Reasons Wrongly Given Why Women Don't Have The Priesthood

[Stone holm]

Let's leave the temple -- you know, that main source of knowledge pertaining to the things of God that can enable us to actually understand the whole priesthood and priestesshood thing -- and let's look instead to the "real world" for the answers. After all, I'm not happy that I just found out women are ordained to be priestesses in the temple. And why am I not happy? Because priestesshood isn't good enough. It's not fair that women are ordained to be "only" mere priestesses; I want them to be ordained priests, exactly like the men. Nothing else will do for me and my progressive comrades. And besides, the whole ordination to priestesshood thing tends undermine OW, making them look ignorant and poorly informed. This cannot stand! (sarcasm off)

If you say so. Personally don't think the Temple ceremonies are what are governing the Brethren's thinking regarding the keys of authority here. And, I have never actually said that I felt that the solution to the inequality issue was to ordain women to the same Priesthood as men. The possibility that the Priestesshood has significance outside the Temple in the mortal world though is something worth discussing, rather than just assigning its significance to the Temple and the hereafter.

[teddyaware]

If you say so. Personally don't think the Temple ceremonies are what are governing the Brethren's thinking regarding the keys of authority here. And, I have never actually said that I felt that the solution to the inequality issue was to ordain women to the same Priesthood as men. The possibility that the Priestesshood has significance outside the Temple in the mortal world though is something worth discussing, rather than just assigning its significance to the Temple and the hereafter.

I admire and appreciate your calm and measured response. I can definitely learn something from you in how to properly comport myself on this board.

Nevertheless, if there already is an extent ordinance in operation for the ordination of women to the holy priestesshood, then it seems highly unlikely there's ever going to be a revelation that overturns the existing order of things so as to ordain women to the order of priesthood held only by men in all the previous ages and dispensations of the Gospel. Why would there need to be? After all, LDS women already possess all the endowments of power they need in order to be saved and exalted as queens and priestesses in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. It appears Kate missed this all-important point, so now she's gotten herself in trouble by looking beyond the mark and loudly barking up the wrong tree.

Edited June 26, 2014 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

The problem with that argument is that it is also true of men.  What we are talking about here is access to the keys of authority in this life outside the Temple.  There is little or no recognition of any "Priestesshood" for women outside the Temple.  All decisions regarding policy of the Church, are made by men.  Even issues as important as the recent guideline published as a proclamation on the family was never even run by the Relief Society leadership for approval.  Some have suggested that authority in the Church only became so rigidly Patriarchal with the advent of the Priesthood Correlation program, and that before that the Relief Society was much more autonomous.  Some on this thread have even suggested that the Relief Society is in actuality a Quorum.  I assume then that the YW's might be somewhat analogous to the AP.  In which case, exactly how many steps or changes would it really require to move to a more open recognition of the Priestesshood in mortality, and to a much greater discussion of Heavenly Mother(s) and her (their) role in governing Creation?

[JLHPROF]

The problem with that argument is that it is also true of men.  What we are talking about here is access to the keys of authority in this life outside the Temple.  There is little or no recognition of any "Priestesshood" for women outside the Temple.  All decisions regarding policy of the Church, are made by men.  Even issues as important as the recent guideline published as a proclamation on the family was never even run by the Relief Society leadership for approval.  Some have suggested that authority in the Church only became so rigidly Patriarchal with the advent of the Priesthood Correlation program, and that before that the Relief Society was much more autonomous.  Some on this thread have even suggested that the Relief Society is in actuality a Quorum.  I assume then that the YW's might be somewhat analogous to the AP.  In which case, exactly how many steps or changes would it really require to move to a more open recognition of the Priestesshood in mortality, and to a much greater discussion of Heavenly Mother(s) and her (their) role in governing Creation?

 

This whole argument is SO American - "no taxation without representation".  We'll have the Boston Tea Party next...

 

The fact that God has priesthood authority, keys, and blessings sufficient to ensure both men and women their exaltation isn't enough.  Just because God has established that his Sons should preside over his Daughters, it just can't be right or fair because in the last 40 years of this mortal existence we have decided we have to be absolutely the same and equal.  Ridiculous.  He grants both the same eventual blessings with a slight difference in roles and duties getting there.  So what?

 

"Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." - Joseph Smith

Edited June 26, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Zakuska]

That makes sense to me, and applies to all men and women regardless of religious affiliation or temple worthiness.

 

However, the meaning of "priesthood" in that sense strikes me as quite different from the ministrative sense we commonly use it in the Church, and have been using it here--where there are formal ordinations (laying on of hands) on earth of those who are qualified and under the direction of those with appropriate keys.

 

In other words, you may be using the term "priesthood" here idiosyncratically. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I wouldn't say "idiosyncratic".

 

The powers of procreation are inextricably intertwined and woven into the tapestry of Priesthood Authority. Think of what is said at the veil Wade.

 

In a church context. Women nor Men are aloud to use these powers until they are endowed, and then only between lawfully wedded spouses,.

 

Yes there are exceptions. people being married prior to getting endowed or sealed. But the Ideal and recommended/preferable/easier way is the other way around.

 

Dawning the clothing of Priests and Priestesses is just a formality and a symbol of something we already have. What women in the church don't have are keys in the priesthood. (Which I think is a shame) But this doesn't mean they have no Priesthood at all, otherwise they would have no Power in the Priesthood to procreate for eternity.

 

 

This may be a policy that post-dates my years in singles Wards since the RS Presidents I knew back then were neither married, and some were not endowed.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Also, In New Branches, SIster Missionaries fill the role as Well.

 

It isn't manditory but preffered. How can a single sister, not knowing the intricacies and dynamics of marriage relationships,  council a married women who she presides over? Even Paul mentions this that the Younger Sisters should seek Council from the Older more experienced, preferably Married women in the Congregation. There are special circumstances  such as a singles ward I do realize that.

 

The problem with that argument is that it is also true of men.  What we are talking about here is access to the keys of authority in this life outside the Temple.  There is little or no recognition of any "Priestesshood" for women outside the Temple.  All decisions regarding policy of the Church, are made by men.  Even issues as important as the recent guideline published as a proclamation on the family was never even run by the Relief Society leadership for approval.  Some have suggested that authority in the Church only became so rigidly Patriarchal with the advent of the Priesthood Correlation program, and that before that the Relief Society was much more autonomous.  Some on this thread have even suggested that the Relief Society is in actuality a Quorum.  I assume then that the YW's might be somewhat analogous to the AP.  In which case, exactly how many steps or changes would it really require to move to a more open recognition of the Priestesshood in mortality, and to a much greater discussion of Heavenly Mother(s) and her (their) role in governing Creation?

 

And yet women wear the same Priestly clothing men do both inside the temple and out. Is not a Ward building a miniature temple?  Are not Stake houses used as temples during temple dedications?

 

I mentioned this earlier. YW Behives, Larels and Madrigals could be quickly and easily organized as a Quorum (They basically already are, just not in Name) Wards could alternate between Boys and Girls Quorums for passing the Sacrament. They could even mix it up and have Girl Priests and Boy Deacons one week, or vice versa.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Zakuska

[Stone holm]

Slight difference in roles?  Like one gender is excluded from holding any of the keys in mortality, so priesthood keys are now a "slight" thing?  I don't think anyone is willing to go down that road, not even Dalin Oaks.

[mtomm]

Slight difference in roles?  Like one gender is excluded from holding any of the keys in mortality, so priesthood keys are now a "slight" thing?  I don't think anyone is willing to go down that road, not even Dalin Oaks.

 

  Heavenly Mother's role is so slight we don't even know what it is.

[ELF1024]

  Heavenly Mother's role is so slight we don't even know what it is.

I would disagree with the world "Slight". Perhaps better would be... "not relevant to our moral existance". There is so much about Eternal Progression we don't know, and in many ways, really don't need to know at this time. It is possible, even likley, that her role is critical to our own Eternal Progression both pre- and post- Earth, however it is not relevant to us at the moment.

 

That doesn't mean her role is slight, nor that her role is unimportant in an Eternal Sense, just not relevant to our current trial.

Edited June 26, 2014 by ELF1024

[Stone holm]

Hm?  And here I thought we don't talk about Her because it would be offensive in some way.  Was She excluded from the Temple by King Josiah?  Or was that someone else?

[Tacenda]

I'm going to go way out on a limb and it's a thin limb, but maybe it looks bad on the church to believe in a Heavenly Mother because that's not your average Christian theology. In the early church she was talked about, if memory serves, from reading quotes in history.

[JLHPROF]

I'm going to go way out on a limb and it's a thin limb, but maybe it looks bad on the church to believe in a Heavenly Mother because that's not your average Christian theology. In the early church she was talked about, if memory serves, from reading quotes in history.

 

She was talked about a lot.  Eliza R. Snow, Brigham Young and many others talked about her.  (Of course, they called her Eve).

[Guest]

To save time, it may be convenient to have a thread where a list of reasons people give why women don't have the priesthood is compiled. The only officially correct reason we have at the moment is "we don't know, God currently set it up that way" (though many contend the latter point -- I personally do not).

 

I can start:

• Women are naturally tend to be more righteous then men; priesthood helps men be more spiritual like women.
• Priesthood is to men as motherhood is to women.

Other reasons, exposition, examples, disagreement, etc.?

Thousands of years of history and not a single example in every book considered scripture.

[Stone holm]

She was talked about a lot.  Eliza R. Snow, Brigham Young and many others talked about her.  (Of course, they called her Eve).

Actually not sure whether my statement should have read Her or Them.

[Nofear]

Thousands of years of history and not a single example in every book considered scripture.

 

I agree that historical precedent is not a reason. Might be a clue that a reason potentially exists, but not a reason in unto itself.

[JLHPROF]

Women do not hold Priesthood keys.  Period.  They are not bearers of the Priesthood.  It can be said that they exercise under the power of the Priesthood when they fulfill duties and callings that function under Priesthood keys of others.  But they themselves do not hold the Priesthood or Priesthood keys.

 

This is just false.  

 

Women do not hold the Priesthood.  And they are not ordained.  They are not Elders.  She does not hold more Priesthood than the brethren of the Aaronic Priesthood.

 

A man who is ordained to the Priesthood, either Aaronic or Melchizedek, does not receive Priesthood keys with that ordination.  I think you guys are using the word "keys" incorrectly.  Priesthood keys are only given to Priesthood holders with certain callings- Stake President, Bishop, Elders Quorum President, Teachers Quorum President, Deacons Quorum President, Mission President, Temple President, Apostle.

 

Where are you getting this stuff?  This is pure false doctrine.

 

Sorry, but this is incorrect.  There are offices to which women are ordained (not just set apart).

I MIGHT be willing to concede your definition of the word "keys", but that does not mean women don't have any priesthood authority.  Any endowed woman has enough priesthood authority to part the veil, detect evil, and receive exaltation as a Goddess.  She has all the same signs, tokens and keywords of the priesthood as any man.  She wears the same clothing symbolic of her priesthood as a man wears symbolic of his.  The fact that she isn't an Elder or Apostle is completely irrelevant to her path to Godhood.

[Stone holm]

Sorry, but this is incorrect.  There are offices to which women are ordained (not just set apart).

I MIGHT be willing to concede your definition of the word "keys", but that does not mean women don't have any priesthood authority.  Any endowed woman has enough priesthood authority to part the veil, detect evil, and receive exaltation as a Goddess.  She has all the same signs, tokens and keywords of the priesthood as any man.  She wears the same clothing symbolic of her priesthood as a man wears symbolic of his.  The fact that she isn't an Elder or Apostle is completely irrelevant to her path to Godhood.

Ever since Dalin Oaks exercise in semantics, I have tried to clearly reference keys.

[juliann]

Back to the OP,

 

1.  Women=motherhood, men=priesthood.  This would, of course, mean any woman giving birth, no matter what her religion, marital,  or spiritual state, is "equal" to the priesthood. This doesn't point to the legitimacy of the claim, only that discourse about women is so limited and undeveloped no one has bothered to fill in all the holes in this statement.

 

2.  Women and men would be the "same" if they all had the priesthood.  Sameness is becomes the problem rather than the absurdity of the proposition.

 

3. As mentioned, priesthood's purpose is to make men equal to women. Besides the fact that the priesthood is God's power and authority, not a crutch for lazy people, it defies the reality that men who do not have it are not do nothings by nature.  Since this defies human history where men have been in power and control.... and all other religions run by men without the priesthood, it can only mean Mormonism produces worthless men and then has to fix them.

 

4. Anyone who desires the priesthood (like Abraham and every 12 yr. old boy) is power hungry.  I don't think this one even needs comment.

 

5.  Priesthood isn't that big of a deal, it means you have to lift heavy boxes and stack chairs.  As in, the women have it easy and we certainly wouldn't consider doing any of the woman's work if responsibilities were realigned so you better watch out what you ask for, we will make sure you will regret it.

 

6. Women and men are equally important. That is nonresponsive to a situation where women are vastly outnumbered in decision making levels.  One can make a case whether that matters, but it is a loser of a starting position on it's own.

 

7.  Women can give advice and have influence. Well, if they are asked or invited or happen to hold one of the few positions where they are part of a council, or if they are married to a decision maker.  Again, one can argue whether that matters but not that this situation exists.

 

Because no one seems to have continued these reasons to their illogical end, we are finding ourselves in situations where our own explanations begin to butt heads.  The strangest one is the insistence that women are superior,  so different from men that they have a unique and vital perspective and moral authority...which then runs head long into the reality that women are not at every level in church hierarchies to dispense it.

Edited June 28, 2014 by juliann

[Zakuska]

Back to the OP,

 

1.  Women=motherhood, men=priesthood.  This would, of course, mean any woman giving birth, no matter what her religion, marital,  or spiritual state, is "equal" to the priesthood. This doesn't point to the legitimacy of the claim, only that discourse about women is so limited and undeveloped no one has bothered to fill in all the holes in this statement.

 

 

As far as Number 1 is concerned. Both men and Women are given half of the power. And thus are Equal. Neither one can create life with out the other. The woman's body has the ability to create life but needs the man to start the process. This fertility aspect of the priesthood runs throughout the entire temple experience. And is symbolized by a specific piece of clothing. Think of whats said at the veil.

 

Since women must nurse the child and nurture it (they have the equipment to do that after all), Men go out hunting with their guns to bring the food back for survival. This part of the Priesthood is now just basic common sense roles.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Zakuska

[why me]

If christ would have had women as part of his 12 apostles I don't think that we would be having this thread. It seems that christ has set the agenda for men and women and their role in his church from the very beginning. Imagine if christ had women as apostles, lets say 50-50. It would have set a wonderful example of equality but it did not happen and so, we are having this thread.

 

Also, I am sure that the apostles were married because of the cultural tradition of that time but we hear nothing of their wives. Nor children. In fact, family life is very rarely mentioned in the bible among the 12 and other men. And we know very little of Mary and Joseph and their marriage. Of course, the bible was written for strengthening faith and maybe this was not considered important. I am sure that th bible writer's knew something of their marriage. So, we have a problem with women and the priesthood. We can also say that the new testament was written by men. That may have something to do with it too. .

[Zakuska]

If christ would have had women as part of his 12 apostles I don't think that we would be having this thread. It seems that christ has set the agenda for men and women and their role in his church from the very beginning. Imagine if christ had women as apostles, lets say 50-50. It would have set a wonderful example of equality but it did not happen and so, we are having this thread.

 

Also, I am sure that the apostles were married because of the cultural tradition of that time but we hear nothing of their wives. Nor children. In fact, family life is very rarely mentioned in the bible among the 12 and other men. And we know very little of Mary and Joseph and their marriage. Of course, the bible was written for strengthening faith and maybe this was not considered important. I am sure that th bible writer's knew something of their marriage. So, we have a problem with women and the priesthood. We can also say that the new testament was written by men. That may have something to do with it too. .

I wouldnt say we have nothing. We know Peter was married. And Christ had brothers and sisters.

 

1 Cor 9:5

 5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a ^awife, as well as other apostles, and as the ^bbrethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

 

Matt 8:14

When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

 

Heres a Coptic Papyrus that has Jesus Talking about his wife.

 

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife

 

line 1: ... not [to] me. My mother gave me life ...

line 2: ... The disciples said to Jesus, ...

line 3: ... deny. Mary is (not?) worthy of it. ...

line 4: ... Jesus said to them, "My wife ...

line 5: ... she is able to be my disciple ...

line 6: ... Let wicked people swell up ...

line 7: ... As for me, I am with her in order to ...

line 8: ... an image ...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus'_Wife

 

Paul in his letters mentions several very Prominent women in the church one even called an Apostle. 

Edited June 28, 2014 by Zakuska

[saemo]

Back to the OP,

 

1.  Women=motherhood, men=priesthood.  This would, of course, mean any woman giving birth, no matter what her religion, marital,  or spiritual state, is "equal" to the priesthood. This doesn't point to the legitimacy of the claim, only that discourse about women is so limited and undeveloped no one has bothered to fill in all the holes in this statement.

Most mammals give birth, so I'm going with the non sequitur.

[Zakuska]

Thousands of years of history and not a single example in every book considered scripture.

Books edited by men.

[Stone holm]

Most mammals give birth, so I'm going with the non sequitur.

The whole reproductive function argument just really goes nowhere unless you are accustomed to using cliches instead of reasoning when it comes to matters concerning Church policy...of course that is exactly what we are making people accustom to in the Church. It's the old motherhood and apple pie approach, it makes arguing FO giving women keys of authority somehow degrading motherhood. Of course no one mentions that it also tends to turn the Priesthood into some kind of phallic symbol. Eventually, the Church is going to have to move past Dalin Oaks semantic arguments and the cliches, and start asking hard questions of policy in their prayers.

[Stone holm]

Books edited by men.

And then purged by male clergy.

[juliann]

Back to the OP,

 

1.  Women=motherhood, men=priesthood.  This would, of course, mean any woman giving birth, no matter what her religion, marital,  or spiritual state, is "equal" to the priesthood. This doesn't point to the legitimacy of the claim, only that discourse about women is so limited and undeveloped no one has bothered to fill in all the holes in this statement.

 

2.  Women and men would be the "same" if they all had the priesthood.  Sameness is becomes the problem rather than the absurdity of the proposition.

 

3. As mentioned, priesthood's purpose is to make men equal to women. Besides the fact that the priesthood is God's power and authority, not a crutch for lazy people, it defies the reality that men who do not have it are not do nothings by nature.  Since this defies human history where men have been in power and control.... and all other religions run by men without the priesthood, it can only mean Mormonism produces worthless men and then has to fix them.

 

4. Anyone who desires the priesthood (like Abraham and every 12 yr. old boy) is power hungry.  I don't think this one even needs comment.

 

5.  Priesthood isn't that big of a deal, it means you have to lift heavy boxes and stack chairs.  As in, the women have it easy and we certainly wouldn't consider doing any of the woman's work if responsibilities were realigned so you better watch out what you ask for, we will make sure you will regret it.

 

6. Women and men are equally important. That is nonresponsive to a situation where women are vastly outnumbered in decision making levels.  One can make a case whether that matters, but it is a loser of a starting position on it's own.

 

7.  Women can give advice and have influence. Well, if they are asked or invited or happen to hold one of the few positions where they are part of a council, or if they are married to a decision maker.  Again, one can argue whether that matters but not that this situation exists.

 

Because no one seems to have continued these reasons to their illogical end, we are finding ourselves in situations where our own explanations begin to butt heads.  The strangest one is the insistence that women are superior,  so different from men that they have a unique and vital perspective and moral authority...which then runs head long into the reality that women are not at every level in church hierarchies to dispense it.

 

8. Priesthood is just to serve other people. The personal blessings bestowed on individuals holding the priesthood (in countless Gen. Conf. talks) are given to women who don't have the priesthood so nobody should think those blessings are any big deal. (That may not be what it said but it is certainly what is heard.)