Disciplinary council for the founder of the Ordain Women movement in the LDS church

[LivingWaters7]

I think if Mormon women started giving blessings, healing or otherwise, to their children and openly talked about it, they would get in trouble. I know of at least one woman who requested to stand in the circle to hold her new baby during its blessing. The father was going to pronounce the blessing. She just wanted to hold the baby. She and her husband were shut down by the bishop and they were forbidden to bless the baby at home which was their original intention so they could have other family members attend via Skype. The bishop made a huge stink about it and released the mother from her calling over it.

It Kate Kelly limited her movement to women simply giving blessings like in the past, I would have expected her to still be excommunicated.

On naming and blessing children, the Handbook of Instructions states:

**"“Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name” (D&C 20:70). In conformity with this revelation, only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may participate in naming and blessing children."

“When blessing a baby, Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle and place their hands under the baby.”**

So, I’m not surprised that she was not allowed to stand in the circle, since this is a Melchizedek priesthood ordinance (even if all she wanted to do was hold her child). Aaronic priesthood holders wouldn’t be able to either.

Also, what JamesCollins was talking about was giving blessings “based on faith rather than the priesthood”…the above is a priesthood ordinance. Whenever I stood in the circle for something, even if I wasn’t the “voice” pronouncing the blessing, I thought (and I’m sure this is common thinking) that my purpose there was also in contributing priestly “power” to the blessing/ordination/confirmation.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Link to the Bishop’s actual letter can be found from this blog:

Sic Et Non - The bishop’s letter to Sister Kelly

I’m pretty much in agreement with most of this link.

I find the letter useful because it undercuts allegations that Sister Kelly’s local leaders refused to speak with her, left her totally in the dark about what was expected of her until arbitrarily tossing her from the Church, were callous and cruel, and so forth.

I’ve “sat in the hotseat” and confessed to my bishop, and I’ve been on the other side of the table in various callings for two other disciplinary matters. My experience was spiritual, wonderful, comforting, and I can even say freeing and life-changing.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Here is what the temple Endowment currently states:

For women:

"You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of the Lord, and hearken to the counsel of your husband as he hearkens to the counsel of the Father. "

For men:
**
“You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will obey the law of God and keep his commandants.”**

Anyway, I think that some may be missing the point that while many Mormons do accept that a revelation could be received at some point opening the priesthood to women (in contrast to Catholicism where it is intrinsically impossible for women to ever be ordained), the issue is that currently, there is no such revelation, the priesthood is only available to males, and that is why her actions necessitated discipline (excommunication? ). If I remember correctly, a man was excommunicated for advocating for the ordination of blacks during the time of the priesthood ban.

So, the point isn’t that Mormonism can entertain the ordination of women at some point in time (as I mentioned, women already perform priestly functions in the temple for each other, and historically LDS women have performed healing ordinances with oil). It is that current practice (for whatever reason, even if it is just “because it is”) is to not ordain women, and her actions (not just merely having a conversation about the matter, or asking questions) go against the temple recommend question already mentioned, which is why I don’t feel too bad for her. And again, if our hope as Catholics is for her to one day come home to the fulness of the Truth, she will have to come to realize that priesthood is only open to males, and that there is no scriptural support for the ordination of women.

 

[andrewstx]

Well if your god says so, I guess I would call that doctrine. Our Catholic God, Jesus, apparently did not see fit to call women to the priesthood. That seems to be good enough for Catholics. There is no example in any Mormon scripture of a woman holding the priesthood. The only reason we Catholics seem to think a woman can’t hold the priesthood is because Jesus was a man. That’s good enough for me, but I’m surprised it’s good enough for you. Here is what the LDS web site says about it:

mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church

Actually Iepuras is a Catholic and has the same God as you, James.

 

[iepuras]

I think the biggest problem we may have in the future is some court deciding that not giving women the priesthood is somehow discriminatory and a reason to get rid of tax exempt status for a religion. In that case both the Catholic Church and the LDS Church would be in the same boat so I don’t think it is very wise to be supportive of a group in any church that is demanding so-called equal rights with regards to the priesthood. It is the same thing with gay marriage. We don’t know if a future U.S. court won’t go the Danish route and require churches to perform gay marriages. There will be future Kate Kellys who will try to demand the government uphold their rights as women for equality. It is a slippery slope, and I hate to even be seen as sympathetic to any woman in any church demanding priesthood based on the idea of equal rights.

Where is Ms. Kelly asking the U.S. government to intervene and force the LDS church to ordain women to the priesthood?

 

[TexanKnight]

I think the biggest problem we may have in the future is some court deciding that not giving women the priesthood is somehow discriminatory and a reason to get rid of tax exempt status for a religion. In that case both the Catholic Church and the LDS Church would be in the same boat so I don’t think it is very wise to be supportive of a group in any church that is demanding so-called equal rights with regards to the priesthood. It is the same thing with gay marriage. We don’t know if a future U.S. court won’t go the Danish route and require churches to perform gay marriages. There will be future Kate Kellys who will try to demand the government uphold their rights as women for equality. It is a slippery slope, and I hate to even be seen as sympathetic to any woman in any church demanding priesthood based on the idea of equal rights.

perhaps. But that is, and was, not my point. My point was taking this issue in conjunction with everything else shows a definite pattern

 

[JamesCollins]

Where is Ms. Kelly asking the U.S. government to intervene and force the LDS church to ordain women to the priesthood?

She’s not. In the future somebody will. I have no sympathy for people looking for equal rights when it comes to demanding priesthood equality for women in any denomination. Catholics should recognize such demands as a threat wherever it comes from.

 

[JamesCollins]

perhaps. But that is, and was, not my point. My point was taking this issue in conjunction with everything else shows a definite pattern

So what you are doing is using this incident as a means to bash the LDS rather than look at the real issue at hand. There is a time and a place for that – I don’t think this is it. If Kate Kelly were a Catholic demanding the priesthood for so-called equality in the Catholic Church you wouldn’t be on her side so why even express any sympathy for her side in this event?

 

[twopekinguys]

I think we’re missing a couple of key element in the debate between lds and Catholic doctrine concerning a male priesthood.

One element being the fact that Mormon doctrine is very fluid, and can change at any moment, depending on the prophet at the time.

Mormon doctrine tends to change when there is public pressure. i.e. blacks and the priesthood.

Another would be the they have with allowing so much personal interpretation of their scriptures, writings, current doctrines, etc.

We all know that the Mormon view of the trinity falls far outside of what mainstream Christianities view is, so why couldn’t the mormon god allow for it?

 

[iepuras]

Honestly James, your posts cause to wonder if you actually read all of my posts on this thread including the post on the other thread I linked to. Never once have I completely agreed with Kate Kelly that LDS women should be ordained to the LDS priesthood in the exact same way as LDS men. In fact, I don’t think LDS women should be ordained to the LDS priesthood in the exact same way as men. I support Ms. Kelly because of the light she is shining on the treatment of women in the LDS church and culture. I have sisters and nieces in the LDS church. I would LOVE for them to leave. If they are unwilling to educate themselves on the real history of Joseph Smith and the LDS church and leave, then I want them treated better than I and countless other women were. Being raised in the LDS church was horrible for me and many of my female friends. If I were to be a good, faithful Mormon woman, I would have to be someone other than who God created me to be.

Being told while growing up that polygamy is a doctrine of God’s true church and practiced in the celestial kingdom (and my eternal fate) made me feel less important and loved than men. Having to covenant in the temple to obey a nonexistent husband (I did not marry until age 30) and rely on him to reach God and the celestial kingdom made me feel less important than a man. Being told that I have a Heavenly Mother who is my model for eternal womanhood but that I could not pray to her or really learn about her made me feel less important and loved as a woman.

My point is that LDS theology does support women to be ordained to a priestesshood. This priestesshood would not look exactly like the male priesthood does. It would look more like the early LDS church with women anointing and blessing other women and children with oil. It would look like women running their organizations without men making the decisions and controlling funds.

If you research the second anointing, you will find that women are ordained as priestesses and can give priesthood blessings. So elite LDS women are ordained behind closed doors and rank and file women are not while all rank and file LDS men are ordained starting at the age of twelve.

The problem I see with many feminists like Ms. Kelly is that they see priesthood as a source of power and authority and that when women are ordained to the priesthood, they then have power and authority. I don’t see that as being the case in orthodox Christianity and it shouldn’t be the case in the LDS church either. Unfortunately, LDS priesthood can be seen as a source of power and authority in LDS culture because of the terrible legacy of polygamy.

I cannot tell you how many times I was in a female “leadership” position in the LDS church but was never able to do actually do anything or make any decisions. There was no point to my calling because the bishop made all decisions anyway.

Also, if women are equal to men in the LDS church, why are teenage boys who are ordained to the Aaronic priesthood told that when dad is gone, he presides over the home? What about mom?

 

[iepuras]

So what you are doing is using this incident as a means to bash the LDS rather than look at the real issue at hand. There is a time and a place for that – I don’t think this is it. If Kate Kelly were a Catholic demanding the priesthood for so-called equality in the Catholic Church you wouldn’t be on her side so why even express any sympathy for her side in this event?

So why don’t you think the inherent inequality of women in the LDS church as shown in the pattern outlined by me and Texan worthy of sympathy and discussion?

 

[TexanKnight]

So what you are doing is using this incident as a means to bash the LDS rather than look at the real issue at hand. There is a time and a place for that – I don’t think this is it. If Kate Kelly were a Catholic demanding the priesthood for so-called equality in the Catholic Church you wouldn’t be on her side so why even express any sympathy for her side in this event?

Seriously? Do you even read my posts? I said NOTHING that bashes the LDS Church. I stated facts that explained why I saw a difference between the LDS ban on females in the PH and the Catholic ban on females in the PH.

are you really Catholic? Do you really read what we post?

 

[anon99031074]

She’s not. In the future somebody will. I have no sympathy for people looking for equal rights when it comes to demanding priesthood equality for women in any denomination. Catholics should recognize such demands as a threat wherever it comes from.

Oh what a ghastly threat! To think that women would be treated as equal to men and not some subspecies within humanity. I do agree that it is hypocritical to bash the LDS Church for excommunicating this woman, though. If there is a difference between the Catholic and LDS Churches on this issue, it is one of degree and not substance.

 

[TexanKnight]

Oh what a ghastly threat! To think that women would be treated as equal to men and not some subspecies within humanity. I do agree that it is hypocritical to bash the LDS Church for excommunicating this woman, though. If there is a difference between the Catholic and LDS Churches on this issue, it is one of degree and not substance.

Not substance?

I have listed just a few examples of how the LDS Church has, since its inception, degraded and marginalized women.

I am sorry you believe that is not substance

 

[iepuras]

Oh what a ghastly threat! To think that women would be treated as equal to men and not some subspecies within humanity. I do agree that it is hypocritical to bash the LDS Church for excommunicating this woman, though. If there is a difference between the Catholic and LDS Churches on this issue, it is one of degree and not substance.

Also, LDS theology is very different from Catholic theology. LDS believe in a modern day prophet who can receive revelation. Seriously, if President Monson, the current presiding prophet, were to announce that he received a revelation to ordain women to the priesthood next month, the same people who are critical of Ms. Kelly and celebrating her excommunication would hail the prophet as inspired and be grateful for this new revelation.

It is not hypocrisy when there is already a supporting theology for women’s ordination within the LDS church. In the endowment ceremony in the temple women are washed and anointed to become queens and priestesses unto their husbands. This implies a future ordination to a priesthood. Also, women are ordained as part of the second anointing ordinance, although very few LDS are even aware of this ordinance.

Also, are you aware of an instance where a Catholic layperson has been excommunication for publicly supporting women ordination? I am aware of priests being excommunicated but not laypersons.

 

[anon99031074]

Not substance?

I have listed just a few examples of how the LDS Church has, since its inception, degraded and marginalized women.

I am sorry you believe that is not substance

I don’t think they have marginalized women more since its inception than the CC. At the moment, the CC is treating women more as equals than in the past in some areas, but not all.

However, the Vatican is still mostly run by men. There are no women cardinals, although there certainly could be, since it is a mere honorary title and has been given to laity before. There were deaconesses in the CC, not so anymore. Women could hear sacramental confessions in the past, not so anymore.

The current definition of ordination was cooked up somewhere in the 1200’s (previously ordination merely meant being appointed by the bishop), and the idea that an ordination given to a woman wouldn’t “stick” was invented with it.

The LDS Church has, to my knowledge, not demanded that women wear head coverings during the sacrament meeting. Nor have they denied women access to the sacrament meeting when they are menstruating. It has not burned women at the stake as witches.

 

[anon99031074]

Also, LDS theology is very different from Catholic theology. LDS believe in a modern day prophet who can receive revelation. Seriously, if President Monson, the current presiding prophet, were to announce that he received a revelation to ordain women to the priesthood next month, the same people who are critical of Ms. Kelly and celebrating her excommunication would hail the prophet as inspired and be grateful for this new revelation.

It is not hypocrisy when there is already a supporting theology for women’s ordination within the LDS church. In the endowment ceremony in the temple women are washed and anointed to become queens and priestesses unto their husbands. This implies a future ordination to a priesthood. Also, women are ordained as part of the second anointing ordinance, although very few LDS are even aware of this ordinance.

Also, are you aware of an instance where a Catholic layperson has been excommunication for publicly supporting women ordination? I am aware of priests being excommunicated but not laypersons.

The fact that you and I do not believe the mormon prophet receives actual revelation from God, does not mean mormons do not think so. The fact that mormons believe someone today can speak for God and receive new revelation does not mean relativism. Even priesthood being given to blacks in the LDS-Church was not pure innovation. Smith ordained a black man to the priesthood, and prophets in the mormon church foretold a time (mostly believed to be in the “millennial kingdom”) where blacks would receive the priesthood.

I am not aware of laypersons today being excommunicated for advocating the ordination of women. But had it happened a few centuries back, she would probably have been burned at the stake.

At any rate, until women are treated as equals within the Catholic Church, bashing other religions for not doing so is hypocritical. You may argue that not ordaining women in the CC is not treating women as unequals. Mormons will argue the exact same thing with their doctrines.

 

[TexanKnight]

I don’t think they have marginalized women more since its inception than the CC. At the moment, the CC is treating women more as equals than in the past in some areas, but not all.

However, the Vatican is still mostly run by men. There are no women cardinals, although there certainly could be, since it is a mere honorary title and has been given to laity before. There were deaconesses in the CC, not so anymore. Women could hear sacramental confessions in the past, not so anymore.

The current definition of ordination was cooked up somewhere in the 1200’s (previously ordination merely meant being appointed by the bishop), and the idea that an ordination given to a woman wouldn’t “stick” was invented with it.

The LDS Church has, to my knowledge, not demanded that women wear head coverings during the sacrament meeting. Nor have they denied women access to the sacrament meeting when they are menstruating. It has not burned women at the stake as witches

Actually, the head covering idea was suggested by the Apostle Paul. Are you suggesting he was wrong?

And true, we do not know if Mormons would have burned witches at the stake…asd they were not around back when that went on…I am thankful you had reach that far back.

and if you do not think allowing men to marry many women but not visa vera is not demeaning…how sad.

If you do not believe that making it so the ONLY way a woman can be with God is for a man to pull her her thru is not marginalizing…how sad.

And if you do not believe that ordering men to obey God but women to obey men is not marginalizing…how sad…

.

 

[anon99031074]

Actually, the head covering idea was suggested by the Apostle Paul. Are you suggesting he was wrong?

Mormons find support for their beliefs in their sacred scriptures, just like you do in yours. When someone argues against misogyny, they respond just like you do with a rhetorical question “are you suggesting that the great prophets in the latter days are wrong?” To answer the question honestly. Yes. Paul was wrong in maintaining that women needed to wear head coverings for the sake of the angels. To his credit, he asked his readers to judge for themselves whether or not it was fitting for women not to do so.

And true, we do not know if Mormons would have burned witches at the stake…asd they were not around back when that went on…I am thankful you had reach that far back.

We were talking about the Church since its inception?

and if you do not think allowing men to marry many women but not visa vera is not demeaning…how sad.

You reject the Old Testament for the same reason, I gather? Or do you have any examples where women had many men in the OT?

If you do not believe that making it so the ONLY way a woman can be with God is for a man to pull her her thru is not marginalizing…how sad.

Not more marginalizing than this text:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1Timothy 2.

Thankfully, the majority of biblical scholars today, agree that Paul did not write this. But it is still considered canonical in the CC.

And if you do not believe that ordering men to obey God but women to obey men is not marginalizing…how sad…

I think it is. But the Bible is filled with stuff like that, and much worse.

 

[iepuras]

The fact that you and I do not believe the mormon prophet receives actual revelation from God, does not mean mormons do not think so. The fact that mormons believe someone today can speak for God and receive new revelation does not mean relativism. Even priesthood being given to blacks in the LDS-Church was not pure innovation. Smith ordained a black man to the priesthood, and prophets in the mormon church foretold a time (mostly believed to be in the “millennial kingdom”) where blacks would receive the priesthood.

I am not aware of laypersons today being excommunicated for advocating the ordination of women. But had it happened a few centuries back, she would probably have been burned at the stake.

At any rate, until women are treated as equals within the Catholic Church, bashing other religions for not doing so is hypocritical. You may argue that not ordaining women in the CC is not treating women as unequals. Mormons will argue the exact same thing with their doctrines.

Your previous posts show a lack of understanding of LDS theology, history and temple ceremonies. I am a former Mormon and am very knowledgeable of LDS theology, history and temple ceremonies.

I also never brought relativism into the discussion. I agree that the LDS beliefs on continuous revelation through the prophet are not relativism but you are wrong to assume that I believe such.

Less than one year before priesthood ordination was extended to blacks, Byron Marchant was excommunicated for publicly advocating the ordination of black men. Very few Mormons felt sorry for him, but when the “revelation” came, it was celebrated. If and when the LDS prophet “receives a revelation” to extend priesthood ordination to women, it would be accepted and celebrated by the same people who are now taking pleasure in Ms. Kelly’s excommunication. LDS ordination of women would not be an invention because elite LDS women are already ordained in the second anointing. The fact is very few LDS even know about this.

And since you brought up veiling and menstruation, LDS women are required to wear a veil and cover their faces during certain parts of the ceremony. Also, LDS women are buried in their temple clothes and their faces are covered by the veil before the casket is closed. I was also prevented from participating in temple ordinances for the dead because I was menstruating but that is probably TMI.