Women And Priesthood Essay

[JLHPROF]

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

 

??? - Did you not read what I quoted?

They are ORDAINED IN THE TEMPLE TO THE FULLNESS OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD TO THE OFFICES OF QUEEN AND PRIESTESS. 

 

I don't know how much clearer that can be.

Edited October 24, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Zakuska]

I think Julian is exactly right. Just like The Priesthood Ban On blacks, the church seems to be making the case that the only reason we don't call women to visible public ecclesiastical positions and offices is out of "policy" and traditions of men rather than because of anything "doctrinal" in nature.

A woman can go to the temple at anytime (once deemed worthy) and take out her endowments and dawn the robes of a Melchezidek priestess, she doesn't even need a husband to do that. At that point she is a Melchezidek priesthood holder, even though she hasn't been given a public ecclesiastical office. She also doesn't become a queen in the preisthood until she finds her king and then the fullness of the priesthood is realized in the at_one_ment with her hudband.

I think we really better be holding onto our seats because things are about to get real.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Zakuska

[CV75]

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.

Everyone in any estate and stage of progression does their thing under the same power of God (priesthood authority and priesthood order).

 

But Joseph never mentioned the involvement of the Primitive Church apostles' wives (plural or monogamous) in his conferral of priesthood authority, which I think would be rather significant to report.

[CV75]

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.

Jesus brought the power of God into this world from the very beginning as a Spirit Son, and then into His own church organization in the meridian of time as a living soul of mortal flesh and blood. He is the Great High Priest of this world, and all delegation of the power of God (keys) arises from Him. He came into the world miraculously as the Only Begotten Son of the Father.

 

Heavenly Mother could not give birth to Him (or a Her) in this world, incorporating telestial material into her unborn Child. She could not accomplish the same in an exalted sphere; the Child had to be born into the telesial earth. All things being equal, She would not implant an egg into a surrogate mortal mother to be fertilized (before or after) by an unmarried but espoused mortal father any more than the Father would have used a surrogate mortal father. So the power of God -- in the case of Jesus, the power over life and death (“the fundamental principles of our religion”) -- can only be conveyed to another soul by the Father.

 

In this way, females do receive priesthood power, authority and order as the article explains, but fellow females do not do the conferring, only males acting in their appropriate office.

[Duncan]

??? - Did you not read what I quoted?

They are ORDAINED IN THE TEMPLE TO THE FULLNESS OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD TO THE OFFICES OF QUEEN AND PRIESTESS. 

 

I don't know how much clearer that can be.

 

really? I must have missed that ordination ceremony and I attend frequently as my circumstances will permit-I don't recall a stake conference where they are sustained and advanced in the priesthood either, like men are

[JLHPROF]

really? I must have missed that ordination ceremony and I attend frequently as my circumstances will permit-I don't recall a stake conference where they are sustained and advanced in the priesthood either, like men are

 

Just guessing, but I doubt you've attended a second anointing ceremony where the promises made in the initiatory are fulfilled through actual ordination.

[CV75]

Just guessing, but I doubt you've attended a second anointing ceremony where the promises made in the initiatory are fulfilled through actual ordination.

From the article:

 

"Joseph’s language can be more fully understood in historical context. 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 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."

[CA Steve]

I love the 2nd anointing defense as trying to show how women are equal to me when it come to having the priesthood.

 

So the fact that a very rare and highly secretive event occurs means women are equal to men when it come to the exercise of the priesthood.

 

/boggle

[CA Steve]

From the article:

 

"Joseph’s language can be more fully understood in historical context. 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 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 part of this quote that tries to use what Joseph did or did not do to "illuminate what he meant is a very bad argument from silence. What Joseph or others didn't do is not evidence one way or the other regarding women holding the priesthood.

Edited October 24, 2015 by CA Steve

[JLHPROF]

I love the 2nd anointing defense as trying to show how women are equal to me when it come to having the priesthood.

 

So the fact that a very rare and highly secretive event occurs means women are equal to men when it come to the exercise of the priesthood.

 

/boggle

 

No, it means that the culmination of male and female journeys towards eternity is the same.

[CA Steve]

No, it means that the culmination of male and female journeys towards eternity is the same.

Maybe but that has no bearing on why they cannot exercise the priesthood here in this life the same as men do.

[JLHPROF]

From the article:

 

"Joseph’s language can be more fully understood in historical context. 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 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."

 

So you are suggesting women receive the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood by being set apart as Queens as Priestesses instead of being ordained such?

[HappyJackWagon]

??? - Did you not read what I quoted?

They are ORDAINED IN THE TEMPLE TO THE FULLNESS OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD TO THE OFFICES OF QUEEN AND PRIESTESS. 

 

I don't know how much clearer that can be.

CFR that women receive the Melchezidek Priesthood. See my early post. They receive the priesthood of their husband as god, not of God.

[JLHPROF]

CFR that women receive the Melchezidek Priesthood. See my early post. They receive the priesthood of their husband as god, not of God.

 

The ordinance is called the Fullness of Priesthood ordinance by Joseph Smith.  The women are ordained Priestesses (according to most historical references, not set apart).

Women wear robes of the holy priesthood symbolizing the same authority as the men.  Women receive the tokens of the priesthood separately from the men.

 

This is priesthood.  It may not be ecclesiastical, but they receive all the same elements of priesthood in the temple as any man.

 

You do the math.

Edited October 24, 2015 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

This is a very bad argument from silence. What Joseph or others didn't do is not evidence one way or the other regarding women holding the priesthood.

It seems you you don't understand what "ordain" means in the context of the subject in the two posts of this exchange. It's not about what Joseph didn't do, it's about what "ordain" means in various settings.

 

Regarding "holding the priesthood," which has nothing to do with my post, note this, also from the article: "Latter-day Saints and others often mistakenly equate priesthood with religious office and the men who hold it, which obscures the broader Latter-day Saint concept of priesthood."

[CA Steve]

It seems you you don't understand what "ordain" means in the context of the subject in the two posts of this exchange. It's not about what Joseph didn't do, it's about what "ordain" means in various settings.

 

Regarding "holding the priesthood," which has nothing to do with my post, note this, also from the article: "Latter-day Saints and others often mistakenly equate priesthood with religious office and the men who hold it, which obscures the broader Latter-day Saint concept of priesthood."

Sorry, my response was directed at the latter part of the quote from the essay you provided, not at you. I should have made that clear. I will edit it to reflect that.

Edited October 24, 2015 by CA Steve

[CV75]

So you are suggesting women receive the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood by being set apart as Queens as Priestesses instead of being ordained such?

I mean that there is a broad context for what "ordain" means in relation to the various ordinances and divine ministrations, past and present, and authorized changes in how they are performed from a mortal perspective.

[Duncan]

Just guessing, but I doubt you've attended a second anointing ceremony where the promises made in the initiatory are fulfilled through actual ordination.

 

I was busy, seinfeld was on

[JLHPROF]

I was busy, seinfeld was on

 

If I wanted to watch a show about nothing I'd rather watch Corner Gas. 

[CV75]

The part of this quote that tries to use what Joseph did or did not do to "illuminate what he meant is a very bad argument from silence. What Joseph or others didn't do is not evidence one way or the other regarding women holding the priesthood.

OK. LDS have not conferred priesthood or ordain to office to women from the start. This practice reflects (does not determine or define) the meaning behind what was meant when Joseph and his contemporaries used the term “ordain” in the broader sense in relation to women’s role in the Church organization. And practice is certainly evidence of understanding!

[CA Steve]

OK. LDS have not conferred priesthood or ordain to office to women from the start. This practice reflects (does not determine or define) the meaning behind what was meant when Joseph and his contemporaries used the term “ordain” in the broader sense in relation to women’s role in the Church organization. And practice is certainly evidence of understanding!

I do not believe what they have not done is indicative of anything other than what they have not done. It is an argument from silence to say it has some bearing on what JS and his contemporaries meant when they used the term.

[CA Steve]

OK. LDS have not conferred priesthood or ordain to office to women from the start. This practice reflects (does not determine or define) the meaning behind what was meant when Joseph and his contemporaries used the term “ordain” in the broader sense in relation to women’s role in the Church organization. And practice is certainly evidence of understanding!

By the way, by this line of reasoning, interpreting what Joseph Smith and other early leaders meant by their actions or lack of, shouldn't we still be allowing women to give blessings for the sick?

[Duncan]

If I wanted to watch a show about nothing I'd rather watch Corner Gas. 

 

you and me both brother!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! other than the restaurant owner lady  , didn't like that show

[Zakuska]

The ordinance is called the Fullness of Priesthood ordinance by Joseph Smith. The women are ordained Priestesses (according to most historical references, not set apart).

Women wear robes of the holy priesthood symbolizing the same authority as the men. Women receive the tokens of the priesthood separately from the men.

This is priesthood. It may not be ecclesiastical, but they receive all the same elements of priesthood in the temple as any man.

You do the math.

Not only that... single sisters in the releif society quorum of sisters of the melchezidek priesthood order (Ie sister missionaries ring any bells?) receive those signs and tokens and promises and ordinations to priestess and priestess robs to go with it without a husband what so ever so it shows her priesthood at that point has nothing what so ever to do with a man.

It seems the only reason she can't actually perform a baptism outside the temple is a matter of "policy" not doctrine. "Policies and procedures" are a dime a dozen and can easily change at the drop of a hat.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Zakuska

[CV75]

I do not believe what they have not done is indicative of anything other than what they have not done. It is an argument from silence to say it has some bearing on what JS and his contemporaries meant when they used the term.

But the point is they did ordain women after the manner described, and I so think the passage can be read as follows:

 

“On these points, Joseph’s actions [ordaining women as described] illuminate the meaning of his words [words such as ordain and set apart]: [his intended meaning of these words suggests why] 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.”

 

By the way, by this line of reasoning, interpreting what Joseph Smith and other early leaders meant by their actions or lack of, shouldn't we still be allowing women to give blessings for the sick?

It's not about interpreting their actions, but about interpreting their words and their meaning, and then observing how that offers insight into why and what they did and did not do. If they did not intend to ordain women to priesthood office, and did not use words to convey that they would, then we can more easily see why they did not.

 

But rather than “should” I think “could.” I think it could be allowed, but that is between the Lord and His servants, depending on the principle He wants them to emphasize or prioritize as explained in the article (in this case, calling for the elders). I believe that apart from the Handbook, individuals can privately call upon faith and gifts of the Spirit do what needs to be done as guided by the Spirit in extenuating circumstances. Perhaps that is why everyone isn't given a Handbook! It's only for those who feel the need to ask!