Women recieving the priesthood

[AtlanticMike]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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?

Since I was young I've always heard that in the end, new scripture will be revealed  and it will cause many to fall away. 

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

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.

If it's not too much of a tangent, this has been a question of mine. If this is true, why do men (or, more specifically, I) need to be ordained and women do not? As I listened to Pres. Nelson describe it in his conference talk, women can use the priesthood to do all of the things I want to do (serve in and out of the church, bless and help people, lead in my family, etc), but they do not get to do all of the things I don't want to do (serve in church government). What does my ordination bring to my table? It seems to me that the only thing ordination brings to my table is makes me eligible to be called into Church government, but I don't want that.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

I'm reminded here of Chestertons' Fence:

Thoughts?

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:

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

Thank you for sharing Chesterton's Fence. Interesting. The problem is that there are so many behaviors, rules, laws, traditions that exist because no one wants to disrupt tradition.  What if there truly was no purpose to chestertons fence, or what if it was created so long ago no one knows the original purpose. Do we keep it there because it's always been even though it serves no current purpose? Thinking about it is great, but failing to remove it when there is no discernable purpose that outweighs the harm is pretty obstinate and backwards. How many silly laws could we still find on the books simply because no one ever removed them. Like- it is illegal in Vermont to ban the banning clotheslines. There may have been a purpose at one time but ...really?

There is obviously some doctrine about the administration of the sacrament but much of it is practice and tradition. Why must one be at least a deacon to pass the sacrament? Is that spelled out somewhere in scripture? Of course not. Did the doctrine change briefly when Young women were permitted to prepare and pass the sacrament during world war II? Unlikley. And even the doctrine we do have, like the scriptural prayer that must be used: is that eternal doctrine or just a temporal one. And if temporal, how is that different from a policy/procedure that could be changed?

Gotta run. Have a good evening.

[AtlanticMike]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

I mean actual written scripture. A new book possibly. 

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

Hmm, let's see, I wrote some scripture this morning, so unless somebody wrote some after I did then what I wrote is the latest most up-to-date scripture we have received on this planet.

The "standard works" are simply a standard or measuring device we can all use to see examples of what scripture is and what it looks like after some people were inspired to write some.  It isn't the end all and be all of all scripture.

 

edited to add:  actually, this post is scripture because I was inspired by the Holy Ghost when I wrote it, so this was then the latest scripture unless someone wrote more after I did.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Ahab

[AtlanticMike]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Hmm, let's see, I wrote some scripture this morning, so unless somebody wrote some after I did then what I wrote is the latest most up-to-date scripture we have received on this planet.

The "standard works" are simply a standard or measuring device we can all use to see examples of what scripture is and what it looks like after some people were inspired to write some.  It isn't the end all and be all of all scripture.

 

edited to add:  actually, this post is scripture because I was inspired by the Holy Ghost when I wrote it, so this was then the latest scripture unless someone wrote more after I did.

 

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Since I was young I've always heard that in the end, new scripture will be revealed  and it will cause many to fall away. 

New scripture doesn't mean contradictory revelation.  More means additional.  New knowledge, not different.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

Agree. It's the real reason behind those who want the Brethren to "ask" about it, but it's not a good reason on its face. 

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)?

Very good point. 

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

I have no quibble about competency at all. It's just clear from, well, everything that the way things are done are done for a reason. The leadership roles from Heavenly Father on down don't involve Heavenly Mother or females in priesthood roles (angels, priesthood ordinations, calling of prophets, etc.)

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.

Agree.

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

I agree with this. My problem is the culture in the Church that, despite protestations about fallibility, etc., it's pretty much de facto accepted (and demanded) that any change or move at all from the governing councils are revelation on their face. What I'm concerned about are changes that come down from the institutional Church that aren't revelation. 

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

That's true. I don't regard women ordination, changes to the law of chastity, etc. as being equal to this (or ending the priesthood ban). I think that it would be fundamentally different, and that people's reactions and actions would be fundamentally different than the body of the Church over that. 

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.

I think that the recent direction is towards feelings and impressions (which I'm not discounting and which are important) --- especially when these revelations are **very quickly** reversed, minimized, or downgraded. We're not talking the generations of polygamy or the priesthood ban; we're talking months or a few years. 

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

Of course it can. I'm talking about the nature of the reversal, the circumstances, the ostensible reasons given for them originally vs. the reasons given for the reversals, etc. I think recent ones are very different from the OD1 and OD2 ones (which were codified in the scriptures, too, come to think of it). 

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.

Agree. Since no revelation was needed on these fundamentals, the reasons behind the revelations were --- not as fundamental. And more amenable to quick change, as needed. 

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 absolutely agree. They are very good 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. 

I believe this as well. I believe that they have the keys and the authority. That isn't the same thing as using it, or believing in it (in the same sense that past generations did). I don't think the same questions are asked --- or that the very thought about inquiring about this or that is even considered, even though the keys are there. Feelings, impressions, revelation through "councils," and outsourced-and-signed-off-on essays through Reeves, Hales, Hauglid/Gee, etc. spring to mind. I believe that revelation on these doctrinal and historical items is possible through those keys, but I don't think it's even a thought. 

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. 

I do, too. 

Out of curiosity, what do you think was the reason(s) for the short-lived November 2015 policy? What were God's reasons for it, and having it only in place for three-ish years? 

 

[AtlanticMike]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

New scripture doesn't mean contradictory revelation.  More means additional.  New knowledge, not different.

Possibly. But why would we need new scripture to keep doing what we're already doing? It seems to me we would need written scripture when there's going to be major major changes. Like jackwagon said, up till now its basically been policy changes. Think what would actually happen if the prophet stood at the pulpit and revealed a new book of scripture. Would you accept it? I would.

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Hmm, let's see, I wrote some scripture this morning, so unless somebody wrote some after I did then what I wrote is the latest most up-to-date scripture we have received on this planet.

The "standard works" are simply a standard or measuring device we can all use to see examples of what scripture is and what it looks like after some people were inspired to write some.  It isn't the end all and be all of all scripture.

 

edited to add:  actually, this post is scripture because I was inspired by the Holy Ghost when I wrote it, so this was then the latest scripture unless someone wrote more after I did.

No. I don't think so.

Are we seriously going to squabble over what is and isn't scripture in the church? The standard works are official scripture. Yes, I'm aware Bednar said something like "I am scripture", but seriously, I'm talking about canonized scripture. Your post doesn't count. Nor do ensign articles or conference talks, or proclamations that haven't been canonized

Otherwise, EVERYTHING is scripture which means nothing is.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

 

"new additions to the canon of scripture" = additional scriptures written line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little just like when other people wrote scripture. 

The "standard works" serving as an example of how other people wrote scripture.

[HappyJackWagon]

34 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I mean actual written scripture. A new book possibly. 

Again, I ask, when was the last time anything was canonized as scripture in the church?

 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. I don't think so.

Are we seriously going to squabble over what is and isn't scripture in the church? The standard works are official scripture. Yes, I'm aware Bednar said something like "I am scripture", but seriously, I'm talking about canonized scripture. Your post doesn't count. Nor do ensign articles or conference talks, or proclamations that haven't been canonized

Otherwise, EVERYTHING is scripture which means nothing is.

Scripture is that which holy men (and women) write when moved upon (inspired) by the Holy Ghost.  It's a definition of scripture that can be found in (other) works of scripture.  You can look it up for yourself.

That doesn't mean EVERYTHING is scripture.  Scripture requires inspiration from the Holy Ghost to a man (or woman) before a man (or woman) can write it.

 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Possibly. But why would we need new scripture to keep doing what we're already doing? It seems to me we would need written scripture when there's going to be major major changes. Like jackwagon said, up till now its basically been policy changes. Think what would actually happen if the prophet stood at the pulpit and revealed a new book of scripture. Would you accept it? I would.

I would accept it if it was new revelation.  I would not accept something that contradicted the revealed word of God.  Joseph gave clear teachings on this.

First, we don't ask for revelation if God has already spoken on the subject.
"And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case"

Second we don't get contradictory revelation and call it further light.
"How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation."

And finally when it comes to the ordinances (including priesthood ordination etc)
"Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles."
"“Now the purpose in Himself (God) in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations ... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.” 

So I'll say again, we may get all kinds of revelations presented in the future.  I'm not discounting the possibility of new scripture or new revelation.  But there are guidelines by which we can know the ones which are from God and the ones that aren't.

 

[AtlanticMike]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, I ask, when was the last time anything was canonized as scripture in the church?

 

I assume this, no/yes?

[AtlanticMike]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, I ask, when was the last time anything was canonized as scripture in the church?

 

I assume this, no/yes?

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, I ask, when was the last time anything was canonized as scripture in the church?

 

Depends on what you consider canon?  Are the "Official Declarations" canon?  Are the "Proclamations" canon?  What makes something canon?
There are numerous revelations from God that aren't canonized.  And then there are canonized scripture that is clearly not God's word on a subject but somehow it made it in.

I put very little stock in what makes it into canon and what doesn't.

 

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Possibly. But why would we need new scripture to keep doing what we're already doing? It seems to me we would need written scripture when there's going to be major major changes. Like jackwagon said, up till now its basically been policy changes. Think what would actually happen if the prophet stood at the pulpit and revealed a new book of scripture. Would you accept it? I would.

How would he "reveal" it. do you suppose?  And why do you say you would you accept it before you've even read it or found out from God for yourself that it is scripture, if it is?  Do you know how to know when words are scripture?  

Testing.

1

2

3

Testing.

[JustAnAustralian]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, I ask, when was the last time anything was canonized as scripture in the church?

The contents of what would become D&C 137 and 138 were approved by church membership and published in 1976.

The contents of Official Declaration 2 was announced and approved by church membership in 1978. Unsure when it was first published in the standard works.

Edited January 26, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[AtlanticMike]

47 minutes ago, Ahab said:

How would he "reveal" it. do you suppose?  And why do you say you would you accept it before you've even read it or found out from God for yourself that it is scripture, if it is?  Do you know how to know when words are scripture?  

Testing.

1

2

3

Testing.

I've watched 100s of children stand at a pulpit and say "I would like to bear my testimony, I know the church is true." Do they actually "know it" Ahab, or is that just the influence of their parents.

[teddyaware]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, I ask, when was the last time anything was canonized as scripture in the church?

 

For those who have the Spirit of personal revelation, it’s like putting the Urim and Thumimm on your eyes and suddenly coming to see the Church is absolutely awash in revelation. Just because the revelations the general authorities and members receive are not added to the standard works doesn’t mean revelation from God isn’t being poured out upon the saints continually.

I receive personal revelation every day, something President Russell is warning the members they all have to learn to make happen because we’ll otherwise be deceived and led down forbidden paths without it. President Russell’s meaning is obvious, we each have to learn, in a manner of speaking, how to become prophets in our own right because, for various reasons, the Church leaders won’t always be able to warn the Church at large about every coming difficulty, hazard and exigency. In other words, the time to take off the revelatory training wheels is now.

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I've watched 100s of children stand at a pulpit and say "I would like to bear my testimony, I know the church is true." Do they actually "know it" Ahab, or is that just the influence of their parents.

I would have to know those children personally to know what they know, but yes parents can influence their children to help them know things they would not otherwise know.  Like how I know most of what I know because of what my/our Father has told me.

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

For those who have the Spirit of personal revelation, it’s like putting the Urim and Thumimm on your eyes and suddenly coming to see the Church is absolutely awash in revelation. Just because the revelations the general authorities and members receive are not added to the standard works doesn’t mean revelation from God isn’t being poured out upon the saints continually.

I receive personal revelation every day, something President Russell is warning the members they all have to learn to make happen because we’ll otherwise be deceived and led down forbidden paths without it. President Russell’s meaning is obvious, we each have to learn, in a manner of speaking, how to become prophets in our own right because, for various reasons, the Church leaders won’t always be able to warn the Church at large about every coming difficulty, hazard and exigency. In other words, the time to take off the revelatory training wheels is now.

Yes, it is time to get wet and to learn to like to get wet.  And where I live at near Portland Oregon the dews from heaven come often and more like rain than only a dew.

 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2005/02/as-the-dew-from-heaven-distilling?lang=eng

 

[AtlanticMike]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I would have to know those children personally to know what they know, but yes parents can influence their children to help them know things they would not otherwise know.  Like how I know most of what I know because of what my/our Father has told me.

Well, you just answered your own question with this wonderful answer. You asked " And why do you say you would accept it before you've even read it or found out from God for yourself that it was scripture ?" Like you said, because of father. 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

After reading what you and smac97 said about spreading out some of the responsibility, I just called my wife, mom and mother in law. All 3 said no thanks🤣. They want nothing to do with priesthood callings. Again, something I never considered asking till 5 minutes ago. Nothing is easy as it seams.

Now ask your brother-in-law or male neighbor, dad or grandpa, and father-in-law or brother-in-law, if they'd like to stay home with the kids while their wife is at a meeting for her calling or out doing visits, or service for those in the ward. Which would they like to do? Hehehe!

Edited January 27, 2021 by Tacenda