"Daughters of Christ": Finding Language to talk about Women and Priesthood

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Women have the Priesthood, the people that say they don't, are wrong, all Christians have the power of Christ on their side, that's basically what it means. The church came along and changed that, along with other Christian concepts, church leaders get it wrong, as has been shown to be the case with other things. ETA: Just saw this article, haven't read it yet.

http://religionnews.com/2014/08/11/just-mormon-women-hold-priesthood/

ETA again: But what do I know? People are saying there's no proof of Jesus Christ which blows this all out of the water if so.

Endowed women have the priesthood.

Love you Tacenda, but your posts are becoming more and more evangelical.  The Church has it right, other "Christian" groups may disagree but the scriptures, including the Bible, describe priesthood as the Church has.

[Tacenda]

57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Endowed women have the priesthood.

Love you Tacenda, but your posts are becoming more and more evangelical.  The Church has it right, other "Christian" groups may disagree but the scriptures, including the Bible, describe priesthood as the Church has.

Not evangelical exactly, or I am and just don't know it, and just sad that I don't know anything, just feel it. Thanks JL, for being kind despite it!

Edited August 13, 2016 by Tacenda

[Eek!]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Women have the Priesthood, the people that say they don't, are wrong, all Christians have the power of Christ on their side, that's basically what it means.

 

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

... I don't know anything, just feel it.

I totally agree with you, and personally I'd draw an even more inclusive circle than just the Christians, but that would be another topic for another day.

Mormon men who hold the priesthood tend to believe that they really do have access to power from God, and this gives them sufficient faith and confidence to do things they otherwise would not have even attempted.  In contrast, Mormon women don't believe they have this same access to power from God, and that it would be improper for them to act as if they did.  Imo that is a mistake which should be corrected, and the Spirit is telling you and many others this, or something similar.

My understanding is that the current very strong emphasis on priesthood authority stems in part from when the polygamist fundamentalists split off after the Manifesto.  The fundamentalists could trace an apparently legitimate line of authority for performing plural marriages, and the mainstream Church leaders countered by arguing that legitimate authority from God came only through the mainstream LDS Church's priesthood lines of authority, and that is the Church's position to this day.  This meant the Church couldn't very well have sisters going around blessing and healing people because that undermined the argument that priesthood authority (as they interpreted it) is necessary.  At least that's the conclusion I came to after studying the subject some years ago. 

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Endowed women have the priesthood.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but just when and where and how is the priesthood given to women? 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Eek!

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Eek! said:

 

I totally agree with you, and personally I'd draw an even more inclusive circle than just the Christians, but that would be another topic for another day.

Mormon men who hold the priesthood tend to believe that they really do have access to power from God, and this gives them sufficient faith and confidence to do things they otherwise would not have even attempted.  In contrast, Mormon women don't believe they have this same access to power from God, and that it would be improper for them to act as if they did.  Imo that is a mistake which should be corrected, and the Spirit is telling you and many others this, or something similar.

My understanding is that the current emphasis on priesthood authority stems in part from when the polygamist fundamentalists split off after the Manifesto.  The fundamentalists could trace an apparently legitimate line of authority for performing plural marriages, and the mainstream church leaders countered by arguing that all legitimate authority from God came only through the mainstream LDS church's priesthood lines of authority, and that is their position to this day.  This meant they couldn't very well have sisters going around blessing and healing people because that undermined the argument that priesthood authority (as they interpreted it) is necessary.  At least that's the conclusion I came to after studying the subject some years ago. 

 

Thanks Eek!, I shouldn't have limited the power of God to just Christians, I guess I was feeling like if they don't believe in the Saviour Jesus Christ, then maybe they would be denied power from on high. But I've no leg to stand on anywhere. I'm just as clueless as clueless can be. But believe there is power for all. Inner power too. Also, you're probably right about the FLDS, women are subject to their husbands, as if their husbands are Gods.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not evangelical exactly, or I am and just don't know it, and just sad that I don't know anything, just feel it. Thanks JL, for being kind despite it!

A better question comes to mind.  Just what is it that makes women in the church feel this way?  IMO there are a lot of women who feel as you do Tacenda.  Trying hard to grasp on to something that relates to some significance is difficult. 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Jeanne

[Eek!]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just what is it that makes women in the church feel this way?  IMO there are a lot of women who feel as you do Tacenda. 

Imo it's the Holy Spirit that tells women in the church that they either deserve to be, or already are, equal to the men before God. 

It's not a zero-sum game.  It's not like more of God's power for you equals less for me.  Rather, when God's power increases in any of us, it increases in all of us.  Imo. 

 

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but just when and where and how is the priesthood given to women? 

Joseph specifically said that Patriarchal priesthhood would be received in the temple.  Men and women receive the same blessings, the same priesthood garment, robes containing the same symbols of priesthood, the same tokens of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, and a promise to become priestesses when they return to receive the ordinance also known as the fulness of priesthood blessing.

Sounds like priesthood to me. And a higher priesthood than a Church office too.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Imo it's the Holy Spirit that tells women in the church that they either deserve to be, or already are, equal to the men before God. 

The church tells women that as well. 

[Eek!]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph specifically said that Patriarchal priesthhood would be received in the temple.  Men and women receive the same blessings, the same priesthood garment, robes containing the same symbols of priesthood, the same tokens of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, and a promise to become priestesses when they return to receive the ordinance also known as the fulness of priesthood blessing..

Totally agree with you on all points.

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sounds like priesthood to me. And a higher priesthood than a Church office too.

Especially this one.

However the specifics of when and where and how the priesthood is given to women are still indistinct.  If I can collect my thoughts sufficiently, I'll take a shot at narrowing down the "when" and "where".  If I do, you're probably gonna get quoted. 

 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Eek!

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

A better question comes to mind.  Just what is it that makes women in the church feel this way?  IMO there are a lot of women who feel as you do Tacenda.  Trying hard to grasp on to something that relates to some significance is difficult. 

I think both growth in size and structural changes to short term callings in most cases has led to slower change in church culture. Back when Leah Widtsoe was formulating the motherhood/priesthood paradigm, it was progressive in the culture of the 30s up to probably 60s:

"Attuned to the progressive movements of the early twentieth century, Sister Widtsoe updated the Victorian ideal of motherhood with a passion, encouraging women to go to college and study chemistry, biology and sociology to become more efficient housewives and more capable mothers. “The woman who is to act intelligently in every capacity of her life as home-maker,” she asserted, “must have almost universal knowledge.”[9] “All the learning in the world can be applied and centralized in the home.”[10]

Of course, she insisted, husbands would want to listen carefully to the opinions of such educated wives. While a woman’s husband “is her wise counselor and advisor in all things,” she wrote, women should be “recognized as the equals and partners of men in the good game of life.”[11] In this she differed from her mother Susa who, like Joseph F. Smith, held the traditional view that “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man” as expressed in I Corinthians chapter 11. The Widtsoes acknowledged the primacy of priesthood leadership in the home, but they emphasized the partnership of marriage. Traveling together with the Utah State Agricultural College extension division, they helped farmers increase their productivity and farm wives become more efficient homemakers and they co-authored a book on scientific evidence supporting the Word of Wisdom. Elder Widtsoe even gave a talk in General Conference devoted to his wife’s ideas about the ideal education for women.[12]"

And she was able to have a huge impact because of her consistent presence through her own efforts and her husband's references to it.  With the smaller church, the presentations got to a much higher percentage of the membership (think of the Givens' current impact,though of course if one of them held a major church calling they would be attracting larger crowds, instead it is a slow development).  Using it in a church manual likely cemented it into the culture.  

However shifting cultural needs has led to much of the progressive aspect becoming outdated.

We need to first find an 'as easily grasped' paradigm to be formulated for the eighty years' of new experiences and changing culture.  There seems to be a number of individuals working on it, so I am hopeful it will show up soon.  Even without official support, it can still lead to paradigm change much like Steven Robinson's Believing Christ book did...most popular book in the LDS market for over a decade, I believe.

[Eek!]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church tells women that as well. 

Actions speak louder than words. 

Mentally trace the Church's plan and path for an active young man as far as his power and authority to act in the name of God:  Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder.

Now mentally trace the equivalent path for an active young woman:  <crickets>

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Totally agree with you on all points.

Especially this one.

However the specifics of when and where and how the priesthood is given to women are still indistinct.  If I can collect my thoughts sufficiently, I'll take a shot at narrowing down the "when" and "where".  If I do, you're probably gonna get quoted.

As long as you don't quote me as meaning that since women have this priesthood we should also be ok with calling women Deacons, Elders, Bishops etc.
I am not a supporter of OW.  God has said which priesthood women can receive and it's not the priesthood of his Church.  Only the priesthood of the temple (and eternity).

This is what Joseph meant when he promise the RS the priesthood and to make them a kingdom of priests(priestesses).
He was 100% referring to the temple, never to the Church.  He himself wanted to leave the church in Hyrum's care and leadership and go on to lead this Holy Order as King.
 

Edited August 13, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Eek!]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As long as you don't quote me as meaning that since women have this priesthood we should also be ok with calling women Deacons, Elders, Bishops etc.
I am not a supporter of OW.  God has said which priesthood women can receive and it's not the priesthood of his Church.  Only the priesthood of the temple (and eternity).
 

I would not put words in your mouth, but since I don't know that you would agree with the conclusions I might draw, I'll play it safe and not quote you. 

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Now mentally trace the equivalent path for an active young woman:  <crickets>

You are seeking an equivalency leading to a goal that is not necessary.
The path for both men and women to fulness of priesthood begins at the doors to the temple.

If both young men and young women are prepared to enter the temple any variation in method of preparing them becomes a distinction without a difference.
They will receive the same blessings.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Actions speak louder than words. 

Mentally trace the Church's plan and path for an active young man as far as his power and authority to act in the name of God:  Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder.

Now mentally trace the equivalent path for an active young woman:  <crickets>

Mentally trace God's plan and path for a woman to become a mother:  menstruation, ovulation, intercourse, 40 weeks (that's 10 months!) gestation, labor, birth.

Now mentally trace the equivalent path for a man to become a father:  intercourse.

Are we to infer from the differences in the two paths that God does not believe that men are equal to women in their parenthood?  Most people would answer, no of course not.  The same thing applies to the path you laid out.  Different doesn't always mean inferior.  Women have a different path than the men in some ways, but they do have a path.  Defining and understanding it better is our goal.  It's not as easily defined as the men's is, which is the whole topic of the article the OP is based on.  It does exist though.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Mentally trace God's plan and path for a woman to become a mother:  menstruation, ovulation, intercourse, 40 weeks (that's 10 months!) gestation, labor, birth.

Now mentally trace the equivalent path for a man to become a father:  intercourse.

Are we to infer from the differences in the two paths that God does not believe that men are equal to women in their parenthood?  Most people would answer, no of course not.  The same thing applies to the path you laid out.  Different doesn't always mean inferior.  Women have a different path than the men in some ways, but they do have a path.  Defining and understanding it better is our goal.  It's not as easily defined as the men's is, which is the whole topic of the article the OP is based on.  It does exist though.

Bluebell, you are awesome sometimes.  I appreciate your balanced approach.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Bluebell, you are awesome sometimes.  I appreciate your balanced approach.

Thank you.

[Eek!]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Mentally trace God's plan and path for a woman to become a mother:  menstruation, ovulation, intercourse, 40 weeks (that's 10 months!) gestation, labor, birth.

Now mentally trace the equivalent path for a man to become a father:  intercourse

That's not the church's teachings, that's biology.  Different subject. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Eek! said:

That's not the church's teachings, that's biology.  Different subject. 

It's not just biology though, is it.  It's the way God set things up.  The same can be said for the teachings of the church.  If the author is God, then trite sayings like 'actions speak louder than words' mean absolutely nothing, as my example illustrates.

[Eek!]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You are seeking an equivalency leading to a goal that is not necessary.
The path for both men and women to fulness of priesthood begins at the doors to the temple.

If both young men and young women are prepared to enter the temple any variation in method of preparing them becomes a distinction without a difference.
They will receive the same blessings.

I agree with your conclusion, BUT the church's path for young women does not include equivalent power and authority to act in the name of God, relative to that of the young men.  That equality is not being taught in actions, even if the words are out there somewhere. 

Several decades ago one could have made a similar argument as to why blacks really are not limited by not being able to hold the priesthood, as long as they can still get into the Celestial Kingdom. 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Eek!

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Eek! said:

 the church's path for young women does not include equivalent power and authority to act in the name of God, relative to that of the young men.

Is there some gospel reason it needs to?  Their progression and eventual blessings are not hindered.

So is the complaint that from age 12-18 God doesn't expect young women to fulfill an Aaronic law prior to being endowed with power?

 

[Eek!]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's not just biology though, is it.  It's the way God set things up.  The same can be said for the teachings of the church.  If the author is God, then trite sayings like 'actions speak louder than words' mean absolutely nothing, as my example illustrates.

I have no problem with putting motherhood and fatherhood on equal levels, even if the paths are quite different. 

Nor do I have a problem with putting priesthood and priestesshood on equal levels, even if the paths are quite different.

The problem is, priestesshood is not taught in the Church, and relatively few people (JLHPROF and Tacenda clearly being among those few) figure out that priestesshood even exists in the Church. 

The number of Mormon women who feel that the men have a special power and authority to act in the name of God which they do not is imo an indication that actions have spoken louder than the words. 

Edited August 14, 2016 by Eek!

[bluebell]

Just now, Eek! said:

I have no problem with putting motherhood and fatherhood on equal levels, even if the paths are quite different. 

Nor do I have a problem with putting priesthood and priestesshood on equal levels, even if the paths are quite different.

The problem is, the path to priestesshood is not taught in the Church, and relatively few people (JLFPROF and Tacenda clearly being among those few) figure out that priestesshood even exists in the Church. 

Once you go to the temple, the only way for you not to know that priestesshood exists is to go thru with your ears plugged.  It's all over.  But i agree that it needs to be better defined and talked about outside of the temple as well.

[Eek!]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Is there some gospel reason it needs to?  Their progression and eventual blessings are not hindered.

So is the complaint that from age 12-18 God doesn't expect young women to fulfill an Aaronic law prior to being endowed with power?

 

My complaint is that a great and empowering truth, one that you figured out and Tacenda feels, is not being taught, and that acting on it outside of the temple is pretty much prohibited. 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Eek!

[Eek!]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Once you go to the temple, the only way for you not to know that priestesshood exists is to go thru with your ears plugged.  It's all over.  But i agree that it needs to be better defined and talked about outside of the temple as well.

That right there is plenty enough common ground for me.  Thank you.