Women are given priesthood power and authority

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Indeed. * what exactly does priesthood power mean?* - and if women have it, which we are told we do, what are we expected, allowed, taught, encouraged to do with it? Why is there not more conversation about this in all of those priesthood lessons in those manuals, especially for the young women?

 

Yes. And there are three kinds of power. Priesthood power, Power of the Holy Ghost, and the power of faith(could be more). Which one are we really using or is there a difference between them all? Is it all the same power just called by different names.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Senator said:

Now there's a metaphor for ya!

Another infrequent poster shows up!  What is it with this month and can we get more of it?

[MustardSeed]

And if I’m alone in the woods with my kid, and my kid trips, and breaks a leg, and I can’t carry him out, and my phone doesn’t work, does my prayer to God in that minute, have less power than if a man came, and did the same thing? If I lay my hands does it do any good? Does my prayer as a woman work better than a strangers prayer who is not baptized? 
Is there anything that I have that will do me any good outside of what everybody already has?

I acknowledge that if my husband were with me, and that situation, I would want him to give a priesthood blessing, and I would not ask to participate. I’m not sure that I feel good about that.

i’ll tell you why. Recently, my in-laws both passed away. My husband and one other family member were the only members of the church in the entire family in attendance to the funeral. A large crowd of family members gathered to say goodbye to the second parent and my husband was asked to give a priesthood blessing to the parent. He invited all participants gather around and lay hand on the family member while my husband gave a priest blessing. I did not participate as I was holding a baby. However, I’m here to tell you it was the most beautiful and powerful moment I have had in a long time. Everybody in that room was moved and felt something . Nobody was excluded. It was exquisite.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

And if I’m alone in the woods with my kid, and my kid trips, and breaks a leg, and I can’t carry him out, and my phone doesn’t work, does my prayer to God in that minute, have less power than if a man came, and did the same thing? If I lay my hands does it do any good? Does my prayer as a woman work better than a strangers prayer who is not baptized? 
Is there anything that I have that will do me any good outside of what everybody already has?

I acknowledge that if my husband were with me, and that situation, I would want him to give a priesthood blessing, and I would not ask to participate. I’m not sure that I feel good about that.

i’ll tell you why. Recently, my in-laws both passed away. My husband and one other family member were the only members of the church in the entire family in attendance to the funeral. A large crowd of family members gathered to say goodbye to the second parent and my husband was asked to give a priesthood blessing to the parent. He invited all participants gather around and lay hand on the family member while my husband gave a priest blessing. I did not participate as I was holding a baby. However, I’m here to tell you it was the most beautiful and powerful moment I have had in a long time. Everybody in that room was moved and felt something . Nobody was excluded. It was exquisite.

I agree women should participate and I hope it becomes women participating in all aspects of blessings, even if they remain viewed differently than priesthood blessings (which I am fine with, like it even).  
 

I can’t remember if it is official or I just read it in one of JFS’s books, but he states mothers may lay their hands on their child when the father is giving a healing blessing as part of her participation.  Iirc, it is in Doctrines of Salvation.

In the Handbook, it has another MP holder assisting.

Edited March 21, 2024 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

Now there's a metaphor for ya!

Nah, it's a meta five imo! 😜

[JAHS]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree women should participate and I hope it becomes women participating in all aspects of blessings, even if they remain viewed differently than priesthood blessings (which I am fine with, like it even).  
 

I can’t remember if it is official or I just read it in one of JFS’s books, but he states mothers may lay their hands on their child when the father is giving a healing blessing as part of her participation.  Iirc, it is in Doctrines of Salvation.

In the Handbook, it has another MP holder assisting.

President Joseph Fielding Smith, quoting from his father, said:

"Does a wife hold the priesthood with her husband, and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority? A wife does not hold the priesthood with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, she may do so with perfect propriety."
When this is done the wife is adding her faith to the administration of her husband. The wife would lay on hands just as would a member of the Aaronic Priesthood, or a faithful brother without the Priesthood, she in this manner giving support by faith to the ordinance performed by her husband. (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56], 3:177.)

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I agree women should participate and I hope it becomes women participating in all aspects of blessings, even if they remain viewed differently than priesthood blessings (which I am fine with, like it even).  
 

I can’t remember if it is official or I just read it in one of JFS’s books, but he states mothers may lay their hands on their child when the father is giving a healing blessing as part of her participation.  Iirc, it is in Doctrines of Salvation.

In the Handbook, it has another MP holder assisting.

My daughter got really sick with the croup when she was 2 years old in the middle of the night. I hadn't grown up with the PH used in my home, even though my parent's were sealed in the temple, my dad was semi active because of chronic back pain stemming from a fall and breaking his back. He'd try to go for my mom but the hard benches (older building) were brutal. Anyway, he didn't grow up with an active family so they didn't give PH blessings or anything. Anyway, my husband felt the need to ask a neighbor to help him give my daughter a blessing. I really hated the thought of calling someone in the middle of the night, I believe it was our home teacher possibly. But my husband thought we should. I was embarrassed (hadn't really experienced PH blessings) but at the same time, it was my daughter that mattered most. So we called and the blessing was done. She still needed to head to the emergency room, and spend the night in the hospital. But how much easier if I was okay to help my husband give my daughter a blessing! 😒

[juliann]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

Did I say that? No. I was mainly responding to the charge that the women church leaders have no say in the upper councils of the church, when they obviously do.

Having "a say" is far different than making the decision. There has been much needed progress made in giving women more access to things like councils, but how much "say" they have depends entirely how it is run, how many women are on it, and how the women's comments are responded to. We have had lengthy threads on how women are treated and silenced even when present. It's not a church thing, it is universal.  I'm not saying this is what always happens but you need to become educated on this if you want to discuss women's experiences. I recommend The Silent Sex which specifically deals with this. One of the authors is at BYU. 

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

Having "a say" is far different than making the decision. There has been much needed progress made in giving women more access to things like councils, but how much "say" they have depends entirely how it is run, how many women are on it, and how the women's comments are responded to. We have had lengthy threads on how women are treated and silenced even when present. It's not a church thing, it is universal.  I'm not saying this is what always happens but you need to become educated on this if you want to discuss women's experiences. I recommend The Silent Sex which specifically deals with this. One of the authors is at BYU. 

Of course we don't really know what goes on in the top counsels of the church that women are on; we only have the experiences of those who are on them now and claim that what they say are heard and considered. In my opinion, the kinds of changes that some women are advocating for and the way some of them are going about calling for the changes, is a little too aggressive. Things change when God wants them to change and when the entire general membership of the church are ready for a change. 

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Of course we don't really know what goes on in the top counsels of the church that women are on; we only have the experiences of those who are on them now and claim that what they say are heard and considered. In my opinion, the kinds of changes that some women are advocating for and the way some of them are going about calling for the changes, is a little too aggressive. Things change when God wants them to change and when the entire general membership of the church are ready for a change. 

Do you remember the quote from Pres Hinckley when being interviewed and he was asked why the women don't hold the PH? Pres Hinckley said the women haven't agitated for it yet. Not saying women even want that, just more voice, or authority, or things in the curriculum representing the women in the church. Not much in the scriptures but that would be nice too. Doesn't matter much for me now that I'm in my older years and currently not attending much, but for the young women and even older, it would be a breath of fresh air. The women aren't going to last long with the current way of doing things, and if I'm remembering right, women may be the church's last hope for activity. They have higher rates of activity I believe. 

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do you remember the quote from Pres Hinckley when being interviewed and he was asked why the women don't hold the PH? Pres Hinckley said the women haven't agitated for it yet. Not saying women even want that, just more voice, or authority, or things in the curriculum representing the women in the church. Not much in the scriptures but that would be nice too. Doesn't matter much for me now that I'm in my older years and currently not attending much, but for the young women and even older, it would be a breath of fresh air. The women aren't going to last long with the current way of doing things, and if I'm remembering right, women may be the church's last hope for activity. They have higher rates of activity I believe. 

If you would post the interview transcript, it will show that your first sentence is probably a misinterpretation of the conversation. As an aside to the reply that a rule change would require a revelation, President Hinckley added that there is no agitation for a revelation, in reference to the 2nd question as to whether all the women feel the same about their prominent place in the Church, organisationally. He was not saying that agitation is required before a revelation is sought or received.

http://www.tungate.com/1997_nov_compass.htm

This is not a secure site, so for the more cautious among us:

DR: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organisation of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied.

DR: They all say that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.

DR: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.

DR: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

Gordon B. Hinckley: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

DR: So you’d have to get a revelation?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Are you happy? (to his wife...)

Mrs. H: Very happy! (laughs)

 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Things change when God wants them to change and when the entire general membership of the church are ready for a change. 

These seem like two different things though.  Which is it?  Do things change when God wants them to change or do they change when the entire general membership of the church are ready for the change?

Or do you mean that God doesn't ever want things to change until the entire general membership is ready for it?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My daughter got really sick with the croup when she was 2 years old in the middle of the night. I hadn't grown up with the PH used in my home, even though my parent's were sealed in the temple, my dad was semi active because of chronic back pain stemming from a fall and breaking his back. He'd try to go for my mom but the hard benches (older building) were brutal. Anyway, he didn't grow up with an active family so they didn't give PH blessings or anything. Anyway, my husband felt the need to ask a neighbor to help him give my daughter a blessing. I really hated the thought of calling someone in the middle of the night, I believe it was our home teacher possibly. But my husband thought we should. I was embarrassed (hadn't really experienced PH blessings) but at the same time, it was my daughter that mattered most. So we called and the blessing was done. She still needed to head to the emergency room, and spend the night in the hospital. But how much easier if I was okay to help my husband give my daughter a blessing! 😒

My husband always does the blessing on his own.  You don't technically need two people and he feels the same way you do about waking someone up in the middle of the night.

[JAHS]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do you remember the quote from Pres Hinckley when being interviewed and he was asked why the women don't hold the PH? Pres Hinckley said the women haven't agitated for it yet. Not saying women even want that, just more voice, or authority, or things in the curriculum representing the women in the church. Not much in the scriptures but that would be nice too. Doesn't matter much for me now that I'm in my older years and currently not attending much, but for the young women and even older, it would be a breath of fresh air. The women aren't going to last long with the current way of doing things, and if I'm remembering right, women may be the church's last hope for activity. They have higher rates of activity I believe. 

 Here is what he said "But there’s no agitation for that"  He did not use the word "yet". He was simply stating a fact that there is no agitation for it. I don't think he meant that agitation would cause a change. Earlier in the interview he verified it would take a revelation from God to make such a change.

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My husband always does the blessing on his own.  You don't technically need two people and he feels the same way you do about waking someone up in the middle of the night.

That's how I have often done it if there was no easy way to get  second person there. The faith of the mother/wife will provide the second source of faith.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

President Joseph Fielding Smith, quoting from his father, said:

"Does a wife hold the priesthood with her husband, and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority? A wife does not hold the priesthood with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, she may do so with perfect propriety."
When this is done the wife is adding her faith to the administration of her husband. The wife would lay on hands just as would a member of the Aaronic Priesthood, or a faithful brother without the Priesthood, she in this manner giving support by faith to the ordinance performed by her husband. (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56], 3:177.)

That is the one, thank you for finding it.

[manol]

14 hours ago, webbles said:

I was hoping that after we finished the series on the prophets, we would switch to a series on the Relief Society presidents.  I think it would be pretty cool to have a book for each of the Relief Society presidents.

 

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This!!!! 

Those former RS Presidents rocked! Hopefully something will change and this will happen one day! 

The first Relief Society president, Emma Hale Smith, left the church with her children after the murder of her husband and one or two of his brothers, rather than follow and support the second president of the church. 

The second Relief Society president, Eliza Roxcy Snow, was a plural wife of two Church presidents, and among other things put together a set of instructions on how the sisters were to anoint and bless the sick.  I have been unable to find a copy of her instructions, but then I don't have access to the archives.

The third Relief Society president, Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, was a plural wife of two Church presidents while still married to her first husband Henry Jacobs.  She shows up over and over again in journals from the Nauvoo and Utah Valley eras as having blessed and healed people.  If the numbers were tabulated, I wouldn't be surprised if she turned out to be the greatest healer in the history of the LDS Church.

You guys might not want to put me in charge of writing those lesson manuals.  I'd probably find and include Eliza's instructions. 

Edited March 22, 2024 by manol

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These seem like two different things though.  Which is it?  Do things change when God wants them to change or do they change when the entire general membership of the church are ready for the change?

Or do you mean that God doesn't ever want things to change until the entire general membership is ready for it?

I think He has a plan and knows the future. Maybe something is in His plans to change and He will reveal it as soon as the membership is ready for it.
Jesus said to His apostles  "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16: 12)

If it's not in His plans to change something He won't do it, regardless of the agitation of a few members.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, manol said:

 

The first Relief Society president, Emma Hale Smith, left the church with her children after the murder of her husband and one or two of his brothers, rather than follow and support the second president of the church. 

The second Relief Society president, Eliza Roxcy Snow, was a plural wife of two Church presidents, and among other things put together a set of instructions on how the sisters were to anoint and bless the sick.  I have been unable to find a copy of her instructions, but then I don't have access to the archives.

The third Relief Society president, Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, was a plural wife of two Church presidents while still married to her first husband Henry Jacobs.  She shows up over and over again in journals from the Nauvoo and  Utah Valley eras as having blessed and healed people.  If the numbers were tabulated, I wouldn't be surprised if she turned out to be the greatest healer in the history of the LDS Church.

You guys might not want to put me in charge of writing those lesson manuals.  I'd probably find and include Eliza's instructions. 

I have heard the above along with a few other tidbits as reasons why the Church will never do comparable for the RS.

Emma is pretty easy to skip over though with the excuse we have little from her.

[MustardSeed]

25 minutes ago, JAHS said:

If it's not in His plans to change something He won't do it, regardless of the agitation of a few members.

It seems highly unlikely to me that any of us would attempt to pressure God himself. What would the point of that be? Those of us who are challenged with the status quo most likely believe that it is getting in the way. And women for that matter.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

And if I’m alone in the woods with my kid, and my kid trips, and breaks a leg, and I can’t carry him out, and my phone doesn’t work, does my prayer to God in that minute, have less power than if a man came, and did the same thing? If I lay my hands does it do any good? Does my prayer as a woman work better than a strangers prayer who is not baptized? 
Is there anything that I have that will do me any good outside of what everybody already has?

I acknowledge that if my husband were with me, and that situation, I would want him to give a priesthood blessing, and I would not ask to participate. I’m not sure that I feel good about that.

i’ll tell you why. Recently, my in-laws both passed away. My husband and one other family member were the only members of the church in the entire family in attendance to the funeral. A large crowd of family members gathered to say goodbye to the second parent and my husband was asked to give a priesthood blessing to the parent. He invited all participants gather around and lay hand on the family member while my husband gave a priest blessing. I did not participate as I was holding a baby. However, I’m here to tell you it was the most beautiful and powerful moment I have had in a long time. Everybody in that room was moved and felt something . Nobody was excluded. It was exquisite.

There are things in the Handbook as to the mechanics of how the ordinances are performed, but these are not intended to address unique circumstances and expediencies, and they definitely do not preclude promptings of the Spirit. This is acknowledged in the Handbook itself. I think I recall a brief article in the Liahona recently (Latter-day Saint Voices or Digital-Only Young Adult sections?).

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, manol said:

 

The first Relief Society president, Emma Hale Smith, left the church with her children after the murder of her husband and one or two of his brothers, rather than follow and support the second president of the church. 

The second Relief Society president, Eliza Roxcy Snow, was a plural wife of two Church presidents, and among other things put together a set of instructions on how the sisters were to anoint and bless the sick.  I have been unable to find a copy of her instructions, but then I don't have access to the archives.

The third Relief Society president, Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, was a plural wife of two Church presidents while still married to her first husband Henry Jacobs.  She shows up over and over again in journals from the Nauvoo and  Utah Valley eras as having blessed and healed people.  If the numbers were tabulated, I wouldn't be surprised if she turned out to be the greatest healer in the history of the LDS Church.

You guys might not want to put me in charge of writing those lesson manuals.  I'd probably find and include Eliza's instructions. 

Well that explains it!

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

 Here is what he said "But there’s no agitation for that"  He did not use the word "yet". He was simply stating a fact that there is no agitation for it. I don't think he meant that agitation would cause a change. Earlier in the interview he verified it would take a revelation from God to make such a change.

Thanks, I was going by memory...and the memory isn't sharp.

[manol]

9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

And if I’m alone in the woods with my kid, and my kid trips, and breaks a leg, and I can’t carry him out, and my phone doesn’t work, does my prayer to God in that minute, have less power than if a man came, and did the same thing?

Nope.

9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

If I lay my hands does it do any good?

Yes.   Imo/ime we draw what might be called "power from God" by raising our spiritual energy to the highest that we can in the moment (it feels like being filed with love); by totally (and fearlessly) focusing our intention; by deliberately using our WORDS and our ACTIONS to bless; and by doing so in community/union with others who have the same intention.  The specific format used, the specific words said, even the specific beliefs held matter far less than the actual energy present. (If there's nobody else there and/or it feels like you're in over your head, you can play the "ministering of angels" card:  Ask for angels to assist you.  You might be surprised.)

9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

 Does my prayer as a woman work better than a strangers prayer who is not baptized?

Not inherently.  "All are alike unto God." - Nephi 

9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Is there anything that I have that will do me any good outside of what everybody already has?

What you might have that not everybody has is a paradigm that says "you can" rather than "you cannot":

If someone's paradigm says they are powerless, then powerlessness is what shows up. 

If someone's paradigm says they have access to power from God through the priesthood, then access to power from God through the priesthood is what shows up. 

If someone's paradigm says they have access to power from God without needing priesthood authority, then access to power from God without needing priesthood authority is what shows up.

Imo and ime.

9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Recently, my in-laws both passed away. My husband and one other family member were the only members of the church in the entire family in attendance to the funeral. A large crowd of family members gathered to say goodbye to the second parent and my husband was asked to give a priesthood blessing to the parent. He invited all participants gather around and lay hand on the family member while my husband gave a priest blessing. I did not participate as I was holding a baby. However, I’m here to tell you it was the most beautiful and powerful moment I have had in a long time. Everybody in that room was moved and felt something . Nobody was excluded. It was exquisite.

That's the way it's supposed to be.

"Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."  - Jesus Christ

Edited March 22, 2024 by manol

[mfbukowski]

I have been thinking about counter positions to the logic presented in this thread.

How does one deal with the following argument?

Every person who has a calling is ACTING WITH PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY.

EVERYONE is selected for the position by priesthood authority, "as was Aaron".

EVERYONE is set apart by the laying on of hands, and blessed and CALLED to perform priesthood duties by priesthood authorities.

This is from the prophet on down.

No one does anything in the church WITHOUT priesthood authority.

Can we at least agree to that?

I don't see why others don't see that.  It's not complicated unless you want to make it so.

From the prophet to the greeter, everyone is acting with and under priesthood authority.

I would think defining the error in the above italicized paragraph would be step one in a rational discussion of the subject.

I don't see how it is even debatable.

What the heck are we even discussing?  Can anyone define it better, please?

No, women presently do not have an abstract, indefinable "thing" called "priesthood", yet the belief that both men and women are selected to act on behalf of what the Lord, we believe, wants them to be doing in his church.

Who wants to have the title of "Bishop"?  Neither men nor women would want that extra 40 hour per week job, if they understood it well.

Men sometimes jokingly give their "condolences" to new bishops, but women, apparently aspire to have that calling.  Aspiring to have a specific calling is usually frowned upon....

We are here to serve the Lord, and imo, that is all we need to be doing.

How does one justify their position against those who might argue this way?