The Current Prieshood Ban.

[bluebell]

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...

Maybe...

But to play devil's advocate for a minute, in the 'old days' church members also used to seal themselves to prophets instead of their parents.

I don't know that it's necessarily a good argument to use how things were done during JS's day as evidence for how God wants it done today.

[phaedrus ut]

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...

My motivation for this poll was two fold. First, I've attended congregations of various denominations with female clergy and I've always been impressed by the difference that women can make leading a congregation. Now maybe the difference is just the additional education and training a professional clergy brings compared to our lay clergy but I think there is something more the church is missing out on.

Second, much like the priesthood ban on blacks I feel most members are choose to remain neutral rather than express their opinion that something is right or wrong. I was curious whether members here would be willing to answer a yes/no question on the matter.

Phaedrus

[David T]

Maybe...

But to play devil's advocate for a minute, in the 'old days' church members also used to seal themselves to prophets instead of their parents.

I don't know that it's necessarily a good argument to use how things were done during JS's day as evidence for how God wants it done today.

Except, we have a record of an announced Revelation presented by Wilford Woodruff to the Church, re-assessing and re-prioritizing the Doctrine of Adoption. I'm not familiar with any claims for Revelation, only a series of historical events and policies that bit by bit pushed the legitimate practice of authority by women further and further back. Relief Society Presidents, who used to be granted Keys of Authority, can't even set apart their own class instructors any more (like Elder's Quorum presidents can). I think there's a little bit more work to be done to make Relief Society analogous or parallel to Priesthood.

[Jason]

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?

Have you found the "no-cocaine snorting" revelation yet? How about the "avoid pornography" revelation?

Those are basic standards of the modern Church unquestionably founded on revelation and yet are not found in the Standard Works. As to how a new member can discover them - they will be told them by the missionaries and just about any member they ask can tell them the same.

[Jeff K.]

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?

To believe that one would have to reject the authority of modern day prophets and apostles and rely upon the authority of scripture, is to take the doctrinal stance of Martin Luther, not Joseph Smith. You cannot compartmentalize the issue by merely stating scripture is necessary.

To provide full context of my post you may also wish to recall the following:

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.

To presume one must use scripture is to presume scripture trumps present authority as to the decision reflects a certain disdain for every prophet since the first vision since they themselves did not always have scripture to justify the commandments. The pharisees did much the same arguing that Mosaic law trumped the return of the Son of God. Or rather their/our interpretation of scripture.

[David T]

How about the "avoid pornography" revelation?

D&C 42:23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.

[Jason]

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?"

Through me she can anoint the sick, preside over the Lord's Supper, go to Priesthood meetings, and serve in the office of Bishop. Through her I can plan and give baby showers, give mother's blessings, attend Relief Society meetings, and serve as Relief Society President. Our marriage is an indivisible partnership in regards to our service to the Church.

[David T]

Through me she can anoint the sick, preside over the Lord's Supper, go to Priesthood meetings, and serve in the office of Bishop. Through her I can plan and give baby showers, give mother's blessings, attend Relief Society meetings, and serve as Relief Society President. Our marriage is an indivisible partnership in regards to our service to the Church.

We Believe in One Jason, in Two Persons, consisting of Jason the Husband, and Jason the Wife, not dividing the substance, nor confounding the persons.

[Jason]

D&C 42:23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.

That's a reasonable scriptural basis for avoiding pornography, but it doesn't really mention pornography.

A pedant might say "I'm only looking at pictures of women, not actual women I could actually sin with." They might even use the excuse of CGI or drawn pictures of women, or pornographic literature with no images of women involved in them at all.

Similarly, the scriptures are pretty clear on who can be ordained to various offices in the preisthood, yet pedants will say "it doesn't say 'no women'."

[Jason]

We Believe in One Jason, in Two Persons, consisting of Jason the Husband, and Jason the Wife, not dividing the substance, nor confounding the persons.

Yes, there is a use for all that trinity wierdness after all.

[David T]

That's a reasonable scriptural basis for avoiding pornography, but it doesn't really mention pornography.

A pedant might say "I'm only looking at pictures of women, not actual women I could actually sin with." They might even use the excuse of CGI or drawn pictures of women, or pornographic literature with no images of women involved in them at all.

I'm gonna have to cry BS here, dude. You're stretching. CFR one person in the Church, one of your 'pedants' who is making this excuse. Do you know any members from personal experience who have made this claim?

Similarly, the scriptures are pretty clear on who can be ordained to various offices in the preisthood, yet pedants will say "it doesn't say 'no women'."

CFR a Scripture that makes clear that it is a principle it is only men who should be ordained.

[David T]

Yes, there is a use for all that trinity wierdness after all.

Except even trinitarians won't say The Father died on the Cross. That's the whole confounding the persons thing.

[Jason]

I'm gonna have to cry BS here, dude. You're stretching. CFR one person in the Church, one of your 'pedants' who is making this excuse. Do you know any members from personal experience who have made this claim?

I would have to insult someone by calling them a pedant in order to answer the CFR, which would be against board rules.

Let's just call it a theoretical pedant at present.

My main point, that this revelation doesn't explicitely rule out the use of pronography, stands. It requires some interpretation to read it as a prohibition against pornography, especially pornography that doesn't involve actual women.

CFR a Scripture that makes clear that it is a principle it is only men who should be ordained.

You misunderstand me. I said that the scriptures that speak about who can qualify for priesthood offices speak clearly about men, in fact my point was that it is an unstated general principle.

1 Timothy 3:2 is an example.

[Jason]

I do remember someone seriously (at least, as far as I could determine) arguing on this forum that women could indulge in pornography all they wanted, since the scripture was written only against men.

[Questing Beast]

I would support (that is to say, not argue with or resist) the Church changing to allow women to take up leadership roles in the Church; including Priesthood ordinances, etc. The scriptures indicate no difference between men and women other than traditional "it's a man's world" stuff, where men do the heavy lifting and women nurture, i.e. remain in the background with the children, etc. Where a woman is known as a leader she is referred to as no different than a man. Today it is NOT "a man's world" anymore. If women get the "priesthood" they will pretty much take over half or more of the leadership in the Church; naturally enough, and why not?...

[Nathair/|\]

It seems to me that the Great Rite (the union of Athame and Chalice) is impossible without both Uranus and Gaia.

Yours under the synergistic oaks,

Nathair /|\

ps. The following does not necessarily reflect my beliefs, but it is humorous and effectively rebuts many of the more common arguments against ordaining females.

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.

[Senator]

I would have to insult someone by calling them a <insert various names, judgements, belittlements>, which would be against board rules.

Eeh, it's standard operation around here.

Let'r rip!

[Jason]

Eeh, it's standard operation around here.

Let'r rip!

It would also be impolite. Not that I'm always polite, but I tend to try to be.

[ELF1024]

I disagree with the idea that it is a "Ban". I don't think that something that never was should be considered a "Ban". However that's just me.

I find the whole topic offensive, which is why I haven't participated thus far, and shall not further.

[LDS Guy 1986]

The sad part is how true this is, and we are all guilty of it at one time or another!

But as a friend of mine like to say, without such little things to trip us up and keep us mortal we would all be translated by now and ascend to heaven!

Eeh, it's standard operation around here.

Let'r rip!

[consiglieri]

To presume one must use scripture is to presume scripture trumps present authority as to the decision reflects a certain disdain for every prophet since the first vision since they themselves did not always have scripture to justify the commandments.

You talk as if you're not a member of a Church that denied priesthood ordination to black men which similarly has no foundation in scripture.

Are you able to see any connection?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

D&C 42:23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.

One down . . .

[consiglieri]

Through me she can anoint the sick, preside over the Lord's Supper, go to Priesthood meetings, and serve in the office of Bishop. Through her I can plan and give baby showers, give mother's blessings, attend Relief Society meetings, and serve as Relief Society President. Our marriage is an indivisible partnership in regards to our service to the Church.

Now you're just playing word games, Brother Relief Society President.

[The Nehor]

There is nothing in scripture or revelation that I know of that states that women will never hold the Priesthood. It is quite possible at some point they will. In fact, I pretty much expect it.

[consiglieri]

I disagree with the idea that it is a "Ban". I don't think that something that never was should be considered a "Ban".

Was Junia an apostle? (Romans 16:7)