Women And Priesthood Essay

[MiserereNobis]

Better for the Church to die then dilute itself into a social club that keeps up with society.  

 

There definitely has been a diluting of the LDS church from the days of Joseph and Brigham to today.  Can you imagine what it would be like if we snapped our fingers and the LDS church today looked like the LDS church of Brigham Young?  Holy cow, what a difference!

 

 

If the Church does go that route, I guess I will have to search for the true church of God rather than a church that simply caters to please man.

 

Are you saying that your testimony of the LDS church is based on what you believe it should do and not what it claims God is telling it to do?

 

 

The Church will always be small and it strength is being different than the world.

 

I find it interesting that the size of the LDS church is used as a defense, but both as small and large.  It is a small church, so that is evidence of its truth.  It is a fast growing church, so that is evidence of its truth.  And one day, it will fill the earth (have I got the wording of the prophecy right? it is something like that) and that will be evidence of its truth.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

And if being small and different from the world is evidence of truth, then there are a lot of churches out there that fit the bill.

Edited October 25, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[Zakuska]

"Scripture no one, not even the GAs can go against"

Since when did the LDS faith teach scripture is infallible and cannot be added to or corrected?

Never said they couldnt.

The scriptures provide the strength of authority to our declarations when they are cited correctly. -- Richard G. Scott 2011

[Zakuska]

As Sarah Granger Kimball, a founding member of the 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

This says it all from the essay, the releif society was/is an "order of the Priesthood", women join this order when they join the releif society and take out their endowments in the temple dawning the garb of a Melchezidek priestess.

Don't tell me that this melchezidek priestess gains her authority because of her husband or the temple president and her authority is merely delegated authority. Because in truth, just like the man all priesthood authority is ultimately delegated and this single woman in the relief society priesthood order is given this right explicitly...

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

Emma was given the responsibilites or equal ranking of a Deacon/Teacher in the church by revelation...

Early revelation authorized women to “expound scriptures, and to exhort the church.”12 Even so, like most other Christians in their day, Latter-day Saints in the early years of the Church reserved public preaching and leadership for men.13

It seems the only reason women didn't pass the sacrament or preach publically at this time was because of traditional hold overs from apostate Christianity and an all male clergy. There is no reason other than a sexist policy to not coninue what Joseph Smith started by revelation and further extend the female deacons office to include passing the sacrament.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Zakuska

[Meadowchik]

I felt Jeffrey R Holland's and Russel M Nelson's talks spoke well to this general subject.

I'm not convinced that we either need "women's ordination" or that the Lord has it in mind.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Thinking]

I could not find in the essay any statement that indicated that women would never be ordained to priesthood office.

[carbon dioxide]

There definitely has been a diluting of the LDS church from the days of Joseph and Brigham to today.  Can you imagine what it would be like if we snapped our fingers and the LDS church today looked like the LDS church of Brigham Young?  Holy cow, what a difference!

 

 

 

Are you saying that your testimony of the LDS church is based on what you believe it should do and not what it claims God is telling it to do?

 

 

 

I find it interesting that the size of the LDS church is used as a defense, but both as small and large.  It is a small church, so that is evidence of its truth.  It is a fast growing church, so that is evidence of its truth.  And one day, it will fill the earth (have I got the wording of the prophecy right? it is something like that) and that will be evidence of its truth.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

And if being small and different from the world is evidence of truth, then there are a lot of churches out there that fit the bill.

We can have our cake and eat it also.  Personally I don't use the size or growth rate to be evidence of anything.  I do believe the true Church will be small in relation to the whole world at least before Christ comes again.  But there are many small churches out there and simply being small is not evidence of being true.

[carbon dioxide]

Being more inclusive of women in the church is not a "demand." It is a necessity or the church would not be responding. OW has "forced change" (using your choice of words) and that disproves your theory of disaster...unless you think that recent changes and this essay itself are a disaster.

 

The point I was making is that this is not about "outside groups" at all. Women's issues are enough of a concern in and out of the church to require an essay. The church would hardly be responding to one small group's complaints at this level. This is no longer about OW and the existence of these essays prove that.

I would agree pretty much all of that.  I don't believe OW has forced change at least in what they wanted.  I think for the most part OW by the way they approached things has marginalized them.  Whatever changes have or will occur did not need OW to initiate and was going to happen anyway.  Hopefully whatever happens in the future will happen without having to discuss OW as part of the discussion.

[Zakuska]

So I've been reading and checking up on the references in the essay and I've found one that seems to be sending a mixed message. The essay definately seems to be saying that the 12 now believe the reason women have priesthood authority but don't hold priesthood office is all an apostate 19th century Christain culture artifact thing. But then I get to this refrence:

 

In some respects, the relationship between Latter-day Saint women and priesthood has remained remarkably constant since Joseph Smith’s day. As in the earliest days of the Church, men are ordained to priesthood offices, while both women and men are invited to experience the power and blessings of the priesthood in their lives.56

...

56 “The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood,” Elder Dallin H. Oaks has stated. Presiding authorities “are not free to alter [this] divinely decreed pattern.” (Oaks, “The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood,” 50–51.)

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

In this talk Elder Oaks boldly and surely declares...

  

But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.

 

Surely Elder Oaks can point us to a Scripture or Primary source where this "divine decree" that only men can hold "Priesthood office" is located!  You know... something like... "Joseph Smith my son, Thus sayeth the Lord, only men can be ordained and given the priesthood and hold offices there in".

 

I can name at least one place in Scripture where a Woman held the highest office in the land and the keys of that office and exercised them to the fullest sense of the word.

 

Judges 4:4

¶And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

 

I can also point to the fact that Emma was given the "Key" to preside as the first president (A priesthood office and not simply "delegated priesthood authority") in the Melcheizek priesthood Quorum of Sisters known as the Relief Society.

The "unsure sound of the bugle" that seems to be sounding right now and causing many of the elect to fall needs to be elucidated more.  It also seems this sexism that has leaked into the church is rooted a little deeper than just 19th century Christianity. Perhaps as deep as the now discarded reasons given for a white only priesthood. 

 

Lets hope so.

I've also been checking up on "excommunication". I can find no where that it states you can be excommunicated for disagreeing with Leaders. The only place the scriptures say they can excommunicate you for is in the case of "sin" such as Adultery or Murder. Likewise I can find Zero scriptural precedent for excommunication over "perceived" Apostasy like in the case of Kate Kelly and others before her who were unlawfully exed for teaching about Heavenly Mother, etc.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Zakuska

[carbon dioxide]

 I can name at least one place in Scripture where a Woman held the highest office in the land and the keys of that office and exercised them to the fullest sense of the word.

 

Judges 4:4

¶And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

 

There is no office of prophetess or prophet in the priesthood.  

[carbon dioxide]

I've also been checking up on "excommunication". I can find no where that it states you can be excommunicated for disagreeing with Leaders. The only place the scriptures say they can excommunicate you for is in the case of "sin" such as Adultery or Murder. Likewise I can find Zero scriptural precedent for excommunication over "perceived" Apostasy like in the case of Kate Kelly and others before her who were unlawfully exed for teaching about Heavenly Mother, etc.

Disagreeing no.  Open rebellion and drawing away others with them that is a different matter.  Satan did not get kicked out of heaven for having a different view than the Father.  When he decided to rebel thinking his way as better well then God had to deal with that problem.   At the end of the day, the Church has to decide whether each member is an asset to the church or a liability.  If a member is causing far more problems for the Church than what benefit they bring, the Church has to address that problem as best it can.  Why would someone expect any organization to do anything differently.

 

Ask yourself this question. How would Nephi, Captain Moroni, or others in the Book of Mormon deal with those who caused problems with the Nephite church?   Kate Kelly was not exed for having different views but that she would not renounce an advocacy group that was openly trying to change Church doctrine and practice and refused to stop.  She decided that the issue of ordaining women was more important than her membership in the Church and she got what she should have known was coming.   I don't know if women will ever be ordained in this life.  My wife does not care as she knows it just means more work with zero added eternal blessings that she is already entitled to.  The irony is that my wife is now closer to having the priesthood (if not in this life than the next) than Kate Kelly is now and my wife does not care about being ordained.   It may be an eternal principle.  Those that are content with what God gives them and are faithful, God will give unto them all that he hath (including the priesthood) and those that are not content but want more, well they don't get it. 

Edited October 26, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Bernard Gui]

We don't see many references to this exposition on the Melchizedek Priesthood (after the Order of the Son of God). 
It's good to review it now and then.

 

 

Alma Chapter 13

 

 1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; 

and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

 2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption. 

 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, 

on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising 

exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

 4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their 

hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

 5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the samestanding with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for 

such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

 6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto 

the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest—

 7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without 

beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—

 

 8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood 

of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—

 9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, 

who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.

 10 Now, as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; 

and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish;

 11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

 

 12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon 

sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

 

 13 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest.

 14 Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, 

who also took upon him the high priesthood forever.

 15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.

 

 16 Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, 

or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.

 17 Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; 

they were full of all manner of wickedness;

 18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance 

unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, 

for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

 19 Now, there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater; therefore, of him they have more particularly made mention.

 

 20 Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Zakuska]

CO2:

We know exactly how Alma the first cheif judge and president of the nephite church administered in the church and how he said the only way people were exed was for grave sins only. Read the last 4 chapters of Mosiah.

I guess a case could be made that Kate Kelly and OW are like the case of Corihor. I'll have to study that case to see if that comparison is tenable.

And I never said "prophet" was the priesthood office Deborah was fulfilling...

D&C 107

71 Nevertheless, a high priest, that is, after the order of Melchizedek, may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth;

72 And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church.

She was fulfilling the job description of a High Priestess judging Israel in temporal affairs, the same office a Bishop holds today.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Zakuska

[Bernard Gui]

We should also consider the unique relationship between the Father and the Son and the priesthood authority they delegate to men on earth

who minister in their names, and the oath and covenant this entails. From the 1916 First Presidency declaration on The Father and the Son:

 

A fourth reason for applying the title “Father” to Jesus Christ is 

found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family 

Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim 

His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in 

His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which 

He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment 

in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit 

in the realm of the dead; and since that period in 

His resurrected state. To the Jews He said,

 “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30; see also John 17:11, 22); 

yet He declared, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), 

and further, “I am come in my Father’s name” (John 5:43; 

see also John 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ 

Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Ne. 20:35; 3 Ne. 28:10), 

and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present 

dispensation (D&C 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name 

upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in 

and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, 

authority, and godship are concerned His words and acts 

were and are those of the Father.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

We should tread carefully on this ground.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Based on the above scripture and quote, it is my opinion that we are questioning the Sonship of Jesus Christ when we question to whom

the Father has given his Priesthood.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

As a woman who is also a mother to many, where my role is respected and relied upon so much by the people closest to me, I already feel like "the optics" are quite balanced.  However, this feeling is politically delicate.  While there is no question to me that what I do matters concretely to others, it would be easy to feel battered by the priesthood paradigm if the bolded was not true. One of my best friends is a single and unmarried woman, by the way, and as a woman in the Church and in her family the bolded is true for her, too.

 

Not every woman, married or not, mother or not, experiences the feelings of being respected and needed, though.  Yet, I don't know how an official priesthood ordination would change that. Except, for some, perhaps that is or would be the ultimate epitome of being respected and needed.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

Is this a Freudian way of expressing phallic superiority? Men give and women can only receive? It sounds crude but I'm serious. Is this what you're suggesting?

[CV75]

Is this a Freudian way of expressing phallic superiority? Men give and women can only receive? It sounds crude but I'm serious. Is this what you're suggesting?

No, no and no.

 

...but your screen name speaks volumes LOL

[HappyJackWagon]

There definitely has been a diluting of the LDS church from the days of Joseph and Brigham to today.  Can you imagine what it would be like if we snapped our fingers and the LDS church today looked like the LDS church of Brigham Young?  Holy cow, what a difference!

 

 

 

 

Amen. And no thank you. I do not want Brigham's church, but I don't really want Joseph's church either. Today's church has evolved in many ways for the better. In my view it is vastly superior today than in the past. But that doesn't mean it won't and doesn't still need to evolve.

 

Religion serves the needs of the people, not the other way around.

[Gray]

Because prophet isn't priesthood.

Because the apostles and deacons in the bible that are assumed to be female may not have been female or may not have been apostles and deacons.

Why assume aberrations?

 

Great, so let's call a woman to be a prophet if you don't need priesthood to be a prophet.. The only deacon mentioned by name in the Bible, by the way, is a woman. 

[Gray]

Or, 30 AD maybe. Unless Jesus was also behind the times by not ordaining women.

 

There were women prophets in the Old Testament. Get with the times!

[Gray]

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.

 

As bottles go, he was new almost 200 years ago, a product of his culture to a certain extent, just like everyone else. 

[Gray]

Better for the Church to die then dilute itself into a social club that keeps up with society.   If the Church does go that route, I guess I will have to search for the true church of God rather than a church that simply caters to please man.  I think the Church only has to look at the Community of Christ Church and how it is stagnated for decades even after watering down their doctrines to keep up with pleasing Babylon.  The Church will always be small and it strength is being different than the world.  That is the only way it can survive or else it really is no different than any other church out there.

 

You can interpret any change however you like - as divine revelation, as a capitulation to evolving norms, or anything else.

 

But what is keeping you in the church now? The church extended priesthood to black men and boys in 1978. Why haven't you interpreted that as meaning the church has become just a social club?

Edited October 26, 2015 by Gray

[CV75]

As bottles go, he was new almost 200 years ago, a product of his culture to a certain extent, just like everyone else. 

LOL and so are you! I think either of you could still tell who was conferring the priesthood upon him!

[Gray]

LOL and so are you! I think either of you could still tell who was conferring the priesthood upon him!

 

Of course, we're all products of our time. I don't assume, however, that angelic visions represent real-life visitations or can be used to infer something about gender. If you take them that literally then you have to confront the fact that Joseph was visited by both Elijah and Elias (Hebrew and Greek versions of the same name). Doesn't make much sense if these were objective events. 

[CV75]

Of course, we're all products of our time. I don't assume, however, that angelic visions represent real-life visitations or can be used to infer something about gender. If you take them that literally then you have to confront the fact that Joseph was visited by both Elijah and Elias (Hebrew and Greek versions of the same name). Doesn't make much sense if these were objective events. 

Let's not go backwards in the discussion. Please comment on the points I've actually made. Whether you read my points as literal or figurative, they describe the same truth.