My biggest argument against women receiving the priesthood

[blooit]

(practical argument I mean)

The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman. I see so many LDS men who have no concept of what manhood really is, or what it means to lead. If you think men have a hard time stepping up now, just wait until their wives hold priesthood office. Few things would add more credibility to the old women's-lib argument that "I don't need a man" than that.

[nicolasconnault]

The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman. I see so many LDS men who have no concept of what manhood really is, or what it means to lead. If you think men have a hard time stepping up now, just wait until their wives hold priesthood office. Few things would add more credibility to the old women's-lib argument that "I don't need a man" than that.

A generalisation never makes a strong argument. You can do better than that

And, yes, I know, my first statement was a generalisation

[daz2]

Those sorts of arguments were made before the vote was extended to women, before women were permitted to practice law or engage in a number of other professions.

Henry Kissinger is reported to have said:

No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there`s too much fraternizing with the enemy

[Heartleap]

(practical argument I mean)

The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman. I see so many LDS men who have no concept of what manhood really is, or what it means to lead. If you think men have a hard time stepping up now, just wait until their wives hold priesthood office. Few things would add more credibility to the old women's-lib argument that "I don't need a man" than that.

Men and women compliment each other. Women would do well to see their need for their husbands, as he is the completion of Gods love in them. (Even the husbands that are hard to live with). This said knowing that I have a husband that has taught me a lot about forgiveness, love when I don't want to, patience and the honoring of his authority. God has been working on me with this for our nearly 30 years of marriage. Forgive, love, bless and uphold him because when we do that, we are doing it for God and God will manifest to you his deeper secrets of his love. This is what God is doing in my life. God is who we need, loving others (especially those who test us)is how we open doors to Gods presence in our every day life. (I am not LDS).

Heartleap...

[bluebell]

(practical argument I mean)

The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman. I see so many LDS men who have no concept of what manhood really is, or what it means to lead. If you think men have a hard time stepping up now, just wait until their wives hold priesthood office. Few things would add more credibility to the old women's-lib argument that "I don't need a man" than that.

I get what you are saying, but as a practical argument, it doesn't seem very logical.

If i'm understanding you right, women shouldn't have the priesthood because some women would take advantage of it and use it to subdue men and dominate them.

Well, history shows that men have been taking advantage of their power over women for millenia and using it, including religious power,to subdue and dominate women. Men having the priesthood certainly doesn't make it any harder for a male with that kind of weakness to do so-it makes it easier for them to endulge their weakness actually.

So if it's too dangerous for women to have the priesthood because of the potential for abuse, then the only logical assumption is that it's also too dangerous for men to have it.

Otherwise, it's seems an awful lot like a sexist double standard to suggest that men need the priesthood to keep women from having power over them and to help women not endulge in the sin of unrighteous dominion, but men are so superior to women that they don't need the same fail-safes in place to keep them from endulging in the same sin.

Can you see how offensive it is to know of all the horrible abuse that women have suffered at the hands of men for millenia and then to suggest that one of the reasons that Heavenly Father gave the priesthood to men and not to women is to protect men from giving up their power to women or from women who want to dominate them?

Does Heavenly Father not care about protecting women from giving up their power or from men who want to dominate them?

edit to add: I don't want the priesthood. I'm very comfortable in believing in that Heavenly Father has His reasons for how responsibilities are divided. I'm also no feminist. It's just that history has endulged the sexism of men for so long that even really good, non-sexism men today too often fall into it's trap without realizing it. When it happens though, i feel it needs to be pointed out.

[USU78]

I can't imagine an endowed Mormon claiming women have no share in the priesthood.

[jadams_4242]

(practical argument I mean)

The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman. I see so many LDS men who have no concept of what manhood really is, or what it means to lead. If you think men have a hard time stepping up now, just wait until their wives hold priesthood office. Few things would add more credibility to the old women's-lib argument that "I don't need a man" than that.

And the only thing i have against MEN holding all the wonderfull roles of woman in this great plan;.. is they would screw up EVERYTHING!

[Andrew Callahan]

(practical argument I mean)

The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman. I see so many LDS men who have no concept of what manhood really is, or what it means to lead. If you think men have a hard time stepping up now, just wait until their wives hold priesthood office. Few things would add more credibility to the old women's-lib argument that "I don't need a man" than that.

This seems like two arguments to me:

1) Men would be less likely to accept responsibility (to step up) if they could pass the responsibility on to women, and

2) Women would become more independent and less dependent upon men.

Neither of those seem compelling to me, and in fact, if they are true (which I don't necessarily concede), would seem to be an argument for why the priesthood should be taken away from men. If in fact they are shiftless and seem to seek the opportunity to shirk responsibilities, why endow them with the power to act in the name of God? And, secondly, if men are responsibility shirkers why would we want women to be dependent upon them.

I think I only ever met one LDS woman who openly said she WANTED the priesthood, and at most a handful of others who would even comment on the idea (before message boards, of course). So, this seems to me to be an issue that is one outsiders bring up much more often than members themselves. At least that was my experience.

It seems to me that whether men only (or men & women, or women only) hold the priesthood is a settled matter in the church. It may not be as settled as the atonement of Jesus Christ being key to salvation, but it does seem to me to be very, very settled within the church. I've not heard any rumblings, for instance, that on a trial basis a stake in Idaho is "test marketing" the ordination of women to the priesthood. That possibility just seems extremely remote to me.

[BCSpace]

I can't imagine an endowed Mormon claiming women have no share in the priesthood.

By inference can we make the generalization that unmarried or unsatisfactorily married women are most likely to demand priesthood office? I think so.

[charity]

God hasn't told us why He made the system the say He did. So anything that tries to state why He did is only speculation. And some speculation is just plain wacky.

[USU78]

By inference can we make the generalization that unmarried or unsatisfactorily married women are most likely to demand priesthood office? I think so.

Yes, I believe so. Given that the nature of priesthood is best demonstrated inside the Temple, those "outward" manifestations being derivative thereof, the priesthood ain't what the gripers claim it is. If women would participate in priesthood in a profound and significant way, they should participate where priesthood's intercessory and service functions reach across the veil between life and death, binding the living and dead in love.

[erichard]

(practical argument I mean)

The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman. ...

Hi,

As noted by others, a woman has the Priesthood when she is one with a husband that does.

So the question you should ask is not whether women should hold the priesthood-- the question you should ask is whether women should be given some or all of the same priesthood offices as men.

And I am not saying the answer is completely obvious. All men are not given the same offices, but potentially could. Did Deborah hold a priesthood office as Judge over Israel?

But as a general rule, it is clear that women do not need to hold priesthood offices of government since it is not their general role in the scriptures to have government authority over men.

The Bible defines marriage by the way it uses the word, and it clearly defines marriage as a Patriarchy: the role of the husband is to be the head of the family government. The wife is equal with the husband since her part is as important as his, and he certainly cannot abuse her in any way, but she is must accept his role as head of the family government. Have you ever read the 1842 Nauvoo "Peace Maker" pamphlet by Udney Hay Jacob? It expounds some aspects of Bible law on the matter very well.

Richard

[mrmendoza]

Personally,I think the only real reason why women don't hold priesthood is because as President Hinkley said, "It would have to come as a revelation."

Having said that, I seem to recall a number of years back I was told that the Priesthood was given to men to keep them so busy doing the Lords work, that they wouldn't have time to get into trouble! Women, on the other hand, were naturally more spiritual, pluse since they were blessed with, the almost God-like, ability to procreate new life, and rear righteous children, that they didn't need to be bothered with any extra burden that directly holding priesthood would bring!

Mike

[nicolasconnault]

Yeah, there are lots of speculative reasons... One that is rarely offered, however, is that women aren't given the priesthood so that all members have an opportunity to exercise their faith in the oracles of God.

[bluebell]

Yeah, there are lots of speculative reasons... One that is rarely offered, however, is that women aren't given the priesthood so that all members have an opportunity to exercise their faith in the oracles of God.

Could you explain a bit what you mean?

[nicolasconnault]

Could you explain a bit what you mean?

I believe that some rules and commandments are given mostly (not exclusively) to set up conditions under which growth can occur. Ultimately, that is what the entire mortal condition consists of: a giant incubator! Some of the commandments we are given may not seem to make sense, so the only valid reason why we might follow them is because of faith. Faith, when exercised, is the best catalyst for growth.

Example: the healing of Naaman the leper. The instructions given by Elisha appeared ridiculous to Naaman, and indeed there was no merit or healing in the steps themselves, but in the faith required to follow them. The Lord knew the conditions under which Naaman's spirituality would grow best, and they happened to be a set of silly instructions to which He knew Naaman would initially react negatively. He also knew that the only way Naaman would perform these steps was after having overcome his pride and exercised real faith in God.

Does this make more sense now?

[bluebell]

I believe that some rules and commandments are given mostly (not exclusively) to set up conditions under which growth can occur. Ultimately, that is what the entire mortal condition consists of: a giant incubator! Some of the commandments we are given may not seem to make sense, so the only valid reason why we might follow them is because of faith. Faith, when exercised, is the best catalyst for growth.

Example: the healing of Naaman the leper. The instructions given by Elisha appeared ridiculous to Naaman, and indeed there was no merit or healing in the steps themselves, but in the faith required to follow them. The Lord knew the conditions under which Naaman's spirituality would grow best, and they happened to be a set of silly instructions to which He knew Naaman would initially react negatively. He also knew that the only way Naaman would perform these steps was after having overcome his pride and exercised real faith in God.

Does this make more sense now?

No, i know what you were talking about in concerns with conditions of growth (and i agree).

I just didn't understand how women not having the priesthood allowed all members to have an opportunity to exercise their faith in the oracles of God which wouldn't exist if they had the priesthood.

[nicolasconnault]

No, i know what you were talking about in concerns with conditions of growth (and i agree).

I just didn't understand how women not having the priesthood allowed all members to have an opportunity to exercise their faith in the oracles of God which wouldn't exist if they had the priesthood.

Haven't you noticed how many members try to justify the restriction of priesthood from women? And how many others try to criticise it? Few simply say "This is the way it is at the moment, the prophets are aware of it and would change it if it was the will of the Lord. I don't need to find a rationale for it, as there may indeed be none except that the Lord wants us to learn to trust his prophets, which, by proxy, means to trust Him."

What I'm saying is that there may be no doctrinal explanation for why women do not currently hold the priesthood. Believing that there is could be dangerous, because it could lead to disbelief and apostasy when/if the priesthood is eventually given to women, thus invalidating all the doctrinal reasons that members had to explain the restriction.

Let me share a parallel experience. You may have noticed that the two sacramental prayers differ in a few points. The prayer on the bread mentions keeping the commandments, and being willing to take upon ourselves the name of Christ, while the blessing on the water doesn't. When I shared this with the Gospel Essentials class, I told them that there was probably no doctrinal explanation behind the difference, that it was likely just to avoid unnecessary repetition. However, the missionaries who were teaching the class were determined to find a doctrinal explanation for that difference, even though they had never before noticed the discrepancy. They started waffling on about the bread representing the body, which was linked to keeping the commandments etc... It was the most nebulous doctrinal exposition I had ever heard, it was confusing, and obviously completely fabricated on-the-spot in order not to appear ignorant. It achieved the opposite effect, however.

Any member who constructs his own doctrine and uses it as a foundation for religious observance runs the risk of falling apart when that foundation is washed away in the light of new revelation. People get offended when they learn about the actual process of translation of the Book of Mormon, if they had built a belief system on inaccurate facts.

This is why I always focus on the basic principles of the gospel, emphasising that they are the real "deep doctrine", the real "meat" of the gospel, and that by building upon them, we have a sure foundation. We don't need to invent doctrine in order to justify our beliefs or practices. We can simply believe because we have faith in what God has currently revealed, knowing that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

[blooit]

Haven't you noticed how many members try to justify the restriction of priesthood from women? And how many others try to criticise it? Few simply say "This is the way it is at the moment, the prophets are aware of it and would change it if it was the will of the Lord. I don't need to find a rationale for it, as there may indeed be none except that the Lord wants us to learn to trust his prophets, which, by proxy, means to trust Him."

What I'm saying is that there may be no doctrinal explanation for why women do not currently hold the priesthood. Believing that there is could be dangerous, because it could lead to disbelief and apostasy when/if the priesthood is eventually given to women, thus invalidating all the doctrinal reasons that members had to explain the restriction.

Let me share a parallel experience. You may have noticed that the two sacramental prayers differ in a few points. The prayer on the bread mentions keeping the commandments, and being willing to take upon ourselves the name of Christ, while the blessing on the water doesn't. When I shared this with the Gospel Essentials class, I told them that there was probably no doctrinal explanation behind the difference, that it was likely just to avoid unnecessary repetition. However, the missionaries who were teaching the class were determined to find a doctrinal explanation for that difference, even though they had never before noticed the discrepancy. They started waffling on about the bread representing the body, which was linked to keeping the commandments etc... It was the most nebulous doctrinal exposition I had ever heard, it was confusing, and obviously completely fabricated on-the-spot in order not to appear ignorant. It achieved the opposite effect, however.

Any member who constructs his own doctrine and uses it as a foundation for religious observance runs the risk of falling apart when that foundation is washed away in the light of new revelation. People get offended when they learn about the actual process of translation of the Book of Mormon, if they had built a belief system on inaccurate facts.

This is why I always focus on the basic principles of the gospel, emphasising that they are the real "deep doctrine", the real "meat" of the gospel, and that by building upon them, we have a sure foundation. We don't need to invent doctrine in order to justify our beliefs or practices. We can simply believe because we have faith in what God has currently revealed, knowing that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

This is probably why my half-jested / practical argument probably wasn't wise.

[bluebell]

Haven't you noticed how many members try to justify the restriction of priesthood from women? And how many others try to criticise it? Few simply say "This is the way it is at the moment, the prophets are aware of it and would change it if it was the will of the Lord. I don't need to find a rationale for it, as there may indeed be none except that the Lord wants us to learn to trust his prophets, which, by proxy, means to trust Him."

What I'm saying is that there may be no doctrinal explanation for why women do not currently hold the priesthood. Believing that there is could be dangerous, because it could lead to disbelief and apostasy when/if the priesthood is eventually given to women, thus invalidating all the doctrinal reasons that members had to explain the restriction.

Let me share a parallel experience. You may have noticed that the two sacramental prayers differ in a few points. The prayer on the bread mentions keeping the commandments, and being willing to take upon ourselves the name of Christ, while the blessing on the water doesn't. When I shared this with the Gospel Essentials class, I told them that there was probably no doctrinal explanation behind the difference, that it was likely just to avoid unnecessary repetition. However, the missionaries who were teaching the class were determined to find a doctrinal explanation for that difference, even though they had never before noticed the discrepancy. They started waffling on about the bread representing the body, which was linked to keeping the commandments etc... It was the most nebulous doctrinal exposition I had ever heard, it was confusing, and obviously completely fabricated on-the-spot in order not to appear ignorant. It achieved the opposite effect, however.

Any member who constructs his own doctrine and uses it as a foundation for religious observance runs the risk of falling apart when that foundation is washed away in the light of new revelation. People get offended when they learn about the actual process of translation of the Book of Mormon, if they had built a belief system on inaccurate facts.

This is why I always focus on the basic principles of the gospel, emphasising that they are the real "deep doctrine", the real "meat" of the gospel, and that by building upon them, we have a sure foundation. We don't need to invent doctrine in order to justify our beliefs or practices. We can simply believe because we have faith in what God has currently revealed, knowing that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

I understand what you are saying now, thanks.

[MorningStar]

Hi,

As noted by others, a woman has the Priesthood when she is one with a husband that does.

So the question you should ask is not whether women should hold the priesthood-- the question you should ask is whether women should be given some or all of the same priesthood offices as men.

And I am not saying the answer is completely obvious. All men are not given the same offices, but potentially could. Did Deborah hold a priesthood office as Judge over Israel?

But as a general rule, it is clear that women do not need to hold priesthood offices of government since it is not their general role in the scriptures to have government authority over men.

The Bible defines marriage by the way it uses the word, and it clearly defines marriage as a Patriarchy: the role of the husband is to be the head of the family government. The wife is equal with the husband since her part is as important as his, and he certainly cannot abuse her in any way, but she is must accept his role as head of the family government. Have you ever read the 1842 Nauvoo "Peace Maker" pamphlet by Udney Hay Jacob? It expounds some aspects of Bible law on the matter very well.

Richard

This is what Joseph Smith has to say about The Peacemaker:

Joseph denied having anything to do with the pamphlet in a statement published in the Times and Seasons in December 1842:

NOTICE

There was a book printed at my office, a short time since, written by Udney H. Jacobs, on marriage, without my knowledge; and had I been apprised of it, I should not have printed it; not that I am opposed to any man enjoying his privileges; but I do not wish to have my name associated with the authors, in such an unmeaning rigmarole of nonsence [nonsense], folly, and trash. JOSEPH SMITH. [1]

The pamphlet also contained a number of ideas which Joseph certainly would not have sanctioned, including the claim that Udney was the prophet Elijah (2), the person spoken of in Isaiah 66:7-8 (25), and the prophet who would stop the mouth of kings (22). There is little that parallels LDS ideas.[2]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/The_Peace_Maker

[erichard]

This is what Joseph Smith has to say about The Peacemaker:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/The_Peace_Maker

Hi,

Well, I have been aware of what Joseph said about the Peace Maker for a long time. And I am also long aware of the problems in it pointed out.

But, I am also aware that, overall, the Peace Maker is inspired.

Joseph knew in Nauvoo that he was fighting for his life. He was denying that "the church" practiced plural marriage while he was nonetheless living it. So the fact that he said what he said about the Peace Maker may have been for political purposes and not his real assessment of it.

Richard

[MorningStar]

I don't believe Joseph Smith had anything to do with The Peacemaker and it would be a good replacement for the syrup of ipecac in my medicine cabinet.

"Many husbands are induced by the unnatural

and intolerable nature of female tyranny

and usurpation, to even abandon their families to

the mercy of a heartless world."

Seriously?

And women are property?

[Jeff K.]

I have no real argument against women holding the priesthood other than the fact the Lord has not revealed such to be the case at this point. Since it is the Lord's priesthood, I think His position is the only one that matters.

Speculation: Could there be a separate priesthood originating from Heavenly Mother or only the presiding priesthood of Heavenly Father? Perhaps one is premortal and the other not? Lots of speculation and it doesn't matter until the Lord says it matters.

[bluebell]

I don't believe Joseph Smith had anything to do with The Peacemaker and it would be a good replacement for the syrup of ipecac in my medicine cabinet.

Seriously?

And women are property?

The 'tyranny of women'???

So, Heavenly Father isn't at all concerned about the tyranny of men? Their is no inspiration in such sentiments-only the philosophies of men.