Oh my heck! It's another Ordain Women thread! (A poll, actually . . .)

[Just_A_Guy]

Explanations/opinions welcome.

[Guest]

Explanations/opinions welcome.

On anything in particular? Or just whatever?

[Just_A_Guy]

Took me a minute to get the poll up. It should be visible now. :)

Clarification: By "abolishing the Relief Society", I also mean abolishing any kind of separate, regular Sunday meetings of separate men's and women's groups.

[Guest]

I guess ambivalence is the closest that comes to me. I would support ordination if it was revealed to the Lord's Anointed that it should happen. Honestly, I don't see that happening. As far as I can tell, we've been taught Heaven's opinion on the matter at length.

It would be a crime and a shame to disband the Relief Society. For a woman to have to do both would be an enormous burden on the family.

Which brings me around to fully supporting the way the Lord has already revealed that the Church and family should be organized. It's wise and fair. If enough people push the Lord enough that things are changed, a la the lost manuscript, I don't think it will be good for anyone.

[RMGuy]

Ok, I'll play. Why would ordination of women lead to an abolition of relief society?

If I were to support ordination of women, then I think it should be a choice. If supported by leadership, the I think it should be up to the individual if the want to have the priesthood or not. Hence, you would still have priesthood meeting (for men & women together), and relief society (fr unordained women & men together).

But, if I were going to lobby for anything it would be to drop priesthood, relief society, and Sunday school to introduce the one hour block.

[skippy740]

Ordaining and administration are two different things in my mind.

Ordination would be okay... as long as the men have a duty and a purpose. So far, men have been the administrators. If the women were to administer everything, the men would fall lower in activity because the duties are being fulfilled.

[Guest]

...and women would fall into nervous breakdowns because they're doing everything.

[Roseslipper]

I want it to stay the same. Let the guys have the Priesthood. Let the woman have Relief Society.

[Roseslipper]

...and women would fall into nervous breakdowns because they're doing everything.

we already have enough to do!!!!!

We learn so much in sunday school, priesthood/and relief society why would we want to give it up for a one hour block?? We'd just have more free time on sunday to get ourselves in trouble.

[Backroads]

I'm ambivalent. I have no particular desire to be ordained and am happy with the current priesthood state. Of course, should the prophet reveal otherwise I'd accept it.

I like the mentality of Relief Society. I like having a women's group. But the existence of Relief Society meetings has no real bearing on my ordination opinions.

[The Folk Prophet]

If the women were to administer everything, the men would fall lower in activity because the duties are being fulfilled.

Nonsense. Is this the way men behave when women join them in the work force? Commitment is commitment. Testimony is testimony. Work ethic is work ethic.

[Just_A_Guy]

I see where you're going, Church; and ideally it would be so. But I think the feeling of "being needed" does have a powerful effect on how much weight someone is willing to pull within an organization; so regrettably I agree with Skippy as well.

[Guest]

The way it works in my house is that whoever is available picks up what needs done. As such, when my husband is working (always), I would be picking up priesthood duties. Right now he makes the time to fulfill those duties out of necessity, because they are his. I think, like housework, if we shared those duties, we'd each have less motivation to carve that time out for him.

[The Folk Prophet]

I see where you're going, Church; and ideally it would be so. But I think the feeling of "being needed" does have a powerful effect on how much weight someone is willing to pull within an organization; so regrettably I agree with Skippy as well.

You're telling me that if they ordained women you would quit the church? Not because of rebellion, but because women were doing your job?

I do my callings because I am called to do them. Others doing their callings doesn't have anything to do with my doing my callings. Having a woman as a bishop would not alleviate my responsibility to be a hometeacher, nor would a woman being a bishop in another ward alleviate my responsibility in another ward if I were the bishop there. Having a woman as an Elders quorum president would not change my feelings of responsibility were I called to be one of the counselors to her.

I find the idea that if women were doing callings that they aren't now that the men would all just give up entirely ridiculous. Men are not that weak and lazy. And any man who would give up if that were the case is pretty much destined to give up anyhow.

I do my work in the church because I love the Lord and know that the church is true. Not because women can't do it for me.

[Just_A_Guy]

You're telling me that if they ordained women you would quit the church? Not because of rebellion, but because women were doing your job?

I'd like to think that I wouldn't. But, yes; I've learned through sad experience that I tend to be more involved in the wards that are quick to give me a job and make me feel needed. Hopefully someday I'll purge myself of that laziness. Until then . . . human nature is what it is; and lots of humans respond better when they feel that they're making a meaningful contribution to the whole.

And any man who would give up if that were the case is pretty much destined to give up anyhow.

I fervently hope not, Church. I hope that my continual involvement in the Lord's church and my applying its teachings into my life--however imperfectly--will take me on an ever higher spiritual plane until I am at last the kind of man the Lord wants me to be.

I do my work in the church because I love the Lord and know that the church is true. Not because women can't do it for me.

You're a good man, Church; and I mean that sincerely. We need more like that, but until then; the Lord will make do with what He has.

[Quin]

I'm ambivalent.

If revealed, great.

If not, great.

I have no dog in this fight.

I honestly don't care.

Which infuriates some of my friends.. But I joined this church with an all male priesthood.

I'm fine with churches limiting clergy by gender (male or female), and fine with churches who don't.

I AM curious though... Do you see the RS being abolished in favor of a bisexual (hmmm... Probably a better word for this exists. Have I mentioned this cold I have this week?) organization that does the same stuff?

Women & Men intent on the priesthood heading through Door P

Woken & Men abstaining from the priesthood heading though door Q

OR... ?

Quin

[The Folk Prophet]

I'd like to think that I wouldn't. But, yes; I've learned through sad experience that I tend to be more involved in the wards that are quick to give me a job and make me feel needed. Hopefully someday I'll purge myself of that laziness. Until then . . . human nature is what it is; and lots of humans respond better when they feel that they're making a meaningful contribution to the whole.

I don't deny this. But I would contend it to be true of women too. Moreover, this point is irrelevant to the women/men thing. It would remain true if women had "leadership" (bishop/high council/etc.) callings. You would still be more involved in wards that were quick to give you a calling. That is good practice in a ward, for both men and women.

I fervently hope not, Church. I hope that my continual involvement in the Lord's church and my applying its teachings into my life--however imperfectly--will take me on an ever higher spiritual plane until I am at last the kind of man the Lord wants me to be.

I should clarify what I mean by my statement that a man would give up anyhow. I don't mean it as directly as I said. What I mean is that if a man is headed in the right direction, struggling in the right direction, then he is struggling/headed in the right direction. Giving women men's callings (and vice versa) would not change that. A man headed in the wrong direction will continue to head in the wrong direction unless he repents (conversely true of heading in the right direction if he gives in to temptations). A man who is striving to live right, although certainly imperfectly, and who loves the Lord and the church should not magically become lazy because a woman is given a calling she didn't before have.

Realistically, what I think, is that the men who are not faithfully doing their hometeaching would continue to not faithfully do their hometeaching if women started doing it too and the men who are faithfully doing their hometeaching would continue to faithfully do their hometeaching even if women began doing it too.

You're a good man, Church; and I mean that sincerely. We need more like that, but until then; the Lord will make do with what He has.

Thank you. But I, as everyone, have my struggles. I appreciate it though. But I certainly very often feel like the Lord is only making do with me.

[The Folk Prophet]

Folks keep talking about the priesthood like it's optional. Whereas this is true in that everything in the gospel is optional (agency being the law), it is entirely false in terms of salvation. A denial to receive the priesthood is the same as denial of any saving ordinance - baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost, washing and anointing, endowment, and celestial marriage.

The idea that women and men could just randomly choose at their will and it wouldn't really have any meaning doesn't make sense. If women were given the priesthood, it would be required for their salvation as well. Those who did not have the priesthood would not because of unworthiness, or because they were preparing to receive it, being too young or too new in the church.

[Maureen]

Folks keep talking about the priesthood like it's optional. Whereas this is true in that everything in the gospel is optional (agency being the law), it is entirely false in terms of salvation. A denial to receive the priesthood is the same as denial of any saving ordinance - baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost, washing and anointing, endowment, and celestial marriage.

The idea that women and men could just randomly choose at their will and it wouldn't really have any meaning doesn't make sense. If women were given the priesthood, it would be required for their salvation as well. Those who did not have the priesthood would not because of unworthiness, or because they were preparing to receive it, being too young or too new in the church.

When you say salvation do you really mean exaltation?

M.

[pam]

I'm just tired of Ordained Women topics. :)

[Wingnut]

Ordaining and administration are two different things in my mind.

While I won't argue this as in-depth as Church is, for once I agree with him. I think, Skippy, that you give men far too little credit. Perhaps you feel that you personally would have a lazier attitude if women were ordained, but I don't think it would be true of men in the church in general.

I chose "I'm ambivilant about ordaining women, but abolition of the Relief Society would change my mind," though it's not entirely accurate. It's not so much that I don't care, but that I'm unsure. I do feel very strongly, however, that women need the Relief Society. Not because they're separate from the Priesthood, but rather, because I think that women need the sisterhood and men need the brotherhood, and having the segregated classes helps foster these fellowshipping needs.

[skippy740]

Nonsense. Is this the way men behave when women join them in the work force? Commitment is commitment. Testimony is testimony. Work ethic is work ethic.

You are PAID in the workforce. That makes a little difference, doesn't it?

What I'm talking about is the supply/demand of volunteers for church callings. One of the messages we use in Home Teaching and in re-activation... is that we NEED them! Need them for what? For service and their spirit... and they need to want it too.

There are certain callings that are only for men by revelation:

- Stake Presidency & High Council

- Bishop (and Priest Quorum President),

- Bishopric,

- Young Men Advisors (don't tell me that women can adequately do this as young men need good worthy male leaders),

- Elder's Quorum Presidency.

- Teacher's Quorum Presidency

- Deacon's Quorum Presidency

There are some callings that CAN be ambivilous, but have generally been gender-specific:

- Sunday School Presidency,

- Primary Presidency (women are traditionally better with children than men),

- Mission Leaders (probably to go out with the missionaries themselves).

If, however, the entire Relief Society could all serve in the same callings as the Priesthood (and vice versa for men in RS callings)... then we have a supposed ABUNDANCE of talent available.

You might say "where's the problem with that?" The problem becomes that we need less and less 'uniqueness' and needed to fulfill these callings... that we feel less and less special and needed as an INDIVIDUAL.

In addition, Men need to be led by other worthy men that they can look up to and emulate.

Women should be led by other worthy women that they can look up to and emulate.

I'm divorced... but if I want a woman to lecture me about how to live worthily... I'd rather listen to my ex-wife, than someone else within the Church. It's one thing to give a talk. It would be another to have a woman be my Elder's Quorum President for example.

I need a leader that I can emulate to help me grow. Gender-oriented leadership helps greatly with this... while minimizing resentments.

If this were to occur, I wouldn't bother showing up. I couldn't sustain a leader that can't understand and lead me and be an inspiring example for what men should be. That's why I would go inactive. I want strong and worthy male leadership to show me the way, and to lead and direct our efforts.

Edited March 28, 2014 by skippy740

[The Folk Prophet]

When you say salvation do you really mean exaltation?

M.

Your usage of the word "really" implies that salvation and exaltation are different things. Exaltation is one of the meanings of salvation. But that is irrelevant to my point. Priesthood ordination is, unquestionably, considered a saving ordinance. See the first paragraph here. Moreover, even baptism isn't required for the broadest term of salvation, meaning anyone but those cast into outer darkness. In general terms would anyone say that baptism is not required for salvation though? Whenever the term salvation is used generally within the church it means exaltation. Only when specified does it have the broader meaning(s).

[The Folk Prophet]

You are PAID in the workforce. That makes a little difference, doesn't it?

Isn't the whole point of joining the kingdom of God in order that we are "paid" with exaltation? I don't see the difference. I am motivated by my desire to return to God. Yes, some people are more motivated by money than by God. But that is not universally the case.

What I'm talking about is the supply/demand of volunteers for church callings. One of the messages we use in Home Teaching and in re-activation... is that we NEED them! Need them for what? For service and their spirit... and they need to want it too.

There are certain callings that are only for men by revelation:

- Stake Presidency & High Council

- Bishop (and Priest Quorum President),

- Bishopric,

- Young Men Advisors (don't tell me that women can adequately do this as young men need good worthy male leaders),

- Elder's Quorum Presidency.

- Teacher's Quorum Presidency

- Deacon's Quorum Presidency

There are some callings that CAN be ambivilous, but have generally been gender-specific:

- Sunday School Presidency,

- Primary Presidency (women are traditionally better with children than men),

- Mission Leaders (probably to go out with the missionaries themselves).

If, however, the entire Relief Society could all serve in the same callings as the Priesthood (and vice versa for men in RS callings)... then we have a supposed ABUNDANCE of talent available.

You might say "where's the problem with that?" The problem becomes that we need less and less 'uniqueness' and needed to fulfill these callings... that we feel less and less special and needed as an INDIVIDUAL.

In addition, Men need to be led by other worthy men that they can look up to and emulate.

Women should be led by other worthy women that they can look up to and emulate.

I'm divorced... but if I want a woman to lecture me about how to live worthily... I'd rather listen to my ex-wife, than someone else within the Church. It's one thing to give a talk. It would be another to have a woman be my Elder's Quorum President for example.

I need a leader that I can emulate to help me grow. Gender-oriented leadership helps greatly with this... while minimizing resentments.

If this were to occur, I wouldn't bother showing up. I couldn't sustain a leader that can't understand and lead me and be an inspiring example for what men should be. That's why I would go inactive. I want strong and worthy male leadership to show me the way, and to lead and direct our efforts.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying generally. I just don't think that the men-would-all-quit-on-the-Lord-if-women-were-ordained reason has anything to do with the argument against women's ordination.

[Wingnut]

I'm divorced... but if I want a woman to lecture me about how to live worthily... I'd rather listen to my ex-wife, than someone else within the Church. It's one thing to give a talk. It would be another to have a woman be my Elder's Quorum President for example.

I'm sorry...did you think that women like being lectured to by men who aren't married to them?

Edited March 28, 2014 by Wingnut
fix tense