Doctrinal Basis For Men & Priesthood

[wtrdog]

On another forum someone asked a really good question.

 

Is there any Mormon doctrine specifying that full priesthood power/authority is reserved for males?

 

Official Doctrine is defined as:

 

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.

 

So this is good question.  What is the doctrinal basis for the restriction of priesthood only to men?  And let me qualify this.  In my opinion priesthood comes with the authority to arbitrarily decide who receives it.  Simply as a part of having the priesthood I believe the leaders have the authority to decide who gets it, for ANY reason.  So, for example, when they banned blacks from the priesthood, they didn't need extra special permission to do this.  They had the authority to do it already.  And from the Race & Priesthood essay we know this decision wasn't made because of any revelation, but was a purely man-made decision, a policy that was not implemented because of any doctrine but because of cultural and political factors at play.  But this again begs the question, with regards to women, was is the reason?  And note, I say this as someone who doesn't think women should have the priesthood.  I think men and women are very different, and the separation is very sensible in my mind.  However, there's a difference between the opinions of men like myself and official revelation from God.  What is the current policy based on, official revelation, or just the personal opinions of the leaders?

 

 

[JLHPROF]

 What is the current policy based on, official revelation, or just the personal opinions of the leaders?

 

Neither.

In my opinion it's based on precedent.  The precedent in scripture and revelation is that all down through time ecclesiastical (non-temple) priesthood has always been held by men.

 

Some point to the reference to a female Apostle (Junia) in the NT however, that is not without its debate (some translate it as Junias - male, some translate Apostle as Disciple - no priesthood, some say it just means witness of Christ - no priesthood).

 

Other than that scripture and history have always referred to priesthood being given to men, sons, etc.  We just follow that precedent until God tells us to do otherwise.

[CV75]

What is the current policy based on, official revelation, or just the personal opinions of the leaders?

I would say it is based on the nouns and pronouns used in context of addressing priesthood in the aforementioned canon.

[wtrdog]

I would say it is based on the nouns and pronouns used in context of addressing priesthood in the aforementioned canon.

 

Such as?

[theplains]

And from the Race & Priesthood essay we know this decision wasn't made because of any revelation, but was a purely man-made decision, a policy that was not implemented because of any doctrine but because of cultural and political factors at play.

 

Whomever wrote that essay is not familiar with church history. You may want to read the

teachings of a former LDS President.  See this article on scribd. It was the 'Lord' who

gave this revelation.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The real issue is that Preistesshood is never once talked about. That might be a big clue?

[wtrdog]

Whomever wrote that essay is not familiar with church history. You may want to read the

teachings of a former LDS President.  See this article on scribd. It was the 'Lord' who

gave this revelation.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

What is the "this revelation" that you're referring to?

[CV75]

Such as?

Nouns and pronouns such as: man, he, father, son, brethren, etc. The references are too many to mention--run a search of the scriptures with these words along with priest or priesthood.

 

Of course this refers to priesthood conferral and office. Women may also have priesthood power and authority (see how the pronoun "they" is used in D&C 132). There is a thread about this very subject and if I find the link I'll add it.

 

Here you go: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63009-all-are-alike/

Edited April 17, 2014 by CV75

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Neither.

In my opinion it's based on precedent.  The precedent in scripture and revelation is that all down through time ecclesiastical (non-temple) priesthood has always been held by men.

 

Some point to the reference to a female Apostle (Junia) in the NT however, that is not without its debate (some translate it as Junias - male, some translate Apostle as Disciple - no priesthood, some say it just means witness of Christ - no priesthood).

 

Other than that scripture and history have always referred to priesthood being given to men, sons, etc.  We just follow that precedent until God tells us to do otherwise.

Let's examine what the verse says:

Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

​"of note" does not necessarily mean "one of"

  

I believe that Paul was simply meaning to say that because of some notable acts that the Apostles had taken notice of him. But either way Paul refers to Junia as a "kinsMEN".

[theplains]

What is the "this revelation" that you're referring to?

 

See page 185 image in the scribd document.

 

"If a Negro is baptized and remains true and loyal, he will enter the celestial kingdom, but it is

not the authorities of the Church who have placed a restriction on him regarding the holding

of the priesthood. It was not the Prophet Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young. It was the Lord!"

 

This is either confirmed or contradicted in page 111 of The Way to Perfection where it says,

"But we all know it is due to his [Joseph Smith's] teachings that the Negro today is barred from

the Priesthood" (see attached image).

 

Regards,

Jim

[MiserereNobis]

Let's examine what the verse says:

Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

​"of note" does not necessarily mean "one of"

  

I believe that Paul was simply meaning to say that because of some notable acts that the Apostles had taken notice of him. But either way Paul refers to Junia as a "kinsMEN".

 

Let's not forget that apostle has multiple meanings.  In Greek, it simple means "one who is sent forth" or "messenger."  So Andorinicus and Junia can simply be sent forth on a particular ministry.  In Catholicism, we often call things an apostolate, which simply means a ministry.  So yes, Junia could certainly have been a woman, and an "apostle" working her apostolate.  But that doesn't mean she was one of THE Apostles.

[The Nehor]

Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood where the holders become sons of Moses and Aaron. Unless there is a transgender message buried in there this suggests that the covenant is for men. Now this could change later but as it stands the scriptures seem to restrict Priesthood holding to men.

[BCSpace]

​"of note" does not necessarily mean "one of"

 

 

Yeah, I'd probably stick with the scholarship of the ESV's "well known to" rather than the political correctness and presentism of the NRSV's "prominent among".

[Senator]

 

 What is the current policy based on, official revelation, or just the personal opinions of the leaders?

 

Look at my "Rest Assure" OP. 

 

I think that the answer to your question, is that it is a distinction without a difference.

[Gray]

Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood where the holders become sons of Moses and Aaron. Unless there is a transgender message buried in there this suggests that the covenant is for men. Now this could change later but as it stands the scriptures seem to restrict Priesthood holding to men.

 

"Men are that they might have joy."

 

Thus setting the scriptural precedent for banning women from joyfulness. 

[The Nehor]

"Men are that they might have joy."

 

Thus setting the scriptural precedent for banning women from joyfulness. 

 

"Men" "Mankind" "humanity" are sometimes used interchangeably. "Sons" in the Oath and Covenant section is not used that way.

 

Of course I can't give a definitive interpretation of how the scripture you gave should be read. Maybe women are banned from joy? I wouldn't know. I have met a few that seemed happy though. Hmmmmmm.....

[Gray]

"Men" "Mankind" "humanity" are sometimes used interchangeably. "Sons" in the Oath and Covenant section is not used that way.

 

Of course I can't give a definitive interpretation of how the scripture you gave should be read. Maybe women are banned from joy? I wouldn't know. I have met a few that seemed happy though. Hmmmmmm.....

 

Sons and children are often used interchangably

Edited June 9, 2014 by Gray

[The Nehor]

Sons and children are often used interchangably

 

No, not so much. Plus in the Oath and Covenant it uses all masculine pronouns.

[Stone holm]

Always considered the definition of an Apostle to be a special witness of the risen Christ, with the first such noted in the Bible being Mary Magdalene. Was there a special witness noted before her in the Bible?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

There is no doctrinal basis for restricting women from the Priesthood. Just as Joseph Smith ordained black men to the Priesthood and yet it took over a hundred years for it to stick, so too Joseph Smith turned a Priesthood Key to the Relief Society, which we will hopefully be embarrassed into honoring at some point in the near future. Emma Smith was called a Priestess, there is overwhelming evidence in the ancient world for the existence of Priestesshood and feminine divinity, and the only thing stopping us from giving women the Priesthood this afternoon is the cultural inertia we've inherited from the misogynistic asceticism of post-Apostasy Christianity and Western philosophy in general.   

[mfbukowski]

There is no doctrinal basis for restricting women from the Priesthood. Just as Joseph Smith ordained black men to the Priesthood and yet it took over a hundred years for it to stick, so too Joseph Smith turned a Priesthood Key to the Relief Society, which we will hopefully be embarrassed into honoring at some point in the near future. Emma Smith was called a Priestess, there is overwhelming evidence in the ancient world for the existence of Priestesshood and feminine divinity, and the only thing stopping us from giving women the Priesthood this afternoon is the cultural inertia we've inherited from the misogynistic asceticism of post-Apostasy Christianity and Western philosophy in general.   

Does Heavenly Mother have "The Priesthood", or some other priesthood?

 

I have wanted to ask you that.  Do you disagree with the Family Proc. that gender is "essential" to who we are?

 

You seldom answer me- I miss our discussions!   I really would like to know what you think about this stuff.  I think gender roles- like it or not- have evolved over thousands of generations and are hardly about to disappear- or should disappear- "this afternoon" by fiat.

 

I think there are real differences between men and women that need to be celebrated instead of ignored.

Edited June 11, 2014 by mfbukowski

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sorry, bukowski, I've been super busy and haven't had much time for the boards lately. Mea culpa!  

Yes, I think Heavenly Mother has some sort of Priesthood. (You might recall that I think Sophia/Wisdom/Asherah is the female Holy Spirit, which means we're invoking Her a lot more than we realize. I know, I know, I'm a heretic.) I think of Priesthood as the 'authority' to minister to a flock (Priest/Prester/Provost/Presbyterian probably from Greek pres-bous, 'before the cow' = shepherd). (I really disagree with the too-common connotation we have interpolated into our church culture by interpreting 'authority' to mean 'unquestionable'. The only 'authority' in that sense is truth recognized by common consent and persuasion, as D&C 121 says. (Old joke: "Catholics say the Pope is infallible, but none of them really believe it; Mormons say the Prophet is fallible, but none of them really believe it.")

 

I think that the Proclamation is not binding capital-R Revelation; I think that Intelligence is the eternal, 'essential' thing. What would it mean for a spark of Intelligence to have a 'gender'? (This is all hypothetical science-fiction anyway, but the way I see it, if we believe our Intelligence is separable from our bodies, then it seems that we could conceivably inhabit different types of bodies. In other words, I'm still 'me' whether or not my Intelligence is inhabiting a male, female, intersex, short, tall, gay, straight, whatever.) I do recognize differences between the bodies of men and women, and I celebrate those differences. But I don't see why Priesthood has to be tied to gender or gender roles in the first place, especially given the historical fact that it hasn't been. 

[BlueDreams]

On another forum someone asked a really good question.

 

 

Official Doctrine is defined as:

 

 

So this is good question.  What is the doctrinal basis for the restriction of priesthood only to men?  And let me qualify this.  In my opinion priesthood comes with the authority to arbitrarily decide who receives it.  Simply as a part of having the priesthood I believe the leaders have the authority to decide who gets it, for ANY reason.  So, for example, when they banned blacks from the priesthood, they didn't need extra special permission to do this.  They had the authority to do it already.  And from the Race & Priesthood essay we know this decision wasn't made because of any revelation, but was a purely man-made decision, a policy that was not implemented because of any doctrine but because of cultural and political factors at play.  But this again begs the question, with regards to women, was is the reason?  And note, I say this as someone who doesn't think women should have the priesthood.  I think men and women are very different, and the separation is very sensible in my mind.  However, there's a difference between the opinions of men like myself and official revelation from God.  What is the current policy based on, official revelation, or just the personal opinions of the leaders?

 

Well, I'm not sure where to start with this. So this may be all over the place

 

- I don't believe that priesthood comes with the authority to arbitrarily decide who receives it. Can't tell you why, but it it just doesn't sound right. The priesthood is the authority to act in God's name, period. Which IMHO indicates that God needs to be the one to decide how it is used and who uses it. I don't think they just had the inherent right to say, sorry black folk, we don't feel like you should have this anymore. (I also think the ban was inherently wrong...but that's another story)

 

-  I have a problem with how you've worded women's interaction with the priesthood. For one, according to Oak's talk, not even men have full priesthood power and authority....he listed a number of keys that men do not hold.

 

- Also, from what I'm reading women are supposed to have "full" power and authority in our time. And I'm not all fully read or anything....especially to do with history. but what I have read indicates to me that the early perception of priesthood was one of shared benefits. A quarky example: I once stumbled on a bunch of PB's given in the very early church. In them none of the women had a specific lineage given, instead they were promised the blessings of being apart of the house of Israel. Likewise, women would wash, anoint, and bless. The RS was far more distinctive in structure and autonomy that still seen as working in tandem with the goals of the priesthood. These various examples, as well as some more recent comments indicate an idea of women sharing in the priesthood and thus having full power and authority (at least hypothetically). If the priesthood were a house, in a sense, men may have bought the home but the house was equally in both gender's name. Again...hypothetically. I feel that we're a ways away from the full realization of that and is still a work in progress and has been from the get-go of the restoration. There are things that I personally feel should/could come back and there are things that will yet be revealed.     

 

- for this, parallel and integrative work of men and women with the priesthood, I feel you can find scripture support for it (again a parallel, intertwining saving role shared by men and women). This includes the description of Adam and Eve in Genesis. I enjoy 1 Nephi 11 for it's descriptor of the tree of life and abject parallel to Mary in it's imagery (the full pic of the tree of life is Mary + Christ). Or Moses 6:59-60 with Christ's atonement paralleling the process of birth. I even see it in the stories of women, like Huldah, who's specific role was needed to further the work of God in society.    

 

- so the current policy.... probably a bit of both. I don't really see any strong evidence that women are supposed to be ordained in the same manner as men. I do see evidence that the role played should be more expansive and integrative and what was there, has been eroded over time. I do believe that what is currently happening, is occuring in part from prayer and revelation by leaders for greater insight and guidance on this matter. To say that's not influences by their personal opinions isn't possibly IMHO.

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Stone holm]

Does Heavenly Mother have "The Priesthood", or some other priesthood?

 

I have wanted to ask you that.  Do you disagree with the Family Proc. that gender is "essential" to who we are?

 

You seldom answer me- I miss our discussions!   I really would like to know what you think about this stuff.  I think gender roles- like it or not- have evolved over thousands of generations and are hardly about to disappear- or should disappear- "this afternoon" by fiat.

 

I think there are real differences between men and women that need to be celebrated instead of ignored.

Gender roles? So they have evolved from property to something no longer property for women. And are women then defined by the nature of their sexual roles? Men to impregnate women and women to bear babies? Odd how the latter is thought noble, and the other....

[Gray]

No, not so much. Plus in the Oath and Covenant it uses all masculine pronouns.

 

Example:

 

http://biblehub.com/luke/20-36.htm

 

for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

 

Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

 

http://biblehub.com/greek/uioi_5207.htm

 

Scriptures commonly use masculine pronouns to refer to both genders. Even if that weren't true, the use of one pronoun does not exclude the opposite gender