Monday, October 13, 2014

Ordain Women Now

It's been shown, and admitted to by LDS church leaders, that their past prophets from the first to Kimball were wrong about not ordaining black men to their priesthood.

Interestingly, there is more reference in their scripture about certain races or people being denied the priesthood (in the book of Abraham, Book of Mormon) than there is about denying women the priesthood.

The LDS church's late 2013 essay on Race and the Priesthood tried to exempt Joseph Smith from the lineage of racist prophets by claiming, "there is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime."

It sounds to me as if the LDS church is proud of those leaders who were ahead of their time in ordaining minority males to the priesthood when they say the world view was against it.

Why wouldn't they say the same thing about Joseph Smith ordaining women? I won't expound on the events surrounding the history of Joseph Smith ordaining women, but D. Michael Quinn showed plenty on it.  There are many saying the LDS church is wrong to discriminate:  You should have a look at the Ordainwomen website to get more information.

What I want to challenge here is, why aren't there more active men who stand up and step forward for women, and Ordain Women Now?  Your prophet is a sexist, so stand up and go forward by ordaining Kate Kelly or any other Mormon woman who asks to be ordained. Don't be ashamed of your small support for females.  Be a large man and stand tall for women.  Lay your hands on them, give them the priesthood and report it to the world.  

If and when the LDS church leaders come after you with a disciplinary court, stand tall and lead.  Let the chips fall where they may.  You'll make history when the future church proclaims that it doesn't know how or when the ban on women started but is against all forms of sexism, past, present or future. And you can be listed among those brave LDS saints that stood for priesthood equality.


Ordain Women Now doesn't have to be a movement waiting for change. Just ordain women and make the change immediately.



Sit high, look forward to a bright, if uncertain future.

17 comments:

  1. What if the majority of women do not want to be ordained? Should it be forced on the majority for the sake of a few? No! Look, I believe at one time women were prophets, during Biblical times, why it changed I do not know....but I do believe that if the Lord wants to reinstate women holding the office of prophets, it will happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what if there are MEN who do not want to be ordained? Yet the church forces men to either receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, or not be considered worthy. Frankly, if given the choice, I might have been happy to remain an Aaronic Priesthood holder, performing temporal duties. With the Melchizedek Priesthood, men are expected to be inspired to basically speak the mind of God (through blessings and other ordinances). Well I couldn't do that. Oh, I know, don't feel bad for those poor men who can't find any inspirational words entering their heads, because whatever little sins they committed earlier in the day must be offending God, and dulling them to the Spirit.

      Or perhaps there are just people who can convince themselves they are spiritual conduits, and there are others who cannot, and whether they are men OR women, those who feel called to the spiritual ministry of the Priesthood should be ordained to it, and those who don't feel such inclinations should be allowed to be members in good standing, with or without any Priesthood.

      Delete
  2. Anyone who doubts that institutional LDS misogyny is alive and well need look no further than the events involving Kate Kelly and John Dehlin.

    As a woman, Kate Kelly was ex-communicated; meanwhile John Dehlin's day in his "court of love" [sic] is still in hang-fire mode.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think John Dehlin will end up excommunicated eventually. Local leaders differ somewhat in how quickly they deal with these things, but he produces a steady enough stream of antics that it really is only a matter of when and not so much if. See, for example:
      http://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/

      Delete
    2. "Antics"? That's a clever moniker, but your bias is showing.

      We shall see, and if he isn't, I'd like to hear the apologetic defenses of why he wasn't and Kate Kelly was.

      Delete
  3. I have to confess, after a lot of reading and looking in on these discussions, I'm still rather vague on what exactly Mormon priesthood is about. What exactly is a "key"? The word is used as if its meaning were self-evident, but really, it's not. Can a person be saved or enjoy exaltation without it? Are all men expected to hold the priesthood at some point? By what theory can the "Aaronic priesthood" be bestowed on anyone, even by John the Baptist, when the Torah is quite clear it's a birthright of Aaron's descendants only -- and when it in fact still exists as originally instituted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Birthright or Aaron does not mean that others cannot have it, it simply means it is theirs by right of birth.

      Delete
    2. Actually, yes. It does. Have you actually read the Bible? There is no ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood. Aaron and his sons were anointed (literally, with actual oil) by Moses at the express command of God as an "everlasting priesthood throughout their generations." Subsequently, only a high priest had to be anointed on succeeding to the position. Not a word is spoken to even mildly hint this priesthood might ever belong to anyone else, it was never passed on by laying on of hands, and it was never the property of the Christian church.

      Old Testament "Aaronic" priests are still around. Families being what they are as they continue through centuries, not every Jewish man named "Cohen" or similar is actually a priest, but most of them are, and even without the Temple they have the authority to bestow the priestly blessing, which they regularly do in synagogues.

      Delete
  4. Gabe, you are attempting to compare apples to oranges, and it doesn't work. Being an idiot and making an idiot comparison doesn't work. Holding the priesthood is not a paying position there are no additional perks, and in fact it entails more responsibility

    Chris C. It doesn't work to look at this religion through a limited lens. This isn't a simple religion. David T., and others who have become disenchanted with the church want to take a piece of it here and there, find flaws and then point to the church as a whole and say, see...it is wrong!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So is there some way to answer the question I asked, or is this all just going to be too complex to describe briefly to someone with a theological education in a religion that's roughly 10 times as complex as Mormonism?

      Delete
    2. Chris C., you have asked many questions, one that cannot be answered with in one or two sentences. Having a theological education in religion does not make you an expert nor will it help you to understand the ways of the Lord. I've taken a religion class and saw tons of flaws, just as I've seen tons of flaws in education and its presentation and background. In the scriptures it is called, "Ever learning, but never coming to the truth." If you really want to learn more, the following website has a TON of information: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/

      Delete
    3. I asked 3 questions. Having a theological education means I'm well used to thinking about the "ways of the Lord" -- and believe me, Mormon theology is NOT complicated.

      The way "key" is thrown around undefined, it ought to be easy to explain, since I expect even the very unsophisticated Mormons I've met understand it. My second question called for a simple yes-or-no answer. I expect only my third question to involved a good deal of (probably flimsy) rationalization -- but "it just is" is no answer.

      Delete
  5. David T., why are you blocking posts again? What are you afraid of?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What would David have to be afraid of here? I haven't seen any responses to his argument that merit fear. If you have something to challenge him, by all means, post it!

      Delete
    2. Mark O., fear of anyone that doesn't agree with him.

      Delete
  6. Gabe, you apparently are clueless regarding the culture of the church. Even though you can turn down a church calling, and have a right to turn it down according to your personal feelings, and prayers to the Lord. People that are so strong and to some degree superstitious regarding things of the church, would not turn away the priesthood. They will feel as though they will HAVE TO acquire the priesthood. Again, oranges to apples...women have not and do not feel compelled to drive a commercial truck. In this church, all a church authority has to do is say...use your right hand to partake of the sacrament and they will all be using their right hand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who cares, just put your hands on their heads say the magic words and give them the priesthood, its not like its real or does anything anyways.

      Delete