To The Church And To Ordain Women

[Urstadt]

This is a really good article that says what I was really trying to say on others posts. All too often I am humbled by better writers who say so much better what I could never say. We Scotts are not known for our articulacy, that's for sure.

 

http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/06/19/to-the-church-and-to-ordain-women-two-requests/

 

 

[Gero]

I have a question:

 

Why is your church (as many other churches) against women as priests?

In the Bible was reported of women as apostles, deacons, leaders. So, why is your church against it?

[Urstadt]

Why is your church (as many other churches) against women as priests?

 

Our church really isn't "against" it. That's not the right word, from our standpoint at least. We believe Heavenly Father has revealed the Priesthood to ordained to men only. It's a patriarchal order, as revealed by Him. Which is very much on par with the God Head consisting of men: Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit. The God Head is a patriarchal order: the church is a patriarchal order.

 

In the Bible was reported of women as apostles, deacons, leaders. So, why is your church against it?

 

I know of no such instance in the bible when a woman was an ordained apostle of the Lord, Jesus Christ, with the authority to govern the affairs of the church He established during His earthly ministry.

 

As far as them being deacons, that depends on on the translation. As one user of this site already pointed out:

 

the (sic) word "diakonos" renders -- a waiter, servant; then of any one who performs any service, an administrator. The word deacon is derived from it, but the original Greek word does not mean an office in the priesthood.

 

As far as being leaders, women are definitely leaders in our church. We have primary leaders who administer the affairs of children younger than 12. We have young women leaders who administer the affairs of young women ages 12-17. We have relief society leaders who administer the affairs of women age 18 - death. Further, we have general authorities who lead the primary, young women, and relief society globally. They do not hold the priesthood, but they are leaders.

 

Does that help at all? :)

[Just_A_Guy]

I know of no such instance in the bible when a woman was an ordained apostle of the Lord, Jesus Christ, with the authority to govern the affairs of the church He established during His earthly ministry.

 

If I might supplement Urstadt's excellent answer:

 

Romans 16:7 has been interpreted as suggesting that "Junia" (a feminine name) was an apostle.  The King James translation reads:

 

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

 

The issue boils down to the word "among".  Did Paul mean that there was a group of apostles among whom were Adronicus, Junia, and other unnamed "fellowprisoners"?  Or did Paul mean that these individuals were noted by the apostles?  The Greek word translated as "among" is "en" which can be rendered in English as "in", "by", or "with".

 

Given the ambiguity in the purported Biblical references to female apostles and deacons, the LDS Church has thus far followed the precedent set by Joseph Smith in only ordaining males to these positions.

[skippy740]

http://askgramps.org/25448/scriptures-god-says-men-can-ordained-priesthood

 

http://askgramps.org/24053/women-ever-hold-priesthood

[Windseeker]

This is a really good article that says what I was really trying to say on others posts. All too often I am humbled by better writers who say so much better what I could never say. We Scotts are not known for our articulacy, that's for sure.

 

http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/06/19/to-the-church-and-to-ordain-women-two-requests/

 

So you agree with the article that the senior leadership in the Church should heal the wounds, model civil dialogue, listen to the concerns of all its members and not those it only deems worthy and show grace, generosity, compassion and charity to someone who is suffering by asking Kelly’s local leaders to postpone the disciplinary council and as a compromise the ever courageous OW ought to submit as long as it does not compromise its deepest beliefs. 

 

In my opinion the Church has been a model of civil dialogue, shown patience, compassion and charity. I think OW and their attempts to publicly shame the church has shown an awful lack of humility and obedience. 

 

Looking at our nation and even the world it’s full of groups that organize and lobby for their own interests in the name of “social justice” and equality based on gender, sexual orientation and race. These groups profit by sowing seeds of division which only end up being reaped by larger more sinister forces. 

 

I don’t like seeing these tactics employed against our Church and I am grateful for the efforts the Church has made to reach out to these groups while also marking a clear line to dissuade discord and division.

[Urstadt]

In my opinion the Church has been a model of civil dialogue, shown patience, compassion and charity. I think OW and their attempts to publicly shame the church has shown an awful lack of humility and obedience. 

 

I don’t like seeing these tactics employed against our Church and I am grateful for the efforts the Church has made to reach out to these groups while also marking a clear line to dissuade discord and division.

 

I can understand and respect that. I really can. Even deeply. :)

 

I just thought some excellent points were made in that article by a blog that is, by reputation, known to be very pro-LDS and apologetic toward the church.

 

There are also other matters to consider. Kate Kelly, a civil rights attorney (for those who didn't know), made some serious mistakes, as this link points out. From day 1, I have never said she was 100% innocent. But, there is enough blame to go around. In any disagreement, there is always blame on both sides. There is always "your truth, their truth, and then the truth." The 80/20 rule: it may be 80% one person's fault, but there is still 20% fault on the other. Diagreements should not be resolved by one side overpowering the other, but rather through sustained discourse and ongoing compromise and negotiation while earnestly striving to see the other side's point of view. These are sound conflict resolution principles (whether we accept/acknowledge them or not) taught in counseling, conflict management classes, I've even seen them taught in marriage prep classes by the church, and are sometimes taught by the General Authorities. We even see them modeled by the Savior in the scriptures.

 

I'm not trying to cast blame on the church. I am merely saying that some excellent points were made in this article, many of which validated some of my own thoughts and impressions, which were posted on a blog known to be pro-LDS and apologetic toward the church. I am heartbroken that another member of the fold has been lost. Excommunication is hard for any counselor to bear when they are the ones who see the tears and empathize (not sympathize) with the emotional turmoil that these ex-members don't have the skills to cope with. For many of them, by their own self-report, it's like unexpectedly losing a child, or other family member. For me, I get a small glimpse at how the Nephites felt when they were saddened after battle by the fact that they were sending so many of their bretheren out of this world so unprepared to meet their Maker. I accede and concede that the two situations bear only a small resemblence. But, I don't know what else to say. Except that I have a unique perspective from my job, and from the philosophies of human nature (philosophies I believe to be inspired by Heavenly Father; philosophies coming out of BYU, even!) that help me understand where she was coming from and part of what was going on inside her, and that makes me mourn for her. Not excuse her, mourn for her. And, anybody else casted out from the fold. I genuinely believe the Saviour mourns, too. And, I am trying in my humble, imperfect efforts to be like Him.

 

I often wonder if some people, especially those on OWE, would write the things they do if 1) they didn't have the annonymity of a computer screen to sit behind (as has been studied extensively in social psychology, anthropology, and sociology); or 2) if the Savior was sitting right behind them, in the flesh, watching them type.

 

Granted, the folks here at lds.net have been better than those at OWE. But, my heart still mourns with compassion, long-suffering, and charity for Kate Kelly and her family (some of whom have had their recommends revoked).

[Just_A_Guy]

I just thought some excellent points were made in that article by a blog that is, by reputation, known to be very pro-LDS and apologetic toward the church.

 

That's debatable. 

 

Diagreements should not be resolved by one side overpowering the other, but rather through sustained discourse and ongoing compromise and negotiation while earnestly striving to see the other side's point of view.

 

So what you're saying is, if there's a group that wants the Church to re-institute polygamy, or bring back the priesthood ban for blacks, or whatever--the GAs are never justified in saying "look, we're the divinely appointed leadership of the Church and the answer is 'no'".  Rather, they must continue to engage these groups in "dialogue" (read:  the GAs submit themselves to whatever browbeating/finger wagging the groups see fit to bring up) until those groups pronounce themselves satisfied?

 

Excommunication is hard for any counselor to bear when they are the ones who see the tears and empathize (not sympathize) with the emotional turmoil that these ex-members don't have the skills to cope with.

 

I've seen the tears and emphathized with the emotional turmoil of people who have been sentenced to prison.  Doesn't mean I'm out there arguing for the abolition of the penal code--or even stalling for time when the nature of the offense is clear.  The bottom line is that it is the individual who has created the situation, and society (or, in this case, the Church) that must respond regardless of that individual's feelings.

 

Kelly had a clear road map--verbal as of May 5 and written as of May 22, well before this BCC post was made--as of what specific "act of submission" she could take that would have postponed--or even completely avoided--a council.  Instead, she stepped up her activities and began publishing those six "discussions", which were intended as recruiting tools to be disseminated among active Mormons.  The entire strategy depended on OW's members being seen as active, practicing Mormons who had not been sanctioned by the Church.

 

The BCC proposal was at best an asymmetrical offer:  The Church was supposed to make a unilateral "de-escalation" by calling off the disciplinary process, at which point it was "hoped" that Kelly would "respond with magnanimity" by "some act of submission to church authority that they can countenance".  Classic modern progressivism, in other words:  you give up something concrete, now, and we'll think about giving up something vaguely defined, later, after you've made your concession.

 

I often wonder if some people, especially those on OWE, would write the things they do if 1) they didn't have the annonymity of a computer screen to sit behind (as has been studied extensively in social psychology, anthropology, and sociology); or 2) if the Savior was sitting right behind them, in the flesh, watching them type.

 

I rather think not.  It's Facebook, so it's not exactly anonymous.  Some people are just boors, and don't care who knows it.

[The Folk Prophet]

I love it when a blog feels they have the right to lecture the church leadership on how to run the kingdom.

 

The whole thing reads to me like, "The church should compromise with the devil so they look like nice guys." (Note: I'm not saying Kelly is the devil, but that OW principles stem therefrom).

 

A few specific responses to the article:

 

Suffice it to say that fair-minded individuals can find multiple actions from both sides that have been insensitive and uncharitable.

 

 

I find this statement underhanded. It's nice and "Kumbaya" of them, but to imply that if one doesn't find the church leadership's statement's insensitive then that person must not be fair-minded. I'm sure the reverse could be said of those supporting OW. What the author means is his/her idea of fair-mindedness sees it that way and they're arrogant enough to presume that means everyone should see it that way.

 

These misunderstandings and disputes have resulted in bad feelings that are harmful to the church, a state of affairs that contradicts a command the Lord gave to the church at an early conference to esteem one another and to “be one, and if ye are not one ye are not mine”

 

Half-truth warning! Alert! Alert!

 

The command to "be one" was never intended as a mandate to compromise with evil.

 

 The church would gain a lot from this. Besides beginning the work of healing the wounds that have opened up in our community, it models to its membership what civil dialogue looks like.

 

 

 

This falls to what Elder Holland spoke on last conference. Everyone wants the gospel and their God modeled after their idea of a "comfortable" God, a comfortable gospel.

 

The wicked take the truth to be hard. But it is not the truth that wounds them. It is their wickedness.

 

It signals that it is listening to the concerns of all of its membership and not just those it deems worthy of being listened to.

 

Since when can the church not choose whom it deems worthy of being listened to? So they should have no choice in the matter? If I start a campaign to start using wine in the sacrament again they should set a meeting with me or they're insensitive? What if I'm determined that the law of Chastity be repealed? If they don't meet with me then they must not be concerned with their members needs. Right? Ridiculous.

 

Some may say that seeking reconciliation will show weakness on the church’s part.

 

It really doesn't have anything to do with weakness or strength. The church has no responsibility to reconcile with evil. It doesn't matter if the world views it as strong or weak.

 

To act boldly and charitably now would be to enact the prophetic gift with which the church is blessed.

 

 

 Yeah. This writer determines what qualifies as "the prophetic gift".

[Str8Shooter]

"Because the Kelly affair is more than a local matter, we believe that it would be welcomed by many if the senior leadership of the church were to intervene."

 

 -from the linked article in the original post.

 

-----------------------------------

The Kate Kelly affair or excommunication is a local matter.  It is personal between her and her local leaders.  Excommunication is dealt with on an individual level, not as a group.  Her excommunication only directly affects her and no one else.

 

Senior church leadership intervenes if the local leadership is wrong.  Since there has been no intervention and the senior church leadership has released a letter that agrees with the local leaders actions, one can correctly assume that the local leaders are acting in harmony with current church policy.

 

The church is not a system like our legal system.  Commandments (policies) are not up for debate and never will be.  To me the actions of Ordain Women seem very similar to the actions Martin Harris.  They don't like what they are hearing so they are going to ask over and over instead of humbly accepting God's will.  They feel they are right.  They have been told they are not.  They are not accepting council.  

 

There are some that say they have prayed and feel that they have received answers that are contrary to current church policies.  In certain conditions, Satan can mimic the feelings of the Holy Ghost.  That is one reason why we have commandments.  If our answer is contrary to current church policy and we are not in a position to authoritatively change the policy, then we can know beyond any doubt that the answer we are getting is from the adversary.  It is that simple.  

[Guest]

Sorry.  That blog post sounds great but really has no substance in light of the history of the OW vs Church interactions.  Another one for the trash heap.