Women And The Priesthood

[CV75]

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

Yes, it seems that once they were actually together, they worked as a unit. Up until the Fall, I’m not sure they were fully aware of exactly how they were complimenting each other, but after the Fall it seemed to be teamwork all the way. It seems that after the Fall, a succesful working arrangement was provided them.

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.

I personally think laying hands on one’s children’s heads (or shoulders) in conjunction with a prayer of faith and calling upon the promises from temple covenants is perfectly acceptable and is a reflection of "power in the priesthood" while not having an office.

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

I agree 100%--as part of a priesthood order. If not endowed, then as a member of a Church with priesthood; if endowed, then preparatory to the highest order; if sealed, then as part of this highest order, and in anticipation of the Church of the Firstborn.

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) *** 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.)

I think this is an outstanding way of expressing it--thank you!

[CV75]

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".

Yes, this comment was limited to office as we see them operating in the Church today. Presumably there were other offices in other settings that are no longer relevant. As wonderful as the Church is on earth, it will eventually give way to the Church of the Firstborn.

[CV75]

To start off, how much time Adam spent alone is not known ***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 agree that the actual timeframe does not matter, and it is a matter of quality time and not quantity time (if “time” even existed, for that matter).

Suffice it to say that Adam was definitely alone (without a spouse) and working with his Superiors in a reporting “office” capacity until Eve appeared, who was therefore never alone (without a spouse) in the Garden as Adam was.

Moses 6:8-9

While they were made in the same “day” they were not made simultaneously. Adam experienced what it was like to be without a woman, but Eve never experienced what it was like to be without a man

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

This deomstrates the superiority of the highest priesthood order over priesthood office.

My use of the term “next best means” (not “next best thing”) is to show that priesthood office, while effective for men working through a hierarchy, is not effective for a married couple working together. Hence my comment, “Being alone, or without a helpmeet, requires priesthood offices as the next best means of [saints] working together. Being united, or a couple, requires the priesthood order as the best means of [saints] working together.”

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."

I don't care much for the world's man-driven gender roles and attitudes, either. My use of “away from home” is to show that the Father operated physically in Eden and not in His primary “home” residence (which you nicely described), through a system of priesthood office and not through (at least directly) the new and everlasting covenant of the highest order, though that is His ultimate authority. Whenever we work under the auspices of priesthood office (whether to home teach, visit teach, or anything else that takes us beyond our immediate spouse, family and home) we too are “away from home”. Whenever we work under the auspices of the highest order of the temple covenant, we are "at home." In some cases these can be done simultaneously. As you pointed out, in another sense, Adam, Eve and all their posterity are also “away from home” until we return to the Father's (and Mother's) presence. We accomplsih this not in priesthood offices alone but only after entering the highest priesthood order.

[Calm]

Adam experienced what it was like to be without a woman,

Only if he was aware he was without a woman...

but Eve never experienced what it was like to be without a man

Eve was apparently alone enough to be tempted on her own...

[CV75]

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

Someone was aasking for a proposed "cooperative" model so I just wanted to show how the current one (at least to my understanding) already meets that standard.

[CV75]

Only if he was aware he was without a woman...

It still wasn't good for him, and at some point he became aware of that.

Eve was apparently alone enough to be tempted on her own...

Yes, that came later. My use of "alone" refered to not being in the highest order of priesthood (marriage). Adam and Eve still exercised independent agency.

I'm pointing out how Adam, being "alone" operated under a priesthood office, but once they were wed, both Adam and Eve operated under the priesthood order. Adam experienced life in both conditions, Eve only the second.

Edited August 23, 2012 by CV75

[MorningStar]

This takes me back to when my oldest daughter was a teenager...she could not understand why a 12 year old boy was considered more capable of holding a the priesthood that a mature woman three times his age could not. It's a logical question and one we fail to answer well, in my opinion.

I don't think it's a matter of capable. I have the most musical experience in my ward, but I have never been called as the choir director or organist. I have watched other people grow in those callings. I have also listened to other people complain that I would do a better job. When we got our new organist, it was pretty rough, but I loved that he was willing to do it and he is doing so much better. He has practiced a ton! I felt bad for him because people even said stuff right to him about his playing. I'm not an organist, but I am a very good pianist and it probably wouldn't be that hard for me to learn.

Priesthood responsibilities aren't difficult. Women could certainly memorize the sacrament blessings, break the bread, pass the bread and water, etc. One thing I have thought about is that if Christ were there, He would bless it and serve it to each one of us. Priesthood holders stand in His place. As women are proxies for women in the temple, men are proxies for men. I think the most difficult aspect of holding the priesthood is living worthy of it. I'm grateful that my boys will have that challenge.

Edited August 23, 2012 by MorningStar

[juliann]

It still wasn't good for him, and at some point he became aware of that.

[and]

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.

This is, of course, utter speculation. It brings me back to the caution given after the Priesthood ban was lifted, it is the excuses we make up that do the most harm.

http://library.lds.o...f=templates$3.0

From President Kimball:

Man became a living soul—mankind, male and female. The Creators breathed into their nostrils the breath of life and man and woman became living souls. We don’t know exactly how their coming into this world happened, and when we’re able to understand it the Lord will tell us.

You will note that he also states without equivocation that the rib story is "figurative". Bruce R. McConkie has made even broader statements. So unless you can come up with something to support your theory from authoritative sources that will supercede these quite old ones, it would be wise to stick with what we actually know. It should not go without notice that some things in these 1975 talks to the RS have been modified in more recent times, but the creation story has not.

Edited August 23, 2012 by juliann

[juliann]

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".

I think you mean it might surprise the faithful sisters "clamoring" for "office" who are completely ignorant of sacred matters....

[CV75]

This is, of course, utter speculation.

Speculation is part of exploration, which is what I am doing here through discussion. I am happy to examine my beliefs and consider others.

I agree that the rib is figurative. I also agree that we do not know exactly how Adam and Eve’s bodies were formed. But there is more reason for me to believe / speculate that Adam was placed first on the Earth, and alone, than his being placed here simultaneously with Eve, because that is what we are given to contemplate in the scriptures and elsewhere. So I am contemplating it in relation to this thread topic.

I’ve tried to convey that the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (or the order of priesthood required for exaltation) supersedes priesthood office. Men and women enter the covenant as equal partners and irrespective of priesthood office, just as Adam and Eve did. I use my understanding of the story of Adam and Eve to illustrate this.

I’ve also tried to convey that Adam held a priesthood office while working alone (unwed) under the direction of the Father and the Son, and why Eve did not. This was not the best or “good” state for him to be in, which is why the next advancement was necessary. I’ve also tried to convey that Adam and Eve entered this highest order of priesthood, irrespective of any office he held or she didn’t hold. This is a pattern for how all of us return to the presence of God as exalted beings. In this way, “God” to me is a Married Couple, a Council of Exalted Beings, or an Eternal Family, not just a Heavenly Father (but I make sure to pray to Heavenly Father for the time being, out of discipleship).

The pattern I see is the progression from a temporary priesthood hierarchy (Church priesthood offices and membership) that leads us into an eternal priesthood unit (marriage) that leads us into the “oneness” enjoyed in the Church of the Firstborn (exaltation). Keeping the goal in mind, for me, settles concerns about the process(es), such as why women do not hold priesthood office.

You may have noticed that I mentioned at one point that “power in the priesthood” is something that men and women must possess. We can have this power without a priesthood office. “Power” is “faith” – faith in the highest order of priesthood that gives us tremendous power where it really counts. One does not have to actually hold an office in the priesthood to exercise power in it. This is reflected in properly functioning councils of the Church.

Now if I were to speculate that women are to someday hold a priesthood office, I would have to think it through using the patterns we have been given. There are some examples in scripture where women of great power in the priesthood have held a position as judge, prophetess or witness, but this needn’t have been a function of priesthood office per se. There could be a revelation about it, and the scriptures are full of revelations that change things in how the earthly Church is run. We have women judges, prophetesses and witnesses in our midst today (secularly and religiously) and the functioning of the Church priesthood hierarchy depends on faithful women members in all sorts of leadership and sustaining roles. But since men and women of any dispensation are patterned after Adam and Eve, I go by what can be gleaned from what is said about them when it comes to how they function in relation to priesthood.

[CASteinman]

Which

I think you mean it might surprise the faithful sisters "clamoring" for "office" who are completely ignorant of sacred matters....

I did say "some"!

Not all.

I also don't think you have to be completely ignorant to not know some of what I am talking about -- which is held so sacred that almost no one in the Church is aware of it in any degree at all, much less in detail.

Edited August 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[juliann]

From Pres. Kimball again,

“And I, God said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man [not a separate man, but a complete man, which is husband and wife] in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.” (Moses 2:26.) What a beautiful partnership! Adam and Eve were married for eternity by the Lord. Such a marriage extends beyond the grave. All peoples should call for this kind of marriage.

Notice that the "man" you are trying to make exclusive was in the figurative rendition, plural. It includes man and woman. Together. You are trying to make the creation story literal in all aspects, and breaking man into parts, to fit the conclusion you started with.

[juliann]

Which

I did say "some"!

Not all.

I also don't think you have to be completely ignorant to not know some of what I am talking about -- which is held so sacred that almost no one in the Church is aware of it in any degree at all, much less in detail.

Just interesting to see the marginalization expand so blatantly to include lack of awareness and knowledge in addition to unworthy, etc., etc.

[CASteinman]

This is, of course, utter speculation. ... You will note that he also states without equivocation that the rib story is "figurative". B... So unless you can come up with something to support your theory from authoritative sources that will supercede these quite old ones, it would be wise to stick with what we actually know.

Often I would agree but in this case I feel slightly differently.

Mainly because I consider the whole creation and Adam and Eve account to be somewhat figurative in nature. I don't mean to say that I consider it fiction, nor do I mean to say that I think that there was no Adam and Even who went through such things, but that the story as told to us has been developed to emphasize some things --- which we are supposed to grasp out of it without being just told.

Symbolism so to speak.

And at that point, interpretations can be personal, can be different and can still be valid.

If I were to be critical at all, of such things, it might be that such interpretations if developed under the Spirit might be sacred and maybe should not be shared on a web page. But, on the other hand, mere speculation, if couched as such could be helpful.

[CASteinman]

Just interesting to see the marginalization expand so blatantly to include lack of awareness and knowledge in addition to unworthy, etc., etc.

Its a vision of things that is in your mind -separate from the reality of things. Nothing of the sort was implied, intended or said.

Edited August 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[CV75]

Notice that the "man" you are trying to make exclusive was in the figurative rendition, plural. It includes man and woman. Together. You are trying to make the creation story literal in all aspects, and breaking man into parts, to fit the conclusion you started with.

Sure--He made man (plural) on the Earth in a certain order; one half of the plural initailly, and after putting this part to sleep, the other half part of the plural. This use of the plural isn't necessarily an indication that He made them in the Garden simultaneously.

[BlueDreams]

I agree that the actual timeframe does not matter, and it is a matter of quality time and not quantity time (if “time” even existed, for that matter).

Suffice it to say that Adam was definitely alone (without a spouse) and working with his Superiors in a reporting “office” capacity until Eve appeared, who was therefore never alone (without a spouse) in the Garden as Adam was.

No, I meant insignificant in every way….whether in quality or quantity. There is no discussion of work without Eve, IMO. One could take the premortal work of creation, but I’ve always taken Adam as symbolic of all humanity. One could take the naming of the animals, but I discussed my thoughts one that already. And one could possibly take the command about the trees, but the temple version indicates that being given to both Adam and Eve. So I don’t see where or how or what this work that he was supposedly working on without Eve is being described. Quite the opposite, what I see the reading pointing to is that there is no work that could be done without Eve.

While they were made in the same “day” they were not made simultaneously. Adam experienced what it was like to be without a woman, but Eve never experienced what it was like to be without a man

As Cal, mentioned it was only significant if he was aware of this separation. I think she meant that literally if he was aware. If taken literally, each account only has God and Christ discussing it and Adam is talked about being placed in a deep sleep. So, if taken literally his actual awareness of the situation could be definitely in question. But the creation/garden accounts are among the most symbolic I find in all of the gospel. The message from what I take, isn’t about a distinctive time that he worked with HF/Christ but a message that states man cannot be alone on earth. The stewardship is joint. The balance of His creation must be between man and woman. There is no authority, stewardship, or dominion that I see mentioned in the story that separates man from woman in office or hierarchical work. There isn’t a next best means inferred.

I don't care much for the world's man-driven gender roles and attitudes, either.

I would hope so. But to me, that is one implication that I see within what you’ve speculated. To be frank, I don’t like the idea you’ve presented. Not to negate you entirely, but I see more hole in it’s reasoning than what it fixes….like where is the priesthood hierarchical work represented? Was there a significant separation of man and woman? Etc. For it to work, those are some big hurdles to cross and I don’t think they can be supported in the texts that we have.

My use of “away from home” is to show that the Father operated physically in Eden and not in His primary “home” residence (which you nicely described), through a system of priesthood office and not through (at least directly) the new and everlasting covenant of the highest order, though that is His ultimate authority. Whenever we work under the auspices of priesthood office (whether to home teach, visit teach, or anything else that takes us beyond our immediate spouse, family and home) we too are “away from home”. Whenever we work under the auspices of the highest order of the temple covenant, we are "at home." In some cases these can be done simultaneously. As you pointed out, in another sense, Adam, Eve and all their posterity are also “away from home” until we return to the Father's (and Mother's) presence. We accomplsih this not in priesthood offices alone but only after entering the highest priesthood order.

I’m not sure if I agree or disagree, to be honest. I’m not sure what you’re stating here. Doesn’t make sense to me, care to clarify.

With luv,

BD

Edited August 24, 2012 by BlueDreams

[juliann]

Its a vision of things that is in your mind -separate from the reality of things. Nothing of the sort was implied, intended or said.

I certainly believe that there was no such intent behind the comments, but the implication was made and said. Part of the problem the church has right now is that men have been made way too comfortable in speaking not just to and about women but for women. It is going to take awhile to break the habit.

[juliann]

As you pointed out, in another sense, Adam, Eve and all their posterity are also “away from home” until we return to the Father's (and Mother's) presence. We accomplsih this not in priesthood offices alone but only after entering the highest priesthood order.

I’m not sure if I agree or disagree, to be honest. I’m not sure what you’re stating here. Doesn’t make sense to me, care to clarify.

With luv,

BD

This brings to mind Valerie Hudson's Two Trees theory.

[CV75]

No, I meant insignificant in every way….whether in quality or quantity. There is no discussion of work without Eve, IMO. One could take the premortal work of creation, but I’ve always taken Adam as symbolic of all humanity. One could take the naming of the animals, but I discussed my thoughts one that already. And one could possibly take the command about the trees, but the temple version indicates that being given to both Adam and Eve. So I don’t see where or how or what this work that he was supposedly working on without Eve is being described. Quite the opposite, what I see the reading pointing to is that there is no work that could be done without Eve.

I can see your point. But there is a reason the story has, even symbolically, Adam helping with the Creation (and I’m saying under a hierarchy of priesthood office), being formed physically, being brought to life, presumably doing something (Genesis 2:15, Moses 3:20) under the hierarchy while the deficits of his being alone were discussed between his Creator(s), falling asleep, and then waking up and being introduced to his eternal companion. From there, the “real work (and the glory)” commenced. The essential points relative to men, women and priesthood are: 1) he had a priesthood office while he was alone / unwed; 2) he and Eve were established as a couple in the higher priesthood order, and she was never alone / unwed as she came out of Adam. If this is figurative, it would be that she came out of the covenant Adam had by virtue of his priesthood office and was “born” into the marriage order without a priesthood office.

As Cal, mentioned it was only significant if he was aware of this separation. I think she meant that literally if he was aware. If taken literally, each account only has God and Christ discussing it and Adam is talked about being placed in a deep sleep. So, if taken literally his actual awareness of the situation could be definitely in question. But the creation/garden accounts are among the most symbolic I find in all of the gospel. The message from what I take, isn’t about a distinctive time that he worked with HF/Christ but a message that states man cannot be alone on earth. The stewardship is joint. The balance of His creation must be between man and woman. There is no authority, stewardship, or dominion that I see mentioned in the story that separates man from woman in office or hierarchical work. There isn’t a next best means inferred.

Think it was significant in that it was his original condition in the physical creation. We are not always aware of our current condition until later. The Lord wasn’t responding to Adam expressing a need for a companion; Adam had accepted his existence as it was. Adam then just as readily accepted an existence with Eve, and seems to have been happy about it. I agree that the stewardship is a joint one. But before that, we have Adam in a stewardship of sorts while he was yet alone (Genesis 2:15, Moses 3:20). I think the prior, spiritual creation was a more mutual experience between men and women spirits, and I think you may be using these verses to support a view that the expression of Adam and Eve in the physical creation came about simultaneously.

I would hope so. But to me, that is one implication that I see within what you’ve speculated. To be frank, I don’t like the idea you’ve presented. Not to negate you entirely, but I see more hole in it’s reasoning than what it fixes….like where is the priesthood hierarchical work represented? Was there a significant separation of man and woman? Etc. For it to work, those are some big hurdles to cross and I don’t think they can be supported in the texts that we have.

The priesthood hierarchy is represented in the reporting relationship between the Father, the Son, and Michael / Adam. All God’s children are individuals, sharing some common general characteristics and not sharing other characteristics. They experieince life separately until they are wed.

The separation in terms of priesthood office relates to Adam's experieince as being different from Eve's until the point they became one flesh in the priesthood order of marriage. I have an idea that, as pre-mortal spirits, men and women live as equals under the same priesthood order (God's eternal family), and that Eve coming forth from Adam (essentially demonstrating that she may have always been "one" with him in this "covenant") is an expression of the pre-existing priesthood order. But not "one" in office. In temple marriage and in exaltation, men and women also live as equals under the same priesthood order (God's eternal family), and persumably there are no offices to be held in exaltation, except perhaps king/priest and queen/priestess which in my mind are equal especially when bound together as one.

I’m not sure if I agree or disagree, to be honest. I’m not sure what you’re stating here. Doesn’t make sense to me, care to clarify.

God’s eternal home is one of the highest priesthood order. It is, as you nicely described, “…central and that all around it [are to] be things that reinforce its ultimate significance.” When God was creating our world, it was in preparation for becoming the central one He is in. Adam and Eve had not yet returned to this home, and we haven’t, and in this sense we are “away from home”. When God was in this world, He was “away from home” as well (in the Creation, the Garden, and in the Lord’s mortal ministry—He descended from His home into ours). We are given the way to do so, through the marriage order and of course the Redemption. As long as we are working our way back home, there are priesthood orders and offices before entering the new and everlasting covenant, and an order after that, the Church of the Firstborn (which is our ultimate home).

[juliann]

From there, the “real work (and the glory)” commenced. The essential points relative to men, women and priesthood are: 1) he had a priesthood office while he was alone / unwed; 2) he and Eve were established as a couple in the higher priesthood order, and she was never alone / unwed as she came out of Adam. If this is figurative, it would be that she came out of the covenant Adam had by virtue of his priesthood office and was “born” into the marriage order without a priesthood office.

CFR if you are going to continue this. And be detailed.

[Maidservant]

Man, in many ways, finds himself alone based of the gender roles society places us in. I would state that is "not good."

I don't take the Adam and Eve story as a "past", I take it as a template for progression, so it is telling me my present and my future. So I think this particular insight is rather good. I think that the Adam and Eve story teach us how to negotiate the telestial (and terrestrial) world(s) we find ourselves in, so that we can blossom as celestial.

If this is figurative, it would be that she came out of the covenant Adam had by virtue of his priesthood office and was “born” into the marriage order without a priesthood office.

I like this.

I should mention that when I hear Michael as the partner of creation, I hear that as an inclusive of all the children of God actually. I think that Michael represents all of us pre-mortally. So I haven't ever taken that as a "male" piece of information. But the great thing about the scriptures and the endowment is the multiple meanings that can be gleaned from the symbolisms based on what we need and/or where we are at, so that we personally can take the next step for ourselves.

I do like how you are trying to get into what it all really means and I have a lot to think about based on the thoughts you presented.

[CASteinman]

I certainly believe that there was no such intent behind the comments, but the implication was made and said.

Not in the least. This is entirely imaginary.

Part of the problem the church has right now is that men have been made way too comfortable in speaking not just to and about women but for women. It is going to take awhile to break the habit.

Probably forever since they also talk to, about and for men as well. Its just how it is.

[CASteinman]

Thinking of this thread today and the article in the newspaper, I spoke to a lady I know well (I will keep it to that for privacy purposes) and asked her about the subject. We are familiar with each other sufficiently that we can be completely honest with one another on such subjects. There is no sense of any contention or disrespect either way that would hinder honest communication.

I told her that there was an article in the paper and that it said that at least some women in the Church felt pain and troubled that they were left out of the priesthood and councils of the Church. I tried not to do anything to lead her answers and told her that I had two questions:

1. Did she feel that way? Would she want the Priesthood and offices in the Priesthood?

2. Was she aware of this feeling among women in the Church?

Her first answer was to the second question. She said that in all of her years in the Church (a few decades at this point) she has never -- not even once -- heard any woman suggest it -- not even in private conversations out of earshot of others, not in quiet intimate moments alone and not even in a very modest way of "wouldn't it be nice" or anything like that. She didn't have the slightest inkling that there is any such dissatisfaction in any way. She said that if this is some movement among the sisterhood, she is entirely unaware of it.

I reminded her that it was an article in Salt Lake and that perhaps the environment there was such and the influence of the Church so all pervasive that it might be seen as a "second class" sort of thing. Her reply was to acknowledge that might be true -- maybe if she grew up and lived in that area, she would feel differently. But as it is, she sort of feels that if someone doesn't like how the Church is run, they should just find a Church they like instead.

I told her that I considered that perhaps women already might be able to exercise some priesthood powers in certain cases and so I did not have any problem with the idea in general, but that I thought it was possibly a bad signal with regard to the family.

She mentioned how in the Gospel women are not weak and powerless and that everything is done in good order -- and that there did not seem to be any good reason for it to change.

She was, I would say, just a few degrees "harder" on the subject than I am. I would not say she was impatient with me for considering it might be possible, but she was not very open to the idea. And she pushed the idea that the Church and the Gospel and the Priesthood are all done according to an order and a plan and everything will turn out fine. Trust the Prophet and watch gentle orderly way things progress.

Despite these words that might seem curmudgeonly she is a young-hearted, free spirited woman who is generally more at home with teens and young adults and she routinely attends all manner of concerts, comic book conventions and other entertainment spectacles that would normally not be places you would expect to see a Mormon Mom. I say this to emphasis that she might not be exactly a raging conservative -- and in fact, considers herself a feminist and I can attest to her profoundly forceful manner if she feels the least bit insulted as a woman. In fact, I would get out of the way.

I enjoyed hearing her views and wanted to share them here. Even though I don't think she is a stick in the mud type of member, I am going to ask a few younger ladies I know the same thing and see if there is some sort of generational difference. I realize this is all second hand for people here -- but for me it is first hand and it definitely affects my perception of this issue as essentially a non-starter.

Edited August 24, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

CFR if you are going to continue this. And be detailed.

Not looking for any sort of fight here... and I would actually like to see references on this because I kinda think that there might be some and it would be both weird and interesting to see them.

However, I thought this was something he identified as a proposal or a speculation. Is it actually part of the rules here or is it actually reasonable to insist on a reference for an opinion or a proposal?

If it is, then this is a rule that I am confused about. If I generate a sort of theory or something, I might have some launching pad to start from, but eventually I am probably out in the air... and have no actual support. And I would have supposed that this would be sort of obvious.

Of course, if he is presenting all this as some sort of doctrinal fact -- then ignore everything I have said. But, i thought he started off saying it was merely a proposal or words to that effect.