A Review of Recent Trends Re: Ordination of Women in LDS Church

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

We have definitive documentation for female prophets and a female deacon. 

Since the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, anyone who has the testimony of Jesus could, in that sense, be considered a prophet. It does not necessarily denote a priesthood office or calling. Anna, who saw the Christ child, was characterized as a prophetess, but there is nothing to indicate she was a priesthood holder.

And the Greek word diakanos in the New Testament could be translated as "servant." Likewise, it need not denote a priesthood office.

As I said, nothing definitive there.

What else have you got?

Edited December 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

47 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

You're being inconsistent. The the topic of ordaining women does not ever "come up" in the NT. If I'm wrong, please show me where Christ specifically considers it.

If you're saying that the mere fact that the record does not show Christ as having ordained women means that the topic necessarily must have "came up," well then it makes just as much sense to say that the topics of "women serving missions" and "women saying prayers" also must have "come up" because the text shows that Christ did those things with men, but not women.

While Bluebell can speak for herself, I can tell you that the New Testament specifically records Jesus choosing apostles and seventies, and subsequently telling them that He has ordained them.

Critics sometimes sneer that if that's the criterion, we should only ordain Galilean peasants, because that's who Jesus ordained. But they are missing the point. Jesus ordained Galilean men (and one known Judean -- a man named Judas, from the town of Kerioth) because he lived in the Levant, and Levantine people were the available candidates. Fifty percent of those available candidates were women, and Jesus frequently scandalised traditional Jews by ignoring conventions about keeping them separate and ignoring them, etc. but there is no record that He chose to ordain any of them to any office.

That's pretty significant.

Maybe He knew something about the Priesthood that the OW agitators don't.

[Zakuska]

29 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

While Bluebell can speak for herself, I can tell you that the New Testament specifically records Jesus choosing apostles and seventies, and subsequently telling them that He has ordained them.

Critics sometimes sneer that if that's the criterion, we should only ordain Galilean peasants, because that's who Jesus ordained. But they are missing the point. Jesus ordained Galilean men (and one known Judean -- a man named Judas, from the town of Kerioth) because he lived in the Levant, and Levantine people were the available candidates. Fifty percent of those available candidates were women, and Jesus frequently scandalised traditional Jews by ignoring conventions about keeping them separate and ignoring them, etc. but there is no record that He chose to ordain any of them to any office.

That's pretty significant.

Maybe He knew something about the Priesthood that the OW agitators don't.

I think its quite significant that certain ordinances to prepare Jesus for his death and ressurection where performed by women and not his "priesthood" leaders.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Zakuska

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

 

You're being inconsistent. The the topic of ordaining women does not ever "come up" in the NT. If I'm wrong, please show me where Christ specifically considers it.

 

The topic of ordination comes up in the bible, the BOM, and the D&C.  At no time does Christ ever ordain (or command to be ordained) a woman.  If He has always wanted women to be ordained, then that's a really really really odd thing, right?

Especially in regards to the D&C.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

11 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

I think its quite significant that certain ordinances to prepare Jesus for his death and ressurection where performed by women and not his "priesthood" leaders.

I think it is significant too.

And not less significant that there is not even so much as a hint that the women in question were ordained to any office.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

I think its quite significant that certain ordinances to prepare Jesus for his death and ressurection where performed by women and not his "priesthood" leaders.

 

12 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I think it is significant too.

And not less significant that there is not even so much as a hint that the women in question were ordained to any office.

 

Maybe it isn't done so often anymore, but it used to be a fairly common thing for the Relief Society sisters in a ward to help prepare a body for the funeral, particularly as it pertained to temple clothing. So this is not something that hasn't been carried forward in our day.

By the way, Zakuska, why do you use the word "where" when you should write "were"? I'm seeing that a lot and it gets annoying. Maybe not exclusively from you, but this is the most recent occurrence of it I have observed, so you get to bear the brunt of my venting.

[Zakuska]

30 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I think it is significant too.

And not less significant that there is not even so much as a hint that the women in question were ordained to any office.

 

Performing an ordinance with no Priesthood to do so?

How "effective" is that going to be?

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

This is great news. We can stop requiring priesthood ordination for both prophets and deacons. 

there has never been a requirement that prophets be ordained as there is no office of prophet

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Zakuska said:

I think its quite significant that certain ordinances to prepare Jesus for his death and ressurection where performed by women and not his "priesthood" leaders.

 

58 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Performing an ordinance with no Priesthood to do so?

How "effective" is that going to be?

 

That ordinance between husband and wife (which did require the wife to be a Queen and Priestess) is very significant.  And the limit of that ordinance was a wife and her husband.  Hardly a sign she could go about baptizing, giving the Holy Ghost, or ordaining others.

And performing an ordinance with no priesthood is about as effective as bestowing an ordinance on someone who is not able to receive it in the eyes of God.  Ordaining women, sealing gay couples, the list of ineffective ordinances seems to keep growing.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Performing an ordinance with no Priesthood to do so?

How "effective" is that going to be?

Where (I should have typed "were" just for Scott's sake . . .   ) are you coming up with preparing a body for a funeral being an ordinance? I have always had the Relief Society president or endowed female close family do this, but have never thought of it as an ordinance. And, I can't find it in my copy of the "Family Guidebook."  

[Zakuska]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Where (I should have typed "were" just for Scott's sake . . .   ) are you coming up with preparing a body for a funeral being an ordinance? I have always had the Relief Society president or endowed female close family do this, but have never thought of it as an ordinance. And, I can't find it in my copy of the "Family Guidebook."  

Christ was anointed by the woman way before his dead body was anointed for burial.

 

[rongo]

You're saying that the woman anointing his feet and wiping his feet with her hair was a priesthood ordinance?

Oooooookay.

And yes, I know that He said that she did it unto His burial. In my view, He was simply saying, "Get off her back. You haven't given me any water to wash my feet with, but she anointed my feet, bathed my feet with tears, and wiped them with her hair. After I'm dead, people will remember this."

To see this as an ordained priesthood ordinance doesn't even rise to being a real stretch.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, rongo said:

CFR.

Prophetesses ≠ priesthood roles or ordination. Women having the spiritual gift of prophecy does not denote ordination or priesthood roles. Neither does women leading into battle or serving as social leaders.

I would  love to see "examples in both the OT and NT of women in priesthood roles." 

We have women prophets and a woman deacon in the Bible. Do you need a CFR for them? If you're saying those aren't priesthood roles, then great. Let's call women to be prophets and deacons. But currently the church teaches that priesthood is necessary to hold those positions.

Why do you hold female prophets to a different standard than male prophets? Where is the evidence that Amos held the priesthood?

Edited December 17, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

there has never been a requirement that prophets be ordained as there is no office of prophet

Then there should be nothing to stop us from calling a woman to be the next president of the church.

 

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, anyone who has the testimony of Jesus could, in that sense, be considered a prophet. It does not necessarily denote a priesthood office or calling. Anna, who saw the Christ child, was characterized as a prophetess, but there is nothing to indicate she was a priesthood holder.

And the Greek word diakanos in the New Testament could be translated as "servant." Likewise, it need not denote a priesthood office.

As I said, nothing definitive there.

What else have you got?

Deborah definitely had more than just a testimony. She was a judge in Israel.

And the Greek word apostolos just means one who is sent. So it need not denote a priesthood office, right? So no definitive evidence that male apostles and prophets held any priesthood. At least, if we're going to use the same reasoning for men as you're using for women.

Furthermore, the only example of a deacon we have in scripture is a woman. So to use the logic of those who point out that Jesus never called women apostles, we have no business calling male deacons at all.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

Then there should be nothing to stop us from calling a woman to be the next president of the church.

 

"Then there should be nothing to stop us from calling a woman to be the next president of the church"?

This rather typifies the flaw in the mindset of the OW folks.  We don't "call" the "next president of the church".  The Lord does.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

This is great news. We can stop requiring priesthood ordination for both prophets and deacons. 

As Avatar said, there is no office of prophet.  The scriptures are clear that anyone can be a prophet, male or female, with no need of ordination. 

Having the spirit of prophecy does not require the priesthood and never has. 

[rongo]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes - it is an ordinance.

How do people on this board still not know this?  It pops up at least monthly, and has been written about by Mormon historians many times.

I'm not talking about that. And where are you getting that she was performing this ordinance? 

It's a leap for those who want to agitate for women ordination, or for biblical support for each and every latter-day ordinance. If one doesn't have such an agenda, there's no need to see what she did as an ordinance.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Then there should be nothing to stop us from calling a woman to be the next president of the church.

 

You said the above in response to multiple people pointing out that "prophet" is not a priesthood office. "President of the Church," is however. carries priesthood keys which are transferred via an ordinance (cf. TR #4a --- the president of the Church is the only person who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys). This is distinct from "prophet." As many people have pointed out, the gift of prophecy is a spiritual gift that does not require ordination or setting apart via an ordinance --- and is available to women.

What is stopping the Lord (not us) from calling a woman to be the next president of the church is that God has clearly never ordained women or given them priesthood keys. Why this is so enters the realm of speculation, but as Elder Oaks emphasized in conference, the Brethren are doctrinally bound even if they wanted to make this change.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

. . . as Elder Oaks emphasized in conference, the Brethren are doctrinally bound even if they wanted to make this change.

I will add that I was very comforted when he addressed this in priesthood session, because it had the effect of painting the Church into a corner with regards to ordaining women in the future. It was sort of the equivalent of burning the ships to make the sailors "make it work" on the island and prevent seeking for ways to hijack them and sail home. 

We are committed to preserving the doctrine that priesthood ordination is for males only.

Edited December 17, 2015 by rongo
Grammar

[Gray]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Then there should be nothing to stop us from calling a woman to be the next president of the church"?

This rather typifies the flaw in the mindset of the OW folks.  We don't "call" the "next president of the church".  The Lord does.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Technically the most senior apostle is the next president of the church, so no one is selecting them right now. 

[Gray]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

As Avatar said, there is no office of prophet.  The scriptures are clear that anyone can be a prophet, male or female, with no need of ordination. 

Having the spirit of prophecy does not require the priesthood and never has. 

Great, so we should expect women to lead the church as president soon, right?

[Gray]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

You said the above in response to multiple people pointing out that "prophet" is not a priesthood office. "President of the Church," is however. carries priesthood keys which are transferred via an ordinance (cf. TR #4a --- the president of the Church is the only person who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys). This is distinct from "prophet." As many people have pointed out, the gift of prophecy is a spiritual gift that does not require ordination or setting apart via an ordinance --- and is available to women.

What is stopping the Lord (not us) from calling a woman to be the next president of the church is that God has clearly never ordained women or given them priesthood keys. Why this is so enters the realm of speculation, but as Elder Oaks emphasized in conference, the Brethren are doctrinally bound even if they wanted to make this change.

So prophets and deacons don't need priesthood, but we can't call women to those roles because they can't have the priesthood. Makes perfect sense.

 

But given that the only Biblical example of a deacon is a woman, why did they feel comfortable making the change to ordaining men to that office?

Edited December 17, 2015 by Gray

[Zakuska]

1 Timothy 3:12 - Deacons married at 12?  Hmmmm?

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

But given that the only Biblical example of a deacon is a woman, why did they feel comfortable making the change to ordaining men to that office?

You're equating a NT mention of "deacon" with our priesthood office of "deacon." Did NT deacons pass the sacrament or collect fast offerings?  

Are you up in arms that modern patriarchs don't seem to match biblical "evangelists?" 

I'm confused that you are insisting that "the only Biblical example of a deacon is a woman."  

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

 

1 Timothy 3:12