LDS

[jsfisher]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses Eternal Law, and does not change to accommodate the whims of mere mortals. Our Heavenly Mother does not hold the responsibility of the Priesthood, that responsibility is held by Our Heavenly Father.

It may be there, but I must have missed the part where Jesus preached that women should never be allowed in the priesthood. The parts about how to properly beat your slaves, sure, I got that, but not this women/priest thing.

 

[deaman]

Here is a link from the article Disco mentioned above. Janadele, do you support these women?

What is your reaction, Pup?

BTW, look at the pictures on that page. Nearly pure white bread. One woman who MIGHT be mixed race. And one picture of a bunch of black kids, none of whom know anything about women wanting larger roles in their church. That's just sick.

ETA: Click on any of those picture and it shows a small note about the person. Click on the picture of the black kids and a note comes up about some white woman. That's just sick.

Wow! Mormon women for the priesthood. Awesome!

Janadele, what do you think of these women? Are they all hellbound?

By the way SezMe, there is a little white face in the middle of all those black kids. I think that is the lady you read about when you click the picture.

I admit, I think the Mormon church is very, very much a church for white people.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Delete

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Wow! Mormon women for the priesthood. Awesome!

Janadele, what do you think of these women? Are they all hellbound?

By the way SezMe, there is a little white face in the middle of all those black kids. I think that is the lady you read about when you click the picture.

I admit, I think the Mormon church is very, very much a church for white people.

What about white and delightful negros?

 

[deaman]

LOL....

What about white and delightful negros?

I laughed............I cried!!

 

[Empress]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses Eternal Law, and does not change to accommodate the whims of mere mortals. Our Heavenly Mother does not hold the responsibility of the Priesthood, that responsibility is held by Our Heavenly Father.

Are you sure? Maybe she (they, since the Mormon Celestial afterlife is polygyny central) do hold the priesthood, but they just haven't told you yet. Line upon line, precept upon precept, Janadele.

 

[Pup]

Here is a link from the article Disco mentioned above. Janadele, do you support these women?

What is your reaction, Pup?

Well, honestly, I don't have much of a one, because as an outsider, it doesn't really affect me. Shrug. Guess I feel that clubs ought to have the right to do most anything they want (with certain limits etc. etc.), and the members are free to join other clubs if they don't like it. But, also, members are free to petition the club for change if they want that too, and consensus will form.

I clicked on a few random pictures and the arguments seem to be the typical ones you'd expect, talking about opportunity and equality and what the individuals want. I'd be curious to see the anti arguments, to see if they center around priesthood for women not as an opportunity for some but as an obligation that will be forced on everyone.

Of course, my wife and I have already been over the feminism/sexism thing years ago. She's anti-feminist, I'm pro-feminist, but it would be the height of male privilege for me to try to tell her what her political views should be. So the feminist thing for me to do is accept that she is perfectly capable of forming her own political opinions, even sexist ones.

 

[RandFan]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses Eternal Law, and does not change to accommodate the whims of mere mortals. Our Heavenly Mother does not hold the responsibility of the Priesthood, that responsibility is held by Our Heavenly Father.

Are you sure? Maybe she (they, since the Mormon Celestial afterlife is polygyny central) do hold the priesthood, but they just haven't told you yet. Line upon line, precept upon precept, Janadele.

Very good. Unless Janadele knows everything, she doesn't, then she can't know if the Church isn't lying to her for reasons only god understands. It wouldn't be the first time that the Church leaders have lied.

BTW: A lie by omission is still a lie. Milk before meat is dishonesty.

 

[bruto]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses Eternal Law, and does not change to accommodate the whims of mere mortals. Our Heavenly Mother does not hold the responsibility of the Priesthood, that responsibility is held by Our Heavenly Father.

That is not even close to being an answer to my question, which you conveniently snipped. How does a change in the status of women differ in substance from other changes the church has most obviously made? According to church doctrine, those changes, being holy in origin, need not be otherwise explained, nor, we presume, foreseen by people like you. What is the difference here that makes you so sure of yourself?

 

[tsig]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses Eternal Law, and does not change to accommodate the whims of mere mortals. Our Heavenly Mother does not hold the responsibility of the Priesthood, that responsibility is held by Our Heavenly Father.

Your Heavenly Father holds his own?

 

[deaman]

Janadele, it really embarrassingly obvious you don't understand the half of what you keep cutting and pasting.

That is pathetic. Don't you want to know the truth?

Where is your conscience?

 

[kerikiwi]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses Eternal Law, and does not change to accommodate the whims of mere mortal.

So what happened to plural marriage and white-only priests(of the non-female variey, of course)?

 

[Janadele]

These questions have already been answered previously.

 

[Slowvehicle]

These questions have already been answered previously.

No. ma'am, these questions have not been "answered".

Avoided, yes.

Obfuscated, yes.

Danced around like a tarantella on a tilted tile floor littered with last nights drinking detritus, yes.

Answered, hava no.

How 'bout that list of anachronisms, demonstrated by empirical evidence attested to by neutral sources, demonstrated to have existed in the pre-Colombian Americas?

 

[pakeha]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses Eternal Law, and does not change to accommodate the whims of mere mortals. ...

The thing is, Janadele, a 'burning in the bosom' sensation trumps even scripture, as all our Mormons have testified here, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Pup]

The thing is, Janadele, a 'burning in the bosom' sensation trumps even scripture, as all our Mormons have testified here, correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually... not quite.

As I understand it, scripture takes precedent for everything unless God gives a new revelation (more on that below).

For things not directly addressed by scripture, each person can only receive revelation for what he/she has authority over. (The "burning in the bosom" phrase, as much fun as it is to say, is generally only used when referring to new converts realizing the church is true. Otherwise, people usually call it receiving revelation or use any of the various phrases other religions use for getting an answer to a prayer from a god. I have no idea what the internal sensation is like, but it doesn't seem to be described as a physical warmth/burning sensation.)

So a mother can receive revelation for herself and her children, a father can receive messages for himself and his wife and kids, a branch president can receive messages for the branch, and so on. That's how they try to keep the church from going off into a zillion splinter sects, while still keeping the doctrine of personal revelation, because otherwise any particular person could claim God said his family/branch/ward should do something on their own.

As far as I know, Janadele is directly contradicting Mormon doctrine by claiming that God says women will never receive the priesthood, because she's not authorized to speak for God on a church-wide topic like that.

So if God wanted to give a new revelation church-wide, the president of the church would announce such a revelation, and it would be presented to the membership for a vote, and they would presumably feel confirmation from God that it was true and vote accordingly. At that point, yes, personal revelation would trump scripture, in the sense that the new revelation would be added to scripture (the Doctrine and Covenants).

But it's not like any particular Mormon, or even the President of the church, can just use personal revelation to make any sort of pronouncement or do whatever they want, regardless of current scripture. And that's why Janadele would not be authorized to make church-wide announcements like women will never get the priesthood, because she doesn't have the authority, though she would have the authority to give revelation about her children, for example.

Here's an example of how it's taught to members from lds.org: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.j...toid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Explain that every worthy Church member has the right to receive revelation, but each of us is given revelation based on our responsibilities and stewardship.

• • Who has the right to receive revelation for the whole Church? (The prophet.)
• • For the ward? (The bishop.)
• • For the ward Primary? (The ward Primary president.)
• • For your family? (Your father and mother.)
• • For you individually? (You.)

Emphasize that each class member, if he or she is trying to live righteously, has the right and privilege to receive personal revelation.

The same thing came up long ago, when we were all younger, in this same thread on the topic of gay marriage, where Janadele said it would never be accepted by the church and I made the same argument: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8880459&postcount=531

Other folks here with church connections can correct me, but I think that's right.

 

[Rincewind]

I'm so in the wrong line of work. I could be fleecing the likes of Jandalee with some flowery language and dramatic false modesty. I'd make a mint of her kind.

And if it comes with a "burning of the bosom", then everbody wins!

 

[pakeha]

Actually... not quite.

As I understand it, scripture takes precedent for everything unless God gives a new revelation (more on that below).

For things not directly addressed by scripture, each person can only receive revelation for what he/she has authority over. (The "burning in the bosom" phrase, as much fun as it is to say, is generally only used when referring to new converts realizing the church is true. Otherwise, people usually call it receiving revelation or use any of the various phrases other religions use for getting an answer to a prayer from a god. I have no idea what the internal sensation is like, but it doesn't seem to be described as a physical warmth/burning sensation.)

So a mother can receive revelation for herself and her children, a father can receive messages for himself and his wife and kids, a branch president can receive messages for the branch, and so on. That's how they try to keep the church from going off into a zillion splinter sects, while still keeping the doctrine of personal revelation, because otherwise any particular person could claim God said his family/branch/ward should do something on their own.

As far as I know, Janadele is directly contradicting Mormon doctrine by claiming that God says women will never receive the priesthood, because she's not authorized to speak for God on a church-wide topic like that.

So if God wanted to give a new revelation church-wide, the president of the church would announce such a revelation, and it would be presented to the membership for a vote, and they would presumably feel confirmation from God that it was true and vote accordingly. At that point, yes, personal revelation would trump scripture, in the sense that the new revelation would be added to scripture (the Doctrine and Covenants). ...

Thanks for clearing that up.
So it's personal revelation that trumps scripture, then?

 

[Empress]

These questions have already been answered previously.

Yeah. No.

I find if fascinating that the only posters answering questions in this thread are:

Cat Tale: An active Mormon who approaches her faith with common sense and reason, and cheerfully admits her religion has historical/social problems.

RandFan: An inactive Mormon who was raised in the church and believed it, but undertook a long and personal journey of education which brought him to atheism.

Pup/Empress: Never been Mormons.

The only two active LDS in this thread, who take a non-skeptical approach to their faith and believe whatever the church leadership state, have done their darnedest to tap-dance and obfusticate, while admonishing others for not respecting their views.

Doesn't speak well for the Mormon church. We keep telling you this, Janadele, but you've done your religion no favors.

 

[halleyscomet]

These questions have already been answered previously.

Not in the way you think.

Mormons and former Mormons who clearly understand Mormon scripture and doctrine better than you have commented on this topic. The problem is, their educated, informed comments make it clear that if there is a new revelation that is judged as such by the LDS hierarchy, then women can be granted the priesthood.

As far as I know, Janadele is directly contradicting Mormon doctrine by claiming that God says women will never receive the priesthood, because she's not authorized to speak for God on a church-wide topic like that.

Janadele, you have made it VERY clear that you only agree with LDS doctrine as long as it agrees with your prejudices. You claim granting women the priesthood would be a violation of eternal law, even though you, as a woman, have no authority to make such a statement.

Now, if Pup's description is accurate, if you had a revelation about women in the priesthood, your revelation would be valid for you and your children. You could have a revelation stating that you, personally, and any daughters of yours are not destined for the priesthood, but trying to apply that personal revelation to the church as a whole would be extreme hubris, figuratively spiting on the very hierarchy from which you claim to get your doctrine.

Is your hypocrisy intentional, or are you merely unaware of it?