Ordain Women

Most of you have likely not heard that Kate Kelly, a human rights lawyer/activist and founder of the activist group Ordain Women, was excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for publicly promoting and espousing apostate doctrine. I think it tragic that you might have already heard that she had been excommunicated. You would only have heard it from her public releasing of that information. For me, that action speaks volumes, making the point that her actions are intended to be self-promoting, rather than sincerely held beliefs. But her excommunication is not the point of this post. Rather, it is the lack of logic exhibited by OW, whose position is that public protesting in an Occupy Wall Street manner, will somehow compel a church, to change its position. 

What is Priest-hood? By definition, the authority to act in God's name. God's name, not man's. So the illogic starts with one thinking they are protesting against "the Church" (and by that I mean any church or synagogue) rather than the reality that they are in fact railing against God. 

Your real problem OW, is that God gets to decide who acts in His name, or not. And somehow, that's not okay with you. The problem for OW, is that God has always decided who gets to act in His name. His priesthood has always been restricted to some degree.

In an age of militancy, it is easy to forget the pattern which has been demonstrated in the Bible. From early on, the priesthood was excluded from certain of Adam's descendants, specifically those who descended by birth, from Adam's son Cain. By virtue of something their ancestor did, for thousands of years, no matter how righteous "they" were, they were excluded from participating in the priesthood. But they weren't the only ones.

Esau for example, sold his right to the priesthood, his birthright which then would have passed to his descendants, for a bowl of stew. Non-Jewish Old Testament-reading only folk don't realize that Esau did more than just sell his "birthright." At the time, Esau possessed a garment previously owned by King Nimrod. This garment was the royal/priestly garment given by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden (Pseudo Jon. to Gen. xxvii 15), and is one of the reasons why Esau became a mighty hunter: the garment bearing such power and authority that all men and animals subjected themselves to its wearer. It is this garment, along with his birthright contained as the first born, that Esau sold to Jacob (Genesis 27:15.) Interesting then, that afterwards, God specifically ratifies His covenant of the right to the priesthood, Gospel and eternal family with Jacob (in other words: Esau selling it to Jacob alone didn't do it: God had to grant Jacob the birthright blessing and authority.)

Let's not forget Moses and the House of Israel. At the time, the Priesthood is restricted to the First Born male of every tribe. Restricted to males, and restricted to only first born males at that (Exodus 13.) Moses comes down from the Mount with the Higher Priesthood to find Israel worshiping a gold calf. The tribe of Levi as a whole, defends the Lord and His Priesthood. As a consequence, one of the penalties to Israel is the restriction of performing priesthood ordinances (Exodus 34.) Eventually, the rules restricting priesthood behavior become "too burdensome" for the First Born. They whine, and are replaced in their entirety by the valiant tribe of Levi (Numbers 3.) 

So now we've moved in time from all descendants of Adam, to restricted to specific descendants of Adam, and further restricted to First Born males, to further restriction to the tribe of Levi, with the exception of Messiah in the tribe of Judah (Isaiah 22:22-25) and certain others holding the higher priesthood. 

I'm oversimplifying to make a point: the Priesthood has always been restricted by either gender, righteousness, or ancestry.

Does God get to decide that issue? OW says no, they have a right to demand the Priesthood, missing entirely the point: by definition (read the Bible!), the priest-hood is authority from God to act in His name. The illogic of OW's argument just boggles the mind.

I speak now specifically to those who are LDS (and may or may not be part of OW.)

On June 8, 1978, President Spencer Kimball, revered as a prophet presiding over the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a proclamation which announced: "Aware of the promises made by the prophets...who have preceded us that at some time in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood....He has heard our prayers and by revelation has confirmed that the long awaited day has come, when every worthy man in the Church may receive the Holy Priesthood..."

Long awaited day. Some mistakenly believe this is the 100 years or so when Blacks were restricted from the LDS priesthood. I personally do not believe this to be entirely the case. I argue that the long awaited day was the removal of the restriction of the penalty of ancestry: no longer are those who descend from Cain (whoever they may be) barred from the priesthood; no longer are those who descend from other tribes in the House of Israel barred from the priesthood; no longer are those who descend from Esau, Ishmael et cetera barred from the priesthood: the only qualifier is personal worthiness. IF the priesthood and Gospel of God has been restored to the earth as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims.

The fallacy in OW's argument is that it demands to be given "God's authority" (His priesthood) while at the same time refusing to recognize that God decides upon whom to bestow His authority. Either: it's God's authority (do you not see you are protesting against God then), or it's not (in which case, what do you care who some Church does or doesn't allow to officiate?)

Maybe some day God will remove the gender restriction. Maybe He won't. Perhaps I'm ascribing honor where none is warranted, but I'd like to think that OW did some good: getting the LDS Church to look at some issues of tradition and creating a venue for change (i.e., women praying and or speaking in LDS general conference, opening up the Priesthood sessions to be publicly broadcast.)

There is a line between tradition and doctrine. It's unfortunate that OW can no longer find that line.