mtomm Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 "While the power of the priesthood is unlimited, our individual power in the priesthood is limited by our degree of righteousness or purity." But for women, who have to request from a man to exercise that power (ie blessings) it is not based on our righteousness or purity but always on the willingness of the priesthood holder. I won't share my example but let me just say that even those whom we think would be most desirous to serve us or help with their priesthood can disappoint. Imagine being told to find someone else to carry out a blessing request. Imagine the helpless feeling. I don't think priesthood holders can understand the pain that causes. That's when you really feel that you've been short-changed and when the rhetoric of how "women really do have priesthood power" seems empty and hollow. The motherhood = priesthood comparison falls flat and is nonsensical.
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 But for women, who have to request from a man to exercise that power (ie blessings) it is not based on our righteousness or purity but always on the willingness of the priesthood holder. This has not always been true in church history. The most prominent example being when the men refused to bless Mary Fielding Smith's oxen so she did it herself and they were immediately healed. Of course, having received her higher ordinances, Mary had been ordained to a specific priesthood office. Other temple focused examples included "Mother's Blessings" which were always performed by women with no men present and women's initiatory work in the temple which still involves no men.However, it is important to recognize that these examples still keep to established gender responsibilities. you really feel that you've been short-changed and when the rhetoric of how "women really do have priesthood power" seems empty and hollow. The motherhood = priesthood comparison falls flat and is nonsensical. I agree with that comparing motherhood to priesthood does fall flat, and frankly shows a lack of doctrinal understanding. But the "rhetoric" is true. Endowed women DO hold priesthood power, but the calling on how to exercise it is different, just as the differing offices in the male side of the priesthood have their own responsibilites, the female side of the priesthood has its own responsibilities, but it is no less priesthood as church history has shown.
mtomm Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 This has not always been true in church history. The most prominent example being when the men refused to bless Mary Fielding Smith's oxen so she did it herself and they were immediately healed. Of course, having received her higher ordinances, Mary had been ordained to a specific priesthood office. Other temple focused examples included "Mother's Blessings" which were always performed by women with no men present and women's initiatory work in the temple which still involves no men.However, it is important to recognize that these examples still keep to established gender responsibilities. I agree with that comparing motherhood to priesthood does fall flat, and frankly shows a lack of doctrinal understanding. But the "rhetoric" is true. Endowed women DO hold priesthood power, but the calling on how to exercise it is different, just as the differing offices in the male side of the priesthood have their own responsibilites, the female side of the priesthood has its own responsibilities, but it is no less priesthood as church history has shown. I do keep hearing that a lot lately, how woman have our priesthood responsibilities but I don't think I've ever had anyone explain to me exactly what those are. What are my priesthood responsibilities and how do I go about executing them? It reminds a lot of the separate but equal thingy. And all of your explanation seems really good until you actually need someone to to exercise the "real" priesthood.
frank_jessop Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Happy International Women's Day!The above scripture has been used to explain the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978, but I'm wondering, if it mentions "male and female" as well as "black and white," do you think the argument could logically be extended to justify the ordination of women in the LDS Church? Why do you think so, or why not?In a limited sense, why not? It is a hard sale to use the message of this verse when disavowing the priesthood restriction against black males, and at the same time say "Well, we will still keep the priesthood restriction against females."For what ever reason, as with the male priesthood restriction, the Lord has revealed His will but not His reasoning. Honestly, I do not think He owes us an explanation as to why.
CV75 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 But for women, who have to request from a man to exercise that power (ie blessings) it is not based on our righteousness or purity but always on the willingness of the priesthood holder. I won't share my example but let me just say that even those whom we think would be most desirous to serve us or help with their priesthood can disappoint. Imagine being told to find someone else to carry out a blessing request. Imagine the helpless feeling. I don't think priesthood holders can understand the pain that causes. That's when you really feel that you've been short-changed and when the rhetoric of how "women really do have priesthood power" seems empty and hollow. The motherhood = priesthood comparison falls flat and is nonsensical. Even a man having the priesthood conferred upon him has to seek out another priesthood holder for blessings. All are alike in that regard. No one can bless himself or herself. We look to God to bless us, and He uses the priesthood and His power in the priesthood to do that. All are alike in that regard also. Like faith, it takes power in the priesthood to be exercised by both the minister and the recipient of priesthood blessings in order for the priesthood to be effective.
mtomm Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Even a man having the priesthood conferred upon him has to seek out another priesthood holder for blessings. All are alike in that regard.No one can bless himself or herself. We look to God to bless us, and He uses the priesthood and His power in the priesthood to do that. All are alike in that regard also.Like faith, it takes power in the priesthood to be exercised by both the minister and the recipient of priesthood blessings in order for the priesthood to be effective. Yes, of course, if a person is making the request on their own behalf. I was asked to make arrangements for the blessing of someone else. So your point, although valid, isn't really applicable. Thanks for responding, however.
K-2 Posted March 11, 2014 Author Posted March 11, 2014 Wow--this is so off base that I don't even know where to start... I guess you'll just have to do what it takes to experience it for yourself. The mistake is in a) who receives revelation; b) on what basis it is received; c) on what basis it is shared; d) on what basis it is followed.Could you be a little more specific?
CV75 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Yes, of course, if a person is making the request on their own behalf. I was asked to make arrangements for the blessing of someone else. So your point, although valid, isn't really applicable. Thanks for responding, however.You are still serving those needing priesthood blessings by accessing the priesthood holder for them. Your power in the priesthood is joined with theirs to make it work.
CV75 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Could you be a little more specific?I think we're going to have to break this down. What is the first thing you'd like me to be specific about?
K-2 Posted March 11, 2014 Author Posted March 11, 2014 You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God. These are your callings.Well K2, when it comes to whether women will be queens and priestesses unto their husbands or unto God, it seems we're both right:"Some of you will understand when I tell you that some of these good women who have passed beyond have actually been anointed queens and priestesses unto God and unto their husbands, to continue their work and to be the mothers of spirits in the world to come. The world does not understand this—they cannot receive it—they do not know what it means, and it is sometimes hard for those who ought to be thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the gospel—even for some of us, to comprehend, but it is true." (President Joseph F. Smith) "If you are faithful over a few things here, you shall be ruler over many things there, and become kings and priests unto God. And you sisters who have dwelt in reflected glory will shine in your own light, queens and priestesses unto the Lord forever and ever." (Apostle Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Report, October 1934) "Have you forgotten that you are aiming to become kings and priests to the Lord, and queens and priestesses to him? (John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom)"We do not rear children just to please our vanity. We bring children into the world to become kings and queens, and priests and priestesses for our Lord." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.331) "The 'first anointing' refers to the washing and anointing part of the Endowment ceremony, in which a person is anointed to become a king and priest or a queen and priestess unto God." (Heber C. Kimball) "You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God. These are your callings. (Eliza R. Snow) There are many more, but this will suffice.They are not queens and priestesses unto God in the same way that their husbands are. The wording of the actual ordinances of anointing and second anointing, which I can't quote from here, make this clear. If you aren't sure whether I'm right, take a couple of minutes to google it and see for yourself.
K-2 Posted March 11, 2014 Author Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) I think we're going to have to break this down. What is the first thing you'd like me to be specific about?The entire post. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it.Why is it off base to say that wives don't receive revelation for their husbands? Edited March 11, 2014 by K-2
K-2 Posted March 11, 2014 Author Posted March 11, 2014 CV75, is this off base? After his fall, another name was given to Adam, and being full of integrity, and not disposed to follow the woman nor listen to her was permitted to receive the tokens of the priesthood. ... The order and ordinances passed through here prove the principles taught in the Bible. First men should love their God supremely. Woman will never get back, unless she follows the man back, if the man had followed the woman he would have followed her down until this time. Light, liberty and happiness will never shine upon men until they learn these principles. The man must love his God and the woman must love her husband. The love which David and Jonathan had for each other was the love of the priesthood. (Brigham Young, Sunday, December 28, 1845, An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books 1995, pg. 239)
CV75 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 The entire post. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it.Why is it off base to say that wives don't receive revelation for their husbands? CV75, is this off base? Wives do receive revelation for their husbands, though most revelations I think are mutual or received together as the couple works on a particular matter. But one significant personal example where my wife received a revelation for me was about our need to relocate some 1,000 miles, which I heeded to great benefit. Brigham Young is talking about love of the priesthood (which is part of priesthood power), and the priesthood order and ordinances. I don't see anything in there about revelation. The women are to love their husbands' use of the priesthood, and the men are to love God's use of the priesthood. Either can only be done in righteousness, and both are priesthood power.
K-2 Posted March 11, 2014 Author Posted March 11, 2014 I agree that wives can receive revelation with their husbands. If they receive revelation for their husbands, it would appropriately be as a result of their counseling together and the husband asking for the views of the wife. I think it is inappropriate however, for a woman to undertake to receive revelation to lead her husband, or her family without the consent of her husband, unless she is a widow.
thesometimesaint Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Pa Pa, most members didn't think of the possibility of the priesthood restriction being an error until after 1978. You don't think that the same thing is possible with women? Maybe it will take us longer to realize that "male and female" are alike regarding priesthood in the same way that "black and white" are. Either that, or maybe the scripture should not be applied to the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978. I don't believe the priesthood restriction was an error, but every rationalization for it was.
teddyaware Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) They are not queens and priestesses unto God in the same way that their husbands are. The wording of the actual ordinances of anointing and second anointing, which I can't quote from here, make this clear. If you aren't sure whether I'm right, take a couple of minutes to google it and see for yourself.I already fully acknowledged that women will be queens and priestesses to their husbands. But according to the following authoritative quotes, it appears they will also be queens and priestesses unto God. Please read and acknowledge these quotes and then tell me what you think about them?Some of you will understand when I tell you that some of these good women who have passed beyond have actually been anointed queens and priestesses unto God and unto their husbands, to continue their work and to be the mothers of spirits in the world to come. The world does not understand this—they cannot receive it—they do not know what it means, and it is sometimes hard for those who ought to be thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the gospel—even for some of us, to comprehend, but it is true." (President Joseph F. Smith)"If you are faithful over a few things here, you shall be ruler over many things there, and become kings and priests unto God. And you sisters who have dwelt in reflected glory will shine in your own light, queens and priestesses unto the Lord forever and ever." (Apostle Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Report, October 1934)"Have you forgotten that you are aiming to become kings and priests to the Lord, and queens and priestesses to him? (John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom)"We do not rear children just to please our vanity. We bring children into the world to become kings and queens, and priests and priestesses for our Lord." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.331)"The 'first anointing' refers to the washing and anointing part of the Endowment ceremony, in which a person is anointed to become a king and priest or a queen and priestess unto God." (Heber C. Kimball)"You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God. These are your callings. (Eliza R. Snow) Edited March 11, 2014 by teddyaware
K-2 Posted March 11, 2014 Author Posted March 11, 2014 Sure, teddyaware, albeit indirectly, which isn't the same way as the men, is it?
CV75 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I agree that wives can receive revelation with their husbands. If they receive revelation for their husbands, it would appropriately be as a result of their counseling together and the husband asking for the views of the wife. I think it is inappropriate however, for a woman to undertake to receive revelation to lead her husband, or her family without the consent of her husband, unless she is a widow.I think wives can do both. Obviously some relationships follow the pattern you desribe as "appropriate" and the Lord will bless them according to their faith and the light they possess. Acting on revelation by consent and acting on it without consent, by either the husband or the wife, are both approrpiate when consent is sought, given and obtained righteously according to the circumstances and requirements at hand. But consent isn't always needed, and so it isn't always necessary to seek, give or obtain it. Leading can be done in righteousness or in unrighteousness by either the husband or the wife, so revelation (which can only be obtained in righteousness) is also appropriate for either the wife or the husband to seek, obtain, share and receive. The desire to lead has to be inspired of the Spirit, of course, but both the man and the woman. None of this takes anything away from the priesthood responsibiltieis of the man, nor from the woman's responsbility to sustain him in such, nor from the priesthood power of the couple (indivdiually and collectively).
CV75 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Sure, teddyaware, albeit indirectly, which isn't the same way as the men, is it?Again, I refer you to the end of the endowment session. Women do not have to have priesthood conferral or office in order to have priesthood power. The order of the priesthood entailed in the new and everlasting covenant of mariage is shared by the couple--neither one can have it without the other. Conferral, office, power and order are different (but certainly related) things, which is why it is easy to conflate tehm.
teddyaware Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Sure, teddyaware, albeit indirectly, which isn't the same way as the men, is it?I perceive you might be trying to be dismissive, but perhaps I have something important to say that you might want to hear:It's important to understand the quotations I cited say nothing about exalted women being priestesses to God indirectly, they simply and forthrightly indicate that exalted women are priestesses unto God as well as unto their husbands.In a manner of speaking, it is also true that an exalted man's priesthood is inextricably tied to his wife's priestesshood and not just to God, in very much the same way an exalted woman's priestesshood is inextricably tied to her exalted husband's priesthood. The reason why this is so is because a man's priesthood unto God is not enough, in and of itself, to fully exalt that man in the celestial kingdom. He must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage with his wife, and have that eternal marriage union sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise before he can obtain the fullness of celestial glory.And why is a man's priesthood and faithfulness not enough to exalt him? because "man is not without the woman and woman is not without the man in the Lord." The exalted man needs his wife as much as the exalted wife needs her husband. Again, the man's priesthood unto God is not enough to obtain exaltation and the continuation of the seeds forever; the exalted man needs his wife's priestesshood as much as the exalted woman needs her husband's priesthood. A man being a priest alone does not fulfill the requirement needed in order to obtain the fullness of eternal blessings. So it may not be entirely off the wall to say that in order for a man to obtain the fullness of exaltation, he must not only be a priest unto God but also a priest unto his wife in the new and everlasting covenant. 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths... and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law (eternal marriage) ye cannot attain to this glory. (D&C 132) Edited March 12, 2014 by teddyaware 1
K-2 Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 Do you guys, or anyone else, believe that the relationship between God and a family is like this:God>husband>wife>childrenor like this:God>husband & wife>childrenor like this?God>wife>husband>childrenAnother question - can women be Saviors of a world? How about of a family? Why or why not?
Calm Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/you-are-my-hands?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/new-era/1973/04/becoming-saviors-on-mount-zion-the-place-of-suffering-in-the-gospel-of-unselfishness?lang=eng Edited March 12, 2014 by calmoriah
teddyaware Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Do you guys, or anyone else, believe that the relationship between God and a family is like this:God>husband>wife>childrenor like this:God>husband & wife>childrenor like this?God>wife>husband>childrenAnother question - can women be Saviors of a world? How about of a family? Why or why not?I believe it is God>husband>wife>children. Though I believe exalted women will be priestesses, that doesn't necessarily mean the priestesshood of women will be precisely the same institution as the priesthood of men. I believe it's likely that the priesthood of men and the priestesshood of women are on mainly parallel tracks of divine authority that may occasionally intersect at some points along the way, but in significant ways remain distinct entities. Perhaps the priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God adapted to the masculine nature, while on the other hand the priestesshood is the authority to act in the name of God adapted to the feminine nature. While the Melchizedek Priesthood is after the order of the Son of God and also Melchizedek, I think the Holy Priestesshood is probably after the order of our Mother in Heaven, and possibly also Mother Eve. Again, the priesthood is probably adapted to the male purview and expression of divine authority, while the priestesshood is adapted to the female purview and expression of divine authority. In other words, it's very likely the LDS feminists who are pestering the Church leaders for ordination to the priesthood, which is patriarchal in nature, are ignorantly barking up the wrong tree while unaware of the true nature of the divine authority God has prepared for women which is matriarchal in nature. So if I'm right, these sisters are on a collision course with an exceedingly thick iron wall that cannot be moved. Can anybody say rude awakening? Edited March 12, 2014 by teddyaware 1
Calm Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) I believe it is God>husband>wife>children. ?If you are suggesting this is the eternal standard, that directly contradicts IMO the doctrine of us becoming one with God.But perhaps you are talking in the here and now with minor children...still don't agree with you, but it is IMO a different argument altogether. Edited March 12, 2014 by calmoriah
teddyaware Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) If you are suggesting this is the eternal standard, that directly contradicts IMO the doctrine of us becoming one with God. But perhaps you are talking in the here and now with minor children...still don't agree with you, but it is IMO a different argument altogether. The thing that gives one pause when considering your point of view is that at least up to this point in earth's sacred history, it seems it's the men on the other side of the veil (heaven) who are up front, visiting the earth, bestowing authority, atoning for sin and running things. Perhaps in a future revelation the role of the women on the other side of the veil will be revealed and vindicate your position. Edited March 12, 2014 by teddyaware
Recommended Posts