- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Shawn wrote:
I highlighted the words about founding an organization and seeking recruits. Some teachings I see that are not in line with church teachings are:-Emma Smith was ordained to a priesthood office.
-It is their right to hold the priesthood.
-Women cannot be considered equal until they are ordained to the priesthood.
-Joseph Smith intended for women to hold the priesthood.
*I am not saying I agree or disagree with those teachings. They are things that appear to me to be not in line with church teachings.*
The part about Emma Smith and ordination in the Relief Society is something hardly anyone knows about. None of this is “part of church teaching” because the church doesn’t teach about it. It’s just understood that men and boys get the priesthood and women don’t. Maybe just semantics but still a good point, I think. The OW website makes a good case for inequality and ordination for women as a way to address it and asks the leadership to consider and pray about it. If the brethren make a point of not considering it then the problem is not going to go away and the church will continue to lose some of it’s best and brightest. I’m sorry but I don’t recall any scripture that restricts priesthood to just men. It’s the way it is but I think it’s that way because that’s the way it’s always been and not because it’s the way it always will be.
GBSmith wrote:The part about Emma Smith and ordination in the Relief Society is something hardly anyone knows about. None of this is “part of church teaching” because the church doesn’t teach about it. It’s just understood that men and boys get the priesthood and women don’t. Maybe just semantics but still a good point, I think.
While hardly anyone knows about it and it’s not a core teaching, the meaning of “ordained” as used in the minutes of the first Relief Society meeting has been addressed:
Quote:“The term ‘ordain’ was used generally in the early days of the Church in reference to both ordination and setting apart, and, too, correctly according to the meaning of the word. Men holding the Priesthood were said to have been ‘ordained’ to preside over branches and to perform special work. Sisters also were said to have been ‘ordained’ when they were called to some special duty or responsibility. In later years we developed a distinction between ordain and setting apart. Men are ordained to offices in the Priesthood and set apart to preside over stakes, wards, branches, missions, and auxiliary organizations. The sisters are set apart—not ordained—as presidents of auxiliary organizations, to missions, etc. This saying that Emma Smith was ‘ordained’ to expound scripture, does not mean that she had conferred upon her the Priesthood, but that she was set apart to this calling, which found its fulfillment in the Relief Society of the Church.” (Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:126.)
Apologies if someone has posted this here already, but I like this Op-Ed in the Tribune Op-ed: Changing the church: How Ordain Women gets it wrong
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58064931-82/church-leaders-members-ordain.html.csp shoshin wrote:Apologies if someone has posted this here already, but I like this Op-Ed in the Tribune
Op-ed: Changing the church: How Ordain Women gets it wrong
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58064931-82/church-leaders-members-ordain.html.csp
I’ve stayed out of this tread so far, but want to comment on the op-ed. I’m on record here as saying that I don’t support OW’s methods. From that one standpoint, I do agree with the op-ed. The problem, though, is that there is no other clear avenue for dialogue. We can talk to the person standing next to us at Church, but try taking something up the chain and see how quickly the hot potato gets dropped. I let my Bishop know a few months ago that I wasn’t a fan of using GC talks as topics for SM talks. His response was to tell me it wasn’t an issue. That was the end of it. I personally think that OW is misguided and that its method detract significantly from its message. I don’t really even have to defend that position; I think it is self-evident given that the whole venture now seems to be more about protest and excommunication, rather than women in the Church. But I sympathize with the problem they are trying to solve.The op-ed operates from a position that God is at the helm and he’ll let us know if he wants to change anything. I understand why that resonates with you, but it will leave almost everyone else here wanting something significantly more.
The op-ed states that going public is the wrong approach. The problem is that there is no way to go private. The Yang to the op-ed’s Yin is still missing: a way for lay members like you and me to have a voice in the Church to open up dialog about the things that bother us.
I also like this one It’s Not About Questions—and it is
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2014/06/its-not-about-questions-and-it-is/ That patheos article is partly what prompted me to write this about these actions revealing a conservative bias toward liberal actions: http://www.wheatandtares.org/14439/kate-john-liberalism-on-trial/ shoshin wrote:However, in my opinion she does not understand the church or its doctrine very well. The church is a theocracy. Literally, this means “rule by God” and of course in practice it’s basically “follow the prophet.”…
As far as following the prophet, my view is that it is generally understood that a vital part of membership is following the prophet, as the leader Christ has put in charge.
shoshin, this “follow the prophet” mantra is somewhat new – meaning it began in the 20th century. Consider this:
Quote:President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel–said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church–that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls–applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall–that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.
-Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Five 1842-43, p.237
I have refrained from replying on this thread, because to be honest i just dont feel like i know enough about either person to speak about it. That and i feel like i am minority on this issue. But i have decided to voice a few opinions. What strikes me as very interesting is the assumption that most members of the church support both John and Kate and their beliefs. I feel more for John simply because, from what i have read and heard, he has had a crisis of faith of sorts. I can relate to that. However i probably wouldnt agree with his stances on the lgbt community. I dont agree either with Kate and the OW movement. Hawkgrrrl commented online on “wheatandtares” that
Although many in the church agree with John and Kate’s pro-feminism and pro-gay rights stances….. I feel this is a complete assumption Hawkgrrrl. Where is the evidence to support that many do support this? What is the definition of many? 1%, 20%, or more? I dont recall ever being polled. I have talked about OW and other issues with many members at church and not one woman supports OW. I am perfectly fine with the “status quo”. It is one the main reasons why i like the church. My opinion on why Kate and John are facing discipline is due to the tactics they have used or are using to get their opinions and agenda across. It sortof reminds me of the slogan…bad publicity is better than no publicty. Yes, like some others have stated…what else can you do when your shut out basically? My question is…could Kate possibly made more traction if she had shown more firm persistence and not taken to the streets in protest? How long have they been trying to pursue their individual issues? Could it be that maybe they wanted results too quickly? Just on OON, i dont agree with the tactics of the OW…i feel like it is putting unfair pressure on the church and in a negative light. I still believe revelation should come from the top down, not forced from the bottom up.
Shawn wrote:shoshin, this “follow the prophet” mantra is somewhat new – meaning it began in the 20th century.
I respectfully disagree that this is a recent modern thing. The JS quote you gave is great. I think he’s saying that we are each responsible for our own salvation.But I think it should be taken in context with the many scriptures that talk about following the prophet, such as the list found here:
shoshin wrote:Shawn wrote:shoshin, this “follow the prophet” mantra is somewhat new – meaning it began in the 20th century.
I respectfully disagree that this is a recent modern thing. The JS quote you gave is great. I think he’s saying that we are each responsible for our own salvation.But I think it should be taken in context with the many scriptures that talk about following the prophet, such as the list found here:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophet?lang=eng I scanned over the list and they say there are prophets and God speaks to them but it’s not until you get to a few D&C verses that the “follow the prophet” mantra starts to show up. I think Shawn is right on this one.
wornoutsneakers wrote:Hawkgrrrl commented online on “wheatandtares” that
Although many in the church agree with John and Kate’s pro-feminism and pro-gay rights stances….. I feel this is a complete assumption Hawkgrrrl. Where is the evidence to support that many do support this? What is the definition of many? 1%, 20%, or more? I dont recall ever being polled. I have talked about OW and other issues with many members at church and not one woman supports OW. Wornoutsneakers, I do think many are careful who they trust their opinions to. I know a great many in my area, especially among the younger generation. There may very well be some right around you who sense your contentment with the way things are and don’t wish to upset you or upset themselves to discuss it with you. Also, even many in the older group may not speak it just so, but I can promise you the underlying resentment that is often there towards the men. Surely some sister leaders have muttered around you things such as , “The wheels of the priesthood turn slowly. Ask the RS president, she’s really the one who knows everything going on. The women do the majority of the work in the church.” I could go on and on with this particular theme. As a sister leader on ward and stake levels for many years, I knew the men did engage and work hard in their callings too. I have always felt if a woman is going to mutter these things under her breath or to other sisters, she might as well be speaking it to the priesthood. That is the honest thing to do.
But then that leads to…..where is the avenue really to address these issues on a churchwide level? Because the ward and stake experience as far as sister leaders are concerned will always be affected by the particular group of men in leadership at the same time until something changes a LOT.
From my experience in my area, there are many, probably the majority, who want more respect for the sister leaders. Many may not care or want it to go all the way to ordaining to priesthood, but they want to be respected and to have a voice that actually carries some weight, to address issues and governance on the ward and stake level.
Wornoutsneakers, I just went and read your introduction and realize you are still a fairly new convert. The sisters in your ward may very well not want to upset you with women’s issues. And many sisters wait for someone of like mind to bring issues up first. I bit my tongue for many years during my faith crisis because I did not want to be responsible for weakening anyone’s testimony. Thank goodness I found StayLDS which definitely helped pull me through that period. afterall wrote:
Wornoutsneakers, I do think many are careful who they trust their opinions to. I know a great many in my area, especially among the younger generation. There may very well be some right around you who sense your contentment with the way things are and don’t wish to upset you or upset themselves to discuss it with you. Also, even many in the older group may not speak it just so, but I can promise you the underlying resentment that is often there towards the men. Surely some sister leaders have muttered around you things such as , “The wheels of the priesthood turn slowly. Ask the RS president, she’s really the one who knows everything going on. The women do the majority of the work in the church.” I could go on and on with this particular theme. As a sister leader on ward and stake levels for many years, I knew the men did engage and work hard in their callings too. I have always felt if a woman is going to mutter these things under her breath or to other sisters, she might as well be speaking it to the priesthood. That is the honest thing to do.But then that leads to…..where is the avenue really to address these issues on a churchwide level? Because the ward and stake experience as far as sister leaders are concerned will always be affected by the particular group of men in leadership at the same time until something changes a LOT.
From my experience in my area, there are many, probably the majority, who want more respect for the sister leaders. Many may not care or want it to go all the way to ordaining to priesthood, but they want to be respected and to have a voice that actually carries some weight, to address issues and governance on the ward and stake level.
Afterall, i am probably the most open book of anyone in my ward and have thru various callings and functions had the chance to get to know quite a few people in my stake. I really feel sorry for those that truly know me because i have been very open about my struggles and have shared my opinions on a variety of things. I am not someone that you would traditional think would “toe the line”…when i wanted to join staylds Brian J. gave me very solid advice about not to talk about the origins of my introduction to the faith and he deleted quite a bit from my introduction. I have even shared with others my postings on this site and related how in many ways staylds has helped me evolve.
Having said that, I really disagree with your assumption that most women feel this way. I guess thats the whole thing about the OW movement that bothers me. Based on the grass roots activites of a group of individuals…people are applying their experiences and assuming its the same for everyone. I also dont understand this thinking that men are treated better in the church or that women work harder unfairly or dont have a voice. From my personal association with certain people i have come to know that the Bishopric is the hardest working group in the church. Im currently a member of a Presidency in my ward and can say we dont really have that many responsibilities compared to them. And there are 350 active members in our ward. The women in my ward also have a voice and are in no way not respected.
Let me pose a scenario and im curious what type of response i will get…so lets consider a different group of individuals in the church. What about those that secretly support polygamy or want to reinstate it? So with same sex marriage being approved across the board in many states, the argument that i have heard before is that the legalization of same sex marriage may lead to the legalization of polygamy. What if a group wants to pursue that in our church? Why not completely reform the church and allow those type of sealings to be done in the temples? If we want to broaden the scope of who gets the priesthood and be inclusive of same sex community..why stop there? Does anyone have any opinions on this?
Quote:Does anyone have any opinions on this?
Um, yes
😆 – and if comments go immediately to where they sometimes go when polygamy is discussed, we will drop it in this thread.🙂 “Where do we draw the line?” is a great question. Let’s not let it spiral into a polygamy thread. There are other threads for that, so, if polygamy is discussed here, let’s keep it focused on where people would draw lines of acceptance / non-acceptance – and not necessarily long comments about why we feel that way about polygamy itself.
wornoutsneakers: “Having said that, I really disagree with your assumption that most women feel this way.” I did not say most. I said many. Those who don’t feel this way are typically the ones who benefit from the status quo. They don’t want to work. They are thrilled to have less responsibility. They feel their needs are met by the status quo. They adore the Proclamation and gladly hang it on their walls. I truly don’t know many women, even stay-at-home-moms who don’t feel that women’s input is an afterthought in church manuals and in General Conference or that women are primarily valued for their childbearing and rearing, not their minds, and that women who are single or childless or past childrearing are sometimes overlooked. In the wards I’ve been in, most women are feminists, either openly or closeted. Nobody wants to dial back on women having the vote. They all agree women should be paid equally for equal wages. Probably 50% of the women I know, yes in the church, believe women should have ownership of their own reproductive choices. Do they seek ordination? No, I think that’s probably only between 5-10% of women who do, although the majority wouldn’t say no to it if the prophet revealed it was to be. The rest who don’t seek ordination would simply be satisfied with more equality in the temple ceremony, lesson manuals for women and girls that aren’t so obviously written by men, and more acknowledgement that women are leaders – as well as women leading more than just women and children. If you are a man and a fairly new convert, it’s no wonder you haven’t been exposed to women’s feelings. RS, in my wards at least, include a lot of feminist sentiments. I find that the higher the income and education levels, the more feminist the RS is.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.