Women And The Priesthood

[Calm]

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.

Joseph Smith's efforts with the sealing power was an attempt, I believe, to bring heaven down to earth.

“When I first heard him preach, he brought heaven and earth together; and all the priests of the day could not tell me anything correct about heaven, hell, God, angels, or devils; they were as blind as Egyptian darkness. When I saw Joseph Smith, he took heaven, figuratively speaking, and brought it down to earth; and he took the earth, brought it up, and opened up, in plainness and simplicity, the things of God; and that is the beauty of his mission.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954, p. 458.)

http://www.lds.org/g...om-joseph-smith

We are taught as women to make our homes a part of heaven on earth ("But if we really try, our home can be a bit of heaven here on earth" http://www.lds.org/l...-3363-6,00.html )., the temple is to be the same and since women are already functioning in the Priesthood there it would seem that we don't actually have to be in heaven before we can participate in the heavenly order, the heavenly way of doing things.

The Church itself is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, so why would we be operating in the Church by a mortal, worldly standard and not by the heavenly one?

Edited August 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[CV75]

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.

Yes, I am talking about the priesthood offices, not the various orders of the priesthood or the orders in which the offices serve as appendages. These offices (and the priesthood, for that matter) are not listed among the “best gifts” that are to be earnestly sought equally by men and women in the Church, according to the discussion of spiritual gifts in D&C 46. Note that the bishop and elders who watch over the Church have the office to discern whether one professing a gift indeed has it from God. Of course the best gift is eternal life (D&C 14:7), which comes irrespective of what office one holds in the priesthood, if any at all. These scriptures show that an office in the priesthood does not constitute one of the spiritual gifts to be earnestly sought, as define in D&C 46 and elsewhere.

I agree with everything printed in the “Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood” manual, and that priesthood office advancement is a wondrous gift and blessing in many ways, just not in the same way as those gifts described above.

The discussion about the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood in D&C 84 strongly encourages all men to receive the priesthood. This is what the young men are doing by having it conferred upon them and advancing from one office to the next. This is not the same as aspiring for office, which is condemned (D&C 121:35, 58:41). Aspiring is what the unworthy or the ineligible do when they want something they cannot rightfully possess (I addressed this in my comments above about the angel who fell, and why he fell).

[happy]

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?

Completing a gospel vs changing it to appease social demands are two different things.

[Calm]

ineligible

How are you defining "ineligible"?

Would you say it was wrong for black men prior to 1978 to aspire to the Priesthood?

[Calm]

Completing a gospel vs changing it to appease social demands are two different things.

Why is "changing [the gospel] to appease social demands" being brought up so often in this thread when no one who is talking about the possibility of women receiving the Priesthood is suggesting it be done in any way save through God's Will?

Why can't the context be limited to "if it is to be done, it will be done because God wants it done" and then discuss the dynamics involved in that way?

Edited August 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[happy]

Why is "changing [the gospel] to appease social demands" being brought up so often in this thread when no one who is talking about the possibility of women receiving the Priesthood is suggesting it be done in any way save through God's Will?

Like it or not, articles like in the SL Tribune, blog posts, and some of the users here are creating social pressure by acting like they are hurt by current policies. The same thing is happening to the Catholic Church, people threatening to leave if the Church doesn't change its policies. If either the Mormon or Catholic church changed their policies in this current environment, especially with the aggressive social movements demanding religion change or be obsolete, it would take some real mental gymnastics to not say the Church changed to social pressure.

[CV75]

Joseph Smith's efforts with the sealing power was an attempt, I believe, to bring heaven down to earth.

We are taught as women to make our homes a part of heaven on earth

The Church itself is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, so why would we be operating in the Church by a mortal, worldly standard and not by the heavenly one?

I think my earlier posts address these concerns. Participating in a priesthood order is very different than holding a priesthood office. The temple sealing between man and woman is the highest order. The priesthood offices, and even some of the keys, are for regulating the affairs of the earthly kingdom. These all lead to the exercise of the sealing key to establish the highest order for couples as found and obtained in the temple marriage sealing.

Of course whatever we obtain in the temple is to be used outside the temple for building eternal families, but hardly anything (if anything at all) that is given in the temple has to do with a woman holding a priesthood office or with anyone using that highest order to regulate and administer the affairs of the Church, which is accomplished through priesthood office. Priesthood order and office are two different things; women operate in the temple "order" but not in a priesthood office.

[Calm]

some of the users here are creating social pressure by acting like they are hurt by current policies.

CFR that if anyone here is claiming they were hurt that it is just "acting" and CFR that they are creating "social pressure" as opposed to attempting to discuss what is going on and trying to find a way to address those who have experienced pain within current policies and doctrine as opposed to trying to change any actual rules in the Church.

I was talking with my husband about several of the options discussed in Sister McBaine's talk and found out that our ward already does a number of them or some variation of them. I have heard from others that their wards also do many of the little changes that give women more of a sense of belonging in and having value to the faith community.

[Calm]

Priesthood order and office are two different things; women operate in the temple "order" but not in a priesthood office.

I agree, I think it is essential to keep the discussion about the Priesthood itself separate from a discussion about the offices as well as the line of authority/decisionmaking process as they are different aspects and individuals' issues are often with one, but not with the other and it only adds to the confusion to addressing changing something that doesn't need to be changed...at times this type of attention can even ignore what the real issue is and one ends up thinking they have accomplished something when not only has nothing been accomplished, but the problem has been made worse.

[Calm]

Like it or not, articles like in the SL Tribune, blog posts, and some of the users here are creating social pressure by acting like they are hurt by current policies.

Allowing others to define the discussion will result in the discussion never going anywhere.

[CV75]

How are you defining "ineligible"?

Would you say it was wrong for black men prior to 1978 to aspire to the Priesthood?

If we stick to the way I use the term, it is wrong for anyone to "aspire" for anything that can only be gotten from God on His terms. For the purposes of this conversation I am talking about men or women aspiring, and aspiring to priesthood office.

There is a difference between the spirit of aspiration and the spirit of receiving what the Lord has to give us in our time and place (see prior 2-3 posts). The first, when we don't obtain the object of our aspiration, we tend to become frutrated, contentious and combative (the angel who fell beacuse he wasn't given all of God's power). The second, when we don't obtain what the Lord has to give us, we tend to become humble, patient, full of love, etc. until we obtain our hope.

I would say it was not wrong for any black man prior to 1978 to live righteously and envision and prepare himself for the day that he could receive a priesthood office, but I would think his priority and energy would be to live so as to obtain eternal life for himself and his family under the terms he had at his disposal.

[CV75]

I agree, I think it is essential to keep the discussion about the Priesthood itself separate from a discussion about the offices as well as the line of authority/decisionmaking process as they are different aspects and individuals' issues are often with one, but not with the other and it only adds to the confusion to addressing changing something that doesn't need to be changed...at times this type of attention can even ignore what the real issue is and one ends up thinking they have accomplished something when not only has nothing been accomplished, but the problem has been made worse.

Some of us have been having discussions covering both order and office. The highest order (and the overall objective that counts in my estimation) is the only one mentioned in the scriptures that specifically engages men and women as a unit.

If anyone wants to allow that the scriptures leave it open that women can hold another priesthood order or a priesthood office by not specifying that they cannot, and the current policy is only a reflection of a man-made pattern that somehow made it into the scared record, they can try and await the day when women will have a priesthood order conferred upon them and be ordained to an appending office. But in light if D&C 131 these specifics appear to be unnecessary for the exaltation of women in the highest order.

What is the real issue you mention, if it us not about whether women can enter a priesthood order or hold a priesthood office?

[juliann]

If we stick to the way I use the term, it is wrong for anyone to "aspire" for anything that can only be gotten from God on His terms. For the purposes of this conversation I am talking about men or women aspiring, and aspiring to priesthood office.

There is a difference between the spirit of aspiration and the spirit of receiving what the Lord has to give us in our time and place (see prior 2-3 posts). The first, when we don't obtain the object of our aspiration, we tend to become frutrated, contentious and combative (the angel who fell beacuse he wasn't given all of God's power). The second, when we don't obtain what the Lord has to give us, we tend to become humble, patient, full of love, etc. until we obtain our hope.

What happens in these attempted discussions is that the women's motives are always demonized with the pure motives being given to those who are telling them to sit down and be quiet. In actuality, those who are not getting their aspirations in this discussion are the ones being contentious and frustrated and it isn't women who are asking for more. If the bias was not so overwhelmingly persistent against only women, the possibility that pure motives are questionable for the other side would be immediately entertained. That is the best indication that humility can never be part of a position that demeans women for any reason.

Edited August 21, 2012 by juliann

[juliann]

I would say it was not wrong for any black man prior to 1978 to live righteously and envision and prepare himself for the day that he could receive a priesthood office, but I would think his priority and energy would be to live so as to obtain eternal life for himself and his family under the terms he had at his disposal.

Likewise, your energy would be to live so as to obtain eternal life rather than trying to manage other's aspirations and lives, wouldn't it? Those who are continually finger pointing at women and using markers of "righteousness" to justify it are living in a glass house. Mote/beam is in play.

[JCNowandForever]

If anyone wants to allow that the scriptures leave it open that women can hold another priesthood order or a priesthood office by not specifying that they cannot, and the current policy is only a reflection of a man-made pattern that somehow made it into the scared record, they can try and await the day when women will have a priesthood order conferred upon them and be ordained to an appending office. But in light if D&C 131 these specifics appear to be unnecessary for the exaltation of women in the highest order.

We can try to await the day... But that day will not come by just sitting and praying. (no offense to prayer, we know it's the link we have to God). But doing nothing but typing words in this forum will not hasten that day. We can debate for eternity and nothing will happen. So let's hear concrete proposals, some of which have been already discussed by Sister Neylan McBaine’s talk regarding this new paradigm on Women and the Priesthood, a sort of cooperative instead of hierarchal. (http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-to-do-the-business-of-the-church-a-cooperative-paradigm.

What can we do as forum typers? Any suggestions?

I'd like to suggestion one. See www.circball.com, a cooperative sports that teaches moral values of love, honesty, purity and chastity which can be taught to the youth. It uses cooperation instead of competiton as a paradigm in sports.It teaches "to love your enemy" by giving the ball to the opposing team for the team to make a goal. Cooperation when taught in a Gospel setting can break down barriers of gender misunderstanding in the Church. Just a thought. Who like to play Circball??

[CV75]

What happens in these attempted discussions is that the women's motives are always demonized with the pure motives being given to those who are telling them to sit down and be quiet.

I agree that that is just wrong--I would think it would be against the board guidleines about not calling somone a liar. I hope these abuses have been pointed out to the offending parties.

[CV75]

Likewise, your energy would be to live so as to obtain eternal life rather than trying to manage other's aspirations and lives, wouldn't it? Those who are continually finger pointing at women and using markers of "righteousness" to justify it are living in a glass house. Mote/beam is in play.

I'm not sure how this relates to my posts; I was not doing this. There are people who aspire (in the way I described) and there are people who hope (in the way I described). i can't tell who is who unless I have an in-depth conversation with them, and that would have to be warranted in the first place (and I can't see where it has been as far as I'm concerned).

Edited August 21, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

Any suggestions?

I think a well-reasoned theology that requires more steps for a woman to enter the highest order of priesthood would be in order as a preliminary step, and/or how priesthood offices will be necessary in the Church of the Firstborn and then for both men and women.

[Pahoran]

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

The most effective way to "demonize" anyone in this kind of discussion is to accuse them, entirely sans evidence, of "gender or racial bias."

The fact is that I have no "gender or racial bias." That entirely baseless assumption is an artifact of your own inability to grasp the fact that people can reasonably disagree with you. In fact, my "bias" in this matter is in favour of the Kingdom of God.

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.

Well, shucks.

I could use that passage just as effectively as you have, if not more so. A foot can't demand to be made into a head just so that it can feel better about itself.

But just what are you going to do if the Church refuses to accede to your demand that it be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine?

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.

Not ordaining someone to the Priesthood isn't "excluding." Just so you know, "excluding" someone would sound a lot like "shall be cut off from among the people," which is a formula that occurs in a number of places in the scriptures; including having been uttered by Christ himself. You seem to want to replace the call to rigorous discipleship with a feel-good gospel of group hugs and warm fuzzies.

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.

So you want them to be influenced by your "gender misunderstandings" instead. Got it.

What evidence, apart from your own assumptions, do you have that the current Priesthood structure is in any way incompatible with what the Lord wants?

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.

I suggest that, before you start throwing around these stock standard anti-Mormon labels, you look them up and find out what they mean.

But thank you for admitting that what you are proposing is a "radical solution." I suggest that it is a solution looking for a problem. Are you trying to manufacture one?

Regards,

Pahoran

[DH]

Not ordaining someone to the Priesthood isn't "excluding." Just so you know, "excluding" someone would sound a lot like "shall be cut off from among the people," which is a formula that occurs in a number of places in the scriptures; including having been uttered by Christ himself. You seem to want to replace the call to rigorous discipleship with a feel-good gospel of group hugs and warm fuzzies.

Um, by definition not allowing a class of people to join the priesthood IS excluding them from the priesthood. Look it up. That's not to say exclusion is always wrong, just that redefining words to fit our arguments is not conducive to communication. Cutting people off from among the people is excommunication, a more extreme form of exclusion.

Edited August 22, 2012 by DH

[Pahoran]

Um, by definition not allowing a class of people to join the priesthood IS excluding them from the priesthood. Look it up.

Actually, "by definition" there is no "class of people" that is allowed to "join the priesthood." In the Church of Jesus Christ, nobody applies for ordination; they always wait for the Lord's invitation to come via his servants.

That's not to say exclusion is always wrong, just that redefining words to fit our arguments is not conducive to communication. Cutting people off from among the people is excommunication, a more extreme form of exclusion.

And, since all "exclusion" is wrong in the eyes of JC, it follows that excommunication must be that much more wrong.

And yet the Lord commanded it.

Funny, that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[JCNowandForever]

Well, shucks.

But just what are you going to do if the Church refuses to accede to your demand that it be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine?

So you want them to be influenced by your "gender misunderstandings" instead. Got it.

What evidence, apart from your own assumptions, do you have that the current Priesthood structure is in any way incompatible with what the Lord wants?

I suggest that, before you start throwing around these stock standard anti-Mormon labels, you look them up and find out what they mean.

But thank you for admitting that what you are proposing is a "radical solution." I suggest that it is a solution looking for a problem. Are you trying to manufacture one?

Until you're able to contribute meaningful suggestions on the issue of Priesthood and Women, without labeling and demonizing people, I will ignore you comments.

[CASteinman]

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.

That makes no sense.

"Sons", in English, is gender exclusive even if the other things are not. That women may be the seed of Abraham and the elect of God by some other means does not automatically make "sons" turn into "daughters".

[Pahoran]

Until you're able to contribute meaningful suggestions on the issue of Priesthood and Women,

Oh look everyone, the newbie thinks he can patronise me.

And what would qualify as "meaningful suggestions" in your mind? Agreeing with you?

without labeling and demonizing people,

You mean -- like accusing them of "gender or racial bias" without any evidence at all?

I will ignore you comments.

Knock yourself out.

Regards,

Pahoran

You are out of the thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Until you're able to contribute meaningful suggestions on the issue of Priesthood and Women, without labeling and demonizing people, I will ignore you comments.

Funny. You are the one that started the labeling and demonizing with your comments about racial and gender bias.

No one cares about the feminist movement anyway. It has largely discredited itself. Women are not going to hold the priesthood in the same manner as men. It is just not set up that way. And the Gay debate is for another thread and even forum.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram