Oaks' New Paradigm: Keys Of Priestesshood?

[MiserereNobis]

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

 

Man, an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the LDS church would be quite an interesting event.  I wonder what the Mormon cultural implications would be?  A Mormon cult of Mary... intriguing

 

The EV's would love you for it, ha!

[Senator]

Man, an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the LDS church would be quite an interesting event.  I wonder what the Mormon cultural implications would be?  A Mormon cult of Mary... intriguing

 

The EV's would love you for it, ha!

 

These days an apparition of anyone/thing in the LDS church would be quite an interesting event.

 

Unfortunately, unless it appeared before many eyes at once, we will never know of any such event because it will be to sacred to talk about. 

Edited April 9, 2014 by Senator

[MiserereNobis]

These days an apparition of anyone/thing in the LDS church would be quite an interesting event.

 

Unfortunately, unless it appeared before many eyes at once, we will never know of any such event because it will be to sacred to talk about. 

 

That's too bad.  I appreciate that visitations from Heavenly beings are considered faith-boosting for us Catholics, especially since those apparitions often give teachings that we need.  Of course, the Church has a protocol in place to determine whether those visions and apparitions are worthy of belief, which is important.

[Disciple?]

Reading over Elder Oak's talk it leaves a few questions in my mind. Namely, why can't women be given authority - through the keys - to perform ordinances? He makes a great argument that women do have Priesthood authority. For example, sister missionaries are given authority to preach the gospel, In that same vein, nothing should exclude them from having the authority to baptize. Per multiple lds.org sources, ordinances are only required to be done by the authority of the Priesthood.

[Tacenda]

..OR, it's amazing that we do recognize how women actually do not hold the priesthood and have to start making up silly theories of how they do.

Well, I read today that they were giving PH blessings up until the 1940's, so maybe they do!

[David T]

Well, I read today that they were giving PH blessings up until the 1940's, so maybe they do!

They were giving healing blessings, but they did not actually invoke the Priesthood. They were done in the Name of Jesus Christ by virtue of their Baptism, and the spiritual Gift of Healing they believed they had access to through the Gift of the Holy Ghost. But you are right in that other than the stated authority, they were exactly practically like what we see as a 'Priesthood Blessing' to day.

 

When asked about this practice of the women, Joseph Smith applauded it, and encouraged it in a Relief Society meeting.

 

This is a practice I believe Oaks' talk has re-opened the door to.

Edited April 9, 2014 by David T

[David T]

I just read Sheri Dew's Chapter 6 in Women and the Priesthood, which Elder Oaks recommended in his footnote. A LOT of his material appears to be drawn from her systematization. She actually quotes him a lot.It's an interesting cycle, with each playing off each other, and refining each others' thoughts.  And she actually cited a 1992 message from Oaks suggesting that the permission to bless was, somewhat like the early Baptisms for the Dead outside the Temple, preparatory to the ordinance being, in his words, "confined within those temples". Not sure whether he thought that post-Temple participation was incorrect or not. It is interesting that some outside-of-the-temple ordinances began with inside-the-temple ordiances. We were anointing in the [Kirtland] Temple before we were doing anointing as part of blessings outside the Temple. The revealed Temple program provided a pattern that was applied outside.

 

I think that Chapter in Dew's book is a good place to look for some revisions of rhetoric we may see in the Church. She also discusses the Oath and Covenant, noting that the second half referring to 'recieving' the priesthood has reference to accepting the priesthood, and not being ordained to it. This is an observation I'd made a while ago, and even more recently heard Elder Pieper (who is in charge of curriculum for the Church) state that especially with all the Sister Missionaries out there, the old understanding of the O&C being related specifically to men  needed to be clarified in the Church. I would not be very surprised if we see this be the focus of a forthcoming lesson/conference address.

Edited April 9, 2014 by David T

[Stone holm]

Reading over Elder Oak's talk it leaves a few questions in my mind. Namely, why can't women be given authority - through the keys - to perform ordinances? He makes a great argument that women do have Priesthood authority. For example, sister missionaries are given authority to preach the gospel, In that same vein, nothing should exclude them from having the authority to baptize. Per multiple lds.org sources, ordinances are only required to be done by the authority of the Priesthood.

 

Listened to the talk again over lunch.  Its primarily a semantical argument.  I don't think you can resolve the issue with semantics -- while it is true that certain authority is delegated by the person holding the keys, still the Priesthood is bestowed upon men and not women which in a very significant way excludes women from a whole variety of activities.  The brief excursion into Victorian gender role stereotyping is going to leave a fair number of women cold.  Is the creative power strictly the woman's domain?  Not really, at least the last time I heard the birds and bees explained it wasn't.

[Disciple?]

Listened to the talk again over lunch.  Its primarily a semantical argument.  I don't think you can resolve the issue with semantics -- while it is true that certain authority is delegated by the person holding the keys, still the Priesthood is bestowed upon men and not women which in a very significant way excludes women from a whole variety of activities.  The brief excursion into Victorian gender role stereotyping is going to leave a fair number of women cold.  Is the creative power strictly the woman's domain?  Not really, at least the last time I heard the birds and bees explained it wasn't.

 

From the talk, "Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities." Women are going to take that as him telling them to know their role.

[Bikeemikey]

These days an apparition of anyone/thing in the LDS church would be quite an interesting event.

Unfortunately, unless it appeared before many eyes at once, we will never know of any such event because it will be to sacred to talk about.

Where did that idea come from? Too sacred to talk about?

Was it the way joseph smith never told anyone about his visions?

Sounds like a convienet way to avoiding fessing up to a lack thereof to me.

When I have a vision I'm going to Instagram that fashizzle!!!

Think how much easier missionary work would be if JS had an iphone in the grove!!!

Edited April 10, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

From the talk, "Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities." Women are going to take that as him telling them to know their role.

How easily that comes from the lips of a Priesthoodholder.

[Stone holm]

Where did that idea come from? Too sacred to talk about?

Was it the way joseph smith never told anyone about his visions?

Sounds like a convienet way to avoiding fessing up to a lack thereof to me.

When I have a vision I'm going to Instagram that fashizzle!!!

Think how much easier missionary work would be if JS had an iphone in the grove!!!

No. I think you err in that Mike. It is often said that such visitations are sacred things. I would not anticipate as our Catholic friends though that it would be the Madonna, would expect it rather to be Mary Magdalene.

[Calm]

From the talk, "Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities." Women are going to take that as him telling them to know their role.

The advice applies to men as much as women. And it is wisdom to learn what part in life God would have you play.

The question is what are one's responsibilities. That may not always be easy to figure out.

[mfbukowski]

They were giving healing blessings, but they did not actually invoke the Priesthood. They were done in the Name of Jesus Christ by virtue of their Baptism, and the spiritual Gift of Healing they believed they had access to through the Gift of the Holy Ghost. But you are right in that other than the stated authority, they were exactly practically like what we see as a 'Priesthood Blessing' to day.

 

When asked about this practice of the women, Joseph Smith applauded it, and encouraged it in a Relief Society meeting.

 

This is a practice I believe Oaks' talk has re-opened the door to.

Having known this, my wife has stood in with me on blessing my kids.  

[mtomm]

Having known this, my wife has stood in with me on blessing my kids.  

 

Wouldn't it be nice to better explain to priesthood holders that this is an option.  I could try to explain this to my husband but I'm pretty sure he'd be less than impressed.  The instruction that it is optional would have to come from a man errr a priesthood leader.  

[Stone holm]

The advice applies to men as much as women. And it is wisdom to learn what part in life God would have you play.

The question is what are one's responsibilities. That may not always be easy to figure out.

But you would agree that roles are being assigned, and the assignment of roles is being channeled through the holders of the keys, I guess that works in a two car family.

[Calm]

"the assignment of roles is being channeled through the holders "

You will have to specify what roles because beyond mother and father, I've seen a lot of variations that function just fine including in a spiritual sense.

[Stone holm]

"the assignment of roles is being channeled through the holders "

You will have to specify what roles because beyond mother and father, I've seen a lot of variations that function just fine including in a spiritual sense.

 

Aren't they the triple K?  Kitchen, Kids, and Kindergarten?  Women get to exercise the Priesthood authority with the Sisters, their children, and Primary...did I miss a memo?  Theirs is the role of bearing children, tending the home, and leading other women where the Priesthood directs them to be led.  They need to focus on their responsibilities ... how did that old Greyhound jingle go " .... and leave the driving to us " as the Priesthood has the keys to the car so to speak.

[mfbukowski]

Wouldn't it be nice to better explain to priesthood holders that this is an option.  I could try to explain this to my husband but I'm pretty sure he'd be less than impressed.  The instruction that it is optional would have to come from a man errr a priesthood leader.  

I knew it because the spirit told me.  I didn't have instructions.  Anyone can say a prayer while touching someone's head.

 

Historically sisters did it all the time.

[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.  

 

Yeah I agree with you.  I wonder how men would feel if they were told their primary role was a creative role fulfilled in impregnating women.  Why does the idea of impregnating women not sound quiet so beautiful and noble a responsibility that we should be focused upon...