Church of England poised to bring in women bishops

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 21, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    @ 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 [1965], 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. [1966], 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, Lesson 13.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 20, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    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 Priesthood.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 20, 2013 7:04 a.m.


    "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.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 20, 2013 12:13 a.m.

    @ 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 truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    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 of assembly?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    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 being ordained?

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 2:10 p.m.

    Re: Kaladin

    The 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.

  • Apocalypse please Bluffdale, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    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 Lights

    Thanks for the info.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 12:59 p.m.


    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.


    Women also held the priesthood in the early Christian church. It's in the bible and other historical documents. Jesus would have approved.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    ‘Church of England poised to bring in women bishops’

    Oh the horror!

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Nov. 19, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    Ah... the acceptance of religious understanding and religious diversity in Utah!
    Isn't it wonderful?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Northern Lights Arco, ID
    Nov. 19, 2013 11:44 a.m.


    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.”

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Nov. 19, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    @Apocalypse please

    I'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.

  • Apocalypse please Bluffdale, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Kaladin Greeley, CO
    Nov. 19, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 6:14 a.m.

    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 no sense.