Women, Men, and Priesthood

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Nofear said:

I believe that several of those defending the status quo are quite open to the possibility of women being ordained to priesthood office and holding priesthood keys. It's more of a question of what do we do about it?

• defend the status quo and the Brethren and assert that they are acting according to God's wishes on this
• revile the status quo and claim that the Brethren, even if well intentioned, are propagating an situation not pleasing to the Lord

There is some subtlety in between. But both of the positions seem to be held by more than one of the posters in this thread. The point of my original post was to see if there were rational reasons one could give that would help another understand one's perspective (even if they didn't agree with it). Some motion in that direction, but far less than what I had hoped. Some useful discussion on aspects related to the primary question, and important ones at that, but the heart of the matter remains. Ah well.

That could be, but I haven't really seen any women posting on here about ordaining women (I could have missed some.  Maybe Meadowchik is talking about that and I missed her point), so I'm not sure how the ordination of women really meshes with what a lot of the sisters have been saying or the questions we've been asking.

From my perspective, and in my opinion one of the things that keeps people from understanding each others perspective in these kinds of discussions, is defending the status quo by using it to create limits or boundaries that don't actually exist.  My post above, of some people using the status quo to say that a woman could never officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood even though women actually do currently officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood, is an example of what I mean.

Hopefully that makes sense.  

[Rain]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

That could be, but I haven't really seen any women posting on here about ordaining women (I could have missed some.  Maybe Meadowchik is talking about that and I missed her point), so I'm not sure how the ordination of women really meshes with what a lot of the sisters have been saying or the questions we've been asking.

From my perspective, and in my opinion one of the things that keeps people from understanding each others perspective in these kinds of discussions, is defending the status quo by using it to create limits or boundaries that don't actually exist.  My post above, of some people using the status quo to say that a woman could never officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood even though women actually do currently officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood, is an example of what I mean.

Hopefully that makes sense.  

Yes, everything I have been thinking about in the last 10 pages or so is exploring the possibility of the roles of women opening without having to be ordained.  Not advocating for anything specific.  Not saying that women have to be ordained.  Just trying to see, "Is there room for women to do some of these things without requiring that they be ordained?"

I wasn't even making it a matter of prayer.  I just wanted to study it out.  There have been so many assumptions I have had about gospel and church matters over the ages that haven't held true.  What assumptions do I have about the role of women and their use of priesthood authority now that don't hold true?  I'll tell you a real eye opener for me was when President Oaks said "women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings".  I had always made an unspecified assumption that women didn't use that authority before he said this.  Yet strangely as I learn more and more it has been there all along - I just didn't understand it.  

Edited August 18, 2019 by Rain

[echelon]

Seeing the way Jesus administers his Church today, is it reasonable to speculate that he will also govern the land in a similar way when he returns as King?  There will not be a democratic government in his kingdom, and if I was to extrapolate his actions in the Church,  I can see traditional government functions being male dominated.  (Federal ministers, city counselors ect.) 

I know this doesn't answer the question, I just it felt worth noting that these concerns existing within the church may also lead to concerns in the 'kingdom come'.   I don't think Jesus has revealed much of what society among the gods are actually like, just a religion that is to prepare us for it and perhaps his logic is that if we are happy with his religion, we will also be happy with him as King.

[Stargazer]

On 8/13/2019 at 5:35 AM, MustardSeed said:

Oh really? Interesting.  In all my travels I’ve never seen a wife be final speaker after her husband. 

I haven't either but I've seen plenty of examples of the wife taking up most of the time allotted to both, leaving the "final" speaker 5 minutes. It even happened to me once, not that that was a problem. 😁

[juliann]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Demeaning? Oh my gosh here we go with the victim card.

I think the one who is so offended that they have announce they are leaving the thread has a more believable victim card.

Quote

It is called an "analogy" and the two tasks chosen were washing the dishes and washing the car chosen because they were simple and mundane and easy to understand.

 

Preceded by the old canard, "When men can have babies and nurse them perhaps you would have a case," which elicited my comment. Why are you pretending you didn't say that? It is demeaning.

Quote

But now you are the one finding insidious intent that was never there.

 You are the one applying insidious, another victim card. One unchanging thing is that whenever a discussions of women's roles and duties involves men, the women inevitably end up trying to dry the male tears. It always becomes all about the put upon men. There have been nothing but gracious women responding here. I am the outlier, yet you choose me for the gasoline to make your grand exit. 

I have said it before and I'll say it again, I am DONE with discussions where men think they can instruct women about something they will NEVER EXPERIENCE.  I feel no compunction whatsoever to protect delicate male feelings because when equality feels like oppression to someone, they aren't qualified to respond. I'm not saying that is you,  we have had many reasonable discussions on other topics. 

Quote

Another voice silenced, shouted down by distorting what was said. Welcome to our new age

 

Seriously, how can you say that with a straight face to women who have been silenced and shouted down throughout human existence? So yes, as I am illustrating, I guess it is a new age. It can happen to men now, too!

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I have said it before and I'll say it again, I am DONE with discussions where men think they can instruct women about something they will NEVER EXPERIENCE.  I feel no compunction whatsoever to protect delicate male feelings because when equality feels like oppression to someone, they aren't qualified to respond.

As long as you take this approach you will never achieve what I presume are your goals.

Disenfranchising one gender on things they "will never experience" and saying they "aren't qualified to respond" sound an awful lot like the actions taken towards women historically.

Which would lead one to wonder, are you seeking balance, equality, or some form of payback?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

I have said it before and I'll say it again, I am DONE with discussions where men think they can instruct women about something they will NEVER EXPERIENCE.

I doubt it.

That's about as credible as me leaving the thread.

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe "keys" can be replaced with the knowledge in some cases. Such as the bishop has the most knowledge of anyone in the ward because he knows more of their private lives. He has the key to their lives, so to speak. For instance, some and myself even, in presidencies feel inspired for certain people to fill a calling and the bishop says it won't work and just leave it at that. It's because he knows more than we do with that key knowledge. So I doubt women will ever get that authority to act in the church until they get that knowledge of members' lives in order to run the show. So until a woman can be a bishop, the authority will probably never come to women.

That's an odd take on priesthood keys. Never heard it before. 

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Nofear said:

Agreed. I guess some of the questions from some of the others is then why can't a sister be asked to preside at places not-traditionally associated with their presiding? An extreme example: a branch president and his counselors (if any) are absent. The elders quorum president/cy is absent. No high councilors. Can the branch relief society president be asked to preside? Or, should it go to the lone priest in the branch? What is the governing principle at play that would extend to more established and higher level functioning units? Get those principles clearly elaborated and that should help the conversation be more effective.

Presidents are set apart to preside over a specific entity be it a quorum or an auxiliary organization. I don't know that they can cross-preside. For example, it would make no sense for the RS president to preside in YW or Primary when their presidencies are unavailable or the teachers quorum president to preside over the MIA Maids.

Whoever would do the asking would have to be in a position of authority to ask such as a member of the stake presidency. In the case I cited from our ward, a member of the stake presidency was assigned to preside at our sacrament meeting. It would be really odd if all the bishopric, the EQ president, and all the stake presidency were unavailable at the same time, but I suppose it could happen. That might trigger the Apocalypse.

Thinking further along these lines, when the original 12 apostles passed on, we LDS would say the priesthood keys were lost and the Church went into apostasy. No one could just walk in, pick them up, and take control of the Church. Our Catholic friends would have some comments about that. 

To me, the clear principle is that the Church is governed by ordained priesthood holders who are given keys to validate their ministry. They can't assume the keys of another. A person asked to temporarily preside in a sacrament meeting cannot then issue temple recommends after the meeting, authorize baptisms and ordinations, call the next Primary president, or perform a legal marriage waiting for the the bishop to return. That person has no keys, just an assignment to sit in a chair. Whoever presides in a sacrament meeting must be in a position to validate the ordinance of the sacrament which is the duty of the bishopric. Although this is not spelled out in the handbook, so far as I know, he has to be someone who has been ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood.

Quote

The bishop oversees ward meetings. He presides at these meetings unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority attends. His counselors may conduct ward meetings and may preside if he is absent. Presiding authorities and visiting high councilors should be invited to sit on the stand. High councilors do not preside when attending ward meetings.

If the bishop and his counselors are all absent, the stake president designates who presides at sacrament meeting. Normally he designates the elders quorum president, but he could authorize another priesthood holder instead.

A priest perhaps? I doubt it, but what do I know?

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/17/2019 at 4:49 AM, Rain said:

No, not each mention. Just one clear mention. 

If you felt it was moot for those reasons then you didn't understand my question. I'm sorry I didn't clearly communicate it.

Could you rephrase it? Clarify what you are asking about?

Quote

I didn't want an implication. Many people infer or assume things are implied. While sometimes they are correct, sometimes they are wrong - especially if there are things that they haven't had experience with or understanding of.  I wanted it clearly said.

Please don't tell me I don't have a valid concerns. I don't try to invalidate your feelings.

Edited to add: it wasn't a concern. Just a question. It is similar to a math problem for me. I'm really glad it isn't a concern at this point. 

That certainly was not my intention. 

Quote

Yes, as it does to others. It is not to me. It seemed self evident to my husband as well until I talked with him and he saw where I was coming from. I wish that could be easier on message boards. 

I don't know any either so maybe there are none. And maybe there are some that we don't know about yet.

If we assume that each of the men you had a scripture for were ordained, and I'm willing to assume they were even though I'm not sure we actually have been told they were ordained, then there is definitely a pattern. Patterns in the gospel are great, but they are not everything. There was a pattern of only men saying conference prayer - until there wasn't.  So a pattern of only ordained men receiving keys wasn't enough to be clear to me.

Does this definition of keys help answer the question?

Quote

Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders] to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth. Handbook 2:2

 

Quote

Right, but we are not talking about you. We are talking about me. Until this thread I would have thought it was clear as well, but as I thought about it through the thread I realized I didn't actually know of anywhere that made it clear. I just assumed. 

It definitely has brought something to help me search the scriptures. I suspect this topic will stay on my mind for a few years. I don't know if that is good or scary - it's hard to have questions that long, but good to be searching.

I guess I don't understand what you are asking. Sorry for being so dense.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I doubt it.

That's about as credible as me leaving the thread.

That I am done dealing with the man tears?  Why is that not credible? I think I’ve made it pretty darn clear that I’m not protecting male feelings anymore when it comes to what only women experience. I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it. To make it extra clear, saying I’m done with this doesn’t mean I’m making a grand exit. It means I’m not going to tolerate the nonsense or mansplaining anymore. 

Edited August 18, 2019 by juliann

[juliann]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

As long as you take this approach you will never achieve what I presume are your goals.

Disenfranchising one gender on things they "will never experience" and saying they "aren't qualified to respond" sound an awful lot like the actions taken towards women historically.

Which would lead one to wonder, are you seeking balance, equality, or some form of payback?

Like I said, if equality feels like oppression it means someone is afraid of losing their unearned advantages. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Like I said, if equality feels like oppression it means someone is afraid of losing their unearned advantages. 

Nope.  What you describe has no resemblance to a future (or present) equality.  Instead you seem more interested in treating men today the way women were mistreated historically.

You are the modern day gender equivalent of those who shout that all whites are evil and oppressive because of a racist past, not recognizing the racism inherent in such statements.

I don't feel oppressed by equality.  I don't see equality in a step away from the goal.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

ou are the modern day gender equivalent of those who shout that all whites are evil and oppressive because of a racist past, not recognizing the racism inherent in such statements.

No, she isn’t. She is limiting her criticism to a small group of those exhibiting a certain set of behaviours, she is not applying it to all men solely because they are men. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Rain said:

That was my understanding as well. So saying that a person had to have keys wasn't enough for me since we have examples of men presiding without keys. With everything that I have up until this point I wasn't seeing anything that said a bishop's wife/co bishop couldn't preside by delegation as well. Please keep in mind that I am NOT saying that I want there to be symmetry with co presidents etc. I was just trying to find out if there was anything that said it wouldn't work.

If we are talking about sacrament meeting, the person presiding oversees the administration of the sacrament. That would require a member of the bishopric, or in their absence, the stake presidency. Conducting a meeting is not the same as presiding over the meeting. For example, in a joint RS/EQ meeting the RS president could conduct the meeting, but the bishop would be presiding.

Quote

I'm not understanding. You are saying that because he has keys over his quorum, he can be delegated to preside in the ward sacrament meeting? I get the delegation part. If you add keys to it then it seems to be going against pattern.  Could a stake president delegate his keys to a bishop to preside in stake conference? 

As I understand it, the EQ president can preside in the absence of the bishopric with authorization from the Stake President because of his calling and the keys he holds in the ward. A bishop could not preside at a stake conference. Above his key grade.

Quote

I wish quotes within quotes would show up. Copying, (bolding for visual clarity) and pasting what you quoted;

"The bishop oversees ward meetings. He presides at these meetings unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority attends. His counselors may conduct ward meetings and may preside if he is absent. Presiding authorities and visiting high councilors should be invited to sit on the stand. High councilors do not preside when attending ward meetings.
If the bishop and his counselors are all absent, the stake president designates who presides at sacrament meeting."

That is interesting. I always thought it was the bishop. 

The SP holds those keys for his stake so he makes the call.

Quote

" Normally he designates the elders quorum president, but he could authorize another priesthood holder instead. "

Thank you. This at least answers for me by a source how the church has directed it to be at this time in sacrament meetings. Still doesn't answer if you have to have keys to preside or if you have to be ordained to the priesthood to hold keys, but it does answer the question of if the bishop/stake president could delegate a woman to preside.

"Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders] to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth." Handbook 2: 2.1. "Every act or ordinance performed in the Church is done under the direct or indirect authorization of one holding the keys for that function." (Pres. Oaks)

The only people holding keys in the stake are the SP,  bishops, and EQ presidents. Keys make priesthood holders presidents. No priesthood, no keys.

Quote

So this makes sense, and I actually talked with my husband this earlier tonight, that you need a priesthood holder to preside at sacrament meetings as there our priesthood ordinances taking place. 

But what about a ward council or even a ward party? Or like I haven't seen in a long time, where after a ward or church fast you come to the chapel to pray together? None of these have ordinances.

Maybe we are confusing "presiding" with "conducting" or "mc-ing"? 

Quote

"The stake president oversees stake meetings. He presides at these meetings unless an Area Seventy or General Authority attends. His counselors may conduct stake meetings and may preside if he is absent. Handbook 18"

This goes along with my question above 'Could a stake president delegate his keys to a bishop to preside in stake conference? ' it doesn't say he can't ask a bishop, but I personally would assume he couldn't.  

Trying to figure out how to word this.

If we go with area of authority:

General authority has authority over several stakes.

Stake President over several wards

Bishop over his ward

EQP his quorem 

So why can a stake president delegate someone down the line EQP to preside in sacrament in the absence of the bishopric, but someone up the line would have to preside in stake meetings in the absence of the stake presidency?

If I understand your question correctly, because keys function from top down, not bottom up. Jesus-First Presidency/Quorum of the Twelve-Stake Presidents-Bishops. 

A stake president could ask a bishop or someone else to conduct a stake meeting. That happens all the time. But not to preside at the meeting.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Ginger Snaps said:

Elder Oaks: 

Ultimately, all keys of the priesthood are held by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose priesthood it is. He is the one who determines what keys are delegated to mortals and how those keys will be used. We are accustomed to thinking that all keys of the priesthood were conferred on Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple, but the scripture states that all that was conferred there were “the keys of this dispensation” (D&C 110:16). At general conference many years ago, President Spencer W. Kimball reminded us that there are other priesthood keys that have not been given to man on the earth, including the keys of creation and resurrection.

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

Well, for my part I have been talking about keys that are being used here in God's earthly kingdom. What lies beyond this life is kind of irrelevant at this point other than the notion that there are other keys that exist that have not been revealed. If and when that happens, I reckon it will be as before....those who have them will pass them to those who authorized to receive them and it will be by the laying of hands. But maybe I'm assuming too much. Up until the present, it has involved Priesthood holders.

I listed all the references to priesthood keys from LDS.org, what they were, and how and to whom they were transmitted. They didn't include those of creation and resurrection, I suppose, because those are pertinent to other realms of existence. Wouldn't it be grand to hold them? In the meantime, we set about the business of baptisms, sacraments, healings, temple ordinances, etc.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

And, of course, there is no reason to limit delegation other than the sex of the person. Absolutely no reason aside from the need of some to exclude women. That some men have to work so very very hard at convincing us otherwise is ample evidence of that. I am mystified that some would hold up keys as the reason when it is so ridiculously obvious that the church pretty much operates under a system of delegation. 

So we are back to square one. Callings and offices are being withheld from women for no other reason than they are women. 

Yes, I work very hard at being ridiculous. Thanks for noticing!

Edited August 18, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

Another important observation is that many people in the church would probably argue that a woman could never officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood, and they would use quotes and the handbook and her lack of ordination to support that idea.  And it would not be an unreasonable assumption.  Yet, women officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood in the temple despite all of that.  

This shows us that God is capable of using women in ways that are not always obvious based on past teachings or current church policy.  We should be careful about putting God's daughters in a box that our incomplete knowledge and understanding has created.   

Scriptures, quotes, and the handbook are all we have to work with at this point. Doing the best with what we got.

Warning duly noted.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

I believe that several of those defending the status quo are quite open to the possibility of women being ordained to priesthood office and holding priesthood keys. It's more of a question of what do we do about it?

• defend the status quo and the Brethren and assert that they are acting according to God's wishes on this
• revile the status quo and claim that the Brethren, even if well intentioned, are propagating an situation not pleasing to the Lord

There is some subtlety in between. But both of the positions seem to be held by more than one of the posters in this thread. The point of my original post was to see if there were rational reasons one could give that would help another understand one's perspective (even if they didn't agree with it). Some motion in that direction, but far less than what I had hoped. Some useful discussion on aspects related to the primary question, and important ones at that, but the heart of the matter remains. Ah well.

There is a squad here, bless their hearts, that have parroted the same lines going into decades. Nothing is going to give them another perspective. It is simply a requirement that women line up and say the sames things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ...

Oh, wait....they have advanced on one front.  They no longer call us names, including apostate. In another decade, who knows....maybe they will look back and acknowledge that women were excluded from too many positions in the church before the mansplaining begins.

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is a squad here, bless their hearts, that have parroted the same lines going into decades. Nothing is going to give them another perspective. It is simply a requirement that women line up and say the sames things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ...

Oh, wait....they have advanced on one front.  They no longer call us names, including apostate. In another decade, who knows....maybe they will look back and acknowledge that women were excluded from too many positions in the church before the mansplaining begins.

Would someone please volunteer to give the closing prayer?

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would someone please volunteer to give the closing prayer?

LOL

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

That's an odd take on priesthood keys. Never heard it before. 

I didn't mean for it to come out to look that way. I really should have cut it short and say that women can't be in charge, so to speak , until she has the kind of insight the bishop does. He knows more than the rest of us, like if the member is TR holding or if they have a situation at home or in life that prohibits them from fulfilling a calling, or ? It runs the gamet.

So until a woman has that knowledge I can't see how she will have as much authority on matters if she isn't more aware of the members' lives. Now I'm going nowhere again! But wait, what if she were co-bishop with her husband, maybe they need to call couples as bishops, haha! 

But thank you for taking the time to read my post, I'm sure most skip them.

ETA: But yes, women, all women who feel the need to have more a voice in the church should get some time. Let's start by having more women give talks in conference. Who says we have to hear from the same men over and over. 

Also, let's get them involved in what they do in RS, and what subjects they want to discuss. Why the GC talks all the time. I miss the culture talks, more variety geared towards women. Why do we have to be the same as men in this regard. 

Edited August 18, 2019 by Tacenda

[Meadowchik]

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Scriptures, quotes, and the handbook are all we have to work with at this point. Doing the best with what we got.

That's all there is when one ignores the obvious. Council, look around the room. Who is with you? Is someone missing? Are important people being excluded?

...when you hold council with one another over the church?

...when you hold council with the Lord over the church?

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That's all there is when one ignores the obvious. Council, look around the room. Who is with you? Is someone missing? Are important people being excluded?

...when you hold council with one another over the church?

...when you hold council with the Lord over the church?

OK....

Edited August 18, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, juliann said:

LOL

🙏Thank you. Amen.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Bernard Gui