Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Women recieving the priesthood


Recommended Posts

Just now, ksfisher said:

Personally I believe the reversal was in part because the brethren overestimated the willingness of the members of the church to follow the prophet.  Because of members unwillingness to follow and understand the policy it led to the situation you've described.

I still think that the policy was a solution in search of a problem. How many gay-married couples, then or now, want and demand ordinances for their children? I have a hard time envisioning a groundswell of people "in the pews" agitating against the policy. I think it was a) the leak, b) the ham-handed handling of the leak, and then c) the existence of the policy itself that whipped "the usual suspects" into a frenzy over it. I think if the Church had just left it alone, it would have died down. I don't think that (other than the policy's existence) very many people at all were directly affected by it. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Personally I believe the reversal was in part because the brethren overestimated the willingness of the members of the church to follow the prophet.  Because of members unwillingness to follow and understand the policy it led to the situation you've described.

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. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, juliann said:

As opposed to male rivalry and worry about being judged by a man in the ward? Looks like your many friends have an extremely low opinion of women. 

They are women, Juliann. My wife just had one of them over this Saturday. 

There are gender differences, even spelled out in the Proclamation (preside, nurture, primarily responsible, etc.). Those who insist otherwise are studiously seeing an emperor without clothes, contra to most other people's experience. Most people "in the pews" at Church would rather have male priesthood leaders, hands down. Maybe not in Jana Reis's circle of friends or at Claremont, but those aren't normative. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, juliann said:

As opposed to male rivalry and worry about being judged by a man in the ward? Looks like your many friends have an extremely low opinion of women. 

Hi juliann! I was raised by women, and now I'm ruled by a house full of women, including 2 female dogs 1 female cat, a female rat, not sure about the fish🤣, but I personally wouldn't mind a female bishop,  maybe because of my upbringing,  who knows. 

Link to comment
4 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. 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?

Women haver been receiving the priesthood for as long as men have.  Women just don't get ordained to an office of the priesthood... like deacon or teacher or priest or elder, etc... because they don't need to be and because they are not offices for females.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Hi juliann! I was raised by women, and now I'm ruled by a house full of women, including 2 female dogs 1 female cat, a female rat, not sure about the fish🤣, but I personally wouldn't mind a female bishop,  maybe because of my upbringing,  who knows. 

Try this.  First, get yourself ordained to the office of a bishop.  You'll likely need some men to help you with that.  Then, when you are a bishop, become a female.  Ask some doctors, or God, to help you with that.

THEN we'll see how long you will remain a bishop.

Link to comment

 

To me this alleged "issue" is a non-starter.

We are the only Christian church who believe that God is EMBODIED and that so is Heavenly Mother.

Each has their own functions in biological life and spiritual life

Women who are exalted will have characteristics and responsibilities like Heavenly Mother.

Does Heavenly Mother "have the priesthood"?   

I personally think it is a problem of definition.   Call it whatever you like, women will be as she is!

So I suppose the rather pointless debate should be on whether or not Heavenly Mother "has the priesthood".   And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I personally believe that Father and Mother are part of a Divine Pair which is its own classification which remains largely unexplored scripturally.   I believe it is similar to yin and yang in non- Christian beliefs.   

Of course they are perfectly "equal" in however those powers/responsibilities are shared but they are "ONE flesh"- in a sense ONE entity the same way the Godhead is.

Do the three members of the Godhead have different duties and divisions?   Of course

Do they want to have all of the responsibilities duties of those members of the God head they are NOT?

The answers should be obvious.

 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, rongo said:

How would that work in practice, though? I think trying to "policy change" it without pretending to a formal revelation would open up more cans of worms that it would "close." 

I also think our recent penchant for explaining away things as "just a policy, not revelation" is problematic, and it could be something like this that would blow the powder keg open. 

“I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet.” Dallin H. Oaks, interview with the Times-News, June 9, 1988.

I think they would say something like "we've always known that women hold the priesthood. How else could they have participated in administration of temple ordinances." Then it removes the doctrinal question of "if" they have the priesthood and transfers it to a question of "how" they hold and exercise the priesthood, which could easily be explained away as policy. Women have given healing blessings. They participate in the temple. They have helped in the administration of the sacrament. When it's a "how" question it seems that policy could explain it pretty easily.

But I agree with you that doing it that way would be a disservice to the monumental change it would be in the church. Making the change as a policy would feel more like a gaslighting type of explanation, but... it's kind of what I expect. Some day ;) 

I think there are very few "eternal doctrines". Most of what is known and taught is based on current understanding of the leaders at that time and the changes are therefore often simply policy/procedural changes. The understanding of leadership is continually growing and/or shifting. I think many people view the role of prophet/president as largely administrative even though he is the one person who is authorized to make changes for the entire church. I think fewer people (fewer all the time) believe the prophet receives revelation or the will of God directly from God's lips. Which means that any revelation the prophet receives is impacted by that prophets personal knowledge, assumptions, bias etc. So every revelation from God also has man's fingerprints on it.

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Try this.  First, get yourself ordained to the office of a bishop.  You'll likely need some men to help you with that.  Then, when you are a bishop, become a female.  Ask some doctors, or God, to help you with that.

THEN we'll see how long you will remain a bishop.

I'm not built to be a bishop. I would have bands playing live music and have a potluck in the cultural hall every week. Flip flops would be optional, and facial hair would be recommended, even for the ladies if they want🤣. I wouldn't last a week. I was made for scouts, sadly😔.

     

Link to comment

I believe it will probably happen.  I don't believe it will be from God because I don't believe priesthood is merely a function of God's discretion.  I don't believe continuing revelation can change the structure with any validity.
I do however believe women receive priesthood in the temple and in higher ordinances but that this is a different order of the priesthood from the Ecclesiastical order assigned to run the Church.  And this is clearly represented in them wearing both the garment and the robes of the priesthood.

But hey, what do I know.

Link to comment

I sometimes wonder if bishops or stake presidents could make up new offices in the priesthood.  I know they can make up callings just to give some member something to do, but those callings or positions are not offices in the priesthood.

Like calling a female to be the person to make bread for the sacrament services, for example.  To pass the sacrament a male is ordained to at least the office of deacon, and passing the sacrament is pretty much the only priesthood duty a deacon has.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I also think ward clerk being limited to temple-worthy Melchizedek priesthood holders also has a pragmatic, logistical dimension.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think a lot of how the priesthood is exercised and even taught is based in pragmatic/logical reasoning going back generations, or some would argue thousands of years. Many fall to the fallacy that because something is, or has been done, a certain way, there must be a doctrinal reason for it. I think that perpetuates over time and the explanations eventually become doctrinal, when originally there may have been a simple pragmatic reason for something to be a certain way at that moment in time. 

As it relates to callings like clerks or Sunday School secretaries, there were likely very good intentions behind those policies. Same with policies relating to how the sacrament is administered. The age or ordination etc. IMO there is very little that is actually doctrinal. Most of our practice is based on tradition and policy.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This would need to be something that was revealed through those who hold the keys of the priesthood, the First Presidency.

Makes sense.  We can wonder all we want about whatever we want to wonder about but we need faith/an assurance from God to assure us of how God feels about whatever we wonder about.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, rongo said:
Quote

I think many men would be thrilled to have priesthood responsibilities disseminated between the genders.  

Women as bishops?  Sure!  And, for that matter, as bishopric counselors, clerks, stake clerks, High Council members, stake presidency, etc.

I think many, many more would not be thrilled. And many, many women as well. 

I agree.

And the "thrill" by the brethren would be due to . . . not "laziness" exactly, but in "equalizing the load" with the sisters.  I'm not sure that's the best reason in the world.

I also think the logistical problems would be enourmous.  Do the folks calling for female ordination perceive the ramifications that would arise from what they are asking?  The destruction of the Relief Society?  Men in the YW program?  Men spending substantial amounts of (necessarily unsupervised) time with women other than their wife (and vice versa)?

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've shared this before, but my wife and I have discussed this hypothetical with many friends who have also served in various callings, (primary, YW, RS presidents, etc.). None of these women like the idea of a female bishop, and they specifically pointed out that there would be real difficulties in confessions to a female bishop (female rivalry, worry about being judged by a woman in the ward, etc.).

I dunno.  I think women in the Church could function as "judges in Israel" with the same competency as men do.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

In their view, it's much better having the priesthood duties the way they are for a number of reasons.

I agree.  But it's largely down to A) revelation B) not radically altering the structure of the Church so as to conform to prevailing cultural trends, C) the current system working pretty well, and D) huge (and seemingly insurmountable) practical and logistical problems.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

And, it seems to reflect divine pattern as well (we only deal formally with Heavenly Father and His divine agents, who have only been male as far as recorded history/scripture). There is a lot we don't know about the full picture, but just based on what we do know, it has never been different (as far as we know). 

Yep.  I really dislike the "trendy" aspect of the call for female ordination.  I was really unimpressed with the Ordain Women movement.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think a massive change like women in ordained priesthood offices would be a lynchpin to a faith crises for a lot of people because they would be faced with "high stakes" "is this really a revelation from God, or a calculated accommodation that wasn't a revelation?" That rabbit hole leads to a lot of slippery slopes that call pretty much everything into question. 

Well, if such a change were a revelation, then we have to accept it.  

The Church stopped polygamy, by way of revelation, even though it provoked "faith crises" and the biggest schism the Church has ever seen.  

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

As it is, President Nelson's administration has watered down the concept of revelation,

I don't think that's the case at all.  I think there have been popular notions about revelation that have resulted in undue constraints placed on it.  I think the Brethren are removing some of those, and as a result we're a bit nervous.  We'll be okay.  We need to rely on revelation more.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

and a concern I have is that this might approximate a tipping point at some point (I don't think we're there yet).

I don't think the "yet" is justified.  I don't think we're headed toward such a "tipping point."

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Examples: he went all out to declare the November 2015 policy as a revelation, and stated that they had "war gamed" all possible "permutations;" yet, only three years later, it was completely reversed, because of the "concern, confusion, and heartache" the policy had caused (which ostensibly was among the "permutations" considered in implementing the policy).

I'm not sure I understand.  Are you suggesting that a "policy" created or authorized or ratified by revelation cannot be reversed by revelation?

I commented on this at some length back in 2019.  See here.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Or, the emphasis on only using the official name of the Church (which he described and explained as revelation), but with the handbook now allowing "Mormon" as "acceptable" *** (as a sidenote, it's interesting to me that the Brethren regularly say LDS or Latter-day Saint, which also don't contain the name of the Church in D&C 115 or the name of Jesus, which was the ostensible reason for the emphasis). 

Same question as above, I suppose.

I think Elder Bednar's comments (previously summarized here) help provide some framework:

Quote

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

  • Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
  • Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
  • Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/doctrines-principles-applications-760x488.jpg

My sense is that the Brethren were not really seeking revelation as to "Doctrines," as the Law of Chastity is already firmly in place.  I really don't think the Brethren needed guidance from on high about whether to radically re-vamp the parameters of acceptable sexual behavior.

Rather, I think the Brethren were seeking guidance for "Principles," since their inquiry was specifically "consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries."  With that in mind, please note again this comment from Elder Bednar: "While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit."

Th 2015 policy changes appeared to pertain to Applications that "ordinances and administrative duties," as the legalization of same-sex marriage, and its attendant effects on members of the Church (who might choose participate in such a marriage) was probably not something that could/should be left to be "individually personalized" by the rank-and-file.  Polygamy provides a good comparison here.  The legalization and civil sanction of such marriages has grown and evolved over time, but such marriages is not allowed in the Church.  The same can be said of same-sex marriage.  So development of some "Principles" was in order.

From these efforts, I believe the Lord provided guidance as to "Principles."  Did such guidance likewise extend to "Applications" (the specific wording and parameters of the 2015 policies)?  I'm not sure, TBH.

Nevertheless, I believe the Brethren were and are motivated by love and compassion (per then-Elder Nelson in 2016 and now-President Nelson yesterday), and not by narrowminded bigotries and hate (per some of our critics and dissidents).

I don't believe any prophet, past or present, has been perfectly correct in each and every instance of seeking and obtaining and understanding and implementing guidance from God.  However, I do believe in the overarching goodness of President Nelson and the other leaders of the Church.  They are, collectively and individually, overwhelmingly good and decent men. 

I also believe that they have the authority they claim to have.  I also believe they are receiving revelation from God in ways large and small. 

And I believe that we we need to give the Brethren some latitude, some space to sort things out.  And I think we need to give them credit when they take a position, and then reconsider that position and attempt to do better.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

There are other examples, but the concept of revelation is being downgraded, in my view, to "whatever thoughts I am thinking, and subject to change if needed."

I don't think that's the case at all.  I think revelation is real.  I also think revelation can include ratification/authorization of a proposed course of conduct that may, or may not, ultimately work out. 

Consider, for example, the Brother of Jared in Ether 2.  In v.5:

Quote

And it came to pass that the Lord commanded them that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been. And it came to pass that the Lord did go before them, and did talk with them as he stood in a cloud, and gave directions whither they should travel.

Revelation here.  But more of a "handholding" sort type.  The Lord was much more "hands on" here.

Verse 6 sort of jumps forward a bit in the narrative:

Quote

And it came to pass that they did travel in the wilderness, and did build barges, in which they did cross many waters, being directed continually by the hand of the Lord.

I just noticed here that the Jaredites apparently had two sea voyages, with one being referenced in v. 6 and a second one referenced later, which would end with them arriving in the "promised land."  Huh!  I learn something new every day.

Verses 7-12 then was prophetic a bit about the "land of promise," but then verses 13-14 speaks a bit about Jared becoming lax:

Quote

13 And now I proceed with my record; for behold, it came to pass that the Lord did bring Jared and his brethren forth even to that great sea which divideth the lands. And as they came to the sea they pitched their tents; and they called the name of the place Moriancumer; and they dwelt in tents, and dwelt in tents upon the seashore for the space of four years.

14 And it came to pass at the end of four years that the Lord came again unto the brother of Jared, and stood in a cloud and talked with him. And for the space of three hours did the Lord talk with the brother of Jared, and chastened him because he remembered not to call upon the name of the Lord.

So here the Brother of Jared is chastened for not calling upon the Lord at all.  For not seeking revelation at all.  After being forgiven and warned in v. 15, v. 16 has the Lord giving the Brother of Jared further instructions:

Quote

16 And the Lord said: Go to work and build, after the manner of barges which ye have hitherto built. And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did go to work, and also his brethren, and built barges after the manner which they had built, according to the instructions of the Lord. And they were small, and they were light upon the water, even like unto the lightness of a fowl upon the water.

17 And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish.

18 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, I have performed the work which thou hast commanded me, and I have made the barges according as thou hast directed me.

This new set of barges were apparently somewhat different from the ones referenced in v. 6, as evidenced by v. 19:

Quote

19 And behold, O Lord, in them there is no light; whither shall we steer? And also we shall perish, for in them we cannot breathe, save it is the air which is in them; therefore we shall perish.

The Jaredites didn't have this problem with the barges in v. 6.  The barges described here were built with instructions received via revelation ("I have performed the work which thou hast commanded me, and I have made the barges according as thou hast directed me..."), but have some gaps in the design, namely, 1) no light, 2) no means of steering, and 3) air circulation.

The Lord provides instruction as to one of these problems in v. 20:

Quote

20 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt make a hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that the water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood.

21 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did so, according as the Lord had commanded.

Okay, so one design gap fixed by Jared taking care of it (by following instructions received through revelation). 

How about the other two?  Well, the steering problem appears to be addressed in verses 24-25:

Quote

24 For behold, ye shall be as a whale in the midst of the sea; for the mountain waves shall dash upon you. Nevertheless, I will bring you up again out of the depths of the sea; for the winds have gone forth out of my mouth, and also the rains and the floods have I sent forth.

25 And behold, I prepare you against these things; for ye cannot cross this great deep save I prepare you against the waves of the sea, and the winds which have gone forth, and the floods which shall come. 

So another gap in the design is addressed by the Lord's explanation that the Jaredites wouldn't be steering the ships, and that the Lord would instead push them along using "the winds ... and also the rains and the floods" and the "the waves of the sea."

Again, revelation was very much in effect here.

But then we come to the last design gap: light.  How is that resolved? 

Does the Lord give the Brother of Jared specific instructions (as He did with the "breathable air" issue)?  Nope.

Does the Lord tell the Brother of Jared "I'll take care of things" (as He did with the steering issue)?  Nope.

Instead, look at verses 23 and 25:

Quote

23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.
...
25 ...Therefore what will ye that I should prepare for you that ye may have light when ye are swallowed up in the depths of the sea?

So the solution to the remaining design issue with the barges is . . . left to the Brother of Jared.  By revelation, yes.  But the Lord seems to have expected Jared to find a solution.  And we get that in Ether 3:

Quote

1 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared, (now the number of the vessels which had been prepared was eight) went forth unto the mount, which they called the mount Shelem, because of its exceeding height, and did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass; and he did carry them in his hands upon the top of the mount, and cried again unto the Lord, saying:

2 O Lord, thou hast said that we must be encompassed about by the floods. Now behold, O Lord, and do not be angry with thy servant because of his weakness before thee; for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually; nevertheless, O Lord, thou hast given us a commandment that we must call upon thee, that from thee we may receive according to our desires.
...
4 And I know, O Lord, that thou hast all power, and can do whatsoever thou wilt for the benefit of man; therefore touch these stones, O Lord, with thy finger, and prepare them that they may shine forth in darkness; and they shall shine forth unto us in the vessels which we have prepared, that we may have light while we shall cross the sea.

(Emphasis added.)

And then, well, we all know what happened (Ether 3:6 and Ether 6:2-3, 10) :

Quote

Ether 3:6 And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger.
...
Ether 6:
2 For it came to pass after the Lord had prepared the stones which the brother of Jared had carried up into the mount, the brother of Jared came down out of the mount, and he did put forth the stones into the vessels which were prepared, one in each end thereof; and behold, they did give light unto the vessels.

3 And thus the Lord caused stones to shine in darkness, to give light unto men, women, and children, that they might not cross the great waters in darkness.
...
10 And thus they were driven forth; and no monster of the sea could break them, neither whale that could mar them; and they did have light continually, whether it was above the water or under the water.

Rather than our understanding of revelation becoming "watered down," I think our understanding is becoming enlarged and strengthened.  The Brother of Jared worked through revelation in different ways.  Some revelations were specific and direct (making holes for breathable air), and some revelations were of the Lord saying "I'll take care of that" variety (the "steering" issue).  And yet other revelations . . . left things for the Brother of Jared to formulate a plan.  

I think there are many times when the Lord works with and through us that way.  He lets us participate in the revelatory process, in both seeking revelation and formulating paths forward that the Lord can authorize or ratify.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

As a bishopric we had a discussion about YW serving as ushers in sacrament meeting, specifically closing the doors when the sacrament began and opening them after.  We decided that the opening and closing of doors was not a part of the priesthood ordinance, therefore there were no qualifications needed.

After a couple months of asking the young women to take care of this we stopped because 1) the didn't want to do it, and 2) we got push back from women in the ward who considered closing and opening doors during the sacrament the responsibility of a priesthood holder.

Yeah, the "ushering" bit is not totally popular amongst the YW in our ward (including my daughter).  But the opening and closing of doors seems incidental to, and not part of, the Sacrament, so tradition and/or expectations should not carry the day.

I think there was a time when women could stand in the circle while their children were blessed, and/or could lay on hands during a blessing as an expression of faith (not exercise of the priesthood).  I wonder if we'll ever see such things again.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, the "ushering" bit is not totally popular amongst the YW in our ward (including my daughter).  But the opening and closing of doors seems incidental to, and not part of, the Sacrament, so tradition and/or expectations should not carry the day.

I think there was a time when women could stand in the circle while their children were blessed, and/or could lay on hands during a blessing as an expression of faith (not exercise of the priesthood).  I wonder if we'll ever see such things again.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'd like to see Mother's blessings brought back.

Link to comment

Personally,  I think women will receive the priesthood through new scripture that hasn't been revealed yet.  I think men and women will receive many blessings through new scripture in the future, very near future. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Personally,  I think women will receive the priesthood through new scripture that hasn't been revealed yet.  I think men and women will receive many blessings through new scripture in the future, very near future. 

Isn't America wonderful.  People here can think whatever they want to think, including what you just said you think, and other people here will defend to the death anyone's right here to think whatever they want to think.  Even me!  I thank God for America.

Might have been better if I had waited until July 4th or something like that to say that, but oh well.  It's out there in the open, all over the worlds wide web, including America, now.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Isn't America wonderful.  People here can think whatever they want to think, including what you just said you think, and other people here will defend to the death anyone's right here to think whatever they want to think.  Even me!  I thank God for America.

Might have been better if I had waited until July 4th or something like that to say that, but oh well.  It's out there in the open, all over the worlds wide web, including America, now.

 

20210126_164619.jpg

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Personally,  I think women will receive the priesthood through new scripture that hasn't been revealed yet.  I think men and women will receive many blessings through new scripture in the future, very near future. 

Based on what?
What I mean by that is what indication is there that the current system is not God's will or that there is a change that will need to be made?

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:
Quote

I also think ward clerk being limited to temple-worthy Melchizedek priesthood holders also has a pragmatic, logistical dimension.

I think a lot of how the priesthood is exercised and even taught is based in pragmatic/logical reasoning going back generations, or some would argue thousands of years.

Well, maybe.  I started a thread to explore this question back in 2013: What Is The Scriptural Basis For Limiting The Priesthood To Males?

There seem to be several clues scattered throughout the scriptures, perhaps the biggest one being the lack of female ordination.

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Many fall to the fallacy that because something is, or has been done, a certain way, there must be a doctrinal reason for it.

Perhaps "there is likely a doctrinal reason for it" is more apt?

I'm reminded here of Chestertons' Fence:

Quote

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'

Thoughts?

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As it relates to callings like clerks or Sunday School secretaries, there were likely very good intentions behind those policies. Same with policies relating to how the sacrament is administered. The age or ordination etc. IMO there is very little that is actually doctrinal. Most of our practice is based on tradition and policy.

I respectfully disagree.  I think virtually all of our practice is "doctrinal," and that what Elder Bednar calls "principles" and "applications" are predicated on that doctrinal foundation.  See here:

Quote

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

  • Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
  • Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
  • Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/doctrines-principles-applications-760x488.jpg

The administration of the Sacrament is profoundly doctrinal, and not merely "tradition" or "policy."

However, the "Application" element, how we administer the Sacrament, is a bit more malleable.  The same can be said for most of our practices.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Personally,  I think women will receive the priesthood through new scripture that hasn't been revealed yet.  I think men and women will receive many blessings through new scripture in the future, very near future. 

New scripture? When is the last time new scripture has been received?

It doesn't seem like the church operates on "new scripture", but more on policies and handbooks, and declarations. What was the last scripture added to the standard works?

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...