Did women ever hold the Priesthood?

[Seminarysnoozer]

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.

Again, I think you are pointing out the deficiencies in our language.  There are many examples in the gospel that a single word is used for multiple things, judging is one of them. 

There are probably other uses but the two that we seem to keep going back and forth on are the use of the word as it pertains to 1.) our discernment of good and bad - relating to our agency to make decisions for ourself as it pertains to some kind of choice. and 2.) condemnation of another for their choice as being one that pushes them towards heaven or hell as it relates to God's final judgement.

 

Pulling it back to the original break off point that spawned this discusion; Lets say a 35 year old woman walked into your ward who was not married and had no children.   Are you willing to say that you could "judge" her as the second type above to know why she chose not to get married and not to have children, knowing all of her desires and situation and opportunities in the past enough to give her a "final judgement" that her current situation of not being married and not having children is an evil thing that will not allow her to have an eternal family in the next life or be able to judge her that she has tried to have a family but the opportunity or ability was never an option for her and that is why she is not married.  Are you willing to say that you could have, or I for that matter could have the ability to condemn her on the spot for her current situation? 

 

From what I gather our conversations have been is that you would say yes, one could condemn such a woman as we could have access to all the variables that go into such a decision whereas I say no, we could not make such a condemnation as we are told that we cannot know all the variables to make such a condemnation.

 

Now that is not to say that we could not judge in general whether it is good or bad to desire or not desire to have an eternal family.  That, for sure, we can judge.  But again, that is a different use of the word "judge" than is condemning a person for their current choices in life and current situation.  Even Jesus refrained from doing that to the adulterous woman.

 

Both of those are judgements yes but when it comes to saying that we should judge and that we should not judge, one can only come to reason between those two apparent contradicting commands with understanding that there are at least two different types of judgement.  That is what Dalin H. Oaks explains and it makes sense to me.

[Traveler]

Again, I think you are pointing out the deficiencies in our language.  There are many examples in the gospel that a single word is used for multiple things, judging is one of them. 

There are probably other uses but the two that we seem to keep going back and forth on are the use of the word as it pertains to 1.) our discernment of good and bad - relating to our agency to make decisions for ourself as it pertains to some kind of choice. and 2.) condemnation of another for their choice as being one that pushes them towards heaven or hell as it relates to God's final judgement.

 

Pulling it back to the original break off point that spawned this discusion; Lets say a 35 year old woman walked into your ward who was not married and had no children.   Are you willing to say that you could "judge" her as the second type above to know why she chose not to get married and not to have children, knowing all of her desires and situation and opportunities in the past enough to give her a "final judgement" that her current situation of not being married and not having children is an evil thing that will not allow her to have an eternal family in the next life or be able to judge her that she has tried to have a family but the opportunity or ability was never an option for her and that is why she is not married.  Are you willing to say that you could have, or I for that matter could have the ability to condemn her on the spot for her current situation? 

 

From what I gather our conversations have been is that you would say yes, one could condemn such a woman as we could have access to all the variables that go into such a decision whereas I say no, we could not make such a condemnation as we are told that we cannot know all the variables to make such a condemnation.

 

Now that is not to say that we could not judge in general whether it is good or bad to desire or not desire to have an eternal family.  That, for sure, we can judge.  But again, that is a different use of the word "judge" than is condemning a person for their current choices in life and current situation.  Even Jesus refrained from doing that to the adulterous woman.

 

Both of those are judgements yes but when it comes to saying that we should judge and that we should not judge, one can only come to reason between those two apparent contradicting commands with understanding that there are at least two different types of judgement.  That is what Dalin H. Oaks explains and it makes sense to me.

 

 

Sorry if I seem brief or overly critical.  Right now I have little time to think this through as well as I should but feel I should respond.  Whenever a new lady attends a ward, ward members will all begin to judge her on many levels.  Those with certain leadership callings will judge the lady for possible callings in their organizations.  Many with prayer will think to submit her name to fulfill a position or they will pass thinking not to submit the name.  Some will consider personal contact outside of church such as employing the lady to watch their children while they do other things.  Some will also judge thinking before offering or condemning in a sense – they will research and “get to know the lady better”.  The point being that they have prejudice purpose in getting to know her better.

 

There are other factors.  What if she had a full sleeve tattoo on one of her arms or you observe her flirting with some of the good looking married men in the ward or even worse flirting with some of the other ladies of the ward.   The only point I am trying to make is that if you see any “red flags” or think to befriend her – you are making a judgment.  Sometimes the judgments may even come from direct promptings of the spirit.  In this point I have use negative impressions but positive impressions are no less judgments.

 

I think I want to end with this final point in addressing your use of the women taken in adultery before Christ.  You seemed to say Jesus refrained from judging her – but I disagree.  He spoke to her directly in telling her to go and sin no more.  He did judge her as someone that had sinned.  We can also see that he treated her very differently than he treated others that he judged less harshly.   The example is that he told her to “go”.  Whereas he judged others and said come and follow me.

 

The difference to me is that in all cases when Jesus judged others he opened to them new opportunities and chances.  He let them decide for themselves what they would do.  This may be what you see as not making a final judgment.  But it appears to me that you think G-d only should make final judgments.  This is where I think you have everything upside down and backwards.  I believe G-d always does as Jesus demonstrated – presents other opportunities and possibilities.  It is us that thinks to what we should or G-d should judge others; thinking there is no other course possible.  Not just in what they are choosing but what we are choosing in regards to what we observe them choosing.  I would add one last thing here - G-d wants us to behave and be just like him and I believe this also means to judge like him.  If we believe G-ds judgments are final then we should seek in every we we can to be like him.

[The Folk Prophet]

Sorry if I seem brief...

 

Um.....

 

[Seminarysnoozer]

Sorry if I seem brief or overly critical.  Right now I have little time to think this through as well as I should but feel I should respond.  Whenever a new lady attends a ward, ward members will all begin to judge her on many levels.  Those with certain leadership callings will judge the lady for possible callings in their organizations.  Many with prayer will think to submit her name to fulfill a position or they will pass thinking not to submit the name.  Some will consider personal contact outside of church such as employing the lady to watch their children while they do other things.  Some will also judge thinking before offering or condemning in a sense – they will research and “get to know the lady better”.  The point being that they have prejudice purpose in getting to know her better.

 

There are other factors.  What if she had a full sleeve tattoo on one of her arms or you observe her flirting with some of the good looking married men in the ward or even worse flirting with some of the other ladies of the ward.   The only point I am trying to make is that if you see any “red flags” or think to befriend her – you are making a judgment.  Sometimes the judgments may even come from direct promptings of the spirit.  In this point I have use negative impressions but positive impressions are no less judgments.

 

I think I want to end with this final point in addressing your use of the women taken in adultery before Christ.  You seemed to say Jesus refrained from judging her – but I disagree.  He spoke to her directly in telling her to go and sin no more.  He did judge her as someone that had sinned.  We can also see that he treated her very differently than he treated others that he judged less harshly.   The example is that he told her to “go”.  Whereas he judged others and said come and follow me.

 

The difference to me is that in all cases when Jesus judged others he opened to them new opportunities and chances.  He let them decide for themselves what they would do.  This may be what you see as not making a final judgment.  But it appears to me that you think G-d only should make final judgments.  This is where I think you have everything upside down and backwards.  I believe G-d always does as Jesus demonstrated – presents other opportunities and possibilities.  It is us that thinks to what we should or G-d should judge others; thinking there is no other course possible.  Not just in what they are choosing but what we are choosing in regards to what we observe them choosing.  I would add one last thing here - G-d wants us to behave and be just like him and I believe this also means to judge like him.  If we believe G-ds judgments are final then we should seek in every we we can to be like him.

We are told to not judge and yet we are told to judge.  Obviously, one has to make the distinction between those two contradictory commands.  Mormon 8:20 says that judgement belongs to the Lord, it is not ours. If we obey the commandment to not judge under those specific circumstances then we are being righteous.  To say that the line between judging and not judging is whether it is done righteously or not is not the line between those two contradictory statements.

 

If the commandment is to not judge, in certain circumstances, and one follows that commandment under those certain circumstances of not judging then it is done righteously, not judging righteously.  Then there are times where we can discern the situation which we also use the word judge and for which we use the word judging righteously.  "Judging righteously" cannot pertain to any area where we are told not to judge.  There is judging and not judging, is one division.  Then within the category for which we are allowed to judge, there is the potential for doing that righteously or not.  But I think it is important to realize that there are areas in which we cannot judge period - righteous or unrighteous, makes no difference we cannot judge in those areas as Mormon 8:20 clearly says for judgement is mine.  It was never intended to be ours.

 

Before you start to claim that this is my opinion etc, realize that many prophets and leaders of the church have stated this, it is not just my "opinion".   Here are a few more for you to chew on beside the Dallin H. Oaks one I already gave you which I think is the best one.  Brigham Young; "I am very thankful that it is not our province . . . to judge the world; if it were, we would ruin everything. We have not sufficient wisdom, our minds are not filled with the knowledge and power of God. . . . And we must also acquire the discretion that God exercises in being able to look into futurity, and to ascertain and know the results of our acts away in the future, even in eternity, before we will be capable of judging."   and Joseph Smith; "While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard. . . . He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men . . . , “not according to what they have not, but according to what they have,” those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law." 

 

President N. Eldon Tanner; "It is not possible to judge another fairly unless you know his desires, his faith, and his goals. Because of a different environment, unequal opportunity, and many other things, people are not in the same position. One may start at the top and the other at the bottom, and they may meet as they are going in opposite directions. Someone has said that it is not where you are but the direction in which you are going that counts; not how close you are to failure or success but which way you are headed. How can we, with all our weaknesses and frailties, dare to arrogate to ourselves the position of a judge? At best, man can judge only what he sees; he cannot judge the heart or the intention, or begin to judge the potential of his neighbor."

 

President Monson October 2010; "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.”

 

And I can find you 20 more that say the same thing.

 

The only way to make sense of that is to say that there are areas that we cannot judge - any that would require knowing "the heart, the intentions, or the cirucmstances of someone".  Our leaders clearly state that there is "no way" that we can know those things, therefore we cannot judge anything that would require such insight.  It is that simple. That is why Dallin H. Oaks uses the term intermediate judgements, to signify the things that we can judge. And within those things that we can judge there is the possibility of doing it righteously or not. Of the things we are told not to judge (condemnation-type judgement) it is always unrighteous because we cannot do it, we are not capable of doing it, and to think one can is missing the mote in the eye.

[Traveler]

We are told to not judge and yet we are told to judge.  Obviously, one has to make the distinction between those two contradictory commands.  Mormon 8:20 says that judgement belongs to the Lord, it is not ours. If we obey the commandment to not judge under those specific circumstances then we are being righteous.  To say that the line between judging and not judging is whether it is done righteously or not is not the line between those two contradictory statements.

 

If the commandment is to not judge, in certain circumstances, and one follows that commandment under those certain circumstances of not judging then it is done righteously, not judging righteously.  Then there are times where we can discern the situation which we also use the word judge and for which we use the word judging righteously.  "Judging righteously" cannot pertain to any area where we are told not to judge.  There is judging and not judging, is one division.  Then within the category for which we are allowed to judge, there is the potential for doing that righteously or not.  But I think it is important to realize that there are areas in which we cannot judge period - righteous or unrighteous, makes no difference we cannot judge in those areas as Mormon 8:20 clearly says for judgement is mine.  It was never intended to be ours.

 

Before you start to claim that this is my opinion etc, realize that many prophets and leaders of the church have stated this, it is not just my "opinion".   Here are a few more for you to chew on beside the Dallin H. Oaks one I already gave you which I think is the best one.  Brigham Young; "I am very thankful that it is not our province . . . to judge the world; if it were, we would ruin everything. We have not sufficient wisdom, our minds are not filled with the knowledge and power of God. . . . And we must also acquire the discretion that God exercises in being able to look into futurity, and to ascertain and know the results of our acts away in the future, even in eternity, before we will be capable of judging."   and Joseph Smith; "While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard. . . . He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men . . . , “not according to what they have not, but according to what they have,” those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law."

 

President N. Eldon Tanner; "It is not possible to judge another fairly unless you know his desires, his faith, and his goals. Because of a different environment, unequal opportunity, and many other things, people are not in the same position. One may start at the top and the other at the bottom, and they may meet as they are going in opposite directions. Someone has said that it is not where you are but the direction in which you are going that counts; not how close you are to failure or success but which way you are headed. How can we, with all our weaknesses and frailties, dare to arrogate to ourselves the position of a judge? At best, man can judge only what he sees; he cannot judge the heart or the intention, or begin to judge the potential of his neighbor."

 

President Monson October 2010; "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.”

 

And I can find you 20 more that say the same thing.

 

The only way to make sense of that is to say that there are areas that we cannot judge - any that would require knowing "the heart, the intentions, or the cirucmstances of someone".  Our leaders clearly state that there is "no way" that we can know those things, therefore we cannot judge anything that would require such insight.  It is that simple. That is why Dallin H. Oaks uses the term intermediate judgements, to signify the things that we can judge. And within those things that we can judge there is the possibility of doing it righteously or not. Of the things we are told not to judge (condemnation-type judgement) it is always unrighteous because we cannot do it, we are not capable of doing it, and to think one can is missing the mote in the eye.

 

There is another way to make sense of all this.  That is; that we do not initiate judgment but rather listen to the spirit and let the spirit judge.  We do not judge from our understanding but by the direction of the spirit.  However, the process of listening to the spirit is another discussion with different parameters but not really any more difficult – unless one is not able to empirically understand and apply principles given (often in symbolism) by appointed proctors of the gospel (which is learned or applied through empirical application of covenants).

[The Folk Prophet]

There is another way to make sense of all this.  That is; that we do not initiate judgment but rather listen to the spirit and let the spirit judge.  We do not judge from our understanding but by the direction of the spirit.  However, the process of listening to the spirit is another discussion with different parameters but not really any more difficult – unless one is not able to empirically understand and apply principles given (often in symbolism) by appointed proctors of the gospel (which is learned or applied through empirical application of covenants).

 

My though in response to this: D&C 58

 26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

 27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

 28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

 29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

[Seminarysnoozer]

There is another way to make sense of all this.  That is; that we do not initiate judgment but rather listen to the spirit and let the spirit judge.  We do not judge from our understanding but by the direction of the spirit.  However, the process of listening to the spirit is another discussion with different parameters but not really any more difficult – unless one is not able to empirically understand and apply principles given (often in symbolism) by appointed proctors of the gospel (which is learned or applied through empirical application of covenants).

Yes, but that goes against what you were saying earlier that we can know those things.

 

And condemnation is the Lord's not ours, the spirit only gives what we need as well as what we are worthy of.

 

I agree with your last sentence.  It is almost like the statement that we are given small stewardships so that we might be worthy of larger ones in the next life.

[Traveler]

Yes, but that goes against what you were saying earlier that we can know those things.

 

 

By the spirit we can know all things - It does not go against what I have said and the scriptures agree -- See Mormon 10:5 "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

 

 

And condemnation is the Lord's not ours, the spirit only gives what we need as well as what we are worthy of.

 

I agree with your last sentence.  It is almost like the statement that we are given small stewardships so that we might be worthy of larger ones in the next life.

 

 

 

If G-d does a thing then we should also.  I do not believe that the L-rd condemns and either do those that are borne of the spirit and one with G-d.

[Seminarysnoozer]

By the spirit we can know all things - It does not go against what I have said and the scriptures agree -- See Mormon 10:5 "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

 

 

If G-d does a thing then we should also.  I do not believe that the L-rd condemns and either do those that are borne of the spirit and one with G-d.

As I have posted (I won't post them again) several leaders have said that we can't know certain things and that is why we can't make that type of judgement even when a person is acting in righteousness and has the influence of the Holy Ghost and yet, as you say, we can know the truth of all things.  Those are seemingly contradictory statements.

 

I think one way to make sense of those seemingly contradictory statements is to understand that knowing the truth of something does not necessarily mean knowing the details of why it is true.  I may know that it is true that God lives, through the influence of the spirit but that does not mean that I know where He lives, I don't know the exact make up of his body, what are the elements of His body etc.  Knowing the "truth" of all things, I don't think, equates to knowing all the facts surrounding a specific truth.

 

I can know that airplanes fly without knowing all the mechanics and physics of how it is possible etc.  I can know that it is true that airplanes fly. 

 

Or, how do you make sense of those seemingly contradictory statements?  One is true and the other is not?  Or, there must be some way that both statements are true.

 

D&C 64:10; " 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  Clearly our judgements are different than the Lord's, they are not the same.  He will forgive whom He will based in His knowledge that we do not have. As we dont have all the knowledge we are asked to forgive all, which is the opposite of condemnation (that type of judgement).

[Traveler]

As I have posted (I won't post them again) several leaders have said that we can't know certain things and that is why we can't make that type of judgement even when a person is acting in righteousness and has the influence of the Holy Ghost and yet, as you say, we can know the truth of all things.  Those are seemingly contradictory statements.

 

I think one way to make sense of those seemingly contradictory statements is to understand that knowing the truth of something does not necessarily mean knowing the details of why it is true.  I may know that it is true that God lives, through the influence of the spirit but that does not mean that I know where He lives, I don't know the exact make up of his body, what are the elements of His body etc.  Knowing the "truth" of all things, I don't think, equates to knowing all the facts surrounding a specific truth.

 

I can know that airplanes fly without knowing all the mechanics and physics of how it is possible etc.  I can know that it is true that airplanes fly. 

 

Or, how do you make sense of those seemingly contradictory statements?  One is true and the other is not?  Or, there must be some way that both statements are true.

 

D&C 64:10; " 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  Clearly our judgements are different than the Lord's, they are not the same.  He will forgive whom He will based in His knowledge that we do not have. As we dont have all the knowledge we are asked to forgive all, which is the opposite of condemnation (that type of judgement).

 

Two points: First, if there is a line that can be drawn or point to which we can learn then beyond which we cannot learn more from the spirit then I believe that you and your understanding of the brethren would be correct.  However, it is simple rhetorical logic (even in mathematics) that if a set has no limit points then it is unbounded.  I cannot find the limit points of the truth and knowledge that create the boundary of what we can learn by the spirit.  Thus the only logical conclusion that I can report is that somewhere in your understanding and arguments there is a disconnect.

Faith is different than knowledge.  If you trust airplanes fly without knowing why there is an element of faith involved but also it is likely that you have empirical experience in observing airplanes fly.  Having observed empirical evidence does not end faith but enhances and reinforces it.  Your knowledge may not be complete but empirical experience will witness the truth and through the spirit you can received a divine witness (note that G-d always provides more than one witness).

 

Second: regardless what we know of an individual we are commanded to forgive.  Knowledge received by the spirit is not a barrier or a limit to forgiveness.  I am not sure why you would argue this point.  In this life we have empirical evidence of G-d forgiving us and that understanding and believe will be our greatest asset to be able to forgive others – despite what we know of them.  In fact, it is my personal empirical evidence that without a spiritual witness that we have been forgiven we will not complete our forgiveness of others.  ---  This plays into the discussion in the thread of descending before ascending.

[Seminarysnoozer]

 I cannot find the limit points of the truth and knowledge that create the boundary of what we can learn by the spirit.  Thus the only logical conclusion that I can report is that somewhere in your understanding and arguments there is a disconnect.

Let me ask you this, could Moses have seen the things he did without being transformed or carried away by the spirit?

 

We are limited not by the spirit but by the things that limit the spirit while here.  The spirit itself has no endpoints but the graph paper that the line is drawn, the body and the mortal condition of being behind the veil, is limited.  The graph paper does not have the capacity to fully represent the endless line.  We can represent the endless line with little arrows at the end of the line but that is not actually drawing out the line with no endpoints.  We don't actually have an endless line without limits, it is just being represented by arrows as a concept.  We do not have endless capacity while here, thus the statement the spirit is wiling but the body is weak.   We cannot accomodate everything while here.  Even Moses couldn't write down everything he saw while taken away, he wouldn't have the capacity to do so, the words to describe it etc.  As time went on he even probably forgot some of the things that were seen with that endless view.

 

In the next life that becomes possible.  An eternal body, resurrected and in a state of glory might have an endless capacity but we certainly do not have that now. We have to strive to have eternal perspective, it is hard to have eternal perspective while we are here.

[skalenfehl]

.