consiglieri Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Again: Reasonable discourse is not in the cards, I think, so I will abstain from attempting such with you. Thanks, -Smac The current Church position is that women can use the priesthood; that in fact any authority they use in the church "must" be priesthood authority--per Elder Oaks. But you are now saying that women do not "hold" the priesthood. (At least that is what I understand you to be saying.) My question is simply how can women "use" the priesthood without "holding" it. Seems reasonable enough to me . . .
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: The current Church position is that women can use the priesthood; that in fact any authority they use in the church "must" be priesthood authority--per Elder Oaks. But you are now saying that women do not "hold" the priesthood. (At least that is what I understand you to be saying.) My question is simply how can women "use" the priesthood without "holding" it. Seems reasonable enough to me . . . Not only did JS ordain a Black man to the Priesthood...he ordained his Wife Emma a "Priestess and Queen" in the Melq. Priesthood in the second anointing ritual performed in the Mansion house. Edited December 21, 2015 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Intresting read here about Bat-Kohen. (Daughters of Aaronic Priests) She eats the ritual sacrifice only "Priests" were aloud to eat along with her Father and Brothers. All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer unto the LORD, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy daughters with thee, by a statute for ever: it [is] a covenant of salt for ever before the LORD unto thee and to thy seed with thee. — Numbers 18:19, KJV 1611 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat-Kohen Edited December 21, 2015 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Patriarchal Blessing of Elizabeth Bean in May 1853: “I seal upon you all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the Priesthood that was sealed upon the daughters of Jacob in the land of Egypt…” (John Smith patriarchal blessing to Caroline Cottam, 26 Mar 1853, LDS archives; John Smith blessing to Elizabeth Bean, 1 May 1853, Goerge Washington Bean journal, Book 1, 79-80, Archives, Lee Library, BYU, and his blessing to Sophia Pollard, 9 Nov 1853; all are quoted in Irene May Bates, “Transformation of Charisma in the Mormon church , Ph.D. diss., UCLA 1991, 281-82.) Edited December 21, 2015 by Zakuska
Gray Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 3 hours ago, bluebell said: True and that I don't have a problem with that because it doesn't impact the discussion. We have plenty of evidence of 'ganders' being ordained in the the NT and other scriptures. We don't need to be able to show that every prophet in the OT was ordained to support the doctrine that only males are ordained. Whether or not Joel was ordained, for example, does not change LDS doctrine on the subject. Not every man was ordained, nor does a prophet HAVE to be ordained. However, having evidence of any 'geese' being ordained does impact the discussion. Whether or not Deborah was ordained is significant. Why the different standards of evidence for men and women? We're willing to assume the men were ordained to the priesthood, without any evidence, but the women don't benefit from the same assumption? 1
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Bathsheba W Bigler Smith (plural wife of Joseph Smith): “I have always been pleased that i had my endowments when the Prophet lived…he gave us everything, every order of the priesthood….he said he had given the sisters instructions that they could administer to the sick and he wanted to make us, as the women in Paul’s day, ‘a Kingdom of priestesses.’” (Bathsheba Smith Statement, 9 June 1905, Pioneer Stake Relief Society minutes, LDS archives, quoted in part by Derr, Cannon, and Beecher, “Women of Covenant,” 53-54; Ehat, “Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances,” 103.) 1
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Pat. Blessing of Louisa C Jackson : “...Thou art of the blood of Abraham through the loins of Manasseh & lawful heir to the Priesthood,“(John Smith patriarchal blessing to Louisa C Jackson, 6 Feb 1844, RLDS archives). Edited December 21, 2015 by Zakuska 1
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Prophet Brigham Young: “Now Brethren, the man that honors his priesthood, the woman that honors her priesthood, will receive an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of God.” (JD 17:119) 1
bluebell Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Speaking of Joel made me think of his famous prophecy of the latter days; a prophecy picked up and reiterated by Moroni: Does this have any bearing on the subject, do you think? It might. It doesn't have to though. Women prophesied in the past without needing to be ordained. There's no reason that isn't still true today.
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Apostle Orson Hyde: “The Priesthood holds the power and all have been ordained or ought to be. It is necessary that it should rest upon all, not upon men only but upon women also that ye may be all one. …” (Bullock Minutes, 15 March 1846, BYU Studies Vol. 31, No. 1 p 61.) Edited December 21, 2015 by Zakuska 1
bluebell Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 8 minutes ago, Gray said: Why the different standards of evidence for men and women? We're willing to assume the men were ordained to the priesthood, without any evidence, but the women don't benefit from the same assumption? It's the reason why we are willing to assume that men were ordained. Christ ordained the men who He wanted to lead His church. The scriptures have many examples of male prophets being ordained. That's why it's more reasonable, from my perspective, to make assumptions about men in the scriptures than it is to make the same assumptions about women. We have precedent with male ordination in the scriptures that is completely lacking in regards to females.
bluebell Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: I thought Emma was ordained in Section 25. Emma's ordination sounds similar to this: Do expounding and exhorting require the priesthood? The footnote in that sections states that ordained was used to denote being set apart. And no, I don't believe that the priesthood is required to expound or exhort.
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 14 minutes ago, bluebell said: The footnote in that sections states that ordained was used to denote being set apart. And no, I don't believe that the priesthood is required to expound or exhort. Footnotes aren't scripture and are often Mistaken. In the original Releif Society notes it says she was "ordained" AND "set apart" https://books.google.com/books?id=9EqnAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT261&lpg=PT261&dq=emma+smith+original+relief+society+notes+ordained+AND+set+apart&source=bl&ots=ClhRsMoT_g&sig=9Lv4BMlJ8mLd_nOM7r_t9NDAF3A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio3s7c6-3JAhVEHR4KHUp3Ad0Q6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=emma%20smith%20original%20relief%20society%20notes%20ordained%20AND%20set%20apart&f=false Edited December 21, 2015 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Mormon misogyny was linked with denials of women’s authority,which resulted in a public comment by Apostle Franklin D Richards 1888: “Every now and then we hear men speak tauntingly of the sisters and lightly of their public duties, instead of supporting and encouraging them….There are also some who look with jealousy upon the moves of the sisters as though they might come to possess some of the gifts, and are afraid they [LDS women] will get away with some of the blessings of the gospel which only men ought to possess.” Because of this “envy and jealousy,” Apostle Richards said some LDS men “don’t like to accord to [the sisters] anything that will raise them up and make thier talents to shine forth as the daughters of Eve and Sarah.” (”LDS Women’s Exponent” 7 (1 NOv 1878): 86.) Edited December 21, 2015 by Zakuska
smac97 Posted December 21, 2015 Author Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, Zakuska said: Apostle Orson Hyde: “The Priesthood holds the power and all have been ordained or ought to be. It is necessary that it should rest upon all, not upon men only but upon women also that ye may be all one. …” (Bullock Minutes, 15 March 1846, BYU Studies Vol. 31, No. 1 p 61.) A few thoughts here: 1. The source here is the journal of Thomas Bullock, in which, according to a footnote by Gregory R. Knight, he (Bullock) recorded the "main points" of a revelation given to Orson Hyde. 2. The document itself (the revelation to Orson Hyde) is apparently not extant, as Mr. Knight was not able to locate the full text of it. We only have Bullock's minutes with the "main points". This is a rather significant point, as the addition or omission of a word or phrase here or there could radically affect the meaning which Zak and his ilk want us to impute into or take away from Elder Hyde's remarks. 3. The phrase "all have been ordained or ought to be" could (should?) be understood as referencing all those in the Church who are authorized to be ordained (that is, men who are morally worthy of the privilege, hence the phrase "ought to be"). For example, "all" should not be construed to include men or are unworthy to hold the priesthood, or people who have not been baptized. Every other use of the word "ordained" in Bullock's journal references the ordination of a man. Every. Single. One. It would therefore be rather odd to think that Bullock understood, but left without comment, Elder Hyde's remark as advocating the ordination of women. Since we have no records in this record-keeping Church of women being ordained to the priesthood, Elder Hyde's purported advocacy of such a radical departure from practice would have seemingly generated some comment or analysis. On the other hand, if Elder Hyde was simply reiterating what was the understanding of the Brethren then, and what is the understanding of the Brethren now (that all worthy men in the Church should be ordained to the priesthood), then Bullock's failure to take particular notice of the point is quite understandable. 4. The statement that the priesthood "should rest upon all, not upon men only but upon women also" appears entirely compatible with the statements made by Elder Oaks about this issue last year and also in 2005. 5. The footnote included by Mr. Knight states that "The major thrust of Hyde's discourse was to dispute Strangism and the evils of not following the brethren." It is interesting, then, to see that the people using (wresting?) the Elder Hyde's remarks (including the closing phrase "that ye may be all one") are doing so in an attempt to bolster/justify their arguments for not following the Brethren and their efforts to create discord in the Church. Ironic, wot? -Smac Edited December 21, 2015 by smac97 2
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Thanks for the full text! Quote I have made my church as upon a hill. The Priesthood holds the power and all have been ordained or ought to be. It is necessary that it should rest upon all. Not upon men only, but upon women also that ye may be all one. Fear not little flock it is is the fathers good pleasure to give you the kingdom it is is given to you and power to over come all things. How can women fully "overcome all things" without holding the Priesthood? Quote 3. The phrase "all have been ordained or ought to be" could (should?) be understood as referencing all those in the Church who are authorized to be ordained (that is, men who are morally worthy of the privilege, hence the phrase "ought to be"). Not very tenable since the next sentence explains the first. ie. "It is necessary that should rest upon all, not upon men only but upon women " This goes along with the Doctrine of Priesthood and second anointing by ALL the prophets before Apostle Orson Hyde. Quote He did not, however comment on this particular passage from the minutes or explain his reason for changing "I turn the key to you" to "I now turn the key in your behalf". George A. Smiths version has generally stood in church publications from that time to the present. What did Joseph Smith mean by turning the key to women? A possible clue lies in the expansive view of women and their role in the church propunded by Newel K. Whitney in a meeting on 27 May 1842: "In the beginning God created man, male and female and bestowed upon man certian blessings peculiar to a man of God, which woman partook, so that without the female all things cannot be restored to the earth, it takes all to restore the Priesthood. [31] He may have been making an oblique reference to the endowment ceremony, a rite associated with Nauvoo Temple, then moving toward completion. Joseph Smith had introduced him and a small circle of trusted friends to a form of it only two weeks eailer.[32] Why did George Q. Cannon edit the original Releif Society notes to obscure the fact that Joseph Smith had given the "key" of the Women's Priesthood to Emma? https://books.google.com/books?id=T6bHN1Ka12cC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=it+takes+all+to+restore+the+priesthood&source=bl&ots=azDPHvc4VZ&sig=pxa9BBiCnCUZM47bD0pwbcy6LA8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4gYnj_u3JAhXCXh4KHbDUBbIQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=it%20takes%20all%20to%20restore%20the%20priesthood&f=false Edited December 21, 2015 by Zakuska
smac97 Posted December 21, 2015 Author Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Thanks for the full text! How can women fully "overcome all things" without holding the Priesthood? Not very tenable since the next sentence explains the first. ie. " It is necessary that it should rest upon all, not upon men only but upon women " This goes along with the Doctrine of Priesthood and second anointing by ALL the prophets before Apostle Orson Hyde. First, women - and men, and children, all of us - "overcome all things" through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Second, I am not persuaded that "rest upon" means "ordained to". Again, context matters. Again, Elder Oaks has provided some excellent guidance on this very issue. I have provided the links to the relevant talks by Elder Oaks, but you have not addressed them. Third, your quoted speculation is interesting, but that's about it. Moreover, even Linda King Newell, the author of your quote, hedges her bets quite a bit. Further on in her essay (entitled "Gifts of the Spirit: Women's Share" in a book, "Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective"), she states: "(Joseph Smith) may have been making an oblique reference to the endowment ceremony . . . Alternatively, he may have felt that women had received an authority that paraleled and companioned the priesthood." And elsewhere Newell acknowledges that she "(has) found no case where women have claimed ordination to the priesthood," but that "there are accounts of women being 'ordained' to specific callings and of women who exercised powers and spiritual gifts now assigned only to male priesthood holders." She also quotes John Taylor as saying: "(S)ome of the sisters have thought that these sisters mentioned (who have patriarchal blessings referencing the priesthood being "conferred" on them) were, in this ordination, ordained to the priesthood ... (but) it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands (JC 21:367-68)." Fourth, I know this can be difficult, but may I gently suggest that you reconsider your understanding of this issue. Perhaps make it a little less agenda-driven. That is, you appear to be advocating for ordination of women to the priesthood, and you are selectively quoting and interpreting sources in order to bolster and strengthen what is for you a foregone conclusion. A more open-minded inquiry, on the other hand, may very well yield the same conclusion that Newell reached: That there is no basis for asserting that women have been ordained to the priesthood. I am open to the possibility of women being ordained to the priesthood. I do not think it is part of the Plan, but I am open to it in theory. That said, my sense is that the Brethren, past and present, have been in accordance with the will of God as pertaining to women not being ordained to the priesthood. In other words, I am open to both possibilities. Are you? Thanks, -Smac Edited December 21, 2015 by smac97 3
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Im open. But you and many others appear not to be. I like her summation... Quote Although the pendulum has swung far from Joseph Smith's prophetic vision of women as queens and priestesses, holders of keys of blessings and spiritual gifts, the statements of Elder Faust and President Smith may signal a theologic reevaluation of the woman's role. A rediscovery of the history of Mormon women's spiritual gifts has also awakened interest in the idea of mothers and fathers jointly anointing and blessing their own children; of husbands receiving, like Wilford Woodruff, blessings from their wives (CR Oct. 1910, 20; Oct. 1919, 31); of mothers standing in the circle when their babies are blessed; of women blessing each other or their children (a mother's blessing) in times of special need; of women as well as men jointly exercising spiritual gifts on behalf of each other. A broader, more inclusive understanding of priesthood could strengthen marital and family ties and once again allow unmarried women to share more fully in the gifts of the spirit which were once common in the household of faith. This could mean a reexamination of the LDS policy of ordaining women to priesthood offices or it could simply mean making changes in the General Handbook of Instruction which would reverse the tide that has stripped women of these opportunities through over a hundred years of policy development.
smac97 Posted December 21, 2015 Author Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) I like that summary as well. Frankly, I think it was fairly prescient. She write that essay 30 years ago, and since then there has been, I think, "a reexamination of the LDS policy of (not) ordaining women to priesthood offices". That Elder Oaks, an apostle, specifically addressed this issue, over the pulpit in General Conference, just last year, after sustained public agitation on the issue, and that he re-affirmed the Church's longstanding position vis-à-vis the ordination of women, indicates to me that the Brethren are aware of various requests for guidance on this topic, and that they have provided it. The issue, I think, is whether members of the Church are willing to accept the counsel given to us by prophets and apostles past (such as John Taylor) and present (Dallin H. Oaks). Again, I am open to the possibility that God may reveal that women should be ordained to the priesthood. But I am also open to the possibility that He will not, and that the Church's current position vis-à-vis the ordination of women reflects the mind and will of God. Are you open to both of these possibilities? Or just the first? Thanks, -Smac Edited December 22, 2015 by smac97 2
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 But you know as well as I do... this could be over turned at the drop of a hat just like the "Priesthood ban for Blacks". Perhaps both bans where a mistake? Are you open to that possibility? It cant be denied that Josephs original vision included female... "Priestiesses" and that he fully Anointed women to such stations without being married. Many of the sisters recieved their Second anointings in Nauvoo before being sealed to their husbands. Quote Although Joseph Smith introduced the Nauvoo Endowment in 1842, he came to understand that his work in establishing the "fullness of the priesthood" was not yet complete.[7] In August 1843, church leader Brigham Young stated that "f any in the Church had the fullness of the priesthood, he did not know it", nevertheless, Young understood that the "fullness of the priesthood" involved an anointing as "king and priest", with the actual kingdom to be given after resurrection.[8] The initial second anointing took place on September 28, 1843, when Joseph and his wife Emma Smithreceived it.[9] During Smith's lifetime, the second anointing was given to at least 20 men and 17 women.[10]:22–23 After Smith was murdered by a mob in June 1844, Brigham Young was eventually selected as prophet of the LDS Church, and in January 1846, he began administering the second anointing in the nearly-completed Nauvoo Temple. Young re-administered the ordinance to many of those who had received it under Joseph Smith, and he delegated his authority to others, who performed nearly 600 second anointings (some to polygamous unions) before the temple was closed on February 7, 1846.[10]:26 Link removed. Do not link to temple content. Its about time that the Restoration continued.
consiglieri Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 3 hours ago, Zakuska said: Patriarchal Blessing of Elizabeth Bean in May 1853: “I seal upon you all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the Priesthood that was sealed upon the daughters of Jacob in the land of Egypt…” (John Smith patriarchal blessing to Caroline Cottam, 26 Mar 1853, LDS archives; John Smith blessing to Elizabeth Bean, 1 May 1853, Goerge Washington Bean journal, Book 1, 79-80, Archives, Lee Library, BYU, and his blessing to Sophia Pollard, 9 Nov 1853; all are quoted in Irene May Bates, “Transformation of Charisma in the Mormon church , Ph.D. diss., UCLA 1991, 281-82.) And no less than Brigham Young as president of the Church made reference to the priesthood of women. If you need the cite, I can look it up for you later.
smac97 Posted December 21, 2015 Author Posted December 21, 2015 8 minutes ago, Zakuska said: But you know as well as I do... this could be over turned at the drop of a hat just like the "Priesthood ban for Blacks". Perhaps both bans where a mistake? Are you open to that possibility? It cant be denied that Josephs original vision included female... "Priestiesses" and that he fully Anointed women to such stations without being married. Many of the sisters recieved their Second anointings in Nauvoo before being sealed to their husbands. For the third time: I am open to the possibility that God may reveal that women should be ordained to the priesthood. But I am also open to the possibility that He will not, and that the Church's current position vis-à-vis the ordination of women reflects the mind and will of God. Are you open to both possibilities? Could you shelf the hostility and accusations for a bit and address that? Thanks, -Smac
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: For the third time: I am open to the possibility that God may reveal that women should be ordained to the priesthood. But I am also open to the possibility that He will not, and that the Church's current position vis-à-vis the ordination of women reflects the mind and will of God. Are you open to both possibilities? Could you shelf the hostility and accusations for a bit and address that? Thanks, -Smac Hostility? Where? I already said (for the third time) I'm open to both. They could have been wrong then and right now. -or- They could have been right now and wrong then. -or- They could have been right then AND right now even. -or even- They could have been right then AND right now, but God will reveal a time for womens ordinations again in the future and un ban the priesthood once again. Edited December 22, 2015 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: And no less than Brigham Young as president of the Church made reference to the priesthood of women. If you need the cite, I can look it up for you later. Beat you to it already... Prophet Brigham Young: “Now Brethren, the man that honors his priesthood, the woman that honors her priesthood, will receive an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of God.” (JD 17:119
Russell C McGregor Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 8 hours ago, consiglieri said: I have the spirit of prophecy. In spades, baby! Now you can reconsider. Your braggartry is noted. And in clear contrast to the humility of authentic prophets.
Recommended Posts