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

[mnn727]

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.

You know it really depends on the instructors. There is no way I'd want to give up my HP Group currently, but in the past I have really like SS, currently I don't care a whole lot about SS.

Was on vacation a few weeks back and attending a former ward and could have fell asleep in HP Group there, but SS was interesting.

So it all depends. Frankly, most Sundays I'd prefer Sacrament meeting to end after the passing of the Sacrament (about 30 minutes) and go directly into a 45 minute Sunday School and 45 minute Priesthood/RS meeting, for a ~2 hour block.

[The Folk Prophet]

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

They are not different, per se. More like one is a subset of the other. Salvation includes anything that saves us from a worse state. Therefore it includes all forms of salvation, including exaltation. Any form of salvation other than exaltation, however, is a lesser salvation. One will have been saved from some things, but not from ALL things. The only complete salvation is exaltation because it is the only form of salvation with no denial of greater blessings.

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.

Your preference is fine for you. What I am talking about is the usage of the word in scripture and by prophets and apostles. Generally, when the term salvation is used, it is synonymous with exaltation. But there are exceptions.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

A few issues with this. First, just because that (polygamous groups) was the prime reason does not make it the only motivation in adding the question. Second, just because something like this is introduced for one reason, the wording clearly means to incorporate all similar situations. Third, things like this can, do, and should evolve. When the Lord had His leaders add this question, He certainly knew that polygamous groups seeking entrance to the temple would not remain as the only group that held a stance contrary to the positioning of the church. He knew that as we moved further into the end of days that more and more contrary positions, groups, and organizations would form with the intent of tearing down His order. Really, if what you're insinuating is correct, the question would have been, "...do you associate, affiliate, what-have-you, with any polygamous groups..."

As pointed out, the wording is fairly clear in the question. If they meant it to be specific, they would have worded it specifically.

[Bini]

Feminist here.

Haven't voted yet but I have mixed feelings on the issue, I just don't feel strongly one way or the other, but would support OW if that was God's decision. Saying this, I also feel that RS is beneficial for the sisters and is a programme that gives purpose in highlighting some of our best virtues as women, like motherhood and nurturing, all vital parts in rearing the family and giving that special warm touch to investigators and new members.

[The Folk Prophet]

If God reveals a different order, then, of course, I'll follow.

God has clearly revealed His order. And He has declared it eternal, in a myriad of ways. So whereas I agree, if God reveals a different order then I will follow, it would, IMO, undoubtedly require the changing of some pretty important revealed eternal truths, which the Lord himself has said will never happen.

[Guest]

God has clearly revealed His order. And He has declared it eternal, in a myriad of ways. So whereas I agree, if God reveals a different order then I will follow, it would, IMO, undoubtedly require the changing of some pretty important revealed eternal truths, which the Lord himself has said will never happen.

And that's why it will take me a very very very very very long time to understand/gain a testimony of it. But if it happens, I'm not just going to throw in the towel and say President Monson is an idiot. But yes, it will cause me to sit down on that beach again trying to figure out if the church is true.

[The Folk Prophet]

...it will cause me to sit down on that beach again trying to figure out if the church is true.

I understand the sentiment, but would add, for the sake of discussion, that my own understanding of the church being true is centered in a witness from the Holy Ghost that it is true, and therefore, it would cause me to sit on the bench and do some serious re-figuring, but core to that re-figuring, I would still know the church was true.

[The Folk Prophet]

Feminist here.

Haven't voted yet but I have mixed feelings on the issue, I just don't feel strongly one way or the other, but would support OW if that was God's decision. Saying this, I also feel that RS is beneficial for the sisters and is a programme that gives purpose in highlighting some of our best virtues as women, like motherhood and nurturing, all vital parts in rearing the family and giving that special warm touch to investigators and new members.

There's an inconsistent logic to the idea that women can, all but physically, be anything that men can (mentally, emotionally and spiritually), but men cannot be the same in reverse.

[Just_A_Guy]

D&C 76. Specifically vs 30-49.

Even more specifically, vs. 38-39

And 42-44

Thanks, but I think maybe we aren't quite understanding each other. What leads you to conclude that baptism isn't necessary for "salvation" in the Telestial Kingdom?

[Just_A_Guy]

(Just wanted to thank everyone again for their thoughts so far; I think this has been an interesting discussion.)

[skippy740]

I understand the sentiment, but would add, for the sake of discussion, that my own understanding of the church being true is centered in a witness from the Holy Ghost that it is true, and therefore, it would cause me to sit on the bench and do some serious re-figuring, but core to that re-figuring, I would still know the church was true.

I wouldn't know that the "Church was (still) true".

I would still know that God is our Father, Jesus is the Christ.

I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.

I know the Book of Mormon is true.

However, the Church "being true" means that it is being true to the revealed word as we now have it. It's one thing to "contain the fullness of the Gospel". It's quite another to act upon it in spite of opposition to the contrary.

My testimony would be shaken in the current leadership of the Church.

In the areas of ordaining women and same sex marriage... if these were to change in practice within the Church, there would be a serious delineation from previous revealed scripture and doctrine - especially in the Plan of Salvation.

I'm not sure I could support such radical changes in the earthly organization of the Lord's Kingdom.

Too much "philosophy of men mingled with scripture".

[The Folk Prophet]

Thanks, but I think maybe we aren't quite understanding each other. What leads you to conclude that baptism isn't necessary for "salvation" in the Telestial Kingdom?

*shrug* Seems fairly obvious to me.

Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. I don't consider the Telestial Kingdom the kingdom of God. But I suppose one could argue that all kingdoms are kingdoms of God, so.... A bit of a stretch though.

Maybe I'll research it a bit more and see if I can come up with something concrete.

[Bini]

There's an inconsistent logic to the idea that women can, all but physically, be anything that men can (mentally, emotionally and spiritually), but men cannot be the same in reverse.

Never said that.

[The Folk Prophet]

Thanks, but I think maybe we aren't quite understanding each other. What leads you to conclude that baptism isn't necessary for "salvation" in the Telestial Kingdom?

Oh...and that it is inherent in D&C 76, in that is says "and saves all the works of his hands". There is no "except those who refuse baptism" or anything like it implied. He saves all except the sons of perdition.

Granted, there could still be an argument made (as I assume you will make) to a baptismal requirement for any salvation...but...will research........

[Just_A_Guy]

You're right--I probably would make that argument. :). Probably won't get into detail with it in this thread, though; but I look forward to seeing the results of your research.

[Wingnut]

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.

I guess it's a good thing you're not my bishop.

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.

Yes. So much "yes" here.

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.

This is how I feel as well. Very strongly, in fact.

There's an inconsistent logic to the idea that women can, all but physically, be anything that men can (mentally, emotionally and spiritually), but men cannot be the same in reverse.

Bini neither said nor insinuated this. I agree with it, though. I'm a feminist. I and nearly all the feminists I know support equal opportunities for women and for men. In other words, it's not all "girl power." If a man wanted an opportunity (physical limitations aside) that is normally afforded to only women, I would likely support that for him.

[The Folk Prophet]

Never said that.

I wasn't necessarily meaning that you were saying that (though I may have, partially, meant this--to be fair). I was really only meaning to point out a general logical inconsistency that can be read into some feminist viewpoints. Per your feminist declaration at the start of your post, I may have unfairly put words into your mouth. For that I apologize.

I do find it interesting that many women claim that men and women are equal but then make statements that glorify women (above men) and degrade men (below women).

[Guest]

I understand the sentiment, but would add, for the sake of discussion, that my own understanding of the church being true is centered in a witness from the Holy Ghost that it is true, and therefore, it would cause me to sit on the bench and do some serious re-figuring, but core to that re-figuring, I would still know the church was true.

The restored gospel is true - that doesn't change. The LDS Church being the true Church on the earth? It's true as I know it now. I thought the same of the Catholic Church until I gained a testimony of the restored gospel. It didn't make all of what I gained a testimony of as a Catholic false, it just made it that the restored gospel ADDs to that truth.

[Windseeker]

I’m grateful for a faith that honors and empowers our unique traits as men and women and provides a plan and a pathway that enables us to satisfy our longing for intimacy, companionship and completeness.

As a man, I live for the wonder, delight and mystery that is women. Surprisingly, this has only increased with familiarity as I now have daughters of my own. They truly brighten and color my life.

How dull, drab and boring are those who seek to wipe out and erase those traits that make us unique and divide us, yet at the same time draw us so powerfully together.

How bleak and dreary will this world be if they have their way.

[The Folk Prophet]

I wouldn't know that the "Church was (still) true".

I would still know that God is our Father, Jesus is the Christ.

I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.

I know the Book of Mormon is true.

However, the Church "being true" means that it is being true to the revealed word as we now have it. It's one thing to "contain the fullness of the Gospel". It's quite another to act upon it in spite of opposition to the contrary.

My testimony would be shaken in the current leadership of the Church.

In the areas of ordaining women and same sex marriage... if these were to change in practice within the Church, there would be a serious delineation from previous revealed scripture and doctrine - especially in the Plan of Salvation.

I'm not sure I could support such radical changes in the earthly organization of the Lord's Kingdom.

Too much "philosophy of men mingled with scripture".

The restored gospel is true - that doesn't change. The LDS Church being the true Church on the earth? It's true as I know it now. I thought the same of the Catholic Church until I gained a testimony of the restored gospel. It didn't make all of what I gained a testimony of as a Catholic false, it just made it that the restored gospel ADDs to that truth.

I understand these points. I am merely saying that I also have a testimony of the Church and that God will not allow it to go astray. Of course, in such an extreme situation, I would be praying heavily for confirmation, but it would be from a position that the church was true. That's all I'm saying.

[Windseeker]

I’m grateful for a faith that honors and empowers our unique characteristics as men and women and provides a plan and a pathway that enables us to satisfy our longing for intimacy, companionship and completeness.

As a man, I live for the wonder, delight and mystery that is women. Surprisingly, this has only increased with familiarity as I now have daughters of my own. They truly brighten and color my life.

I love sitting with my wife during sacrament meeting, parting isn’t easy. How is it that she and my daughters appear so much more vibrant and pretty when we reunite after young women’s and relief society? Perhaps it’s because I’ve spent the last hour looking at all the dour half-awake worn out countenances arrayed before me in Elders Quorum. But I think the thrill of seeing them comes from something deeper that extends back to the preexistence. There is design and purpose in this.

It’s that heterogeneity that divide us, yet at the same time, draws us so powerfully together. My desire to be whole and complete does not cause me to demand my place in Relief Society or to insist that my son attend girl’s camp. Those who seek equality, if not governed with commons sense and wisdom, portend monotony.

How drab and boring are those who seek to wipe out and erase the blessed traits that make us unique and separate. How bleak and dreary will this world be if they have their way.

I feel bad for them they must feel forsaken and hollow.

[applepansy]

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

We're almost doing everything as it is and Women are stressed and overworked. We don't need more to do. And abolishing RS would mean getting rid of our support system.

[Guest]

I understand these points. I am merely saying that I also have a testimony of the Church and that God will not allow it to go astray. Of course, in such an extreme situation, I would be praying heavily for confirmation, but it would be from a position that the church was true. That's all I'm saying.

And I understand this completely. The only difference between you and I, I think, is that my foundation has been shaken before (I had a testimony that God will not allow the Catholic Church to go astray based on my firm belief that the Catholic Church is true). And therefore, I sat on that beach with the Great Apostasy on my hands pondering the weight of such a revelation from a position that the Catholic Church is true. I have no reason to believe that will not happen again. I am a truth seeker and I believe that if I am honestly, humbly, diligently searching for truth in all things, the Spirit will guide me to where it can be found.

[estradling75]

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

And in the context of Ordain Women (which is what this thread is about) what is unequal? Last I checked the church was full of and overflowing with opportunities to serve and bless the lives of all kinds of people in various ways. The only acts of service I see being limited to priesthood holders is the performance of the ordinances of the gospel. And only God can say what is an acceptable performance of his ordinances.

The only other thing I can think of is the idea of priesthood having a certain 'prestige' of some kind. Section 121 has some very blunt things to say to men who try to take priesthood honor unto themselves. I see no reason why it wouldn't apply to any woman who seeks to do the same.

[applepansy]

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.

I just had my temple recommend interview.

The Bishop and I talked about this questions in particular. I had a hard time with this one a few years back when my Aunt was excommunicated for polygamy. She never lived it but she taught it, her sons lived it (so much destruction in a family is sad), and she was actively teaching yet going to the temple. She has since been rebaptized (It took over 20 years). So, my answer to this question was "How do I not love and be around Family?" My Bishop 20+ years ago said we still love and associate with family. Its the organization we stay away from. My Bishop now agree and we talked a bit about what it means to stay away from organizations who promote disobedience. Not once did he mention OW.

So... my view of Ordained Women is to stay away. They are an organization promoting something that goes against what the Church teaches (just like polygamy) and what God has revealed. When we start fighting against what Heavenly Father has commanded we put ourselves at cross purpose with the Lord. That will always get us in trouble.