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

[Solon]

Phew. I thought I might have forever missed out on the enlightening book of Numbers.

Now that I think about it, I do remember catching the obligatory "Old Testament" lessons on the book of Moses at the beginning of the year.

The OT is by far the most interesting book of scripture in the Mormon canon.
You guys should get an updated translation and a secular commentary.

[Moliere]

The OT is by far the most interesting book of scripture in the Mormon canon.
You guys should get an updated translation and a secular commentary.

It is very interesting, but it certainly does not make for the most interesting GD lessons.

[creekster]

It is very interesting, but it certainly does not make for the most interesting GD lessons.

I disagree. I think that means the instructor isn't doing it very well. I think the ot is full of fascinating stuff. I also agree with Solon that you need a new translation and some commentary to study it properly but I always go back to the KJV as it is so poetic and literary and to see the influence on our speech to this day.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The OT is by far the most interesting book of scripture in the Mormon canon.
You guys should get an updated translation and a secular commentary.

Completely agree.

[Pheidippides]

P-diddy, my curiosity alone to see what approach the Area Authority would take would make me want to have them over. You're not really interested/curious in what they will say to you?

I am, to tell you the truth. My wife and I discussed possible scenarios this morning, though, and most don't turn out well. I haven't responded yet, but as I'm out of town that weekend I'm not sure it really matters.

[byu71]

How about this line?



Who says we don't believe in blind obedience?

First obey, then understand?? Initially that sounds ridiculous. I do recall an advertisement though that went something like, try it you'll like it. I think Nanci Pelosi would suggest that once we try Obamacare, we will like it.

What is that scripture that goes something like, if a man believeth....... A lot of motivation books, including think and grow rich, have that as their theme.

That being said, there is a better way to put it than, "first obey, then understand".

[Jeff Lebowski]

Mike Otterson responds.

http://www.millennialstar.org/the-ld...-out-to-women/

Some really good stuff in there, but wow, he sure did botch the landing.

[Moliere]

Mike Otterson responds.

http://www.millennialstar.org/the-ld...-out-to-women/

Some really good stuff in there, but wow, he sure did botch the landing.

Did you mean Michelle Otterson?

[Jeff Lebowski]

A response to Brother Otterson.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php...ther-otterson/

[TripletDaddy]

A response to Brother Otterson.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php...ther-otterson/

i don't know why they don't at least try to drum up a better reason than "Jesus didn't ordain women." It is such a flimsy rationale and doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny. It is almost embarrassing at this point to use it as an explanation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

i don't know why they don't at least try to drum up a better reason than "Jesus didn't ordain women." It is such a flimsy rationale and doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny. It is almost embarrassing at this point to use it as an explanation.

Yep. This is a remarkable statement from a church that claims belief in continuing revelation:

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

[byu71]

Yep. This is a remarkable statement from a church that claims belief in continuing revelation:

I don't see where the repsonse states that in the future revelation can not be given allowing the women to have the Priesthood. Surely you don't think they should declare a revelation before God actually gives one?

I think God would be displeased if the brethern sat there and said, well Lebowski and other forward thinkers in the church think women should have the Priesthood. Let's announce we have had a revelation.

[SoonerCoug]

I don't see where the repsonse states that in the future revelation can not be given allowing the women to have the Priesthood. Surely you don't think they should declare a revelation before God actually gives one?

I think God would be displeased if the brethern sat there and said, well Lebowski and other forward thinkers in the church think women should have the Priesthood. Let's announce we have had a revelation.

I think the whole idea that God must intervene in order for people to treat those of a different race or gender equally is absolutely ludicrous. It's bad enough to think God intervenes at all, but to believe that racism and sexism require a revelation in order to be eliminated??

What you're essentially saying is that we MUST have a sexist Church until God tells a prophet to stop discriminating against women.

[TripletDaddy]

I think the whole idea that God must intervene in order for people to treat those of a different race or gender equally is absolutely ludicrous. It's bad enough to think God intervenes at all, but to believe that racism and sexism require a revelation in order to be eliminated??

What you're essentially saying is that we MUST have a sexist Church until God tells a prophet to stop discriminating against women.

Perhaps this whole issue isn't doctrinal, as much as policy. Perhaps we don't really know the origin of the practice nor why it continued for so long.

[imanihonjin]

Yep. This is a remarkable statement from a church that claims belief in continuing revelation:

What is remarkable about it? He simply says they don't know the reason. Do you think that a church that believes in continuing revelation must be a church that has already received revelation on all things?