What's new
By:

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

I think for me personally, the reason I like elders, deacons, whatever you call it, of the Church to be vetted in by somebody is because of the immense responsibility. Not as much because of their responsibility, but the responsibility that God puts on Church leaders. People that preach/teach incorrectly, or falsely will be judged by a different standard. To just put a random person in charge of people shows that you don't take that responsibility very seriously, IMO.

We should of course try to help everybody that we can, as that is our call. We are called to make disciples of all men…that does not mean to just make believers, but to teach them accordingly so that they can teach. So I would say that you should have to "qualify" to be an elder or deacon, but not a member of the church. Hopefully that makes sense.

As far as the women and priesthood ordeal, I feel like the Bible makes it pretty clear what their role in the church should be. Follow the Bible and most things will take care of themselves.
 
Triangle Man said:
Pretty much anything the Savior said to anyone else in private we don't have. Most of what we have is what Christ did or said publicly. This is just off the top of my head of what I can remember. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Also, in regards to "being a member of the Church is a privilege that you have to qualify for" being offensive to you.

Are you saying the Apostles of the Lord should not have given instruction to people because they were sinners, and that we should all just mind our own business and not try to help each other so as to allow each person to find their own way unhindered.

I always thought we were here to help each other and share our burdens. If the Lord saw fit to call apostles to lead his people even though they were sinners, and trusted them to lead and correct his people, I don't see why there cannot be others besides those apostles that can be entrusted with something similar.
Click to expand...

Will respond thoroughly when time permits.
 
Hantlers said:
As far as the women and priesthood ordeal, I feel like the Bible makes it pretty clear what their role in the church should be. Follow the Bible and most things will take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

Got damn, that's some **** right there. I don't know anything about the Mormon religion, well, not anything, I know some stuff, but it's all surface knowledge, but that post is incredible to me.
 
VINYLONE said:
Got damn, that's some **** right there. I don't know anything about the Mormon religion, well, not anything, I know some stuff, but it's all surface knowledge, but that post is incredible to me.
Click to expand...
Hantlers isn't Mormon.
 
VINYLONE said:
Hell, replace, the word "Mormon" with any other religion then. My flabbergastedness remains..
Click to expand...

Instead of subsituting the name of a religious denomination you should be asking yourself why that post is the way it is.
 
Regarding the "being a member of the Church is a privilege that you have to qualify for" quote... while I think I get what Qman and Triangle Man* are saying, I would never say that myself. I think saying "being a member of the Church involves certain responsibilities and obligations" is a much better way of putting it. Unless I'm misunderstanding what they mean.



* don't get in a fight with him, Triangle Man always wins
 
colton said:
Regarding the "being a member of the Church is a privilege that you have to qualify for" quote... while I think I get what Qman and Triangle Man* are saying, I would never say that myself. I think saying "being a member of the Church involves certain responsibilities and obligations" is a better way of putting it. Unless I'm misremembering.

* don't get in a fight with him, Triangle Man always wins
Click to expand...

Misremembering how to say it better?
 
colton said:
Regarding the "being a member of the Church is a privilege that you have to qualify for" quote... while I think I get what Qman and Triangle Man* are saying, I would never say that myself. I think saying "being a member of the Church involves certain responsibilities and obligations" is a much better way of putting it. Unless I'm misunderstanding what they mean.



* don't get in a fight with him, Triangle Man always wins
Click to expand...

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.
 
colton said:
Regarding the "being a member of the Church is a privilege that you have to qualify for" quote... while I think I get what Qman and Triangle Man* are saying, I would never say that myself. I think saying "being a member of the Church involves certain responsibilities and obligations" is a much better way of putting it. Unless I'm misunderstanding what they mean.
Click to expand...

PKM said:
I get behind the way you said it. "Membership is a privilege" sounds like a country club.
Click to expand...

I suppose my response was in regards to this, and not the privilege part.
"I cringe at the thought of one sinful man deciding the fate (church membership or otherwise) of another sinful man based on the magnitude of the sin being greater than his own."
 
Triangle Man said:
I suppose my response was in regards to this, and not the privilege part.
"I cringe at the thought of one sinful man deciding the fate (church membership or otherwise) of another sinful man based on the magnitude of the sin being greater than his own."
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I get behind the idea that each man and woman seek their own truth and cast their lot where each deems best fit for them.

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.
 
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!!!
 
Dodo wins the thread for bringing up Mary Magdalene. I'd personally suggest reading her gospel, and then considering its history and the process by which it was excluded from the canon.

For the sake of discussion, let's scrap the idea that different genders should have the same roles, and adopt the notion that they have essentially different 'powers' or access to the spirit. One can then imagine a number of spiritual practices where there would be different but equally respected insights into spiritual matters. On what grounds would it be denied that one insight was less insightful than the other(s)? What force establishes that hierarchy? (Serious questions).

Mormonism has long been a proponent of difference among the genders. I don't see that position as absolutely wrong (a discussion for another post). But it's obvious that Mormons also rank the insights from men over the insights from women, and I think they do it vehemently and for bad reasons (are there good reasons?).
 
Zulu said:
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!!!
Click to expand...

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.
 
PKM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top