The Current Prieshood Ban.

[AmorLibertas]

Junia is merely the phoneticization of junior when pronounced with a Scottish brogue. Clearly. The author was Scottish and was referring to his son.

[Pahoran]

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

One of those few worse reasons is to change something because everyone else is doing it and we would rather jump on the bandwagon than do things the Lord's way.

At the beginning of this thread I had no reason to suppose that anyone remotely resembling a faithful, believing Latter-day Saint was at all interested in agitating to change the way the Lord's Church is run. Nothing I have read has given me any reason to reconsider that view.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

consiglieri, on 16 March 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

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:

Quote

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.

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

I see no contradiction whatsoever.

[consiglieri]

One of those few worse reasons is to change something because everyone else is doing it and we would rather jump on the bandwagon than do things the Lord's way.

And that doesn't sound at all ironic coming from a Mormon?

[erichard]

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

Hi,

You seem to forget Abraham 1:27:

Now, Pharaoh BEING OF THAT LINEAGE by which he could NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF PRIESTHOOD, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry.

By this, there were people at the time of Abraham that could not have the right of Priesthood because of their lineage. Are there any scriptures that explain what lineage this is, and if things have changed?

President Young taught that this lineage was the Negro. If he was wrong, has any church President taught it was a different lineage?

As to the OP:

In my understanding, if a man has the Melchizedek Priesthood then his faithful wife has it also.

There is a difference between "holding" a priesthood office, and "having" the Priesthood.

If I hand you a key and you take it with your hand, then your hand "holds" the key, but your entire body "has" the key.

In the same way, when the MP was restored to men leading the church, then all the church members could say they "have" the MP.

So the issue is not a "ban" on women holding the Priesthood, the issue is should men and women both hold the same offices? The answer is no.

Women overall have a different calling in life than men, and they, in general, should not be "competing" with men in things that pertain to men.

So when I read of women coming across the plains and blessing their oxen in the name of the Priesthood of their husband who was not there to do it himself, I believe that was acceptable to the Lord.

Richard

[LDS Guy 1986]

Hi,

You seem to forget Abraham 1:27:

Now, Pharaoh BEING OF THAT LINEAGE by which he could NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF PRIESTHOOD, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry.

By this, there were people at the time of Abraham that could not have the right of Priesthood because of their lineage. Are there any scriptures that explain what lineage this is, and if things have changed?

Yes, Official Deceleration 2 found in the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints states that ALL worthy men are to be ordained into the Priesthood, lifting any scriptural or modern priesthood bans.

Source: http://lds.org/scrip...t/od/2?lang=eng

[Pahoran]

And that doesn't sound at all ironic coming from a Mormon?

It might, to someone who has uncritically swallowed all the anti-Mormon pablum about how the Church completely changes all its doctrines approximately once a fortnight.

But to someone who has seen through that propaganda, it doesn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDS Guy 1986]

So when I read of women coming across the plains and blessing their oxen in the name of the Priesthood of their husband who was not there to do it himself, I believe that was acceptable to the Lord.

I could see this being just fine since husband and wife are one flesh, I don't know if current doctrine allow such things still though?

Does anyone have any ideas?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

This article in the Mormon Times seems pertinent to the subject of this thread: http://www.mormontimes.com/article/20103/Guessing-leads-to-knowing

[semlogo]

I didn't know there was a Priesthood ban on women. Such implies that they may have been eligible to have the priesthood conferred upon them in the past or will be so eligible in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia

[consiglieri]

It might, to someone who has uncritically swallowed all the anti-Mormon pablum about how the Church completely changes all its doctrines approximately once a fortnight.

But to someone who has seen through that propaganda, it doesn't.

You are an expert at setting up strawman arguments, it seems, Pahoran.

Are you disputing the fact that the LDS Church changed its policy (at least publicly) on polygamy due to external pressures?

Do you think blacks would now receive the priesthood were it not for the civil rights movement?

It is not all the doctrines being changed once a fortnight.

It is two similar changes having been made in the past 170-years.

Do you detect a pattern?

And is it unreasonable to think a similar instance might occur in the future with women getting the priesthood?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mercyngrace]

And is it unreasonable to think a similar instance might occur in the future with women getting the priesthood?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

And should women to be given the priesthood, would we see and hear an apostle on PBS describing apologetic explanations for the denial of the priesthood to women in the following manner?

"

[LDS Guy 1986]

You are an expert at setting up strawman arguments, it seems, Pahoran.

Are you disputing the fact that the LDS Church changed its policy (at least publicly) on polygamy due to external pressures?

Do you think blacks would now receive the priesthood were it not for the civil rights movement?

It is not all the doctrines being changed once a fortnight.

It is two similar changes having been made in the past 170-years.

Do you detect a pattern?

And is it unreasonable to think a similar instance might occur in the future with women getting the priesthood?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I agree with Consigilieri here, as much as I think it won't change. I can't say definitely that it will not change, look at history, there were Saints pre 1890 that said polygamy will never end that it was a requirement for exaltation.

Also some saints before 1978, thought the priesthood restriction for blacks would be there forever, but that too changed.

Part of accepting the idea of continuing revelation is that anything is subject to change should the lord reveal his will via his living prophet.

Look at the WoW, at one time it wasn't a requirement, and many early saints including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, regularly smoke, drank wine, and had coffee and tea.

It wasn't until years later that the WoW became a requirement for baptism, ordinations, and to hold a temple recommend.

One has to accept that the Prophet is lead by God and what he tells us is the will of the lord, if not the concept of continual revelation falls apart.

[consiglieri]

the bad apologetics of today become the public apologies of tomorrow

Can you say "signature line"?

Brilliant!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Can you say "signature line"?

Brilliant!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Winning.

[LDS Guy 1986]

And should women to be given the priesthood, would we see and hear an apostle on PBS describing apologetic explanations for the denial of the priesthood to women in the following manner?

"

[mercyngrace]

Can you say "signature line"?

Brilliant!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I had a feeling you'd like that line.

edit: LDS GUY, I edited my post just before you responded. The last line reads: if the practice is a policy rooted in tradition rather than doctrine, we ought not be afraid to acknowledge it as such.

Hopefully, that clarifies my feeling on the matter.

[semlogo]

And should women to be given the priesthood, would we see and hear an apostle on PBS describing apologetic explanations for the denial of the priesthood to women in the following manner?

"

[Acris Venator]

Is there anything in the scriptures prohibiting women from holding the priesthood?

Compared to men, the scriptures are relatively silent in regards to women.

When the Lord does address women, it is often regarding something that will occur in the womb.

[ELF1024]

Indeed. Is there anything in the scriptures prohibiting women from holding the priesthood?

It has always been my understanding, and I don't have a scripture verse or Ensign Article to back it up; is that Women are naturally closer to God because of their role in the Creation/Birth Process.

[semlogo]

It has always been my understanding, and I don't have a scripture verse or Ensign Article to back it up; is that Women are naturally closer to God because of their role in the Creation/Birth Process.

I think that's a Mormon myth. There's no reason to think that is the case, especially given the rarity of immaculate conceptions.

[ELF1024]

I think that's a Mormon myth. There's no reason to think that is the case, especially given the rarity of immaculate conceptions.

I dunno about that... every pregnant teenager I've run into claims to be a virgin!

This is a tasteless derail. - Minos

Considering the entire topic about arguing over the mind of God is tasteless, I figured I would add to the flavor.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I dunno about that... every pregnant teenager I've run into claims to be a virgin!

Off topic even more tasteless tabloid link removed.

[Acris Venator]

All births are miracles. It is only the natural man that dictates otherwise.

[Pahoran]

You are an expert at setting up strawman arguments, it seems, Pahoran.

Are you disputing the fact that the LDS Church changed its policy (at least publicly) on polygamy due to external pressures?

No.

What does that have to do with jumping on the bandwagon because everyone else is doing it, instead of doing things the Lord's way?

Do you think blacks would now receive the priesthood were it not for the civil rights movement?

That's a cleverly worded question; you could be a lawyer.

It is my position that the Priesthood is not a "civil right," and the "civil rights movement" had nothing to do with the Priesthood.

In any event, what does that have to do with jumping on the bandwagon because everyone else is doing it, instead of doing things the Lord's way?

It is not all the doctrines being changed once a fortnight.

It is two similar changes having been made in the past 170-years.

Do you detect a pattern?

Wow, two whole changes in a mere 170 years?

The answer is no, I do not detect a "pattern." There is no "pattern" to detect.

And is it unreasonable to think a similar instance might occur in the future with women getting the priesthood?

To extrapolate that from a mere two changes, each of which took place in unique circumstances? I suppose it could be quite reasonable, for someone who ignores relevant details in order to focus on the broad brush strokes.

Regards,

Pahoran