Agitating Faithfully

[Buckeye]

I guess my feeling is that childbirth is a partnership with God in creating life, and therefore a form of having the Priesthood. Men of course make their contribution to the creation of life but it is the woman who literally lays her life on the line to bring forth new life. Can there be a greater responsibility?

I have to continue to disagree. Perhaps these analogies will help explain my confusion:

1. Women go through menopause. Men don't. Therefore women should not be allowed to drive.
   
2. Women experience puberty before men. Therefore women should not be allowed to read.
   
3. Men are generally taller than women. Therefore men should not be allowed to wear hats.
   
4. Women give birth to children. Men only provide sperm. Therefore women should not have the priesthood.
   

In each of these analogies, there is zero connection between the "facts" and the "conclusion".

[Buckeye]

No, you are not. You are saying that it's a good thing that a guy went out there and set up a website to lead women to do something and to encourage them to desire the priesthood since in your view they are being denied something.

I'm the one who thinks if women feel denied, if women want to agitate for the Priesthood they are perfectly capable of doing it without having a man stepping up in front telling them how to go about it, setting up a website so all they have to do is sign their x's, holding their weak little hands because they are just too timid to do it for themselves.....because that is what the message is given when a man jumps up and starts posing as a leader for women to follow for their emancipation from man's dominion. How is this not a man yet again dictating what he thinks is best for women? How is this not yet again a man thinking that women can't achieve it on their own so he has to step in so that something is actually accomplished.

"Supporting" and "dictating" are two very different things. I support a women's ability to partake of the priesthood. I don't dictate, but I will express my views and let them decide. Again, without knowing Dan, that is what I believe he is doing.

Are you really saying you'd have no objections to the website if it were (1) setup by a woman and (2) only allowed women to sign? Seriously?

[TAO]

Mmm... I think it's not very good to worry about 'equal' blessings and such things. What we should worry about is obtaining the blessings that are 'supposed to be given to us'. I think God will give us what we deserver, regardless or not of the priesthood; for those who are capable of having it, it is one more thing they need to do to achieve such blessings.

And children are the greatest blessing of all.

Best of Wishes, humbly,

-TAO

Edited January 6, 2012 by TAO

[LeSellers]

Because the power of God is made manifest through the ordinances of the priesthood. I felt that power (and the bond it creates) when I was baptized by my Father. I felt it as young man blessing and passing the sacrament. I feel it as I perform ordiances with the youth in my ward on temple trips. My wife and daughters can experience some of that power, but only as others administer to them. They never get to experience it by performing the ordinances themselves. From my personal knowledge, I can tell you that there is a big difference between watching your child be baptized and baptizing them yourself. I desire my daughters to have all the spiritual blessings my sons have, and that requires priesthood.

D/C 84:20-22:

Therefore, in the ^aordinances thereof, the power of ^bgodliness is manifest.

And without the ordinances thereof, and the ^aauthority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is ^bnot manifest unto men in the flesh;

For without this no ^aman can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

You are misreading this passage, and doing so egregiously.

It is not talking about the Priesthood, nor about the authority thereof, but of the power of godliness, when it says that no man (here we can safely assume it means "human being")can see the face of God and live.

Women receive the ordinances of the Priesthood, in the font, in the chapel and in the Temple. The power of godliness is made manifest to them, just as it is to men, and they can see God, on the same basis as any man.

I don't know (but strongly believe not) that women will ever receive the Priesthood for use on the Earth. But it will not come by "agitating", however "faithfully".

Lehi

[Buckeye]

Mmm... I think it's not very good to worry about 'equal' blessings and such things. What we should worry about is obtaining the blessings that are 'supposed to be given to us'. I think God will give us what we deserver, regardless or not of the priesthood; for those who are capable of having it, it is one more thing they need to do to achieve such blessings.

And children are the greatest blessing of all.

Best of Wishes, humbly,

-TAO

Fully agree, but God does not normally give to those who do not seek. Abraham got the priesthood because he questioned and sought after it. Joseph too.

[Nominee]

Priesthood

By Hugh Nibley

THE PRIESTHOOD CEASES to be effective when exercised "in any degree of unrighteousness" (D&C 131:37), but it operates by the spirit, and the spirit is not deceived but is exquisitely sensitive to the slightest color of fraud, pretention, self-will, ambition, cruelty, etc. "When we undertake...to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold the heavens withdraw themselves; and the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man" (D&C 121:37). But what about the righteous dominion of the priesthood? That can be easily recognized, for it operates "only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the souls without hypocrisy, and without guile ... with "bowels full of charity towards all men..." (D&C 121:41 ff). Even in the eternities the power of the priesthood flows "without compulsory means ... forever and ever" (D&C 121:46).

Who can deny such a power to another? No man. Who can bestow it on another? No man. We like to think that the Church is divided into those who have it and those who don't have it; but it is the purest folly to assume that we can tell who has it and who does not. God alone knows who is righteous and how righteous; yet "the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven," and those "cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principle of righteousness" (D&C 121:35 ff). The result is, that if there is anyone who really holds the priesthood, no one is in a position to say who it is---only by the power to command the spirits and the elements is such a gift apparent. But as far as commanding or directing other people, there every man must decide for himself.

One valuable hint the Lord has given us, however, namely the assurance that of all those who "hold" the priesthood almost none really posses it. "That the rights of the priesthood...may be conferred upon us, it is true," making us formally priesthood holders, "but when we undertake to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness" the priesthood is void. And this is how it is in "almost all" cases in the Church: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called but few are chosen" (D&C 121:39-40).

What does one have to do to be chosen?

First, one may not set one's heart upon the things of this world (D&C 121:35)---so much for the priesthood as something to show off; then, one may not aspire to the honors men---so much for the priesthood as something for prestige. One cannot exercise any power of the priesthood in any degree of unrighteousness---this in full recognition of the fact that "it is the nature of almost all men" to do that very thing as soon as they think they have power and authority.

This leaves a few humble, unpretentious, and unworldly people as the sole holders of a valid priesthood. It is the "few humble followers of Christ" who are the strength of the Church throughout much of the Book of Mormon history.

What irony. As far as the whole world is concerned, the priesthood is a thing of value which is cruel to withhold from anyone, because it enhances one's status and dignity among his fellows, whether inside the Church or outside. And yet the one thing that renders that priesthood completely null and void is to treat it as something to aspire to among one's fellows. Priesthood is strictly an arrangement between the individual priesthood holder and his brethren in the eternal worlds, as personal and private as anything can be.

We might as well recognize the fact that whatever we say and do in righteousness is going to be misinterpreted. The only way we can make things easier for ourselves in the world is to go the way of the world. It would be hard to deny that the peace and prosperity of the Church in the past years has been largely the fruit of willingness to go the way the world goes.

Where all truth is encompassed in one great whole to raise one question is to raise many others, and any issue relevant to the gospel inevitably leads to a discussion of the whole thing.

Is not the priesthood everything? Not on this earth. On this earth it is nothing, and as soon as we try to use it for any kind of status, power, rule, or authority, it automatically cancels out.

To repeat, as we are prone to do for lack of wit, for those who hold the priesthood on this earth, it is, the Prophet Joseph said, "an onerous burden," not a prize. One cannot give orders to another by the priesthood. One cannot use it to acquire prestige, fame or wealth. Far from impressing one's fellow men, it is held in derision by them. The moment one tries to make honor or glory or exercise dominion by the priesthood "amen to the priesthood of that man"---it automatically becomes null and void. What good is it then? Over whom does it exercise dominion? Over the spirits and over the elements--- not over one's fellow-men, who cannot under any circumstances be deprived of their complete free agency.

Though some may find it hard to believe, I find no cause for boasting in my priesthood---nothing is easier than conferring it upon one, but that is only the beginning; for it to be a real power requires a degree of concentration, dedication, and self-discipline which few ever attain to, and for the rest priesthood is not a blessing but a terrible risk. The priesthood is not a badge of office to be worn as a feather in a cap.

Do we really believe the First Vision? Thousands of Latter-day Saints attest to it every Fast Sunday; but when the earliest, fullest, and best account of the First Vision, dictated by the Prophet at the age of 26 to Frederick G. Williams, was discovered and published in 1968 it caused not the slightest ripple of interest in the Church. It is enough, apparently, to know that God has spoken again from the heavens---never mind what he said.

The most useful lesson is the silence of heaven on this particular issue in the light of our own woeful ignorance. There is a connection between the two. Where the people do not seek for wisdom and knowledge, God will not give it to them, and so they remain in ignorance, and may not ask for help from above.

Nothing pleases God more than to have his children "seek greater light and knowledge"---it was for that that Adam, Abraham, Enoch, Moses, and Joseph Smith were rewarded with the richest blessings. Nothing displeases him more than to have them "seek for power, and authority, and riches" (3 Nephi 6:15). Through the years the Latter-day Saints have consistently sought not for the former but for the latter. It is only right and proper that we should stew in our own juice for a while.

"I sought for the blessings of the fathers...desiring also to be one who possessed greater knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess greater knowledge..." (Abraham 1:2).

Twice he repeats it---he wants knowledge. Up to the last, even after he had learned all the doctrines of salvation, Adam still "seeks" for greater light and knowledge" and for such knowledge we should seek eternally. But what do we hear? A former president of the BYU pompously announced at a convention of educators that we at the BYU are not seeking for truth, because we have the truth! This is where we stand today. It is common at the BYU for students to protest against being taught anything they did not know before: "Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word?...And because that I have spoken one word he need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be unto the end of man...(2 Nephi 29:8-9).

The fact is that the Latter-day Saints "will not search knowledge, not understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be" (2 Nephi 32:7). They simply are just not interested. How little we know about things. How little we want to know. The information is there, far more abundant than we have been willing to realize, if we will only reach out for it. To wait for a revelation on the subject is foolish until we have exhausted all the resources already placed at our disposal.

The strong prejudice has long been extended to the Indians by many Mormons in high position, yet the Mormons alone of all the people in the world believe the Indians to be the true blood of Israel, no less.

Such attitudes are strengthened by the snobbery of American suburbia; the Mormons like to think of themselves as WASPS---yet it was the rural, white, Christian, Protestant Americans upon who the Lord with his own lips excoriated to the youthful prophet; they are all hypocrites, said he: "They were all wrong... all their creeds were an abomination in his sight... those professors were all corrupt: "They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me...having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." (Joseph Smith- History 1:19).

There are those in the Church who would identify Zion with "Executive Meadows, the Exclusive Condominium for the Right People."

REPEAT of repeat: Over whom does it exercise power, then? Over the spirits and over the elements---never over one's fellow men, whose free agency is absolute and inalienable.

Christ commanded the spirits, and they obeyed him; he commanded the elements and they obeyed him, but men he would not command, and rebuked the apostles at Capernaum for suggesting it: "how often would I have gathered you together... and ye would not!"

What, then is the priesthood on this earth? It is what Brigham Young and the Twelve wrote in the Times and Seasons in 1839, they called the priesthood an "onerous duty." a load to be borne. Very few men on earth, including those in the Church are really qualified. In terms of prestige, status, power, influence, pleasure, privilege, "power, and authority, and riches" (3 Nephi 6:37), the priesthood has absolutely nothing to offer. The world laughs at it, the Latter-day Saints abuse or ignore it, those who take it seriously do so in "fear and trembling".

...

Although much has been said and written about this important subject, in 1856 Brigham Young seemed to capture the purpose of the priesthood among the Latter-day Saints. In particular, he pointed out that the priesthood was given as a “means for trial” and suggested that if the people could understand the nature of the priesthood they could unlock the treasury of heaven:

If we could understand the nature of the Priesthood—could comprehend it fully, this people, as a community, the Elders, as Elders of Israel, quorums, as quorums, when they present themselves before the Lord, would possess keys to unlock the treasury of heaven, and we could receive as one person receives from another. To us, as a people, the keys of the rich storehouse of the Lord are committed, yet we do not fully know how to unlock and receive. We receive a little here and there, and the hearts of the people are comforted by the very Priesthood we are in possession of, which has been given to this people for the express purpose of their receiving that which God has given them, though not yet to possess it independently, but as means for trial.

This Priesthood is given to the people, and the keys thereof, and, when properly understood, they may actually unlock the treasury of the Lord, and receive to their fullest satisfaction. But through our own weaknesses, through the frailty of human nature, we are not yet capable of doing so.

We have to humble ourselves and become like little children in our feelings—to become humble and childlike in spirit, in order to receive the first illuminations of the spirit of the Gospel, then we have the privilege of growing, of increasing in knowledge, in wisdom, and in understanding. This is a great privilege, while the world, excepting this people who inhabit these valleys, and those that are associated with us in different parts of the earth, are destitute of this principle and privilege. Still, many of us, and I may say comparatively all of us, are upon the same ground, situated precisely like other professors of religion, in order that we may struggle, wrestle, and strive, until the Lord bursts the veil and suffers us to behold His glory, or a portion of it.

If we did fully understand the principles of the Gospel—the keys of the Priesthood, it would be familiar with us, and be easy to be understood and to act upon and perform, and be no more of a miracle to know how to receive the things of God by revelation, than it is now a miracle to cast seed into the ground, after it is prepared, and reap our crops.

An individual who holds a share in the Priesthood, and continues faithful to his calling, who delights himself continually in doing the things God requires at his hands, and continues through life in the performance of every duty, will secure to himself not only the privilege of receiving, but the knowledge how to receive the things of God, that he may know the mind of God continually; and he will be enabled to discern between right and wrong, between the things of God and the things that are not of God. And the Priesthood—the Spirit that is within him, will continue to increase until it becomes like a fountain of living water; until it is like the tree of life; until it is one continued source of intelligence and instruction to that individual.

This is one of the most glorious and happy principles than can be set before any people, or any individual who will be faithful to his God and to his religion. Upon whoever are bestowed the keys of the eternal Priesthood, by a faithful life, will secure to themselves power to see the things of God, and will understand them as plainly as they ever understood anything by gazing upon it with their natural eyes, or as clearly as they ever could distinguish one object from another by their sensations.

It is the privilege of every person who is faithful to the Priesthood, who can overcome the enemy, thwart the design of death, or him that hath the power of it, to live upon the earth until their appointed time; and they may know, see, and understand, by revelation, the things of God just as naturally as we understand natural things that are around us.2

Brigham Young was well qualified to speak about this subject since he was one of the first men in this dispensation to receive these sacred priesthood blessings.

...

This is something I have read over and over and really like. It puts the Priesthood in perspective for me. My real concern is that everything you have said seems to lead to what benefits the Priesthood holder may receive for being such. The Priesthood is not for the holder. You keep mentioning what you want your wife and daughters to have not what you want them to give.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Nominee

[katherine the great]

Good point, though I think it was actually Sister Whitney's house that Joseph and Emma were living in. Still a very good ground to agitate. But that begs the question - why don't more women agitate for their daughters to have the spiritual blessings that come with priesthood service? Dirty floors are temporal frustrations. Spiritual blessings are eternal.

I don't think my husband and sons have more "spiritual blessings" than I do. I don't think the priesthood is necessary for "spiritual blessings." I'd be happy with a Relief Society manual that is written primarily by women.

[bluebell]

Thank you bluebell. We may not agree, but I appreciate your willingness to admit you don't know of any scriptural doctine for the ban. Neither do I.

You're welcome, though i did not 'admit' that i didn't know of any scriptural doctrine for the ban, i admitted that i don't have scriptural doctrine to back up my thoughts on why there is a ban.

The "motherhood" reason you rely on is often raised, but I just don't get it.

I specifically did not give motherhood as a reason. I spoke of childbirth. There is a difference.

Of course motherhood is not a punishment (though there is pain), but that is no reason to punish women by denying them spiritual blessings.

If i thought i was being denied anything, i would probably agree with you. I'm not being denied a single blessing by not having the priesthood though, so your arguement seems kind of moot.

And men do play a significant role in child birth is they so chose. I experienced each of the pregnancies with my wife. Not in the same way, but I suffered real pain at the miscarriages, I felt the children kicking when I lay next to my wife in bed, and I had a very special bond with them the moment they were born. I carried them from the doctor's arms to my wife to be nursed. Then I (alone!) held their hand as the nurse took them for their apgar tests and supported them in those first unnerving moments out of the womb. I have as much of an inate love and attachment to them as does my wife. I don't mean to sound angry, but I do get offended when people say mothers somehow love their children more than fathers. They don't. [And to be clear, I'm not suggesting you said that].

So, you play a supporting role in childbirth and do not feel you lose any blessings because you cannot personally accomplish the act. Given that, you should have no problem accepting that that's how most LDS women feel about the priesthood.

[Buckeye]

You are misreading this passage, and doing so egregiously.

It is not talking about the Priesthood, nor about the authority thereof, but of the power of godliness, when it says that no man (here we can safely assume it means "human being")can see the face of God and live.

Women receive the ordinances of the Priesthood, in the font, in the chapel and in the Temple. The power of godliness is made manifest to them, just as it is to men, and they can see God, on the same basis as any man.

I don't know (but strongly believe not) that women will ever receive the Priesthood for use on the Earth. But it will not come by "agitating", however "faithfully".

Lehi

Lehi, I was not suggesting that personal possesion of the priesthood is necessary to see God. 3 Nephi explains how women and children were in the presence of Christ and I'm rather doubtful any of them (particularly the children) had been ordained. What I am saying is that women are denied some measure of spiritual experience through the ban and that there is no reason for that denial.

As to "agitating", I don't particularly like the word, but that's what President Hinckley said. I would prefer petition or advocate. Elder McConkie was fairly certain the racial ban would not be lifted in his lifetime, but that changed very quickly. It didn't change because of agitation, but because the brethren saw how unworkable the ban was for the gospel to spread in Brazil and other countries with mixed races. I'm hopeful that as they continue to see current stagnation in growth - real growth - they'll likewise realize how unnecesary the gender ban is.

[Lightbearer]

The phrase "agitating faithfully" to me is sort of an oxymoron. How do you rebell and remain loyal at the same time? It reminds me of the political term "loyal opposition" which I also consider an oxymoron. So I assume that it is a phrase invented to replace the term "critic" or "enemy" or "adversary" to make it much easier to oppose the offical position. Now as far as women ever holding the priesthood, that will never happen in the true Church for the simple reason that the priesthood is not just the authority of God, but is His power. If women should hold the priesthood then why not the title of God Himself? That is really what we are talking about here. Those who desire the priesthood I would ask the simple question WHY? What exactly is the priesthood for? It is not a status symbol or an office of power to lord over others. In fact through this priesthood all the kindered of the earth should be blessed. The priesthood is necessary for the exaltation of the family, the idea of a man and woman holding the priesthood is akin to the idea of same sex marriage. It is like saying: "Who needs a damned man, I have the priesthood I can same myself and my family without him! I think there is a purpose for gender roles and we without each other cannot be made perfect. One cannot be exalted alone, God is not single, neither is our heavenly mother! This modern notion of the equalization of the sexes is a corruption of the truth that both the woman and the man are just as important to the family unit. There will never be any gays or lesbians sealed as husband and wife, in fact the very terms "husband" and "wife" are based on gender roles. The comparing of the ban on the blacks holding the priesthood is a fallacy, the ban was due to a curse and there was a definite promise made that the curse would be removed at some time. The roles of man and woman are eternal, there was no "curse" the priesthood was not "taken away" because of the fall of Adam and Eve. There were some curses pronounced but it did not involve the priesthood. It would take a revelation as big as the First Vision to bring about such a change. In fact the Prophet Joseph may have had such an idea in mind when he declared the following:

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith - Section Four 1839-42, p.212) "It may be asked, where is there anything in all this that is wrong? First. The church was organized by women, and God placed in the Church (first apostles, secondarily prophets,) and not first women; but Mr. Irving placed in his church first women (secondarily apostles,) and the church was founded and organized by them. A woman has no right to found or organize a church--God never sent them to do it."

To me this directly contradits the idea of women holding the priesthood. Of course one may argue that this is just Joseph's opinion and so it is not scripture and is not binding. I would say that they are deluding themselves to think so.

Another point one may make is what does a woman miss out on by not holding the priesthood? The only thing I can think of is the responsibility of stewardship. A woman may go through all the ordinances of exaltation and still not be necessary for her to hold the priesthood. So what is the source for this desire? Pride perhaps? Ambition? Honors?

"Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson-- That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God. We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever."

(Doctrine and Covenants 121:34-46)

It would behoove us to examine our motives and our desires and determine if they are righteous. There have been others who desired to "agitate faithfully" to gain the priesthood, yet the folly of this course is shown in the following experience:

"And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me." (Acts 8:18 - 24)

Actually if this web site was taken down I think it a good thing, rather than deceiving people into thinking they can "agitate" God into granting His authority to those whom it does not belong by right.

[Calm]

Are you really saying you'd have no objections to the website if it were (1) setup by a woman and (2) only allowed women to sign? Seriously?

Not having seen the website since it has been taken down I can't tell you that. But I have had no objections to the numerous blogs out there by women discussing this very thing and expressing a desire for change.

I have no problem if men sign something like this to show their support either. I have a problem with men assuming leadership roles or being involved in the designing because in my experience it then gets done in the way the man sees as most important because if the man is doing the designing as in this website, it will be his interpretation of what women want that gets put on the website....and there is no guarantee that will actually be what women really want. People who are used to making the decisions and feel they possess something that gives them an edge over others, (in this case the priesthood....if they want to share the power that the priesthood gives, they must see priesthood giving some sort of power, right?) often see their own experience as more valuable and relevant than others even when it's about the others' lives, and not their own. I've seen this often occurring in charitable endeavours where the giver set things up the way s/he thinks it should be for the good of the receiver rather than allowing the person who is supposed to benefit most do the determining of what should get done and how. On occasion this is appropriate due to a lack of skill among those being helped, but if the idea is to give equality than there should be an expectation that the 'other' is as equal to the task as those who do it now.

If women are capable of holding the priesthood wisely and well, we are certainly capable enough of figuring out how to go about seeking change for it without men interfering and telling us there is a better way. A man certainly can offer to help out if he wishes to support women in their choices, but then instead of taking over the project or being the one to define what the movement should become, he should be willing to stand at the back, stepping up only when asked to and following instructions from women on how they want to bring change into their own lives.

Just as women shouldn't be telling men how they should tie their own shoes, what clothes to wear, what will make them happiest and most fulfilled, just as they should step back and do what is asked rather than what they think men need in order to help men fulfill their own desires.

And just as men and women should work together to form a mutual plan that incorporates both of their desires and allows them to work in those areas they need to, not just those areas they do best when it comes to a relationship.

Domination with the intent to help someone is still domination. Considering how long men have been doing it to women, there are many who do it without even realizing they are doing it. Like a man who sees a need for women to be able to publicize a desire for the priesthood and then goes out and sets it all up in the way he thinks it will be most effective so that all women have to do is come on his board and do it his way to get what he thinks they should desire.

[katherine the great]

The phrase "agitating faithfully" to me is sort of an oxymoron. How do you rebell and remain loyal at the same time?

I do it all the time with my husband!

[Duncan]

This is something I have read over and over and really like. It puts the Priesthood in perspective for me. My real concern is that everything you have said seems to lead to what benefits the Priesthood holder may receive for being such. The Priesthood is not for the holder. You keep mentioning what you want your wife and daughters to have not what you want them to give.

this article is truly one his best! I wish I had the whatever to say this!

Edited January 6, 2012 by Duncan

[Buckeye]

I do it all the time with my husband!

As does my wife. In fact, I would hold up the prime example of "agitating faithfully" to be Mother Eve agitating Adam to get his butt out of the garden. Thank goodness for a woman who could lead.

Sorry to do this, but I have to get back to work, so I won't keep posting for some hours. Now I remember why I cut the cord on this board. Too many good debaters (well, mostly) and not enough time.

[Nominee]

this article is truly one his best! I wish I had the whatever to say this!

My friend, Jeremy, gave me this article a long time ago when he was my home teacher and I was asking questions about the Priesthood. I have kept it and agree that it "is truly one of his best!" Funny thing is that Jeremy and I are not on the same side of this debate. I wouldn't be surprised if he shows up having something to say on this topic that I don't agree with but he keeps my brain on its toes and that isn't bad.

[Calm]

Another point one may make is what does a woman miss out on by not holding the priesthood? The only thing I can think of is the responsibility of stewardship.

In the long run I don't see anything that a woman misses out, especially if we are talking about the really long run since women will become priestesses in the future....whatever that entails.

In the short run, there are times that a woman may miss out on something. For example, I am often homebound on Sundays due to health issues and instead of being able to have a private little Sabbath of my own, in order to have the sacrament I need to invite others into my home....but if I felt good enough to have people come into my home, I would likely feel good enough to go to church. My daughter also has severe social anxiety and anything that is the least awkward makes her anxiety unbearable at the moment. We are working on it but what it means is that she has the Sacrament maybe a couple of times a year right now, something that I think would comfort her....but even just asking her dad is too much for her. Being able to prepare it for herself would be about the only way she could handle it right.

There are also the cases where women are isolated from church units, for example men when traveling if unable to attend church can prepare the sacrament for themselves, women can't. Women who live a long way from other members, who have to depend on the occasional home teacher or missionary being available to provide sacrament service, are being deprived of blessings short term. There are probably places that could hold a branch based on female membership that are not incorporated due to lack of faithful priesthood holders. If these women are faithful, I have no doubt that they will be blessed tenfold for any shortcomings the lack of a consistent sacrament and other priesthood made available blessings in their lives at this time.....but if this is a reason to work hard to have active priesthood holders all through the world, to meet the needs of our members, then I think we should recognize that some are being shortchanged at this time because they don't qualify for the priesthood solely by gender.

As far as other ordinances, primarily health blessings, I believe a woman's faithful prayer can be as effective in the health aspect as a priesthood blessing so I don't see a major problem with that. Priesthood is a skill in my view, essential for many things it does involving the operation of the Church and its ordinances, but there are other tools that are just as effective for some of the things it is used for in day to day living.

As far as the spiritual blessings that are given the person who exercises it righteously, if we start demanding that everyone worth have identical access to spiritual blessings that come to us in the service of others AND we identify those blessing with certain authorities, then why should we not start demanding that everyone be given the same sort of spiritual mantle that the bishop gets so that they aren't denied the spiritual blessings bishops are open to, or everyone should be given the mantle that a missionary carries or the various general authority positions and the Relief Society, Primary and Young Women's leaders' type of mantle as well. Surely all worthy members deserve the opportunity to receive the same sort of spiritual blessings that those roles bestow on their worthy holders.....at least that is the logic it seems to me for arguing that women are being denied unique spiritual blessings by not being priesthood holders rather than priesthood holders and everyone else are given the unique blessings they as individuals need, the Lord giving out blessings not according to the office a person holds, but according to the person and his or her personal needs and desires as well as the blessings s/he needs to fulfill a calling and bless those under the stewardship of that calling.

So I find the whole "being denied spiritual blessings" as an argument based on facts not in evidence. There are other reasons for women to seek after the blessings of the priesthood, the only one that currently matters to me is what Abraham expressed in his desire for the Priesthood:

Abraham 1:2 And, finding there was greater ^ahappiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of ^brighteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great ^cknowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many ^dnations, a prince of peace, and ^edesiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a ^fHigh Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

I wish to possess great knowledge and be a greater follower of righteousness, but this does not come from receiving the Priesthood in the here and now, but from obedience to the Lord and following his instructions. First things first, in my opinion. If I truly follow the Lord, then the Lord will inspire me to do what must be done to receive all that he desires to give me including the Priesthood. If I do my part, I will trust that because he has instructed them----not because I have "agitated" or pushed for change, those he has chosen to lead us will do their part as well....eventually. Until then I will go about seeking the blessings of the Priesthood in the same way I seek the blessings of eternal life, health, wisdom, and all else, by doing what I can do and praying that others will be inspired to do what they should do, but which does not include telling others how they should be running their own lives or how to run the Church.

[Senator]

I do it all the time with my husband!

Heh..

[Senator]

I also recall Joseph Smith teaching that we must at times "weary the Lord" with our petitions for the things we stand in need of.

[LeSellers]

I was not suggesting that personal possesion of the priesthood is necessary to see God.

Irrespective of your purpose, you chose the wrong scripture to make your point.

3 Nephi explains how women and children were in the presence of Christ and I'm rather doubtful any of them (particularly the children) had been ordained. What I am saying is that women are denied some measure of spiritual experience through the ban and that there is no reason for that denial.

You assume there is no reason for the denial.

We don't know why our sisters cannot hold the priesthood, but we know that God could change that at anytime if He desired to do so. To this point, He has not indicated any such reason.

However, we have a myriad of scriptural passages that indicate that women and men have different, and equally vital, roles in His plan. Equality between items does not require they be identical: e⁰ = 1/(sin²Θ+cos²Θ).

Elder McConkie was fairly certain the racial ban would not be lifted in his lifetime, but that changed very quickly. It didn't change because of agitation, but because the brethren saw how unworkable the ban was for the gospel to spread in Brazil and other countries with mixed races. I'm hopeful that as they continue to see current stagnation in growth - real growth - they'll likewise realize how unnecesary the gender ban is.

You assume it is "unnecesary [sic]", but there is no reason for us to assume the God does not have a reason. And, tellingly, you have not shown how ordaining sisters would be useful, much less "necessary". There is no spiritual gift or blessing we brothers have that our sisters do not share.

As others have pointed out, the Priesthood exists to serve others, not the man who holds it himself. If the Priesthood exists to serve, then how does it differ from the Relief Society in any meaningful way? Joseph told us that the sisters must be organized like the brethren, and he "turn[ed] the key" for them to be so with the establishment of the Relief Society. The fields of sevice are different, but they both require similar levels of obedience, sacrifice, and dedication.

Your assumption about why the lineage ban was lifted is nothing more than an assumption. You do realize, do you not, that the São Paulo Temple was built before the ban was lifted? It was there, ready for the Saints who could not hold the Priesthood 'til later. There were tens of thousands of them who had contributed to that building believing they would never be able to use it. We Saints in USmerica and Canada, too, contributed the vast majority of the money needed to build that Temple not knowing if it would be used at all. But God did, and He had it built just in time.

It would not have been a big problem in 1830 or1835 (coincidental with the formation of the first modern Quorum of the Twelve) for Him to have said, "Okeh, now the sisters will hold the Priesthood, as well." He did not.

Further, from the time the Priesthood ban based on lineage was inaugurated, the propehts have told us that it would one day be lifted. There is no such statement in regards to the sisters receiving the Priesthood.

BTW, there is no "stagnation in growth". There is a "stagnation in growth rates", but that's not the same thing, nor is it a huge concern for me (although the Brethren are probably of a different opinion, seeing things from a different vantage point) because it has been prophesied that, although we are to fill the earth, we will always be a "little flock".

Lehi

[LeSellers]

In the short run, there are times that a woman may miss out on something. For example, I am often homebound on Sundays due to health issues and instead of being able to have a private little Sabbath of my own, in order to have the sacrament I need to invite others into my home...

If you are alone, you couldn't have the Sacrament anyway. It takes at least two.

Lehi

[Senator]

Now as far as women ever holding the priesthood, that will never happen in the true Church for the simple reason that the priesthood is not just the authority of God, but is His power. If women should hold the priesthood then why not the title of God Himself?

Yes, why not?

I believe there is the "other half" of God the father, that is every bit as much God the Mother.

[Calm]

I also recall Joseph Smith teaching that we must at times "weary the Lord" with our petitions for the things we stand in need of.

I have no problem with someone wearying the Lord on this matter if they feel inspired to do so (and not just because they think it's a good idea). He is the one people should be seeking out on this matter. It will be his voice that decides this. Pray for him to inspire our leaders to do the right thing in this matter.

Praying to keep open to inspiration on what is the Lord's Will in the matter is the most important blessing we can seek in this issue, even more important in the long run then the Priesthood since learning to align our will with the Lord's Will is part of what brings full access to the gift of the Atonement, without which the Priesthood is meaningless in our lives either now or eternally.

[Calm]

If you are alone, you couldn't have the Sacrament anyway. It takes at least two.

Lehi

Really? Hmm...perhaps I misunderstood some of the stories I've heard. Good to know.

[Senator]

I have no problem with someone wearying the Lord on this matter if they feel inspired to do so (and not just because they think it's a good idea). He is the one people should be seeking out on this matter. It will be his voice that decides this. Pray for him to inspire our leaders to do the right thing in this matter.

Praying to keep open to inspiration on what is the Lord's Will in the matter is the most important blessing we can seek in this issue, even more important in the long run then the Priesthood since learning to align our will with the Lord's Will is part of what brings full access to the gift of the Atonement, without which the Priesthood is meaningless in our lives either now or eternally.

Can't disagree with you there....

[Calm]

If women should hold the priesthood then why not the title of God Himself?

Would not this equally apply to men? Or is there some reason men inherently deserve the title of God that women do not?