Did Elder Oaks Open The Door For Women To Perform All Priesthood Ordinances?

[ERayR]

Define function.  A lot of church's exist without priesthood. 

 

But the COJCOLDS could not.  The priesthood of God is what legitimizes it.

[ksfisher]

Not really, we could eliminate the R.S., Primary, YW, YM and still function as a Church.  We cannot eliminate Priesthood ordinances and still function.  I don't think we can really compare husband/wife/family to church operations. 

 

Could the church really funtion without those organizations?  Then why do we have them?  If our children were not being taught in primary how to have faith in Christ would there be any need of baptism?  And if a sister was baptized into the church, but had no structure in place to support her in keeping the convenants she made at baptism would that baptism have any worth? 

 

 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one ^abody, whether we be Jews or ^bGentiles, whether we be ^cbond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

 14 For the body is not one member, but many.

 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

 

1 Corinthians 12

[Calm]

Relief Society is described as an appendage.  Do we refer to priesthood quorums as appendages?  Is an appendage equal in authority to the main body?

In one sense everything is an appendage to the Atonement.

[daz2]

The authority of a priest to baptize, administer the sacrament and ordain others is included in the following list:

 

preach, ^bteach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament,

47 And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to ^apray ^bvocally and in secret and attend to all ^cfamily duties.

48 And he may also ^aordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.. . .

But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize,

 

Thus, preaching, teaching, expounding, exhorting, visiting the house of each member and exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to family duties are included in the same list as baptizing, administering the sacrament and ordaining others.

 

In my opinion, when a woman (or man) preaches, teaches, expounds, exhorts, or visits another s/he is performing an authorized priesthood function, whether s/he is ordained to an office or not.  the "key" is whether the Church has authorized or directed that the person perform the function.

 

If those listed duties can be authorized under priesthood keys to be performed to someone other than "priests", I don't see why other listed duties could not be delegated to someone who is not a "priest".

 

That is, I don't see the list as meaning only priests (or those in higher office) can perform those duties.  Often it has been said that males have a duty to be full time missionaries, but women have the opporunity.  Maybe section 20 could be read the same way.  Priests have the duty to perform baptisms, and women (or males who are not priests) have the opporunity.

[ERayR]

That is, I don't see the list as meaning only priests (or those in higher office) can perform those duties.  Often it has been said that males have a duty to be full time missionaries, but women have the opporunity.  Maybe section 20 could be read the same way.  Priests have the duty to perform baptisms, and women (or males who are not priests) have the opporunity.

 

If that is so we have been doing it all wrong.  No, I think it is plain that these ordinances are to be performed by one holding the keys which are received by the laying on of hands.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If that is so we have been doing it all wrong.  No, I think it is plain that these ordinances are to be performed by one holding the keys which are received by the laying on of hands.

Correct. One needs keys to ordain. Were only priesthood authority is delegated when one is called to a certain calling. Sometimes keys are bestowed when one gets a calling.

[ksfisher]

 

If those listed duties can be authorized under priesthood keys to be performed to someone other than "priests", I don't see why other listed duties could not be delegated to someone who is not a "priest".

 

 

 

Just because some of the duties that you listed can be performed by a non priesthood holder does not mean that all can.

 

Compare the following two statements:

 

81 Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.

D&C 88:81

 

Under the direction of the bishopric, priesthood holders bless the sacrament and pass it to members of the congregation during each sacrament meeting.

Handbook 2 20.4.1

[mtomm]

But the COJCOLDS could not.  The priesthood of God is what legitimizes it.

 

Exactly.  If not, then we are just any other church which we claim not to be. 

[ERayR]

Correct. One needs keys to ordain. Were only priesthood authority is delegated when one is called to a certain calling. Sometimes keys are bestowed when one gets a calling.

 

But only those pertaining to that calling. 

[bluebell]

Not really, we could eliminate the R.S., Primary, YW, YM and still function as a Church.  We cannot eliminate Priesthood ordinances and still function.  I don't think we can really compare husband/wife/family to church operations. 

Could the church still function without all the parts?  I don't believe so.  

 

It could still function the same way a body can still function if it has no arms or legs, but would the church be able to accomplish everything that God intends for it to accomplish?  No, each part is necessary for the church to be 'whole' and 'complete' and capable of doing all it needs to do as God's church.

[stemelbow]

But the COJCOLDS could not.  The priesthood of God is what legitimizes it.

 

It'd function as something different than it is.  Same without RS.  It'd function as something different than it is. 

[ERayR]

It'd function as something different than it is.  Same without RS.  It'd function as something different than it is. 

 

My point precisely.  It would function as something different but it would not be the COJCOLDS. 

[Ahab]

It seems to me that in the narrative of the pre-mortal choices there was one where we would be told exactly what to do. As I remember that one was rejected in favor of personal responsibility.

Yeah, you can now make as many bad choices and form as many false beliefs as you want to. That doesn't nean it wouldn't be a good idea to find out what God wants you to think or do or be, though. The choice is yours.

[Ahab]

That is, I don't see the list as meaning only priests (or those in higher office) can perform those duties. Often it has been said that males have a duty to be full time missionaries, but women have the opporunity. Maybe section 20 could be read the same way. Priests have the duty to perform baptisms, and women (or males who are not priests) have the opporunity.

Women have the opportunity only because and when those with the priesthood give them the opportunity, and each priesthood duty is tied to a certain level or office of priesthood authority.

A deacon does not have priesthood authority to baptize someone, for example, but someone with the appropriate priesthood keys can give that teacher the opportunity to baptize by ordaining that teacher to the office of priest, or an even higher office.

[ERayR]

Yeah, you can now make as many bad choices and form as many false beliefs as you want to. That doesn't nean it wouldn't be a good idea to find out what God wants you to think or do or be, though. The choice is yours.

 

Its always a good idea to find out what God wants you to do.  You just have the responsibility to do it yourself (personal revelation).  The only thing is you have to listen to receive.

[Scott Lloyd]

During the April 2014 Priesthood Session, Elder Oaks gave extensive counsel regarding priesthood authority, priesthood power, and priesthood keys.  Very importantly, he stated that the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 do not have authority to extend priesthood ordination to women at this time. 

Correction: He did not say "at this time." That's your own addendum in a paraphrase.

 

You may think that's a little thing. But it is not proper to imply that it will happen at some time in the future when such a thing has never been stated, as it was with blacks receiving the priesthood. That was foregone.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Correction: He did not say "at this time." That's your own addendum in a paraphrase.

 

You may think that's a little thing. But it is not proper to imply that it will happen at some time in the future when such a thing has never been stated, as it was with blacks receiving the priesthood. That was foregone.

 

I didn't quote him at all.  I paraphased.  And my paraphrase stands.  Elder Oaks left open the door that additional keys could be given.  In fact, he referenced keys which he does expect to be given some day, such as the key to resurrection.  The clear implication was that, with additional keys, women could be extended the priesthood.  Thus, my paraphrase stands as accurate. 

 

And let's not rehash the racial priesthood ban again.  The only thing that was foregone there was that all whites would get the priesthood before any blacks did.  I proved that doctrine wrong by being born.  In 1978, I had not been allowed the priesthood because I was too young to qualify.  Yet many previously-cursed men were allowed the authority before me, in controvention of prior doctrine - a change that I celebrate.

[DBMormon]

Actually a change in policy would also require divine approval.

 

Do you believe there has been divine approval for every change in policy over the history of the Church?

[The Nehor]

Do you believe there has been divine approval for every change in policy over the history of the Church?

Almost every one if not all. For something of this magnitude definitely.

[Buckeye]

Almost every one if not all. For something of this magnitude definitely.

 

And to be clear, I was not suggesting this change (i.e., women allowed to conduct priesthood ordiances through the keys held by temple presidents and others) should happen without divine approval. Obviously it would be deliberated and prayed about. My point is that this change would only require divine approval. It would not require the bestowal of additional priesthood keys, which Elder Oaks taught would be necessary in order to formally ordain women to the MP or AP.

[stemelbow]

Almost every one if not all. For something of this magnitude definitely.

 

I think the point remains clear now.  While you believe almost every policy is in place with Divine approval, you simply don't know.  That is the point here.  It is possible that error has crept in unaware.  Thus, the questioning.  Thus, the pushing.

 

It is possible, for instance, that it does not require any different keys to ordain women to the priesthood.  It is also possible it would require different keys than what is in the possession of the Lord's leadership.  Oaks could be right (likely) or Oaks could be wrong. 

[The Nehor]

I think the point remains clear now.  While you believe almost every policy is in place with Divine approval, you simply don't know.  That is the point here.  It is possible that error has crept in unaware.  Thus, the questioning.  Thus, the pushing.

 

It is possible, for instance, that it does not require any different keys to ordain women to the priesthood.  It is also possible it would require different keys than what is in the possession of the Lord's leadership.  Oaks could be right (likely) or Oaks could be wrong.

If correction is needed for an apostle The Lord does not need the help of posters on a message board. He is perfectly capable of steadying his own ark. My concern is that some are so obsessed with finding motes in the talks of apostles that they are ignoring the sanctification they could enjoy by soaking in the truth they share and are thus tripping on snares and slamming their eyes into beams.

[stemelbow]

If correction is needed for an apostle The Lord does not need the help of posters on a message board. He is perfectly capable of steadying his own ark. My concern is that some are so obsessed with finding motes in the talks of apostles that they are ignoring the sanctification they could enjoy by soaking in the truth they share and are thus tripping on snares and slamming their eyes into beams.

 

Perhaps you are ignoring the sanctification you could enjoy if you learned to soak in the truth as it comes while also leaving room for the possibility that another person could be wrong about something--even if that something seems incredibly important to you. 

 

It may be that the Lord wants individuals in His Church to ask tough questions or to consider different possibilities.  Perhaps by so doing He can help to implement more truth that we generally have ignored.  Perhaps by so doing He is more interested in us searching and learning than He is for us to follow imperfect incomplete teaching.   

 

And perhaps I am completely wrong.

[The Nehor]

Perhaps you are ignoring the sanctification you could enjoy if you learned to soak in the truth as it comes while also leaving room for the possibility that another person could be wrong about something--even if that something seems incredibly important to you. 

 

It may be that the Lord wants individuals in His Church to ask tough questions or to consider different possibilities.  Perhaps by so doing He can help to implement more truth that we generally have ignored.  Perhaps by so doing He is more interested in us searching and learning than He is for us to follow imperfect incomplete teaching.   

 

And perhaps I am completely wrong.

Going with the third paragraph here.

[stemelbow]

Going with the third paragraph here.

 

yep.  I put it there just for you.

 

These sometimes pointless arguments bring to my mind a day wherein we all see more clearly.  Oh how wrong we'll all look.  Sure we'll be correct about some things, but we're all going to be surprised.  err...that's my take.  Maybe I'm wrong about that too.