Sacrament talk: Women and the priesthood

[Rick Grimes]

Thank you Tzone! Very well put.

[Lilli]

Here's mine.
"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord ahs revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yeardsticks, or balances, by which we measure ever man's doctrine.
You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works...."
-Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation

Well, you have your measuring stick. And when you compare the church and its current doctrines and teachings and practices to you precious measuring stick, it is clearly falling short. i

I agree, the Church can't even use it's own measuring stick against it's own doctrine and practices, for it would then show that the Church preaches and practices contrary to the teachings of Christ and Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, etc. in many ways. And thus JFS is saying we should not accept those Church teachings or practices.

[Lilli]

The question I have is more basic in nature... Is the scripture right/true or correct. I know people have a hard time asking this question, because they want the scriptures to be an infallible source of truth just like others want the modern prophets to be...

Either he knew what he was talking about or his didn't. I say he didn't and I am willing to bet that most everyone on this forum on all sides of the discussion will disagree with one or more of the statements of Paul regarding the proper role of women and the relationship between a man and a wife. If you agree fully with the first quote I provided by Paul above and want to start advocating that women be silent in church and only learn from their husbands and should subject themselves to the husband, then here are some more BS quotes by Paul that will help to support your position...

He viewed women king of like the traditional muslim saying that they should be covered and silent and obedient to man like man is obedient to God. if you believe Paul in regard to women, then believe everything he said and declare the Church out of line with the scriptures. And if not, then don't try to use Paul as an authority on the subject.

Yeah, Paul....had some pretty strong opinions regarding women and their role and relationship with men. I myself wouldn't dare advocate any of his opinions on this topic which he gave as "commandments of the Lord", 1 Corinthians 14:37. I would just let him stand by himself as a fool. And I think anyone who uses Paul to support their beliefs is not far from the tree.

I agree with your beliefs here Amonhi. I don't pretend that even Apostles like Paul were perfect or infallible. I believe he was heavily influenced by the falsehoods of his day about women. He grew up in a very wicked society where men demeaned and controlled women and it appears a lot of it rubbed off on him.

The way Christ treated and respected women and the position he gave them, seemed to upset even the Apostles when you read other writings from that day, for it appears Christ made Mary an Apostle, even the Apostle to the Apostles. So it doesn't appear that Christ believed in Paul's submission of women either.

Even today there are still some men who want to demean women and require their submission to men, in marriage or the Church or even society, for they do not want to honor and respect women's true equality like Christ did.

We know from even a quick glance at history that Prophets and Apostles aren't perfect and can be wrong about things, even fall and/or lead others astray, as many in the Church think even Joseph Smith did when he taught against polygamy. So that is why we are told to 'prove all things' before we believe anyone, and compare what they say & do with the words of Christ, who of course trumps Paul or any other man or prophet.

[Hyrcanus]

The question I have is more basic in nature... Is the scripture right/true or correct. I know people have a hard time asking this question, because they want the scriptures to be an infallible source of truth just like others want the modern prophets to be...

Either he knew what he was talking about or his didn't. I say he didn't and I am willing to bet that most everyone on this forum on all sides of the discussion will disagree with one or more of the statements of Paul regarding the proper role of women and the relationship between a man and a wife. If you agree fully with the first quote I provided by Paul above and want to start advocating that women be silent in church and only learn from their husbands and should subject themselves to the husband, then here are some more BS quotes by Paul that will help to support your position...

He viewed women king of like the traditional muslim saying that they should be covered and silent and obedient to man like man is obedient to God. if you believe Paul in regard to women, then believe everything he said and declare the Church out of line with the scriptures. And if not, then don't try to use Paul as an authority on the subject.

Yeah, Paul....had some pretty strong opinions regarding women and their role and relationship with men. I myself wouldn't dare advocate any of his opinions on this topic which he gave as "commandments of the Lord", 1 Corinthians 14:37. I would just let him stand by himself as a fool. And I think anyone who uses Paul to support their beliefs is not far from the tree.

I agree with your beliefs here Amonhi. I don't pretend that even Apostles like Paul were perfect or infallible. I believe he was heavily influenced by the falsehoods of his day about women. He grew up in a very wicked society where men demeaned and controlled women and it appears a lot of it rubbed off on him.

The way Christ treated and respected women and the position he gave them, seemed to upset even the Apostles when you read other writings from that day, for it appears Christ made Mary an Apostle, even the Apostle to the Apostles. So it doesn't appear that Christ believed in Paul's submission of women either.

Even today there are still some men who want to demean women and require their submission to men, in marriage or the Church or even society, for they do not want to honor and respect women's true equality like Christ did.

We know from even a quick glance at history that Prophets and Apostles aren't perfect and can be wrong about things, even fall and/or lead others astray, as many in the Church think even Joseph Smith did when he taught against polygamy. So that is why we are told to 'prove all things' before we believe anyone, and compare what they say & do with the words of Christ, who of course trumps Paul or any other man or prophet.

Specifically as it pertains to Mary being an Apostle, none of the apocryphal works that make the claim have turned out to be legitimate accounts. The title Apostle to the Apostles was in reference to Mary being sent to tell the actual Apostles that Christ was risen, and was developed as an idea only in the Middle Ages.

I don't think that diminishes Mary's role at all in the Gospel's, but it can't be historically argued she was actually an Apostle in the early church.

[paper face]

Specifically as it pertains to Mary being an Apostle, none of the apocryphal works that make the claim have turned out to be legitimate accounts. The title Apostle to the Apostles was in reference to Mary being sent to tell the actual Apostles that Christ was risen, and was developed as an idea only in the Middle Ages.

Mary was treated as a chief disciple in the Pistis Sophia, which scholars think was written between the 2nd and 4th centuries. It was discovered in and Egyptian crypt in 1773. If the idea of Mary as an Apostle developed in the middle ages, then a quick read of the first four chapters of the Pistis Sophia should still raise an eyebrow. Mary is the primary questioner of Christ and, at the very least, placed on equal footing with the Apostles.

[Hyrcanus]

Specifically as it pertains to Mary being an Apostle, none of the apocryphal works that make the claim have turned out to be legitimate accounts. The title Apostle to the Apostles was in reference to Mary being sent to tell the actual Apostles that Christ was risen, and was developed as an idea only in the Middle Ages.

Mary was treated as a chief disciple in the Pistis Sophia, which scholars think was written between the 2nd and 4th centuries. It was discovered in and Egyptian crypt in 1773. If the idea of Mary as an Apostle developed in the middle ages, then a quick read of the first four chapters of the Pistis Sophia should still raise an eyebrow. Mary is the primary questioner of Christ and, at the very least, placed on equal footing with the Apostles.

Just for clarity, Mary being referred to as "Apostle to the Apostles" was an idea that came out of the Middle Ages if I recall correctly. I'd have to review the dating of the more general concept, but 3rd or 4th century sounds about right.

[Lilli]

If a woman can be a prophet of God (prophetess) which they can, then I believe women can be an Apostle of Christ.

But these are things the Spirit must fill in the blanks about, for there hasn't been a major society righteous enough yet throughout history, to accept women's total equality in all things and have such female church leaders, except the City of Enoch.

It has taken 6000 years just for some countries to allow women equal rights in marriage and society, it is taking a little longer to have it happen in churches too, but I believe if Joseph Smith had lived longer we would have seen women Apostles, Prophets, Co-Bishops, etc.

[Tafiat]

My friend (a high councilman) is speaking this Sunday in Relief Society about how women can support the priesthood. I decided to help him out and began searching the web for some ideas, and that's how I ran across this rousing discussion. Maybe I can share some of the ideas that I found as I contemplated and searched. There is a fairly recent talk by Bro Oaks from the Oct 2010 general conference called "Two Lines of Communications." It is about the 2 ways that we have access to God - one through the priesthood, and the other through the "priesthood of all believers." To my knowledge, this is the first time that a general authority has validated this otherwise main-stream Christian idea or phrase (that such a priesthood exists, though he calls it a "line of communication"). If you are not familiar with it, it is a doctrine that has its source from 1 Pet 2:5,9 "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." Wonderful verses, they compare the ancient priesthood's offering of animal sacrifice, to the sacrifice of our hearts (broken) and spirits (contrite). Peter is likening all those who now make such sacrifices (which was done daily in the temple) to ancient priesthood holders. What President Oaks asserts in his talk is that in this regard, all members of the church are to continue this time-honored priesthood activity, which Christ also outlined in 3 Nephi 9:19-20. Below is a excerpt from his talk:

"The direct, personal channel of communication to our Heavenly Father through the Holy Ghost is based on worthiness and is so essential that we are commanded to renew our covenants by partaking of the sacrament each Sabbath day. In this way we qualify for the promise that we may always have His Spirit to be with us, to guide us. On this personal line of communication with the Lord, our belief and practice is similar to that of those Christians who insist that human mediators between God and man are unnecessary because all have direct access to God under the principle Martin Luther espoused that is now known as “the priesthood of all believers.” The personal line is of paramount importance in personal decisions and in the governance of the family. Unfortunately, some members of our church underestimate the need for this direct, personal line. Responding to the undoubted importance of prophetic leadership—the priesthood line, which operates principally to govern heavenly communications on Church matters—some seek to have their priesthood leaders make personal decisions for them, decisions they should make for themselves by inspiration through their personal line. Personal decisions and family governance are principally a matter for the personal line."

He continues later: "All priesthood authority in the Church functions under the direction of one who holds the appropriate priesthood keys. This is the priesthood line. But the authority that presides in the family—whether father or single-parent mother—functions in family matters without the need to get authorization from anyone holding priesthood keys. That is like the personal line. Both lines must be functioning in our family life and in our personal lives if we are to have the growth and achieve the destiny identified in our Heavenly Father’s plan for His children. We must use both the personal line and the priesthood line in proper balance to achieve the growth that is the purpose of mortal life. If personal religious practice relies too much on the personal line, individualism erases the importance of divine authority. If personal religious practice relies too much on the priesthood line, individual growth suffers. The children of God need both lines to achieve their eternal destiny. The restored gospel teaches both, and the restored Church provides both."

Brother Oaks doesn't call the "personal line" of communication a personal priesthood, but clearly it is just as important as the priesthood line of authority, and its operation (how it works) is nearly identical. I recommend that you read the entire talk at:

posting.php?mode=reply&f=14&t=31677" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tafiat]

My friend (a high councilman) is speaking this Sunday in Relief Society about how women can support the priesthood. I decided to help him out and began searching the web for some ideas, and that's how I ran across this rousing discussion. Maybe I can share some of the ideas that I found as I contemplated and searched. There is a fairly recent talk by Bro Oaks from the Oct 2010 general conference called "Two Lines of Communications." It is about the 2 ways that we have access to God - one through the priesthood, and the other through the "priesthood of all believers." To my knowledge, this is the first time that a general authority has validated this otherwise main-stream Christian idea or phrase (that such a priesthood exists, though he calls it a "line of communication"). If you are not familiar with it, it is a doctrine that has its source from 1 Pet 2:5,9 "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." Wonderful verses, they compare the ancient priesthood's offering of animal sacrifice, to the sacrifice of our hearts (broken) and spirits (contrite). Peter is likening all those who now make such sacrifices (which was done daily in the temple) to ancient priesthood holders. What President Oaks asserts in his talk is that in this regard, all members of the church are to continue this time-honored priesthood activity, which Christ also outlined in 3 Nephi 9:19-20. Below is a excerpt from his talk:

"The direct, personal channel of communication to our Heavenly Father through the Holy Ghost is based on worthiness and is so essential that we are commanded to renew our covenants by partaking of the sacrament each Sabbath day. In this way we qualify for the promise that we may always have His Spirit to be with us, to guide us. On this personal line of communication with the Lord, our belief and practice is similar to that of those Christians who insist that human mediators between God and man are unnecessary because all have direct access to God under the principle Martin Luther espoused that is now known as “the priesthood of all believers.” The personal line is of paramount importance in personal decisions and in the governance of the family. Unfortunately, some members of our church underestimate the need for this direct, personal line. Responding to the undoubted importance of prophetic leadership—the priesthood line, which operates principally to govern heavenly communications on Church matters—some seek to have their priesthood leaders make personal decisions for them, decisions they should make for themselves by inspiration through their personal line. Personal decisions and family governance are principally a matter for the personal line."

He continues later: "All priesthood authority in the Church functions under the direction of one who holds the appropriate priesthood keys. This is the priesthood line. But the authority that presides in the family—whether father or single-parent mother—functions in family matters without the need to get authorization from anyone holding priesthood keys. That is like the personal line. Both lines must be functioning in our family life and in our personal lives if we are to have the growth and achieve the destiny identified in our Heavenly Father’s plan for His children. We must use both the personal line and the priesthood line in proper balance to achieve the growth that is the purpose of mortal life. If personal religious practice relies too much on the personal line, individualism erases the importance of divine authority. If personal religious practice relies too much on the priesthood line, individual growth suffers. The children of God need both lines to achieve their eternal destiny. The restored gospel teaches both, and the restored Church provides both."

Brother Oaks doesn't call the "personal line" of communication a personal priesthood, but clearly it is just as important as the priesthood line of authority, and its operation (how it works) is nearly identical. I recommend that you read the entire talk at:

posting.php?mode=reply&f=14&t=31677" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Amonhi]

If no common foundation can be agreed upon, agree to disagree and move on. Trying to tear down the other persons faith will never be productive and in the long run will be self destructive.

Too true. It's obvious that not everybody is operating under the same understanding here. We discuss doctrine here, but when somebody can just ignore the words of the prophets, or the scriptures, than their is no point in discussing this point of doctrine anymore.

To my point, I am saying that we are on the same standing and using the same foundation. I am saying that I disregard those sayings of Paul which are obviously incorrect and that you do too. If you can prove me wrong simply by declaring boldly that you believe what Paul taught and that you honestly feel that we should follow his "Thus sayeth the Lord" commandments and:

• Let your women keep silence in the churches
• it is not permitted unto them to speak
• they are commanded to be under obedience
• if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home
• it is a shame for women to speak in the church
• Why Paul followed this up with "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

You completely ignored this entirely. Either you believe it, or you do not or perhaps you have an alternate translation which we might both agree on? But any sincere seeker will acknowledge that Paul had a view of women and their role and that view influenced everything he said on the matter. That view and everything he said based on it was true or not.

You are saying it is true and yet you aren't willing to declare he was right in the points listed above, taken as direct quotes from the scriptures... (Please do declare they are right if you feel that way, then things will get really exciting!)

My point is that I do not believe anyone is going to side with Paul, because he was wrong. Even Rick Grimes is not willing to side with Paul when push comes to shove. And so we ARE on the same foundation. We are willing to see and accept truth when it is presented and when it is not.

This is not a challenge to faith unless you have built your foundation on the scriptures in which case you are bound to fall eventually because it is NOT a sure foundation. It is not the rock on which if you build you cannot fall.

In this instance, it would be more appropriate to discuss the role of the Holy Ghost and how he testifies of the truth.

Leaving the scriptures for a better and more obscure but certain source of truth. A fair play, but you have criticized me for not accepting the scriptures openly when you reject them in secret. Not a fair play at all.

We should also discuss how God has called propets that write down their testimonies to be shared with the world. Before any further doctrinal discussions be had, I believe that this basic concept would be more apropos, to cover in depth, since many here don't even accept this.

I think we are all aware of the role of prophets. What you are really wanting is to discuss the perfect and infallible nature of prophets. How they cannot lead us astray. How when they say "This is a commandment from the Lord" like Paul did as quoted above, they cannot be wrong. Trust me... If you faith is in prophets, you don't want to go there or you will fall hard. I have so many examples of prophets teaching heresies and false doctrine it will make your head spin.

I think a better direction might be to discuss the true rock on which if you build you cannot fall. When the truth is known, only those on the true rock will remain standing because the wicked take the truth to be hard and it cuts them to their core. Not out of spite but as a natural consequence of truth. Don't build your foundation on men.

18 And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—
19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—
20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;
21 That faith also might increase in the earth;
22 That mine everlasting covenant might be established;
23 That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. - D&C 1

Every man might speak in the name of the Lord and not only the leaders of this people and that no man, not even the leaders of this people should counsel their fellow man because all men and women are able to speak in the name of the Lord. That is the goal. If you lose sight of this, then the very purpose for which that God gave commandments to Joseph Smith and others will not be fulfilled.

Like a Lion,
Amonhi

[paper face]

Just for clarity, Mary being referred to as "Apostle to the Apostles" was an idea that came out of the Middle Ages if I recall correctly. I'd have to review the dating of the more general concept, but 3rd or 4th century sounds about right.

That's fine, but the middle ages is generally considered to be the 5th through the 15th centuries. If the concept developed in the middle ages as you said, it would have to hit puberty before it was even born.

[Amonhi]

It doesn't change the fact that on the all important principles and ordinances of the gospel: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentence, Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands are not still 100% intact.

It certainly is, more or less, but it is there.

Moreover, the Lord's annointed still do have the keys of the Priesthood and they do speak with God.

Yes, God still leads the church from the top down but his voice, the Holy Ghost, just as he did anciently under the direction of Peter after he left. For an extensive discussion and many detailed examples of how the Lord directly leads the church See this thread - How the Lord Leads His Church Today....

Knowing who exactly was on the mountain or whether or womb is a veil or not will not gain us admission into the Kindgom of God or the Kindgom of Heaven (Celestial). You know what will? The first four principles and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

:ymapplause: :ymapplause: I agree.

Peace,
Amonhi

[lemuel]

Just for clarity, Mary being referred to as "Apostle to the Apostles" was an idea that came out of the Middle Ages if I recall correctly. I'd have to review the dating of the more general concept, but 3rd or 4th century sounds about right.

That's fine, but the middle ages is generally considered to be the 5th through the 15th centuries. If the concept developed in the middle ages as you said, it would have to hit puberty before it was even born.

Mary Magdalene was the first witness of the Resurrection, making her a special witness, an Apostle. She bore that witness to the 12 Apostles. In this way she was "Apostle to the Apostles".

[Amonhi]

The way Christ treated and respected women and the position he gave them, seemed to upset even the Apostles when you read other writings from that day, for it appears Christ made Mary an Apostle, even the Apostle to the Apostles. So it doesn't appear that Christ believed in Paul's submission of women either.

That is what I have learned as well from scriptures like the Gospel according Mary or the Gospel according to Philip or the gospel according to Thomas. It is a shame that didn't make the cut into the bible, but it is also clear to see why.

Even today there are still some men who want to demean women and require their submission to men, in marriage or the Church or even society, for they do not want to honor and respect women's true equality like Christ did.

This is due to a book called "The witches hammer" which was considered equal to the bible for hundreds of years and was used to prove people witches. It used the bible references like those from Paul to subject and kill many thousands to hundreds of thousands of women. Many t=of the teachings of this book are well and alive today and taught over the pulpit without knowing where they came from.

Peace Lilli, (That never gets old),
Amonhi

[Dannyk]

A very long but fascinating read regarding some of Joseph's comments regarding women and the priesthood, and historical examples of female apostles: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org ... rdination/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even if Mary being Apostle to the Apostles can be questioned (as in some believe it simply means witness to the Apostles), you cannot discount some of the other historical examples of female leadership - as in Junia the Apostle (KJV has her name as Junius and therefore male...but scholarship shows this is incorrect and a convenient change made later to deemphasize the role of women in the early church. There are a few others as well.

The article also covers some interesting material on apocryphal Enoch books - showing the place that Wisdom/Ashera (as a female counterpart to Jehovah) had at times. This female counterpart, later removed by the deutoronomists is well documented here http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/prophe ... ogy/...and" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; seems to be related to some of the things Lehi learns in his visions which come at a time shortly after their removal.

Good stuff. And very insightful comments overall. Thanks to all who've taken time to post.

[Amonhi]

Just for clarity, Mary being referred to as "Apostle to the Apostles" was an idea that came out of the Middle Ages if I recall correctly. I'd have to review the dating of the more general concept, but 3rd or 4th century sounds about right.

That's fine, but the middle ages is generally considered to be the 5th through the 15th centuries. If the concept developed in the middle ages as you said, it would have to hit puberty before it was even born.

That was cute. I enjoy a good humorous comment.

Peace,
Amonhi

[Hyrcanus]

Just for clarity, Mary being referred to as "Apostle to the Apostles" was an idea that came out of the Middle Ages if I recall correctly. I'd have to review the dating of the more general concept, but 3rd or 4th century sounds about right.

That's fine, but the middle ages is generally considered to be the 5th through the 15th centuries. If the concept developed in the middle ages as you said, it would have to hit puberty before it was even born.

Mary being an Apostle in the sense of Priesthood office is dintinct from the concept of her being an Apostle to the Apostles, which is a reference to her role in telling the ordained Apostles that Christ was risen.

In any case, I don't intend it as an argument against any of the broader discussion, I just thought it was a useful historical clarification to offer.

[Lilli]

A very long but fascinating read regarding some of Joseph's comments regarding women and the priesthood, and historical examples of female apostles: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org ... rdination/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even if Mary being Apostle to the Apostles can be questioned (as in some believe it simply means witness to the Apostles), you cannot discount some of the other historical examples of female leadership - as in Junia the Apostle (KJV has her name as Junius and therefore male...but scholarship shows this is incorrect and a convenient change made later to deemphasize the role of women in the early church. There are a few others as well.

The article also covers some interesting material on apocryphal Enoch books - showing the place that Wisdom/Ashera (as a female counterpart to Jehovah) had at times. This female counterpart, later removed by the deutoronomists is well documented here http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/prophe ... ogy/...and" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; seems to be related to some of the things Lehi learns in his visions which come at a time shortly after their removal.

Good stuff. And very insightful comments overall. Thanks to all who've taken time to post.

Thank you very much for those links Danny. They have so much info that clearly supports women's rights and role and history in all church leadership roles.

[Rick Grimes]

My point is that I do not believe anyone is going to side with Paul, because he was wrong. Even Rick Grimes is not willing to side with Paul when push comes to shove.

I will "side" with Paul, and all other established scripture. Not because it is convenient for me or to my agenda, but because it is the inspired word of God. I will write more on this tommorow, but it's late and I have to work in the morning. Paul wrote many things that have often been misunderstood. Unfortunatly, we do not have all the writings of the apostles. Alot of the writings in the Bible are from Paul. He had a unique writing style and often expressed himself in unique ways. This, in no way, diminished his authority to speak in the name of the Lord. A careful of study of his writings, countered with the writings of other apostles and prophets gives us a more full picture or meaning of what Paul was conveying. I will write more later though.

Until then, I will leave you with this, "....Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16

[Seek the Truth]

It's very interesting, when I was younger women having Priesthood in the temple and the Mary Madelene stuff was construed as a positive for the LDS Church past and present, now people seem to be using it against the LDS Church.

[Seek the Truth]

Until then, I will leave you with this, "....Even as our beloved brother Paul aslo according to the wisom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these htings; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16

Pretty heavy scripture. There is another that complements this that will rock people's worlds.

[Rick Grimes]

To my point, I am saying that we are on the same standing and using the same foundation. I am saying that I disregard those sayings of Paul which are obviously incorrect and that you do too. If you can prove me wrong simply by declaring boldly that you believe what Paul taught and that you honestly feel that we should follow his "Thus sayeth the Lord" commandments and:
•Let your women keep silence in the churches
•it is not permitted unto them to speak
•they are commanded to be under obedience
•if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home
•it is a shame for women to speak in the church
•Why Paul followed this up with "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."
You completely ignored this entirely[/b]. Either you believe it, or you do not or perhaps you have an alternate translation which we might both agree on? But any sincere seeker will acknowledge that Paul had a view of women and their role and that view influenced everything he said on the matter. That view and everything he said based on it was true or not.

I have not ignored this. And, yes, I do believe that this is Heaven inspired scripture that is true and worthy of study. However, like in all things, context is important.

My point is that I do not believe anyone is going to side with Paul, because he was wrong. Even Rick Grimes is not willing to side with Paul when push comes to shove.

Just to be clear, I will repeat myself:

I will "side" with Paul, and all other established scripture.

But any sincere seeker will acknowledge that Paul had a view of women and their role and that view influenced everything he said on the matter.

I take your meaning by this and several of your previous posts that Paul was "sexist". You claim that by him stating the following, that he was somehow demeaning towards women.

•Let your women keep silence in the churches
•it is not permitted unto them to speak
•they are commanded to be under obedience
•if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home
•it is a shame for women to speak in the church

Again, context matters.... So here goes. Paul was a pharisee. (Acts 23:6) They were zealous observers of the Law of Moses and all its tenents, as laid out by the Torah. (This is important to remember) After Christ's resurrection, the early Jewish-Christians were still observing the Law of Moses. This even caused some dissension in the early church after Gentiles started converting into the faith, and the question of whether or not they needed to observe the rest of the Law of Moses as well was addressed by Peter and the other apostles. (Acts 15)

Although Paul did not push the issue of Gentiles living by the Law of Moses, he certainly was a strict observer of it himself.(Acts 22:3)

It is important to know that his audience that he addressed this epistle too, was to a community of Jewish Christians in the Roman Colony of Corinth. Debauchery and other boisterous bahaviour was making its way into the church there and Paul, having heard these reports, wrote to correct or call back these Saints from their errors. Among these errors, were the constant disruptions that were common place in the churches. (talking gibberish ie. tongues, arguing on points of doctrine, contentions about the doctrines during meetings, etc....)

You quote Acts 14:34-36 as evidence that Paul was antagnostic towards women.

]•Let your women keep silence in the churches
•it is not permitted unto them to speak
•they are commanded to be under obedience
•if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home
•it is a shame for women to speak in the church

Yet, you seem to overlook that he makes a similiar statement towards men just a few verses before.

If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Paul must be sexist against both genders, huh?

Admittedly, Paul is a little more pointed in his address towards the women of the congregation but that was because these Jewish Christians were not following the Law or Torah by allowing women to speak in the meeting. Which is why he states....

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Here is one such example of the role of women in the synogues that many of the early Jewish Christians attended. You are free to find more examples as there are plenty.

The second thing that must be understood is the separation of men and women during prayer. According to Jewish Law, men and women must be separated during prayer, usually by a wall or curtain called a mechitzah or by placing women in a second floor balcony. There are two reasons for this: first, your mind is supposed to be on prayer, not on the pretty girl praying near you. Second, many pagan religious ceremonies at the time Judaism was founded involved sexual activity and orgies, and the separation prevents or at least discourages this. Interestingly, although men should not be able to see women during prayer, women are permitted to see men during prayer. This seems to reflect the opinion that women are better able to concentrate on prayer with an attractive member of the opposite sex visible.

The combination of this exemption from certain mitzvot and this separation often has the result that women have an inferior place in the synagogue. Women are not obligated by Jewish law to attend formal religious services, and cannot participate in many aspects of the services

http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have highlighted the parts that specifiy that this was Jewish Law. This was NOT authored by Paul. Paul was merely calling out what the Torah/Law dictated about a woman's place in the church/synagogue. This does not mean that Paul or that the Lord wanted to treat women as second class citizens. Indeed, a further reading of the scriptures clarifies what the Lord's position is on women and them being able to speak to share the gospel with those around them.

“And it shall come to pass afterward
That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,Your old men shall dream dreams,
Your young men shall see visions.

Joel 2:28

Do you really believe that Paul, a strict and ardent upholder of the Law/Torah, with a firm upbringing in the Old Testament wouldn't have been familiar with this prophesy? Obviously, it was important enough that it was quoted again the New Testament Acts 2:16-17.

Kinda takes the sting out of the charge that Paul was "Sexist" when we are able to look at the bigger picture and understand that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is indeed in order. No matter what the seeming contradiction might be, if you seek the answer, you will be able to find it. That's one of the blessings of having true revelation by the Lord's servants to help guide us. The spirit will lead us to these truths, if we will be humble enough to not have an agenda before hand that needs to be satisfied.

I again, leave you with these words from Peter, not only endorsing the words of Paul, but warning that those who reject them, risk their own destruction.

Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

2 Peter 3:15-16

[Rick Grimes]

Mary was treated as a chief disciple in the Pistis Sophia, which scholars think was written between the 2nd and 4th centuries. It was discovered in and Egyptian crypt in 1773. If the idea of Mary as an Apostle developed in the middle ages, then a quick read of the first four chapters of the Pistis Sophia should still raise an eyebrow. Mary is the primary questioner of Christ and, at the very least, placed on equal footing with the Apostles.

When did the apostasy take place?? Oh yeah, by the end of the first century. So and idea as absurd as Mary of Magdeline being on "equal footing" (ie. an apostle) would fit in with the fact that the interpolations of man were being added into the gospel of Jesus Christ on an ongoing and steady basis. Feminism and it's followers is not a new thing. Many early cults worshipped the "sacred feminen" and no doubt, some early Christians (apostatized by this time) would have been influenced into believing this falsehood.
It needs to be remembered that the apostleship is an actual priesthood office that one is ordained to, by the laying of hands. Those who throw about terms and inferences that Mary was somehow an "apostle" do not understand the nature of priesthood and how it is passed on.

Here's an interesting meme to think upon:
Jesus Christ had many disciples that followed him. It is obvious that some of His most devoted disciples were women. They stayed true and believed in Him, even when His own apostles doubted His resurrection. Yet, for some reason, Christ never chose a woman to be numbered among them. Even after the death of Judas, when the apostles again met up to fill the vacancy, they chose Mathias (another man) to take the place of Judas. Why is it that this is totally disregarded? This is not a slam against women. Christ loved the women that followed Him, yet, not even He would break the "rules/laws of heaven" and ordained a woman to the priesthood. Why are we still arguing this tired point????? I am so done with this topic! X(

[TZONE]

Mary was treated as a chief disciple in the Pistis Sophia, which scholars think was written between the 2nd and 4th centuries. It was discovered in and Egyptian crypt in 1773. If the idea of Mary as an Apostle developed in the middle ages, then a quick read of the first four chapters of the Pistis Sophia should still raise an eyebrow. Mary is the primary questioner of Christ and, at the very least, placed on equal footing with the Apostles.

It needs to be remembered that the apostleship is an actual priesthood office that one is ordained to, by the laying of hands. Those who throw about terms and inferences that Mary was somehow an "apostle" do not understand the nature of priesthood and how it is passed on.
X(

I disagree but that is ok ;).

Church offices are not part of the priesthood, they are part of a new testament church added due to wicked men and women. this is what sidney rigdon pressured the early leaders to bring back, I don't believe joseph wanted it but since the members did the lord always gives us what we want. D&C 107 uses the word appendage.

ap·pend·age
əˈpendij/Submit
noun
plural noun: appendages
1.
(often with negative or pejorative connotations) a thing that is added or attached to something larger or more important.

meaning its not the original form.

many of the offices in Christs NT church did not exist in the beginning. And it won't exist at the end. For from the beginning you can tell the end...

moses 6: 7 Now this same Priesthood, which was in the beginning, shall be in the end of the world also.

OT priesthood -> NT tesetament (great apostasy) LDS -> OT (zion)... The world is one giant chiamus, history repeats literally. That is why isaiah was able to prophecy the end from the beginning, what he went through we are experiencing.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

EDITED to add, doesn't mean I am completely right about all offices... Still waiting for further light and knowledge on this one.

[Amonhi]

I take your meaning by this and several of your previous posts that Paul was "sexist".

By our current standards, yes, absolutely. But he was inline with his own society.

You claim that by him stating the following, that he was somehow demeaning towards women.

Like I said, he was right inline with his own society but not with ours and not with truth, (not that ours is in line with truth either).

You quote Acts 14:34-36 as evidence that Paul was antagonistic towards women.

]•Let your women keep silence in the churches
•it is not permitted unto them to speak
•they are commanded to be under obedience
•if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home
•it is a shame for women to speak in the church

Yet, you seem to overlook that he makes a similiar statement towards men just a few verses before.

If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Paul must be sexist against both genders, huh?

LOL, that WOULD be funny... Reminds me of the guy who said, "I'm not racist, I hate them all the same!" LOL. So, it seems your point is that Paul is treating them both almost equal and telling them both to be silent in the church ?in regard to speaking in tongues? hehehe. If Paul is sexist to both genders equally, then we can simply switch the roles and come to the same conclusions that Paul came to... Looks like this:

•Let your MEN keep silence in the churches
•it is not permitted unto them to speak
•they are commanded to be under obedience
•if they will learn any thing, let them ask their WIVES at home
•it is a shame for MEN to speak in the church

and

If any woman speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let her keep silence in the church; and let her speak to herself, and to God.

Yeah, I am not seeing a similar relationship between Paul's instruction toward women and his instruction toward men...

Admittedly, Paul is a little more pointed in his address towards the women of the congregation but that was because these Jewish Christians were not following the Law or Torah by allowing women to speak in the meeting.

So, you are saying that Paul was for the Law or Torah and that he was teaching its precepts as commandments because he was so into it before he joined the church. i got it. That is what I was saying too. But I added that in doing this he errored and in declaring it the commandment of God and the teachings of Jesus, he also errored. And more importantly that we are not bound to do as he instructed.

Which is why he states....

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Your right. They had a VERY hard time letting the dead law die and moving on to the living law hence the great disputations on the subject recorded in Acts 15.

Here is one such example of the role of women in the synogues that many of the early Jewish Christians attended. You are free to find more examples as there are plenty.

The second thing that must be understood is the separation of men and women during prayer. According to Jewish Law, men and women must be separated during prayer, usually by a wall or curtain called a mechitzah or by placing women in a second floor balcony. There are two reasons for this: first, your mind is supposed to be on prayer, not on the pretty girl praying near you. Second, many pagan religious ceremonies at the time Judaism was founded involved sexual activity and orgies, and the separation prevents or at least discourages this. Interestingly, although men should not be able to see women during prayer, women are permitted to see men during prayer. This seems to reflect the opinion that women are better able to concentrate on prayer with an attractive member of the opposite sex visible.

The combination of this exemption from certain mitzvot and this separation often has the result that women have an inferior place in the synagogue. Women are not obligated by Jewish law to attend formal religious services, and cannot participate in many aspects of the services

http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, I agree and have been saying that Paul was heavily influenced by his social climate and upbringing and was speaking from his background more than from inspiration. That has been my point from the beginning and why I said that Ephesians 5 as quoted is also influenced by Paul's background, upbringing and social climate and so is not useful as direction for us today just as his comments in the various quotes I provided by Paul regarding women are not useful or relevant to us today. You are making my point very well... Please continue...

I have highlighted the parts that specifiy that this was Jewish Law. This was NOT authored by Paul. (I believe you mean the quote above?) Paul was merely calling out what the Torah/Law dictated about a woman's place in the church/synagogue. This does not mean that Paul or that the Lord wanted to treat women as second class citizens.

You have driven the conversation to the point that you are saying that Paul was not speaking his own opinions and convictions but was quoting the law or Torah. And yet it seems that using your first point in your response in this post, Paul was a "zealous observers of the Law of Moses and all its tenents, as laid out by the Torah." In other words he was speaking his own opinion as learned from the Law and tenants of the torah. I get this from your pointing out the following:

"Paul was a pharisee. (Acts 23:6) They were zealous observers of the Law of Moses and all its tenents, as laid out by the Torah. (This is important to remember)... Although Paul did not push the issue of Gentiles living by the Law of Moses, he certainly was a strict observer of it himself.(Acts 22:3)

Now, I am not questioning whether it was Jewish law or not or the customs of the time. That is clear!

And it appears clear to me that this was according to Paul's upbringing and convictions as you pointed out, he being such a major follower of the Law of Moses. (It must have been really hard for him to let go of the law of Moses and accept that it was not needed for salvation just like we have a hard time letting go of the "Preparatory Gospel" and accepting that it is not needed for salvation.)

Indeed, a further reading of the scriptures clarifies what the Lord's position is on women and them being able to speak to share the gospel with those around them.

“And it shall come to pass afterward
That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,Your old men shall dream dreams,
Your young men shall see visions.

Joel 2:28

I am very well aware of the Lord's thoughts in relation to the strengths, abilities, faith and powers of women. The Lord's words regarding women does not save or undo Paul from Paul's words regarding women. Just because some other prophet gave a view of women does not mean that Paul's view of women was the same by default.

Do you really believe that Paul, a strict and ardent upholder of the Law/Torah, with a firm upbringing in the Old Testament wouldn't have been familiar with this prophesy? Obviously, it was important enough that it was quoted again the New Testament Acts 2:16-17.

And Acts 2:16-17 was spoken by Peter as indicated in verse 14, not Paul. So again Peter's words cannot fix for Paul what Paul said in multiple places as if Peter's understand was the same as Paul's and they were really trying to say the same thing.

Kinda takes the sting out of the charge that Paul was "Sexist" when we are able to look at the bigger picture and understand that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is indeed in order.

Not really. Paul was a sexist according to our current standards. Jesus was not, Peter was not. But Paul got his views of women from his heritage and society:

" 6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." Acts 23:6

No matter what the seeming contradiction might be, if you seek the answer, you will be able to find it.

You are right. When scriptures contradict, you can still find the truth. In this particular exercise, we are not trying to point out the truth, we are pointing out Paul's teachings and views towards women which are not aligned with truth or Christ or Peter. We cannot understand Paul's views on women by reading Peter's views on Women or the Lord's views on Women. And as we have multiple statements by Paul and his history and social environment well documented, it has become clear with all these witnesses and references what Paul's views were as they relate to women. And those views according to today's standards and even eternal truth were sexist.

That's one of the blessings of having true revelation by the Lord's servants to help guide us. The spirit will lead us to these truths, if we will be humble enough to not have an agenda before hand that needs to be satisfied.

I agree that the Lords servants can help guide us. But I also agree that we cannot take the words of one like Paul who says he speaks the commandments of the Lord as truth without the bigger picture as you showed us. If it were not for the bigger picture of the teachings of other prophets, and if we were only given Paul's views on women then women would be treated like they were 2000 years ago by the catholic church and the Jews and today like the Muslims.

So far you have completely discredited paul's words by quoting Joel and Peter who speak to the contrary and say that this somehow puts everything into context. But it doesn't put Paul's words into the context of his own life and views. Your quotes about Paul being a Pharisee by birth and belief as well as the quote to the Jews Law do a very good job of putting Paul's words into the context of his life, history and views. And that context supports the plain and straightforward view and instructions he gave regarding women.

It seems that you are saying that contrary to Paul's words you have no issue with women speaking in church or with men learning from women or women being placed in teaching roles to men or in leadership roles over men since you used the words of Joel and of Peter to discredit Paul's words and clarify what you feel is a more accurate view of the true nature and divine nature, right and power of women. If this is not the case, and you still agree with Paul in regard to the roles and divine nature of women, then I challenge you to use the many references given by Paul regarding women to show their true standing in the church and in relation to men and God. And while you are at it, show how and why you agree with Paul on his statements that you still have neglected to address as true or false according to your own convictions:

By this, I mean, do you Rick Grimes believe that women should keep silent in church, not being permitted to speak, give talks, or serve as Gospel Doctrine or other teaching roles over men, that they are commanded to be obedient and subservient to men, and that if they are to learn anything they should ask their husbands at home because it is a shame for them to speak in church?

A simple yes or no will suffice, but feel free to explain why you agree or disagree with Paul's teachings on the subject.

I would not be so direct and insistent if you had not criticized me for doing openly what you do in secret. You cannot make paul's words true without changing them. You can change them or discredit them with the words of some other prophet, but that does not make Paul of the scriptures he wrote about women's place in our church and society true or worthy of applying.

I again, leave you with these words from Peter, not only endorsing the words of Paul, but warning that those who reject them, risk their own destruction.

Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

2 Peter 3:15-16

Remember that context that you keep talking about? Well, You will notice that Peter is not talking about Paul's words regarding women. Is is talking about, "all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. And the things which Peter is speaking of are the events of the Second Coming which are hard to understand. Paul's words regarding women are not hard to understand at all. Hard to believe yes, and implement, sure, understand? not at all, he was very clear. Even you yourself said so. Here are these verses in context:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. - 2 Peter 3:10-16

Do not construe this reference as Peter agreeing to everything Paul ever taught or wrote in an Epistle regarding women or other topics except for those about the second coming of the Lord as given in context.

Bold and Overbearing, ;)
Amonhi

EDIT: Corrected quotes
EDIT2: Changed signoff