Ordination for Women?
By Jana on Nov 12, 2007
Just spied this article about two more women who were ordained as Catholic priests. They are being threatened with excommunication for their heretical activities.
My question:
Does anyone know of any groups/movements within Mormonism that’ve tried ordaining women to the priesthood? If there are such groups and there was any public demonstration of such (as accompanied the Catholic ordination), I would imagine that the women would be speedily excommunicated. However I’m surprised that I’ve never heard of any underground groups ordaining LDS women to the priesthood. Am I just clueless or has this never happened?
Never heard of it. But setting aside all the other obvious issues which one could get into a shouting match on this one, it seems there’s another basic reason why even your most vocal feminist Mormon I don’t think would ever even think about it. A fundamental tenet of our faith is proper, divinely-appointed authority to do anything of such an official ecclesiastical nature. Someone who did something like this I think would be taken as not just wrong and excommunicated, but also as doing something utterly pointless. If you don’t have the authority from those appointed by the Lord above you in the chain of command, then nothing you do counts anyways. Churches ordain women to their priesthoods all the time, that’s fine and dandy for them, but we don’t think their ordinations give them the authority to act in God’s name. While there might be a minor ruckus if this happened among Mormons, I think there’d be just as much chatter about how pointless the whole thing was. I don’t think there’d be very much “this is a big threat to the church” talk, but I think there’d be a lot of “what exactly did these people think they were accomplishing by this?” chat, even among that minority who would like it to happen.
Comment # 1 by Non-Arab Arab | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply
My question to you would be, why do you think the Catholic women did it? Wasn’t it just as pointless for them, given that they have the same strictures in their religion that we do about women holding priesthood?
So now that we’re seeing some rogue Catholics ordaining women, do you think we’ll see the same with Mormon women eventually?
Comment # 2 by Jana | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply
This is purely anecdotal, so I’m not sure of the truth of it, but I heard there was a ward in the Northwest who had the Young Women passing sacrament because they did not have enough Young Men. The church authorities caught wind of it, visited the ward, cleared up the misunderstood doctrine, and all proceeded as normal.
Probably you’ve not heard of it because the Church’s methods of correction are quiet and/or the people involved were sincerely practicing false doctrine, not trying to make some sort of statement.
Comment # 3 by SilverRain | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
I think some women being ordained to the priesthood were mentioned in the Spencer W. Kimball Biography by Ed. The Man doing the Ordaining was ex’ed and the Woman was disfellowshipped, if I recall correctly.
Comment # 4 by Matt W. | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
“This is purely anecdotal, so I’m not sure of the truth of it, but I heard there was a ward in the Northwest ”
Come on now.. a little critical thinking is in order here.. are you telling me that a ward, certainly with dozens of lifelong mormons in the congregation, who have been taugh proper doctrine in passing sacrament for their entire lives would sit by and watch as some wayward Bishop allowed YW to pass the Sacrament? Think about it for a second. At least you didn’t say “a friend of a friend told me.. he actually saw it”
Comment # 5 by Porter | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
Some years ago the church used to allow non-member men to join in the circle when a baby was blessed. Someone pointed out that since the non-member man did not have the priesthood, why could a woman not participate? President Kimball (I think) sent a letter to all bishops with instructions that only holder’s of the priesthood could participate in baby blessings, etc.
This is not ordination of course, but this post got me thinking about this silent part of church history.
Comment # 6 by Ryan Jentzsch | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
Yes, I’ve heard of one group. They’re called “Community of Christ.”
Comment # 7 by C. L. Hanson | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
In the early 80s, or maybe in about 1979, there were a husband and wife who publicly had the man ordain his wife. It has been a long time, and I don’t remember the details, but my recollection is that they did it on Temple Square at the time of general conference. Both were soon excommunicated. It was during the time of the ERA battle, I think. That’s why I say it was in the 1979-early eighties time-frame.
–NRH (LRC’s mom)
Comment # 8 by LRC | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
Ryan Jentzsch -
I find it hard to believe that “the Church” ever let non-priesthood holders be involved in any ordinance as participants. Non-priesthood holders can’t even be official witnesses at ordinances like baptism. Where did this happen?
And I remember my Institute instructor telling us in the late 1980’s that there had been an organized protest in Temple Square in which several men had “ordained” their wives a few years earlier. For some reason, I associate this event with the Toscanos - perhaps they were involved? Maybe we were reading something by them for that particular Institute class.
Comment # 9 by Villate | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
Blessing a baby is not a saving ordinance like baptism. It isn’t required for salvation. There are many times, through the years, that non-PH have been allowed to participate. For example, some bishops have allowed the mothers to hold the baby during the blessing.
I can find documentation for you another time, Villate (unfortunately I’m too busy today to do so). Or if you google it I’ll bet you’ll come up with much info on the subject.
Comment # 10 by Jana | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
Yes, I’ve heard of mothers holding the baby. I should have clarified - that’s not partipating in the ordinance, in my view, though it is participating in the ritual, like when the mom or whoever helps the child or person being baptized get dressed, go into the font, etc. It’s not the same as standing in the circle (”We who hold the priesthood lay our hands…”). I would be very interested in evidence of non-PH actually in the circle.
Comment # 11 by Villate | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
“For example, some bishops have allowed the mothers to hold the baby during the blessing.”
just cuz it’s been allowed doesn’t mean it was supposed to be. i’d be curious to know what slc thinks of this.
Comment # 12 by anonster | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
I went with a branch presidency in a third-world country where the Church was very young when they corrected a dependent group in another city that had the young women passing the sacrament. Personally, I think having young men who hold the Aaronic priesthood exclusively “passing” the sacrament is a tradition, and not a doctrinal or revealed requirement.
Comment # 13 by Christopher Bradford (Grasshopper) | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
Obviously, anonster, SLC is not in favor of mothers participating in blessing circles - it’s no longer allowed and is likely the reason neither you nor Villate have witnessed such an event, although it was not rare all that long ago. Of course, women were not allowed to pray in Sacrament meeting for several years either, but apparently PH is no longer required for that congregational service these days.
Part of the reason it was disallowed was due to scenarios such as this: Parents have a child. Father is not a PH holder, yet is invited to stand in the circle with other PH holders (you know the pose - one hand under the baby, one hand on the shoulder of the PH holder next to you). Mothers see non-PH-holding fathers holding their babies as part of the ordinance and say, if he can do it, why can’t I (an endowed woman) do it as well? The question goes up the chain of command and the answer comes back down - “No non-Melchizedek-PH holders in blessing circles, period.”
While you’re googling info about women standing in blessing circles, you can look up info about women giving healing blessings and pregnancy blessings in the early church all the way up to the mid-20th century.
Villate - the Toscanos were not involved in the Temple Square ordinations, and their excommunications not only came more than a decade later, they had nothing to do with priesthood ordination. You must have been reading something written by them for that Institute class
Comment # 14 by LRC | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
LRC -
I knew what was meant. I just can’t believe that non-PH were ever allowed in the actual circle. Standing or sitting in the middle holding the baby is totally different, and I can see why that might have been allowed (I’ve heard of it, but never from anyone who actually witnessed it - it actually seems like kind of an urban legend to me). Frankly, it doesn’t bother me that mothers aren’t involved in baby name blessings. Men are often shunted aside in the pregnancy and birth process, and I think it’s important for a father and other spiritual leaders (male, in this case) to have a ritual involvement in the birth. We’re so removed from rituals associated with life events (I don’t buy becoming an Eagle Scout as a rite of passage - even receiving the priesthood seems to be so cavalierly done, like an entitlement rather than an earned privilege) that the more, the better. I think girls and women should have some too, though showers and sweet 16s and things come close.
I didn’t know that praying in Sacrament Meeting was ever a PH responsibility, though I suppose it could be interpreted as being part of “exhorting the Church”. I thought the prohibition came from Paul’s comment that women shouldn’t speak in church (this is the rationale given in many fundamentalist and evangelical Christian churches for not allowing women to participate in meetings).
I do know about women giving blessings to each other and to their children. Actually, I wish that were still going on. A young woman in our ward just had her first baby, and at her shower she looked so anxious when the other women were telling their birth horror stories that I wished a special blessing from the other women in the ward could be given to her.
I don’t know why the Toscanos are associated in my mind with the Temple Square stuff. I’ve been trying to remember the discussions we had in Institute about these things (my instructor was considered pretty “liberal” and gave us lots of interesting historical and theological stuff to read and discuss - no “Preparing for Celestial Marriage” in our Institute!), and I guess it’s all lumped together. Michael Quinn is in that part of my brain, too. Maybe it’s also because of Ms. Toscano’s recent article on women in the Church and my perception that one of the reasons they became disaffected from the Church was the treatment of women in it. Eh, whatever.
Also, because I forgot to mention it earlier: C. L. Hanson? Ha!
Comment # 15 by Villate | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply
Porter - far worse things have happened in wards which I’ve had personal experience with than Young Women passing the sacrament. A ward-wide apostasy isn’t as impossible as you make it sound. Wards have been closed down for such things. That’s part of the reason we need a church and a central, God-given authority.
Comment # 16 by SilverRain | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
My friends, you need no external institution to serve your inner needs. The true Church lives within each believer. We already have whatever authority we need. Open your inner eyes.You need not fear those who are blind.
Comment # 17 by Eugene Kovalenko | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
In my California ward, I saw both non-PH holders in the blessing circle and a woman holding the baby during the blessing. I was surprised at the latter because of discussions online about women being told they weren’t allowed to participate. But in that ward, no one said boo about Janice coming up to the front and holding the baby. No commentary about it afterward, either.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with a non-member, non-PH holder in the blessing circle. What exactly would the problem be when all they do is put one hand on the blessing recipient and one hand on the next guy’s shoulder?
I personally don’t believe gender should be a barrier to this, either. I think the recent emphasis on PH only blessing circles is a preemptive way to keep women from participating at all. I have a problem with rules and practices that disallow certain people’s participation in a church ritual.
The scriptures say that gifts of the spirit are available to ALL and the only prerequisite necessary is a belief in Christ. That’s the power/claim by which Mormon women were blessing and healing each other in early church history; initially women were also anointing the recipient and sealing the blessing, two things that only became associated with PH functions over time.
As LRC mentions, the practice was officially quashed in the 1940s. Some Mormon women still give blessings to family members. I grew up getting blessings from my mom and dad. Others arrange baby blessings at home so they can be full participants rather than spectators.
Anyway, I’d be curious to know if any other Mormon splinter groups (aside from RLDS/Community of Christ) ever ordained women.
Joseph Smith visited a Shaker community and saw their leadership model: pairs of women and men functioning as equal co-leaders. JS said this was unsustainable, although I wonder if he was referring to the Shakers’ celibacy rather than their leadership style.
Comment # 18 by Mary Ellen | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
I think the point of having a circle is that each person there donates his faith and his priesthood authority to the blessing. When a person is confirmed and the Holy Ghost given, each man in the circle participates in the ordinance by virtue of his holding the priesthood and acts as an officiator or facilitator. Blessing a baby is also an ordinance, and so must be done by the authority of the priesthood. In fact, the wording of the blessing is usually something along the lines of “WE bless you by the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood which WE hold”, though I guess the person giving the blessing could just say it’s by his own PH authority. A person without the priesthood laying his (or her) hands on the child to bless it (again, different from holding the baby while others bless it) is acting without authority. It’s a priesthood ordinance, therefore, only priesthood holders should be involved with it. That seems clear to me, which is why I wonder why any bishop would let a non-PH or non-member be a part of the circle. I guess that because a baby blessing is not a saving ordinance, as Jana pointed out, that’s where the ambiguity may have come in, since I can’t imagine this ever being an issue in a confirmation. Whether women should have the priesthood and/or be able to participate is a different question entirely, and we can go back and forth all day about it. Oh, I guess we kind of are. Anyway, that’s why it surprises me to hear that non-members or non-PH holders were in blessing circles.
Comment # 19 by Villate | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
Eugene:
There is no doubt worse has happened in Wards, I am sorry that you have had to see it.
However the only issue I spoke on was the mindless spreading of friend-of-a-friend Apocryphal tales of “young women passing the sacrament” I frankly don’t believe it and I called him out. A poster on a Sunstone Blog should be held so some degree of intellectual rigor.
No doubt wards have fallen into apostasy, but my limited anecdotal evidence combined with knowledge of human nature tells me that that type apostacy is spurred by Law of Chastity issues, greed, megalomania or jealousy, not logistical needs of “not having enough AP to pass the Sacrament” which is what OP quoted was the reason for the departure from the simple doctrine that AP holders pass the Sacrament. Also, things like that typically happen in secret, with small groups, not out in the open in Sacrament meeting with something so easily discerned as fundamentally wrong by anyone with the slightest degree of LDS doctrinal knowledge.
BTW, in the interest of intellectual rigor, I am curious Eugene, what “worse” things have you seen in wards. Have you every seen any public displays of apostasy, not “the bishop had a bad attitude” or other perceived or real offenses, or examples of individuals personal apostasy. I am talking overt, group apostasy. To avoid “friend of Friend” stories, I need the state where it happened and approximate year to be convinced of your personal knowledge.
Comment # 20 by Porter | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
Sorry, meant to address comments in above post to Silver Rain, not Eugene
Comment # 21 by Porter | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
Grasshopper -
Check out Doctrine and Covenants Section 58, starting with verse 46. The section doesn’t mention deacons and teachers passing the sacrament, only that they cannot “administer” it, which is defined in verses 76-79. The instruction that elders are to bless and name children is in v. 70, by the way.
Comment # 22 by Villate | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
Porter - I was not aware that the privilege of posting at Sunstone was so elite. My purpose in sharing that completely admitted anecdotal evidence was to show that things such as women participating in Priesthood ordinances without sanction are not utterly beyond imagining.
As for the rest, I really have no joy in muckraking apostasy on any level. I feel that we humans are more than inclined to discover the ways and means of apostasy all on our own without the free exchange of ideas. I also feel that although mentioning the possibility of ward-wide apostasy serves a purpose in warning, discussing it in detail serves little purpose beyond voyeurism. I don’t really feel any need to prove that I have witnessed such situations. There is more than ample evidence that those situations can and do exist. Again, my purpose in relating my personal witness to such things is to assert my opinion based on previously observed evidence that women erroneously being allowed to pass the Sacrament with ward-wide acceptance is not so far out of the realm of plausibility as you seem to infer.
If you truly wish evidence of logistical apostasy, examine the history of the Catholic Church and subsequent iterations of Christian doctrine, not the least prominent example being the creedal edicts of Nicaea and Athanasius. If you mean to infer that the members of the Latter-day Saint church are immune to these natural tendencies of man to logically define divine law by current need without the help of God’s direct word . . . well, that is a whole other discussion.
Comment # 23 by SilverRain | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
Silver,
In your first posting you said you can not vouch for it, but you have “heard” of a ward where YW were passing the Sacrament.
In your follow up you seem to indicate you “observed evidence” of YW passing the sacrament.
You have to make up your mind: is it something you have “heard about” but can’t confirm, or have you observed evidence of it?
Please clear this up for me
Comment # 24 by Porter | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
It has been too long ago for me to remember details, but I recall the situation Matt described. It might be in an old Sunstone, back in the ‘news’ section at the end of the magazine….
Comment # 25 by Mike | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
Villate,
I don’t know the rationale for the bishop allowing the baby’s non-member father into the circle. My best guess would be that this was one small way to include the father in a ritual that would have otherwise excluded both of the baby’s parents (the mother was a member).
I just checked the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and it does include baby blessings among the priesthood ordinances in the Blessings entry. I was a bit surprised this is considered an ordinance. I thought that PH authority only mattered for the person voicing the blessing.
Personally, I don’t believe it’s critical or even necessary for everyone in the circle to be a priesthood holder. I would give more weight to the participants being involved in the blessing because they plan to be significantly involved in the baby’s life or have been similarly involved in the family’s life. For me, it’s the relationships that are significant, not the PH authority. I would go the home blessing route for the same reason–so both parents and ALL the people who are important to me and my husband would be able to take part.
Comment # 26 by Mary Ellen | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
Mary Ellen -
I think any blessing is currently considered a priesthood ordinance in the LDS church if it includes the laying on of hands - that’s what differentiates a healing blessing or a blessing of counsel from simply praying with or for a sick or distressed person. I think one of the reasons women were eventually denied permission to perform blessings is that as the definition of ordinances developed and became codified as policy, Church leaders came to the conclusion that blessings were actually ordinances and ordinances could only be performed by priesthood holders. Since the guys who wrote the policies did not consider women to hold the priesthood (I know there’s controversy about whether endowed women hold it or not - my view is that they don’t), they had to stop performing blessings and anointings. I think there was a lot of gray area in the early days of the Church because healing blessings were extremely common and practiced by members of many Christian faiths. The tradition that the early converts brought with them was enhanced by the temple ritual of anointing and sanctioned by comments and teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others. I’m not sure that women who blessed and anointed their sick and pregnant ward and family members would have considered themselves to be exercising priesthood authority, they were simply exercising their faith to heal as directed in the scriptures. And after all, caring for the sick was a woman’s job. In addition, “policies” were still pretty fluid in those days, but as the Church grew and The Brethren (rather than individual leaders) began to have to make decisions about who was doing what in what roles to keep the Church consistent, some actions were reinterpreted.
I gave my opinion about baby blessings above. I’m a pretty rules-oriented person, so in my view, it’s inappropriate for non-PH (male OR female) to participate in an ordinance, particularly given the scriptural guidelines in Doctrine & Covenants 58 and elsewhere. For better or worse, baby blessings and blessing and anointing the sick are considered ordinances. I haven’t come to a conclusion about whether I “agree” or “disagree” with the ordination of women to the priesthood, though it doesn’t upset or offend me that they do not exercise the priesthood. I do think it’s too bad that blessing and anointing the sick was transformed from an act of compassion and bonding that could have been performed by anyone with the faith necessary to a rigidly-defined set of words (in the case of anointing) and actions, but that’s how it worked out. We who don’t hold the priesthood just have to find other ways to bless the people in our lives.
I still think it’s fascinating that we would never have to have this kind of discussion about a confirmation. I wonder what that means about how we look at gender roles and the different types of blessings we receive and give?
By the way, it’s nice to see some other women posting. For a while there I thought Jana and I were the only ones with too much time on our hands.
Comment # 27 by Villate | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
Fwiw, Villate, I believe that CLHanson and LRC/NRH are women (as much as one can ever feel sure about these things on the net) and I only wish I had too much time on my hands!
Comment # 28 by Jana | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply
Porter - I thought it was fairly clear that I have heard of Young Women passing the sacrament and cannot vouch for it, but have witnessed other forms of apostasy at a ward level at least as plausible as that.
Comment # 29 by SilverRain | Nov 15, 2007 | Reply
This returns to Jana’s question to Non-Arab as to whether the ordination of Catholic Nuns would be as pointless as ordaining women in the LDS Church (according to N-A A). I think the difference is that Catholic Nuns belong to a community (order) and while they could not perform sacraments for the “Church” they probably could get away with performing them within their community. Relief Society obviously doesn’t compare to an order, particularly with Priesthood Correlation, and there would not be any circumstances where an ordinance, baptism, etc, performed by an illegally ordained woman would be entered on the membership record, or recognized in any way. I guess I am saying that ordaining Nuns may not be as pointless as it would be in the LDS Chuch to ordain women–although, in the end, it may be equally futile.
As to women offering prayers in Sacrament meeting there are a number of iterations. I distinctly recall when women offered prayers, opening and closing. I also recall when that policy was changed so that only priesthood holders could pray in Sacrament meeting. After a time the policy was changed to allow sisters to open or close, I forget now which. Because those gnat like things make me weary, I have no idea what the present policy is, although I am sure it is inspired.
Comment # 30 by Parker | Nov 15, 2007 | Reply
OK Silver, I get it, you got nothing.
Lots of big talk, but apply any degree of intellectual rigor to your tripe and it all falls apart as nothing but mindless conjecture, apocryphal and “I know so much I can’t even tell you ’cause you can’t handle it” black helicopter mentality stuff.
If you are going to choose to jump into the free marketplace of ideas, please bring some fresh, accurate info.
Comment # 31 by Porter | Nov 15, 2007 | Reply
If those are the conclusions you have reached, Porter, I can only assume you haven’t really read what I said. But I truly hope you feel comfortable on your self-erected high seat of intellectual intelligence. Good day to you.
Comment # 32 by SilverRain | Nov 15, 2007 | Reply
No high seat of intellectualism here .. I meet the base level for entrance into a rational thinking society. I am merely asking that you join me at that base level. Not asking for any intellectual fireworks, but to merely stop wasting bandwidth repeating baseless and nonsensical rumors as a basis for your posts. If they tried, a cretin could do it.
Comment # 33 by Porter | Nov 15, 2007 | Reply
Porter and SilverRain:
No more comments on this thread unless you return back to something different than the name-calling and such. I love that you both feel passionately about the issue of women’s ordination, but it’s now digressed from the original topic and is becoming too personal.
Enough.
Further comments in this vein will be deleted.
Comment # 34 by Jana | Nov 15, 2007 | Reply
Vilate,it used to be fairly common for non-member and less-active males to stand in the circle for baby blessings. A non-LDS friend of mine stood in the circle when my son was blessed in 1985. I have never seen a mother sit in the circle and hold the baby, although i’ve heard of it many times. My husband went to Norway on his mission and says it was quite common there. In Exponent II, about 1992 there was some discussion of this in Sisters Share. I was the person who wrote the letter to Exponent II starting off that discussion. About that time, a change was made and only priesthood holders were allowed in the circle.
Comment # 35 by Paula | Nov 21, 2007 | Reply
Wow, that just blows my mind. It seems pretty clear-cut in the D&C that it is “the elders” who bless the baby. Well, I guess there are plenty of interpretations. No more, though. I suppose consistency is one of the benefits (?) of correlation. I still don’t think this ever would come up with a confirmation, though.
Comment # 36 by Villate | Nov 21, 2007 | Reply
The 1982 Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, Put On Thy Strength, O Zion had an appendix on performing priesthood ordinances. It states: “When ordinances requiring the Melchizedek Priesthood are performed, only those who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood should stand in the circle. …The only exception to this policy is that a father, at his request, may hold his child when it is named and blessed.” So he wasn’t part of the circle; he was inside it.
Comment # 37 by Rick | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply
Any woman that supports a sexist institution is sexist. If a woman sends money to a sexist religion then she is sexist. Her money and time is used to support an institution that discriminates against women and therefore she actively supports sexism.
How could any mother (or father) allow her daughter to be reared in an institution that discriminates against women. This would border on abuse.
Gordon Hill
Comment # 38 by Gordon Hill | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply
“So now that we’re seeing some rogue Catholics ordaining women, do you think we’ll see the same with Mormon women eventually?”
I hope so, for the sake of the Mormon Congregation.
Comment # 39 by Reg-o-rama | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply
Thus saith the Supreme Source of mind-bogglingly and incomprehensibly profound complexion:
“The Universe is my Church and there is no other that represents me. To know me is not to abide discrimination. It is pleasing in my eyes that any person or institution dedicates their purpose to discovering, knowing, and serving us, which is the One and the All. Any and all who humbly dedicate their lives to unlocking the secrets of divinity serve in my Priesthood. Only those who bear the Mark from having overcome the Beast from within the Judgment Process know my nature and know my name.”
Comment # 40 by Nicholas Blacksmith | Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
Whoa, Nicholas! You seem to be serious! I like what you say, but does your “Supreme Source” also have compassion AND a sense of humor?
Comment # 41 by Eugene Kovalenko | Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
Gordon Hill said:
“Any woman that supports a sexist institution is sexist. If a woman sends money to a sexist religion then she is sexist. Her money and time is used to support an institution that discriminates against women and therefore she actively supports sexism.”
Based on that amazing display of reason and logic, it would appear that any American who voted and paid their taxes actively supports the war in Iraq regardless of their own personal beliefs and/or personal responsibility.
Comment # 42 by dpc | Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
I think its sometimes better to help change an organization from the inside rather than attacking it from without. That’s a personal choice, of course. And I respect anyone who approaches the problem from a different angle than my own. But its rediculous to call me or my wife sexist because we remain active LDS.
Total bull.
Comment # 43 by Rick Jepson | Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
Reg-o-rama -
Why do you think that ordaining women to the priesthood will be good for the LDS church? The women are already doing most of the day-to-day work of the wards, why mess it up by giving them additional “priesthood duties”?
Comment # 44 by Villate | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply
Right on, Villate! You women already have all the power you need. The guys just don’t seem to get it, and their “priesthood power” generally seems impotent to me. I can think of only a few exceptions to this in my own experience.
Comment # 45 by Eugene Kovalenko | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply
Rick: you say
“I think its sometimes [but not always!] better to help change an organization from the inside rather than attacking it from without. That’s a personal choice, of course. [Yes!] And I respect anyone who approaches the problem from a different angle than my own. [Good!!] But its rediculous [sic] to call me or my wife sexist because we remain active LDS.” [I may disagree entirely with your point of view, brother Rick, but will fight to the death for your right to have it! Stay in and fight for the rest of us who have been hobbled!]
“Total bull.” AMEN!
ENK aka Volaire.
Comment # 46 by Eugene Kovalenko | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply
Discriminatory institutions can only exist if good people do NOTHING to stop them or actively support them. Hitler had the support of many good Germans. Jesus threw out the money changers from the temple- we must do the same. The money changers have regained control of the temple. Withhold your money and services from institutions that discriminate against good people.
When I was young the LDS church taught me that the blacks were cursed with a dark skin because they were neutral in the war in heaven. Well there is a war going on down here and if you remain neutral, in the next life you will have a dark soul instead of a dark skin.
Do you people really think you can sit by and do nothing while your taxes go to kill thousands of innocent women and children. If so, I believe you know nothing of God.
One definition of a good person is someone who bravely stands up to evil.
Gordon Hill
Comment # 47 by Gordon Hill | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply
Eugene, as a matter of fact I am serious, and as a matter of fact the “SS” has both compassion, a sense of humor and much, much more.
Amazingly it has every component of human consciousness that exists because it is their literal source!
And the SS is by nature full of pure, “liquid” all consuming joy, which is far more profound an emotion-complex than people can imagine, unless of course one has experienced (like I have) a direct pipeline to the Supreme Source of Divine Joy itself.
Bottom-line from the True authority of the Supreme Source is that women are equally capable and entitled to divine spiritual inspiration and revelation as are men, PERIOD!
That which is “God” doesn’t work through humanly contrived, controlled, gender-specific, “authorized” administrative channels in institutions! (And many women inside and outside of the Church KNOW this from profound personal spiritual experience!)
Various levels of non-gender specific divine enlightenment literally DO occur within particular states of consciousness, and I suggest that’s what church should be busy learning, practicing, teaching, facilitating, and sharing with humanity!
The sooner the Church takes a huge step back and reexamines its foundational ass-umptions the better off it and its membership is going to be. Membership needs to learn how to trust and be open to, instead of try to control and manipulate, the Divine Process.
Comment # 48 by Nicholas Blacksmith | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply