Women And Priesthood Essay

[Calm]

Well, I hope that my quote in thread #347 answers your question and once and for all clarifies my point of view 'regarding the ordination of women to the priesthood'.

No, it doesn't answer my question.

[Maedros]

No, it doesn't answer my question.

 

Here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/09/men-and-women-and-priesthood-power?lang=eng read the whole talk for better clarity.

[Calm]

So you believe both men and women will have the Priesthood given to them by Christ as they inherit all that he has...just to be clear.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Calm

[Buckeye]

Is it duties assigned that make a priesthood office?

 

Am I referencing the 2nd Anointing?  Yes.

If in that ordinance a man is ordained a King and Priest after the order of Melchizedek, then why wouldn't a woman be a Queen and a Priestess after the order of Melchizedek?

 

And if her husband were to apostatize does that make her no longer a Priestess?  Of course not.  She has remained faithful, showing that the priesthood given is hers, not through her husband.

 

Why President Grant chose to put a stop to this ordinance in all but a few instances is a mystery to many.  The Salt Lake Temple president (who was an apostle, presiding patriarch, and president of the Quorum of the 12) at the time repeatedly expressed great concern over this ordinance being reduced, stating that the Church was withholding the fulfilling of the blessings promised in the initiatory.

 

Honest question. I don't know jack about the second anointing, but I do know about the endowment. In that ordinance, a woman is promised to become a queen and a priestess to her husband. So applying the "order" terminology, just as a man becomes a priesthood holder after the order of the Son of God (i.e., Melchizedek priesthood), a woman becomes a priesthood holder after the order of her husband.

 

Here's the question: If her husband apostatized, wouldn't she need to obtain a new priesthood order, this time based on a second husband who did keep his estate? I'm sure a just God would not simply cut her off for her husband's choices - any more than He would cut us off if Christ had failed in his mission - but it seems that under our current temple rites, a woman would need to be moved to a new priesthood order if her husband fell away because her old order had come to an end.

 

I also find it odd that you would say a woman's priesthood is "hers." We don't treat men's priesthood ordination that way. We say it's the Savior's priesthood the men are exercising and so their actions must conform with his instructions. Why wouldn't the same follow for a woman to be limited in her priesthood authority according to the instructions of her husband, since it's his authority she is exercising.   

Edited November 5, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

Maedros - you need to correct your quote in post 347. You attribute the entire thing to Elder Ballard, even though you interjected personal views (such as regarding Kate Kelly) that he never said.

 

ETA: And to address the substance of the quote, Christ hasn't finished organizing his church. Improvements have been and will continue to be made through an ongoing restoration (e.g., primary program, mutual association, church schools, missionary service for YW, inclusion of women in priesthood executive councils, etc.) So saying that something conflicts with the current organization does not lead to the conclusion that it is against God's will. As with most all things, it's more likely that he is waiting for us to seek after a greater gift.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Buckeye

[Senator]

I'm voicing great concern right now. Taking the healing anointing blessings away from the sisters has stunted the spiritual growth of many of our women and reduced their duties of healing the sick to nothing more than a chamber made and cook. Bringing in casseroles and green jello with carrots when someone is sick. Feeding the, sick chicken soup, nursing them and then cleaning up the other end when it comes out.

You have it completely bassackwards.

 

Any sister (or any person for that matter), who of their own free will and choice, does the things you mention (bolded) for another human being, it not being their payed employment, shows evidence that they are of immense spiritual growth and maturity. They are in possession of a power and gift that has been described as the greatest of all, even that of charity, or the "pure love of Christ".

 

In fact, at the last day, I would rather be found possessing one ounce of this than every possible priesthood ordination combined.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Senator

[JLHPROF]

You have it completely bassackwards.

 

Any sister (or any person for that matter), who of their own free will and choice, does the things you mention (bolded) for another human being, it not being their payed employment, shows evidence that they are of immense spiritual growth and maturity. They are in possession of a power and gift that has been described as the greatest of all, even that of charity, or the "pure love of Christ".

 

In fact, at the last day, I would rather be found possessing one ounce of this than every possible priesthood ordination combined.

 

Agreed.  (But it's not an either or.)

[Senator]

Agreed.  (But it's not an either or.)

No it's not.

[Zakuska]

Honest question. I don't know jack about the second anointing, but I do know about the endowment. In that ordinance, a woman is promised to become a queen and a priestess to her husband. So applying the "order" terminology, just as a man becomes a priesthood holder after the order of the Son of God (i.e., Melchizedek priesthood), a woman becomes a priesthood holder after the order of her husband.

 

Here's the question: If her husband apostatized, wouldn't she need to obtain a new priesthood order, this time based on a second husband who did keep his estate? I'm sure a just God would not simply cut her off for her husband's choices - any more than He would cut us off if Christ had failed in his mission - but it seems that under our current temple rites, a woman would need to be moved to a new priesthood order if her husband fell away because her old order had come to an end.

 

I also find it odd that you would say a woman's priesthood is "hers." We don't treat men's priesthood ordination that way. We say it's the Savior's priesthood the men are exercising and so their actions must conform with his instructions. Why wouldn't the same follow for a woman to be limited in her priesthood authority according to the instructions of her husband, since it's his authority she is exercising.   

 

People are forgetting that Sister Missionaries take their endowments out as SINGLE women so their "Preistesshood" has nothing what so ever to do with a husband. Shes already in a Priesthood order.

 

At Marriage, she and her husband enter together into another order of priesthood or the highest order of priesthood that of Matrimony and propagation of the seeds. That of "gods".

Edited November 5, 2015 by Zakuska

[Maedros]

So you believe both men and women will have the Priesthood given to them by Christ as they inherit all that he has...just to be clear.

 

I believe that the priesthood power can be accessed by both men and women on earth through the principles of righteousness. Women can bless and heal and possess all of the gifts of the spirit and perform miracles and enjoy all the power of the priesthood to act in the name of God; but the right to be ordained to the order of priesthood and to hold office and to act officially in this order is only and has ever been assigned to men. So, women who seek after this ordination (actively) are they not violating the Lords decree of it only being assigned to males?

[bluebell]

I'm voicing great concern right now. Taking the healing anointing blessings away from the sisters has stunted the spiritual growth of many of our women and reduced their duties of healing the sick to nothing more than a chamber made and cook. Bringing in casseroles and green jello with carrots when someone is sick. Feeding the, sick chicken soup, nursing them and then cleaning up the other end when it comes out.

This is an offensive way to explain the nurturing that women are often responsible for. When you love the person you are taking care of, it is nothing like being a maid or a cook. I don't need the priesthood to know the value in nurturing others. The priesthood will not add to the value of nurturing others.

I can't even wrap my head around where you are coming from.

There are few roles more sacred than taking care of others. Your concern denigrates what the scriptures teach when Jesus said that the greatest among us are servants.

[bluebell]

People are forgetting that Sister Missionaries take their endowments out as SINGLE women so their "Preistesshood" has nothing what so ever to do with a husband. Shes already in a Priesthood order.

At Marriage, she and her husband enter together into another order of priesthood or the highest order of priesthood that of Matrimony and propagation of the seeds. That of "gods".

No one becomes a priest or priestess during their endowment.

[Maedros]

Maedros - you need to correct your quote in post 347. You attribute the entire thing to Elder Ballard, even though you interjected personal views (such as regarding Kate Kelly) that he never said.

 

ETA: And to address the substance of the quote, Christ hasn't finished organizing his church. Improvements have been and will continue to be made through an ongoing restoration (e.g., primary program, mutual association, church schools, missionary service for YW, inclusion of women in priesthood executive councils, etc.) So saying that something conflicts with the current organization does not lead to the conclusion that it is against God's will. As with most all things, it's more likely that he is waiting for us to seek after a greater gift.

 

Yes, but he did say: "Do not spend time trying to overhaul or adjust God's plan....It is a pointless exercise to try to determine how to organize the Lord's Church differently. The Lord is at the head of this Church, and we all follow His direction. We need to think straight in this world of confusion and disregard for the things of God." I consider women wanting the priesthood an exercise to try to determine how to organize the Lord's Church differently. How can that be God's will?

[Zakuska]

This is an offensive way to explain the nurturing that women are often responsible for. When you love the person you are taking care of, it is nothing like being a maid or a cook. I don't need the priesthood to know the value in nurturing others. The priesthood will not add to the value of nurturing others.

I can't even wrap my head around where you are coming from.

There are few roles more sacred than taking care of others. Your concern denigrates what the scriptures teach when Jesus said that the greatest among us are servants.

 

Well your a female. You wouldn't be able to understand what goes on inside a males head. Especially this one. I don't even know half the time.

 

RE: "I don't need the priesthood to know the value in nurturing others. The priesthood will not add to the value of nurturing others."

 

Well... isn't that one of the reasons given for why us thick headed neanderthals are ordained to the priesthood , so that we can learn to nurture & serve others? Whats good for the gander isn't good for the goose? Can I please have my priesthood taken away now so I can serve others as Christ like and condescendingly as you do?

 

No one becomes a priest or priestess during their endowment.

 

They used to. If we aren't "Priests" and "Priestesses" then what in the world are we doing standing around an altar exercising our priesthood authority, praying for the sick? Why are we wearing the cloths of a Priest/Priestess? Women are already part of the healing of the sick in the temple. That has been removed from their purview outside the temple. For no good reason at all.

 

Dial it back or you will be removed from the thread.

[Senator]

Well your a female. You wouldn't be able to understand what goes on inside a males head. Especially this one. I don't even know half the time.

 

 

 

I'm male and I don't know where your coming from either.

[JLHPROF]

No one becomes a priest or priestess during their endowment.

 

Not during their first endowment.  They are only promised to become such.

But that promise can be fulfilled.

[Buckeye]

 

Yes, but he did say: "Do not spend time trying to overhaul or adjust God's plan....It is a pointless exercise to try to determine how to organize the Lord's Church differently. The Lord is at the head of this Church, and we all follow His direction. We need to think straight in this world of confusion and disregard for the things of God." I consider women wanting the priesthood an exercise to try to determine how to organize the Lord's Church differently. How can that be God's will?

 

The point is that you misquoted him by adding your own parentheticals.  

 

Women have been asking for decades for the missionary age to be lowered. Now it is. Women have been asking for years to be allowed to pray in General Conference. Now they can. Apparently women (and men) can have righteous desires for things which take time (sometimes a lot of time) for church leaders to come around to. And in the end it's discovered that God approves. I agree that members should not seek to direct the church (except the limit portions they may oversee). But that doesn't mean members should not speak up and propose improvements for consideration by those with keys. Primary started that way. So too the WOW and RS. The brethren sought survey input from members in the 1980s from which they subsequently changed the temple ceremonies. So there is a lot of influence that members can (and should) bring to bear which does not cross the line of "trying to determine how to organize the Lord's Church differently."

[Meadowchik]

I'm voicing great concern right now. Taking the healing anointing blessings away from the sisters has stunted the spiritual growth of many of our women and reduced their duties of healing the sick to nothing more than a chamber made and cook. Bringing in casseroles and green jello with carrots when someone is sick. Feeding the, sick chicken soup, nursing them and then cleaning up the other end when it comes out.

So you don't value that service very highly?

Being common does not allocate an act or a thing less value when it already has an eternal intrinsic value.

I remember someone washing the feet of His friends...

This is one thing that gets me about many service-oriented vocations, they frequently get devalued, even moreso when the subject is low-profile or among "the least."

Christ taught the opposite. He descended below all and made salvation and exaltation possible. This subversion-of-the-gilded-norms of the world, especially the proper allocation of value to love and helping the helpless is indispensable to an enlightened life and soul.

[Jeanne]

So you don't value that service very highly?

Being common does not allocate an act or a thing less value when it already has an eternal intrinsic value.

I remember someone washing the feet of His friends...

This is one thing that gets me about many service-oriented vocations, they frequently get devalued, even moreso when the subject is low-profile or among "the least."

Christ taught the opposite. He descended below all and made salvation and exaltation possible. This subversion-of-the-gilded-norms of the world, especially the proper allocation of value to love and helping the helpless is indispensable to an enlightened life and soul.

It is not about the value of service...it is about being frustrated because one wants to do more,  I get was Zabruska is saying.  Surely a woman's usefulness can be put to even more good use in a unified spirit of blessings.  There are times when it would be a wonderful thing to feel edified i your service to others.  I don't think women get that.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Jeanne

[Buckeye]

It is not about the value of service...it is about being frustrated because one wants to do more,  I get was Zabruska is saying.  Surely a woman's usefulness can be put to even more good use in a unified spirit of blessings.  There are times when it would be a wonderful thing to feel edified i your service to others.  I don't think women get that.

Here's a less inflammatory way to put it. Men can do all kinds of service that does not require priesthood office. And yet, lots of women in the church want their sons/husbands/brothers to seek ordination. Why? What does ordination provide for such men that they don't already have? Now switch the genders. Whatever it is that priesthood office adds to men's ability to serve, it would likewise add to women's ability to serve. 

[Calm]

I believe that the priesthood power can be accessed by both men and women on earth through the principles of righteousness. Women can bless and heal and possess all of the gifts of the spirit and perform miracles and enjoy all the power of the priesthood to act in the name of God; but the right to be ordained to the order of priesthood and to hold office and to act officially in this order is only and has ever been assigned to men. So, women who seek after this ordination (actively) are they not violating the Lords decree of it only being assigned to males?

You did not answer my question. Do I need to repeat it again?

[Rivers]

Random question. If women ever do receive priesthood offices, would the Relief Society still exist? Or Young Womens'? It is my understanding that these organizations were created to mirror the Aaronic and Melchezidic Priesthoods.

Or would womens' ordination make it so there is no longer seperate organizations for men and women?

[Calm]

No reason not to have separate for genders just like they do for ages...they could meet together and then split up into quorums, even alternate Sundays being together and separate.

[Traela]

Here's a less inflammatory way to put it. Men can do all kinds of service that does not require priesthood office. And yet, lots of women in the church want their sons/husbands/brothers to seek ordination. Why? What does ordination provide for such men that they don't already have? Now switch the genders. Whatever it is that priesthood office adds to men's ability to serve, it would likewise add to women's ability to serve.

Perhaps some day it may change, but in many cultures (and maybe it really is a guy thing), men are less willing to do "women's work." There is also a tendency to define any unpaid or menial task as women's work. There is also the fact that Mormonism is one of very few churches in which the men's religiosity is about equal to the women's. I say that there is real value in giving men service responsibilities that only they can do.

[BlueDreams]

Actually it is not false - no woman has been ordained to the priesthood or has held office in the same. I have a problem with people who demand that the authorized servants of the Lord must change the holy order to accommodate their false desires for recognition and power when it was not intended for them. You seem to think that I've got a problem with women in general and Cal's question is foolish; when did I ever suggest that men and women are not equal before the Lord, so asking me such is completely off the points that I've made. Also, you seem to have ignored my quote by President Hinckley about women and priesthood. My view is: women who protest and organize and teach and encourage other women to rally together and put pressure on the prophets and apostles whom I sustain as leaders to change the church policies for the sake of bearing the priesthood, is wrong and it can only lead to apostasy and excommunication.  

 

Women are an important part of the gospel plan but they are not ordained to the priesthood, never have been and it is highly doubtful that they ever will. That is just a matter of fact which the majority of lds women (including yourself) believe, so why entertain the opposing notion? Or rather is opposing the notion that women should ask to bear the priesthood feminist or somehow an attack against women and does that make me anti-woman? Don't try and psycho-analyze me especially if you're going to come to the wrong conclusion about what I'm saying and what I believe. 

 

Maedros, you're all over the place on this one and really jumped the gun on what I actually said.

 

I said you had a problem with women entering male spheres (Ie. receiving priesthood ordination). Ie. women insisting on taking on male roles....particularly those you view as ordained of God to be male roles. I would assume you'd have a problem in the reverse order as well. I didn't assume you had a problem with women in general, nor would I. And trust me....this is not me psycho-analyzing you. I do that for my job so I definitely know when that's happening. For one, I look for patterns...not a singular post. For another I'm far more conservative than jumping to things like you must be a woman-hater. Even the more chauvinistic/sexist men I've had in my office don't usually get labeled in such a way. 

 

Also Cal's question is in no way foolish. I don't know if I've ever read something Cal said that I would label as foolish, whether I agree or not. The point is the problem that happens when you start disseminating women from priesthood-oriented scriptures. Or read assumptive roles (like prophet and church-wide revelation) as male-only experiences. You can't without a preliminary assumption that for some reason these scriptures, and only these scriptures, are meant to only apply to men. Even with that, it's still extremely difficult to pull that off because so much of the language, blessing and priesthood edicts apply equally to men as they do to women. 

 

 

Also that's not the point I said was blatantly false. The one I said was blatantly false was about the prophets who received revelation for the church were all men from adam on down. THAT's blatantly false. Several women gave directive revelation in their time to the spiritual body that are canonized doctrine. Female ordination to priesthood office on the other hand is at best somewhat contested but I haven't seen it done well enough to persuade me. Still, being a prophet and receiving revelation has never been a male-only action. But please, read up on these 4 women's stories and explain how they were not receiving revelation, leading the church/spiritual body, and acting prophetically... 3 out of the 4 were blatantly called prophetesses.

 

Towards your viewpoint I highlighted in blue. The amount of women doing so is very, very small. Most who have concern in this area, whether they want the changes to be basic policies or more radical changes like priesthood ordinations, do not fall in this category. Plus, whether you meant to or not, you're changing the scope of what you mentioned. First it was simply if women felt a desire for priesthood ordination and verbalized that publically. Now it's just those who believe this and actively lobby for it. They're not the same. 

 

Finally for your question in purple. Personally I'm the type of person who must understand people even when I think they're wrong. I read 30 or so of the OW profiles, categorizing their concerns and reasons for ordination because of this. But it's not about entertaining the opposing notion. It's the basic idea that you cannot really address concerns or understand your own stance until you understand an opposing view. I can't really respond if I don't have a basic understanding of my sister's concerns. Plus, the argument against female ordination equally needs fine-tuning. I want to know the exact parameters for what I believe and why. I also want my beliefs to be cogent and without obvious blind spots. So just as I've torn through OW or others explanations for why priesthood ordination is their desire, I've also torn through my own beliefs tho understand better the parameters of my beliefs in this. 

 

I think there are clear and concise arguments that make women's ordination not necessary and certainly not sufficient as a goal for greater gender balance in the church. Some of the ones you've given, though, are just plain holey.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited November 6, 2015 by BlueDreams