Is Preisthood Optional For Worthy Male Members

[jaxenro]

Tried to ask this on the OW thread but I think it got lost in the noise. Is holding a Preisthood Office optional for worthy male members? I understand without holding the proper office a person can't go to the Temple but is being ordained optional or would one no longer be considered a member in good standing?

[The Nehor]

Tried to ask this on the OW thread but I think it got lost in the noise. Is holding a Preisthood Office optional for worthy male members? I understand without holding the proper office a person can't go to the Temple but is being ordained optional or would one no longer be considered a member in good standing?

It would be odd but it can be refused. You would still be a member in good standing. You would not be exalted though and in my experience God is not pleased with us shirking blessings because we fear responsibility.

[bluebell]

It's optional.

 

But as with the temple, turning it down would be limiting.

[JLHPROF]

I think that you have the agency to not be ordained to a specific office without it affecting your membership.  In fact, I know of several men who were baptized into the church who never were ordained to an office.

Of course as you mentioned it does prevent certain progression and blessings from being received (such as the temple).

[jaxenro]

So if ordination was extended to women presumably the same rules would apply? As a hypothetical?

[JLHPROF]

So if ordination was extended to women presumably the same rules would apply? As a hypothetical?

 

I suppose so.  Hypothetically.

[The Nehor]

So if ordination was extended to women presumably the same rules would apply? As a hypothetical?

Yep, assuming it followed the same structure.

[jaxenro]

So hypothetically if a few women succeeded in gaining ordination all women would then be required to be ordained?

[The Nehor]

So hypothetically if a few women succeeded in gaining ordination all women would then be required to be ordained?

What do you mean by 'succeeded'? I know of one case where young women were ordained priests by a clueless bishop. The ordinances were declared invalid.

[bluebell]

So if ordination was extended to women presumably the same rules would apply? As a hypothetical?

 

 I suppose so.

 

It would create some chaos for sure because it would mean that all the work finished for deceased women would have to be redone so they could be ordained. 

[The Nehor]

I suppose so.

 

It would create some chaos for sure because it would mean that all the work finished for deceased women would have to be redone so they could be ordained.

Not necessarily. This would only be required if posthumous ordination is mandatory for exaltation. It may not be. It may be something they get ordained to after the resurrection.

[jaxenro]

What do you mean by 'succeeded'? I know of one case where young women were ordained priests by a clueless bishop. The ordinances were declared invalid.

Succeeded is a poor word choice. Let's say I was trying to think through the hypothetical ramifications if the doctrine that only male members hold the priesthood was changed. Something that seemed to me to be missing from the debates I was seeing.

Seemed like some favor it some oppose but I was wondering if those that favor it had thought it out?

Hypothetically every woman that wanted to stay Temple worthy would then need to hold the Priesthood?

[bluebell]

Not necessarily. This would only be required if posthumous ordination is mandatory for exaltation. It may not be. It may be something they get ordained to after the resurrection.

 

It's necessary for men, so if female ordination functioned the same way, it seems like it would have to be necessary for them as well.

[The Nehor]

Succeeded is a poor word choice. Let's say I was trying to think through the hypothetical ramifications if the doctrine that only male members hold the priesthood was changed. Something that seemed to me to be missing from the debates I was seeing.

Seemed like some favor it some oppose but I was wondering if those that favor it had thought it out?

Hypothetically every woman that wanted to stay Temple worthy would then need to hold the Priesthood?

That would depend upon what terms the priesthood was extended. The answer is probably yes but I would want revelation as to how it is going to work.

[The Nehor]

It's necessary for men, so if female ordination functioned the same way, it seems like it would have to be necessary for them as well.

Possibly but that would also make every every ordinance for a woman (dead or alive) who has received her endowments or been sealed invalid. I doubt God would have done such a thing. It would suggest that women never got the benefits of the endowment. I expect if it happens it will be mandatory from then on as a matter of commandment and policy but don't think it will be retroactively applied. Similar to holding the priesthood without being baptized. It can be done (Joseph and Oliver) but we are currently commanded not to.

[JLHPROF]

Possibly but that would also make every every ordinance for a woman (dead or alive) who has received her endowments or been sealed invalid. I doubt God would have done such a thing. It would suggest that women never got the benefits of the endowment. I expect if it happens it will be mandatory from then on as a matter of commandment and policy but don't think it will be retroactively applied. Similar to holding the priesthood without being baptized. It can be done (Joseph and Oliver) but we are currently commanded not to.

 

I can see all kinds of spiritual concerns and issues with this hypothetical scenario.  To make an ordinance mandatory for exaltation but not apply it retroactively to those who have gone before would fly in the face of so many gospel principles.

I would think IF the day ever came when women were ordained that it would be added to work for the dead and applied retroactively as rapidly as possible.

Although since so many of the early church women were ordained Queens and Priestesses I think going back and ordaining them Elders seems a little bit pointless...

[jaxenro]

Possibly but that would also make every every ordinance for a woman (dead or alive) who has received her endowments or been sealed invalid. I doubt God would have done such a thing. It would suggest that women never got the benefits of the endowment. I expect if it happens it will be mandatory from then on as a matter of commandment and policy but don't think it will be retroactively applied. Similar to holding the priesthood without being baptized. It can be done (Joseph and Oliver) but we are currently commanded not to.

Let's stick to the living and assume God would sort out the deceased. I'm just trying to understand if the 90% of women that don't want it would forced to get it? If RS would close and women would attend EQ. If women would do home teaching?

I'm just trying to sort out in my mind the practical implications such a change would entail.

[bluebell]

Possibly but that would also make every every ordinance for a woman (dead or alive) who has received her endowments or been sealed invalid. I doubt God would have done such a thing. It would suggest that women never got the benefits of the endowment. I expect if it happens it will be mandatory from then on as a matter of commandment and policy but don't think it will be retroactively applied. Similar to holding the priesthood without being baptized. It can be done (Joseph and Oliver) but we are currently commanded not to.

 

I don't mean that the other ordinances would be invalid, only that ordaining to the priesthood on behalf of deceased sisters would have to begin occurring.  

 

And like has been said, if it became necessary for deceased women to be ordained going forward, it would also have to be necessary for deceased women in the past.  There is no gospel precedent for the idea that something can be essential for one person, but not for someone else because they lived and died before a certain point in time.

 

Thus, that would have to be done for all those women who have already had their temple work finished, as well as doing it for the women who will have their work done in the future.

[The Nehor]

Let's stick to the living and assume God would sort out the deceased. I'm just trying to understand if the 90% of women that don't want it would forced to get it? If RS would close and women would attend EQ. If women would do home teaching?

I'm just trying to sort out in my mind the practical implications such a change would entail.

No one would be forced though they may be commanded. There is no way to be sure. There is no precedent unless you count 1978 (too different in my opinion).

[The Nehor]

And like has been said, if it became necessary for deceased women to be ordained going forward, it would also have to be necessary for deceased women in the past.  There is no gospel precedent for the idea that something can be essential for one person, but not for someone else because they lived and died before a certain point in time.

There are actually lots of precedents. Circumcision was mandatory to enter the faith. And be exalted for a time but went away. We do not circumcise by proxy for the dead (thankfully).

[jaxenro]

No one would be forced though they may be commanded. There is no way to be sure. There is no precedent unless you count 1978 (too different in my opinion).

Nor was I "forced" to be an Elder but I needed to in order to get and keep a Temple recommend so I assume the same rules would apply. If not and it was made optional it would create a two tiered effect that seems antithetical to the Church.

It seems to me this wouldn't be a simple change but the entire structure of the Church would need to change from young men's, and therefore young women's, to relief society, to elders quorum, to everything else including primary

[bluebell]

There are actually lots of precedents. Circumcision was mandatory to enter the faith. And be exalted for a time but went away. We do not circumcise by proxy for the dead (thankfully).

 

That was a part of the law of moses however, which i think we can both agree is a completely different issue as it was not simply changed or ended, it was fulfilled.  

 

For this to compare, the previous law regarding women not needing to be ordained would have to be fulfilled as well, or something similar.  I don't believe new or changed doctrine can destroy the old.

 

Perhaps there would be a way for that to occur though.  Who the heck knows.  

[The Nehor]

Nor was I "forced" to be an Elder but I needed to in order to get and keep a Temple recommend so I assume the same rules would apply. If not and it was made optional it would create a two tiered effect that seems antithetical to the Church.

It seems to me this wouldn't be a simple change but the entire structure of the Church would need to change from young men's, and therefore young women's, to relief society, to elders quorum, to everything else including primary

Assuming women hold the same priesthood offices that makes sense. If not, not.

[JLHPROF]

Assuming women hold the same priesthood offices that makes sense. If not, not.

 

Well, since the only Aaronic & Melchezidek offices are mentioned in scripture they would have to use the same ones.  If they made up new offices for women there would be no scriptural precedent which would raise eyebrows.

So IF they get the priesthood they would be Deacons, Teachers, Priests, Elders, High Priests etc.

[The Nehor]

Well, since the only Aaronic & Melchezidek offices are mentioned in scripture they would have to use the same ones.  If they made up new offices for women there would be no scriptural precedent which would raise eyebrows.

So IF they get the priesthood they would be Deacons, Teachers, Priests, Elders, High Priests etc.

A Levitical priesthood existed but we do not use it anymore. Offices within the priesthood are also mutable and have changed through the dispensations so there could be new offices or even the restoration of offices lost to our scriptural history.