If a female tried to get into the priesthood session of GC...

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is the exact quote. This is right after he explained that women currently exercise priesthood authority (they act under the direction of the priesthood):

“Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities,...”

Ouch.

Will he be seen as the Delbert L. Stapley of our time?

[Solon]

It must be nice not to really care. People like you are why black men were not allowed to have the priesthood until 1978. They just didn't worry, played along, and paid their tithing. Why worry about injustice? Who cares about discrimination, right?

After all, God is in charge, so things are exactly the way God wants them. Right?

The dangerous arguments are all over the church and evident in this thread:

1. The Status Quo is Perfect: Women shouldn't have the priesthood because they don't have the priesthood. If women were supposed to have the priesthood they would already have it.

2. The Tyranny of the Majority: The majority of women don't want the priesthood, therefore they shouldn't have the priesthood.
This is a clumsy diversion from the morality of the argument.

This isn't that different from the approach of the Southern Manifesto, which was issued in 1956 to protest Brown vs. Board of Education.

Essentially, the Southern congressmen claimed that the majority if people wanted separate-but-equal, and that separate-but-equal had become "a part of the life of the people of many of the states and confirmed their habits, customs, traditions and way of life." (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt...document2.html)

IMO, the OW movement & others are calling out the LDS leadership because the actions do not match their pronouncements on this issue.
At some point, either the actions or the pronouncements will change.

[Solon]

Here is the exact quote. This is right after he explained that women currently exercise priesthood authority (they act under the direction of the priesthood):



Ouch.

Will he be seen as the Delbert L. Stapley of our time?

never mind. I didn't read it correctly.

[Clark Addison]

Here is the exact quote. This is right after he explained that women currently exercise priesthood authority (they act under the direction of the priesthood):



Ouch.

Will he be seen as the Delbert L. Stapley of our time?

I don't want to be seen as Elder Oaks' apologist, but it seems to me that he is referring to the rights of the priesthood, not rights in general. Still a clumsy moment in the middle of several others, but not as bad as it sounds, maybe. I see his intent as more of a JFK-like "think not what your priesthood can give to you, think what you can give through your priesthood".

But then again, what do I know. I didn't even watch it.

[LiveCoug]

I don't want to be seen as Elder Oaks' apologist, but it seems to me that he is referring to the rights of the priesthood, not rights in general. Still a clumsy moment in the middle of several others, but not as bad as it sounds, maybe. I see his intent as more of a JFK-like "think not what your priesthood can give to you, think what you can give through your priesthood".

But then again, what do I know. I didn't even watch it.

[Vic Vega]

I don't want to be seen as Elder Oaks' apologist, but it seems to me that he is referring to the rights of the priesthood, not rights in general. Still a clumsy moment in the middle of several others, but not as bad as it sounds, maybe. I see his intent as more of a JFK-like "think not what your priesthood can give to you, think what you can give through your priesthood".

But then again, what do I know. I didn't even watch it.

Lots of good stuff San Jaun, a d Solon. I am getting out the door to the airport but I am going to have some fun thinking about it and looking at it closer. Forgive me in advance if I ressurect this later after I have time to look at it later. I love this kind of questioning when done respectfully. I makes me think and the self examination is often revealing. But for now, I have to hurry or I'll miss my flight!

[SCcoug]

This is not what he said. What he said is that responsibility is more important than human rights. I am saying that this is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

It isn't difficult to see how wrong this is. Imagine a person unjustly imprisoned or enslaved. Then imagine the slaveholder saying: Your rights don't matter. What matters is your responsibility.

What Oaks said is false, and it matters.

Lets get the real quote instead of it being filtered though Sooner third hand.

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities. That is a principle needed in society at large. The famous Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is quoted as saying it is time to defend not so much human rights as human obligations. Latter-Day Saints surely recognize that qualifying for exaltation is not a matter of asserting rights but a matter of fulfilling responsibilities.

Not seeing how that quote is pure evil.

[SoonerCoug]

Lets get the real quote instead of it being filtered though Sooner third hand.

Not seeing how that quote is pure evil.

I think it's a pretty horrible quote. Can I remind you that the head of Ordain Women is a human rights attorney? You think it's a coincidence that he chose a quote specifically stating that human rights should not be defended so much?

[Surfah]

I don't want to be seen as Elder Oaks' apologist, but it seems to me that he is referring to the rights of the priesthood, not rights in general. Still a clumsy moment in the middle of several others, but not as bad as it sounds, maybe. I see his intent as more of a JFK-like "think not what your priesthood can give to you, think what you can give through your priesthood".

But then again, what do I know. I didn't even watch it.

I agree. It's clumsy phrasing for sure but I agree with your interpretation.

[Vic Vega]

I believe freedom of thought can't be taken away and a person most important focus should be on what they can control. I have a fundamental disagreement with your philosophy and I reject your claim of moral superiority on this point.

The other thoughts in the thread will take more time and close examination.

[cougjunkie]

I think it's a pretty horrible quote. Can I remind you that the head of Ordain Women is a human rights attorney? You think it's a coincidence that he chose a quote specifically stating that human rights should not be defended so much?

She is not a very good one if she can't get a bunch of senile, old men with early set Alzheimer's to fold.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[Green Monstah]

I'll admit that Oaks' talk saddened me, mostly because there are people I care about who feel their values are incompatible with the Church's and may feel compelled to leave because of the Church's rigid stance on this issue. I suppose I delude myself to think that there is really room for people like the OW crowd in the Church (or maybe I watched Petes Dragon one too many times as a kid).

[clackamascoug]

I'm a right wing mormon as much as anyone here, and I too felt Oak's talk was left wanting. According to Oaks, women already act under, and exercise priesthood authority in the execution of their callings. If so, why not take the next step and let them participate fully into the administrative priesthood branch as well? Playing out the scenario in my head of women holding the priesthood, I can't really see a downside, other than unstable people, but that's a hurdle with men as well.

I understand that the Eternal Plan of God is an exercise in efficiency with its design and execution, and that He doesn't need any extra moving parts in His pocket watch of a universe, but that doesn't doesn't translate well to the people who are on the outside looking in.

[SoonerCoug]

I understand that the Eternal Plan of God is an exercise in efficiency, and that He doesn't need any extra moving parts in His pocket watch of a universe, but that doesn't doesn't translate well to the people who are on the outside looking in.

Nowhere is this a bigger issue than in Russia, where the LDS population is so dominated by females that at one point, we were only allowed to teach groups if at least one or two males were present. The Church currently cannot function without males, but Russian males couldn't get off the booze. Missionaries very frequently were serving as branch presidents, counselors, elders quorum presidents in sizeable congregations (>100 people), predominantly consisting of women.

[Portland Ute]

I'm a right wing mormon as much as anyone here, and I too felt Oak's talk was left wanting. According to Oaks, women already act under, and exercise priesthood authority in the execution of their callings.

I thought Oaks, while laying the smackdown, stated some things which I don't recall ever being discussed by church leaders, specifically in conference. He directly and clearly said that women exercise the Priesthood in the temples. That women in auxiliaries are excercising a bit of priesthood because those are all capacities which operate by priesthood.

I don't know if he did this intentionally in an attempt to "give" something more to the women or if he did it inadvertantly in an attempt to say, "look, you already have a bit of the priesthood!"

Either way, stripping away some of the more talked about points, I thought it was significant for Oaks to discuss the ways in which women already do, in fact, exercise priesthood and the way he seemed to allude to women actually having the priesthood, but not the offices nor keys.