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

[USU78]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

My mind went to Heavenly Mother when you said it.  At birth, earthly mother comes first, earthly father last; at death Heavenly Father first, and lastly I imagine Heavenly Mother welcoming us with open arms at the culmination of our return home. 

My thinking was that since preparing the body for burial was women's work, and since it is plainly a ritual act similar to the priestly purification rituals in Exodus and elsewhere, that (a) women are pretty clearly engaged in priestly functions in a very hands-on way; and (b) those functions may well be emblematic of the Heavenly Mother's role, represented by the Tree of Life/Asherah that Lehi/Nephi saw, in some fashion.

[Tacenda]

This podcast is so on point concerning women's roles, I doubt many will listen, but it's well worth it and short. This gal explains how she feels in the church relating to women's roles. She's not every woman, but when I listened I thought of those TBM's on this board, you know who you are, that are feminists. Since I have little faith that many will listen I will c/p quotes that go perfectly with it. I'm not that big of a feminist but support those that are and those upcoming young ladies that need a voice in the church. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/11/the-asherah-grove-004-why-i-feel-unequal/

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/135-60-61.pdf Quote: "If by power hungry you mean I would welcome a heightened ability to bless the lives of others, then, yes, I’m power hungry. Aside from its administrative function, if priesthood is merely a sort of temporal permission to tap spiritual resources already available to the faithful, then it is superfluous. If, however, priesthood truly is a real, bestowed power that can enhance our ability to bring comfort and peace and joy into the world, then, yes, I’m power hungry and unambivalently so. Who would not righteously want such a power?"

http://www.ldswave.org/?p=402

"I recognize that some of these issues are church wide, some local, and some unchangeable. Some of them are simple and some of them are deeply ingrained. All of them, nevertheless, make me feel unequal and are worth talking about.

I feel unequal when there are more (a lot more) men’s voices in religious texts, meetings, leadership positions, and decision making bodies.

I feel unequal when callings that don’t necessitate the priesthood are given only to men: Sunday School Presidency, BYU, BYU-I and BYU-Hawaii Presidents, Church Education Commissioners, Ward Mission Leaders, recommend takers at the Temple, etc. (Similarly, men are not currently called in Primary Presidencies and could be.)

I feel unequal when women doing the same job are called by different titles (i.e. Sister vs. President) and/or are accessories to rather than serving equally with their husbands, i.e. Mission President’s wives.

I feel unequal when I have a calling as an auxiliary leader and have to get approval of every decision by men and/or when I am not invited to attend Priesthood Executive Committee meetings (PEC) which directly influence my stewardships.

I feel unequal when my value is primarily linked to being a wife and mother rather than by being a child of God.

I feel unequal when the men in my life acknowledge that they have no female spiritual leaders in their wards or communities.

I feel unequal when women have less prominent, prestigious, and public roles in the church, even before and after childrearing years.

I feel unequal because even one of the most inherently female-dominated time periods, having a new baby, is publically displayed at church in an all male ritual of the baby blessing.

I feel unequal when males handle 100% of the church finances.

I feel unequal when I am taught at church that my husband presides in my family, he is the head, and all things being equal, he has the final say.

I feel unequal when people preach that men and women are completely equal and in the same breath say the above sentence.

I feel unequal when I realize that at church all men have the final say. Good leaders might consult with female auxiliary leaders, but ultimately even after being called to a position via inspiration, men still make the final decisions.

I feel unequal when cub scouts and boy scouts have a larger budget (they are allowed to do fundraising- although this might be a local issue) than achievement days and Young Womens and thus, they often have better activities.

I feel unequal when the Young Women and Young Men’s programs have such different manuals, budgets, activities, etc.

I feel unequal when fathers and mothers are encouraged to fulfill primary roles to provide and nurture, but only the fathers are given the freedom to seek out the best way for them to provide, whereas, mothers are told the best way for them to nurture—to be stay at home moms.

I feel unequal when men teach me that being a stay at home mother is the most important thing a person could do, and yet most of them do not do it.

I feel unequal when people do not emphasize fatherhood as much as they do motherhood and when we have numerous annual lessons on the priesthood and I’m not taught anything about the woman’s role as a priestess.

I feel unequal in primary when most of the lessons and songs are about men although most of the teachers and leaders are women.

I feel unequal because church disciplinary courts are made up of solely men and there are no female voices in the very sensitive matters of church discipline.

I feel unequal when women have to talk to men about their sins, especially sexual ones, and have no other church sanctioned options.

I feel unequal because most men, even inspired ones, can’t fully understand or provide enough resources for sexual abuse.

I feel unequal when young girls are taught about modesty and chastity from older men, especially because females make decisions about these things for very different reasons than males.

I feel unequal because many of the official church declarations and proclamations have no female input, regardless of how drastically they affect women.

I feel unequal when there are no checks and balances for females who experience abuse in the system. While abuse may be rare, it is terrifying that women have no resources to go to outside of the male hierarchy.

I feel unequal because the Relief Society’s autonomy was taken away and it became an auxillery presided over by men.

I feel unequal when women’s financial autonomy isn’t encouraged as much as men’s at church and/or church schools.

I feel unequal because men conduct, men preach, men speak.  Men teach us how to be women.

I feel unequal because local leaders rarely use gender inclusive language even though church manuals and General Conference talks try to do so.

I feel unequal when men speak at Relief Society and Young Women’s meetings, but women never speak in priesthood meetings.

I feel unequal when there are very few women’s voices in our official correlated church manuals.

I feel unequal when women don’t pray in General Conference and usually only give 2 or 3 of the many talks.

I feel unequal because men and women can be sealed to different numbers of people.

I feel unequal in the temple because women a have different script and role.

I feel unequal when female employees of the Church Educational System and temple ordinance workers are no longer allowed to keep their positions after they have children.

I feel unequal because we know very little about Heavenly Mother and her role in the Godhead and there doesn’t seem to be any emphasis on the part of our leaders to pray and find out more. I don’t know what my divine potential means as a female and that makes me feel less important.

I feel unequal because all of these concerns are mediated by male leaders and that they are only as important as these men deem them so. While most of our leaders are wonderful, there is very little in the structure or doctrine to prevent male leaders from misogyny or benevolent sexism.

I feel unequal when these gender inequalities are not acknowledged by leaders. It is difficult to be a female in a patriarchal church and we are trying our best to make it work. Acknowledgement of that difficulty would go a long way."

[USU78]

Audacter calumniare, aliquid semper haeret.

Or one might bring up the colorful Australian quote about things sticking to walls.

[The Refiner's Fire]

For me, as a younger convert, it is not so much troubling that women do not hold the priesthood but that there are no female general authorities. I would love to witness the day, where a way could be found to have female apostles and prophets.

We do have precedence of women holding the office of a prophetess in scripture.

[MustardSeed]

On 11/30/2018 at 10:09 AM, Tacenda said:

This podcast is so on point concerning women's roles, I doubt many will listen, but it's well worth it and short. This gal explains how she feels in the church relating to women's roles. She's not every woman, but when I listened I thought of those TBM's on this board, you know who you are, that are feminists. Since I have little faith that many will listen I will c/p quotes that go perfectly with it. I'm not that big of a feminist but support those that are and those upcoming young ladies that need a voice in the church. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/11/the-asherah-grove-004-why-i-feel-unequal/

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/135-60-61.pdf Quote: "If by power hungry you mean I would welcome a heightened ability to bless the lives of others, then, yes, I’m power hungry. Aside from its administrative function, if priesthood is merely a sort of temporal permission to tap spiritual resources already available to the faithful, then it is superfluous. If, however, priesthood truly is a real, bestowed power that can enhance our ability to bring comfort and peace and joy into the world, then, yes, I’m power hungry and unambivalently so. Who would not righteously want such a power?"

http://www.ldswave.org/?p=402

"I recognize that some of these issues are church wide, some local, and some unchangeable. Some of them are simple and some of them are deeply ingrained. All of them, nevertheless, make me feel unequal and are worth talking about.

I feel unequal when there are more (a lot more) men’s voices in religious texts, meetings, leadership positions, and decision making bodies.

I feel unequal when callings that don’t necessitate the priesthood are given only to men: Sunday School Presidency, BYU, BYU-I and BYU-Hawaii Presidents, Church Education Commissioners, Ward Mission Leaders, recommend takers at the Temple, etc. (Similarly, men are not currently called in Primary Presidencies and could be.)

I feel unequal when women doing the same job are called by different titles (i.e. Sister vs. President) and/or are accessories to rather than serving equally with their husbands, i.e. Mission President’s wives.

I feel unequal when I have a calling as an auxiliary leader and have to get approval of every decision by men and/or when I am not invited to attend Priesthood Executive Committee meetings (PEC) which directly influence my stewardships.

I feel unequal when my value is primarily linked to being a wife and mother rather than by being a child of God.

I feel unequal when the men in my life acknowledge that they have no female spiritual leaders in their wards or communities.

I feel unequal when women have less prominent, prestigious, and public roles in the church, even before and after childrearing years.

I feel unequal because even one of the most inherently female-dominated time periods, having a new baby, is publically displayed at church in an all male ritual of the baby blessing.

I feel unequal when males handle 100% of the church finances.

I feel unequal when I am taught at church that my husband presides in my family, he is the head, and all things being equal, he has the final say.

I feel unequal when people preach that men and women are completely equal and in the same breath say the above sentence.

I feel unequal when I realize that at church all men have the final say. Good leaders might consult with female auxiliary leaders, but ultimately even after being called to a position via inspiration, men still make the final decisions.

I feel unequal when cub scouts and boy scouts have a larger budget (they are allowed to do fundraising- although this might be a local issue) than achievement days and Young Womens and thus, they often have better activities.

I feel unequal when the Young Women and Young Men’s programs have such different manuals, budgets, activities, etc.

I feel unequal when fathers and mothers are encouraged to fulfill primary roles to provide and nurture, but only the fathers are given the freedom to seek out the best way for them to provide, whereas, mothers are told the best way for them to nurture—to be stay at home moms.

I feel unequal when men teach me that being a stay at home mother is the most important thing a person could do, and yet most of them do not do it.

I feel unequal when people do not emphasize fatherhood as much as they do motherhood and when we have numerous annual lessons on the priesthood and I’m not taught anything about the woman’s role as a priestess.

I feel unequal in primary when most of the lessons and songs are about men although most of the teachers and leaders are women.

I feel unequal because church disciplinary courts are made up of solely men and there are no female voices in the very sensitive matters of church discipline.

I feel unequal when women have to talk to men about their sins, especially sexual ones, and have no other church sanctioned options.

I feel unequal because most men, even inspired ones, can’t fully understand or provide enough resources for sexual abuse.

I feel unequal when young girls are taught about modesty and chastity from older men, especially because females make decisions about these things for very different reasons than males.

I feel unequal because many of the official church declarations and proclamations have no female input, regardless of how drastically they affect women.

I feel unequal when there are no checks and balances for females who experience abuse in the system. While abuse may be rare, it is terrifying that women have no resources to go to outside of the male hierarchy.

I feel unequal because the Relief Society’s autonomy was taken away and it became an auxillery presided over by men.

I feel unequal when women’s financial autonomy isn’t encouraged as much as men’s at church and/or church schools.

I feel unequal because men conduct, men preach, men speak.  Men teach us how to be women.

I feel unequal because local leaders rarely use gender inclusive language even though church manuals and General Conference talks try to do so.

I feel unequal when men speak at Relief Society and Young Women’s meetings, but women never speak in priesthood meetings.

I feel unequal when there are very few women’s voices in our official correlated church manuals.

I feel unequal when women don’t pray in General Conference and usually only give 2 or 3 of the many talks.

I feel unequal because men and women can be sealed to different numbers of people.

I feel unequal in the temple because women a have different script and role.

I feel unequal when female employees of the Church Educational System and temple ordinance workers are no longer allowed to keep their positions after they have children.

I feel unequal because we know very little about Heavenly Mother and her role in the Godhead and there doesn’t seem to be any emphasis on the part of our leaders to pray and find out more. I don’t know what my divine potential means as a female and that makes me feel less important.

I feel unequal because all of these concerns are mediated by male leaders and that they are only as important as these men deem them so. While most of our leaders are wonderful, there is very little in the structure or doctrine to prevent male leaders from misogyny or benevolent sexism.

I feel unequal when these gender inequalities are not acknowledged by leaders. It is difficult to be a female in a patriarchal church and we are trying our best to make it work. Acknowledgement of that difficulty would go a long way."

Wow.  I’m a traditional, conservative, non pc subscriber in many ways and no one but my southern FIL has “accused” me of being a feminist but this list opened my eyes and I’m thinking...”hm.” 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, The Refiner's Fire said:

For me, as a younger convert, it is not so much troubling that women do not hold the priesthood but that there are no female general authorities. I would love to witness the day, where a way could be found to have female apostles and prophets.

We do have precedence of women holding the office of a prophetess in scripture.

Since General Authorities are through Priesthood lines, you would have to have the last to have the first.  There are female General Officers, of course. 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, The Refiner's Fire said:

For me, as a younger convert, it is not so much troubling that women do not hold the priesthood but that there are no female general authorities. I would love to witness the day, where a way could be found to have female apostles and prophets.

We do have precedence of women holding the office of a prophetess in scripture.

Prophetess is not a priesthood office.  Apostle is.

And there are female priesthood offices.  They are mentioned in the temple repeatedly.  They are at a higher level than the ecclesiastical Church.  There are no female priesthood offices within the earthly Church.

[JLHPROF]

On 11/28/2018 at 5:07 PM, Avatar4321 said:

I hope the apostles teach us more about priesthood orders in the future

😂

[JLHPROF]

On 11/27/2018 at 12:37 PM, 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.

It will happen.  Revelation will be claimed but not provided.  And it will be wrong and not from the Lord.

But it will happen.

[let’s roll]

On 11/30/2018 at 11:09 AM, Tacenda said:

This podcast is so on point concerning women's roles, I doubt many will listen, but it's well worth it and short. This gal explains how she feels in the church relating to women's roles. She's not every woman, but when I listened I thought of those TBM's on this board, you know who you are, that are feminists. Since I have little faith that many will listen I will c/p quotes that go perfectly with it. I'm not that big of a feminist but support those that are and those upcoming young ladies that need a voice in the church. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/11/the-asherah-grove-004-why-i-feel-unequal/

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/135-60-61.pdf Quote: "If by power hungry you mean I would welcome a heightened ability to bless the lives of others, then, yes, I’m power hungry. Aside from its administrative function, if priesthood is merely a sort of temporal permission to tap spiritual resources already available to the faithful, then it is superfluous. If, however, priesthood truly is a real, bestowed power that can enhance our ability to bring comfort and peace and joy into the world, then, yes, I’m power hungry and unambivalently so. Who would not righteously want such a power?"

http://www.ldswave.org/?p=402

"I recognize that some of these issues are church wide, some local, and some unchangeable. Some of them are simple and some of them are deeply ingrained. All of them, nevertheless, make me feel unequal and are worth talking about.

I feel unequal when there are more (a lot more) men’s voices in religious texts, meetings, leadership positions, and decision making bodies.

I feel unequal when callings that don’t necessitate the priesthood are given only to men: Sunday School Presidency, BYU, BYU-I and BYU-Hawaii Presidents, Church Education Commissioners, Ward Mission Leaders, recommend takers at the Temple, etc. (Similarly, men are not currently called in Primary Presidencies and could be.)

I feel unequal when women doing the same job are called by different titles (i.e. Sister vs. President) and/or are accessories to rather than serving equally with their husbands, i.e. Mission President’s wives.

I feel unequal when I have a calling as an auxiliary leader and have to get approval of every decision by men and/or when I am not invited to attend Priesthood Executive Committee meetings (PEC) which directly influence my stewardships.

I feel unequal when my value is primarily linked to being a wife and mother rather than by being a child of God.

I feel unequal when the men in my life acknowledge that they have no female spiritual leaders in their wards or communities.

I feel unequal when women have less prominent, prestigious, and public roles in the church, even before and after childrearing years.

I feel unequal because even one of the most inherently female-dominated time periods, having a new baby, is publically displayed at church in an all male ritual of the baby blessing.

I feel unequal when males handle 100% of the church finances.

I feel unequal when I am taught at church that my husband presides in my family, he is the head, and all things being equal, he has the final say.

I feel unequal when people preach that men and women are completely equal and in the same breath say the above sentence.

I feel unequal when I realize that at church all men have the final say. Good leaders might consult with female auxiliary leaders, but ultimately even after being called to a position via inspiration, men still make the final decisions.

I feel unequal when cub scouts and boy scouts have a larger budget (they are allowed to do fundraising- although this might be a local issue) than achievement days and Young Womens and thus, they often have better activities.

I feel unequal when the Young Women and Young Men’s programs have such different manuals, budgets, activities, etc.

I feel unequal when fathers and mothers are encouraged to fulfill primary roles to provide and nurture, but only the fathers are given the freedom to seek out the best way for them to provide, whereas, mothers are told the best way for them to nurture—to be stay at home moms.

I feel unequal when men teach me that being a stay at home mother is the most important thing a person could do, and yet most of them do not do it.

I feel unequal when people do not emphasize fatherhood as much as they do motherhood and when we have numerous annual lessons on the priesthood and I’m not taught anything about the woman’s role as a priestess.

I feel unequal in primary when most of the lessons and songs are about men although most of the teachers and leaders are women.

I feel unequal because church disciplinary courts are made up of solely men and there are no female voices in the very sensitive matters of church discipline.

I feel unequal when women have to talk to men about their sins, especially sexual ones, and have no other church sanctioned options.

I feel unequal because most men, even inspired ones, can’t fully understand or provide enough resources for sexual abuse.

I feel unequal when young girls are taught about modesty and chastity from older men, especially because females make decisions about these things for very different reasons than males.

I feel unequal because many of the official church declarations and proclamations have no female input, regardless of how drastically they affect women.

I feel unequal when there are no checks and balances for females who experience abuse in the system. While abuse may be rare, it is terrifying that women have no resources to go to outside of the male hierarchy.

I feel unequal because the Relief Society’s autonomy was taken away and it became an auxillery presided over by men.

I feel unequal when women’s financial autonomy isn’t encouraged as much as men’s at church and/or church schools.

I feel unequal because men conduct, men preach, men speak.  Men teach us how to be women.

I feel unequal because local leaders rarely use gender inclusive language even though church manuals and General Conference talks try to do so.

I feel unequal when men speak at Relief Society and Young Women’s meetings, but women never speak in priesthood meetings.

I feel unequal when there are very few women’s voices in our official correlated church manuals.

I feel unequal when women don’t pray in General Conference and usually only give 2 or 3 of the many talks.

I feel unequal because men and women can be sealed to different numbers of people.

I feel unequal in the temple because women a have different script and role.

I feel unequal when female employees of the Church Educational System and temple ordinance workers are no longer allowed to keep their positions after they have children.

I feel unequal because we know very little about Heavenly Mother and her role in the Godhead and there doesn’t seem to be any emphasis on the part of our leaders to pray and find out more. I don’t know what my divine potential means as a female and that makes me feel less important.

I feel unequal because all of these concerns are mediated by male leaders and that they are only as important as these men deem them so. While most of our leaders are wonderful, there is very little in the structure or doctrine to prevent male leaders from misogyny or benevolent sexism.

I feel unequal when these gender inequalities are not acknowledged by leaders. It is difficult to be a female in a patriarchal church and we are trying our best to make it work. Acknowledgement of that difficulty would go a long way."

Some sincere questions.  How do you believe our Mother in Heaven feels about her role?  Do you believe she shares any of your feelings?  Do you believe a mortal man has to provide the answer to those questions?  Based on your understanding of what it means to be an exalted woman, do you believe feelings of inequality will (or can) persist once you are exalted?

[Navidad]

On 11/27/2018 at 4:11 PM, MiserereNobis said:

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

As are all Christian Churches! 😃

[Navidad]

I have enjoyed reading the two lead articles in the last two Dialogue Journals about priests and the priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I found them interesting, insightful and educational. The fellow who wrote them certainly (to an outsider) seems to be a faithful LDS Christian.

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Some sincere questions.  How do you believe our Mother in Heaven feels about her role?  Do you believe she shares any of your feelings?  Do you believe a mortal man has to provide the answer to those questions?  Based on your understanding of what it means to be an exalted woman, do you believe feelings of inequality will (or can) persist once you are exalted?

Hi let's roll, I didn't write those words, it's c/p from Wave, a feminist website. I just shared thinking it'd go well with the topic. I don't know my Mother in Heaven, I only know my earthly mother and honestly never grew up knowing a Mother in Heaven at all, church doesn't want us to know her because it may harm her or something, who knows. I have no desire to be an exalted being, non whatsoever. If there are angels in heaven, I would much rather be that.

[let’s roll]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Hi let's roll, I didn't write those words, it's c/p from Wave, a feminist website. I just shared thinking it'd go well with the topic. I don't know my Mother in Heaven, I only know my earthly mother and honestly never grew up knowing a Mother in Heaven at all, church doesn't want us to know her because it may harm her or something, who knows. I have no desire to be an exalted being, non whatsoever. If there are angels in heaven, I would much rather be that.

Thank you for the kind, and prompt response.  Godspeed to you.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

Thank you for the kind, and prompt response.  Godspeed to you.

I neglected to welcome you to the board . Hope you stick around! 🙂

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It will happen.  Revelation will be claimed but not provided.  And it will be wrong and not from the Lord.

But it will happen.

Methinks this is the cliched road to apostasy.  

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Methinks this is the cliched road to apostasy.  

Depends on your definition of apostasy.

But if you mean will I leave the Church, no.  The Church is true and in my view of scripture and prophecy God has promised he will correct all the ways the Church has changed the restored truth.  This will be another change he will eventually reverse.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Depends on your definition of apostasy.

But if you mean will I leave the Church, no.  The Church is true and in my view of scripture and prophecy God has promised he will correct all the ways the Church has changed the restored truth.  This will be another change he will eventually reverse.

Put on your seat belt JL, more to come!

[gopher]

I wish the critics would give the church credit for the progress that has been made in viewing women's roles.  There's a good example at the :30 service mark in the new Light the World video:

 

The helpless man with a flat tire is rescued by the young lady who not only brings over a tire iron, but also helps loosens the lug nuts.  Progress?

[Gray]

On 11/28/2018 at 12:41 PM, clarkgoble said:

Again, it's getting at the ambiguity of the term priesthood. What do we mean by that? Mormons mean something specific by it but often when scholars use the term relative to the Bible they mean something quite different.

As for the LDS view it's not that prophets are an office within the Melchezedek Priesthood. Quite the contrary. It makes apostles a priesthood office but again to ask the question of the Bible we have to be clear what we mean by priesthood relative to ecclesiastical offices. Mormons often abstract priesthood from ecclesiastical duties or offices, but as Elder Oaks noted in his talk on priesthood a few years back, we need to be careful how we use the terms and what we mean by keys and so forth. More particularly within Mormonism a prophet isn't a priesthood office although the priesthood office of apostle includes being a prophet. So you need to be clear whether you're talking apostolic office, apostle in a looser sense, or prophet in the broad sense. 

In other words there's a lot of foundational discussion of terms you need to make before you start making these claims.

I'd certainly agree that many matters are ambiguous in the text of the Bible itself. But ambiguity isn't being unBiblical. Further what is or isn't Biblical depends upon context to the Bible. 

It certainly do if those legendary priests are in the Biblical text seen essential to conceptions of priesthood. To say that Melchezedek is outside Judaism proper seems problematic since Judaism proper isn't the Bible. You said Biblical. So one thing you need to keep straight is whether you're talking about purported historic Judaism of one form or an other (with first century Christianity just being one tradition within Judaism) or whether you're talking about a particular text. You're switching between the two as convenient which is an equivocation fallacy.

Certainly they aren't priests in the sense of normative Levitical priesthood. Again you need to be clear what you mean by priesthood for that to matter. If by priesthood you just mean religious authority that has a formal structure of being set apart that's different from Levitical priesthood which was lineage based although often had setting apart rites as well. 

So it's not clear what you mean. It seems undeniable that apostles in the NT had unique authority, and were chosen by other apostles who had that authority. To me that's priesthood as I use the term. It's not clear to me how you are using the term and as I said I think you're likely equivocating over terms.

Priesthood in the Bible, as practiced by the communities that wrote the Bible (an important distinction to make), is for the most part the Levitical priesthood. Most prophets didn't have it and neither did the 12 apostles. Mormons tend to think of prophets as having had the Melchizedek priesthood, but that's not supported either. In fact even in Christianity there isn't any kind of formal church leadership until after the time of the original apostles and after the time of Paul. And equating ecclesiastical leaders (bishops, for instance) with priesthood took time. The early churches had no central leadership, and were operated in a charismatic way with lay members each demonstrating the various "spiritual gifts" mentioned by Paul. Late in the first century you start to get elders running the churches, and then eventually Bishops start to take a strong leadership role in congregations in the second century.

In Mormonism we equate leadership with priesthood, but that's not generally congruent with the Biblical record. Priesthood was for the most part about ordinances, not leadership.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Priesthood in the Bible, as practiced by the communities that wrote the Bible (an important distinction to make), is for the most part the Levitical priesthood.

Again, I think you're missing my main critique of equivocation over the term "priesthood." After all Jews are not the only religion with priests. The term shouldn't be controlled by Jewish use. lf you are only talking about post-exilic Levites, then by definition what you said was true. It's not at all clear to me that given a structuralist analysis of the text that this works. In particular heavenly ascents, heavenly priests, pre-Levitical legends, pagan understandings of authority and so forth problematize your usage and in particular how to treat the New Testament.

To say there's no formal authority in the New Testament simply is not an agreed upon view. It's not the later Catholic-like authority, but it's worth noting how most Christian communities even outside of Europe or Turkey have authority structures. The New Testament term exousia simply deeply problematizes your position. Even if it's not unambiguous the Mormon position neither is your position. Certainly how different groups view exousia varies - Protestants unsurprisingly push a priesthood of all believers. While nearly all agree exousia is in Christ, how (or if) it is delegated is the question. Pretty much all agree that the Apostles have that authority with debate over whether more were called. There definitely is a debate over whether authority is functional or hierarchal, but as soon as some are able to appoint subleaders and others aren't and there's no democracy then structurally that's structural authority. (I am aware of the Didiche talking about electing Bishops and deacons but that's still fairly ambiguous in meaning) Further the roles of these figures are priestly in nature.

So as I said, what counts is how we're using the terms. What we can say is that there is no evidence in the New Testament for these offices being ordained in a fashion after the Levitical priesthood. But (a) that's an argument from silence and (b) that says nothing about the authority but merely how the authority is assigned from a ritualistic sense.

It's definitely the case that it's not until 1 Clement that we start getting more discussion of structure beyond the little we find in the Pauline apostles. There he talks about the Apostles appointing bishops and deacons in the past but then talks about what to do after the apostles are gone. (Which by then, 96AD, they are and from our perspective the authority is gone precisely because the Apostles aren't the to fulfill this role) From an LDS perspective what's key is the authority of the Apostles, the ritual of the commission of the Seven by the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6), and Paul's discussion of commissioning local authority by the laying on of hands (1 Tim 5:22).  Whether we call that priesthood or not, again depends upon what sense of the term we are using. But it's structural authority with an associated ritual to assign a person to that authority. To say there's no central leadership ignores the place of the 12 apostles as leader. The problematic period comes as the apostles are killed.

Edited December 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

On 12/5/2018 at 10:22 AM, clarkgoble said:

Again, I think you're missing my main critique of equivocation over the term "priesthood." After all Jews are not the only religion with priests. The term shouldn't be controlled by Jewish use. lf you are only talking about post-exilic Levites, then by definition what you said was true. It's not at all clear to me that given a structuralist analysis of the text that this works. In particular heavenly ascents, heavenly priests, pre-Levitical legends, pagan understandings of authority and so forth problematize your usage and in particular how to treat the New Testament.

I think if you go back far enough you have less and less of a structure to priesthood. After all it's the P source that tends to want to limit and systemetize priestly ritual.

 

Quote

To say there's no formal authority in the New Testament simply is not an agreed upon view. It's not the later Catholic-like authority, but it's worth noting how most Christian communities even outside of Europe or Turkey have authority structures. The New Testament term exousia simply deeply problematizes your position. Even if it's not unambiguous the Mormon position neither is your position. Certainly how different groups view exousia varies - Protestants unsurprisingly push a priesthood of all believers. While nearly all agree exousia is in Christ, how (or if) it is delegated is the question. Pretty much all agree that the Apostles have that authority with debate over whether more were called. There definitely is a debate over whether authority is functional or hierarchal, but as soon as some are able to appoint subleaders and others aren't and there's no democracy then structurally that's structural authority. (I am aware of the Didiche talking about electing Bishops and deacons but that's still fairly ambiguous in meaning) Further the roles of these figures are priestly in nature.

Notice how the authentic letters of Paul aren't addressed to any particular leaders in the churches. He has to try to convince the entire congregation, using persuasion, to believe and practice in his way. No formal authority is exerted, as in "I am the Lord's apostle and you must obey".

Rather than an authority structure, Paul speaks of spiritual gifts. Each person has to find their own spiritual gift, and that gift is used collectively and charismatically. From Paul's description it sounds rather chaotic. No wonder formal authority structures started to evolve out of necessity later in the first century and even more so in the second.

https://archive.org/details/ChristianityNewTestamentBibleJesusIgnatiusPolycarpIreneaus

Priesthood however as a concept is almost entirely absent from the NT, unless in reference to Levite priests or one cryptic reference to Melchizedek. It's natural for us to think of ecclesiastical authority as priesthood, but of course that's anachronistic. You don't find that in the NT.

 

Quote

So as I said, what counts is how we're using the terms. What we can say is that there is no evidence in the New Testament for these offices being ordained in a fashion after the Levitical priesthood. But (a) that's an argument from silence and (b) that says nothing about the authority but merely how the authority is assigned from a ritualistic sense.

You're misusing the term, argument from silence. It's entirely appropriate to say that there is no evidence for it in the NT, because there simply is no evidence. It's not even an inference, just a statement of fact. However arguments from silence are sometimes, often even, quite valid, depending on how they're used.

 

Quote

It's definitely the case that it's not until 1 Clement that we start getting more discussion of structure beyond the little we find in the Pauline apostles. There he talks about the Apostles appointing bishops and deacons in the past but then talks about what to do after the apostles are gone. (Which by then, 96AD, they are and from our perspective the authority is gone precisely because the Apostles aren't the to fulfill this role) From an LDS perspective what's key is the authority of the Apostles, the ritual of the commission of the Seven by the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6), and Paul's discussion of commissioning local authority by the laying on of hands (1 Tim 5:22).  Whether we call that priesthood or not, again depends upon what sense of the term we are using. But it's structural authority with an associated ritual to assign a person to that authority. To say there's no central leadership ignores the place of the 12 apostles as leader. The problematic period comes as the apostles are killed.

There was apparently no formal leadership on the level of the congregation early on. The apostles certainly had a kind of informal authority, given that they knew Jesus and were held in high regard in the church. They had the authority that comes with veneration, respect, and so forth.  But no one would have thought of that as the priesthood like we do. They would have thought of priesthood as connected to the temple cult.

In the early material you don't see any kind of the authoritarian mindset that you see in the later material. Some of the second century proto-orthodox thinkers started to preach obedience to local authorities quite stridently.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think if you go back far enough you have less and less of a structure to priesthood. After all it's the P source that tends to want to limit and systemetize priestly ritual.

There's almost no evidence so it's impossible to tell given current data. It does appear that many rituals are post-exilic but that says little about what was going on earlier. There's likely different structure but if hints in latterday scripture are correct a "Sons of Moses" priesthood adjacent to the "Sons of Levi" would imply more structure. As I've noted there are hints of that in the parts of the Torah that came through the Priestly and Deuteronomist redactions. But no smoking gun.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Notice how the authentic letters of Paul aren't addressed to any particular leaders in the churches. He has to try to convince the entire congregation, using persuasion, to believe and practice in his way. No formal authority is exerted, as in "I am the Lord's apostle and you must obey".

But Paul expresses his authority. (Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1) For example "...called to be an apostle and set apart..." We wouldn't expect a general epistle to name an authority in the local Church anymore than letters from the First Presidency today do. So I'd just completely disagree with you here. You also find claims of authority in places like Acts 15:22-32. Again you can dispute this is the same as our structure given the paucity of information that made it into the NT. But claiming "no formal authority existed" seems dubious. Indeed the letter in Acts 15:22-32 seems explicitly an example of what you claim doesn't exist.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Rather than an authority structure, Paul speaks of spiritual gifts. Each person has to find their own spiritual gift, and that gift is used collectively and charismatically. From Paul's description it sounds rather chaotic. No wonder formal authority structures started to evolve out of necessity later in the first century and even more so in the second.

But that's not all he does. Beyond the examples in Acts you also have 2 Cor 10. Also note within that Paul by his authority punishes the disobedient.

Also the spiritual gifts are given via ritual. See for example Acts 8:14-21, Acts 19:6-7 or 2 Timothy 1:6. That's rather significant.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Priesthood however as a concept is almost entirely absent from the NT, unless in reference to Levite priests or one cryptic reference to Melchizedek. It's natural for us to think of ecclesiastical authority as priesthood, but of course that's anachronistic. You don't find that in the NT.

Again you need to define what you mean by priesthood. That was why I earlier raised the problem of equivocation. I'd say one sense of priesthood precisely is ecclesiastical authority and structure. I'm not quite sure why you keep not wanting to define how you're using your term. As I said, it's certainly not a lineage based set of authority and practices like the levites. But that doesn't mean it's not priesthood. We have structure. We have limits on position and duties/rights. We have rituals associated with the structures. To me that's priesthood. Clearly it isn't for you but it's not at all clear you're even maintaining a single sense of priesthood.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

There was apparently no formal leadership on the level of the congregation early on. The apostles certainly had a kind of informal authority, given that they knew Jesus and were held in high regard in the church. They had the authority that comes with veneration, respect, and so forth.  But no one would have thought of that as the priesthood like we do. They would have thought of priesthood as connected to the temple cult.

 Again this is an explicit equivocation on the use of priesthood. As to your other point I've already addressed it but will do so again. The apostles don't

2 hours ago, Gray said:

You're misusing the term, argument from silence. It's entirely appropriate to say that there is no evidence for it in the NT, because there simply is no evidence. It's not even an inference, just a statement of fact. However arguments from silence are sometimes, often even, quite valid, depending on how they're used.

Right but the argument from silence becomes a fallacy when you move from "no evidence based upon limited evidence" to "that is strong evidence of absence." The reality is we have extremely limited data for what Church structure was prior to the destruction of the temple.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

In the early material you don't see any kind of the authoritarian mindset that you see in the later material. Some of the second century proto-orthodox thinkers started to preach obedience to local authorities quite stridently.

Beyond the question of silence this I suspect involves moving goalposts. Acts 15:22-32 as I mentioned has explicit mention of authority and people going out without authorization. It also includes a commandment given by authority. "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

 

 

[Gray]

On 12/11/2018 at 5:42 PM, clarkgoble said:

But Paul expresses his authority. (Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1) For example "...called to be an apostle and set apart..." We wouldn't expect a general epistle to name an authority in the local Church anymore than letters from the First Presidency today do. So I'd just completely disagree with you here. You also find claims of authority in places like Acts 15:22-32. Again you can dispute this is the same as our structure given the paucity of information that made it into the NT. But claiming "no formal authority existed" seems dubious. Indeed the letter in Acts 15:22-32 seems explicitly an example of what you claim doesn't exist.

You're reading those passages with modern eyes, specifically modern Mormon eyes. Paul is asserting that he was called to his position. That's entirely in keeping with the early charismatic spiritual gifts model. And again not too different from the OT prophetic model. Prophets aren't ordained to priesthood but rather feel called of God to preach. Paul's authority is of course not universally accepted. And that the thing - there is no universal governing body in the church in Paul's time  that can decide who or what is authoritative for everyone. Authority doesn't go any deeper than "God called me to this work". Not everyone has to agree with you if you claim such a thing. At the congregation level there isn't any authority at all.

Acts post-dates Paul's writings by many decades. As I already said, the church did start to have some formal internal hierarchy later in the first century. 

 

Quote

But that's not all he does. Beyond the examples in Acts you also have 2 Cor 10. Also note within that Paul by his authority punishes the disobedient.

He's still using persuasive language: "Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ." " For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." They aren't obliged to listen to Paul. His "authority" seems to rest on the strength of his persuasive written rhetoric.  There are other competing voices too. He has to make his argument to the church body.

 

Quote

Also the spiritual gifts are given via ritual. See for example Acts 8:14-21, Acts 19:6-7 or 2 Timothy 1:6. That's rather significant.

Again, these are much later texts. This is still consistent with my argument (which is really just me rehashing Bart Ehrman's lectures on the apostolic fathers from the Great Courses series I linked).

Just so we don't get lost, my argument is not that there was never any authority in NT Christianity. But that authority doesn't start to manifest until later in the first century, and no one at the time would have thought of Christian ecclesiastical authorities as priesthood. Priesthood was something very different.

 

Quote

Again you need to define what you mean by priesthood. That was why I earlier raised the problem of equivocation. I'd say one sense of priesthood precisely is ecclesiastical authority and structure.

In the early Christian movement, that's not at all what priesthood is. Priesthood is the levitical priesthood and temple cult. That was my point. We read "priesthood" back on the text but that's presentism and an eisegetical reading.

 

 

Quote

I'm not quite sure why you keep not wanting to define how you're using your term. As I said, it's certainly not a lineage based set of authority and practices like the levites. But that doesn't mean it's not priesthood. We have structure. We have limits on position and duties/rights. We have rituals associated with the structures. To me that's priesthood. Clearly it isn't for you but it's not at all clear you're even maintaining a single sense of priesthood.

It's not priesthood in a Biblical sense, which is what I've been saying all along. Post-Biblical christian development began to equate priesthood with ecclesiastical leadership, and Mormonism has its own take on that tradition.

 

Quote

Right but the argument from silence becomes a fallacy when you move from "no evidence based upon limited evidence" to "that is strong evidence of absence." The reality is we have extremely limited data for what Church structure was prior to the destruction of the temple.

Beyond the question of silence this I suspect involves moving goalposts. Acts 15:22-32 as I mentioned has explicit mention of authority and people going out without authorization. It also includes a commandment given by authority. "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

As I said before, Acts is too late to apply to the specific argument you're addressing, that is there not being any formal leadership structures in early Christian worship. By the time Acts was written those structures were in place and became all the stronger in the second century.

Many conclusions of historical Biblical scholarship depend in some way on the argument from silence. That is, silence where we would reasonable expect evidence if something existed.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

19 hours ago, Gray said:

You're reading those passages with modern eyes, specifically modern Mormon eyes. Paul is asserting that he was called to his position. That's entirely in keeping with the early charismatic spiritual gifts model. And again not too different from the OT prophetic model. Prophets aren't ordained to priesthood but rather feel called of God to preach. Paul's authority is of course not universally accepted. And that the thing - there is no universal governing body in the church in Paul's time  that can decide who or what is authoritative for everyone. Authority doesn't go any deeper than "God called me to this work". Not everyone has to agree with you if you claim such a thing. At the congregation level there isn't any authority at all.

This is the typical Protestant reading for sure. The problem with this is that the context for Paul's use of "set apart" is the Old Testament where it's use is nearly always tied to a ritual and someone in authority doing the setting apart. So even if you reject Acts as relevant (which pretty much presupposes its historic claims are false - itself a problematic position) you have to deal with the context of Lev 8 & 9 with Paul's use. In contrast what's the case for it being Paul just setting himself apart? You've asserted this but I don't see an argument beyond "modern eyes." But the modern eyes claim doesn't work if you acknowledge Acts reporting on something that happened in the relative recent past. In particularly I think Acts 13:2-3 is pretty darned significant for deciding how to read Paul's use. 

So I think there's more than a little circularity in your argument. You say I'm reading it through modern eyes but I'd say the same of you - just that you're reading it through a somewhat Protestant lens that is incentivized to dismiss authority. (I recognize you're largely following Ehrman and others, but even if they've broken with many aspects of Protestantism they're still looking through that lens)

I'd add that the word Paul uses, aforizo, is used in the Septuagint for the consecrating of Levites. (Num 8:11) It's also used for separating an animal to God or God separating Israel I'll admit. But I think there's significance here.

Finally I'd note that with respect to prophets in the Old Testament the situation is more complex than you suggest as we see with Elijah & Elisha. 

19 hours ago, Gray said:

He's still using persuasive language: "Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ." " For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." They aren't obliged to listen to Paul. His "authority" seems to rest on the strength of his persuasive written rhetoric.  There are other competing voices too. He has to make his argument to the church body.

Persuasive language doesn't imply no authority. One need only look to Joseph Smith's sermons for an example of that.

19 hours ago, Gray said:

They aren't obliged to listen to Paul. His "authority" seems to rest on the strength of his persuasive written rhetoric.  There are other competing voices too. He has to make his argument to the church body.

He's not the authority the way say Peter is it's true. I don't think that means he doesn't have authority. In the same way today if a Bishop is speaking to his congregation there are limits on what he can do authority wise. So I don't think this works as a good argument.

19 hours ago, Gray said:

Again, these are much later texts. This is still consistent with my argument (which is really just me rehashing Bart Ehrman's lectures on the apostolic fathers from the Great Courses series I linked).

Right, I understand that. I'm just pointing out the problems with that view. I think you'd quickly acknowledge that Ehrman has his own perspective - perspectives many other scholars in the field don't agree with. Ehrman is hardly an uncontroversial figure. He tends to see much of the NT history as fictional or at minimum heavily distorted. Further even Ehrman acknowledges that Jesus claims special authority rather than merely appealing to scholarly reading of the texts, the way say Hillel does. To make the move to assume that no one else does seem dubious to me. And Ehrman does see the presumption of authority in texts like the epistles of John. One can say that's later, but that then runs into the problem of assuming a break rather than establishing it.

Recognize that my position is not that mine is the only defensible reading but that it is a mainstream defensible reading. To say that the Mormon perspective on authority is not Biblical is to say that it's not a reasonably defensible reading of the Bible and history. So you're making a much stronger claim than merely one can read the Bible in a different fashion than Mormons do. (After all we're all aware Protestants tend to read it quite differently due to their conception of a priesthood of all believers)

19 hours ago, Gray said:

In the early Christian movement, that's not at all what priesthood is. Priesthood is the levitical priesthood and temple cult. That was my point.

We read "priesthood" back on the text but that's presentism and an eisegetical reading.It's not priesthood in a Biblical sense, which is what I've been saying all along. Post-Biblical christian development began to equate priesthood with ecclesiastical leadership, and Mormonism has its own take on that tradition.

My oft repeated point is that you're equivocating in the discussion over priesthood. By that use of priesthood Mormons don't claim priesthood. You do see the problem don't you? I've raised this point several times now.

19 hours ago, Gray said:

As I said before, Acts is too late to apply to the specific argument you're addressing, that is there not being any formal leadership structures in early Christian worship. By the time Acts was written those structures were in place and became all the stronger in the second century.

Many conclusions of historical Biblical scholarship depend in some way on the argument from silence. That is, silence where we would reasonable expect evidence if something existed.

Given the paucity of texts I don't think you can say we should expect explicit discussion. Especially when there are ambiguities in the text that can be reasonably read as authority and which use language treated as authority only a decade or two later. Again there's a huge circularity here in how later, yet in the same general time era, texts get dismissed.

More to the point, the very fact you acknowledge these later texts completely undermines your original claim which is LDS authority is not Biblical. Now you've moved to goal posts to there's not unambiguous explication of such authority in the pre-temple destruction era.

Edited December 14, 2018 by clarkgoble