LDS Public Affairs Czar Michael Otterson Releases Five-Page Letter Identifying Context Missing From Discussions Of Mormon Women's Issues

On May 29th, 2014, LDS Public Affairs Managing Director Michael Otterson sent a five-page letter to several prominent LDS blogs to offer context specifically to online discussions about women in the church. Mainstream media outlets quickly picked up the story and weighed in. One interesting variation in mainstream media coverage; while the Salt Lake Tribune reported that By Common Consent had published the letter, KSL Channel 5 noted that the letter was published in its entirety on Millennial Star.

-- PDF copy of Elder Otterson's letter

The variety of comments published on various blogs about Mormon women's issues during recent months prompted Elder Otterson to provide an insider's perspective on context he believes has been missing from these discussions. Specifically, Elder Otterson addressed three points:

Criticism 1: The Church doesn’t want to hear from women about painful experiences, doesn’t talk to them or only wants to hear from women who are blindly obedient. Elder Otterson says this is patently untrue, and that the senior leadership is actively engaged, meeting with rank-and-file members as they travel worldwide. He freely acknowledged that since we are all human, we occasionally say things clumsily or lack sufficient sensitivity or language skills or experience.

Criticism 2: There is nowhere for women who don’t feel safe in their wards to have a conversation about some of their negative experiences that isn’t seen as subversive. Elder Otterson acknowledges that this is a serious question and believes the Brethren welcome this type of discussion as they seek to understand the concerns of the members. He also advised women that matters of personal concern, as long as they are not "worthiness" issues, can be voiced privately to faithful Relief Society Presidency members and other local leaders, who in turn could not only offer counsel, but could be invited to accompany a sister to see a bishop or a stake president in some circumstances. There are some exceptional circumstances in which a sister might feel awkward about discussing a personal concern one-on-one with a male bishop or stake president without another female present.

Criticism 3: By not engaging with the more extreme groups, the Church –- and Public Affairs in particular -- is not acting as Christ would. Elder Otterson addresses two separate issues here:

-- First, in response to doubters and skeptics who think LDS Public Affairs goes off the reservation at times, he clearly states that Public Affairs does not "freelance", noting that for Public Affairs to initiate or take a position inconsistent with the views of those who preside over the Church is simply unthinkable. He explains that as managing director of Public Affairs, he works under the direct supervision of two members of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles, two members of the Presidency of the Seventy, and the Presiding Bishop.

-- Second, he responded to criticism by some progressive Mormons and Mormon feminists who were upset because LDS Church public affairs representatives recently conducted a 90-minute video conference with leaders of Mormon Women Stand, an online group supporting the church’s priesthood stance, while rejecting similar talks with Ordain Women, the grass-roots organization pushing for female ordination. Elder Otterson effectively addressed this issue without mentioning either group by name, stating "there are a few people with whom Public Affairs and general authorities do not engage, such as individuals or groups who make nonnegotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the church can’t possibly accept. No matter what the intent, such demands come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion". Ordain Women have repeatedly stated they will be satisfied with only one outcome -- women's ordination, so the LDS Church would be foolish to parley with those whose minds are made up in advance.

Besides, how do you talk to someone like Gina Colvin who says "It is a given that women aren’t equal to men in the Church -- and any argument that brawls with this fact is a nonsense."? She's shut down dialog before it can even begin. Elder Otterson decries this lack of civility:

Occasionally, as we have seen in recent weeks on some feminist blogs, those who are spokespeople for the Church and therefore are required to put their names out in the public square find themselves in the crosshairs of critics. Sometimes those critics are highly cynical and make things personal. In recent weeks, I have seen some of our staff ridiculed by some feminist commentators, called disingenuous or, worse, accused of lying.

Our people are professionals and they have borne this with charity, good grace and without the slightest complaint. I don’t believe for a minute that these strident voices represent a significant proportion of LDS women, or even of those Church members who describe themselves as feminists.

Reaction: Some of the more prominent sources have posted their responses (after the jump):

Excommunication From The LDS Church May Not Necessarily Remove Priesthood Power, But It Does Remove Formal Priesthood Authority

Imagine my surprise when I visited Tim Malone's interesting and informative Latter-Day Commentary website on May 26th and found that he was suggesting that excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not remove Priesthood. He cites a post from Denver Snuffer as his reference, and Snuffer wrote the following:

In every case of excommunication, the one on trial is not regarded by the church as losing their priesthood. They are instead requested to temporarily stop using it. Inside the church itself, they are not permitted to use it. But it is up to the individual to decide whether or not to use it in other circumstances. Before annotations were made to church membership records, the way excommunication was apparent was by comparing the date of baptism to the date of ordination. If a member had been ordained before their baptism, then it was apparent they had been excommunicated.

O.K. As the famous jock sniffer Chris Berman would say, let's go to the record book. And in this case, the record book is a September 1990 article entitled "A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings", authored by Elder M. Russell Ballard, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. You can't get much more authoritative than the Quorum of the Twelve. Elder Ballard had visited a man in hospital who had been excommunicated, but who had fully repented and was re-baptized. But the man sought restoration of his Priesthood blessings. Here's the pertinent part of Elder Ballard's account:

Some time ago I was asked by the First Presidency to stop and visit a man on my way to a stake conference. This man had been excommunicated, had fully repented, and had been found worthy to be baptized. But baptism did not restore his priesthood and temple blessings. That was my assignment, acting on behalf of the Lord at the direction of the President of the Church.

{snip}

I placed my hands on his head and, using terminology associated with this ordinance, restored to him the Melchizedek Priesthood.

He sobbed -- perhaps the first sounds he had made in some time. I restored his office in the priesthood. Then I restored to him, by the power of the priesthood, the holy endowment that he had received when he went through the temple for the first time. Last, I restored what was perhaps most valuable to him -- his sealings to his wife and children.

Wait a minute! If excommunication doesn't remove Priesthood, then why did Elder Ballard specifically have to restore the man's Priesthood to him? This would strongly imply that Priesthood is removed upon excommunication. Reading Elder Ballard's article further, we find this to be the case:

The third decision the council may take is to disfellowship the member. Disfellowshipment is usually temporary, though not necessarily brief. Disfellowshipped persons retain membership in the Church. They are encouraged to attend public Church meetings, but are not entitled to offer public prayers or to give talks. They may not hold a Church position, take the sacrament, vote in the sustaining of Church officers, hold a temple recommend, or exercise the priesthood. They may, however, pay tithes and offerings and continue to wear temple garments if endowed.

Excommunication is the most severe judgment a Church disciplinary council can take. Excommunicated persons are no longer members of the Church. Therefore, they are denied the privileges of Church membership, including the wearing of temple garments and the payment of tithes and offerings. They may attend public Church meetings, but, like disfellowshipped persons, their participation in such meetings is limited. Excommunicated persons are encouraged to repent and so live as to qualify for eventual baptism.

Tim Malone attempts to address the dichotomy here. He distinguishes between Priesthood power and Priesthood authority. Citing President Boyd K. Packer’s April 2010 General Conference talk on the subject of the Power of the Priesthood, he asserts the Priesthood power and Priesthood authority are not necessarily one and the same, noting that Priesthood authority has tended to outrace Priesthood power. This makes sense, since when one has Priesthood authority conferred upon them and is ordained to a specific office, one can then officially exercise Priesthood power thereafter.

Nevertheless, it is clear from Elder Ballard's counsel that when one is excommunicated from the LDS Church, one loses his Priesthood authority. Whether an excommunicant can exercise Priesthood power on his own behalf will depend upon his own behavior subsequent to excommunication. In Matthew 7:21-23, the Savior makes it clear that Priesthood authority is necessary in order for Priesthood power to have any efficacy or force, writing "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity".

The phrase "I never knew you" would seem to imply that they never had His legal authority to act in His name.

Do NOT confuse Priesthood power with Priesthood authority. Righteous pastors and priests from other faiths who perform miracles may be using Priesthood power, but they do not have Priesthood authority, and though the Lord may choose to recognize and act upon their works, He is not bound to do so. Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve also drives home the need for legal Priesthood authority in a February 2002 Ensign article entitled "Gifts Of The Spirit", in which he writes "one cannot invoke the blessings of heaven without having received the gifts and the right or authority to act in His name". Priesthood authority requires a covenant with the Lord, and when you covenant with the Lord and do as He says, He is bound to live up to His end of the deal.

LDS Church Asks Ordain Women Feminists Not To Crash The Priesthood Session Of The April 2014 General Conference

The 184th Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is at hand. It will kick off on Saturday March 29th, 2014 at 6:00 P.M. MDT with the General Women's Meeting, which this year is a combined meeting for all females eight years of age and older, and will culminate with the customary general sessions and priesthood session during the weekend of April 5-6. There are persistent rumors that the Church may announce a modification of the temple wedding policy during this Conference; to wit, that the one year waiting period between a civil marriage and a temple marriage may be eliminated in North America.

Unfortunately, the feminist activists of Ordain Women want to upstage the Conference with their selfish agenda once again. They propose to line up before the all-male Priesthood Session on Saturday April 5th and demand tickets to enter the session. They will begin with opening exercises at City Creek Park at 4:00 P.M., then form up in the standby line outside the Conference Center at 4:30 P.M. to ask for admission tickets. Then, regardless of the outcome, they will reconstitute at City Creek Park. Over 100 of them did this in October 2013 even though LDS authorities told them in advance that they would not be admitted to the Priesthood Session. To their credit, the Ordain Women organizers intend to rigorously police the conduct of activists; they will not permit their people to display signs, vent any anti-Mormon tirades, and they ask activists to dress in Sunday best. The official Ordain Women spokespersons are identified as Kate Kelly, April Young Bennett, Debra Jenson, Suzette Smith, Chelsea Shields Strayer, Hannah Wheelwright, and Lorie Winder.

The LDS Church has fired back. According to the Deseret News, LDS spokeswoman Jessica Moody sent a letter to Ordain Women accusing them of intractability and saying that their activities detract from the helpful discussions that Church leaders have held as they seek to listen to the thoughts, concerns, and hopes of women inside and outside of Church leadership. Moody reminded the group that ordination of women to the priesthood is a matter of doctrine that is currently contrary to the Lord’s revealed organization for His church, and suggested that if they really felt like they needed to make a public statement, they should reconsider their current plans to demonstrate and instead assemble at one of the free-speech zones outside Temple Square. The full letter is published at the end of this post, after the jump.

Kate Kelly quickly responded. She tried to put a positive spin on the Church's letter by characterizing it as a sign that the Church is willing to continue the dialogue. But she rejected the notion of diverting her group to the free speech zones, saying "We feel as faithful, active Mormon women we have nothing in common with people who oppose the church and want to protest against it. The church is its members. We aren't against the church, we are the church." Kelly takes umbrage at the thought of being linked with the customary anti-Mormon protestors in the free speech zones, saying that they're out to destroy the Church, and Ordain Women does not share that goal.

Prognosis: By their response, the LDS Church clearly indicates they would rather not subject these women to disciplinary councils. By suggesting the free speech zones as an alternative, the Church clearly respects Ordain Women's First Amendment rights to advocate for their cause. However, if Ordain Women chooses to line up for tickets, they are doing so against specific counsel; their actions can be interpreted as being in open rebellion against the Church, and they will jeopardize their membership. There is no way the Church could let it go, particularly after excommunicating Denver Snuffer and Brent D. Larsen under more sketchier pretexts. It is interesting that the Ordain Women activists want to stubbornly impose their minority opinion upon a 15-million member church rather than consider transferring to another church which confers priesthood upon women, such as the Community of Christ.

Unofficial LDS Reaction: Lining up in support of Ordain Women is Feminist Mormon Housewives and Approaching Justice. April Young Bennett posted additional support on The Exponent.

In support of the Church's position is Millennial Star, where Geoff B. notes that while the Ordain Women movement has garnered a total of 2,076 “likes” on its Facebook page, a counter-movement started last week called “Mormon Women Stand” already has 2840 “likes” with hundreds being added every day. A brief but eloquent statement of support for the Church's position is also posted on Rains Came Down. Public comments to media outlets such as KSL Channel 5 are mostly supportive of the Church.

Kate Kelly Won't Face Church Discipline For Her Ordain Women Activities; Too Bad Denver Snuffer Didn't Have The Same Stake President

I fully expected Ordain Women's founder Kate Kelly to face a disciplinary council over her effort to seek admission to the General Conference Priesthood Session on October 5th, 2013. Because she chose to seek admission even after she was told by Church authorities that she and her group would not be admitted, I interpreted that as an act of open rebellion against duly constituted Church authority.

However, Sister Kelly's local priesthood chain of command in Washington DC does not share that perspective. Kelly states that while she was called in by her bishop and stake president to explain her actions, she was told she was not facing any disciplinary action. Furthermore, she states that her priesthood chain of command told her they were not ordered to call her in by senior Church authorities, and that the senior leadership is not contemplating a crackdown on Ordain Women activists.

The money shot from Sister Kelly's post on Feminist Mormon Housewives:

The most important, immediate takeaways from my encounter with leadership were:

1) They explicitly and emphatically assured me that I was not facing any type of disciplinary action for my founding of, and participation in, Ordain Women.

2) They told me there was no directive from any area authority or higher-level Church leader instructing them to meet with me, interview me or punish me in any way. Hence, they assured me when I asked, there is no concerted effort on the part of the Church to “crack down” on members of Ordain Women or target us specifically for our unequivocal calls for female ordination.

Clearly the power dynamic was not balanced, but I came away from the meeting feeling proud and satisfied. While they do not agree with me, I felt I spoke clearly and the discussion was a productive one. My friend Suzette, and my dad also recently met with their leaders. They both discussed their Ordain Women participation with candor and had their temple recommends renewed.

Other commenters to the post indicate they also haven't faced any excommunication threats. So if Kate Kelly's activism passes muster with her local leadership, that would seem to settle the issue. The Church has set a newer and more flexible standard as to what constitutes acceptable public disagreement with Church policy by members.

Too bad Denver Snuffer didn't have the same stake president. Unlike Kate Kelly, Snuffer never led any public protests; his book, Passing The Heavenly Gift, was deemed by Church authorities to denigrate all LDS presidents since Joseph Smith. I can offer two reasons as to why Denver Snuffer was treated more harshly than Kate Kelly:

(1). Stake presidents enjoy considerable autonomy to run their fiefdoms with minimal interference. The Church chooses not to micromanage their stake presidents, reflecting Joseph Smith's old mantra "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves". The First Presidency upheld the excommunication of Denver Snuffer on appeal.

(2). Unlike Kate Kelly, Denver Snuffer also held the priesthood. Because the priesthood confers additional authority and responsibility, a bearer of the priesthood incurs additional accountability. Thus Snuffer's stake president must have concluded that Snuffer, as a priesthood holder, should be judged by a higher and harsher standard than an ordinary member. This is implied by Doctrine & Covenants 121:36 which states, in part, "...the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness".

Is Ordain Women Organizer Kate Kelly Guilty Of Apostasy? Feminism Becoming Incompatible With Mormonism

The actions by Ordain Women during the 183rd Semiannual General Conference continue to generate considerable backlash from believing Mormons. And one woman pulls no punches about her attitude. Jenny Hatch, the editor of The Natural Family Blog, lets 'em have it right between the eyes. She reproves with major-league "sharpness".

Most impressively, Jenny Hatch is wise to the true agenda of the Mormon feminist movement:

I believe this group of activist women are an organized cabal of professionally trained leftist agitators who have been tasked with doing a well publicized stunt in order to be excommunicated so they can then then whine to the media for the next twenty years about how evil and patriarchal the church is, having put their Feminist beliefs on the line and paid the seemingly ultimate sacrifice. I just wonder how much money they have been paid to do it…

I have quietly observed Joanna Brooks well timed book rollout, her many blog posts, media appearances, book tours, and I even attended her lecture on the campus of SUU [Southern Utah University] last fall. She is a statist progressive who has no clear understanding of the basic doctrines of the church.

She is someone who believes her agenda of ordaining women to the Priesthood will “shape” the future of the Faith I love.

And I am here to tell you, “No, it will not”.

In her post today [October 7th] she made it clear they are just getting started as a group.

She hits the nail on the head; the fact that Kate Kelly is a "human rights lawyer" from Washington DC is no coincidence. Feminism is divisive, corrosive, inherently anti-male, blaming men for all the sins of the universe, past, present, and future. In fact, one non-Mormon preacher, John Hagee, once suggested that feminism could be considered witchcraft, defining witchcraft as the unrighteous control over someone through manipulation or intimidation for the purposes of domination (scroll down to Hagee on Feminism). Feminism actually cultivates and enshrines female victimhood by encouraging vulnerable women to blame men and patriarchy for their problems instead of taking their share of responsibility for problem-solving. And although some "sensitive" men may go into "Uncle Tim" mode and identify with feminists as a reflection of Stockholm Syndrome, most men and are put off by feminism because they want to remain men and don't think they should have to walk on eggshells in their own homes or in church.

However, it might be a mistake to condemn all 150 of the activists who showed up at Temple Square on October 5th as apostates. Not all are equally culpable; many have been misled and have become deluded. It is only the leadership of this group that could really be considered as "sinning against the light". On The Millennial Star, LDS Philosopher articulates a good distinction between heresy and apostasy. He suggests that while heresy is limited to thought alone, apostasy takes place when the "heretic" promotes that heresy publicly. To wit:

In short, if you have a different opinion, if you disbelieve certain core Church teachings, you are fully welcome to worship with us. It’s ok to have questions and doubts. That doesn’t make you a bad Mormon. We want you with us. But when you start to publish opinions that directly contradict the established teachings of the Church, and earnestly try to persuade others to believe such an opinion, you are engaging in apostasy. For example, if you believe that same-sex activity is not sinful, you might be a heretic, and that’s ok. We can accept you. We will try and teach you, but we will embrace you with open arms and fellowship nonetheless. If you publish a book about it, or write a blog post about it, in which you try to convince others that the established teachings of the Apostles on sexuality are wrong and misguided, you are not longer just a heretic — you are an apostate.

According to the 2010 Church Handbook of Instructions Volume 1 (not officially available online), it is not heresy that's actionable, but apostasy. According to paragraph 6.7.3, apostasy is one of the transgressions mandating a disciplinary council. Here's how the Church defines it:

Apostasy. As used here, apostasy is used to refer to members who:

(1). Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church and its leaders.

(2). Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

(3). Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

(4). Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Unlike other transgressions like murder, rape, and incest, which mandate excommunication as the only outcome, the CHI does not mandate excommunication as the only outcome for an apostasy trial. Thus a stake court may consider the full range of actions from formal probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication.

While Kate Kelly is certainly not guilty of items (2), (3), and (4), she comes close to the line on Item 1. Even after she was told in advance by the Church that women would not be admitted to the Priesthood Session, she and her cohorts chose to go to Temple Square and seek admission. This is more than just apostasy; this constitutes open rebellion against the Church leadership, and even if there's no track record of Kate Kelly doing this "repeatedly", it certainly warrants a response by her local Church leadership in Washington DC. At the very least, her bishop and/or stake president should call her in and ask her to explain her actions. In fact, some of the Ordain Women activists have already been called in by their bishops to explain their participation, although Kelly herself claims her local leadership has been supportive. Whether it would escalate into a full-blown disciplinary council would depend upon her response. If Kate Kelly's act of open rebellion goes unexamined, this could encourage more rebellion. Denver Snuffer's so-called "apostasy" pales by comparison.

Feminism is growing more and more incompatible with Mormonism with each passing day.

LDS Church Stands Strong Against Radical Feminists; Backlash Erupts Against Ordain Women's Plan To Crash The Priesthood Session Of The LDS General Conference

The plan by Ordain Women to crash the Saturday evening Priesthood session of the 183rd Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has bumped up against a big STOP sign by the Church itself and a growing manifestation of backlash by rank-and-file Church members. The LDS Church plans to stand strong and refuse admittance to these radical feminists. Here's the full statement released on September 24th by the LDS Church:

"It is the hope of the Church that the Priesthood session will strengthen the men and young men including fathers and sons, and give them the opportunity to gather and receive instruction related to priesthood duties and responsibilities, much the same way parallel meetings are held for sisters, such as the general Relief Society meeting. It's for these reasons that tickets for the Priesthood session are reserved for men and young men and we are unable to honor your request for tickets or admission".

Good response. Just as the women have the right to their own meeting, so we men likewise have an equal right to our own meeting. Diversity and equality do not require that everything be equally kaleidoscopic. The fact that the First Presidency shows up at both the General Relief Society Meeting and the General Young Women Meeting doesn't make these meetings any less of "women's meetings"; the First Presidency is merely exercising their obligation to preside over the Church when they show up at the women's meetings. The women's meetings are actually conducted by the respective women's presidencies themselves.

However, the LDS Church did try to address Ordain Women's concerns part way by also announcing that for the first time, the Priesthood Session will be broadcast live on television and online on BYUtv, as well as on LDS.org and the Mormon Channel. However, the announcement may have come too late for cable companies to pick up the additional broadcast; check Bonneville.info to see if your cable company has added the Priesthood broadcast. In the past, the Priesthood session was only broadcast live from the Conference Center in Downtown Salt Lake via satellite to LDS stake centers and the Tabernacle on Temple Square, although the session eventually appeared on Conference archives and transcripts of talks published in the Ensign magazine. Mormon Momma believes the two announcements are related, and they could be right.

In response, representatives of Ordain Women said they still plan to wait in the standby line at the Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City for tickets to the session. One of the lead organizers, Kate Kelly, who is also a so-called "international rights lawyer" from Washington DC, sees this as a continuation of them asking, seeking and knocking, and demonstrating their willingness to receive the priesthood and to accept the responsibilities that come with it.

Feminist Mormon Women Plan To Crash The LDS General Conference Priesthood Session For Political Reasons; Where Are The Disciplinary Councils Now?

According to a post on Feminist Mormon Housewives, the group Ordain Women plan to crash the Priesthood Session of the upcoming 183rd Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

They do plan to be dignified about it, however. On Saturday, October 5th, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. MDT, they plan to meet at City Creek Park and walk over the the Conference Center together. The women and their so-called "male allies" will form up in the standby line in order to gain admittance to the Priesthood Session. If they are admitted, they will celebrate this "historical achievement" by attending the Priesthood Session together. Afterwards, they will reconstitute at City Creek Park to speak to the public about the outcome. At this meeting, Ordain Women will also make a public statement continuing their unequivocal call for complete equality and the ordination of Mormon women. The possibility of a full-blown media circus exists. How many will show up? As of this post, 126 people have posted their intent to participate on the Ordain Women Facebook Page, with another 67 saying Maybe.

Despite their protestations to the contrary, these people are not doing this because of an honest desire to serve the Lord. Their real motivation is obvious -- to turn Priesthood ordination into a political football, sow hate and dissension within LDS ranks, and inflict damage upon the Church. On FMH, Rah writes "I predict that the conversation will be hard, messy and in some sad cases pit mother against daughter, wife against husband, friend against friend." This is NOT the way our Savior works; this is the way of Satan. Unfortunately, Ordain Women is also leading astray some fundamentally honest but frustrated women who have been persuaded that ordination of women could "double the power of God in one day". Notice there is no corresponding group of men planning to crash the General Relief Society Meeting to be held on Saturday September 28th. The LDS Church needs to politely but assertively lay the smack down on these women and refuse them entrance.

If Ordain Women does indeed try to carry this out, the leaders of this group also need to be hauled before disciplinary councils and tried for their Church membership. If Denver Snuffer, who has consistently expressed love and loyalty towards the Church and the Gospel, was worthy of excommunication, then excommunication of these insurgents is FAR MORE JUSTIFIED. A commenter on Pure Mormonism noted the double standard between the treatment meted out to Denver Snuffer and that accorded to dissident Mormon feminists.

LDS Church Continues Counteroffensive Against Radical Feminism; Elder M. Russell Ballard Speaks At BYU Devotional

Conscious of the fact that radical feminism has gained a foothold among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Church launched a counteroffensive against radical feminism which actually began during the April 2013 General Conference. And on August 20th, 2013, Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve served as the Church's latest point man when he delivered an address at a devotional attended predominantly by females at BYU-Provo. The occasion was this year’s BYU Campus Education Week. The transcript of speech will eventually be archived HERE, and the video is available HERE beginning at the 21-minute point.

Taylor Street does a fine job summarizing Elder Ballard's speech on The Digital Universe. Elder Ballard's objective was to confront the false preconceived notions of women’s roles within the Church often voiced by journalists and non-Mormons. Most importantly. Elder Ballard expressed five key points to provide a proper perspective about the roles of women in the Church:

(1). Our Heavenly Father created both man and woman, and that gender is eternal. Of course, this statement will be difficult for those with gender identity disorders to digest, but the bottom line is your sexual identity is signified by your genitalia. Gender identity disorders could simply be another of those challenges some chose to accept prior to mortality, which is why the Church launched a campaign to remind members to behave in a more Christ-like and inclusive fashion towards those with gender identity issues.

(2). The LDS Church is the Lord’s church, governed by leaders with divine priesthood power. Elder Ballard said both men and women are essential to the priesthood; it cannot work successfully without both men and women. But he specifically cautioned women “not assume a role that is not yours” by encroaching on priesthood roles. The latter is undoubtedly a subtle response to the Ordain Women movement.

(3). Although men and women’s roles differ, God doesn’t view one or the other as more important. "Equal" doesn't mean "identical"; it can mean "complementary". And no man can achieve exaltation in the celestial kingdom without a woman by his side, nor can a woman achieve the same status without a man. This would explain why in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12, the Apostle Paul states "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God".

(4). Both men and women are endowed by the same priesthood power and subsequently have equal access to priesthood keys, even though only men get ordained. The fact that only men get ordained may very well increase their level of accountability.

(5). Women are counseled to learn and understand the doctrine of the gospel, allowing them to bear testimony in a complex, troubling world. The answers to many of the issues can be found not only in the scriptures, but in the writings of previous Church presidents. A thorough understanding of Gospel principles will assure people that no blessing denied to someone in this world through no personal fault will be forever withheld; the blessing will be offered in the next world. This is why we perform proxy ordinances for the dead in our temples. We are also not expected to become perfect in this life, but merely to learn how to conquer sin.

In closing, Elder Ballard bore his testimony of the importance of women in the Church. “Sisters, your sphere of influence is one of unique spirit, one that cannot be duplicated by men,” Ballard said. “No one can defend our Savior with anymore persuasion and power than you. … The Church needs your voices now more than ever.”

Reaction: The only reaction so far has been posted on Feminist Mormon Housewives, which is not representative of mainstream LDS opinion. Many of the women who post there are pretty far gone; not only do they believe the LDS Church is a "patriarchy", but some believe patriarchy is inherently evil. Three comments capture the variety of opinion (after the jump):

LDS Church Officially Responds To The "Ordain Women" Initiative; Most LDS Women Still Do Not Support Female Ordination

Although the Ordain Women initiative has been previously presented and discussed on this blog, the mainstream media has launched a fresh wave of publicity. Just today, the San Jose Mercury-News published a story which was first published by the Salt Lake Tribune on April 3rd, 2013. And the story contains official reaction from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You can visit the Ordain Women website HERE.

It appears the LDS Church does not view the Ordain Women initiative as heresy or apostasy at this time, and it is unlikely that the people who submitted a supportive profile will face any disciplinary councils. LDS spokeswoman Jessica Moody issued the following statement:

"The worth of a human soul is not defined by a set of duties or responsibilities. In God's plan for his children, both women and men have the same access to the guidance of his spirit, to personal revelation, faith and repentance, to grace and the atonement of his son, Jesus Christ, and are received equally as they approach him in prayer. But a male-only priesthood was established by Jesus Christ himself, and is not a decision to be made by those on Earth."

This is a smart and sensible reaction, because the Ordain Women movement is proceeding cautiously. They are not advocating that priesthood be extended to women independent of revelation. Kate Kelly, one of Ordain Women's founders who is a lifelong Mormon who served a full-time mission and who is also an international human rights lawyer in Washington, D.C., said "We sustain the prophet and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and ask them to prayerfully consider this change. We believe that what we are doing demonstrates our faith in the gospel." The key is that she sustains the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, which deflects concerns about apostasy.

To support her contention, Kelly points to a 2011 self-reported survey of about 3,000 Mormons who no longer believe in the church that found 63 percent of all women and 70 percent of single women cited gender issues as being the primary reason for their loss of faith. However, the key is that her referenced survey was limited to those Mormons who no longer believe in the Church; in contrast, in a survey of U.S. religion by Robert Putnam and David Campbell, who published "American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us" in 2010, they reported that 90 percent of ALL LDS women opposed female ordination in the Church, while only 52 percent of LDS men were against it. So it appears that Kate Kelly is more concerned about doubters and skeptics than about mainstream Mormons. The Mormon Women Project, which showcases diverse, talented and strong LDS women, is not enthused about the Ordain Women initiative because they are uncomfortable with movements that take on the church as a whole, and fear that overreaching will kill any influence LDS women already have on Church direction.

So long as Ordain Women sustains the "Brethren", and does not solicit or support diatribes against the LDS Church, I see no reason to question their worthiness, although they will have to remain vigilant against feminist manipulation. A repeat of the 1993 purge of the "September Six" would not be in our best interests.

Some pertinent comments to the Mercury-News story (after the jump):

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter Implicitly Attacks LDS Patriarchy By Criticizing Roman Catholics For Not Ordaining Women Priests

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, considered by many the second most incompetent President since World War II because of his mishandling of the Iran hostage crisis, is on the attack again. On Friday June 28th, 2013, at a Mobilizing Faith for Women conference held at the Carter Center, Carter said religious leaders, including those in Christianity and Islam, share the blame for mistreatment of women across the world.

But while he correctly took issue with such practices as African genital mutilation, girls in some cultures being forced to marry before they are 10 years old, and the worldwide sex-slave trade, he also criticized the so-called "income gap" in the United States, where women are allegedly paid about 70 percent of what men earn for the same work, although there are no laws mandating disparate pay, and many women deliberately avoid entering the most lucrative professions where men score the greatest economically.

But what was also disturbing is that Carter said religious authorities have perpetuated misguided doctrines of male superiority, criticizing by name the Roman Catholic Church for forbidding women from becoming priests. Newsbusters adds that Carter also criticized his own Southern Baptist denomination for their policy that women cannot be pastors, deacons, or chaplains. Carter also decried gross abuses of religious texts in the Koran and in the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, claiming that singular verses can be extracted and extorted to assert the singular dominance of men. Because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints restricts priesthood ordination and its various offices to men only, I also interpret this as a veiled attack upon the LDS Church, although he did not mention the LDS Church by name. While I won't speak for the Catholics or Baptists, I can assure you that the Mormon doctrine of restricting priesthood to men is hardly "misguided", it comes straight out of the Lord's mouth through Doctrine & Covenants Section 107. The Lord won't change His mind just because Jimmy Carter doesn't agree with the policy or because a bunch of feminists draft letters and petitions demanding change; He'll change if and when He believes the Church is ready, and will announce the change through the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

To be fair, Jimmy Carter doesn't have a reputation for being anti-Mormon; in fact, he was previously quoted as saying that he considered Mormons to be Christians, and condemned "Pharisees" within his own Southern Baptist denomination for saying otherwise. But there are persistent unsubstantiated rumors that one of the reasons the LDS Church lifted the priesthood ban against blacks in 1978 is because Carter's Department of Justice allegedly threatened to end the Church's tax-exempt status if it continued to ban black Mormons from its temples and priesthood. Carter himself has never addressed this issue publicly, and LDS Church leaders have denied that this was a consideration.

Newsbusters notes that the original story left out a couple of important elements:

But the AP writer left out two important contextual elements: 1) Christianity's historical and ongoing contribution to the improvement of women's status, leading to the indisuptable fact that women today are far better off in countries which have Judeo-Christian traditions than they are in those which don't; 2) government-encouraged or mandated abortion, which has disproportionately prevented women from being born -- the ultimate and final form of oppression -- and which many religions have done far too little to stop.

Jimmy Carter ought to stick to identifying real problems and not presume himself qualified to judge other religions' core doctrines. His attempt to create a moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam falls flat.

Moving The Overton Window: Radical Mormon Feminists Launch OrdainWomen Website To Bully The LDS Church Into Extending Priesthood To Women

The mainstream media is now beginning to pick up on a campaign dominated by radical Mormon feminists to pressure the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into ordaining women to the Priesthood even without a revelation. They've launched the OrdainWomen website as their clearinghouse. KSTU Channel 13 has published the earliest story, while the Ogden Standard-Examiner weighs in with an AP story.

Although the timing of this campaign is a bit suspicious, considering it comes hot on the heels of the Pants insurgency and the Let Women Pray campaign, the latest push for LDS women’s ordination came after the Sunstone Foundation’s recent symposium in California, where Mormon and Catholic feminists joined together to talk about women’s roles in their patriarchal churches (read Sunstone's March 21st press release). Mary Ellen Robertson, the executive director of the Sunstone Foundation, said that the primary purpose of the OrdainWomen website is to encourage dialogue, adding that the group wants to know if male-exclusive priesthood is doctrinal, or merely the product of more than a hundred years of tradition. The fact that Jesus Christ selected only men to be his original Twelve Apostles doesn't seem to enter the discussion.

In their FAQ, OrdainWomen makes it clear that their coalition includes many devout Mormon women -- some of who who have contributed countless hours of voluntary service to the LDS Church and view OrdainWomen as a continuation of that faith-affirming service. For that reason alone, I find it premature and inflammatory to trot out the "A-word" (apostate) at this time. But their mission statement does not imply that a revelation through the President of the Church is necessary; they even twist a 1997 statement by the late President Gordon B. Hinckley, when he said “Yes. But there’s no agitation for that”, as justification for their insurgency:

The fundamental tenets of Mormonism support gender equality: God is male and female, father and mother, and all of us can progress to be like them someday. Priesthood, we are taught, is essential to this process. Ordain Woman believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings.

Last year the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed its commitment to equality: “The Book of Mormon states, ‘black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God’ (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.” Ordain Women embraces this statement. We are committed to work for equality and the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

Based on the principle of thoughtful, faith-affirming strategic action, Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormon women to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

Note the lack of a reference to the need for a revelation to change Priesthood eligibility, although they use the term "faith-affirming". However, the initial official reaction by the LDS Church is diplomatic; LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter simply explained, “It is the doctrine of the Church that men and women are equal. The Church follows the pattern of the Savior when it comes to priesthood ordination.” And that pattern was first set when the Savior ordained twelve men to be his first group of apostles.

"Equal" does not always mean "interchangeable". Why is it that only women are allowed the privileges of pregnancy and motherhood? Why is it that the most demanding physical professions are overwhelmingly dominated by men? And why is it that, in order to accommodate more women, the military services have lower physical fitness thresholds for women than men? Those variations prove that men and women were not designed to be totally interchangeable. Equality of value does not always require equality of status.

Mormon Messages: Realizing Your Potential By Living Up To Your Privilege

The following video from Mormon Messages illustrates the painful consequences of failing to live up to one's privilege. It shows an individual who had scrimped and saved to take a pleasure cruise. Thinking he would save money, he brought his own food along, and although he did disembark at the various ports of call, he stayed in his cabin the rest of the time, not partaking in any of the ship's other amenities.



Imagine his sorrow when he found out that the price of his ticket INCLUDED the FULL privileges of the ship. And this effectively symbolizes the message that President Dieter F. Uchtdorf strived to communicate in his address entitled "Your Potential, Your Privilege", delivered during the Saturday Evening Priesthood Session of the April 2011 General Conference:

The question this parable raises is, Are we as priesthood holders living below our privileges when it comes to the sacred power, gifts, and blessings that are our opportunity and right as bearers of God’s priesthood?

President Uchtdorf reminds us that the holy priesthood of God has an owner’s manual, contained within the Standard Works, and recommends re-reading sections 20, 84, 107, and 121 of the Doctrine and Covenants. He promises that the more we study the purpose, potential, and practical use of the priesthood, the more we will be amazed by its power, and the Spirit will teach us how to access and use that power to bless our families, our communities, and the Church.

Our intrepid cruiser did not deliberately turn his back upon the ship's amenities; he was genuinely ignorant that they were part of the price. But the consequences were the same -- he missed out. And time once expended can never be recovered. Don't miss out on the full power of the Gospel because of ignorance.

Two Deacons Robbed Of Fast Offerings In American Fork, Utah; Brent King And Hannah Huckabee Arrested In Alpine And Charged With Robbery

Two boys who are most likely deacons in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who were collecting fast offerings from local ward members were robbed of the proceeds on Sunday May 6th, 2012, but the robbers were quickly tracked down and jailed.

The boys, ages 13 and 14, were going door to door collecting fast offerings in a neighborhood near 300 East and 500 South in American Fork, Utah when a car driven by Hannah Huckabee pulled up next to them. Brent King exited the passenger side and demanded that the boys hand over the envelope containing the offerings. The boys refused; after a short tug-of-war, King took the envelope, got back in the car, and the two sped away. KSL news video embedded below:



King and Huckabee were arrested later Sunday in Alpine when officers noticed a vehicle matching the description of the car used in the robberies. King and Huckabee, both of American Fork, were booked into the Utah County Jail. The two had dumped the envelope in a nearby stream when they discovered it contained all checks and no cash. Both are charged with second-degree felony robbery; King is being held on $5,000 bail, while Huckabee’s bail was set at $10,000. The bail disparity is explained somewhat by their past records; while Brent King has previous arrests for theft and possession of drug paraphernalia, Hannah Huckabee has previous arrests for possession of heroin, possession of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession/use of a controlled substance, as well as DUI and theft. She's also been arrested on an immigration hold; her native country is the United Kingdom. Their first court appearance is scheduled for May 15th.

The LDS Church designates one Sunday each month, usually the first Sunday, as a day of fasting. Proper observance of fast Sunday includes going without food and drink for two consecutive meals, attending fast and testimony meeting, and giving a fast offering to help care for those in need. A fast offering should be at least the value of the two meals not eaten. When possible, we should be generous and give much more than this amount. However, fast offerings are not considered a litmus test of temple worthiness like tithing; failure to pay tithing can prevent a member from getting a temple recommend.

Collection of fast offerings is the primary responsibility of deacons, who occupy the lowest rung on the Aaronic Priesthood ladder. Upon reaching the age of 12, a young man deemed worthy has the Aaronic Priesthood conferred upon him, and is ordained to the office of a deacon. Upon reaching the age of 14, a worthy male is ordained to the office of a teacher, and at 16, a priest. However, with each successive ordination, one does not lose previous responsibilities, but gains new responsibilities. Consequently, if there are not enough deacons in a ward or branch, teachers and priests can be called upon to collect fast offerings and fulfill the other responsibilities of a deacon. The "Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A", sets forth the specific responsibilities for each office of the Priesthood.

The Aaronic Priesthood is the lesser of the two priesthoods and is considered by the LDS Church to be an apprenticeship. It focuses more upon the temporal ordinances of the Church, and is the same Priesthood conferred upon the tribe of Levi in ancient Israel. The Lord bestows His priesthood to different groups in different ways at different times in history; while only the tribe of Levi got priesthood responsibilities in Israel, all worthy males get priesthood. responsibilities in our time.

How I Reacted On June 8th, 1978 When LDS President Spencer W. Kimball Announced The Revelation Extending Priesthood Membership To Black Men

There are three historical events which took place during my lifetime in which I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing. The first was on November 22nd, 1963 when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The second was on September 11th, 2001, when America was attacked by Islamofascists.

But sandwiched in between is the date June 8th, 1978. That's the day that Spencer W. Kimball, the then-President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, announced that the ban against black men holding the Priesthood has been lifted and that the Priesthood could now be extended to all worthy males in the Church. After the revelation was formally presented and approved unanimously during the 148th LDS Semiannual General Conference on September 30th, 1978, it was canonized and incorporated into the Doctrine & Covenants as Official Declaration 2, reproduced below:

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency

This decision not only opened the way for the Church to further expand in Latin America and the Caribbean, but also opened up the entire continent of Africa. No part of the world is in greater need for the Priesthood than Africa. But while the Church membership as a whole accepted the decision, some of our more guilt-tripping progressive Mormons continue to whine about the fact that blacks had been denied the Priesthood for so long, and impetuously demand that the Church debase itself and "apologize" for it. You can read this Wikipedia entry which presents the history of the ban. But instead of analyzing the decision and agonizing over the past, I believe what is more needed are the simple testimonies of those who were over the age of accountability at the time, and how they were affected. I present my own testimony below.

I was serving in the U.S. Air Force at the time, assigned to Tinker AFB, OK. I was inactive in the Church, but still maintained formal membership. I was living in a dormitory for single low-ranking airman. The vast majority of us were white; some of us, including myself, were "benign racists", meaning that while we didn't much care for blacks, we didn't go out of our way to hassle them, and would work with them when assigned to do so.

I was walking down the hallway to one of the exits. One of my mates had the door to his room open, and his TV was blaring. Suddenly, I heard the announcement that the LDS Church had decided to extend Priesthood membership to blacks. Almost without thinking, I jumped for joy and started "styling and profiling". My mates were looking at me utterly dumbfounded, saying in effect "Is this the same so-and-so we've come to know"?

After "coming back down to earth", so to speak, I explained to my mates that this decision had much more to do with eternity than with mortality. I explained that because of the revelation, black men (and, by extension, their wives) could now enjoy the fulness of the Gospel and be able to undergo all the ordinances thereof, to include temple marriage, sealing of children, and the endowment. Black men could now fill full-time missions for the Church. Just because I didn't much care for blacks at the time didn't mean I wanted them cut off from these eternal blessings; in fact, I was always a bit discomfited personally by the Priesthood ban. It seemed like President Kimball had lifted a huge monkey off our backs.

My own attitude towards blacks slowly became more tolerant as a result of the revelation.

There were also more practical considerations for the change. Church leaders soon realized that a proposed temple for Sao Paulo, Brazil, would be off limits to too many Brazilian Church members because, due to large-scale historical race-mixing, many had black blood. At the time, the Church used the one-drop theory. This caused President Kimball to labor even more earnestly with the Lord for authority to end the ban. Finally, after much discussion among the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on this matter, they engaged the Lord in prayer one more time. According to the writing of one of those present, "It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fullness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord".

Of course, the precise origins of the ban remain somewhat ambiguous to this day. An early statement by Brigham Young about a priesthood ban in the LDS Church was made on February 13th, 1849. The statement — which refers to the Curse of Cain as the reason for the policy — was given in response to the question, "What chance is there for the redemption of the Negro?" Young responded, "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood".

The question is -- was it doctrinal, or was it a mistake? It would be useful for Church authorities to investigate thoroughly and come up with an answer to end the ambiguity. I don't believe it was a mistake, because the Lord allowed the policy to continue for nearly 130 years. Those who claim the Lord wouldn't exclude a group of people neither know nor understand the mind of the Lord, and possess immature testimonies of the Gospel.

Visit the BlackLDS website to learn more about black participation in the Church.

Why I Support The Current LDS Policy To Restrict Priesthood Eligibility To Men; Only The Lord Is Authorized To Change The Policy

A post on The Exponent, entitled "Guest Post: I’m Not One of Those Women. I’m Just Thinking, Don’t Worry", has prompted my own post on this subject. While not nearly as contentious as the former policy to exclude otherwise worthy males from Priesthood eligibility because of African ancestry, the continuing policy by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to exclude females from Priesthood eligibility has triggered some discussion, and occasionally dissension as well.

One such dissenter is mValient, who authored the post cited above. It should be noted that mValient describes herself as an observant member of the Church who has served a mission, so she should not be viewed as an apostate. But focusing more on equality rather than eternity, she questions the LDS Church's policy to exclude females from Priesthood eligibility. Her newly-expressed skepticism has been triggered by an article in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof that calls for an end to "discriminatory practices" against women in religion including the exclusion of women from the religious hierarchy. Kristof reports on a group called The Elders, a group led by South African terrorist-turned-President Nelson Mandela which includes women and possibly lesbians, that issued a call to all world religions that says “the justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a higher authority is unacceptable” and further “we believe that women and girls share equal rights with men and boys in all aspects of life.” You can read their entire missive at TheElders.org.

Of course, the targets of The Elders are not just Mormons, but conservative Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and any other belief system which prescribes separate treatment of men and women. Kristof's article could serve as the intellectual foundation for a fresh assault on traditional religious expression in the United States, similar to the assaults endured by Mormons, Catholics, and others for their promotion of California Proposition 8.

One commenter to The Exponent questions the doctrinal foundation of the restriction. Caroline states that she could not find anything in the scriptures that definitively precludes women from Priesthood. But while I also could not find a specific verse barring women from holding the Priesthood either, I did find a verse in I Timothy 3:2, which states, "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;". This verse implies that only a man can be appointed as a bishop. And since a bishop, in accordance with LDS doctrine, must hold the Priesthood as a condition of appointment, it can also be interpreted to imply that only men can have the Priesthood conferred upon them. Ironically, the distinction was once best summed up by the late Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell, who said "Women may have a teaching ministry or a healing ministry, but they cannot have a pastoral ministry" (the Relief Society, for ladies only, can be construed to be the LDS version of a "teaching" or "healing" ministry).

But the restriction of Priesthood eligibility to males does not give men a divine license to use the Priesthood to exploit and abuse women. The Doctrine & Covenants imposes a stern charge upon male Priesthood holders; D & C 121:36-37 states the following:

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

In other words, the moment a husband abuses his wife under color of the Priesthood, his Priesthood authority is instantly suspended in the courts of heaven, and is not restored until the man repents. The problems generated from this system of patriarchy are not because the system is flawed, but because it is misused and abused. Also note the use of the word "man" in the last word of verse 37; this further implies that the Priesthood is to be reserved for men.

LightPlanet also reveals President Spencer W. Kimball's counsel on this subject, and why restricting Priesthood eligibility to men is not intended to be oppressive towards women. While some responsibilities are jointly shared, others belong solely to either the husband or the wife. President Spencer W. Kimball taught:

"[Men and women] had full equality as [God's] spirit children. We have equality as recipients of [his] perfected love for each of us. ... Within those great assurances, however, our roles and assignments differ. These are eternal differences—with women being given many tremendous responsibilities of motherhood and sisterhood and men being given the tremendous responsibilities of fatherhood and the priesthood—but the man is not without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord (see 1 Corinthians 11:11). Both a righteous man and a righteous woman are a blessing to all those their lives touch....

Men and women are complementary. I have mentioned only a few of the special blessings God gives his daughters in helping them to become like him. His sons have their own special opportunities. And in his wisdom and mercy, our Father made men and women dependent on each other for the full flowering of their potential. Because their natures are somewhat different, they can complement each other; because they are in many ways alike, they can understand each other. Let neither envy the other for their differences; let both discern what is superficial and what is beautifully basic in those differences, and act accordingly. And may the brotherhood of the priesthood and the sisterhood of the Relief Society be a blessing in the lives of all the members of this great Church, as we help each other along the path to perfection." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.315)

It should also be noted that no man can achieve celestial glory with exaltation without the help of a woman. Our Heavenly Father would neither be "heavenly" nor a "father" without a Heavenly Mother by his side. There are no gods without goddesses.

This does not mean that the exclusion of women from the Priesthood will be eternal. After all, since we're the Lord's church, the Lord has the right to change His mind at any time. However, if the policy is changed, it will be accomplished in one way - and ONLY in one way. The President of the Church will receive a revelation or impression that Priesthood membership be extended to worthy women, and, at the same time, each and every member of the Quorum of the Twelve will receive the SAME impression. Thus it will be a collegial decision, and not a unilateral decision. Nicholas Kristof cannot change the policy. Petition campaigns cannot change the policy. Withdrawal of tax exemptions cannot change the policy. Secular legislation cannot change the policy. No amount of earthly compulsion can change the policy.

Only the Lord can change the policy. And if the policy is changed, I will support it, not because the Brethren (General Authorities) are inerrant, but because I trust the Brethren, as a group, not to ever deliberately or maliciously lead the entire Church astray.

Colorado Springs Gazette Reporter Mark Barna Discusses The Issue Of Unpaid Clergy In The LDS Church

On July 26th, 2009, Colorado Springs Gazette blogger Mark Barna discussed the resignation of Rev. Brad Braxton from the evangelical Riverside Church in New York after some congregants filed a motion to prevent him from being officially installed as senior pastor. The outcry was driven primarily by reports that Braxton’s salary was more than $600,000 a year.

This provoked a column by him entitled, "The Pulpit: Work without pay has rewards, Mormon leaders say", where he further addressed the issue of clergy compensation by citing the example of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a church successfully run by mostly unpaid "volunteer" clergy. The only Church leaders who get compensation are members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, who are in full-time dedicated positions; each member of the Twelve supervises a different major aspect of Church operations.

Barna interviewed several local Mormon leaders. Mark McConkie, the president of the Colorado Springs Stake, said, “We work from sheer conviction... .Not taking a salary protects us from the sin of greed, the temptation to bend to popular causes”.

Bruce Rands, bishop of the Colorado Springs’ 18th Ward in the Fountain Stake, is an attorney in private practice. Like most bishops, he spends 25 to 35 hours a week tending to their wards by performing administrative duties, counseling members, preparing an occasional sermon and overseeing church events. Rands said that if Mormon church leaders were paid, or if salary were based in part on congregant donations, there would be a temptation to “preach things that are pleasing to the ears of men.” Rands added, ...“we want to preach the doctrine of Christ”.

Not only does Rands get no compensation for being a bishop, but he also made an initial financial sacrifice to accept the calling, giving up an "iron rice bowl" job as an assistant DA. Here's why: Rands foresaw that he’d face a conflict of interest with his job as a Fourth Judicial District deputy district attorney. As bishop, Rands would be hearing confessions from ward members, but as a deputy DA, he was sworn to report knowledge of a crime. So if someone confessed a crime to him, Rands would be obligated to report it to authorities. This could violate traditional clergy confidentiality. So he resigned from the DA's office, then opened his own law practice. [Ed. Note: Bishops are still obligated to report certain crimes confessed to them, like sex offenses, for example.]

Mark Barna then directs us to go to his blog, The Pulpit, for more details. Scriptural justification for the no-pay policy is cited, to include I Peter 5:2, ”Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve.”, and II Nephi 26:31, "But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money, they shall perish.”

The idea of perfectly-coiffed televangelists like Rod Parsley, Paul Crouch, and John Hagee raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary per year is a bit obscene. However, there are many paid pastors who make far less and who are humble followers of Christ, giving back more spiritually than they gain materially in tithes and offerings. So a paid pastor is NOT automatically a corrupt pastor.

However, one additional advantage to the LDS refusal to maintain a full-time professional clergy is that it affords us the opportunity to rotate a larger number of people through the various bishop and stake president positions. A bishop typically remains in place for no longer than five years. The end result is a larger group of trained leaders who can provide effective direction, particularly during times of crises. This explains in part why Mormons in predominantly-LDS area organize so quickly and efficiently to cope with natural disasters.

Mark Barna is a reporter for the Colorado Springs Gazette. He has previously written about Mormons; an index to his columns is available HERE.

Perspectives On LDS Doctrine: Is A Marriage Truly Equal If The Husband "Presides" Over The Wife?

An interesting question was posed by two different bloggers in the Bloggernacle on May 6th, 2009. The question: Can a marriage be truly equal if, according to LDS Church doctrine, the husband presides over the wife? Two different answers resulted. Which of the two, if any, is right?

On Waters Of Mormon, the Baron gives his opinion, based upon a limited legalistic human perspective:

If men are called to “lead”, “rule” and/or “preside” over the family, then by definition the relationship is not equal. And if they truly are not equal, then why not just say so, without trying to cloud the issue through grafted-on, nice-sounding rhetoric about equal partners.

Or, on the other hand, if husbands and wives really are equal partners, then why introduce the abstract concept of "presiding" in the first place?

But on Blogger Of Jared, Michelle gives a different opinion, based upon a less limited and more divine perspective:

I also think that language is limited. This idea of presiding is a perfect example. In the dictionary, presiding means something and we pigeonhole doctrinal teachings by the dictionary, instead of considering that perhaps sometimes there could be different meaning in gospel context. e.g., the presiding thing. I really believe that presiding by definition in a marriage is essentially doing what is necessary to create a safe, consistent, Spirit-led environment where equal partnership can take place and where family life can thrive. Equal partnership simply cannot happen if a man is not willing to make that possible. For whatever reason, imo, that is a key part of the man’s duty in a marriage.

In her mind, Michelle believes that the husband must act as the "president" of the home in order to fulfill his equal obligations, and if he fails to do so, then he is not pulling his weight. Interesting concept.

Michelle then drives the message home later in the post by reminding us that in the Lord's perspective, marriage is supposed to be a cooperative relationship rather than a competitive relationship. With that in mind, "presidency" doesn't become oppressive or chauvinistic.

In the Doctrine & Covenants, the Lord, through His prophet Joseph Smith, took very short shrift with men who used "presidency" or "Priesthood" to wrongfully impose their will upon their wives. Section 121 contains the guidance, beginning with verse 36:

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

As you can see, merely designating the husband to be "president" of the family is not, in and of itself, an unequal or oppressive act. It is only when the husband misuses that authority and exercises unrighteous dominion that it becomes an oppressive act. And at the very moment he begins to exercise unrighteous dominion, the Spirit abruptly flees, and the man's priesthood authority immediately ceases in spirit. At that point, the man has just exchanged "priesthood" for "priestcraft". Priestcraft is the Satanic counterfeit of priesthood, and Satan, having lost eternity because of open rebellion, prefers to insinuate and counterfeit in order to seduce and lead away the spirits of men.

Also take note of the use of the word "sharpness" in verse 43. "Sharpness" does NOT mean abusiveness, but means "clarity". Note that the reproval with sharpness is intertwined with the influence of the Holy Ghost. This prevents "sharpness" from becoming abusive.

Michelle clearly has a better grasp of the Lord's mind on this issue.