Women recieving the priesthood

[AtlanticMike]

So I've studied more about church history in the past 6 weeks, then my entire life. I'm, shocked at the changes, but in a good way. I never knew a woman had never prayed at a general conference till 2013 and tell you the truth, I cant believe how naive I've been. Also, I've researched the Community of Christ and it seems to me we're usually  30 or so years behind them when it comes to fundamental changes in either our policies or doctrine. In their version of Mormonism,  women received the priesthood in 1998. Personally, I believe in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any thoughts?

[rongo]

I don't think this will happen, but I'm no longer as confident about this as I used to be. I can see anything happening and simply chalked up to "continuing revelation." 

The problem with these more radical changes is that the Church would crater in commitment and vitality. Community of Christ is not a good goal to shoot for, and it is not an exemplar to emulate. Do you know any members of CoC? When we worry about the retention of our youth, we have no idea. Their youth have no reason to stay in the flock and not gravitate towards other Protestant churches. The ones who still believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith in any meaningful way are involved with their own "restoration" movement groups that meet on their own. And they are small. 

Women ordination, "de-criminalization" of law of chastity violations, declaring that Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham historicity don't matter, etc. would be devastating to the vitality and commitment of a large enough group of members that it would have the same effect as it has had on Community of Christ. 

[The Nehor]

I am okay with women being ordained to the Priesthood if it comes through revelation to the apostles. I suspect it will happen but no idea on timeline.

I have no idea what Rongo means by “de-criminalization” of law of chastity violations but I do agree that the Book of Mormon’s historicity not mattering seems dangerous to me. That being said I am sure there are better saints than I who believe it is not historical. There may be some who can valiantly uphold the Book that way but I don’t think many can.

[rchorse]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I don't think this will happen, but I'm no longer as confident about this as I used to be. I can see anything happening and simply chalked up to "continuing revelation." 

The problem with these more radical changes is that the Church would crater in commitment and vitality. Community of Christ is not a good goal to shoot for, and it is not an exemplar to emulate. Do you know any members of CoC? When we worry about the retention of our youth, we have no idea. Their youth have no reason to stay in the flock and not gravitate towards other Protestant churches. The ones who still believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith in any meaningful way are involved with their own "restoration" movement groups that meet on their own. And they are small. 

Women ordination, "de-criminalization" of law of chastity violations, declaring that Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham historicity don't matter, etc. would be devastating to the vitality and commitment of a large enough group of members that it would have the same effect as it has had on Community of Christ. 

The problems you mention are only problems if the changes do not come about through true revelation. The church will do just fine if it sticks to doing God's revealed will because God will confirm that it is His will to any member that wants to know for sure. I'm fine either way with women getting the Priesthood, but only if it's really what God wants. I don't claim to have received any revelation on that topic, one way or the other, but so far I've seen nothing in the decisions made by the leadership of the church that would suggest we're headed down the route of the Community of Christ. I think the suggestions that we are mostly come from people projecting their personal views onto the leadership of the church.

[AtlanticMike]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am okay with women being ordained to the Priesthood if it comes through revelation to the apostles. I suspect it will happen but no idea on timeline.

I have no idea what Rongo means by “de-criminalization” of law of chastity violations but I do agree that the Book of Mormon’s historicity not mattering seems dangerous to me. That being said I am sure there are better saints than I who believe it is not historical. There may be some who can valiantly uphold the Book that way but I don’t think many can.

Through my limited research, apparently there's already some LDS women who have the priesthood, we dont know how many because that ceremony cant be talked about. So if that's true, then it's just a matter of opening it up to all LDS women. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Since we're doing women and priesthood, let's do same-sex sealings in the temple too!

I'm about 6-7 years into a 30 year bet with an Atheist buddy.  He figures the church, like any business, absolutely has to keep growing.  And since same-sex marriage gained majority acceptance in the US and we're currently on the shrinking minority, the church is forced to change one of it's core doctrines and practices, or it'll start to shrink, and that's intolerable.    I figure God has made it pretty clear about the eternal and unchangeable nature of marriage, which consists of a man and a woman, and won't be changing, even if it means our membership shrinks in a world that believes differently.

At the end of 30 years, loser of the bet has to put on a pink tutu and sing "I'm a little teapot"

[Kenngo1969]

6 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Since we're doing women and priesthood, let's do same-sex sealings in the temple too!

I'm about 6-7 years into a 30 year bet with an Atheist buddy.  He figures the church, like any business, absolutely has to keep growing.  And since same-sex marriage gained majority acceptance in the US and we're currently on the shrinking minority, the church is forced to change one of it's core doctrines and practices, or it'll start to shrink, and that's intolerable.    I figure God has made it pretty clear about the eternal and unchangeable nature of marriage, which consists of a man and a woman, and won't be changing, even if it means our membership shrinks in a world that believes differently.

At the end of 30 years, loser of the bet has to put on a pink tutu and sing "I'm a little teapot"

Well, I'm 51.  In 23 years, I'll be 74.  Will my 74-year-old self think it'll be as much fun to see your buddy do that as my 51-year-old self thinks it would be?  Yeah.  I'll need some IRL information, though, to be able to stay in touch. 

[teddyaware]

15 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

So I've studied more about church history in the past 6 weeks, then my entire life. I'm, shocked at the changes, but in a good way. I never knew a woman had never prayed at a general conference till 2013 and tell you the truth, I cant believe how naive I've been. Also, I've researched the Community of Christ and it seems to me we're usually  30 or so years behind them when it comes to fundamental changes in either our policies or doctrine. In their version of Mormonism,  women received the priesthood in 1998. Personally, I believe in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any thoughts?

One thing we can say for an absolute certainty is that women who’ve been endowed and sealed in the temple either now have or will yet receive the priestesshood. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. But I believe it’s likely that when the full nature of the priestesshood is revealed the feminists will still be outraged and filled with indignation that the priestesshood is not exactly in form and function like the priesthood.

In fact, this could be why the Lord has not yet revealed the full nature of the priestesshood because he knows when it is revealed that the Church feminists, of which there will be more and more, will be crushed and disappointed beyond measure, shattered to realize that in God’s established patriarchal order only men will fill the ranks of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. There will indeed eventually be a much greater leadership roll for the priestesshood holding women in the Church, but it will never be exactly the same as the roll of the priesthood.

Ultimately, though, when couples are exalted after the resurrection, the priesthood and priestesshood will be viewed as being exactly equal and necessary with regard to the leadership within their own personal kingdom, but their forms and functions will never be the same. Even so, a man cannot be a king without his priestess and a women cannot be a queen without her priest, so in this sense it’s going to be perfectly fair and equitable as both will, in their own unique rolls, be possessed of the same degree of authority, glory and power

[AtlanticMike]

11 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Since we're doing women and priesthood, let's do same-sex sealings in the temple too!

I'm about 6-7 years into a 30 year bet with an Atheist buddy.  He figures the church, like any business, absolutely has to keep growing.  And since same-sex marriage gained majority acceptance in the US and we're currently on the shrinking minority, the church is forced to change one of it's core doctrines and practices, or it'll start to shrink, and that's intolerable.    I figure God has made it pretty clear about the eternal and unchangeable nature of marriage, which consists of a man and a woman, and won't be changing, even if it means our membership shrinks in a world that believes differently.

At the end of 30 years, loser of the bet has to put on a pink tutu and sing "I'm a little teapot"

Not sure, but wasn't Mormonism one of the first religions to question "the unchangeable " traditional marriage in the USA? I think we wanted to be accepted for our man and woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, stance on what marriage should look like.  By the way, I think you'll look good in a pink tutu, send a picture. 

    But I didn't ask about same sex sealings, I asked about women and the priesthood. 

[AtlanticMike]

16 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

One thing we can say for an absolute certainty is that women who’ve been endowed and sealed in the temple either now have or will yet receive the priestesshood. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. But I believe it’s likely that when the full nature of the priestesshood is revealed the feminists will still be outraged and filled with indignation that the priestesshood is not exactly in form and function like the priesthood.

In fact, this could be why the Lord has not yet revealed the full nature of the priestesshood because he knows when it is revealed that the Church feminists, of which there will be more and more, will be crushed and disappointed beyond measure, shattered to realize that in God’s established patriarchal order only men will fill the ranks of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. There will indeed eventually be a much greater leadership roll for the priestesshood holding women in the Church, but it will never be exactly the same as the roll of the priesthood.

Ultimately, though, when couples are exalted after the resurrection, the priesthood and priestesshood will be viewed as being exactly equal and necessary with regard to the leadership within their own personal kingdom, but their forms and functions will never be the same. Even so, a man cannot be a king without his priestess and a women cannot be a queen without her priest, so in this sense it’s going to be perfectly fair and equitable as both will, in their own unique rolls, be possessed of the same degree of authority, glory and power

Thank you so much. This helps me alot. You have very thoughtful answers

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

So I've studied more about church history in the past 6 weeks, then my entire life. I'm, shocked at the changes, but in a good way. I never knew a woman had never prayed at a general conference till 2013 and tell you the truth, I cant believe how naive I've been. Also, I've researched the Community of Christ and it seems to me we're usually  30 or so years behind them when it comes to fundamental changes in either our policies or doctrine. In their version of Mormonism,  women received the priesthood in 1998. Personally, I believe in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any thoughts?

I have friends who are not just members of but leaders in the Community of Christ. I have considerable respect for them. 
 

But if you accept the theological model of the Church being under the direct leadership of Christ via revelation from him to chosen prophets and apostles, then response to social pressure on any matter, be it women holding the priesthood, changing the definition of marriage, or anything else, is a poor way to determine the validity of any church. It is a classic example of building one’s house upon a sandy foundation. 
 

God said, “My thoughts are not your thoughts or my ways your ways.” 
 

[AtlanticMike]

50 minutes ago, rchorse said:

The problems you mention are only problems if the changes do not come about through true revelation. The church will do just fine if it sticks to doing God's revealed will because God will confirm that it is His will to any member that wants to know for sure. I'm fine either way with women getting the Priesthood, but only if it's really what God wants. I don't claim to have received any revelation on that topic, one way or the other, but so far I've seen nothing in the decisions made by the leadership of the church that would suggest we're headed down the route of the Community of Christ. I think the suggestions that we are mostly come from people projecting their personal views onto the leadership of the church.

Thank you, I've just started looking in to it. 

[AtlanticMike]

58 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think this will happen, but I'm no longer as confident about this as I used to be. I can see anything happening and simply chalked up to "continuing revelation." 

The problem with these more radical changes is that the Church would crater in commitment and vitality. Community of Christ is not a good goal to shoot for, and it is not an exemplar to emulate. Do you know any members of CoC? When we worry about the retention of our youth, we have no idea. Their youth have no reason to stay in the flock and not gravitate towards other Protestant churches. The ones who still believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith in any meaningful way are involved with their own "restoration" movement groups that meet on their own. And they are small. 

Women ordination, "de-criminalization" of law of chastity violations, declaring that Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham historicity don't matter, etc. would be devastating to the vitality and commitment of a large enough group of members that it would have the same effect as it has had on Community of Christ. 

Thank you 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Not sure, but wasn't Mormonism one of the first religions to question "the unchangeable " traditional marriage in the USA? I think we wanted to be accepted for our man and woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, stance on what marriage should look like.  

That was still a) patriarchal, and b) heterosexual. We are so tied to the principles in the Proclamation on the Family (which principles pre-dated the issuing of the proclamation by an eternity of years), that we can't simply say, "Today is a new day with a new way. Forget everything we've taught about this. We acted with limited light, but now we have a flood of light" about same-sex marriage or the law of chastity. Trying to do that would push even those who unquestioningly believe whatever the Church currently teaches to the breaking point. It would also cut to the core of whether claimed revelations were really revelations, or something else. 

[Gillebre]

I don't think it will happen. I've read differing ideas for why I believe this to be the case, but I would turn and look at the most recent General Conference talks of the last 2-3 years where they've spoken about this, particularly President Oaks. I believe this ties in to the roles of both genders in the Father's plan. They perform different, complementary functions which help to sustain the family unit and move the Lord's work and glory forward.

I would almost liken it to two teams within a company department that have specific differences in specialty and responsibility. Only together is the full potential of the department realized, and one team isn't diminished simply because the other has different talents, assigned responsibilities, and so forth. I don't think merging the teams would work because then you could otherwise lose focus in the attempt to be a little of everything. Differences aren't bad, they're meant to be complimentary, in my opinion.

[AtlanticMike]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have friends who are not just members of but leaders in the Community of Christ. I have considerable respect for them. 
 

But if you accept the theological model of the Church being under the direct leadership of Christ via revelation from him to chosen prophets and apostles, then response to social pressure on any matter, be it women holding the priesthood, changing the definition of marriage, or anything else, is a poor way to determine the validity of any church. It is a classic example of building one’s house upon a sandy foundation. 
 

God said, “My thoughts are not your thoughts or my ways your ways.” 
 

Yes sir, I understand what your saying, I've just started researching and know nothing about the CoC. To me, just starting out researching, it seems we're a few years behind in policy changes they've already made regarding women and the priesthood. I could totally wrong. Any information is appreciated, I'll check it out.

   Also they allowed black people to hold the priesthood before our church. That's all I'm saying, not trying to piss anyone off, just asking. 

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, I'm 51.  In 23 years, I'll be 74.  Will my 74-year-old self think it'll be as much fun to see your buddy do that as my 51-year-old self thinks it would be?  Yeah.  I'll need some IRL information, though, to be able to stay in touch. 

🤣

[Rain]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

One thing we can say for an absolute certainty is that women who’ve been endowed and sealed in the temple either now have or will yet receive the priestesshood. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. But I believe it’s likely that when the full nature of the priestesshood is revealed the feminists will still be outraged and filled with indignation that the priestesshood is not exactly in form and function like the priesthood.

In fact, this could be why the Lord has not yet revealed the full nature of the priestesshood because he knows when it is revealed that the Church feminists, of which there will be more and more, will be crushed and disappointed beyond measure, shattered to realize that in God’s established patriarchal order only men will fill the ranks of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. There will indeed eventually be a much greater leadership roll for the priestesshood holding women in the Church, but it will never be exactly the same as the roll of the priesthood.

Ultimately, though, when couples are exalted after the resurrection, the priesthood and priestesshood will be viewed as being exactly equal and necessary with regard to the leadership within their own personal kingdom, but their forms and functions will never be the same. Even so, a man cannot be a king without his priestess and a women cannot be a queen without her priest, so in this sense it’s going to be perfectly fair and equitable as both will, in their own unique rolls, be possessed of the same degree of authority, glory and power

Assuming as rchorse talked about that it came with revelation I think the feminists of the church would welcome knowing more about and participating more in whatever "priestesshood" God gave us.  It is radical feminists and too traditional men and women who wouldn't.  By "too traditional" I mean those who hang onto tradition verses listening to what God wants and not those who are traditional, but welcome what God gives us.

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Rain

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Not sure, but wasn't Mormonism one of the first religions to question "the unchangeable " traditional marriage in the USA? I think we wanted to be accepted for our man and woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, stance on what marriage should look like.  By the way, I think you'll look good in a pink tutu, send a picture. 

    But I didn't ask about same sex sealings, I asked about women and the priesthood. 

The quote by Orson, and others in the early church concerning living polygamy to help decrease adultery and visiting "ladies in the night", has always angered me. Thinking that we need polygamy because men aren't able to have only one partner, is a sad commentary on the male. Looks like the current monogamy stance in the LDS church sure showed those early leaders what for! 

Give men more credit than the early leaders like Orson here. If we say that men can't handle being faithful to only one we then put the men at a lower status as them not having a moral compass or a strong core. 

And back to women in the priesthood, I'd never want it, but there are many women that would do well with it, so maybe those women should agitate more for it, such as Pres. Hinckley mentioned in an interview a few years ago, that the women haven't agitated for it yet. So leaving a possibility for it happening.

At first glance I would think it was so far off base in this church, but then I think of those churches out there like the Episcopal and United Methodist church, and it seems like a normal and fine thing for women to be able to shine in whatever capacity they feel inspired to be.

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

So I've studied more about church history in the past 6 weeks, then my entire life. I'm, shocked at the changes, but in a good way.

Cool.

Quote

I never knew a woman had never prayed at a general conference till 2013 and tell you the truth, I cant believe how naive I've been.

Yes, that was a surprise.  I never noticed it either.

Quote

Also, I've researched the Community of Christ and it seems to me we're usually  30 or so years behind them when it comes to fundamental changes in either our policies or doctrine.

Could you give some examples?  I see little to no evidence of this.  To the contrary:

1. They changed their name in 2001.  I see little chance of that happening with us.
2. They've long moderated their stance on the Book of Mormon.  Quite different from what we've done and are doing.  I see no evidence that we are headed that way.
3. Their leadership change process is quite different.  During the last transition they emulated the Church's practice of having the Quorum of the Twelve appoint a new president.
4. They subscribe to the Trinity.  We believe in the "Godhead."  Again, no evidence that we are gravitating toward their position.
5. They reject the concept of exaltation.  It is a core element of our doctrines about eternal progression.  I see no evidence that we are moving away from it.
6. Their approach to priesthood is quite different from ours.  Again, no evidence that we are gravitating toward their position.
7. Their perspective on temples is very different from ours, in virtually every respect.  Proxy work.  Endowments.  Sealings.  All rejected by the CoC folks.  These are all very important tenets of our faith.  No evidence that we are gravitating toward their position.
8. Their perspective on missionary work seems very different from ours.  No evidence that we are gravitating toward their position.
9. They've never come to terms with polygamy, and long denied Joseph Smith's polygamy.  Some of their members are coming to agree with the historical consensus that he was a polygamist.  In other words, on this point they are gravitating toward our position (at least as far as Joseph having practiced it).
10. They've essentially abandoned the concept of the Church as a post-apostasy restoration.  This is an integral part of the Church's truth claims.  No evidence that we are gravitating toward their position.
11. They reject portions of the Pearl of Great Price.  We accept these portions as canon.  No evidence that we are gravitating toward their position.
12. They have a milquetoast approach to the First Vision.  Quite different from ours.  No evidence that we are gravitating toward their position.
13. They have a milquetoast approach to exclusive claims of authority.  Quite different from ours.  No evidence that we are gravitating toward their position.

 

Quote

In their version of Mormonism,  women received the priesthood in 1998.

I think it was 1984.

Quote

Personally, I believe in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any thoughts?

I am certainly open to that happening, but I don't think it will.  From a 2013 discussion on this topic (in relation to the OW movement) :

Quote

Here's the part of the article with the "pushback" against Sis. Kelly's self-described "agitation."

Quote

“Equality is an interesting term,” said Sister Linda K. Burton, general Relief Society president, in a video posted last April featuring the leaders of three LDS Church auxiliaries talking about the role of women in church leadership. “It doesn’t always mean sameness. We are of equal value no matter where we are — in the church or in the home. In the home we are co-equal spiritual leaders. I think that’s an important thing that sometimes is misunderstood. We can have equality while having different roles.”

For the most part, Sister Burton said, “I don’t think (LDS) women are after the authority (of the priesthood) — I think they are after the blessings. And they are happy that they can access the blessings and power of the priesthood.”

The empirical research seems to support Sister Burton. For their landmark book, “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us,” David Campbell and Robert Putnam conducted two extensive surveys on religion and public life in America. They found that an overwhelming majority of LDS women — 90 percent — are opposed to priesthood ordination for women. By comparison, 52 percent of LDS men oppose priesthood ordination for women.

More recently, the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life conducted a national survey of Mormons in America. It found that overall 87 percent of Latter-day Saints — 90 percent of LDS women and 84 percent of LDS men — are opposed to women being ordained to the priesthood. The number climbs as high as 95 percent among those who claim a high degree of religious commitment. Even among those who claim a lower degree of religious commitment, 69 percent are opposed.

This is encouraging. A cynic might look at these data and say that the 90% of LDS women who oppose ordination of women have been brainwashed by the Church, and must therefore be corrected. That would be an odd sort of empowerment of women, wouldn't it? For a person like Sis. Kelly to presume to advocate on behalf of LDS women on a point which 90% of those women oppose?

Quote

Kathryn Skaggs, who writes her widely read blog, A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman, from her home in Murrieta, Calif., said she believes she speaks for that vast majority of Mormon women when she expresses frustration "that this small element within the church who are pressing for the priesthood use the media to draw attention to themselves, as if they speak for all Mormon women."

"They don't represent us," Skaggs said in a telephone interview. "That's not to minimize those who have these passionate feelings about women being ordained to the priesthood. But my personal church experience suggests that most of us are at peace with how the Lord has chosen to establish his kingdom upon the earth. And there's a bit of resentment that the beautiful messages of conference might be overshadowed by this small group that doesn't even represent the feelings of mainstream Mormon women.

"I just really have a hard time feeling good about it," Skaggs continued. "They are taking the attention away from the reason we have general conference in the first place: to listen to what living prophets have to say to us. Instead, they are trying to get the living prophets to listen to them. That just seems wrong to me."

Well said, Sis. Skaggs!

Quote

Writing on Patheos.com, BYU professor Margaret Blair Young, well-known for her detailed work on the history of black Mormons, said she would not be surprised to see more privileges extended to women in the near future. But, she observed, "this will not happen through press conferences.”

Agreed.

Quote

“For all who seek change of any kind in the church, I urge patience and faith,” Young wrote. “Cling to the things you value and don’t forget them as you seek positive change. We are not the Church of the Infallible Prophet, nor the Church of Your Particular Issue, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are a community, still learning lessons in loving one another and providing support for each other in our various journeys.”

Agreed. It is ironic that the agitation by a few for the ordination of women seems to fit the parameters described in D&C 121:36-39 (warning against misuse of the priesthood):

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

There are different types of authority and influence, and this passage warns against the misuse of authority and influence stemming from the priesthood. However, it is possible for a person to use other types of influence to indulge in "vain ambition" or to try to "exercise control or dominion or compulsion" on others. That's how I see this upcoming PR stunt by Ordain Women. And if improper "control or dominion or compulsion" is bad in the abstract, how much more so is it when exercised against the Church and the Lord's anointed?

Female ordination was the central point and purpose of the Ordain Women group.  They've been around for eight years.  And yet it's essentially a dead project.  There is no evidence that they made meaningful inroads into the Church or its members, and quite a bit of evidence that their obnoxious behavior ended up being counterproductive.  

I am quite happy with seeing expanded roles for women in the Church.  And I am open to the leaders of the Church providing revelatory guidance on this issue.  And if and when they were to announce an expansion of the priesthood to include women, I would prayerfully accept it and be fine with it.

But I don't think it will happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 26, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Through my limited research, apparently there's already some LDS women who have the priesthood, we dont know how many because that ceremony cant be talked about. So if that's true, then it's just a matter of opening it up to all LDS women. 

Could you elaborate on this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Through my limited research, apparently there's already some LDS women who have the priesthood, we dont know how many because that ceremony cant be talked about. So if that's true, then it's just a matter of opening it up to all LDS women. 

In the temple, women ordinance workers are set apart and given delegated authority to perform priesthood ordinances. Any calling a woman has is carried out under the delegating priesthood authority, and any female young or old can possess power in the priesthood according to their faith and covenants.

Ordination to priesthood office (males only) with their attendant duties is entirely different than the examples above. For men, ordination to the office elder is required for the temple endowment and marriage, but is not for women.

When I think of priesthood, I think of the power of God, which all can have. From there it can be manifest through authority, power, etc., with or without office, according to the organization of the kingdom and semantics.

[AtlanticMike]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on this?

Thanks,

-Smac

Honestly, I'm not sure if I can elaborate since it's part of the temple ceremony. Being new here I'm not sure how far i can go talking about the temple, so I usually leave it alone. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The quote by Orson, and others in the early church concerning living polygamy to help decrease adultery and visiting "ladies in the night", has always angered me. Thinking that we need polygamy because men aren't able to have only one partner, is a sad commentary on the male. Looks like the current monogamy stance in the LDS church sure showed those early leaders what for! 

I think some contextualization may be in order.  Women in the 19th century had far fewer rights and opportunities today's women have in terms of education, employment, property ownership, financial independence, and so on.  

In any event, the quote by Orson Pratt is from The Seer, which was actually formally repudiated by the Church:

Quote

Many anti-Mormons make extensive use of this publication in framing their accusations against the Church. Many members of the Church have not even heard of this publication, much less are familiar with its origins. The Seer was published in Washington, DC, by Orson Pratt, and he used the publication to provide a printed pulpit for his own ideas and pet speculations. It was never considered official LDS doctrine, nor was it ever published by or endorsed by the Church. Elder B.H. Roberts wrote the following in response to those in his day who were heralding the writings of The Seer as representative of official LDS doctrine:

The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work–the Seer–together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say: “But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.“

So perhaps using The Seer as a brickbat against the Church is not appropriate.

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Give men more credit than the early leaders like Orson here.

Perhaps you could also give the Church credit for repudiating The Seer.

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And back to women in the priesthood, I'd never want it, but there are many women that would do well with it, so maybe those women should agitate more for it, such as Pres. Hinckley mentioned in an interview a few years ago, that the women haven't agitated for it yet. So leaving a possibility for it happening.

I don't think he was calling for agitation.  To the contrary, agitation of this sort is not appropriate in the Church.  See here.

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

At first glance I would think it was so far off base in this church, but then I think of those churches out there like the Episcopal and United Methodist church, and it seems like a normal and fine thing for women to be able to shine in whatever capacity they feel inspired to be.

I'm not particularly interested in basing our doctrines on matters of sectarian consensus and popularity.  That seems wholly incompatible with the concept of revelation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

So I've studied more about church history in the past 6 weeks, then my entire life. I'm, shocked at the changes, but in a good way. I never knew a woman had never prayed at a general conference till 2013 and tell you the truth, I cant believe how naive I've been. Also, I've researched the Community of Christ and it seems to me we're usually  30 or so years behind them when it comes to fundamental changes in either our policies or doctrine. In their version of Mormonism,  women received the priesthood in 1998. Personally, I believe in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any thoughts?

If you are referring to priesthood office as delineated in the D&C, who knows (my personal bias is "no" but I'm not adamant). If you are referring to women dn young women set apart into presidencies and other callings, they already have priesthood, just not an ordination to office.