@ Redshirt: Actually, yes - I did read the article. Did you? As the title of
the article indicates, the article is a discussion of garments being an outward
symbol of an inner commitment - namely the blessings and covenants of the Temple
Endowment. Nowhere in the article does it state that only those who hold the
priesthood can wear the garments.There are several article on the
LDS website that discuss women and the priesthood. These articles make it very
clear that women do not hold the priesthood. I suggest you read them, and then,
if you have further questions, perhaps you should speak with either the
missionaries or your bishop.“The man holds the Priesthood,
performs the priestly duties of the Church, but his wife enjoys with him every
other privilege derived from the possession of the Priesthood. ...”
(Priesthood and Church Government , 83)Elder Bruce R. McConkie
explained ...: “In the true Patriarchal Order man holds the priesthood and
is the head of the household,.... (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. , 844)"Women are likewise counseled to honor the priesthood, ... and to
show respect to those who hold it." The LDS Woman, Basic Manual for Women,
To "Kalindra" you don't sound like you are LDS, so it may be
difficult for you to understand. It doesn't even look like you read the
article that I presented.Please go back and read the article that I
listed earlier. It is quite clear that the temple garments are an outward
symbol of priesthood. This does not mean that women are ordained. There is a
difference between ordained priesthood holders and the priesthood in general.As for your comment about 12 year olds, they hold the Aaronic Priesthood
which is a lesser priesthood. The Garment goes along with the Melchizedec
@Tators;"I'm quite certain your positions are seldom in
accordance with what Jesus ever advocated."Who are you to judge?
Jesus gave you two commandments. (1) Love God, (2) Love your fellow men and
treat them as you would be treated. (He also told you to leave the judging up
to him).I certainly don't love your god, that is true, but I do
my best to treat others in the manner that I would like to be treated.
I'd lay odds, that were Jesus to come back, I'd receive just as good a
grade as you would.
@ Redshirt: One cannot hold the priesthood without being ordained (given) the
priesthood. The LDS Church website is very clear about the role of the
priesthood and who may hold it - and women are not included. Women have access
to the blessings of the priesthood through worthy males. As for
garments, they symbolize the temple and priesthood blessings received and
covenants made by the wearer, which is why they have the names they have.
Wearing them has nothing to do with holding the priesthood or they would be worn
by 12 year old boys once they have received the priesthood.
The Church of England is indeed a political Institution.It was
created at the whim and desire of a King, so that he could live by his own
doctrines. The government then subsequently required all citizens to belong to
it.The LDS church was not founded by a political leader nor for
political reasons.There is nothing wrong with a church involving
itself in a political issues, they have the freedom to speak out on anything
they wish, especially of a moral or doctrinal bent.Does not the
anti-religious understand freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom
To "Tators" read "The Temple Garment: 'An Outward Expression of
an Inward Commitment'" on teh LDS web site. Elder Asay states "the
special underclothing known as the temple garment, or garment of the holy
priesthood, worn by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
who have received their temple endowment." Now ask yourself, do only men
wear the garment of the holy priesthood, or do women wear it too? If women wear
it too, then doesn't that imply that they hold the priesthood while not
@ Redshirt:You are confused between the concept of women within the
LDS church being entitled to access of priesthood powers and actually holding
(being ordained to) the priesthood and having said authority to administer in
it.That's the reason there was a particular group of women who
tried to gain access to the Church's General Priesthood session during last
General Conference, but were denied... because they are not ordtained to, nor do
they actually hold the priesthood. It's really not all that complicated.
@ Ranch:How long have you been speaking for Jesus? I've read a
lot of your comments on many different subjects and I'm quite certain your
positions are seldom in accordance with what Jesus ever advocated.If
Jesus would've approved of this (as you contend), then why didn't he
call any women to be his apostles... any at all? No where in the New Testament
can I find any reference to any women receiving the priesthood. Please tell us
where that is, since you feel the need to speak for Him. BTW: Just
because the LDS church occasionally gets involved with moral issues when
intermingled with politics, does not mean they are a political organization...
not at all. In absolute fact, they never, ever endorse any specific candidates.
That would make them unlike any political organization I've ever heard of
before. Only in your contrived thinking.
Re: KaladinThe LDS church is not a political insitution? So they
just decided to give blacks the priesthood at the right time, without political
consideration? Most churches are political insitutions. They involve themselves
in political issues of the day and always have. They wield political power just
like any other group, religious or not. The LDS church most definitely involves
itself in political issues, making it very political.
I'm all for equality, equal opportunity, and liberty and justice for all
regardless of the source. Because God isn't here making the policy changes
Himself we either have men making changes or men claiming that God made changes.
The irony is when one religious person claims that another church changes only
because of social pressure.@Northern LightsThanks for
@Kaladin;The LDS church is absolutely a political organization; just
look at the many, many times they're involving themselves in politics, not
to mention meeting EVERY legislative session with the Republican leaders in
Utah's legislature to approve what is to be done during the session.@Tators;Women also held the priesthood in the early
Christian church. It's in the bible and other historical documents. Jesus
would have approved.
‘Church of England poised to bring in women bishops’Oh
Ah... the acceptance of religious understanding and religious diversity in
Utah!Isn't it wonderful?
To "Kaladin" women do hold the Priesthood in the LDS church. They are
just not ordained to minister in the priesthood. Just look up more about the
LDS temples and the Endowment.
Apocalypse, Yours is a valid question with one exception in this
case: nowhere have I seen the Church of England claim that the changes
described in this article are the result of revelation from God. Rather, these
changes appear to be the result of human lobbying and other forms of man-made
political pressure. I seriously doubt the General Synod will even be able to
achieve a unanimous vote. “Be one,” the Lord said,
“and if you are not one you are not mine.”
@ Apocalyspe please:I didn't even mention belonging to any
particular church. So how in the world are able to make such a specific
alligation with any validity. Answer: You can't.Kaladin simply
pointed out the LDS church believes in continued revelation from God, which is
different from evangelist Christian churches in that sense. LDS general
membership vote whether or not to sustain their leaders, but never whether or
not to change their church doctrine or policies.Almost all current
churches, including the one in the article, do not claim direct revelation from
God. They contend revelation ceased after biblical times. Policy at the Church
of England is like many other churches... they take votes from people assigned
to be representitives via a political-type process. Literally none of those
representitives claim receiving revelation from God in these matters. Do some study and research before making any more brash statements.
@Apocalypse pleaseI'm sorry, I must have missed in the article
where the Church of England said this change was brought about by revelation.The Church of England doesn't believe in revelation...they believe
revelation ended with the death of the apostles.
When God talks to leaders of your church and reveals/changes things =
revelation. When God talks to leaders of other peoples churches and
reveals/changes thing = giving into social/political pressure.
I don't recall reading anywhere in the scriptures where Christ would bend
the doctrine and/or policies of his church to the prevailing winds of whatever
happened to be politically correct at the time. That seems to be a
practice that mankind has since adopted to placate themselves in trying to
become more popular with the masses. And to that end, it continues.
The Church of England is a political institution. The LDS Church is not. If the
priesthood is ever given to women in the LDS Church it will be through
revelation and not at the political whims of the world.
And perhaps churches will realize women in the priesthood isn't so bad
after all. In fact, it might be a step forward from a policy that really makes