Women, Men, and Priesthood

[Calm]

7 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.

I interpret her saying he didn’t have the priesthood of that era.

He won’t have been seen by others as ordained as a priest by their law. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

I disagree. The nature of revelation is that it often conflicts with traditions and what we thought. That is the beauty of it. President Kimball did not, at first, expect the Priesthood Ban to change. Peter did not think the Gentiles would get the gospel except through Jewish Law. The revelations came anyways. I am not willing to believe the apostles now are getting this revelation but cannot hear it or reject it because their testosterone levels are too high and their estrogen levels are too low.

Edited August 16, 2019 by The Nehor

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree. The nature of revelation is that it often conflicts with traditions and what we thought. That is the beauty of it. President Kimball did not, at first, expect the Priesthood Ban to change. Peter did not think the Gentiles would get the gospel except through Jewish Law. The revelations came anyways. I am not willing to believe the apostles now are getting this revelation but cannot hear it or reject it because their testosterone levels are too high and their estrogen levels are too low.

So you are saying it is impossible for them to get something wrong even if it is a common universal problem? I that is a strange position. They're human. Humans make mistakes. I hope that they church leaders will continue to seek knowledge as they appear to be doing, and making changes based on new insights, whatever the source, be the source secular or female. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So you are saying it is impossible for them to get something wrong even if it is a common universal problem? I that is a strange position. They're human. Humans make mistakes. I hope that they church leaders will continue to seek knowledge as they appear to be doing, and making changes based on new insights, whatever the source, be the source secular or female. 

I think the "changes" you have in mind are fairly substantial, and hence would need to be based on more than "new insights."  I think revelation would be required.

And even if your proposed changes did not need revelation, I think we need to give the leaders of the Church space to say "No" or "Not right now."  The my-way-or-the-highway approach taken by folks like Kate Kelly failed because it presumes too much.  It usurped too much.  It was too rigid.  (I'm not saying you are doing any of this.  Just putting out some food for thought.)

I appreciate and respect the underlying sentiment of your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 16, 2019 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think the "changes" you have in mind are fairly substantial, and hence would need to be based on more than "new insights."  I think revelation would be required.

And even if your proposed changes did not need revelation, I think we need to give the leaders of the Church space to say "No" or "Not right now."  The my-way-or-the-highway approach taken by folks like Kate Kelly failed because it presumes too much.  It usurped too much.  It was too rigid.  (I'm not saying you are doing any of this.  Just putting out some food for thought.)

I appreciate and respect the underlying sentiment of your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I'm just putting this out there as what is possible. Maybe it can join the economy of ideas that create positive impact.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

So you are saying it is impossible for them to get something wrong even if it is a common universal problem? I that is a strange position. They're human. Humans make mistakes. I hope that they church leaders will continue to seek knowledge as they appear to be doing, and making changes based on new insights, whatever the source, be the source secular or female. 

I am not saying it is impossible for them to get something wrong. I am saying that if God wants female ordination or something along those lines that God can get through to them on that topic. I think that is the problem I have with your approach though. I do not want them making decisions based on secular sources or female (or male) sources. Of course they can and do solicit input, ask for some feedback, run surveys, and whatever but revelation has to come top down. That is their job. If they start making decisions based on secular and human sources the church is doomed even if I happen to like what they decide.

That being said I suspect female ordination is in the future. I have heard some strange stories from various sources going back a while. If I am right it has been in the pipeline for 15 years working it out. There is no guarantee of course that I am right. It could be about something else coming or wishful thinking.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

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....I interpret her saying he didn’t have the priesthood of that era.

He won’t have been seen by others as ordained as a priest by their law. 

Yes. I read it twice. I commented on this when it was first posted here. I disagree with her on this point.

She repeated the claim.

Quote

It’s interesting to think about how Christ and apostles would have performed the work of a deacon. Can you think of times when that would have been the case? It’s interesting for me to think about that, because it’s interesting for me to think about everything Christ did in those terms. Because Christ did not have the priesthood in His day, did He? He was not born into the correct lineage of the tribe of Levi to be seen as a priest in his day. He did not serve in the temple. We see him as having a different priesthood. Paul makes that argument skillfully. But He wasn’t a priest in His day. He found other ways to do the work of these offices just like I’m trying to do.

He was not bereft of the Priesthood when he became mortal. Not being born a Levite was not an issue for him. They received their Priesthood from him in the days of Moses and Aaron. During his mortal ministry, he did not exercise his right as Firstborn to preside over those priests in Jerusalem nor did he reclaim his eternal title of High Priest in the temple, but he did exercise his authority in the temple. He also performed duties of what we call the Aaronic Priesthood when he baptized, administered the sacrament, and as Sister Ulrich pointed out, gave aid and comfort, called to repentance, etc., and.....served food..

The different Priesthood he had was that of Melchizedek, or the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of [Jesus Christ] the Son of God. He exercised that Priesthood on earth when he called and ordained apostles, organized his Church, performed miracles, healed the sick, forgave sins, taught his gospel, instituted the sacrament, suffered in the Garden and on the Cross, and was resurrected. 

And,

Quote

He says we will be better off if we come here to the earth where we will be weak and vulnerable. Christ also represents these lesser gifts. He held no priesthood authority or office in his day, as it was defined. He had no position or office of religious governance of any kind. His Messianic role did not involve ousting the Romans, which is what they were expecting. In fact, the Romans killed Him. Instead He was trying to help people find inner peace that did not involve changing their circumstances. His only influence was through His own wisdom, character, and relationships.”

Messiah (the Anointed one, Son of David) is a Priestly office because it is the position of the Firstborn of the Father, the member of the Godhead after whom the Priesthood is named, given to him by ordination in the pre-mortal existence. It was this role most of the Jews of his time overlooked despite his efforts to convince them.

He allowed the Romans to kill him as part of his Atonement. He was the Lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world. Blood sacrifice was a duty of the Priesthood. 

His influence came from the fact that he is the embodiment of the Priesthood not just that he went about doing good. Everything he did was to get people to change their circumstances.

At least that’s how I understand it.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Who said so? I'll give you a hint....Men.

Such as the Father and the Son.

[let’s roll]

I find perspective in God’s promise that He is willing to give each of us all that He has and His assurance that each and every one of us will acknowledge that all of His judgments are just.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So, apparently, you are saying that the Proclamation affirms Sunstone's belief in equally-shared governance?

I don't see the Proclamation providing for equality when situations like both parents working *because they want to* are not supported by it. 

Read it again and tell me where it says that.

It is not a list of every possible option in couples helping each other.

Read it with an eye able to see its intent and not expecting authoritarian nonsense

We all bring our own prejudices to reading a text.

Watch out for dihydrogen monoxide.

It's in everything you drink.

Edited August 16, 2019 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I find perspective in God’s promise that He is willing to give each of us all that He has and His assurance that each and every one of us will acknowledge that all of His judgments are just.

Good point. 

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Men and women can't be treated like adults, we need to worry that they'll get into trouble?? Trust me, in my sister's old ward there were affairs between a few that didn't start because they worked on something together in the church. 

Also, working in a RS presidency for many years as a secretary for two different presidents, there is a difference. Such as getting a bishop's order signed, the RS president was always frustrated that she couldn't just get it taken care of soon, but had to wait until the bishop got back in town or what not. 

Plus, many neons ago women had their own entity, and no PH leader was over them as a Relief Society, and that was taken away. Why is that? Why are we worse off after the 1960's?

And this past conference seemed to have fewer women speakers, again, why is that???

Just for clarity, in the 1948 Melchizedek Priesthood Handbook...

Quote

The stake presidency controls the affairs of the stake and both priesthood and auxiliary organizations are under its presidency. (p. 10).

It is recommended...that the stake presidency meet with the presidencies and superintendencies of auxiliary organizations at another time [other than the Monthly Stake Priesthood Leadership Meeting] for their leadership meeting. (p.40).

And the 1949 Handbook of instructions...

Quote

Ward Meetings: The Relief Society, Sunday School, Mutual Improvement Associations, Primary Association, Seminary, and Genealogical Society will hold their special meetings and annual conferences on the evenings of Fast Suundays. The assignment of these evenings to the various auxiliaries will be made by the bishopric of the ward after consultation with the auxiliary organizations. (p. 39)

Monthly Meetings of Bishopric and Ward Officers: A monthly meeting of the bishopric and ward officers will prove to be very profitable. Such a meeting affords opportunity to improvement of ward work.It may be advantageous to have the superintendencies and presidencies of the auxiliary organizations meet separately with the bishopric for an hour in executive session, and then continue the meant for an additional period with the teachers joining with the heads of organizations, or, the various organizations could separate for department work after a brief interview with the bishopric.

During the meeting, careful inquiry should be made by the bishopric of the work being accomplished and of problems that have arisen; the needs of the organizations for teachers or teaching equipment; presentation of proposed programs or activities for which funds from the budget will be required; and a general survey conducted of each departments' operations. (pp. 44-45)

And also this note on page 45....

Quote

Removal of Women's Hats in Meetings: No specific instruction has been given that women should remove their hats during Church services. Common courtesy would, of course, require that any large hats which obstruct the view of those in the rear should be removed in Church as well as in other gatherings; but where hats do not obstruct the view, the mater of their removal should be left to the individuals. Ushers should refrain from asking any woman to remove her hat.

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Such as the Father and the Son.

Yup. I hear there's a Mother, and I know there are human beings who yearn for Her voice.

[Meadowchik]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Read it again and tell me where it says that.

It is not a list of every possible option in couples helping each other.

Read it with an eye able to see its intent and not expecting authoritarian nonsense

We all bring our own prejudices to reading a text.

Watch out for dihydrogen monoxide.

It's in everything you drink.

The proclamation prescribes gender based roles. If you have an idea of how this is consistent with equality, feel free to share that.

[MustardSeed]

54 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I find perspective in God’s promise that He is willing to give each of us all that He has and His assurance that each and every one of us will acknowledge that all of His judgments are just.

Totally agree. 

I Also believe that some of how we operate, specifically with this issue, has more to do with human Will than Gods will. 

[smac97]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

The proclamation prescribes gender based roles.

With a fairly substantial caveat:

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

This caveat is utilized all the time in the Church.

Just now, Meadowchik said:

If you have an idea of how this is consistent with equality, feel free to share that.

1 Corinthians 12.

2 Nephi 26:33.

Moroni 8:17.

Ephesians 4.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yup. I hear there's a Mother, and I know there are human beings who yearn for Her voice.

Are you suggesting the Father is shutting Her out and not letting Her speak?

I would suggest it is more likely that Eloiheim refers to the Father and the Mother (or Father and Mothers or Fathers and Mothers) collectively and  I would posit that if you hear the voice of God it is the voice of all of them.

Wanting to speak to one individually seems to me like the worst caricature of Catholic prayers to saints where it is portrayed as a Machiavellian court where you need to have the right connections and know which strings to pull to get things done. Or the equivalent of dad saying no so you appeal to mom. To bask in the love of God is to bathe in the fullness of both masculine and feminine love of a kind that the pale imitations of gender we express here can only hint at.

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The proclamation prescribes gender based roles. If you have an idea of how this is consistent with equality, feel free to share that.

The love of God for sons and daughters is equal. There are no promises of equality in roles. In fact the Doctrine and Covenants makes it clear life is not fair in general.

26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?
27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With a fairly substantial caveat:

This caveat is utilized all the time in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

That caveat is only a caveat. It does not make room for both parents working or role reversal just because they want to.

It would have never occurred to me to consider working as equally acceptable as staying home because I believed the role prescribed to me would be best for my children. It turns out it very likely wasn't. I'm not alone in this type of situation.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Are you suggesting the Father is shutting Her out and not letting Her speak?

I would suggest it is more likely that Eloiheim refers to the Father and the Mother (or Father and Mothers or Fathers and Mothers) collectively and  I would posit that if you hear the voice of God it is the voice of all of them.

Wanting to speak to one individually seems to me like the worst caricature of Catholic prayers to saints where it is portrayed as a Machiavellian court where you need to have the right connections and know which strings to pull to get things done. Or the equivalent of dad saying no so you appeal to mom. To bask in the love of God is to bathe in the fullness of both masculine and feminine love of a kind that the pale imitations of gender we express here can only hint at.

The love of God for sons and daughters is equal. There are no promises of equality in roles. In fact the Doctrine and Covenants makes it clear life is not fair in general.

26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?
27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

Maybe people are just shutting Her out?

[smac97]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

That caveat is only a caveat.

And it's there.  In the text. 

"Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

Just now, Meadowchik said:

It does not make room for both parents working or role reversal just because they want to.

It doesn't?

In the end, membership and activity in the Church is a voluntary thing.  The Church and its teachings have as much or as little "room" as the individual is willing to give.  

Just now, Meadowchik said:

It would have never occurred to me to consider working as equally acceptable as staying home because I believed the role prescribed to me would be best for my children.

That is a subjective determination, best left to the individuals and the Lord.  In other words, it seems like there is plenty of room for parents to make "individual adaptation{s}."

Years ago I had a co-worker who was a member of the Church.  She returned to work only two weeks or so after having given birth via C-Section.  In talking with her, she noted that she loved her children, but she strongly disliked being a stay-at-home mother, and that she couldn't wait to get back to work.

I said nothing to correct or criticize her.  She wasn't looking for my approval/disapproval, or advice, so I didn't offer either.  I figured such a decision was hers to make, and I lacked any sort of stewardship or responsibility for her.  

I was, an am, quite open to the possibility that "circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation" to the otherwise generally sound principles set forth in the Proclamation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Maybe people are just shutting Her out?

I am trying to imagine what would induce a spiritual state such that the Holy Ghost is delivering revelation from God and the person is on fire with divine communication but something is off so the words of God can get through but a Goddess cannot. Not sufficiently woke?

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am trying to imagine what would induce a spiritual state such that the Holy Ghost is delivering revelation from God and the person is on fire with divine communication but something is off so the words of God can get through but a Goddess cannot. Not sufficiently woke?

Sounds possible to me!

[Rain]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

The counselors in a bishopric have keys to preside.

They would need to be ordained to the priesthood.

I am open to such things.  I don't think female ordination will happen, but I am open to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

You may have missed my questions here so I am asking again because I'd really like to know. I talked with my husband about it last night and he was under the same understandings as I was (that only the bishop, EQP, teacher's quorem president and deacon's quorem president have keys in the ward) (and he couldn't think of anywhere that stated you need to be ordained to be given keys), so:

Where do you find that the counselors have keys?

Where does it say one needs to be ordained to be given keys?

 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sounds possible to me!

That was sarcasm.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

You may have missed my questions here so I am asking again because I'd really like to know. I talked with my husband about it last night and he was under the same understandings as I was (that only the bishop, EQP, teacher's quorem president and deacon's quorem president have keys in the ward) (and he couldn't think of anywhere that stated you need to be ordained to be given keys), so:

Where do you find that the counselors have keys?

Upon further consideration, I think you are correct.  I think the bishop has the keys, but that he can delegate authority to preside to his counselors.

Thanks,

-Smac