Dehlin Circus is Getting Ugly

[shadow]

What about the ugly sin of exercising unrighteous dominion? That sin leads to an "amen" to your priesthood.

I haven't seen it in any of the recent courts from the Snuffster to Kelly to Dehlin, who hasn't even had his day yet. All of these people have been given ample opportunity to stop their apostate behavior.

Different opinions are fine but when you publicly teach those different opinions, especially after being asked not to, then at some point it needs to be put to an end, at least as a church member.

I hope none of your opinions ever fall outside of the "mainstream".

If they do, and if I'm asked to stop, I'll stop.
Oh, it's that easy?
Why yes it is Obrien.

[Obrien]

Who cares? Women do not need any more responsibilities. They have enough already.

Being a seeker of the truth, I'm just curious and thought I'd tap a resource (the collective mind of the LDSFF).

[shadow]

I'm a Kate Kelly agnostic - her membership and / or excommunication was really not a big deal to me either way. That said (and it is the truth), can any of you actually show from the scriptures where women are precluded from holding the priesthood and holding offices in the church. Anyone...?

To start:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to rule; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to rule in the church.

(The non JST is even worse)

I guess we should cancel relief society and have the women stay home.

And cook awesome meals and keep the house clean and the kids tidy and well behaved, and do it with a smile. :-*

[braingrunt]

I'm a Kate Kelly agnostic - her membership and / or excommunication was really not a big deal to me either way. That said (and it is the truth), can any of you actually show from the scriptures where women are precluded from holding the priesthood and holding offices in the church. Anyone...?

To start:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to rule; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to rule in the church.

(The non JST is even worse)

I guess we should cancel relief society and have the women stay home.

You wanted a scripture and I gave it to you. What do you make of it?

[Obrien]

Braingrunt - it sounds like a cultural norm that goes back at least to the time of Paul. Is it that way in Heaven?

[Obrien]

Can you show the opposite? The lack of scriptural reference means nothing.

Only in the Book of Moses - I think it's chapter 5 where Adam and Eve (as one flesh, a couple) are commanded to worship the Lord and offer firstlings of the flock. Of course, in the previous chapter, Eve is told her desire will be to her husband, and I suppose that could be misread to be a reference to the Priesthood.

I'm really just seeking a real, scripture-based reason why women can't hold the Phood and preside over anything but kiddies in Primary.

Does it mean nothing that most of us......don't want it? I'm fine with my hubby holding it. Just like I'm sure he's ok with me being the one who has to grow a baby inside me for 9months and then giving birth 4 times. It's a magnificent calling in life but he is glad to let me have that one. Nether feels inferior or superior to the other about anything. Except in a spelling contest maybe.


Obrien..... #-o

Perhaps there is a woman out there who doesn't want kids, or can't have them who is also a gifted administrator. Why does she have to put her light under a bushel?

BTW, I don't ever envy a woman the bonding of 9 months of pregnancy...count me out. I know we all have different roles to fill, and different strengths and weaknesses - this men exclusive priesthood line seems arbitrary and man made to me.

[Obrien]

Goodbye, all you haters...I'm driving home.

[Cookies]

BTW, I don't ever envy a woman the bonding of 9 months of pregnancy...count me out.

Not so fast! What do you think male nipples are for? Your time will come... :p

[Obrien]

BTW, I don't ever envy a woman the bonding of 9 months of pregnancy...count me out.

Not so fast! What do you think male nipples are for? NO FRIGGING IDEA, HONESTLY!! Your time will come... :p

[ajax]

He would prefer the church cower to world trends and change to meet the times we're in,

Why not? A case could be made for historical precedence.

[boo]

He would prefer the church cower to world trends and change to meet the times we're in,

Why not? A case could be made for historical precedence.

Too subtle. That is what we have always done. Ask my ancestors who sacrificed their material goods to be part of the United Order. Ask those polygamist wives who were abandoned by their husbands after the second manifesto. Ask those who faithfully followed BY on Adam God but were excommunicated for doing so. Ask the members of the temperance movement in Ut in 1930. Ask my thoroughly racist friends in the South who were assured by Joseph Fielding Smith that the blacks would never be administering the sacrament in this world. Ask my ancestors who were rebaptised on multiple occasions at the encouragement indeed insistence of their leaders as a sign of their renewed commitment to the Savior but would be ex'ed now for doing so. Ask those who used to participate in church sanctioned prayer circles outside the temple but would be ex'ed if they did it now. Ask those who were taught that it was a sin to wear anything but the long garment but who are now threatened with being ex'ed if they do so now. Heraclitus taught you can't put your foot in the same river twice. Sometimes it seems that he was describing the institutional church. What is firm policy today is apostasy tomorrow

[braingrunt]

Braingrunt - it sounds like a cultural norm that goes back at least to the time of Paul. Is it that way in Heaven?

My understanding is, that righteous men do continue to hold the headship in heaven. I am rather pushed into the opinion by my FATHER in heaven and my BROTHER/FATHER Jesus Christ. And the scriptures. I say this reluctantly, as a feminist at heart; and as one who has no desire to direct my wife or any other person in a leadership capacity. Seriously. Ask my wife. I very well may not be a celestial man.

I would be tempted to agree with your "cultural norm" idea, except that I'm afraid that the fact that it's a JST, gives it present weight. I read the small JSTs, not as translations, but as protections against bad ideas that bible readers might otherwise adopt. So in short, the correction itself reasserts the correctness of women not leading in church, but being subject to men.

[ajax]

Reading a book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church. History rhymes. Some of the stuff people say around here is almost exactly what people were saying a thousand years ago. It's uncanny.

I guess it's part and parcel of the institutionalization of the one true church and keyholders etc.

[Obrien]

Braingrunt - it sounds like a cultural norm that goes back at least to the time of Paul. Is it that way in Heaven?

My understanding is, that righteous men do continue to hold the headship in heaven. I am rather pushed into the opinion by my FATHER in heaven and my BROTHER/FATHER Jesus Christ. And the scriptures. I say this reluctantly, as a feminist at heart; and as one who has no desire to direct my wife or any other person in a leadership capacity. Seriously. Ask my wife. I very well may not be a celestial man.

I would be tempted to agree with your "cultural norm" idea, except that I'm afraid that the fact that it's a JST, gives it present weight. I read the small JSTs, not as translations, but as protections against bad ideas that bible readers might otherwise adopt. So in short, the correction itself reasserts the correctness of women not leading in church, but being subject to men.

I'd rather be subject to a spirit-filled woman than a non spirit filled bishop. I'd prefer even more to be subject to no mortal, but be " one" with my wife. best case scenario, we are one in our subjugation to Christ.

how had the lot of women changed from Paul's time to 1835? not much, really. they were still viewed generally as chattel.

[Bee Prepared]

Can you show the opposite? The lack of scriptural reference means nothing.

Only in the Book of Moses - I think it's chapter 5 where Adam and Eve (as one flesh, a couple) are commanded to worship the Lord and offer firstlings of the flock. Of course, in the previous chapter, Eve is told her desire will be to her husband, and I suppose that could be misread to be a reference to the Priesthood.

I'm really just seeking a real, scripture-based reason why women can't hold the Phood and preside over anything but kiddies in Primary.

Women are the backbone of this church, and it goes without saying that in our own little righteous way, we run it. Behind every strong man is usually a stronger woman. We counsel our husbands and raise their sons! Whats that saying," The hand that rocks the cradle rules the Nation?"

These misguided women who want the Priesthood are in my opinion, weak females who are co-dependant on their husbands while allowing themselves to be bullied, therefore go around with a chip on their shoulder wanting to lash out. The whole thing reeks of open rebellion by weak willed women. I feel sorry for these sisters, they do not have an understanding of what the priesthood is.

The restored gospel teaches the eternal idea that husbands and wives are interdependent with each other. They are equal. They are partners.

[whatever]

*

[Bee Prepared]

Our conviction needs to be firmer than ever, a " coming together" is unlikely, one is either with us or against us. There is a place for these
people its called the re-organized church, or Community Of Christ. I'll drop my platitudes when you get off your rameumpton.

I feel for all those Who are struggling with following the Lord's prophet and the leadership in the Lord's church.

[JohnnyL]

BTW, I don't ever envy a woman the bonding of 9 months of pregnancy...count me out.

Not so fast! What do you think male nipples are for? Your time will come... :p

Ah, you've read the case studies, too! Yes, they have been used for nursing babies. Really.

[Obrien]

BTW, I don't ever envy a woman the bonding of 9 months of pregnancy...count me out.

Not so fast! What do you think male nipples are for? Your time will come... :p

Ah, you've read the case studies, too! Yes, they have been used for nursing babies. Really.

Case studies or no, my nipples remain unsuckled (and happily so).

[Thinker]

It is an interesting phenomena - male nipples.
Sorta like brail on a drive-up ATM.

Re: OP and discussion...
I liked the podcast until he started entertaining illogical liberal ideas. Based on many Lds who go against the church I've interacted with, I've realized you can take a guy out of the cult but you can't take the cult out of the guy.
Few think for themselves but float along with herd mentalities of one flavor or another.

The priesthood thing is complicated - good if it inspires good but too often it inspires a sense of pride (chauvenism) and self/unrighteous dominion.
I believe that we each have potential to bless and heal, but it takes a lot of faith and humble submission to God's will - which few (men or women) have.

[Fiannan]

Women are the backbone of this church, and it goes without saying that in our own little righteous way, we run it. Behind every strong man is usually a stronger woman. We counsel our husbands and raise their sons! Whats that saying," The hand that rocks the cradle rules the Nation?"

Nothing here is wrong in the least.

[BenMcCrea]

John Dehlin doesn't believe the Church is what it claims to be. There are many others like him hiding out within the Church. He claims to know of high ranking leaders who privately believe the claims of the Church are false but who don't want to lose their position. What I don't understand is that the church seems to randomly pick on certain members whilst ignoring the same behaviour in others. Elder Hans Mattson came out and claimed the Church was false and tried to lead away the whole Church in Sweden. No action has ever been taken against him. Brother Tom Phillips did the same in the UK and revealed sacred information on higher ordinances which most members aren't even aware of and yet again no action has been taken. The Brethren are aware of both of the cases cited.

[gkearney]

John Dehlin doesn't believe the Church is what it claims to be. There are many others like him hiding out within the Church. He claims to know of high ranking leaders who privately believe the claims of the Church are false but who don't want to lose their position. What I don't understand is that the church seems to randomly pick on certain members whilst ignoring the same behaviour in others. Elder Hans Mattson came out and claimed the Church was false and tried to lead away the whole Church in Sweden. No action has ever been taken against him. Brother Tom Phillips did the same in the UK and revealed sacred information on higher ordinances which most members aren't even aware of and yet again no action has been taken. The Brethren are aware of both of the cases cited.

I believe, but could be wrong, that in both of those cases the men involved withdrew their membership before any action could be taken agaist them. You can not excommunicate a person who is no longer a member. There is a nasty but of case law surrounding this in the US and the handbook of instruction has a warnings to call Salt Lake first if legal threats are made concerning excommunications or church discipline.

If you read the webpage cited you will find that the claim of Tom Phillips being protected in some form by the second anointing is in fact satire. The caselaw that deals with discipline of members who withdraw from a church is Guinn v. Church of Christ (1989) http://tinyurl.com/mnk7g5p" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[karend77]

John Dehlin doesn't believe the Church is what it claims to be. There are many others like him hiding out within the Church. He claims to know of high ranking leaders who privately believe the claims of the Church are false but who don't want to lose their position. What I don't understand is that the church seems to randomly pick on certain members whilst ignoring the same behaviour in others. Elder Hans Mattson came out and claimed the Church was false and tried to lead away the whole Church in Sweden. No action has ever been taken against him. Brother Tom Phillips did the same in the UK and revealed sacred information on higher ordinances which most members aren't even aware of and yet again no action has been taken. The Brethren are aware of both of the cases cited.

I believe, but could be wrong, that in both of those cases the men involved withdrew their membership before any action could be taken agaist them. You can not excommunicate a person who is no longer a member. There is a nasty but of case law surrounding this in the US and the handbook of instruction has a warnings to call Salt Lake first if legal threats are made concerning excommunications or church discipline.

I agree the Church doesnt usually hunt down inactive members to execommunicate them. However, the following offers up an interesting thought:
"The reason Phillips does not appear to be pursued for excommunications seems to be because, as the previous managing editor David Twede revealed, “Tom has received a bulletproof ordinance called the Second Anointing from a Mormon apostle years before he stopped attending church.”"
http://mormondisclosures.blogspot.com/2 ... llips.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is this a different experience form what DS claims to have had, as he still was excommunicated?

[jbalm]

There are many others like him hiding out within the Church.

Not so much "hiding out" as "trapped," in many cases.