Women And The Priesthood

[DavidB]

Mike,

Joseph Smith sent out the first sister missionaries in 1843 (e.g., Olive Frost), and one of the New Testament apostles wrote of how they had power to take their wives with them on missions.

So this slippery slope must be a gradual one indeed.

Don

A gal from my ward, served in Australia and she was made a District Leader in her mission, this was 1990's

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Priesthood is not an equalizing balance to motherhood; fatherhood is. There is a strange disconnect here; on the one hand, we are told that priesthood duties should be considered as a joyful responsibility and privilege for men to take part in and aspire to be worthy of, yet on the other hand, we are told that women shouldn't be just as eager. (It has been said in this thread that some women don't like to make decisions and some don't want the extra responsibility -- how would we respond if a male said the same thing?)

There is no explicit reference to patriarchy being inseparable from the Priesthood in the scriptures we have upheld by common consent. (Even if there were, there is no reason why men with Priesthood authority -- if they truly do have authority -- could not change current practices to be more egalitarian.)

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

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

There are constant admonitions in the scriptures for us to see that there are no inequities in the Church. While many of the revelations in the D&C are addressed to "mankind", "men", or "he", these are nearly always used in a universalist sense, not to be understood as referring solely to males. For instance, 20:71 states that "no one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance."

If we were to read this (and many other such passages) as referring strictly to men as indicated by the use of "he", then we're left with the absurdity of believing that no woman could be allowed into the church at all. Such verses are clearly using "he" in a neutral way, in the same way that a female might very well say to a group of female friends, "Hey guys, let's go to the movies" without implying in any way that all the people in the room are actually male "guys."

This is important, because this universalist use of male terms (prevalent in the 19th century when our dispensation's scriptures were recorded) cannot therefore be the justification used to deny Priesthood to women. If there is no Official Revelation commanding an all-male Priesthood, then no Official Revelation is needed to change what is actually just a policy based more on a lingering patriarchal culture than some sort of binding doctrine. (As Cobalt-70 noted, President Hinckley himself said that God very well could change the policy, especially if there was agitation for it.)

Since we are to receive truth from wherever it may come from lest we not come out true Mormons, and we are commanded to seek learning by study and faith from the best books to teach each other words of wisdom, there is absolutely no shame in learning new things from outside sources which alter our current understanding. There is no danger from assimilating ideas from, for instance, humanism or feminism (neither of which require a "war"), so long as such ideas are true.

If a given woman does not wish to participate in the Priesthood, the easy solution is for that woman to simply choose not to participate. A policy which bars all women from the Priesthood based not on anything they have done (as a male might be so disqualified) but rather simply for being female simply doesn't make sense, accomplishes nothing, is scripturally unjustifiable, and is an inequity where the Lord has counseled us to be equitable.

In regards to scriptures such as the Pearl of Great Price, Nibley showed in Abraham in Egypt the chaos which resulted when Pharaoh tried to claim authority through a matriarchal line rather than the patriarchal. The point, however, is that things should never have gotten to the point where either gender was seen as the sole possessor of the Priesthood. In point of fact, the patriarchal government of "the fathers" is quite explicitly said to be based on Ham's government, not some celestial law. Rather, in the Garden, the True Order is for Man and Woman to be equally yoked in order to have joy.

To quote a previous post of mine on this subject:

The Lord does not, in my experience, micromanage the Church. Mistakes happen; that's life. Inasmuch as we err, we might be corrected so long as we search out Wisdom, gathering all that is good and accepting truth, let it come from wherever it may. There is precedent in both the ancient world and the Restored Gospel for women to be Priestesses (such as those who officiated in Temple rites like Emma Smith, Eliza R. Snow, Bathsheba W. Smith, and Zina Diantha Huntington).

To claim that those of us who desire the Priesthood to be restored to women officiating outside the Temple are somehow opposed to the idea of the Lord leading the church is a blatant misdirection away from the real issue, and indeed rests on the unsupported assumption that the Lord doesn't want women to receive the Priesthood, in a similar way that it has long been (falsely) argued that He didn't want black men to receive it.

But that's exactly what we're questioning here. What if the Lord does want women to receive the Priesthood? Whywouldn't He? Absent an actual positive argument -- an argument, note, that does not rely on appeals to the mysterious ways in which God works -- there is no more reason to deny women the priesthood than there was to deny black men the priesthood. ("Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason." When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to come to us.)

I hear it far too often when people defend our doctrine that things are the way they are just because "God said so," and therefore we have to accept it because not all of God's commands are subject to logical analysis. There is no idea so calculated to retard the growth of the human mind than the one which forbids or promotes an action simply because someone says so. Scripturally, we are explicitly asked in Isaiah to come reason with God. If the work of Justice is destroyed, God would cease to be God, and that's not an idle rhetorical threat. Enos had to wrestle mightily with God before being blessed with the knowledge that He dispenses from time to time. As Apostle Charles Penrose said, "President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but [...] when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill."

So why can't the denial of Priesthood to women simply be a human error? We already believe our leaders are fallible! I'm certainly glad no one in the Elder's Quorum class I teach expects me to be perfect, despite the fact that everyonein such leadership roles has been called by God by the laying on of hands by those in authority.

There's no shame in having made mistakes in the past, so long as we correct them when presented with new light! Why are we supposed to content ourselves with a mere pro-forma acknowledgement of the mere logical possibilitythat our leaders can err without actually investigating to see if they ever do? Why the constant attempt to find a way, no matter how convoluted, that absolutely everything in the Church is done according to God's will? Why should we even bother to have in the very first chapter of the Doctrine & Covenants a lengthy statement about the explicit fallibility of the Church if we constantly attempt to explain away any mistakes we have made and pretend they're somehow not mistakes at all but rather secretly part of God's Machiavellian plan?

Elder Hinckley said that the Revelation on Priesthood "came as a result of great effort and prayer, anxious seeking and pleading. Anyone who does not think that is a part of receiving revelation does not understand the process." The Lord will not force us into anything; that was the other guy's plan. President Uchtdorf said awhile back: "Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

It seems to me that the idea of a male-only Priesthood is not a fundamental doctrine based on Revelation, but rather a cultural practice, a mere policy, a mere tradition of the fathers, which has become a massive iron gate which stands in the way of further light, which, remember, we are to accept wherever it may come from, even if it comes from someone we don't personally like. As such, we don't even need a big Revelation to change; we could do it tomorrow with no problem, if a President with stewardship over the entire Church were to authorize it.

It seems to me that not allowing women to participate in sacred ordinances with their own families is an unfairness, aninequity. We constantly tell our young men that being worthy of the Priesthood is something they should desire, and then turn around and claim that's it's something women shouldn't also desire, because hey, they weren't born with a penis. If God's ways are not like man's ways because He is equitable when Zion is not, then to become more Godlike we should logically extend the opportunities for women to serve in Priesthood roles.

This will not diminish the worth of men in any way. This will not harm any yin-yang symbolism about the beautiful differences between men and women. All that this will do is heal an inequity.

I continue to hold out hope that we will not always be the fools who say "A Priesthood! A Priesthood! We have got a Priesthood, and there cannot be any more Priesthood!"

[Deborah]

on the one hand, we are told that priesthood duties should be considered as a joyful responsibility and privilege for men to take part in and aspire to be worthy of, yet on the other hand, we are told that women shouldn't be just as eager.

Motherhood is also a joyful responsibility and privilege. Are men eager to be mothers? Plus I don't think anyone says women shouldn't be as eager. What some of us have said is that there is something better but it isn't apparent in our mortal existence and we are content to wait.

[Carborendum]

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

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

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

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

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

[Acris Venator]

Me thinks that you are far too ignorant of what actually goes on in the temple to make such strong delclarations. You might want to sit down with a member of a Temple presidency and ask some questions. Suffice it to say that you have a far from accurate understanding of the temple whether one "sniffs" at it or not.

What are you going to do? Denounce my "ignorance" without offering a concise answer on the matter? That sounds familiar.

I have actually sat down with the Salt Lake Temple president in 2011 and we discussed women's authority. He stared at me like a rabbit in headlights when I asked him why women wear veils and men don't. He said that there was no teaching on it and went no further. He would not comment on whether women received any priesthood, and he acted as if I shouldn't even ask the question.

So if I am not allowed to ask a temple president... in the temple... who should I turn to? You? I am an active temple attender going on 19 years now, and I have spoken with WOMEN in the temple about their ordinances, and there is no ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood to speak of. The Endowment isn't an ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Men already have it going into the rite, so that would be redundant.

If you study the wording of the second anointing, which is performed by women, it is also not performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. So if there is no ordination, yet women use the words "Having authority" when performing their anointings, then their authority likely is already in place before they ever step into a temple... and it likely has to do with the fact that they already are temples that pass individuals into mortality.

As for your second point, which males are allowed to participate in the temple without first being ordained?

[Calm]

Every time the issue of women and the priesthood is raised, I come to this same conclusion - I don't feel any less a daughter of God because I cannot hold the priesthood. I also don't have the priesthood in my home as my husband is not a member of the church. However I have never felt that I'm somehow missing out - and this is because I have a deeply held assurance that the blessings of the priesthood are available to me in all aspects of my life. I've always found it difficult to articulate, but I don't feel like I'm lacking anything by not holding the priesthood - in fact I feel that by virtue of my membership in the church, I already have/feel priesthood power in my life...if that makes any sense. My middle daughter is being baptised in a few weeks, and a very good friend who was also my former bishop will perform the ordinances of baptism and confirmation. His wife and their five children will also attend the baptism. Of course it would be wonderful if my husband could baptise our children, but that's not possible right now. In the meantime is my family missing out on any priesthood blessings? Not at all...it's right there when we need it. While I know these blessings may be magnified when my husband joins the church (hey, gotta be optimistic), I also know we will not lack in the meantime.

Having said all that, I also understand women who desire to hold the priesthood, not because they seek for unrighteous power, but because they feel they shouldn't be denied something that men automatically receive in the church simply because they were born male. For women, especially from recent generations, who have lived in western society where they are used to being treated as equals in the workplace, academia, etc; going to church on Sunday and being subject to an almost entirely male ecclesiastical system can seem a bit like taking a backward step. I know women and men who have left the church for these reasons, and while it's not a choice I'd make, I do understand their perspectives.

Well stated.

I think confusion can arise as well when the Priesthood itself is not separated in one's mind from the decision making structure in the Church which does where some men are not involved even with the Priesthood and some women are involved though in the sense that they make decisions for their stewardship just as the men do though both can be overrided by those in authority over them. That this line of authority eventually ends up being male only does not mean it is identical to the Priesthood.

As defined above, some women desire the Priesthood for a variety of reasons, certainly some of them very good reasons (much like the reasons that Abraham desired it as he saw it as a source of greater knowledge and righteousness), some women want women to have a more significant part in the decision making process and some women want both and some women want neither.

[Tacenda]

Priesthood is not an equalizing balance to motherhood; fatherhood is. There is a strange disconnect here; on the one hand, we are told that priesthood duties should be considered as a joyful responsibility and privilege for men to take part in and aspire to be worthy of, yet on the other hand, we are told that women shouldn't be just as eager. (It has been said in this thread that some women don't like to make decisions and some don't want the extra responsibility -- how would we respond if a male said the same thing?)

There is no explicit reference to patriarchy being inseparable from the Priesthood in the scriptures we have upheld by common consent. (Even if there were, there is no reason why men with Priesthood authority -- if they truly do have authority -- could not change current practices to be more egalitarian.)

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

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

There are constant admonitions in the scriptures for us to see that there are no inequities in the Church. While many of the revelations in the D&C are addressed to "mankind", "men", or "he", these are nearly always used in a universalist sense, not to be understood as referring solely to males. For instance, 20:71 states that "no one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance."

If we were to read this (and many other such passages) as referring strictly to men as indicated by the use of "he", then we're left with the absurdity of believing that no woman could be allowed into the church at all. Such verses are clearly using "he" in a neutral way, in the same way that a female might very well say to a group of female friends, "Hey guys, let's go to the movies" without implying in any way that all the people in the room are actually male "guys."

This is important, because this universalist use of male terms (prevalent in the 19th century when our dispensation's scriptures were recorded) cannot therefore be the justification used to deny Priesthood to women. If there is no Official Revelation commanding an all-male Priesthood, then no Official Revelation is needed to change what is actually just a policy based more on a lingering patriarchal culture than some sort of binding doctrine. (As Cobalt-70 noted, President Hinckley himself said that God very well could change the policy, especially if there was agitation for it.)

Since we are to receive truth from wherever it may come from lest we not come out true Mormons, and we are commanded to seek learning by study and faith from the best books to teach each other words of wisdom, there is absolutely no shame in learning new things from outside sources which alter our current understanding. There is no danger from assimilating ideas from, for instance, humanism or feminism (neither of which require a "war"), so long as such ideas are true.

If a given woman does not wish to participate in the Priesthood, the easy solution is for that woman to simply choose not to participate. A policy which bars all women from the Priesthood based not on anything they have done (as a male might be so disqualified) but rather simply for being female simply doesn't make sense, accomplishes nothing, is scripturally unjustifiable, and is an inequity where the Lord has counseled us to be equitable.

In regards to scriptures such as the Pearl of Great Price, Nibley showed in Abraham in Egypt the chaos which resulted when Pharaoh tried to claim authority through a matriarchal line rather than the patriarchal. The point, however, is that things should never have gotten to the point where either gender was seen as the sole possessor of the Priesthood. In point of fact, the patriarchal government of "the fathers" is quite explicitly said to be based on Ham's government, not some celestial law. Rather, in the Garden, the True Order is for Man and Woman to be equally yoked in order to have joy.

To quote a previous post of mine on this subject:

I continue to hold out hope that we will not always be the fools who say "A Priesthood! A Priesthood! We have got a Priesthood, and there cannot be any more Priesthood!"

Your quotes are beautiful. I never really looked at it that way. And was always afraid to say if I ever wanted the Priesthood or if women should have it. I like your analogy so much. And it is very true that women were looked at as Priestesses in the early days of the church and were blessing people with that Priesthood. I wonder why the church has taken a step backwards from this idea.

I tie it into the Relief Society, back in the days that women were in charge of it. My mom and many of your mom's on here will probably remember when they paid dues to belong and it helped pay for their own magazine etc. Remember the cupcake sales? Was that for Relief Society or Primary Children's hospital? I just dated myself, but I do remember how fun that was after school. Oops, getting sidetracked here. But I do long for the good old days where the church allowed for women to have their own club, so to speak. Now the Priesthood is over the Relief Society, unlike before.

While serving in the Relief Society Presidency, for several years, I served in two different presidencies, it was diffifcult to watch the RS President jump through hoops sometimes to get the bishop to sign a food order or various things because the bishop had an extremely high demanding job (that took him out of town) and the ward to take care of. So I'm sure in his mind he would have liked it if the RS President could have full say or power in decisions on things.

So I like the equal rights analogy. But wouldn't want it thrust onto me. I'd like it to be a choice, unlike it is for the men in the church. I'd like it to be something that women would get some training in etc. It would definitely change the church and would probably turn it on it's head possibly. Like I've heard happened in the RLDS church, atleast that their numbers are down. But they'll probably land back on their feet and it will smooth over.

Thanks Jermey-OrbeSmith, for showing that it isn't out of the question for a woman to hold the Priesthood.

[Acris Venator]

Priesthood is not an equalizing balance to motherhood; fatherhood is.

Fatherhood doesn't stand a chance of being a complement to motherhood without the Priesthood. That's why the Lord always directs men towards his Priesthood and ordinances in scripture. Nothing a father does by himself is commensurate to the miracle of birth. Providing is not enough, and sympathetic birth pains are not enough. This misconception is a lie of the world.

It is only when a father is ordained with the Priesthood (and when he bears it in righteousness) that he can answer births with rebirths. That is Christ's construct. That was the entire mission of Jesus Christ: to give Eternal Life to the children of the Mother of All Living and her daughters. To give them hope that their births were not performed in vain.

[Calm]

A policy which bars all women from the Priesthood based not on anything they have done (as a male might be so disqualified) but rather simply for being female simply doesn't make sense, accomplishes nothing, is scripturally unjustifiable, and is an inequity where the Lord has counseled us to be equitable.

Would you have said limiting the Priesthood to one tribe made sense? Just curious. Can't remember your discussions in the past.

[Traela]

I remember an article in the Ensign, maybe ten years ago, about an inner-city branch. Most of the families were headed by single mothers, so there were very few Melchezideck Priesthood holders. The bishopric realized that the Aaronic Priesthood actually could do quite a lot of things that are usually passed on to the adult males, so they decided to use the boys as much as possible. The result? These young brothers learned, perhaps for the first time in their lives, that men, real men, were not only important, not only needed, but necessary. They never would have been given these responsibilities or learned that lesson if their mothers had been able to step in.

We live in a world where men and boys are increasingly marginalized. Popular culture, in the USA at least, generally depicts males as incompetent slobs. In contrast, the Church is sending the message that women need men just as much as men need women. In less feminist societies, this also set gives men a series of unpaid responsibilities that cannot be passed on to women. It might be nice for women to have the Priesthood, but I don't think they need it. But I do think that at this time, men have a need for the Priesthood to be males-only.

Like Tacenda, I would like to see the Relief Society have more autonomy. At the very least, I think the Relief Society should stop being lumped with "the Auxilliaries." Joseph Smith said that the Church wasn't perfectly organized until the women were organized. That says to me that RS is not a nice little supplement, but a necessity.

[Carborendum]

Answer: rebirths. As in Hymn #209: "Born to give them second birth." This is precisely why Jesus has his argument with Nicodemus. Can a man crawl back into his mother's womb? No. He must be BORN AGAIN through Christ's sacred ordinances. Both baptism by water, and then baptism by fire.

I really like this. I even gave you a rep pt for that.

But it begs another question. Why are boys given priesthood when they are not near ready to become fathers. And what of childless women?

[Carborendum]

...And it is very true that women were...blessing people with that Priesthood. I wonder why the church has taken a step backwards from this idea.

Do you have some links that indicate such?

[Tacenda]

Do you have some links that indicate such?

I need to clarify, women, not all, were ordained to bless other women, by the Prophet Joseph Smith, but they did not hold the priesthood. Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent.

http://www.sunstonem...115-6-30-43.pdf

http://womeninthescr...ly-days-of.html

Edited August 12, 2012 by Tacenda

[Cobalt-70]

Would the responsibility of holding the priesthood be too much for a mother to bear? I know some women aren't interested in the responsibility of priesthood ordination, but what, exactly, is the responsibility those women want to avoid? Time-consuming administrative or leadership callings? The responsibility to provide saving ordinances to humanity? Being the go-to presiding person who might need to make the final decision? Making sure there's bread and water and consecrated oil available when and where it needs to be? An explicit call to serve others? What part of the Oath & Covenant of the Priesthood is okay for men and boys to live up to but too challenging for women and girls?

It's not as if LDS women spend less time than men on their church callings. The only difference is that women are subordinated to men in these callings. And it's not as if the priesthood holder has extra burdens of priesthood-stuff in the home. So maybe he gives a priesthood blessing a couple times a year, and baptizes the children.That takes a few hours, max.

[Cobalt-70]

So in reality, men are given the Priesthood by God to create gender equality. It is the ability to perform ordinances that allows men to finally answer the births that all of these mothers around us perform. In fact, ordinances are the only adequate answer to births that has ever been offered. It is little wonder that Christ is the author of those ordinances.

Nobody other than the nuttiest patriarchalists think that men and women are "unequal"--regardless of the quality of their assigned gender roles. The issue is the subordination of one "equal" to another "equal." Women may even be put up on a pedestal, and considered to be "greater" than men. However, the fact remains that they are put on the pedestal, and thereby objectified and subordinated to men. That, not inequality, is the problem with such rationalizations for the priesthood ban against women.

[Cobalt-70]

IMO, women are never given the Priesthood. A "setting apart" is not the same thing as an ordination. Males can't even sniff at the entrance of a temple without first being ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood.

But the temple is more about unifying male and female authority. It is only in the Celestial room that we are allowed to mingle sexes, and that is at the end of a very deliberate series of "worlds" where the sexes are segregated. The whole thing seems to infer a cosmic meeting of male and female.

Women are anointed, yes, but not by men and not by Priesthood authority. It is merely done by "authority" that is not specified.

In the temple, women are endowed with priesthood power, and prepared to officiate in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood. So endowed women have the priesthood. What they aren't allowed to receive, under current church policy, is ordination to a particular priesthood office, such as elder or high priest. I think that will inevitably change. What good is it to be prepared to officiate in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, if the only such ordinance women can perform is washing and anointing?

[Cobalt-70]

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

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

I wonder, then, whether Madsen would have agreed with Gordon Hinckley that there is something wrong with praying to the Heavenly Mother. If she has equal priesthood authority in heaven, then why can't we pray to her? I don't buy the rationale that her feelings are too delicate, and that the Father is protecting her by keeping her in a box. She's God! She can handle it!

[rpn]

I understand the question about comparing priesthood to motherhood. But I think the description is different. Priesthood refines men like motherhood refines women. Priesthood is what gets men serving others. Motherhood is the essence of serving others.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just some clarification so as to avoid any theological misunderstandings.

Of course, That goes without saying. Literally.

[selek1]

I understand the question about comparing priesthood to motherhood. But I think the description is different. Priesthood refines men like motherhood refines women. Priesthood is what gets men serving others. Motherhood is the essence of serving others.

I would suggest- politely- that this is misanthropic nonsense and neo-feminist ideology masquerading as rationale thought.

The comparison is odious, sexist, and offensive.

I did not need the Priesthood to learn to love and serve others.

I did not need the Priesthood to love my children, nor to labor for their welfare.

I did not need the Priesthood to sit up nights holding a crying baby, nor to dry my daughter's tears, nor to stand a silent vigil over her crib.

I did not need the Priesthood to turn my heart towards the care and happiness of my wife, nor to resolve to do all that I could to honor, love, and protect her from all the buffeting that the world could blow.

I did not need the Priesthood to prepare me to stand watch at the ramparts to protect my family- to be ever vigilant and ready to slay dragons on their behalf.

I did not need the Priesthood to know that my Father in Heaven loves me- and expects no less of me towards my wife and children than my very best.

Edited August 13, 2012 by selek1

[Robert F. Smith]

A lot of people would like to see a lot of different things. Without looking too hard I bet you could find a bishop who would like Sundays off.

Sunday is a work-day in the State of Israel. Branches there have sabbath on Saturday.

[Robert F. Smith]

IMO, women are never given the Priesthood. A "setting apart" is not the same thing as an ordination. Males can't even sniff at the entrance of a temple without first being ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood.

But the temple is more about unifying male and female authority. It is only in the Celestial room that we are allowed to mingle sexes, and that is at the end of a very deliberate series of "worlds" where the sexes are segregated. The whole thing seems to infer a cosmic meeting of male and female.

Wrong. All are to consider themselves as participants in the divine drama in all phases, including a particular repeated action which I cannot mention here. Think carefully.

Women are anointed, yes, but not by men and not by Priesthood authority. It is merely done by "authority" that is not specified.

It may not be specified, but it is understood that each anointing, etc., is done by the authority of the President of the Church, who holds the keys, and who allows the Temple President and Matron (and those called and set apart under that authority) to excercise that authority.

[Calm]

neo-feminist ideology

I've heard a lot more women protest this idea than men, while I've heard this idea promoted a lot more by men then women. And I've heard this idea all of my life so I don't see how it can be "neo-feminist".

Kind of like the whole putting one's wife on a some kind of spiritual higher plane, 'women are more spiritual than men' and a whole lot of other ideas that I've never bought into and never heard someone who identified herself as a feminist do anything but trash.

[Calm]

How unfair God would be to men if he gave almost all women the opportunity to be mothers while limited to a very, very, very small percentage of men though no fault of their own (but simply by being born at the wrong time and place) the alleged parallel role of "Priesthood".

I think on those grounds alone one cannot link the two as the male/female versions of some function.

Edited August 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[selek1]

I've heard a lot more women protest this idea than men, while I've heard this idea promoted a lot more by men then women. And I've heard this idea all of my life so I don't see how it can be "neo-feminist".

"neo" meaning "young" or "new". "All your life" hardly contradicts my usage here.

More to the point, it ties (however unintentionally) into the "new age" brand of feminism which seeks to elevate "womyn" and "womynhood" above the nasty, brutish, irredeemable males of the species (as you note below).

Kind of like the whole putting one's wife on a some kind of spiritual higher plane, 'women are more spiritual than men' and a whole lot of other ideas that I've never bought into and never heard someone who identified herself as a feminist do anything but trash.