The Current Prieshood Ban.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Nor do they mention women not getting the priesthood.

Thanks for making my point, Loran.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Unfortunately for this feint and thrust, the very same scriptures do clearly articulate the patriarchal order, which has been clearly and unequivocally elucidated and established by the entire body of the Lord's anointed servants in our time, from Joseph to the present.

This is just another fashionable politically correct hobby horse consig, one of many that can/have been concocted by certain LDS who themselves do not understand the order, patterns, bounds and conditions pertaining to the very priesthood they themselves hold.

[Loran Howard Blood]

I'd like to know that, too.

Its simply not their calling or responsiblity in mortality.

There is no "opposition" in play here, only fundamental, optimum patterns and divisions of focus grounded in the eternal, intrinsic differences between male and female natures as manifested in mortality and forming part of the core of our mortal experience.

[Obiwan]

What about women is naturally and at their core in opposition to being authorized to perform ordinances of Salvation?

It's simply based on our natural God Given Roles.... Men require the Priesthood to help them be of God.

Women have their Motherhood to help them be of God. Men and women are two different kinds of people. According to our natures, the order has been Eternally ordained I believe.

I think the more people "deviate" from Eternal Order the more people themselves become deviant.

And also as Loran said above.

[consiglieri]

Unfortunately for this feint and thrust, the very same scriptures do clearly articulate the patriarchal order, which has been clearly and unequivocally elucidated and established by the entire body of the Lord's anointed servants in our time, from Joseph to the present.

This is just another fashionable politically correct hobby horse consig, one of many that can/have been concocted by certain LDS who themselves do not understand the order, patterns, bounds and conditions pertaining to the very priesthood they themselves hold.

Strange.

I don't seem to be finding a reference anywhere in this post . . .

[consiglieri]

There is no "opposition" in play here, only fundamental, optimum patterns and divisions of focus grounded in the eternal, intrinsic differences between male and female natures as manifested in mortality and forming part of the core of our mortal experience.

Anybody got some lipstick?

(I grant you that reference may have been somewhat oblique.)

[bluebell]

Without agitation, nothing happens.

Man must move beneath before God is moved above.

Withholding the priesthood from women today has no more authoritative basis than withholding the priesthood from blacks in 1977.

And the ultimate result for women will be the same as it was for blacks.

Now, what I find really interesting is that the majority of responders to the poll say it is doctrine that women don't have the priesthood, but the majority still says they would support women being ordained.

There's a story there, I'll wager.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I would guess that they mean they would support it if the prophet suddenly declared that it should be so. Kind of like how most members of the church believed the priesthood ban on blacks to be doctrinal, but still supported blacks being ordained to the priesthood once the prophet declared it was the will of God.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Strange.

I don't seem to be finding a reference anywhere in this post . . .

No, you don't. Perhaps this may be because, as the teacher of "graduate level" gospel doctrine classes, I would assume you to have a pretty substantial grasp of the basic doctrine of the Church as well as of the four standard works.

I'm not too much of a fan regarding the calling of CFRs for the purpose of substantiating core, well established gospel principles as if there was some conspicuous controversy about their meaning and state as well established.

Have you jumped onto the caboose of the Loyd Ericson Chattinooga Choo Choo consig?

[Loran Howard Blood]

Anybody got some lipstick?

(I grant you that reference may have been somewhat oblique.)

Inane is perhaps a more appropriate term.

[The King's Servant]

My wife and I are one flesh. Therefore she holds all of the priesthood offices I do, and I have all the callings she does. She already has full participation in the priesthood.

So, can she anoint the sick? Can she preside over the Lord's Supper? Can she go to "Priesthood" meetings? Can she be a "bishop?"

[David T]

So, can she anoint the sick? Can she preside over the Lord's Supper? Can she go to "Priesthood" meetings? Can she be a "bishop?"

Of course, because they are One Jason, not dividing the substance, nor confounding the persons.

[consiglieri]

No, you don't. Perhaps this may be because, as the teacher of "graduate level" gospel doctrine classes, I would assume you to have a pretty substantial grasp of the basic doctrine of the Church as well as of the four standard works.

How can something be considered a "basic doctrine of the Church as well as of the four standard works" when it is nowhere mentioned in them?

[consiglieri]

Inane is perhaps a more appropriate term.

I was calling for lipstick to put on that pig of an argument you made.

[Pahoran]

Without agitation, nothing happens.

Man must move beneath before God is moved above.

Perhaps I should have been more clear.

Agitation is unseemly. Faithful Latter-day Saints don't do it.

Withholding the priesthood from women today has no more authoritative basis than withholding the priesthood from blacks in 1977.

If you knew anything at all about LDS doctrine (and yes, I know what your previous calling was) you would know that the Priesthood is not withheld from women in any way that is meaningfully analogous to the way it was once withheld from Blacks. Women participate in the Priesthood in real and important ways. (I hold the Temple sacred, so I won't be spelling out anything in detail.)

And the ultimate result for women will be the same as it was for blacks.

Are you speaking as a prophet, or merely as a disaffected fringe Mormon when you make that prediction?

There are those who make the same prediction regarding same sex relationships. I don't see either situation changing in the lifetime of any participant here.

Regards,

Pahoran

Tone it down!

[Loran Howard Blood]

How can something be considered a "basic doctrine of the Church as well as of the four standard works" when it is nowhere mentioned in them?

I don't have time now to go through numerous scriptural references and related arguments and post them for the purpose of sustaining and substantiating for a long term member what every Blazer B knows. Perhaps, however, the most salient comment I could post, as to the broader questions your expansion upon the Ericsonian "The Church has no official doctrine" meme is this statement from Boyd K. Packer (yes, the dark one himself):

There are some things about the priesthood that every elder should know if he is to understand how the Church is governed to have things right before the Lord. There are principles and precepts and rules which are often overlooked and seldom taught. Some of these principles are found in the scriptures, others in the handbooks. Some of them are not found in either. They are found in the Church. You might call them traditions, but they are more than that. They are revelations which came when the Brethren of the past assembled themselves, agreed upon His word, and offered their prayers of faith.

The very fact that you need to be told this, consig, is cause for serious concern, given that you were at one time actually teaching gospel doctrine class to other adults who, with your Bishopric, trusted you to be a faithful, knowledgeable, and committed - valiant - member as a fundamental requirement for such a responsibility.

[TAO]

I cannot vote in this poll due to a lack of options in the first question. I remember LeSellers making a good response about this one... things aren't as clear-cut as the topic lays out.

I am thinking of something temple related in specific.

[rpn]

My other is that women already HAVE full participation in the priesthood. (It just doesn't look like some humans think it should.)

[David T]

I don't have time now to go through numerous scriptural references and related arguments and post them for the purpose of sustaining and substantiating for a long term member what every Blazer B knows. Perhaps, however, the most salient comment I could post, as to the broader questions your expansion upon the Ericsonian "The Church has no official doctrine" meme is this statement from Boyd K. Packer (yes, the dark one himself):

The very fact that you need to be told this, consig, is cause for serious concern, given that you were at one time actually teaching gospel doctrine class to other adults who, with your Bishopric, trusted you to be a faithful, knowledgeable, and committed - valiant - member as a fundamental requirement for such a responsibility.

Question.

Say a brand new member comes into the Church. Where is he to learn This Great Secret That Apparently Everyone Knows As Basic Doctrine? It's admittedly not in the manual, or in the scriptures. If he doesn't somehow learn this unwrittern tradition by osmosis, is he then unqualified to be called as a Gospel Doctrine teacher? Or even a Gospel Principles teacher? Does the manual say someone must be familiar with the Unwritten Basic Doctrines, or is that qualification in and of itself one of the Unwritten Basic Laws?

If it's that important and essential, such that you are passing judgement on someone's faithfulness based on their lack of understanding it, and it is indeed revelatory, shouldn't it be written at least in one in print Handbook somewhere?

[Acris Venator]

Don't women have their own "priesthood"? And if it isn't declared such in scripture, or isn't considered a priesthood by some, then can we at least acknowledge the fact that women have authority, generally speaking? They do have authority in this culture, and more than a little. This is as irrefutable for Mormons as it is for Catholics.

What is this authority? Where does it come from? Why does their approval and/or disapproval of many of the most critical family concerns carry so much weight?

I offer that their authority comes from their carrying of the womb. If the body is a temple, then the womb is the creation room. And only women have it. This is what gives women a "yes" and a "no" that are almost incomparable. Priesthood holders get all of the outward ordinations and the lion's share of the highly visible responsibilities of the church, they get to baptize and excommunicate, but I offer that it is the women who dominate activity in this culture. It is more often the women who stay active in church if they never marry, and it is dominantly they who execute Christ-like action while most of the males in our culture are satisfied to either attend or abandon mere meetings.

How can women be considered to be "banned" from authority while they still carry the womb? Men can't carry the womb. Men can't carry these tabernacles to term. Are men "banned" from creation? Not remotely. Not as long as the woman says "yes".

So if we pass through a veil to enter the Celestial world, do we not also pass through a veil to enter this telestial one? And if so, does this not mean that all women carry this veil? And does this not, in fact, indicate that a veil over a woman's face (as in many a common wedding ceremony, for instance) is not to conceal her but to reveal the true power of her authority? I offer that being created in a womb (which we all have been) necessarily makes the womb our first creation room, and the vulva our first literal veil. That makes our mothers our first temples.

And we males only leave one womb as an infant to find our way into another as a man, don't we? How can we without appealing to that authority? Women are angels who stand as sentinels to that veil & creation room. If you don't understand this rule, then you don't understand the word "authority".

So then. To whom does the Lord give the authority over the second veil? He already gave the first veil to an entire sex. So why not the second also? Does not every priesthood ordination and duty, in truth, lead up to a man becoming a veil "worker" as far as his own family is concerned? Does this "Patriarchal order" not in fact follow the decision... the first "yes"... of the first Matriarch?

Who then maintains the real authority? Does not the order of the church not, in fact, endow both sexes with mutual sovereignty?

[David T]

Don't women have their own "priesthood"? And if it isn't declared such in scripture, or isn't considered a priesthood by some, then can we at least acknowledge the fact that women have authority, generally speaking? They do have authority in this culture, and more than a little. This is as irrefutable for Mormons as it is for Catholics.

What is this authority? Where does it come from? Why does their approval and/or disapproval of many of the most critical family concerns carry so much weight?

I offer that their authority comes from their carrying of the womb. If the body is a temple, then the womb is the creation room. And only women have it. This is what gives women a "yes" and a "no" that are almost incomparable. Priesthood holders get all of the outward ordinations and the lion's share of the highly visible responsibilities of the church, they get to baptize and excommunicate, but I offer that it is the women who dominate activity in this culture. It is more often the women who stay active in church if they never marry, and it is dominantly they who execute Christ-like action while most of the males in our culture are satisfied to either attend or abandon mere meetings.

How can women be considered to be "banned" from authority while they still carry the womb? Men can't carry the womb. Men can't carry these tabernacles to term. Are men "banned" from creation? Not remotely. Not as long as the woman says "yes".

So if we pass through a veil to enter the Celestial world, do we not also pass through a veil to enter this telestial one? And if so, does this not mean that all women carry this veil? And does this not, in fact, indicate that a veil over a woman's face (as in many a common wedding ceremony, for instance) is not to conceal her but to reveal the true power of her authority? I offer that being created in a womb (which we all have been) necessarily makes the womb our first creation room, and the vulva our first literal veil. That makes our mothers our first temples.

And we males only leave one womb as an infant to find our way into another as a man, don't we? How can we without appealing to that authority? Women are angels who stand as sentinels to that veil & creation room. If you don't understand this rule, then you don't understand the word "authority".

So then. To whom does the Lord give the authority over the second veil? He already gave the first veil to an entire sex. So why not the second also? Does not every priesthood ordination and duty, in truth, lead up to a man becoming a veil "worker" as far as his own family is concerned? Does this "Patriarchal order" not in fact follow the decision... the first "yes"... of the first Matriarch?

Who then maintains the real authority? Does not the order of the church not, in fact, endow both sexes with mutual sovereignty?

So then, according to all this, it is women who are sterile, or single but choose to obey the Law of Chastity who are banned from authority. Right?

[Acris Venator]

So then, according to all this, it is women who are sterile, or single but choose to obey the Law of Chastity who are banned from authority. Right?

There's no actual need to ban anyone, friend. Not because of sex, nor because of physical/social trial.

If the body is a temple, then all action is necessarily temple work. We either sew the sacred or the profane. I.e., we either submit to God's will, or exert our own. The examples you cited still retain that choice because they still are in possession of a temple. Trials are merely another form of it (temple work).

[Jeff K.]

1-Does every single rule have to be written? Are so many of us tied to the idea that we need the Mosaic law again? That somehow we MUST right it down because we don't trust our prophets and apostles? Well some of us apparently don't.

2-Is there something that specifically disallows women from holding the priesthood? I don't know that there is specifically beyond the fact that prophets and apostles are adamant that this is not the way. I would suggest that they have enquired of the Lord and we presently have the answer.

3-We present rationalizations as to why women do or do not have priesthood authority. These include tradition, reference to scriptural history, and the fact that those in authority who have the right and keys of the priesthood have deemed it not to be so. Now you can argue against traditions, and scriptural interpretation, however the Lord has seen fit enough to place the keys in their hands to minister unto this generation. That is enough. If one finds such things dramatically distasteful they should be invited to find a source closer to their view rather than the view of the Lord's servants. Lesser kingdoms always have real estate available. Other churches are open to their exploration.

Is there a priesthood for women? Is there something that may not be available to them in the next life which we may not be aware of? Or perhaps in a later generation in this life? I cannot say, because like everyone here who has posted, we ALL don't know. But I can imagine a right or authority that may exist for women, as well as for men, that may be one authority or not.

We don't know, and frankly, to criticise the church for something no one knows is ridiculous and brings our the truer motivations of those who disdain the church and are angry towards it.

[consiglieri]

We don't know, and frankly, to criticise the church for something no one knows is ridiculous and brings our the truer motivations of those who disdain the church and are angry towards it.

A question raised about church policy does not necessarily constitute criticism, disdain or anger.

Perhaps it would make my position clearer if we put the shoe on the other foot.

Let's say a sister asked her bishop to be ordained to the priesthood.

What scripture would the bishop show her to support the church's position that she not be ordained?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Are you speaking as a prophet, or merely as a disaffected fringe Mormon when you make that prediction?

There are few worse reasons for doing something than that is the way it has always been done.

[Traela]

At our recent regional Women's Conference, Sister Beck made it very clear that Relief Society is not just a holding tank for those who "can't hold the Priesthood," but the Lord's organization for women, which is analogous to the Priesthood. I agree with this. As a member of the Relief Society, I have all the opportunities to serve that I need or want. I feel no need to be ordained to a Priesthood office.

[David T]

At our recent regional Women's Conference, Sister Beck made it very clear that Relief Society is not just a holding tank for those who "can't hold the Priesthood," but the Lord's organization for women, which is analogous to the Priesthood. I agree with this. As a member of the Relief Society, I have all the opportunities to serve that I need or want. I feel no need to be ordained to a Priesthood office.

Back in the days of Eliza Snow, Relief Society was even organized into quorums of Deaconesses and Teachers, who were set apart (ordained) by the RS President. Plus the women were encouraged to give blessings of comfort and healing by the laying on of hands, among other things, by virtue of their Church membership, and in the name of Jesus Christ. Maybe the RS as a Parallel to Priesthood will come back (be Restored?) in such a way...