Women And Priesthood Essay

[carbon dioxide]

The best part of giving women the priesthood is that the men could delegate more responsibility to the women.  Less meetings and more time to do personal things for the men. 

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I really, really, really hope that's what going on, juliann. I admit I'm pretty skeptical, but I would be extremely pleased for my skepticism to be proven wrong. Here's hoping!  

[Storm Rider]

Sigh. It's a step forward, and an okay summary, but it completely sidesteps most of the meaningful questions about why and instead interprets the ambiguous 'key' statement by Joseph Smith in a way that maintains the status quo that developed after he was dead. If you look at the source documents, it's pretty clear that Joseph did give full Priesthood to women and the men couldn't handle it; the convoluted doublespeak in this essay that tries to make it seem that the current organization of the Church treats men and women as equals is deeply disingenuous. 

 

If women really "exercise priesthood authority", then why are they not "ordained to priesthood office"? 

 

It makes no sense. It's just sexism legitimized through ritualization. 

 

You, and a number of other similar thinking individuals, create the sexist argument out of whole cloth.  A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man; for some reason they were created differently.  Salvation for male and female is exactly the same; Exaltation is exactly he same.  

 

So what is really being discussed is perceived power. Those who perceive others have it and they want it.  Nothing more and nothing less.  It is the child that regardless of how much they have been given and/or blessed with demands that they have one more thing.  They think they want the red pony even though they have twelve ponies already.  They don't have the red pony and that must be the best pony because they don't have it and therefore they must get it.  

 

I wonder what it would be like if individuals learned to be grateful for the blessings they have been given?  How does that change the discussion?  How does that change individual discipleship?  Unfortunately, there will be those who absolutely must have the red pony or throw out the entire deal.  It is their way or the highway.  Not an evolved way of being, but some are just stuck at the fundamentals.  

 

My hope is that every one that wants to be bishop is cursed, I mean blessed with being the bishop.  May every single thing you ask for be given you fully and completely.  Let's see how that works for you.  

Edited October 24, 2015 by Storm Rider

[carbon dioxide]

I am not opposed to women getting the priesthood if that is what God wants.  God can give the priesthood to cats and dogs if he wants.  He sets the rules and it is not for us to tell God who gets the priesthood and who does not.  If God wants 8 year old kids to get the priesthood, I am on board.  What can not happen is that it is done as a result to societal movements or changes.  Why have a prophet or revelation if things are done by public opinion polls or changes in society?  In my opinion, if God wanted the priesthood to be given to women, organizations like OW have only made the change 100 times harder.  Now it would be very difficult for the Church to claim a change was a result of a revelation.  It could easily be claimed that it occurred by public pressure.  I personally would have a harder time accepting any change today than in 2005 when there was real movement for it.  In 2005, it could be called a revelation.  Today it would be hard to make that case.

Edited October 24, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[mapman]

People seem to assume that revelation comes from nowhere. God expects people to think things through in their mind, and then he promises to guide us in the right way. God can work through all sorts of people and I at least believe that societal change can occur due to divine inspiration. I think, for example, that the turn of public opinion against racism was guided by God. Anything good is from God; it doesn't matter where it comes from. To say that revelation can never have anything to do with wider societal trends is ridiculous.

[carbon dioxide]

People seem to assume that revelation comes from nowhere. God expects people to think things through in their mind, and then he promises to guide us in the right way. God can work through all sorts of people and I at least believe that societal change can occur due to divine inspiration. I think, for example, that the turn of public opinion against racism was guided by God. Anything good is from God; it doesn't matter where it comes from. To say that revelation can never have anything to do with wider societal trends is ridiculous.

In my opinion, organizations like OW and pressures on other churches to ordain women have poisoned it.  God should be out in front of society or he should ignore society.  Otherwise we have a situation of does the dog wag the tail or does the tail wag the dog.  Revelation rarely comes out of nowhere. In the case of Joseph Smith, it came when Joseph had questions.  The revelation however did not come because of outside groups demanded a revelation so the doctrine and practice of the church could change to conform to their views.

Edited October 24, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Traela]

Sigh. It's a step forward, and an okay summary, but it completely sidesteps most of the meaningful questions about why and instead interprets the ambiguous 'key' statement by Joseph Smith in a way that maintains the status quo that developed after he was dead. If you look at the source documents, it's pretty clear that Joseph did give full Priesthood to women and the men couldn't handle it; the convoluted doublespeak in this essay that tries to make it seem that the current organization of the Church treats men and women as equals is deeply disingenuous. 

 

If women really "exercise priesthood authority", then why are they not "ordained to priesthood office"? 

 

It makes no sense. It's just sexism legitimized through ritualization.

Well, first, women didn't give blessings through the Priesthood, but in Jesus' name. Second, from my reading it actually sounds like it was the women who couldn't handle it. They kept asking if they were really allowed to give blessings, until the prophet finally said, You know what? Maybe you really shouldn't be doing that. (Sorry, I can't give a reference right off hand- it was a library book that I read a while ago.)

[Duncan]

They are.  In the temple.  One of the first things they are told in the temple.

 

oh, go on! I don't recall women being ordained in the Temple but then again I heard there were weirdies in Utah

Edited October 24, 2015 by Duncan

[Rivers]

I am not opposed to women getting the priesthood if that is what God wants.  God can give the priesthood to cats and dogs if he wants.  He sets the rules and it is not for us to tell God who gets the priesthood and who does not.  If God wants 8 year old kids to get the priesthood, I am on board.  What can not happen is that it is done as a result to societal movements or changes.  Why have a prophet or revelation if things are done by public opinion polls or changes in society?  In my opinion, if God wanted the priesthood to be given to women, organizations like OW have only made the change 100 times harder.  Now it would be very difficult for the Church to claim a change was a result of a revelation.  It could easily be claimed that it occurred by public pressure.  I personally would have a harder time accepting any change today than in 2005 when there was real movement for it.  In 2005, it could be called a revelation.  Today it would be hard to make that case.

This essay never stated that God doesn't want women to have the priesthood. It is simply stating the way things are and how they used to be with historical context. It doesn't attempt to make any real justifications for why women don't hold priesthood offices. It is very similar to the race essay in that regard. We only assume that this how God wants things to be.  

[Storm Rider]

People seem to assume that revelation comes from nowhere. God expects people to think things through in their mind, and then he promises to guide us in the right way. God can work through all sorts of people and I at least believe that societal change can occur due to divine inspiration. I think, for example, that the turn of public opinion against racism was guided by God. Anything good is from God; it doesn't matter where it comes from. To say that revelation can never have anything to do with wider societal trends is ridiculous.

 

The problem with you proposal is that society is not always right.  Often, when society is dead wrong they think they are right.  

 

There was a strong movement in the world supportive of eugenics.  Hitler took this and we all know how the result ended....all without a strong reaction from Germans.  Eugène Ionesco, author of Rhinoceros, had a delightful book on how society can lose its mind all to support a cause.

 

It is true that God has given us minds and we should use them.  Pope John Paul II wrote an Encyclical letter entitled, "Fides et Ratio" or Faith and Reason.  It is an excellent summary of the benefits of both and which should lead us in times of conflict.  

 

Sometimes humans truly think they are doing the right thing and they are dead wrong.  They harm themselves, they harm others, and they negatively impact society and culture.  When cultural forces collide it is helpful to seek the guidance of our Father.  Man left to his own devices seems to always lead to self-destruction.  

[Zakuska]

Houston we have a problem... It's almost as if the Author started with this preconceived idea in mind and then fleshed the rest of the article out from their around it.

On these points, Joseph’s actions illuminate the meaning of his words: neither Joseph Smith, nor any person acting on his behalf, nor any of his successors conferred the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood on women or ordained women to priesthood office.

The problem is... earlier in the Article the Author has proven that Emma Smith was ordained to an office in the female arm of the Melchizedek priesthood order and given the "key" to preside as it's President. So the above lines are out of place and contradict what the author has already proven.

Here is were it starts to unravel...

Unlike those in many other churches, Latter-day Saints extended priesthood ordination broadly to laymen, as directed by revelation. Over time, an extensive structure of priesthood offices and quorums was established. From the beginning, this structure was governed by revelation under the direction of priesthood leaders holding “keys.”5 The keys of the Melchizedek priesthood, given through divine messengers to Joseph Smith and later passed to others, bestowed the “right of presidency,” the right “to administer in spiritual things,” and the “right to officiate in all the offices in the church.”6

We are told that priesthood leaders hold keys and these Keys give them certain "rights" and "privledges". Then we are told that Emma received a Melchizedek priesthood "key" from Joseph Smith and is "ordained and set apart" to be the president of that quorum (ie the Relief Society) of female priesthood holders. So if Joseph Smith never conferred the Melchizedek priesthood on Emma how could she be holding a "priesthood key" or "office of president" of that quorum in the Melchizedek Priesthood?

We know the "Relief Society" is a priesthood quorum in the Melchizedek Priesthood Order, from this...

Relief Society, later recalled, the Prophet told them he had “something better” for them and said he would organize the women “in the Order of the Priesthood after the pattern of the Church.”16

Please note: this sentence as written doesn't make any kind of gramatical sense.

The whole rest of the article proves that really the only thing holding women back from being able to take a more public roll or hold Ecclesiatical offices or exercise their priesthood is the "traditions of men" (ie An Apostate Christian World with an all male Clergy) and church policy in a non-doctrinal "handbook of instructions" that can be rewritten any time the church fills like it. I say the women need to work through their ranks and proper chains of command and petition their General Leaders to get the "policy" changed. I mean it was Eliza Snow who instituted the "policy" (Not a doctrine mind you) of women not performing healings with anointing oil any more.

And this...

Women’s participation in healing blessings gradually declined in the early 20th century as Church leaders taught that it was preferable to follow the New Testament directive to “call for the elders.”35 By 1926, Church President Heber J. Grant affirmed that the First Presidency “do not encourage calling in the sisters to administer to the sick, as the scriptures tell us to call in the Elders, who hold the priesthood of God and have the power and authority to administer to the sick in the name of Jesus Christ.”36 The current Handbook of Instructions directs that “only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may administer to the sick or afflicted.”37

While giving an accurate historical reason of when and why this practice changed doesn't take into account that the Scripture has been misinterpreted and the "elders" that are being referred to in that verse is gender neutral and is not referring to a Priesthood Office, but is referring to males and females in the church of a more advanced age and wisdom.

Since women in the "Relief Society" are a member of a quorum of "elder-sisters" (Notice the little E, its not a title or priesthood office) in the female Order of the Melchizedek (Elderly) Priesthood there is nothing stopping her from administering to the sick in the full sense of the word by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood which she holds. I think Eliza Snow was wrong to institute that Policy change and it has resulted in so many women being stunted in their spirtual growth and the exercise of the craft of healing and not knowing they do indeed hold the Priesthood and can have this "spirtual gift" and the "right" to use it when ever they please.

Also... Theres a Contradiction here... can you see it?

During the 19th century, Latter-day Saints used the term keys to refer at various times to authority, knowledge, or temple ordinances.²⁶ Likewise, Mormons sometimes used the term ordain in a broad sense, often interchangeably with set apart and not always referring to priesthood office.²⁷

<snip>

In later years, words like ordination and keys were more precisely defined, as when President John Taylor, who acted by assignment from Joseph Smith to “ordain and set apart” Emma Smith and her counselors, explained in 1880 that “the ordination then given did not mean the conferring of the Priesthood upon those sisters.”²⁸

Edited October 24, 2015 by Zakuska

[Lachoneus]

oh, go on! I don't recall women being ordained in the Temple but then again I heard there were weirdies in Utah

 

I'm one of those weirdies in Utah. I have been a temple worker for the last 16 years in two temples (Timpanogos and Provo) and under 6 different temple presidencies. I have served as every type of coordinator there is in the temple, except shift coordinator. According to Sister Lachoneus, every sister temple worker I have spoken with about it and every temple presidency I have known, the sisters are not ordained to the priesthood and do not hold the priesthood. If JLHPROF or Zakuska or anyone else thinks otherwise, let me suggest that they go to their nearest temple and ask to speak with a member of the temple presidency. Feel free to ask whether the sister temple workers are ordained to the priesthood. I am sure the temple presidency, who hold the keys to the temple ordinances performed in that temple, will be glad to explain it. Elder Oaks conference talk a while back also clearly explains this.

[CV75]

I think it is significant that none of the angels conferring keys throughout the Restoration were women.

[JLHPROF]

I'm one of those weirdies in Utah. I have been a temple worker for the last 16 years in two temples (Timpanogos and Provo) and under 6 different temple presidencies. I have served as every type of coordinator there is in the temple, except shift coordinator. According to Sister Lachoneus, every sister temple worker I have spoken with about it and every temple presidency I have known, the sisters are not ordained to the priesthood and do not hold the priesthood. If JLHPROF or Zakuska or anyone else thinks otherwise, let me suggest that they go to their nearest temple and ask to speak with a member of the temple presidency. Feel free to ask whether the sister temple workers are ordained to the priesthood. I am sure the temple presidency, who hold the keys to the temple ordinances performed in that temple, will be glad to explain it. Elder Oaks conference talk a while back also clearly explains this.

 

Of course not.  Above your pay grade.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2185703/posts  (Not temple content - direct from Mysteries of Godliness by Buerger.)

 

 

"Abrahams [sic] Patriarchal power" was the "greatest yet experienced in this church."  His choice of words is particularly revealing, for by this date ten men had received the initiatory washings and anointings, as well as the Aaronic and Melchizedek portions of the endowment of the "Patriarchal Priesthood" on 4 May 1842. Many of these had also received the ordinance of celestial marriage for time and eternity with their wives. Joseph and Emma Hale Smith, for example, were sealed in May 1843, as were James and Harriet Adams, Brigham and Mary Ann Angell Young, Hyrum and Mary Fielding Smith, and Willard and Jenetta Richards Richards.  When Joseph Smith said late in August that the Patriarchal Priesthood was the "greatest yet experienced in this church," he was well aware that the fullness of the Melchizedek priesthood was yet to be conferred through a higher ordinance

 

and

 

The higher ordinance was necessary to confirm the revealed promises of "kingly powers" (i.e., godhood) received in the endowment's initiatory ordinances. Godhood was the meaning of this higher ordinance, or second anointing, for the previously revealed promises in Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-26 implicitly referred not to those who had been sealed in celestial marriage but to those who had been sealed and ordained "kings and priests," "queens and priestesses" to God. Such individuals would necessarily have received a higher anointing: "Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."

 

 

Yes, women can be ordained to the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood in the temple and receive all power with their husbands and their own priesthood office.

Can't make that any clearer.

[Zakuska]

I think it is significant that none of the angels conferring keys throughout the Restoration were women.

again, that comes straight from a human cultural artifact (ie tradition of man) peter james and john could just as easily refer to the female portion of those men them being "one flesh" with their wifes and all. Edited October 24, 2015 by Zakuska

[CV75]

I also think it significant that the mechanics of having an Only Begotten Son (or Daughter) of the Mother in a mortal, telestial world make the female conferral of priesthood authority impossible.

[CV75]

again, that comes straight from a human cultural artifact (ie tradition of man) peter james and john could just as easily refer to the female portion of those men them being "one flesh" with their husbands.

Not really--if there were an opportunity to set things straight, Joseph Smith would have been the perfect new bottle to do that with. But it was the resurrected men that were sent to confer priesthood authority, not their wives.

[Zakuska]

Not really--if there were an opportunity to set things straight, Joseph Smith would have been the perfect new bottle to do that with. But it was the resurrected men that were sent to confer priesthood authority, not their wives.

there are female angels in heaven, by what authority do they do their thing?

Here eve is given the name of her husband.

Gen 5

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

So like I said peter james and john could just as easily be refuring to the female portion of those men.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Zakuska

[mapman]

In my opinion, organizations like OW and pressures on other churches to ordain women have poisoned it.  God should be out in front of society or he should ignore society.  Otherwise we have a situation of does the dog wag the tail or does the tail wag the dog.  Revelation rarely comes out of nowhere. In the case of Joseph Smith, it came when Joseph had questions.  The revelation however did not come because of outside groups demanded a revelation so the doctrine and practice of the church could change to conform to their views.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't really matter who's wagging who, since in the end it's really God who's doing it.

[HappyJackWagon]

I am not opposed to women getting the priesthood if that is what God wants.  God can give the priesthood to cats and dogs if he wants.  He sets the rules and it is not for us to tell God who gets the priesthood and who does not.  If God wants 8 year old kids to get the priesthood, I am on board.  What can not happen is that it is done as a result to societal movements or changes.  Why have a prophet or revelation if things are done by public opinion polls or changes in society?  In my opinion, if God wanted the priesthood to be given to women, organizations like OW have only made the change 100 times harder.  Now it would be very difficult for the Church to claim a change was a result of a revelation.  It could easily be claimed that it occurred by public pressure.  I personally would have a harder time accepting any change today than in 2005 when there was real movement for it.  In 2005, it could be called a revelation.  Today it would be hard to make that case.

Are you suggesting that the church would care more about public perception than doing what God wanted?

 

Did they refuse to make needed changes with polygamy because they felt it would look like the governement forced them? I think an argument could be made either way.

 

Did they refuse to allow blacks to have the priesthood because it would look like they were caving to social pressure? Again, a good case could be made that they did.

 

So maybe you're right. Maybe the church is more concerned with public perception than doing what God wants them to do but that is hardly a ringing endorsement for the leadership of the church.

[HappyJackWagon]

I also think it significant that the mechanics of having an Only Begotten Son (or Daughter) of the Mother in a mortal, telestial world make the female conferral of priesthood authority impossible.

Can you explain this. I'm not following your line of thinking. Why is conferral of priesthood authority to women impossible?

"Impossible" is a very strong word.

[mapman]

The problem with you proposal is that society is not always right.  Often, when society is dead wrong they think they are right.  

 

There was a strong movement in the world supportive of eugenics.  Hitler took this and we all know how the result ended....all without a strong reaction from Germans.  Eugène Ionesco, author of Rhinoceros, had a delightful book on how society can lose its mind all to support a cause.

 

It is true that God has given us minds and we should use them.  Pope John Paul II wrote an Encyclical letter entitled, "Fides et Ratio" or Faith and Reason.  It is an excellent summary of the benefits of both and which should lead us in times of conflict.  

 

Sometimes humans truly think they are doing the right thing and they are dead wrong.  They harm themselves, they harm others, and they negatively impact society and culture.  When cultural forces collide it is helpful to seek the guidance of our Father.  Man left to his own devices seems to always lead to self-destruction.  

 

I completely agree with this of course. Societal trends are hardly a perfect source of truth. I do think that God's hand can be seen in some trends, though. I think with the passage of time God's hand becomes more apparent in history as we are able to see the fruits of people's actions. In the case of women and the priesthood, I don't know that it is God's will, but just the fact that society would support it is hardly evidence against it being something good.

[HappyJackWagon]

I recently re-watched The Help. The southern whites just couldn't understand why the negros would be upset. They were allowed to work in their homes, eat in their restaurants, ride on their busses etc. The negro was treated very well. What could they possibly complain about? Well, the fact that while they work in white homes they couldn't use white bathrooms. When they ate in the restaurants they couldn't sit at the same tables or sometimes even use the same entrance. When they rode the same buses they weren't allowed to use the same seats. It was a separate but equal mentality.

 

I got this same impression from the Women and the priesthood essay. We let women sit in our counsels. We let them exercise the priesthood authority when designated. We even let them pray and speak in conference and sacrament meeting. We treat them real good. What's the problem?

 

The problem is though women are allowed to do some of these things, there is still a significant power differential. Women still can't return to the original practice of laying on of hands. Instead we want them to "call the elders". Women don't have any real power in the church. There is not a SINGLE general authority who is a female. Think about that. Sure, there are auxiliary leaders but they aren't "General Authorities". No female has authority in the church. They can only do what the authority allows.

 

The essay states that women no longer give blessings because leadership decided against it. It's even in the handbook. That's a nice recitation of history but it doesn't explain why. Was there a revelation? Or was it just patriarchy reasserting itself.

 

I hope TheChurchIsTrue and Julianne are right, but it's hard to see much of a silver lining in what was actually said. The only lining is found in the political game we hope they're playing to prepare the people.

Edited October 24, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Duncan]

Of course not.  Above your pay grade.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2185703/posts  (Not temple content - direct from Mysteries of Godliness by Buerger.)

 

 

Yes, women can be ordained to the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood in the temple and receive all power with their husbands and their own priesthood office.

Can't make that any clearer.

 

i hear what you are saying but they aren't ordained at the Temple and don't hold the priesthood here in this life, whether or not they will in the eternities is who knows but here and now they don't

[HappyJackWagon]

i hear what you are saying but they aren't ordained at the Temple and don't hold the priesthood here in this life, whether or not they will in the eternities is who knows but here and now they don't

We do know that they are said to be ordained to become priestesses and queens unto their husbands. Or if they've had the 2nd annointing they are ordained as such. But it isn't the priesthood of God. It is the priesthood of their husband who will be a god. See the difference?

 

IOW- my wife would hold the priesthood of god (happyjackwagon- not priesthood of God, Elohim)