The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

I love learning new words (otiose).

I agree, and I find this to be an eminently likeable word! Meaning: serving no practical purpose or result

I wondered how to pronounce it, and went to Bing to check, and got this (in IPA phonetics): [ˈəʊtɪəʊs, ˈəʊʃɪəʊs, ˈəʊtɪəʊz, ˈəʊʃɪəʊz]

But since my IPA is a bit rusty (or virtually nonexistent), there was a little soundie icon, which when clicked on, pronounces it.  Find it HERE.  There are some alternate pronunciations, too. The Free Dictionary gives a different one: otiose.

 

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

However, if I were your editor, I would perhaps avoid the word? It isn't used that much and maybe seems like it is trying to hard to appeal to authority? 

Unfortunately, English has simply oodles of words to choose from, but so few of the really cool ones are very current.  Part of the reason much of the population is dreadfully ignorant of the rich vocabulary that is available is because too many people regard education as something regretfully necessary that is to be gotten through with the minimum fuss and uptake.

I remember irritating my supervisor by my use of the word "Laconic" in programming code. The word was supposed to signify the occasion when a logging routine was only to record only the minimum amount of log text, as contrasted with the word "Verbose" for the opposite -- a word he was familiar with.  When I asked him to suggest a single word that was the opposite of "verbose" he couldn't come up with one.  I suppose if he had given it some thought he could have done so.  Some candidates might be:  concise, reticent, terse, curt, succinct, brusque.  None of these, however, are particularly current, and I suspect he might not have liked any of them very well. But I liked "Laconic" and that is what we went with in the end.  

Now, as to the use of otiose in the sentence in question, how would one have rendered it using a more current word?  Some of the synonyms include: superfluous, wasted, pointless, purposeless, senseless, futile, unavailing, ineffectual.  Which one has just the right shade of meaning to say what Robert wanted to say?  Unfamiliarity perhaps would militate for the use of "senseless" over "otiose", but perhaps for the sake of learning something new and possibly useful, why not go with the new?  I'd dare say that most of the folks posting here are a cut above the average in terms of word knowledge -- judging by the number of folks who post long essays here.  So introducing a new word occasionally ought to be a side-benefit of posting and reading here.

As to appealing to authority, I don't see that.  I think it is more an appeal to the dictionary.   

The legend about the word "floccinaucinihilipilification" is that in a competitive debates involving the Eton debate team, the Eton team invented the word and accused the other team of it. Which they couldn't answer because they didn't know what it meant -- if you were accused of a crime with an obscure name, how would you defend yourself?  I guess asking what the hell they were talking about wasn't something permitted by the rules, but that's beside the point.  The word combined several Latin roots, and it was supposed to mean "a situation in which something is determined to be useless, trivial, or unnecessary."  An example of its usage might be: "When most people hear of the word floccinaucinihilipilification, they consider it to be a useless word, this instance would be in itself a floccinaucinihilipilification."

Wait a minute...  is this the subject of the OP, or am I jacking the thread into a place where it wasn't supposed to go?

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Nearly everyone believes that?

I sure as heck don't believe it.  

[Exiled]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why is this kind of equality important?

Because the priesthood is what runs things and so it should be a partnership like a marriage should be. The church is often thought of as an extended family, so why not treat it like a family should be. Women should have an equal voice with their husbands in their families as well as the church family.

[Exiled]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

No, because unlike her predecessors, who in my opinion were approaching the inequalities in a more intelligent way by pushing for small, easy changes that had visible impact and over time would likely have gained momentum (though they could have been a bit more careful in their efforts by ensuring what they were protesting against actually existed as was not the case in the push to wear pants to Churchto protest an absurd dress code rule that they assumed existed, but did not), she demanded an all or nothing surrender, which created pushback rather than examination of what inequalities could be fixed and more or less caused the movement to grind to a halt for a few years, imo.

From what I heard a couple of changes that were in the process were halted once she popped up with her demands.  I never really understood why they made her the spokesperson since she was always stepping in it and apparently was never invested unless she was the center of attention, as evidenced by her couldn't be bothered to wear pants one day to Church to show solidarity with the movement prior to OrdainWomen taking the helm and then refusing to contribute to the OrdainWomen book to raise funds for the group after she left because they wouldn't give her control.

The messenger can certainly be replaced. She did rub some people the wrong way. How about an anonymous voice from the internet that asks: President Nelson, may the women of the LDS church please have the priesthood so they can have the same leadership growth opportunities that the men have? The question can be given to President Nelson in a respectful tone so that there isn't any cause for retrenchment. What do you think?

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Can't really help you there. There is at least one instance of a prophetess in scripture. 

Deborah, Huldah, Miriam, Anna, Elizabeth, Mary, Philip's four daughters, etc.

16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I interpret that D&C scripture as meaning that all future prophets and revelators will hold the priesthood restored through Joseph Smith, but I guess it could mean something else.

The D&C recognizes the lineal descendants of Aaron among the Jews as legitimate holders of the Aaronic priesthood.

[CMZ]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Nearly everyone believes that?

No, I'll admit that I don't know how to quantify the number of people that believe that but in my experience it sure seems like a lot of people do. The whole Ordain Women movement is based on it. And there seem to even be many in the Church who don't foment rebellion over it but who still feel that women not having the priesthood conferred upon them in the way men do somehow means that the Church still sees women as inferior to men. Some of this is evident from all the pointing out of the ways in which women can still exercise the priesthood (such as in temples and whatnot)... and it's actually good and important for people to understand these points, but a lot of it seems to be done with the mindset of, "See? See? There's ways in which women exercise priesthood power so don't be thinking they're less important than men." And then the misunderstanding of the whole issue just perpetuates itself.

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, CMZ said:

No, I'll admit that I don't know how to quantify the number of people that believe that but in my experience it sure seems like a lot of people do. The whole Ordain Women movement is based on it. And there seem to even be many in the Church who don't foment rebellion over it but who still feel that women not having the priesthood conferred upon them in the way men do somehow means that the Church still sees women as inferior to men. Some of this is evident from all the pointing out of the ways in which women can still exercise the priesthood (such as in temples and whatnot)... and it's actually good and important for people to understand these points, but a lot of it seems to be done with the mindset of, "See? See? There's ways in which women exercise priesthood power so don't be thinking they're less important than men." And then the misunderstanding of the whole issue just perpetuates itself.

Thanks. I run up in the wrong circles. I don’t recall anyone I know expressing those thoughts. 

[CMZ]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. I run up in the wrong circles. I don’t recall anyone I know expressing those thoughts. 

It's not everyone. I've just seen enough of a critical mass that feels that way.

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Deborah, Huldah, Miriam, Anna, Elizabeth, Mary, Philip's four daughters, etc.

The D&C recognizes the lineal descendants of Aaron among the Jews as legitimate holders of the Aaronic priesthood.

What are your thoughts on why Exodus 40 is read to the women in the initiatory, ordination, washing, anointing if it has nothing to do with administering in a priesthood office?  Also, why is a priestess not an office in the priesthood but priest is?  I don't agree with Stapley that this is some different cosmological priesthood, as men are ordained as elders by proxy in the same washing and anointing.  It's really strange that the word priestess is entirely missing from the JS teachings on priesthood, temple and women essay.  Since this is a thread on the beginning of the priesthood ban, I suppose we're trying to explain why black women like Jane Manning James were banned from an endowment of power to wear the robes of the priesthood, to exercise both power and authority of the priesthood, or to use key words pertaining to holding priesthood to pass through the veil. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by blueglass

[blueglass]

On 5/17/2018 at 7:01 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Is there any scriptural evidence that the Levitical, Aaronic, Melchizedek or Patriarchal priesthoods were conferred on anyone other than descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob before the Restoration?

I don't believe the christian church had to wait until 1978 for the fulfillment of the Isaiah 66:18-21 prophecy.  The meaning of Galatians 3:26-29 is clear that lineage has nothing to do worthiness to receive priesthood as Jesus of judah was baptized by his cousin John of the tribe Levi forming a bridge to the melchizedek who was "without father or mother, without genealogy," Heb7  Then Paul of the lineage of benjamin carried the gospel and priesthood to the world.  we also have Lehi of the lineage of one of the lost tribes, (manasseh) carrying the priesthood to the isles of the sea.    I think gideon was the last priest of the lineage of manasseh performing priesthood ordinances in the OT.   Then we have the invention of british israelism.  

Edited May 21, 2018 by blueglass

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

Because the priesthood is what runs things and so it should be a partnership like a marriage should be. The church is often thought of as an extended family, so why not treat it like a family should be. Women should have an equal voice with their husbands in their families as well as the church family.

I don’t believe the family analogy holds in the case of Priesthood authority in this life. The Patriarchal priesthood, which most closely fits that model, will be in place after this life.

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I don't believe the christian church had to wait until 1978 for the fulfillment of the Isaiah 66:18-21 prophecy.  The meaning of Galatians 3:26-29 is clear that lineage has nothing to do worthiness to receive priesthood as Jesus of judah was baptized by his cousin John of the tribe Levi forming a bridge to the melchizedek who was "without father or mother, without genealogy," Heb7  Then Paul of the lineage of benjamin carried the gospel and priesthood to the world.  we also have Lehi of the lineage of one of the lost tribes, (manasseh) carrying the priesthood to the isles of the sea.    I think gideon was the last priest of the lineage of manasseh performing priesthood ordinances in the OT.   Then we have the invention of british israelism.  

All of whom (except Melchizedek) were descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham sought the priesthood of the Fathers and was given this promise. 

Quote

Abraham 2:11 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.

Lineage has nothing to do with worthiness....

Quote

D&C 68:14 There remain hereafter, in the due time of the Lord, other bishops to be set apart unto the church, to minister even according to the first;
15 Wherefore they shall be high priests who are worthy, and they shall be appointed by the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood, except they be literal descendants of Aaron.
16 And if they be literal descendants of Aaron they have a legal right to the bishopric, if they are the firstborn among the sons of Aaron;
17 For the firstborn holds the right of the presidency over this priesthood, and the keys or authority of the same.
18 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant and the firstborn of Aaron.
19 But, as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power, under the hands of the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
20 And a literal descendant of Aaron, also, must be designated by this Presidency, and found worthy, and anointed, and ordained under the hands of this Presidency, otherwise they are not legally authorized to officiate in their priesthood.
21 But, by virtue of the decree concerning their right of the priesthood descending from father to son, they may claim their anointing if at any time they can prove their lineage, or do ascertain it by revelation from the Lord under the hands of the above named Presidency.

Who was without father or mother?

Quote

“For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually.”

In the King James Version, Hebrews 7:1–3 strangely suggests that Melchizedek was a man without father or mother or lineage. This was corrected by the Prophet [Joseph Smith] to say that it was the priesthood of Melchizedek, not the man, that was without lineage. This is certainly an improvement and draws the distinction between the Aaronic Priesthood, which in Old Testament times came down only through the lineage of Aaron, and the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is not confined to a precise lineage. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/12/joseph-smiths-inspired-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng

 

[Robert F. Smith]

42 minutes ago, blueglass said:

What are your thoughts on why Exodus 40 is read to the women in the initiatory, ordination, washing, anointing if it has nothing to do with administering in a priesthood office?  Also, why is a priestess not an office in the priesthood but priest is?  I don't agree with Stapley that this is some different cosmological priesthood, as men are ordained as elders by proxy in the same washing and anointing.  It's really strange that the word priestess is entirely missing from the JS teachings on priesthood, temple and women essay.  ...............................................

The word "priestess" is in fact used in the LDS endowment, so the concept certainly exists.  Thus, women function as priestesses, even if the terminology isn't used that way in the temple.  The same applies to RC nuns who perform blessings in the absence to male priesthood, just as it did in the old Relief Society under Emma Smith.  Since ordination is not needed, that speaks only to function under the authorizing keys of someone else.  So priesthood authority is present somewhere in the chain of performance of ordinances.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The word "priestess" is in fact used in the LDS endowment, so the concept certainly exists.  Thus, women function as priestesses, even if the terminology isn't used that way in the temple.  The same applies to RC nuns who perform blessings in the absence to male priesthood, just as it did in the old Relief Society under Emma Smith.  Since ordination is not needed, that speaks only to function under the authorizing keys of someone else.  So priesthood authority is present somewhere in the chain of performance of ordinances.

The Deborahc Priesthood has a nice ring to it.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t believe the family analogy holds in the case of Priesthood authority in this life. The Patriarchal priesthood, which most closely fits that model, will be in place after this life.

So, it is what it is ... that is until it isn't 😞

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

The Deborahc Priesthood has a nice ring to it.

I can think of numerous women who would have priority over Deborah as head of a priesthood order.

[Guest]

On May 19, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Tacenda said:

Like with your minister father, it's okay to tell it from your heart, you've that right. Others tell it like it is so why not yourself. And when you are truthful with your feelings like with your father, you may have changed a heart or two for the better!! 

Again thank you, I just do not want to ever be guilty of the sin of offense. 

[Guest]

On May 20, 2018 at 12:11 AM, 2BizE said:

What ever happened to the ban on black negro women going to the temple?  The priesthood ban was removed, but i dont recall reading anything about black women.

It was at the same time, I believe.

[Guest]

On May 20, 2018 at 2:08 PM, JLHPROF said:

They will eventually.  Not sure when or how long till it happens.  But it will.

I was teaching Gospel Doctrine once, and the lesson said to make mention that some Sisters have Priesthood duties in the Temple. It also mention that wives are equal partners in the home and share in the Priesthood with their husbands. First I was called out for talking about the Temple issue. Then I asked if any Sister in my class held or shared in the Priesthood. An elderly Sister spoke up and said, "I did" but lost it when my husband passed away last year. Those Sister who go through through the Temple are ordained to become so many things. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, blueglass said:

I don't believe the christian church had to wait until 1978 for the fulfillment of the Isaiah 66:18-21 prophecy.  The meaning of Galatians 3:26-29 is clear that lineage has nothing to do worthiness to receive priesthood as Jesus of judah was baptized by his cousin John of the tribe Levi forming a bridge to the melchizedek who was "without father or mother, without genealogy," Heb7  Then Paul of the lineage of benjamin carried the gospel and priesthood to the world.  we also have Lehi of the lineage of one of the lost tribes, (manasseh) carrying the priesthood to the isles of the sea.    I think gideon was the last priest of the lineage of manasseh performing priesthood ordinances in the OT.   Then we have the invention of british israelism.  

The Levitical Priesthood is the Aaronic Priesthood, and if you are speaking of the idea of a "Priesthood of Believers", this is a Priesthood that believers share in the blessing of the Gospel. It is not a Priesthood that has "offices" that allow for the day to day direction of the Lord's Church and Kingdom. Even in other Christian Churches, Ministers are ordained, not just everyone holds that responsibility.  

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Exiled said:

So, it is what it is ... that is until it isn't 😞

Well, yes. There are various priesthoods with different times and purposes for each.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The Levitical Priesthood is the Aaronic Priesthood, and if you are speaking of the idea of a "Priesthood of Believers", this is a Priesthood that believers share in the blessing of the Gospel. It is not a Priesthood that has "offices" that allow for the day to day direction of the Lord's Church and Kingdom. Even in other Christian Churches, Ministers are ordained, not just everyone holds that responsibility.  

Quote

Bible Dictionary- The terms Aaronic and Levitical are sometimes used synonymously (D&C 107:1, 6, 10), although there are some specific differences in the offices existing within the Levitical Priesthood. For example, the lesser priesthood was conferred only upon men of the tribe of Levi. However, within the tribe, only Aaron and his sons could hold the office of priest. And, still further, from the firstborn of Aaron’s sons (after Aaron) was selected the high priest (or president of the priests). Thus Aaron and his sons after him had greater offices in the Levitical Priesthood than did the other Levites.

 

[Gray]

On 5/21/2018 at 5:23 PM, JLHPROF said:

I can think of numerous women who would have priority over Deborah as head of a priesthood order.

Eve?

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, Gray said:

Eve?

Sure.  And Sarah.  Possibly Mary the Mother, or one of the women that "followed" Christ.  

Tullidge or Eliza R. Snow had some ideas in Women of Mormondom. Joseph Smith wanted women to become priestesses (a temple office, not an ecclesiastical one).

 

[blueglass]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sure.  And Sarah.  Possibly Mary the Mother, or one of the women that "followed" Christ.  

Tullidge or Eliza R. Snow had some ideas in Women of Mormondom. Joseph Smith wanted women to become priestesses (a temple office, not an ecclesiastical one).

 

Reminded of a quote by Heber C Kimball from 1857, "Was every woman qualified to raise that child? No. You will find that Mary was of the Royal Priesthood, which is after the order of God;"  So back to one of the purposes this thread, was Jane Manning James prevented from receiving the endowment because women do receive power and authority of priesthood and office of priestess and she was black?  The language in OD2 is all male centric, for example, "all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, "  "we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren" "the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, " "Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."  

There is nothing in the OD2 that refers to the black temple ban against women.  Why were there any restrictions on black women receiving the blessings of the temple endowment?