Women and the Priesthood

[Jason]

Perhaps there is no clear "Thus saith the Lord" revelation published to the Church because there didn't need to be. Church leaders always understood that only males were to be ordained to the Preisthood without needing a clear revelation stating the same.

Where is the clear revelation that we should worship on Sunday instead of some other day of the week?

Or the clear "Thus saith the Lord" revelation that we should avoid cocaine use?

It seems there are many things where the Lord hasn't needed to instruct the leadership of the Church further.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Is there a poll in the original post somewhere?

I choose number two...

- No women ordained in the Bible

- No women ordained in the Book of Mormon

- No women ordained in the revelations to Joseph Smith

There seems to be a pattern.

[bluebell]

Perhaps there is no clear "Thus saith the Lord" revelation published to the Church because there didn't need to be. Church leaders always understood that only males were to be ordained to the Preisthood without needing a clear revelation stating the same.

Where is the clear revelation that we should worship on Sunday instead of some other day of the week?

Or the clear "Thus saith the Lord" revelation that we should avoid cocaine use?

It seems there are many things where the Lord hasn't needed to instruct the leadership of the Church further.

Maybe nack is wanting us to ask ourselves "is there danger in assuming that because something has always been done a certain way, it's the way the Lord would prefer to have it done?"

Spiritual growth often (always?) comes from questioning or examing beliefs.

And, i think the D&C tells us to worship on sunday,the Lord's day, doesn't it?

[mfbukowski]

....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?"

Ok- that makes it simple enough that even I can understand it!

Catholics in a similar situation might answer "tradition"- which for them is a totally legitimate reason. Perhaps we should consider that as a possibility, though historically we have either affirmed or discontinued practices based on tradition by further revelation. (Affirmed: Redemption of the Dead; Discontinued: Polygamy, Blacks not to be ordained)

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.

The distinction between an "ordinance" and a "prayer" is not all that distinct sometimes, though obviously when an annointing is included it becomes an "ordinance".

I know a young elder who I am trying to train to stop using prayer formats in giving blessings. Instead of saying something like "We bless you with health and strength" he might say "We ask our Heavenly Father to bless you with health and strength, and pray that...." which would be considered an unusual wording for a "blessing", but if a woman said the same words as a "prayer", without the laying on of hands, it would not be unusual at all.

I very recently had an experience where a young mother requested and was given permission by her bishop, to be included in "laying on hands" for a blessing of her child based on historical precedent.

Women obviously give "blessings" on food all the time. I think that the ambiguity inherent here between what constitutes a "prayer" and an "ordinance" is what contributes to blurring the lines. But I don't know if that helps answer your question much.

But this might:

The Proclamation on the Family is certainly a pretty official statement and says:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

It doesn't mention the Priesthood, but I see it as a pretty clear reference to it.

[AngelPalmoni]

The Spirit of Christ IS the Priesthood... Alma 5:44

[nicolasconnault]

I know a young elder who I am trying to train to stop using prayer formats in giving blessings. Instead of saying something like "We bless you with health and strength" he might say "We ask our Heavenly Father to bless you with health and strength, and pray that...." which would be considered an unusual wording for a "blessing", but if a woman said the same words as a "prayer", without the laying on of hands, it would not be unusual at all.

I'm not sure why you think it incorrect to say "we bless you..." in a priesthood blessing. That is the proper way, and it would be equally proper if a woman was to give the blessing. A priesthood blessing is not a prayer. Or maybe I misunderstood you and you actually agree with me

In any case, I believe that Joseph F. Smith taught that it was totally fine for women to join brethren in priesthood administrations, as long as they are not acting as voice or saying that they act by the authority of the priesthood. My guess is that this doesn't happen today because many members would get awfully confused about it, and tradition is very strong.

[Calm]

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.

If women are able to give blessings over the food, at church meetings, etc. there seems no reason to forbid them from giving any other form of blessings save without invoking the priesthood or using any specific tools such as anointing that has been given for use in priesthood blessings.

edit: I see that mf has pointed out the same thing so to add something else to the thread, I will point out that the priesthood has been expanded (and contracted) over the years depending on what the current mission of God's Covenanted People (another name for the Church) was as demonstrated by the apparent limiting of priesthood to the patriarch and his heir in the earlier sections of the Bible when the covenant was primarily within a family (though much extended by all those who claimed allegiance to the patriarch) to having a family member's bloodline devoted to the service of the nation, in essence the much more extended family. When God changed the mission of the covenant to take his word to all the world, the priesthood was expanded again. When he withdrew that mission, the priesthood was withdrawn as well.

Now priesthood is potentially available in every (ideal) family unit, whether this is due to the differences in culture (the nuclear family unit is almost completely independent of the larger extended family in most circumstances and aligning national organizations with theological ones isn't seen as appropriate for some very good reasons) or because God has been directing man's progression toward the hope of Moses (every man a prophet). The logical next step....if there is a next step.....is to have it potentially available to every individual, male or female. Even today, women exercise the priesthood in one area of the world that men have no right to enter, yet there is the availability of required priesthood ordinances. And the fact that spiritual, emotional or intellectual maturity is not currently a required factor beyond a minimum understanding (as evidenced by young men receiving the priesthood at such a young age) would seem to indicate that the priesthood is useful for spiritual growth and to maximize everyone's potential it would seem to be logical to make such available to them (the benefit of teens having the priesthood is primarily to themselves, not to others from what I have seen thus allowing for the purpose of priesthood to be for the individual holding it, not purely to provide service for others).

It is also possible that the priesthood is necessary for spiritual growth beyond the chances it provides to serve others. Priesthood is primarily a service function at this time, but there are some ordinances such as the sacrament that a person can perform for himself. It is possible in my view that there will be a need for an individual to exercise priesthood on his own behalf in the future as we progress more and more and receive higher and higher ordinances from the Father, ordinances that may involve only God and ourselves as part of the process of becoming one with him.

Each time the change has occurred I believe there has been recorded revelation authorizing the expansion so I don't see this happening any other way nor do I see any real need at this time with the level of ordinances we currently possess. It may not happen if it happens until the next step in our existence.

[David T]

I'm not sure why you think it incorrect to say "we bless you..." in a priesthood blessing. That is the proper way, and it would be equally proper if a woman was to give the blessing. A priesthood blessing is not a prayer. Or maybe I misunderstood you and you actually agree with me

I think you misread him., and he does agree with you

In any case, I believe that Joseph F. Smith taught that it was totally fine for women to join brethren in priesthood administrations, as long as they are not acting as voice or saying that they act by the authority of the priesthood. My guess is that this doesn't happen today because many members would get awfully confused about it, and tradition is very strong.

I agree. Approbation of participation by women in priesthood ordinances has gone down dramatically since the early days of the Church.

[David T]

Women obviously give "blessings" on food all the time.

If women are able to give blessings over the food, at church meetings, etc. there seems no reason to forbid them from giving any other form of blessings save without invoking the priesthood or using any specific tools such as anointing that has been given for use in priesthood blessings.

Food and Church meetings are not blessings authoritatively pronounced, they are prayers where blessing are asked for. We ask a blessing on the food, we do not pronounce a blessing on it. Even when given by men, I don't know anyone who invoked the priesthood and pronounces a blessing on their dinner - rather thanks are given, and a blessing is requested.

[David T]

Maybe nack is wanting us to ask ourselves "is there danger in assuming that because something has always been done a certain way, it's the way the Lord would prefer to have it done?"

Spiritual growth often (always?) comes from questioning or examing beliefs.

Bingo

[mfbukowski]

I'm not sure why you think it incorrect to say "we bless you..." in a priesthood blessing. That is the proper way, and it would be equally proper if a woman was to give the blessing. A priesthood blessing is not a prayer. Or maybe I misunderstood you and you actually agree with me

In any case, I believe that Joseph F. Smith taught that it was totally fine for women to join brethren in priesthood administrations, as long as they are not acting as voice or saying that they act by the authority of the priesthood. My guess is that this doesn't happen today because many members would get awfully confused about it, and tradition is very strong.

Yep, you misunderstood, and we agree!

[Calm]

Food and Church meetings are not blessings authoritatively pronounced, they are prayers where blessing are asked for. We ask a blessing on the food, we do not pronounce a blessing on it. Even when given by men, I don't know anyone who invoked the priesthood and pronounces a blessing on their dinner - rather thanks are given, and a blessing is requested.

So why can't a blessing of comfort be in this format?

PS: I added to my previous, probably should have made a new post instead.

[David T]

So why can't a blessing of comfort be in this format?

PS: I added to my previous, probably should have made a new post instead.

When you give a blessing with the authority of the Priesthood, you are not asking for something. You are acting as the voice of the Lord in declaring what blessing are being given. It is the answer that is being presented, not the request.

It's the same is if my wife were to ask me for bread. A prayer would be akin to picking up the phone to ask someone else to give her bread. Pronouncing the blessing would be akin to handing her the bread right there.

[nicolasconnault]

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?

May I point out that there is a great difference between the priesthood ban for blacks of African descent, and the restriction of priesthood from women? The difference is that women still have access to ALL the blessings of the priesthood, including all temple ordinances. In practical terms, there is no blessing that men have that women don't have access to. This is quite different from the priesthood ban.

[frankenstein]

So why can't a blessing of comfort be in this format?

PS: I added to my previous, probably should have made a new post instead.

for what it is worth, I believe in "Answers to Gospel Questions" it is stated that mother can "lay on hands" with the husband in a certain "type" of blessing her child.

[Truth]

It is in D&C 107 that it is for men and not women. It seems quite clear to me in reading that is for men, only men are referenced and that it was instituted with Adam and was passed to his sons. Christ only chose men and ordained them as apostles and leaders, only men (Peter, James, and John and John the Baptist) ordained Joseph to the priesthood, all who appeared and revealed the Gospel were men with the priesthood, God and Jesus are/have that power, women are not named with such at all.

I believe that the endowment further illustrates this concept as well.

[TAO]

When you give a blessing with the authority of the Priesthood, you are not asking for something. You are acting as the voice of the Lord in declaring what blessing are being given. It is the answer that is being presented, not the request.

It's the same is if my wife were to ask me for bread. A prayer would be akin to picking up the phone to ask someone else to give her bread. Pronouncing the blessing would be akin to handing her the bread right there.

Nack, even when using the priesthood, it is proper, I find, to ask before you declare anyways =).

In other words, it's impossible to use the priesthood to force the Lord to do something that he has not promised, so asking is important.

[David T]

Nack, even when using the priesthood, it is proper, I find, to ask before you declare anyways =).

In other words, it's impossible to use the priesthood to force the Lord to do something that he has not promised, so asking is important.

We're heading way off topic now (partially my fault), but it is my experience in many cases, the Lord's will is made known in the course of the blessing, through the individual pronouncing the blessing. In many cases, the pronounced blessings are not pre-meditated and then confirmed, they are given in the course of the pronouncement itself. But that's a discussion for another thread

[David T]

It is in D&C 107 that it is for men and not women. It seems quite clear to me in reading that is for men, only men are referenced and that it was instituted with Adam and was passed to his sons. Christ only chose men and ordained them as apostles and leaders, only men (Peter, James, and John and John the Baptist) ordained Joseph to the priesthood, all who appeared and revealed the Gospel were men with the priesthood, God and Jesus are/have that power, women are not named with such at all.

I believe that the endowment further illustrates this concept as well.

Not that I will discuss it further, but women are endowed and promised/advanced in the same priesthood in the Temple Initiatories and Endowment as are the men, with the feminine title of priestess specifically referenced. There may be an argument for the principle and order of presiding, but as said before, that is a different matter.

[David T]

It is in D&C 107 that it is for men and not women.

What do you believe there is in Section 107 that would be specifically invalid, irrelevant, or contradictory if further clarification/revelation were to be given that women could be ordained to offices in the Priesthood outside of the Temple context?

[Calm]

When you give a blessing with the authority of the Priesthood, you are not asking for something. You are acting as the voice of the Lord in declaring what blessing are being given. It is the answer that is being presented, not the request.

It's the same is if my wife were to ask me for bread. A prayer would be akin to picking up the phone to ask someone else to give her bread. Pronouncing the blessing would be akin to handing her the bread right there.

Agree, but this does not stop her from asking someone else to give her bread. I am not arguing there is no difference, I am just saying that I don't see any issue with her giving you or anyone else a blessing of comfort as a request.

[CV75]

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

Perhaps another option: a relationship between the Y chromosome and the priesthood is evidenced in birthrights and covenants coming to earth from heaven through the male children but not the female (the patriarchs, sons of Aaron being bishops, even the term "Abraham's seed" as used in addressing male priests as in John 8:33, or in Acts 3: 12-26 where Peter used the term in addressing the men and their true responsibility, etc.), and Christ also being a pattern (and Satan the anti-pattern).

[nicolasconnault]

Agree, but this does not stop her from asking someone else to give her bread. I am not arguing there is no difference, I am just saying that I don't see any issue with her giving you or anyone else a blessing of comfort as a request.

I'm probably picking nits here, but in that case she wouldn't be "giving a blessing", she would be praying for one. This is precisely what priests do when they administer the sacrament. They say "O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify...". We often say that in doing so they "bless the sacrament", but in fact they are really administering the sacrament, not blessing it. However, IMO this is nothing more than a semantic distinction, and we definitely shouldn't stress about it

[stYro]

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

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.")...

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

I think women do not need to be ordained to priestesshood because they are born priestesses, whereas men have to be ordained to get the priesthood. Note that women enter the temple and therein perform priesthood ordinances without having been ordained in this lifetime, whereas a man can do neither of these until he is formally ordained. The precedent for some people being born with priesthood is set by a literal descendant of Aaron holding the office of Bishop by birthright. Priestesshood was the original intent of the Relief Society. See History of the Church, volume 4, page 602.

I can think of two possible reasons why the current church leadership ignores the priestesshood of women: Either it's something that individuals are supposed to learn on their own, or the LDS church is in the midst of an apostasy similar to what befell the early Christian church, wherein plain and precious truths are lost and astounding revelations from true prophets are replaced by predictable committee-drafted creeds (such as The Proclaimation on the Family).

Note also that women have motherhood and men have fatherhood, and likewise men have priesthood and women have priestesshood... only, they don't need someone else to give it to them. All they need is to make the discovery.

stYro

[mfbukowski]

Agree, but this does not stop her from asking someone else to give her bread. I am not arguing there is no difference, I am just saying that I don't see any issue with her giving you or anyone else a blessing of comfort as a request.

Straight up- I don't either.

My wife and I pray often holding hands- and if I needed it and there was no priesthood available- I would not hesitate to have her pray for me or even "bless" me- (not mentioning the priesthood) or even, instead of holding hands, have her put her hands on my head and pray.

I think that simple act, in itself, brings with it a spirit of caring and comfort to the person blessed, and I see nothing wrong with it.