Women And The Priesthood

[selek1]

Actually if what you state in the first part of your top sentence is your position, then both you and Juliann have the same ultimate agenda.

In all actuality, I have no official position on the matter either way.

My personal understanding of the Gospel makes me suspect that the Lord's will has been made manifest, but I do not discount the possibility that this may change.

I understand the status quo to be the Lord's will (for now, at least)- but if the Lord indicates otherwise, then I will happily ordain each of my daughters as is his (and their desire).

The only possible difference...and here I am unsure about your position....is that Juliann wishes to encourage public discussions about the topic so that women who do desire the Priesthood if this aligns with God's Will do not feel shame or frustration because they feel they cannot express this desire without being seen as less than faithful.

And I agree with her. I see unnecessary pain being caused because women are uncertain about themselves and about their roles in part because they are confused by the messages being taught in the Church. More discussion means a greater chance for understanding and acceptance and for creation of effective ways for all to serve as things currently stand while working toward even greater things in the future as we are taught to expect (such as in the Articles of Faith).

I understand this desire- but I am also leery about the possibility of such discussions evolving beyond affirmation and understanding and thence into ark-steadying and apostacy.

I worry about such discussions making false promises that cannot be kept (as being contrary to God's will)- and the disappointment and disaffection that will surely follow.

We know that the Church discourages these sorts of theological speculation and discussion, because we have seen the damage that they can do.

We have also seen- in this very thread- the hostility and derision that can be generated on both sides of the argument.

Now- imagine that level of animosity, contention, and division spreading throughout the Church- and tell me that this is a good thing.

I don't know of any woman here who has expressed a desire for the Priesthood or who has accepted that desire in others (though she does not desire it herself) as righteous who does not include in the desire "thy Will be done", thus allowing for such a blessing to enter their life solely at the discretion of the Lord in his own way and time.

I agree. I have seem the same thing.

I have also seen faithful members go on "anti-male" tears, levelling false accusations and firing wildly at anyone perceived to be contradicting them.

I also have yet to see this conversation and topic end in anything other than angry recriminations and finger pointing.

I don't want that- I don't want it for my daughters, my sisters, or for my Church.

All that those of us who hold this position are really asking for, imo, is the acceptance that it is okay to feel this way, that is it not sinful or prideful to believe what the scriptures say about the Priesthood can also be applied to women.

Nor would I deprive you of it.

Respectfully, however, those of you here who hold this position are not the sum total of those advocating for the change.

Those voices- and their tactics- must be taken into consideration as well.

If someone has not yet received a personal answer that it is contrary to the Will of God to desire something that is taught in the scriptures and by the prophets as desirable, I would never assume myself that such a desire was unrighteous.

Nor would I. Once they begin agitating and demanding that the Church makes the change- or worse, begin using agreement with their agenda as a litmus test of who is faithful and who is not- then a line has been crossed and must be addressed.

Unless someone can demonstrate that the Lord has revealed that it is contrary to his Will that women are not to desire the Priesthood, why would anyone assume that it was an unrighteous desire?

I do not- and would not, as I have made clear several times in this thread.

Once, however, the line I mentioned above has been crossed, then we are dealing with a different situation entirely.

Do you believe that something has to be demonstrated to be a righteous desire before one should pray about receiving it? If not, then is there anything inherently wrong with women desiring the Priesthood in your mind?

Inherently? No - as I have indicated several times. As with all things, however, it depends upon the individual and their motivations.

If not, then is there anything inherently wrong with discussing this desire in public? (when I say "inherently wrong" I mean assuming that it is done in a way that is intended to align with God's will, even if they are not yet aware of what God's will in the matter is, not having received an answer to any personal prayer on it).

I refer you to my concerns detailed above.

[Calm]

This USAToday article does a good job of explaining the different points of view, not all think the priesthood is the solution.

http://www.usatoday....omen/57168094/1

I think this is the same one that was in the SL Trib

[JCNowandForever]

He denies the sinful access to his Prieshtood.

Thus far, he has chosen to deny the sisters the privilege of holding the Priesthood.

.

You're very good at generalizations.

It is true "He denies the sinful access to his Prieshtood."(sic) but He doesn't deny the RIGHTEOUS AND THE WORTHY to his priesthood. Male and Female alike can be worthy and righteous for the priesthood.

"Thus far, he has chosen to deny the sisters the privilege of holding the Priesthood." Can you provide an explicit and un-ambiguous verse in the scripture that say that? Coz I believe this is exactly what I'm talking about and uncalled for Gender bias in the church.

Just stating my opinion here, no need for trolling...

Let's not be naive. History has shown that verses in the scriptures have been used to justify Priesthood Ban in the Church. As an LDS, I agree that to be true but I don't fault anyone, because I knew they were (whoever it was) influenced by the racial culture of that time. And I understand that and I forgive that.

But to continue and not learn from our mistakes of allowing our racial/gender misunderstanding to influence our policies toward women ban of the priesthood is just plainly sad, very sad!.

[CV75]

I guess what I'm missing is any scriptural support for your view that Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood roles, responsibilities, burdens, etc. are intentionally limited by God to only males. *** The scriptures do not require your reading.

I cannot think of any single scripture in the four standard works that states that it is God’s intention to limit the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood offices to males only. The scriptures generally seem to speak of “priesthood office themes” in terms of a male-only authority. So I view those with the priesthood keys are administering these offices in line with the scriptural patterns.

For example, there are references to “brethren” when discussing priesthood (but not offices) in the Book or Mormon; we have the lists of males receiving the priesthood only from males (e.g. D& 84:6-19) and references to Abraham’s priesthood-bearing seed (verses 31-34), with “priesthood” being synonymous with the “sons” that have the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods, of which the offices are appendages.

We also have D&C 76: 22-24 (Moses 1: 32-35) recognizing the relationship between Christ and the inhabitants of His worlds, the “begotten sons and daughters unto God.” We know that these worlds and its inhabitants were created by the power of His priesthood, that the “angel who was in authority” in verses 25-29 (Moses 4: 1-3) was male and opposed Him that gave him that authority but refused to grant him greater authority (in terms of power, glory). A male-only priesthood (other than the highest order) seems to be the rule, and the exceptions for women may be tied to the highest order.

I don’t consider sister ordinance workers as holding a priesthood “office” but I suppose it could be since they administer ordinances, and it is applicable only in the temple.

[Nemesis]

In all actuality, I have no official position on the matter either way.

My personal understanding of the Gospel makes me suspect that the Lord's will has been made manifest, but I do not discount the possibility that this may change.

I understand the status quo to be the Lord's will (for now, at least)- but if the Lord indicates otherwise, then I will happily ordain each of my daughters as is his (and their desire).

I understand this desire- but I am also leery about the possibility of such discussions evolving beyond affirmation and understanding and thence into ark-steadying and apostacy.

I worry about such discussions making false promises that cannot be kept (as being contrary to God's will)- and the disappointment and disaffection that will surely follow.

We know that the Church discourages these sorts of theological speculation and discussion, because we have seen the damage that they can do.

We have also seen- in this very thread- the hostility and derision that can be generated on both sides of the argument.

Now- imagine that level of animosity, contention, and division spreading throughout the Church- and tell me that this is a good thing.

I agree. I have seem the same thing.

I have also seen faithful members go on "anti-male" tears, levelling false accusations and firing wildly at anyone perceived to be contradicting them.

I also have yet to see this conversation and topic end in anything other than angry recriminations and finger pointing.

I don't want that- I don't want it for my daughters, my sisters, or for my Church.

Nor would I deprive you of it.

Respectfully, however, those of you here who hold this position are not the sum total of those advocating for the change.

Those voices- and their tactics- must be taken into consideration as well.

Nor would I. Once they begin agitating and demanding that the Church makes the change- or worse, begin using agreement with their agenda as a litmus test of who is faithful and who is not- then a line has been crossed and must be addressed.

I do not- and would not, as I have made clear several times in this thread.

Once, however, the line I mentioned above has been crossed, then we are dealing with a different situation entirely.

Inherently? No - as I have indicated several times. As with all things, however, it depends upon the individual and their motivations.

I refer you to my concerns detailed above.

Wow all I have to say is wow.

Nemesis

[CV75]

The priesthood is not a "test". http://www.lds.org/e...sthood?lang=eng

We all know that the priesthood is much more than just a name or title. The Prophet Joseph taught that “the Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity … to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years.”¹ It holds “even the key of the knowledge of God.”² In fact, through the priesthood the very “power of godliness is manifest.”³

The blessings of the priesthood transcend our ability to comprehend. Faithful Melchizedek Priesthood holders can “become … the elect of God.”⁴ They are “sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies”⁵ and can ultimately receive “all that [the] Father hath.”⁶ This may be hard to comprehend, but it is beautiful, and I testify that it is true.

Everything we are give (or not) in this life is part of our mortal probabtion (a test). In this way, the priesthood is part of our testing and a test.

Some of what I say has to do with priesthood offices (male-only), and some has to do with the highest order (for males and females) so I don't necessarily disagree with many of your observations.

[Pahoran]

When the LDS Church is pressured by feminism like it was in the civil rights movement in the 60's and 70's, then a declaration will be

forthcoming. [and that is not a prophetical utterance].

Regards,

Jim

Of course it's not a prophetic utterance.

As you know, Jim -- or as you ought to know, because you pose as an "expert" on Mormonism for some of your less-informed co-religionists -- the 1978 revelation on Priesthood had nothing to do with the Civil Rights movement of the 60's and early 70's. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself or anything, but if you think really, really hard for, oh, about half a second, you might actually realise that the Priesthood is not, and never has been a civil right.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

selek, my problem with not having all faithful sisters no matter what their position is participate in the discussion is that this turns the discussion completely over to the dissenters. This discussion is going to be had about the Church no matter what church members do and I would apply the same rule to this topic as I would any other which means the faithful must get involved.

Now how we choose to get involved is very important and that is what should be the first part of the discussion, imo.

[Pahoran]

To the contrary, however, we do have scriptures which state quite explicitly that Priesthood is not based on gender.

Do we?

To wit:

"Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life."

Well if we do, that is certainly not one of them.

The Melchizedek Priesthood is described as "without father, without mother" etc. to distinguish it from the Aaronic Priesthood, which had to be inherited. A candidate's eligibility for the Priesthood depended upon who his father was. This is not the case with the Melchizedek Priesthood, which has been largely -- and for the last generation, totally -- lineage-independent.

I realise this is a favourite hobby-horse of yours Jeremy, but you would help your case if you read the scriptures for what they say, rather than for what they ought to mean if only the authors were as enlightened as you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jude2]

Truman Madsen was my stake president when I got married. During our recommend interview with him, he took some time to give us some counsel. He mentioned the priesthood (to the best of my memory) thus:

"You, brother, are going to be the presiding priesthood holder in the home. While the priesthood in your wife is largely latent, keep in mind that she has the same right to revelation and power from God as you do. In the Celestial world I believe there will be no such distinction, but that the couple will truly be united in all things, including the use of the priesthood." (emphasis added).

I found it interesting that a man as studied as he would have to put that qualifier in how this will play out. But it is equally important to note what he said about women holding the priesthood in this life.

As for myself, I never really saw this as an issue. I'm not sure why it is an issue for anyone. The priesthood is a calling. It is not a reward that we seek out. "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he who iss called of God as was Aaron."

I never sought it out. I was told to prepare. So I did. But apart from that, I don't think I ever would have decided "I want this, so I'm going after it." I believe anyone (man or woman) who does so, doesn't understand the nature of "calling".

This exactly how I understand it. When we are sealed to each other we become one. There is no need for a woman to be ordained to the priesthood because she shares it with her husband.

On April 28th 1842 Eliza recorded in her min. of the RS;

"he (Joseph) spoke of delivering the keys of the priesthood to the church, and said that faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands…"

And a quote from John Taylor

"…it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands." JD vol 21

[Cobalt-70]

For example, there are references to “brethren” when discussing priesthood (but not offices) in the Book or Mormon; we have the lists of males receiving the priesthood only from males (e.g. D& 84:6-19) and references to Abraham’s priesthood-bearing seed (verses 31-34), with “priesthood” being synonymous with the “sons” that have the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods, of which the offices are appendages.

As to D&C 84:31-34, I don't see this as being gender exclusive. Yes, it says, "They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron." But it also says that they become the "elect of God." Nowhere has scripture specified that only men can become the "seed of Abraham" or the "elect of God." Both men and women can be the descendants of Abraham and the elect. So when the verse says "sons of Moses and of Aaron," there is no reason to think this isn't used in a gender inclusive way.

I don’t consider sister ordinance workers as holding a priesthood “office” but I suppose it could be since they administer ordinances, and it is applicable only in the temple.

I wouldn't say they hold an office. I make a distinction between priesthood "power" and priesthood "office." An office is a position of authority. Women temple workers have Melchizedek priesthood power, and thus the Melchizedek priesthood, but hold no office. Women are given a few positions of authority within the church, but we don't usually call them "offices" anymore, perhaps because we know that ultimately, these women no longer have any real authority. Everything of significance has to ultimately be brought to a man for approval.

[JCNowandForever]

...these women no longer have any real authority. Everything of significance has to ultimately be brought to a man for approval.

Why is that? why does women have to always bring to man for approval? I think this is one of those gender misunderstandings. Women can certainly make decisions that is of significance and not always be brought to man for approval! We ought to stay away from this gender misconceptions! It is badly influencing us in the church (as far as policies are concerned) and is not conducive to a good Gospel learning environment.

[JCNowandForever]

As such, your interpretation of the verse- not mine- is the outlier.

No statement by the Church uses this verse in the fashion that you do, nor is it implied in any of the official statements, policies, or materials of the Church.

Of course you wouldn't see the Church use this verse in the fashion that I do... However I'm entitled to my own opinion when I use this verse to indicate that the Lord doesn't DENY "righteous and worthy" men and women to hold the priesthood (2Nephi 26:33). If the Lord doesn't deny worthy male and female the priesthood, we humans shouldn't deny either, through our supposed policies. This verse is the only verse I see that the Lord is teaching us NOT to be racially biased or gender biased. Unfortunately, in the old days of the Church, the brethren didn't see this verse as a warning not be racially biased in any form. Thus by not interpreting it this way as a warning for us not be racially biased, the brethren, being influenced by their racial misunderstanding of their time, put a policy to ban blacks the priesthood. That racial biased has now corrected by the 1978 revelation. But the sadness of this is that Gender bias still continues until today. If we learn the lesson of the past, we should not allow Gender misunderstandings of the day to influence our policies. The church should allow women the priesthood. Period! Does it require a revelation? I doubt it. Because we already have numerous revelations telling us not to be gender biased. Let's learn from that and change the policy.

[Pahoran]

As to D&C 84:31-34, I don't see this as being gender exclusive. Yes, it says, "They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron." But it also says that they become the "elect of God." Nowhere has scripture specified that only men can become the "seed of Abraham" or the "elect of God." Both men and women can be the descendants of Abraham and the elect. So when the verse says "sons of Moses and of Aaron," there is no reason to think this isn't used in a gender inclusive way.

This is so tedious. You have read it exactly backwards.

This is elementary set theory, Cobalt. This is how intersections work: If I say an object is an X, a Y and a Z, then I am asserting that it exists at the intersection of those three sets; IOW, it has all of the definitive characteristics of all three sets.

Now if one of the definitive characteristics of set Y is that all members thereof are blue, then something that is an X, a Y and a Z must necessarily be blue; it may even be cobalt blue. But if it isn't blue, it isn't a Y. To point out that X's and Z's can be yellow or green or any other colour is entirely irrelevant.

And in exactly the same way, while it is perfectly true that men and women can be the seed of Abraham and the church and kingdom and the elect of God, it just so happens that (unless you come from a mighty unusual family) sons are, by definition, male.

Therefore, anyone who manages to be all of those things at once must, among other things, be a boy. If she's a girl, she's not a son. Game over, thank you linemen (or women), thank you ball boys (or girls.)

Women are given a few positions of authority within the church, but we don't usually call them "offices" anymore, perhaps because we know that ultimately, these women no longer have any real authority. Everything of significance has to ultimately be brought to a man for approval.

This is utter nonsense. Every office in the Church, from the secretary of a Sunday School class to the President of the Church, has its own sphere within which the holder exercises some degree of discretion. Decisions only have to be referred upstairs "for approval" if they exceed that discretion; but that is the case for everyone, male and female. Your attempt to create discord by pretending that only women have to defer to only men, and that they have to do it for every decision, fails to describe any reality.

Do you have a problem with that?

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited August 21, 2012 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Let's learn from that and change the policy.

Thank you Uzzah.

You know, if you start your own church, you can make whatever policies you please. You can throw every Church leader you like under the bus, and you can sacrifice everything you disapprove of on the altar of political correctness.

But Latter-day Saints are aware of another scripture: Ephesians 4:14.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Why is that? why does women have to always bring to man for approval? I think this is one of those gender misunderstandings. Women can certainly make decisions that is of significance and not always be brought to man for approval! We ought to stay away from this gender misconceptions! It is badly influencing us in the church (as far as policies are concerned) and is not conducive to a good Gospel learning environment.

There are huge amount of decisions that women make in the Church for their stewardships that require no input from men.

Also I was discussing this very topic with my husband at dinner tonight and he assured me there was no requirement for men to be present at RS meetings, Primary activities, YW activities etc.******** If a ward chooses to have them there it is not for presiding or any other authoritative purpose, but for convenience such as safety or in certain cases in our ward, the bishopric prepares the meal for a RS party. Someone else mentioned men being present to run the nursery.

I do know there are men required at YWs' camp but even if they are present for safety reasons, they are not there in positions of authority, they are not presiding over those meetings.

So if anyone out there insists that a priesthood holder must be present at all meetings of women, please provide the official reference that demonstrates this. Thank you.

*******As it turns out I am having a discussion on this topic with different people in several places at once, I think I've mixed up this claim being on this thread with it actually being somewhere else, so just take this as a general clarification for a claim that has been made on occasion (I have seen in several places over the past while) and not a response to anything said on this thread....unless someone actually did make the claim, lol.

Here is one of the posts who had the misunderstanding:

Why does a Priesthood holder always have to be at a gathering of women? That seems rather degrading and something that can be easily done away with.

If this is happening in a ward it is likely the result of a request from the women. I just read a thread elsewhere on the subject where the RS women were getting flashed in the parking lot. Edited August 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

I am not familiar with a gospel that tells anyone they were "meant" to fade away. The only gospel I have ever known was predicated on agency and our responsibility and duty to "spread our branches". What I do see is too many who claim to represent the gospel that take it upon themselves to tell those who desire to do just that to fade away rather than petition the Lord through prayer.

You took my words too literally. Another way of saying it is that some of us live a life that is unremarked by all others except God. I always thnk of the widow who threw in her two mites. None took notice of her, but she gave all she had and is looked up most approvingly by the Lord rather than all those, dressed in their refinery that gave great sums of gold. Do you understand my intent better now?

[altersteve]

Women are given a few positions of authority within the church, but we don't usually call them "offices" anymore, perhaps because we know that ultimately, these women no longer have any real authority.

This is disgusting, Cobalt.

[CV75]

As to D&C 84:31-34, I don't see this as being gender exclusive. Yes, it says, "They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron." But it also says that they become the "elect of God." Nowhere has scripture specified that only men can become the "seed of Abraham" or the "elect of God." Both men and women can be the descendants of Abraham and the elect. So when the verse says "sons of Moses and of Aaron," there is no reason to think this isn't used in a gender inclusive way.

I agree that could be a reading of it (in terms that no eternal blessing is withheld from women), but I'm looking at my examples in conjunction with all the other patterns I mentioned. Another example is the transference of priesthood keys relating to dispensations (the Mount of Transfiguration; John to Jospeh and Oliver; Peter James and John to Jospeh and Oliver; the events in Kirtland Temple/D&C 110). There seems to be a pattern that women are not involved in the priesthood as it relates to administering in the affairs of the Lord's kingdom on this earth, but they have every involvement in the priesthood as it functions in heaven. For example, I can read "God" as "The Father" or as a "Divine Council" consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, of a larger council of Men, or a larger council of Men and Women, or a small council consisting of a Man and a Woman. I haven't an issue with any of these applications. But the way it works on this earth, in this life, outside the realm of the highest order of priesthood as represented in a temple marriage, is that men by and large hold the priesthood offices.

Everything of significance has to ultimately be brought to a man for approval.

No, everything of significance has to ultimately be brought to the proper priesthood authority, whomever that may be. And ultilmately-ultimately-ultimately everything has to be brought to God and aligned with His will, which can be considered to be an individual or a council, as mentioned above.

I think men and women should covet the best gifts, and priesthood office isn't held up as one of these. In fact, there has been a lot said about aspiring to office.

[JCNowandForever]

Thank you Uzzah.

You know, if you start your own church, you can make whatever policies you please. You can throw every Church leader you like under the bus, and you can sacrifice everything you disapprove of on the altar of political correctness.

But Latter-day Saints are aware of another scripture: Ephesians 4:14.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran, you cannot demonize someone because they have differing opinions from you or because of your gender or racial bias.

You forgot to include verse 16 on that same chapter where it talks about the body:

From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

The body is made of every part (or jointh). Not one "part" is above another nor can you say to the other "part" we have not need of thee... go start your "own church". You are very un-christian in that comment. And you ought to repent for that slight comment. That comment doesn't edify in love but put wedge and divide.

The policies I'm alluding to is directed to the brethren who are in position of leadership who have the responsibilities to lead this church in the manner Christ has shown, in love, in including everyone not excluding. And when the brethren allow themselves to be influenced by the racial and gender misunderstandings of their day, this is what happens, exclusionary policies. It's time for that to change and it is changing as we speak.

PS, I'm not the first one to bring up this issue of women and the priesthood, so please don't think to yourself that because your hearing radical solutions to this problem that you would start ad-homenim and straw-man attacks.

[CASteinman]

including everyone not excluding.

This is a doctrine contrary to that taught to us by Jesus. We are, for example, not to permit unbelievers and gross sinners into membership. The Gospel and the Priesthood have always had restrictions on them despite political correctness.

[happy]

What would be next though? Changing God's gender in the Bible and Book of Mormon to gender neutral? Will we start following in every other Church's footsteps to be acceptable to today's society?

[Calm]

I think men and women should covet the best gifts, and priesthood office isn't held up as one of these. In fact, there has been a lot said about aspiring to office.

Are you just talking about offices or the Priesthood itself? If the latter, I suggest you read Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood manual and then come back and tell us where in there is any hint that it is not one of the, if not the best gift God has given man. If you mean offices such as having the role of deacon, teacher, priest, elder, HP, bishop, etc. I am issuing a CFR that these are not considered "best gifts".

As far as "aspiring to office" please show somewhere that our young men have been corrected on wanting to become deacons, priests, elders, etc.

Edited August 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[JCNowandForever]

This is a doctrine contrary to that taught to us by Jesus. We are, for example, not to permit unbelievers and gross sinners into membership. The Gospel and the Priesthood have always had restrictions on them despite political correctness.

Then you have not really understood the real meaning of 2 Nephi 26:33 which is inclusionary in its explanation. Jesus himself included everyone, even Gross sinners... to come to him. Your own policy of membership is just that human policy and has no bearing on the true essence of the Love of Christ.

[Buckeye]

What would be next though? Changing God's gender in the Bible and Book of Mormon to gender neutral? Will we start following in every other Church's footsteps to be acceptable to today's society?

If women were given the priesthood because we were following society's whims, then I'd say we should look to society for the "next change".

If, however, women are given the priesthood because its the righteous desire of the church body, which is confirmed by the spirit, then I would assume any future changes will follow that same paradigm. I'm not sure what the changes would be, but I am sure they will come. Surely you don't think the gospel as we currently know it is complete?