Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nofear

Women, Men, and Priesthood

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

There are keys for resurrection, right?  We don’t have them but we know they exist. In my view that’s a good example of why it seems shortsighted to think that the keys we have right now are all there are. 

For the bolder part, can you provide a reference for that?  Thanks. 

In order to comment, I would need to see a reference for keys of resurrection. I would guess they are included in the keys that have already been given. I don’t agree the list of keys I provided is short sighted. It includes those of the pre-mortal existence and every dispensation of the gospel. We say that there is only one man on earth who holds all priesthood keys. If there are more, they would probably be given in the same way...conferred by Jesus and his authorized representatives by the laying on of hands.

Id this what you are looking for?

Quote

The President of the Church delegates priesthood keys to other priesthood leaders so they can preside in their areas of responsibility. Priesthood keys are bestowed on presidents of temples, missions, stakes, and districts; bishops; branch presidents; and quorum presidents. This presiding authority is valid only for the designated responsibilities and within the geographic jurisdiction of each leader’s calling. When priesthood leaders are released from their callings, they no longer hold the associated keys.
Counselors to priesthood leaders do not receive keys. They are set apart and function in their callings by assignment and delegated authority.
All ward and stake auxiliary organizations operate under the direction of the bishop or stake president, who holds the keys to preside. Auxiliary presidents and their counselors do not receive keys. They receive delegated authority to function in their callings. Handbook 2: 2.1.1

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Rain said:

To add to this - if keys are required to preside then what are RS, YW and Primary president doing, when someone with keys isn't with them? If they are just, say leading, what is the difference in presiding and leading in a group where you have authority delegated to you to lead?

To all the men.  These are not points we are making.  They are real questions.  

Quote

The President of the Church delegates priesthood keys to other priesthood leaders so they can preside in their areas of responsibility. Priesthood keys are bestowed on presidents of temples, missions, stakes, and districts; bishops; branch presidents; and quorum presidents. This presiding authority is valid only for the designated responsibilities and within the geographic jurisdiction of each leader’s calling. When priesthood leaders are released from their callings, they no longer hold the associated keys.


Counselors to priesthood leaders do not receive keys. They are set apart and function in their callings by assignment and delegated authority.


All ward and stake auxiliary organizations operate under the direction of the bishop or stake president, who holds the keys to preside. Auxiliary presidents and their counselors do not receive keys. They receive delegated authority to function in their callings. Handbook 2: 2.1.1

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh trust me, I have no clue what you are thinking. How did I do that?

Would you please address the issue so I am less clueless? :)

 

Go back to your last reply, remove the premise that you know what I'm thinking, please, then I may have something to address! :)

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Nofear said:

I suspect a few reasons:

  • Heavenly Father and Mother are perfectly united. However, we mortals would put them in twain where no division exists. Much as children would ask one parent something and if they didn't like the response, they would go to the other parent to see if they might get a different answer. Our perfect Heavenly Parents have no such division. Her response to our prayers would be no different than his response to our prayers.
  • She would be a stumbling block to many joining the Church. So, we continue in the habit and language that is at least modestly comfortable to those coming. This reason, however, is probably rapidly shrinking in relevance.

There may be others that I don't know of. But what I do know is that her absence from public discourse is not some conspiracy of the patriarchy of the Brethren to withhold her from us. No man can come between me and my God/Heavenly Parents and they don't.

I am quite content with the idea that our Omniscient Mother in Heaven hears my prayers just as the Father does. And that whatever response I get to my prayers can be thought of as being from either Parent. I still say, "Heavenly Father" in my prayers so as not to be a stumbling block to other members but I am under no idea but that both are aware of and responsive to my prayers.

And if you desire to understand Heavenly Mother more, read John 14:9 and simply replace Father with Mother.

There's no need for a conspiracy for a patriarchy to systemically shut out the voice of Heavenly Mother.  It can be as natural and unintentional as English speakers shutting out other languages they do not speak. But, people can get around that natural flaw by trying to communicate with those who do not speak their language. And they include participation of those people by not requiring them to speak the same language. Then they will be more likely to understand and hear the voices and concerns of those who they cannot see by listening to others who have seen them. Similarly, by not excluding women because they're women, we just may be more likely to hear the voice of the Divine Mother.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I think that everyone that seeks it, should have it and continue to have it until they understand being in front of folks is about self and not about serving. Those who want to be bishop should be bishop and run into the ground. 

And create pain and hurt in their wake? I hope not. I was an adolescent when my dad experienced the epiphany that a calling was not needed for him to experience the love of God. The pressure and thus desire to serve in an important calling caused him significant pain, and he was much happier when he abandoned the expectation. He's served as bishop several times since, and I think not seeking that authority made him a better bishop for the wards he served. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response. I don’t have time to respond to every comment, but it seems to me you want each mention of keys being given to also state that an ordination was also required.

No, not each mention. Just one clear mention. 

Quote

I think that issue is moot because in all cases the person receiving keys was already or in the process of being ordained to a position of presidency. 

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.

Quote

It is strongly (if not definitively) implied that Priesthood keys cannot be held by unordained brothers or sisters, nor given by someone who does not possess them.

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.

Quote

Saying “It doesn't say that they had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys” is missing the forest for the trees. I don’t think that is a valid concern.

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. 

 

Quote

It seems self-evident to me.

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. 

Quote

I don’t know of any examples when keys were given to unordaned men. Maybe there are some?

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.

Quote

The pattern I see is that in all dispensations Brethren with positions to which they have been ordained (see Alma 13) are given keys for both specific and general functions. This is most obvious with Joseph Smith and the Restoration of keys by the ancient prophets who held them. All aspects of the Restoration - ordinances in and out of the temple, duties and functions of salvation, ordinations, the right to Presidency, etc. - are controlled by the keys that were given to him as an ordained Aaronic priest (by John the Baptist) and as an elder, apostle, and prophet of the Melchizedek Priesthood (ordained by Peter, James, and John) and by many other ancient prophets.

The strongest evidence for this is the modern practice of conferring keys when and only when one is ordained to specific presiding callings and the retraction of those same keys when a release is given. Apostles pass keys down to other levels of leaders by ordination. Fathers and mothers do not have keys.

The Great Apostasy was the result of losing the Priesthood keys because of the deaths of the original apostles who held them by ordination and passed by them to others. When they were gone, so were the keys of authority. Returning keys to the earth was the primary purpose of the Restoration.

The Church cannot function beyond one generation unless it has continually ordained apostles who hold the keys of Presidency. Keys are given at the time of their ordination, just as they are to a stake president, a bishop, an Elders Quorum president,  a mission or temple president, a deacons or a teachers Quorum president. The keys are the right to preside in Priesthood functionsPresidents of auxiliary organizations do not require keys because they are not Priesthood callings, so none are conferred on them .  

On the death of the prophet (the only man who holds all the keys on earth), they pass collectively into the Quorum of the Twelve. The senior apostle is then ordained President of the Church and all the keys now reside in him by ordination. I think this system is the great genius of the administration of God’s kingdom on earth..

To me the answer is crystal clear.

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. 

Quote

Ordination to the Priesthood and conferred of keys where necessary are inseparable. I hope you find the answers you seek. I am glad I could do something small to help along the way.

 

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.

Edited by Rain
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

They preside by delegation.

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.

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When the stake president is not in attendance, the first counselor presides under the authority of the president who holds the keys. Same for bishoprics. Counselors are not given keys when they are set apart. They have this privilege as members of the presidency. A high councilman cannot preside. The EQP has the keys of presidency only over his Quorum, but because of this he can preside in a sacrament meeting. 

 

 

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? 

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. 

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.

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.

"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?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Rain said:

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?

For me the answer is that it must follow their stewardship and is just a temporary assignment to fulfill an immediate need. 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post

Just to point out something. Women do preside at meetings. The Primary President presides at primary activities. The Relief Society president presides at Relief Society meetings. In most wards, the Laurel class president and the priest quorum president take turns presiding at combined meetings (the adult YM and/or YW presidents/presidencies do/should not act as if they preside).

What then is different about Sacrament Meeting or a baptism (ward or mission level)? Well, one of the things seems to be that a priesthood ordinance is performed, one that requires keys (as some priesthood ordinances don't recall keys (from the Church)).

How all of this enters the discussion. I'm not sure. But, I do appreciate the comments from both sides of the coin. It is useful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Just to point out something. Women do preside at meetings. The Primary President presides at primary activities. The Relief Society president presides at Relief Society meetings. In most wards, the Laurel class president and the priest quorum president take turns presiding at combined meetings (the adult YM and/or YW presidents/presidencies do/should not act as if they preside).

What then is different about Sacrament Meeting or a baptism (ward or mission level)? Well, one of the things seems to be that a priesthood ordinance is performed, one that requires keys (as some priesthood ordinances don't recall keys (from the Church)).

How all of this enters the discussion. I'm not sure. But, I do appreciate the comments from both sides of the coin. It is useful.

The auxiliary presidents serve and preside “at the pleasure of the bishop,” so to speak. They could not serve without his authorization which he gives because of the keys he possesses. Ordinances do play a roll in sacrament meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Just to point out something. Women do preside at meetings. The Primary President presides at primary activities. The Relief Society president presides at Relief Society meetings. In most wards, the Laurel class president and the priest quorum president take turns presiding at combined meetings (the adult YM and/or YW presidents/presidencies do/should not act as if they preside).

What then is different about Sacrament Meeting or a baptism (ward or mission level)? Well, one of the things seems to be that a priesthood ordinance is performed, one that requires keys (as some priesthood ordinances don't recall keys (from the Church)).

How all of this enters the discussion. I'm not sure. But, I do appreciate the comments from both sides of the coin. It is useful.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The auxiliary presidents serve and preside “at the pleasure of the bishop,” so to speak. They could not serve without his authorization which he gives because of the keys he possesses. Ordinances do play a roll in sacrament meetings.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

The auxiliary presidents serve and preside “at the pleasure of the bishop,” so to speak. They could not serve without his authorization which he gives because of the keys he possesses. Ordinances do play a roll in sacrament meetings.

Yes, and if the bishop is present at an auxiliary activity, he presides.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes 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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

When men can have babies and nurse them perhaps you would have a case, but until then for all practical purposes it is like washing the car vs washing the dishes.

 

 

Cause all men feel that they can not live up to their full potential unless they have babies. It is a guaranteed countdown until that old carnard comes up. Or the demeaning analogies of things like washing dishes to participating in decision making councils that can shape the lives of our daughters. Can you not see how that devalues your need to exclude women from participating in important callings and events throughout their lives? 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Go back to your last reply, remove the premise that you know what I'm thinking, please, then I may have something to address! :)

I never said I know what you are thinking.

That's ok if you don't want to respond. I will take it as I see it. You want me to rewrite your post.

No but thanks for the opportunity

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I never said I know what you are thinking.

That's ok if you don't want to respond. I will take it as I see it. You want me to rewrite your post.

No but thanks for the opportunity

 

You indeed did, I am going to stand my ground and expect some respect before continuing with you. If you don't wish to take my boundaries seriously, please avoid talking to me in the future, thanks! (If you would like to avoid that altogether, feel free to see my responses to SMAC about the difference between primary and alternative choices.)  Peace out! :)

  
Quote21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Why the italics?  

I edited the post before I saw yours perhaps it changes your objections.

On the other hand, you have obviously avoided answering my question because you know you cannot show how that is "unequal"

I wash the dishes, you wash the car.  I am primarily responsible for dishes, you are primarily responsible for washing the car. 

Sometimes I wash the car and you do the dishes.   It really doesn't matter.   Individual circumstances can make that necessary

How is that "unequal"?

When men can have babies and nurse them perhaps you would have a case, but until then for all practical purposes it is like washing the car vs washing the dishes.

You have one job, I have another- that says nothing about equality or inequality.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, juliann said:

Cause all men feel that they can not live up to their full potential unless they have babies. It is a guaranteed countdown until that old carnard comes up. Or the demeaning analogies of things like washing dishes to participating in decision making councils that can shape the lives of our daughters. Can you not see how that devalues your need to exclude women from participating in important callings and events throughout their lives? 

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

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.

The discussion was about the family, and not church, it was about how real families should work. My comment was in favor of equality, and it got turned around 180 degrees 

I can't do anything to change the church and I think women must have more responsibility especially in those areas you cite.

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

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

I am out of the thread.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

In the introduction to their book Narrating Mothers, by Daly and Reddy, they say, "Motherhood is not a role, it is a relationship."

I really love this insight and it seems consistent with the best of what I've learned and want to remember about being a mother to my own children. And it seems to apply nicely to fatherhood, too, I think, and it also generates clarity for a healthier framework for equal partners in marriage, and also for a healthier religious framework for marriage. Relationships are more personal than roles, and imo more fruitful.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In order to comment, I would need to see a reference for keys of resurrection. I would guess they are included in the keys that have already been given. I don’t agree the list of keys I provided is short sighted. It includes those of the pre-mortal existence and every dispensation of the gospel. We say that there is only one man on earth who holds all priesthood keys. If there are more, they would probably be given in the same way...conferred by Jesus and his authorized representatives by the laying on of hands. 

 

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

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In order to comment, I would need to see a reference for keys of resurrection. I would guess they are included in the keys that have already been given. I don’t agree the list of keys I provided is short sighted. It includes those of the pre-mortal existence and every dispensation of the gospel. We say that there is only one man on earth who holds all priesthood keys. If there are more, they would probably be given in the same way...conferred by Jesus and his authorized representatives by the laying on of hands.

Here are the opening three paragraphs in Pres. Kimballs 1977 GC talk.  This isn't the only place they are talked about but it was the first thing that came up when I searched--

"President Brigham Young, the second president of this dispensation, said: “It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in those ordinances. This is not the case. We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would like to ask what they are. I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of resurrection.” (Journal of Discourses, 15:137.)

Do we have the keys of resurrection? Could you return to the earth as ones who would never again die—your own parents, your grandparents, your ancestors? I buried my mother when I was eleven, my father when I was in my early twenties. I have missed my parents much. If I had the power of resurrection as did the Savior of the world, I would have been tempted to try to have kept them longer. I have been called to speak in numerous funerals for people whom I have known, people whom I have loved, and people whom I have saved and held on to in a limited way. We do not know of anyone who can resurrect the dead as did Jesus the Christ when he came back to mortality.

“[The keys] will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again. … They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism then receive the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here [on the earth], and there are many more.” (JD, 15:137.)"

So all the keys have not been given, and any list that we have is shortsighted because it includes only the keys which are necessary right now to accomplish what God wants us to do in at the moment.  When more keys are needed, more will be given.  I agree that when more keys are given they will likely be given by Christ or His authorized servants through the laying on of hands.  

And thank you for the quote, but I don't see that it says anything about someone needing to be ordained in order to preside.  As long as they have been delegated the authority by someone who has been ordained and has keys, that seems to be all that is needed.  

Plus, we know that single mother (or when the father is absent) presides in the home, even if she has sons who have been ordained to the priesthood, for example.

 

 

Edited by bluebell
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  :) 

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 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.

I was going to say you would cancel the meeting but I looked it up and it changed. It used to be that if no one in the Bishopric can attend you had to have a member of the Stake Presidency come or you would cancel the meeting. The instruction has been changed to the Stake President designates a Priesthood holder of their choice to preside though this would normally be the Elder’s Quorum President. The primary reason it has to be a Priesthood holder is the sacrament is administered and they should be available to bless it if necessary and are required to verify the ordinance was done correctly. I know this will not satisfy many here but that is the traditional reasoning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes 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.  :) 

Very true. With the declaration of the one who holds priesthood keys roles can be altered of those who do not hold the Priesthood. Women in the church exercise priesthood power in their callings when set apart and receive even more Priesthood power through entering the Priesthood Order through temple ordinances through which the power of godliness can be made manifest through them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

×
×
  • Create New...