Letter from the Church to Ordain Women group

[RMGuy]

This whole movement has shades of Numbers 16. Sometime I wish God would just say checkmate and deal with things like the good old days. Vs 32 should cover it.

I have seen a lot of things on here over time. Wishing death on others because you disagree with their viewpoint probably tops it all though. Wow.

[Drpepper]

I have seen a lot of things on here over time. Wishing death on others because you disagree with their viewpoint probably tops it all though. Wow.

I'm not wishing death on anyone, chill. I was merely pointing out the way God use to handle situations like this compared to today's very contemporary approach.

[Finrock]

Good Morning Suzie. I hope you've been well! :)

Yes, but to be honest (and I know this isn't probably a popular take) I think all Christians (including us, Mormons of course) kind of overdo it with "Satan made me do it/Satan did it" approach.

Claiming that Satan is behind something does not equate to "Satan made me do it/Satan did it".

It is doctrine that Satan has no ability to force us to do anything. He can tempt us but not make us do anything. Anyone arguing that "Satan made them do it" is being absurd. Equating "Satan is behind a movement" with "Satan made me do it/did it" is also absurd simply because the two concepts are not the same thing.

Satan can only tempt us to do things we already desire or want. If the desire doesn't exist within us, it cannot be manipulated by Satan. Satan is behind all movements/positions/stances/philosophies etc. that are not of God. That is an obvious statement but it is also true and this truth is quite often denied in the sense of people trying to create a third, grey area. If it isn't from God then it is from Lucifer. Satan does not make us do things (he cannot) and neither can we blame Satan for committing our sins. But, Satan is a master manipulator. He knows how to conceal truth in lies and lies in truth. He plays upon our pride. He encourages us, in the most subtle of ways, to act upon desires we have within our hearts to rebel against truth and thus invariably against God. There is no grey area.

Based on my experiences in life the "no grey area" axiom is anathema to most of the liberal Mormon movement(s) (and most liberal movements) and the liberal movements will often do everything they can to deny this axiom and/or discredit it. But, the scriptures make it clear that Satan also backs and supports the denial of the truth that there are only two churches in the world.

-Finrock

[RMGuy]

I'm not wishing death on anyone, chill. I was merely pointing out the way God use to handle situations like this compared to today's very contemporary approach.

I guess I misunderstood your "I wish God would just say checkmate and deal with things like the good old days." I thought you meant that you wished God would handle these people the same way as in olden times by saying checkmate and having the earth swallow them whole. Huh. I wonder were I got that impression?!?!

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon Jenamarie. I hope you've been doing well! :)

In addition, consider what the ceremonial clothing put on during the Endowment is said to represent, and how BOTH genders put on the SAME garments, with no distinction made between what the men's garments represent versus what the women's garments represent.

I am not really trying to make any particular claim or take a particular position in this post as to what the priesthood means to men and women but I do want to point out that there are differences in the garments of the priesthood (and I don't mean just the under garments, I mean the full regalia of the priesthood) as donned by men and women in the temple. There are differences both in ritual and in clothing that is donned. These differences, in my view, are not frivolous but have deep and eternal meaning. So, I would say that the temple liturgy does, in fact, make some distinctions.

It is all priesthood, yes, but gender is a necessary component of Eternal Life (and by this I mean, God's Life). If it was all the same, without differences, then a man or a woman could achieve exaltation alone. We know that this is false. There is no exaltation for a man without the woman and neither is there exaltation for the woman without the man. Some things in the priesthood cannot be done by man alone. What these roles are I do not perfectly know and I don't even have any good speculations that I want to discuss. I simply understand that priesthood is not complete without the female. However, this does not mean that the roles and the exercise of the priesthood are the same for both genders. Clearly it is not and I believe this is, at least, symbolically represented in the temple liturgy.

-Finrock

Edited March 27, 2014 by Finrock
EDIT: "I don't mean the under garments..." to "I don't mean JUST the under garments..."

[Drpepper]

I guess I misunderstood your "I wish God would just say checkmate and deal with things like the good old days." I thought you meant that you wished God would handle these people the same way as in olden times by saying checkmate and having the earth swallow them whole. Huh. I wonder were I got that impression?!?!

Yeh, yeh, RMGuy. I regret writing it like that. Hay, if I had a big erasure for life there's a lot of things I would rub out. Wait, yep that's the atonement. Thank God, for that. Checkmate for me.

[RMGuy]

Excellent response Pepper!

[The Folk Prophet]

...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?

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

[havejoy]

This is a great article about the priesthood:

Linda & Richard Eyre: Women and the priesthood in Mormon theology | Deseret News

[prisonchaplain]

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?

Perhaps they hope the leadership already wants to ordain women, and they just need God to help them navigate the pacing and process of moving in that direction?

I'm just throwing out a wild alternative. Sometimes I think I know better than leadership (religious, political, etc.). I might pray some arrogant prayers about how I think God should lead them. At the end of the day, so long as I embrace what God finally brings about, I'll be okay.

[Guest]

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?

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.

Arrogance is in the heart of the person. If she comes from a position of arrogance, then her prayers will be arrogant. If she comes from a position of humility, then her prayers will be humble.

If I was a member back in the 60's and I prayed to God to guide our leaders in the matter of giving blacks the priesthood from a position of humility then the prayer is humble not arrogant. But if I was coming from a position of arrogance, then the prayer is arrogant. If I'm a member now who believe that priesthood keys needs to be extended to women and I pray to God that the leaders may be guided in the proper path for women and I come from a position of humility, then my prayers will be humble. Sure, it might be that I'm wrong in the matter because I didn't understand the doctrine properly - line upon line, precept upon precept... but that humble prayer may lead me to the next precept that I need to learn.

What makes this kind of prayer arrogant is when I don't include/recognize in my plea that "Thy Will Be Done".

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

[Suzie]

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.

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

Huh? How about their own website?

Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings. . . .

We are committed to work for equality and the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

The possibility of the Lord instituting or ratifying the status quo, is apparently not a part of Ordain Women's calculus. And therein lies the rub: Any time a person says "I'm right", the implicit statement is "and those who disagree with me are wrong". OW is not saying "we don't know, we just seek further light and knowledge"; they're saying "we're right, and the church leadership should pray and pray until they think like we do."

Given that approach: to imply that OrdainWomen doesn't think they're more correct, or have more light, wisdom, and knowledge than the GA's on this particular issue; comes across as a bit of a diversion. I don't see how I can take such a statement at face value without having the official raison d'etre for the entire group effectively nullified.

OW's organizers can't have their cake and eat it too. They either know they're right, in which case they clearly think they know more than the GA's (who, in turn, think they are right) do; or they don't know more than the GA's, which means they have no basis for saying that the existing policy is wrong and their website therefore grossly overstates their position.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

Church, your reminder that "ordination" has quite a different meaning for LDS than for Protestants is helpful. My thought is that secular media really does not get that. Your most visible full-time representatives are the missionaries--and females are used in that role. So, it is difficult to make comparisons. Thinking of this makes the Ordaining Women effort seem even more political, given that we're not discussing local church leadership.

[Drpepper]

This subject is so sensitive and like a particular weed in my backyard, refuses to die.

[The Folk Prophet]

So the church will not allow any reporters on temple square at all. I suspect this is somewhat of an effort to dissuade the OW group, in that no reporters makes their "public" protest less useful in theory. Though I also take the church at it's word that the primary reason is because they would like the Spirit in the square and don't want the disruption that reporters will bring. Of course, if they really want to keep disruption out, they would block the OW group from access to the square entirely, and I will find it interesting to see if they do that or not.

 

Ultimately, I see the objective of the protest contemptible in it's short-sightedness to the spirit of the proceedings. Even if I fully supported their objectives per their petition, the very fact that they cannot see past the idea that Conference is not the time and place to protest if you actually are a faithful member of the church, makes me suspect their so-called faithfulness.

[Just_A_Guy]

So the church will not allow any reporters on temple square at all. I suspect this is somewhat of an effort to dissuade the OW group, in that no reporters makes their "public" protest less useful in theory. Though I also take the church at it's word that the primary reason is because they would like the Spirit in the square and don't want the disruption that reporters will bring. Of course, if they really want to keep disruption out, they would block the OW group from access to the square entirely, and I will find it interesting to see if they do that or not.

 

I agree with the Church's decision to not allow press photographers/cameras; but I really don't see how they could enforce a rule against the presence of reporters.  The only report I'm getting of this decision comes from the Salt Lake Tribune, which is heavy on analysis but light on actual data.  All I can see is that the Church has asked that no interviews be conducted on Temple Square; and my guess is that that's more an issue of traffic flow than anything else.

[The Folk Prophet]

I agree with the Church's decision to not allow press photographers/cameras; but I really don't see how they could enforce a rule against the presence of reporters.  The only report I'm getting of this decision comes from the Salt Lake Tribune, which is heavy on analysis but light on actual data.  All I can see is that the Church has asked that no interviews be conducted on Temple Square; and my guess is that that's more an issue of traffic flow than anything else.

 

This is true. Spy reporters will certainly still report. I stand by the thought, however, that the intent is to preserve the spirit of the grounds on a special and sacred day. Traffic flow is a part of that, of course. However, 500 women waiting in line to ask one by one in person if they can be admitted is a much greater traffic flow concern. The reporters would be incidental, I think, to that aspect of things. So it makes more sense that it is, more so, a dual effort, primarily to preserve the spirit of the grounds, and secondarily to, perhaps somewhat, quell the intent of the march. That being said, I don't think anyone (including the church reps) actually think it will quell anyone's intent.

[Guest]

They are there with their cameras, tweeting and posting about how unfairly they are being treated. Nice of them to show such respect. 

[skippy740]

Elder Oaks laid the "smack down" in his address.  :)

[john doe]

Those with ears to hear will listen, those who don't will start complaining.

[Just_A_Guy]

I\'ve always wondered: if they stay at the Tabernacle until the session starts and then walk a few blocks to City Creek Park for their press conference--er, devotional, which they spend listening to the broadcast --don\'t they pretty much miss at least the first half hour of speakers?