Letter from the Office of the First Presidency

[Suzie]

I'm sorry, I don't understand; why?  If it's something that has been signed off by not only the prophet, but his counselors and the 12, does including "thus sayeth the Lord" make it any more authoritative?

 

But that's the whole point, where in that statement does it say that a revelation was received or that they inquired to the Lord and he said that women cannot hold the Priesthood. It doesn't say or claim that such thing took place and I cannot think of anything really that would impede them/prevent them to make such declaration .

 

And that's the main reason for all this confusion IMO. No clear answers are given but just the message "Only men can be ordained, women cannot". If we are going to quote Hinckley to support the idea that women cannot be ordained, we cannot discard the other part that I also quoted where he plainly states it can change. More dialogue needed to take place but it didn't and that's a pity.

[pam]

To me that's kind of like demanding the Prophet to pray about and then come back and report.

 

So is that the next protest at General Conference?

[slamjet]

But that's the whole point, where in that statement does it say that a revelation was received or that they inquired to the Lord and he said that women cannot hold the Priesthood. It doesn't say or claim that such thing took place and I cannot think of anything really that would impede them/prevent them to make such declaration .

 

 

My response would be: This is how the church was organized from the beginning by revelation to Joseph Smith.  Is that enough?

 

Also keep in mind:

> in the Official Declaration 2, they said that it was received by revelation and it's still a stumbling block. 

> Religion is inherently full of circular reasoning thus why personal revelation, testimony and faith is so important.  No one outside of Deity can give proof of the truth of any of this.

 

It seems the real question you're asking is: "Is the prophet and the other general authorities leading by direction from Christ or not?"  No one is going to give you an answer that's going to satisfy your question, and I believe that's a good thing because it becomes an exercise in personal faith to get the answer.

[The Folk Prophet]

Scriptures on how it is only men to hold the priesthood:

 

D&C 20

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20?lang=eng

 

38 The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize;

 

48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

 

49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present;

 

50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize,

 

56 And he is to take the lead of meetings in the absence of the elder or priest—

 

60 Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him.

 

64 Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.

 

 

Notice the contrast in verse 73:

 

73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

 

74 Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

 

 

I find it curious that up until that point, the Lord emphasized He, His, or Him.  Then later, it was Him or her, and himself or herself.

 

 

Resuming with verse 76:

 

76 And the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this manner shall he administer it—he shall kneel with the church and call upon the Father in solemn prayer, saying:

 

78 The manner of administering the wine—he shall take the cup also, and say:

 

 

 

Just in looking at Section 20, and seeing how it is written for baptism - including himself or herself - and the rest of it is he, his, or him... it appears pretty clear to me.

 

Abraham 1

 

3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.

 

 31 But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of Priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands; therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.

 

Now Pharoah sought to IMITATE the priesthood:

 

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

 

 

The Priesthood has always been a Patriarchal order, from these few scriptures that I've posted.

 

You missed a few about Aaron and his sons that pertain to the (obviously) Aaronic priesthood. :)

[Str8Shooter]

Since it is not wrong to ask questions, I will give it a shot. Before I do, I want to make a small perhaps unnecessary disclaimer. I do not seek or care for female ordination but I do understand my sisters who do. Anyways, my questions:

 

 

 

 

Can we get some scriptural sources for that where God states only men have be ordained to serve in Priesthood offices and if possible, any reasons?

 

 

 

 

1. How exactly Kate Kelly taught false doctrine?

 

2. How exactly she was in public opposition to the Church or its leaders?

 

I am a bit confused to be honest. If my Bishop asks me to do something and I disagree and I don't do it, can I be excommunicated under the grounds of apostasy? Really?

 

Here are your scriptural references:  The prophet said so, let alone it's a long established and ancient pattern that has been established in ALL scripture.

 

Kate Kelly teaches that God has no gender, that God is both man and women.  That is 100% false doctrine taken from the ordain women website, which is a group that she started.

 

Kate Kelly was asked not to publicly protest and she did.  That is one of many examples of how she exactly opposed the Church and it's leaders.

 

If you are actively teaching doctrine that is false and you continue teaching after your bishop tells you to stop, then yes- you really can get excommunicated because that is apostasy.  It really does happen, it's what the scriptures and God says to do, and it shouldn't come as a surprise.

[mirkwood]

http://dallinkatieandco.BlogSpot.com/

 

I can't get the link direct to the post to work.  Follow the link and read Why Kate Kelly Was Not Excommunicated.

[Str8Shooter]

I'm with Suzie on this. Has the First Presidency ever said since OW began that they have taken female ordination to the Lord in prayer and received a No answer; or have they come out and said that they do not wish to enquire of the Lord just yet?

 

M.

 

I am going to try to say this as nice as I can, but it may not be nice.  

 

The prophets don't have to come out and explain themselves.

 

I assume that you and Suzie are church members.  I'm not really sure if you are, so if you are not disregard what I say.  If I understand you correctly, you want a prophet, seer, and revelator to report to you his reasoning behind this decision he made?  

 

Do you know what a prophet, seer, and revelator is!?!?  Have some faith!  He can converse with the living, resurrected Savior IN PERSON if needed.  He can enter the Holy of Holies.  That's all the explanation anyone should need.  We know so little and have so little insight to what is going on.  Follow the prophet.  Hold to the rod of iron.  We are in the mists of darkness and it takes very little to get hopelessly lost.

[classylady]

I am going to try to say this as nice as I can, but it may not be nice.  

 

The prophets don't have to come out and explain themselves.

 

I assume that you and Suzie are church members.  I'm not really sure if you are, so if you are not disregard what I say.  If I understand you correctly, you want a prophet, seer, and revelator to report to you his reasoning behind this decision he made?  

 

Do you know what a prophet, seer, and revelator is!?!?  Have some faith!  He can converse with the living, resurrected Savior IN PERSON if needed.  He can enter the Holy of Holies.  That's all the explanation anyone should need.  We know so little and have so little insight to what is going on.  Follow the prophet.  Hold to the rod of iron.  We are in the mists of darkness and it takes very little to get hopelessly lost.

 

Maureen is not a member of the church. Suzie is.

[MarginOfError]

I'm sorry, but the church leadership has left far more unanswered questions than they have answered.  To me, it feels like they have gone into the business of creating ambiguity.  And I'm frustrated by it.

 

I find it frustrating that they won't engage in the simplest discussions.  They could have taken a lot of wind out of OW movement by stating something as simple as "we do not believe the the word 'ordain' as used in 1838 is equivalent to how we use it in 2014."  There's no arguing with that.  Instead, I feel very much like this is an issue of: "You asked questions, we didn't answer.  You continued to ask: we didn't answer.  You organized like-minded individuals to show a broader desire for answers, and because we're embarrassed by your actions, we're kicking you out of our club and we still won't answer."

 

As I've watched the saga, I've felt like the Church is far more interested in appearances than it is in truth.  It makes me very sad.

[skippy740]

How is this not an answer?

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[pam]

How is this not an answer?

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

It's obvious to many of us, but those aren't the answers that many want to hear.

[The Folk Prophet]

 No clear answers are given but just the message "Only men can be ordained, women cannot".

 

The problem is that "Only men can be ordained, women cannot" is a decidedly "clear answer" but for some unfathomably reason there remains a persistence that no clear answers are given.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm sorry, but the church leadership has left far more unanswered questions than they have answered.  To me, it feels like they have gone into the business of creating ambiguity.  And I'm frustrated by it.

 

I find it frustrating that they won't engage in the simplest discussions.  They could have taken a lot of wind out of OW movement by stating something as simple as "we do not believe the the word 'ordain' as used in 1838 is equivalent to how we use it in 2014."  There's no arguing with that.  Instead, I feel very much like this is an issue of: "You asked questions, we didn't answer.  You continued to ask: we didn't answer.  You organized like-minded individuals to show a broader desire for answers, and because we're embarrassed by your actions, we're kicking you out of our club and we still won't answer."

 

As I've watched the saga, I've felt like the Church is far more interested in appearances than it is in truth.  It makes me very sad.

 

Did it every strike you that perhaps this is by design of the Lord to try faith in our times?

[yjacket]

I can't think of too many things more clear than the Official Statement.  How many times does the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 issue official statements?  Not terribly often.

 

For the time being, the thinking and praying has been done.  The Church has said politely but very firmly NO.

 

Now one might not like it, but many times we don't necessarily like the answers we receive to prayers, but that is irrelevant.  One might still believe in their heart differently, that is fine, but repeated public advocacy and conflict for something that the Church has said NO to is apostasy.

 

Saying, well do we have a direct revelation? did they pray about it? why do we not have a "thus saith the Lord"? etc.  is to place ourselves above the Prophets to declare that we know better than them, that we don't like the answer simply because they do not say directly they prayed about it.  

 

However, even the prophets declared they prayed about it and received this answer, it would not be enough for the most ardent supporters.  Did they "really" pray about it?  Pray about it again and maybe it will change?  God changed priesthood for blacks, so if you pray again He'll might change it.

 

At this point, this is not about women being ordained, it is about whether we will follow what we believe, that the Prophets and Apostles are the Lord's chosen and that if women are ever to be ordained, He will let them know, not us. 

[yjacket]

One interesting thing I saw in the release.  In general when references both genders, it typically goes men and women or male and female.  They mentioned both genders twice, once saying men and women and then a 2nd time saying women and men, i.e. emphasis that neither is greater than the other.

 

I think too much of today's world tries to find offense where none is intended.

[The Folk Prophet]

I was doing some study last night and came across Numbers Chapter 16. Here's the chapter heading as a summary:

 

Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and 250 leaders rebel and seek priestly offices—The earth swallows the three rebels and their families—Fire from the Lord consumes the 250 rebels—Israel murmurs against Moses and Aaron for slaying the people—The Lord sends a plague, from which 14,700 die.

 

Reminded me of what's going on with Ordain Women and puts into perspective how much mercy they are actually being shown. No earth swallowing or plagues (yet).

[skippy740]

That's the Lord's justice being shown.

 

As for how the Church deals with its members, we can turn to D&C 134:10

 

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

[Backroads]

I'm sorry, but the church leadership has left far more unanswered questions than they have answered.  To me, it feels like they have gone into the business of creating ambiguity.  And I'm frustrated by it.

 

I find it frustrating that they won't engage in the simplest discussions.  They could have taken a lot of wind out of OW movement by stating something as simple as "we do not believe the the word 'ordain' as used in 1838 is equivalent to how we use it in 2014."  There's no arguing with that.  Instead, I feel very much like this is an issue of: "You asked questions, we didn't answer.  You continued to ask: we didn't answer.  You organized like-minded individuals to show a broader desire for answers, and because we're embarrassed by your actions, we're kicking you out of our club and we still won't answer."

 

As I've watched the saga, I've felt like the Church is far more interested in appearances than it is in truth.  It makes me very sad.

 

 

It would seem that if the Church were more interested in appearance, they would have done more dialogue.

 

Now, I would not have been opposed to a more complex dialogue between the OW and the Church.  Could they have given more specific answers to Kelly's questions?  Sure.

 

But it also seems that could possibly end up in a toddler conversation of eternal "Why?"

[Just_A_Guy]

Can we get some scriptural sources for that where God states only men have be ordained to serve in Priesthood offices and if possible, any reasons?

 

Canonized scripture, Conference sermon specifically tailored to the individuals raising the issue, united statement of the 1st Pres/Q12--In the words of an esteemed (former) secretary of state, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"

 

 I am a bit confused to be honest. If my Bishop asks me to do something and I disagree and I don't do it, can I be excommunicated under the grounds of apostasy? Really?

 

Suzie, I daresay you are familiar with enough Church history to know that conformance with some sort of legal code doesn't immunize one from excommunication.  Nor, IMHO, should it.  If the Holy Ghost tells a bishop or stake president that a Church member's heart is not right before the Lord, I don't think that bishop/stake president's hands should be tied in perpetuity while the member keeps the council bogged down in legal procedures.  There should be fair play and adequate notice; sure.  But this business of Kate Kelly acting like she has absolutely no idea why she was excommunicated is just silly.  Babylon may buy it, and the sympathetic LDS intelligentsia may split hairs over it; but to most rank-and-file Mormons it's pretty clear cut:  she demanded something that the Church leadership said the Lord was unwilling to give, and she wouldn't take "no" for an answer and tried to shame the leadership into giving her what she wanted anyways.

 

But that's the whole point, where in that statement does it say that a revelation was received or that they inquired to the Lord and he said that women cannot hold the Priesthood. It doesn't say or claim that such thing took place and I cannot think of anything really that would impede them/prevent them to make such declaration .

 

FWIW--McKay did inquire of the Lord re the blacks and priesthood issue, and did get an answer (a negative one).  But he did not formally announce that answer.  Had he done so, the Church membership could have gotten even more entrenched in the status quo.  Rather, he continued working quietly to prepare the Church for the "long promised day".

 

Let me ask you this, Suzie--if Monson did get an answer, and it was a "no"--are you sure you want that answer presented to a solemn assembly and canonized as Official Declaration 3?

 

IMHO, those who want to keep female ordination on the table as a long-term option should be grateful for the ambiguity.

 

 

And that's the main reason for all this confusion IMO. No clear answers are given but just the message "Only men can be ordained, women cannot". If we are going to quote Hinckley to support the idea that women cannot be ordained, we cannot discard the other part that I also quoted where he plainly states it can change. More dialogue needed to take place but it didn't and that's a pity.

 

The Church hasn't stopped the dialogue here; they've merely stated that the apostles will contribute to it on their own (the Lord's?) terms.  Those terms apparently do not involve giving Kate Kelly a photo-op or otherwise implicitly suggesting that someone can shout their way into the council room of the First Presidency.

 

They could have taken a lot of wind out of OW movement by stating something as simple as "we do not believe the the word 'ordain' as used in 1838 is equivalent to how we use it in 2014." 

 

They shouldn't have to, MoE.  The Church records are completely devoid of any record of a female ever being ordained to one of the four offices of the Aaronic Priesthood or five offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and OW knows it.  It is they who are deliberately creating murky waters with the ambiguous use of the word "ordain" and the red herring statements about priestesshood made to the Nauvoo Relief Society.  The LDS leadership shouldn't have to address that blatant lie, and frankly I think I prefer it in general when apostles don't get into the business of apologetics or historical analysis.

[skippy740]

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

 

 

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

“Thou has declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear,” complained Nephi’s brethren. But Nephi answered by saying, “The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.” (1 Ne. 16:1–2.)

Said President Harold B. Lee:

“You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life … Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow … Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.” (Conference Report, October 1970, p. 152–153.)

But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. “Even in the Church,” said President Kimball, “many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterdays prophets and mentally stone the living ones.” (Instructor, 95:527.)

Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their own affairs. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

Said President Marion G. Romney, “It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets, but it is a greater thing to believe in the living prophets.” And then he gives this illustration:

“One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, ‘Why did you come to America?’ ‘I am here because a prophet of God told me to come.’ ‘Who was the prophet?’ I continued. ‘Wilford Woodruff.’ ‘Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?’ ‘Yes, sir.’

“Then came the sixty-four dollar question, ‘Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?’ His answer, ‘I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old-age assistance.’

“Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy. He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who cannot follow the living prophet of God.” (Conference Report, April 1953, p. 125.)

[skippy740]

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelation of God and reasoning of men—between the prophet and the professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith,

“Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire.” (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).

Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay and applying it to the man’s eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6–7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times in a particular river, yet this is precisely what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kgs. 5.)

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8–9.)

[skippy740]

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people. The honest in heart heed his words but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or fight him. When the prophet points out the sins of the world, the worldly either want to close the mouth of the prophet, or else act as if the prophet didn’t exist, rather than repent of their sins. Popularity is never a test of truth. Many a prophet has been killed or cast out. As we come closer to the Lord’s second coming you can expect that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will be less popular with them.

[skippy740]

I put these article quotes to add to the discussion and they are not aimed at any particular poster.  Just some additional thoughts to consider.

[MarginOfError]

Did it every strike you that perhaps this is by design of the Lord to try faith in our times?

I find this pretty insulting.  My faith in Christ is thriving and unchallenged.  My faith in temporal organizations is unchanged...they often suck.  Welcome to humanity.

 

But please stop assuming that frustration with how public affairs are handled is synonymous with a crisis or trial of faith.  That's one of those things I can't stand about mormons.

[FunkyTown]

I find this pretty insulting.  My faith in Christ is thriving and unchallenged.  My faith in temporal organizations is unchanged...they often suck.  Welcome to humanity.

 

But please stop assuming that frustration with how public affairs are handled is synonymous with a crisis or trial of faith.  That's one of those things I can't stand about mormons.

 

Well, it's entirely possible that the leadership prayed about it and got no answer.

 

This would require the leadership to either get in to an argument with members who said "Well, if he didn't say 'No', then you can change it". You'll note that they didn't say that they received inspiration saying that women couldn't be ordained. Only that they 'don't' get ordained.

 

If they got no answer, simply saying, "We've had no inspiration to change it." would have made things worse. If that were the case, they stuck with the conservative decision.

 

It might be a non-answer, but there might be a reason for the non-answer.