Doctrinal Basis For Men & Priesthood

[smac97]

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.

"Arbitrarily?" As in "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion?"

I think the criteria for priesthood ordination are divinely given, and the Church is bound to adhere to those instructions.

 

Simply as a part of having the priesthood I believe the leaders have the authority to decide who gets it, for ANY reason.

With respect, I do not think that is correct. The Brethren have discretion on all sorts of things, but they are always bound by instructions from God, and by an obligation to exercise their discretionary authority with prudence and reason.

 

So, for example, when they banned blacks from the priesthood, they didn't need extra special permission to do this.

The Church has stated that it has virtually no information about the origins of the priesthood ban. But to the extent you suggest that they were at liberty to arbitrarily withhold it, I cannot agree to that.  

 

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.

Actually, the article does not say this. To the contrary, the new headnote to the OD-2 specifically states that "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of" the race-based restrictions on the priesthood.

 

That is not to say that your is an unreasonable inference (frankly, that could be what happened), but I think it's an overreach to say that the Church has arrived at the conclusion that the ban "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."  It hasn't.

 

But this again begs the question, with regards to women, was is the reason?

I think Elder Oaks' talk during the last General Conference merits discussion.  Here are a few excerpts to get the ball rolling:

 

Every act or ordinance performed in the Church is done under the direct or indirect authorization of one holding the keys for that function.

 

With the exception of the sacred work that sisters do in the temple under the keys held by the temple president, which I will describe hereafter, only one who holds a priesthood office can officiate in a priesthood ordinance. 

 

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.

 

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 policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.

 

Thus, it is truly said that Relief Society is not just a class for women but something they belong to—a divinely established appendage to the priesthood.

 

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities.

 

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood. But, as various Church leaders have emphasized, men are not “the priesthood.”

 

In the eyes of God, whether in the Church or in the family, women and men are equal, with different responsibilities.

Also, I started a nearly identical thread back in 2013: What Is The Scriptural Basis For Limiting The Priesthood To Males?  In this post I provided a number of scriptures pertaining to gender-based restrictions on the priesthood.

 

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?

See above. Please also consider a previous posting by me:

The priesthood ban did not have an apparent revelatory/doctrinal basis (except for an extrapolated, and fairly tendentious, reading of a verse in The Book of Abraham). So those Brethren who attempted to explain the origins of the priesthood ban or justify its existence from a doctrinal standpoint did so by going out on a doctrinal limb, so to speak. This is why Elder McConkie stated as follows (speaking of prior explanations for the ban): "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

In contrast, there is a much more substantial scriptural/doctrinal basis for limiting the priesthood to men. So the distinction between the current understanding/explanation of gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination and previous understandings/explanations of race-based restrictions on priesthood ordination is quite on point.

[smac97]

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.

"Precedent" and "divine instruction" are not mutually exclusive. Isn't it possible that the reason the precedent exists is because the restriction is from God?

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.

I agree with this sentiment, but I disagree with your earlier sentiment rejecting the restriction as not being based on revelation, and is instead based on "precedent." These are not mutually exclusive categories.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Look at my "Rest Assure" OP. 

 

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

The distinction between revelation from God and personal opinion is "without a difference?" Come again?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

There is no doctrinal basis for restricting women from the Priesthood.

Yes, there is.

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.

With respect, I disagree. As I have said previously, the priesthood ban did not have an apparent revelatory/doctrinal basis (except for an extrapolated, and fairly tendentious, reading of a verse in The Book of Abraham). So those Brethren who attempted to explain the origins of the priesthood ban or justify its existence from a doctrinal standpoint did so by going out on a doctrinal limb, so to speak. This is why Elder McConkie stated as follows (speaking of prior explanations for the ban): "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." In contrast, there is a much more substantial scriptural/doctrinal basis for limiting the priesthood to men. So the distinction between the current understanding/explanation of gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination and previous understandings/explanations of race-based restrictions on priesthood ordination is quite on point.

Thank you,

-Smac

[smac97]

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.

CFR, if you please. I think this is a very bold statement, and one that is not easily substantiated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

The distinction between revelation from God and personal opinion is "without a difference?" Come again?

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeh, perhaps I didn't phrase that right. 

 

Irrelevant would be more to what I was trying to say.

[smac97]

- 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.

Ditto. A person's righteous use of his reasoning and discretionary authority is fine by me, but "arbitrary" (as in "capricious; unreasonable; unsupported") rings a sour note with me.

The RS was far more distinctive in structure and autonomy that still seen as working in tandem with the goals of the priesthood.

All of the groups in the Church (Relief Society, High Priests Groups, Sunday School, wards, stakes, etc.) had more autonomy in the past than they do now. Wards and stakes could previously own property and operate businesses (see for example, the Sharon's Cultural, Educational, Recreational Association ("SCERA") in Orem, Utah, which was a nonprofit entity owned by an LDS stake and which owned a park, a swimming pool, and a movie theater - http://www.orem.org/index.php/historical-sites/scera-theater).

Here is an excellent article summarizing the Church's correlation efforts: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Correlation_of_the_Church_Administration

And another: https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-forty-three-an-era-of-correlation-and-consolidation?lang=eng

The changes brought about by the Church's correlation efforts did not target the Relief Society and women in particular. Every subpart of the Church was affected.

Thank you,

-Smac

[smac97]

Yeh, perhaps I didn't phrase that right. 

 

Irrelevant would be more to what I was trying to say.

The distinction between revelation from God and personal opinion is "irrelevant?" Come again?

I think there can be huge differences between the two. Elder McConkie would back me up on that, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

The distinction between revelation from God and personal opinion is "irrelevant?" Come again?

I think there can be huge differences between the two. Elder McConkie would back me up on that, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

My remark was in regard to our individual response and position to the authorities (those that hold the keys).  In the end, what wit does it matter whether we think their decisions and actions are inspired, or mere opinions? We are to sustain them regardless.

[Nofear]

I think the idea of needing a "doctrinal" basis for the male gender requirement for priesthood is somewhat of a red herring. The Lord is responsible for restricting the priesthood to whatever group he wishes. He sets the requirements, they have and can change, and gender is and always has been only a component. For example, once the priesthood was limited only to a certain ethnic lineage (Israel) and then for a time only a subset of that lineage (Levi). Now the inclusive group is much larger (still limited to Israel but we "adopt" people into it) but being male is only a part of the requirements currently in place (worthiness, membership in the Church, age, etc.). Do we have a "doctrinal" basis for teachers being eligible at 14 or priests at 16?

 

Suffice it to say the various restrictions/requirements can, have, and do change according to the will of the Lord. It is entirely possible the Lord will change things but until his revelators reveal a change we aren't at liberty to do so and no amount of clamor for "historical precedent" or other ruckus can change that. History may inform but it does not define a living Church.

[Nofear]

My remark was in regard to our individual response and position to the authorities (those that hold the keys).  In the end, what wit does it matter whether we think their decisions and actions are inspired, or mere opinions? We are to sustain them regardless.

 

If my bishop says over the pulpit to drink grapefruit juice daily because it is healthy and I don't does that mean I have failed to sustain? I would venture to say the answer depends on whether or not the counsel was inspired or merely an opinion.

[JLHPROF]

 

Suffice it to say the various restrictions/requirements can, have, and do change according to the will of the Lord. It is entirely possible the Lord will change things but until his revelators reveal a change we aren't at liberty to do so and no amount of clamor for "historical precedent" or other ruckus can change that. History may inform but it does not define a living Church.

 

At the same time it's important to remember that God himself is bound by eternal law and principle, else he would cease to be God.

If Priesthood is simply something that God bestows (like his permission to do something) then it can change.  If priesthood roles as they relate to gender are eternal then even God can't change them.

 

But as the temple shows very clearly that women have priesthood anyway  and will into the eternities all this quibbling over a couple of specific offices they don't hold during mortality should be the least of our worries.

[halconero]

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".

 

The Greek is more ambiguous, which is the original language of the New Testament. "Of note" is derived from ἐπίσημος meaning "notable" in modern English. Furthermore, we shouldn't read the English word "kinsmen" as having to do with anything concerning sex, given that συγγενής simply means "relative."

[bluebell]

If my bishop says over the pulpit to drink grapefruit juice daily because it is healthy and I don't does that mean I have failed to sustain? I would venture to say the answer depends on whether or not the counsel was inspired or merely an opinion.

 

More than issues of inspired or opinion, it probably has to do with whether or not the counsel covers your bishop's stewardship over you.  We sustain our leaders in their callings, not in everything they say or do.

 

[Nofear]

More than issues of inspired or opinion, it probably has to do with whether or not the counsel covers your bishop's stewardship over you.  We sustain our leaders in their callings, not in everything they say or do.

 

 

Of course, we wouldn't typically expect him to say an inspired counsel if it was outside his stewardship; but I agree that your formulation is more accurate.

[Senator]

If my bishop says over the pulpit to drink grapefruit juice daily because it is healthy and I don't does that mean I have failed to sustain? I would venture to say the answer depends on whether or not the counsel was inspired or merely an opinion.

 

I had heard it said, when Pres Hinckley challenged every member to read the BofM, that they would be spiritually blessed, that those who did not do so did not sustain the Prophet.

 

I don't know......what does it mean to you to "sustain"?

[mfbukowski]

Hey Jeremy

I started a reply but no time to finish it- I will get back to you- I posted the unfinished one so you probably have it in your email

Edited June 11, 2014 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

My remark was in regard to our individual response and position to the authorities (those that hold the keys).  In the end, what wit does it matter whether we think their decisions and actions are inspired, or mere opinions? We are to sustain them regardless.

Well, I'm not so sure. See here:

 

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 203.

I agree that we sustain the Brethren generally, but I am not sure the concept of sustaining them extends to accepting their "mere opinions" which conflict with the scriptures, AKA "the measuring yardsticks . . . by which we measure every man's doctrine." When that happens, I think "we need not accept" such opinions, which can be "set ... aside."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 11, 2014 by smac97