Is it doctrine or culture that keeps women from being ordained?

[myboynoah]

That's really a good point. Jesus tried his damndest not to shake up the status quo. That's precisely why he didn't ordain women. After all, who is God to think He can do whatever the hell he wanted as a quasi-mortal?

Yeah, He was too much of a "go along to get along" type.

[SoonerCoug]

That's really a good point. Jesus tried his damndest not to shake up the status quo. That's precisely why he didn't ordain women. After all, who is God to think He can do whatever the hell he wanted as a quasi-mortal?

You're operating under the assumption that he was a quasi-mortal, which is a big assumption.

But even if you believe he was a quasi-mortal (which is a tough argument to make in terms of evidence) you'd still have to acknowledge that Jesus must have lived and acted within the context of his day. He tried to get people to be nice to each other and taught that he was the messiah, which was a radical idea, but he was still a Jew that spoke Aramaic who probably did not believe in equality for women--at least we have little to no evidence of that. Even the story about him saving a female adulterer's life (which says nothing about equality) was a fraud that was added to the bible hundreds of years later.

My main point is this: If you operate under the assumption that Jesus was truly perfect in every way and that the biblical description of Jesus and his church is the beginning and end of all truth, then you should consider the fact that our church does not resemble his much at all.

[Pelado]

You're operating under the assumption that he was a quasi-mortal, which is a big assumption.

But even if you believe he was a quasi-mortal (which is a tough argument to make in terms of evidence) you'd still have to acknowledge that Jesus must have lived and acted within the context of his day. He tried to get people to be nice to each other and taught that he was the messiah, which was a radical idea, but he was still a Jew that spoke Aramaic who probably did not believe in equality for women--at least we have little to no evidence of that. Even the story about him saving a female adulterer's life (which says nothing about equality) was a fraud that was added to the bible hundreds of years later.

My main point is this: If you operate under the assumption that Jesus was truly perfect in every way and that the biblical description of Jesus and his church is the beginning and end of all truth, then you should consider the fact that our church does not resemble his much at all.

Really? Sweet - now we can kill the adulterers! Who's with me?

[SoonerCoug]

Really? Sweet - now we can kill the adulterers! Who's with me?

What kind of response is that? You are missing the point. The story was added 300 years after the fact and is absent from earlier versions of the text. I'm making a point about the inaccuracy of the Bible and how little it tells us about Jesus and his attitudes toward women.

I thought our Church operated in part on the basis that the Bible was translated poorly and therefore we have a blank check to receive revelation and shake things up.

Where in the Bible does it describe much of anything that we do today in Mormonism as far as operations and hierarchy of the modern Church? Relying on a poorly translated, half-fraudulent book (Pauline forgeries, etc) to exclude women from the priesthood 2000 years later is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.

But if we really cared about the new testament's attitude toward women and leadership, then women shouldn't be speaking in Church at all! Why doesn't the Church add that to their stupid statement about women and make them sit in the pews rather than speak at all? Church leaders pick and choose to suit their own views rather than using their brains and thinking rationally about what is the right thing to do.

[All-American]

My main point is this: If you operate under the assumption that Jesus was truly perfect in every way and that the biblical description of Jesus and his church is the beginning and end of all truth, then you should consider the fact that our church does not resemble his much at all.

Except that both had only male apostles.

[CardiacCoug]

Except that both had only male apostles.

Nice.

[SoonerCoug]

Except that both had only male apostles.

That's my whole point. They use his male apostles as the excuse for excluding women in the modern era, but they change almost everything else organizationally. It's a really stupid argument.

You know it's wrong to exclude women from leadership. Why do you defend or justify it?

[Jeff Lebowski]

We need to be careful going back to the bible for guidance. There was no concept of priesthood in the sense that we use it. Priesthood simply meant those who were in a position to minister. Miracles were performed by the power of faith or Spirit and there was no mention of someone needing to be ordained and given a divine power prior to ministering. Ditto for the BOM.

Furthermore, there are many references to prophetesses in the bible (http://www.openbible.info/topics/prophetess). And quite a few people believe that Romans 16:7 is evidence that there was a female apostle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia).

[Pelado]

What kind of response is that? You are missing the point. The story was added 300 years after the fact and is absent from earlier versions of the text. I'm making a point about the inaccuracy of the Bible and how little it tells us about Jesus and his attitudes toward women.

I thought our Church operated in part on the basis that the Bible was translated poorly and therefore we have a blank check to receive revelation and shake things up.

Where in the Bible does it describe much of anything that we do today in Mormonism as far as operations and hierarchy of the modern Church? Relying on a poorly translated, half-fraudulent book (Pauline forgeries, etc) to exclude women from the priesthood 2000 years later is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.

But if we really cared about the new testament's attitude toward women and leadership, then women shouldn't be speaking in Church at all! Why doesn't the Church add that to their stupid statement about women and make them sit in the pews rather than speak at all? Church leaders pick and choose to suit their own views rather than using their brains and thinking rationally about what is the right thing to do.

So no support on death to the adulterers, then? Do I have to everything myself?

[All-American]

That's my whole point. They use his male apostles as the excuse for excluding women in the modern era, but they change almost everything else organizationally. It's a really stupid argument.

You know it's wrong to exclude women from leadership. Why do you defend or justify it?

Seeing you make an argument really makes me appreciate SU's talent. He really is quite good at this.

[SoonerCoug]

Seeing you make an argument really makes me appreciate SU's talent. He really is quite good at this.

Why don't you address the issue? Explain to me why it's good to exclude women from the priesthood.

[Indy Coug]

Why don't you address the issue? Explain to me why it's good to exclude women from the priesthood.

Because it makes you upset. QED

[All-American]

Why don't you address the issue?

Mostly because I find you boring, although I will have to give more thought to your point about why Jesus didn't ordain any Chinese Apostles.

[SoonerCoug]

Because it makes you upset. QED

Anyone on this board willing to give an argument of substance?

Tell us why excluding women from the priesthood makes the Church better.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You're operating under the assumption that he was a quasi-mortal, which is a big assumption.

But even if you believe he was a quasi-mortal (which is a tough argument to make in terms of evidence) you'd still have to acknowledge that Jesus must have lived and acted within the context of his day. He tried to get people to be nice to each other and taught that he was the messiah, which was a radical idea, but he was still a Jew that spoke Aramaic who probably did not believe in equality for women--at least we have little to no evidence of that. Even the story about him saving a female adulterer's life (which says nothing about equality) was a fraud that was added to the bible hundreds of years later.

My main point is this: If you operate under the assumption that Jesus was truly perfect in every way and that the biblical description of Jesus and his church is the beginning and end of all truth, then you should consider the fact that our church does not resemble his much at all.

I am going to quibble with you on this one. I am well aware that this was a later addition (this is well documented in Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus book), but I don't agree that this proves that the story is fraudulent, in the sense that the story never happened.