October 5th, 2013

Women and the Priesthood: Separate but Equal

The so-called “separate but equal” legal doctrine purported to empower state governments to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their race. Cruel stories highlighting the problem with such an approach fill volumes of books, all pointing to the evident injustice of the law.

In the landmark SCOTUS case Brown v. Board of Education the justices opined, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”—thus beginning to dismantle the inequality perpetuated by the state through its favorable treatment of one group over another.

The underlying reason for which such a legal system was so egregious is that the government is comprised of the citizens over which it governs. Thus, no unjustly discriminatory action can be undertaken that favors one class of citizens over another. No authority exists to restrict government services or offerings to one group and exclude them from another, when all pay taxes to fund them, and when said government only legitimately operates with the collectively delegated authority of every class of citizen.

Looking back through America’s history of institutionalized racism, we turn up our nose and repudiate the actions of our ancestors.

Today, some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are seeking to be progressive in pushing for a rejection of “separate but equal” status in the church’s clergy. They see similar discrimination, this time on the basis of gender, and desire that women be ordained to the priesthood and allowed to govern the Lord’s kingdom, just as their male counterparts have historically done. Praising the civil rights movement of yesteryear, they see in themselves the same leadership and nobility of cause.

They are wrong.

Whereas governments usurped authority that was not theirs in justifying and mandating discriminatory segregation, the Lord’s kingdom operates with the King’s authority. His discrimination is justified on the basis of his authority alone, and though the church can change its operations by common consent, the priesthood—the King’s delegated authority—can only be conferred by the methods He establishes. If He says only men, then so it shall remain. As the Psalm says, “For the kingdom is the Lord’s: and he is the governor among the nations.”

As it currently stands, doctrinal discrimination justifies a “separate but equal” status in the church. As Julie Beck said, “As sons and daughters of God, we each have unique [or separate] responsibilities and roles, and through the blessings of the priesthood, we are all given equal partnership, gifts, and blessings.” Elder Ballard affirmed that the separateness, or what he called “diversity,” is what allows for equality in God’s kingdom:

Even though men and women are equal before God in their eternal opportunities, they have different, but equally significant, duties in His eternal plan. We must understand that God views all of His children with infinite wisdom and perfect fairness. Consequently, He can acknowledge and even encourage our differences while providing equal opportunity for growth and development.

In summary, discriminatory segregation is unjustified when enforced through secular government, as no such authority exists to delegate to the state, but it is justified within the Church as sole authority exists with and through God. In other words, when we delegate our innate authority upwards to government, segregation is morally reprehensible, but when authority is delegated downward by God, we lack any standing or cause to complain.

40 Responses to “Women and the Priesthood: Separate but Equal”

  1. LRA
    October 5, 2013 at 9:24 am #

    You could also add a key New Testament scripture to this: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, as Joseph revised it in his “Inspired Version”: “Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to rule; but to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to rule in the church.”
    -That’s what these women are, a shame to the church.

  2. Doug Farr
    October 5, 2013 at 9:58 am #

    This article addresses one argument raised by the “Ordain Women” movement, and I agree with your conclusion. But, IMO, the bigger issue is with the actual movement. As I understand it, the “Ordain Women” movement is simply asking those we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators to inquire of the Lord to ask Him whether he will delegate His authority to women. I see nothing wrong with this. I may not agree with all of their techniques but the request does not offend me. What does offend me, however, are members that say just because women haven’t been ordained in the past they will not (or should not) be ordained in the future. This is not our decision to make. It’s God’s.

  3. outside the corridor
    October 5, 2013 at 12:45 pm #

    LRA, oh, DEAR!

    I am a woman, and I don’t care about having the priesthood; I do think it is odd that women gave blessings (especially during pregnancy and childbirth) in the early days of the church with the blessing of Joseph Smith and even Brigham Young, and I am not certain why it was discontinued–

    I don’t want the priesthood; for me it is a non-issue, because I see the world rapidly falling apart–

    and families rapidly falling apart–

    and I’m not a person to ‘go after’ things–

    but LRA, that is really disturbing–

    I don’t know how you see things, but based upon what you are saying (and how you quote Joseph Smith) women literally should be silent while in the building:

    no prayers, no lessons, nothing–

    not even in the Primary–

    certainly never in any meeting where males are present–

    what a quagmire–

  4. jon
    October 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm #

    50 years and women will have the priesthood. 100 years and practicing gays will have the priesthood (and be married in the church). It will be interesting to see the church evolve.

    Just like 100+ years ago people in the church wouldn’t recognize today’s church neither will we recognize the church in 100 years. Just how the ball rolls.

  5. Me
    October 5, 2013 at 3:43 pm #

    Reading up on LRAs criticism of Joseph smith, turns out that Joseph liberalized that verse by changing the current reading of the KJV to say “rule” instead of “speak”. Otherwise the verse quoted by LRA is verbatim from the bible as Christians everywhere read it. But LRA makes it seem like Joseph made it more strict, when the opposite was the case.

  6. Alex
    October 5, 2013 at 5:35 pm #


  7. Adam
    October 5, 2013 at 7:14 pm #

    Jon thinks he knows what he is talking about. The prophets have made it clear that the church is heading in a different direction. Away from where the world’s norms are heading, by design.

  8. jon
    October 5, 2013 at 7:19 pm #

    Alex, Adam,

    I come from the perspective that God doesn’t exist and that the church is a manifestation of complex human interactions. So, just like 100 years ago when people would have thought you mad if a black man received the priesthood or if they would find out that your garments aren’t full length (down to ankles and wrists). Likewise, people now days think it would be crazy if the church embraced women in the hierarchy with priesthood or that they would embrace gay marriage. But 100 years from now they will look back and think us odd for not embracing those things. All I’m doing is looking at patterns, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

  9. Adamo
    October 5, 2013 at 8:54 pm #

    I’ve long felt that this issue is about proxy.
    when performing ordinances for the dead, men stand as proxy for men, and women for women. In ordinances and in certain church leadership roles, men stand in proxy for Christ in a similar way that women stand in proxy for a deceased woman, Eve, or other women unnamed to us.

  10. Jeff
    October 5, 2013 at 9:01 pm #


    If you are an atheist, then arguing about future church policies is rather futile don’t you think? In any case, adjusting the manner of dress to modern times is a far cry from accepting homosexual marriage. As far as someone 100 years from now thinking we’re odd for not “embracing” homosexual marriage, it is just as likely from a humanistic POV that they might think we’re crazy for accepting it to any degree because its hypothetical widespread acceptance will have lead to depopulation. It’s a very small data set you’re extrapolating from (the last 50 years or so). Remember Rome and Greece were wildly immoral sexually and Western civ for a time became more restrained.

  11. Jeff
    October 5, 2013 at 9:06 pm #

    Homosexuality wasn’t acceptable to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Joseph Smith, or Thomas S. Monson, not because they were a product of their times, but because it is unacceptable to God, the Father.

  12. Marie
    October 5, 2013 at 9:37 pm #

    Connor, I appreciate and respect the differentiation you articulate between man-made government and God’s governing organization. You and the members of the Ordain Women movement actually agree in your appeals to God as the sole authority in His church.

    But as you refute the stance of the Ordain Women movement, you show that you have misunderstood what their stance actually is.

    Yes, they desire to be ordained to the priesthood, as you explain, but they are not demanding to be ordained because they think they know better than church leadership, and especially not God.

    They are requesting simply that the question about women’s ordination be asked. They are asking for revelation.

    “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Matthew 7:7).

    This is a pattern long established in the church.

    A large portion of the LDS canon (The Doctrine & Covenants) exists mainly because people came to the Joseph Smith with questions, or because the prophet had questions himself. The Word of Wisdom was revealed after a woman (Emma) came to him with the problem of cleaning up after the School of the Prophets. Official Declaration 2, authorizing black brethren in the church to receive the priesthood, was a result of prayer and questioning.

    The very church itself came into being because Joseph Smith was willing to ask an uncommon question.

    At present, no official answer has been given to these women who are asking.

    In fact, much information suggests that the question is not yet closed. I won’t go into all of them. But here’s one example: sixteen years ago, Gordon B. Hinckley was asked in an interview with ABC if it were possible that God might change the “rules” regarding women receiving priesthood authority in the future.

    President Hinckley said, “He [God] could change them yes… But there’s no agitation for that.” [Here’s a link to the full interview for context: http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm%5D

    That is what these women are doing: respectfully agitating, knocking for continued revelation, requesting that their question simply be asked.

    Which is something I think you could agree with.

  13. Connor
    October 5, 2013 at 9:44 pm #

    I don’t at all disagree with having the conversation, discussing the history, considering the doctrine, and requesting an inquiry on the part of church leaders. I’m totally comfortable with that.

    But while you may confine the movement to OW’s official leadership or close supporters, the movement is much broader than that. I’ve seen plenty of advocacy online that doesn’t take the humble, respectful, inquisitive approach, but instead bleeds into the assumptive, demanding approach that suggests the change must come about, and anachronistic patriarchal authorities must “get with the times.”

    So while I appreciate those whose tone and methods are appropriate, we need to keep an eye out for those (within and without the church) who think they know what God should hurry up and do already.

  14. jon
    October 5, 2013 at 10:54 pm #

    Marie, Connor,

    Didn’t people agitate for blacks receiving the priesthood also? I’m sure some were more demanding than others.

  15. jon
    October 5, 2013 at 10:57 pm #


    I’m not saying all people should be gay. I’m just making a guess as to where the church will be in 100 years. I’m not even saying that gays should be accepted or not by the church. I think that is beside the point. All I’m saying is that I see the church being led more by man than God (considering that I don’t believe in God that makes sense, right?).

    Good point about the gay thing in the scriptures going back quite a ways. But I still have a hard time not seeing that change after time.

  16. jon
    October 5, 2013 at 11:00 pm #

    The problem with LRA’s comment is that it takes in isolation other scriptures where women were given prominence. It would be interesting to see what Paul thought about women in general, was he a misogynist? Paul had other weird ideas too.

  17. jon
    October 5, 2013 at 11:03 pm #

    One last thought. Taking Paul’s quote about women and applying it to everyone is like when people look at AofF 12 and say believers need to obey governments no matter what and then ignore all the other scriptures on the subject where standing up to and rebelling against governments was considered a good thing.

  18. Jake
    October 6, 2013 at 6:08 am #

    Here’s an incredible talk about how women are different but equal, with specific insights related to the two trees of the Garden of Eden. It really changed the way I think about the sacred role of women as well as the Garden of Eden. http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-two-trees

  19. Chip
    October 6, 2013 at 10:40 am #

    I really wish that this conversation (the dialog between the Ordain Women group and the general authorities of the Church) be directed to the reality that priesthood power is MORE related to preparing both man and woman to return to His presence and to be as Gods and Goddesses, serving other souls one day in the future as our God and His unseen Goddess(es) are serving us now.

    This should not be a conversation about equality and church governance. This conversation should be about man and woman becoming as Gods are. This should be a conversation about the mysteries of godliness and how the power of the priesthood (God) blesses or serves or is used by a union of man and woman to return to God’s presence and then to serve as gods serve.

    Roles are different in that unity. Men serve as gods in ways that women “cannot” serve, and women serve as goddesses in ways that men “cannot” serve. We (men and women) are COMPLETELY dependent upon each other to enter these roles. “…Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

    My statement to those of the Ordain Women cause is this; please let us (men and women) understand TOGETHER how this priesthood power allows the power of godliness to be manifest unto men in the flesh.

    19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

    20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

    21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

    22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

    I believe that the Lord uses the word “man” in this last verse to represent male AND female.

    Let us work TOGETHER receiving the power of godliness in this life. Let us work TOGETHER understanding our separate roles. Only in doing THIS can you and I or man and woman return to God’s presence and serve as our God serves us.

  20. Lilli
    October 6, 2013 at 12:38 pm #

    When you study the true history of the Church and not just the filtered version the Church puts out, you see that Brigham & Co. probably got their abusive view about women from a document that went around in Nauvoo called ‘The Peachmaker’ written by a guy who wanted to control & collect women. It called for women to obey their husbands, but not the other way around, and to let men have all the wives they want. Joseph warned the Saints against this document & such ideas, calling it evil trash.

    When you study Christ & his teachings in the scriptures you see that he believed that women were completely equal with men & husbands, even in power & authority in the Church, with the right to preach, teach & rule. Early writings even seem to show that ‘Mary’, Christ’s wife, was the ‘Apostle to the Apostles’, every bit as much or more a leader as any of the early Apostles. Today that would be like having a woman as the President of the Quorum of Apostles, with Christ as the Head of the Church.

    I believe that when the true Church is again on the earth in Zion, that husbands & wives will, as a couple, preside equally over a ward or stake, him over the men, her over the women, etc. on up to General Authorities, with women having full & complete authority & leadership positions as men.

    From what the scriptures & Christ teach I believe women have the Holy Priesthood and Power of God already, just as much if not more than men. With sacrifice comes blessings & power, women perform the greatest sacrifice (other than Christ’s) in giving her children life & birth.

    It is foolishness to think that man or church leaders have the say over whether women have the Priesthood or not. LDS leaders don’t even have it themselves, for they preach & practice completely contrary to the teachings of Christ, if anyone stops to compare them, which would be an immediate ‘amen’ to any Priesthood or keys they profess to hold.

    Brigham & the leaders & members who followed him out west preached & practiced contrary to Christ and thus never did have any true authority, keys or Prieshood to pass on or to continue the true Church with. They were and are today as false as any false prophet who ever lived. And Christ and Joseph Smith warned us about the likes of Brigham Young and those who would preach, practice or believe in things like polygamy. For Joseph & Christ never did.

    When Joseph died the true church died with him, because most of the Saints refused to heed his warnings against things like polygamy and inequality of women, and other forms of adultery & evils.

    True Prophets honor & respect women’s true equality, power & authority in all things, in the home, church & society. Neither spouse rules or presides over the other, they preside & rule equally together, both having full veto power & authority.

    There is no leadership or key that righteous men hold that righteous women cannot also hold. There are Prophets and Prophetesses, Priests & Priestesses, each having the exact same authority & keys & power to act in the name of God.

    If women’s power & priesthood hasn’t been honored or respected down through the ages, it is because, as Joseph Smith taught, it is the disposition of nearly all men to immediately use unrighteous dominion, especially over women, for 6000 years, and surpress & deny her authority & equality.

    Where has there ever been a society, or hardly a home, where women’s true equality, authority & power has been respected? Except the City of Enoch.

    Righteous men & women already know that women possess Priesthood power, it comes directly from God, to bless, direct & teach & lead his children as God inspires them to.

    No Prophet, Priest or King on this earth can stop God from giving women Priesthood keys & authority to do his work. Righteous women just quietly perform their duties with God’s power while the world says it’s impossible.

    God is no a respecter of persons, he gives to all his children, no matter what race, creed, color or gender they are, the same gifts & powers if they are worthy.

    If there have not been women in leadership positions throughtout history in the Church, it is because ‘men’ have not allowed or believed in it, just like it took men so long in the LDS Church to just allow their black brothers equality & Priesthood too. That should teach us a great lesson about women too.

    God has always wanted things done differently, but he won’t force men or even church leaders to do right & be respectful of women’s rights, for they must learn & grow on their own & repent & come to respect & honor women’s authority, even in his true Church, for even the early apostles were still learning about women & greatly influenced by the false traditions of their society and how women were subordinate to men. Thus they had a hard time with Mary as the ‘head’ Apostle.

    But God’s true equality for women will be adhered to in Zion, when men are righteous and willing to accept and respect women’s true equality, authority & power in all things & places.

  21. Kathy
    October 7, 2013 at 8:42 am #

    I think perhaps the reality of the often unreasonable and intrusive nature of church expectations is being overlooked in this argument. I do not agree that priesthood-delineated church service is the only true measure of gender equality. What we really need to do is figure out how to reduce the unrelenting pressure to do and be everything, reduce the number of rediculously over-scheduled meetings, and stop seeing church callings and positions as the ultimate measure of power. The family is where the true power lies. Rather than argue for more church responsibility for women, we need to find a way to get (all of us, but especially men) out of church meetings and into the home. Make dinner, give your kids a bath and a bedtime story, play soccer in the backyard, etc. I currently serve as Primary President; I attend ward council, scout Roundtable, conduct weekly presidency meetings, attend pack meeting, do home visits once a month and manage 120 children for two hours every Sunday. My church responsibilities weigh so heavily on me that I am struggling to find adequate personal and family time. I am a firm believer in the fact that church will take over your life and suck you dry if you let it. The greatest joy and satisfaction in life is in the family. Let’s refocus our efforts to emphasize the power and the value of parenting in the home.

  22. iimx
    October 7, 2013 at 4:43 pm #

    One doesn’t have to wait 100 years for the church to be unrecognizable. For the larger Xtian body, the LDS church is unrecognizable. My best friend is atheist, but raised catholic, and every once and awhile we have discussions comparing the two faiths, and he often just scratches his head at LDS ideas, and just says ‘whatever’. Although he is atheist, he still maintains that if there ever was any truth to the xtian faith, it is to be found within the Catholic faith.

  23. iimx
    October 8, 2013 at 4:53 pm #

    There are 7 recognized female prophets in the OT.
    Sarah Gen 11:29 – 23:20
    Miriam Ex. 15:20-21; Num. 12:1-12:15, 20:1
    Deborah Judges 4:1 – 5:31
    Hannah I Sam 1:1 – 2:21
    Abigail I Sam 25:1 – 25:42
    Huldah II Kings 22:14-20

  24. Lilli
    October 8, 2013 at 8:29 pm #


    One of the greatest blessings to realizing that the Church isn’t true anymore, nor is it led by true prophets who have real keys & authority, (since Joseph died & Brigham took many Saints out west) is that I can now focus directly on Christ and his teachings, not hear them filtered through false prophets that distort & change them. I also have lots more time to focus on my most important responsibilities, my family. I can teach my family at home, the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ from the scriptures, not from manuals, or talks by men who don’t even seem to believe in Christ, also, worshiping & studying the Gospel at home is the way people used to do in Christ’s ancient Church after he died.

    You don’t realize how much & all the many ways the Church actually separates family members and greatly lessens family time until you step away from it. And I do still serve others outside my family, but now I do it according to how & who the Spirit directs and when I have time to do so, so that I don’t neglect my spouse & family.

    Not to mention all the teachings & practices that encourage family disintegration. It is really very sad what the Church is doing to families & marriages, yet few see it.

  25. Lilli
    October 8, 2013 at 8:35 pm #


    Yes, I believe the Catholic Church stands by the teachings of Christ so much better than the LDS Church since Brigham took over. Catholics stand ‘against’ birth control, abortion, divorce & remarriage, polygamy, inequality of women, etc. etc, far far more than the LDS Church does. The LDS Church even encourages & promotes many of those evils, never mind standing against them.

  26. iimx
    October 9, 2013 at 5:20 am #

    There are official positions given by religious bodies, which doesn’t mean that the followers necessarily agree or follow. My friend informs me that Catholics generally ignore the pope and do what they want, and for the most part are secular. I think most might practice birth control, but probably not abortion so much. Divorce and remarriage? He has relatives that have done both. He personally believes that divorce can be adaptive for situations that just aren’t meant to be. They seem to be more accepting towards equality for women, and equality in general for everyone.

  27. Lilli
    October 9, 2013 at 12:32 pm #

    Yes, I realize that members don’t always follow what their church leaders teach or the official positions of their church, whether it’s LDS or Catholics, etc. That is to be expected. But what we really judge a church by is not what the members are doing but what the leaders are standing for. The leaders of the Catholic Church and many other Christian religions stand for Christ’s teachings far better than the LDS Church has since Brigham took over.

  28. iimx
    October 9, 2013 at 5:39 pm #

    Using xtian standards, it is the doing of the average follower by which one will be the appropriate judge of the effectiveness of teachings. (Matt. 7:16)

  29. Lilli
    October 10, 2013 at 1:18 pm #


    I have to disagree if I understand you correctly. Just because no one really follows Christ’s teachings & reaps the blessings, except a rare few, doesn’t mean his teachings aren’t effective, just not adhered to.

  30. outside the corridor
    October 10, 2013 at 5:02 pm #

    “Mormons” began breaking covenants wholesale shortly after Joseph Smith revealed a lot of heretofore unconsidered things–

    Most people were not ready for these things, and a watered down version traveled to Utah, which was a place of exile, not of blessing–

    The Lord (and I believe He still takes care of the ‘church’, but He takes cares of everyone in the world, though often it’s not apparent)–

    decided to allow people either to hang themselves or ennoble themselves with the concepts that were introduced, either rejecting the truths and becoming just like everyone else (or worse, like the Zoramites) or embracing truth and becoming saints–

    It’s a test, after all; everything in this life is a test–

    but not always as the mainstream culture perceives it to be; everyone is being tested, even leaders of the church–

    and I feel that many of us will be surprised when we find out what sorts of tests we really had, while thinking we knew all along–

    As for women and the priesthood, covenants were already broken, and most people don’t know how to use it righteously; the idea that women, in collectives, can change this, is preposterous–

    there has to be a spiritual revolution–

    Most people who believe covenants were broken believe plural marriage was inspired; I don’t–

    I believe that the covenants that were broken were those with regards to taking the Book of Mormon seriously, especially with regards to treatment of the poor–

    And, yes, I am one of those old-fashioned Mormons who actually believes the Book of Mormon is ancient scripture–

    and I think VERY few LDS have read it enough to know that it has a lot of radical theology in it–

    and that mainstream LDS culture doesn’t follow it at all–

    having women receive the priesthood is not going to make a difference, since most LDS are obsessed with getting and having anyway–

  31. outside the corridor
    October 10, 2013 at 5:04 pm #

    you changed your format, Connor!!!

  32. Iimx
    October 13, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

    Lilli, Many people claim to be teaching Christs message, and every version differs.

  33. Lilli
    October 14, 2013 at 8:56 am #

    Christ’s words were very specific and clear. Most all those who claim to be teaching his message add things or take away things from the few exact words he really said, thus their teachings cometh from evil as the scriptures say.

    Even the LDS Church admits that Christ said certain things but they admit they aren’t following his teachings, like with divorce & remarriage, the Church admits Christ said it is adultery, but the Church admits it’s not following it.

    Same with so many other major Christian religions, they also admit Christ didn’t allow divorce & remarriage, but they have softened their stance on it anyway, leaving them no room to claim they preach or practice Christ’s original message, for Christ was very clear on the matter, as clear as words can be and no one can add or take away one word from his message.

  34. Michael Lee McKee
    October 14, 2013 at 5:46 pm #


    Please allow me to consider joining your church. You seem to possess a profound ability to recognize falsehood where others see truth. Perhaps the pervasive blindness is due to a lack of spiritual understanding on the part of those who lead the body of the church. After all, they are merely men who have been called by Christ to speak on His behalf.

  35. iimx
    October 14, 2013 at 6:58 pm #

    Lilli, Words attributed to christ are mostly in parables, purposely constructed to be rather vague.

  36. Lilli
    October 15, 2013 at 8:47 am #


    Men who are called of God don’t support and encourage adultery, whoredoms or evil. Yes, I believe they are merely fallen men who never knew God, let alone were called by him. I believe that is very easy to see.

    For Christ & Joseph Smith gave us the test of how to discern false prophets (who they said will be all around us today) and they reveal themselves so easily when put to the test. But it’s just few ever put them to the test & ‘prove all things’, blind obedience is so much easier than having to do your homework or live worthy of the Spirit.

    We are to discern false prophets & imposters by the fact that they won’t possess perfect love & charity, and won’t take care of the fatherless, but use the money for things like big & spacious buildings and to get gain, and we tell them by their words, teachings or actions that are ‘contrary’ to the teachings of Christ. When they act like they can change or ignore Christ’s teachings and do the opposite they reveal themselves. Those who truly believe exactly what Christ taught see right through them.


    Yes, some of Christ’s words were hidden in parables, but others were very clear, even hard for his apostles to hear & keep.

    When Christ taught them that there is no divorce, they correctly responded that then it would be best to not even marry, then to probably get stuck in an abusive or adulterous marriage, etc, which most were back then & are today. They got it.

  37. Lilli
    October 15, 2013 at 9:05 am #

    Just the one fact, of many, that church leaders are paid and get a salary is enough to reveal them. Even Korahor in his wickedness understood that church leaders aren’t supposed to receive any money from the Church and Alma told him he and the other church leaders had never taken a penny, but they worked to support themselves, just like King Benjamin and all true prophets do.

    That men take money from the fatherless is the height of evil, especially when they are wealthy men to begin with. Prophets and all church leaders are to support themselves just like everyone else and do service in the Church. Righteous men would be the last in line behind the fatherless, who are being ignored by the Church and their sacred money being used for everything else than what it should be used for.

    Even to build temples is against Christ’s teachings, until there are no poor among us, for temples & prayers & good works are all in vain the scriptures say, if you don’t relieve the suffering of the fatherless & poor 1st & foremost. The fatherless would rather have their burdens lifted then to have a nice church or temple to go to. Anyone can study & pray at home just as well as in any church or temple.

    And no, temple ordinances & sealings are ‘not’ a necessity, nor are they even valid or real when you search church history. I believe Brigham made them all up to help justify his whoredoms of polygamy, which Joseph warned us about.

    I believe Joseph never heard of or believed in temple endowments or sealings, etc., for I believe he understood that all families & 1st marriages of the earth are eternal, no matter what religion they were, or no religion at all. There is no need for such things as sealings. Everyone will know & love their family & 1st spouse in the next life (after everyone repents) for eternity, just as they do here.

    Rare true perfect love is what makes a marriage eternal, not some false ceremony or sealing. Try to find a marriage with that kind of love, they will know no sealing is necessary.

  38. iimx
    October 15, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

    Lilli, I found two supporting scriptures for pastors getting paid, there might be more. 1 Cor. 9:3-10, 1 Tim. 5:18. Its from the Carm webpage. Who knows maybe Paul got financial support from early christian followers? I am only speculating, but it seems possible.

  39. Lilli
    October 15, 2013 at 9:55 pm #

    The Bible is far from perfect, often translated incorrectly, we have to take it with a huge grain of salt and compare it with what other ancient prophets have said & especially with what Christ has said. Taking isolated teachings from fallible men will often lead you astray. The Apostles were far from perfect, often teachings incorrect things because they were still very very influenced by the false traditions of men around them.

    So for greater clarity, we go with the most correct book, the Book of Mormon, to tell when the Bible is wrong.

    Also, lets just put this concept of ‘paid ministry’ up against the Golden Rule. If you were suffering and struggling as a single parent and your children were suffering too, would you think it right for able bodied and even rich men to pay themselves ‘before’, and usually ‘instead’ of, giving you aid? As a single parent would you be ok knowing your tithing was going to pay their big salaries & build big malls that you could never dream of shopping at? When you weren’t sure how you were going to pay your light bill?

    If you were a church leader would you really ignore the Book of Mormon & Christ & take sacred tithing money meant to be given ‘all’ to the fatherless until there are no more poor among us, when you know you are totally able to work & support yourself and you even have an expensive home or 2nd vacation home and over flowing bank account & great job? (Remember Christ said to give ‘all’ that we have to the poor. He was talking to church leaders too)

    I believe the Church leaders deceive the poor into paying the rich.

    Even if you, as a man/leader, were poor too, would you really get in line before a widow or single mother? Knowing that women & children would have to suffer because you took the money for yourself? When you at least had another adult/parent, a wife, that could help with expenses, while the fatherless only have 1 person to do everything, that’s why they go to the top of the list, so their children don’t suffer even more.

    If you would cut in front of the fatherless or think it’s ok for any man or leader to do so, or if you really think Christ would do or support such a thing, then I don’t know what to say to you.

    I am completely disgusted & revolted with all church leaders, who I believe are evil, who take even a penny, while they refuse to support all the suffering single mothers who are even sadly deceived to give these rich leaders their last dime.

    LDS G.A.’s don’t seem to believe in financially supporting the fatherless as God commands, but they do expect the fatherless to financially support them. I can’t think of greater arrogance & pride.

    This was Sodom’s greatest sin, not taking care of the fatherless & poor, but instead using the money for the rich.

  40. iimx
    October 18, 2013 at 5:59 am #

    Lilli, I don’t know what an LDS GA’s view on life is, I’m not one and I can reasonably assume that I never will be. The golden rule. “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12. Its meant as advice to judge your own conduct, not that of others. Upon reading it, and thinking about it, there are a lot of things I wish others could do for me, which I probably would never be able to do. But then again, there are many ways to read this.

    Is there any commentary in either the BOM or the Bible as to how exactly tithing money is to be spent? I thought that passages that ensure there are no poor anywhere deal with general charity and generosity, not specifically stating that tithing should be applied toward that end. I suppose it could, but I am just asking where or if it particularly says so.

    I just imagine that tithing is a sort of believers ‘tax’. To support practical physical needs for administration of ‘the kingdom of god on earth’. Buildings, light, heating, printing materials. And as I cited earlier for funds for specialists which administer the word. I don’t have any idea what the general salary would be for the average christian pastor. But, I can imagine that not all of them are rich.

    Should the poor be paying to support the ministry? The NT seems to praise those that do. Luke 21:1-4. But in this case, its more about faith than providing quantity support.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.