Mormon Excommunicated for advocating female priesthood.

[Mycroft]

All I'm going to say at this point is that, unless you make a little more effort to not be so insulting from here on out, you and I are done talking.

That's fine. Communicating with you has a very low probability of success anyway.

 

[idav]

No. A single, male priesthood holder cannot "get any further" than a single, woman (who is unable to hold the priesthood).

Actually, women do speak in LDS worship services. They also offer public prayers in our worship services. As a matter of fact, they speak and pray as part of the Church's semi-annual worldwide General Conferences. They also teach classes where the students are both men and women. That's why I said that I didn't think you really understood what "the priesthood" is in our Church. We don't have a "priest" who gives our Sunday sermons.

I may have got confused with something said earlier. So is the distinction that a male can get "further" in the church but means little in going "further" spiritually? By the church I mean politically.

 

[Mycroft]

I may have got confused with something said earlier. So is the distinction that a male can get "further" in the church but means little in going "further" spiritually? By the church I mean politically.

I would say that being able to gain priesthood is going further, would you not agree? So men are able to get further in the church than women.

 

[Katzpur]

I may have got confused with something said earlier. So is the distinction that a male can get "further" in the church but means little in going "further" spiritually? By the church I mean politically.

If I understand you correctly, it would be accurate to say that a male can hold a position of greater authority in the earthly Church today than a woman can. There are certain things a priesthood holder is authorized to do that a non-priesthood holder is not authorized to do. On the other hand, this does not affect the eternal status of women.

 

[idav]

I would say that being able to gain priesthood is going further, would you not agree? So men are able to get further in the church than women.

Yes.

If I understand you correctly, it would be accurate to say that a male can hold a position of greater authority in the earthly Church today than a woman can. There are certain things a priesthood holder is authorized to do that a non-priesthood holder is not authorized to do. On the other hand, this does not affect the eternal status of women.

Yes I appreciate the clarification.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes I appreciate the clarification.

Just curious, though... What do you see the benefits of "getting further" as actually being?

 

[idav]

Just curious, though... What do you see the benefits of "getting further" as actually being?

I don't see any benefit in any way, it is for the body, and having said that I feel that a woman would make a fine bishop, you know, for the betterment of men and such. Might just be me I think highly of women. Some may disagree on that one lol.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't see any benefit in any way, it is for the body, and having said that I feel that a woman would make a fine bishop, you know, for the betterment of men and such. Might just be me I think highly of women. Some may disagree on that one lol.

LOL. I fine with your thinking highly of women. I wish more men did.

 

[fantome profane]

If I understand you correctly, it would be accurate to say that a male can hold a position of greater authority in the earthly Church today than a woman can. There are certain things a priesthood holder is authorized to do that a non-priesthood holder is not authorized to do. On the other hand, this does not affect the eternal status of women.

Well that's nice. Equality in the next life if not in this one. To get equal rights in the Mormon church all women have to do is simply die.

 

[Shiranui117]

I think any charge of misogynism against churches who hold to the ancient and traditional Christian teaching of an all-male priesthood is severely misguided, and rather ignorant. If you don't like it, then leave it, but don't act like the only reason we don't allow women to be priests is because we hate women and think of them as second-class humans. That's not a reason at all.

This Eastern Orthodox Christian is taking the LDS side here. Good on the Mormons for not giving in to the whims of modern society.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think any charge of misogynism against churches who hold to the ancient and traditional Christian teaching of an all-male priesthood is severely misguided, and rather ignorant. If you don't like it, then leave it, but don't act like the only reason we don't allow women to be priests is because we hate women and think of them as second-class humans. That's not a reason at all.

That gets a bit tricky if you think that the ban on female priests is a human invention but that the church itself is still God's appointed church.

If a Mormon thinks that the LDS Temple is the only place where she can do baptism of the dead (or if a Catholic thinks that a Catholic church is the only place she can get the "real" Eucharist), then even if she thinks her church leadership is misguided on a particular issue, she effectively has to toe the Church line - or at least not get excommunicated - if she's going to continue with things that are vitally important to her.

I find it strange that one person of faith would be so dismissive of the importance another person places on their faith that they'd say "if you don't like it, then leave it."

This Eastern Orthodox Christian is taking the LDS side here. Good on the Mormons for not giving in to the whims of modern society.

... yet.

They gave in on other major issues in 1890 and in 1978. I'd put even money on whether they'll eventually give in on this issue.

 

[Katzpur]

Well that's nice. Equality in the next life if not in this one. To get equal rights in the Mormon church all women have to do is simply die.

Yup, kind of like in Catholicism I guess. The "right" to attend one more meeting a week is something I can pass up pretty easily. See, what I find to be kind of funny about this whole conversation is that everybody is so down on the LDS Church over something that 99% of LDS women don't even have an issue with. What I'm asking for is that people be a little more specific. What do you see women in the LDS Church as being unable to do that they would probably really want to do? I mean the word, "inequality" implies that one group of people is being denied something another group of people has. In this case, it's the LDS priesthood. But do you guys even know what holding the priesthood means in the LDS Church or are you arguing for something you don't really even understand?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yup, kind of like in Catholicism I guess. The "right" to attend one more meeting a week is something I can pass up pretty easily. See, what I find to be kind of funny about this whole conversation is that everybody is so down on the LDS Church over something that 99% of LDS women don't even have an issue with.

99% of women don't want to be pilots. Should we make that off-limits to women as well?

What I'm asking for is that people be a little more specific. What do you see women in the LDS Church as being unable to do that they would probably really want to do? I mean the word, "inequality" implies that one group of people is being denied something another group of people has. In this case, it's the LDS priesthood. But do you guys even know what holding the priesthood means in the LDS Church or are you arguing for something you don't really even understand?

Holding the priesthood is a prerequisite for certain offices and responsibilities within the church, each of which have different levels of power, responsibility, and leadership associated with them. Is that a fair summary?

 

[idav]

That gets a bit tricky if you think that the ban on female priests is a human invention but that the church itself is still God's appointed church.

This ^ Gets no simpler than that.

 

[Katzpur]

That gets a bit tricky if you think that the ban on female priests is a human invention but that the church itself is still God's appointed church.

I'm not sure what Shiranui's perspective is on that point, since he hasn't actually said, but here's my "Mormon perspective": In the LDS Church (and I guess in most Christian churches), there is a difference between policy and doctrine. Doctrines are "eternal truths," absolute truths that have existed since the beginning of creation and will continue to exist forever. They are "absolute" because they are determined by God himself. Some of these truths, He has revealed to mankind through prophets. In other words, the two important things that must be remembered about doctrine is that they (1) are determined by God, not by man, and (2) they are eternal. Policies are procedures put into place by human beings. The human beings who put these policies into place can be directed by God or they can simply make decisions on their own. In the LDS Church, a policy change can only take place if the fifteen men in the Church's leadership positions all agree on the proposed change. One hold-out and the change doesn't take effect.

Denying the LDS priesthood to women is actually a policy as opposed to a doctrine, because there is nothing in scripture which specifically states that the priesthood is only to be extended to men. On the other hand, it's not exactly a new policy. You look at Christ's twelve Apostles. They were all men. Yes, I know that certain women are believed to have been very important in His life, but there is nowhere in scripture where they were said to hold the priesthood. I know that somebody's going to say, "Yeah, but the culture of Jesus' day would not have permitted women to hold the priesthood. Things are different now." My reply to that would be, "Since when did Jesus ever let the culture of His day dictate anything to do with His gospel? He simply didn't. If He had wanted some of the Apostles to be women, He would have chosen some women. He wouldn't have caved in to societal pressure." The thing is, when a policy has been in effect for 2000 years, it's actually kind of difficult to distinguish it from doctrine. I think that's more or less the situation that exists today with respect to Mormonism.

If a Mormon thinks that the LDS Temple is the only place where she can do baptism of the dead (or if a Catholic thinks that a Catholic church is the only place she can get the "real" Eucharist), then even if she thinks her church leadership is misguided on a particular issue, she effectively has to toe the Church line - or at least not get excommunicated - if she's going to continue with things that are vitally important to her.

If a man thinks his Church leadership is misguided on a particular issue, he has to toe the line as well. Men get excommunicated just as often as women do.

They gave in on other major issues in 1890 and in 1978. I'd put even money on whether they'll eventually give in on this issue.

LOL! Please don't! I'm not saying it couldn't conceivably happen. Since there is no actual doctrinal backing for withholding the priesthood from women, the policy now in place could change. But unless you plan on living another 150 years or so, I'd hang on to that money, if I were you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure what Shiranui's perspective is on that point, since he hasn't actually said, but here's my "Mormon perspective": In the LDS Church (and I guess in most Christian churches), there is a difference between policy and doctrine. Doctrines are "eternal truths," absolute truths that have existed since the beginning of creation and will continue to exist forever. They are "absolute" because they are determined by God himself. Some of these truths, He has revealed to mankind through prophets. In other words, the two important things that must be remembered about doctrine is that they (1) are determined by God, not by man, and (2) they are eternal. Policies are procedures put into place by human beings. The human beings who put these policies into place can be directed by God or they can simply make decisions on their own. In the LDS Church, a policy change can only take place if the fifteen men in the Church's leadership positions all agree on the proposed change. One hold-out and the change doesn't take effect.

Denying the LDS priesthood to women is actually a policy as opposed to a doctrine, because there is nothing in scripture which specifically states that the priesthood is only to be extended to men. On the other hand, it's not exactly a new policy. You look at Christ's twelve Apostles. They were all men. Yes, I know that certain women are believed to have been very important in His life, but there is nowhere in scripture where they were said to hold the priesthood. I know that somebody's going to say, "Yeah, but the culture of Jesus' day would not have permitted women to hold the priesthood. Things are different now." My reply to that would be, "Since when did Jesus ever let the culture of His day dictate anything to do with His gospel? He simply didn't. If He had wanted some of the Apostles to be women, He would have chosen some women. He wouldn't have caved in to societal pressure." The thing is, when a policy has been in effect for 2000 years, it's actually kind of difficult to distinguish it from doctrine. I think that's more or less the situation that exists today with respect to Mormonism.

Do people typically get excommunicated over disagreements on policy? Or is the excommunication about some related issue (denying the authority of church leadership or something like that)?

FYI: in the translations I'm familiar with, 1 Timothy 3 says that a bishop/elder/overseer/episkopoi [edit: I see that the version on LDS.org renders it "bishop"] is to be "husband of one wife", which I think does imply that he's a man. Not sure how the LDS Church interprets this verse, though.

If a man thinks his Church leadership is misguided on a particular issue, he has to toe the line as well. Men get excommunicated just as often as women do.

Oh, definitely. I just used female pronouns because we happened to be talking about women in this particular case.

(and also because when I'm talking about hypothetical people, I tend to go back and forth between making them male or female unless there's a particular reason for them to be one or the other)

LOL! Please don't! I'm not saying it couldn't conceivably happen. Since there is no actual doctrinal backing for withholding the priesthood from women, the policy now in place could change. But unless you plan on living another 150 years or so, I'd hang on to that money, if I were you.

Heh... in the arrangement I had in mind, no money would change hands until the matter was decided conclusively either way, either with a new revelation allowing female priests or with an authoritative declaration that there will never, ever be such a revelation. I think my money's safe.

 

[Katzpur]

99% of women don't want to be pilots. Should we make that off-limits to women as well?

I can understand why, to an atheist, this analogy makes perfect sense. To someone in my position, it doesn't. I don't think you can draw a legitimate comparison between those two things. The real question for Mormons should be this: What does God have to say on the issue?

Holding the priesthood is a prerequisite for certain offices and responsibilities within the church, each of which have different levels of power, responsibility, and leadership associated with them. Is that a fair summary?

Yes, that's a fair summary. Although, it would be entirely possible for the Church to continue to withhold the priesthood from women and yet still give women a more active role in determining policies, etc. That's what I personally feel should happen. For instance, it is Church doctrine that one must be a priesthood holder to perform a baptism. Consequently, since women can't hold the priesthood, they can't perform baptisms. It is Church policy that worship services worldwide be held for three hours each Sunday, and that this 3-hour block be divided up into three separate gatherings. In two of these three hours, the study curriculum is pretty strictly regimented. No matter whether you're in Salt Lake City or Taiwan, you are going to be studying the same chapter of the same student manuals. Who decided all of this? Men did. They are priesthood holders, but there is no reason why a person would have to be a priesthood holder in order to have a say in this. This is not, doctrinally speaking, a priesthood function. There is absolutely no reason why this couldn't be changed. It wouldn't require a revelation from God. It wouldn't involve any unauthorized change in doctrine. It would just involve the men of the Church giving up a little bit of control to the women. It is happening. It's just happening very, very slowly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can understand why, to an atheist, this analogy makes perfect sense. To someone in my position, it doesn't. I don't think you can draw a legitimate comparison between those two things. The real question for Mormons should be this: What does God have to say on the issue?

Oh... is that all that needs to be figured out?

Your last post suggested (to me, anyhow) that you think God has been silent on the issue. I gather that these women who feel called to the priesthood believe strongly that God has told them that women should be allowed to be priests. I'm sure that others feel that God is telling them that women shouldn't be allowed.

Now... all we have to do is figure out a way to discern what God is actually saying. As a side benefit, if we do this for this issue, we'll also resolve all religious disputes ever.

Yes, that's a fair summary. Although, it would be entirely possible for the Church to continue to withhold the priesthood from women and yet still give women a more active role in determining policies, etc. That's what I personally feel should happen. For instance, it is Church doctrine that one must be a priesthood holder to perform a baptism. Consequently, since women can't hold the priesthood, they can't perform baptisms. It is Church policy that worship services worldwide be held for three hours each Sunday, and that this 3-hour block be divided up into three separate gatherings. In two of these three hours, the study curriculum is pretty strictly regimented. No matter whether you're in Salt Lake City or Taiwan, you are going to be studying the same chapter of the same student manuals. Who decided all of this? Men did. They are priesthood holders, but there is no reason why a person would have to be a priesthood holder in order to have a say in this. This is not, doctrinally speaking, a priesthood function. There is absolutely no reason why this couldn't be changed. It wouldn't require a revelation from God. It wouldn't involve any unauthorized change in doctrine. It would just involve the men of the Church giving up a little bit of control to the women. It is happening. It's just happening very, very slowly.

Wait - I thought you said that the prohibition on women priests wasn't doctrine either. Did I misunderstand your position?

 

[Katzpur]

Do people typically get excommunicated over disagreements on policy? Or is the excommunication about some related issue (denying the authority of church leadership or something like that)?

Let me put it this way... People get excommunicated when they don't seem to be able to figure out how far they can push the envelope. There are probably several thousand women in the Church (out of perhaps 7.5 million total) who believe they should be allowed to hold the priesthood. I can pretty much guaranteed that they're not going to get excommunicated. And it's not as if many of their names are not known to the Church leadership. As long as they don't become overly agressive in their "demands," they are almost certain to be left alone. Kate Kelly (the woman who was just ex'ed) was pretty in-your-face, and the Church leadership tends not to appreciate that kind of confrontations. Her group, "Ordain Women" kind of came across as "Ordain Women Damn It!" I still wish she hadn't been ex'ed, but it does take more than just disagreeing with Church policy. The Church leadership saw her (whether rightly or wrongly) as trying to undermine their authority and to stage some kind of large-scale uprising intended to back the leadership up against a wall until they caved in.

The issue of same-sex marriage is another similar one. This year, as last year, I marched with a group called "Mormons Building Bridges" in Salt Lake City's annual Pride Parade. There were about 450 of us. We are pro-gay rights to varying degrees, but the crux of our message was, "Love one another as Jesus loved everyone." The Church can hardly come out against a message like that, and I am not the slightest bit concerned that I might be excommunicated for my association with that group. Ex-NFL football quarterback, Steve Young (whom I guess most people know is LDS) has also been quite an outspoken proponent for gay rights. He's not going to be ex'ed either and it's not because of who he is. It's because of the approach he takes.

FYI: in the translations I'm familiar with, 1 Timothy 3 says that a bishop/elder/overseer/episkopoi [edit: I see that the version on LDS.org renders it "bishop"] is to be "husband of one wife", which I think does imply that he's a man. Not sure how the LDS Church interprets this verse, though.

They probably interpret it pretty much as you do.

Oh, definitely. I just used female pronouns because we happened to be talking about women in this particular case.

(and also because when I'm talking about hypothetical people, I tend to go back and forth between making them male or female unless there's a particular reason for them to be one or the other)

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I do know that there are a lot of people who believe that a woman would be more likely to get excommunicated from the Church for having a dissenting opinion than a man would.

Heh... in the arrangement I had in mind, no money would change hands until the matter was decided conclusively either way, either with a new revelation allowing female priests or with an authoritative declaration that there will never, ever be such a revelation. I think my money's safe.

You have no idea how relieved I am.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me put it this way... People get excommunicated when they don't seem to be able to figure out how far they can push the envelope. There are probably several thousand women in the Church (out of perhaps 7.5 million total) who believe they should be allowed to hold the priesthood. I can pretty much guaranteed that they're not going to get excommunicated. And it's not as if many of their names are not known to the Church leadership. As long as they don't become overly agressive in their "demands," they are almost certain to be left alone. Kate Kelly (the woman who was just ex'ed) was pretty in-your-face, and the Church leadership tends not to appreciate that kind of confrontations. Her group, "Ordain Women" kind of came across as "Ordain Women Damn It!" I still wish she hadn't been ex'ed, but it does take more than just disagreeing with Church policy. The Church leadership saw her (whether rightly or wrongly) as trying to undermine their authority and to stage some kind of large-scale uprising intended to back the leadership up against a wall until they caved in.

So excommunication isn't so much for disagreeing on doctrine as it is for disagreeing on doctrine AND being annoying?