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

[why me]

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

Let me put it this way. Boys are prepared for the priesthood at a very young age. I have never known or seen a boy opt out of the priesthood. It is ingrained in lds culture that the boy will be prepared to receive the priesthood at 11 just as a jewish boy will have his bar mitsva at a certain age or a catholic will have his or her communion and confirmation when the age comes around.

The same preparation would need be for the girls too if there is to be equality in the priesthood. .

[escott3564]

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.

I did not say that Joseph Smith set the RS up as a separate Church. That is not what I meant at all. The RS was a companion organization to the Priesthood. It was the equivalent of Priesthood for women. That is much different than how the hierarchy is run today. The RS is still an auxiliary and has a Priestood authority it ultimately answers to.

Also, I believe Cal made a comment about stewardship and the a primary organization. While it is true that the Primary President makes assignments to teachers, both male and female, she cannot initiate a calling or a release without priesthood approval. A member of the Bishopric is assigned jusidiction over every auxiliary in the Church, including Primary and RS.

[CASteinman]

I did not say that Joseph Smith set the RS up as a separate Church. That is not what I meant at all. The RS was a companion organization to the Priesthood. It was the equivalent of Priesthood for women. That is much different than how the hierarchy is run today. The RS is still an auxiliary and has a Priestood authority it ultimately answers to.

The only way that the Relief Society could be set up as EQUAL to the Priesthood is if it were a separate Church. For Women.

Otherwise there is one President of the Priesthood, who is the President of the Church and directs all things.

But if the Relief Society were equal to that Priesthood, then the Relief Society President would be running the Relief Society as a companion organization to the Church and not under the President of the Church.

That would be a separate Church.

For women.

[Questing Beast]

So you are suggesting that, in every organization where the priesthood is not manifest, the women lead? For example, the U.S. Congress? Amway? The U.K.? What exactly is the difference between a game player (Marissa Mayer) and making the world better (Alagappa Chettiar)?

The studies I read indicate that women are less likely to seek for higher office because of family commitment They are more inclined to step down from positions of authority to have time for their children and let their husbands continue on in their careers It is a difference in the sexes. Men are no less likely to improve the world and women are no less likely to be game players. They just take on different roles.

Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir, Hillary Clinton, yes, I see your point.

I did say "generally speaking".

You make the point that women are more inclined to put family first which still seems to be true. However, leadership is not always coupled with a political career. I know more women who lead in their homes than their men do. Even Mormon homes. Women get higher grades in school at all levels, again speaking generally, than men do. Women are a tad brighter than men, again speaking generally. "In the beginning" it was a woman who questioned the status quo and thought for herself. The man followed. For a long, long time, women led out and men followed and protected and provided for. Then something went awry. I think that women started to get uppity, generally speaking, and a ground shift in society somewhere occurred: men took their demeaning status hard and did something about it: they rebelled and used their physical size advantage for the first time to put women in a subordinate role. Once women were being treated as chattel it was almost impossible to reverse the trend, men were stronger and no longer in awe, worship, of their womenfolk. Thousands of years went by, and very recently women regained a large portion of their former equality with men. Now some women are pushing for superiority, not just equality, feeling that they are superior (just look at how much smarter they are in school, for example). Men seem to be going along with it more rather than less, sort of a malaise of apathy, while they turn to their games and other diversions. It probably will backfire and men will become more belligerent and use their physical size advantage again. But it won't work now because women now have Colt, the grand equalizer. It will be an interesting psychological phenomenon to watch as it plays out. It will probably end in tears....

[Teancum]

During a recent family gathering my sister brought up the topic of women and the priesthood. She really wouldn't go into it other than she felt like women should be able to hold the priesthood. Is there any precedent for it, do you think it will ever happen, and for any women who read this would you ever want it and why? I don't see the allure.

From my scripture study I was always of the opinion God divided his power in 2, giving women the power to create and nurture life, while giving men the power to bless and lead it. Now I fully understand that is not always the case with every couple and individual and sometimes those roles occasionally are reversed, but on a whole that seem to be my understanding.

Why would women want the priesthood other than mortal pride or self satisfaction, I can't seem to imagine something they'd gain in the afterlife in heaven by having held the priesthood.

Anyway just looking for insight, from both sides of the topic.

Do not project negative traits to women as a group if you want to stay on the board.

Well I think there are many reasons why a woman might hope for this. Equailty might be one. But take a look at this site. They outline some I think fairly well thought out reasons whether one agrees or not:

http://ordainwomen.org/

[Teancum]

To me, if there is any devaluing involved in this issue, it the devaluing of God. Those who have decided for themselves who should receive the authority of God, rather than letting God decide that for himself and revealing his will in his chosen way and through his chosen and established channels, they devalue God by position themselves above God. Then, what need have they of God's authority when, by their own presumptuousness, they believe and act as if they have greater authority than God? This makes no sense to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What if God really wants women to have the priesthood and the leaders are not listening. I am convinced that David O McKay would have received the directions to ordain blacks but for the hardness of the hearts of some powerful apostles on this issue that clearly was never a revelation to institute the ban in the first place. Maybe it is the same for women.

[Teancum]

If the church is true, it is guided by a prophet under the direction of Jesus Christ. If it is not, then who cares who is allowed to receive the priesthood. Currently, God wants the priesthood to be held by men. It may change, as did the opening up of the priesthood to all worthy males, or the opening up of baptism to non Jews.

So when we ask a question about some odd teaching that we want to run away from that some leader once taught we here that prophets are fallible and make mistakes. But when we ask something like why can't woman or ( at one point Blacks) hold the priesthood we here what you said above.

Can't have it both ways. If a Prophet was wrong about Adam God then the current ones can be wrong about women and the priesthood.

[Teancum]

I and most women are just too busy to take on another thing! Guys are sort of slackers so they need it to keep them focused. A couple guys have suggested to me that the Priesthood makes them superior to women. They only did it once.

As a man who holds the priesthood I have always found the trite argument that men need the priestohood because they are slackers and would not serve without it as an obligation. It is offensive to both the priesthood and men.

[Damien the Leper]

Let me put it this way. Boys are prepared for the priesthood at a very young age. I have never known or seen a boy opt out of the priesthood. It is ingrained in lds culture that the boy will be prepared to receive the priesthood at 11 just as a jewish boy will have his bar mitsva at a certain age or a catholic will have his or her communion and confirmation when the age comes around.

The same preparation would need be for the girls too if there is to be equality in the priesthood. .

I understand what you're saying now. However, I still believe there should be no negative stigma attached with declining priesthood ordination on behalf of men or women of any age.

[EllenMaksoud]

As a man who holds the priesthood I have always found the trite argument that men need the priestohood because they are slackers and would not serve without it as an obligation. It is offensive to both the priesthood and men.

Well, I thought that I had offered my statement as a joke. I even thought that I put a smile after it. When I went to look for it, I could not find it so I think it was deleted, and I am in trouble. As one thinks about it, I also offered it as a point to ponder with women that want the priesthood. Perhaps, if a woman wants the priesthood, she should also think about whether she is doing what she is supposed to do or not. If a Woman thinks she has time for the priesthood, may be she is not?

[MatthewG]

You asked a question and this was seen by a moderator in a negative light.

If you read the rule boards you will see that you are not allowed to suggest in any way, shape or form that a moderator is wrong or biased or has made an error of some sort or any other manner of criticism. In fact, it is even possible that asking for clarification can be seen as a negative, so I advise you to just let it go.

I did no such thing. What's the point of a "debate" discussion board if I can't ask a question? It's the over aggressive highly sensitive people on this board that makes it an unpleasant place, one I frequent less and less. For a group of people so proud of freedom, liberty and the right to choose, some people sure love to over step their bounds.

[wenglund]

What if God really wants women to have the priesthood and the leaders are not listening.

Perhaps unlike you, I figure that God is smart enough to call leaders that are willing to listen to him and who have demonstrated a willingness to listen to him, perhaps even to a greater degree than most.

However, in the unlikely chance that your hypothetical were to occur, I also figure that God is smart enough and powerful enough to find a way to get his chosen leaders to listen to him. If you doubt this, just ask Jonah and Lot's wife.

Anyway, I also figure that it is far less likely that the Church leaders aren't listening to God than the presumptuous interlopers and ark-steadiers who are overly tuned into themselves and pop culture. But, that may just be me.

I am convinced that David O McKay would have received the directions to ordain blacks but for the hardness of the hearts of some powerful apostles on this issue that clearly was never a revelation to institute the ban in the first place. Maybe it is the same for women.

Who can doubt, given the voices you tend to adhere to (as evinced in your posts), that you are so much more in tune with God's will than the prophet, David O. Mckay. What need have you of the lowly priesthood with such self-evident superior understanding?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[T-Shirt]

I did not say that Joseph Smith set the RS up as a separate Church. That is not what I meant at all. The RS was a companion organization to the Priesthood. It was the equivalent of Priesthood for women. That is much different than how the hierarchy is run today. The RS is still an auxiliary and has a Priestood authority it ultimately answers to.

Every organization in the Church, including Priesthood quorums, has to answer to a Priesthood authority. High Priest Group Leaders, Elders Quorum Presidents, Teachers Quorum Presidents, Deacons Quorum Presidents and Bishops, all answer to a Priesthood authority above them. None of them are autonomous. The only way to do what you seem to be advocating would be to give "all" priesthood keys to the General Relief Society President, which would, effectively, make it a separate organization from the Church.

Also, I believe Cal made a comment about stewardship and the a primary organization. While it is true that the Primary President makes assignments to teachers, both male and female, she cannot initiate a calling or a release without priesthood approval. A member of the Bishopric is assigned jusidiction over every auxiliary in the Church, including Primary and RS.

It is no different for the quorums of the priesthood. An Elders Quorum President cannot initiate a calling without the approval of either the Bishop or the Stake President. You seem to be mixing up priesthood with priesthood keys.

[rongo]

It is no different for the quorums of the priesthood. An Elders Quorum President cannot initiate a calling without the approval of either the Bishop or the Stake President. You seem to be mixing up priesthood with priesthood keys.

This isn't strictly true in all cases. Bishop Burton taught our stake that EQP can call and set apart their own instructors and secretaries. This is what his keys mean (HPGL need to run them by the bishop, and that's the primary difference). Of course, an EQP will probably want to run these callings by the bishop, but he doesn't have to due to his keys. He can autonomously do it on his own.

[T-Shirt]

This isn't strictly true in all cases. Bishop Burton taught our stake that EQP can call and set apart their own instructors and secretaries. This is what his keys mean (HPGL need to run them by the bishop, and that's the primary difference). Of course, an EQP will probably want to run these callings by the bishop, but he doesn't have to due to his keys. He can autonomously do it on his own.

The Elders quorum president is still required to get the Bishop's approval. The difference is that the quorum presidency can extend the calls to teachers and secretaries as well as set them apart. It is the same for the High Priests. A quorum president or group leader can't call a teacher or secretary without, first, consulting the bishop. Edited March 19, 2013 by T-Shirt

[Ahab]

Is there any precedent for it

Not with it referred to as women having the "priesthood" by themselves, per se, but they have had and still do receive authority from God to do things he wants them to do.

I don't see the allure.

The "priesthood" is the authority of God (our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father in heaven).

I think everyone who knows everything it involves should want what they have, but we should do only what they do with it.

From my scripture study I was always of the opinion God divided his power in 2, giving women the power to create and nurture life, while giving men the power to bless and lead it. Now I fully understand that is not always the case with every couple and individual and sometimes those roles occasionally are reversed, but on a whole that seem to be my understanding.

In truth men and women need each other to do those things you mentioned. Neither one can do those things without the other.

And if you think about it, that's how women also receive the priesthood. She gets it through her man who receives it from God.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Ahab

[Calm]

I did no such thing. What's the point of a "debate" discussion board if I can't ask a question?

Why would women want the priesthood other than mortal pride or self satisfaction

Edited March 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[mercyngrace]

Sisters, you can have 6:00 AM bishopric meetings and/or PEC, also Church Discipline councils. Just be careful what you ask for, you may not be so happy if you get it.

6 am meetings? I had those for two years straight. We called it Seminary.

I did it while working, attending grad school, and planning my wedding and then again through a difficult pregnancy, a late miscarriage, and a group of teenagers that had sent their previous instructor home in tears. I did it with a kid who stole a car on my watch (so to speak) and made sexually harassing phone calls from the church lobby phone while I was conducting opening exercises down the hall. I dealt with parents in denial and at least one kid inebriated.

And you think PEC and ward council a couple of mornings a month and the occasional church disciplinary court might do a sister in?

Puh.Leeze.

Edited March 19, 2013 by mercyngrace

[Teancum]

Perhaps unlike you, I figure that God is smart enough to call leaders that are willing to listen to him and who have demonstrated a willingness to listen to him, perhaps even to a greater degree than most.

However, in the unlikely chance that your hypothetical were to occur, I also figure that God is smart enough and powerful enough to find a way to get his chosen leaders to listen to him. If you doubt this, just ask Jonah and Lot's wife.

Anyway, I also figure that it is far less likely that the Church leaders aren't listening to God than the presumptuous interlopers and ark-steadiers who are overly tuned into themselves and pop culture. But, that may just be me.

Who can doubt, given the voices you tend to adhere to (as evinced in your posts), that you are so much more in tune with God's will than the prophet, David O. Mckay. What need have you of the lowly priesthood with such self-evident superior understanding?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Indeed Wade you are much holier than I am so who am I to question your disdain. For you I guess the thinking has been done.

[why me]

I don't want to be a party pooper but I just don't see it happening: girls and women receiving the priesthood. There would be too much change to the church organization and to its programs. Relief Society would need to be done away with since it would no longer serve a purpose. One can't have priesthood meetings and relief society meetings if both men and women have the priesthood. And I think that there would be chaos inside the church for quite some time as people adjust. And there would be no reason to have visiting teaching unless of course, both men and women could be not just home teachers but visiting teachers too. And how many wives and husbands would like their spouse to do home or visiting teaching with the opposite sex, which would need to happen if women received the priesthood. In fact, both visiting and home teaching would perhaps be abolished.

In the lds church, there is a separation of the sexes in quite a few areas and this would need to change. Maybe a better discussion would be: How would the church change inwardly and outwardly if girls and women received the priesthood?

Edited March 20, 2013 by why me

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

During a recent family gathering my sister brought up the topic of women and the priesthood. She really wouldn't go into it other than she felt like women should be able to hold the priesthood. Is there any precedent for it, do you think it will ever happen, and for any women who read this would you ever want it and why? I don't see the allure.

From my scripture study I was always of the opinion God divided his power in 2, giving women the power to create and nurture life, while giving men the power to bless and lead it. Now I fully understand that is not always the case with every couple and individual and sometimes those roles occasionally are reversed, but on a whole that seem to be my understanding.

Why would women want the priesthood other than mortal pride or self satisfaction, I can't seem to imagine something they'd gain in the afterlife in heaven by having held the priesthood.

Anyway just looking for insight, from both sides of the topic.

Do not project negative traits to women as a group if you want to stay on the board.

I was teaching a Gospel Class. I asks and Elderly sister if she held the Priesthood, " she replied; for 50 years until my husband died a year earlier, and will again"! I also noted women do hold it with certain callings, as well a calling of Presidency.

[CASteinman]

I did no such thing. What's the point of a "debate" discussion board if I can't ask a question? It's the over aggressive highly sensitive people on this board that makes it an unpleasant place, one I frequent less and less. For a group of people so proud of freedom, liberty and the right to choose, some people sure love to over step their bounds.

Just let it go. Its a rule. You cannot question or doubt the moderators. Have you read the guidelines?

[why me]

And you think PEC and ward council a couple of mornings a month and the occasional church disciplinary court might do a sister in?

Puh.Leeze.

I think that they could handle it. However, in the lds church, a woman's importance is also in the nurturing of the children. This may suffer a little since mom is not at home much, if she is bishop etc. However, I do believe that many lds women would miss Relief Society and the opportunity to be with only women in that meeting. I think that many women would be sad to see it go which it would need to do, if all were attending priesthood meeting. No reason to separate the sexes now. I think that we need to look at the bigger picture. We would now be looking at 99 percent of members in the wards and branches now having the priesthood. That is quite a lot of priesthood holders. And in student wards, the percentage would be 100 percent.

And all missionaries would be elders. No more sister missionaries. I think that the change inside the church would be great and I am not sure if members could handle it: both men and women.

Edited March 20, 2013 by why me

[mercyngrace]

I think that they could handle it. However, in the lds church, a woman's importance is also in the nurturing of the children. This may suffer a little since mom is not at home much, if she is bishop etc.

So dad not being home is irrelevant?

Guess that's why bishop's kids have the stellar reputation that they do...

[rongo]

The Elders quorum president is still required to get the Bishop's approval. The difference is that the quorum presidency can extend the calls to teachers and secretaries as well as set them apart. It is the same for the High Priests. A quorum president or group leader can't call a teacher or secretary without, first, consulting the bishop.

Not according to Bishop Burton, when he was the Presiding Bishop. I had a very specific reason for asking him in a Q&A a year ago (I had a doctrinal and policy disagreement with the stake president's counselors ---- but not the stake president. He agreed with me multiple times, but did not want to go against his officious counselors), and I used the example of elders quorum presidents and high priest group leaders to get to my point, rather than our actual issue at hand. His answer was exactly what I thought all along.

I asked what an EQP's keys actually mean, since a HPGL can do everything an EQP can: call and set apart his own instructors and secretary. Wherein are there keys, then? What is the actual difference? Bishop Burton said that the difference is that because an EQP has keys, he does not need to run the callings by the bishop ---- he can act unilaterally. A HPGL must get the bishop's approval because he has no keys. I really liked this answer, because it gives actual meaning and "teeth" to an EQP having keys. They actually mean something.

That is not to say that an EQP doesn't counsel with the bishop over these callings --- he should. But he doesn't have to.

The stake president was also surprised at this. I don't think anyone thinks of it.

Edited March 20, 2013 by rongo