Women And The Priesthood

[selek1]

The question is, why not allow women to hold the Priesthood as men do?

Because it is not our place to do so.

The Holy Priesthood is not ours to dispense or dispose as we see fit.

We have specific limits as to whom we can delegate that authority and under what circumstances. Equally clear are the conditions under which that authority will be revoked- first and foremost among them, acting in contradiction to the pattern and manner set forth.

The Priesthood is not ours to do with as we please- nor is it inherent to us. It is delegated under specific conditions and with specific limitations.

Every man who acts in a Priesthood capacity is does so as a subordinate- an agent and a deputy to God.

A Priesthood Holder is a limited agent- his authority is both express and finite.

If God decides to change the conditions of who is- and is not- eligible for the Priesthood, he will make it known to us, and we will change our procedures accordingly.

Until then, we have no authority to extend or delegate it beyond that which has already been authorized- no matter how fervently we might wish it, or how much the world demands it of us.

"It has always been done like this" doesn't mean "it shouldn't be done in any other way".

No- but the limited "user license" under which we are operating means it is neither our right nor our place to misuse that authority in ways not authorized by its creator.

[Acris Venator]

And it's not about who can carry Sacrament trays, it's about Atonement symbolism (hinging in the Sacrament, and the bishop/Aaronic priesthood) and about letting young men begin to learn how to be a servant at this GATE.

Maidservant, I could not agree more. And the best term I've encountered in our lexicon for being a servant at that gate is veil worker. The deacon who serves the sacrament, the teacher who prepares the emblems, the priest who blesses the emblems, the elders who baptize, and the high priests who endow and seal: all of them work that veil in these ordinances, and it is all about the Atonement.

Are women not veil workers also? Indeed, and not merely inside our temple buildings. If the womb is a veil, then they are the life-long sentinels of a veil that must be passed by all. It is within Mormonism that the term temple retains its association with the idea of veil work instead of merely an abstract idea about sacredness/holiness. So if Jesus is going to claim that the body is a temple also, then there are ramifications for Mormons that are not nearly as apparent for the rest of the Christian world.

It's not about leadership or hierarchy; it's about atonement.

I agree, and this is what most forget because they are caught up in what is going on with the hierarchy. But the truth is that presiding over meetings and making logistical decisions are just kindergarten recess as compared with administering the ordinances. And it is with regards to the ordinances that I believe the Lord informed Eve that Adam would "rule over" her.

Examine the scripture in question:

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

If the womb is understood as a veil, then God is merely referencing them both. Men in the church do rule over women in one very distinct way: they are the gate keepers of the saving ordinances that ultimately empower women and teach them the technique to pass that second veil. Why do husbands receive the new name of the wife and not visa versa? Because the temple is primarily concerned with the veil of the Priesthood that is held by men and of which the source is God the Father.

But we started within the mother. Likely as spirit children within a Heavenly Mother, then as mortal children within an earthly one. So before we ever heard of the notion of being "one" with Christ, who is the Very Eternal Father, we were already one with our mothers in a process that ultimately joined body and spirit. That's what life is, we travel from the Mother to the Father, and there are veils on both ends of the journey. Christ ultimately intends to reunite our body and spirit in an ordinance that mirrors motherhood.

I often have said to myself that women ARE priesthood, which men receive when they are worthy by passing through the previous sets of priesthood. But I may be learning more on that, so I'm not sure even this saying holds for me any more.

I think they are the first veil as much as Christ is the second veil. Nobody comes here unless they say "okay", and none of us go to where he is unless he says the same.

Do women hold a Priesthood? I believe so. But I do not think it's source is God the Father. If women can become "queens" in the CK, then what exactly are they sovereign over? I think it is likely the same veil that they were stewards of in mortality. They simply work that same veil from the other side. Meaning Heavenly Mother is likely the source of their Priesthood, and the line of authority goes back to her through Eve.

I realize that that is speculative, but it works with the symbols that are available to our culture.

Small note: right now women are eligible for the 'celestial kingdom' without having taken on them covenants relating to participating in the Gathering of Israel (i.e. Aarronic and Melchizedek priesthood offices). Men are not. I would prefer not to have that kind of eligibility erased for me, I'm thankful.

I believe that this is because women pay the price for their veil work personally. Those that give birth are sanctified by the travail, imo. It is men that must catch up with what it means to pay the price so that others may pass through veils, and because they will never personally bleed to perform that veil work (Christ already paid the price in full) their requirements to enter the highest level of the CK are more strict. I believe that their biggest sacrifices are yet to come, after this life.

Also--I don't think that the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods as manifested in the church structures should be corresponded one-to-one with the Aaronic and Melchizedek progressions in the temple. They are related, of course. But sometimes I think they are devices used to describe something a little different. Aaronic and Melchizedek as used in the temple are a path on a larger progression of exaltation that, by the way, started before we came to the mortal sphere.

Agreed.

of course it all ends in the same place, I would imagine .

The beauty of traveling from the Mother to the Father is that once you achieve "oneness" with the Father you get to be with her again. Because they are married.

"For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." -Revelation 7:17

[Alvino]

Because it is not our place to do so.

The Holy Priesthood is not ours to dispense or dispose as we see fit.

We have specific limits as to whom we can delegate that authority and under what circumstances. Equally clear are the conditions under which that authority will be revoked- first and foremost among them, acting in contradiction to the pattern and manner set forth.

The Priesthood is not ours to do with as we please- nor is it inherent to us. It is delegated under specific conditions and with specific limitations.

Every man who acts in a Priesthood capacity is does so as a subordinate- an agent and a deputy to God.

A Priesthood Holder is a limited agent- his authority is both express and finite.

If God decides to change the conditions of who is- and is not- eligible for the Priesthood, he will make it known to us, and we will change our procedures accordingly.

Until then, we have no authority to extend or delegate it beyond that which has already been authorized- no matter how fervently we might wish it, or how much the world demands it of us.

No- but the limited "user license" under which we are operating means it is neither our right nor our place to misuse that authority in ways not authorized by its creator.

But it isn't all up to God, is it? With polygamy, for example, actions of other people made God change His commands. If Mormons and society can't legitimately do as they see fit without God's approval in some aspects, they can definitely twist His arm.

The distinction still stands, though, in that making a case for a patter of male Priesthood holders doesn't mean one should exclude women (as happy seems to think). One has to show one shouldn't allow women, which is different, and as you attempt.

Also, I still haven't seen an answer to whether there is good reason to exclude women from the Priesthood other than "God said it".

[selek1]

But it isn't all up to God, is it?

As regards the authority to act in his name? You're darn right it's all up to him.

Priesthood Authority- the authority to act in God's name- cannot be usurped, assumed, or borrowed.

It cannot be begged, bought, or stolen.

It exists only as delegated by God, under the explicit conditions he has laid out.

Anything else exceeds our "user license"- and ends our authority.

We cannot extend the Priesthood to women because we have not been authorized to do so.

Anything we do without authorization is null and void- no matter how much we might believe our actions are justified.

With polygamy, for example, actions of other people made God change His commands.

This is (arguably) partially correct- God released the faithful from the commandment to practice polygamy because the burden was becoming intolerable to his people.

But this illustrates the actual point: Neither President Woodruff, nor John Taylor, nor any other Apostle, Prophet, or Revelator had the authority to revoke polygamy on their own.

The release came only after the leaders of the Church received permission from the Lord.

Had any of the leaders of the Church acted without that permission, they would have been in rebellion and apostacy.

Likewise, had the Lord decreed that polygamy be continued, we would have been obligated by our covenants to carry it out despite the persecution we were suffering.

Likewise, had the Lord decreed that polygamy be continued, we would have been obligated by our covenants to carry it out despite the persecution we were suffering.

If Mormons and society can't legitimately do as they see fit without God's approval in some aspects, they can definitely twist His arm.

THAT I want to see.

Of course, your qualifier "in some aspects" is crucial.

We all have our agency, and the guidelines the Lord has provided do allow for some discretion- but our Priesthood authority remains delegated. We have very specific guidelines on who may or may not receive it, and upon what conditions that authority is predicated, and upon what conditions it is void.

Right now, we are authorized to extend the Priesthood to worthy males. That may change in the future, it may not.

At the present time, we do not have permission to extend it to any other.

Any member of the Priesthood who attempts to act without that permission, has exceeded his mandate and is in rebellion and apostacy.

We do not have the right to change those conditions. That authority resides with God alone.

The distinction still stands, though, in that making a case for a patter of male Priesthood holders doesn't mean one should exclude women (as happy seems to think). One has to show one shouldn't allow women, which is different, and as you attempt.

I'm sorry- why exactly must we show that we shouldn't allow women?

If I give my son permission to drive the family car to and from school, that is the limit of his authority. He is under no obligation to explain to his friends WHY he is not allowed to drive the car to the mall, the movies, and the demolition derby.

If I give my son permission to drive the family car to and from school, he has no authority to turn around and lend it to his friend Sarah- nor is he obligated to explain why he cannot let her drive the car.

It is sufficient that for him to say that he does not have perimission to do so.

Also, I still haven't seen an answer to whether there is good reason to exclude women from the Priesthood other than "God said it".

Nor are we obligated to provide one.

It is sufficient to state that we do not have permission to do so.

Edited August 18, 2012 by selek1

[Widow's Son]

I have two full time (LDS) missionaries in the field. One is serving in a mission where Sister missionaries can hold any leadership position. The two current AP's are sister missionaries and are apparently doing a fantastic job and are highly admired and respected.

The other's mission forbids that. Only Elders can serve in leadership capacities above senior companion.

Both missionaries are doing great, but the differences in the missions does seem a little odd (for lack of a better word.)

Edited August 18, 2012 by Widow's Son

[changed]

If women are ordained to the Priesthood in this life it would only be by revelation and because circumstances would make it necessary. I don't see that happening and I don't see the need for it. Priesthood isn't just an ordination but a power, one which created the heavens and earth. One doesn't need to have the ordination to benefit from that power or even to use it if one has faith.

To me that is like saying "one doesn't need the gift of the Holy Ghost to benefit from that power." As a female, I would LOVE to hold the priesthood. It frustrates me that more women don't seek this power. To me, that's akin to not seeking the gift of the Holy Ghost, or not seeking baptism, or not seeking the celestial Kingdom or something. we are told that if we ask, we will receive - but there are not enough women asking for it, so we are not receiving it. There is nothing wrong with asking or desiring something that is good and God given.

I have two full time (LDS) missionaries in the field. One is serving in a mission where Sister missionaries can hold any leadership position. The two current AP's are sister missionaries and are apparently doing a fantastic job and are highly admired and respected.

Our bishop once told us that women obviously make better leaders, that the image of God was both male and female, and that each of us needed to learn both male and female traits, that we would not understand one another well (males understanding females, vs. females understanding males) until we had each walked a mile in one another's shoes - so he thought the male/female roles were switched in Eden (Eve makes all the decisions in Eden, she is clearly the leader there, but then the roles are switched) he said it much more eloquently than I have, it was one of those extra interesting 5th Sunday discussions.

Edited August 18, 2012 by changed

[Carborendum]

Feminism is, in part, the idea that women and femininity should not be marginalized or subordinated to men and masculinity.

Ok. Explain how this would work in your world. How is it different from making men and women "the same"? Not in the physical sense, but in the emotional, mental, spiritual & social senses. ( I believe happy was simply using sarcasm & hyperbole when he made the statements about the physical aspects.)

I'm open to listening.

[Deborah]

As a female, I would LOVE to hold the priesthood. It frustrates me that more women don't seek this power.

Why, when you can benefit from the Priesthood without "holding" it?

[GingerRed]

To me that is like saying "one doesn't need the gift of the Holy Ghost to benefit from that power." As a female, I would LOVE to hold the priesthood. It frustrates me that more women don't seek this power. To me, that's akin to not seeking the gift of the Holy Ghost, or not seeking baptism, or not seeking the celestial Kingdom or something. we are told that if we ask, we will receive - but there are not enough women asking for it, so we are not receiving it. There is nothing wrong with asking or desiring something that is good and God given...........

Changed...have you even READ any of the above posts explaining as to why? It's been explained pretty darn well as to WHY women don't need the Priesthood. I sure don't want it! I don't think you truly understand the priesthood at all. All you see is, that the men have something the women don't have...so what? That's a BAD thing??

You really have no clue as the to power we women in the church ALREADY have, do ya?

Red

Edited August 18, 2012 by GingerRed

[Calm]

2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

Sounds to me like something everyone should desire in one form or another.

[BlueDreams]

Both missionaries are doing great, but the differences in the missions does seem a little odd (for lack of a better word.)

Is it a temple square/visiting center mission? Because those missions, having majority sister missionaries, usually have female leaders. Outside of majority sister missions it's usually male mission leader positions. I think it's largely about practicality and rules. A number of people on my mission mentioned something about priesthood authority as well, but personally practicality with the rules makes far more sense. One major thing that a number of leadership responsibilities on a mission entail have to do with going on exchanges with fellow missionaries. Sisters and Elders are not allowed to split up with each other and certainly not allowed to spend the night with each other (most exchanges are full day trips). They're also not allowed to counsel opposite sex missionaries and the like. In my mission, when the number of sister missionaries increased, our mission president had a sister companionship do exchanges and be the source of advice/counsel for the sisters in our mission instead.

With luv,

BD

[changed]

All you see is, that the men have something the women don't have...

Men have a lot of things women don't have - like hairy chests... I don't want a hairy chest just because guys have it I and I don't.

The priesthood allows you to bless people, is it wrong to want a higher capacity to bless those around you?

(New Testament | John 16:24)

24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

There's a parable I tell my daughters if anyone wants to read it. It's about a little baby girl who was born to a King and Queen, and they had a big celebration when she was born involving some fairies, only there was this one fairy who wasn't invited, and some ill feelings led to a curse, and the baby being raised by 3 Godmothers instead of her own parents. (you know that part of the story). Anyways, this girl grows up as a commoner not knowing who she really is, she feels the burden of taxes, she complains against the laws, she works and sweats and parties with all the other commoners, and gains a huge amount of respect/empathy/understanding/comradeship with all the other commoners. Then one day she turns 16, and she finds out who she really is, and she ends up becoming a queen - and here's the moral - when she becomes queen she's the best queen anyone ever had, because she is intimately familiar with what it is to be a commoner. She is not prideful, does not see herself as being better than her subjects, she respects the people - perhaps she even turns the family castle into a school/soup kitchen/hospital/community center, reorganizes the government to be one that is by the people, and introduces a whole new age into her region....

so, the last shall be first, and the greatest among you shall be your servant, and it's not about being in front of people - it's about being with them, and it's good to experience what it is to not be in charge for awhile, but imo it is a means to an end. We learn to respect those who are not leaders by walking in their shoes for a bit, but the point of that is to eventually become better leaders - or rather, not become better leaders, but to be better able to help those around us. I don't seek a position of power, I don't want control, I would rather be with others than in front of them. I would love to hold the tools that would allow me to better serve those around me though. Why would anyone not want a greater capacity to serve?

Edited August 18, 2012 by changed

[Maidservant]

Symbolism, symbolism, symbolism.

Coming to earth life is an ordinance (THE baptism we all need in order to be saved), thinking of the long view of our eternal progression beginning "pre-mortally".

When a woman places her children into the hands of their father to be baptized, this is a SYMBOLISM of the relationship between heavenly Mother(s) placing their children in the hands of the heavenly Father(s) to perform the ordinance of earth life. (Among other things.)

Baptism is a token that shows premortal life, birth into the floods (=earth life), death and rising up out of the floods, and into our Father's embrace for the culmination of this mortal exercise--all shown in a few swift seconds of the token ordinance in a baptismal font, with the community of that child standing around incuding all women. When the child comes out of the water, the mama is holding the towel to dry them off. So don't worry, both genders are there in that ordinance!

It's SYMBOLISM, NOT gender roles, and these things are meant to teach us all things pertaining to our eternal progression, once we understand.

[changed]

I think it's symbolic of Jesus being born to a handmaid, instead of Heavenly Mother.

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord Luke 1:38

that all of us are born to handmaids, who hopefully try to prepare us for the more perfect baptismal birth, the one where we are old enough and experienced enough to choose a family - to choose to be children of Heavenly Parents (rather than earthly ones)...

(New Testament | Galatians 4:23)

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

...

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman...

31 we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

perhaps we are not allowed in the baptismal font, because we are playing the symbolic role of the bondwoman, a casting off of the surrogate mother if you will, so that the barren mother can have Her children...

SING, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.Isaiah 54:1

(Jesus was the "only" begotten, and he was begotten through a handmaid, so that must mean She is barren... Eve could not bear children in her perfect form either... at least I think there is symbolism behind all of the barren women and their handmaids in the scriptures...I don't want my life to be symbolic of the bondwoman though, I want to know what it is to be free)

Edited August 19, 2012 by changed

[juliann]

To me that is like saying "one doesn't need the gift of the Holy Ghost to benefit from that power." As a female, I would LOVE to hold the priesthood. It frustrates me that more women don't seek this power. To me, that's akin to not seeking the gift of the Holy Ghost, or not seeking baptism, or not seeking the celestial Kingdom or something. we are told that if we ask, we will receive - but there are not enough women asking for it, so we are not receiving it. There is nothing wrong with asking or desiring something that is good and God given.

This is the appropriate response. We are told to seek for good things. It is scriptural. I do not see leaders mocking women who do and it is disheartening to see members speaking so disrespectfully to and about women who do not think as they do on this topic. No one loses anything by simply acknowledging that the priesthood is a good thing and we are to seek after good things. It is particularly shocking to see those who do hold the priesthood do anything less. The only thing these tedious finger pointing arguments do is denegrate the priesthood, there is nothing elevating about anyone who seeks to withhold something that is considered the greatest blessing the gospel can bestow. There is an unflattering greediness to it, as if another sharing in something means less for someone else. The gospel doesn't work like that.

I do not expect women to be receiving the priesthood, but I do expect men and women of the church to be charitable and understanding of those who do seek more. For crying out loud, what does it cost anyone to just say that those who seek more blessings should pray about it and keep the unseemly sniping and ungraciousness to sisters in the gospel private.

[KevinG]

I don't want a hairy chest just because guys have it I and I don't.

I'm sure your husband doesn't want you to have a hairy chest either.

[Deborah]

The priesthood allows you to bless people, is it wrong to want a higher capacity to bless those around you?

No, it's not wrong. My question is why you would feel that you don't have a higher capacity now to bless people. I believe the prayers of women on behalf of their children and loved ones have great power. I believe that women have the power to bless by their gentle touch and soothing words. Who is it a small child wants when he isn't feeling well? Who is it a dying soldier calls for? Most often it's his mother.

I do think you make an interesting point that we may not be receiving the Priesthood because there aren't enough women asking for it but I think the question should be why aren't they. For myself I don't feel the need at this time when I have Priesthood around me and I like watching my sons exercise their Priesthood power. I think many women already feel overwhelmed by the responsibilities of motherhood and they simply don't want added responsibilities even if added blessings might be attached. That you may want more is commendable but don't be hard on those who don't at this time.

I also think that the temple gives us a bigger picture of who we are and what our capacities are and I think many women are content knowing that, though I don't think we have any inkling of how great that really is. I'm reminded often of the Prince and the Pauper where the true prince is disguised as a beggar and orphan. He knows who he really is but is helpless for awhile to fill his role. Aren't we all like that, princesses and princes in exile until we can return home and receive our full power and glory.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Deborah

[Maidservant]

At least the way Acris puts it . . . instead of considering that as women we would like to have what men have (priesthood or?), it is rather the opportunity for men to have what women have and that is barred to THEM (unless an approximation is provided to them= priesthood)? So that a woman's 'experience of being' is the standard (i.e. the culmination of exaltation), and men need to find a way to fill that measure? This is probably taking it a bit too far, as we are all valuable for what we are, but just putting out a thought.

[Glenn101]

I do not expect women to be receiving the priesthood, but I do expect men and women of the church to be charitable and understanding of those who do seek more. For crying out loud, what does it cost anyone to just say that those who seek more blessings should pray about it and keep the unseemly sniping and ungraciousness to sisters in the gospel private.

I would not be against a revelation which would extend the priesthood to all worthy members of age. If it were to happen, it would be, in my opinion, the way changed is advocating, through the fervent prayers of the righteous who are seeking it. They will receive an answer one way or another. Seeking the priesthood is not a bad thing. Abraham sought it.

I do not know of any scriptural evidence pointing to a doctrinal reason for women not holding the priesthood. The only thing that we have is a history of a patriarchal priesthood. But it could just be a long standing policy. If I remember correctly, at one time the priesthood was taken from among men in general and made the exclusive domain of the tribe of Levi. That policy was changed during Christ's ministry. So, it is not inconceivable that God could change that policy again.

I don't think that "principled disobedience" as advocated by Margaret Toscani would be very effective.

Glenn

Edited August 19, 2012 by Glenn101

[Storm Rider]

This is the appropriate response. We are told to seek for good things. It is scriptural. I do not see leaders mocking women who do and it is disheartening to see members speaking so disrespectfully to and about women who do not think as they do on this topic. No one loses anything by simply acknowledging that the priesthood is a good thing and we are to seek after good things. It is particularly shocking to see those who do hold the priesthood do anything less. The only thing these tedious finger pointing arguments do is denigrate the priesthood, there is nothing elevating about anyone who seeks to withhold something that is considered the greatest blessing the gospel can bestow. There is an unflattering greediness to it, as if another sharing in something means less for someone else. The gospel doesn't work like that.

I do not expect women to be receiving the priesthood, but I do expect men and women of the church to be charitable and understanding of those who do seek more. For crying out loud, what does it cost anyone to just say that those who seek more blessings should pray about it and keep the unseemly sniping and ungraciousness to sisters in the gospel private.

If this logic is accurate and proper, then all people should seek after every good thing. Motherhood I assume you would think is a good thing. As a man should I spend my days hungering, pining after becoming a mother? Should I voice my feelings of displeasure about not being allowed to bear children?

If it were up to me every woman that ever wished for it would be given the priesthood. Every person that desired leadership would immediately be given leadership positions. Then every time something did not go quite right you would see those who shake their head in disappointment, you would hear the chatter about how much better the old bishop was, you would see the heartache because a blessing did not heal, you would be responsible for every little thing that did not go right. I pray that God in Heaven hears your every prayer and that you get exactly what each of you pray for. Never is a human so blind as to think they actually know what it is that they "need" and that God should answer every prayer with an affirmative answer.

Would that each of us could understand that they are not the Gardner and that each of us has a specific purpose. Some are meant to be giant oaks that spread their branches out in broad swathes. Others are meant to be a small, delicate flower that only breaks the ground the first of spring and quickly fades away. The wonderful thing is that to our Father in Heaven they are all equal and equally loved.

[Alvino]

As regards the authority to act in his name? You're darn right it's all up to him.

Priesthood Authority- the authority to act in God's name- cannot be usurped, assumed, or borrowed.

It cannot be begged, bought, or stolen.

It exists only as delegated by God, under the explicit conditions he has laid out.

Anything else exceeds our "user license"- and ends our authority.

I was talking about the fact that you can ask God for stuff.

We cannot extend the Priesthood to women because we have not been authorized to do so.

Anything we do without authorization is null and void- no matter how much we might believe our actions are justified.

That's OK.

This is (arguably) partially correct- God released the faithful from the commandment to practice polygamy because the burden was becoming intolerable to his people.

But this illustrates the actual point: Neither President Woodruff, nor John Taylor, nor any other Apostle, Prophet, or Revelator had the authority to revoke polygamy on their own.

The release came only after the leaders of the Church received permission from the Lord.

Had any of the leaders of the Church acted without that permission, they would have been in rebellion and apostacy.

Likewise, had the Lord decreed that polygamy be continued, we would have been obligated by our covenants to carry it out despite the persecution we were suffering.

Likewise, had the Lord decreed that polygamy be continued, we would have been obligated by our covenants to carry it out despite the persecution we were suffering.

THAT I want to see.

Of course, your qualifier "in some aspects" is crucial.

We all have our agency, and the guidelines the Lord has provided do allow for some discretion- but our Priesthood authority remains delegated. We have very specific guidelines on who may or may not receive it, and upon what conditions that authority is predicated, and upon what conditions it is void.

Right now, we are authorized to extend the Priesthood to worthy males. That may change in the future, it may not.

At the present time, we do not have permission to extend it to any other.

Any member of the Priesthood who attempts to act without that permission, has exceeded his mandate and is in rebellion and apostacy.

We do not have the right to change those conditions. That authority resides with God alone.

And, again, the point is that God can change his commands according to what people ask or do.

I'm sorry- why exactly must we show that we shouldn't allow women?

Mr, I was repeating the distinction and the idea that happy's approach wasn't enough because "It has always been done like this" doesn't mean "it shouldn't be done in any other way". That's why.

If I give my son permission to drive the family car to and from school, that is the limit of his authority. He is under no obligation to explain to his friends WHY he is not allowed to drive the car to the mall, the movies, and the demolition derby.

You just made the mistake again.

Do you see a difference in the following?

1) We allow drug use only in the building.

2) We allow drug use in the building.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Alvino

[changed]

If this logic is accurate and proper, then all people should seek after every good thing. Motherhood I assume you would think is a good thing. As a man should I spend my days hungering, pining after becoming a mother? Should I voice my feelings of displeasure about not being allowed to bear children? ...

Walking a mile in another’s shoes is the reason we worship our Savior. He felt our pains, he experienced what we experienced, he sees us face to face while we see through the glass darkly. Not trying to pick a fight, but I really do think the more Christ like desire would be to experience what walking in another’s shoes is. We might have closer relationships with one another if we did that.

Of coarse there is a price to pay for every blessing given. I could sit here and list the horrors of motherhood – the humiliation of giving up a prestigious career to colleges and relatives who don’t understand why you should throw your life away to bring children into an overcrowded world. The helpless feeling of becoming a dependant with no job and no money of your own. The long hours running around the block and starving yourself so that maybe your husband won’t be quite as tempted by the other beautiful women he works with, the other women who have successful careers and are worth something, unlike you. I could go on and on, but that would be missing the whole point of what motherhood is really about. How through motherhood you can escape the rat race, and give up the stuffy professional relationships for real ones. How you can finally understand your own mother, and grandmother, and know what they went through. The discovery of sisterhood, and of coarse the wet oatmeal kisses, honest innocent conversations, the rediscovery of childhood and why Jesus liken the kingdom of heaven unto it.

Would that we could all walk in one another’s footsteps, mourn with those who mourn, joy with those who joy, see through another’s eyes, and come to know another as Jesus knows us.

[selek1]

I was talking about the fact that you can ask God for stuff.

And, again, the point is that God can change his commands according to what people ask or do.

There is a vast and chasmic difference between asking in humility and demanding out of a sense of entitlement.

The bottom line is this: our access to the Priesthood is predicated upon our covenant with God- we do not have the right to change that covenant. That authority lies exclusively with him.

If you don't like the way things are done, take it up with him. It's above our paygrade.

Mr, I was repeating the distinction and the idea that happy's approach wasn't enough because "It has always been done like this" doesn't mean "it shouldn't be done in any other way". That's why.

Given some of your other misrepresentations, I'm less than inclined to take your summary of Happy's arguments at face value.

That having been said, I don't think "because that's the way it's always been done" means the same thing as "that's the way things will always be done."

You just made the mistake again.

This mistake made was yours, not mine, as your questions show.

[Alvino]

That having been said, I don't think "because that's the way it's always been done" means the same thing as "that's the way things will always be done."

then we agree and I don't care to respond to anything else you said here.

[Calm]

No, it's not wrong. My question is why you would feel that you don't have a higher capacity now to bless people.

I think too often people do see the Priesthood as a form of higher spirituality in and of itself, rather than a tool in which we can through its use have opportunities to receive greater knowledge and exercise greater righteousness.

What is forgotten is that every Saint has the Gift of the Holy Ghost which if used to its fullest extent can offer us every opportunity we need to grow spiritually in this life and every Saint who exercises this Gift fully has access to the Spirit as is needed to bless others.

Yes, the Priesthood provides a wonderful additional tool with which to serve others and to exercise the Spirit, but not having it does not mean that those who do not have it are barred from exercising as much if not more faith, thus being able to bless others spiritually.

If we desire the Priesthood (and I do or rather I desire whatever it is that is parallel for women that the Lord has in mind for us), we should never use this as an excuse to neglect developing and using the Gift of the Holy Ghost to bless ourselves and others. (not saying that changed or anyone else desiring the Priesthood in the here and now is, just saying we need to avoid this potential trap).