Oaks' New Paradigm: Keys Of Priestesshood?

[mfbukowski]

Does it seem odd to anyone else that ALL women are given the potential of exercising this "priesthood" power of granting life but only men who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can use the men's priesthood authority?  There are no qualifications  (other than being fertile and finding a partner), no worthiness involved to exercise that authority.  In fact, you can have it happen accidentally with no intent to bring a life into the world.  It can also happen against your own will.  Do we really think that is equal to the priesthood authority for male church members?

An interesting point, and since this is all speculation anyway I will take a stab at a theoretical way of handling this objection.

 

Remember I am treating this as a philosophical problem, having nothing to do with what the Lord wants, or even what I think is true, or anything else.  I see philosophical problems as others see a chess game- reviewing possible moves to solve the problem.  I don't play games of any kind- board games or video games, all my games are "language games" some of which may relate to other's experiences and prove useful, others of which don't.

 

So in my mental chess game, a move which would solve this issue ( a distinction- Aristotle said that all arguments rest on making a distinction lingusitcally) is realizing that the Priesthood as we now know it is about authority.

 

The M. priesthood is the vehicle which carries the authority to perform ordinances.  Therefore all authority will always come through the M priesthood.  In order to have authority in any organization- government, any club, the military, etc. one must be a member of the organization, and be in good standing, and must have received that authority.

 

It is a chain of command.  You are not in the chain unless someone else puts you into the position.  So you MUST be a member of the church to have that priesthod authority.

 

On the other hand, the priestsshood we are speculating about might be set up around another criteria other than authority in a chain of command.  It might be set up based on spiritual keys to enable one to perform specific tasks with spiritual ability over those tasks.

 

I can see for example another sort of blessing of the sick reserved for priestesses and not part of the M priesthood.  There is already precedence for this.  I can see women giving "mother's blessings" similar to the present father's blessings.  I can see women administering relief programs around the world, and helping in compassionate service.  Women are excellent missionaries and MORE EXCELLENT THAN MEN at dealing with people.  I can see both parents giving blessings to children, blessings of healing and comfort, and blessings when the child is sick.

 

I can see bishops delegating welfare problems to women, domestic disputes, and all kinds of things which now may not be delegated.  I can see a woman occupying the position now known as "Executive Secretary" under this new priestesshood.  I can see women operating as clerks, and assistant clerks.  None of these positions require "authority in the chain of command", thereby avoiding the question of conflicts with perceived "priesthood authority"

 

So I see that women could be totally in charge of anything which can be seen as "compassionate service", and in the gospel of Jesus Christ it ALL should be "compassionate service".

 

What works about this approach is that it is consistent with the Proclamation on the Family- gender is still eternally preserved, and men and women have different roles in the church.  We still have the yin and yang of gender roles and are honoring the real differences between men and women, which I find to be absolutely true.

 

We are different creatures, men and women, and we have complimentary roles in the world.  THAT is how God made us imo.  THAT is our purpose for being who we are.

 

I really like this idea, but it is only a possible chess move.

[mfbukowski]

Mtom,

And many faithful endowed LDS women do NOT have that power functioning in them. I know first-hand infertile married women who have had their feelings of self-worth deeply affected by this line of reasoning.

My goodness. It could be rationally expressed that that fertile bunny over there is exercising more creative priesthood power than an infertile Mormon woman.

Is this really the road we want to go down?

Absolutely not.

 

Women could be in charge of all "compassionate service" as delegated by the bishop, perhaps or even just by direction from the First Presidency.  Gender roles are preserved and members get actual compassionate people who care about and love them instead of us old dudes who may or may not always be so kind.

 

This could even be done now under the auspices of the Relief Society- put some of those functions under the administration of the RS pres.

Edited April 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mtomm]

Mtom,

And many faithful endowed LDS women do NOT have that power functioning in them. I know first-hand infertile married women who have had their feelings of self-worth deeply affected by this line of reasoning.

My goodness. It could be rationally expressed that that fertile bunny over there is exercising more creative priesthood power than an infertile Mormon woman.

Is this really the road we want to go down?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "this line of reasoning."  It isn't really a line of reasoning, it is reality.  Being a mother has nothing to do with a woman's righteousness or her abilities.  From my perspective it is really a matter of chance and circumstances.  So, yes, I agree that many faithful LDS women do not have this power.

 

I think that mfbukowski (Mark?) has made some really interesting suggestions about how we can tap the "power" of these women who are not using their "motherhood priesthood" more fully in the church.  And in reality I think that we could be using us grandmothers (or soon to be) more fully, too. 

Edited April 7, 2014 by mtomm

[Stone holm]

I'm not sure what you mean by "this line of reasoning."  It isn't really a line of reasoning, it is reality.  Being a mother has nothing to do with a woman's righteousness or her abilities.  From my perspective it is really a matter of chance and circumstances.  So, yes, I agree that many faithful LDS women do not have this power.

 

I think that mfbukowski (Mark?) has made some really interesting suggestions about how we can tap the "power" of these women who are not using their "motherhood priesthood" more fully in the church.  And in reality I think that we could be using us grandmothers (or soon to be) more fully, too. 

 

Am curious, did some women feel insulted by the power of creating bodies being emphasized?  I can imagine in some feminist circles women going off like a sky-rocket upon hearing that -- in fact, I would never be brave (or stupid) enough to make that argument in front of my daughter-in-laws who would promptly hand me my head.

[ERayR]

Am curious, did some women feel insulted by the power of creating bodies being emphasized?  I can imagine in some feminist circles women going off like a sky-rocket upon hearing that -- in fact, I would never be brave (or stupid) enough to make that argument in front of my daughter-in-laws who would promptly hand me my head.

 

By the way it is daughters-in-law.  It is sad some feel demeaned by such an ennobling principle.

[Stone holm]

By the way it is daughters-in-law.  It is sad some feel demeaned by such an ennobling principle.

 

What that their primary function in life is to make babies and run the nurseries?  Because that is how they would read it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What that their primary function in life is to make babies and run the nurseries?  Because that is how they would read it.

Well it was one of the first commandments given to Adam and Eve. But I suppose that old archaic bible should be tossed out in favor of more progressive thinking?

[ERayR]

What that their primary function in life is to make babies and run the nurseries?  Because that is how they would read it.

 

As I have said many times, It is all about perspective.  As long as one looks for the derogatory view and others see the beauty in it.  I come from a family with some very independent women and none of them take that view. 

 

Is that because that is the way you view it.  My sisters daughter's father-in-law had that same mistaken impression until my sister corrected his view.  Now he understands that while it is an honor to bear children and be a mother, he  has a responsibility in tending and caring for them, even during the super bowl.

Edited April 7, 2014 by ERayR

[mtomm]

Am curious, did some women feel insulted by the power of creating bodies being emphasized?  I can imagine in some feminist circles women going off like a sky-rocket upon hearing that -- in fact, I would never be brave (or stupid) enough to make that argument in front of my daughter-in-laws who would promptly hand me my head.

 

I never heard a woman express dismay at the ability to be a mother.   We of all people understand how truly miraculous that is.  However, I think some women see it as only ONE part of who they are and certainly not the totality of them.   And for infertile women it can be poking a wound over and over again.    This especially comes to light when you compare motherhood to priesthood.  All of the disparities of how each is granted start to magnify.  

[mtomm]

As I have said many times, It is all about perspective.  As long as one looks for the derogatory view and others see the beauty in it.  I come from a family with some very independent women and none of them take that view. 

 

It is very easy to cast disparaging judgment when it is not happening to you.  

[Stone holm]

I never heard a woman express dismay at the ability to be a mother.   We of all people understand how truly miraculous that is.  However, I think some women see it as only ONE part of who they are and certainly not the totality of them.   And for infertile women it can be poking a wound over and over again.    This especially comes to light when you compare motherhood to priesthood.  All of the disparities of how each is granted start to magnify.  

 

I agree.  I sense the view of my "daughters-in-law" would be that it should not be anymore the defining characteristic of women, than being the sperm donor should be the defining characteristic of men and certainly should not define their career choices.  Its interesting given the importance of the Deseret in our symbology given the fact that the male bees are considered drones of no value after they have donated their sperm, and the hive is run by infertile females and one fertile femaile.

[Bikeemikey]

Does it seem odd to anyone else that ALL women are given the potential of exercising this "priesthood" power of granting life but only men who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can use the men's priesthood authority?  There are no qualifications  (other than being fertile and finding a partner), no worthiness involved to exercise that authority.  In fact, you can have it happen accidentally with no intent to bring a life into the world.  It can also happen against your own will.  Do we really think that is equal to the priesthood authority for male church members?

 

So women's ability to procreate is a priesthood power?

 

Does that mean all animals have the priesthood?

 

I am skeptical of the idea that getting pregnant requires priesthood power.

 

Moreover, are we saying barren women are priesthood-less? That would be logical conclusion.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

An interesting point, and since this is all speculation anyway I will take a stab at a theoretical way of handling this objection.

 

Remember I am treating this as a philosophical problem, having nothing to do with what the Lord wants, or even what I think is true, or anything else.  I see philosophical problems as others see a chess game- reviewing possible moves to solve the problem.  I don't play games of any kind- board games or video games, all my games are "language games" some of which may relate to other's experiences and prove useful, others of which don't.

 

So in my mental chess game, a move which would solve this issue ( a distinction- Aristotle said that all arguments rest on making a distinction lingusitcally) is realizing that the Priesthood as we now know it is about authority.

 

The M. priesthood is the vehicle which carries the authority to perform ordinances.  Therefore all authority will always come through the M priesthood.  In order to have authority in any organization- government, any club, the military, etc. one must be a member of the organization, and be in good standing, and must have received that authority.

 

It is a chain of command.  You are not in the chain unless someone else puts you into the position.  So you MUST be a member of the church to have that priesthod authority.

 

On the other hand, the priestsshood we are speculating about might be set up around another criteria other than authority in a chain of command.  It might be set up based on spiritual keys to enable one to perform specific tasks with spiritual ability over those tasks.

 

I can see for example another sort of blessing of the sick reserved for priestesses and not part of the M priesthood.  There is already precedence for this.  I can see women giving "mother's blessings" similar to the present father's blessings.  I can see women administering relief programs around the world, and helping in compassionate service.  Women are excellent missionaries and MORE EXCELLENT THAN MEN at dealing with people.  I can see both parents giving blessings to children, blessings of healing and comfort, and blessings when the child is sick.

 

I can see bishops delegating welfare problems to women, domestic disputes, and all kinds of things which now may not be delegated.  I can see a woman occupying the position now known as "Executive Secretary" under this new priestesshood.  I can see women operating as clerks, and assistant clerks.  None of these positions require "authority in the chain of command", thereby avoiding the question of conflicts with perceived "priesthood authority"

 

So I see that women could be totally in charge of anything which can be seen as "compassionate service", and in the gospel of Jesus Christ it ALL should be "compassionate service".

 

What works about this approach is that it is consistent with the Proclamation on the Family- gender is still eternally preserved, and men and women have different roles in the church.  We still have the yin and yang of gender roles and are honoring the real differences between men and women, which I find to be absolutely true.

 

We are different creatures, men and women, and we have complimentary roles in the world.  THAT is how God made us imo.  THAT is our purpose for being who we are.

 

I really like this idea, but it is only a possible chess move.

 

I think this makes a lot of sense and the church is currently working toward implementing a lot of these examples now (in my opinion)...

 

However, Elder Oaks also opened up a big wide whole in this when he said that women operate via the authority of the M. Phood when they act in an area they have been set apart to act in (eg. Relief Society Presidents acting in the authority of the Phood). Given that the chain of command is a top down system, anyone below the person at the top can be delegated authority that ultimately resides with the person at the top. It is the persons at the top to delegate, though the person at the top retains ultimate responsibility and accountability for what happens under them.

 

Elder Oaks is however saying that authority can not be delegated outside of the gender restrictive framework (even though he is also saying that some authority can be delegated within this same gender restrictive framework). 

 

We are still left with the idea that only some authority can be delegated to women (that is women can have authority over women, as supervised by a man). We still have no explanation as to why women are incapable of receiving a broader delegation, given that they can receive a narrower delegation, of authority.

 

I am still trying to figure out what Oaks was saying as the more I read it the more self contradictory it seems. That is because it is reading more and more like he is trying to create a difference in meaning where no difference actually practically exists. 

 

As I said, I am still trying to figure it all out and will likely change this thinking over the next few days.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[mtomm]

So women's ability to procreate is a priesthood power?

 

Does that mean all animals have the priesthood?

 

I am skeptical of the idea that getting pregnant requires priesthood power.

 

Moreover, are we saying barren women are priesthood-less? That would be logical conclusion.

 

Please don't think that I think that motherhood is priesthood power, I don't.  I wasn't sure how else to phrase that, thus the quotes.  But it seems that since women don't have any sort of administrative power in the church we default to saying that motherhood = priesthood.   And your points above show why that is such a poor, poor analogy.

Edited April 7, 2014 by mtomm

[Bikeemikey]

Please don't think that I think that motherhood is priesthood power, I don't.  I wasn't sure how else to phrase that, thus the quotes.  But it seems that since women don't have any sort of administrative power in the church we default to saying that motherhood = priesthood.   And your points above show why that is such a poor, poor analogy.

 

I agree, it is a very problematic equivalency.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see that Elder Oaks broke new ground with his talk Saturday night.

 

Rather, he clarified principles that may not have been well understood by some folks before.

[mfbukowski]

I think this makes a lot of sense and the church is currently working toward implementing a lot of these examples now (in my opinion)...

 

However, Elder Oaks also opened up a big wide whole in this when he said that women operate via the authority of the M. Phood when they act in an area they have been set apart to act in (eg. Relief Society Presidents acting in the authority of the Phood). Given that the chain of command is a top down system, anyone below the person at the top can be delegated authority that ultimately resides with the person at the top. It is the persons at the top to delegate, though the person at the top retains ultimate responsibility and accountability for what happens under them.

 

Elder Oaks is however saying that authority can not be delegated outside of the gender restrictive framework (even though he is also saying that some authority can be delegated within this same gender restrictive framework). 

 

We are still left with the idea that only some authority can be delegated to women (that is women can have authority over women, as supervised by a man). We still have no explanation as to why women are incapable of receiving a broader delegation, given that they can receive a narrower delegation, of authority.

 

I am still trying to figure out what Oaks was saying as the more I read it the more self contradictory it seems. That is because it is reading more and more like he is trying to create a difference in meaning where no difference actually practically exists. 

 

As I said, I am still trying to figure it all out and will likely change this thinking over the next few days.

No, that's the point!!

 

All this is done under a PRIESTESSHOOD which doesn't HAVE any AUTHORITY except as delegated by the MP.

 

Authority wise, this is no different than the RS president deciding who visit teaches whom, or who to take dinners to.  This whole priestesshood takes care of "compassionate service"- which requires no authority.  Yet in this scheme, they could give blessings etc- as delegated by the MP.

 

Just as the Aaronic priesthood operates under the authority of the MP, so would this.

 

Ward clerks and Executive secretaries HAVE no authority associated with their callings except perhaps to write checks as directed by the bishop, if you want to call that "authority"

 

The MP retains all "authority", but the women are allowed to handle compassionate service as the RS does today.

 

The simpler way to do it is just allow women to hold these callings- that would work, but that path does not acknowledge that women have spiritual power to give blessings, when in fact we all know that women tend to be more spiritual than men- at least in my experience.

 

Again, this is just a potential move in a mental chess game.  Whether or not it is a good one is another issue.  But I just wanted to clarify what my intended theoretical move actually was. 

Edited April 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[David T]

I must have missed that. Were those words actually said or inferred?

Here's the quote:

 

"Ultimately, all keys of the priesthood are held by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose priesthood it is. He is the one who determines what keys are delegated to mortals, and how those keys will be used. We’re accustomed to thinking that all keys of the priesthood were conferred to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple. But the scripture states that all that was conferred there were “The keys of this dispensation.” At General Conference many years ago, President Spencer W. Kimball reminded us that there are other priesthood keys that have not been given to man on the earth, including the keys of creation and resurrection. The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of church administration, and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency, and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting church policy and procedures. Matters such as the location of church buildings, and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divine decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood."

 

I acknowledge there's a lot that could be taken from that. I don't see the relevance of suggesting we don't have all the keys there are without the implication that one of the keys they don't have pertains to the subject at hand.

[David T]

I don't see that Elder Oaks broke new ground with his talk Saturday night.

 

Rather, he clarified principles that may not have been well understood by some folks before.

 

I think any public GC talk that clearly presents ideas that have been meshing around and suggested in bits and pieces without being brought together somewhat coherently in one place does break new ground.

 

There have been scattered talks in the last few years that present the dichotomy of power and authority in the Priesthood, and quick suggestions that women have access to Priesthood power. Oaks was the first attempt to bring all that together as the focus, and lay out systematically what that practically means. That in and of itself is significant. 

 

After noting that they do not have the Keys for ordaining women to Priesthood Offices, and closed that door, he then opened the discussion of how to make sense of Women's authority in relationship to the Priesthood Keys we do have access to. This is an important conversation, and is frankly far more practically relevant than the discussion of Keys not here, and may not even be extant.

 

He closed the door for female ordination to to not having the keys to do that.

He laid out, and then expanded the conversation of what women's relationship to Melchizedek Priesthood keys are.

 

The first idea is more practical to us as to the 'why not' of female ordination. Any explanation of any potential other keys may exist is completely in the realm of wild speculation. It's fun, but ultimately fruitless.

 

The second portion, exploring and making sure we fully realize the authority the women are presently allowed with the current keys is a big deal, and is certainly needed before anything new is given.

 

While my suggestion is fun and interesting, I think it's presently meaningless to focus on until we deal with the full relationship of what women can do under the Keys we already have. This is where, I believe, we will be seeing some substantial ground being broken in the near future.

Edited April 7, 2014 by David T

[Bikeemikey]

No, that's the point!!

 

All this is done under a PRIESTESSHOOD which doesn't HAVE any AUTHORITY except as delegated by the MP.

 

Authority wise, this is no different than the RS president deciding who visit teaches whom, or who to take dinners to.  This whole priestesshood takes care of "compassionate service"- which requires no authority.  Yet in this scheme, they could give blessings etc- as delegated by the MP.

 

Just as the Aaronic priesthood operates under the authority of the MP, so would this.

 

Ward clerks and Executive secretaries HAVE no authority associated with their callings except perhaps to write checks as directed by the bishop, if you want to call that "authority"

 

The MP retains all "authority", but the women are allowed to handle compassionate service as the RS does today.

 

The simpler way to do it is just allow women to hold these callings- that would work, but that path does not acknowledge that women have spiritual power to give blessings, when in fact we all know that women tend to be more spiritual than men- at least in my experience.

 

Again, this is just a potential move in a mental chess game.  Whether or not it is a good one is another issue.  But I just wanted to clarify what my intended theoretical move actually was. 

 

I agree with everything you have said. It falls short of an explanation of the reason for the distinction, other than we don't know. Which is fine with me.

[Bikeemikey]

Here's the quote:

 

"Ultimately, all keys of the priesthood are held by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose priesthood it is. He is the one who determines what keys are delegated to mortals, and how those keys will be used. We’re accustomed to thinking that all keys of the priesthood were conferred to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple. But the scripture states that all that was conferred there were “The keys of this dispensation.” At General Conference many years ago, President Spencer W. Kimball reminded us that there are other priesthood keys that have not been given to man on the earth, including the keys of creation and resurrection. The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of church administration, and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency, and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting church policy and procedures. Matters such as the location of church buildings, and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divine decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood."

 

I acknowledge there's a lot that could be taken from that. I don't see the relevance of suggesting we don't have all the keys there are without the implication that one of the keys they don't have pertains to the subject at hand.

 

Or the idea of a "divine decree" now being that its been that way for a long time, dont worry yourself that they period where the Divine Decree was enacted also happened to follow the non-divine patterns (Decrees) of the same time periods. That is men were in charge.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't see that Elder Oaks broke new ground with his talk Saturday night.

 

Rather, he clarified principles that may not have been well understood by some folks before.

 

I disagree. It is a real substantial first attempt to address the question of women's role in the priesthood. Many more will follow and Oak's took the challenge as the first formal ecclesiastical response to the question of women and the priesthood.

 

It was the equivalent of the Mckay's insistence that the priesthood ban could not be changed as a matter of policy, rather it had to be via revelation. The option of change via policy shift is now formally off the table. That is a big thing.

 

Oaks' also laid down the clear position that the Church Apostles and First Presidency do not currently have the authority to alter the gender of who gets ordained. 

 

However, in so doing he also clearly explained that there are many ways that we do not ordinarily look at the priesthood that we can start addressing immediately.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

I agree, it is a very problematic equivalency.

I think it is well beyond problematical and headed towards lunacy. So Fatherhood is what chopped liver?

[escott3564]

And quite an exciting prospect.!

 

Agreed!

 

Maybe Mary (mother of Jesus) and Mary Magdeline would play a key role in such a revelation.

 

And the idea of women having their own priesthood is not at all far-fetched.  It has been a while since I read it, and I don't have the reference at my fingertips, but I recall when reading the Joseph Smith Papers that when Joseph established the Relief Society, he originally established it as a companion priesthood entity for the women of the Church.  The RS was NOT originally established as an auxiliary organization, but held equal footing with the men.  He even stated that the organization of the Church could not be complete until the women's organization was established.  It was also very commonplace for women to administer blessings for the sick by the laying on of hands in the early days of the Church.

[Calm]

So women's ability to procreate is a priesthood power?

 

Does that mean all animals have the priesthood?

 

I am skeptical of the idea that getting pregnant requires priesthood power.

 

Moreover, are we saying barren women are priesthood-less? That would be logical conclusion.

Perhaps there is something of spiritual power required, unconsciously of course, need to connect the spirit of God's child with the body. Pure speculation, but I've wondered about how it was done and was thinking of this as a possibility. Barren women wouldn't be using it, like a man who didn't give blessings or baptised but still held the Priesthood.