Letter from the Church to Ordain Women group

[The Folk Prophet]

My church ordains women. However, we do so because of our understanding of scripture. Is this group making the same argument, or are they simply lobbying members and leadership?

They already do make that argument, though perhaps not as in depth as is possible. I am curious what understanding of the scriptures led your church to that, incidentally.

LDS scripture, however, is a bit harder nut to crack when it comes to support for ordaining women, as there are stronger indications of the patriarchal nature of it in some of the other books beyond the Bible that we consider scripture.

However, in reality, the scriptural debate is a non-starter in the LDS world, as we are firmly entrenched in the continuing revelation camp, and believe that scriptures are to be interpreted by the revelation received by those authorized and set apart to receive such (meaning prophets and apostles). Therefore, no amount of scriptural 'proof' will hold sway. Revelation from God is required for change.

[john doe]

I think a lot of what's being lost here is that Ordain Women has stated what their aim is on the front page of their website.

Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormons to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

They would have to awfully naive to think that making their communications with the Church public was not intended to shame the church into doing what they want. It's almost as if they don't believe in continuing revelation through prophets, so they intend to get what they want by attempting to bring public pressure on the Church to change. If the Church (which they claim to believe in and love) is truly governed and overseen by Jesus, do they think He is going to change His church merely because the public demands it? Would Christ change His church to conform to the demands of The World? More importantly, should Christ change His church to conform to the demands of The World?

[lagarthaaz]

There are many who have already labelled this group as "apostate." I've even been told by a member of this forum that I should "find my way out of the Church" for sympathizing with them.

It doesn't make sense to say that to you. It's entirely possible to sympathize with a group without endorsing or believing in their whole ethos or practices.

[lagarthaaz]

I doubt it VERY much. This is clearly NOT September Six, the Church has moved on from those past episodes for a long time now. They have worked fervently to let the world know about the Church and spent millions in the campaign of "I am a Mormon". They will NOT ruin it by doing anything that will make others say "See? Women in the Mormon Church have no say, they excommunicated them".

The Church has been under constant scrutiny and they are going to be dealing with this issue (as well as others) through dialogue and understanding as they have been doing so far.

I hope you are right.

[The Folk Prophet]

Would Christ change His church to conform to the demands of The World? More importantly, should Christ change His church to conform to the demands of The World?

I think it's even more complicated than that. I think it's a bigger issue than "would" or "should", but actually falls into the "could" category. The priesthood is eternal. I do not believe God can change His order any more than He can lie. Which is to say, He could lie, but He would cease to be God. And if He changed His eternal order, the same. The order of God is perfect because God is perfect and if God ceased to have a perfect order, He would cease to be perfect, and thereby cease to be God.

The idea that women can be ordained is based on the concept that giving the priesthood to men was cultural and nothing more. I say garbage. There is significant evidence that is it more than that. It is an eternal order of the patriarchy--rights passed from Father to Son.

Moreover, Women already enjoy the rights of the priesthood, and join the patriarchal order through marriage. They simply do not officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood (with a few exceptions where propriety and/or necessity demand).

So I agree that Christ would not and should not change His church to conform to the demands of the world, but I would add the query, could He?

[Just_A_Guy]

So I agree that Christ would not and should not change His church to conform to the demands of the world, but I would add the query, could He?

Sure, He could. But I've a feeling we wouldn't much like the long-term results:

God has to work through mortals of varying degrees of spiritual progress. Sometimes he temporarily grants to men their unwise requests in order that they might learn from their own sad experiences. Some refer to this as the “Samuel principle.” The children of Israel wanted a king, like all the nations. The prophet Samuel was displeased and prayed to the Lord about it. The Lord responded by saying to Samuel, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” The Lord told Samuel to warn the people of the consequences if they had a king. Samuel gave them the warning, but they still insisted on their king. So God gave them a king and let them suffer. They learned the hard way. God wanted it to be otherwise, but within certain bounds he grants unto men according to their desires. Bad experiences are an expensive school that only fools keep going to (see 1 Samuel 8).

Sometimes in our attempts to mimic the world, contrary to the prophet’s counsel, we run after the world’s false educational, political, musical, and dress ideas. New worldly standards take over, a gradual breakdown occurs, and finally, after much suffering, a humble people are ready to be taught once again a higher law.

We've had a group that got pretty much everything OW--and LDS theological progressives generally--purport to want. They started out claiming to accept the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and latter-day restoration: but nevertheless went haring off after political correctness and attained female ordination; a democratic rather than a hierarchical form of ecclesiastical government; de-emphasis of the "sexist" temple rite; non-literal/non-historical approaches to the Restoration narrative, the Book of Mormon, and the idea of priesthood in general; a more lenient attitude towards the Word of Wisdom; abandonment of any sort of theological prescription or proscription regarding gender roles; and ultimately condonation of (or at least, the formal turning of a blind eye towards) fornication and sodomy.

That group is called the Communities of Christ.

I hope I'm not coming off as saying that as a Church we are perfect, or that we don't have issues worth addressing and, on an individual level, trying to remedy. But it seems to me that Mormons who insist that the Utah LDS church remake itself in the CoC's image might do well to consider why they personally still choose to affiliate with the former over the latter; and whether the "modern" implementations they crave might actually serve to dilute whatever advantage they feel the Utah church still has.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Sure, He could.

I don't know that I agree. If the priesthood is eternal to men and childbearing is eternal to women, and gender is eternal, then it would not make sense that God could reassign such things. The priesthood is not just some willy-nilly assignment. It is eternally linked to patriarchy.

edit: I might add from the Benson quote a bold to the "...but within certain bounds..."

Edited March 24, 2014 by church

[RMGuy]

My take. If the prophet receives revelation or instruction from The Lord that the ordination of women is acceptable, the I will welcome them to priesthood meeting with open arms. Until that time the existing order stands. However, I also believe in allowing others agency to petition The Lord and His prophet as they see fit. Both in support of or opposition to female ordination.

[RMGuy]

It is eternally linked to patriarchy.

Regardless of which side you are on, yep!

LOL!

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know that I agree. If the priesthood is eternal to men and childbearing is eternal to women, and gender is eternal, then it would not make sense that God could reassign such things. The priesthood is not just some willy-nilly assignment. It is eternally linked to patriarchy.

edit: I might add from the Benson quote a bold to the "...but within certain bounds..."

But priesthood is not eternal to (uniquely) men. We know as much from the initiatory ordinances and the very beginning of the endowment liturgy.

Unless, of course, being a "priestess" is unrelated to the priesthood as we know it (which I don't rule out; but which seems unlikely to me).

It sort of taps into questions of "what is priesthood"? If "priesthood" is "power and authority to act in God's name", and through the Atonement of Christ you have become an exalted being in your own right--is it really "priesthood" that enables you to create worlds, command elements, generate life, and do whatever else exalted beings do?

Edited March 24, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[pam]

My take. If the prophet receives revelation or instruction from The Lord that the ordination of women is acceptable, the I will welcome them to priesthood meeting with open arms. Until that time the existing order stands. However, I also believe in allowing others agency to petition The Lord and His prophet as they see fit. Both in support of or opposition to female ordination.

Petition and protest are 2 different things however.

[RMGuy]

Couldn't agree more Pam

[Jenamarie]

But priesthood is not eternal to (uniquely) men. We know as much from the initiatory ordinances and the very beginning of the endowment liturgy.

Unless, of course, being a "priestess" is unrelated to the priesthood as we know it (which I don't rule out; but which seems unlikely to me).

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.

For me, I can see the possibility of the Priesthood being expanded to include women. 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. Given the context of the Temple, there WILL be a time where BOTH genders will be holding and exercising Priesthood power. It may be that that time is only beyond the veil, but I'm not willing to say that the Lord might not have plans for it being held by women here on Earth as well.

(and if that is in the Plan, I'm willing to wait for the revelation)

[The Folk Prophet]

But priesthood is not eternal to (uniquely) men. We know as much from the initiatory ordinances and the very beginning of the endowment liturgy.

Unless, of course, being a "priestess" is unrelated to the priesthood as we know it (which I don't rule out; but which seems unlikely to me).

It sort of taps into questions of "what is priesthood"? If "priesthood" is "power and authority to act in God's name", and through the Atonement of Christ you have become an exalted being in your own right--is it really "priesthood" that enables you to create worlds, command elements, generate life, and do whatever else exalted beings do?

And women pass the sacrament too, ultimately. My wife hands it to me every week. That doesn't mean she holds the priesthood.

The priesthood is the order of the Son of God, and both men and women join in that order. That is clear. But they join the order in different ways, and have distinct and different responsibilities within that order. The rights of the priesthood are assigned and are eternally linked to men--and to women. They are not uniquely men's. But those rights that are uniquely men's are uniquely men's.

[The Folk Prophet]

However, I also believe in allowing others agency...

Agency is the right to choose salvation or damnation. It is not the right to do whatever you want without consequence. In fact it is quite the opposite of that.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

[prisonchaplain]

They already do make that argument, though perhaps not as in depth as is possible. I am curious what understanding of the scriptures led your church to that, incidentally.

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.

However, in reality, the scriptural debate is a non-starter in the LDS world, as we are firmly entrenched in the continuing revelation camp, and believe that scriptures are to be interpreted by the revelation received by those authorized and set apart to receive such (meaning prophets and apostles). Therefore, no amount of scriptural 'proof' will hold sway. Revelation from God is required for change.

I'm somewhat aware of this. That is why I found the group's efforts odd.

[McLainDow]

Well, well, well.

Remember how this "wear pants/purple to Church" thing was just about awareness of women's issues generally, not ordination for women in particular?

Yeah. They lied. OW is now asking that their supporters wear purple to the General Women's Meeting.

But on one level, it's brilliant. I mean, take the six colors of the rainbow. Add black, white, and brown. That's nine colors, one of which is purple. Statistically, 11% of women at this meeting will be wearing purple anyways; which will make OW look like it has twice as much support as it really does. PR win!!!

I think you may be a bit misinformed. The group that sponsored the wear pants to church event (all enlisted) and the group protesting and trying to gain acceptance into the priesthood session (ordain women) are two different groups. Just because Ordain Women adopted the use of the color purple for their cause does not mean that All enlisted holds the same beliefs as Ordain Women.

These are two very different issues. Wearing pants to church is a cultural issue. Ordaining women to the priesthood (at least during their second estate) is a doctrinal issue.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think you may be a bit misinformed. The group that sponsored the wear pants to church event (all enlisted) and the group protesting and trying to gain acceptance into the priesthood session (ordain women) are two different groups. Just because Ordain Women adopted the use of the color purple for their cause does not mean that All enlisted holds the same beliefs as Ordain Women.

That being the case, I would anticipate that All Enlisted to immediately make an unambiguous statement distancing itself from Ordain Women and condemning the latter's tactics.

Interestingly, I haven't seen any of that. But an awful lot of the Bloggernacle (which went all ga-ga over All Enlisted) seems to be kvetching about how mean the Church is being to those poor, poor women . . .

Edited March 24, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

That being the case, I would anticipate that All Enlisted to immediately make an unambiguous statement distancing itself from Ordain Women and condemning the latter's tactics.

Interestingly, I haven't seen any of that. But an awful lot of the Bloggernacle (which went all ga-ga over All Enlisted) seems to be kvetching about how mean the Church is being to those poor, poor women . . .

I'm not so sure this is a fair standard. Moderate groups always get caught in this kind of crossfire. The reality is likely that some All Enlisted supporters may support the Ordain Women group. Some might be "agnostic," and some would indeed oppose them. Chances are that some All Enlisted supporters have made unambiguous statements--but they don't represent anyone, so their declarations go largely unnoticed. Frankly, I think Muslim moderates are in the same boat. If I were LDS I'd probably lean traditionalist and oppose these kinds of efforts as unspiritual. Nevertheless, I've come to be very cautious about saying, "If you are really moderate--and not like THEM--you'd make a loud public declaration to that effect." I don't want those same guns pointed at me some day when I decide to be moderate on an issue.

[Just_A_Guy]

The reality is likely that some All Enlisted supporters may support the Ordain Women group.

Making their statements under the auspices of All Enlisted to the effect that they did not seek ordination, lies.

Nevertheless, I've come to be very cautious about saying, "If you are really moderate--and not like THEM--you'd make a loud public declaration to that effect." I don't want those same guns pointed at me some day when I decide to be moderate on an issue.

*Shrug* Seems to me that those guns already are pointed at us; and the triggers have been pulled more times than I'd care to count. It's an occupational hazard of being a conservative--I am one and the same as the Tea Party, which is just an army of sheep following Rush Limbaugh, who is a shill of the Koch Brothers, who are an alter ego of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.

And AllEnlisted's retreat from the public eye (as evidenced by their websites' apparently going dark) and OW's almost immediate step forward to fill the PR void does seem very curious indeed.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

JAG, your reaction gets to what strikes me as odd about the OW effort. It has the scent of lobbying. This is especially true when their efforts, by design, get reported in secular media. If OW came to me for counsel, I'd suggest copious amounts of knee time, with some fasting mixed in. Further, I'd suggest that if Heavenly Father were on their side, they would do well to be patient, and see His glory revealed.

I confess though that I am holding your church and its members to a higher standard. As Church said, you embrace a belief in continuing revelation. You believe your leaders are directed/appointed by the Holy Spirit. If that's the belief, then let them lead. Pray for them, ask God to turn their hearts, if you're convinced they have not yet grasped an obvious direction, but let them fulfill their callings.

Reminder: This is the outsider offering generic Christian-influenced observations.

[McLainDow]

My wife supports All enlisted. She does not support women being ordained to the priesthood. Many of her friends that support All Enlisted do not support women being ordained. I would think that one would want to educate themselves on an organizations goals before making a blanket statement about that organization.

[Just_A_Guy]

My wife supports All enlisted. She does not support women being ordained to the priesthood. Many of her friends that support All Enlisted do not support women being ordained. I would think that one would want to educate themselves on an organizations goals before making a blanket statement about that organization.

You mean, like, AE founder Stephanie Lauritzen, who shows up in a photo hosted on what purports to be an OW Flickr account, here, as part of a photo series depicting OW members trying to crash the October 2013 priesthood session?

Look, if Lauritzen told her AE followers that she didn't want female ordination, and they believed her--OK, then.

But with the benefit of hindsight we now have proof, not only that she does want female ordination; but that she's willing to provoke an open confrontation with the Church in order to attain that goal. Any statements she has made to the contrary, would make her a liar. If I had fallen in line with AE back in the day, I'd be feeling kind of used right now.

And I think it very interesting--given that Lauritzen was interviewed by the NY Times for her work with AE--that her name doesn't come up in the Times', or anyone else's, coverage of OW. Gives the two entities a very handy aura of plausible deniability--but that Flickr stream kind of blows their cover and reinforces the notion that, at the leadership level, the two are essentially alter egos of each other.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Drpepper]

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

Edited March 26, 2014 by Drpepper
Misunderstood