The LDS Church recently released this description of why they refuse to meet with Ordain Women. millennialstar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Context-Missing-From-Womens-Discussion-May-29-2014.pdf Here are the relevant portions: there are a few people with whom Public Affairs and General Authorities do not engage, such as individuals or groups who make non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the Church can’t possibly accept. No matter what the intent, such demands come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion. Ultimately, those kinds of actions can only result in disappointment and heartache for those involved.... I suppose we do not know all the reasons why Christ did not ordain women as apostles, either in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon, or when the Church was restored in modern times. We only know that he did not, that his leaders today regard this as a doctrinal issue that cannot be compromised, and that agitation from a few Church members is hindering the broader and more productive conversation about the voice, value and visibility of women in the Church that has been going on for years and will certainly continue (the lowering of the age requirement for female missionary service was consistent with this conversation). There are several elements of this response that I simply do not understand. For example, I am quite surprised that hes so adamant that OW is making a demand that cant be met, or cant be compromised on. If he had said that the prophet and the 12 cant make such a change without revelation, that would have made more sense. But OW never asked for the priesthood to be given them without a revelation, they very specifically asked the prophet to pray and see if God was willing to give such a revelation! To accuse people making that request with apostasy seems beyond disingenuous to me. It seems to border on the dishonest! He also seems to be claiming that OW is making a demand that is impossible because such a revelation can never come. But in the same breath he says that he doesnt have a clue why Jesus never ordained women (assuming that Jesus didnt, which isnt actually clear form the NT record, there are several instances of women being spoken of as Deacons etc)... Such an admitted lack of understanding would imply (to me) that this issue is the equivalent of race and the priesthood in terms of how it is understood by the Brethren. Wouldnt that mean that a revelation authorizing female ordination is at least possible? And if it is possible, then why would he refuse to meet with OW and at least talk to them? And why would he accuse these good women of apostasy just because they want the prophet to ask God about whether they can be ordained? I was told that it is NEVER wrong to ask such questions? So why the accusation of apostasy here? His approach makes absolutely no sense to me!
Posted on: Fri, 30 May 2014 16:01:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015