What's new

From Mormon Women, a Flood of Requests and Questions on Their Role in the Church | NY Times

For those who say they don't think women In the LDS church will ever receive the priesthood, know that they already do. Women temple works have it and in the early church years some women had it... So it is not out of the realm of possibility!!!

Good point. I don't know Mormon history very well, but I do know enough to get curious about how and why the power of women has shifted over time.
 
Mine is only an opinion and not argumentative at all. I simply believe it's against the message of Jesus and especially that of love that a sinner can expel another sinner from what the first sinner calls the only one true way. It just reeks of pharisees to me... but, again, to each their own.

It sounds like you are completely against excommunication in all forms, then. How do you interpret passages of scripture that seem to argue pretty strongly in favor of excommunication in some circumstances, such as Matthew 16:15-20 and 1 Cor 5?
 
To me there are two parts to this. The revealed doctrine and the traditions/culture of the Church.

Excellent point. For example, in our ward last Sunday we had two adult speakers. One was a young newly married man, and the other was an older, experienced, very educated woman. The young man was the concluding speaker even though tradition is that the older, more authoritative person typically speaks last. I have no doubt that if the older speaker had been male, he would have spoken last. That's certainly an area where culture could (and should in my opinion) change. There is no revealed doctrine that says when a man and woman are both speaking, the man must speak last. Similarly the whole "woman praying in General Conference" thing that happened a year or two ago was WAY overdue to happen in my opinion.


Qman said:
As for ordaining woman to the priesthood, I don't see it ever happening.

I am reminded of Pres. Hinckley's comments on that matter from his 1997 interview with ABC. https://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm

RB: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?

GBH: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. There own ???. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organisation of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied.

RB: They all say that?

GBH: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.

RB: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?

GBH: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.

RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

RB: So you’d have to get a revelation?

GBH: Yes.

I thought it was very interesting that he didn't say that it would NOT happen. He said it would take a revelation. And that in my opinion is the correct answer to the question.
 
It sounds like you are completely against excommunication in all forms, then. How do you interpret passages of scripture that seem to argue pretty strongly in favor of excommunication in some circumstances, such as Matthew 16:15-20 and 1 Cor 5?

I am against telling anyone they are unworthy of Heaven. You can excommunicate from your church, your religion, but the Bible states all sin separates us from God and only through the blood of Jesus (and us accepting Him as our Savior) are any of us (ANY) able to make it into Heaven.

Why the need to inform someone they're not getting to Heaven? I believe our roles are to teach, love, instruct, and steer those that want to know God, or already do, to a better walk with Christ. It is not our role to decide whether they are found acceptable in the eyes of Him.

Such as this..

Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
 
Why the need to inform someone they're not getting to Heaven?

There are a lot of things in this thread I'd like to reply to but I'm without a computer. In any case, I'd like to address the above. I think there may be some fundamental misunderstanding here. You'll likely find, despite some commonly held beliefs, that LDS theology is actually quite liberal in its belief in an all-loving, omniscient God who has provided all of His children a path to not only return to His presence, but to be like Him in nature and character, all made possible through Christ. LDS theology believes that all will be able to make a decision as to whether they will accept this. I think often times we superimpose a lot of cultural beliefs and view things from a lens that doesn't provide the best clarity, as many have come away with the feeling that it's a judgement of who is or is not going to heaven.
 
There are a lot of things in this thread I'd like to reply to but I'm without a computer. In any case, I'd like to address the above. I think there may be some fundamental misunderstanding here. You'll likely find, despite some commonly held beliefs, that LDS theology is actually quite liberal in its belief in an all-loving, omniscient God who has provided all of His children a path to not only return to His presence, but to be like Him in nature and character, all made possible through Christ. LDS theology believes that all will be able to make a decision as to whether they will accept this. I think often times we superimpose a lot of cultural beliefs and view things from a lens that doesn't provide the best clarity, as many have come away with the feeling that it's a judgement of who is or is not going to heaven.

Thanks for the reply.

"Excommunication" implies something, in my mind, that takes things to another level... a man-made level. I love LDS folks.. I REALLY do. Soooo many kudos I could give, but I believe the religious strongholds, rites, ordinances, etc is more of an apostasy than the 'original' church it was 'founded' to replace.

I hope no one feels I am on an anti-Mormon rant (and I could certainly see where you would), but I'm just sharing my sincere feelings from brother to brother.
 
Good points. Will address in more detail tomorrow.
 
I am against telling anyone they are unworthy of Heaven. You can excommunicate from your church, your religion, but the Bible states all sin separates us from God and only through the blood of Jesus (and us accepting Him as our Savior) are any of us (ANY) able to make it into Heaven.

Why the need to inform someone they're not getting to Heaven?

As infection said, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding going on. I don't know of any LDS who would disagree with you on that. I certainly am not the ultimate judge of anyone, nor are any other LDS--although we do consider a bishop to be a judge in some respects in that they hold church discipline courts if e.g. excommunication may be warranted. But I, for example, would never tell you that you are not getting to Heaven. And I have a couple of friends who are great people but recently left the church--I would similarly never tell them that either. And I doubt even a bishop would say that of someone whom he has just excommunicated.
 
As infection said, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding going on. I don't know of any LDS who would disagree with you on that. I certainly am not the ultimate judge of anyone, nor are any other LDS--although we do consider a bishop to be a judge in some respects in that they hold church discipline courts if e.g. excommunication may be warranted. But I, for example, would never tell you that you are not getting to Heaven. And I have a couple of friends who are great people but recently left the church--I would similarly never tell them that either. And I doubt even a bishop would say that of someone whom he has just excommunicated.

Same thing though, right? Be honest.

When someone is excommunicated from the LDS church for transgressions, isn't the general view that they are damned? More, much more, importantly, is that the feeling they're left with when handed their walking papers?
 
I get behind the way you said it. "Membership is a privilege" sounds like a country club.
Triangle Man does not always win. Sometimes he quits.

lmao just got to this post in this thread #shotsfired
 
Back
Top