Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

[LDSguy]

Here is a link to one woman's answer to the arguments for equality made by Ordain Women. I think she makes some very good points.
"Again, where there are cultural inconsistencies and where women’s voices need to be heard, I am totally in favor of speaking up and out, for absolute inclusion and respect in all areas of counseling together, but what I see is doctrinal misunderstandings leading to want of doctrinal change, and confusing cultural misapplication of doctrine with doctrinal faultlines."

Read her letter at http://lds.net/blog/faith/open-letter-k ... ain-women/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ‪

[LDSguy]

at what point do these people get ex'd?

[survivaldealer]

If you view the church as a social club, that you join and want to enforce politically correctness and equality, then changing rules and procedures is similar to Boy Scouts deciding to include homosexuals.

But if you believe that God is in charge and does things His way, then one would have to take it up with God, since the Brethren do not have the authority to change God's rules. Of course, if one does not believe that God is in charge and it is just a social club, then why even bother?

It's hard for me to imagine that the people making their demands on God actually believe He exists. If they did, perhaps they might be humbled.

[linj2fly]

Epic post! Thx for sharing, will be passing this on to my family.

[jbalm]

The church has changed doctrines due to outside pressure before. Why not again?

[LDSguy]

Epic post! Thx for sharing, will be passing this on to my family.

you're welcome.

[LDSguy]

The church has changed doctrines due to outside pressure before. Why not again?

"The church" NEVER changes doctrine. It's not their doctrine to change. It belongs to The Lord and it is only His right to change it (which he never would). The blacks not having the priesthood for some time (which I assume you are referring to here) was NOT doctrine, it was a policy.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... r_doctrine

Blacks have held the priesthood in the past. I'm glad they can again.

Name one instance in the history of the world where a woman was ordained to the Aaronic or Melchezidek Priesthood.

It will NEVER happen. Just like gay temple marriages will NEVER happen. It's just not in the program.

[Hyrcanus]

The church has changed doctrines due to outside pressure before. Why not again?

"The church" NEVER changes doctrine. It's not their doctrine to change. It belongs to The Lord and it is only His right to change it (which he never would). The blacks not having the priesthood for some time (which I assume you are referring to here) was NOT doctrine, it was a policy.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... r_doctrine

Blacks have held the priesthood in the past. I'm glad they can again.

Name one instance in the history of the world where a woman was ordained to the Aaronic or Melchezidek Priesthood.

It will NEVER happen. Just like gay temple marriages will NEVER happen. It's just not in the program.

People spoke in precisely the same terms about polygamous marriage never being taken from the earth. Members are terrible at correctly predicting what the future holds for the Church.

[gkearney]

The church has changed doctrines due to outside pressure before. Why not again?

"The church" NEVER changes doctrine. It's not their doctrine to change. It belongs to The Lord and it is only His right to change it (which he never would). The blacks not having the priesthood for some time (which I assume you are referring to here) was NOT doctrine, it was a policy.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... r_doctrine

Blacks have held the priesthood in the past. I'm glad they can again.

Name one instance in the history of the world where a woman was ordained to the Aaronic or Melchezidek Priesthood.

It will NEVER happen. Just like gay temple marriages will NEVER happen. It's just not in the program.

Never is a very strong word. The absents of proof is not proof of absents. So the question is this: Is not ordaining women a doctrine or a policy?

Just because one can not find an instance in scripture for the ordination of women in the church does not mean that such never happened. If that were the case then there should be a whole host of men who would not hold the priesthood. The logical extension of your line of reasoning goes like this statement made in the early years of our faith

Name one instance in the history of the world where an aboriginal Australian was ordained to the Aaronic or Melchezidek Priesthood.

Again just because you can not find a case does not mean that no case have ever existed.

The other problem you create with the word "never" in situations like this is that you create a line in the sand for yourself. What will you do if you walk into church one day and he bishop read a letter announcing women's ordination?

Now you can say that it will never happen but I'm sure there were saints who said the same about plural marriage or ordination of blacks or the teaching of evolution in church schools.

[LDSguy]

The church has changed doctrines due to outside pressure before. Why not again?

"The church" NEVER changes doctrine. It's not their doctrine to change. It belongs to The Lord and it is only His right to change it (which he never would). The blacks not having the priesthood for some time (which I assume you are referring to here) was NOT doctrine, it was a policy.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... r_doctrine

Blacks have held the priesthood in the past. I'm glad they can again.

Name one instance in the history of the world where a woman was ordained to the Aaronic or Melchezidek Priesthood.

It will NEVER happen. Just like gay temple marriages will NEVER happen. It's just not in the program.

People spoke in precisely the same terms about polygamous marriage never being taken from the earth. Members are terrible at correctly predicting what the future holds for the Church.

On the church website it states that “the standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/p ... l-marriage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jacob chapter 2 from the Book of Mormon says,

“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none …. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”

[oneClimbs]

I think it is fine for people to bring up these issues. Think of how many time throughout history people petitioned the Lord's servants and received inspired instruction back. There a many examples that I'm sure that you are aware of. I know that many will argue that this isn't quite the same thing, but note the principles we find in Mosiah 28:1-8 for instance:

1 Now it came to pass that after the sons of Mosiah had done all these things, they took a small number with them and returned to their father, the king, and desired of him that he would grant unto them that they might, with these whom they had selected, go up to the land of Nephi that they might preach the things which they had heard, and that they might impart the word of God to their brethren, the Lamanites—

2 That perhaps they might bring them to the knowledge of the Lord their God, and convince them of the iniquity of their fathers; and that perhaps they might cure them of their hatred towards the Nephites, that they might also be brought to rejoice in the Lord their God, that they might become friendly to one another, and that there should be no more contentions in all the land which the Lord their God had given them.

3 Now they were desirous that salvation should be declared to every creature, for they could not bear that any human soul should perish; yea, even the very thoughts that any soul should endure endless torment did cause them to quake and tremble.

4 And thus did the Spirit of the Lord work upon them, for they were the very vilest of sinners. And the Lord saw fit in his infinite mercy to spare them; nevertheless they suffered much anguish of soul because of their iniquities, suffering much and fearing that they should be cast off forever.

5 And it came to pass that they did plead with their father many days that they might go up to the land of Nephi.

6 And king Mosiah went and inquired of the Lord if he should let his sons go up among the Lamanites to preach the word.

7 And the Lord said unto Mosiah: Let them go up, for many shall believe on their words, and they shall have eternal life; and I will deliver thy sons out of the hands of the Lamanites.

8 And it came to pass that Mosiah granted that they might go and do according to their request.

Here in the scriptures we have people going to their leader, pleading for many days (which seems to indicate that Mosiah was AGAINST their request), the leader inquires of the Lord, the Lord responds with revelation and then their requests are granted.

This happens more than you think in the scriptures. While I think the Ordain Women movement is off on many critical points, as a brother of 3 sisters and a father of 3 daughters, I am pleased to see this conversation and look forward to any more positive changes that can come from it.

Women used to give blessings by the laying on of hands "by virtue of their faith in Christ" and Joseph Fielding Smith said there was nothing wrong with a husband and wife laying their hands on a sick child and saying, "By the authority of the Priesthood in us vested..." I don't know why we couldn't bring back some of those things if they were done with full approval of leadership in the past and there's nothing doctrinally that would restrict them.

I'm hopeful that we'll see some positive advancements in the future. I appreciate those that speak up on these issues but I wish that there would be a better understanding of doctrine on their part and a respectful discourse maintained.

[Hyrcanus]

On the church website it states that “the standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/p ... l-marriage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jacob chapter 2 from the Book of Mormon says,

“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none …. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”

I understand the reasoning today. I'm pointing out that historically members of the church spoke with the exact same degree of certainty with the exact same reasoning you're using and were wrong. It doesn't mean you're wrong today, it only indicates that we don't know as much about the future of the church as we think we do.

[LDSguy]

I have no problem with someone petitioning the Lord, but when they insinuate that the brethren are the ones to make the decision and are holding women back. That bugs me. Especially when most women don't want a change.

:ymapplause:

[jbalm]

The church has changed doctrines due to outside pressure before. Why not again?

"The church" NEVER changes doctrine. It's not their doctrine to change.

This is just plain incorrect. And it is an attempt to rewrite inconvenient history.

[LDSguy]

some people confuse policy with doctrine. Some also are confused with whose doctrine it is to change. President Monson has no more authority or right to change doctrine due to public scrutiny than I personally have to change the laws of my city, county or state due to public scrutiny.

[Joel]

Priesthood of the Relief Society[/b]

The Relief Society was organized on March 17th, 1842 and on March 17th 2013 it will have its 170th Anniversary. This women’s organization was originally called the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo. Before the first meeting began, there was found a scrap of paper laying on an open Bible. On this paper was written the words:

“O, Lord! help our widows, and fatherless children! So mote it be. Amen. With the sword, and the word of truth, defend thou them. So mote it be. Amen.”

This prayer is one of many clues to understand the purpose and structure of the Relief Society. There is a key phrase that is repeated twice, “So mote it be.” This phrase is an archaic form of “So may/might it be.” It comes from Freemasonry. The idea of helping the widows and fatherless children is also strongly connected to Masonry. The phrase “defend thou them” comes from Psalms 5:11. There are probably other scriptural connections that could be made.

It is also important to note that the Relief Society’s first meeting was in the Masonic Hall where Joseph Smith became a Master mason the night before. I suggest that Joseph Smith left the Bible there, and wrote this prayer on the scrap of paper and placed it on the open Bible. It was all prepared for them to find it that day. There may even be some Masonic connection associated with that act. However I don’t know enough about masonry to try and make a connection. Nevertheless, before the first meeting even starts we can see the intense connections to Freemasonry.

In my piece Understanding Priesthood Keys, I attempted to clarify Joseph Smith’s understanding of Priesthood Keys. I demonstrated that, even from the early years, Joseph’s concept of priesthood and keys was tied to Freemasonry. The association that Mormonism has to Freemasonry was not a Nauvoo innovation, but has been there since before the church was founded. It is no surprise to find the Relief Society organized following the same model.

But wait, isn’t Masonry only for men? It’s not. In about 1740 a branch of Masonry was developed in France. It was called ” Maçonnerie d’Adoption” or “Adopted Masonry.” It was developed to allow women to participate in a female branch of Masonry. Its is apparent that the highest rank in Adoptive Masonry is that of “Elect Lady.” In July 1830 a revelation was given, which became Section 25 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Emma is referred to by this title. In our modern editions of the scriptures it is written thus:

3 Behold, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou art an elect lady, whom I have called.

It could just be a coincidence. Since “elect lady” is not capitalized it is probably not referring to a title. However, I looked up the original revelation in my Facsimile Edition. In the original revelation it is written this way:

Behold thy sins are for given thee & thou art an Elect Lady whom I have called

Elect Lady is capitalized in the original revelation. Being capitalized it is far more likely referring to a title and calling. In addition to Emma Smith being referred to as an Elect Lady, some Relief Society Presidents after her were referred to as Elect Lady.

During the first meeting of the Relief Society Joseph Smith initially Presided and suggested that they elect a presiding officer. That officer would then choose two councilors. Joseph Smith then said he, “would ordain them to preside over the Society.” Joseph also instructed them that the Presidency of the Relief Society would preside “just as the Presidency, preside over the church.” I suppose this could be interpreted as meaning that the Relief Society Presidency was to preside in the same manner as the First Presidency. However, those are very powerful words to use. I think it puts the Relief Society Presidency on a much more powerful footing than simply being in charge of the girls club.

Emma Smith was elected unanimously to be the President of the Relief Society. The “Presidentess Elect” then chose Sarah M. Cleveland and Elizabeth Ann Whitney to be her Counselors. Joseph then read the revelation to Emma Smith which had been received twelve years earlier. He then “stated that she was ordain[e]d at the time, the Revelation was given, to expound the scriptures to all; and to teach the female part of community; and that not she alone, but others, may attain to the same blessings.”

I searched the word “expound” on scriptrues.lds.org and found that every entry in the Doctrine and Covenants was associated with some ordination, calling, or priesthood office/responsibility.

Joseph Smith further hits his point home about Emma’s position by reading the first verse of 2nd John which also refers to an elect lady. Emma was not simply called an elect lady because she was a special person. She was an Elect Lady because that referred to her office as a President. After Emma’s election John Taylor then ordained the two women* to be councilors to “the Elect Lady.” President Emma Smith and her two councilors then took charge of the meeting only deferring to Joseph when they needed instruction on how to conduct the meeting.

We can see further Masonic connections in the 3rd Meeting of the Relief Society on March 30th. Joseph Smith was in attendance and was worried that they were growing too fast. He instructed them that they should, ”grow up by degrees.”

In an Epistle sent on March 30, 1842, Church leadership was going to disclose some confidential information to the Relief Society but they weren’t sure that the Relief Society could ensure it’s confidentiality. They are worried that “there may be some among you who are not sufficiently skill’d in Masonry as to keep a secret.” They then close the epistle with, “Let this Epistle be had as a private matter in your Society, and then we shall learn whether you are good masons.”

Masonry is very closely tied to the nature of the Relief Society. The Endowment was an Appended Body to the Blue Lodge degrees of Masonry. It was often called “Celestial Masonry.” Emma Smith was ordained to a Masonic title in 1830; and the parallel women’s organization, which was established in 1842, has definite Masonic ties. It would actually be very surprising to find that it didn’t have those ties.
Women and Gifts of the Spirit

Gifts of the Spirit are those acts which are fruits of the Holy Ghost. They come through the Spirit to be a proof that the a person is a true believer. In 1 Corinthians chapter 12 these gifts are listed as: the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, faith, healing, working of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, divers kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. These gifts were abundant in the Relief Society. On April 19, 1842 during their fifth meeting, Sarah Cleveland said that she felt things in her heart that she could not express in our language; so she powerfully spoke in tongues. Another women then gave the interpretation of what had been spoken. During that meeting it was recorded that, “The meeting was very interesting, nearly all present arose & spoke, and the spirit of the Lord like a purifying stream, refreshed every heart.”

At another meeting later in the year “Mrs. Chase” prophesied that if the sisters are faithful the gifts of the spirit would be with them. Thus showing that the gift of prophecy was also present among the women.

During the sixth meeting on April 28, 1842 Joseph Smith spoke to them. He had heard that members of the Relief Society were saying that women shouldn’t be laying their hands on the sick and healing them. Joseph addressed this concern saying that people should rejoice that the sick could be healed. He went on to say that the Gifts of the Spirit should follow all who believe whether male or female; and that “if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.”

Joseph gave further approval of women laying on their hands to heal the sick by saying that if God gave his sanction, in that the person was healed then, “there could be no devils in it.” Dealing the final blow to settle the matter concerning whether women should heal the sick he said, “there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on the sick than in wetting the face with water— that it is no sin for any body to do it that has faith, or if the sick has faith to be heal[e]d by the administration.”

It is important to remember that there is a distinction between laying on hands to heal the sick and laying on hands for a priesthood blessing. They are two different things.(D&C 42:43, 44)

Even though some members of the Relief Society, and probably the church in general, doubted that women should be able to exhibit these spiritual gifts; Joseph corrected this misconception. If women are believers in Christ they too should exhibit the gifts that follow believers. The Relief Society in these years was filled with the exhibition of these spiritual gifts. Women were healing and being healed, they were speaking in tongues, and they were prophesying.
Women and the Priesthood

There is a strong correlation between Joseph Smith’s views on priesthood and Masonry. With the Relief Society’s close ties with to Masonry could it be possible that priesthood plays into this? This is actually exactly what we find. During the very first meeting of the Relief Society Joseph Smith instructed them that officers should “be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, &c. are among [the church].”

During the meeting on March 30, 1842 Joseph Smith said that “the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood” He also said that he “was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day.”

Sarah Kimball recalled Joseph Smith’s invitation to the first assembly of women. She recalled his description that the Relief Society would operate “under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood.”

Later, on April 28, 1842 Joseph visited the Relief Society and spoke to them, “respecting the Priesthood, and give instructions for the benefit of the Society.” It is recorded that his instructions were intended only for the Relief Society. Later during this meeting he read from the twelfth chapter of 1st Corinthians and instructed them concerning the different offices. Thus seeming to indicate that those offices were to be present in the Relief Society

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

It seems that the climax of Joseph Smith’s discourse to the Relief Society was when he most clearly “spoke of delivering the keys to this Society and to the church.” He continued by stating “that the keys of the kingdom are about to be given to them, that they may be able to detect every thing false— as well as to the Elders.” Not only was Joseph Smith going to give the Keys of the Priesthood to the Quorum of the Twelve(Elders) but also to the Relief Society. Following those statements he reaffirmed, for a third time, his intent of giving the keys by saying “I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time.”

Elder Reynolds Cahoon addressed the Relief Society on August 13, 1843 and said that he was “perfectly satisfied with the order of this society.” He also compared the Relief Society to other organizations in the world by saying, “There are many Benevolent Societies abroad design[e]d to do good but not as this[;] ours is according to the order of God connected with the priesthood.”

We can further see the Relief Society’s role as a parallel priesthood organization in Cahoon’s statement that “the organization of this Society & the Church is similar[,] according to the mind & order of God.” The church leadership(First presidency, Elders, Priest, teachers, Deacons, etc.) are to be mirrored in the Relief Society. Joseph established it this way to be a parallel priesthood organization for women. This follows the Masonic model and also manifests the complimentary male-female duality of humanity. When some people discuss women and the priesthood they expect it to be some androgynous concept with women in the First presidency, and potentially men in the Relief Society Presidency. But this is not the case as it does not preserve the unique qualities of each.

The biggest problem in people’s minds is that they view genders as competitive. They believe that there must be women in the First presidency or else women are not equal with men. This is because they view the Relief Society as lesser than that First Presidency. But they are not. Remember what Joseph Smith stated about the Relief Society Presidency; that they should preside “just as the Presidency, preside over the church.” The Relief Society is the female priesthood counterpart to the male priesthood offices. One is not higher than the other, rather they are complimentary. Just as males and females are complimentary to each other.

The following quote sums up the nature and purpose of both men, women, and their priesthoods. It was given by Bishop Newel K. Whitney in the presence of Joseph Smith during the May 27, 1842 Relief Society meeting:

In the beginning God created man male and female and bestowed upon man certain blessings peculiar to a man of God, of which woman partook, so that without the female all things cannot be restored to the earth. It takes all to restore the Priesthood.

* Cleveland was ordained to be a Counselor to “the Elect Lady”; and Whitney was ordained to be a Counselor to “Mrs. Smith, the Prest. of the Institution.”

Most of these quotes were taken from the Nauvoo Relief Society minute Book which can be found here.

[Hyrcanus]

some people confuse policy with doctrine. Some also are confused with whose doctrine it is to change. President Monson has no more authority or right to change doctrine due to public scrutiny than I personally have to change the laws of my city, county or state due to public scrutiny.

Joseph F. Smith, 1878 (an Apostle at the time):

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false.

Practicing this "doctrine" will get you excommunicated from the Church today. Doctrine changes. That doesn't effect the truth of the Gospel, I'm not sure why this point is worth the fight.

Joseph Fielding Smith, 1963 (an Apostle at the time):

"According to the doctrine of the church, the negro because of some condition of unfaithfulness in the spirit — or pre-existence, was not valiant and hence was not denied the mortal probation, but was denied the blessing of the priesthood."

Doctrine changes.

You could perhaps make the argument that God's will on these matters actually wasn't know, so the real true doctrine didn't change, just our understanding of it. That's a bit of a bait and switch, but if we run with it, it renders the same conclusion, we could be confused about any point of doctrine and be corrected by the Lord in the future. Which for all intents and purposes is the same thing that a few of us are saying anyway.

[LDSguy]

Yes I assume doctrine can possibly change but only if Christ Himself changes it, not President Monson and not because a bunch of whiny liberal feminists want it to be so.

And I'd challenge what JFS said there because blacks held the priesthood prior to Brigham Young and do now. Go back and review the link I posted above. It's also possible that a fallible man named JFS said "doctrine" but meant policy, yes?

but your last point is very valid. We are fallible and I believe there are many true doctrinal points that we do not yet understand or have knowledge of. "line upon line..." right?

[jbalm]

What have they changed do to public scrutiny?

Polygamy and the priesthood ban.

Other doctrines like Adam-God and blood atonement also changed, but I don't know if public scrutiny had anything to do with it.

[Thinker]

I think what this woman is doing is all about attention. She's buying into group thought so much, but she's mixing one sick group thought with another and that's a bad combo. If she was REALLY interested in priesthood (Godly) power, she'd humbly and quietly take up Reiki or something similar. But no, simple spiritual, loving works are not enough... she needs others' attention by demanding everyone change an organization's rules for her.

As a woman, I'm fine with the men pretending that they are the only ones who can give blessings, etc. We do enough - let them take up some of the responsibility! If they didn't have the sole resonsibility of some things, what sense of purpose and power would some of them have? ;) Yes, some men abuse that power, but amen to the priestood of them! And amen to the godly influence anybody has when they do it all for show. Many women naturally have the priesthood - a mother's healing touch, eternal love doesn't need to be bound - it's just natural. Generally, men (& some women like this one) are more inclined to need a group's acceptance in the form of a ceremony or certificate, or some other motivation that helps them feel the need to love (priesthood).

If you view the church as a social club, that you join and want to enforce politically correctness and equality, then changing rules and procedures is similar to Boy Scouts deciding to include homosexuals.

But if you believe that God is in charge and does things His way, then one would have to take it up with God, since the Brethren do not have the authority to change God's rules. Of course, if one does not believe that God is in charge and it is just a social club, then why even bother?

I hate to break it to you but our church fits the bill, although it also fits the definition of cult, but that's another topic.
A club is: "an association for pursuing common interest: an association of people with a common interest."
Monthly dues... pretty hefty, by most standards (10% of one's income to get a "worthiness" temple card)
Articles of faith - in case you were worried about thinking for yourself, it tells you what to believe... just watch out for the cognitive distortion bombs throughout, which may cause harm in the form of mental illness (depression esp), and or bankruptcy.

*I forgot to answer your question about "why even bother?" It's like one of the GA's explained that you may find fault with one another, but this is all we've got to choose from - us imperfect human beings, and that also includes our imperfectly run club-like church. We just have to do the best with what we have. As far as other clubs/churches, I think the LDS one is the best option for our family, overall. I try to correct cognitive distortions for myself, my kids & others who would benefit by it, and we share our tithes with those in need to dues to the church, but otherwise, I LOVE the church at the local level... people generally in our ward are really trying to love & be more godly & church involvement (even if it is club-like) gives me & my kids opportunities to love and serve & be loved & served. That's why I bother.

It's hard for me to imagine that the people making their demands on God actually believe He exists. If they did, perhaps they might be humbled.

When was the last time you asked God for something in a prayer?
Really, in a way, when we pray, it's like asking ourselves, "and what are YOU going to do about it?"
Is it good to demand improvement of ourselves? (I'm not referring to this women's ordination, but in general.)

[jbalm]

What have they changed do to public scrutiny?

Polygamy and the priesthood ban.

Other doctrines like Adam-God and blood atonement also changed, but I don't know if public scrutiny had anything to do with it.

Is it at all possible that maybe certain things the Lord commands are temporary? Or are only for a specific time period? Or a specific group of people? Can you think of any time in history that God has commanded any group of people to do something, but no longer requires it?

Anything's possible.

It all depends on which guy who claims to know what God wants you're going to believe.

God doesn't change, except when He does.

[Hyrcanus]

Yes I assume doctrine can possibly change but only if Christ Himself changes it, not President Monson and not because a bunch of whiny liberal feminists want it to be so.

Definitely understand this from the orthodox LDS viewpoint. This is entirely a matter of perception though, other people believe all these decisions are being made by committee are a susceptible to outside pressure and that is only reinforced by history. Plural Marriage was banned as pressure from US government ratcheted up. Blacks were granted the Priesthood as pressure from the Civil Rights movement in the US increased. There are several other smaller examples. We can call them all revelation from God, or succumbing to pressure, but it isn't hard to understand why a group like Ordain Women thinks pressure works.

And I'd challenge what JFS said there because blacks held the priesthood prior to Brigham Young and do now. Go back and review the link I posted above. It's also possible that a fallible man named JFS said "doctrine" but meant policy, yes?

No doubt he was wrong about this and lots of other things. My point was only that what we can policy today many/most saw as doctrine in the past. If you can't trust what an Apostle of the church considers doctrine, doctrine can't be THAT clear and therefore open to change/interpretation.

but your last point is very valid. We are fallible and I believe there are many true doctrinal points that we do not yet understand or have knowledge of. "line upon line..." right?

Right. Ordain Women likely categorize the Priesthood as one of the doctrines in need of additional lines.

[Thinker]

Anything's possible.

It all depends on which guy who claims to know what God wants you're going to believe.

God doesn't change, except when He does.

How is God (Love) defined?

If God (Love) is the ultimate best in any situation, which is too often veiled to us, then God's (Love's) expression would change, based on what's best in a situation. Because of the veil (our ignor-ance), it may seem like God changes, when really God's nature (principles) stay the same, but are applied appropriately according to each unique situation. IE: One of our children may need love expressed in words, and for another child, love would be more meaningfully expressed by spending quality time....Or IE: "Thou shall not kill" generally applies, EXCEPT when it's a spider inside, or in self-defense.

Is it best that the church follow the feminist movement?
What has that done for children (both in womb and outside of the womb), which is future society?

[jbalm]

So basically God wants us to do whatever is acceptable to society at large.

Like Brigham Young, we are all just products of our times.

Everything is relative.

[Thinker]

So basically God wants us to do whatever is acceptable to society at large.

No! God=Love
Genuine love is loyalty to what is best, even if it is against what is acceptable to society at large.
(Are you just being sarcastic, Jbalm?)

Like Brigham Young, we are all just products of our times.

I don't consider myself just a product of our times. Yes, I'm influenced by many aspects, but I don't fall for lies, like the feminist & homosexual herd mentality. The notion that we are just products of our time is a lie like "determinism" or "no free will" nonsense. Happiness depends on progress. Progress depends on discovering and pursuing better ways than just the current times.

Everything is relative.

Please, clarify. What do you mean in applying that phrase to this context?