Women And The Priesthood

[Buckeye]

I guess I need to start working towards being a temple worker... Can you work towards a calling like that? (I do go to the temple often)

Bishops make recommendations to their Stake President for members of their ward to be called as temple workers. If the Stake President agrees, he will forward the recommendation to the temple. The Temple Presidency actually makes the calling, contingent on their needs for workers and their inspiration.

Following the theme of this discussion, I personally have no problem with a member approaching the bishop and saying they would like the opportunity to serve in the temple. But that's all you can do. Also be aware that there are policy restrictions. For example, a mother with young children in the home cannot work in the temple. Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies also are excluded, though I've see the rule bent there.

[juliann]

No. The Church Handbook says only priesthood holders may stand in the circle. Expressing your desires to the bishop may help change things long-term, but he does not have the ability to let you stand in the circle at this time. I'm sorry.

On a happy note, there has been some progress lately. For example, brothers who are not temple worthy can now stand in the circle for blessings and confimation, provided their bishop consents. They still cannot perform the actual ordinance, but the current practice is more inclusive than the previous practice in which they were excluded entirely. Maybe that signals better days for you too.

I'm glad to see that has reverted back to previous practice. My nonmember husband was allowed to stand in the blessing circle 25 years ago. I believe the policy was changed to exclude anyone without priesthood soon after. This is also a good example of how inaccurate it is to simply declare the status quo as being set up by God himself. It also demonstrates that standing in the circle has nothing whatsoever to do with priesthood, only with your sex.

[Buckeye]

Changing a policy and changing a doctrine are two different things as well. Women have not held the Priesthood due to the masculinity of Jesus and his chosen disciples. There are other reasons too, but some are rather sensitive to the group, so...

What does that have to do with my suggestion that men and women talk to their leaders about their desires? Whether its policy or doctrine, a change starts with dialogue.

And for the record, I think it's policy. Nothing in the scriptures (the only doctrine of the church) directly addresses the issue. Christ's ordaining only men could be a reflection of doctrine. But it could also be a reflection of the cultural limitations he was working with. The scriptures are open to interpretation. I choose the latter. Pragmatically speaking, I do think such a change will require a revelation - but that's because most members would only accept such a change via revelation, not because it wouldn't be valid to make a change on policy grounds. Regardless of how it happens in the end, though, it begins with dialogue.

*snark on* I look forward to the day when I'm worthy of the "sensitive" reasons for the gender priesthood ban. *snark off*

[happy]

*snark on* I look forward to the day when I'm worthy of the "sensitive" reasons for the gender priesthood ban. *snark off*

It isn't anything to do with worthiness. It has to do with reactions I see here on this group. I started with one, 1st Timothy, Chapter 2. I had others, but this one was so quickly cast aside, I figured the pattern and left the issue alone.

[Buckeye]

It isn't anything to do with worthiness. It has to do with reactions I see here on this group. I started with one, 1st Timothy, Chapter 2. I had others, but this one was so quickly cast aside, I figured the pattern and left the issue alone.

I admit I haven't read the entire thread. Assuming you're refering to Paul's instructions on husbands/wifes, you can probably guess that my view is that Paul teaches some great doctrine (husbands, act as Christ would) in the context of a specific flawed culture (women were subservient to men). I think the doctine is great. The culture is not eternal and thankfully we are moving away from that. I rather like having women teach and pray in my ward.

I hope you don't take this as "casting away." I'm plenty willing to hear your arguments and personal experiences. I like dialgue, as you might have guessed.

[CV75]

Women are not ordained into priesthood offices. However, they and men enter the same order of priesthood (the new and everlasting covenant of marriage) when they are sealed together in the temple. This is an order of priesthood that is broader in scope than the Melchizedek Priesthood, and is the order of the celestial kingdom (D&C 131:1-2), also referred to as the Church of the Firstborn (D&C 76: 54, 94).

The Melchizedek Priesthood, or the “Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God (note where the comma is located)” is given only to men because it is after the order of the Son of God, who is male. The Aaronic Priesthood, which is lesser but still abides with the Melchizedek Priesthood, must likewise be a male order.

Evidently there is no other order of priesthood pertaining to females other than the highest one available. Because the Son and not a “Daughter” has the unique position of being the only way, truth, life and light of this world, the pattern is that males enter the Lord’s order of priesthood and females do not, prior to their attaining the highest order together.

Whatever order they currently hold (whether office or sealing) or anticipate to hold (whether endowed or not), both men and women have the same model to follow in Christ, and can exercise real power according to their faith and righteousness.

[Buckeye]

Thank you CV75. That's a really well-stated and consise view.

However, I still don't see why it's necessary to conclude that women are excluded from a priesthood order just because the namesake of the order is male. Women are allowed to take upon themselves the name of Christ through baptism and the sacrament. That doesn't make them male. It just makes them followers of Christ. Why can't they also take upon them the name of Christ through the Melchizedek Priesthood?

Moreover, even assuming your view is correct, why could there not be a co-equal line of female authority? The restoration of the gospel is not limited to restoring only truths that were once given, but were lost. It also includes truths that were never given. Why is it "evident" that there can be no women's priesthood authority?

[Cobalt-70]

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.)

That's good to hear. Next, I'd like to see women Sunday School presidents, ward clerks, executive secretaries, and ward mission leaders. Then, I'd like to see Relief Society presidents given the right to, themselves, to set women apart to offices and positions within the Relief Society. That's the way, in 1842, that Joseph Smith envisioned the Relief Society would operate.

[Calm]

Isn't it enough to fulfil the measure of our own creations, without adding more. There is so much to be, to perfect, to do, a life time isn't long enough.

So why should men seek out the Priesthood or anyone seek out the Gospel if we all have enough at the moment to fill the measure of our creations? Was Abraham being ungrateful or wanting more than he should have or feeling inappropriately inferior when he desired the blessings of the fathers so he would be able to seek greater righteousness and greater knowledge through the Priesthood?

I don't remember anywhere that God says "seek me so far, but no further".

[Calm]

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?

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html Edited August 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

This comes across as dangerous and arrogant to me. And I simply do not agree we need to be going and telling God what we will of Him. That's Lucifer's theology.

7 ¶Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seekethfindeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/7?lang=eng

[CV75]

Thank you CV75. That's a really well-stated and consise view.

However, I still don't see why it's necessary to conclude that women are excluded from a priesthood order just because the namesake of the order is male. Women are allowed to take upon themselves the name of Christ through baptism and the sacrament. That doesn't make them male. It just makes them followers of Christ. Why can't they also take upon them the name of Christ through the Melchizedek Priesthood?

Moreover, even assuming your view is correct, why could there not be a co-equal line of female authority? The restoration of the gospel is not limited to restoring only truths that were once given, but were lost. It also includes truths that were never given. Why is it "evident" that there can be no women's priesthood authority?

The name of Christ is more than just a namesake for His Order. A whole thread can be dedicated to what His name means, but His Order is everything that entails His identity and everything that He is and does for this earth / world, and how He serves as a Pattern, and for whom, and how. Being male is one of His eternal attributes, just as it is for all other males. He is a Pattern for males in one way and for females in another way, with a good deal of overlap of course.

Women are “excluded” from a lesser order and not the highest priesthood order because God grants each of His spirit children what they need to be tested and succeed at being tested in mortality. There are some tests that are common to all His children (the principles and ordinances of the gospel, temple ordinances, birth, death, etc.). There are other tests that are more customized (determined times, bounds of habitations, when and how they hear the gospel message, etc. – Acts 17:26), including tests that are different for males and females, such as priesthood office.

Taking on the name of Christ is a generalized test for males and females. Priesthood office is a more customized test for males. I’m sure we can think of some for females (a different thread topic). The highest order is general for men and women. In any case, other than children being sealed to parents before the age of accountability, one must take upon himself / herself the name of Christ before entering the temple to participate in its ordinances. It can be argued that the highest order received in the temple is eternal, while the specific priesthood offices in D&C 107 are not.

My use of the word “evident” is descriptive of what we casually see today in the Church units. I excluded past and potential future practices because the basic governing principles are 1) that the highest order is necessary and available to all, and 2) that the Lord provides the way to get there according to our personal and general needs, talents and testing requirements.

Priesthood office (and/or attendant authority) is one of those tests and helps for males, and if one wants to look at it in a certain way, for females performing temple ordinances. Priesthood order is also, but the highest order is for all males and females. In this area, the ladder rungs are not the same design for males and females.

[Calm]

In the early days the women were not "set apart" especially to minister to their children and other sisters. They were endowed, the same as today. They just viewed their endownment as allowing them to annoint and bless others. Joseph, Brigham, and other church leaders thought the same way.

However, we need to realize that not all things are done the same way as they were in the past simply because it is more convenient or other transitory reason. For example, they used to choose to seal people to church leaders rather than to their own parents and did so until a revelation was sought from God on the proper way at which time he instructed them to that sealings were for the purpose of joining families together eternally and therefore we should be sealed to our own parents and not church leaders.

We need to be careful not to make assumptions about how things can be done based solely on how they have been done in the past, not only when it comes to whether or not changes are made but also whether or not to engage in a discontinued practice.

[Calm]

Women have not held the Priesthood due to the masculinity of Jesus and his chosen disciples.

CFR that this is revealed doctrine and not just an assumption based on tradition.

CFR that this limits the Priesthood to males forever.

Edited August 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Grundelwalken]

That's good to hear. Next, I'd like to see women Sunday School presidents, ward clerks, executive secretaries, and ward mission leaders. Then, I'd like to see Relief Society presidents given the right to, themselves, to set women apart to offices and positions within the Relief Society. That's the way, in 1842, that Joseph Smith envisioned the Relief Society would operate.

And then I expect you would like to the have women serving as Bishops, Stake Presidents, Apostles and Prophets??? Sounds like I've heard this pattern before. Maybe we could also have male RS Presidents and Primary workers so things could get exciting again. Keep hoping. MW

[Calm]

I guess I need to start working towards being a temple worker... Can you work towards a calling like that? (I do go to the temple often)

I have volunteered for callings before. I've always been received positively...and always have been accepted into that calling as well.

[juliann]

Priesthood office (and/or attendant authority) is one of those tests and helps for males, and if one wants to look at it in a certain way, for females performing temple ordinances.

The priesthood is not a "test". http://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/05/sacred-keys-of-the-aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng

We all know that the priesthood is much more than just a name or title. The Prophet Joseph taught that “the Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity … to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years.”¹ It holds “even the key of the knowledge of God.”² In fact, through the priesthood the very “power of godliness is manifest.”³

The blessings of the priesthood transcend our ability to comprehend. Faithful Melchizedek Priesthood holders can “become … the elect of God.”⁴ They are “sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies”⁵ and can ultimately receive “all that [the] Father hath.”⁶ This may be hard to comprehend, but it is beautiful, and I testify that it is true.

[halconero]

Question, it is related: What is the reference saying that men can only be baptized for men who have passed on while women can only be baptized for women who have passed on?

I am under the impression that when baptism for the dead was first presented males were being baptized for females and visa versa, but the practice was stopped and ordered correctly.

The response to this question will help me formulate my own response to this thread.

[juliann]

And then I expect you would like to the have women serving as Bishops, Stake Presidents, Apostles and Prophets??? Sounds like I've heard this pattern before. Maybe we could also have male RS Presidents and Primary workers so things could get exciting again. Keep hoping. MW

As I said above, it is disheartening to see men mock a righteous desire of a church member merely because that member happens to be a woman or a girl. Even if women were given the priesthood, offices can still be assigned by gender so your hyperbole punctuated with insulting emoticons has little point other than to offend.

President Monson: "The words we speak, the way we treat others, and the way we live our lives all impact our effectiveness as men and boys holding the priesthood". http://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/05/priesthood-power?lang=eng

[JCNowandForever]

There is no reason why women cannot hold the priesthood. It wasn't precluded by Scripture. In fact Christ allows it in 2 Nephi 26:33. Its says "...and he ^ainviteth them ^ball to ^ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ^ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ^ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the ^fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." So if all are alike unto God and God denieth none, male nor female, it should follow that Man must not deny either. Man had denied the Blacks the priesthood and God corrected it in 1978. Must we continue to deny women the priesthood and not learn from past mistakes?

[Calm]

1 Now behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children of men.

2 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.

3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/4.3?lang=eng#2

<a name="5"> 5 Therefore, if you will ask of me you shall receive; if you will knock it shall be opened unto you.

6 Now, as you have asked, behold, I say unto you, keep my commandments, and seek to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion;

7 Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich.

8 Verily, verily, I say unto you, even as you desire of me so it shall be unto you; and if you desire, you shall be the means of doing much good in this generation.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/6.8?lang=eng#7

Don't see anywhere where it says it is only appropriate for men to desire these good things or to serve God.

[Somebodyz]

As I said above, it is disheartening to see men mock a righteous desire of a church member merely because that member happens to be a woman or a girl. Even if women were given the priesthood, offices can still be assigned by gender so your hyperbole punctuated with insulting emoticons has little point other than to offend.

President Monson: "The words we speak, the way we treat others, and the way we live our lives all impact our effectiveness as men and boys holding the priesthood". http://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/05/priesthood-power?lang=eng

Is he mocking the idea because it comes from a women? Perhaps he would of mocked the same idea, if it had come from a man?

I'm still not convince it's a righteous desire....nor that it's an unrighteous one.

Say women get the priesthood, don't you think that will lead to some of them wanting to be Bishops etc. Why wouldn't they? Does dividing offices by gender make sense, if both sexes have the priesthood.

[juliann]

Man had denied the Blacks the priesthood and God corrected it in 1978. Must we continue to deny women the priesthood and not learn from past mistakes?

Welcome, JC. I am beginning to read through priesthood session conference talks and the sampling I have read never talks of priesthood as being indistinguishable from men. They certainly never verbally assault girls and women who seek more. I only see that from angry members. I don't think most women think about this. It certainly is not something that I think about on Sundays. At all. Those with good leadership and bishops wouldn't have to for the most part. But I think awareness is growing and I think this is developing into a huge problem just as banning by lineage/race did. But the biggest problem with that was the excuses and rationalizing that lived long after the ban was lifted. That is what we are not successfully living down.

So I think the lesson not learned is the long term harm of heaping hostility, abuse, and unsupportable justifications that demean or marginalize those who are only seeking for what they see as a righteous desire. Perhaps many do not remember that happening before the previous ban was lifted but it did. The difference only being that blacks who sought the priesthood were not seen as unrighteous and on their way to apostasy, just uppity and undeserving. Women are getting it all.

[Calm]

Testify that our Father in Heaven will give each worthy young man the privilege of holding the office of priest in the Aaronic Priesthood. He has given this opportunity so that young men may be a vital force in the Church. He has given priests the bishop as their quorum president to be with them and to help their parents to train them for the duties they will perform during their life in the Church.

Point out that the Lord gives them the chance to perform ordinances and to act in major responsibilities. They perform important work in the Church. Aaronic Priesthood holders should understand that when they perform their duties properly, they can influence the lives and goals of many other people.

Challenge the young men to take their ordination to the priesthood seriously by fulfilling every assignment they receive and by setting a proper example at all times.

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

I am curious as to if anyone has come across something that is said to young women that is parallel to what the young men are being told here that they are being given and can do through the virtue of the Priesthood.

Edited August 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[selek1]

As I said above, it is disheartening to see men mock a righteous desire of a church member merely because that member happens to be a woman or a girl.

I find this statement problematic on two levels: First, this rather begs the question of whether it IS a righteous desire. That has not- to the best of my recollection- been established as fact.

Second, it continues the trend of conflating "contradiction" with "persecution".

That I disagree with you does not make me your enemy, nor does it mean I am oppressing you.

That I do not believe the women should hold the Priesthood unless or until God says so does not mean I am mocking, belittling you, or insulting women.

It means only that I do not agree with your agenda.

Even if women were given the priesthood, offices can still be assigned by gender so your hyperbole punctuated with insulting emoticons has little point other than to offend.

Given his words as quoted, one can only wonder what President Monson might say about the impact and effectiveness of those browbeating and lambasting faithful Priesthood Holders as mysoginists for the heinous sin of disagreeing with a non-doctrinal feminist agenda being foisted off on the Church.

I know the Doctrine and Covenants takes a dim view of ridiculing and smearing faithful Priesthood holders....

...and as such the shrill, misanthropic bashing of anyone who does not abjectly repeat the party line needs to stop.

There is no ideological test nor oath of loyalty required to post or converse here- and no single member UMW or not- has the right to demand unquestioning fealty to her position.