You and I have a very different understanding of those verses, and so do your own evangelical friend protesters at Temple Square over the weekend. I too would like to know what denomination you are, and if your own feminism beliefs play a role in what your understanding of the bible is. As has been stated by other non-Mormons here, your beliefs are counter to most of Christendom.
Perhaps you should lay aside this latest anti Mormon effort and move on to your next one, you have so many, no one will notice.
Not at all.
1. Most of Christendom is anti-ordaining women. (I've NEVER advocated ordaining women; and Mormons don't really ordain women or men for that matter! They pride themselves on "lay leaders" leading the church...so "ordination" issue is not at play here...it's a "straw man" issue here & you know it...it's misleading to pretend it is!)
2. Most of Christendom places "prophets" within the time frame of
(a) The Old Testament;
and (b) the earliest church (Philip's daughters -- Acts 21:8-9)...or they say that Philips daughters were not prophetesses -- but rather had a spiritual prophetic gift...more dynamic than a given "official office" within the Church.
I am NOT at odds with either (a) or (b) above, ESPECIALLY given that Hebrews 1:1-2 clearly says:
1 In the PAST God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 BUT in these LAST DAYS he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
Hebrews 1:1-2 CLEARLY says that the main consideration as to why we no longer need any "offices" of "prophets" is because Jesus is the Ultimate Prophet...and He promised He would never leave His Church (Matthew 28:20).
YOU -- and other Mormons -- are at odds with Hebrews 1:1-2...despite its very "latter-day" specific language! YOU -- and other Mormons -- are the ones who adhere to prophet offices...which makes you wonder why if Anna was a prophet (Luke 2:36), why do you discriminate vs. females as prophets merely upon skin texture & biological differences!!! Here the Book of Mormon CLEARLY makes an unusual claim that Jesus' church was well established well before Jesus mentioned "church" for the first time in Matthew 18...which would mean that Anna was a "prophet" (Luke 2:36) at a time that the Mormon church claims the church was already in operation!!!!!
3. I utterly denounce most of the feminist worldviews INSIDE and OUTSIDE the church. That includes denouncing feminist perspectives as commonly uttered by liberal mainline denominations like the United Church of Christ, Presbyterian USA, the Episcopalian Church, the ELCA, the United Methodist Church, & other similar bodies. Many of these are also pro-abortion at many levels -- and you of all people should know that I even criticize Mormon church leadership positions on abortion as quite liberal in some areas...like if you pray to the Mormon god and he says, "OK, you can have an abortion," that gives Mormons the go ahead to kill at will.
What? Are you claiming that...
(a) The text -- like 1 Peter 2:4-9 -- can't speak for itself?
Or that (b) The Holy Spirit stuttered so much in speaking thru Peter we can't understand plain Greek (now translated into English)???
What plain part of 1 Peter 2:4-9 is there to misunderstand?
Let's review:
This time I'll use the KJV; let's just focus on verses 5 & 9:
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual HOUSE, an holy PRIESTHOOD, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Questions:
1. What "house" do you know of excludes women?
2. Are only MEN "acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" -- or are women also?
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal PRIESTHOOD, an holy NATION, a peculiar PEOPLE; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light
Questions:
3. Since when in the history of the Judeo-Christian world have women been excluded when an overall reference is highlighted as a "nation?"
4. Since when in the history of the Judeo-Christian world have women been excluded when an overall reference is given as a "people?"
5. Have only men been "called out of darkness into His wonderful light?"
6. And note the adjective "royal" -- since when are queens & princesses excluded from royalty???
ALL: Note the Scripture-twisting, open distortion, & Bible-verse snipping Mormon apologists like Ripliancum have to resort to so as to NOT having to face plain readings of the Scriptures.
Ripliancum & Teppe would have you believe that references to...
...households...
...nations...
...people groups...
...royalty...
...and kingdoms [Revelation 1:6]...
...automatically excludes women...
...just so that they don't have to wrestle with the plain texts that the priesthood is given to these GROUPS!
That is shameful Scripture-twisting...and if Catholics buy into it as well -- just so that they can continue to make "priesthood" mean something it is Biblically not -- that is placing tradition ahead of the New Testament!
And then for all of you Protestants & Catholics who think "ordination" is Biblically based, please provide the Greek word for "ordained" contained in the New Testament -- and give us a NT Biblical phrase where the word "ordained" is attached to a specific "ordained" leader in the Church...