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

[Buckeye]

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.

Fair question. My answer is, yes, I think it is illogical to assume the Savior would correct every imperfection in the nephite society during the few days he spent with them. Why didn't he "feel the need"? None of can answer that. But we don't need to feel compelled to believe that something is prohibited just because he did not teach or do it. As I said earlier, the Savior did not teach the nephites about baptism for the dead. So why is that not a barrier to our performing that work?

[Buzzard]

If anyone doubts that the Savior held women in lesser regard than men, one only has to look at who was the first to see the resurrected Christ. Not the chief apostle, not the church in general, but a woman, a friend. (possibly his spouse, that's a whole 'nother thread). Even though she wasn't a priesthood holder.

[Buckeye]

If anyone doubts that the Savior held women in lesser regard than men, one only has to look at who was the first to see the resurrected Christ. Not the chief apostle, not the church in general, but a woman, a friend. (possibly his spouse, that's a whole 'nother thread). Even though she wasn't a priesthood holder.

Great point. I don't think anyone doubts the Savior thought very highly of women. The issue is whether we should assume the Savior opposed women's ordination because we have no record of him saying it should be done (much less doing it). I think we should avoid that assumption. We have so little of the record. Nothing in what we have indicates that Mary (or any other women in Christ's lifetime) was baptized, received an endownment, was allowed to pray and teach in synagogue, or allowed to ride on a boat. It would be ridiculous to assume the Savior was opposed to women doing those things. So why is it correct to assume he opposed female ordination?

[Stone holm]

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

So the Savior only ordained Jews as Apostles, we infer from that, that Apostles have to be Jewish? Yeah, I don't think that argument works very well. Some have argued that the very first special witness (code phrase for Apostle) was Mary Magdalene who then testified to the other Apostles that Jesus had risen. Thanks to Augustine we don't really know too much about the early female leaders of the Church in the primitive Church.

[CASteinman]

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

----

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.

I am such a fan of your posts because I learn from them. And I do not mean academic learning. Your thoughtful insights provide real value.

[CASteinman]

So the Savior only ordained Jews as Apostles

We suppose.

Thanks to Augustine we don't really know too much about the early female leaders of the Church in the primitive Church.

How did he control that?

[BlueDreams]

I don't have a ton of energy to post, but I did want to respond at least somewhat. I'm not feeling the greatest today (food poisoning).

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.

To clarify I think the NT people best fit your point about culture stemming the capacity for female priesthood leadership. I think the idea you mentioned fits perfectly into the early NT church setting. They had enough problems with setting radical change into action as it was.

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.

My point isn't that scripture makes it perfectly clear that male ordination is the only way. I think there is just as many problems with a number of scriptural justifications for it (as I mentioned in a previous post). It's that the scriptural justification for female ordination is just as, if not a little more, spotty. As for the nephites.... No, I don't think the people were perfect. Perfection was not my main point, moreso that they were at a point where drastic social change would have been accepted in some ways that are overtly unique from very few peoples at any other time. If female ordination were to be implemented I would expect it at this point in history or at a point where male-female cultural practices were not really established (adam and eve's day and their immediate posterity). And it's not there. Again, it's not that I find this apparent lack of female ordination at these times the deciding factor as to how it is practiced today. At the same time I think the lack is still pertinent when building a case against it. It's not equivalent to the WoW, IMHO....because ordaining was practiced at all times in all circumstances for all people that had the Gospel.

Who was ordained did differ. Early times had a strictly father-son lineage. Moses, on followed the levitical line, and Christ onward it was first to the jews and then to the gentiles. In our day it altered between whether or not we ordained those with African ancestry. There may be more patterns, but those are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head. So there is definitely room for ordination practices to change.....but there's also still the problem that there is no indication of female ordination, universally no matter what time-period and practices and state of the people are mentioned. Just as it's important to note that how the gospel/priesthood have been implemented has changed, I think it's equally important to note how they haven't. As I've looked at both arguments for and against, I find that both are lacking. In this post I was pointing out things that I find problematic in a case for female ordination.

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

So the Savior only ordained Jews as Apostles, we infer from that, that Apostles have to be Jewish? Yeah, I don't think that argument works very well.

No. See what I mentioned to Buckeye. It isn't one time period I have a problem with it's that all time periods, no matter the stat of the people indicate a male ordination but not a female one....forgive me, all I have is a medical analogy thanks to a 4 hr AIDS documentary that I watched for a class. One source isn't enough to be a viable treatment. When you have one method to try and contain it, it doesn't work....the disease can and will grow around it and rightfully so. It's weak. But multiple methods and arguments from different angles can box in the argument. It's not entirely removed and it's still has viability....but it's also not as strong. That's what I see with arguments for female ordination. It's not that there is one solid case against it....there isn't. It's that there are multiple problems in building a case for it that begin to add up and box the viability of the argument.

That's my problem in general with what I've found. I'm not convinced by many of the arguments against female ordination, they're often weak. But I'm also not convinced by the arguments for it for the exact same reason.

With luv,

BD