How Many Women Are Leading Service at Home?

[JamesBYoung]

My sister told me that several of her friends in woman-led households are preparing, blessing, and administering the sacrament to their children.

The basic argument is that in the absent of priesthood holders they have the right by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ and their temple endowments to do so in the place of worthy priesthood holders.

Have any of you heard similar stories, and how do you feel about it.

[smac97]

Just now, JamesBYoung said:

My sister told me that several of her friends in woman-led households are preparing, blessing, and administering the sacrament to their children.

The basic argument is that in the absent of priesthood holders they have the right by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ and their temple endowments to do so in the place of worthy priesthood holders.

Have any of you heard similar stories, and how do you feel about it.

There is no such "right."  It is plainly and obviously inappropriate to officiate in sacred ordinances without authority.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ginger Snaps]

1 minute ago, JamesBYoung said:

My sister told me that several of her friends in woman-led households are preparing, blessing, and administering the sacrament to their children.

The basic argument is that in the absent of priesthood holders they have the right by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ and their temple endowments to do so in the place of worthy priesthood holders.

Have any of you heard similar stories, and how do you feel about it.

I’m in my ward’s RS presidency and a surprising amount of questions about this came up, to the point that my bishop hubby actually addressed it in the email he sent to ward members. Direction from our Stake Pres is that only worthy priests and Melchizedek priesthood holders can administer. I don’t expect that to change barring a major policy change announcement from SLC. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

My sister told me that several of her friends in woman-led households are preparing, blessing, and administering the sacrament to their children.

The basic argument is that in the absent of priesthood holders they have the right by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ and their temple endowments to do so in the place of worthy priesthood holders.

Have any of you heard similar stories, and how do you feel about it.

I am not big on defiance of apostles and scripture.

[Amulek]

27 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

My sister told me that several of her friends in woman-led households are preparing, blessing, and administering the sacrament to their children.

The basic argument is that in the absent of priesthood holders they have the right by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ and their temple endowments to do so in the place of worthy priesthood holders.

Have any of you heard similar stories, and how do you feel about it.

I haven't heard of anything like this happening.

The administration of the sacrament is governed by priesthood keys - not by "faith" or "temple endowments." 

Sounds like they are trying to wrest the teachings of the prophets to justify their own personal desires. 

 

[JamesBYoung]

Thank you for your opinions and those of in ward leadership.

Very interesting.  While no personal fan of Kate Kelly (who imo is in it for the hype), I personally think the Brethren should be thinking of ordaining women to the priesthood.

Quote

 

 

[Jeanne]

This shouldn't even be a problem.  This woman may be more worthy than most men to bless her children. 

[Amulek]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This shouldn't even be a problem. 

No, this shouldn't even be a question. There is absolutely no ambiguity about how the sacrament is supposed to be administered. 

 

Quote

This woman may be more worthy than most men to bless her children. 

But we aren't talking about praying for or, in some other general sense, blessing children. We are talking about performing a priesthood ordinance. 

And worthiness is only one of the components necessary to validly perform a priesthood ordinance.

You also need priesthood authority (in this case that involves being ordained to the office of either Elder or Priest) and authorization from one holding the relevant keys - neither of which would apply in her situation.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

I personally think the Brethren should be thinking of ordaining women to the priesthood.

In response to the pandemic?  We are not going to be out of church that long.

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This shouldn't even be a problem.  This woman may be more worthy than most men to bless her children. 

It doesn't matter how good a driver someone is, if they don't have a license it's still illegal.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

My sister told me that several of her friends in woman-led households are preparing, blessing, and administering the sacrament to their children.

The basic argument is that in the absent of priesthood holders they have the right by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ and their temple endowments to do so in the place of worthy priesthood holders.

Have any of you heard similar stories, and how do you feel about it.

Not doctrinal nor is there any precedent historywise.

[JamesBYoung]

The OT and NT has examples of women leadership in religious positions, so I am not too concerned with "it can't be done," because it has been done.

It's policy, not doctrine, similar to certain black lineages not holding the priesthood.

Time will tell.

[Maidservant]

Men also cannot administer the Sacrament in their homes without previous explicit permission from their bishop.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not big on defiance of apostles and scripture.

Kind of defeats the purpose of being a Saint if you ignore the existence of Priesthood keys.  And given the Sacrament is in part a renewal of baptismal covenants, defeats the purpose of the Sacrament as well in the view of current doctrine.

Does not mean this can't change in the future, but it won't be retroactive if it does I bet.

Edited March 20, 2020 by Calm

[Boanerges]

I have not heard of this happening locally. Instructions from our bishop were worthy priesthood holders could bless the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and if there was not one in the home people could go to a nearby home where there is a priesthood holder and do it together or ask ministering brothers to arrange it.The instructions were pretty clear and simple. The bishop is the one who holds those keys.

Edited March 20, 2020 by Boanerges

[Calm]

13 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

so I am not too concerned with "it can't be done," because it has been done.

CFR please if claim is specific to sacrament as “has been done”.

If not claiming that, but just a similar role...

Leadership in one area does not guarantee leadership rights in another, even historically. A bishop has never yet served as RS Pres, I am guessing...though a brother missionary might fill that role unofficially while a branch is very small. Not sure about what the procedure would be, might skip any organization at that level.   Closest I know was when Dad was branch president and everything else including chorister besides passing out the sacrament as there was a deacon and Mom was RS and Primary Pres and Mutual leader as well as pianist.  Pretty much were giving talks almost weekly.

Quote

It's policy, not doctrine, similar to certain black lineages not holding the priesthood.

What in the scriptures suggests these offices of the priesthood are closed to women solely due to policy?

Edited March 20, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

14 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

The OT and NT has examples of women leadership in religious positions, so I am not too concerned with "it can't be done," because it has been done.

It's policy, not doctrine, similar to certain black lineages not holding the priesthood.

Time will tell.

I think Elder Oaks' talk during the April 2014 General Conference merits discussion.  Here are a few excerpts to get the ball rolling (emphases added):

Quote

Every act or ordinance performed in the Church is done under the direct or indirect authorization of one holding the keys for that function.

With the exception of the sacred work that sisters do in the temple under the keys held by the temple president, which I will describe hereafter, only one who holds a priesthood office can officiate in a priesthood ordinance. 

Ultimately, all keys of the priesthood are held by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose priesthood it is. He is the one who determines what keys are delegated to mortals and how those keys will be used.

The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.

Thus, it is truly said that Relief Society is not just a class for women but something they belong to—a divinely established appendage to the priesthood.

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities.

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood. But, as various Church leaders have emphasized, men are not “the priesthood.”

In the eyes of God, whether in the Church or in the family, women and men are equal, with different responsibilities.

I started a thread on this topic back in 2013: What Is The Scriptural Basis For Limiting The Priesthood To Males?  In this post I provided a number of scriptures pertaining to gender-based restrictions on the priesthood.

As pertaining to the Priesthood ban, I previously posted this:

Quote

The priesthood ban did not have an apparent revelatory/doctrinal basis (except for an extrapolated, and fairly tendentious, reading of a verse in The Book of Abraham). So those Brethren who attempted to explain the origins of the priesthood ban or justify its existence from a doctrinal standpoint did so by going out on a doctrinal limb, so to speak. This is why Elder McConkie stated as follows (speaking of prior explanations for the ban): "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

In contrast, there is, IMO, a much more substantial scriptural/doctrinal basis for limiting ordination to priesthood to men. So the distinction between the current understanding/explanation of gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination and previous understandings/explanations of race-based restrictions on priesthood ordination merits attention.

However, even if you are correct, that the constraints on priesthood ordination are "policy, not doctrine," it is still incumbent on us to submit to the instructions and counsel of the General Authorities as to matters within their stewardship and purview.  Officiating in sacred ordinances plainly falls within those parameters.  Consequently, those who are officiating without authority are doing so in plain error, perhaps even rebellion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 20, 2020 by smac97

[Jeanne]

On 3/19/2020 at 3:31 PM, bluebell said:

It doesn't matter how good a driver someone is, if they don't have a license it's still illegal.  

To me it is illegal anyway because it is discriminating.  

 

 

 

 

to

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

To me it is illegal anyway because it is discriminating.  

 

 

 

 

to

This is why it’s a good thing that no one forced you to be a member. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

To me it is illegal anyway because it is discriminating.  

I just wanted to highlight this comment.  Everyone, everywhere, should know there are people out there who think stuff like this.  It's not a fiction.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Jeanne said:

To me it is illegal anyway because it is discriminating.  

 

You want the government to be banning beliefs and practices of churches not because they cause physical harm, but are discriminating?  

Do you think it is illegal for Mensa to discriminate against people who don’t have an IQ of or over 132?

Do you think books and websites should be banned if they are seen as discriminating?

Serious questions as wondering if that was just a knee jerk response based on bluebell's use of illegal or you really see it as illegal for churches to discriminate in the Priesthood.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 3/19/2020 at 3:23 PM, JamesBYoung said:

Thank you for your opinions and those of in ward leadership.

Very interesting.  While no personal fan of Kate Kelly (who imo is in it for the hype), I personally think the Brethren should be thinking of ordaining women to the priesthood.

 

And I will cheer if it happens and I suspect the Brethren have considered it.

I would not judge those who have preemptively decided to take authority to themselves as worthy of getting it if it does until they repent. They are currently showing contempt for the Priesthood Keys that are vital to how the Priesthood operates and I would suspect that contempt would continue.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

To me it is illegal anyway because it is discriminating.  

It is explicitly not illegal.

[Bob Crockett]

I think live endowments and sealings will be authorized in stake presidents offices this conf.  

[CV75]

On 3/19/2020 at 5:20 PM, pogi said:

In response to the pandemic?  We are not going to be out of church that long.

Yes, in response to the pandemic -- same attitude as buying up toilet tissue and selling it for $50 a roll!