Jump to content

A revelation given by the Spirit of the Lord to the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde on March 15, 1846.


Recommended Posts

"I have made my church as upon a hill. The Priesthood holds the power and all have been ordained or ought to be. It is necessary that all be ordained.

It is necessary that it should rest upon all, not upon men only but upon women also that ye may be All One.

Fear not little flock, it is the Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. It is given to you and power to overcome all things."

(General Church Minutes Collection Box 1 fds. 43 ,45 LDS Church History Library; Thomas Bullock Minutes, 1845-1846 Notebook: March 15 1846, 1/2 Past 10 AM.) (Also Recorded in BYU STUDIES VOL. 3 and Unpublished Revelations by Frank Collier)

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/1b5e4af6-fdc2-418a-a766-5bd3b596c35a/0/16

Link to comment

1. Women were frequently ordained Queen's and Priestesses in those days.  This could refer to that.

2. Orson Hyde wasn't appointed by the Lord to receive revelation for the Church.  This would call into question any revelation above his station.

Link to comment

Baptism is an ancient initiation for those becoming a priest. Queens of Israel were anointed with the oil reserved only for priests. And in our faith marriage is the "highest order of the priesthood".

Women may not be called to officiate, but I do believe they have all the prerequisites to claim they are priestesses.

Link to comment

 

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Women may not be called to officiate, but I do believe they have all the prerequisites to claim they are priestesses.

Ahem!  They are in ... umm ... one place! ;)  :D

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

All in the church "officiate" over their callings as called by priesthood authority from the prophet to the primary teacher to the greeter.  No one picks their own calling.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Fine, you know what I'm trying to say, they are priests in every way save in name, except they may not administer in all ordinances or oversee all areas of the church. Not to say they don't oversee in their callings, not to say they don't Administer ordinances, like in the Temple. I'm saying its semantics that we don't call them a "priestess" and a "deaconess", when they are.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Fine, you know what I'm trying to say, they are priests in every way save in name, except they may not administer in all ordinances or oversee all areas of the church. Not to say they don't oversee in their callings, not to say they don't Administer ordinances, like in the Temple. I'm saying its semantics that we don't call them a "priestess" and a "deaconess", when they are.

But if they receiving the higher temple blessings they ARE called Priestess.  That is what is promised in the initiatory.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

But if they receiving the higher temple blessings they ARE called Priestess.  That is what is promised in the initiatory.

And also "Queens", in the same context 

And are one of the "officiators" as is clear by using the plural to refer to one man and one woman.

Link to comment
On 6/2/2022 at 1:11 PM, Pyreaux said:

Fine, you know what I'm trying to say, they are priests in every way save in name, except they may not administer in all ordinances or oversee all areas of the church. Not to say they don't oversee in their callings, not to say they don't Administer ordinances, like in the Temple. I'm saying its semantics that we don't call them a "priestess" and a "deaconess", when they are.

Women function under that authority of the priesthood and under such they are directed to perform certain tasks in the church building and in the temple. But their is no ordination to the office as such. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Islander said:

Women function under that authority of the priesthood and under such they are directed to perform certain tasks in the church building and in the temple. But their is no ordination to the office as such. 

In the endowment ceremony the women temple patrons (whether married or not) say and do and participate in a lot of things which explicitly have to do "priesthood", and which would be forbidden to a man unless he held the Melchizedek priesthood.   Clothing, signs, tokens, some rather specific wording... imo something is being taught "in between the lines" about who our sisters already are.

I don't know enough about how a woman becomes a temple worker to say whether or not they are "ordained", but the women temple patrons are not, and yet they participate fully in the endowment ceremony in everything having to do with "priesthood" right alongside the men who had the priesthood conferred upon them and were ordained.

Edited by manol
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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