Posts

Showing posts from November, 2011

Do Women Hold the Priesthood?

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe in the authority and power of the Priesthood. However, unlike many religious traditions, we do not understand the Priesthood to be an organization or even a group of religious leaders, but rather a power. A page on Mormon.org entitled What Is the Priesthood?  repeats the definition most often heard in Church meetings and lesson manuals: “The Priesthood,” it writes, “is the authority to act in God’s name.” Whereas some religions view priesthood like an electric company, we view it as the actual electricity; it exists independently of its holders, ready to be called upon by all those who are authorized to do so. So my question is: who, pray tell, is so authorized? It’s an interesting question, to say the least, and one that I don’t think has been particularly explored among Latter-day Saints. I know, for example, that I am authorized to perform certain ordinances because I am an elder in the Church. I can go a

Pastor Wil Response

A couple of days ago, I posted a response to Pastor Wil’s Top Ten Questions for “Mormons”. As long-time readers know, I have blogged about dissenting opinions in the past. What makes this time different is that the dissenting author has actually seen fit to respond. Pastor Wil, if you’re reading, I greatly appreciate this courtesy. Much as I am apparently “the only member of the [C]hurch [of Jesus Christ] who has answered all the questions,” so you, Pastor Wil, are perhaps the only non–Latter-day Saint who has responded to a relevant blog post. You thus have my gratitude, as well. Now, normally when someone comments on my blog and I need to respond, I will do so in the same venue as the initial response, i.e. in the comments section. The problem with that method, however, is that it becomes quite unwieldy when a response requires more than a paragraph or two. In this case, I feel that Pastor Wil’s comment does indeed necessitate a more lengthy response, so I hope my other readers wi

Pastor Will’s Top Ten Questions

For the last few weeks, a man who goes by the name of “PastorWil” has been tweeting about the Church of Jesus Christ and so-called “Mormonism.” Today, he tweeted a link to a recent blog post entitled My Top Ten Questions For Mormons . As a so-called “Mormon” myself, I will endeavor to respond to each of his top ten questions. Here we go! :-) 1. Do you believe the Bible has been corrupted? Of course I do. I suspect you do, too. There are literally thousands of Bible translations. No two are exactly alike, and they often contradict each other. Do you believe that the Inspired Version of the Bible (used by the Community of Christ) and the New World Translation (used by Jehovah’s Witnesses) are both 100% accurate? If not, then you, too, believe that the Bible has been corrupted. 2. If the Bible is corrupted, then why does the LDS church still use the King James and not the Joseph Smith Translation? This is actually a trick question. The Church does use the Joseph Smith Translation

Bridle All Your Passions

It’s time again for everyone’s favorite game show, Respond to Michael ! Seriously, though, I want to begin this entry by explaining that I really do respect Michael Crook. We’ve disagreed before , and I’m sure we will again. However, the guy’s got a good head on his shoulders and makes a lot of good points. My issue is generally not with his positions so much as the abrasion with which they tend to be presented. That being said, Michael’s latest post, entitled No Victims They , has made a rather interesting claim: that homosexuality cannot be innate because “our Heavenly Father would force such a sick, foul, and obscene desire on any of his children.” While I recognize that Brother Crook is mostly paraphrasing and expanding upon President Boyd K. Packer ’s instructions regarding pornography in the Church’s 180th Semiannual General Conference (which I commented on , at the time), I think he’s taking things a little farther than even President Packer intended. So for those who f