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

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

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

 

1 Timothy 3:12 

Hey, Gray! We finally found scriptural support for gay marriage!

Since the only biblical reference to deacons involves women (your claim) ---- the above scripture must refer to gay marriage.

Right?

[Zakuska]

Arguments for Phoebe as a "deacon"

Many interpreters are convinced that diakonon in Romans 16:1 should indeed be translated and understood as "deacon," not "servant." James Dunn calls Phoebe "the first recorded 'deacon' in the history of Christianity." He maintains that if Paul meant to identify her only as a "servant" he would have used diakoneo (cf. Ro. 15:25) or diakonia

Dr. Jim Denison, President, Center for Informed Faith, www.InformedFaith.com. Copyright © 2009.

Page 2 (cf. 1 Cor. 16:15). He believes that the phrase "of the church" points to a "more recognized ministry" or "position of responsibility within the congregation."1

A. T. Robertson, one of Baptists' greatest Greek scholars, agrees: "In favor of the technical sense of 'deacon' or 'deaconess' is the addition of 'of the church.' In some sense Phoebe was a servant or minister of the church in Cenchreae."2

Greek scholar R. C. H. Lenski concludes: "Both the participle and the genitive ["being a servant of the church"] indicate that Phoebe occupied an official position by appointment of the church which was similar to that of the seven deacons who were appointed in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 6:1-6). She belongs to the class indicated by diakonia in 12:7.

Her work of ministering was not mere private effort but was carried on by authorization of the congregation. It is only fair to assume that she was not the only one so appointed in Cenchreae; such an appointment was in all likelihood held by several women." Lenski adds, "This is the first mention of women deacons in the church. The way in which Paul introduces this deaconess to the Romans indicates that the fact that women serving in this office was not a novelty but something that was already known. While we lack information we must, nevertheless, say that, since the arrangement of having male deacons in Jerusalem had proven highly beneficial at the very start, the appointment of women was the next logical step. The ministration of the first deacons consisted in the distribution of food to widows. But, surely, it must soon have become apparent that, for instance, in cases of sickness and of poverty and of loneliness, especially of poor widows and orphans, a need had arisen for the alleviation of which men could not be used; only competent women could serve in this capacity. Voluntary efforts would accomplish much, and in many churches they, no doubt, sufficed as they still do; but at least here in Cenchreae we see the forward step, the addition of duly appointed deaconesses." He concludes, "How the duties of the office were arranged and how it functioned we do not know beyond the one statement that it rendered ministering help for the sake of help. That is the heart of deaconess work today, its present form being a recent arrangement. From 1 Timothy 3:11, which was written a few years later, we see that there were many deaconesses in the Ephesian church; they are simply called 'women,' but the qualifications laid down match those required for male deacons."3 F. F. Bruce, the noted evangelical theologian, adds: "In a church context the word should be rendered 'deacon,' whether masculine or feminine. That the duties of a deacon could

1 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1988)

2:886-7. 2 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931) 4:425.

3 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1936) 899-900.

Dr. Jim Denison, President, Center for Informed Faith, www.InformedFaith.com. Copyright © 2009.

Page 3 be performed by either men or women is suggested by 1 Timothy 3:11, where 'the women' are to be understood as 'deacons' (like the men of verses 3-10)."4 Presbyterian expositor Donald Grey Barnhouse agrees: "The Greek word which tells us that Phoebe was a 'servant' of the church is the word for 'deaconness.'"5

Thomas Schreiner, in an essay which takes a decidedly negative view regarding women in church leadership, nonetheless concludes, "In the New Testament, women functioned as prophets and probably deacons but not as elders." 6

If Phoebe was a "deacon," why did Paul use the masculine Greek word for her designation? For the simple reason that "woman deacon" (diakonissa) was not invented until the fourth century.7 He used the masculine form with the feminine name because it was the only designation for "deacon" available to him. In conclusion, those who believe that Phoebe was a "deacon" suggest that there is no exegetical reason to exclude her from this ministry office. To the contrary, the Greek syntax seems to indicate that "being a servant of the church" referred to a formal, churchrelated position rather than a general role of "servant."8

http://www.godissues.org/pdf/Women_deacons.pdf

Edited December 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

President of the church does require priesthood ordination though. 

Not every president is a prophet, nor every prophet a president. 

[Gray]

52 minutes ago, rongo said:

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."  

 

 

It's very likely that all of our priesthood offices have been modified from what they were in the NT. In fact, first century Christians probably wouldn't have associated any of them with "priesthood" except the old Levitical offices. 

Thanks for the Timothy reference. You're right - that indicates that men can be deacons, as well as women.

[Gray]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

Hey, Gray! We finally found scriptural support for gay marriage!

Since the only biblical reference to deacons involves women (your claim) ---- the above scripture must refer to gay marriage.

Right?

The only example of a specific deacon in scripture is a woman, yes. Nice one, re: gay marriage

[Gray]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

President of the church does require priesthood ordination though. 

Not every president is a prophet, nor every prophet a president. 

In the LDS church, every prophet is also the president. But if as you say prophets don't need priesthood, then there is no reason not to call a woman.

[Sleeper Cell]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

 

Let’s compromise by calling women as “teachers.”
 

[Gray]

Just now, Sleeper Cell said:

Let’s compromise by calling women as “teachers.”
 

It would be more scriptural than calling kids to that office

[Russell C McGregor]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

In the LDS church, every prophet is also the president. But if as you say prophets don't need priesthood, then there is no reason not to call a woman.

Really?

You must go to a different LDS Church than I do!

Considering that twice a year, I sustain the counsellors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

In the LDS church, every prophet is also the president. But if as you say prophets don't need priesthood, then there is no reason not to call a woman.

That's not true though.  

We currently have 15 prophets and only three of them also hold the title of president (and only one of those three hold the title of President of the church).  That means that we have 12 prophets who are not presidents. 

And, there's no reason to call a woman as a prophet either.  Having the gift of prophecy does not require a specific calling. 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It would be more scriptural than calling kids to that office

As has been exhaustively demonstrated, the notion that the Church of Jesus Christ has no source of doctrine other than the Bible is an apostate notion, and is false.

Apart from anything else, no President of the Church has ever taught such a notion; especially Harold B. Lee.

And in any event, a faithful "kid" is preferable to an unfaithful goat when it comes to Church callings.

 

[KevinG]

I wonder if the dear sister would have questioned the validity and sampling of this survey if it had produced a result she had wanted.  I see this all the time when I analyze action research survey's and the client does not see what they hoped to see.  Even if the results paint a more positive picture than was expected (diversity, employee morale, customer satisfaction, etc.)  Some people really get upset when you show them their power base is built on less discontent than they had sold the organization on in order to build their fifedom.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That's not true though.  

We currently have 15 prophets and only three of them also hold the title of president (and only one of those three hold the title of President of the church).  That means that we have 12 prophets who are not presidents. 

And, there's no reason to call a woman as a prophet either.  Having the gift of prophecy does not require a specific calling. 

The apostles are only prophets in a generalized sense (ie they have the testimony of Jesus). Their calling is not "prophet" in the way that Deborah or Joel were prophets. 

[Antoni]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

And, there's no reason to call a woman as a prophet either.  Having the gift of prophecy does not require a specific calling. 

Agree

Of note; My Hebrew OT (Tanach) has a table in it which lists the 48 Prophets (Isaiah, Moses etc.) it also lists the "7 Prophetesses" (Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Esther). I'll need to do more research into those 7 and concept of them as prohetesses in orthodox Judaism.

 

 

 

[Avatar4321]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

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

 

just because you don't know what a prophet is doesn't mean we can do whatever you want.

[Avatar4321]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

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

based on what exactly? Are you expecting radical changes in priesthood ordination and the death of the first presidency and quorum of the twelve in the immediate future?

[Cold Steel]

On 12/16/2015 at 4:14 PM, Gray said:

By comparison, there have been no direct word for word revelations in the LDS church for more than 100 years. Can we really complain about the wording of their revelations?

Would their revelations be more impressive to you if they adopted the values and challenges of the conservative world?

I have not seen any evidence that the CofC members are embittered. If this were directed at Mormons it would rightly be considered anti-Mormon rhetoric. 

Not true. Revelations are recorded and archived in the church just as they always have been. We don't see them because they're not to us. Our prophets today are no different than the ancient prophets. Mormon writes: 

Quote

...it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.

The purpose of angels appearing to men is their ministrations. They don't appear for the sake of appearing, and when we pray for wisdom or guidance, I think it incumbent to leave it to the Lord how He conveys that wisdom. Many times Joseph Smith would simply bow his head and get an answer. Truman Madsen tells the story of a bomb scare in the Tabernacle during an event. The Security team leader passed him a note asking if they should evacuate (it was during the time when Joel LeBaron was trying to kill his rivals, including LDS authorities). Lee bowed his head a moment, then beckoned to the team leader, "There is no bomb," he said, and that ended the incident. 

In the early church, one man (can't recall his name) sought a testimony of the Book of Mormon and earnestly prayed for a visit from the the three Nephites. Well, he was visited in him home by one of the three, who, after rebuking him for his unbelief, bore a solemn witness to it. When that was concluded, he warned the man that because of the nature of this testimony, if he ever denied it, he would pay a heavy penalty. The man never did.

I've heard many saints bemoan our lack of word-for word revelation from On High, but they really shouldn't because how a revelation is received isn't really as important as what's in it. And in the case of the Community of Christ, the content has been outrageous enough to send many of its members packing. And in answer to your question: "Would their revelations be more impressive to you if they adopted the values and challenges of the conservative world?" -- the answer would be, no, but I would be more willing to think that God might be gently guiding them back to the gold. While we believe in our exclusivity as the church and Kingdom of God, we acknowledge that God does direct other churches and answers their prayers according to their faith and diligence. Since the CofC lacks the Keys of the Kingdom, their baptisms and ordinations are of no concern to us, but the tone and tint of their "revelations" indicate that the engine driving them is more darkness than light.

When the prophet Samuel was late in offering sacrifices, Saul saw no reason that he, as the newly anointed king, could not do them in his stead. He probably meant no disrespect, but in that one act he caused the Lord to wrench the throne from him and anoint another in his stead. The leader of this movement to ordain women into the priesthood wants complete and total equality between men and women in heaven. Without knowing anything regarding the "order of Heaven" in the eternities, she's willing to give up everything if men are to preside there. She correctly sees the priesthood as the right to preside in heavenly families and to oversee the creation process of worlds and matter. And for some reason the role of Queen and Mother doesn't satisfy her, nor those in the RLDS. They want the women to have the right to preside. 

 

[Cold Steel]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Not every president is a prophet, nor every prophet a president. 

Every President is a prophet, seer and revelator. Every President also holds the Keys of the Kingdom.

6 hours ago, Gray said:

In the LDS church, every prophet is also the president. But if as you say prophets don't need priesthood, then there is no reason not to call a woman.

Not so. Any faithful man or woman can be a prophet. 

Ever heard the story of "old prophet Mason" as told by Wilford Woodruff? Even today there are prophets in other churches who have the gift of prophecy. Also, what of Heber C. Kimball, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Orson Hyde, the Pratts and many others? Joseph Smith wasn't just a one-man band -- and that's one of the greatest evidences in his favor. People say, "How can you accept that charlatan Joe Smith?" And I always say it's not just a matter of rejecting Joseph Smith, I would also have to reject all the others? If Joseph was a scoundrel and a faker, then all those others would have to be, too. But they were all prophets, and they all had some spectacular visions and revelations.

 

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Cold Steel said:

Every President is a prophet, seer and revelator. Every President also holds the Keys of the Kingdom.

 

I was referring to callings like stake presidents, Sunday school presidents, beehive class presidents, and the like. 

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

The apostles are only prophets in a generalized sense (ie they have the testimony of Jesus). Their calling is not "prophet" in the way that Deborah or Joel were prophets. 

I don't see anything that puts Deborah on the same footing as Joel. She is one of a handful of women described as prophetesses. 

Edited December 18, 2015 by bluebell

[Cold Steel]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was referring to callings like stake presidents, Sunday school presidents, beehive class presidents, and the like. 

Wait...uh...you don't accept that your Beehive Class President is a prophet? Oh, the raging apostasy that's creeping into the church today! And if our High Priests group leaders aren't prophets, where do they get all that strange new doctrine they teach?

 

[Avatar4321]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

In the LDS church, every prophet is also the president. But if as you say prophets don't need priesthood, then there is no reason not to call a woman.

every prophet is not the president. Heck, there are fifteen men recognized as prophets every conference. And that doesn't even address the many prophets in our stakes and wards.

[Avatar4321]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's not true though.  

We currently have 15 prophets and only three of them also hold the title of president (and only one of those three hold the title of President of the church).  That means that we have 12 prophets who are not presidents. 

And, there's no reason to call a woman as a prophet either.  Having the gift of prophecy does not require a specific calling. 

not to nitpick but there are four presidents among the two quorums

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

not to nitpick but there are four presidents among the two quorums

Good catch. I forgot about president of the quorum!

[Kenngo1969]

19 hours ago, Gray said:

The apostles are only prophets in a generalized sense (ie they have the testimony of Jesus). Their calling is not "prophet" in the way that Deborah or Joel were prophets. 

And in response to my call for a CFR on that, you'll conveniently cite Gray 1:1, right?   Though, I do appreciate your allusion to the fact that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.  I'm a prophet!  Whodathunkit?!   However, I don't think the calling of the Twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators is based solely on their testimony of Jesus.  I believe, and I believe scripture accords, that the Twelve comprise a quorum equal in authority to the First Presidency, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could function equally as well under the leadership and direction of the Twelve as it could under that of the First Presidency.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Kenngo1969