The Value Of The Priesthood

[Nathair/|\]

I don't understand why people petition the bretheren or protest over who gets ordained. If the bretheren could decide who gets the priesthood on their own, wouldn't it be essentially worthless? If it's really the authority to act in the name of Christ, wouldn't it be His decision who gets it?

[CASteinman]

What exactly was the petition you are referring to?

[Nathair/|\]

There was a specific instance that provoked the question, but it doesn't matter. In this thread, I don't want to discuss who should be ordained, just Whose decision it should be. Why would anyone want the priesthood if the decision was in the hands of any person or persons other than Christ?

This is the instance that provided provocation, but I don't care if women get ordained. It's none of my business who gets ordained.

http://ordainwomen.org/

Edited March 18, 2013 by Nathair

[CASteinman]

This is the instance that provided provocation, but I don't care if women get ordained. It's none of my business who gets ordained.

http://ordainwomen.org/

Hmmm.. Interesting. I note that the organization objects to things about the proclamation on the Family.

I believe that this movement is led by people who believe that the Church is not led by God but by men who are not inspired by rather influenced.

They would like to have the power the men have. Not because they believe in inspiration, but rather because they believe in the influence.

[onthepath]

I don't understand why people petition the bretheren or protest over who gets ordained. If the bretheren could decide who gets the priesthood on their own, wouldn't it be essentially worthless? If it's really the authority to act in the name of Christ, wouldn't it be His decision who gets it?

Is there something wrong with asking Christ for a gift He may be willing to give if and when you ask for it?

Is there something wrong with asking someone else to petition for a gift from Christ on your behalf? (Is this not what people do when asking for, say, a priesthood blessing?)

[onthepath]

They would like to have the power the men have. Not because they believe in inspiration, but rather because they believe in the influence.

And yet, their FAQ on power and influence says,

Isn’t it a sin to seek power and authority?

Yes, if in seeking power your aim is to coerce, dominate, or control others. If, however, priesthood is a Godly power that can enhance our ability to bless and serve others, why wouldn’t women righteously seek it? There is no shame nor are there accusations of improper ambition attached to a 12-year-old boy in the Church who aspires to priesthood ordination. Neither should there be for women.

[canard78]

I'd agree with onthepath. Black people were only given the priesthood because a man asked God if it could change.

Cornelius' prayers were blessed with the gospel going to the gentiles: Acts 10:4 "And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God."

What if Joseph had never asked which church to join?

What if Joseph, Sidney (and later Lorenzo Snow) had not saught a solution to financial issues?

What if Emma had never asked Joseph about the tobacco mess on the upper floor of their house?

What if Bro of Jared had never sought a way of escaping languages being confounded?

What if Nephi had never looked for clarity about his father's dream?

While it's apparent that on a very few occasions God sends revelation without being asked for it (Burning bush perhaps?), most of the time there is someone petitioning for change or a solution. And sometimes it's someone petitioning the prophet.

While the manner of the social campaigning may seem disrespectful, the precedent to ask a question has been set.

[Nathair/|\]

It seems to me that there is a difference between humbly petitioning the Lord for a gift, accepting that His will is paramount, and demanding that President Monson give you something as though it's your right when it's not his to give in the first place.

[CASteinman]

And yet, their FAQ on power and influence says, (quote removed)

Is it surprising to you that I consider them deceptive?

To me it is intrinsically obvious. They do not consider the prophet or apostles to be inspired in this matter. So they want to influence them in a political/public relations manner.

Yet they aspire to that very power that that they do not consider to be inspired.

It is a modern form of of the apostasy of Simon Magus, who was an arch villain to the early Church.

[CASteinman]

I'd agree with onthepath. Black people were only given the priesthood because a man asked God if it could change.

How is that relevant to people putting political pressure on things? President Kimball's prayer was not inspired by political pressure.

Cornelius' prayers were blessed with the gospel going to the gentiles: Acts 10:4 "And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God."

That is NOT why the Gospel went to the Gentiles.

While the manner of the social campaigning may seem disrespectful, the precedent to ask a question has been set.

But not by random people pressuring socially. By the Prophet --- or by those random people petitioning the Lord directly.

These people do not have that faith.

[CASteinman]

Is there something wrong with asking Christ for a gift He may be willing to give if and when you ask for it?

Absolutely nothing wrong with asking God for something. They are not doing that.

Is there something wrong with asking someone else to petition for a gift from Christ on your behalf?

Well, its inappropriate but not evil.

(Is this not what people do when asking for, say, a priesthood blessing?)

No. That is not what a priesthood blessing is.

[Calm]

Is there something wrong with asking someone else to petition for a gift from Christ on your behalf?

I looked at the site and don't remember the petition being about asking them to petition the Lord on the matter. Could you please point out where they do this.

[Calm]

It seems to me that there is a difference between humbly petitioning the Lord for a gift, accepting that His will is paramount, and demanding that President Monson give you something as though it's your right when it's not his to give in the first place.

There is even a difference between asking President Monson to ask the Lord and petitioning President Monson to give it outright.

I may be wrong as I just read part of it, but if I am wrong, the website needs to make it much more obvious that they are petitioning not for the Priesthood itself, but for President Monson to seek the Lord's Will on the matter.

I honestly would not have a problem with a public petition that asked President Monson to seek the Lord's Will on the matter if it also included a statement of willingness to be both patient for an answer and accepting of whatever the answer might be.

Edited March 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

I honestly would not have a problem with a public petition that asked President Monson to seek the Lord's Will on the matter if it also included a statement of willingness to be both patient for an answer and accepting of whatever the answer might be.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with that either. Though I am not sure I agree with the notion of a "public petition", I would not have a problem with a "public solicitation" for participation in a private petition to be presented to President Monson.

That would seem reasonable.

[canard78]

How is that relevant to people putting political pressure on things? President Kimball's prayer was not inspired by political pressure.

And you know this how? I simply don't accept that the desire to seek a change in priesthood was entirely independent of any socio-political perspectives or petitions.

That is NOT why the Gospel went to the Gentiles.

But not by random people pressuring socially. By the Prophet --- or by those random people petitioning the Lord directly.

These people do not have that faith.

What about Emma. Much more personal, but still an expression of disatisfaction that lead to a revelation and change.

[CASteinman]

And you know this how?

I believe it has been discussed by apostles involved at the time. The issue was that they had baptized a huge number of people in Brazil and installed them into leadership positions and had them build a temple -- and it was likely that most of them would not be technically able to hold the priesthood. This was a problem within the Church that needed a resolution and it led to the President going to the Lord in Prayer. However, he sort of had made up his mind before the prayer.

But notice: This was not a matter of people in Brazil clamoring. In fact, it was not a matter of anyone clamoring. I did a study of the "press" discussions of Mormons and blacks prior to this revelation and found that the revelation came at a time of relative calm and lack of attention to the matter.

I simply don't accept that the desire to seek a change in priesthood was entirely independent of any socio-political perspectives or petitions.

But you can't show any. And as I mentioned... a review of newspaper articles and a count of them that I conducted in a study of these things, shows that the revelation came at a time of relative calm on that issue.

What about Emma. Much more personal, but still an expression of disatisfaction that lead to a revelation and change.

1. She's not just any random person.

2. It was not done in public.

3. It was not a matter of priesthood -- an eternal issue -- but of temporal habits.

[Stargazer]

One of the things that convince me that women will never hold the priesthood (explicitly) in mortality is the fact that Sidney Rigdon created quorums of female priesthood holders (and said he was doing so by revelation) before his faux church imploded. Don't CFR me on this -- I have no idea where I read this, but it was quite some time ago. I won't insist on it, but I'm pretty sure this was one of his actions.

IOW, if Rigdon did it, it was bound to be wrong.

[canard78]

I believe it has been discussed by apostles involved at the time. The issue was that they had baptized a huge number of people in Brazil and installed them into leadership positions and had them build a temple -- and it was likely that most of them would not be technically able to hold the priesthood. This was a problem within the Church that needed a resolution and it led to the President going to the Lord in Prayer. However, he sort of had made up his mind before the prayer.

But notice: This was not a matter of people in Brazil clamoring. In fact, it was not a matter of anyone clamoring. I did a study of the "press" discussions of Mormons and blacks prior to this revelation and found that the revelation came at a time of relative calm and lack of attention to the matter.

But you can't show any. And as I mentioned... a review of newspaper articles and a count of them that I conducted in a study of these things, shows that the revelation came at a time of relative calm on that issue.

1. She's not just any random person.

2. It was not done in public.

3. It was not a matter of priesthood -- an eternal issue -- but of temporal habits.

But in all those cases there wasn't some floating quill inspiration moment. A problem or concern was raised and a solution sought and a revelation received.

I personally think it's highly unlikely that there will be a change to women and priesthood. But revelation does not come to the prophet through sitting and waiting but by seeking and asking.

[Brenda]

It seems to me that there is a difference between humbly petitioning the Lord for a gift, accepting that His will is paramount, and demanding that President Monson give you something as though it's your right when it's not his to give in the first place.

I agree.

[Brenda]

There is even a difference between asking President Monson to ask the Lord and petitioning President Monson to give it outright.

I may be wrong as I just read part of it, but if I am wrong, the website needs to make it much more obvious that they are petitioning not for the Priesthood itself, but for President Monson to seek the Lord's Will on the matter.

I honestly would not have a problem with a public petition that asked President Monson to seek the Lord's Will on the matter if it also included a statement of willingness to be both patient for an answer and accepting of whatever the answer might be.

Why do they need to ask Pres. Monson to seek the Lord's will? We all have access to the Lord through prayer, and he (the Lord) is the only one with the authority to make such a change.

IMO, for what it's worth, I don't want to be ordained. The blessings of the priesthood are available to me whenever I need it. And I see wisdom in the way things are now.

[Buckeye]

Why do they need to ask Pres. Monson to seek the Lord's will? We all have access to the Lord through prayer, and he (the Lord) is the only one with the authority to make such a change.

IMO, for what it's worth, I don't want to be ordained. The blessings of the priesthood are available to me whenever I need it. And I see wisdom in the way things are now.

Revelation comes from the top down. Preparation to receive revelation comes from the bottom up. Both are necessary.

Prophets inquire of the Lord not for their own sake, but on behalf of their people. They will not inquire, even if they think something right, if the people are not prepared for it. Public discussions such the ordainwomen.org allow the people to express that they are ready for additional light. Only then will the Prophet ask.

I don't have any desire to force women to be ordained. But I don't see why all women should be denied the right until all are ready for it. Should your choices limit other women's choices? Also (not that this applies to you), but I struggle with women who say they do not want the priesthood, but at the same time insist men take on that responsibility. If women should not be required to take on the priesthood, neither should men. But current church policy prevents a man from serving a mission, attending the temple, or doing other things women can if he is not a priesthood holder.

[Buckeye]

This is the instance that provided provocation, but I don't care if women get ordained. It's none of my business who gets ordained.

http://ordainwomen.org/

First, thank you Nathair for pointing to this site. I'm of a mind to now add my profile there.

Second, do you really believe it's "none of your business who gets ordained"? You really wouldn't care if the priesthood were taken away from Canadians, men under 6 feet high, or men with blue eyes? My guess is you would care if a policy was implemented that took the priesthood away from the men in your life.

[CASteinman]

But in all those cases there wasn't some floating quill inspiration moment. A problem or concern was raised and a solution sought and a revelation received.

I will agree with that.

I do not actually detect a problem that is being raised at this point though. Well, unless having doctrines that people do not like is considered a problem. But its not a problem in terms of the administration or progress of the Church.

I personally think it's highly unlikely that there will be a change to women and priesthood. But revelation does not come to the prophet through sitting and waiting but by seeking and asking.

I don't have a problem with him asking. I also don't have a problem with asking him to ask.

I do have a problem with people asking him to change it. Which is what I see going on here.

[CASteinman]

Do you really believe it's "none of your business who gets ordained"? You really wouldn't care if the priesthood were taken away from Canadians, men under 6 feet high, or men with blue eyes? My guess is you would care if a policy was implemented that took the priesthood away from the men in your life.

If yesterday, the prophet were to have defined physical characteristics of a set of men who could no longer hold the priesthood or act in a calling and that group of men included me, I would abide by that and not murmur in the least. I would not even murmur in my heart. And I would not need anyone to explain it to me.

Although I would not do this, I would not be surprised if others felt it was a hardness upon them and felt to murmur. I would not even be inclined to judge them in that regard. I would understand that they might feel hurt and might have other bad feelings. I would sympathize with their feelings. But I would not lend them one moment of sympathy for any words of rebellion or apostasy.

[CASteinman]

I don't have any desire to force women to be ordained. But I don't see why all women should be denied the right until all are ready for it. Should your choices limit other women's choices? Also (not that this applies to you), but I struggle with women who say they do not want the priesthood, but at the same time insist men take on that responsibility. If women should not be required to take on the priesthood, neither should men. But current church policy prevents a man from serving a mission, attending the temple, or doing other things women can if he is not a priesthood holder.

It is not your priesthood. It is not our priesthood. We do not direct these things.

There is an egregious hubris and lack of faith in this matter.

Among other things, it is apparent that women do, in some capacity, have the priesthood. But they are not ordained nor called to positions within it. It is an observant thing that this website calls for them to be ordained.

But it is clear that they do not consider this to be a matter of inspiration -- rather it is a matter of influence and power. As such, they aspire to positions of power and influence -- not positions of inspiration.

I consider their desires to be intrinsically unholy and thus their petition to be offensive.