What are the effects of the changing Mormon Doctrine?

[_readtoomuch]

Recently, I have been reading about everything I can find regarding this "Ordain Women" PR nightmare in the church. Ordain Women is a movement that I am personally supportive of by the way. It is sad to say that we have reached a point in the church that people (not necessarily men or women) wanting to be priesthood holders has now become something you need to repent of. But as I read all the news about this matter and the their desire to attend the Priesthood Session in a few weeks, I am forced to reflect on the cause and effect of shifting Mormon Doctrine and how it in some small way has contributed to this movement.

Specifically, I am troubled that the church, in the essay on the Blacks and the Priesthood, effectively threw under the bus over 160 years of undeniable doctrine regarding the "Doctrine" of why the Church should feel good about being a racist church. I think you know what I am trying to say. Elder Bruce R McConkie even said "he was wrong about the Blacks getting the Priesthood". Many people have written very good blog posts of all the quotes of the church leaders over the 160 years that describe obvious Doctrine regarding the justification to withhold the priesthood from an entire race for many years.

The point I am making here is the Church, in the letter to Ordain Women, said it was against the doctrine of the Church to allow women to receive the priesthood. Can anyone blame people in the church for wondering what is doctrine versus what is a policy or shall I say "a theory". I think the Ordain Women movement is an example of what happens when the church vacillates on its own doctrine. Brigham Young was once the authority of what was doctrine in the church and what do we have today? Many doctrines he taught as fact, are now thrown under the bus. Thus, Mormon Doctrine is constantly shifting. Now, lets be fair here, the doctrine of repentance hasn't shifted. The Doctrine of the prayer or the plan of salvation hasn't shifted. But the unique and differentiating doctrines of Mormonism are slowly shifting to the mainstream. So how can we say that women having the Priesthood is against the Doctrine of the Church? Who is to say that the policy of men having the priesthood wasn't a result of the practical realities of daily life thousands of years ago? Women's roles back then was driven out of practicality probably more than religion. But life isn't the same anymore. To quote scriptures that possibly reflect customs related to practicality as much as anything else, in my opinion, doesn't constitute justification for current policy or shall I say doctrine.

Should women be allowed to go on missions and actually baptize their converts? Should women be allowed to go on visiting teaching visits and perform blessings? Should women be allowed to be any leader in the Church? I say of course!! I think the Church is making a big mistake in suggesting that Motherhood is to women as the Priesthood is to men. Not so. Motherhood is equitable to Fatherhood. Women are simply not equal to men in the church.

Given that anyone that really thinks about the church at all, can easily see that women are not equal. Far too many in the church refuse to really think about it. With the Church clearly redefining doctrine, who could blame women for wondering if the Doctrine of the Priesthood isn't really just a theory? Will the Doctrine of the Priesthood be "dismissed" in coming years? The Church is sort of like the United States a hundred years ago. Women shouldn't be able to vote. Yet today that is a silly thing to say. My guess is that in not too many years, we will be saying the same about women having the priesthood. I would suggest that one of the General Authorities this coming Conference give a talk on the doctrinal reasons why we should feel good about women not holding the priesthood. I am not holding my breath on that happening.

[_Bazooka]

You make an interesting point.

Based on the behaviour of the Church with regards to "Race and the Priesthood" it is conceivable that at some point there'll be an essay titled "Women and the Priesthood" which goes on to explain how Brigham Young was merely influenced by the chauvinist culture of his day. The essay will conclude...
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that gender is a sign of Priesthood eligibility. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all sexism, past and present, in any form.

[_Sethbag]

The only problem I have with this new movement is that it's a justified movement in search of something that isn't justified. In other words, I agree with the sentiments, but in reality they seek to be receive the fake Mormon magical power of a non-existent God.

I agree that it's not fair that women in the church cannot be said to possess the fake magical power of a non-existent God while men do "possess" the fake magical power of a non-existent God. Ok. It's true, the policy is sexist and ultimately there's not a whole lot of scriptural justification for it. But so damned what?

It would be like me being King For The Day and passing a law that banned women, left-handers, and homosexuals from saying the word "Bleezleblurbkitanamorphcookiecakebeer". Sure it would be horribly sexist, sinisterist, and homophobic, but would it really matter, other than by revealing what others may already have suspected, that I'm really a douche?

I grant that women who believe that the magical power to tap Elohim's mana and pronounce blessings that their kids' tummy aches will clear up in a couple days "if it be God's will" is actually a real thing are upset at the church's patriarchal structure and male-centric leadership bias. I get that.

But can I, in my apostate, non-believing self, really find it in me to hope that the church starts ordaining women to the fake magical power to make ineffectual pronouncements in the name of the non-existent Mormon mammal demigod Elohim? Honestly, I really couldn't give a crap. I'd be far happier for these same women to see the Mormon priesthood for the farcical, fraudulent exercise that it is and leave the chauvinistic, patriarchal organization in their rear-view mirrors.

[_bcspace]

Specifically, I am troubled that the church, in the essay on the Blacks and the Priesthood, effectively threw under the bus over 160 years of undeniable doctrine regarding the "Doctrine" of why the Church should feel good about being a racist church. I think you know what I am trying to say.

No I don't. No doctrine changed with the new topical addition (your 'essay'). Any potential doctrinal changes occurred decades before.

[_TomHagen]

The only problem I have with this new movement is that it's a justified movement in search of something that isn't justified. In other words, I agree with the sentiments, but in reality they seek to be receive the fake Mormon magical power of a non-existent God.

I agree that it's not fair that women in the church cannot be said to possess the fake magical power of a non-existent God while men do "possess" the fake magical power of a non-existent God. Ok. It's true, the policy is sexist and ultimately there's not a whole lot of scriptural justification for it. But so f*****g what?

It would be like me being King For The Day and passing a law that banned women, left-handers, and homosexuals from saying the word "Bleezleblurbkitanamorphcookiecakebeer". Sure it would be horribly sexist, sinisterist, and homophobic, but would it really matter, other than by revealing what others may already have suspected, that I'm really a douche?

I grant that women who believe that the magical power to tap Elohim's mana and pronounce blessings that their kids' tummy aches will clear up in a couple days "if it be God's will" is actually a real thing are upset at the church's patriarchal structure and male-centric leadership bias. I get that.

But can I, in my apostate, non-believing self, really find it in me to hope that the church starts ordaining women to the fake magical power to make ineffectual pronouncements in the name of the non-existent Mormon mammal demigod Elohim? Honestly, I really couldn't give a s***. I'd be far happier for these same women to see the Mormon priesthood for the farcical, fraudulent exercise that it is and leave the chauvinistic, patriarchal organization in their rear-view mirrors.

Even with this view, Sethbag, I still support it not because women need the "power" of the priesthood, but they should have equal power in the church - real power. Authority to make decisions, to sit at the table at the highest levels, to govern their own organizations, and to have equal say in how the church as a whole should be governed.

[_readtoomuch]

Specifically, I am troubled that the church, in the essay on the Blacks and the Priesthood, effectively threw under the bus over 160 years of undeniable doctrine regarding the "Doctrine" of why the Church should feel good about being a racist church. I think you know what I am trying to say.

No I don't. No doctrine changed with the new topical addition (your 'essay'). Any potential doctrinal changes occurred decades before.

I agree with you in principal. But for the Church to come out and admit it now (in the essays) brings new light to it. Back in 1978, they didn't reject the doctrine that led to the Black policy. They just said "now folks, everyone can have it" or so in so many words. Not until the Essay, am I aware that they ever rejected the so-called doctrine behind the policy. Sort of like Polygamy and the 1890 manifesto. They just told the world they were going to stop. Yet we know that wasn't exactly what happened. As you know, men are still be sealed to more than one woman in the temple and women cannot be sealed to more than one man at any given time. THe Church has never renounced Polygamy. Yet I don't think they are teaching it to the new members. FRAUD!

[_Sethbag]

Even with this view, Sethbag, I still support it not because women need the "power" of the priesthood, but they should have equal power in the church - real power. Authority to make decisions, to sit at the table at the highest levels, to govern their own organizations, and to have equal say in how the church as a whole should be governed.

There is that. I agree that women who choose to remain members of the Celestial Mickey Mouse Club should at least have an equal say in how the club functions as compared to the men. I did mention that I agree with the principle of it.

I guess I just have a hard time getting worked up hoping that this changes. To be honest, I hope it doesn't change. My reason? To make it more and more painfully obvious, as time goes on and this sort of sexist intransigence becomes less and less acceptable in our society, that the church is just a man-made organization believing man-made doctrines and lead by a bunch of cookie-cutter chauvinist men. Long-term, I think the women members would be better served by having the true nature of the beast revealed to them than to be made co-equal members of the beast.

I also acknowledge that that's just me projecting my own ideas of what's best for them, rather than listening to what they want. For that I repent. I hope they get what they want, and that it makes them happy.

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Where, in L-d$,inc scripture..., does it say women can not hold any Priesthood?

[_ludwigm]

Where, in L-d$,inc scripture..., does it say women can not hold any Priesthood?

Where, in L-d$,inc scripture..., does it say women can hold any Priesthood?