Jump to content

Women recieving the priesthood


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I hesitate to add my comments here. This is a subject I am painfully aware of and I am wrestling with it. So much so, that I question sometimes whether or not there is still a place in the Church for me. I do believe I am endowed with priesthood power. I was allowed to use it in the temple as has been discussed and I have used it to pray for my children, especially when we did not have a holder of the priesthood in the home. I prayed and knew God heard me just as he would hear someone who was ordained, and I have seen miracles happen because of it. Part of my patriarchal blessing also leads me to believe that down through the ages, I will be exercising priesthood power. So the only reason I see that I would need to be ordained is to hold offices such as Bishop, Stake President, General Authority, etc. And this is the rub for me. Call me progressive or a feminist, or whatever, but I’ve had a career that has been very important to me for 30 years. It has really defined me, almost more than being a mother. The CEO of our multi-billion dollar construction supply company is a woman. My VP is a woman, and I am a Product Manager who manages both male and female developers. We now have a woman Vice President of the country (too long in coming, imho). It seems that the Church’s stance on women not holding the higher offices is a bit outdated. Maybe splitting men and women into EQ and RS isn’t even what we need any more. Maybe it is time we all work together to help this broken world. I bet even if we had combined EQ/RS, when sign-up sheets are passed around, people will gravitate to what they do best, be it moving, packing, organizing, cooking, decorating, or whatever. I also think, since we are living longer, there are so many empty-nester women my age who have a lot to offer, but we don’t fit into the RS mode. I think I would fit better into some of the traditionally male roles than I do in the female roles in the church. Also, I work and travel with men all the time. I’ve done so for many years, and I wasn’t bad looking when I was younger, lol. But I never had an affair with any of them. My husband trusts me and I trust him. I think we should all be grownups about this. Btw, I have expressed my opinions to my Bishop and he gave me the line about motherhood being the opposite of the priesthood. I said, no fatherhood the opposite of motherhood. He is a great guy and does a great job, but I could tell he didn’t really understand what I was saying. Anyway, I won’t be out holding up protest signs to try and get my way. I don’t believe that is how things should be done in our Church, but please don’t think all women are alike, or want the same thing. Maybe we are a minority, but some of us are more than ready for a change. 

Sometimes one of the trials in life is not getting what we know we are very capable of. There are certain callings I know I would ace but have yet never been called too. Part of the test here is that as we reach our years of experience and maturity is to see if we are able step aside and sustain the rookie new leaders as they learn and struggle.

The Lord in his wisdom struck down the non-levite man that steadied the ark even though in his(the man's) mind he thought the ark would fall and be damaged and his steadying it would be a good thing.

Life will challenges us in many ways and in the ways most suited to the refinement of our specific individual eternal souls.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Chum said:

It's been my long experience that women are more likely to be capable at any given task.  If women holding the priesthood translated to women running stakes and wards - give that to me yesterday. Please.

Perhaps it's the men that need the experience and growth more. Perhaps that is precisely why it is not given to women to run wards and stakes, many could in some ways be far more efficient. It seems the Lord is prepared to put up with inefficiencies as he grows capacity and character in individuals and to those to whom much is give much will be required.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, gav said:

Once we have been baptised and confirmed we don't repeat these ordinances for ourselves. In weekly partaking of the sacrament we renew them even though nobody gets wet and has hands laid on them. Essentially we are re-baptised and re-confirmed every week if we partake of the sacrament worthily.

The Lord has condoned at many times relaxation of certain requirements for sacred things to be confined only to sacred spaces when situation and proximity do not allow. Think mountains, baptisms for the dead in rivers prior to temple construction, endowments  prior to temple construction or completion. Temples are far more common now and we need to be in them as often as possible. With such blessing well within our reach it makes sense that certain uses are more restricted than they were in Josephs time.

Right now we can partake of the sacrament at home because circumstances necessitate it, once circumstances change things will again revert back to the more restricted norm regarding the sacrament.

Yep.

And yet people squawk if they alter the wording of one temple ordinance.

So when Jesus endowed Peter James and John, precisely what presentation did he use?

And more importantly where precisely did they place the video screen? And was the preacher in or out?  😖

Link to comment
2 hours ago, gav said:

Perhaps it's the men that need the experience and growth more. Perhaps that is precisely why it is not given to women to run wards and stakes, many could in some ways be far more efficient. It seems the Lord is prepared to put up with inefficiencies as he grows capacity and character in individuals and to those to whom much is give much will be required.

And that might actually be implied in the difference between the initiatories for sisters and those for brothers.

I encourage others to attend the temple with a close member of the opposite sex (yes I said that) and do initiatories and then discuss in the celestial  room what they remember about especially the washing.

It can be eye opening!

But this comment usually pulls a ton of criticism from some here.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Nevermind. Was already covered last week. I'm getting to this late.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And that might actually be implied in the difference between the initiatories for sisters and those for brothers.

I encourage others to attend the temple with a close member of the opposite sex (yes I said that) and do initiatories and then discuss in the celestial  room what they remember about especially the washing.

It can be eye opening!

No criticism with the above.

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But this comment usually pulls a ton of criticism from some here.

It is your interpretation shared in the past of the words of the initiatory with which some of us disagree, not that there are differences.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, gav said:

Sometimes one of the trials in life is not getting what we know we are very capable of. There are certain callings I know I would ace but have yet never been called too. Part of the test here is that as we reach our years of experience and maturity is to see if we are able step aside and sustain the rookie new leaders as they learn and struggle.

The Lord in his wisdom struck down the non-levite man that steadied the ark even though in his(the man's) mind he thought the ark would fall and be damaged and his steadying it would be a good thing.

Life will challenges us in many ways and in the ways most suited to the refinement of our specific individual eternal souls.

I think many of the rules are a product of 19th century thinking. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, gav said:

Perhaps it's the men that need the experience and growth more. Perhaps that is precisely why it is not given to women to run wards and stakes, many could in some ways be far more efficient.

Could we put women in charge temporarily? At least of wards.

I'd rather have the youth in charge of stakes anyway. They're extremely clear headed, learn their business fast. And frankly, they're often the only ones with any ambition at all.

Link to comment

Would you accept the brethrens decision if they, let's say, revealed a quorum called the " High Priestess Quorum " ?                                                                                                                         Or if they brought back the " Quorum of The Annointed " which was apparently organized in may of 1842 by Joseph Smith. Apparently in this quorum, men and women were ordained to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Would you accept the brethrens decision if they, let's say, revealed a quorum called the " High Priestess Quorum " ?                                                                                                                         Or if they brought back the " Quorum of The Annointed " which was apparently organized in may of 1842 by Joseph Smith. Apparently in this quorum, men and women were ordained to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood. 

Haha! 

IMO, it seems women are going backward rather than forward. Back in my mother's generation (I barely remember) in the Relief Society organization, they had their own organization, their own bank account, their own magazine where they decided what they wanted to do. Then it was taken from them. Now the women's RS lessons on Sundays have to be the same as the men's. Before that they had different culture lessons as well as spiritual, geared to women. I'm old enough to remember those days, sadly I didn't appreciate them enough!

In the early church, as you probably know by now, women laid hands on those they blessed without fear of retribution like women currently would feel, if their child was ill, or their women friends were ill or needed a blessing, again they laid their hands on their heads, they didn't have to call a PH holder in the middle of the night..or day. 

LDS women wrote amazing articles in "The Women's Exponent" long ago:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman's_Exponent 

The quote from the article shows there were feminists clear back then, so it feels like we have lost a bit of freedom in the current church, IMO. 

"The Woman's Exponent was a semi-official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that began in 1872. It published articles advocating for women's suffrage and plural marriage, in addition to poetry and other writings. Lula Greene Richards and Emmeline B. Wells were its editors until 1914, when the Exponent was dissolved. It was "the first long-lived feminist periodical in the western United States."[1] While it had no direct successor, the Relief Society did launch its own magazine, the Relief Society Magazine, in 1915."

Maybe what we need is to get back to these days! Have our own entities, have an authoritative voice of our own. Or like you mention, a priestess-hood! ;) 

 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Would you accept the brethrens decision if they, let's say, revealed a quorum called the " High Priestess Quorum " ?                                                                                                                         Or if they brought back the " Quorum of The Annointed " which was apparently organized in may of 1842 by Joseph Smith. Apparently in this quorum, men and women were ordained to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood. 

Two entirely separate propositions.

The first would be a new creation with no precedent in any scripture and therefore highly questionable.

The second is an order that still exists, has an extant ordinance attached, and much history.  The reasons behind it's removal from general membership knowledge have never been explained.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Haha! 

IMO, it seems women are going backward rather than forward. Back in my mother's generation (I barely remember) in the Relief Society organization, they had their own organization, their own bank account, their own magazine where they decided what they wanted to do. Then it was taken from them. Now the women's RS lessons on Sundays have to be the same as the men's. Before that they had different culture lessons as well as spiritual, geared to women. I'm old enough to remember those days, sadly I didn't appreciate them enough!

In the early church, as you probably know by now, women laid hands on those they blessed without fear of retribution like women currently would feel, if their child was ill, or their women friends were ill or needed a blessing, again they laid their hands on their heads, they didn't have to call a PH holder in the middle of the night..or day. 

LDS women wrote amazing articles in "The Women's Exponent" long ago:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman's_Exponent 

The quote from the article shows there were feminists clear back then, so it feels like we have lost a bit of freedom in the current church, IMO. 

"The Woman's Exponent was a semi-official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that began in 1872. It published articles advocating for women's suffrage and plural marriage, in addition to poetry and other writings. Lula Greene Richards and Emmeline B. Wells were its editors until 1914, when the Exponent was dissolved. It was "the first long-lived feminist periodical in the western United States."[1] While it had no direct successor, the Relief Society did launch its own magazine, the Relief Society Magazine, in 1915."

Maybe what we need is to get back to these days! Have our own entities, have an authoritative voice of our own. Or like you mention a priestess hood! ;) 

 

 

Priestess hood, that would be cool band name🤣

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Two entirely separate propositions.

The first would be a new creation with no precedent in any scripture and therefore highly questionable.

The second is an order that still exists, has an extant ordinance attached, and much history.  The reasons behind it's removal from general membership knowledge have never been explained.

Yes agree, totally separate.  This morning I googled Priestess and like you said the first would be a new creation, but much of what Joseph did was a new creation, so that shouldn't matter to much. A couple days ago I also found out about the council of 50, totally new to me.

      I just learned about the quorum of the Annointed this morning. Didnt believe it so I looked ot up on the church website,  yep it's there. It amazes me what I don't know about the church.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I thought of "the hood"....   It would be our playground, home playing field, our domain, hehe!

Your right, that sounds better,  rock on😁

Link to comment
On 1/29/2021 at 7:09 PM, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  The question is does God care what society thinks of his gospel?

 I would say most of the time no, but sometimes yes.  The ending of polygamy is a good example of a time when society's reaction to a doctrine (living the doctrine) caused God to end something.  

Normally though I think we just get to live with society's disdain.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Yes agree, totally separate.  This morning I googled Priestess and like you said the first would be a new creation, but much of what Joseph did was a new creation, so that shouldn't matter to much. A couple days ago I also found out about the council of 50, totally new to me.

      I just learned about the quorum of the Annointed this morning. Didnt believe it so I looked ot up on the church website,  yep it's there. It amazes me what I don't know about the church.

There are several excellent books from Signature Books on the history of temple worship.  I highly recommend them as they're light on opinion and heavy on source material.

Ehat's oft quoted essay on succession is likewise a must read.

As for Joseph?  Virtually everything he introduced has basis in scripture.  "High Priestess" is not on any scriptural record.  Which brings Alma's statement on premortal office into play.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The second is an order that still exists, has an extant ordinance attached, and much history.  The reasons behind it's removal from general membership knowledge have never been explained.

Is this referring to the second anointing/endowment?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Is this referring to the second anointing/endowment?

Yes.  The quorum of the anointed was actually originally just a name given those members who had received their endowments in Joseph's day and could participate in prayer circles as a result.  Very few during Joseph's lifetime.

It later became a bit more exclusive and was generally composed of those who had begun to practice all the ordinances, including marriage sealing, plural marriage and second anointings.  Brigham referred to it in his debate with Sidney Rigdon over succession.

 

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Haha! 

IMO, it seems women are going backward rather than forward. Back in my mother's generation (I barely remember) in the Relief Society organization, they had their own organization, their own bank account, their own magazine where they decided what they wanted to do.

Don't know as I would consider that backwards. Seems more like progress to me.

Back in my own generation (yes, I'm ancient), priesthood quorums also had their own bank accounts, obviously their own organizations, and their own lesson manuals. I believe the YM/YW organizations had their own as well. The Primary Association had its own childrens hospitals, and it still has its own magazine, as does the now-revamped youth-oriented Mutual Improvement Association. But the MIA didn't ever have its own magazine, just a section in the Improvement Era, but that was changed when The Ensign was created. Was that change progessive or regressive, do you think? Seventies quorums also financed themselves somewhat, and many operated bookstores for that purpose. When I bought my set of missionary scriptures in German, I bought my quad from a Seventies bookstore in Provo.

It is true that the Relief Society was its own organization, but the independence you are suggesting never actually existed. RS presidencies, both then and now, were called under the authority of the appropriate priesthood authority. The Relief Society, like priesthood quorums and the YM/YW organization never controlled its leadership.

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Then it was taken from them. Now the women's RS lessons on Sundays have to be the same as the men's. Before that they had different culture lessons as well as spiritual, geared to women. I'm old enough to remember those days, sadly I didn't appreciate them enough!

It was taken away from the men, as well. You say that RS lessons have to be the same as the men's, but the reverse is true as well: the mens also have to be the same as the womens. And the men are likewise forced to do without specifically male culture in these manuals. Don't think for a moment that there weren't men who grumbled over being "forced" to use the same study manuals as the women.  I still have priesthood lesson manuals at home dating back to fifty and more years ago, manuals that the Relief Society did not use. I felt that they were excellent manuals, and when I looked at the RS manuals my wife was given, I thought they were quite good as well. I don't think that excellence was done away with when they were united.

I say it gives both sexes the opportunity to see what the other is learning, and they are able to discuss the lessons at home because they are the same -- taught by someone of their own sex, which enables the teacher to cast things in the light needed for their own situations.  There is no gospel for women that isn't also applicable to men, and vice versa. And even though women do not exercise the priesthood, wouldn't it be a good thing for women to learn how men are expected to behave in regards to that priesthood authority? Just as it would be a good thing for men to learn how women are expected to behave as daughters of God? So that they might possibly be better prepared to support each other in their roles?

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In the early church, as you probably know by now, women laid hands on those they blessed without fear of retribution like women currently would feel, if their child was ill, or their women friends were ill or needed a blessing, again they laid their hands on their heads, they didn't have to call a PH holder in the middle of the night..or day. 

LDS women wrote amazing articles in "The Women's Exponent" long ago:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman's_Exponent 

The quote from the article shows there were feminists clear back then, so it feels like we have lost a bit of freedom in the current church, IMO. 

"The Woman's Exponent was a semi-official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that began in 1872. It published articles advocating for women's suffrage and plural marriage, in addition to poetry and other writings. Lula Greene Richards and Emmeline B. Wells were its editors until 1914, when the Exponent was dissolved. It was "the first long-lived feminist periodical in the western United States."[1] While it had no direct successor, the Relief Society did launch its own magazine, the Relief Society Magazine, in 1915."

Maybe what we need is to get back to these days! Have our own entities, have an authoritative voice of our own. Or like you mention, a priestess-hood! ;) 

There is no doubt in my mind that all of these old publications and the entities as they existed back then, both for men and women separately, were of great value. But there is no inherent value in doing things the way they have always been done, if there might be a better way.  Given the hue and cry from some about why some things should be changed to fit modern life, you'd think that this might be understood. Or women would continue to wear hooped dresses, and men pantaloons tied just below the knee with long stockings. By the same token, organizations adapt to changing needs and requirements. We can't always dwell in the past. Unless we wish to emulate the Amish.

The Saints in Britain used to have their own church magazine, the Millennial Star. I was living in the UK when it was discontinued in favor of The Ensign around 1970. Many British Saints were understandably disappointed at this: "their" magazine was taken from them. When I was serving as a missionary in Germany in 1972-74, there was a German-language magazine called Der Stern (The Star) for Germany, Switzerland and Austria, and it was independent like the Millennial Star was. But it changed to become more like The Ensign, even though it retained the old name, and some German Saints were not happy about that, either. 

And now The Ensign and all the non-English language church magazines have been discontinued in favor of one magazine, the Liahona. I now subscribe to both the British English and the German versions, and the first issues arrived last month. They contain the same articles, and have the same covers. Of course, each still has a regional-, national-, or language-specific section bound in the middle. January's German edition has 16 pages specific to German-speaking Europe. January's British edition likewise has 16 pages. I'm rather pleased by this change. If I speak with the sister whose husband I baptized into the Church back in 1973 (her husband has since passed away), I can reliably refer her to an article in the German-language Liahona that I found of value, instead of finding that the Ensign article hasn't yet been translated into German. 

All of this seems to have been done in order to make the worldwide Church more unified rather than divided up into balkanized sub-states - which I believe is a good thing.

Of course the new changes are not ideal. But neither were the old standards. 

Some people complain about the lack of "progress" in certain areas, but they fail to notice that there is progress nevertheless. The progress that is occurring is making this church a more international and united church, hopefully leading us away from the long-prevalent provincial attitudes that I found extremely off-putting when I first joined the Church back in 1966.  I for one feel that the leaders of the Church are making good progress towards making this Church more fit to greet the Savior when He comes. As you know, He once said that we must be one in order to be His. Becoming one is not achieved by splitting us into camps. In my humble opinion.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

It amazes me what I don't know about the church.

I've been a member since 1966, and I still occasionally learn something new.

Usually from the posters here on this forum, incidentally.

Link to comment
On 1/30/2021 at 8:26 AM, CV75 said:

That's not a hat, it's a halo!

Hmm, no, not really.  I think maybe it only looks like a halo to people who don't see it very well. Or maybe it looks like a halo only to you.

Link to comment
On 1/26/2021 at 12:52 PM, rongo said:

Also, if the policy was a revelation, as then-Elder Nelson was at great pains to portray it as, then it shouldn't have been reversed and abandoned after only three years, regardless of member unwillingness to accept it. 

The same is true of the "Mormon" thing. If it was a revelation, as President Nelson has made clear, then the Church shouldn't be quietly putting in the handbook that it is "acceptable" to say Mormon, and the Brethren themselves shouldn't use Latter-day Saint or LDS as their primary way of discussing the Church or its members. If it's really a revelation, then heaven and earth should be moved to implement it. 

I don't think the initial policy change nor the reversal where actually done via revelation from God, though President Nelson claimed both were done via revelation. I believe both were done by the brethren on their own.

I actually don't see any evidence of revelation in the church at present. There's some inspiration, but no revelation in the sense of how Joseph Smith and the prophets received "thus saith the Lord" revelations from on high.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...