Hi Jon–
What does the LDS church think of women preaching? I ask because I saw an AP article in my local rag on Sunday about Catholics ordaining women into the priesthood. I’m catholic, 30, and never thought I’d see it in my lifetime. (http://​www​.womenpriests​.org) Of course the vatican does not recognize them as priests.…sigh.

I’m part of the Class of 1990 from the same school. I never really thought about the demographic being so different than other Utah towns of similar size. I think you make a good point. Of course, I lived in the little town 4 miles away (with a reservoir). If you weren’t Mormon, the rest of the town included that tidbit of info. You know, “ABC’s old house that where the “non-members” XYZ live.” I was sent to St. Ann’s elementary in SLC (which probably made my Mormon mom the talk of all the other Mormon moms), so that helped broaden my view of religion and the world.

An earlier post asked about women and the priesthood within the mormon church; non-existent, although I had a really peculiar relative (step-aunt Mormon) who seemed to think she could call on the spirit of Christ to cast out spirits even though she didn’t have the Mormon priesthood.

Okay. I just finished the whole radio interview, and now I’m sorry I said that snotty thing about not wanting him to teach my kids philosophy. First of all, who am I kidding–my kids will be too busy assistant managing fast food franchises to study philosophy. And also, he really seems like a thoughtful, open-minded, humble and probably very good person. So screw me.

I’m really enjoying this discussion, lots of stuff to think about, but I wonder just how skewed my perception of Mormanism is. Or, I should sat “is becoming”. There are so few Mormans in these parts that the only thing I know about them was the rumour that they make good roomates.

Even if a comment thread isn’t the best way to learn about what is essentially a different culture, it’s been a good way to see how people view the issues at hand. Thanks folks.

I’ve heard the “fact” that “Mormonism is the fastest growing religion” several times, including Krakauer’s book “Under the banner of heaven.” Thank you for reminding me to not take everything I read as fact.

You’re smart.

I can’t believe everyone’s overlooking this detail:

“His current thoughts are found in The Myth of Leadership, a 2004 book he wrote that advocates leaderless organizations and peer-based management.” (Salt Lake Tribune)

His whole MO seemed to call lots of attention to himself, to generate press. Now I see why. He’s selling something.

You mean this book:

“The book rests on two premises: Real communication can occur only between equals; and secrecy breeds corruption and abuses of power.”

I’m sure the church shouldn’t read anything into that hypothesis.

Or maybe this was just his way of trying to get a job interview. I mean he clearly just wants what’s best for the church. He put it all into a book. Clearly the church should see the value of his position and hire him as a consultant, he has trained Fortune 100 companies after all, or perhaps just call him to the Seventy or Twelve.

Maybe this was just a bad episode of the Apprentice?

Sebastian

Thanks for the interesting listen. I don’t know this man, but I’m proud of him for having the balls to stick with his opinion. Seems like BYU’s loss.

I stopped by the blurb again tonight to finish listening to Nielson’s radio interview. His letter was obviously not an attempt to drudge up interest in his book. He comes across as the exact opposite of a cheap salesman. A couple points were particularly interesting to me: first, he says that he’s unsure that he did the right thing by writing the letter, and second he was clearly interested in the different points the callers to the program brought up. In my previous comment I implied, not so implicitly, he wrote the letter to draw attention to his book, but it’s clear he was interested in starting an honest dialogue (a worthwhile dialogue in my opinion by the way), but he doesn’t sound exactly thrilled that he did.

Oh a couple other things I remembered about the interview…he points out several times that the philosophy department alone decided not to renew his contract. He also said that “this is not a conflict.” He spoke his mind, and said the philosophy department was justified in their action (although he didn’t agree with it). This Nielsen is obviously good peeps.

Jon, you may find the latest issue of Sunstone of interest. It includes a Gay Mormon’s testimony which is very poignant as well as a personl essay called “Irreconcilable Differences” by Emily Pearson, whose father died of complications from HIV and who married a gay man thinking she could “fix” him.

http://​www​.sunstoneonline​.com/​m​a​g​a​z​i​n​e​/​m​a​g​-​i​s​s​u​e​-​1​41.asp

Sebastian, if Mr. Nielsen’s reasoning is so flawed, why don’t you refute it, rather chuck around vocabulary like “lie” and “apostate”, and talk about motivations of which you cannot possibly have any real knowledge? Your refusal to engage what he’s said has the same effect as BYU’s firing: you both look like you are afraid to actually address what the man says, so you prefer to shut him up.

I’m sure that there is more to it than what we’ve seen here, but if I used this incidedent as my only information I’d think the LDS and its supporters couldn’t reason their way out of a paper bag.

Back to the question about women preaching and women in the priesthood — and writing as a non-Mormon who did some reading on the subject years ago — I think I remember one of the First Presidents of the last 20–30 years (Benson, maybe?), when asked when an official pronouncement would come on the status of women in the priesthood, replied that it would never come. This was shortly after there was a change to the official position on blacks and the priesthood (as a result of the increasing membership of blacks). I wish I could remember where I read this and find it now. Now, if the First President is God’s prophet on Earth (do I have that right?), then the First President should be receptive to whatever God might want to say and if he is not receptive, then is he really God’s prophet? Asking the obvious, I know.

As with any organization, the response to challenges depends on the relative power of the person or persons challenging. I remember reading about Christine Meaders Durham (Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court and a Mormon) speaking out in favor or equal rights for women during the 80s and the church saying nothing to her (she’s great PR for the church) while less powerful Mormon women saying the same thing were reprimanded (again, is that the right term?). Clearly the church and BYU sees Neilsen as a person that they can squash.

Again, I’m a non-Mormon writing on this, but Mormonism is a fascinating subject to me. I grew up around many Mormon families, had a few friends convert and come from an interesting religous background myself (raised Christian Scientist — a church with plenty of its own power issues right now). Thanks for the interesting and thought provoking posts.

nobody, Mr. Nielsen said he wouldn’t challenge the church on doctrine in the interview. He refered to at least 3 categories for issues: Doctrinal, Political, and Moral. He wants to effectively define what the church can say and not say and require of its members by putting it into the little box marked doctrine. With what is truly doctrinal he said he won’t dispute. But he feels he should have total freedom with what is political, etc. Sort of a divide and conquer strategy. But let’s examine what’s in that little box he won’t quarrel with.

“The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms marriage between a man and a woman, and opposes same-gender unions and any other sexual relations outside of marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God to fulfill the eternal destiny of His children.” –lds​.org

The doctrine of the LDS Church is that the only marriage ordained by God is between a man and a woman (D&C 132:15). The doctrine of the church is that any sexual relations outside of a marriage is a sin and second only in seriousness to murder (Alma 39:5). As there is no doctrinal support for same-sex marriage, then the sexual desires and relations between gay people is indeed a very grievous sin.

So the facts are as a Mormon, that it doesn’t matter why someone is gay. It can be DNA, it can be choice, or anything in-between. Scholars and scientists are free (even at BYU) to do all the research and publication they like on the issue of gayness, it’s origins, history, biology, psychology, legality, etc. That is the gray area. The one thing scholars and scientists can not do is determine it’s moralness. That is the realm of religion. That is the black and white. And every religion is free to determine their own beliefs however they may.

For the LDS religion, God has spoken through his prophets that it is a sin and therefore regardless of the evidence of science and the popular opinions of the world it will remain a sin until God says differently. Just as adultery, fornication, murder, stealing, lying, etc, etc are all sins. The LDS church is not a democracy. It does not determine its doctrine through conferences, committees, or popular vote. It is not bound by tradition or recognized scripture.

Is this doctrine backed by scripture? Yes. Do other religions have a differing interpretation of scripture? Yes. Doesn’t matter. The doctrine of the church is as easily established by current modern-day revelation. You can quote scripture all day from the Bible to put forward the argument that homosexuality is not a sin by rejecting Mormon interpretations. Still doesn’t matter. The doctrine of the church today as set by the 15 men called, set apart and sustained as prophets, seers and revelators is that it is a sin.

Mr. Nielsen explicitly in his manifesto disputes the church doctrine that gay behavior is a sin by citing scientific discovery and the love and mercy God. If He was coherent and just He wouldn’t discriminate against these individuals. What he is failing to recall is that along with the mercy of God is also His justice. The same justice that eliminated perhaps millions of people with the flood. The same justice that eliminated thousands in the cities of Sodom and Gomorra. The same justice that called for death for many of the social ills the world accepts today. God has established in scripture not only His boundless love but also His endless intolerance of sin. He has shown He’s not unwilling to mete out harsh and even lethal judgments for living an immoral life.

(But let’s just overlook that aspect of God because it hurts our feelings. We’ll ignore all those inconvenient passages they make us uncomfortable in our lives and focus on the positive.)

Mr. Nielsen believes that scientists will continue to find evidence that gayness is genetic and that the church will find itself in a irrefutable position and by necessity have to change its doctrine. I believe that to be highly unlikely. His err is that he believes that doctrine can be established through science and popular opinion. That is a fallacy and apostate.

As far as I’m aware, Mr. Nielsen is neither a prophet, seer nor revelator or recognized by the church to speak for the church or God. I believe the church leaders are well aware of the scientific discoveries in this field and also, more importantly, the mind and will of God and they have made clear the doctrine accordingly.

That is all I have time for right now, but it is enough. Mr. Nielsen did challenge doctrine despite his vain protests to the contrary, so he is a liar. He has rejected official doctrine of the church, so he is apostate.

Sebastian