- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I want to know who the 90% of LDS women are and how the pollmakers were able to contact them. I am sorry, but I am very suspicious of these polls since not one LDS woman I know, locally or in other states has ever been included in these polls. Who is providing contact information for these women? And I believe the way the questions was phrased would be very important too. Yes, the way polls are worded determines the answers given, in many cases. I just want to stress one point:
IF Elder Oaks’ talk is used properly, it can change the way we talk about priesthood in a fundamental, important way.Overall, even if it doesn’t go as far as some people want, it is a major step in the right direction. Unfortunately, most members probably aren’t going to use it properly; rather, they are going to proof-text it and pull only the quotes they can use to support retrenchment – even though the talk absolutely does NOT represent retrenchment. I was excited when I heard Elder Oaks talk. Especially since as a stake RS president many years ago, I was explicitly told I had no authority as I was being trained. I am sure I was not the only one in that position to be told the same thing over the years. What Elder Oaks said is new even though some think it wasn’t. afterall wrote:I was excited when I heard Elder Oaks talk. Especially since as a stake RS president many years ago, I was explicitly told I had no authority as I was being trained. I am sure I was not the only one in that position to be told the same thing over the years. What Elder Oaks said is new even though some think it wasn’t.
I have heard people say there was nothing new, there, also. I disagree. I do believe what he said has been true in the church from the beginning, but I think almost none of us realized it until he pointed it out – and sadly many still don’t realize it.
I read an interview recently of someone who has experienced the second anointing. Apparently in that ordinance a woman gives her husband a blessing, and not the other way around. I think that makes it even more clear that women do have a priesthood power. We already know this from the initiatory and endowment, but that is from a woman to a woman and could be explained that way, but if a woman is sealing an ordinance for a man, I think that indicates something more. I think women hold the priesthood from the temple, but they don’t need offices to officiate. This can also be seen from the Bible, where Deborah the prophetess speaks for Israel, and even more so with Huldah. I just read that story yesterday, and in that one king Josiah sends his high priest to seek out the word of the lord and he goes to Huldah who gives a “thus saith the lord. . .” kind of prophecy. So she was pronouncing a revelation about all of Israel. Obviously we don’t know if she or Deborah hold offices, but it seems like it doesn’t matter. Elder Oaks’ talk then moves us in that direction, so it gives me hope that some day it will be obvious to all that women hold the priesthood. According to his talk though, it would stand to reason that although the Bishop would hold the keys, he could allow a woman to perform the ordinance of baptism or things like that just as they do in the temple. so that part still doesn’t make sense to me. And also why they church leaders require people to hold priesthood offices for certain callings that don’t need them, or why women aren’t on more councils or have more decision making opportunities, but those are slightly different topics.
Just submitted my profile to the OW website. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
afterall wrote:I want to know who the 90% of LDS women are and how the pollmakers were able to contact them. I am sorry, but I am very suspicious of these polls since not one LDS woman I know, locally or in other states has ever been included in these polls. Who is providing contact information for these women? And I believe the way the questions was phrased would be very important too.
Here’s the real problem with these polls (this was from Pew Forum, BTW; a similar one was done by American Grace author Robert Putnam). It simply reveals how authoritarian our church is. Maybe it’s true that only 10% would
seekfemale ordination, but if the question asked was “Would you accept female ordination if the prophet presented a revelation stating women should be ordained?” you know the % agreeing would be pretty much 100%. The reason it’s low is because it’s not the status quo, and Mormons support the status quo until told by top leaders to support a change. There’s one thing that carried over from my meetings today that has been sitting in the back of my mind. Something that I’ve heard too often over the last several months. The subject of KK and OW were not mentioned directly but the topic was addressed indirectly by referring to “so-called members” and how there were many members in the great and spacious building. There was no mistaking that they were talking about people that sere sympathetic toward KK. I’ve heard this a few times from a few different people over the pulpit. Similar things were said over the pulpit at the time Callister’s article came out in the Ensign. Again never referencing the issue directly, only going on the assumption that everyone knew what was being referenced.
I have to remind myself that the people making these comments are imperfect and I shouldn’t let myself get worked up over the comments. At the same time I wonder if I’d have the courage to speak up if I were provided a forum, say if similar comments were made during F&T meeting. I know what I’d say to call people to repentance
😈 but I’d much rather find a way to address these types of divisions with a call for love and unity.journeygirl wrote:I read an interview recently of someone who has experienced the second anointing. Apparently in that ordinance a woman gives her husband a blessing, and not the other way around. I think that makes it even more clear that women do have a priesthood power. We already know this from the initiatory and endowment, but that is from a woman to a woman and could be explained that way, but if a woman is sealing an ordinance for a man, I think that indicates something more. I think women hold the priesthood from the temple, but they don’t need offices to officiate. This can also be seen from the Bible, where Deborah the prophetess speaks for Israel, and even more so with Huldah. I just read that story yesterday, and in that one king Josiah sends his high priest to seek out the word of the lord and he goes to Huldah who gives a “thus saith the lord. . .” kind of prophecy. So she was pronouncing a revelation about all of Israel. Obviously we don’t know if she or Deborah hold offices, but it seems like it doesn’t matter.
Elder Oaks’ talk then moves us in that direction, so it gives me hope that some day it will be obvious to all that women hold the priesthood. According to his talk though, it would stand to reason that although the Bishop would hold the keys, he could allow a woman to perform the ordinance of baptism or things like that just as they do in the temple. so that part still doesn’t make sense to me. And also why they church leaders require people to hold priesthood offices for certain callings that don’t need them, or why women aren’t on more councils or have more decision making opportunities, but those are slightly different topics.
I think we should be going more down this road. Instead of confrontationalism, which may alienate, if we can prove that women have always had priesthood power, and I think they have according to orthodox Mormon theology, that will win over people who are more traditional in their mindset.
I would also suggest that being given the gift of the Holy Ghost/confirmation is a kind of low level ordination, and some of the role of sister missionaries further indicate traditional use of the female priesthood. I suspect Joseph Smith wanted to develop the Relief Society further.
Also doesn’t having the second anointing mean you can’t be ex’d? I’d have to check on the history angle on that one. hawkgrrrl wrote:Also doesn’t having the second anointing mean you can’t be ex’d? I’d have to check on the history angle on that one.
My impression is it assures your position in the kingdom as long as you don’t deny the Holy Ghost, but if you do turn from the church you have a good chance at the son of perdition status.SilentDawning wrote:They are in a firm position on this one to retrench. 90% of women don’t want the priesthood.
I don’t know that this is very telling. If you asked the men if they wanted the priesthood, what percentage would say no? If you conducted the interview of all Mormons, including the inactive, I would say that 80 percent of men also don’t want the priesthood.
However, in Tom Phillips’ case, he had his name removed. We don’t ex them once they’ve resigned. hawkgrrrl wrote:However, in Tom Phillips’ case, he had his name removed. We don’t ex them once they’ve resigned.
I don’t believe that is accurate. Tom has not resigned. He says he is not a mormon, but had not officially had his name removed.
???
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Orson wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:Also doesn’t having the second anointing mean you can’t be ex’d? I’d have to check on the history angle on that one.
My impression is it assures your position in the kingdom as long as you don’t deny the Holy Ghost, but if you do turn from the church you have a good chance at the son of perdition status.From what I understand, this is accurate. I don’t know if they can be exed but it seems like this ordinance guarantees you get to the celestial kingdom, so would that supersede a church disciplinary counsel? From that Tom Phillips interview, it seems they don’t even discuss the possibility of what happens when someone leaves after they have had it done. And by the way, the wife also receives this ordinance with her husband, but she doesn’t have the laying on of hands part from him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.