Women and the Priesthood

[David T]

This is not intended to be a theological question, or one of doctrinal speculation, but one of actual practice. Please stay on this topic. If you wish to discuss theological speculations as to doctrinal reasons why, please use another thread for that.

Question: In Practice and Policy, Why does the Church currently not authorize ordination of women to priesthood offices, or encourage their participation in (extra-temple) Priesthood Ordinances?

I think it comes down to two key options.

1. There is a prohibitive revelation on the subject. ("Thus saith the Lord, 'Women are not to be ordained'".)

If this is your selection, what is your source for this belief? Is there such a revelation on record? Where is it found? Who received it? Does anyone make reference to it?

2. There is no proactive commandment on the subject. ("Specific men are designated to be ordained to an office, but women are not. Therefore, we ordain men.")

This could be additionally followed up by:

2a: Scriptural precedence and tradition is followed. In the Old Testament, only men are referred to as priests. There is no record of Jesus ordaining women as Apostles, etc.

2b: Church History precedence and tradition is followed. Joseph Smith never ordained a women to the office of Elder, High Priest, etc.

2c: There is no clear reason why it could or should be otherwise.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Is there another option?

[Nathair/|\]

Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

1. A man's place is in the army.

2. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.

3. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work.

4. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievment of creation.

5. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.

6. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.

7. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

8. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

9. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father's Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.

10. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

--Dr. David M. Scholer

[TAO]

Choice: 1 (somewhat)

Warning: My response is somewhat tied in with doctrine... but I think it explains the practice rather well too.

In my opinion, it is partly based on 1, but only to a degree; there are other promises women will receive, that men will never receive.

The commandment, I think appears in 1 Corinthians 11:3... and it's somewhat indirect. It says:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the ^ahead of the ^bwoman is the man; and the ^chead of Christ is God.

Basically... it is a giant analogy I think.

However, it can often be misinterpreted, so I like to accompany it with this verse, Ephesians 5:25:

^aHusbands, ^blove your ^cwives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Thus, though man be the head of the women, he also be responsible for being an utter sacrifice to them to the utter degree of his capability. If he is not sacrificing himself fully, he isn't doing his job.

You will also notice, that some things of the priesthood are given to women as well; see Alma 32:23:

And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, ^anot only men but women also. Now this is not all; little ^bchildren do have words given unto them many times, which ^cconfound the wise and the learned.

You may recognize the ministering of angels as something given from the Aaronic Priesthood, and yet women have the capability to receive word from angels as well.

Also, women receive additional blessings, and have additional claims, that men do not receive. D&C 83:2 is a good example:

^aWomen have ^bclaim on their husbands for their maintenance, until their ^chusbands are taken; and if they are not found transgressors they shall have fellowship in the church.

I'm sure I could find more... but I suppose others will identify them as well.

So what does the Lord look for in women... 1 Peter 3:3-5:

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward ^aadorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ^aornament of a ^bmeek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy ^awomen also, who ^btrusted in God, adorned themselves, being ^cin subjection unto their own husbands:

So yes... I think women are a part of the priesthood... but in far different ways then men. They have their own special responsibilities, just as we have ours, and together, a man and a women may partake in the most special blessing of all; an eternal family!

----

So yah, sorry if that was long and arduous... it's just that the topic tends to get a bit touchy for certain people, so I had to put the full explanation. =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

[nicolasconnault]

My opinion isn't well represented by either of your 2 choices. I think women are currently not ordained to the priesthood for the same reason that men are not ordained to child bearing. The specificity of gender roles regarding priesthood and motherhood are almost entirely exclusive and appear to be part of the order of heaven. So it's not just that we follow this practice because it has always been done that way, but also because there is no valid reason to do otherwise: there is no commandment given by the Lord that women should be given the priesthood in addition to their existing role of motherhood. Church leaders would need a fairly good reason besides societal pressures to change something that has apparently always been in harmony with divine will. In fact they would need revelation.

There would also need to be an actual "need" for this to happen. Do the women of the Church need the priesthood? Does the Church need women to be ordained? These are difficult questions to answer, unless you are God and can see the big picture. For example, it appears that women's participation in priesthood duties is needed in temple ordinances. It is also needed, in a limited degree, on full-time missions.

[David T]

So, TAO, to clarify, with the doctrinal exposition removed, and going for purely practical, you'd say #1 "There is a prohibitive revelation on the subject. ("Thus saith the Lord, 'Women are not to be ordained'".), with the caveat that the prohibition it is not a modern revelation/commandment, but is based on a particular interpretation of an indirect New Testament scripture (or perhaps a series of verses) as a commandment?

Is that accurate?

[David T]

So, nicolasconnault, practically, and doctrinal speculation aside, that does seem to fall under #2, "There is no proactive commandment on the subject.", with your additional caveat:

2c: There is no clear reason why it could or should be otherwise.

I'll add that to the list in the OP.

Again, to clarify: Your belief is not that there is a revelation saying don't do it, but you see no practical reason why they should?

" there is no commandment given by the Lord that women should be given the priesthood in addition to their existing role of motherhood. Church leaders would need a fairly good reason besides societal pressures to change something that has apparently always been in harmony with divine will. In fact they would need revelation. "

I find it interesting that this approach has been used in the past to explain other priesthood restriction policies that were later found to have no legitimate explicit scriptural or revealed prohibition, which were eventually overturned by revelation as the result of proactive research, questioning, and prayer.

[cinepro]

I think men get the Priesthood and women get to have babies. Except that every woman everywhere on the planet gets to have babies if they want, while the priesthood is limited to men of a certain religion and character. And then there are the faithful LDS women who don't get to have children either because they're not married or something is wrong physiologically. Except for them.

Other than that, having babies is like having the priesthood.

[CA Steve]

I think for the church to change its position on women and the priesthood, it would also have to change its position on the man being the head of the household.

[TAO]

So, TAO, to clarify, with the doctrinal exposition removed, and going for purely practical, you'd say #1 "There is a prohibitive revelation on the subject. ("Thus saith the Lord, 'Women are not to be ordained'".), with the caveat that the prohibition it is not a modern revelation/commandment, but is based on a particular interpretation of an indirect New Testament scripture (or perhaps a series of verses) as a commandment?

No, I believe it is modern/revelation as well, in the sense that all of the prophets have had it practiced that way as well, but it is most easily seen by looking at number 1 carefully. Also, I wanted to point out that there may be 'exceptions' to the rule when the Lord permits, and that some of the things of the priesthood can also be obtained by a woman through other means of faithfulness (just as priesthood power does not work without faithfulness as well).

[TAO]

So, nicolasconnault, practically, and doctrinal speculation aside, that does seem to fall under #2, "There is no proactive commandment on the subject.", with your additional caveat:

Erm... I think he means that it seems to be part of the order God has set upon the Earth... meaning it's related to things being orderly.

Though I could be misinterpreting what he said.

[daz2]

It is a matter of tradition, and absence of specific revelation that women should be ordained to formal priesthood office. The business of men "being the head" of the woman is a teaching of Paul--who also taught that women should not speak in church. But even if men "preside", that does not mean that a woman could not also hold the priesthood. After all, I hold the priesthood, but the bishop presides in the Sacrament meeting.

[thesometimesaint]

It is the Patriarchal Order.

[NauvooSaint]

It's my understanding (perhaps urban legend) that a speaker at the April 1984 LDS conference spoke in relation to the actions of the RLDS conference in Independence, MO approving D&C 156.

He stated in affect that The LDS church believes women can hold the priesthood....when they come home from work. If anyone can locate this comment in a conference talk, I'd appreciate seeing it.

Another joke in the same vein....if you give women the priesthood...then you can finally 'silence' them.

[frankenstein]

during a Preisthood leadership meeting, the Area Authority allowed a question and answer session, it was Branch Presidents, Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies at this meeting. The question was asked about females and the Preisthood. The Area Authority the told this story:

I was told by Apostle (Frankenstein has forgotten the name of the Apostle) that when he was "training" under Apostle (forgot this Apostle too) they were at similar meeting as we are right now. The same question was asked the Senior Apostle responded "That's [men have the preisthood and not females] how God wants it"

So as far as I am concern, the preisthood is set up how God wants it.

[mfbukowski]

Marriage is a microcosm of Christ's relationship to the church. Christ is the leader and presides. The church follows. Christ cannot be "The Annointed One" without the church; the church cannot be redeemed without him.

Together we become one flesh as we are to become one flesh with our wives. Each has their own roles and cannot be complete without the other.

The man represents Christ, the woman represents the Church.

One might argue that this is the reason polygamy was required for a period to illustrate the symbol more clearly.

If that's theological speculation, sorry. Not sure what you're looking for then

[David T]

To restate the OP purpose again in another way, because people continue to appear to misunderstand the topic of this thread:

I'm not asking for reasons why God may or may not want women to hold priesthood offices now.

I'm asking under what practical principle the Presiding Keyholders of the Church do not currently authorize the practice.

There is a significant difference in those questions, and each are worth their own discussion. Please keep this topic on the practical fundamentals of the second question (concerning the Church Leaders' reasons), and not the first (God's reasons).

I'm not looking for justifications for one's doctrinal or theological understanding in this particular thread. I am, however, looking for thoughts on the practical element. In other words, finish this sentance:

Current Church Leaders do not ordain women to Priesthood offices because they are...

• Acting by a direct and specific and clear modern prohibiting commandment/revelation.
• Acting based on tradition and precedent.
• Acting based on current understanding/interpretation of former scriptures.
• Acting based on lack of perceived need for anything different.
• Acting based on important lack of a specific pro-active commandment.
• Acting on another practical (not doctrinal or theological) scenario not presented here

Or a mix and match thereof, etc. Thoughts in accordance with the specific topic of this thread, please.

[mfbukowski]

To restate the OP purpose again in another way:

I'm not asking for reasons why God may or may not want women to hold priesthood offices now.

I'm asking under what principle the Presiding Keyholders of the Church do not currently authorize the practice.

There is a significant difference in those questions, and each are worth their own discussion. Please keep this topic on the practical fundamentals of the second question (concerning the Church Leaders' reasons), and not the first (God's reasons).

I'm not looking for justifications for one's doctrinal or theological understanding in this particular thread. I am, however, looking for thoughts on the practical element. In other words, finish this sentance:

Current Church Leaders do not ordain women to Priesthood offices because they are...

• Acting by a direct and specific prohibiting commandment/revelation. (Please present a reference to this commandment/revelation)
• Acting based on tradition and precedent.
• Acting based on current understanding/interpretation of former scriptures.
• Acting based on lack of perceived need for anything different.
• Acting based on important lack of a specific pro-active commandment.
• Acting on another practical (not doctrinal or theological) scenario not presented here

Or a mix and match thereof, etc. Thoughts in accordance with the specific topic of this thread, please.

I'd like to suggest that you are presenting conflicting instructions.

I'm not asking for reasons why God may or may not want women to hold priesthood offices now.

I'm asking under what principle the Presiding Keyholders of the Church do not currently authorize the practice.

For example, these two sentences would seem to eliminate the possible answer "Because God wants it that way" to the question, but these statements seem to authorize it:

Current Church Leaders do not ordain women to Priesthood offices because they are.......

Or a mix and match thereof, etc. Thoughts in accordance with the specific topic of this thread, please.

as long as we call it:

Acting by a direct and specific prohibiting commandment/revelation.

assuming that such a revelation has not been published.

In other words, maybe God sees no need to reveal the specifics, but the church leaders feel so impressed.

The bottom line is that these issues are such a part of the gender roles of the church it will never change, and I agree it should be that way. In many ways women are superior to men, I honestly believe, and spirituality is one of those ways, but it is not their role to preside.

But I guess you are looking for input for research purposes to see if such a reference can be found. Good luck in your quest.

[nicolasconnault]

Erm... I think he means that it seems to be part of the order God has set upon the Earth... meaning it's related to things being orderly.

Though I could be misinterpreting what he said.

You got it, although my answer then falls under doctrinal reasons. I'm getting confused about the intent of this OP. Once it has been established, to some degree, that there is not official revelation proscribing women from being ordained to the priesthood, what then?

[CV75]

This is not intended to be a theological question, or one of doctrinal speculation, but one of actual practice. Please stay on this topic. If you wish to discuss theological speculations as to doctrinal reasons why, please use another thread for that.

Question: In Practice and Policy, Why does the Church currently not authorize ordination of women to priesthood offices, or encourage their participation in (extra-temple) Priesthood Ordinances?

I think it comes down to two key options.

1. There is a prohibitive revelation on the subject. ("Thus saith the Lord, 'Women are not to be ordained'".)

If this is your selection, what is your source for this belief? Is there such a revelation on record? Where is it found? Who received it? Does anyone make reference to it?

2. There is no proactive commandment on the subject. ("Specific men are designated to be ordained to an office, but women are not. Therefore, we ordain men.")

This could be additionally followed up by:

2a: Scriptural precedence and tradition is followed. In the Old Testament, only men are referred to as priests. There is no record of Jesus ordaining women as Apostles, etc.

2b: Church History precedence and tradition is followed. Joseph Smith never ordained a women to the office of Elder, High Priest, etc.

2c: There is no clear reason why it could or should be otherwise.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Is there another option?

I think #1 and possibly #2 may be somewhat borderline doctrinal...

But I think a purely practical reason is so that men and women not married to each other don't go on youth camp-outs together. Or as home teaching companions or presidency members, get involved in sensitive problem resolution (dating and marital issues), or commiserate or comfort each other during challenging times in their assignment, such as after a long, emotionally-draining meeting or if the call of duty takes them away at night or for long periods of time together.

[NauvooSaint]

"1. There is a prohibitive revelation on the subject. ("Thus saith the Lord, 'Women are not to be ordained'".)

If this is your selection, what is your source for this belief? Is there such a revelation on record? Where is it found? Who received it? Does anyone make reference to it?"

There are a select few examples in the Old/New Testaments of 'prophetess' or 'Deaconess', which refers not to a priesthood office as much as having the gift of prophecy or the possible service given by individuals. I'm not aware of any examples in the Book of Mormon & Emma Smith's 'ordination' in the D&C was clearly not to a specific priesthood office, but did have some elements normally attributed to functions of the priesthood. It doesn't appear Emma Smith considered her special calling as priesthood nor did she function as such during her lifetime. She died April 30, 1879. She did continue to fulfill in the Reorganization elements of her calling with such as assisting with the 1861 & 1864 RLDS hymnals.

In general, when the scriptures address the priesthood...even in the D&C...the revelations are directed toward males as well as the names of priesthood offices. No doubt when new testament scriptures refer to a bishops being the husband of one wife, this isn't an example of support for same gender relations. I'm also not aware of any 'priestesses', 'elderesses', 'Matriarchs', etc.

[David T]

mfbukowski:

No, at least for my purposes, the 'God said so' would indeed fall under #1, but, it appears, that is based on assumption, and not a declarative statement that such a direct revelation was received. If anyone is aware of such a revelation, I would be very interested in learning about it. It's not a matter of it just not being published, it's a matter of it (at least as I have come accross in my studies) never mentioned. In other words, I know of no statements of Church leaders saying "The Lord has given us a revelation stating that women are not to be ordained to Priesthood offices, and to perform ordinances." - I think before a discussion can be had on potential reasons pro and con, it must first be recognized why, practically and officially, the practice is not in place today. If someone answers, 'That's how God wants it.', my question would be, "How do you know this? Is this based on explicit revelation? Is it based on interpretation of earlier scriptures? Is it based on the Lord not volunteering permission?"

I'd like to suggest that you are presenting conflicting instructions.

The bottom line is that these issues are such a part of the gender roles of the church it will never change, and I agree it should be that way. In many ways women are superior to men, I honestly believe, and spirituality is one of those ways, but it is not their role to preside.

But I guess you are looking for input for research purposes to see if such a reference can be found. Good luck in your quest.

Right now, I'm not even talking about why are they not granted Priesthood Keys (the presiding authority) - although it would be the next question. Right now, I'm talking about offices and ordinations to a recognized order of the Priesthood in general, which today is understood as being a pre-requisite for performing ordinances such as blessings. It is a matter of historical record that in the early days of the Restoration, it was not prohibited for women to perform such blessings, and to a degree, this continues, although officially constrained to the context of the Temple.

[cinepro]

I'm not asking for reasons why God may or may not want women to hold priesthood offices now.

I'm asking under what practical principle the Presiding Keyholders of the Church do not currently authorize the practice.

My guess would be that women haven't been given the priesthood in the modern LDS Church based on Biblical traditions and a lack of revelation telling them otherwise.

[ELF1024]

This is not intended to be a theological question, or one of doctrinal speculation, but one of actual practice. Please stay on this topic. If you wish to discuss theological speculations as to doctrinal reasons why, please use another thread for that.

Question: In Practice and Policy, Why does the Church currently not authorize ordination of women to priesthood offices, or encourage their participation in (extra-temple) Priesthood Ordinances?

I think it comes down to two key options.

1. There is a prohibitive revelation on the subject. ("Thus saith the Lord, 'Women are not to be ordained'".)

If this is your selection, what is your source for this belief? Is there such a revelation on record? Where is it found? Who received it? Does anyone make reference to it?

2. There is no proactive commandment on the subject. ("Specific men are designated to be ordained to an office, but women are not. Therefore, we ordain men.")

This could be additionally followed up by:

2a: Scriptural precedence and tradition is followed. In the Old Testament, only men are referred to as priests. There is no record of Jesus ordaining women as Apostles, etc.

2b: Church History precedence and tradition is followed. Joseph Smith never ordained a women to the office of Elder, High Priest, etc.

2c: There is no clear reason why it could or should be otherwise.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Is there another option?

Is there a point to this thread other than trying to justify the practice of some churchs giving women the Priesthood?

[David T]

You got it, although my answer then falls under doctrinal reasons. I'm getting confused about the intent of this OP. Once it has been established, to some degree, that there is not official revelation proscribing women from being ordained to the priesthood, what then?

Is there a point to this thread other than trying to justify the practice of some churchs giving women the Priesthood?

Because explanations I see when the topic is brought up are all over the place. They are very reminiscent to me of the made-up doctrinal justifications for priesthood ban of those of African descent.

This is how that went (see this very important and in-depth article in BYU studies for the full details and references):

1. There was no initial policy, and Joseph Smith approved of ordination of blacks the same as any other.

2. Culture mixed with expounding upon significance of a particular scriptural interpretation led to a policy during the presidency of Brigham Young.

3. With the localization of the Church in the Western US, there is not much use for thinking of the policy, or putting it into practice on a general level.

4. In time, (the period of President David O. McKay) with the expansion of the Church, the policy became relevant again, but a knowledge of the source of the policy was lost, and it was assumed it came directly from Joseph Smith.

5. Doctrinal explanations are devised to justify and explain the practice ("Since children are born innocent, it must be due to something wrong they did in the pre-existence")

6. Continuing expanding Church presence and societal pressure cause the question of the source of the policy to be specifically asked. David O. McKay recognizes and declares it is a policy and not a doctrine, but because there is no knowledge from whence the policy began, he is unwilling to end it without Revelation.

7. Extreme expansion of the Church. The policy is highly relevant. Spencer W. Kimball sets up a committee to seek out scriptural and church history precedence (head up by Bruce R. McConkie). Conclusion of the study is that there is neither legitimate scriptural prohibition, or record of a Modern revelation on the subject.

8. Through Study and Prayer, President Kimball comes to the conclusion that there is no doctrinal or scriptural or revealed reason for the ban.

9. President Kimball takes his conclusion to the Lord in sacred prayer, and invites the other General Authorities to join him.

10. The Revealed will of the Lord on the subject is powerfully and undeniably manifest to all, confirming President Kimball's conclusion that was reached resulting from dedicated study and prayer.

11. General authorities disavow former given explanations of the ban, and tell members to forget anything that may have been taught on the subject in the past.

Now, I do not claim to have any insight as to if the Women and the Priesthood issue will have the same result, or is the same essential category.

However, based on history, it appears to be we are at, to a degree, stage 5 with this particular issue concerning who can exercise the Lord's Priesthood. It is very possible things will go a very different route from there. I think it is possible that it is the will of the Lord for it to always be this way. I also think it's within the realm of possibility that it may not be the Lord's Eternal Will.

I want to make clear that I certainly believe the practice should not begin without a 1978-like Revelation on the subject. (Step 10).

I have no purpose or interest in justifying the practice of other Churches giving women the Priesthood, because as LDS, I do not aknowledge the significance or essential validity of professed priesthood authority or keys as such of other Churches .

But I do think it is important to recognize the similarity with the other Priesthood restriction process before presenting concocted speculation as to why God would act such, when there isn't much evidence that God has spoken much on the subject at all. As with the Priesthood ban explanations (many of which had as their source speculations of General Authorities), they generally just cause pain, sorrow, and embarrassment. When I wonder why my Endowed wife isn't currently authorized to give me a blessing of comfort when women early in the Church's history were able to do so, the only authoritative answer I have is, "I don't know, and there doesn't appear to be any real revealed information on that subject." - and for now, that's fine.

But do we really need to make up answers to make us feel better about something the Lord hasn't seen fit to reveal?

[bluebell]

My guess would be that women haven't been given the priesthood in the modern LDS Church based on Biblical traditions and a lack of revelation telling them otherwise.

+1