Women And The Priesthood

[CV75]

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.

Not so much a proposal, but a paradigm that might be worth exploring: the highest order of priesthood (the new and everlasting covenant of marriage) is already designed as a cooperative and is not hierarchal at all.

Some additional thoughts. As I describe my thoughts on Adam and Eve, I’m using the word “alone” to mean without a spouse. I see Adam and Eve doing exactly what any of us would have done as men and women; their fundamental behaviors and orientations are part of their (and our) eternal character.

Adam was sent into the Garden of Eden alone and spent a good deal of time alone as its steward. It seems he had contact with the Father and Son (one is an Exalted Man and the other a Man’s Spirit). In working together in the Garden (as before that throughout the Creation), it seems that certain priesthood offices and reporting lines of authority would have been necessary for men to work together in a setting without spouses (the Son and Adam did not yet have spouses; the Father was acting “away from home” when He came into paradise).

Subsequently Adam’s body, under the management of God, gave rise to Eve’s body, so her personality and identity entered the Garden of Eden already part of an immortal couple in the highest order of priesthood that can be entered into on this earth (the new and everlasting covenant of marriage). As a living soul she never knew what it was like to be alone, and was “born in the covenant” so to speak of this highest priesthood order. She was an immediate helpmeet (equal and needed partner) and it does not appear that she needed a priesthood office to fulfill this role.

After the Fall, I am not sure what offices were used other than High Priest in the patriarchal order, but it seems that Adam continued to work with Son on this basis while Eve did not. She continued to operate in the priesthood order of marriage.

Adam and Eve complimented each other. They had sets of talents (Adam’s gained by and demonstrated in being alone and Eve’s gained and demonstrated by never being alone). Each set of talents having their assets and liabilities (every strength allows a weakness). Being alone, or without a helpmeet, requires priesthood offices as the next best means of working together. Being united, or a couple, requires the priesthood order as the best means of working together.

I’m thinking this is why priesthood office has no role in a marriage other than qualifying the man to enter the temple as an Elder to make the covenant. After that, once united, the couple is operating under the higher order, without office respective to each other.

The man continues to operate “away from home” in the (priesthood) office setting, just as the Father did while creating the earth and guiding Adam and Eve in the Garden. Today, priesthood offices are for managing the Church with the aim of bringing all souls into the highest priesthood order. Men do this through their priesthood office, and women do this without a priesthood office, just as Adam did with the Creators and as Eve did once Adam was no longer alone.

Also, when men with priesthoof office and women without priesthood office function well in a Church council, a very productive cooperative is formed. Success in councils has a lot to do with interpersonal skill and spirituality, both developed by the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

The most significant decision is whom to appoint to positions. Those decisions always have to be taken to a man (the bishop, who is not even a member of the Relief Society) for approval. This is in contrast to the way the Relief Society originally was organized by Joseph Smith, where the Relief Society presidency could appoint women to positions within the Relief Society without male supervision or chaperoning.

[Cobalt-70]

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).

So there is no revelation yet allowing women to be ordained to priesthood offices because, as Pres. Hinckley said, "there is no agitation for that." Yet, when women agitate, they are considered uppity and therefore unworthy of priesthood office. It's a Catch-22.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

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.

In the modern LDS Church, every worthy 12 year old boy becomes a deacon, every worthy 14 year old boy becomes a teacher, every worthy 16 year old boy becomes a priest, and every worthy 18 year old many becomes an elder. Then, some time in middle age, if not before, every worthy elder becomes a high priest.

[Thunderfire]

The church I attend ordains women. Prior to that I didn't care one way or another if women were ordained or not. My thinking was, "Who am I to dictate whom God could call or not?" My only concern was how I managed the authority entrusted to me.

Twice in my life, the Lord moved upon me speaking the words, "I will do a new thing" (Isaiah 43:18-19) The first was in my Patriarchal Blessing (1978) and then in a vision I had being seated at a table with Jesus. The last encounter coming three days prior to my church voting on women in the priesthood. So I accepted this being from God because: 1) I didn't care one way or another, being more focused on how I used the priesthood entrusted to me and; 2) I got the same message twice about God being a God of new things.

Over the years since, I have seen women serving in ways (authority and spiritual giftedness) less than and equal too that of the men. I have also seen a few women move into the realm of doing greater works through priesthood ministry compared to the men around them.

In the end though, I do not want to defend the practice. It is not my battle to fight or defend. Yet I will say that my counsel to everyone is this: Be more concerned with how YOU magnify your calling, instead of using your calling to dictate how God chooses to use others. I say about that much...

[DH]

Yet I will say that my counsel to everyone is this: Be more concerned with how YOU magnify your calling, instead of using your calling to dictate how God chooses to use others. I say about that much...

What if my calling is to seek equality for women? What if it's not a matter of "dictating to God," but of believing that God wants women to have the priesthood?

Edited August 22, 2012 by DH

[CV75]

So there is no revelation yet allowing women to be ordained to priesthood offices because, as Pres. Hinckley said, "there is no agitation for that." Yet, when women agitate, they are considered uppity and therefore unworthy of priesthood office. It's a Catch-22.

I don’t take his comment that way at all. He wasn’t explaining that agitation would prompt a revelation. He wasn’t setting up a Catch-22. Instead, he said 2 separate but somewhat linked things:

1) “Yes,” he would have to receive a revelation to change things (in relation to the immediate question); and

2) “But there is no agitation for that” (in support of his earlier comment a few lines up in response to the question about whether all the women are truly “happy and …satisfied” with the way things are).

If this is the most solid case you have, you probably shouldn't have commented.

[Cobalt-70]

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".

So do you think there will be no female "sons of perdition"?

[CASteinman]

So do you think there will be no female "sons of perdition"?

I have heard it said that there will be none. I hope it may be so and I tend to believe it. I am not qualified to give any authoritative word on this though -- and I admit that to myself and say "I do not know".

Nevertheless... I do not think it is necessary to be ordained to an office in the Priesthood -- which is what D&C is talking about -- to potentially meet the conditions of perdition.

[Cobalt-70]

I don’t take his comment that way at all. He wasn’t explaining that agitation would prompt a revelation. He wasn’t setting up a Catch-22. Instead, he said 2 separate but somewhat linked things:

1) “Yes,” he would have to receive a revelation to change things (in relation to the immediate question); and

2) “But there is no agitation for that” (in support of his earlier comment a few lines up in response to the question about whether all the women are truly “happy and …satisfied” with the way things are).

If this is the most solid case you have, you probably shouldn't have commented.

He said, "So you'd have to get a revelation [to change the rules to allow women to be ordained]?," and his answer was "Yes. But there's no agitation for that." The "that" refers to either the revelation, or the rule change, or both.

I think, even on a more fundamental level, his interview was notable because it is the first time I am aware that a church president said that God could change the rules by revelation to allow the ordination of women. His point was that there is no reason for a change, given that LDS women are all happy as clams staying in their "place" within subservient roles.

[Cobalt-70]

I have heard it said that there will be none.

Of course, because women (like children and the mentally disabled) are not fully accountable for their sins, and therefore are incapable of committing the eternal sin. At least, that's what Brigham Young said, which I think is rather offensive.

[CASteinman]

Of course, because women (like children and the mentally disabled) are not fully accountable for their sins, and therefore are incapable of committing the eternal sin. At least, that's what Brigham Young said, which I think is rather offensive.

LOL... You get to be offended as many times an hour as you like.

But when did Brigham Young say women were not fully accountable for their sins?

[CASteinman]

What if my calling is to seek equality for women?

Then a priesthood holder in authority will call you to that, lay hands upon your head and set you apart for that role.

[CASteinman]

The church I attend ordains women. Prior to that I didn't care one way or another if women were ordained or not. My thinking was, "Who am I to dictate whom God could call or not?" My only concern was how I managed the authority entrusted to me.

Twice in my life, the Lord moved upon me speaking the words, "I will do a new thing" (Isaiah 43:18-19) The first was in my Patriarchal Blessing (1978) and then in a vision I had being seated at a table with Jesus. The last encounter coming three days prior to my church voting on women in the priesthood. So I accepted this being from God because: 1) I didn't care one way or another, being more focused on how I used the priesthood entrusted to me and; 2) I got the same message twice about God being a God of new things.

Over the years since, I have seen women serving in ways (authority and spiritual giftedness) less than and equal too that of the men. I have also seen a few women move into the realm of doing greater works through priesthood ministry compared to the men around them.

In the end though, I do not want to defend the practice. It is not my battle to fight or defend. Yet I will say that my counsel to everyone is this: Be more concerned with how YOU magnify your calling, instead of using your calling to dictate how God chooses to use others. I say about that much...

I like your whole approach.

I don't happen to think women should be ordained to offices in the Priesthood, but I think I would react to it about as you have... so maybe my liking your view has hurt my arm a bit by the twisting to slap myself on the back.

[CV75]

His point was that there is no reason for a change, given that LDS women are all happy as clams staying in their "place" within subservient roles.

Well, you already stated this and repeating it with an added measure of toxicity doesn't give it any more validity. I prefer the insight I have.

[Thunderfire]

What if my calling is to seek equality for women? What if it's not a matter of "dictating to God," but of believing that God wants women to have the priesthood?

Good comment! Let me answer this way: If this work is of God then nothing can stand in his way. This does not mean that you will be free from persecution. It also does not mean that you will necessarily see the work through to completion. It means that God will be faithful to complete the work he began in you (or the work you picked up that someone else started).

But what I do believe is that all ministry is to glorify the Lord. Priesthood responsibility is not God's endorsement of the individual, but his endorsement of himself. In my opinion, we limit our potential for ministry by saying, "we are seeking equality for women." When we could say, "My ministry is to help others embrace and magnify the calling of God for them, regardless of what others think of the individual." Anyway, just some thoughts to ponder! Thanks again for the comment...

[Cobalt-70]

LOL... You get to be offended as many times an hour as you like.

But when did Brigham Young say women were not fully accountable for their sins?

It's not that I'm offended--it's that what Brigham Young said was objectively offensive. Personally, I could care less what Young said about women, bless his prophetic heart, except for the fact that some of his offensive ideas still resonate among LDS Church members.

As to sources:

Brigham Young, Oct. 21, 1860 sermon at the Bowery (Women "belong to" God, and like the animal kingdom, they do not transgress the (lesser) law which they are given. Therefore, Young doubts "that there is a female in all the regions of hell.")

Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1861 General Conference (giving "a few words of doctrine," including that the woman "is not accountable for the sins that are in the world," although some of her sins might require her to be sacrificed as a blood atonement, after which she will "receive in full the blessings she otherwise would have received had she not committed sin.")

So basically, Brigham Young thought that women are like children and animals in that they are not accountable for their sins.

[CASteinman]

what Brigham Young said was objectively offensive.

"Objectively Offensive"? Seriously? That's oxymoron humor, right. LOL.

As to sources:

Brigham Young, Oct. 21, 1860 sermon at the Bowery (Women "belong to" God, and like the animal kingdom, they do not transgress the (lesser) law which they are given. Therefore, Young doubts "that there is a female in all the regions of hell.")

You have utterly misrepresented his words. He did not say what you claim. In detail:

1. He did not say that "Women belong to God" in some special way that men do not also belong to God. Yet you make it sound like they are chosen out specially for this to be like animals. Brigham Young simply says that all of God's creations belong to God -- and men and women are both included -- as well as animals and everything. You misrepresented that by leaving out this meaning. And because you cited it and quoted it, it has every appearance of being a deliberate, not ignorant, misrepresentation.

2. He did not say anything about them "transgressing" or "not transgressing" some "lesser law" given to them. You just made that up.

3. He does not build some case as to why women are not found in the regions of hell. He merely opines that from his studies that women are not found in hell. He does not even express it as a certainty. Yet you claim it is some sort of exposition from which this emerges as his conclusion. Which is false.

It is merely an interjection in the midst of his rambling discourse. Indeed it is the start of a paragraph where he then launches into a discussion about how plurality of wives is offensive to some people and how he and others will have yet more wives --- it is hardly clear how this relates to the opening sentence about his opinion that there will be no women in hell unless somehow it is to imply that women make marriage a bit of heaven. But he does not say that either.

It is just an interjection -- which is simply not presented the way you have described.

Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1861 General Conference (giving "a few words of doctrine," including that the woman "is not accountable for the sins that are in the world," although some of her sins might require her to be sacrificed as a blood atonement, after which she will "receive in full the blessings she otherwise would have received had she not committed sin.")

Again.. false summary from you. While he does say she is not accountable for the sins in that are in the world -- that is not the same as she not being accountable for HER sins. In fact, this very passage is saying that while men are responsible before God for the sins of the world -- women would be seriously in error if they thought that their release from this burden relieves them of responsibility for their own sins. Trying to imply that this makes her unaccountable for her own sins is beyond mere misunderstanding it is directly wrong. And you had to have read from the source you quoted and thus this misrepresentation has every appearance of being intentional.

And I find such things to be very disrespectful in a conversation.

So basically, Brigham Young thought that women are like children and animals in that they are not accountable for their sins.

In your second source above, immediately after the words you quote, Brigham Young says very clearly: "Woman must atone for the sins committed by the volition of her own choice."

You could not have missed it.

Yet you make this utterly ridiculous summary of his beliefs, claiming that he says they are unaccountable because they are like animals. He did not say anything of the sort, you did not show it and your summary is simply not an honest recital of his views. I suspect if Brother Brigham were around he would throttle you for such misrepresentations of his words.

And there is one other type of FAIL here. I originally requested where Brigham Young ever taught that women were not accountable for their sins.

You have not produced any such statement. You have indeed produced exactly the opposite. Yes, you took the opportunity to produce other non-related materials that you then misrepresent. But you still have not produced a source that actually says what you claimed Brigham Young said.

Originally I had no intent for this to be a CFR kind of thing, but because you have so obviously and blatantly disregarded reasonableness in your restatement of Brigham Young's words as given in these otherwise non-compliant hobby-horse sources, I now will Call for Reference that Brigham Young ever said that "women (like children and the mentally disabled) are not fully accountable for their sins".

Produce or Retract.

Edited August 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[Joyful]

I think it is far more likely for Christ to make an account and post here than it is for either gay sealings or women to be ordained to the priesthood.

HAHA! I agree. Why would women want the priesthood? I am happy with the role I have as Mother and wife, enough responsibility

in my opinion!

[Maidservant]

but it seems that Adam continued to work with Son on this basis while Eve did not.

I like much of what you say and how you organize your thoughts to tease out sweet morsels of truth, even if I don't end up agreeing 100 percent, I still get a lot to think about.

I think I know why you say this (as it seems in the temple?) but also you might like this where, as you have also mentioned I think, Adam and Even worked as a unit--in the content of their work, in the authority of their work, in the revelation, etc etc etc

Moses 5:1-12 particularly 1, 4, 10-12

In any case, to all in the thread--I have priesthood. I have priesthood power and authority. I may or may not have keys, depending on the angle from which I am understanding that.

I hold no office in the Church. Nor do I ever want to. I understand why I should not be bishop, for atonement purposes (NOT leadership purposes).

I would love the opportunity to lay hands on my children's heads, but I do see a lot of benefit to having the men take this role for a variety of reasons I won't go into, but I don't know if "benefit' translates into "never should in all of eternity be share by women". As well, I "pray over" my children. That's exactly what I call it, too. I interview my children each Sunday and at the conclusion I say, "Now I will pray over you," and I place my hand on their shoulder and pray for them specifically. Whether it is of a different quality or effectiveness than a priesthood blessing, I really couldn't say.

If I had be authorized to ordain my sons to their Aaronic Priesthood or to baptize them, then I would have missed the thrill of seeing my teenage sons baptizing and ordaining their younger siblings (my 16 year old son baptized his brother, my 17 year old son ordained his brother to Aaronic Priesthood and deacon). I have to say that these moments have been THE most powerful spiritual experiences I have had when sometimes my connection to church and gospel feels tenuous on a day to day level.

I will create worlds. I am creating a world now. And I'm a woman, with priesthood, but no church office.

I have authority and power as a woman, and I really don't know how having church office is going to be a "more". Because I think that says something if I believe it to be "more" instead of knowing that I already have "more".

However I also challenge and reject ideas of masculinity, femininity (as explained well by Cobalt earlier in the thread); I detest social gender roles with a passion (there is nothing female about sweeping; there is no genetic disposition towards housework). I recently sat through a "modesty" talk for the young women, and I just sat there, FURIOUS, at the cliches that were spewed as gospel (or as I felt, anyway), and I wanted to cover my daughter's ears and walk her out of there.

So I don't know.

I just know I am a daughter of God, both in an original sense as well as in the sense of participating in the church of the Firstborn and that priesthood (or trying to become that), and that I am a creator in any sense that any man would be. I create every day. I create and order my family. I AM the leader of my family. I am not WAITING for any man to join me, because I know better, that is not going to happen. My children's temporal and eternal welfare is in my hands--my work and my glory is their immortality and eternal life. And I do all this without church office, but I do it with priesthood (=MOTHER). I am a woman with priesthood covenants. We forget that--that our covenants are PRIESTHOOD covenants--they have priesthood in them. (That is why Abraham sent for Rebekah for his son--not just to find someone who had the same religion, but a COVENANT woman.)

So I just don't know.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Maidservant

[CASteinman]

I’m thinking this is why priesthood office has no role in a marriage other than qualifying the man to enter the temple as an Elder to make the covenant.

If the emphasis is on "office" rather than "priesthood" (Meaning Melchizedek Priesthood) I think that office is irrelevant. But if we remove the notion of "office", then priesthood has roles in Marriage. In fact, if I am reliably informed on very sacred matters relating to marriage and eternity, it has a role that might surprise some of the woman clamoring for "office".

[BlueDreams]

Well stated Maidservant, That was beautifully written.

CV75,

A lot of your claims are based on the aloneness of Adam. I think this is extremely negotiable.

Adam was sent into the Garden of Eden alone and spent a good deal of time alone as its steward.

To start off, how much time Adam spent alone is not known. In 2 accounts (Gen and Moses), it does seem that he spent enough time alone to name everything. But in both Abraham and the temple the time seems extremely short. As though he gets there and the first thing that is mentioned is that it's not good for man to be alone. The account of Abraham is especially interesting because it mixes the story of naming every living thing with Eve as help meet. In such a way that she seemed a vital part of the naming. This would give a different meaning to me for both the Gen and Moses' accounts to say that the help meet wasn't among all things that were named. That in all creation there was nothing equal to him.

Another issue is what is stated in all of the accounts that it's not good for man to be alone. I think this also lends credence to the idea that the length of time Adam spent alone was probably pretty short or desired because of all things God created this is the only instance that god said it was not good.

I also don’t see the connection in any of the accounts that you’ve made about reporting lines. Unless you’re talking about the way it is mentioned in the temple. But I would digress. In Moses 6:8-9 it states that “in the day that God created man in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them and blessed them and called their name Adam…” Adam was a title for both male and female in the same way that man in the scripture can often be used to infer both male and female.

In all the accounts their separation is not emphasized but rather considered a bad (or not good) thing and their oneness and needed unity is glorified. Including in the revelation, maintenance of Eden, and work that was to be performed on the earth, both of physical and spiritual value. You’d mentioned helpmeet as an equal and needed partner. I would add a great translation of it from it original mentioned in the book Even and the Choice Made in Eden: it is not good that man should be alone, I will make him a companion of strength/power who has a saving power and is equal with him.”

There was no, “next best thing.” It was not good, plain and simple.

I also digress about the inference of “away from home” in the priesthood office setting is proscribed in the creation story. It’s gives credence simply to old ideals of gender roles that I don’t think fully exist in the gospel and practically within the world. (And I’m not including in a modern western society). Women have always done work “away from home” as well, within the church structure as well as within society at large. The problem I see is that often what they do that is considered “away from home” is often marginalized within various social structures. In doing so, their perspective, thoughts, and their "strength" and "saving power" is also marginalized, creating imbalance. Man, in many ways, finds himself alone based of the gender roles society places us in. I would state that is "not good."

Note that I keep putting away from home in quotation marks. I think this idea as a whole is antithetical to what God desires. He meant the home to be central and that all around it be things that reinforce it ultimate significance. There is no “away from home”, rather all things should “lead/point to home”…whether it be church, work, communities, etc. In my mind, the best way to do that would be to have man and woman working together as equal partners to bring about decisions, actions, and choice. In the world we do not see that. And IMHO, in the church it is also still limited.

With luv,

BD

Edited August 23, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Grundelwalken]

Not so much a proposal, but a paradigm that might be worth exploring: the highest order of priesthood (the new and everlasting covenant of marriage) is already designed as a cooperative and is not hierarchal at all.

Some additional thoughts. As I describe my thoughts on Adam and Eve, I’m using the word “alone” to mean without a spouse. I see Adam and Eve doing exactly what any of us would have done as men and women; their fundamental behaviors and orientations are part of their (and our) eternal character.

Adam was sent into the Garden of Eden alone and spent a good deal of time alone as its steward. It seems he had contact with the Father and Son (one is an Exalted Man and the other a Man’s Spirit). In working together in the Garden (as before that throughout the Creation), it seems that certain priesthood offices and reporting lines of authority would have been necessary for men to work together in a setting without spouses (the Son and Adam did not yet have spouses; the Father was acting “away from home” when He came into paradise).

Subsequently Adam’s body, under the management of God, gave rise to Eve’s body, so her personality and identity entered the Garden of Eden already part of an immortal couple in the highest order of priesthood that can be entered into on this earth (the new and everlasting covenant of marriage). As a living soul she never knew what it was like to be alone, and was “born in the covenant” so to speak of this highest priesthood order. She was an immediate helpmeet (equal and needed partner) and it does not appear that she needed a priesthood office to fulfill this role.

After the Fall, I am not sure what offices were used other than High Priest in the patriarchal order, but it seems that Adam continued to work with Son on this basis while Eve did not. She continued to operate in the priesthood order of marriage.

Adam and Eve complimented each other. They had sets of talents (Adam’s gained by and demonstrated in being alone and Eve’s gained and demonstrated by never being alone). Each set of talents having their assets and liabilities (every strength allows a weakness). Being alone, or without a helpmeet, requires priesthood offices as the next best means of working together. Being united, or a couple, requires the priesthood order as the best means of working together.

I’m thinking this is why priesthood office has no role in a marriage other than qualifying the man to enter the temple as an Elder to make the covenant. After that, once united, the couple is operating under the higher order, without office respective to each other.

The man continues to operate “away from home” in the (priesthood) office setting, just as the Father did while creating the earth and guiding Adam and Eve in the Garden. Today, priesthood offices are for managing the Church with the aim of bringing all souls into the highest priesthood order. Men do this through their priesthood office, and women do this without a priesthood office, just as Adam did with the Creators and as Eve did once Adam was no longer alone.

Also, when men with priesthoof office and women without priesthood office function well in a Church council, a very productive cooperative is formed. Success in councils has a lot to do with interpersonal skill and spirituality, both developed by the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Very interesting thoughts. It will take some time for me to understand all the ramifications but on the surface it seems plausible. Thanks. MW

[Grundelwalken]

The most significant decision is whom to appoint to positions. Those decisions always have to be taken to a man (the bishop, who is not even a member of the Relief Society) for approval. This is in contrast to the way the Relief Society originally was organized by Joseph Smith, where the Relief Society presidency could appoint women to positions within the Relief Society without male supervision or chaperoning.

My personal experience in this arena is somewhat different than what you describe. When any of the organizations (Priesthood or auxiliary) presents a name for a new calling or position, it is not the bishop's duty to dictate who should be used in that capacity. Since all leaders are responsible for revelation concerning their stewardship, they should be held responsible to come with the name the Lord has for that position. The bishop's only job is to then confirm that calling and make the official call. Exceptions would be made only if the bishop knew something the other leader did not that might preclude the calling. It is not the bishop's duty to decide who should be called to every position. He simply works as a clearing house for helping keep things in order.

And before you say "see, everything has to go through the bishop", remember that ALL leaders have someone who is above them in authority and can change their choice if necessary.

As to your recollection of the "way it used to be", it also was common practice in the old days for missionaries to be called out of the congregation and sent on their way. We have progressed to a more standard process for a much larger church -- and aren't we glad. Things change and will continue to do so to meet the needs of a growing membership. Imagine if there was no clearing house for callings (bishopric) and the YW, Primary, and RS all wanted the same person for a calling. Contention!! MW

Edited August 23, 2012 by Grundelwalken

[Calm]

He simply works as a clearing house for helping keep things in order.

This was the conclusion my husband and I came up with the other night.

Edited August 23, 2012 by calmoriah