Younger Mormons far more likely to be troubled by women’s roles in the LDS Church, study shows

[clarkgoble]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect something like or actually being women holding the Priesthood is coming in the impending avalanche but that is just a suspicion.

There's a lot of signs for a big change. Nelson has in particular been emphasizing changes and that the restoration is far from complete. Elder Oaks talk on women and priesthood from a couple of years ago also doesn't get enough attention. There's a lot in it that's significant. Oaks is also pretty well read on the history and I'm sure he's familiar with women giving blessings up until 1948 as well as the discussions of how Joseph set the Relief Society up based on the image of Elders Quorum. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he's familiar with the masonic elements of the early Relief Society as well with its obvious connection to the temple and how women are priestesses therein.

At a minimum I think Nelson will greatly change the practical role of women. There's a lot that could be done as policy without requiring revelation. You could let women serve in the Sunday School presidency (and men in the Primary presidency). You could let young women usher or pass the sacrament, Aaronic priesthood duties that aren't presented as requiring the Aaronic priesthood. You could bring the Relief Society President into more meetings the Bishopric deals with as a de-facto counselor. You could expand the role of the General Relief Society Board to take up and participate in the functions of the Presiding Bishopric. You could even have the General Relief Society Presidency participate in the meetings the Apostles do and have an equivalent role in General Conference talks. 

About the only thing that would be limited would be formal calls as apostles, Bishops, Stake Presidents or Seventies or baptize. Whether that would be enough to placate Millennials is an open question but there's a lot of practical changes that could (and likely should) be done. There's a strong pragmatic element to a lot of our informal or quasi-formal organization that really is open to this.

[USU78]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There's a lot of signs for a big change. Nelson has in particular been emphasizing changes and that the restoration is far from complete. Elder Oaks talk on women and priesthood from a couple of years ago also doesn't get enough attention. There's a lot in it that's significant. Oaks is also pretty well read on the history and I'm sure he's familiar with women giving blessings up until 1948 as well as the discussions of how Joseph set the Relief Society up based on the image of Elders Quorum. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he's familiar with the masonic elements of the early Relief Society as well with its obvious connection to the temple and how women are priestesses therein.

At a minimum I think Nelson will greatly change the practical role of women. There's a lot that could be done as policy without requiring revelation. You could let women serve in the Sunday School presidency (and men in the Primary presidency). You could let young women usher or pass the sacrament, Aaronic priesthood duties that aren't presented as requiring the Aaronic priesthood. You could bring the Relief Society President into more meetings the Bishopric deals with as a de-facto counselor. You could expand the role of the General Relief Society Board to take up and participate in the functions of the Presiding Bishopric. You could even have the General Relief Society Presidency participate in the meetings the Apostles do and have an equivalent role in General Conference talks. 

About the only thing that would be limited would be formal calls as apostles, Bishops, Stake Presidents or Seventies or baptize. Whether that would be enough to placate Millennials is an open question but there's a lot of practical changes that could (and likely should) be done. There's a strong pragmatic element to a lot of our informal or quasi-formal organization that really is open to this.

We should all remember that President Nelson won't be with us much longer  ...  and that Elder Oaks is next in line.

USU "Thinks Concerns of Whiny Millennials Aren't Driving This Bus" 78

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

At a minimum I think Nelson will greatly change the practical role of women. There's a lot that could be done as policy without requiring revelation. You could let women serve in the Sunday School presidency (and men in the Primary presidency). You could let young women usher or pass the sacrament, Aaronic priesthood duties that aren't presented as requiring the Aaronic priesthood. You could bring the Relief Society President into more meetings the Bishopric deals with as a de-facto counselor. You could expand the role of the General Relief Society Board to take up and participate in the functions of the Presiding Bishopric. You could even have the General Relief Society Presidency participate in the meetings the Apostles do and have an equivalent role in General Conference talks.

SOme of this could happen, sure. I think one problem is, all of this should have happened decades ago, at minimum.  Now it appears we have only a few policy changes that can happen until the guy at the top feels good enough about the idea of giving the priesthood and taking the cap off the silo titled women.  It'll come some day, I'm sure.  Its just taking forever for tiny cracks to form, and then another forever before those cracks start to mean something.  

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Biblically, the priesthood was for temple rituals.

Interestingly, priesthood authority is exercised by both men and women in the temple and elsewhere. 

Priesthood authority has been delegated to women in the Relief Society, and through temple ordinances both men and women enter into an "order of the priesthood".  

Quote

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.

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

 

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Perhaps I was unclear.

In the past, I have heard some members (not authorities) say that one reason women do not hold the priesthood is because they have already been given the creative power of bearing children.  

Just like men cannot have children because that is their gift from and responsibility to God, women cannot hold the priesthood because that is men’s gift from and responsibility to God.

I’ve never believed this.

Sounds rather like a folk doctrine.  In the absence of meaningful guidance from those in authority, I am not inclined to accept it.

Moreover, it's . . . asymmetrical.  I think that the corollary to women's capacity for motherhood would be . . . men's capacity for fatherhood.

58 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

President Hinckley’s statement indicates to me that there is no eternal law or nature of gender that would be violated if women were to formally be ordained to the priesthood.  God just hasn’t given that revelation (yet?).

Ah.  Okay.

Personally, I don't think such a revelation is coming.  But I'd be fine with being proven incorrect on that point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

https://religionnews.com/2018/11/26/younger-mormons-far-more-likely-to-be-troubled-by-womens-roles-in-the-lds-church-study-shows/

Important bit:

 

Perhaps the church can at least take inspiration from the Catholic church if unwilling to consider either ordaining women or going with the more Biblical path of separating priesthood from leadership.

Thanks for posting, I saw this yesterday and I do think it is a very important contemporary issue.  The sexism in the church is increasingly at odds with the rest of society, and the baby steps towards getting women more involved are just too little too slow.  The entire structure, even the theology of Mormonism is sexist.  We need visionary leaders to get some new revelations on the subject that will speak truth to the ears of the times.  We need leadership here.  

[Gray]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  That's not how CFRs work.

You said: "Biblically, the priesthood was for temple rituals. Prophets and apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood."

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.

 

Asked and answered. Did you read the wiki summary of Hebrew priesthood? You'll see nothing there about priesthood being required for someone to be a prophet or a judge in Israel.

 

Quote

Actually, I don't see that.  And you still haven't accounted for Hebrews 5.  And you haven't accounted for the voluminous guidance about the Priesthood given in Doctrine & Covenants.

Thanks,

-Smac

I already responded to that. Of course the D&C is not part of the Bible, and articulates a different view of priesthood.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

49 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that's kind of question begging. Certainly the nature of New Testament callings is debatable. Within a Protestant tradition a priesthood of all believers is the common view. However even in our conception of priesthood one can (and perhaps should) distinguish between priesthood in its broad cosmological sense which is still primarily tied to temples and leadership positions even if we require priesthood to do the latter.

The other problem of course is that even in the Old Testament that survived the Deuteronomist and Priestly redactions of the Josiah and exilic period there's structure for the prophets. So we have the school of prophets or sons of the prophets in 1 Sam 19:18-24 and 2 Kings 2. Amos seems to suggest this in Amos 7 as well. Now some suggest these were levites and thus tied to the temple, but that's not at all clear in the texts. In particular 2 Kings 2 seems to have them functioning in non-temple roles. Further the function of the priests in the pre-King time wasn't tied to temples but merely ritual. The centralization of ritual happens quite late arguably starting with Josiah. Indeed many scholars argue that many of the rituals are actually post-exilic suggesting the ceremonial nature of Judaism in pre-Josiah era may well have been extremely different.

The second issue is that there are remnants of the Sons of Moses in the Old Testament. It's not clear why Joseph uses that term in D&C 84 for a higher priesthood, but there are hints of a rival priesthood to the levites that was expunged during the period of the centralization of the cult starting with Josiah.  Exactly what the Sons of Moses were is still a topic of debate as is its connection to Gershom, Moses' son. Some scholars suggest that priesthood was originally open to all and not just limited to the levitical tribe. (These scholars see the Deuteronomists opposing limiting priesthood to levites during this period from Josiah up through the second temple) In any case the connection of this rival priesthood to the temple is far from clear.

The third issue is what was going on prior to Moses. That is of course a Biblical question and the LDS conception of the Law of Moses as a lesser law compared to this earlier religious tradition can't be dismissed as not Biblical. Obviously LDS thought and scripture plays up the pre-Mosaic religion. But Melchizedek, if mysterious in Genesis 14, clearly is a priest. The connection of this to the temple rites seems questionable. Melchizedek seems a leader (Abraham pays him a tenth of all his wealth) and has a ritual bread and wine offering. Likewise Moses' father in law is a priest of Midian and thus not necessarily tied to the temple. He's described as a priest of Midian which is in northwest Arabia near the Gulf of Aqaba. 

Finally there's the place of Jesus as tied to Melchizedek. Again the meaning of this is disputed by scholars. But something is going on there. One can see it as the later Christian view of Christ being the sacrifice the temple rites pointed to. Or one can see Christians adopting Genesis 14 as a type of Christ, although it's not clear why they would even in terms of the Qumran theology of Melchezedek or Pslam 110. In particular though Hebrews 7 presents Melchezedek as a priesthood which is greater than the Aaronic priesthood and tied to being a Son of God. (Again a term with lots of possible meanings - yet none really tied to the temple in the sense of the offerings of the Levites)

Even if one avoids the extra-Biblical traditions of heavenly ascents and heavenly priesthoods that develop in the Hellenistic period it seems pretty problematic to say priesthood is just about temple.

It's not question begging at all. What I said was no more controversial than saying water is wet.  Appealing to non-existent, hypothetical redacted documents doesn't help either. The idea of priesthood as some kind of prerequisite for prophethood or apostleship simply isn't supported.  Of course any prophet who was also a Levite would be an exception.

Melchizedek was supposed to be some kind of mysterious primitive priest/king, but that doesn't advance the argument.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

Asked and answered.

No, you have not answered my CFR.  You apparently don't understand how CFRs work.  You don't get to just summarily point to a huge swath of resources and say "It's in there."  

Again, you said: "Biblically, the priesthood was for temple rituals. Prophets and apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood."

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  I'll even narrow it down for you: Please provide references for the proposition that "apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood."  Citations, please.  Chapter and verse.

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

I already responded to that. Of course the D&C is not part of the Bible, and articulates a different view of priesthood.

Then it's odd to present an argument that limits the Latter-day Saints to the Bible.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Biblically, the priesthood was for temple rituals. Prophets and apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood.

CFR - I have never heard that stated before. How do you support it?

It appears this question has already been asked, but not yet answered. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Storm Rider

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We should all remember that President Nelson won't be with us much longer  ...  and that Elder Oaks is next in line.

USU "Thinks Concerns of Whiny Millennials Aren't Driving This Bus" 78

Who will be able to also receive revelation.

The “Thinks False Traditions of the Boomers Aren’t Driving the Bus Either” Nehor

[Storm Rider]

It would seem that no generation has been led about by the noise by media so thoroughly as those of today. What has been the impact of the pseudo-sciences of Woman's studies, etc? There is no respect for history unless it is cherry-picked to meet an agenda; no respect for social structure; no respect for an authority of any kind; but completely open to totally new family structures - if it can be called families; making choices in complete ignorance but thinking it feels better this way; and the list can go on and on.

How often have you heard, "I just want my girls to be strong!"  Have you ever heard that about a male child? What does strong mean in this context? How does a strong girl/woman affect on the family unit? How does a weak boy/man affect the family unit? 

What are our eternal priorities and how do they fit within the current thought of today?

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Who will be able to also receive revelation.

The “Thinks False Traditions of the Boomers Aren’t Driving the Bus Either” Nehor

Conceded.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Conceded.

Sorry, it was too perfect not to respond to.  

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

CFR - I have never heard that stated before. How do you support it?

It appears this question has already been asked, but not yet answered. 

Already asked and answered

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_(Ancient_Israel)

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, you have not answered my CFR.  You apparently don't understand how CFRs work.  You don't get to just summarily point to a huge swath of resources and say "It's in there."  

Again, you said: "Biblically, the priesthood was for temple rituals. Prophets and apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood."

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  I'll even narrow it down for you: Please provide references for the proposition that "apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood."  Citations, please.  Chapter and verse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_(Ancient_Israel)

Perhaps you didn't read the link the first time.

 

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then it's odd to present an argument that limits the Latter-day Saints to the Bible.  

Thanks,

-Smac

It's not odd. Remember what sparked this line of discussion:

"or going with the more Biblical path of separating priesthood from leadership."

The issue is precisely what does priesthood mean in the Bible.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It would seem that no generation has been led about by the noise by media so thoroughly as those of today. What has been the impact of the pseudo-sciences of Woman's studies, etc? There is no respect for history unless it is cherry-picked to meet an agenda; no respect for social structure; no respect for an authority of any kind; but completely open to totally new family structures - if it can be called families; making choices in complete ignorance but thinking it feels better this way; and the list can go on and on.

How often have you heard, "I just want my girls to be strong!"  Have you ever heard that about a male child? What does strong mean in this context? How does a strong girl/woman affect on the family unit? How does a weak boy/man affect the family unit? 

What are our eternal priorities and how do they fit within the current thought of today?

Yep, this generation of the elderly complaining about the young is definitely unique:

“Whither are the manly vigor and athletic appearance of our forefathers flown? Can these be their legitimate heirs? Surely, no; a race of effeminate, self-admiring, emaciated fribbles can never have descended in a direct line from the heroes of Potiers and Agincourt” -1771

“The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth; and prevented others from improving their minds in useful knowledge. Parents take care to feed their children with wholesome diet; and yet how unconcerned about the provision for the mind, whether they are furnished with salutary food, or with trash, chaff, or poison?” -1790

“I find by sad Experience how the Towns and Streets are filled with lewd wicked Children, and many Children as they have played about the Streets have been heard to curse and swear and call one another Nick-names, and it would grieve ones Heart to hear what bawdy and filthy Communications proceeds from the Mouths of such” -1695

“Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'. We, their sons, are more
worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more
corrupt.” -20 BCE

“Probably there is no period in history in which young people have given such emphatic utterance to a tendency to reject that which is old and to wish for that which is new.” -1936

and for my generation:

“They have trouble making decisions. They would rather hike in the Himalayas than climb a corporate ladder. They have few heroes, no anthems, no style to call their own. They crave entertainment, but their attention span is as short as one zap of a TV dial.” -2001

 

And they are right. I do prefer hiking in mountains to climbing a corporate ladder. I plan not to complain about the young as I age. I want them to be able to write on my tombstone: “At least he was not a cliche”

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

We should all remember that President Nelson won't be with us much longer  ...  and that Elder Oaks is next in line.

USU "Thinks Concerns of Whiny Millennials Aren't Driving This Bus" 78

Well, maybe they think alike?

[MustardSeed]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, maybe they think alike?

Only if oaks also listens to Wendy

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, maybe they think alike?

I'm thinking they very much do, given they're sitting together and working together and praying together nearly every day of their lives.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's not question begging at all. What I said was no more controversial than saying water is wet.  Appealing to non-existent, hypothetical redacted documents doesn't help either. The idea of priesthood as some kind of prerequisite for prophethood or apostleship simply isn't supported.  Of course any prophet who was also a Levite would be an exception.

Depends upon what you mean by controversial. The idea that Melchezedek and Jethro were priests unrelated to the temple seems uncontroversial as well. Depending upon what group you're in the Documentary Hypothesis and associated conceptions of the Priestly and Deuteronomist traditions shouldn't be controversial either. It is of course among some groups. Which puts us in the ironic position of you adopting the position against scholarship in preference for a "Biblical reading" ala Evangelicals and my seeing the Documentary Hypothesis as the appropriate lens to read the Bible.

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_(Ancient_Israel)

Perhaps you didn't read the link the first time.

Nothing in that link discusses apostles. Nor says priesthood is only for the temple. (Indeed it explicitly discusses Melchezedek and Jethro) That link also discusses the basic scholarly view that aspects of priesthood is redacted from the text. "The starting point of much critical scholarship of the priesthood in ancient Israel is the thesis of Julius Wellhausen that Israel's history is redacted and represents three stages; (1) non Levitical priests, (2) Levitical priests, (3) Aaronids and Levites."

I assume from your comments that you're attempting to distinguish priesthood from priests. But if that is your argument I think you have to make it clearer and more explicit as to how you see the meaning as different. After all if you're following that Wiki page then in that sense Mormons don't have priesthood either since there's not a class ala the Aaronids and Levites. So my sense is that there's some equivocation over terms going on.

Edited November 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am also curious why you suggest the Church should take its cues from the Catholic Church rather than the voluminous guidance given in the Doctrine & Covenants?

I suppose it's because we are Christ's Church led by the Holy Spirit  

[VAUFLDS]

I haven't been through all of the comments yet but I can say that women are able to see all the details of a ward's finances. I am a ward clerk and the last few times I've needed to call SLC about a specific issue pertaining to our unit, a woman answered the phone and handled the problem to completion. 

[VAUFLDS]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

Just a tic, my bro used to be the ward clerk and then stake clerk, he had to call SLC about a financial issue and he talked about it with, get this, a woman!!!!!!👩 it was some clerk support thing

Duncan, before reading the thread, I just posted the same thing. I'm a ward clerk. 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, VAUFLDS said:

Duncan, before reading the thread, I just posted the same thing. I'm a ward clerk. 

two or more witnesses!