CrimsonKairos

Okay, well then why don't you sisters go ask your Bishop to let you pass the sacrament this Sunday? I wonder what he'd say? Probably something like, "Well technically sister you should be able to, but due to androcentric policy and male inferiority complex, women can't have office in the priesthood even though they can have the priesthood itself." I love how penlady uses one rogue bishop who isn't even sure about what he's doing to disprove the General Authorities and Church practice. Whatever floats your boat. I don't see what all this is about. I mean, if women couldn't receive a fulness of salvation without personally holding the priesthood then I'd get your concern. But what in the world is with the need to look for obscure diary entries to prove something that you all admit doesn't apply anymore? Is it to shake the big bad male hierarchy into realizing that we aren't superior to women? No Christ-like priesthood holder I know thinks he is "better" than any woman because he holds the priesthood. I just don't get what this whole discussion is about? If you were trying to lobby for womens' right to pass the sacrament or hold priesthood office, I'd get it. But none of you seem to be seeking such things. You're just saying, "According to such and such records, and if you interpret the Greek New Testament a certain way, then you see that women once held the Melchizedek Priesthood but not any office in it. Isn't that great?!"

Thanks PC. For what it's worth, you're one of the most intelligent lemmings I've ever had the pleasure to meet. B) I guess we're all lemmings running towards different cliffs. I just hope the cliff I'm leaping off of has feather pillows at the bottom. I'll have to wait until the next life to find out.

TARDIS is from the British sci-fi show "Dr. Who." It was a joke, and has no bearing on gospel principles. You do know what TARDIS is, right?

All those quotes to me are saying that the those worthy women had sealed upon their heads--or guaranteed to them--the blessings which flow from partaking of ordinances that were only administered by the Melchizedek priesthood. I really do think you're misreading the intent of those passages, but I know we'll disagree so that's fine.

I know, that's what I was saying. I was responding to Elphaba who seemed to be asserting that Joseph Smith didn't receive the Melchizedek Priesthood until 1843.

I know! When I first joined this board, I would've interpreted Snow's last post to mean that Snow doesn't believe in living prophets. Now, I feel to echo his statement (for my own reasons, i.e. the whole "atonement in Gethsemane" topic I've been delving into over the past year). There is one thing more important than having living prophets, and that is having the gift of the Holy Ghost. Without our own spiritual compass, we can never know when a man is or is not speaking by inspiration from Almighty. Now as for the women and priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood... Elphaba, you said: On September 28, 1843, “Joseph Smith “& Companion” [Emma Hale Smith] received the second anointing and were both “ordained to the highest & holiest order of the priesthood”; As best as I can tell, and I've looked through every reference I have, Emma and Joseph received their second anointing on the same day. In other words, Joseph had not had a previous second anointing. So this tells me this is also the day when he was initially ordained into the Melchizedek Priesthood. If "both" of them were ordained, then it has to be to the M.P. I must have misread that, or you must have mis-typed that. You're asserting that Joseph Smith wasn't ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood until 1843? Joseph Smith said that Peter, James, and John appeared "in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river" (D&C 128:20). Sometime before June 14, 1829, the Lord gave Joseph and Oliver instructions regarding their ordination as elders (a Melchizedek Priesthood office (HC 1:60-61)). We also know that when Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph and Oliver, they ordained them also as apostles (D&C 27:12) and committed to them "the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times." So I don't get what you mean when you say that Joseph Smith wasn't initially ordained into the Melchizedek Priesthood until 1843. That's where I think you're getting mixed up. The word "ordain" has several meanings, one of which is: To order or decree. Furthermore, decree means: Official order issued by a legal authority. Since I think we all agree we're talking about the endowments and temple marriage here, it seems that the phrase "being ordained to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood" simply means having blessings and promises decreed upon those being endowed and/or sealed...and these blessings and promises are decreed by one holding the priesthood keys required...i.e. by a "legal authority." I don't think this use of the word "ordain" in connection with the endowment, sealing, or second endowment/anointing, has any reference to what we today think of when we say "ordain," and we pretty much all use "ordain" to refer to a worthy male being given keys and authority to officiate in the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthoods. I think it's apples and oranges, and I think it's largely semantics. I don't believe women were ever ordained (given keys and authority) to either the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthoods. God--through His prophet--decreed that blessings be given to women who received their endowments/temple marriage (which are administered by the Melchizedek Priesthood). In that sense, women are "ordained to the holiest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood." I don't mean ordained as in laying on of hands, but ordained as in decreed by legal authority.

The problem is the word "priesthood" can be used in several contexts. Women never held the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods. Women never administered the sacrament, baptized, conferred the Holy Ghost, etc... So in that sense, women never held the keys of the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods. If a woman is to become a queen and priestess (as those quotes said), then she must obviously receive some sort of priesthood. However, the promise of becoming a priestess points to a future event. Now if we get right down to it, women hold some amount of the priesthood de facto, by virtue of their performing initiatories in the temples. It is a priesthood ordinance. Someone else more knowledgeable might correct me in this. Seems pretty straightforward. Now to say that this "Quorum of the Anointed," were ordained to some holiest order of the priesthood is not the same thing as saying the quorum members (women particularly) received the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. I don't think any historical record shows that women baptized or blessed the sacrament, nor do I think that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young ever taught that women should do such. Not that women never can (God can do whatever He wants with His kingdom as far as I'm concerned), but there's been no revelation or teaching so far that would justify such a doctrine. So when most members hear this statement, "Women once held the priesthood," they understand it to mean, "The Aaronic and/or Melchizedek priesthood." Is this your assertion? If so, what other records would bear this out. Failing the existence of any such evidence, I think it'd be wise to clarify that women didn't once hold any Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood keys or offices.

This reminds me of anima vs. animus, and how a "whole" person incorporates both aspects. I'd call them two halves of the divine nature.

Dude, don't even remind me of that curly-haired, scarf-wearing 80's wacko!!!

One use of "dispute" in Acts 19 comes from the Greek dialegomai. Check it out.

Agreed.

Wasn't meant to be-at least by me, Crimson :) I know rosie. It was a joke. Someone who doesn't know what a hanging chad is might have gotten the wrong idea...

Operation Nickel Grass, all the way baby!!! Long live Israel! B)

I always took "Judeo-Christian" to simply refer to the heritage we inherited from the OT (Judaism) and the NT (Christianity). What do you think it means?

That's a rather personal question!

Well technically that was King Solomon...according to historians and popular opinion.

Too extreme? That was the point. Some people go through things that are beyond their ability to handle. There is no guarantee that in this life we will be able to handle everything we face. The scripture says that we won't be tempted beyond what we can handle. To me, that's saying that we won't be able to blame anyone for our sins. We could have resisted them, but we didn't. I think it's unwise to teach kids that they won't ever have to go through anything they can't handle. That's unrealistic. That's my point. And I think that's what Snow was saying too.

I don't know. Would you say a three year old girl getting raped by her neighbor was a temptation to her?

Perhaps, but PC's point was that the promise was about tempations, not hardships or afflictions or personal trials.

Snow, I think this is all a case of, "It's not what you say, it's what they hear." I personally may agree with you over the substance of what was being discussed, but perhaps the objections are to how you expressed it (and how I did too, apparently). I don't think anyone is saying we have to agree with everything everyone posts. I think it's something else but I won't speak for the rest. I just know what I've felt directed at me.

Who put a quarter in you this week, Snow?

I'm one of those "it's in if it doesn't contradict the canon." B)

I got my stake and mallet, my silver bullets, my garlic and my holy water but...nothing seems to keep you away Jason! You're beyond all the evils I've ever encountered! (there, that better?)

So that's what that was...I thought it was heartburn.

That's awesome!