Did women ever hold the Priesthood?

[Guest]

Blah blah blah... y'all are noisy. 

 

It is very simple in my head.  Priesthood is an eternal order.  Gender is an eternal trait.  And it carries with it specific obligations under that Priesthood.

 

In the current order of the Plan of Salvation, the female gender is given the obligation to bring spirits from Heavenly Father to mortal existence.  the male gender is given the obligation to bring spirits from mortal existence back to Heavenly Father.  Everything that the Priesthood is for in mortality is to bring spirits back to Heavenly Father.  But the Priesthood goes beyond mortality before and after.  It is the power behind the Plan of Salvation.

 

Gender is not interchangeable.  A father is not the mother nor the mother the father, regardless of how many broken and imperfect families blur that distinction.  Each gender carries physiological traits that are needed in the rearing of human life.  The same reason that two males can't be married or 2 females can't be married is the same reason females are not ordained to carry the obligation of bringing spirits back to Heavenly Father through saving ordinances and males are not ordained to carry pre-mortal spirits to mortality.

 

And just like homosexual men think they can be mothers to children with their homosexual partner as the father, women think they can be priests.  They all sound good - I mean, a father should be able to do motherly roles and mothers do fatherly roles and women do priesthood roles.

 

But.  GENDER IS NOT INTERCHANGEABLE.

 

Ohhh... but but but... there are females who can't have children or don't want one or who can't find husbands to marry... what about them?  What about them?  Not all men can be Priests nor want to be.

 

Ohhh... but but but... fathers have to be home with the children too... Stop it.  Women have a uterus and breasts.  Men can't have it regardless of how much they want it.  So yes, they have obligations in the home just like women but they are not women.

 

Everything a woman does that is righteous holds the power of the Priesthood.  It is just that they feel, oh so unfair for not being "equal" to men in their own vain eyes because they can't be prophets.  Stop it.  You're all blinded by your pride that you don't see that there is so much work you need to do in bringing to pass the eternal life of humankind.  You can't pick and choose which work you're going to fulfill.  We don't choose our work.  God gives it to us.  Until the time God gives that work to you, you go do the work you have.

 

Of course, if you don't believe in anything the prophets said about the priesthood, then you go and make noise.

[The Folk Prophet]

I may be more orthodox than most around here (I guess that makes me "peter priesthood". That's okay. I'll own it.) but it's hard to beat anatess for bluntness. :)

[mdfxdb]

Okay, but doesn't then the priesthood take fathers out of the homes and make them less effective? And really, do you believe someone who has no desire to be a parent should in fact be a parent? How horrible for the child who is unwanted.

 

Life isn't one size fits all. It can't be - and doesn't have anything to do with humility. You could have legitimate reasons for not marrying. Perhaps there just was no one you met that  you were compatible with, or you realize you have personal difficulties that would make marriage and parenthood impossible for you.  And having children has a lot to do with biology, not going with God's will. I know women who have a difficult time because they can't easily concieve. 

People are imperfect at best, both men and women.  They are given distinct roles to fulfill in this life, regardless of exceptions.  Your reasons for why women have exceptions, and therefore should have the priesthood demonstrate a lack of understanding of the fundamental role of women in the church, and in Gods plan.  

 

One of the reasons you cite is "personal difficulties that would make marriage and parenthood impossible for you".....In my experience a man who has those type of personal difficulties shouldn't exercise, or even receive the priesthood.  So how does this somehow qualify a woman to receive the priesthood?

[MaggieM]

People are imperfect at best, both men and women.  They are given distinct roles to fulfill in this life, regardless of exceptions.  Your reasons for why women have exceptions, and therefore should have the priesthood demonstrate a lack of understanding of the fundamental role of women in the church, and in Gods plan.  

 

One of the reasons you cite is "personal difficulties that would make marriage and parenthood impossible for you".....In my experience a man who has those type of personal difficulties shouldn't exercise, or even receive the priesthood.  So how does this somehow qualify a woman to receive the priesthood?

 

No one has the same role in this life. That's a ridiculous notion.  Not everyone has the opportunity for marriage or parenthood. So if I don't understand it they way you do, I am automatically wrong? 

 

That's a pretty broad brush of judgement. What if the man has a disfigurement that makes him less attractive, so he has a hard time finding someone to marry? Is he less worthy? Or he has problems with depression? That doesn't make him less worthy, but might make being married difficult.

                    +..

[Guest]

No one has the same role in this life. That's a ridiculous notion.  Not everyone has the opportunity for marriage or parenthood. So if I don't understand it they way you do, I am automatically wrong? 

 

That's a pretty broad brush of judgement. What if the man has a disfigurement that makes him less attractive, so he has a hard time finding someone to marry? Is he less worthy? Or he has problems with depression? That doesn't make him less worthy, but might make being married difficult.

                    +..

 

And therein lies your problem.  You think that if you didn't push a kid out or you're not married or you're not holding the Priesthood you are less worthy.  Nonesense.  You are less worthy if you don't desire to follow God's commandments in whatever circumstance you find yourself in.  God never said - "Follow my commandments.  But if it's difficult, you are exempt".  Now, I'm sure you know that everybody is given the exact same commandments.  There are no different commandments and covenants for this problem and that problem.  Mortal probation is how you go about following God's commandments with the challenges your mortal state hands to you.

[mdfxdb]

No one has the same role in this life. That's a ridiculous notion.  Not everyone has the opportunity for marriage or parenthood. So if I don't understand it they way you do, I am automatically wrong? 

 

That's a pretty broad brush of judgement. What if the man has a disfigurement that makes him less attractive, so he has a hard time finding someone to marry? Is he less worthy? Or he has problems with depression? That doesn't make him less worthy, but might make being married difficult.

                    +..

Everyone has the opportunity for marriage or the priesthood (either in this life or the next).  Do you think those two items make a person whole?  I know a lot of "priesthood" holders who I would not trust to babysit my dog....I know a whole lot of parents who aren't fit to take care of a cat.  What's your point?  

 

I think the church is pretty clear on the roles men have, and the roles women have.  If someone is less attractive maybe that might make it difficult for him to marry.  You point is?  If he is less worthy, then he should be more worthy.  If he has problems with depression he should overcome them.  

 

How do these problems justify not following the teachings of the prophets?  I have lots of problems.  I choose to overcome them as best I can.  I am not exempt from commandments that are harder to keep because I have problems directly relating to accomplishing them.  nobody is...

[Seminarysnoozer]

Okay, but doesn't then the priesthood take fathers out of the homes and make them less effective? And really, do you believe someone who has no desire to be a parent should in fact be a parent? How horrible for the child who is unwanted.

 

Life isn't one size fits all. It can't be - and doesn't have anything to do with humility. You could have legitimate reasons for not marrying. Perhaps there just was no one you met that  you were compatible with, or you realize you have personal difficulties that would make marriage and parenthood impossible for you.  And having children has a lot to do with biology, not going with God's will. I know women who have a difficult time because they can't easily concieve. 

There can be a difference between desire and capacity.  God will have to be the judge of that.  We have to be kind in how we approach those that for whatever reason choose not to or are not able to be married and/or have children.  But anyone and everyone can maintain a desire to live as God does, in a family unit, even if they cannot for whatever reason.  The limitation, however, should never be because they don't desire it. 

 

Again, God be the judge of that because I think there is a fuzzy line sometimes in people who tell their self that they are not capable because they have no desire and in grouping their self with people who actually try but cannot make it happen.  If I cannot have children, for example, because I have to finish my schooling or I have a certain career responsibility or I fear what my peer group will think of me (for some reason the Specials song "too much too young" comes to mind) etc, that is a reflection of desire not capability - again for God to judge.

 

I have a dear friend, for example, that devoted herself to athletics at a young age, I was on teams with her, and she ended up taking it to a level, pushing herself, that affected her ability to have kids when she stopped those activities, even though they were a great source of fulfilment and enjoyment in her life, she regained the ability to have children. The desire is what made the difference for her, where her heart was.  We all have to give up things of this world to become closer to God in some way or another and sometimes it is lifestyle or passions. Even if not possible, though, the desire is where God will ultimately judge us whether it was accomplished or not.  Christ is the finisher of our faith, we are not expected to be the finisher - just the starter.

[Traveler]

There can be a difference between desire and capacity.  God will have to be the judge of that.  We have to be kind in how we approach those that for whatever reason choose not to or are not able to be married and/or have children.  But anyone and everyone can maintain a desire to live as God does, in a family unit, even if they cannot for whatever reason.  The limitation, however, should never be because they don't desire it. 

 

Again, God be the judge of that because I think there is a fuzzy line sometimes in people who tell their self that they are not capable because they have no desire and in grouping their self with people who actually try but cannot make it happen.  If I cannot have children, for example, because I have to finish my schooling or I have a certain career responsibility or I fear what my peer group will think of me (for some reason the Specials song "too much too young" comes to mind) etc, that is a reflection of desire not capability - again for God to judge.

 

I have a dear friend, for example, that devoted herself to athletics at a young age, I was on teams with her, and she ended up taking it to a level, pushing herself, that affected her ability to have kids when she stopped those activities, even though they were a great source of fulfilment and enjoyment in her life, she regained the ability to have children. The desire is what made the difference for her, where her heart was.  We all have to give up things of this world to become closer to God in some way or another and sometimes it is lifestyle or passions. Even if not possible, though, the desire is where God will ultimately judge us whether it was accomplished or not.  Christ is the finisher of our faith, we are not expected to be the finisher - just the starter.

 

I am inclined to think that G-d’s judgments are not so difficult to understand as it is for someone without the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to understand any of mysteries of G-d.  I submit it is no more difficult to understand and foresee the judgments of G-d than it is to understand G-d and his plan of salvation or even to have an actual testimony of Christ and his church.   In short if we truly understand anything of G-d or divine nature – we will understand the judgment of G-d.  Being born of the spirit and one with G-d does not exclude us from knowing, even in advance, that his judgments are just.  And once we understand his judgments are just and true – our judgments will follow in kind.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am inclined to think that G-d’s judgments are not so difficult to understand as it is for someone without the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to understand any of mysteries of G-d.  I submit it is no more difficult to understand and foresee the judgments of G-d than it is to understand G-d and his plan of salvation or even to have an actual testimony of Christ and his church.   In short if we truly understand anything of G-d or divine nature – we will understand the judgment of G-d.  Being born of the spirit and one with G-d does not exclude us from knowing, even in advance, that his judgments are just.  And once we understand his judgments are just and true – our judgments will follow in kind.

That is not what the scriptures tell us and it is not what President Monson said.  God's judgements are, in part, based in a person's thoughts.  You believe that through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost we can know another person's thoughts and what is in their heart to judge them as God does?  I do not think that is within our capacity and this is why we are asked to forgive all, 70 times 7.

 

Sure we can talk about the basic structure of what is right and wrong but to put all the variables in such as what is in a person's heart and all their idle thoughts (i.e - the thoughts that nobody knows about except God!!) is not within our capacity or under our authority to do so. 

 

Even if someone knew in a general sense that God's judgements are just and true (as you have stated) that does not give that person the ability to know the heart of any given person or all of their circumstances.  We either believe in where much is given much is required or we don't.  We either believe that all of us have to do the exact same thing in this life or we don't.  We believe that the test for each of us is different and based in various circumstances that we cannot detect while in this life.  If everyone was taking the same test and placed under the same grading scale, then there might be a chance to say what you are saying, that simply knowing right from wrong allows us to judge another.  That simply is not the case.  We all have different circumstances, different gifts, challenges, abilities etc. that does not allow us to compare one to another in an across the board grading curve. All the variables are not to our understanding, even when someone has a full testimony that God's judgements are "true and just".

 

1 Samuel 16; " 7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."

 

Matthew 23; "27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."

 

Alma 12; " 14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence."

 

D&C 137; " 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts."

 

Marvin J. Ashton; "Human measurement, of course, is subject to human fallibility. .... We also tend to evaluate others on the basis of physical, outward appearance: their “good looks,” their social status, their family pedigrees, their degrees, or their economic situations. ...

When the Lord measures an individual, He does not take a tape measure around the person’s head to determine his mental capacity, nor his chest to determine his manliness, but He measures the heart as an indicator of the person’s capacity and potential to bless others.

Why the heart? Because the heart is a synonym for one’s entire makeup. We often use phrases about the heart to describe the total person. Thus, we describe people as being “big-hearted” or “goodhearted” or having a “heart of gold.” Or we speak of people with faint hearts, wise hearts, pure hearts, willing hearts, deceitful hearts, conniving hearts, courageous hearts, cold hearts, hearts of stone, or selfish hearts.

The measure of our hearts is the measure of our total performance. As used by the Lord, the “heart” of a person describes his effort to better self, or others, or the conditions he confronts."

 

And if you don't believe me that is fine but at least believe the Prophet, President Monson; "Said the Savior, “Judge not.”¹ He continued, “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”² Or, to paraphrase, why beholdest thou what you think is dirty laundry at your neighbor’s house but considerest not the soiled window in your own house?

None of us is perfect. I know of no one who would profess to be so. And yet for some reason, despite our own imperfections, we have a tendency to point out those of others. We make judgments concerning their actions or inactions.

There is really no way we can know the heart, the intentions, or the circumstances of someone who might say or do something we find reason to criticize. Thus the commandment: “Judge not.”"

 

There you go, the Prophet said there really is no way we can know the heart, the intentions, or the circumstances - take it, believe it!

[Traveler]

That is not what the scriptures tell us and it is not what President Monson said.  God's judgements are, in part, based in a person's thoughts.  You believe that through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost we can know another person's thoughts and what is in their heart to judge them as God does?  I do not think that is within our capacity and this is why we are asked to forgive all, 70 times 7.

 

...

 

If I were to provide you with a scripture that showed that a mortal human was given the spiritual guift to read and know another's thoughts - would you believe the scripture and that it is possible for men, through the spirit, to know the thoughts of others?

[pam]

If I were to provide you with a scripture that showed that a mortal human was given the spiritual guift to read and know another's thoughts - would you believe the scripture and that it is possible for men, through the spirit, to know the thoughts of others?

Well I would like to know which scripture you are referring to.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well there are plenty of scriptures that show the spirit making the thoughts of others known. King Lamoni/Ammon is one. Alma and Amulek and Zeezrom is another...just off the top of my head.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If I were to provide you with a scripture that showed that a mortal human was given the spiritual guift to read and know another's thoughts - would you believe the scripture and that it is possible for men, through the spirit, to know the thoughts of others?

Sure there are times where there is reason to know the thoughts of others and God provides that gift for specific reasons and instances but in general as President Monson states we are not capable of understanding all the circumstances (including thoughts but not exclusive to thoughts) that would be needed to make judgement on someone.

Most of the time when the full view is offered, i.e. - removal of the veil for a moment, those things seen and revealed are often times not given to everyone.  For example, when Moses could see the bigger picture, it was hard for him to put it in mortal words and he did not write for us everything he saw. 

Mortality doesn't allow us to see the bigger picture fully and because of that as well as not having authority to do so, we are not capable of correctly judging others. 

What if you were a bystander, for example, when Nephi killed Laban and took the plates.  You would be willing to say that, as a bystander, one could know all the circumstances that surrounded that event, Nephi's thoughts, his communication with God, the understanding of what it means in the future to have those plates etc.?  The outward judgement is that Nephi is a murderer.  We know the circumstances better but not even fully with communication from God by way of the descriptions in the scripture.  But we have no way of really weighing out which man should die so that a whole nation does not perish in unbelief.  You and I cannot walk down the street and say - that person should be killed so that a whole nation does not perish in unbelief. 

We are given small insights but not to the level which would be required to judge a person. Even in the setting of a Church disciplinary council it is done under inspired direction - meaning the members of the council will be inspired to decide one way or another, not based in their own mortal judgements and it is done to help a person so that the decision doesn't become a final judgement.  It is done to avoid the concequences of a bad final judgement.

 

 

Do you not believe the words of the prophet on this matter; "There is really no way we can know the heart, the intentions, or the circumstances of someone who might say or do something we find reason to criticize. Thus the commandment: “Judge not."??    When the prophet says "there is really no way..." why are you trying to find some way?

[Traveler]

Sure there are times where there is reason to know the thoughts of others and God provides that gift for specific reasons and instances but in general as President Monson states we are not capable of understanding all the circumstances (including thoughts but not exclusive to thoughts) that would be needed to make judgement on someone.

 

.....

 

 

Do you not believe the words of the prophet on this matter; "There is really no way we can know the heart, the intentions, or the circumstances of someone who might say or do something we find reason to criticize. Thus the commandment: “Judge not."??    When the prophet says "there is really no way..." why are you trying to find some way?

 

Without the Holy Ghost - there is no possible way for the natural man to know the things of G-d, his character, or the plan of salvation.  But by the power of the Holy Ghost, knowing the truth of all things is possible to a Saint that has overcome the natural man.

 

By taking words and sentences out of context any concept can be attributed even to those that believe completely the opposite.  This is standard practice in competing religious and political organizations.  I believe that through the Holy Ghost even righteous judgments are possible but as we are told in D&C 121 - when we try to cover our sins, gratify pride or our vein ambitions; a righteous judgment just is not possible.

[The Folk Prophet]

Thus the commandment: “Judge not."??  

 

Check your JST.

 

" Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment."

[Seminarysnoozer]

Check your JST.

 

" Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment."

As with most words in the scriptures and gospel there are multiple applications and meanings. 

 

Dallin H. Oaks; "I have been puzzled that some scriptures command us not to judge and others instruct us that we should judge and even tell us how to do it. But as I have studied these passages I have become convinced that these seemingly contradictory directions are consistent when we view them with the perspective of eternity. The key is to understand that there are two kinds of judging: final judgments, which we are forbidden to make, and intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles. I will speak about gospel judging." ..."Thus, we must refrain from making final judgments on people because we lack the knowledge and the wisdom to do so. We would even apply the wrong standards. The world’s way is to judge competitively between winners and losers. The Lord’s way of final judgment will be to apply His perfect knowledge of the law a person has received and to judge on the basis of that person’s circumstances, motives, and actions throughout his or her entire life (see Luke 12:47–48; John 15:22; 2 Ne. 9:25)."

 

I was refering to this type of judgement, final judgements, the person is good or bad type judgement.  You two, Folk Prophet and Traveler are refering to "intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles." 

 

The reason to make the distinction is that intermediate judgements do not require knowing the all of the person's circumstances, motives and actions throughout his or her entire life that would be used in the "final judgement" which Traveler is trying to equate the idea that if we can make some judgement then we must be able to know all about the circumstances etc.  Well, that is not true because he is grouping these two types of judgements.

[The Folk Prophet]

As with most words in the scriptures and gospel there are multiple applications and meanings. 

 

Dallin H. Oaks; "I have been puzzled that some scriptures command us not to judge and others instruct us that we should judge and even tell us how to do it. But as I have studied these passages I have become convinced that these seemingly contradictory directions are consistent when we view them with the perspective of eternity. The key is to understand that there are two kinds of judging: final judgments, which we are forbidden to make, and intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles. I will speak about gospel judging." ..."Thus, we must refrain from making final judgments on people because we lack the knowledge and the wisdom to do so. We would even apply the wrong standards. The world’s way is to judge competitively between winners and losers. The Lord’s way of final judgment will be to apply His perfect knowledge of the law a person has received and to judge on the basis of that person’s circumstances, motives, and actions throughout his or her entire life (see Luke 12:47–48; John 15:22; 2 Ne. 9:25)."

 

I was refering to this type of judgement, final judgements, the person is good or bad type judgement.  You two, Folk Prophet and Traveler are refering to "intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles." 

 

The reason to make the distinction is that intermediate judgements do not require knowing the all of the person's circumstances, motives and actions throughout his or her entire life that would be used in the "final judgement" which Traveler is trying to equate the idea that if we can make some judgement then we must be able to know all about the circumstances etc.  Well, that is not true because he is grouping these two types of judgements.

 

That is not what I am talking about, and not what Traveler is talking about.

 

What Traveler seems to be saying, if I read it correctly, is the simple idea that judging righteously requires the spirit. And, rightly said, the spirit may speak any truth required to us. As the spirit directs, so are we justified. Therefore, the more in tune with the spirit we are, the more capable we are of righteous judgment.

 

If the spirit whispers to us, "That is a bad man...stay away." I think it fair to assume that the man is, indeed, a bad man. Without the spirit, regardless of the outward appearance, we run the severe risk of being wrong on our judgments.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. What am I sure of, however, is that the discussion has nothing to do with whether women ever held the priesthood.

[Seminarysnoozer]

That is not what I am talking about, and not what Traveler is talking about.

 

What Traveler seems to be saying, if I read it correctly, is the simple idea that judging righteously requires the spirit. And, rightly said, the spirit may speak any truth required to us. As the spirit directs, so are we justified. Therefore, the more in tune with the spirit we are, the more capable we are of righteous judgment.

 

If the spirit whispers to us, "That is a bad man...stay away." I think it fair to assume that the man is, indeed, a bad man. Without the spirit, regardless of the outward appearance, we run the severe risk of being wrong on our judgments.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. What am I sure of, however, is that the discussion has nothing to do with whether women ever held the priesthood.

Well now you are talking about spiritual discernment, not judgement.

 

I have not argued anything about that righteous judgement requires the spirit, I agree.   What I disagree with is the idea that one can know all the circumstances, the thoughts of the person (as God uses thoughts to judge us in the final judgement), what is given to the person (as in where much is given much is required), all those things, as Dallin Oaks has stated.

 

If you read Dallin Oaks talk about that he also states that one of the requirements for righteous judgement is stewardship.  In other words, we are only supposed to place righteous judgement on people that we have some kind of stewardship over.

 

Dallin Oaks; "Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities. Some time ago I attended an adult Sunday School class in a small town in Utah. The subject was the sacrament, and the class was being taught by the bishop. During class discussion a member asked, “What if you see an unworthy person partaking of the sacrament? What do you do?” The bishop answered, “You do nothing. I may need to do something.” That wise answer illustrates my point about stewardship in judging."

[The Folk Prophet]

Well now you are talking about spiritual discernment, not judgement.

 

 

Uh...you do realize that discernment and judgment are synonyms. 

[Seminarysnoozer]

Uh...you do realize that discernment and judgment are synonyms. 

In a general sense, but that was my issue, the failure to separate out the types of judgement.  There is the Final Judgement type judging, condemnation that even Christ at times was not willing to make and then there is the type related to spiritual discernment of which we are allowed to make under certain circumstances that Dallin H. Oaks calls "intermediate judgements". 

 

This is how we got to this point in the discussion.  This whole discussion came about beause I made the statement that we could not judge a particular women about why they could or not have children.  This was in response to the statement that some women choose not to have a family so why cant they hold the priesthood.   Then, Traveler responded with the statement that it isn't that hard to understand God's judgements.  And then I said it depends on what kind of judgement one is talking about, the condemnation, final judgement type we are not given the spiritual discernment ability for that type of judgement and then gave explanations for what that means which you and, in part, Traveler are not seeing.  So, as it pertains to this thread, the statement that some women could not have children and therefore they should be able to hold the priesthood, that specific type of judgement, I think falls into the category of one that we do not have spiritual discernment over.  We cannot see all the circumstances, as Dallin H. Oaks states.

 

 

Dallin H. Oaks; "Even the Savior, during His mortal ministry, refrained from making final judgments. We see this in the account of the woman taken in adultery. After the crowd who intended to stone her had departed, Jesus asked her about her accusers. “Hath no man condemned thee?” (John 8:10). When she answered no, Jesus declared, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). In this context the word condemn apparently refers to the final judgment (see John 3:17).

The Lord obviously did not justify the woman’s sin. He simply told her that He did not condemn her—that is, He would not pass final judgment on her at that time. This interpretation is confirmed by what He then said to the Pharisees: “Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man” (John 8:15). The woman taken in adultery was granted time to repent, time that would have been denied by those who wanted to stone her.

The Savior gave this same teaching on another occasion: “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world” (John 12:47)."

 

Discernment and condemnation (that particular kind of judgment) are not equal.  Jesus discerned the sin of the adulterous woman but could not condemn.  How could one, in similar light, saw that one woman could not have children and therefore should not desire to have children but should desire to hold the priesthood?   We don't have the ability to understand all the variables and circumstances that would make such a judgement  - that one woman would have no chance of having an eternal famliy or not - that would fall into the category of condemnation. 

[Traveler]

...

 

I have not argued anything about that righteous judgement requires the spirit, I agree.   What I disagree with is the idea that one can know all the circumstances....

 

How can there be a righteous judgement if one does not know all the applicable circumstances?  Do you realize that there is a gross rhetorical flaw to you logic?  There can be no righteous judgement without proper understanding of circumstances - unless the circumstance is meaningless and cannot contribute to a righteous judgement.

 

 

Also - will the apostles of Christ be judges?  Did you know that to act as judge is to act as G-d.  Even in modern times the robes worn by a judge in a courtroom are representative of being a g-d?

[Seminarysnoozer]

How can there be a righteous judgement if one does not know all the applicable circumstances?  Do you realize that there is a gross rhetorical flaw to you logic?  There can be no righteous judgement without proper understanding of circumstances - unless the circumstance is meaningless and cannot contribute to a righteous judgement.

 

 

Also - will the apostles of Christ be judges?  Did you know that to act as judge is to act as G-d.  Even in modern times the robes worn by a judge in a courtroom are representative of being a g-d?

It is not my logic, read Dallin Oaks talk "Judge not and Judging" .  When you throw in the word "proper" of course that leaves room for interpretation.

[Traveler]

It is not my logic, read Dallin Oaks talk "Judge not and Judging" .  When you throw in the word "proper" of course that leaves room for interpretation.

 

I find our conversations interesting.  However, I think the context of "Judge not and Judging" leaves a lot of room for judgment.      As always I am a great believer in empirical understanding, intelligent discovery and drawing logical conclusions.  The truth is that it is impossible to get through a day without exercising judgments of others.  I ride a bicycle every day and I cannot assume that automobile drivers will even obey the law let alone do anything rationally.  I live and could die based on my judgments of others.

 

To be honest I begin my judgments assuming that just about everybody else on the road are idiots and will do really stupid, bad and sometimes evil things.  How raw, unpleasant and judgmental is that?  I also have learned to be very forgiving of how stupid, sick and wrong others are.  One time I had a pickup truck pull up alongside me then start to pull over - actually pushing (touching me) and forcing me into a drop off of over 6 feet down into a mostly empty canal.  The occupants of the truck were laughing and taunting during this exercise.  Not judging their evil intension sooner caused some damage to by bicycle and to my physical self – and though these are physical things to which you have argued in the past are more connected to evil than someone’s desire in their heart – I have learned to be more aware and quicker to judge of the evil intensions of harm from others.  Though I believe such evil intensions come from spiritual flaws more that physical abnormalities of others – obviously from your many other posts you disagree.  And though I try to consider your inputs; I have found great difficulty in applying of any empirical application.

 

Your suggestions are not worthless to me – they remind me of principles that should not be discarded.  But I sometimes think you are overlooking application to your understandings.  I think and believe G-d intends that we not just learn information but find application from what we think we are learning. 

If you would be more specific in providing application to you understanding – It would help me a lot to understand what it is you are trying to say.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I find our conversations interesting.  However, I think the context of "Judge not and Judging" leaves a lot of room for judgment.      As always I am a great believer in empirical understanding, intelligent discovery and drawing logical conclusions.  The truth is that it is impossible to get through a day without exercising judgments of others.  I ride a bicycle every day and I cannot assume that automobile drivers will even obey the law let alone do anything rationally.  I live and could die based on my judgments of others.

 

To be honest I begin my judgments assuming that just about everybody else on the road are idiots and will do really stupid, bad and sometimes evil things.  How raw, unpleasant and judgmental is that?  I also have learned to be very forgiving of how stupid, sick and wrong others are.  One time I had a pickup truck pull up alongside me then start to pull over - actually pushing (touching me) and forcing me into a drop off of over 6 feet down into a mostly empty canal.  The occupants of the truck were laughing and taunting during this exercise.  Not judging their evil intension sooner caused some damage to by bicycle and to my physical self – and though these are physical things to which you have argued in the past are more connected to evil than someone’s desire in their heart – I have learned to be more aware and quicker to judge of the evil intensions of harm from others.  Though I believe such evil intensions come from spiritual flaws more that physical abnormalities of others – obviously from your many other posts you disagree.  And though I try to consider your inputs; I have found great difficulty in applying of any empirical application.

 

Your suggestions are not worthless to me – they remind me of principles that should not be discarded.  But I sometimes think you are overlooking application to your understandings.  I think and believe G-d intends that we not just learn information but find application from what we think we are learning. 

If you would be more specific in providing application to you understanding – It would help me a lot to understand what it is you are trying to say.

I think because of this very thing you have outlined Dalin H. Oaks has done a great job in explaining the idea of judging has multiple applications and so he has tried to at least delineate the differences between condemnation or what he calls "final judgements" vs intermediate judgements which are also called righteous judgements. From what I understand of that discussion, righteous judgements can never be of the "final judgement" type because the "final judgement" types require having all the knowledge of the whole situation including the motives, thoughts, desires of the heart of the person etc.

 

One of the "practical" ways to assure that one's judgements are righteous is to "As much as we can, we should judge people's situations rather than judging the people themselves." (according to the LDS.org gospel topic of Judging)

 

Here is Christ' example of not judging even when the woman was 'caught in the act'; "10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."  He even said, he who is without sin to cast the first stone.  So, he in essence gave permission for himself to cast the first stone, being without sin, and yet even in that setting He said 'neither do I condemn thee'. 

 

With that example, I believe it to be extremely rare that one would have to condemn another, in other words, have to judge another.  This is not the same as saying, knowing that we are in a fallen state and our bodies are not perfect and we live in this fallen world, people make mistakes and choose to do the wrong things and I will avoid the situations in which I might bring harm to myself or others because of those fallen features - that is not judging the person but the situation.

 

In a practical sense this may be hard for you again because you may have a hard time separating out the idea that a person can do something that is not driven by their true self - i.e their spirit self.  How else, knowing that Christ was not there to judge the world (make a final judgement) could he say on the cross 'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.'? He could say that because he knows there is a difference between the inner man and outer man, they are not one in the same, one does not directly reflect the other in action, thought or deed.  Only God can separate out what comes from the inner man.  We do not have that ability or responsibility or need.

[Traveler]

I think because of this very thing you have outlined Dalin H. Oaks has done a great job in explaining the idea of judging has multiple applications and so he has tried to at least delineate the differences between condemnation or what he calls "final judgements" vs intermediate judgements which are also called righteous judgements. From what I understand of that discussion, righteous judgements can never be of the "final judgement" type because the "final judgement" types require having all the knowledge of the whole situation including the motives, thoughts, desires of the heart of the person etc.

 

One of the "practical" ways to assure that one's judgements are righteous is to "As much as we can, we should judge people's situations rather than judging the people themselves." (according to the LDS.org gospel topic of Judging)

 

Here is Christ' example of not judging even when the woman was 'caught in the act'; "10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."  He even said, he who is without sin to cast the first stone.  So, he in essence gave permission for himself to cast the first stone, being without sin, and yet even in that setting He said 'neither do I condemn thee'. 

 

With that example, I believe it to be extremely rare that one would have to condemn another, in other words, have to judge another.  This is not the same as saying, knowing that we are in a fallen state and our bodies are not perfect and we live in this fallen world, people make mistakes and choose to do the wrong things and I will avoid the situations in which I might bring harm to myself or others because of those fallen features - that is not judging the person but the situation.

 

In a practical sense this may be hard for you again because you may have a hard time separating out the idea that a person can do something that is not driven by their true self - i.e their spirit self.  How else, knowing that Christ was not there to judge the world (make a final judgement) could he say on the cross 'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.'? He could say that because he knows there is a difference between the inner man and outer man, they are not one in the same, one does not directly reflect the other in action, thought or deed.  Only God can separate out what comes from the inner man.  We do not have that ability or responsibility or need.

 

I think you have missed my point completely and as soon as you quoted Dalin Oakes you lost me and in essence are proving the point I am trying to make for you.  Then in your final paragraph you make some very broad statements about what we can and cannot judge and why (the why being that we have no understanding of the inner man).  But this is of itself a judgment and quite a final judgment at that implying that we cannot nor ever be able – That I see as a judgment – that you spend several preceding paragraphs declaring that we should not judge.

 

This then is the great contradiction – we can either judge or thus assess values in others and to what they are capable or we make no such assumptions and judgments.  In addition I see no value is saying a judgment is final or not.  To be real – I do not think a person can say – do not judge without some element of judgment.

 

To be honest I believe what is meant is that we do not judge without relying on G-d for clarification and validation.  With my example in my previous post – I wanted to do to “them” in essence what they had done to me.  I wanted to cause them harm and laugh and taunt them -- judging that I was right (meaning righteous) in my evil intension whereas they were wrong (not righteous) in their exact same intension.  It really is not a matter of not judging as not being consistent.  What is really meant is that we are consistent in our judgments.  That we do not make exceptions for ourselves and our friends that we demand of others – especially our enemies.   

 

But I am judging your response – as soon as you quote someone I am judging that you are exempting yourself and what you do (your examples) but what others (myself) do you judge as wrong.  My only point is that everything is in essence a judgment – especially saying others should not judge.