A New Way to Look at the Priesthood

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So that makes it somehow authoritative?   I am just curious why he would mention the source instead of saying something like "Someone at church mentioned that he had his child dedicate his home...."

Obviously it is a trivial point but I am just trying to understand if people think that if it is taught in a class, the information is somehow more authoritative than just a random discussion.

I suppose the reason I am asking is because to me, if it is taught in class, that has no relation whatsoever to whether or not it is "authoritative".  To me everything is just some person giving their opinion.

I am really just trying to figure out if I am the weird one or in the majority.   And incidentally I appreciate your answering my posts and putting me in my place as needed, without snark.   That's also what my poor long suffering wife does as well. 

 

I wasn't claiming it was authoritative.  But you know as well as I do that that's exactly how false doctrine spreads.  Not everyone is well read.  They believe what they are taught at Church.  And nobody ever corrects it.

That's probably how the Elder's quorum teacher got the idea to begin with.

Authoritative only matters if members limit their beliefs to authoritative sources.  Which they don't.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect the difference is more socialized than biological which is one reason I suspect the priesthood will one day be generalized.

There are also the usual external behaviours seen as attached to spirituality that may be cultural as there are cultures where men are the more common church goer, prayer giver, scripture reader, etc.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do wonder if this current priesthood assignment to only one gender is intentional due to this weird cultural perception. I suspect the difference is more socialized than biological which is one reason I suspect the priesthood will one day be generalized.

I too believe women will be ordained one day.  It will happen and probably sooner than we think.

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think this is a misinterpreted phenomena. I am not sure whether it is an inbuilt biological tendency between genders or a socialization thing but it is my experience that women are more likely to actively reach out to help. Men are more likely to stand back and see active help as interfering because they sometimes see help as a borderline nuisance. Men see women more often doing good to help and attribute it to spirituality when it is more about behavior.

A while back I was driving in a car with the bishop to deal with a member’s financial crisis and the topic of women having the Priesthood some day came up and he did the jokey thing about the sooner the better as they would have it covered. I responded that no, the fact that we were in the car right now suggested that if needed we obviously would help because we were there. I do wonder if this current priesthood assignment to only one gender is intentional due to this weird cultural perception. I suspect the difference is more socialized than biological which is one reason I suspect the priesthood will one day be generalized.

In any case the comments are probably more hurtful than helpful. It makes men feel like they cannot measure up and makes women who struggle with spirituality wonder if something is wrong with them or, worse, is just patronizing. Then again it Is kind of corrective for our cultural expectations of gender:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85HT4Om6JT4

I am probably in the minority of women because I do not jump in to help. I wait to see what is needed from me. I don’t have a lot of what people would call “women’s intuition.” I don’t think my maternal instinct is as strong as some, but I still consider myself spiritual. It’s hard to be different in a church culture that wants clearly defined roles. 

I really appreciate your comments.

[Peacefully]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well you can stay quiet or face confrontation.

If you can't do either one, that IS a problem, but let me suggest as kindly as I can, it is something you have to deal with, not others.

In fact that is precisely what Bishops have to do daily and minute by minute.  Do you correct the person who takes too much time with his testimony?  Do you tell someone that in your opinion what she is paying is NOT an "honest tithe"?  

I would just suggest not being upset with the bishop because he can come out and deliver his opinion without worrying about disliking contradiction.      Just saying what he said makes it clear that he stands up for his opinion and can deal with people who think otherwise.

 

I get what you are saying, and of course he has a right to his opinion. However, he was speaking to a room of teenage girls and I am concerned that they will take his word as gospel because he is a Bishop.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I too believe women will be ordained one day.  It will happen and probably sooner than we think.

I doubt it. I thought it would happen five years ago.  

[Maidservant]

On 11/12/2019 at 10:38 AM, bluebell said:

I ran across this article on Facebook and it opened my eyes to looking at the priesthood in a different way than I previously had.  (Please read the entire article because it would be difficult to discuss her points without reading them in context.)

The article begins with her personal experience feeling God intervene, because of the power that she had as a mother, in a court case with the child's father.  Then she goes on to talk about Pres. Nelson's and Oak's teachings during the last few conferences on the priesthood and how it applies to sisters in the church, especially endowed sisters.  Then she talks about the scripture verses that discuss the priesthood and (this is where I had my lightbulb moment) how the scriptures seem to teach about two different types of priersthood:  priesthood of families and administrative priesthood.  

Specifically I thought it was interesting that the scriptures talk about the hierarchal offices of the priesthood to be 'of necessity.'  I hadn't picked up on that before.  

The author then goes on to further focus on how the priesthood of families is not hierarchal and that is one reason that when a man presides in the home, he is not the president of the home.  He presides while being an equal partner with his wife.

I hadn't really ever considered that the priesthood and authority of God can work two different ways, but that idea resonates with me.

She concludes-

I did not copy and paste the entire article so again, please go read it for yourself in it's entirety.  It's not very long.  

Other than asking for general thoughts on the article, I specifically wanted to ask about her parting statement.  Do you think that it's time for members of the church to worry less about women's place in the church's administrative hierarchy and worry more about women learning to harness the power they have been given to bless their families and the world, or do you think that there only way for women to gain full equality in the church is to have a place in the administrative priesthood as well?

 

On 11/13/2019 at 5:05 PM, JLHPROF said:

 

 Melchizedek priesthood

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I begin from the time before we entered this ordinance, this baptism, this endowment we call earth life. (The endowment given in the current temples is simply an articulation of the real endowment, which we are in the midst of in our earth passage, for the purpose of being able to recognize and receive the real, full endowment of the earth life ordinance, from the point of view of the (premortal) candidate who has (now) entered the veil.) As we lived in the pre-mortal realms on high, we were taught (as I imagine) that we would become like our Heavenly Parents by being endowed with priesthood, and that this path (covenant path), would, among other things, effect having our eyes opened (fall), effecting our redemption (Christ+), and establishing the next generation of eternity in a condition of sanctification and union ONE (family/ies). (Other descriptions or stages of the process may be mentioned, but I'll be brief so I only state three here.)

Thus, let me submit to you that when you were born, the reception of your body IS the reception of your priesthood (robe); and what you may thereafter do with it, if following Christ. Thus priesthood comes from women to begin with, and comes down from women to their children (which the OT teaches, for that matter "the seed of the woman" and other images such as Sarah bearing Isaac, because SHE is the priesthood line, not Abraham so much). Of course, she is not lone in this; as she chooses a man to join her in the bearing of posterity, and by this work he is also saved; neither can be lone in that work (biologically, even).

The mention of Melchizedek I love and we never quite, never quite understand what it is that king accomplished and how we truly are to follow in his footsteps (and thereby the Son/(son+daughter) of God).

The idea that ANY priesthood, whether man or woman, is primarily regarding leadership and administration is a deep misunderstanding and I have never thought of priesthood that way for many years now. At best, such a thing is a secondary, third-iary, artifact.

PRIESTHOOD IS SALVATION, ATONEMENT AND EXALTATION (by covenant or rather by what the covenant dispenses); the opportunity for such, the struggle for such, the attainment of such, the path of such. As you can imagine, both men and women, separately and together, sons/daughters, brothers/sisters, mothers/fathers, husbands/wives--this is the work of everyone.

I have known for a long time that I have priesthood by taking the temple at its word, and lo, I did not have to be ordained to it. It was administered to me by covenant and activated by my own faithfulness. I also know this priesthood by the power of it on a daily basis in my life to change me from my basest nature and to prepared my path with every good thing (including blessed challenges) and to continue to gather my children to me. (Oh!  I have a grandson! Such priesthood I would give him if he will receive, and withhold nothing from him! I would crown him king of endless worlds! I know what God is and she is a grandmother!)

The Church as we call it now IS the gathering of Israel. It IS the gate of baptism (the mortal token version of baptism; as the earth life entire is the actual baptism). It IS the Court of the Nations. It is Aaronic in its whole and telestial. It is the foil to the kingdoms of the world, the ekklesia of God. And if there are those men and brothers who serve at those gates and are ordained with offices of those gates, then as it is. It is for purposes of atonement of them and of all of us. It is for the sacrifice of the Lamb. It is for the sacrifice (symbol) shown each week during the Sacrament. It is for purposes of a day, the day we are now in, where the most forgotten, lost thing is a 12 or 13 year old boy, our precious sons, and yet we (in our Church, in our covenant, in our understanding) hand them the keys to the gate, and say, "Love us. Uphold us. Show us the way. We need  you." This is the sound of a mother for her sons. Women aren't gone from this priesthood either, by that. These boys and men serve The Most High God (who is . . . a grandmother, the Tree of Life with all the sweet fruit).

Edited November 18, 2019 by Maidservant

[bluebell]

On 11/16/2019 at 1:37 PM, mfbukowski said:

So that makes it somehow authoritative?   I am just curious why he would mention the source instead of saying something like "Someone at church mentioned that he had his child dedicate his home...."

Obviously it is a trivial point but I am just trying to understand if people think that if it is taught in a class, the information is somehow more authoritative than just a random discussion.

I suppose the reason I am asking is because to me, if it is taught in class, that has no relation whatsoever to whether or not it is "authoritative".  To me everything is just some person giving their opinion.

I am really just trying to figure out if I am the weird one or in the majority.   And incidentally I appreciate your answering my posts and putting me in my place as needed, without snark.   That's also what my poor long suffering wife does as well. 

 

I don’t think he was trying to make it authoritative, I think he was providing context on where he heard it. 

[Ahab]

On 11/16/2019 at 11:22 AM, The Nehor said:

We have established several times that you have personal definitions for everything and then contend it means the same thing as the accepted definition if you stand on your head and squint hard enough.

It doesn't really require standing on your head but you do need to understand all of the definitions that apply to a word.  It isn't as if a word has only one meaning.  Words have multiple definitions and anyone can use any one of them when using a word to say something.