consiglieri Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 16 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Well you wouldn't know this, because your understanding of Mormon things is rather sub-par. But holding a priesthood office is what authorises someone to perform priesthood ordinances. What priesthood office did Oliver Cowdery hold when he baptized Joseph Smith? 1
Jeanne Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 12 hours ago, Traela said: I think it might be valuable to teach the youth more about the Relief Society. Give each girl a copy of Daughters in My Kingdom when they become Laurels (if not sooner). I would also encourage them to read The Beginning of Better Days, even though it is not an official Church manual, because that is where I first got the sense that there is a whole lot more to the Relief Society than what we usually see. Teach them the history of the RS and what it has accomplished, with parallels to today. When the boys learn about priesthood duties, make sure the girls are learning about visiting teaching and the Relief Society's role in taking care of the community. Let them know that girls and women also have an important job beyond motherhood, which can be as large as they want it to be, simply because it is less defined. This is good...but it doesn't hurt for them to learn more about each other's organization.. More respect to young men and young women when they learn that they both contribute to the church. Young girls learn a lot about the priesthood and to marry worthy priesthood holders..young men should learn about the history of then RS and that they are important too. 3
Jeanne Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 11 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Good image, but there are a few things wrong. First, just watch on the television or if you are interested just go to the meeting. If you are patient, just read the Ensign. I already do all the cooking in the family - my wife knows how to cook about five dishes. She is a baker, but god help her and us if she tries to cook meat or vegetables outside of her chosen set of dishes. You are confusing my position with stereotypes of gender roles. It is a fair start of a counter argument, but not really helpful. Now explain to me or give me a counter argument to my comments on the Yin and Yang concept of male and female, please. I would like someone to provide a logical response as to way men and women actually are the same species, but have different strengths and weaknesses - and that only together are both made whole. The union makes a balanced whole - sort of like becoming one as Genesis mentions. Actually, I was in the mood to be humorous and your earlier posts seemed to suggest that as the "whole" we, women have our place and should be grateful for it. I just didn't think you were actually putting yourself on the other side of the fence to be objective. I do agree that we have different strengths and weaknesses..my husband could iron clothes and I hated it and it looked it.. But I just don't think that women get to prove all of the strengths..that they are marginalized. If I have offended you..I apologize. But somewhere deep down you must realize that the young girls and women in the church are not as valued..their intelligence and ability to lead would so surprise you!
JLHPROF Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 19 minutes ago, consiglieri said: What priesthood office did Oliver Cowdery hold when he baptized Joseph Smith? No specific office that we know of as they weren't ordained to a specific office. But they were ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood and given all the keys needed to function in that priesthood. So he had the authority to baptize. So you could argue that they held the highest office in the Aaronic Priesthood by virtue of holding all the keys of that priesthood. That is how priesthood is supposed to work - the entire priesthood order is conferred upon you, and then you are called to function in a specific office. If the specification of office were left out then you would hold the priesthood with no specific limit. That's where Joseph and Oliver were. From the good old CHI: 1.Calls the person by his full name. 2.States the authority by which the ordination is performed (Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood). 3.Confers the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood, unless it has already been conferred. 4.Ordains the person to an office in the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood and bestows the rights, powers, and authority of that office. 5. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs. 6. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ. Conferral and ordination are two separate parts of the process. 2
rongo Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: No specific office that we know of as they weren't ordained to a specific office. But they were ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood and given all the keys needed to function in that priesthood. So he had the authority to baptize. Piggybacking onto this, Joseph and Oliver's situation is similar to Adam's recorded in the Book of Moses --- where Adam is baptized by the Holy Ghost (that is, physically immersed by Him (Moses 6:64). Definitely outside of our modern church experience. Unique circumstances (such as the beginnings of dispensations) lead to unique carrying out of ordinances, but as you said, the authority to baptize was given in the conferral of the Aaronic Priesthood (that is exactly what John talked about in conferring it upon them). D&C 20 and regimentation into offices came later. 2
Calm Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Storm Rider said: I could have just as easily used High Priestess as used in scripture and temple ceremonies. I think you already know this, so want is the real issue. So tell me what High Priestess is in the here and now. Of course it is about "want" (even if what you meant was "so what is the real issue). Where you are mistaken is what is wanted by those who don't want ordination to the Priesthood. Many of us believe there is a fundamental difference between Priestesshood and Priesthood. Edited February 5, 2016 by Calm 4
Popular Post Calm Posted February 5, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 5, 2016 Quote If we accept that yin and yang, feminine and masculine, female and male are different why is it healthy to make one into the other? If you were dealing with any woman in this thread who actually wanted the Priesthood or wanted to assume the role of what is given to males, you might have an discussion going on. But this constant harping back to someone else's argument and ignoring what I and other women are saying in this thread is getting old and taking the discussion with you nowhere. What moderate women in the Church want (and yes, we do want something...that doesn't mean we automatically want what men have) is a way for girls, young women, and women to feel anchored into the every day and ritual religious life. We see the benefit that such a ritualized role has for men. We don't want their role. We want our own that meets our specialized needs within the framework of ritual roles. 7
Calm Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Mars said: when you say that the only thing in play is that other women want something they don't have, so they fight for it, that is you speaking for them. that is you dismissing their words and their explanations and their stories and substituting your own. that is, in a nutshell, a man speaking for a woman. I think a much bigger problem is not telling us we want something (if we are asking for change, then we do want something); it is defining what the change is we want instead of allowing us to do so ourselves and even continuing to insist it is one thing when we ourselves have said that it is not. I don't want to be a man, I don't want what a man has just because he is a man and I am not. I don't view Priestesshood as the same thing as Priesthood and if all that happens is the Priesthood is expanded to include women in the same offices and function, I will be very disappointed. I don't believe that Priestesshood will give the identical same rights and privledges, save as an avenue to seek God, seek righteousness, etc. through having a religious ritual role that holds a meaningful place in our faith community. Essentially I want to bring what is going on in the temple into daily life in more ways. To create a greater sacred space through which we can move for girls, young women and women that we don't have at this point through the faith community itself even if some of us have managed to create it for ourselves. Edited February 5, 2016 by Calm 2
Calm Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 2 hours ago, JAHS said: The way I see it men have Husband/Fatherhood combo and women have a Wife/Motherhood combo. If you are talking about service, I don't see any need to have the priesthood to serve others. But God does want His church to be run with the proper authority and for some reason He chose men to do that. I think of the interview President Hinckley had with a reporter: Interviewer: "At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?" Gordon B. Hinckley: "That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way." That's all we know right now and we have been told that's the way it should still be. I don't want to be a priest. Is any woman here in this thread saying that she wants to be a priest? Do you think that Priestess means the same thing as Priest? 1
Mars Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 4 minutes ago, Calm said: I think a much bigger problem is not telling us we want something (if we are asking for change, then we do want something); it is defining what the change is we want instead of allowing us to do so ourselves and even continuing to insist it is one thing when we ourselves have said that it is not. I don't want to be a man, I don't want what a man has just because he is a man and I am not. I don't view Priestesshood as the same thing as Priesthood and if all that happens is the Priesthood is expanded to include women in the same offices and function, I will be very disappointed. I don't believe that Priestesshood will give the identical same rights and privledges, save as an avenue to seek God, seek righteousness, etc. through having a religious ritual role that holds a meaningful place in our faith community. Essentially I want to bring what is going on in the temple into daily life in more ways. To create a greater sacred space through which we can move for girls, young women and women that we don't have at this point through the faith community itself even if some of us have managed to create it for ourselves. i accept that distinction.
Calm Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 2 hours ago, JAHS said: The way I see it men have Husband/Fatherhood combo and women have a Wife/Motherhood combo. So where is the Priesthood in that Husband/Fatherhood combo? Quote The more we know about things the better we are able to use them. Exactly. If we must depend primarily on ourselves to create our religious roles, it will be slower and less available to youth (because if it isn't revealed to the Church, it would be inappropriate for a woman to teach her personal attempts as the way to go to youth outside perhaps her own family) and we may get it significantly wrong. And if we start creating our own rituals to help create sacred space and then get others involved, we are going off track already there. 1
Calm Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Just to be clear, I (and I know many other women who feel the same way, the women in this thread can speak up about this if they want) love the way the Church creates a sacred role for my husband and son and grandson and all the young men and men around me. I can see how it helps them stay anchored to their faith by allowing them many opportunities to visibly and verbally participate in it through a well defined role (I think many wards could do better in developing attitudes towards this sacred role, I find Hamba's examples over the years to be most encouraging and wish others had the same level of involvement in those spiritual aspects of their lives as is obvious for those he works with and knows). I also think that part of the benefit comes from the great uniqueness of that role for men and I think it would be detrimental, even dangerous to remove this uniqueness....though if this is what is revealed, I will of course accept it and look forward to be demystified about why God chose to take that route. Whatever religious role eventually gets defined and ritualized for females, I hope it will be obvious that it is separate and distinct from what has been given to males. What goes on in the temple will likely form a foundation, but just as men are not just repeating what goes on in the temple outside the temple walls when they act in their Priesthood, I don't see it as likely this will happen for the Priestesshood (or whatever label gets attached because as Rain states it is really just a ? for women, we don't even have a name we can feel comfortable about giving it because revelation is lacking in what it might be starting from that most basic of levels). I am only using Priestesshood right now so StormRider will stop insisting that what I want is what men have, which is to be a priest. 3
JAHS Posted February 5, 2016 Author Posted February 5, 2016 22 minutes ago, Calm said: I don't want to be a priest. Is any woman here in this thread saying that she wants to be a priest? Do you think that Priestess means the same thing as Priest? I was not just responding to you but also referring back to the original OP I started with the woman who thinks women should be ordained. You also said: "We want our own that meets our specialized needs within the framework of ritual roles." Most of the ritual roles we have in the church require priesthood authority; which women do have when they serve in the church and especially in the temple. I can't even imagine what additional specialized ritual roles God might have in store only for women.
Calm Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Quote Most of the ritual roles we have in the church require priesthood authority; which women do have when they serve in the church and especially in the temple. Can you point to where women are operating in a ritual role outside the temple? 55 minutes ago, JAHS said: I can't even imagine what additional specialized ritual roles God might have in store only for women. Which is one of the problems for women who want to move forward in these ways. Think of what men would be doing if they knew there were promises for them out there (the blessings of the fathers, for instance), but had no clue what those promises were. What if the Priesthood was not even a word, but just a hinted at promise for men? In the future to all participants, it probably would be helpful if you say you are refering to the OP or specify the conversation you are responding to within the thread. There are women who want the priesthood; there are women who want it because men have it (though I have never heard any sort of expression of this desire that translates to "I want to be a man" in any form), there are likely more who want it because they see it as the only way to achieve equability, there are likely even more who want it because they see it is a gift that helps one grows more Christlike over time. These however, in my experience, tend to be the few in comparison to both the moderates and traditionals who are anticipating the future promises that are given in the temple and hoping they will come before the next life to help us create a better world for our families and communities as well as those who feel the current state is to be this way until Christ comes again. Edited February 5, 2016 by Calm 1
Russell C McGregor Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 4 hours ago, Gray said: The interviewer should have CFR'd that claim And the reference would be: Gordon B. Hinckley, Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and the only person on earth authorised to exercise all priesthood keys.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: Storm Rider...you need to listen. Yeah, Storm Rider. Shut up. What could you possibly know about the Priesthood?
JLHPROF Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Calm said: Can you point to where women are operating in a ritual role outside the temple? Eliza R. Snow managed just fine during her lifetime - http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Snow,_Eliza_R. Revered in her own time, she was honored during her many visits to the settlements of the Saints by feasts, celebrations of her birthday, odes in her praise, and invitations to address meetings of both men and women. Accounts of her healings, blessings, and prophesies are extant; her instructions to the women were accepted as binding. There was no intended exaggeration in the Kanab Relief Society's 1881 acknowledgment of her position as president "of all the feminine portion of the human race" and as "leading Priestess of this dispensation" (Woman's Exponent 9 [Apr. 1, 1881]:165), and Primary children two decades after her death in 1887 were encouraged in reverence for "the prophet, the priesthood, and Eliza R. Snow." This is the direction we need to return to. Not putting men and women in the same position. Not giving women roles that belong to men. But restoring to practice the roles and ritual roles that do exist for women within the restored gospel. Edited February 5, 2016 by JLHPROF 3
Calm Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Eliza R. Snow managed just fine during her lifetime - http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Snow,_Eliza_R. Revered in her own time, she was honored during her many visits to the settlements of the Saints by feasts, celebrations of her birthday, odes in her praise, and invitations to address meetings of both men and women. Accounts of her healings, blessings, and prophesies are extant; her instructions to the women were accepted as binding. There was no intended exaggeration in the Kanab Relief Society's 1881 acknowledgment of her position as president "of all the feminine portion of the human race" and as "leading Priestess of this dispensation" (Woman's Exponent 9 [Apr. 1, 1881]:165), and Primary children two decades after her death in 1887 were encouraged in reverence for "the prophet, the priesthood, and Eliza R. Snow." This is the direction we need to return to. Not putting men and women in the same position. Not giving women roles that belong to men. But restoring to practice the roles that do exist for women within the restored gospel. Definite possibility.
JLHPROF Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Calm said: Definite possibility. It boggles my mind that Mother's Anointing Blessings were done away with. What could possibly have been so incorrect or wrong that they would be stopped by Church leaders? 1
consiglieri Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: What priesthood office did Oliver Cowdery hold when he baptized Joseph Smith? John the Baptist "conferred" the Aaronic Priesthood on Joseph and Oliver in 1829 a year before the Church was organized and before any "priesthood offices" existed. By virtue of this priesthood, Oliver baptized Joseph and then Joseph baptized Oliver. Again, neither Joseph nor Oliver held any office in the Aaronic Priesthood at the time. This example suggests that the power to perform priesthood ordinances is a function of priesthood, not priesthood office. 2
Jeanne Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 27 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Yeah, Storm Rider. Shut up. What could you possibly know about the Priesthood? He knows a lot about the Priesthood..as he should. But perhaps he is not understanding how it feels to be a woman in the church. Russell...perhaps Storm Rider can answer for himself.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It boggles my mind that Mother's Anointing Blessings were done away with. What could possibly have been so incorrect or wrong that they would be stopped by Church leaders? So you think the oxen that draw the ark are stumbling, do you?
Russell C McGregor Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 4 minutes ago, Jeanne said: He knows a lot about the Priesthood..as he should. But perhaps he is not understanding how it feels to be a woman in the church. Russell...perhaps Storm Rider can answer for himself. He may know more about what it means to be a faithful Church member than someone who jumped ship. Of any gender. Like I said: this is a believers' discussion. And if you only want to have a private conversation with him, there's always PM. A public forum is a public forum. You took it upon yourself to rebuke him in public.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 8 minutes ago, consiglieri said: John the Baptist "conferred" the Aaronic Priesthood on Joseph and Oliver in 1829 a year before the Church was organized and before any "priesthood offices" existed. By virtue of this priesthood, Oliver baptized Joseph and then Joseph baptized Oliver. Again, neither Joseph nor Oliver held any office in the Aaronic Priesthood at the time. This example suggests that the power to perform priesthood ordinances is a function of priesthood, not priesthood office. And after the Church was organised, and the Priesthood offices were in place, Joseph and Oliver were baptized again.
Recommended Posts