether or not the right tone is being used but the point remains the same: Requesting is not instructing.

If we carefully study Church history, we will encounter that several of our revelations were not the “sudden” realization of a Prophet who got a revelation out of the blue. The Word of Wisdom is a perfect example. The revelation was given in response to problems while conducting meetings in the Smith family home:

"When they assembled together in this room after breakfast, the first they did was to light their pipes, and, while smoking, talk about the great things of the kingdom, and spit all over the room, and as soon as the pipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobacco would then be taken. Often when the Prophet [Joseph Smith] entered the room to give the school instructions he would find himself in a cloud of tobacco smoke. This, and the complaints of his wife at having to clean so filthy a floor, made the Prophet think upon the matter, and he inquired of the Lord relating to the conduct of the Elders in using tobacco, and the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom was the result of his inquiry[.

Was Emma instructing Joseph of what he should do?

What about the ending of the Priesthood ban? Since the 1960’ several church leaders voted to rescind the policy but the vote was not unanimous and we all know Spencer W. Kimball and so many other Church apostles tried many times to receive an answer from the Lord. Were they wrong in keeping asking the Lord? Were they instructing the Lord ? Heck, I am glad they kept “pestering” the Lord and in this way so many Black worthy Priesthood holders were able to receive the same exact blessings than any other Priesthood holder of any other ethnicity.

Prayer is a sacred, wonderful communication tool with our Heavenly Father and granted, the Prophet is the only person who can receive Revelation for the WHOLE Church. But prayer… prayer is for everyone and requesting the First Presidency to pray to the Lord and ask Him isn’t rebellion, isn’t apostasy, isn’t instructing, isn’t being irreverent…

It simply means we are comfortable enough to trust God’s Prophet on Earth to pray to Him and receive an answer. Will there be a need to pray to the Lord if women were not saying how they feel about it? If Emma didn’t complain about all the cleaning up she had to, would Joseph have prayed about it?

Asking President Monson to pray to get a “yes” answer is obviously foolish. Asking President Monson to simply ask to Heavenly Father about it shows HOW we receive revelation in our Church.

And I am sure, he is pretty darn good with prayers.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Suzie
Typos

[pam]

I do not want to seem critical but I thought a testimony has more to do with what is actually right and wrong (good and evil) especially what is G-d's will as we come to an understanding and knowledge of such things.

I cannot count the number of times I have been shamed in thinking I understood something correctly only to come to the realization through someone obviously not as smart and capable as I - that I was perusing a wrong course. When teaching primary I was astonished with how often this occurred. Especially considering how seldom it occurred when teaching the High Priest?

The Traveler

And I don't want to seem critical that you are being critical of me but a testimony is built upon many things. In this particular case it would shake my testimony if I could not believe that the decisions made were inspired by revelation and not, and I say it again, because they felt pressure from the outside.

Traveler I don't tell you what to base your own testimony on, so please don't be critical of mine. If you want to base your testimony on black and white or right or wrong that is your decision. Part of my testimony is having faith that decisions that would change doctrine or policy is indeed inspired and revealed to our leaders. If we were to suddenly hand the priesthood over to women because of this movement, that faith or testimony that I have of that would be shattered or at least very shaken.

Edited April 5, 2013 by pam

[annewandering]

The nice thing, Pam, is that it would never be handed over BECAUSE of that group. It would be given because God wanted it to be done and it was when He wanted it done. There are people who have been demanding the priesthood for quite some time so this is really not that different except for how they are going about it. Vocally and in a demanding way. It is not going to change because of them.

[EarlJibbs]

I couldnt find any comments quoting the most recent Ensign (feel free to correct me if I am wrong), but I think the Bretheren have addressed this issue already.

It is a great article. Here is a small excerpt from it.

Priesthood stewardship does not superimpose a hierarchical relationship over the God-ordained equality between husband and wife in their roles as parents. President James E. Faust (1920–2007) taught, “Every father is to his family a patriarch and every mother a matriarch as coequals in their distinctive parental roles.”10

Equality does not mean sameness, however. Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has taught: “Men and women, though spiritually equal, are entrusted with different but equally significant roles. … Men are given stewardship over the sacred ordinances of the priesthood. To women, God gives stewardship over bestowing and nurturing mortal life, including providing physical bodies for God’s spirit children and guiding those children toward a knowledge of gospel truths. These stewardships, equally sacred and important, do not involve any false ideas about domination or subordination.”11

And here is the link Equal Partnership in Marriage - Ensign Apr. 2013 - ensign

ADDED NOTE: So it seems for the equality these Sisters would like, the men should be asking God and the presidency of the church to bear children, which cannot happen and is against nature. As is women getting the priesthood.

Edited April 5, 2013 by EarlJibbs

[annewandering]

EarlJibbs, that article makes sense to me. Being responsible for ordinances, etc does not mean better or having more power. If anything I would wonder if being mothers and having nurturing responsibilties wouldnt be more powerful.

[Guest]

The beauty to me is that neither role is "more" anything. They are both essential, and no one has the load of all of it. God's plan is for a couple to work together to build a family, and He designed it so that we would each share the responsibility of doing that. I am constantly reminded how perfect His way and order is. That's why it seems so ungrateful and unwise to me that anyone would assume that they should counsel Him by telling His servants where their attentions need to be ("whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. . .")

[selek]

Are we not a church founded on continuing revelation?

We are.

What we are not- and never have been- is a Church that redefines its doctrines according to the prevailing winds from Mount Babylon.

We act at the Lord's direction, not the other way 'round.

Did Joseph Smith not go to pray to God the father instead of accepting churches that people already thought were true? After which it was the right time for the gospel to be restored on earth?

There are a LOT of historical and contextual inaccuracies in these statements.

In point of fact, Joseph prayed to know which of the existing Churches he should join. He did not seek permission to rewrite the religious landscape according to his own whims, fancies, and prejudices, but to know the Lord's will.

Also, the fact of the matter is that Joseph was chosen to carry out a word that the Lord had foreordained.

It did not suddenly "become the right time" for the Restoration because Joseph had the temerity to ask (in point of fact, he did not ask).

Joseph was raised up because it was "the right time" rather than the other way 'round.

Contrary to your implication, the servant was appointed to the task, rather than the task appointed to the servant.

Had Joseph failed in his calling, another would have been appointed in his stead, because it was the work, not the hubris or presumption of the servant, that was paramount.

Much like the blacks being allowed the priesthood back in the 70's after recieved revelation, after previously being denied, these ladies are asking their leaders to prayfully ask if perhaps women can have the priesthood restored to them again as was in Josephs time.

This statement too, is so full of error as to be almost insensible.

The lifting of "the Ban" took place according to the Lord's timetable, not because his servants were pestering him about it.

The historical record show that the Saints in general- and the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency- had been praying about this for decades beforehand- and in each instance were told "not yet".

Contrary to your insinuation, things do not suddenly become "all right" simply because we ask for them.

You can pray until you are blue in the face and your knees are bloody that "a horse" will suddenly become "a cat", but it will avail you nothing unless it is already wise in the Lord's sight for it to be so.

With "the Priesthood Ban", the Lord had already made it manifest that the time would come when all worthy males would hold the Priesthood. The Brethren were not asking to overturn the Lord's manifest will, but were asking about when his will would be fulfilled.

Those agitating for Priesthood Leadership for women have no such assurances or comfort- for the Lord has NEVER specified that women would hold the priesthood in the same fashion or function as men.

I dont see why the need for all the judgement when continuing revelations as we are ready for it is what sets our church apart from others.

Finally, your characterization of this movement as "asking their leaders to prayfully ask if perhaps women can have the priesthood restored to them" is so spurious a misrepresentation as to border on organic waste of a distinctly equine variety.

As numerous other have already pointed out, they will not accept anything other than a "yes" for an answer. According to their lexicon, the only "godly", "acceptable", and "just" answer is full supine acquiesence.

They are not "asking" in prayerful humility- they are demanding a specific outcome on their timetable, and are attempting to mold public perception and opinion into a weapon to ensure that the Brethren submit to their demands.

That, to continue the analogy, is a horse of an entirely different color.

It is one thing for me to politely ask my wife for glass of lemonade.

It is another thing entirely for me to enflame the neighbors in condemnation of her failure to deliver a glass into my hand.

Edit: I see I have already recieved some quick responses in a span of five minutes. I don't comment on this board often and don't wish to argue over petty statements.

This usually translates as "I expect you all to pay attention to my opinions, but I don't want you to examine them in any detail."

If that was your intention, I suggest that this may be the wrong venue for expressing such opinions.

Statements made on these boards (no matter how innocuous) are subject to rigorous and vigorous analysis.

All I can say is I try to love and understand everyone.

Implicit in this statement is the presumption that we who disagree are not so generous.

That implication is false. Despite our numerous disagreements, I very much care about the happiness and health of AnneWandering, MarginofError, and Wingnut. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ and I love them as such.

That love, however, does not require me to nod vapidly on occasions when they promulgate error or falsehood, nor does it require them to sit idly by on those occasions when I do the same.

That I love my diabetic child does not mean I give her a cookie or candy bar every time she demands one.

That I love my alcoholic brother does not mean I hand him a bottle whenever he feels the itch.

That I love my spendthrift sister-in-law does not mean I give her unfettered access to my bank account.

This is something important to these ladies,

Indeed. And buying that cute pair of radically overpriced pumps is important to my fifteen-year-old daughter- but that doesn't mean I have to reflexively and unthinkingly fork over my credit card in the name of "love".

and they are asking of their leaders to prayfully consider having them recieve the priesthood much like people probably did before the blacks were not allowed priesthood.

Again, this is a blatant and egregious misrepresentation. It is a flat and unamusing caricature of what's actually going on and of the methods used.

Does this description fit some of the sisters who wonder about ordaining women to the Priesthood? Absolutely.

Is it a fair representation of the movement at large? Not in the slightest.

[selek]

The nice thing, Pam, is that it would never be handed over BECAUSE of that group. It would be given because God wanted it to be done and it was when He wanted it done. There are people who have been demanding the priesthood for quite some time so this is really not that different except for how they are going about it. Vocally and in a demanding way. It is not going to change because of them.

God grant you are right- but if the timing coincides like that, it will be a cross for many to bear.

If such an announcement were made (however coincidental to the agitation movement), I would need the ratification of the Holy Spirit before I could sustain such an announcement.

This, too, is how the Lord wants things done.

[Pahoranite]

D&C 1:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time. . .

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

39 For behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Pahoranite

[bytebear]

Here are some things that I find interesting.

We have two levels of priesthood: Aaronic and Melchizedek.

The Aaronic is a preparatory priesthood.

The young men of the church are given the responsibility to officiate in this priesthood.

Bishops and higher offices must be held by a Melchizedek priesthood member. And for Bishops, Stake Presidents, Temple authorities, Apostles and virtually all offices, one must have first entered into the covenant of marriage in the temple.

In other words, those offices, although held by men, require a woman. I believe the full power of the priesthood cannot be achieved without a women.

The lesser priesthood does not require the covenant of marriage to officiate in it.

Man and woman are meant to become one. When they are one, there is no need for each to hold the priesthood separately. They don't need two sets of priesthood. They only need and have one.

And the outward manifestation of that power is held by the man.

Now I know people hate this analogy, but it is very fitting. The power of procreation is also held by the man and woman equally, but the outward manifestation of it is held by the woman.

[Guest]

Here are some things that I find interesting.

We have two levels of priesthood: Aaronic and Melchizedek.

The Aaronic is a preparatory priesthood.

The young men of the church are given the responsibility to officiate in this priesthood.

Bishops and higher offices must be held by a Melchizedek priesthood member. And for Bishops, Stake Presidents, Temple authorities, Apostles and virtually all offices, one must have first entered into the covenant of marriage in the temple.

In other words, those offices, although held by men, require a woman. I believe the full power of the priesthood cannot be achieved without a women.

The lesser priesthood does not require the covenant of marriage to officiate in it.

Man and woman are meant to become one. When they are one, there is no need for each to hold the priesthood separately. They don't need two sets of priesthood. They only need and have one.

And the outward manifestation of that power is held by the man.

Now I know people hate this analogy, but it is very fitting. The power of procreation is also held by the man and woman equally, but the outward manifestation of it is held by the woman.

This reminds me of something at the end of Lesson 1 in the Participant's Study Guide for the Marriage and Family Relations course:

Parable of the Treasure and Keys

I close with a parable.

Once a man received as his inheritance two keys. The first key, he was told, would open a vault which he must protect at all cost. The second key was to a safe within the vault which contained a priceless treasure. He was to open this safe and freely use the precious things which were stored therein. He was warned that many would seek to rob him of his inheritance. He was promised that if he used the treasure worthily, it would be replenished and never be diminished, not in all eternity. He would be tested. If he used it to benefit others, his own blessings and joy would increase.

The man went alone to the vault. His first key opened the door. He tried to unlock the treasure with the other key, but he could not, for there were two locks on the safe. His key alone would not open it. No matter how he tried, he could not open it. He was puzzled. He had been given the keys. He knew the treasure was rightfully his. He had obeyed instructions, but he could not open the safe.

In due time there came a woman into the vault. She too held a key. It was noticeably different from the key he held. Her key fit the other lock. It humbled him to learn that he could not obtain his rightful inheritance without her.

They made a covenant that together they would open the treasure and, as instructed, he would watch over the vault and protect it; she would watch over the treasure. She was not concerned that, as guardian of the vault, he held two keys, for his full purpose was to see that she was safe as she watched over that which was most precious to them both. Together they opened the safe and partook of their inheritance. They rejoiced, for, as promised, it replenished itself.

With great joy they found that they could pass the treasure on to their children; each could receive a full measure, undiminished to the last generation.

Perhaps some few of their posterity would not find a companion who possessed the complementary key, or one worthy and willing to keep the covenants relating to the treasure. Nevertheless, if they kept the commandments, they would not be denied even the smallest blessing.

Because some tempted them to misuse their treasure, they were careful to teach their children about keys and covenants.

There came, in due time, among their posterity some few who were deceived or jealous or selfish because one was given two keys and another only one. “Why,” the selfish ones reasoned, “cannot the treasure be mine alone to use as I desire?”

Some tried to reshape the key they had been given to resemble the other key. Perhaps, they thought, it would then fit both locks. And so it was that the safe was closed to them. Their reshaped keys were useless, and their inheritance was lost.

Those who received the treasure with gratitude and obeyed the laws concerning it knew joy without bounds through time and all eternity.

I bear witness of our Father’s plan for happiness, and bear testimony in the name of Him who wrought the Atonement, that it might be.

From an address by Elder Packer in the October 1993 general conference of the Church (see Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 27–31; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 21–24).

[selek]

D&C 1:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time. . .

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

39 For behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen.

Except of course, for the tiny, niggling, incovenient little detail that these verses refer to humble, penitent, and patient prayers to the Lord.

It doesn't say jack dandy about public agitation, public criticism, or public demands that the Church "reform" itself according to their wishes.

Of course, the following seems remarkably salient, as well:

IN KIRTLAND, TO THEIR BRETHREN ABROAD.

Dear Brethren in Christ, and companions in tribulation:

It seemeth good unto us, to drop a few lines to you, giving you some instruction relative to conducting the affairs of the kingdom of God, which has been committed unto us in these later times, by the will and testament of our Mediator, whose intersessions in our behalf, are lodged in the bosom of the Eternal Father, and ere long will burst with blessings upon the heads of all the faithful:

We have all been children, and are too mutch so at the present time; but we hope in the Lord, that we may grow in grace and be prepared for all things which the bosom of futurity may disclose unto us. Time is rapidly rolling on, and the prophecies must be fulfilled. The days of tribulation are fast approaching, and the time to test the fidelity of the Saints, has come.— Rumor with her ten thousand tongues is diffusing her uncertain sounds in almost every ear: but in these times of sore trial, let the saints be patient and see the salvation of God. Those who cannot endure persecution and stand in the day of affliction, cannot stand in the day when the Son of God shall burst the veil, and appear in all the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

On the subject of ordination, a few words are necessary: In many in stances there has been too much haste in this thing, and the admonition of Paul has been too slightingly passed over, which says, “Lay hands suddenly upon no man.” Some have been ordained to the ministry, and have never acted in that capacity, or magnified their calling, at all: Such may expect to lose their calling, except they awake and magnify their office. Let the elders abroad be exceedingly careful upon this subject, and when they ordain a man to the holy ministry, let it be a faithful man, who is able to teach others also; that the cause of Christ suffer not. It is not the multitude of preachers that is to bring about the glorious Millenium! but it is those who are “cal led, and chosen, and faithful.”

Let the elders be exceedingly careful about unnecessarily disturbing and harrowing up the feelings of the people. Remember, that your business is, to preach the gospel in all humility and meekness, and warn sinners to re pent and come to, Christ. Avoid contentions and vain disputes with men of corrupt minds, who do not desire to know the truth. Remember that “it is a day of warning, and not a day of many words.” If they receive not your testimony in one place, flee to another, remembering, to cast no reflections, nor throw out any bitter sayings. If you do your duty, it will be just as well with you, as though all men embraced the gospel.

Be careful about sending boys to preach the gospel to the world; if they go, let them be accompanied by some one who is able to guide them in the proper channel, lest they become puffed up, and fall under condemnation and into the snare of the devil : finally, in these critical times, be careful; call on the Lord day and night. Beware of pride : Beware of false brethren, who will creep in among you to spy out your liberties, &c. Awake to righteousness and sin not; let your light shine, and show yourselves workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Apply yourselves diligently to study, that your minds may be stored with all necessary information.

We remain your brethren in Christ, anxiously praying for the day of redemption to come, when iniquity shall be swept from the earth; and ever lasting righteousness brought in:

Farewell.

Emphasis mine (obviously).

The ugly truth about this agitation is that it is NOT content to wait upon the will and wisdom of the Lord.

It seeks to move quickly, to "strike while the iron is hot", and make the desired changes NOW.

Contrary to the wisdom of the Lord and his servants, those agitating in this movement are deliberately and unnecessarily disturbing and harrowing up the feelings of the people.

They are no longer content to preach the gospel in all humility and meekness, but are now demanding that the Church conform to their will, rather than waiting on word from the Lord.Instead of warning sinners to repent and come to Christ, they are turning pointing fingers and accusing voices at the Brethren, stirring up contentions and disputes with little or no regard for the eternal truths involved.

This, too, is salient:

Notice the process by which the problem was solved:

• The leaders of the Church met in council to consider the problem (see Acts 15:1–6).
• The prophet and President of the Church explained what the Lord had revealed on the subject (see vv. 7–11).
• Other Church leaders spoke to sustain the counsel of the President and confirm that the answer was from God (see vv. 12–20).
• The decision of the council was sent out to the rest of the members (see vv. 22–31).

The two Official Declarations (following D&C 138) are modern examples of this process in the Church.

Not one word in here about outside agitators revealing the will of the Lord because his servants were too stupid, stubbornn, sexist, or old-fashioned to receive it.

Go figure.

[Just_A_Guy]

In Joseph Smith’s time, the offices of the Priesthood such as deacons and teachers were not considered to hold the “Aaronic priesthood,” or elders considered to hold the “Melchizedek priesthood.” The concept of higher or lower office did not exist from the start, It was actually a gradual process.

Now, hang on a sec. :)

I agree that the relationship of the orders and offices of priesthood didn't spring forth fully formed along with the organization of the Church. On the other hand, I think it's very problematic to imply that there was never a perceived linkage between the AP and its offices, versus the MP and its offices, during Joseph Smith's lifetime. D&C sections 107 and 84 do (at least, in my reading) make those relationships clear. (And yes, I'm aware that D&C 107 is a mish-mash of various revelations and inspired writings received over a period of years; but as far as I know it does indeed originate with Smith.)

What about the ending of the Priesthood ban? Since the 1960’ several church leaders voted to rescind the policy but the vote was not unanimous and we all know Spencer W. Kimball and so many other Church apostles tried many times to receive an answer from the Lord. Were they wrong in keeping asking the Lord? Were they instructing the Lord ? Heck, I am glad they kept “pestering” the Lord and in this way so many Black worthy Priesthood holders were able to receive the same exact blessings than any other Priesthood holder of any other ethnicity.

First off, for the record, David O. McKay did ask the Lord for authorization to end the ban, and did not get it.

Second off: I do not say whether the "pestering" should have continued in that particular circumstance; but we also have at least two scriptural instances where the "pestering" resulted in the Lord giving the petitioners what they demanded--to their condemnation (Joseph Smith and the lost pages; and Israel's requesting the anointing of a king). I think people should think very, very carefully before challenging the status quo; and to be honest--I don't see much thoughtfulness in the theological-leftist-dominated bloggernacle. There was some back around 2005-2010; but lately it seems they've pretty much all figured out exactly what's wrong with the Church; and the only thing left (in most of their minds) is to get it fixed.

Ancient Israel came to smugly view the Mosaic law as evidence that they, through their own merits, had obtained some kind of precious and exclusive gift from Jehovah. It never entered their brains that, due to their stiffneckedness, they in fact only had a tiny fraction of what the Lord had initially been prepared to give them--and that what they had was in spite of, not because of their actions. I hope the same will not, in time, be said of the Latter-day Saints.

Asking President Monson to pray to get a “yes” answer is obviously foolish. Asking President Monson to simply ask to Heavenly Father about it shows HOW we receive revelation in our Church.

What if the revelation is "no"?

Nah. Couldn't be. "Patriarchal [bunk]", as one recent mainstream LDS blogger (who was also simultaneously blogging at a DAMU site) put it.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[bytebear]

It seems to me your beef isn't about this particular issue, but it's about asking God to change the church, and is that acceptable.

I say it is, but if the Lord says no, 100 times, and you ask 101 times, you are the one not progressing. If you get hung up on whatever issue you have with the church, and can't get past it, then you put yourself in a very precarious position, and you have only proven that you cannot accept the laws that God has decreed.

So, my question to you is this. Are you prepared to accept that the church may never change? Can you find joy in that decision? If not, then perhaps you should look for a church that is easier to bend to your will.

[carlimac]

I went to the website behind all this and read a handful of the profiles of the supporters. Some express harsh criticism. (rolls eyes) Most don't, but all of the ones I read show that they are missing the big picture. They are wedged into this narrow mind frame where all women feel deprived and left out. They are failing to see the joy of diversity between genders and are lazer focused on the ideology of gender equality. I feel sorry for them!

[Suzie]

JAG,

I find that whole section very problematic because when they printed the section, it contained both the March/April 28th 1835 revelation and the November 11, 1831 revelation together and in the wrong chronological order not to mention that the November 11th revelation was edited number of times.

Having said that, what I was trying to say is that it was indeed a process. At that time the lesser priesthood didn't equal Aaaronic Priestood as we know it but the office of priest and the high priesthood didn't equal the Melchizedek Priesthood but the office of high priest. The terminology of Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood as we know it, happened gradually over a period of time.

What if the revelation is "no"?

It's NO. What about if the revelation is YES? So far, it seems to me that a lot of people seem to think that women not holding the Priesthood is God's will and they are fine with that (without questioning), a lot of them also talk about trusting in the Lord's Prophet on this however, how come if God decides to give the Priesthood to women then some people would start questioning and wondering if it was indeed revelation?

[Guest]

annewandering posted this video elsewhere, but I thought it was appropriate here:

[Praetorian_Brow]

Women can have all the priesthood they want; if they start putting away chairs, spending 95% of their lessons trying to figure out what the plan is and giving their uterus away. Really, I don't see all that many men wanting to herd hordes of children, or gabbing about other people.

Then again, it would be nice to have a woman chase me, pay for everything, drive me around and then I could say, sorry, I like your bestfriend more.

In all seriousness, most of the "powerful" callings depend on the relationship that they have with their spouse.

[talisyn]

Personal revelation, it's not just for converts

[Anddenex]

It's NO. What about if the revelation is YES? So far, it seems to me that a lot of people seem to think that women not holding the Priesthood is God's will and they are fine with that (without questioning),

This would be incorrect. The responses have been pretty clear, it is not "questioning" which is the problem. It is the manner in which the questioning, and the avenue of the questioning which is the problem.

People may question through proper channels all they want, the moment they think they are wiser than the Lord's prophets and begin to tell them what they should be praying about, without being in proper leadership (the General Leadership of women who are over Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary (those who are in proper leadership positions)) -- yes, this is a problem.

a lot of them also talk about trusting in the Lord's Prophet on this however, how come if God decides to give the Priesthood to women then some people would start questioning and wondering if it was indeed revelation?

Simply because their is no evidence, in all of human history, within the Lord's true path of any woman holding any priesthood authority -- Melchizedek or Aaronic.

We would also be saying the same thing if the priesthood were only given to a specific tribe. It will actually be very nice when the lineage of Aaron is discovered, then those who aren't of the lineage of Aaron won't have to worry about being called as a bishop for any ward.

Those who would complain about only children of Aaron being able to be bishops would also have a problem within themselves.

[mikbone]

Article appearing in Times and Seasons 3 (1 April 1842):743

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.

See 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Edited April 6, 2013 by mikbone

[mikbone]

Official Declaration 2

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.