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

[smac97]

Here's another article on this subject:

> When the topic of ordaining Mormon women comes up, one of the most common responses from top Church leadership as well as more orthodox members is that Mormon women are, in an overwhelming majority, against being ordained. 

==I agree that this is a response to the general issue of female ordination in the Church.  However, I have not understood it as being presented as an explanation for why women are not ordained.  Elder Oaks' 2014 talk on this issue, which is about a definitive a treatment as we presently have, provides nary a word to the effect of "women are not ordained to the priesthood because they do not want it".

> Personally, I’ve heard a number of reasons for being against ordination, ranging from pseudo-science theories about female vs. male brains (theories about the brain that have been debunked), to insulting complaints that men would slack off if they weren’t the only people ordained, to the bizarre circular logic that men need the priesthood in order to be the head of the household, and that they’re the head of the household because they hold the priesthood. Yeah, even as a preteen I didn’t put any stock in that last one, and as a married woman I put even less stock in it.

I can see how some Latter-day Saints have conflated the issue of women not being ordained to the priesthood with their opinions about why women are not ordained to the priesthood.  But such personal opinions are not binding other others, and certainly not binding on the Church.

> Mormon women say they would welcome ordination – if the opportunity came through prophetic revelation. 

I think many LDS men would as well.  That would be part and parcel of belonging to a Church that believes in continuing revelation.

> The explanation that Mormon women don’t even want ordination is problematic for reasons I’ve discussed before. But it’s also inaccurate.

First, as noted above, I don't think general responses by Latter-day Saints to the current status quo (where women are not ordained), which seem to include a lot of "well, LDS women don't want to be ordained anyway", has been presented as an explanation or justification for the why women are not ordained.

Second, I am not sure the general sentiment, about LDS women not "wanting" to be ordained, is inaccurate as this post's author claims.  I think many LDS women are content with the status quo.

Third, I think there are three significant factors which underlie the position taken by many LDS women vis-à-vis female ordination (that is, their contentment with not being ordained): A) many faithful, observant LDS women find great satisfaction in the roles they are asked to play in the Church (IOW, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"); B) many faithful, observant LDS women strongly believe that the Church is led by revelation, so agitating/protesting against the Lord's Church and the Lord's servants, particularly on matters of doctrine, is not appropriate or effective conduct in the LDS paradigm; and C) the OW folks have, I think, alienated large swaths of the LDS faithful by their repellant tactics (protesting on sacred grounds during sacred convocations, attacking/villifying Church leaders, directly defying the Church, aligning themselves with apostates, etc.).

> While past surveys have demonstrated that the majority of Mormon women will say they oppose female ordination, those surveys failed to separate how Mormon women feel about female ordination from how Mormon women feel about following the prophet. If you ask Mormon women how they feel about something that is currently taught by the men they view as prophets, seers, and revelators, you may get a response that has nothing to do with the policy itself and everything to do with their loyalty to leaders.

Well!  Perhaps she understands things after all?  Most faithful, observant LDS women will, I think, let their devotion to the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it and the leaders that administer it predominate over their personal preferences.  That said, I am not willing to disregard what those same women have said about not wanting to be ordained.  Just as there are many who oppose female ordination out of a desire to let the Lord's will govern the Church, I think there are also many LDS women who, simply put, don't want the priesthood because they are content with the current structure and organization of the Church.

> Of course, the survey still doesn’t tell us how Mormon women feel about female ordination outside of the context of modern prophetic revelation.

Oh, brother.  Here the article's author really goes off the rails.  It is pretty much axiomatic that "context is everything".  Exactly what is the value of discussing whether or not women in the LDS Church should be ordained to the priesthood "outside the context of modern prophetic revelation"?  Why strip the discussion of what is, for most faithful, observant LDS women, the core consideration?  We ascertain the will of God through "modern prophetic revelation".  The Church is governed by "modern prophetic revelation".  The fundamental truth claims of the Church arise out of "modern prophetic revelation".  The LDS Church's uniqueness and vitality stand or fall on the presence or absence of "modern prophetic revelation".

So why on earth would we propose to evaulate "feelings" about the subject of female ordination "outside of the context of modern prophetic revelation"?  We may as well ask Americans to talk about their Freedom of Speech "outside the context of" the First Amendment.  Or ask healthcare providers to talk about obesity rates "outside the context" of nutrition, caloric intake, sedentary lifestyles and exercise.  Or ask fans of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy to discuss the aesthetic qualities of those films "outside the context" of the acting, the CGI and practical effects, Howard Shore's musical score, Andrew Lesnie's cinematography, the costumes and production design, and the landscapes of New Zealand.

We just can't do it.  Context is everything.  Doctrinal issues must be addressed and discussed in context.  To strip the context from the discussion is to destroy the discussion altogether.

> What the survey does make clear is that top Church leadership should probably take members’ support of existing policies with a grain of salt.  It may not be support of the policy, but rather loyalty to the leaders. And the more that Church acts of discipline against dissenters take place, the more likely it is that, even in a survey designed by Church leaders who want our honest opinions, we will struggle to be completely honest with ourselves and thus with them.

Not-so-veiled threats.  Nice.

> Our desire to attain righteous attributes can obscure even our ability to tell God, in the privacy of prayer, that we’re furious with a family member or envious of a co-worker. And God already knows what we’re feeling – he’s not going to think less of us just because we put our thoughts into words. How much more difficult is it to be honest, even in the privacy of a survey, when we know our responses will be read by leaders who are inspired but also imperfect? But our leaders need to know how we truly feel. 

This line of reasoning seems specious to me.  The OW folks (and other less overly pugnacious types) can't really, at this point, claim that all they want to do is let the Brethren "know how (they) truly feel."  There's way too much water under the bridge for that.  Plus the OW folks have long been on record as demanding the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will suffice."  Moreover, the Brethren have addressed this issue and the OW folks are ignoring the counsel we have been given on the subject.  

> I’m not saying we should hold a rally in Salt Lake to show dissent or that we should try to publicly rebuke leaders in the style of Denver Snuffer (please, for the love of all that’s good, do not follow the example of Snuffer in any regard).

Hmm.  This is interesting.  The author has tried to distance herself from Kate Kelly (see here), including presumable Kelly's tendency to "publicly rebuke leaders in the style of Denver Snuffer".  But the author then proceeds to "publicly rebuke" her previous bishop at some length (same link as above), which is rather similar to "the style of Denver Snuffer".  She has also "publicly rebuke(d)" people she describes as "over zealous local leaders" (see here).  She also "publicly rebuke(d)" the local priesthood leaders of one of her friends (see here).

So I am glad that the author is not recommending rallies/protests in Salt Lake "to show dissent" or that we should "publicly rebuke leaders".  But I think she would do well to follow some of her own advice in that regard.

> But we need to be comfortable with the knowledge that our leaders are not demigods, and perhaps we need to take it at face value if a survey asks our feelings toward current policies, especially if the survey comes from the Church itself (to be clear, the survey Peggy Fletcher reported on today came from Mormon-affiliated academics, not the Church). 

I will admit here that, the author's over-the-top reference to "demigods" notwithstanding, I think there are strains of the-Brethren-are-infallible thought in the Church.  I think this is more of a subtext, really, then an overt expression.  But if there is an implication here that LDS women who do not want to be ordained are only saying that because they believe "our leaders are demigods", that they are infallible, and that Church doctrines, policies and practices are never to be questioned in any way, I will have to disagree with that.  There is a broad and wide difference between thoughtful and respectful (and private) inquiries and questions and expressions of concern from Church members and . . . the tactics utilized by the OW folks.  There are also perfectly valid and reasonable reasons for LDS women to not want to be ordained.

> If a survey from the Church asks how you feel about a current policy, try to assume that the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 truly are asking about that policy and not about your loyalty to them as leaders. Even with a secular survey, try to remember that Church leaders will probably take note of the survey and that their prayers may be influenced by what we indicate we think.

This is a fair point, I suppose.  In fact, I would take it a step further and suggest that God Himself is influenced by the righteous desires of His children expressed through prayer.  In fact, some blessings are contingent upon our asking for them.  However, I diverge from the OW folks and their ilk when their expressions of their desires become overzealous, such that they publicly speak against, disrespect, faultfind and disobey local and general leaders, disrupt sacred convocations, align themselves with apostates, and so on.  I am also not persuaded that the motives of the OW folks are entirely pure/righteous (as evidenced by some of their behaviors).

> And if you hear a fellow Mormon express disagreement with a current policy, please do me a favor and try not to assume they’re disloyal to leaders or that they lack a testimony of the Gospel.

Fair enough.  But perhaps the author could, in her turn, not publicly rebuke local priesthood leaders with whom she disagrees.  That would be nice.

> And if female ordination during mortality is something God would welcome - and I’m not about to assume whether it is – then our continued insistence, as Mormon women, that we oppose female ordination, may well be halting the progress of our Heavenly Parents’ work.

LOL.  It's sort of funny that she seemingly wants LDS women to speak up, but only if they agree with her worldview.

But overall I like the sentiment of this last statement.  It somewhat reflects my position, which is this: "I do not think women being ordained to the priesthood is part of the Gospel program, but I am open to correction from the Lord and the Brethren on that point (as Elder Hales put it: "Once we pray, study, and have faith with a desire to learn spiritual matters, the Lord will provide a way for us to gain further light and knowledge").  Consequently, I am open to the possibility of women being ordained to the priesthood.  I utterly reject, however, ongoing efforts to affect change in the Church via publicly agitating/protesting for female ordination, disobedience to local and general authorities, public faultfinding of local and general authorities, and similar behaviors."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2015 by smac97

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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?

If being a prophet doesn't require priesthood, why do we require the prophet to be a priesthood holder now? That's the issue.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

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

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.

 

No one is called prophet today except the president of the church. 

[Gray]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

They're actually very equivalent. They were both prophets and both judges in Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_judges

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Christianity

[Avatar4321]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

If being a prophet doesn't require priesthood, why do we require the prophet to be a priesthood holder now? That's the issue.

because his office isn't prophet. That's just what we call him. His office is president of the high priesthood. Kind of obvious why you need the priesthood for that.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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.

Their calling is not to be the prophet. 

Let's be clear, Deborah was a big P prophet. That was her calling. 

[Storm Rider]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

If being a prophet doesn't require priesthood, why do we require the prophet to be a priesthood holder now? That's the issue.

A prophet, as in the one that holds the keys to the priesthood, must necessarily hold the priesthood in order to hold the keys.  That seems both obvious and rational.  

A prophet, as in one who receives revelation of Jesus Christ or even one who sees the future, is simply that and not one that holds the priesthood per se.  

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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.

See:

https://www.lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng

None of the 12 are known as "the prophet"

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

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: 

 

CFR, please

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

Let's be clear, Deborah was a big P prophet. That was her calling. 

CFR.

Can't wait to see the documentation for that.

[Jeanne]

Personally and from my relationships with LDS women, I don't believe the majority of them have really been asked whether they would like the priesthood.  Especially those who say they are not into deep doctrine.  Would they really say how they feel...or just not rock the boat?

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

If being a prophet doesn't require priesthood, why do we require the prophet to be a priesthood holder now? That's the issue.

"The prophet" meaning the Presiding High Priest?  Are you familiar with D&C 107:22 ("Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.")?

Where are you getting the idea that the Presiding High Priest "doesn't require priesthood"?

Surely you aren't playing wordgames?  You wouldn't be conflating the concept of "prophet" (which anyone can be who has a testimony of Jesus) with "the prophet" or "the Prophet" (meaning the Presiding High Priest, the President of the Church, etc.)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Their calling is not to be the prophet. 

Let's be clear, Deborah was a big P prophet. That was her calling. 

Deborah was called to be a judge.

are you really this ignorant of scripture?

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one is called prophet today except the president of the church. 

Well, not quite:

Prophet

The work of a Hebrew prophet was to act as God’s messenger and make known God’s will. The message was usually prefaced with the words “Thus saith Jehovah.” He taught men about God’s character, showing the full meaning of His dealings with Israel in the past. It was therefore part of the prophetic office to preserve and edit the records of the nation’s history; and such historical books as Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings were known by the Jews as the former Prophets. It was also the prophet’s duty to denounce sin and foretell its punishment and to redress, so far as he could, both public and private wrongs. He was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the divine requirement. In certain cases prophets predicted future events, such as the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah’s kingdom; but as a rule a prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in Num. 11:25–29; Rev. 19:10.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mystery Meat]

20 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. 

For all we know Debroah didn't actually exist.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

Their calling is not to be the prophet. 

Let's be clear, Deborah was a big P prophet. That was her calling. 

Your assertion is not self-evident.  See, e.g., here ("Although they didn’t hold the priesthood and did not have equal authority with the prophets, prophetesses—inspired women with strong testimonies called upon by the Lord to perform various tasks—do not seem to have been unusual in ancient Israel."); here ("This leads to the question of a Church position for a prophetess. For example, the word prophet is used in the Church to refer to a specific office or calling in the Melchizedek Priesthood. Thus, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are sustained as 'prophets, seers, and revelators.' Further, the term prophet is often used in referring to the President of the Church. However, in these usages, the term prophetess is not used as a female counterpart to a prophet. That is, there is no office, calling, or position of prophetess within the priesthood, nor any other area of jurisdiction, nor were there in olden times such priesthood offices or callings that could have given rise to such usage.  Consequently, although the term prophetess has a wide range of possible usages, the general intent of the biblical term likely has to do with the sister having an abundance of the Spirit of the Lord, one gift of which is the gift of prophecy."); here ("Deborah was one of these judges, the only woman recorded in scripture to serve in this capacity. She was a prophetess, judge, and deliverer. In her role as prophetess, Deborah did not hold the priesthood or possess ecclesiastical keys but enjoyed the gift of prophecy in a more general sense (see Revelation 19:10)."); and here ("Prophetic utterances from our prophets, living and dead, give powerful evidence of their divine callings and represent an important part of our scriptural heritage. But fortunately, the Lord has not limited this precious gift to his Apostles and prophets; he has extended it to many others. Elder James E. Talmage of the Quorum of the Twelve wrote, 'No special ordination in the Priesthood is essential to man’s receiving the gift of prophecy. … This gift may be possessed by women also.' (Articles of Faith, 12th ed., Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1924, pp. 228–29.) The Old Testament, for example, uses the word prophetess to describe at least five women: Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Huldah (2 Kgs. 22:14), Noadiah (Neh. 6:14), and Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3). Similarly, the New Testament makes reference to Anna, a prophetess (Luke 2:36). The Apostle Peter spoke of the last days when 'your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.' (Acts 2:17; see also Joel 2:28.)").

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

Their calling is not to be the prophet. 

Let's be clear, Deborah was a big P prophet. That was her calling. 

CFR that Debroah was "called" to be a "big P prophet" (assuming that "big P prophet" references a priesthood office).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

See:

https://www.lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng

None of the 12 are known as "the prophet"

But they are, each and every one, sustained as prophets seers and revelators.

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

They're actually very equivalent. They were both prophets and both judges in Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_judges

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Christianity

You'll understand why I won't be accepting a wiki link on what a prophet is as an authoritative source on this issue.  All that entry does is list everyone in the bible who was ever called a prophet or prophetess.  It makes no distinction between the little p prophets and the capital P prophets.  It's a list any kid with access to a bible and search function could put together.  It is not teaching anything doctrinal.

And a judge in Israel was a civil and military leader in times of difficulty.  It was not an ecclesiastical role.

Her role and that of Joel, as far as prophesying goes, does not seem to be equal.  That's probably why Joel has a book in the bible, and Deborah (no disrespect intended in the least) has two chapters in the book of the Judges.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You'll understand why I won't be accepting a wiki link on what a prophet is as an authoritative source on this issue.  All that entry does is list everyone in the bible who was ever called a prophet or prophetess.  It makes no distinction between the little p prophets and the capital P prophets.  It's a list any kid with access to a bible and search function could put together.  It is not teaching anything doctrinal.

And a judge in Israel was a civil and military leader in times of difficulty.  It was not an ecclesiastical role.

Her role and that of Joel, as far as prophesying goes, does not seem to be equal.  That's probably why Joel has a book in the bible, and Deborah (no disrespect intended in the least) has two chapters in the book of the Judges.

 

Gray raised the example of Deborah elsewhere. I was going to answer him there but will do so here.

Bluebell is correct: The judges recounted in the Book of Judges were civil and military leaders, not necessarily holders of the priesthood. They weren't even judges in the sense of judging the people, that's just how the word is translated in the Old Testament. One of those judges was Sampson, who, in my view, lacked the strong character and wisdom to be one of the Lord's anointed priesthood holders.

Calling them "judges in Israel," an apparent attempt to conflate them with bishops and stake presidents in our dispensation, who are often called judges in Israel, is a cunning bit of sophistry on Gray's part, but that's all it is, sophistry.

Incidentally, in our dispensation, there are women who hold substantial positions of leadership and responsibility pertaining to the Church, though those positions are not priesthood callings. For instance, Sharon Eubank direct's the Church's Humanitarian Services. Sheri Dew heads Deseret Book Co. The editor and associate editor of the Church News, a correlated and official news and information organ of the Church, are both women.

In my wife's calling as ward Primary president there are administrative and organizational demands that surpass what is required of most men in our ward.

 

Edited December 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Gray raised the example of Deborah elsewhere. I was going to answer him there but will do so here.

Bluebell is correct: The judges recounted in the Book of Judges were civil and military leaders, not necessarily holders of the priesthood. They weren't even judges in the sense of judging the people, that's just how the word is translated in the Old Testament. One of those judges was Sampson, who, in my view, lacked the strong character and wisdom to be one of the Lord's anointed priesthood holders.

Calling them "judges in Israel," an apparent attempt to conflate them with bishops and stake presidents in our dispensation, who are often called judges in Israel, is a cunning bit of sophistry on Gray's part, but that's all it is, sophistry.

Incidentally, in our dispensation, there are women who hold substantial positions of leadership and responsibility pertaining to the Church, though those positions are not priesthood callings. For instance, Sharon Eubank direct's the Church's Humanitarian Services. Sheri Dew heads Deseret Book Co. The editor and associate editor of the Church News, a correlated and official news and information organ of the Church, are both women.

In my wife's calling as ward Primary president there are administrative and organizational demands that surpass what is required of most men in our ward.

 

I'm not sure it's solid reasoning to suggest one who is called prophetess in the bible wasn't ordained to priesthood.  Since doing so relies on the assumption that women won't be given the priesthood.  It's not only that she was a judge in Israel, but also a prophetess.  Neither of which appelations suggest women were never given priesthood.  Perhaps we don't have enough in the bible to conclude women were ordained to the priesthood, but it'd be a bad policy to read into scripture our assumptions, even though we all do it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure it's solid reasoning to suggest one who is called prophetess in the bible wasn't ordained to priesthood.  Since doing so relies on the assumption that women won't be given the priesthood.  It's not only that she was a judge in Israel, but also a prophetess.  Neither of which appelations suggest women were never given priesthood.  Perhaps we don't have enough in the bible to conclude women were ordained to the priesthood, but it'd be a bad policy to read into scripture our assumptions, even though we all do it. 

This has been discussed here already. Being called a prophetess does not necessarily imply holding the priesthood. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, so one who has a testimony of Jesus could, in a sense, be called a prophet or prophetess.

As for reading assumptions into the Bible, those I see doing this are those who are desperately trying to find a prooftext to support their belief that women should be ordained to the priesthood. And, I would add, it is those trying to do this who bear the burden of proof, as it is they who are advocating a change to the status quo.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Cold Steel]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

If being a prophet doesn't require priesthood, why do we require the prophet to be a priesthood holder now? That's the issue.

There's really no issue. You yourself reflect the distinction between "a prophet" and "the prophet." Any member of the church can be "a" prophet. And there are even those who are outside the church who have a reputation for making accurate prophecies. Church leaders have said that we LDS may have exclusive priesthood authority, but we don't have exclusive rights to truth, nor should we assume that God only works through the LDS church. Those who seek the Lord in spirit and in truth will receive from Him according to their ability to receive it. 

9 hours ago, Gray said:

No one is called prophet today except the president of the church. 

By whom? In personal correspondence, I frequently refer to Heber C. Kimball, Hyrum Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Orson Hyde and Sidney Rigdon as prophets -- because they were. Joseph's brother Hyrum is considered to be very much a prophet. Brigham Young used to say that his, Brigham's, strong point wasn't in making prophecies, and that when he needed someone to prophesy, he called Heber C. Kimball.

The significant title is PRESIDENT, which derives from PRESIDE. As a church member, I can prophesy concerning you, but I can't receive revelation for you. Your bishop can, but not me, nor anyone that is not specifically placed in authority over you. And no one can receive revelation for the church or any nation of the earth save he who holds the keys of binding in heaven and on earth. Anyone can prophesy who can tap into the Spirit of God, and many can. Jesus spoke, after all, of those who would lay claim to salvation in His Kingdom by saying, "Have we not prophesied in your name....?"

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

A prophet, as in the one that holds the keys to the priesthood, must necessarily hold the priesthood in order to hold the keys.  That seems both obvious and rational.  

A prophet, as in one who receives revelation of Jesus Christ or even one who sees the future, is simply that and not one that holds the priesthood per se.  

Change "prophet" in the first sentence to "president of the church" and we'll be in agreement. Oh, and one needn't hold the priesthood to prophesy, as has been shown above. 

9 hours ago, Gray said:

CFR, please

"There are those who would assume that with the printing and binding of these sacred records, that would be the 'end of the prophets.' But again we testify to the world that revelation continues and that the vaults and files of the Church contain these revelations which come month to month and day to day. We testify also that there is, since 1830 when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, and will continue to be, so long as time shall last, a prophet, recognized of God and his people, who will continue to interpret the mind and will of the Lord."  Spencer W. Kimball, "Revelation: The Word of the Lord to the Church," April 1977

 

Edited December 19, 2015 by Cold Steel

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, Gray said:

If being a prophet doesn't require priesthood, why do we require the prophet to be a priesthood holder now? That's the issue.

Being a prophet doesn't require ordination. Being the prophet does.

The Prophet is the high priest of the church. He holds all the keys of the priesthood. 

That's why the Prophet must be a priesthood holder. 

[consiglieri]

21 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

A prophet, as in the one that holds the keys to the priesthood, must necessarily hold the priesthood in order to hold the keys.  That seems both obvious and rational.  

A prophet, as in one who receives revelation of Jesus Christ or even one who sees the future, is simply that and not one that holds the priesthood per se.  

And yet Elder Oaks has now made it clear that women do, in fact, hold the priesthood.