Women, Men, and Priesthood

[Rain]

40 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The only thing I ever considered about prayers in General Conference was that I was glad I did not have to do it.  Do women really think it is a big deal that a woman prays or doesn't pray?  When I ask my wife she is totally ambivalent about it. 

Would you think it was a big deal if you never got to be the voice of prayer for your family? 

I know there will be some who never, ever want to pray out loud for a group. That's different.

There are times when I have felt oh so strongly the need to be the voice of prayer in certain circumstances in my family and my husband has felt that as well. At other times we have felt he needed to. Most of the time it doesn't seem to matter. 

It's not so different with our world family. So yes, it is a big deal.  

[juliann]

The paucity of the position that women are magically equally involved when they can’t hold any final decision making positions is on display when the same thing has been said for years. Each situation the church has improved was vehemently previously rejected, even considered apostasy for mentioning the need. 

Then the naysayers go silent until the next time anything about improving inclusion of women in all levels of the church. 

It is strikingly similar to what the critics do when they mock something that couldn’t possibly be true. Until it is. And then they just move on to the next one. Matt Roper tracked this with BOM mockery that has fallen by the wayside with continued discoveries. 

 

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think there are probably as many that get positive correct answers when it is all about their will be rather than God’s that are just lucky that God actually wants the same as they do.  They may get the benefit now, but will eventually find something merging that is going to test their ability to let God take the lead. 

I might quibble with the “as many” since there are so many more ways to act or think contrary to God's way than there are to act in harmony with his way.

But, I quite agree that there are examples where mankind has acted in accordance with God's designs but came up with spurious justifications. This thread very likely has some of them (I just can't claim to know enough to discern which posts are such).

[Storm Rider]

50 minutes ago, Rain said:

Would you think it was a big deal if you never got to be the voice of prayer for your family? 

I know there will be some who never, ever want to pray out loud for a group. That's different.

There are times when I have felt oh so strongly the need to be the voice of prayer in certain circumstances in my family and my husband has felt that as well. At other times we have felt he needed to. Most of the time it doesn't seem to matter. 

It's not so different with our world family. So yes, it is a big deal.  

I think it is an individual thing. I am positive that a lot of men would never think of it, never seek it, and never want it. Those men that want it probably should never have the chance.  It just seems to clash with how Jesus talked about things. That servant of all, the humility we should have. 

There is a difference in being spiritually led to pray and desiring to be the voice. I don't think it has anything to do with gender in a family unit. 

In General Conference, or for GC, I question the motivation of those individuals who want to to in front of the Church. 

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The only thing I ever considered about prayers in General Conference was that I was glad I did not have to do it.  Do women really think it is a big deal that a woman prays or doesn't pray?  When I ask my wife she is totally ambivalent about it. 

Absolutely we do. It represented a shift in thinking, namely that approaching God and speaking, on behalf of a gathering of saints was not something a woman was capable of. 

Its a big deal for women, young and old, to understand that a daughter in God’s kingdom is capable of offering both an invocation and benediction (and I use the formal terms purposefully so that we can remember the amazing things being done when someone prays in a church meeting. “Saying the prayer” doesn’t do the act justice.)

Is it a big deal to have the privilege to pray in a meeting?  To be a group of people’s mouthpiece to plead for help or guidance and offer thanks?

Its absolutely a big deal. 😊

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I might quibble with the “as many” since there are so many more ways to act or think contrary to God's way than there are to act in harmony with his way.

Hadn’t thought of it that way.  I think you are right  

 

[The Nehor]

I always found the prayers to be the dead wood of conference. Actually I find the sisters do a better job of just sincerely seeking the spirit and the blessings of God. Too many seventies go on about some problem I never heard somewhere and I get annoyed that he thinks I am praying for that. Stupid petty pet peeve, I know. Public prayers should be general and to the point. I am a fan of Brigham Young on this point. Invocation no more then a minute, benediction no more then 30 seconds. Short and sweet.

[MustardSeed]

I have zero interest in local elections.  However, if my right to vote were rescinded, I’d be upset about it. If yours was taken away due to your gender you might be too.  I don’t know. 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I think it is an individual thing. I am positive that a lot of men would never think of it, never seek it, and never want it. Those men that want it probably should never have the chance.  It just seems to clash with how Jesus talked about things. That servant of all, the humility we should have. 

There is a difference in being spiritually led to pray and desiring to be the voice. I don't think it has anything to do with gender in a family unit. 

In General Conference, or for GC, I question the motivation of those individuals who want to to in front of the Church. 

So in your version of the church, it is all about what someone "wants" to do. Interesting. I question the motivation of anyone who wouldn't want to see men and women praying. But I would never question the motivation of those men who have prayed in women's places. And here is why: I have never, ever heard of anyone "wanting" to do it. They are asked to do it. Sort of like a calling, eh? 

[juliann]

BTW, Ulrich's point was that there was priesthood and there was Christ, who did not have the priesthood in that era. Now, stop right there, detractors of women, you can't have it both ways with the priesthood stuff. Women are closer to doing what Christ did. Without "the" priesthood.Thus, men need to adopt more of what women are doing to be more Christlike. But it is hard to see what she was getting at without the powerpoint. 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, juliann said:

BTW, Ulrich's point was that there was priesthood and there was Christ, who did not have the priesthood in that era. Now, stop right there, detractors of women, you can't have it both ways with the priesthood stuff. Women are closer to doing what Christ did. Without "the" priesthood.Thus, men need to adopt more of what women are doing to be more Christlike. But it is hard to see what she was getting at without the powerpoint. 

Christ absolutely had priesthood, just like every other of God's representatives on earth.

[Nacho2dope]

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

BTW, Ulrich's point was that there was priesthood and there was Christ, who did not have the priesthood in that era. Now, stop right there, detractors of women, you can't have it both ways with the priesthood stuff. Women are closer to doing what Christ did. Without "the" priesthood.Thus, men need to adopt more of what women are doing to be more Christlike. But it is hard to see what she was getting at without the powerpoint. 

In Mark 3:14 is stated “14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,” 

this to me reads that Jesus gave them the priesthood and in order to do that he must have had the priesthood. Though I could be reading this wrong. Thanks 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I think it is an individual thing. I am positive that a lot of men would never think of it, never seek it, and never want it.

That's really hard to know since it has never been denied of men while always been available to women. 

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Those men that want it probably should never have the chance.  It just seems to clash with how Jesus talked about things. That servant of all, the humility we should have. 

There is a difference in being spiritually led to pray and desiring to be the voice.

I agree, but I do think that one can desire to be the voice because one was spiritually led to do it. 

The scriptures say "I will go and do what the Lord commandeth". I can have a great desire to go do what the Lord wants without being prideful  

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think it has anything to do with gender in a family unit. 

You can think that.

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

In General Conference, or for GC, I question the motivation of those individuals who want to to in front of the Church. 

Why?

Have you looked upon their hearts? Have you been there with their prayers? Have you sat with them as they searched the scriptures and fasted? Have you asked God to help you understand where they are coming from? 

But then again - this isn't about individuals desiring to pray in general conference. This is about half of the population desiring to fulfill everything God wants them to do, to fill the support from God and leaders in accomplishing their missions on earth. 

If all you see is pride then you are missing nearly everything going on in our hearts.

[blueglass]

30 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

In Mark 3:14 is stated “14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,” 

this to me reads that Jesus gave them the priesthood and in order to do that he must have had the priesthood. Though I could be reading this wrong. Thanks 

Need to keep reading after Heb7:14

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."

 

[Nacho2dope]

17 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Need to keep reading after Heb7:14

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."

 

I’ll have to study that. Thanks. I don’t think that Christ was born with the Priesthood but received it while on earth. Bruce R. McConkie said the following: 

 “But as pertaining to his mortal ministry, Christ … received the Melchizedek Priesthood here on earth, and was ordained to the office of a high priest therein, thus setting an example for others and being in all things the Prototype of salvation” (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol. 3 [1973], 157).

 

I definitely appreciate your response, I enjoy learning about this. Thanks 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

I’ll have to study that. Thanks. I don’t think that Christ was born with the Priesthood but received it while on earth. Bruce R. McConkie said the following: 

 “But as pertaining to his mortal ministry, Christ … received the Melchizedek Priesthood here on earth, and was ordained to the office of a high priest therein, thus setting an example for others and being in all things the Prototype of salvation” (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol. 3 [1973], 157).

 

I definitely appreciate your response, I enjoy learning about this. Thanks 

Then he was outranked by the apostles?

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Need to keep reading after Heb7:14

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."

 

Yes, Jesus wasn't a Levite so no levitical priesthood.  (Despite being addressed as Rabbi and teaching in the temple).

But Hebrews makes it clear that he advanced to having priesthood, clearly indicating there was a time he didn't.

And then there's the speculation concerning the Mount of Transfiguration.

I am convinced that Christ was ordained, received keys restored to earth by heavenly messengers, and opened a new dispensation.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Then he was outranked by the apostles?

Nope.  High Priest in this case doesn't refer merely to the High Priest office we have today.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nope.  High Priest in this case doesn't refer merely to the High Priest office we have today.

I know. The whole Prophet, Priest, King progression. I was pointing it out and being a dork while doing it.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

This is about half of the population desiring to fulfill everything God wants them to do, to fill the support from God and leaders in accomplishing their missions on earth. 

No one gets disturbed by Abraham wanting to be a leader, a prince of righteousness.

what if Sarah or Hagar said this?  Does it change things?  Why?

”And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers [the parents], and the right whereunto I should be ordained [blessed] to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father [parent] of many nations, a prince[ss] of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God....”

Edited August 16, 2019 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Misinterpretation.

I agree with you re equal partnership.

Who would disagree with the equal partnership was my question 

A father can preside and still be an equal partner the way I see it. That is what the Proclamation says

How do you see it?

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This requires either the apostles to be so blind to revelation that there is little point in having them at all or God to be powerless to do His will.

The analogy also does not work. Praying for revelation to guide you in how the church should be run is not something God can send a rescuer to help with. It needs divine command. Apostles cannot reason out things this fundamental to the way the Kingdom of God operates and press forward until they know they have divine approval. I do not trust that method of governing the church even if it is doing something I like. “I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts.”

Well, the Apostles are all men who have also been born and bred in these traditions. This could very much be a blind spot, and an understandable one. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

There have been way too much acknowledgment that women have been removed by church hired historians to keep this up. I find it telling that whenever men are mentioned, it is an automatic reaction that women are to be excluded. As if we are still living thousands of years ago when that was the case. 

That men are foreordained to anything says nothing about women. 

But it does say we “should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son.” Melchizedek was both a king and a high priest. Abraham was a high priest. Alma was a high priest. Jesus is our eternal high priest. All these and more were high priests after the order of Melchizedek, “Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years.” It is more correctly known as “the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.” At least two members of the Godhead are male. The Father/Son relationship is patriarchal in nature and is the eternal pattern of salvation.

In our day, the keys of the Kingdom were given to the three high priests who constitute the First Presidency. They direct the Church of God on earth. Only one of them holds all of the keys.

In our time it was also revealed that

Quote

High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

While I do believe all the above refer to men (males, not the generic mankind), I do not believe this indicates male superiority and it certainly does not give men a reason to exclude, abuse, or denigrate women. It’s simply the way of God as it has been revealed. We need to understand better the true nature of this patriarchy and learn how it governs in righteousness.

If we want to change all this, there will have to be some serious foundational revisions to all the scripture, doctrine, history, and practice hireling historians have made up. It’s possible that will happen. Nothing surprises me anymore.

Best wishes,

Bernard

Edited August 16, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

BTW, Ulrich's point was that there was priesthood and there was Christ, who did not have the priesthood in that era. Now, stop right there, detractors of women, you can't have it both ways with the priesthood stuff. Women are closer to doing what Christ did. Without "the" priesthood.Thus, men need to adopt more of what women are doing to be more Christlike. But it is hard to see what she was getting at without the powerpoint. 

I don’t understand this statement. Why did Jesus not have the Priesthood when he was on the earth? Do you mean Levitical? Jesus was the source and grantor of that Priesthood. The Melchizedek? It is the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. He wasn’t in the Jewish priestly class or a temple official? He was the source of their authority. In Hebrews, it is written that the Father made Jesus a priest after the order of Melchizedek forever. In Moses 6, we learn that this Priesthood was in the beginning and will be at the end of the world. Jesus was the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.

it seems clear to me that Jesus by his calling as firstborn Son and Savior, under the direction and authority of the Father, holds all priesthood authority and was not bereft of it when he became mortal. Could you explain further what you think Sister Ulrich meant?

[Calm]

Her transcript is up. Did you read it?  It might help.  I thought it was pretty clear, but better for you to read her comments than my paraphrase in case I add in my own understanding and it’s wrong. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Calm