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

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Pidyon haben does not apply to members of the tribe of Levi, who are holders of the priesthood by descent, descendants of Aaron being the priests, while other Levites help them (which is the meaning of deacon in Greek). Pidyon haben is for non-Levites who happen to be the firstborn. Unless redeemed, they are owned by God (as was Samuel the Ephraimite, who served as both priest and prophet). Levites serve in all priestly functions for Israel and substitute for those redeemed firstborn from the other tribes..

[wenglund]

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.

I am not sure that the existence of bi-gender words in a language, or the secular use of certain word, necessarily weakens the argument for markedly gender-specific religious usages of words. Even though the word "man" can be used in reference to one or both sexes, doesn't mean the word "male" isn't gender-specific. In a religious context, the same is true for "priest" as distinguishable from "priestess" or "father" as distinguishable from "mother."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 27, 2013 by wenglund

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I don't know what Heavenly Mother has been doing, but I doubt that she's just twiddling her thumbs. Without doubt she holds priesthood power. On that we can agree, since it is promised in esoteric rites which we are familiar with. The notion that she is not in charge of anything seems absurd to me. Mayhap she runs the nursery in which billions of spirit children are prepared for the next Divine Council. Mayhap she bears her share of those spiriit children. A humongous responsibilty. Just supposing . . .

As to our pretend concept of maleness, I doubt that God has much patience with the silliness of that. Indeed, everything Jesus and God the Farther have done indicates that they express their feminine side very well, and put macho men to shame.

Finally, St. Paul himself refers to female deacons (Romans 16:1-2,12, I Timothy 3:8-13), and this continued throughout early Christianity, including the official ordination of women by the laying on of hands being the same as men -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaconess . Aside from Anna and the daughters of Philip in the New Testament, the Old Testament has accounts of female prophets as well, Miriam, Huldah, Deborah, Noadiah, etc. And that in addition to women who prophesy, but are not referred to as prophets: Rachel, Hannah, Abigail, Elizabeth, and Mary the Mother of Jesus. http://stronginfaith...cle.php?page=90 .

Edited March 27, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

The designation of mainstream Jews can be misleading. Orthodox Jews do not have female rabbis, that is left to the conservative and reform congregations of Jews, which are quite common in the USA. In addition, priesthood in Judaism is never a province of women. Only men can be priests.

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

[Stone holm]

I have issues with Old Testament references where the Priesthood is limited to certain lineages being offered as authority for limiting the Priesthood to men. I also think when a Prophet says well its because God set it up that way it's kind of code for "Beats me, but I ain't changing it till I hear otherwise." Which is just about what David O. McKay said about extending the Priesthood. Which makes sense, I wouldn't want them to increase the use of the Priesthood or Priestesshood by women at this point without a revelation from God. I just wish people would stop making some of the absurd arguments they are making against the idea and hope those who would be the persons we expect to be the recipients of such revelations are in fact praying about the issue.

[CASteinman]

I don't know what Heavenly Mother has been doing, but I doubt that she's just twiddling her thumbs. Without doubt she holds priesthood power. On that we can agree, since it is promised in esoteric rites which we are familiar with. The notion that she is not in charge of anything seems absurd to me. Mayhap she runs the nursery in which billions of spirit children are prepared for the next Divine Council. Mayhap she bears her share of those spiriit children. A humongous responsibilty. Just supposing . . .

I should have said -- nothing here on earth. Sorry.

As to our pretend concept of maleness, I doubt that God has much patience with the silliness of that. Indeed, everything Jesus and God the Farther have done indicates that they express their feminine side very well, and put macho men to shame.

I have no idea what you are talking about. It sounds like so much nonsense to me.

Finally, St. Paul himself refers to female deacons (Romans 16:1-2,12, I Timothy 3:8-13), and this continued throughout early Christianity

I accept the correction and find that very interesting!

including the official ordination of women by the laying on of hands being the same as men -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaconess .

Apostate records. Mildly interesting nevertheless.

Aside from Anna and the daughters of Philip in the New Testament, the Old Testament has accounts of female prophets as well, Miriam, Huldah, Deborah, Noadiah, etc. And that in addition to women who prophesy, but are not referred to as prophets: Rachel, Hannah, Abigail, Elizabeth, and Mary the Mother of Jesus. http://stronginfaith...cle.php?page=90 .

Utterly irrelevant to the topic.

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................

I have no idea what you are talking about. It sounds like so much nonsense to me.

.................................

Try thinking of John Wayne (nee Marion Morrison) and all the other swaggering macho men on and off the big screen. Were they truly manly, or just punks pretending to manhood by drinking, smoking, and whoring their way to Valhalla? I was always puzzled by my playmates wanting to be like John Wayne, whom I thought of as a very poor actor who chewed the scenery. Later in the Marine Corps, I saw the same blithering idiocy about what manhood really is. We could do with more femininity in our priesthood quorums, and I am not talking about women!

[volgadon]

I was always puzzled by my playmates wanting to be like John Wayne, whom I thought of as a very poor actor who chewed the scenery.

I utterly agree.

We could do with more femininity in our priesthood quorums, and I am not talking about women!

Our at least more gentlemanly.

[CASteinman]

Try thinking of John Wayne (nee Marion Morrison) and all the other swaggering macho men on and off the big screen. Were they truly manly, or just punks pretending to manhood by drinking, smoking, and whoring their way to Valhalla?

John Wayne was a real, true life macho man from all that I know of him. And a pretty good guy too. I was never a big fan though so if you know more about his life you might surprise me. (It is always possible to find bad things out about anyone -- and especially the dead).

We could do with more femininity in our priesthood quorums, and I am not talking about women!

I have no idea what that even means. God made most men masculine and most women feminine. This may not be to your liking but I find it to be very convenient. Which I suppose is good for me because I would not like to feel critical in my heart toward God regarding these things.

Edited March 27, 2013 by CASteinman

[Glenn101]

Finally, St. Paul himself refers to female deacons (Romans 16:1-2,12, I Timothy 3:8-13), and this continued throughout early Christianity, including the official ordination of women by the laying on of hands being the same as men -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaconess . Aside from Anna and the daughters of Philip in the New Testament, the Old Testament has accounts of female prophets as well, Miriam, Huldah, Deborah, Noadiah, etc. And that in addition to women who prophesy, but are not referred to as prophets: Rachel, Hannah, Abigail, Elizabeth, and Mary the Mother of Jesus. http://stronginfaith...cle.php?page=90 .

Robert, I do not agree that Paul is referring to Phebe as a deacon in Romans 16:1-2. She is only noted as " servant of the church which is at Cenchrea". It is true that the Greek word used can have the connotation of a deacon, but in 1 Timothy the Greek word for deacon is different from the one that described Phebe's function. Your reference in 1 Timothy lays out some of the requirements for deacons, and their wives.

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

It is very difficult for me to understand how a deaconess could be the husband of one wife.

Just saying.......

Glenn

Edited March 27, 2013 by Glenn101

[CASteinman]

Robert, I do not agree that Paul is referring to Phebe as a deacon in Romans 16:1-2. She is only noted as " servant of the church which is at Cenchrea".

You make a good point regarding the office of a Deacon. This however (I suppose) is different - Deaconess.

I am reading the commentaries on this page:

http://bible.cc/romans/16-1.htm

They make it sound like this woman was what we consider to be "Relief Society Presidents" or perhaps "Visiting Teachers". But I can only see one reference that makes that very clear that these are women set apart for the service toward women... and that reference is late, from the apostate period.

Some of the conclusions made -- that this was an office suited for the times because of the way society separated men and women -- if true -- makes sense. But where do they get this information to be so certain of it? I do not know.

[juliann]

I don't know why there would be an expectation of women being mentioned in scripture for this when they are hardly mentioned at all. That is not a realistic expectation. (Even when they are mentioned in positions of authority, it is quickly dismissed as seen above). I think we would all agree women would not be excluded from scripture if it was written today. So scripture is likely just reporting things as they were not as they could be or would be. I think that the JST makes a critical change in Hebrews 7:3 talking about Melchizedek as "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." JS changed that to mean his priesthood not him. That can be read as a priesthood that does not rely on gender.

Edited March 27, 2013 by juliann

[Glenn101]

I don't know why there would be an expectation of women being mentioned in scripture for this when they are hardly mentioned at all. That is not a realistic expectation. (Even when they are mentioned in positions of authority, it is quickly dismissed as seen above). I think we would all agree women would not be excluded from scripture if it was written today. So scripture is likely just reporting things as they were not as they could be or would be. I think that the JST makes a critical change in Hebrews 7:3 talking about Melchizedek as "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." JS changed that to mean his priesthood not him. That can be read as a priesthood that does not rely on gender.

Julian, I understand what you are saying. I just do not see any logic in trying to scrape the scriptures to create a history that they do not support. I am not sure by what you mean when you say "Even when they are mentioned in positions of authority, it is quickly dismissed as seen above." My wan exegesis of the scriptures did not dismiss any authority that Phebe may have had. Her function as a "servant" in the church is fleshed out but very little. The link that CASteinman gave talks about the possible roles that such a calling might entail, although, as CA noted, they do not provide any references for us to understand how the author(s) came to their conclusions.

That being said, the scriptures that we have today tell us how the priesthood has come down to us through the ages to this day. Those scriptures nowhere say that this is an unchangeable doctrine, or even that it is a doctrine. If it be a policy, then it is possible to be changed. After all, the manner in which it is handed down has changed. It was from father to son during the so called time of the Patriarchs. After other changes during the Exodus concerning the tribe of Levi, it became generally available to male members of the Ancient Church of Christ. And that is the pattern we see today.

I am not one tosay that this is set in stone. I just do not know. And, as always, any such decision is in the Lord's hands.

Glenn

[Calm]

In a religious context, the same is true for "priest" as distinguishable from "priestess" or "father" as distinguishable from "mother."

Not all religious contexts (though I would say that the LDS context is currently not one of them).

Example: http://global.christianpost.com/news/ordained-women-priests-outpace-men-in-church-of-england-77553/

Check out the headline.

also: http://romancatholicwomenpriests.org/ and http://www.time.com/...2021519,00.html

add-on: I don't think I've ever heard a discussion about women becoming priests in the Catholic faith that describes the women as "priestesses" though I am sure there are many out there (just not the most common term...though it is my personal experience so perhaps I am wrong). Perhaps because the term is often associated with pagan faiths. LDS are different in that we use the term in our temple ceremonies so it is not see as paganish.

I remember reading a number of books on ancient religion and their rites that spoke of female priests.

It is much like the word "actor", some people use it for both male and female, others (usually older individuals in my experience) prefer to use "actress".

Edited March 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[smac97]

I don't know why there would be an expectation of women being mentioned in scripture for this when they are hardly mentioned at all. That is not a realistic expectation. (Even when they are mentioned in positions of authority, it is quickly dismissed as seen above). I think we would all agree women would not be excluded from scripture if it was written today. So scripture is likely just reporting things as they were not as they could be or would be. I think that the JST makes a critical change in Hebrews 7:3 talking about Melchizedek as "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." JS changed that to mean his priesthood not him. That can be read as a priesthood that does not rely on gender.

Juliann,

I would be interested in your exegesis of the scriptures referenced in the OP, particularly OD-2, D&C 84 and D&C 121.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Lightbearer]

The reason for women not being ordained to the priesthood is rather simple to me. The priesthood is a male calling. Child bearing is a female calling. But I ask why ask the question in the first place? I mean in order to attain the fullness of the priesthood a man must enter the new and everlasting of marriage. Why? Because:

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." (New Testament | 1 Corinthians 11:11 - 12)

There are no singles in exaltation. While Satan and the world hates the bonds of marriage, the Lord does not, because that is the state in which He resides. There is no room for homosexual and Lesbian relationships in the order of heaven. Likewise there is no "single gods" out there. So while it may be "politically correct" to advocate women recieving the priesthood it is just as wrong as SSM is in relation to the new and everlasting covenant. The following scripture is plain:

"IN the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 131:1-4)

The new and everlasting covenant of of marriage is an order of the priesthood!

So I would ask what do those who want women to be ordained to the priesthood want? Authority? Power? They already have it at least when they marry in the Temple. Do they want to replace men? Do they want to be exalted without men? So what does the priesthood really mean? Priesthood to me has always been a stewardship of service. Priesthood is not for selfish ambition or domination over others as stated here:

"Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson— 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. 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. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God. We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever."

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 121:34-46)

I believe the priesthood is a tutorial power by which the natural man is sanctified and prepared for Godhood. I believe the reason women do not need to be ordained is because they are more spiritually sensitive and more likely to yield to the enticings of the holy spirit than men (speaking generally not individually). But in any event they (women) are exalted through the power of the priesthood and their faith just as the men are. Men and women are different, but the blending of the two as ONE is the purpose of marriage and the means of exalting both neither is expendable or can be exalted alone.

[volgadon]

The designation of mainstream Jews can be misleading. Orthodox Jews do not have female rabbis, that is left to the conservative and reform congregations of Jews, which are quite common in the USA. In addition, priesthood in Judaism is never a province of women. Only men can be priests.

There was, however, an interesting 19th century phenomenon of Hasidic women acting as a tzaddik- wearing prayer shawls and phylacteries, leading prayers, prophesying, admonishing, accepting pettitions, blessing, healing, and intervening in the heavens for their followers who were mainly women, but also included men. One such is Hannah Rochel, the Maiden of Ludmir. Nathaniel Deutsch wrote a superb biography, "The Maiden of Ludmir: A Jewish Holy Woman and Her World."

Of course, the phenomenon wasn't entirely new. Women were at the forefront of the Sabbatean movement, as discussed at length by Ada Rapoport-Albert, and there are also female pneumatics consulted by R. Hayim Vital in the 16th century.

[volgadon]

Child bearing is a female calling.

It is as much a calling as insemination is a male calling.

[BlueDreams]

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

Scriptural basis is difficult to prove due to the context of most of the predominant cultures of the time which had a high level of gender hierarchy. The scriptures I find most compelling are of the times that are least likely to have that said effect: the people in the America's right after Christ comes to visit and the time right after Adam and Eve fell. They would have the least amount of need for the Gospel to conform to any cultural expectation due to their abject humility and faith and their overall purity from what I view as a satan-led cultural practice in gendered hierarchy and inequity.

What you see could still be indicative of as support for male priesthood.

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."

Doesn't necessarily work. It on indicates one interpretation that doesn't necessarily apply with other scriptures. For example the people sought for baptism and the fullness of the gospel and couldn't receive it immediately because they lack the authority to do so (mosiah 21:31-36) Abraham is indicated as seeking out the priesthood specifically as well (abr 1). Both are indicated as righteous in their endeavors. So it's not necessary seeking it that could be considered against the Lord command, but how it is acquired and for what purpose. If the purposes are true/good and if it is acquired through the correct authority then it is not breaking the command IMO.

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."

It's merely descriptive of the current practice...it doesn't necessarily indicate that this is that consistant doctrine from time immemorial that only men may be ordained to the priesthood (which is what one needs to find indication for in order for it to fly)

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.

Again...there's the problem of predominant culture. The new testament is also the book that indicates women should be silent in church. We don't believe that.

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

Interesting choice. A lot of the language used in this passage reminds me of the temple... Exodus 40:12-13: "and thou shalt bring aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation and wash them with water. And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments and anoint him and sanctify him..." The full scripture ends with the line: "that he may minister unto me in the priest's office." Without getting too specific, That's apart of the women's side of things in the temple. So pointing to Aaron, the sons of Aaron, and the language used to indicate a male priesthood ordination may be faulty. Since that same language is used to justify practices performed for women in the House of the Lord.

D. D&C 121 also....

As mentioned before "he" in the scripture is often inferred to mean "he or she" when mentioned in the scripture for generalized persons. You have to infer previously that their is a male exception when talking about the priesthood.

4. Person's opinion

5. Manuals change.

6. Descriptive of current practice, but also holey because though we have "our own organization" it's not exactly autonomous.

7.Yes, that data is interesting. Possibly an aside, but why is it the men are more likely than women to think women should have the priesthood in the LDS church? That has always intrigued me.

Any other scriptural citations or exegesis would be appreciated.

As I mentioned, my own personal opinion and perusal have led me to believe that strong support (though not necessary 100% proof) for a male priesthood ordination includes those time least defiled by currupt doctrines and practices of this wicked earth...namely what was occurring with the Nephite/lamanite population when Christ organized His church and back in the time of Adam+Eve and the immediate posterity. The practices, as described indicate a male-ordained people, called to administer in specific ordinations, sacrifices, and callings. This can be seen in Moses 6:1-26, Abraham 1:1-4, and 3 Nephi 19:4 when it indicates who was called to the the 12 apostles for them.

Personally, as I've read and studied out this topic profusely (and still am and do not believe I have even close to most of the answers).... it was this verse that was personally influential. 4 Nephi: 15-16

15 And it came to pass that there was no ^acontention in the land, because of the ^blove of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

16 And there were no ^aenvyings, nor ^bstrifes, nor ^ctumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of^dlasciviousness; and surely there could not be a ^ehappier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

3 of these things would have to entail gender relationships. Relationships of a level of sexual and gendered relationship that is not seen anywhere on the earth today....anywhere. If this were the case, where there was a level of comfort, security, and love for each other that absolute peace ruled, would I care whether there were only men called to be apostles? Personally, no. For me, it wasn't a matter of whether or not I can or cannot do something in the Gospel, but whether or not I am treated with this level of equity, care, and love in the church. If not, then something is missing. It’s not, thus something (most likely lots of somethings) is missing. Receiving ordination, like unto a man currently does, may or may not be the answer. Apparently, from what little evidence we have, it wasn't necessary for the people in americas. To me, it’s the underlying and continual sense of inequity and corruption of peoples that instigate the sense of something missing, that unnerving sense that this is not a Zion society in how we (generally) interact. And no matter what scripture is used, as long as that exists, there will still be that desire for something greater than the society we maintain in the church today. There will still be those seeking solutions for something different and for a number, that means there will always be a justification or reasoning for women to have the priesthood.

With luv,

BD

Edited March 27, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Buzzard]

I defer to the statement recently issued by the church on the subject where our spokesman said that the priesthood was given by "the same manner that the Savior used" (I'm paraphrasing, the comments are not on lds.org). If I may be so bold to presume, I am guessing he is referring to the fact that all 12 apostles called and ordained by the Lord were males, as well as the 12 disciples called in America.

[MormonMason]

And after this manner did they  ordain priests and teachers, according to the  gifts and callings of God unto men; and they ordained them by the  power of the Holy Ghost, which was in them.

(Moroni 3:4)

There is also Alma 13. As to Hebrews 5:4, the entire sentence in the Greek is referring to male persons.

[Buckeye]

I defer to the statement recently issued by the church on the subject where our spokesman said that the priesthood was given by "the same manner that the Savior used" (I'm paraphrasing, the comments are not on lds.org). If I may be so bold to presume, I am guessing he is referring to the fact that all 12 apostles called and ordained by the Lord were males, as well as the 12 disciples called in America.

That's how I read it. I find the response intriguing. No reference to doctrine or express teaching (because there is none). We simply do not ordain women because we don't have an example of the Savior doing that. Of course, that begs the question, why do we not feel constrained with regards to other groups - Spaniards, Blacks, Biology majors, English speakers, 12-year old boys, etc - none of whom the Savior ordained?

For some people, they see the Savior's lack of ordaining women as intentional. For others, they see it as working within the cutural limitations of his society.

[BlueDreams]

That's how I read it. I find the response intriguing. No reference to doctrine or express teaching (because there is none). We simply do not ordain women because we don't have an example of the Savior doing that. Of course, that begs the question, why do we not feel constrained with regards to other groups - Spaniards, Blacks, Biology majors, English speakers, 12-year old boys, etc - none of whom the Savior ordained?

For some people, they see the Savior's lack of ordaining women as intentional. For others, they see it as working within the cutural limitations of his society.

It works to a point. At certain times these different groups weren't feasible for exactly what you mentioned (cultural limitations)

For some people, they see the Savior's lack of ordaining women as intentional. For others, they see it as working within the cultural limitations of their society. Couldn't call a spaniard because they were largely pagan and geographically remote. Were most likely not to call someone black, for similar reasons. The other categories didn't exactly exist....minus 12 yr olds. And sometimes God has called very young people to his work though maybe not immediately to apostleship (Joseph Smith, Samuel, and Mormon come to mind). What was needed for the movement forward of his work differed in that time. But access/capacity wasn't consistently a problem. After all, numbers-wise, women were 50% of the population. There were plenty to go around and plenty who exhibited great faith and power. And it's not like God hadn't shown a pattern of choosing extremely unlikely candidates for His work previously or in the present. But most of these cultures and times, it would not have work and drastic changes were already precarious as is. It makes sense he would choose women in certain circumstances.

It also doesn't work within certain societies. The Nephites/lamanites left over to meet Christ were of the type of spirits that Christ would describe them as having a faith that had never been seen among all the Jews. They would enter a period of rapid transformation from a corrupt and broken society to one of the very few examples known to us of a Zion society. The way they're described, I would expect them to have a faith similar to the people of Ammon, capable and willing to do anything the Lord asked of them, even if it meant death. If any people were ready and prepared to accept women as apostles, I would assume these would have been it.....but the Lord chose men in a group where there were most likely fairly equal opportunity to choose otherwise.

I mean really, Jesus came out of the sky and blessed them all, God spoke from the heavens.....they would stop all forms of violence and inequity and lose all distinctive labeling of groups in a matter of a few years. I don't think any cultural practice, such as men should do this and women should do that, would have remained if Christ had breathed a word stating otherwise. Who would question God standing before you from the heavens, who you'd just felt and touched and seen with your own eyes, and taught you that contention was of the devil....who would question Him about his choice for a female apostle? What other people could be more prepared than these to accept anything He asks them to do? And yet he chose all men. In such a circumstance, though it's not a 100% leak-proof argument for male apostleship and priesthood ordination, it does speak loudly on possible implications. Not only that this might be the pattern expected....but if they weren't ready culturally for a female apostle, then who really could be?

So, yes....in some circumstances it definitely works. In others, the argument for working within the culture also falls apart.

With luv,

BD

Edited March 27, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Buckeye]

BD - We're all reading the same tea leaves. I agree that female ordination was a possibility during the Savior's ministry in a way that - say - ordination of Spaniards was not. Women were certainly around him to be ordained if he wanted. But that doesn't mean we should infer that inactions taken by the Savior were prescriptive of his ideal. The Savior also omitted gentiles from ordination. That changed within a few decades after his death, not because of a new unexpected revelation, but because the saints desired it and sought the Lord's approval. It would have been very difficult for the people in the Savior's time to accept female priesthood leaders. Heck, it was pretty difficult for them to accept the Savior's practice of just eating dinner with women not of his family.

The Nephite account is similarly intriguing, but I choose not to read as much into it as some do. First, just because the people were more righteous than many others, doesn't mean they were perfect or that they were ready to receive everything. As one example, the account details how the Savior criticized the presiding authority - Nephi - for excluding the words of Samuel from their scriptural account. Even though Nephi was given the sealing power and cut shut up the heavens, apparently even he (or at least his nephite culture) suffered from discrimination against lamanitish prophets.

Simply put, the issue of female ordination never comes up in any scriptural account. Could the Savior have instituted it sua sponte? Sure. But the fact he did not do so does not bind us into assuming he was against it. There are many gospel teachings the Savior did not include as part of his mortal ministry (at least per our record), such as the Word of Wisdom, the Endownment ceremony, baptism for the dead, and so forth. We need not assume the Savior was against those simply because he did not teach them. He easily could of, but he didn't. So why assume the Savior was against female ordination just because he didn't institute it? When confronted with a silent account, I think it best to keep an open heart and an open mind.

[Calm]

Even though Nephi was given the sealing power and cut shut up the heavens, apparently even he (or at least his nephite culture) suffered from discrimination against lamanitish prophets.

And was corrected for it.

I grant you that it doesn't mean that there were no cultural barriers still in place, but the correction by Christ points to him acting against a cultural barrier to remove it. It is not illogical to assume he would also act against other cultural barriers if he felt it was appropriate....and if he didn't, we need to ask why he didn't feel the need.