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

[skippy740]

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.

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.

Please reference my first post: Ordination and administration are two different things.

[skippy740]

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

I know Bishop's address Relief Society (and combined 5th Sunday meetings).

I am not a woman... and to pretend to understand is NOT in my pervue.

I shared my opinion from my male perspective.

[Str8Shooter]

Here are my thoughts:

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

As of now Ordain Women is a group that, without question, would fall under one of the above mentioned groups and the support of it by members of the church grieves my heart.

When we are in the mists of darkness, we need to hold to the rod of iron. It is so simple to do and if it is not done the consequences are dire.

[The Folk Prophet]

Please reference my first post: Ordination and administration are two different things.

Let me rephrase ever so slightly:

I just don't think that the men-would-all-quit-on-the-Lord-if-women-administrated reason has anything to do with the argument against women's ordination.

[pam]

Here are my thoughts:

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

As of now Ordain Women is a group that, without question, would fall under one of the above mentioned groups and the support of it by members of the church grieves my heart.

When we are in the mists of darkness, we need to hold to the rod of iron. It is so simple to do and if it is not done the consequences are dire.

Your thoughts on the temple recommend question has crossed my mind as well and I have had the exact same thoughts.

[Lakumi]

I still don't understand that whole men will not feel useful thing, I don't need to feel useful when I go to church, that's not why I go.

If I wanted to just "feel useful" there's lots of other things I could do.

(It reminds me of that men are heads of the household stuff, I appointed a sea shell to that task, hasn't let me down!-but that's another topic)

[skippy740]

All of the men? No, of course not. That's what happens when you use absolutes like All, None, Always, Never, etc.

Those members who need good, worthy, male leadership AT LEAST on the Quorum level (read: ALL of us)... I predict they wouldn't bother after a while.

The Quorum brotherhood is unique. It's like a (mature) fraternity united to doing good and looking out for each other, and each other's families.

Like fraternities at college, they are (typically) gender-oriented. Let's keep our quorums as they are, and work to build them up. We are all unique and we can use our talents and efforts to grow and accelerate the Lord's work.

Yes, we all have a testimony. However, to remain strong, it does take proper SOCIAL organizations - like priesthood quorums. Priesthood quorums are not just places to get instruction. It's the ACTIVITY arm of the gospel. It's where we get organized for service as a quorum. We learn more of our duties from our PEERS. That's part of what makes it unique. We teach each other!

Without such a social organization of peers... it will whither over time, even with the strongest of testimonies.

[Maureen]

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 lang=eng&query=saving+ordinances'>here.

Even for LDS aren't they different things? If not then why have different definitions for them?

Salvation from Physical Death. All people eventually die. But through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected—saved from physical death. Paul testified, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). In this sense, everyone is saved, regardless of choices made during this life. This is a free gift from the Savior to all human beings.

Salvation from Sin. To be cleansed from sin through the Savior's Atonement, an individual must exercise faith in Jesus Christ...

Some ordinances are essential to our exaltation. These ordinances are called saving ordinances. They include baptism, confirmation, ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood (for men), the temple endowment, and the marriage sealing.

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?

Yes, some non-LDS Christian denominations do not view baptism as necessary for salvation. Baptism represents the person's faith in Christ in a public way.

Whenever the term salvation is used generally within the church it means exaltation. Only when specified does it have the broader meaning(s).

The reason why I prefer the distinction in meanings is so that Christ's atonement and what it means does not get lost or forgotten when people speak of the essentials for salvation. It is through Christ that we are saved. And for LDS without Christ's salvation there is no exaltation.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

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

I don't think opting out of the priesthood is an option, per the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood as expressed in D&C 84:42. So there wouldn't be "priesthood and non-priesthood". There would just be "priesthood", which would be a unisex meeting. And why do you need a Relief Society, when everyone's a member of a priesthood quorum? If the RS continues to function, will it do so as a women-only group; and if so, will the Church be setting up a new men-only group as well?

Edited March 28, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Lakumi]

All of the men? No, of course not. That's what happens when you use absolutes like All, None, Always, Never, etc.

Those members who need good, worthy, male leadership AT LEAST on the Quorum level (read: ALL of us)... I predict they wouldn't bother after a while.

you just said don't use an absolute and in the next line, used an absolute.

Don't tell me what I need! You don't know how my mind works or how I interact with other humans.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here are my thoughts:

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

As of now Ordain Women is a group that, without question, would fall under one of the above mentioned groups and the support of it by members of the church grieves my heart.

Frankly I'm not sure Ordain Women (quite) falls under this umbrella. My understanding (explained to me years ago by a bishop, and reiterated by some historical surveys I've read since then) is that the question was added to the TR interview to ferret out polygamists who were trying to masquerade as faithful Mormons in order to participate in temple rites in some of the old pioneer temples (St. George, Manti, Logan, and Salt Lake), which they viewed as having some sort of peculiar priesthood attached to them. So I've always interpreted, and answered, that particular question within that larger context.

I'm not gonna pretend I wouldn't be tickled pink to hear an official announcement that the question does now include OrdainWomen, or Mormons for Marriage, or the Democratic Party (kidding!). But barring further instruction, I'd be very surprised to see a bishop deny someone a TR based solely on their participation in one of those groups.

[skippy740]

Okay Lakumi.

Just let us know what you need once you're a member of a quorum. :)

[Lakumi]

Okay Lakumi.

Just let us know what you need once you're a member of a quorum. :)

Oh I've already acquired shapeshifting powers and will be there within a year:lol:

No but seriously the second part wasn't meant to be taken truly seriously, just the first part (about absolutes)

I find keeping things not 100% serious in debates keeps out any animosity or bad feelings (especially online where one cannot read eachothers faces)

[Just_A_Guy]

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).

I see where you're going, and it's interesting that the link you cite says that those "saving ordinances" are required for exaltation.

The funky thing is that the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood says that those who receive it "receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him." (D&C 84:38) I don't think that can accurately be applied to someone who merely attains a Telestial or Terrestrial glory.

Moreover, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that "baptism isn't required for the broadest term of salvation, meaning anyone but those cast into outer darkness". Do you have a source for this?

[skippy740]

I think this part of this talk by Alvin R. Dyer might be appropriate here:

The Challenging and Testifying Missionary

We are privileged to sustain the authorities of the Church. I hope you understand how important it is to sustain this work. The consent of the people or missionaries is sought for; but when the will of the Lord is presented actually our free agency becomes expressive as we sustain and not oppose. We do not have the veto power when the general authorities of the church are presented. It is the same way in the missionary work. We don't have the veto power in changing the missionary work. You have only a sustaining power in it and this is the basic principle that the Reorganized Church never did understand or the opponents of Joseph Smith. As you know, they have set up in their Church the veto power of its members over the revelations of the Lord.

If we are to understand the ways of the Lord, we must understand we are but the servants. We sustain Him. It is His work. It is not our work. We must annex ourselves to His will and purpose. It matters not whether in the priesthood work, missionary work, or any other work in the Church we are to do it the way the Lord wants it done.

[Str8Shooter]

Frankly I'm not sure Ordain Women (quite) falls under this umbrella.

From the Ordain Women website:

"We call for the ordination of women and their full integration into the governance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

This statement is clearly contrary to and in opposition to the teachings of the Church and it is being preached openly and publicly. Ordain Women is by definition apostate.

The recommend question is very clear. The answer given should be for the question asked, not for the possible reasons why the question was asked.

Someone who supports or affiliates themselves with Ordain Women is, without question, obligated to discuss their beliefs with their bishop during a temple recommend interview (asap is probably more appropriate). Where it goes from there is between the Lord, the bishop, and themselves.

[lagarthaaz]

I'm confused, why would women being ordained mean getting rid of Relief Society? Any more than men with the priesthood would need to get rid of priesthood meetings?

[estradling75]

I'm confused, why would women being ordained mean getting rid of Relief Society? Any more than men with the priesthood would need to get rid of priesthood meetings?

If they hold priesthood then they should be in priesthood meeting. (Just like they are trying to get in to the priesthood session of general conference). If they are going to priesthood meetings when would they hold Relief Society meetings? Unless of course you are looking to add yet more meetings for people to attend?

[MarginOfError]

If they hold priesthood then they should be in priesthood meeting. (Just like they are trying to get in to the priesthood session of general conference). If they are going to priesthood meetings when would they hold Relief Society meetings? Unless of course you are looking to add yet more meetings for people to attend?

I think this is an odd bit of logic. I see no reason women who hold the priesthood would be required to meet in what we now term priesthood meetings during the Sunday block.

If women were to be ordained, there are all sorts of arrangements that could be made. Women and men could meet separately, and the leaders of the men's organization and the Relief Society could be draw from those who hold the priesthood, for example. I could come up with thousands of ideas.

But to suggest that women holding the priesthood would inevitably result in the dissolution of the Relief Society, or to claim that ordained women would have to meet with the brethren, etc. show a severe lack of faith in the idea of continuing revelation. To discuss hypotheticals with an assumption of female ordination and requiring a strict adherence to our current Sunday schedule is an incredible set of logical gymnastics that really aren't necessary. The Sunday meeting block is designed around the needs of the members, not around eternal principles.

Also, to my knowledge, the Melchizedek priesthood holders are only required to gather as a body 4 times per year. We do this twice with General Priesthood Sessions and twice with Stake priesthood sessions. If women were ordained, those who are ordained would be expected to attend those meetings. The classes attended during weekly worship services are not dictated by scriptural fiat.

[estradling75]

I think this is an odd bit of logic. I see no reason women who hold the priesthood would be required to meet in what we now term priesthood meetings during the Sunday block.

If women were to be ordained, there are all sorts of arrangements that could be made. Women and men could meet separately, and the leaders of the men's organization and the Relief Society could be draw from those who hold the priesthood, for example. I could come up with thousands of ideas.

But to suggest that women holding the priesthood would inevitably result in the dissolution of the Relief Society, or to claim that ordained women would have to meet with the brethren, etc. show a severe lack of faith in the idea of continuing revelation. To discuss hypotheticals with an assumption of female ordination and requiring a strict adherence to our current Sunday schedule is an incredible set of logical gymnastics that really aren't necessary. The Sunday meeting block is designed around the needs of the members, not around eternal principles.

Also, to my knowledge, the Melchizedek priesthood holders are only required to gather as a body 4 times per year. We do this twice with General Priesthood Sessions and twice with Stake priesthood sessions. If women were ordained, those who are ordained would be expected to attend those meetings. The classes attended during weekly worship services are not dictated by scriptural fiat.

Of course a bunch of arrangements could be made.... But to me the whole genesis for this movement is the idea that 'separate is not equal.' Thus as long as there are any differences between men and women under that Idea they can not be equal. Meaning that having separate men and women's group means one is going to be viewed as inferior.

Becoming a compound in one is where that path leads rather then becoming the body of Christ with all it various members.

[MarginOfError]

Of course a bunch of arrangements could be made.... But to me the whole genesis for this movement is the idea that 'separate is not equal.' Thus as long as there are any differences between men and women under that Idea they can not be equal. Meaning that having separate men and women's group means one is going to be viewed as inferior.

Becoming a compound in one is where that path leads rather then becoming the body of Christ with all it various members.

I think you're assuming that all branches of feminism assume that absolute equality of treatment in every regard is the ideal. In reality, I don't think I've ever personally met a feminist who believes this.

On the other hand, I have met many feminists that see a lot of value in men and women meeting together for one lesson and also having men and women meet separately for another lesson.

For most, feminism is not about equality of treatment. It's about equality of opportunity.

so would there be some women that would want to meet with the men's organization? Yeah, perhaps there would be some that would be more comfortable there or feel more uplifted in that group (is that really such an awful thing?). But my and large, I think you'd find that most women, feminists included, would continue to meet in the status quo even if they held the priesthood.

[mnn727]

You forget 'other'

I am opposed to abolition of the Relief Society

I'll do what God wants as far as ordination of women.

Why am I opposed to abolition of the RS?

I think it would really change the tone of the meetings (and I don't think centerpieces are necessary in our High Priest group meeting.)

Edited March 28, 2014 by mnn727

[Guest]

For most, feminism is not about equality of treatment. It's about equality of opportunity.

That's what they say. But the end result of that desire is that men and women become interchangeable.

This is the same end result brought about by gay marriage. A husband can be man or woman. A wife can be man or woman. A father can be man or woman. A mother can be man or woman. A priest can be man or woman.

Gender becomes interchangeable.

I have no doubt that gender has an order in the Plan of Salvation. Therefore, I oppose OW. And if it causes the dissolution of RS, I'd oppose it even more.

If God reveals a different order, then, of course, I'll follow. But I have a feeling it will take me a very very very very long time to gain a testimony of it or even to understand it. Which means, like Skippy, I would go through a very confusing stage of my faithfulness.

[The Folk Prophet]

I see where you're going, and it's interesting that the link you cite says that those "saving ordinances" are required for exaltation.

The funky thing is that the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood says that those who receive it "receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him." (D&C 84:38) I don't think that can accurately be applied to someone who merely attains a Telestial or Terrestrial glory.

Moreover, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that "baptism isn't required for the broadest term of salvation, meaning anyone but those cast into outer darkness". Do you have a source for this?

D&C 76. Specifically vs 30-49.

Even more specifically, vs. 38-39

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

39 For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made.

And 42-44

42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;

43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

44 Wherefore, he saves all except them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment—

[The Folk Prophet]

I'll do what God wants as far as ordination of women.

But God has made it clear what He wants as far as ordination of women.