Suzie

I am left confused as well since he has not explained the reason. Not to mention the Sandra Tanner connection...

The reason I put "very secret" in bold was to illustrate that the teaching and practice of Plural Marriage as taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith (just as President Hinckley stated) was very limited. It was done secretly and last time I checked secretly means: Now please make the connection between Sandra Tanner and this term. Yes, it's THAT ridiculous.

*sigh* Please READ post #27. I didn't know Sandra Tanner has exclusive rights over the term "very secret". Bytor, that's quite paranoid on your part. Please do not hijack the thread.

Oh, so when you share with non-members your beliefs about Christ being the son of God, when you tell them about the story of Joseph and the First vision, etc you tell them they are just your...umm...personal opinion? I didn't know a person has to be "there" in order to prove something (Poor Jesus) and darn it for all those documents through history, they are now wortheless!. Geez, do you know really know what you are saying? In this case, Margin and I have provided the documentation (and for some reason you are choosing to either ignore it or not comment on it) but I do understand it can make some people uncomfortable, however doesn't change the fact that the evidence is there. Please prove that the documentation provided it's wrong and inaccurate or at least comment on it in order to have a logical debate. Thanks.

Bytor, with all due respect you are either not reading properly or just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. I don't how more clear I should have been when I quoted what he said and I replied. What is senseless about it? The historical data? His position was that such a thing would need to be a commandment to the whole CHURCH and we know it was NOT the case with Polygamy. Please point out what is so senseless about my reference on Plural Marriage on this case. Ah, pure speculation on your part.

People, don't take it wrong but if you cannot present evidence/documented sources on some of your claims (specially the wild ones) then please state that it is just your personal opinion and that you do not have proof. So I won't bother in asking for it. This is a thread with historical connotations. I think that if you guys are going to do a rebuttal about the early women having the Priesthood, then it is only fair and logical that you guys will also provide evidence/documented sources that disproves it.

Please follow the debate, otherwise we will be going in circles. My mention (and Margin's one as well) about Polygamy was a rebuttal to this post: Bert and you are sharing opinions about women and the Priesthood today YET you haven't been able to explain/share thoughts about women having the Priesthood in the early days of the Church and what happened from here.

Joseph Smith first taught plural marriage as early as 1831 to very, very few members. He did not start practicing it until 1835, proclaimed the revelation in 1843 AND the practice in itself remained very secret until Brigham Young announced it in 1852 in a special conference. The whole Church did not practice Polygamy and Joseph Smith did NOT teach about it to the whole Church either. You haven't mention yet your thoughts on early women having the Priesthood.

Please read D. Michael Quinn "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843" http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/women/chapter17.htm#Woman You mean like Plural Marriage in the early days?

(tongue in cheek) Punish both. If the "innocent" one complains (you have no way to know this) then tell him/her that they are being punished for all the times they got away with it. Problem solved and let's see if they try to do something like that again...

Says who? :) No.

You aren't talking about hormonal teenagers, right? :)

Not a good idea. Heck, I don't think sleepovers are a good idea period but I ain't going to get fanatic on that one here....

Ah, I see what you are saying. :) Well, personally I believe anyone (with enough faith) can be healed, heal and even perform miracles (regardless whether you have the Priesthood or not). However, having the ability to do these things by faith and have been conferred the Priesthood are two different things, IMO. In what I consider, historical evidence presented within this thread I am curious as to what happened to women as priesthood holders? Was there a revelation in place to stop the practice? If so, where is it?

Traveler, thanks for your thoughts. It's not confusing really, I just don't agree with some of these things (and of course we do not have to agree) however I appreciate your thoughts. IamTheWork, what do you exactly mean that women already have the Priesthood? (present day) I read your explanation but I fail to understand the reasoning behind it. I would appreciate if you can expand more on this, thank you.

But if we do not know whether something has been commanded by the Lord or not to a Prophet, then how can we take the "Prophet will not lead us astray" (Pres. Woodruff's words) as true?

Thanks for the response. If we are saying that Joseph Smith wasn't necessarily commanded by the Lord to give the early sisters the Priesthood, does this apply to ALL the revelations he has received such as Plural Marriage, the Word of Wisdom, etc? Does this apply to every Prophet from Joseph Smith to President Monson? How do we measure what is Truth and what it isn't? Keep in mind that some of these things (keeping certain commandments) are key in whether we will be able to enter the Temple or not. If we are now saying we do not know whether these things have been instructed by the Lord or not, then what are we really saying? With regards to your experience about sustaining a leader even when we know they are wrong, I feel exactly like these quotes: (Apostle Charles W. Penrose)

I am glad that you decided to stick around. Don't be afraid to express your views, I understand that it is hard sometimes to read into people, specially on the internet however it is always good to have an extra thicker skin when discussing doctrine. :) See you around! :)

Bert, I am also interested as Margin wrote, if you are in fact saying that Joseph Smith was wrong in given the Priesthood to women in the early days.

Sorry that you feel this way. I wish you all the best!

I agree with what you are saying, so are we saying then President Hinckley, Harold B. Lee and others got it wrong ?

In my view I think there is a difference between an anti-Mormon and a Mormon critic, while the first one mock and disrespect some of the things we consider sacred, the second one usually have concerns with regards to some points of doctrine or church history and is looking for answers. We have lots of Mormon critics within the Church. I am not a believer of dismissing everything that these both groups say to "protect" my testimony (what would I needed to protected from?). I think it is very important for members to know those issues that some consider "taboo". We shouldn't be foolish either to think that ALL they say are "lies" because we may be missing some important things. Now, don't take me wrong, I am not advocating going to web sites and search anti-Mormon literature, however if you come across a Mormon Critic take the time to listen, don't quickly dismiss anything and see how much you truly know about the Church you decided to join. I believe that once we are more familiar with the past and present of this Church as well as its past and present doctrine, we can become better instruments in the Lord's hands in answering a lot of difficult questions non-members ask and that often times we do not know the answer for or brush it off as "lies from antis" when in fact, in some cases, are not. In my opinion, of course.

Bert, it would have been interesting to add in your post the Joseph Smith translation of some of your verses (after all women do speak in Church) as well adding a little historical background such as the fact that in the Church in Paul's day, women took no active part. We need to analyze scriptures in the proper context, IMO. However, it would be interesting to read your opinion concerning the posts about women having the Priesthood in the early days as documented within this thread. Thanks!

Pam, I think you know I did not mean that. My point being that if a thread is pointless to you then don't participate, whether we have facts or not on the topic at hand is irrelevant, IMO. We do not have to agree, right?

If it's pointless then maybe you shouldn't participate and let others decide what is pointless and what it isn't.