Women And The Priesthood

[Saints Alive]

Both the washing and the anointing are done "in the name of Jesus Christ." Also, the officiator uses the words "we...seal upon you," and "we...confirm upon you."

You are right I forgot about that, still doesn't make the "P"riesthood ordinances. They are temple ordinances, the distinction being that they are preformed by temple workers and not exclusively priesthood workers.

[Erin15]

Apparently, to the 1st century church, and to Joseph Smith.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation that such was the case, but even if that were true, it would still be irrelivant. This is His living church. What matters is how He wants it to be at this moment in time.

If The Lord wanted women to have the priesthood at this moment in time, He would immediatly do so through his Prophet and Apostles. Since He has not done so, His will on the matter is clear for the moment. Our responsability as disciples is to submit to His will and serve patiently.

Feminism is about patriarchy: the "centering" of males and the masculine, and the "otherizing" of the female and the feminine. It is about "equality" only in the sense that neither male/masculine nor female/feminine should be the "center."

As a woman and as a Latter Day Saint, I must say that I do not understand your apparent obsession with patriarchy. You bring it up all the time but it is completely irrelivant.

The Gospel is about helping people. We are all called to help people in different ways, but the point is that we are helping. It doesn't matter if we help people as a bishop, or as a visiting teacher or even as a neighbor. The point is that we are helping people. The "center" is about helping people.

To a disciple of Jesus Christ it does not matter how we are called to help people, it only matters that we are helping people.

At best I find the very concept of patriarchy wildly irrelivant, and at worst it seems like a delibrate attempt to pollute Gospel purity with worldy philosophy.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Erin15

[Senator]

Does anyone else think it's interesting that men cannot be saved without being ordained to the priesthood, yet a woman can be?

Where do you get that idea from?

[bluebell]

Where do you get that idea from?

Because a man cannot enter the temple for his own endowment (something that LDS believe is essential to being exalted), and a deceased male cannot gain his endowment through a proxy, without first being ordained to the priesthood.

[Senator]

Because a man cannot enter the temple for his own endowment (something that LDS believe is essential to being exalted), and a deceased male cannot gain his endowment through a proxy, without first being ordained to the priesthood.

Exaltation yes. But a man can be saved (salvation) through faith, repentence, and baptism.

[bluebell]

Exaltation yes. But a man can be saved (salvation) through faith, repentence, and baptism.

He can gain a level of salvation, of course. But he cannot become a joint-heir with Christ, receiving all that the Father has, without being ordained to the priesthood, yet a woman can.

[Senator]

He can gain a level of salvation, of course. But he cannot become a joint-heir with Christ, receiving all that the Father has, without being ordained to the priesthood, yet a woman can.

Just a clarification.

Otherwise, yes I find it interesting.

[bluebell]

Just a clarification.

Otherwise, yes I find it interesting.

Me too.

I had never thought of it before until our lesson in RS two weeks ago, which was from the "Daughters in my Kingdom" book (chapter 10) where the teacher quoted "Women in the Church play essential roles in Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation—just as important as the roles played by men who hold the priesthood."

It is interesting to me that a woman in the church was not compared to, or as important as, a man in the church, but rather, the comparison only became equal when it was made against a 'man who held the priesthood'.

[Senator]

Me too.

I had never thought of it before until our lesson in RS two weeks ago, which was from the "Daughters in my Kingdom" book (chapter 10) where the teacher quoted "Women in the Church play essential roles in Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation—just as important as the roles played by men who hold the priesthood."

It is interesting to me that a woman in the church was not compared to, or as important as, a man in the church, but rather, the comparison only became equal when it was made against a 'man who held the priesthood'.

It is almost saying as if there is something inherently missing, or inferior in men, that is not in women.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Senator

[bluebell]

It is almost saying as if there is something inherently missing, or inferior in men, that is not in women.

I don't know that it is saying that men are inferior (but i can understand such an interpretation), but it does seem to imply that there is something that is gained by men having the priesthood, that they need, which women have naturally.

[Calm]

That said, I wouldn't necessarily recommend a Mormon woman going out and blessing the sick, who wants to remain in good standing in the modern church.

Doing so for one's family is fine as long as one doesn't echo the priesthood prayers. Anyone, nonLDS included, can give such a blessing of faith.

[Calm]

Exactly what in a woman's physiology, or in the nature of her spirit, makes her incapable of leading a church congregation? Or requires her to wear dresses, high heels, and lipstick?

I am not sure where you are getting the "high heels and lipstick" from, this has never been taught as the appropriate dress even if one pair of earrings has been. No makeup and flats, as long as one is clean and looking nice, have always been acceptable as "best dress". Temple shoes cannot be high heels even. Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

If The Lord wanted women to have the priesthood at this moment in time, He would immediatly do so through his Prophet and Apostles. Since He has not done so, His will on the matter is clear for the moment. Our responsability as disciples is to submit to His will and serve patiently.

Do you think because God was silent on slavery in NT and early modern church times that His Will and Desire is that some men and women and children should be slaves?

I think it is quite possible that God's Will is different than what we know of now, but that he is allowing us to progress by being the ones to turn to him and ask before he shares with us what His Will is in many things.

Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

As a woman and as a Latter Day Saint, I must say that I do not understand your apparent obsession with patriarchy. You bring it up all the time but it is completely irrelivant......

At best I find the very concept of patriarchy wildly irrelivant, and at worst it seems like a delibrate attempt to pollute Gospel purity with worldy philosophy.

And yet the patriarchal order is part and parcel of the gospel as it is structured today apparently and is seen as a vital part of our faith community.

https://www.lds.org/...e-home?lang=eng

Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Erin15]

Do you think because God was silent on slavery in NT and early modern church times that His Will and Desire is that some men and women and children should be slaves?

I'm saying that it really doesn't matter one way or another. What matters is that there are people out there starving, let's go feed them.

There are children out there who need homes, let's take them in.

I think it is quite possible that God's Will is different than what we know of now, but that he is allowing us to progress by being the ones to turn to him and ask before he shares with us what His Will is in many things.

It doesn't matter, there are people out in the cold who need warm clothes, let's go help them.

There are people out there who are sick, let's get them some medicine.

And yet the patriarchal order is part and parcel of the gospel as it is structured today apparently and is seen as a vital part of our faith community.

There are people out there who are lonely, let's go befriend them.

There are people out there who are dying, let's go comfort them.

Do not strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. The focus of this religion is to help people, the center of this religion is to help people, the heart of this religion is to help people.

Instead of worrying about whether women should have the priesthood, I invite you to instead simply go out and live your religion. I promise you that you will find peace and comfort as you have never known before, and when you find it, you will realize that all of these little prickly questions can be sorted out in the next life.

Now is the time for us women to get out there are help people.

[Calm]

I'm saying that it really doesn't matter one way or another.

So it doesn't matter what God's Will actually is? It doesn't matter enough that we should be seeking to find out what his Will actually is, we should just go out and make do with the commandments and knowledge that he has given us now without any attempt to find out what he desires us to also have and do? Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Cobalt-70]

You are right I forgot about that, still doesn't make the "P"riesthood ordinances. They are temple ordinances, the distinction being that they are preformed by temple workers and not exclusively priesthood workers.

I don't see how you can make a difference. An ordinance is an ordinance, and is a manifestation of the priesthood. How can there be a non-priesthood ordinance?

[Cobalt-70]

If The Lord wanted women to have the priesthood at this moment in time, He would immediatly do so through his Prophet and Apostles. Since He has not done so, His will on the matter is clear for the moment. Our responsability as disciples is to submit to His will and serve patiently.

Are you sure? Since God did not immediately give OD-2 in the late 1960s when it became clear to most of the upper church hierarchy that Brigham Young's racial discrimination policy was a mistake, does that mean that God intended to prevent black people from entering the temple?

The absence of revelation is not a manifestation of God's will. It is, by definition, the absence of any statement as to God's will. The church has to earn revelation, and in the meantime, we're just acting based on our (hopefully) best human knowledge.

[Calm]

I would like to say that I am eternally grateful that Joseph Smith and others were of the inclination to seek what was God's Will for them in regards to further light and knowledge rather than simply letting themselves be solely concerned with commandments he had already given to them.

The Marthas of the world have their blessings for the beautiful and meaningful service that they give, but the Marys of the world, who seek out the Lord himself and not just those he would have us serve, get to sit at the feet of the Lord, no greater blessing can they receive in this world at least.

Luke 10:38 ¶Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.

40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/10?lang=eng#

[Cobalt-70]

To a disciple of Jesus Christ it does not matter how we are called to help people, it only matters that we are helping people.

It matters if a woman is called by God with certain gifts of pastoral leadership that, because of cultural norms and traditions, she is never allowed to use in the service of her brothers and sisters. It also matters if, because priesthood, which is the church's center, is a man's world and women's issues are moved to the "auxiliary," the men are not attuned to the needs and perspectives of women, when that lack could easily be prevented by including women in the leading quorums of the church.

[Cobalt-70]

I am not sure where you are getting the "high heels and lipstick" from, this has never been taught as the appropriate dress even if one pair of earrings has been. No makeup and flats, as long as one is clean and looking nice, have always been acceptable as "best dress". Temple shoes cannot be high heels even.

I was just asking what, in women's physiology or spirit, requires them to perform feminine gender roles and denies them the possibility of performing masculine gender roles. These gender roles are culturally defined--not constrained by biology or spirit. Wearing high heels and lipstick are just one example.

[Calm]

To a disciple of Jesus Christ it does not matter how we are called to help people, it only matters that we are helping people.

So why turn one's back on those who are troubled by what they perceived as inequality within the church structure even if one assumes they are wrong? Why not sincerely recognize their concerns as important since they are important to those troubled, perhaps even as important as being hungry is to someone in poverty.

After all if someone loses faith because of such troubles, because someone didn't reach out to help them in their crisis, to serve them in their hour of need, cannot this result in an eternal spiritual consequence while hunger is only a mortal and temporary state.

Are not the troubles of the spirit at least as important as the troubles of the body?

Is one allowed to only help some people while others are to be tossed aside as unworthy of our service?

Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Matt 26:6 ¶Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,

7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.

8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?

9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.

11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.

13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

How sad it would have been for this woman and for Christ for whom such must have been a comfort knowing what was to come for him later if her attitude was "t doesn't matter, there are people out in the cold who need warm clothes, let's go help them."

Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Maidservant]

Women laid on hands for healing in the 19th century, with the full knowledge and approval of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and their successors. And I'm not sure whether or not there has been an official church announcement from the First Presidency revoking women's right to officiate in these ordinances. Maybe there has been, but I'm not aware of it. That said, I wouldn't necessarily recommend a Mormon woman going out and blessing the sick, who wants to remain in good standing in the modern church.

Yes, I was aware of this and find it beautiful. My children's great-great grandmother was constantly called to come anoint and lay hands on women in childbirth. It seemed, in fact, that it was A LOT her, and not necessarily common to other women at the time; but I don't know that for sure how it worked. There are just many, many days when in her journal entries she notes that she went to anoint and bless a woman.

Doing so for one's family is fine as long as one doesn't echo the priesthood prayers. Anyone, nonLDS included, can give such a blessing of faith.

I have never felt that this was possible. Otherwise I would do it constantly (as a single mother). I know there is some scriptural foundation for it, but is there foundation for it in the policies and counsel of the church currently?

And yet the patriarchal order is part and parcel of the gospel as it is structured today apparently and is seen as a vital part of our faith community.

https://www.lds.org/...e-home?lang=eng

I would say that the patriarchal order is the opposite of patriarchy. They are not the same thing at all, as I understand them. Patriarchy is an invention of the Adversary and/or the world. The patriarchal order was ordained by God.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

For the record, as there as been a bit further discussion on the matter of what the temple means to women and the priesthood, I will state that I do not base my understanding that I have priesthood on the manner of the administration of the endowment and other ordinances; but rather on the content of the endowment itself.