When do women become high priests?

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We're heading towards the only priesthood offices being Elder and Apostle with everything else being a "calling" you are set apart for instead of ordained.

It won't be long before there will only be Elders set apart instead of ordained to higher offices.

It's bad doctrine and if taken too far would bring about the loss of various priesthood keys.  There's no such thing as dormant priesthood.  As one stake president told a young deacon, use it or lose it.

I don't see much drama / trauma in losing overlapping duties, and attending multiple meetings and pretending all are important. 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

If it is a duty of both men and women there is no reason to see it as "serving food".

So what responsibility should we give to the girls so they will "show up"? 

That is what the sacrament and the duty of passing it means to you?

It always bothers me when people put down priesthood duties to show women why they shouldn't want to do them.  Either the duty is something sacred or the duty is a chore/means nothing.  You can't have it both ways. 

And what training do girls have with the priesthood?  What role do they have? 

If someone tells me "I don't know why women are ordained" I can deal with it.  But please stop putting the priesthood and priesthood duties down in an effort to show why women wouldn't want to work hand in hand with God this way. If you respect what the priesthood means don't disparage it. And don't put women on a pedestal and leave them floundering by telling them they don't need the training. Even Jesus needed training.

Sorry I think the words got in the way. As usual 

This is a good example of how metanarratives make communications impossible.

"Serving food" is a bent metanarrative I can imagine someone would bring up.

I already SAID that more girls were attending 

Of course that is not what the Sacrament means to me- it is a high privilege the boys need to learn.

I would never " put down priesthood authority" That is my central point!

Your entire post seems to me to simply repeat false metanarrative stereotypes.

Ssorry you found it so offensive.

I need a vay-cay.

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't see much drama / trauma in losing overlapping duties, and attending multiple meetings and pretending all are important. 

Never confuse Church duties with priesthood responsibilities.  They only occasionally intersect.

[Rain]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry I think the words got in the way. As usual 

This is a good example of how metanarratives make communications impossible.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about here with metanarratives.

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Serving food" is a bent metanarrative I can imagine someone would bring up.

You can imagine that because you don't understand why it has been used.  This is a separate issue than other times when it used.

Usually when it is used women are not asked to speak or pray, they are not invited to eat with the general authority. The women leaders are not invited to be on the stand. In our ward and stake conference the stake women leaders are not sustained - the specific callings to be sustained are given to the stake president so it is not just my stake, but I couldn't tell you where it s inititiated. Basically the women are asked to do the food behind the scenes, but not asked to do anything where the general stake membership will know anything about them.  

Now obviously, we shouldn't be doing things to be seen. Do we accuse bishops or stake presidents of speaking in ward or stake conference of wanting to be seen?  No, we recognize that the male leader is there to help those he presides over. He wants to help them.  It is the same with women's leaders.  They are there to help.  When we have women leaders speak or be sustained in conferences or have them talk to general leaders then the women they help are the ones who are being seen.  

The thing with the food is about helping women to know they are seen by God. This is a totally different issue than being part of a sacred ceremony where both men and women would be serving.

 

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I already SAID that more girls were attending 

Then maybe the idea that we need to give boys a priesthood duty so they will attend is not a correct idea. I know I, personally, would be annoyed if that's why someone gave me a duty.

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course that is not what the Sacrament means to me- it is a high privilege the boys need to learn.

If it is a high "privilege" then we should never be surprised that girls would like to learn it as well. 

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I would never " put down priesthood authority" That is my central point!

 

But you did. Now I know priesthood means a lot to you, and I knew that when you said that, but it is an oft repeated thing to disparage priesthood duties to get women to feel like they shouldn't want the priesthood.

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Your entire post seems to me to simply repeat false metanarrative stereotypes.

Your posts often seem very defensive to me because you won't take the time to understand how many women feel instead. You often throw out little barbs when anything about women come up and it gets really frustrating that instead of really listening you just throw up the walls.

I have wanted to talk to you in person to see if we could get some understanding that way. It frustrates me that we don't get anywhere here.

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ssorry you found it so offensive.

I need a vay-cay.

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I honestly don't know what you are talking about here with metanarratives

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/metanarrative#:~:text=Noun,story that is self-legitimizing.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

Edited September 5, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Never confuse Church duties with priesthood responsibilities. 

Uh, yeah.  😳🤔

[Rain]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/metanarrative#:~:text=Noun,story that is self-legitimizing.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

I actually looked both of those terms up before telling you I didn't know what you were talking about to me. The links don't help me understand what you were trying to say to me.  Please explain to me what you were trying to say as if you were talking to a 5 year old.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Rain

[theplains]

On 9/4/2023 at 6:47 PM, CV75 said:

"High priest" is the wrong term, and having a priesthood office is different than being a priest or priestess in the kingdom. The latter is possible for men and women in mortality through faith in Christ (meaning His terms), but nothing wrong with doing this later, either.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:56-59 says, "They are they who are priests and kings, who have 
received of his fulness, and of his glory; And are priests of the Most High, after the 
order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of 
the Only Begotten Son. Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—
Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to 
come, all are theirs and they are Christ's, and Christ is God's".

Revelation 20:6 says, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first cresurrection: 
on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, 
and shall reign with him a thousand years".

Are women referenced here and what type of priesthood do they hold?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Doctrine and Covenants 76:56-59 says, "They are they who are priests and kings, who have 
received of his fulness, and of his glory; And are priests of the Most High, after the 
order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of 
the Only Begotten Son. Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—
Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to 
come, all are theirs and they are Christ's, and Christ is God's".

Revelation 20:6 says, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first cresurrection: 
on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, 
and shall reign with him a thousand years".

Are women referenced here and what type of priesthood do they hold?

Women are referenced in revelations subsequent to these two citations. There is only one priesthood (the power of God); finer distinctions have to do with what and how He intends to do His work through His children. I think in instances like these, we can safety surmise that "man" refers to human beings of either sex, as it is for Adam and Eve in Genesis.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/5/2023 at 4:38 AM, Rain said:

I actually looked both of those terms up before telling you I didn't know what you were talking about to me. The links don't help me understand what you were trying to say to me.  Please explain to me what you were trying to say as if you were talking to a 5 year old.

Well, I can't do that, but the gist is that long explanations multiply the natural ambiguity of languages, while virtually every abstract word CAN be misinterpreted in ways the author did not intend, and soon we are making up long interpretations of long interpretations and things get so garbled that "what really is true" gets lost.

So then WHAT IS "truth" ?

2500 years of philosophy has come up with hundreds-at least- of definitions of "truth" so postmodernism just avoids the question and doesn't even try, and sees the world as your truth or my truth 🤨

This post for example then BECOMES a narrative ABOUT narratives or a "meta-narrative"- a narrative about narratives!!

We might get comments now on how I said something wrong about metanarratives- making the post itself another layer of metanarrative on top of the others, making it more abstract and therefore farther from " reality"- more talk about talking.

So postmodernism ASSUMES that words are ambiguous and people are all different so every abstract discussion CANNOT be true in the old sense because YOU CANNOT SIT ON THE WORD "CHAIR". 😄

Is it a rock on a trail you sit on and call your "chair" laughingly?

Is it an easy chair? If you tilt it back and put up your feet, is it a "bed" functionally?

Soon we are no longer talking about chairs, but talking about talking about chairs- a metanarrative!

I hope that helped

Edited September 7, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well, I can't do that, but the gist is that long explanations multiply the natural ambiguity of languages, while virtually every abstract word CAN be misinterpreted in ways the author did not intend, and soon we are making up long interpretations of long interpretations and things get so garbled that "what really is true" gets lost.

So then WHAT IS "truth" ?

2500 years of philosophy has come up with hundreds-at least- of definitions of "truth" so postmodernism just avoids the question and doesn't even try, and sees the world as your truth or my truth 🤨

This post for example then BECOMES a narrative ABOUT narratives or a "meta-narrative"- a narrative about narratives!!

We might get comments now on how I said something wrong about metanarratives- making the post itself another layer of metanarrative on top of the others, making it more abstract and therefore farther from " reality"- more talk about talking.

So postmodernism ASSUMES that words are ambiguous and people are all different so every abstract discussion CANNOT be true in the old sense because YOU CANNOT SIT ON THE WORD "CHAIR". 😄

Is it a rock on a trail you sit on and call your "chair" laughingly?

Is it an easy chair? If you tilt it back and put up your feet, is it a "bed" functionally?

Soon we are no longer talking about chairs, but talking about talking about chairs- a metanarrative!

I hope that helped

So in a nutshell are you saying you didn't communicate well when you said, " Sorry I think the words got in the way. As usual This is a good example of how metanarratives make communications impossible."

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

So in a nutshell are you saying you didn't communicate well when you said, " Sorry I think the words got in the way. As usual This is a good example of how metanarratives make communications impossible."

The topic itself is inherently ambiguous so I thought was being kind to someone who ultimately wanted me to explain it "for a 5 year old". 

I didn't pick those links to confuse you.

I thought I was accepting the blame for that person NOT understanding it.

So your truth is yours I suppose.

I did not realize that the references would be difficult.

On the other hand I have been studying it for 50 years at least 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by mfbukowski

[manol]

It has been argued that the Beloved Disciple, the author of the Fourth Gospel (which we know as the Gospel of John), was actually Mary Magdalene. 

The paper at the link below "posits the theory that the Fourth Gospel, once universally believed to have been authored by John of Zebedee, was actually authored by Mary Magdalene. It is further posited that she was the Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel and, therefore, the founder and leader of what has come to be known as the Johannine Community. Indeed, there is more evidence pointing to her authorship of the Fourth Gospel than there ever was pointing to authorship by John."

http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/MM/magdalene.html

(Sorry I can't get the link to work; I guess you'll have to cut and paste, but imo it's well worth it.)

Arguably of even greater interest than the authorship of the Fourth Gospel in the context of this thread is the attitude of the Gnostics towards women.  Unfortunately Joseph Smith never got to read (or make his own translation of) the Nag Hammadi scrolls; it would have been very interesting to see what role they might have played in the Restoration.  Quoting from the paper:

"Many Gnostic groups practiced radical egalitarianism. They believed that God acted and spoke through both men and women. Both men and women were known to be leaders and/or prophets in their communities. Many men, including those in the church, felt threatened by them." (emphasis mine)

I can't help but wonder whether Joseph Smith would have included a return of the Gnostic attitude towards women in the Restoration.  Was this among the "plain and precious things" which were lost?  I think he was already headed in that direction on his own, but might the Gnostic scriptures have inspired him to move more quickly and decisively?  

Anyway for anyone who doesn't want to read the whole paper, towards the end the author sums up his points as follows:

"There is solid extrabiblical documentary evidence which establishes a strong tradition among, at least some, Gnostic Christians naming Mary Magdalene as the disciple whom Jesus loved the most. This is strong external evidence which corroborates the identification of Mary Magdalene as the Beloved Disciple;

"There is a well-established historical link between the Fourth Gospel and Gnostic Christians which predates both the canonization of the Fourth Gospel and the ascription of its authorship to John of Zebedee. This corroborates the hypothesis which says that the Secessionists of the Johannine Community brought their pre-canonical Fourth Gospel with them into the Gnostic Christian communities after the schism;

"There is the strong internal evidence which shows extensive structural inconsistencies in the two passages of the Fourth Gospel which contain both Mary Magdalene and the Beloved Disciple appearing together. This corroborates the hypothesis which says that a redactor re-edited prior pre-canonical versions of the Fourth Gospel as discussed [in the body of the paper];

"The "one-upmanship" of the Beloved Disciple in relation to Peter in the Fourth Gospel is very similar to the relationship between Peter and Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Corpus. This helps to corroborate the hypothesis which says that the Fourth Gospel's Beloved Disciple and Mary Magdalene are, in reality, one and the same;

"There are many accurate references in the Fourth Gospel to Holy Land places and customs which denote eyewitness authorship by someone who lived in the Holy Land before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. Mary Magdalene was most certainly in a position to give very vivid and accurate eyewitness accounts of the events depicted in the Fourth Gospel. This might explain some striking differences between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels which, according to most biblical scholars, were pseudonymous and not written by eyewitnesses;

"The unique place given to women as proclaimers in the Fourth Gospel was quite different from that of other first-century Christian churches. This is very consistent with the hypothesis which says that the Fourth Gospel was, in fact, authored by a woman -- i.e., Mary Magdalene."

 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by manol

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, manol said:

can't help but wonder whether Joseph Smith would have included a return of the Gnostic attitude towards women in the Restoration.

Weren’t there Gnostics who treated women as non men?  Doesn’t the Gospel of Thomas, iirc, teach women must become male to be enlightened or something?  If so, I would feel more comfortable adding “that promotes equality” to identify which attitude you are talking about in the above.

PS:  who is making this argument and how well accepted is it as a possibility?

Edited September 8, 2023 by Calm

[manol]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Weren’t there Gnostics who treated women as non men?  Doesn’t the Gospel of Thomas, iirc, teach women must become male to be enlightened or something?  If so, I would feel more comfortable adding “that promotes equality” to identify which attitude you are talking about in the above.

I am not remotely qualified to be an apologist for the Gnostic Gospels.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

who is making this argument and how well accepted is it as a possibility?

His name is Ramon K. Jusino, and here is a book he wrote (which I have not read):

https://www.amazon.com/Original-Trauma-Story-Inherited-Generational/dp/B0C2S9T6WQ

I came across his paper many years ago in the course of my own investigations into Mary Magdalene, as I was trying to get some insight into an experience I had.  I am not under the impression that Jusino has won over the academic world with his arguments. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by manol

[Calm]

Wouldn’t it be nice if he did (with all that implies about the likelihood he is right).

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Wouldn’t it be nice if he did (with all that implies about the likelihood he is right).

Draw your own conclusions!  Yes it would be nice if the academics supported his views, but Latter-day Saints are not constrained to academia. 

I concluded that it's possible; after reading the paper and understanding his arguments about after-the-fact gender-altering redactions to the text I went back and re-read John through the lens of Mary Magdalene possibly being the author, and noticed that the author of John gets pretty deep inside Mary's head a time or two.

I should add that by this time I had also reached the conclusion that Mary of Bethany (the sister of Martha and Lazarus) and Mary Magdalene are the same person.  So I was reading passages about Mary of Bethany through that lens. 

The gospel of John identifies Mary of Bethany as the woman who anointed Christ ["The Anointed"] a week before the crucifixion "against the day of my burying" according to Jesus.  It would be difficult for me to tell you with a straight face that that wasn't a Priestess anointing the Anointed One.

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by manol

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, manol said:

The gospel of John identifies Mary of Bethany as the woman who anointed Christ ["the anointed"] a week before the crucifixion "against the day of my burying" according to Jesus.  It would be difficult for me to tell you with a straight face that that wasn't a Priestess anointing the Anointed One.

And/or His wife, a VERY LDS belief that I will not discuss further.

Matt. 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; and John 12:1-8. A similar, though distinct, story appears in Luke 7:36-50)

Edited September 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[manol]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And/or His wife, a VERY LDS belief that I will not discuss further.

FASCINATING IDEA !!

Yeah baby!  Wanna see something cool?

Below is a painting by Leonardo da Vinci called "Salvator Mundi", which translates as "Salvation of the World" or "Savior of the World". 

Take a piece of paper and cover up one side of the face, dividing it right down the middle of the nose.  Then uncover that side and cover the other side. 

Maybe it's just me, but I'm seeing a Being who is the combination or union (or re-union?) of Male and Female divinity.

Methinks Leonardo knew, or figured out, some stuff. 

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by manol

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, manol said:

Methinks Leonardo knew, or figured out, some stuff

Wow!

Yeah, one of the greatest geniuses in world history!  

My passions are philosophy and art history, and is amazing how intertwined they are.  

Today for example we are in an age of anti-representation in both art AND philosophy, the effort to re-create the world "as it is" has been abandoned.

Leonardo and Descartes represent "realism" and the correspondence theory of truth, while since Impressionism in art we have turned toward HUMAN EXPERIENCE as the only reality we can know- not the world "as it is"- and in philosophy we see the same phenomenon in Phenomenology, Pragmatism, and Postmodernism.

These later trends show us NOT the world as it is, but the world as experienced.

Reality cannot be represented in either art OR philosophy- all there is, is human experience and re- creating human experience.

But here Leonardo encompasses all that is to come- he becomes a kind of "prophet", understanding the very human phenomenon you describe AND therefore also the subtleties you describe.

The painting becomes a kind of religious vision. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

On 9/7/2023 at 3:13 PM, CV75 said:

Women are referenced in revelations subsequent to these two citations. There is only one priesthood (the power of God); finer distinctions have to do with what and how He intends to do His work through His children. I think in instances like these, we can safety surmise that "man" refers to human beings of either sex, as it is for Adam and Eve in Genesis.

According to Doctrine and Covenants 76:56-59, would those female priests be classified as after the
order of Melchizedek?

[CV75]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

According to Doctrine and Covenants 76:56-59, would those female priests be classified as after the
order of Melchizedek?

I'm brief due to traveliling status: Not in the sense of priesthood office in the earthly kingdom, but as part of the the holy order of God or the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God (the longer name for the Melchizedek Prorsthood), certainly. This order is in practice already in the marriage covenant, for example, where the man is an elder in the Church and a woman has no office. But in the next life, they can be (high) priests and (high) preistesses and they can possess that promise and have some of that "earnest" in this life. When I say "high" I mean to convey joint heirs with Christ, not necessarily any formal terminology from our Handbook, which due to travelling, I cannot conveniently acceess.