Should Women Have The Priesthood? My Sister Seems To Think So, Is There A Possibility Behind It, And Why Would Women Want It?

[CASteinman]

This is true; however, the priesthood has stewardship over the Relief Society

Which is the way Joseph Smith set it up. You seem to imagine it was going to be set up as a separate Church for women.

That was never the design or intent.

[CASteinman]

There is already talk of sister missionaries holding roles such as District Leaders, Zone Leaders, etc.

There was "talk" of it in the 1970's. And there are already such positions. With women in them. This follows the order of the Church.

[Tacenda]

http://ordainwomen.org/mission/

This is a new website, possibly going viral, that may or may not be the reason MatthewG's sister is stating some things at family gatherings.

On the website is a FAQ page and this was one of them...I bolded something that is concerning to me, the rest I can't wholly agree on....

How can I help if I’m not able to attend your public actions?

In many ways, our greatest obstacle to women’s ordination is a failure of imagination. As Mormon women, we can’t imagine moving beyond the space we’ve been assigned–and when that space is a much-touted pedestal, it is limiting. Women’s ordination will only enter the realm of the possible if the idea of it becomes familiar. The conversation has begun. We need your help to keep it going.

As much as possible, encourage the Mormon community to coalesce around the goal of women’s ordination. Help them see that anything less is insufficient to address the gender inequality in the Church. Talk to your ward members and local leaders. Write letters. Use social media. Send us an “I support ordination” profile for our website. Volunteer to help us online

Also, the quote below by escott3564, has some very valid points. I agree that the Relief Society needs to be a companion to the Priesthood as it was done in the church, even in the 1970's, let alone the 1870's!!! And by that I mean, women need to run it, not the men, so there!

ETA: http://eom.byu.edu/i.../Relief_Society 1866-1887. In 1866 President Young initiated Churchwide reorganization of the Relief Society, appointing Eliza R. Snow to assist bishops in establishing the organization in each ward. The minutes that she had recorded in Nauvoo became the common "Constitution" for all local units, providing continuity of name, purpose, and organizational pattern. Though not formally called and set apart as general president until 1880, Eliza R. Snow directed Relief Society work from 1867 until her death in 1887. She was aided by her counselors Zina D. H. Young and Elizabeth Ann Whitney and by the retrenchment society, which served informally as a central board.

By 1880, the Relief Society had 300 local units, and each one cared for the suffering and needy within its ward boundaries, using an expanded corps of visiting teachers to collect and distribute donations. Ward Relief Societies managed their own financial resources, and many of them built their own meeting halls.

The Relief Society engaged in a number of bold and innovative economic activities spurred by the Church's movement for economic self-sufficiency. Ward societies initiated cooperative enterprises for making and marketing homemade goods, raised silk (see Silk Culture), established a grain storage program with local granaries, and helped finance the medical training of midwives and female doctors. With the support of ward units, the central board established the Deseret hospital (1882-1895). Assuming a new political role, the Relief Society sponsored a series of "indignation meetings" to voice women's opposition to proposed antipolygamy legislation. After Utah women were enfranchised in 1870, the Relief Society encouraged women to vote. Then they actively campaigned for woman suffrage after they were disfranchised by the federal government in 1887.

The Relief Society helped to organize and nurture the Young Ladies' Retrenchment Association (later young women) and the primary. Though separate general presidencies were appointed for these groups in 1880, President Eliza R. Snow served as their general head, and she and her board visited local congregations in Utah and Idaho to instruct all three groups. Local visits and conferences, the appointment of stake Relief Society presidents and boards (beginning in 1877), and publication of the semimonthly Woman's Exponent (1872-1914) strengthened women's sense of sisterhood. In assuming new responsibilities at ward, stake, and general levels, hundreds of LDS women entered the public sphere, simultaneously strengthening the community and developing their individual talents.

The quote below by escott could be correct, I'm just not seeking the Priesthood, I guess.

Amen, Sister! LOVE, LOVE these points!

Keep in mind that this is "the gospel according to Elizabeth" (love the smilies), but these are my feelings on the matter.

When Joseph Smith first organized the Relief Society, it was organized as a companion organization, equal to the Priesthood in authority. Women gave blessings to the sick, blessings on babies, etc. Later, when the Church was reorganized in Utah with Brigham Young, Brigham Young made the RS an auxilliary. I spoke to this in a little more detail on a thread on my private board. Let me quote it here:

I was having a discussion with some friends on another message board, and I thought I would bring a similar discussion here. The friend I was discussing things with is staunchly TBM, and stated that he didn't see that there were huge differences between the Relief Society and the Priesthood, and didn't understand why there was such a fuss made about there not being equality within the Church's current organization. This was my response to him:

The Relief Society, in its current state is, indeed, a lesser organization than the Priesthood. It is considered an auxilliary organization, just like the Primary or Sunday School is.

However, when Joseph Smith originally established the Relief Society, he designed it as a companion organization to the Priesthood; his original intent was to make the organizations equal. Women administered blessings to the sick, and operated in many other ways which were equal to the priesthood.

When Brigham Young became the President of the Church, he changed the focus of the RS, and made it more of an auxilliary.

It is my personal belief that someday the RS WILL be restored to its equal status at some point. It might happen during the Second Coming, but hopefully before.

He went on to say that since women could hold leadership positions in presidencies, committees, etc., he was still unclear as to why women should feel less important.

My response was the following:

This is true; however, the priesthood has stewardship over the Relief Society, as it does every other auxilliary in the Church. Name me ONE situation where women hold stewardship over men. There are none. Yes, women can lead committees, and boards, and serve in presidencies. However, a priesthood leader ALWAYS ultimately presides over ALL of these callings. There are no female bishops. There are no female Stake Presidents. There are no female prophets. Women, also, under the current organization in the Church, cannot give blessings to the sick, or bless babies.

I do believe that this will change, but until it does, there is an unequal setting between men and women in the Church, and the current Church is definitively run under a patriarchial order.

Anyone who has been through the temple sees the implications of the Priesthood being returned to women. Women perform ordinances that involve the laying on of hands, just like men do.

I believe that it truly is the eternal order of things. In my opinion, it is prejudice and fear of change that keeps women from holding the priesthood now, but it will change, just as it did for blacks holding the priesthood.

There is evidence of this with the current change in ages for female missionaries. There is already talk of sister missionaries holding roles such as District Leaders, Zone Leaders, etc. based on the overwhelming number increase of female missionaries.

I welcome the change.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Tacenda

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Actually I am disparaging toward the human race. But men are the game players while women work to make the world better, speaking generally and broadly of course. Without the priesthood demanding their leadership, men would step back and let women lead, as they did in the earliest ages of our species, when "God" was a woman....

So sad indeed. You paint with a very broad brush, which seldom makes for a good picture.

[CASteinman]

I detect that OrdainWomen has used fraudulent information to register the site and that it is probably hosted out of Carlsbad California.

[mapman]

It would make me very happy if women were given the priesthood. In the meantime, I think that as a church we can work on having the Relief Society start to live up to Joseph Smith's vision of it. Everyone should read the Nauvoo Relief Society Minutes if you haven't done so yet!

[CASteinman]

It would make me very happy if women were given the priesthood. In the meantime, I think that as a church we can work on having the Relief Society start to live up to Joseph Smith's vision of it. Everyone should read the Nauvoo Relief Society Minutes if you haven't done so yet!

As an aside, the Priesthood Quorums also do not function as originally envisioned either.

[daz2]

"Sisters, you can have 6:00 AM bishopric meetings and/or PEC, also Church Discipline councils."

In my mind, the last point is one that raises one of the more unseemly elements of current Church administration. Church discipline is administered (hopefully by inspiration), exclusively by men. It is difficult for me to see why God would think that only men understand the principles of repentance and forgiveness enough to be permitted to make such decisions (by inspiration).

It reminds me of the days when only men sat on juries. When the governing powers of society thought that, for some reasons, only males should be deciding guilt or innocence. Or even the days when only males could be judges or lawyers.

But apart from the issue of the message it sends about differences between men and women when it comes to administering Church discipline, I am more troubled by the current policy that a woman who has sinned must, without exception, in order to be forgiven by the Church (and possibly even by God) must confess and counsel with a male. This is particularly the case when a woman may have a fundamental mistrust of males because of a past abuse situation. It is also unseemly that a young women should be required in that or other situations to make disclosure of very intimate things to a male or, in a disciplinary counsel, to a group of males.

There is a limited recognition of this in changes to LDS Family Services in the last decade. At one point, a member of the Church could not receive help from LDS Family Services without the recommendation of his/her bishop. As a result of concerns, among other things, about the reluctance of women who had been abused by males to seek referrals from male bishops, the policy was changed so that bishop referrals are no longer required for anyone to see LDS Family Services, nor is there any explicit or implicit requirement that the patient authorize LDS Family Services consult with his/her bishop.

This problem could be dealt with in ways other than formally ordaining women to office within the priesthood. Just as the ward council (with women as members) has become the governing council of the ward, instead of the PEC (men only), something similar could happen at the stake level--or something like it only for limited purposes of Church discipline or counseling.

Yes, of course, no one on this board is empowered to make any decisions about the structure of the Church. I do not speak for God. Neither does anyone else in this discussion. I recognize that the Brethren are the ones charged by God, with the common consent of the Saints, to make such decisions hopefully with inspiration. But I also know that the Brethren are highly intelligent, empathetic, caring men who try very hard to listen to members as well as seeking God's inspiration. Should they decide after following such a process to extend priesthood ordination of some sort to women, or to change current disciplinary structures, I would rejoice. In the meantime, we make do with things as they are, and strive to live and serve remembering the equality of the sexes and of all people before God.

[rameumptom]

It doesn't bother me one way or the other if women get the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood. That said, men and women share in the Patriarchal Priesthood or Patriarchal Order. Man cannot possess this priesthood alone, but gets it with his wife, and they share all the rights, dominions, powers, etc., pertaining to it.

[Alan]

The day women are given the priesthood will be a great day. Then we can have a rest and they can deal with all the nonsense Bishops and the like have to deal with on a continual basis. Sometimes it's like being the scoutmaster of a bunch of unruly adolecents.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Alan

[MorningStar]

Oh, believe me. Relief Society deals with some very difficult things too!

[MorningStar]

Any guys want to be in charge of Compassionate Service? That can be rather nightmarish because every ward has at least one person who thinks everyone and their mother should be serving them 24/7. And no, I'm not talking about Kishkumen this time.

[mapman]

As an aside, the Priesthood Quorums also do not function as originally envisioned either.

That is true. But most of the things I'm thinking of are discussed in Daughters in My Kingdom, which was published last year. I see this as the church trying to educate members about the important and impressive history of the Relief Society.

[mapman]

I should also make it clear that probably everyone in the church doesn't live up to their privileges (I for one can improve in many ways). For example, I have seen some people in my elder's quorum have lower expectations of themselves because men are supposedly naturally less spiritual or capable than women (some people were very amazed that the elder's quorum was able to set up the ward Christmas party without the Relief Society having to step in and make everything pretty).

Edited March 19, 2013 by mapman

[why me]

I guess my post on page 2 was missed. Why are people still posting about women receiving the priesthood? It is not just women who would receive the priesthood but also the girls. When a girl reaches a certain age, they will receive the priesthood and pass the sacrament.

Then, there will no longer be a young women's organization nor a young men's organization. And relief society would be disbanded. One can not have separate classes for young women and young men when both sexes have the priesthood. Nor can there be relief society. All will be in priesthood. But I do think that we should be including girls in this discussion when one speaks of women.

[CASteinman]

That is true. But most of the things I'm thinking of are discussed in Daughters in My Kingdom, which was published last year. I see this as the church trying to educate members about the important and impressive history of the Relief Society.

Just as they do with the Priesthood Quorums from time to time.

[Damien the Leper]

If I were to rejoin the LDS church, or join any other Restoration church, I would decline ordination/re-ordination. I'm all for women and men holding priesthood but I don't want it. I have way too much going on, all the time, to add one more thing. I already run on 18-19 hour days.

[DJBrown]

Why would men want the priesthood? Do they see it as a point of pride? of self satisfaction? of duty? of heritage? of right? It seems to me that these assumptions are a reflective projection more than they are a thoughtful consideration about what the priesthood is or ought to be.

Why would women want the priesthood? Could it possibly be that it's because they've spent countless hours listening to and reading about all the ways that the gift of the priesthood - the power to act in God's name - blesses the lives of thousands of people? Could it possibly be that as young girls they sit alongside the boys and hear about responsibility and service and saving ordinances and they want to share in the joy of serving in a valuable, public way? Could it be that as missionaries they spend days or weeks getting to know converts, teaching them and preparing them for baptism and would like to play a more physical and obvious role in welcoming those converts to a new life? Could it be that they (in their extra-spiritual righteousness assigned by many priesthood holders) actually want to serve in yet more ways? That they've raised their children and cared for their husbands and still see needs they cannot fill without ordination?

Or maybe it's because they've been blessed with gifts of administration or leadership or financial acumen and they see so many ways they could serve in wards, branches, stakes and districts where there are shortages of men, but because they are unordained women, they are unable to use their God-given talents to build the kingdom.

Maybe they recognize that since they've been anointed to become leaders in the hereafter, they'd benefit from some hands-on training during their mortal probations.

What if they were actually being prompted by the Spirit to desire ordination enough to talk about it or even ask for it? If they *are* acting on a spiritual prompting and a righteous desire, what will be the responsibilities of those who had the opportunity to listen and encourage and nourish those desires and actions and failed to do so?

As a man, should I desire to give birth to children? The prophets have repeatedly stated that nothing in this world approaches Christ-like service like a woman giving birth and nurturing her child. That sure sounds like a good thing to desire. Am I justified in lobbying or arguing that I should be given the power to give birth?

Giving women the priesthood outside of their connection to the priesthood through their husbands would be the same as removing men altogether from the plan of salvation. At least it would be equivalent to removing women's role as child bearers and nurturers.

Does the prevalence of this conversation among latter-day saints worry anybody else when one considers that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and others havw stated that the greatest threats to the church are feminism, homosexual activism, and "intellectualism?"

Are we becoming a church of lobbyists instead of a church of disciples?

Edited March 19, 2013 by DJBrown

[why me]

If I were to rejoin the LDS church, or join any other Restoration church, I would decline ordination/re-ordination. I'm all for women and men holding priesthood but I don't want it. I have way too much going on, all the time, to add one more thing. I already run on 18-19 hour days.

I don't think that this would work. Since a man's identity in the lds church is in the priesthood, a woman's identity would also have to be in the priesthood too. Likewise for girls. One can't opt out of getting the priesthood at 11 if one is a girl. How many boys opt out of receiving the priesthood? Or men? In other words, priesthood as an optional choice if one is a girl is not an option.

[why me]

Are we becoming a church of lobbyists instead of a church of disciples?

So far we are a church of disciples. However, there is a small amount of members and many more exmembers who want the lds church to be a church of lobbyists.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't think that this would work. Since a man's identity in the lds church is in the priesthood, a woman's identity would also have to be in the priesthood too. Likewise for girls. One can't opt out of getting the priesthood at 11 if one is a girl. How many boys opt out of receiving the priesthood? Or men? In other words, priesthood as an optional choice if one is a girl is not an option.

The church can't force ordination. And it would be absolutely asinine and ridiculous to discipline a person who does not want priesthood.

[DJBrown]

So far we are a church of disciples. However, there is a small amount of members and many more exmembers who want the lds church to be a church of lobbyists.

Another thing people should consider is what our potential is with the ordinances and priesthood. Men and women have the potential for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom as they are faithful in keeping their covenants. Do people think there is something in addition to exaltation that is possible? Why else the second-guessing of the prophets?

Are the doctrines, ordinances, and promises of the gospel not good enough currently?

[Calm]

Name me ONE situation where women hold stewardship over men.

Primary Presidency has stewardship over all the teachers, including any men.

Since a man's identity in the lds church is in the priesthood

A crucial point in these discussions which is often ignored.

What are men in the Church if they don't hold the priesthood? (actual question, not rhetorical)

[Damien the Leper]

What are men in the Church if they don't hold the priesthood? (actual question, not rhetorical)

Subject to the authority of women...and rightly so.

[wenglund]

I like how the Savior treats upon the issue of who may or may not have Church leadership positions:

35 ¶And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.

36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?

37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the ^abaptism that I am baptized with?

39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.

42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be ^agreat among you, shall be your minister:

44 And whosoever of you will be the ^achiefest, shall be servant of all.

45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ^aransom for many. (Mark 10:35-45}

As I understand this passage, what we should desire is to be servants of all (which we all can now be), and leave the decisions about priesthood and leadership to God, whose authority it is. The gospel isn't essentially about exercising authority, but about serving. Too often, when our ears are tuned into the will of man (pop culture), we get this exactly backwards.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-