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

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours 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.

 

 

Link removed. Do not link to temple content.

Its about time that the Restoration continued.

It is continuing. Some are trying to steady the ark according to some romantic reconstruction of an idealised past. Some are trying to steady it in accordance with their idea of a "radiant future."

But the Restoration is continuing despite them.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

7 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.)
 

Keep on pickin' those cherries, Zak! And remember: context is your enemy!!

[Calm]

7 hours 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.)

So are you the one who did all the work in finding these quotes or are you mining another website?  If so, it would be common courtesy to link to them to give them the credit as well as being required by board rules.

[consiglieri]

18 hours 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.  

Yes, it does.

And guess who wrote the footnote . . . ?

That would be a member of the established patriarchy.

 

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Beat you to it already...

 

 

Bravo!!!

[consiglieri]

12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Your braggartry is noted.

And in clear contrast to the humility of authentic prophets.

 

Like Joseph Smith?

[consiglieri]

12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Your braggartry is noted.

And in clear contrast to the humility of authentic prophets.

 

It's only bragging if you can't do it.

(I think a prophet said that.)

 

[Gray]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR please

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/SUNDAY-INTERVIEW-Musings-of-the-Main-Mormon-2846138.php

 

Quote

Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don't need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we've already received.

 

[Zakuska]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

So are you the one who did all the work in finding these quotes or are you mining another website?  If so, it would be common courtesy to link to them to give them the credit as well as being required by board rules.

Perhaps you can point me to that guideline. The Only Board Rule/Guideline I see about providing references is this...

 Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

I provided the Primary Reference as required.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Zakuska

[Gray]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

A Wikipedia entry doth not a "primer" make.

Meanwhile, we have references about the priesthood in the Old Testament, such as Moses 8:19 ("And the Lord ordained Noah after his own order..."), Deut. 34:9 ("And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses"), Exodus 40:15 (specking of the sons of Aaron) ("And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations"), D&C 2:1 ("Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet..."), D&C 84:18 ("And the Lord confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations..."), D&C 84:25-26 ("Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also; and the lesser priesthood continued..."), D&C 84:6-17 ("And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro; And Jethro received it under the hand of Caleb; And Caleb received it under the hand of Elihu; And Elihu under the hand of Jeremy; And Jeremy under the hand of Gad; And Gad under the hand of Esaias; And Esaias received it under the hand of God.  Esaias also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him— Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah; And from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers; And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man—Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years.") and many others.

Thanks,

-Smac

With the exception to the reference to Aaron, none of those OT passages is clearly referencing priesthood. That's something we read into it in the LDS church, but priesthood in that context really means the Levites and their temple ordinances. Which really has nothing to do with being a prophet. 

[Gray]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

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.

We have examples of women in roles we think of as priesthood roles. Either we're wrong about the nature of what the priesthood is, or we have good evidence that women can and should hold the priesthood. It's not reasonable to hold a double standard for evidence here. 

[smac97]

Gray,

>  With the exception to the reference to Aaron, none of those OT passages is clearly referencing priesthood.

Well, there are a number of things to say here.  First, many scriptures require context and interpretation in order to be understood.  Second, Latter-day Saints claim to have living prophets and apostles, and their guidance on doctrinal issues is, for Latter-day Saints, strong medicine.  Third, Latter-day Saints are not limited to the Bible, so lack of clarity in one part of the canon can be ameliorated by other portions of the expanded LDS canon, and also by further guidance from living prophets and apostles.  Fourth, the LDS interpretation of OT scriptures regarding the priesthood is quite reasonable.

>  That's something we read into it in the LDS church, but priesthood in that context really means the Levites and their temple ordinances. Which really has nothing to do with being a prophet.

With respect, your because-I-say-so interpretation carries little probative weight.  I find the expanded LDS canon, which supports the position I presented, and various statements made by LDS prophets and apostles, to be substantially more authoritative.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

> We have examples of women in roles we think of as priesthood roles.

==But we have no examples of women being ordained to the priesthood.  Or do you have information that Linda Newell overlooked?

==In any event, the "roles we think of as priesthood roles" that involve women purportedly "holding" or "excercising" the priesthood have been a rather limited set.  Giving blessings to the sick or blessings of comfort . . . but by faith, not by the priesthood (see Eliza R. Snow quote below).  Functioning in a "priesthood" capacity in the temple . . . but this is readily acknowledged and authorized by and in the Church.  Presiding in the Relief Society . . . but this is readily acknowledged and authorized by and in the Church.

==Can you provide any examples of the LDS Church authorizing women to name and bless children?  To perform baptisms and confirmations?  To confer the priesthood?  To ordain to a priesthood office?  To prepare, bless or pass the Sacrament?  To dedicate graves?  To perform weddings or sealings?  To have conferred upon them the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood?  To function as home teachers?  To be ordained to a priesthood office?  To set apart others to callings in the Church?  To consecrate oil?

==All of this has nothing to do with whether LDS women are, as a category, intellectually/morally/spiritually capable of holding the priesthood.  Of course they are.  

> Either we're wrong about the nature of what the priesthood is, or we have good evidence that women can and should hold the priesthood.

==There are more options.  There is room for reasoned and reasonable disagreement about what constitutes authorized exercise of priesthood authority ("During the 19th century, women frequently blessed the sick by the prayer of faith, and many women received priesthood blessings promising that they would have the gift of healing. ... In reference to these healing blessings, Relief Society general president Eliza R. Snow explained in 1883, 'Women can administer in the name of JESUS, but not by virtue of the Priesthood' ... Women’s participation in healing blessings gradually declined in the early 20th century as Church leaders taught that it was preferable to follow the New Testament directive to 'call for the elders'".).

==And about whether the LDS Church's expansive understanding of "priesthood" (extended to the laity, unlike what we see in many other Churches, which limits the "priesthood" to ordained clergy).  

==And about the scope of authority given to women in relation to the Relief Society ("The women named their new organization 'Relief Society' ... (which) was unlike other women’s societies of the day because it was established by a prophet who acted with priesthood authority to give women authority, sacred responsibilities, and official positions within the structure of the Church, not apart from it.").

==And about early LDS usage of the term "ordain" (Joseph spoke of “ordain[ing]” women and said that Relief Society officers would 'preside over the Society.' He also declared, 'I now turn the key to you in the name of God.”  These statements indicate that Joseph Smith delegated priesthood authority to women in the Relief Society. Joseph’s language can be more fully understood in historical context. During the 19th century, Latter-day Saints used the term keys to refer at various times to authority, knowledge, or temple ordinances. Likewise, Mormons sometimes used the term ordain in a broad sense, often interchangeably with set apart and not always referring to priesthood office. On these points, Joseph’s actions illuminate the meaning of his words: neither Joseph Smith, nor any person acting on his behalf, nor any of his successors conferred the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood on women or ordained women to priesthood office. ... In later years, words like ordination and keys were more precisely defined, as when President John Taylor, who acted by assignment from Joseph Smith to “ordain and set apart” Emma Smith and her counselors, explained in 1880 that 'the ordination then given did not mean the conferring of the Priesthood upon those sisters.'").

> It's not reasonable to hold a double standard for evidence here. 

==It's also not reasonable to assert false dichotomies ("Either we're wrong...").

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by smac97

[consiglieri]

You are certainly correct that we have no record of women being ordained to the priesthood, if by that you mean we have no record of the laying on of hands for the bestowal of the priesthood upon the head of a woman.

On the other hand, we may be looking at the bestowal of priesthood too narrowly here.

There can be little debate that all women who receive their endowment officiate in the ordinances of both the Aaronic and the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Something that would be difficult to do if women did not, in some meaningful sense, hold those priesthoods.

Further your affiant sayeth not.

Edited December 22, 2015 by consiglieri

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You are certainly correct that we have no record of women being ordained to the priesthood, if by that you mean we have no record of the laying on of hands for the bestowal of the priesthood upon the head of a woman.

On the other hand, we may be looking at the bestowal of priesthood too narrowly here.

There can be little debate that all women who receive their endowment officiate in the ordinances of both the Aaronic and the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Something that would be difficult to do if women did not, in some meaningful sense, hold those priesthoods.

Further your affiant sayeth not.

"Something that would be difficult to do if women did not, in some meaningful sense, hold those priesthoods."

Here is the Church's position on that issue (emphases added):

Temple ordinances were priesthood ordinances, but they did not bestow ecclesiastical office on men or women. They fulfilled the Lord’s promise that his people—women and men—would be “endowed with power from on high.” That priesthood power was manifest in individuals’ lives in many ways and was available to adult members, regardless of marital status. 

...

Men and women continue to officiate in sacred ordinances in temples much as they did in Joseph Smith’s day. Joseph taught that men and women can obtain the highest degree of celestial glory only by entering together into an order of the priesthood through the temple sealing ordinance. That understanding remains with Latter-day Saints today.

The priesthood authority exercised by Latter-day Saint women in the temple and elsewhere remains largely unrecognized by people outside the Church and is sometimes misunderstood or overlooked by those within. Latter-day Saints and others often mistakenly equate priesthood with religious office and the men who hold it, which obscures the broader Latter-day Saint concept of priesthood.

...

Today, Latter-day Saint women lead three organizations within the Church: the Relief Society, the Young Women, and the Primary. They preach and pray in congregations, fill numerous positions of leadership and service, participate in priesthood councils at the local and general levels, and serve formal proselytizing missions across the globe. In these and other ways, women exercise priesthood authority even though they are not ordained to priesthood office.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 22, 2015 by smac97

[consiglieri]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Something that would be difficult to do if women did not, in some meaningful sense, hold those priesthoods."

Here is the Church's position on that issue (emphases added):

Temple ordinances were priesthood ordinances, but they did not bestow ecclesiastical office on men or women. They fulfilled the Lord’s promise that his people—women and men—would be “endowed with power from on high.” That priesthood power was manifest in individuals’ lives in many ways and was available to adult members, regardless of marital status. 

...

Men and women continue to officiate in sacred ordinances in temples much as they did in Joseph Smith’s day. Joseph taught that men and women can obtain the highest degree of celestial glory only by entering together into an order of the priesthood through the temple sealing ordinance. That understanding remains with Latter-day Saints today.

The priesthood authority exercised by Latter-day Saint women in the temple and elsewhere remains largely unrecognized by people outside the Church and is sometimes misunderstood or overlooked by those within. Latter-day Saints and others often mistakenly equate priesthood with religious office and the men who hold it, which obscures the broader Latter-day Saint concept of priesthood.

...

Today, Latter-day Saint women lead three organizations within the Church: the Relief Society, the Young Women, and the Primary. They preach and pray in congregations, fill numerous positions of leadership and service, participate in priesthood councils at the local and general levels, and serve formal proselytizing missions across the globe. In these and other ways, women exercise priesthood authority even though they are not ordained to priesthood office.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the quotes, Smac.

Here is how I see it.

In finally confronting the historical evidence in its recent essays, the LDS Church has now narrowed the definition of what women cannot have to "offices" in the priesthood.

Women can use the authority of the priesthood.

Women can perform priesthood ordinances.

But women cannot hold an "office" in the priesthood.

By narrowing the definition so tightly, all that is left to the men in the LDS Church is not the priesthood itself, but "priesthood offices."

Which to me is looking more and more like a question not of ministering authority, but of organizational power.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Thanks for the quotes, Smac.

Here is how I see it.

In finally confronting the historical evidence in its recent essays, the LDS Church has now narrowed the definition of what women cannot have to "offices" in the priesthood.

Women can use the authority of the priesthood.

Women can perform priesthood ordinances.

But women cannot hold an "office" in the priesthood.

By narrowing the definition so tightly, all that is left to the men in the LDS Church is not the priesthood itself, but "priesthood offices."

Which to me is looking more and more like a question not of ministering authority, but of organizational power.

==Can you provide any examples of the LDS Church authorizing women to name and bless children?  To perform baptisms and confirmations?  To confer the priesthood?  To ordain to a priesthood office?  To prepare, bless or pass the Sacrament?  To dedicate graves?  To perform weddings or sealings?  To have conferred upon them the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood?  To function as home teachers?  To be ordained to a priesthood office?  To set apart others to callings in the Church?  To consecrate oil?  To preside over congregations, stakes, districts, missions, temples, areas, etc.?

==These seem like issues of both ministering and organizational authority.  I am frankly surprised that you seem to think otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Gray,

>  With the exception to the reference to Aaron, none of those OT passages is clearly referencing priesthood.

Well, there are a number of things to say here.  First, many scriptures require context and interpretation in order to be understood.  Second, Latter-day Saints claim to have living prophets and apostles, and their guidance on doctrinal issues is, for Latter-day Saints, strong medicine.  Third, Latter-day Saints are not limited to the Bible, so lack of clarity in one part of the canon can be ameliorated by other portions of the expanded LDS canon, and also by further guidance from living prophets and apostles.  Fourth, the LDS interpretation of OT scriptures regarding the priesthood is quite reasonable.

>  That's something we read into it in the LDS church, but priesthood in that context really means the Levites and their temple ordinances. Which really has nothing to do with being a prophet.

With respect, your because-I-say-so interpretation carries little probative weight.  I find the expanded LDS canon, which supports the position I presented, and various statements made by LDS prophets and apostles, to be substantially more authoritative.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The expanded LDS canon represents LDS interpretations of the Bible, but it does not speak to the historical context or academic study of the Bible. When we start talking about the D&C we've already left the discussion of what ancient Israelites believed about priesthood. 

[Zakuska]

41 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Thanks for the quotes, Smac.

Here is how I see it.

In finally confronting the historical evidence in its recent essays, the LDS Church has now narrowed the definition of what women cannot have to "offices" in the priesthood.

Women can use the authority of the priesthood.

Women can perform priesthood ordinances.

But women cannot hold an "office" in the priesthood.

By narrowing the definition so tightly, all that is left to the men in the LDS Church is not the priesthood itself, but "priesthood offices."

Which to me is looking more and more like a question not of ministering authority, but of organizational power.

Yep. And I argued else where that Joseph Smith gave Emma an "office" in the Female Priesthood Matriarchy of "elect Lady", which is equivalent to an Elder (D&C 25) "ordained" her to it  and set her apart as the Relief Society President in that Quorum of Sisters.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Zakuska

[smac97]

>  Yep. And I argued else where that Joseph Smith gave Emma an "office" in the Female Priesthood Matriarchy of "elect Lady", which is equivalent to an Elder (D&C 25) "ordained" her to it  and set her apart as the Relief Society President in that Quorum of Sisters.

=="Female Priesthood Matriarchy"?  CFR.

=="Quorum of Sisters"?  CFR.

=="Equivalent to an Elder"?  CFR.

=="Elect lady" is a priesthood "office"?  CFR.

==Where are you getting this stuff?  

-Smac

[Zakuska]

Something from the Journal of Discourses from President John Taylor

Notice how he includes the "Releif Society" in his "Priesthood of ALL" discussion.

v 19 pg 148-149

Quote

We all have a great Priesthood if we magnify it, and there is no little Priesthood. In relation to the young men, I would say that in their associations a good spirit is growing—they are waking up. The Young Men's Mutual Improvement Associations and other organizations of our young men are very praiseworthy. Young men, the burden of the kingdom will yet roll on your shoulders, and you must prepare for it. If you will go to God and ask for wisdom, he will give it to you. Get the best books, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and read our own publications, you will find such intelligence as you never dreamed of. Ask God for faith. Get all the sciences, arts, and useful learning you can from schools; get nothing false, but the things pertaining to earth and the elements, and how to use them; when you meet let it be in the fear of God, and he will bless you.

A word to the sisters. They have their associations and societies—all of which are good and praiseworthy. They form a part of us, for the man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man. It takes a man and a woman to make a man; without woman, man is not perfect; God so ordained it. We are aiming at celestial glory, and when we reach that exaltation, will we have our wives? Yes. The women have to manage household affairs; they must rear the children properly, and cultivate those principles which exalt and beautify, that all may move on pleasantly and harmoniously. In the Relief Societies they discharge their duties better than we could, because of their tender sympathies and gentler natures. Joseph Smith organized a Relief Society in Nauvoo as far back as that; Emma was president, sisters Whitney and Cleveland were her counselors, and Eliza R. Snow secretary, who has visited you often, and whom you well know. They allowed the society to sleep for a while, but they are now waking up. What should they teach? I can't go into details, but they should teach dress, speak and act aright, diffuse correct principles, and let us have sisters growing up fit to associate with the angels of God. I want you to make home a heaven for your husbands, that when they come there they will feel happy, cheerful, and comfortable in their households. Do away with evil speaking—let love, kindness, and friendly feelings prevail; and if the sisters want the brethren to give them a few bushels of wheat to take care of, let them have it, it is not much, and we may some day be glad we did so. I have read of an extravagant man, whose wife proposed that he give her so much—ten or twenty dollars to keep house with, and instead of spending it she  saved it in the Bible. Finally a financial crash came, and he went to his wife for consolation. She told him to read the Bible for comfort, and when he opened the leaves the money dropped out. What does this mean? he said. His wife said, you were careless, and I took care of the money you gave me; and this money saved him from ruin. Therefore let the sisters take care of the wheat.

The speaker here referred to the question of using the Tithing for Temple building, saying if it were all paid in that was owing, we need ask nothing further, but such was not the case. He then referred to the Perpetual Emigration Fund, saying there was over $1,000,000 due it from those who had been emigrated, and he hoped it would be paid without further delay. At present no radical changes would be made in the matter of Temple building. May God help Israel and prepare us for an inheritance in his kingdom, in the name of Jesus. Amen.

- John Taylor

 

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by Zakuska

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/SUNDAY-INTERVIEW-Musings-of-the-Main-Mormon-2846138.php

 

 

Thank you.  I don't interpret the comment the same way, but I can see it as a reasonable interpretation.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

The expanded LDS canon represents LDS interpretations of the Bible, but it does not speak to the historical context or academic study of the Bible. When we start talking about the D&C we've already left the discussion of what ancient Israelites believed about priesthood. 

"Academic study of the Bible" is all over the map.  There are tons of varying and contradictory ways to interpret and understand the Bible.  One of those ways is the LDS paradigm.  So I will respectfully disagree that the LDS paradigm stands outside ("does not speak to") the "historical context or academic study of the Bible".

I also disagree that discussions of the D&C are outside the discussion "of what ancient Israelites believed about priesthood".   D&C 2:1 speaks of Elijah.  D&C 84:18 speaks of Aaron and his descendants.  D&C 84:25-26 speaks of Moses and the loss of the priesthood from ancient Israel.  D&C 84:6-17 speaks of Moses' priesthood line of authority.  These verses are rife with "historical context".  I will grant that the LDS perspective is a matter of faith, but then so are many, many other perspectives on the Bible.  I will also grant that LDS perspectives on Elijah, Aaron, Moses, and the priesthood are more or less unique, but that does not take them out of the realm of "context" or "academic study" (else why would Margaret Barker's work be so popular amongst us?  And see also here).

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

==Can you provide any examples of the LDS Church authorizing women to name and bless children?  To perform baptisms and confirmations?  To confer the priesthood?  To ordain to a priesthood office?  To prepare, bless or pass the Sacrament?  To dedicate graves?  To perform weddings or sealings?  To have conferred upon them the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood?  To function as home teachers?  To be ordained to a priesthood office?  To set apart others to callings in the Church?  To consecrate oil?  To preside over congregations, stakes, districts, missions, temples, areas, etc.?

==These seem like issues of both ministering and organizational authority.  I am frankly surprised that you seem to think otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

I highlighted the one which I believe occurs during a woman's receiving of her endowment in the temple.

All the rest would seem to be subsidiary to that one.

But that's just my opinion.

[consiglieri]

26 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Yep. And I argued else where that Joseph Smith gave Emma an "office" in the Female Priesthood Matriarchy of "elect Lady", which is equivalent to an Elder (D&C 25) "ordained" her to it  and set her apart as the Relief Society President in that Quorum of Sisters.

How about this from D&C 131:1-4?

Quote

 

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

 2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

 3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

 4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

 

Citing to this passage, the new essay on the Church's website has this to say:

Quote

He taught men and women that by receiving temple ordinances, culminating in the sealing ordinance, they entered into an “order of the priesthood.”

https://www.lds.org/topics/joseph-smiths-teachings-about-priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng