Continuity In Change: Paikea As A Model For Extending Priesthood To Women

[Abulafia]

From what I understand, prior to Aaron there was only the priesthood. Through Moses and with the calling of Aaron the priesthood became split between the Melchizedek priesthood and the Aaronic priesthood. The new priesthood keys etc had always existed, they were just given a new and formal name.

 

  

 

From a historical perspective, as I understand it, since Aaron's rod sprouted, it was decided that his lineage would be the ones to officiate in the sacrificial ordinances.  They were also supported by the community, so in effect, for many, the position was paid (even if in kind).   I believe that there was great consternation over the various factions that claimed rights to the aaronic priesthood.  Like many things it probably became associated with power and prestige and began to attract the 'wrong' sort.  For that reason, in the pre-christian era, there were groups that claimed a different priesthood, greater than the aaronic priesthood, by using the passage in Genesis as a precedent.

 

Some of the early christian communities, particularly the community that wrote Hebrews, used the Melchizedek precedent in Genesis to justify the authority of Jesus and indeed the other Apostles. They (Jesus and the early disciples) actually didn't have any rights (most of them) to the aaronic priesthood because they were not born through the correct lineage, and there was probably an important strand of believers that believed that the Aaronic priesthood as held and expressed by the Pharisees and Sadducees had become corrupt and had been usurped and so was illegitimate.  

It's a puzzle though, because despite the gospel writers antagonism towards the pharisees and sadducees, as put in the mouth of Jesus, Paul's letters seem to indicate that the 'Jerusalem' contingent (ie those who walked and talked with Jesus) still remained faithful to the temple, but I suppose whether they engaged in sacrifice or still believed in the need for sacrifice is something that is up for grabs.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Abulafia

[Stone holm]

The decision to use Aaron as an example of "calling to the priesthood" is an interesting one.

If someone knows more about this than me please step in and provide the correct information!!!!!

From what I understand, prior to Aaron there was only the priesthood. Through Moses and with the calling of Aaron the priesthood became split between the Melchizedek priesthood and the Aaronic priesthood. The new priesthood keys etc had always existed, they were just given a new and formal name.

As such, it seems to me the calling of Aaron and the creation if this new distinction in the priesthood lends it self more to the overall acceptance of tolerance for substantial change in the administration of the priesthood.

There would be nothing to preclude a future priesthood of Eve that is a subset of existing priesthood keys and priesthood administration. The experience of Aaron is far more supportive of future priesthood change rather than eternal stasis.

Abraham gave tithes unto Melchizedek , but we really don't know where Melchizedek fits into the picture. We don't even know if he was Hebrew.

[Maidservant]

Another question I think we could be asking is, rather than asking when women will require an ordination to have priesthood (instead of now, when they enjoy priesthood without an ordination) . . . when will be the day when the requirement to be ordained will be removed from men and they can enjoy their priesthood without?

 

 

"representation of Christ (thus a matter of servanthood and sacrifice, NOT leadership)"

How was Christ not a leader? We are commanded to follow him.

King Bemjamin taught that rulers should be servants of the people they ruled, but this did not change the fact they still acted as leaders.

"Women, it seems, do not require this passage for their progression"

Isn't this a circular argument though? We may not need it for our progression right now....just as all the billions of people have not required the fulness of the gospel in their lives as demonstrated by God allowing it to be "taken from the earth"...but that doesn't preclude it from being a requirement later.

And as far as the nightmare of proxy work...the same nightmare exists for any work that needs to be done since the percentage that has been done so far is quite small in comparison to what needs to be done. Given that we will have a thousand years to 'clean things up' I don't see this as a valid argument against it.

 

I think that out of all the things I said, the one point I cannot be making is that Christ is not a leader.

 

My point is simply based on my own question I have out to God is why is the Savior male?  Why is a male needed to effect the atonement? (or is that the case?)

 

My point is that we (or at least, I) do not understand atonement and redemption well enough to be able to intelligently adjust those symbolic mechanisms that represent that, and that the bishop is central to that symbolism and atonement in ways that, at least, *I* do not understand.  I do not see the bishop as primarily leadership or administrative.  I see the bishop and all the priesthood offices and quorums as mainly salvific and effecting the atonement.  The bishop is not the ruler, as I see it.  And when I say sacrifice, I don't mean the sacrifices we all make every day, but a symbolism of THE sacrifice of the lamb.

 

And I can only stand by what I said, that it seems that women do not require an ordination for their priesthood to be effective, as we have been taught til now.  Baptism has been required from the beginning with Adam, even if there were some dark ages since then.  From what we know so far.  Time will tell .  But I think it's not so good for women to all of sudden be told that their eternal marriage is not effective since they did not get their ordination first and that it all is suspended until the ordinations can be done.  That is what it would mean to me.  Rather, I take the Lord at his word that he is bound and that my eternal marriage is fine the way it is and that I will never have a pre-requisite required of me.

 

And when I said progression, I meant actual day to day progression, not just a ticket into the pearly gates .

[Abulafia]

Maidservant said:
 

My point is simply based on my own question I have out to God is why is the Savior male?  Why is a male needed to effect the atonement? (or is that the case?)

 

Part of my studies at the moment involves reading some of the early letters, sermons and writings of those that didn't make it into canon.   2 Clement is an interesting document, particularly this, which I came across yesterday...
 

12:2  For the Lord himself, when he was asked by someone when his kingdom was going to come, said: "When the two shall be one, and the outside like the inside, and the male with the female, neither male nor female"

 

(next follows the authors interpretation of the above words of Jesus, words which are also alluded to in the Gospel of Thomas)

 

12:3 Now "the two are one" when we speak the truth among ourselves and there is one soul in two bodies without deception. 4. And by "the outside like the inside" he means this: "the inside signifies the soul, while "the outside" signifies the body.  Therefore just as your body is visible, so also let your soul be evident  in good works. 5. And by "the male with the female, neither male nor female" he means this: that when a brother sees a sister, he should not think of her as female, nor should she think of hims as male.  6. When you do these things, he says, the kingdom of my Father will come.

 

I think those passages are rather beautiful.

[mfbukowski]

 

No need to wait:

 

 

As to desiring the Priesthood (as opposed to holding leadership positions:

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/history-and-organization-of-the-priesthood/lesson-1-the-priesthood

 

mfb, you were a convert so it is likely you did not grow up with this sense of this great gift that was coming to you when you were 12 years old.  But it is something that is taught consistently in Primary and to the youth and is very much in the scriptures:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b/priesthood-and-church-government/lesson-1-the-oath-and-covenant-of-the-priesthood?lang=fra&clang=eng

 

There are a multitude of talks on how having the Priesthood is a wonderful gift:

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/02/messages-from-the-doctrine-and-covenants-the-priceless-gift-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

 

 

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=59&sourceId=537e925cf971c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

 

Primary activities are shaped around encouraging the boys to look forward to having the Priesthood:

 

Cal, you know I love you and you know we think the same way about so many things!  I really don't think this is an exception but more a misunderstanding.

 

 

 Abraham 1:2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

 

 

 

If you read that scripture it says nothing about Abraham aspiring to the priesthood.

 

What it says is that he aspired to righteousness and so he BECAME a High Priest.  He became a high priest because he was called to be one and that that right belonged to "the fathers"- not "the mothers".

 

It does not say that BECAUSE he was righteous he became a priest- the operative word here is "AND".  He desired righteousness AND became a High Priest.  Two different events:

1- becoming righteous  AND

2- becoming a High Priest

 

Also I never said anything about not recognizing what a gift it is to have the Priesthood.  Never said anything of the kind.  I asked what kind of "magic" was in the Priesthood.

 

There is no magic in the priesthood- there is the power of God but it is BASED ON RIGHTEOUS OBEDIENCE and in magnifying one's calling.  It is not magic

 

And the greatest gift we have is the atonement and the ability to be exalted.  Women exercise delegated priesthood authority in the temple and men also exercise delegated priesthood authority in the temple.  The women in the own endowment teams across the world pronounce the same incredible blessings as the men.  These are the highest ordinances of the gospel, and women give them AFTER they are called and set apart- exactly as the men must be called and set apart for the same purposes.  The men do not act "under their own priesthood"- there IS no such thing.

 

The priesthood is the power of God DELEGATED to men to do his work.  He delegates it to whom he wishes, and calls.

 

Can a priesthood holder walk in off the street and perform these ordinances?  No, they must be called and set apart to do them.

 

Can an elder take upon himself the role of elder's quorum president?  No, he must be called and set apart- EXACTLY like the women in the temple who give the most sublime blessings possible to God's children.

 

If you aspire to the priesthood, you should not have it. 

 

As your quotes show, it is a GIFT not a RIGHT.   You don't walk up to someone and demand a gift- it is given to you for a reason.

Edited September 29, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Didn't Abraham aspire to be in the Priesthood?

Nope, see above.

[Senator]

Nope, see above.

 

... I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same...

 

 

Sounds pretty aspiring to me.

[CV75]

It sounds like you are generalizing "priesthood power"  to be synonymous with "power." Where is the "priesthood" part of that phrase? You can't be a true priest or priestess if you have no keys. What you are saying is like giving women a Ferrari, but not giving the keys, and requiring that they can only be a passenger, while a man does the driving.

If I am, what's wrong with that? Priesthood power is a kind of power, the kind that makes priesthood work. You don’t need to have the priesthood, an office or keys to make it work, only faith in it and a priesthood servant willing to oblige according to the Lord’s will.

 

Your example of the Deacon—he has power in his office when he exercises it righteously. He has power in his quorum when he influences it for good. He has power in his leadership (local and general) when he is obedient to counsel and finds spiritual progress. So does the 12-year old girl who sustains her brother in his duties; inspires her Deacon friends to do well; follows her leaders, etc. It is the same with any other member.

 

Power is not about office or keys. When someone has office or keys, he has power to magnify his office or exercise the keys accordingly, with great or little power. When someone does not have an office or keys, she has power to draw the magnification of office or the exercise of the keys in her direction for her benefit. See D&C 121: 29 and 36. All priesthood power, whether exercised by me or women, is upon the same principles of righteousness.

 

So let’s say the Ferrari is the priesthood, and the driver (or owner, or caretaker, or any pit crew specialty) is the office, and the key is the authority and access to the vehicle. None of these components of getting from point A to point B can do their part without power. Either a man or a woman can possess (or lack) the power (gasoline). Either can obtain this power Heaven.

[CV75]

... I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same...

 

 

Sounds pretty aspiring to me.

In this sense, his aspirations were not fulfilled until he enetered into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. This is an aspiration rightly sought after by all of God's chidlren.

[Senator]

In this sense, his aspirations were not fulfilled until he enetered into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. This is an aspiration rightly sought after by all of God's chidlren.

 

Ok....

[Calm]

Cal, you know I love you and you know we think the same way about so many things!  I really don't think this is an exception but more a misunderstanding.

 

If you read that scripture it says nothing about Abraham aspiring to the priesthood.

 

Perhaps we are simply defining the term "desire" differently, but if not then you need to talk to those curriculum people about not using the phrase "Abraham desired the Priesthhood" or a variation of such.

Do you define "aspire" and "desire" in the same way in this context?

[juliann]

Attacking people who desire a good thing has to be the lamest defense anywhere.   Anybody with a search engine can bury the objector in quotes about wanting and desiring the priesthood.  I think it starts when boys are about 3.  It is right up there with the attack on the priesthood itself that is strangely considered to be defending it...if these uppity folk won't stop wanting what you have,  then priesthood isn't worth wanting.   Not working.....

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

... I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same...

 

 

Sounds pretty aspiring to me.

Read the whole sentence.

 

I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

 

He became a "rightful heir" by fulfilling what he needed to do holding the rights of those ordained among the "fathers"- not the mothers.

 

But yes, it is ambiguous.  I am not going to argue ambiguous statements.  You see it your way and I see it mine.

 

The entire point is that we do not call ourselves to positions, nor do we aspire to them.

[mfbukowski]

Attacking people who desire a good thing has to be the lamest defense anywhere.   Anybody with a search engine can bury the objector in quotes about wanting and desiring the priesthood.  I think it starts when boys are about 3.  It is right up there with the attack on the priesthood itself that is strangely considered to be defending it...if these uppity folk won't stop wanting what you have,  then priesthood isn't worth wanting.   Not working.....

 

 

 

 

I agree, and I think you may find that surprising.  Setting up strawmen is an even lamer defense, except for oblique references to no one in particular. 

Edited September 29, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Nope, see above.

While not part of doctrine, there is a cultural tradition I have observed where men who have held 'higher' priesthood callings are looked on as having additional or superior spiritual insight...as if the "mantle" of their office was never put aside and instead was expanded to include pretty much anything remotely spiritual.  Thus you have former Seventies being asked to give testimonies in church meetings when they are visiting a ward, Bishops and Stake Presidents being called by those titles for the rest of their lives, etc.

 

And while this should not be so...there is no inherent reason why someone who has held a particular calling is automatically more spiritual than the typical LDS member if we are all seeking out the Holy Spirit as our companion as we should...it does mean that there will be those who have ambitions for those callings...for themselves or for loved ones, either because they desire that additional spiritual insight they believe comes from that experience or because they are prideful and want to be seen or want loved ones to be seen as such.  Perhaps I am oversensitive to this issue having grown up with the story of my grandmother driving a couple of hours to give my dad's new bishop an earful that he wasn't using my dad properly when he didn't give him a 'higher' calling, I am not sure whether it was because she saw Dad as a spiritual giant (which honestly I find a bit hard to believe, but mothers are known to look at their children unrealistically at times) or because she felt he had earned the status since prior to that time he had held callings such as branch president, etc.  There is also the story of how she opposed the releasing of the Branch President when the branch became a ward because she felt that he should be rewarded for his years of diligent service and work at building the branch by becoming the Bishop.  This led to her being ostracized in her ward for decades due to the wife of the new Bishop (and her children followed her lead as well as other members of the ward) never forgiving her for blotting her husband's big day.  Both of my grandmothers were very status oriented (my other grandmother was known for showing a home movie of when the Osmonds visited her ward way back before they were famous).  

 

I suspect that a lot of members just ignore that aspect of our culture and instead emphasize how any man may be called to be bishop or even a GA, though the reality is that experience generally plays a key role in what callings one is given just because experience is helpful in any calling.  

 

However one personally looks upon this tradition, in any discussion it is wise to take into account the influence such traditions have on perception.  Even if someone is not status oriented or seeking that superior spiritual insight associated with some priesthood callings, such a perception even if the person is unaware of it may influence their perception of themselves if they are the type to compare themselves to others and thus may lead them to see themselves as less worthy or less spiritual (IOW "not as good as and never will be") not because of what they are personally doing or not doing, but simply because they lack the opportunity to hold such callings.

 

So while I agree that ambition of that type is wrong and should have no place in our faith, since it does exists (and often without individuals' awareness because they grew up with it) we need to take its negative impact on selfperception into account in these discussions and not just dismiss it as irrelevant.

Edited September 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

The way you've expressed this is a little puzzling. Are you saying that you were then forced into both positions?

Yes, actually I was kidnapped out of bed and held at gunpoint until I accepted.  Afterwards I tried to escape but they posted Danites surrounding my house so I could not get out without them seeing.

 

You ask a ridiculous question, you get a ridiculous answer.

[mfbukowski]

Good point. I was thinking it was an odd choice, because women are called as was Aaron. Exodus 40: 12-16 should ring a bell to anyone who's ever gone through initiatories.

 

With luv,

BD

I would say that it is more an issue of those who do not understand that women participate in the priesthood already.  But that will probably just get me into more hot water, not that I am not used to it! 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Recent Church teachings have made it clear (very clear) that that being "come unto Christ and be perfected by him". The Priesthood is the greatest tool Christ has, to achieve this Goal. Because life did not being here, ends here, all will have the opportunity to accept Christ. I am sure that some women would welcome the opportunity, here on earth. There are already rules (from what I read in Bishop's or Priesthood handbook), to keep Bishops and Relief President, not to come from the same family.

I don't want to imply my times was wasted in many of the calling I had, but it did make Sundays a very hard time for my wife. When in the Bishopric, I would leave home 3+ hours before they did wife and children, but the same applied in Priesthood, unless my sons were in the Quorum over which I resided. One I because HPGL, it got worse, still had to leave for Church hours before anyone else did.

I don't serve or hold the Priesthood because I see others as inferiors, I do what God has commanded me to do so, and more importantly because you love those who you serve.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps we are simply defining the term "desire" differently, but if not then you need to talk to those curriculum people about not using the phrase "Abraham desired the Priesthhood" or a variation of such.

Do you define "aspire" and "desire" in the same way in this context?

Funny, you know that the only place I saw in all your quotes was that one manual heading that said that, but then quoted a bunch of scriptures which did not say that at all.  yeah, maybe you should talk to those curriculum people.

 

I am not arguing this to be right- I just see no evidence that anyone should aspire to the priesthood.  maybe I am wrong, but at least as I see it, I have seen no evidence yet.

 

Senator brought up that one point, but I think it was off the mark as someone else implied (CV?) don't remember.

 

All your quotes day we should desire POWER in the priesthood, or to be righteous etc but none that I have seen say we should desire the priesthood. 

[Senator]

Yes, actually I was kidnapped out of bed and held at gunpoint until I accepted.  Afterwards I tried to escape but they posted Danites surrounding my house so I could not get out without them seeing.

 

You ask a ridiculous question, you get a ridiculous answer.

 

You make a ridiculous statement, you'll get asked a ridiculous question.

[mfbukowski]

While not part of doctrine, there is a cultural tradition I have observed where men who have held 'higher' priesthood callings are looked on as having additional or superior spiritual insight...as if the "mantle" of their office was never put aside and instead was expanded to include pretty much anything remotely spiritual.  Thus you have former Seventies being asked to give testimonies in church meetings when they are visiting a ward, Bishops and Stake Presidents being called by those titles for the rest of their lives, etc.

Well one of the points that IS scriptural for example with this Abraham thing is that indeed he DID seek after righteousness and then BECAME worthy of the priesthood.  Typically priesthood holders DO seek out righteousness to become worthy to receive it.  It's not like one can keep smoking and drinking and carrying on with the ladies and get called to be a bishop, at least one would hope not

 

In my case, I have no doubt that General Authorities lead better lives than I do, are more successful than I am, raise their kids better, and have neater houses than I do, and quite probably live the gospel much better than I do, and probably study the scriptures a lot more while I am wasting time on the internet. 

 

I am sure all of those things make them more "spiritual" though of course there are no guarantees that outward appearances prove such things.  I know one area authority personally who is about as shlunky as I am but I also know that he is guided by the spirit much better than I am.

 

Bishops retain their titles because it is an office in the priesthood that doesn't go away when they are released, but I suppose you are right that it is an honorific term giving them a little thank you for their years of service.  It always feels weird to call an ex-stake president "president" to me because he technically is not one any more, but I do it for the same reasons- to thank them for their service.  I suppose it is like calling a military man "Colonel" even though he has not been one for 40 years.

 

We really need to get past this cultural stuff and create a Zion culture.

[mfbukowski]

You make a ridiculous statement, you'll get asked a ridiculous question.

[mfbukowski]

Somebody mentioned Alma 13 as demonstrating that one should "desire" the priesthood, but that doesn't appear anywhere in the chapter.  I can't find the post at the moment.

[Calm]

Funny, you know that the only place I saw in all your quotes was that one manual heading that said that, but then quoted a bunch of scriptures which did not say that at all.  yeah, maybe you should talk to those curriculum people.

 

I am not arguing this to be right- I just see no evidence that anyone should aspire to the priesthood.  maybe I am wrong, but at least as I see it, I have seen no evidence yet.

 

Senator brought up that one point, but I think it was off the mark as someone else implied (CV?) don't remember.

 

All your quotes day we should desire POWER in the priesthood, or to be righteous etc but none that I have seen say we should desire the priesthood. 

This looks like something we will not be convincing each other of our position anytime soon...which is perfectly fine for me, I don't need everyone to agree with me.    I will only make one more observation and that is if the teaching is being directed to youth and adult members, the curriculum is directed toward teaching males who already have the Priesthood so they no longer need to desire it, thus it makes sense if they shift to teaching how to develop the power of Priesthood.

[Calm]

 

We really need to get past this cultural stuff and create a Zion culture.

Amen.