What Is The Scriptural Basis For Limiting The Priesthood To Males?

[smac97]

What is the scriptural basis for limiting the priesthood to males? Is anyone aware of LDS publications on this topic? Here are some thoughts:

1. I think the folks publicly demanding that women be given the priesthood should heed Hebrews 5:4: "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."

2. The MormonWiki article on this subject has some interesting quotes:

Mormon Apostle Dallin H. Oaks said this about the matter: President [Joseph Fielding] Smith explained: "While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, … that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. Authority and Priesthood are two different things. A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord." (Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1959, p. 4.) President Smith's teaching on authority explains what the Prophet Joseph Smith meant when he said that he organized the Relief Society "under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood." The authority to be exercised by the officers and teachers of the Relief Society, as with the other auxiliary organizations, was the authority that would flow to them through their organizational connection with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and through their individual setting apart under the hands of the priesthood leaders by whom they were called. (Dallin H. Oaks, "The Relief Society and the Church," Ensign, May 1992, 34)

3. As far as specific scriptural bases for limiting the priesthood to men, here are some possible candidates:

A. The Official Declaration - 2 specifically states that "all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."

B. 1 Timothy 3 comes to mind, as it specifically identifies a qualification of a bishop as being "the husband of one wife . . . that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity . . . for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"). Deacons are similarly designated in this chapter as presumptively male. See also Titus 1.

C. D&C 84 appears to support the restriction:

6 And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro;

...

18 And the Lord confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations, which priesthood also continueth and abideth forever with the priesthood which is after the holiest order of God.

...

29 And again, the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood.

30 And again, the offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood, which priesthood was confirmed upon Aaron and his sons.

31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses—for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed—

32 And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion in the Lord’s house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build up my church.

33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

...

41 But whoso breaketh this acovenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.

...

106 And if any man among you be strong in the Spirit, let him take with him him that is weak, that he may be edified in all meekness, that he may become strong also.

...

109 Therefore, let every man stand in his own office, and labor in his own calling; and let not the head say unto the feet it hath no need of the feet; for without the feet how shall the body be able to stand?

D. D&C 121 also:

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

4. John and Jenny Walsh have some interesting things to say here.

5. This lesson in "The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part A," provides as follows: "The Lord has assigned to men the chief responsibility for the governing and presiding over the affairs of the Church and the family. They in turn are to use this sacred power to bless and benefit all members of the Church—men, women, and children." No scripture is cited here.

6. Mormon.org has this question in the FAQ:

Why don’t women hold the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How do Mormon women lead in the Church?

Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:

“Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program. Women have a very prominent place in this Church. Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church. They have their own organization. It was started in 1842 by the Prophet Joseph Smith, called the Relief Society, because its initial purpose was to administer help to those in need. It has grown to be, I think, the largest women’s organization in the world... They have their own offices, their own presidency, their own board. That reaches down to the smallest unit of the Church everywhere in the world...

“The men hold the priesthood, yes. But my wife is my companion. In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are co-equals in this life in a great enterprise.”

7. This article cites some interesting data:

Authors Robert Putnam and David Campbell asked a wide variety of Americans their opinion about women leading churches. They report that “by 2006 majorities of every religious tradition except Mormons had come to favor women clergy,” including 93% of both Mainline Protestants and Jews, and 75% percent of “Anglo” Catholics (p. 243). Even 66% of Evangelicals agreed, as compared with 30% of Latter-day Saints. In fact, only 10% of Mormon women favor female clergy in their church, which in an LDS context means giving women the priesthood. As Putnam and Campbell note, “Mormons, and especially Mormon women, appear to be the only holdouts against the growing and substantial consensus across the religious spectrum in favor of women playing a fuller role in church leadership.”

Yet the most remarkable finding is that within Mormonism itself, there is a significant split by gender on this question. The number that looks the most extraordinary to outsiders–that only 10% of Mormon women want the priesthood–seems pretty predictable to those inside the faith. But the finding that 48% of Mormon men say they favor female LDS clergy is truly startling.

I question the interpretation of the data here, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Any other scriptural citations or exegesis would be appreciated.

Thank you,

-Smac

[daz2]

Those are interesting theories. Of course, in the temple women are prepared to become queens and priestesses. Carolyn J. Rasmus, “Mormon Women: A Convert’s Perspective,” Ensign, Aug 1980, 68 (quoting Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 844). One can debate whether in that situation, the women-priestess must submit to their husband-priest, or whether she would have direct access to God's authority/priesthood. The Church's rhetoric is emphasizing equal partnership of husband and wife, and the concept of men presiding has been de-emphasized.

In any case, it is apparent to me that there is no eternal principle barring women from becoming priestesses. If the practice were to change at God's inspired direction, I don't seen any major change in doctrinal understandings. It could change by letter of the FP and 12.

I do see an interesting problem with respect to the ordination of deceased women whose work has previously been done. Perhaps the initiatory and endowments by proxy could be taken as having implicitly been the "ordination"?

[Thunderfire]

It seems that over the years I have been firmly indoctrinated into the reasons not to ordain as well as the reasons to ordain women. In the end I had to ask myself: What's to me whom the Lord thy God will call? Should it matter what race, age, or gender an individual is to us if God is not a respecter if persons? Or in the end, should I only be responsible and accountable for the call entrusted to me?

I do not want to defend or speak against the practice of ordaining women. Yet I will say that I am witnessing women minister in an anointing beyond that of many "ordained men." I wonder then if our practice of ordaining individuals is merely our acceptance of their call to minister to "us", when God will grant his authority to represent him to whomever he desires regardless if "we" accept their ministry in our midst or not?

[Bernard Gui]

The next Great Frontier. D&C 84 is crystal clear, but I'm sure there are those who

don't see it that way.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[christainanderson]

I would think that someone asking this type of question is more likely asking "Why are not women ordained to the Priesthood?". That is the person wants a specific list of why.

I believe the best and only answer is from a Gordon Hinckley quote above “Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way." Some thing in the Church we simply do not know why of the origin, polygamy, coffee and tea, priesthood restrictions.

[smac97]

The next Great Frontier. D&C 84 is crystal clear, but I'm sure there are those who

don't see it that way.

I think D&C 84 is fairly clear as well, though the OD-2 is also compelling.

What about exegetical interpretation? The Word of Wisdom does not specifically prohibit meth or heroin, but no reasonable and observant Latter-day Saint would argue that the WoW does not prohibit such things.

It seems to me that the ordination of women to the priesthood is something of a novelty. If so, then authoritative exegesis from the Brethren may be all we're going to get (over and above passages like D&C 84 and OD-2). But I suspect that the agitators behind this "movement" will not be satisfied with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MormonMason]

...

Perhaps the initiatory and endowments by proxy could be taken as having implicitly been the "ordination"?

No. Initiatories and Endowment only anoint and prepare one to become priests and priestesses, not actually to be such. The thought that they are otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purposes of the initiatories and the connected endowment ceremony (as well as its accompanying endowment).

In addition, for men, ordination must take place before receiving one's initiatories and endowment.

Edited March 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[wenglund]

The fact that it is called "priesthood" rather than "priestesshood" ought to give some clue.

Also, the fact that the priesthood is administered through the "patriarchal" rather than "matriarchal" order should provide another clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

And obviously Mankind only refers to half the human race.

[Freedom]

There is no requirement for a scriptural basis for a practice dictated by God. There was no scriptural basis for Alma's dialogue on faith, nor for changing the mission age to 18. We are a church guided by revelation. The cannon provides foundation doctrines but not all doctrines. I have not found any references in scripture that justifies the Preach My Gospel manual, yet we have it and it is considered scripture for missionary work. We are not a church of ancient books, we are a church of living oracles.

[teddyaware]

Those are interesting theories. Of course, in the temple women are prepared to become queens and priestesses. Carolyn J. Rasmus, “Mormon Women: A Convert’s Perspective,” Ensign, Aug 1980, 68 (quoting Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 844). One can debate whether in that situation, the women-priestess must submit to their husband-priest, or whether she would have direct access to God's authority/priesthood. The Church's rhetoric is emphasizing equal partnership of husband and wife, and the concept of men presiding has been de-emphasized.

In any case, it is apparent to me that there is no eternal principle barring women from becoming priestesses. If the practice were to change at God's inspired direction, I don't seen any major change in doctrinal understandings. It could change by letter of the FP and 12.

I do see an interesting problem with respect to the ordination of deceased women whose work has previously been done. Perhaps the initiatory and endowments by proxy could be taken as having implicitly been the "ordination"?

Good points. I believe the well-established principle of an eternal priestesshood (not priesthood) role for the faithful women of the Church is the doctrinal point that should be focused upon in order to bring light and understanding to this controversial issue. Why those who press for priesthood ordination of women don't seem to focus on this already taught and accepted priestesshood role for women is beyond me. Though a thorough understanding of the role of priestesses in the Lord's kingdom has not been fully set forth as yet, there can be no doubt that the day will come when the roles, purposes, powers, and authorities of the priestesshood will be fully revealed. To my thinking, pressing for priesthood ordination for women while, apparently, placing no focus at all on the already reavealed principle of an eternal priestesshood is a perfect example of what Jacob called "looking beyond the mark."

"We bring children into the world to become kings and queens, priests and priestesses for our Lord." (Spencer W. Kimball)

The above quote from a modern prophet of God seems, at least to me, to anticipate that to be a king and a priest unto God is not exactly the same as being a queen and a priestess. Why not be patient and wait on the Lord to bring further light and knowledge to this important issue?

Edited March 26, 2013 by teddyaware

[RobertAC]

From a Jewish perspecitve, Aaron received the priesthood from God. Only his sons could be priests. In subsequent generations, priests inherited the title through primogenitur (i.e. the first born son was able to inherit the priesthood.) Today in fact, if you are a Cohen, Katz, or Levi, there is a special bris that can be performed for the first born of a couple where the first born is a male. At that time, the family will offer the synagogue money to buy back their first born son. It is recognition that this particular baby could become a priest in the Jewish faith had Judaism retained the priesthood.

P.S. -- I did not review the previous statement against other sources for accuracy. However, I am pretty sure that I am correctly stating the Jewish practice concerning inheritance of the priesthood.

Edited March 26, 2013 by RobertAC

[volgadon]

From a Jewish perspecitve, Aaron received the priesthood from God. Only his sons could be priests. In subsequent generations, priests inherited the title through primogenitur (i.e. the first born son was able to inherit the priesthood.) Today in fact, if you are a Cohen, Katz, or Levi, there is a special bris that can be performed for the first born of a couple where the first born is a male. At that time, the family will offer the synagogue money to buy back their first born son. It is recognition that this particular baby could become a priest in the Jewish faith had Judaism retained the priesthood.

P.S. -- I did not review the previous statement against other sources for accuracy. However, I am pretty sure that I am correctly stating the Jewish practice concerning inheritance of the priesthood.

Not a special bris- that ceremony is the same- this is known as pidyon ha-ben, and I actually went through that as an infant in a Morrocan synagogue (in Israel), where they used the old coins they had brought with them. Pidyon has ittle to do with the priesthood, it is in reference to the biblical verse regarding all that open the matrix.

[RobertAC]

Not a special bris- that ceremony is the same- this is known as pidyon ha-ben, and I actually went through that as an infant in a Morrocan synagogue (in Israel), where they used the old coins they had brought with them. Pidyon has ittle to do with the priesthood, it is in reference to the biblical verse regarding all that open the matrix.

I bow to your great knowledge, Volgadon!

[Stargazer]

And obviously Mankind only refers to half the human race.

"Man" can refer to both sexes, actually. It is perfectly correct for a woman to say "I am a man", even though, in English, it sounds odd, and most people would be taken aback by a woman saying this. Nevertheless, "mankind" means all of us.

Consider that a member of the species Canis lupus familiaris is called "a dog" regardless of whether it is male or female, and it is only when a point must be made of the animal's sex that the other epithet is used (the board software won't let me use the word). A horse is a horse, of course, of course, but some horses, the females, are also called mares, Yet no-one would try to restrict the use of the word "horse" to males..

[wenglund]

And obviously Mankind only refers to half the human race.

Actually, if we are going to mis my point and take things into the absurd, it is less than half the human race since a good portion of the half are boys rather then men.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[CASteinman]

Seems to me that there are 3 things in this regard:

1. There is no record in all of sacred history of any woman being called of God and ordained to the Priesthood on Earth.

2. Heavenly Mother, who we believe in and who we suspect must hold some sort of Priesthood Power, is not put in charge of anything (despite the apostate theories) and is not called upon in prayer, nor does She expect any sort of activity in her direction. It is not commanded.

3. Ancient and Modern Revelations clearly put forth the requirements of those who hold the Priesthood and those requirements always include the concept of maleness and exclude femininity Indeed, if a man only had his stones crushed he could not serve as a priest in ancient Israel.

[BCSpace]

The scriptural basis is in how Adam and Eve each chose to obey the commands. Notice that Adam just wanted to stay home and put his feet up. Eve wanted to get out of the house. Thus the Priesthood is for men, to get them off their duff. Women have no need of it.

Indeed, if a man only had his stones crushed he could not serve as a priest in ancient Israel.

Ah, the old wounded in the stones verse..

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

Deuteronomy 23:1

We show it to the young men and tell them it's the only way they can get out of their Church responsibilities.

Edited March 26, 2013 by BCSpace

[mathonihah]

I recall reading something from Joseph Smith that a priesthood, or some form of the priesthood, could be given to women; but the source of the quote now escapes me. I am guessing, however, that it would not be a priesthood as we understand it today—i.e. with keys to admister the affairs of the Church—but one which she could exercise privately or for the benefit of her family.

[Calm]

"Man" can refer to both sexes, actually.

Yes, that was my point. There are many nouns in English that stand for both sexes.

I have heard priesthood being used in anthropology, etc. to describe sects that have both female and male priests. I don't see it that way for our faith, but I don't think the language argument is really that strong of one because English is rather flexible in this way.

[Storm Rider]

It seems that over the years I have been firmly indoctrinated into the reasons not to ordain as well as the reasons to ordain women. In the end I had to ask myself: What's to me whom the Lord thy God will call? Should it matter what race, age, or gender an individual is to us if God is not a respecter if persons? Or in the end, should I only be responsible and accountable for the call entrusted to me?

I do not want to defend or speak against the practice of ordaining women. Yet I will say that I am witnessing women minister in an anointing beyond that of many "ordained men." I wonder then if our practice of ordaining individuals is merely our acceptance of their call to minister to "us", when God will grant his authority to represent him to whomever he desires regardless if "we" accept their ministry in our midst or not?

What I reject is the type of thinking that must put a gender in front of all else. It is not someone who serves, but a woman who serves. It is not a CEO, but a woman CEO. Too often in social circumstances we spit into the wind and then bemoan the fact that our face is getting all wet. I don't think the scriptures are definitive in all things i.e. they don't address every topic. However, the scriptures do seem to discuss the many ways men and women function in relationship to God. Some people just prefer to go through life demanding change; it does not matter what it is, it must change in order to be happy. The problem is that peace, acceptance, and submission are never acceptable qualities to encourage or appreciate. Rather, fight, kick against the pricks, protest, rebel, reject, seek out the new, the different, and above all else, change it. I saw what happened to the CofC when they ordained women; not interested in following in their footsteps.

[mathonihah]

I saw what happened to the CofC when they ordained women; not interested in following in their footsteps.

In their case, I don't think it would have made a lot of difference either way!

Edited March 26, 2013 by mathonihah

[Scott Lloyd]

And obviously Mankind only refers to half the human race.

That point occurred to me as well (I realize your comment is in an ironic vein) but as I read through Smac's scripture citations, it seemed to me that it would take an extreme stretch of logic to take them all as applying to mankind (or humankind) as opposed to men only.

Perhaps I should make my position clear: If the Lord were to reveal to the president of the Church, and that revelation was ratified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, that the priesthood should be conferred upon women, I would have absolutely no problem accepting it.

But to try to bring such a thing about through political pressure, social agitation or manipulation of public opinion strikes me as an unacceptably cynical view of the principle of ongoing revelation as the Latter-day Saints understand and teach it.

I would not have found such a thing appropriate with regard to the lifting of the pre-1978 restriction on the priesthood, even though I yearned for that lifting and received it with joy when it finally happened.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

And obviously Mankind only refers to half the human race.

Precisely....not.

[smac97]

I'd just like to bump this one once, as I would like more input on the topic (scriptural bases for limiting the priesthood to men).

Thanks,

Bumpity-bump.

-Smac