Women and priesthood

[MarginOfError]

It appears it's time for another one of these threads.

The build up to the quote below is as follows

MarginOfError

captmoroniRM

Suzie

MarginOfError

The night of my last reply, I read through some of that website's text. I have spent probably the last hour doing so again. Everything there doesn't pass the gospel "sniff" test. The conclusions being drawn from the essays on that site are not in harmony with what has been revealed as doctrine of the Church.

To start, no one claimed that these essays were doctrinal or that they reflect current Church policy. It's a book about mormon feminism, and it was published in 1992. I own a copy of the book, I've read it in its entirety, and I will be the first to admit that it's a mixture of insightful commentary and opinionated garbage. But the fact that some parts of the book were obviously written to criticize the Church does not change the fact that other parts are carefully crafted scholarly work.

The piece by Quinn, probably the most reliable piece in the book, is scholarly in nature, well referenced, and doesn't come with much of an agenda other than to describe what happened in history. This book is not the only place in which it appears, and it's a mistake to assume that it must be of the same quality of all the other works in that book.

The first reason why comes from scripture. Doctrine and Covenants 107 which reads:

There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Turns out, there's a third order, the Patriarchal Priesthood. It was briefly discussed by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, where he said that more would be taught about the order after the temple was completed. Smith didn't survive long enough to see the completion of the temple or to reveal more about it. Consequently, not much is known about it.

Also, editions of the Doctrine and Covenants were published in 1835 and in 1844. The 1844 edition was published after Smith's death, and presumably, his role in selecting additions was a bit more limited. In the new edition, only 8 sections were added: 103, 105, 112, 119, 124, 127, 128, and 135 (source)

So, it appears the Patriarchal order doesn't appear in our current canon for a few reasons; the chief players being that not much had been revealed yet and not much time was had to prepare the knowledge for publication.

All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.

This is correct, as the Melchizedek Priesthood is a superset that contains all of the rights, powers, authorities, and offices of the Melchizedek, Aaronic, and Patriarchal orders.

In all the essays I read or the accounts referenced was there a statement as to which priesthood women held. LDS doctrine teaches that a man of 12 years or older can have the Aaronic priesthood conferred upon him. 18 year old men receive the Melchizedek. All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to the Melchizedek priesthood. That is the word of God, revealed through his prophets, and I give a lot more weight to that than a collection of essays by LDS Femenists regardless of how many degrees they may hold.

That twelve year old males may hold the Aaronic priesthood is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of policy and procedure. For a time in the Church's history, the ordination ages were 12 for deacon, 15 for teacher, and 18 for priest. The Melchizedek priesthood was then conferred at some other time. Also, recall that Noah was ordained to the priesthood (the Melchizedek order, as the Aaronic didn't exist as a separate entity at the time) at the age of 10.

So while you're correct that all the authorities and offices in the Church are appendages to the Melchizedek priesthood, that statement doesn't necessarily exclude women from holding priesthood.

The second conflict I see is their historical referneces of women recieving authority use the word "ordained" or "appointed." This creates an idiomatic disconnect between the two time periods. All the references of beign ordained are usually followed by "to a calling" or "to act as. (specifically references made regarding the organization of the Relief Society.) Ordain and appoint can have many uses in giving someone a task, calling, duty, or priesthood office. Technnically by definition, according to dictionary.com, it can mean to give to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon, to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon, or to order, establish, or enact with authority.

To understand how ordained is used in conjuction with the priesthood, I point to the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood by John the Baptist. John declared "Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron." The language matches the words of how the priesthood is given today. You confer the priesthood upon them." Ordain is used to designate a specific office in the Church (which is why John did not "ordain" them at that time. It wasn't until the organization of the Church in 1830 that Joseph was "ordained" first Elder in the church. Thus, the priesthood is "conferred" and they are "ordained" to an office within the priesthood. Additional callings are ordinations are essentially ordinations, but one must have the priesthood conferred upon them first.

Again, this is a procedural point. And one that has been addressed in the Church before. We hashed out this topic with a former member of the forum a few months ago. The bulk of it starts with this post.

The conferral vs. ordination debate was quite an issue in the early part of the 20th century. There were those in Church leadership that insisted there must be conferral and then ordination, and those that insisted it didn't matter. In 1921, policy was revised to say that only ordination was necessary. In 1951, it was revised again (under a different president of the Church) to require conferral first. In the meantime, the First Presidency had to issue instruction that the choice of words didn't matter so long as the presiding authority authorized the ordinance. That still holds true today. As long as a stake president authorizes a man to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, the ordinance is recorded regardless of whether or not the person acting as voice remembers to confer first.

Interesting point of fact, there are fundamentalist groups that claim that the Church operates without proper authority because of the 30 year time period where conferral wasn't the mode of giving priesthood authority.

Another interesting point to bring up is that ordination to an office is not necessary when the priesthood is conferred. One example would be Noah, as we have no idea what office he was ordained to. The same can be said of Moses and Jethro. In fact, offices don't really appear as a common item until the priests of Aaron were assigned to run the Tabernacle of the Congregation.

One more really good example of this that isn't clouded by lack of historical record is Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. They received the Melchizedek Priesthood, presumably, in the summer of 1829. But they weren't ordained to be elders until April 6, 1830. The requirement that conferral accompany ordination is a notion that didn't really take root until the late 19th century.

Also, in the Book of Mormon, people were ordained, but the word confer only appears once in the context of priesthood, but it was Alma I conferring the office of high priest upon Alma II. When people were given the priesthood, in the Book of Mormon, the word "ordain" was used...a little backwards from what we practice today.

I might also point out that the Patriarchal order of the priesthood has no offices associated with it. Yet it is still conferred.

Third, the many cited examples of women healing by way of the priesthood show no indication that priesthood authority was used, even with the washings and annointings outside of the temple. A few examples:

Sarah Studevant Leavitt's laying hands on her daughter: She was commanded by a heavenly messenger to lay hands on her head and in the name of Jesus Christ and administer. It was through Christ's name that she was healed, and her faith in the Lord. No priesthood was used, despite the laying on of hands.

1849 Eliza Jane Merrick's annointing her sister with oil and praying for her to be healed-the oil was consecrated by priesthood authority (probably her husband as the account is not specific as to who she was talking to when she said she used the "oil consecrated by you") and the prayer was in the name of the Lord. No priesthood was invoked by her. It's only factor in the equation was consecrating the oil that was used for the healing of the sick and the afflicted.

Joseph Smith once declared "respecting females administering for the healing of the sick he further remarked, there could be no evil in it, if God gave His sanction by healing; that there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on and praying for the sick, than in wetting the face with water; it is no sin for anybody to administer that has faith, or if the sick have faith to be healed by their administration" -- Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

Ultimately whether one is administered to by a male priesthood holder, or a woman with sufficient faith, it is the power of God that performs the actual healing. It does not even have to be the prayer of one who a member of the Church. If a Catholic woman kneels and pleads to God with unwavering faith that her child be healed, if it be the Lord's will, he will be healed. Priesthood authority is not the key component and never has been.

This is all fine and dandy, and something many of us here have said a few times before. But you've still failed to address (or was it chosen to ignore) the many references by early church leaders of women being ordained to and receiving a fulness of the priesthood when they were endowed and joined the Anointed Quorum. You've failed to address that women were told before the Second Anointing with their husband that they had just received the priesthood. What say ye to that?

Lastly, why would the Church choose to hide it if women could and did hold the priesthood since the 1840s like you claim? What purpose would it serve? If there were a change in the policy which has been clear to the saints and accepted by the majority for 180 years, why isn't there an official declaration like the big policy changes of the past, that was unanimously upheld by the 1st Presidency and submitted for a sustaining vote in a general conference? Why does every article found on LDS.org and every scripture regarding the priesthood in the standard works speak of only men holding the priesthood?

Like Suzie said in the other thread, where's the official declaration that those of African descent were not eligible to hold the priesthood?

The question as to why the policy change has a multitude of plausible answers that range from bigotry to continuing revelation and is likely some combination of both.

Oh, and every article on LDS.org speaks of men holding the priesthood because in the past 100 years, we've married the ideas of priesthood power with priesthood authority and office. The marriage of those ideas wasn't nearly as strong in the mid 19th century.

And why would the Church hide it? I don't know. I could posit a number of scenarios, but none of them sound very friendly. But I think the key issue is that this is something we as are organizationally uncomfortable with. We're not sure how to reconcile our past with our present and so we just ignore it.

That is because only worthy men have ever had, or will have, the priesthood conferred to them,

False--as the historical record shows

and be ordained to one of its offices.

As far as we know, this is true. I know of no record in which a woman was ordained to priesthood office.

That is LDS doctrine.

Policy and procedure

While the essays you reference may quote Church leaders throughout its history, it conflicts with the doctrine of the priesthood in every way.

They only conflict with current practice and procedure. The problem you're having is that you're trying to interpret 1843 with a 2010 context. I know it's uncomfortable, but you have to interpret 1843 events in 1843 context.

Here are some other threads you can look at if you like

A mother's blessing

Women and the Priesthood

Did Women Ever Hold the Priesthood

[Traveler]

Often we tend to look at things within the church and kingdom as we do physics. In physics we have defined (by theory) that the universe is isotropic. This means that any law or understanding of physics must apply the same anywhere in the universe. At least that is one of the best explanations of isotropic I can make for most to understand moving forward in a discussion.

However, it appears to me that all the laws and orders that G-d has set forth throughout his creations are not necessarily isotropic. That is that the laws and orders of the Celestial Kingdom are different than the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms; which are different than the laws and orders that govern the current fallen state of man. Even within this fallen state of man there are different laws and orders that apply under the covenant given to Moses and the “New Covenant” established by Jesus Christ.

This is a most important notion to understand. The primary reason a person is excommunicated is in order to place that person under a covenant under which they can grow and progress without bringing upon them covenant maledictions for specific disobedience covenantal law.

When our African Saints were held from the priesthood it was because of the order of law under which the church was governed at the time. The reason for that covenant and law were never given and there has been much speculation as to why that has led to a lot of false beliefs.

Likewise the covenantal law under which the church and world is governed currently and during much of our past required that only men would be ordained to the priesthood. Again the reason is not given but never-the-less many have speculated. The problem with speculation is that many begin to think they have speculated the actual reason. The bottom line is that we do not know the reason.

I see nothing wrong with asking why. But keep in mind; no individual will be given a reason until it is given to the presiding high priest holding the keys of revelation. This is the order of our covenant. Any revelation give to the presiding high priest holding the keys of revelation can also be given to any worthy saint under the covenant.

I do not know why my wife cannot hold the priesthood. It seems to concern her less than it does me but I have speculated that the day will come that we will live under a covenantal law where we will possess the rights to our priesthood keys, covenants and laws jointly. Until then it appears I must learn to get along with her and her with me in order that I can function under the covenants and laws by which I have received the priesthood and her only connection to that priesthood being through my and her faithfulness to our marriage.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

MOE, I liked your post but do want to note that over-emphasizing the "patriarchal" order is where the Mormon fundamentalists went wrong--they basically concluded that the patriarchal order can exist (and be passed on) independently of the authorities that govern the LDS Church; and claimed it as their authority for continuing plural marriage. That's why you get Heber J. Grant and other LDS leaders of the 30s and 40s virulently denying (perhaps somewhat inaccurately) that the patriarchal order was an order at all.

When you want to waste a great deal of time, check out mormonfundamentalism.com--difficult to navigate, but some real gems in there.

Also, the following is just a general observation and not directed to anyone in particular: Would-be LDS social reformers who tout historical references to patriarchal priesthood as sufficient basis to change the status quo would do well to note that the FLDS were the ones who took this patriarchal priesthood business and ran with it--but it hasn't done FLDS women a whole lot of good, practically speaking.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[bert10]

O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. (Lord via Isaiah) A lot of people are reluctant to teach the truth. Though a woman may not hold the priesthood at this time nor have authority over the man...they need not be Spiritually powerless.

Hope, Love, Faith and charity is not dependent on priesthood nor on anything else. IT is Righteousness that brings the power of GOD in our lives.

However, none have any authority to change the order of Authority that GOD set up at the FALL.

The order of authority between God to man and from man to woman was set at the fall by God Himself. If you noticed GOD first addressed Adam for an account for His family...not Eve. T

The Order of the Punishment is reversed it began with the most guilty which was the Serpent, then to Eve, then to Adam.

It was also taught in the NT...that the Head of woman is man and the head of man is Christ and the head of Christ is the FATHER.

A woman cannot hold authority over men until GOD changes the order. See Genesis and the teachings of the Apostles in the NT.

Hence the prophecy of Isaiah for our...day...

Isaiah 3:12 - As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Two great ills of the family today ....Children have become spoiled brats and women seek to counsel their head...even more than this...wear the pants in the family.

1 Corinthians 11:3 - But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is GOD.

The order set in Genesis..and also the problems [Curse] given to each Gender.

Genesis 3:15 - And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Genesis 3:17 - And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Until God changes the ORDER a Woman cannot hold authority over man in society nor in the Church. Miriam was a prophetess and yet she was not given and office of authority in the Church

The Man/Husband is responsible before God for the Spiritual teachings of his family. It is He that GOD will first demand an account of it.

1 Corinthians 14:34 - Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1 Corinthians 14:35

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:11 - Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1 Timothy 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence

Woman are allowed to teach each other in certain circumstances and children.

As the Lord prophesied...concerning His people...that the leaders would lose their way and lead the people in error .....and Woman shall rule over them and children become the oppressors of their elders.

bert10

It appears it's time for another one of these threads.

The build up to the quote below is as follows

MarginOfError

captmoroniRM

Suzie

MarginOfError

To start, no one claimed that these essays were doctrinal or that they reflect current Church policy. It's a book about mormon feminism, and it was published in 1992. I own a copy of the book, I've read it in its entirety, and I will be the first to admit that it's a mixture of insightful commentary and opinionated garbage. But the fact that some parts of the book were obviously written to criticize the Church does not change the fact that other parts are carefully crafted scholarly work.

The piece by Quinn, probably the most reliable piece in the book, is scholarly in nature, well referenced, and doesn't come with much of an agenda other than to describe what happened in history. This book is not the only place in which it appears, and it's a mistake to assume that it must be of the same quality of all the other works in that book.

Turns out, there's a third order, the Patriarchal Priesthood. It was briefly discussed by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, where he said that more would be taught about the order after the temple was completed. Smith didn't survive long enough to see the completion of the temple or to reveal more about it. Consequently, not much is known about it.

Also, editions of the Doctrine and Covenants were published in 1835 and in 1844. The 1844 edition was published after Smith's death, and presumably, his role in selecting additions was a bit more limited. In the new edition, only 8 sections were added: 103, 105, 112, 119, 124, 127, 128, and 135 (source)

So, it appears the Patriarchal order doesn't appear in our current canon for a few reasons; the chief players being that not much had been revealed yet and not much time was had to prepare the knowledge for publication.

This is correct, as the Melchizedek Priesthood is a superset that contains all of the rights, powers, authorities, and offices of the Melchizedek, Aaronic, and Patriarchal orders.

That twelve year old males may hold the Aaronic priesthood is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of policy and procedure. For a time in the Church's history, the ordination ages were 12 for deacon, 15 for teacher, and 18 for priest. The Melchizedek priesthood was then conferred at some other time. Also, recall that Noah was ordained to the priesthood (the Melchizedek order, as the Aaronic didn't exist as a separate entity at the time) at the age of 10.

So while you're correct that all the authorities and offices in the Church are appendages to the Melchizedek priesthood, that statement doesn't necessarily exclude women from holding priesthood.

Again, this is a procedural point. And one that has been addressed in the Church before. We hashed out this topic with a former member of the forum a few months ago. The bulk of it starts with this post.

The conferral vs. ordination debate was quite an issue in the early part of the 20th century. There were those in Church leadership that insisted there must be conferral and then ordination, and those that insisted it didn't matter. In 1921, policy was revised to say that only ordination was necessary. In 1951, it was revised again (under a different president of the Church) to require conferral first. In the meantime, the First Presidency had to issue instruction that the choice of words didn't matter so long as the presiding authority authorized the ordinance. That still holds true today. As long as a stake president authorizes a man to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, the ordinance is recorded regardless of whether or not the person acting as voice remembers to confer first.

Interesting point of fact, there are fundamentalist groups that claim that the Church operates without proper authority because of the 30 year time period where conferral wasn't the mode of giving priesthood authority.

Another interesting point to bring up is that ordination to an office is not necessary when the priesthood is conferred. One example would be Noah, as we have no idea what office he was ordained to. The same can be said of Moses and Jethro. In fact, offices don't really appear as a common item until the priests of Aaron were assigned to run the Tabernacle of the Congregation.

One more really good example of this that isn't clouded by lack of historical record is Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. They received the Melchizedek Priesthood, presumably, in the summer of 1829. But they weren't ordained to be elders until April 6, 1830. The requirement that conferral accompany ordination is a notion that didn't really take root until the late 19th century.

Also, in the Book of Mormon, people were ordained, but the word confer only appears once in the context of priesthood, but it was Alma I conferring the office of high priest upon Alma II. When people were given the priesthood, in the Book of Mormon, the word "ordain" was used...a little backwards from what we practice today.

I might also point out that the Patriarchal order of the priesthood has no offices associated with it. Yet it is still conferred.

This is all fine and dandy, and something many of us here have said a few times before. But you've still failed to address (or was it chosen to ignore) the many references by early church leaders of women being ordained to and receiving a fulness of the priesthood when they were endowed and joined the Anointed Quorum. You've failed to address that women were told before the Second Anointing with their husband that they had just received the priesthood. What say ye to that?

Like Suzie said in the other thread, where's the official declaration that those of African descent were not eligible to hold the priesthood?

The question as to why the policy change has a multitude of plausible answers that range from bigotry to continuing revelation and is likely some combination of both.

Oh, and every article on LDS.org speaks of men holding the priesthood because in the past 100 years, we've married the ideas of priesthood power with priesthood authority and office. The marriage of those ideas wasn't nearly as strong in the mid 19th century.

And why would the Church hide it? I don't know. I could posit a number of scenarios, but none of them sound very friendly. But I think the key issue is that this is something we as are organizationally uncomfortable with. We're not sure how to reconcile our past with our present and so we just ignore it.

False--as the historical record shows

As far as we know, this is true. I know of no record in which a woman was ordained to priesthood office.

Policy and procedure

They only conflict with current practice and procedure. The problem you're having is that you're trying to interpret 1843 with a 2010 context. I know it's uncomfortable, but you have to interpret 1843 events in 1843 context.

Here are some other threads you can look at if you like

A mother's blessing

Women and the Priesthood

Did Women Ever Hold the Priesthood

Edited January 1, 2011 by bert10

[mightynancy]

1 Corinthians 14:34 - Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1 Corinthians 14:35

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:11 - Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1 Timothy 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence

So, how do you reconcile this with some of our practices today? A Primary president is "over" the Primary teachers, many of whom are men.

Women speak in church all the time, including in General Conference.

In the current model, women serve in the Ward Council as equal partners (at least in my ward).

Are we under condemnation for the above?

[IAmTheWork]

So, how do you reconcile this with some of our practices today?

My first thoughts are that it's due to differences in cultures and times. The early apostles lived in a very patriarchal society of course, where for a woman to stand up and speak out would in most cases be seen as unacceptable boldness, and most certainly in the synagogue. Heck, even until fairly recent times here the Rule Of Thumb was still a recorded law, where a man could beat his wife with a rod only if it was no thicker than his thumb. (I wonder how many men were battered in their sleep with the milking stool..?!)

Personally, I like the company of happy and strong women, but not strident ones with agendas. And I like the company of happy and strong men, but not strident ones with agendas.

[Suzie]

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!

[Wingnut]

In the current model, women serve in the Ward Council as equal partners (at least in my ward).

It's not just your ward. The new handbook states specifically that women should be listened to on the Ward Council just as much as men should be. During the training broadcast in November, I counted at least 4 different mentions of the same thing, too.

Council members are encouraged to speak honestly, both from their personal experience and from their positions as organization leaders. Both men and women should feel that their comments are valued as full participants. The bishop seeks input from Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary leaders in all matters considered by the ward council. The viewpoint of women is sometimes different from that of men, and it adds essential perspective to understanding and responding to members’ needs.

CHI 4.6.1

[bert10]

Woman could not have been legally given the priesthood. They can do many things but they cannot have the priesthood which would put them in a position of power and authority over the man and this cannot be until GOD changes the order..that He set at the fall.

Until GOD changes it...the desire of woman shall be to their husband and their husband shall rule over them. There is no other way around this. Anyone who teach to undo what GOD has ordained are in darkness and they shall reap great condemnations for doing so.

Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

I will add another verse that I did not do so previously here that further describes the salvation of women.

1 Timothy 2:14 - And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Timothy 2:15 - Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety

Did you read the quote of Isaiah from God? About children being oppressors and woman ruling over men...and to whom did GOD lay the charge to for doing this?

As for my people they who which lead thee cause thee to err

Isaiah 3:12 - As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Please read my other posts on this. I tell you the truth the divorce rate cannot go down until men and woman choose to walk in the paths that God has ordained.

bert10

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!

Edited January 2, 2011 by bert10

[MarginOfError]

So if God instructed Joseph Smith to give women the priesthood, wouldn't that mean that God was changing the order? Or are you saying that Smith was in the wrong to do so? That women held the priesthood is a matter of historical fact, bert. It's just a question of whether you think Smith was in the right or the wrong when he did it.

[Suzie]

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.

[Traveler]

MarginOfError and Suzie: In my opinion there are too many assumptions being made concerning priesthood leadership. For anyone serving in a calling (including leadership and specifically priesthood leadership) realizes that seldom is an individual “commanded in all things”. The oath and covenant of the Priesthood (D&C 84) outlines the acceptance of our appointed leaders. It is interesting that this oath and covenant does not indicate acceptance if we think they are right and rejection if we think they are wrong. The covenant is that we sustain them - including our support.

There are protocols whereby one can sustain and support their appointed priesthood leaders when there are conditions of question and concern. In a personal conversation with an Apostle serving at the time in the first presidency, I asked if we are suppose to support our priesthood leaders when we absolutely know for sure they are wrong. I was told -> To support my priesthood leaders, especially when they are wrong because they will need my support more then, than at any other time.

Just because Joseph Smith ordained women to the priesthood does not mean that he was commanded by the L-rd to do so. Nor does it mean that he should be condemned if it was a mistake or something he assumed of himself. The promise to us is that we will not be lead astray by following our appointed leaders. It is important to understand this means they we will not be condemned for the errors our leaders make. But that we should be willing to follow as we are instructed. If we cannot sustain one another being that none of us are without flaw then it is impossible that we can be of one heart.

Having served in the military - it is important to follow leaders - even when leaders are wrong. The reason is that we have learned in history that it is better for a united body acting completely together doing something foolish than an uncoordinated effort with rebellious elements trying to do something brilliant. I believe we will be “tested and tired in all things”. One very important test is to serve under a leader that is not as brilliant or as good at doing as certain task as we think we are.

The Traveler

[IAmTheWork]

In my opinion there are too many assumptions being made concerning priesthood leadership.

While I'd disagree kindly with some points you made there, I feel similarly about making assumptions. Church leaders are men (and women), and so go wrong - a lot. Should we think that because they're called to an 'exalted' office that they're near perfect? I don't think so for a minute. Should we judge them because they go wrong? I don't think so. If we decide that the church isn't all true, should we think that everything about the gospel and eternal life isn't true? I don't think so.

I have another thought on women and the priesthood: They already have it. Here's my logic on this one. We hear about our heavenly father all the time, in every Christian church, because they're all to a greater or lesser degree patriarchal. What of mother? Is she a bystander, or of lesser importance? Well, there are some LDS doctrinal references which say no, of course not. But when you think about it, they don't explain or tell us much. So she's still a shadowy figure to most of us. But shadowy or hidden she is not (sorry for sounding like Yoda there!)

In all cultures, a mother and father figure have been revered as gods, and parents of us all. Shakti and Shiva, The Sky Father and Earth Mother, the Sun god and Moon goddess, and so on. I know, church doctrine teaches that these beliefs are just watered down versions of the truth, lost souls hanging on to shreds of broken and mistaken remnants. Yet the mother and father of all are always there, regardless of what we think of old cultural beliefs.

Prophets tell us to use our intelligence, but not to look 'beyond the mark'. In other words, don't confuddle yourself with erroneous logic. Ok, so in simple terms, the mother/father and parent/child theme is inherent in everything human. Both parents help create, and neither can do so naturally without the other. So... logically, it would suggest that in the same way our spiritual parents have equal 'power' in things. As inheritors of all powers due to our amazing family line, so do we. Not man more powerful or in authority than woman, not woman more powerful or in authority than man. Many of the powers we're taught about in church actually exist in each of us anyway. That's common sense. If there isn't a spark there can't be a fire - it's impossible. You don't make a shark fly, or a duck able to breath underwater.

So, at the risk of sounding daft, let me say that men and women each have inherent spiritual powers given to us by our heavenly parents, and that both can exercise them equally and to amazing effect without either needing permission from the other. Oh, it may seem that way, and there are accounts of a priesthood holder 'giving permission' to his wife or another to perform some ordinance or healing, but did anyone ask her to give an honest account..? I suspect that in most cases she'd have said, "Yeah, well I knew I could anyway. Who needs trousers?"

I understand the idea and issues of needing to have structure and organisation, but I think the issue of men and women, and who's 'in authority', is simply one of human perspective. Heavenly beings, male and female, have no axe to grind, no issues about power or authority, and one is not above or below the other. They have no feelings of oppression, and no need to 'prove themselves'. Only we do.

How does all of this relate to the church and members right now? Delicately, I'd say. :)

Edited January 2, 2011 by IAmTheWork
Spelling.

[Backroads]

IAm makes a lot of great points. I believe that God is no respecter of persons, male or female. Perhaps it's the feminist in me, but I do not think that the ultimate reasons behind who and who does not have the priesthood at any point in time as anything to do with one gender being above the other.

Is it God's will? Is it church policy? Is it one of those things that has yet to be sorted out? I have no idea and I don't care and I don't see a reason to care.

The posts of historical/doctrinal info have proved most interesting, thank-you.

[IAmTheWork]

Hey Backroads. I have to agree, not least because you said I made great points. A narcissist is a kind of flower, right..?

I tend to think that 'feminism' only exists, and only needs to exist, because men and women have fallen out over things which in the eternal sense aren't important, but in the short term are struggles for power living here on earth, as we do.

If you can be a strong and empowered man, or a strong and empowered woman, living with someone you love and who appreciates and adores your power for the simple joy in the sense of difference, then you'll set each other on fire in the most wonderful way. I think the church teaches that, but wonder how many couples have such joy in their day to day lives..?

[Suzie]

MarginOfError and Suzie: In my opinion there are too many assumptions being made concerning priesthood leadership. For anyone serving in a calling (including leadership and specifically priesthood leadership) realizes that seldom is an individual “commanded in all things”. The oath and covenant of the Priesthood (D&C 84) outlines the acceptance of our appointed leaders. It is interesting that this oath and covenant does not indicate acceptance if we think they are right and rejection if we think they are wrong. The covenant is that we sustain them - including our support.

There are protocols whereby one can sustain and support their appointed priesthood leaders when there are conditions of question and concern. In a personal conversation with an Apostle serving at the time in the first presidency, I asked if we are suppose to support our priesthood leaders when we absolutely know for sure they are wrong. I was told -> To support my priesthood leaders, especially when they are wrong because they will need my support more then, than at any other time.

Just because Joseph Smith ordained women to the priesthood does not mean that he was commanded by the L-rd to do so. Nor does it mean that he should be condemned if it was a mistake or something he assumed of himself. The promise to us is that we will not be lead astray by following our appointed leaders. It is important to understand this means they we will not be condemned for the errors our leaders make. But that we should be willing to follow as we are instructed. If we cannot sustain one another being that none of us are without flaw then it is impossible that we can be of one heart.

Having served in the military - it is important to follow leaders - even when leaders are wrong. The reason is that we have learned in history that it is better for a united body acting completely together doing something foolish than an uncoordinated effort with rebellious elements trying to do something brilliant. I believe we will be “tested and tired in all things”. One very important test is to serve under a leader that is not as brilliant or as good at doing as certain task as we think we are.

The Traveler

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:

“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them even if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.”(JS, Millenial Star, Volume 14, No. 38, Pages 593-595.)

(Apostle Charles W. Penrose)

"President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill."

[Suzie]

The promise to us is that we will not be lead astray by following our appointed leaders. It is important to understand this means they we will not be condemned for the errors our leaders make. But that we should be willing to follow as we are instructed.

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?

[Elphaba]

A mother's blessing

Women and the Priesthood

Did Women Ever Hold the Priesthood

Those were quite the blasts from the past. Made me miss the good ol' days with Snow.

Elph

[Traveler]

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?

Our covenant is to follow those appointed. By covenant we are also able to be prompted by the spirit. Here is how I believe covenants work if there is error. If we follow our appointed leaders and they lead in error they will be held accountable. Under the law we are protected in that we were obedient to our covenant. However, there is another choice that can have more than one implication.

We can go before G-d and openly take responsibility - thereby reliving the leader of responsibility and taking instead the responsibility upon ourselves. It is possible under the law and order of proxy to take responsibility before G-d - Thus if we are wrong we heap condemnation upon ourselves. If we are correct we take away the condemnation of our leaders that are in error. But this cannot be done with vengeance for such is not of G-d - this means that we can only act in this manner out of love and respect for the betterment of our leader in error.

Most often when our leaders are in error, we, by our nature, want to condemn them - in part through our disobedience. But if there is to be condemnation then by disobedience we have taken that condemnation upon ourselves and freed our leaders so far as we are concerned. If suffering is required then we have taken upon ourselves that obligation to suffer in their behalf. Try to understand - this can be a good thing for both.

There is one other possibility - we can be supportive and obedient and submit our concern and witness to a higher authority. The highest of all authority is the L-rd and if our leader is not removed or replaced through the L-rd -> it is my highest recommendation that we remain in the end loyal and supportive of appointed leaders.

If this is confusing to you Suzie - remember our covenant is to our living leaders. And for all my studying and research there has never been a “change in policy, doctrine, or procedures where the current leaders have condemned previous leaders. I am quite sure that condemnation of appointed leaders (the L-rd’s anointed) within the kingdom of G-d to be contrary to covenant and a grievous mistake

The Traveler

[IAmTheWork]

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?

I'm going to go with the same quote from Suzie, because boy is that a good point. How does anyone know that a prophet can't/won't lead them astray? And if they do make mistakes, does that stop them being a prophet? Your answers on a postcard, please...

Well, my feeling is that this whole prophet business has got somewhat out of hand. (And please, take this post in a jokey sense, or it'll make no sense!)

I mean, come on. The lord being a super-incarnated being of vast power, has to pass on snippets of useful information in the form of guidelines to help us dumbos see through the mess of life so we can get some idea as to where we could be if we relaxed and chose peace instead of continual mania. What do people do? They take the information and make a whole big deal of it, arguing constantly about what he meant.

Now, take prophets. Boy, do they have a problem! They can't be perfect, because if they were they'd have to be gone from this ball of earth. They have to be ordinary people like you and me. But they have this curse; a super-incarnated being tells them what things are about, but only in snippets, and they have to pass it on to everyone else. What's worse is that they don't remember every detail of the information or their brief encounters with the super-incarnated being, because it's simply too much for the human brain to cope with.

Now flash forward a few generations, while said prophets have been trying desperately to help each other understand how this all works, and with a huge crowd of followers worshipping them and hanging upon their every word. People write everything down, the prophet coughs and they put signs up, he burps and they throw a party. Does "The Life Of Brian" mean anything here..? ("He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!")

My advice? Go back to 'stupid is as stupid does'. Stop worshipping the current or any past prophet. Think of them as blokes who kind of wish they weren't in the position they're in. You probably won't be far wrong. Think of them washing the dishes, or waking up sweaty in the morning, or being annoyed with the kids.

Now, if you do that, can you still be so concerned about who said what, and why? Do you really need to compare one guy's talk with another? Do you need to keep notes to pick faults between what one said as opposed to another..? I don't think so. If you do, then please, have a happy life pulling every last detail to bits! If you can.

Oh, and as this thread is about women and the priesthood, and I already said that they have it anyway, what are they doing while the prophet guy is holding his head in his hands and wondering how to deal with it all? Simple. She's saying, "For goodness sake dear, eat your breakfast", and rolling her eyes at the thought of getting through another busy day.

Edited January 3, 2011 by IAmTheWork
My spacebar isn't working!

[Suzie]

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.

[IAmTheWork]

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.

Sure Suzie, though I'm not certain I can explain..!

One of the biggest issues which faces people these days I think, is that we've lost touch with the truly spiritual. By which I mean that we're brought up with so-called logical thinking, and can't see anything beyond it. In fact, we're taught that rational thinking is the only way which makes sense, the only way which is true. This affects everyone.

Non-rational perception is not madness, it's not a 'failing to see correctly'. How do you think a scientist would fare when faced with the lord walking across a lake? Madness? Who's madness? The problem is that the church has to define everything in terms of 'the modern madness'. I don't, so you might have some difficulty, perhaps, in understanding the 'reasoning' behind some things I say. No big deal; I'm not so special or different, I just see things in a perhaps different way.

If you're a woman, you have the priesthood. By which I mean all the creative and subtle yet powerful forces required to change reality. Men do. Women do. Neither is more or less powerful than the other. Christ showed us this in the walking on water incident, yes? Did he say to the apostle, "Sheesh, you're pathetic. You can only do this if I say you can"? Nope. He said, "Ohh, don't lack faith! Come on, you can do this too - anyone can!" And we can. People do.

So, in an ordinary 'Mormon' sense, do you think that when a woman puts her hands on a sick child and helps heal them in an instant because a priesthood holder isn't there that she did less than the priesthood holder could have done? Do you think that she could only do it because her husband held the priesthood? Do you think that the lord blessed her to do it - but only as a temporary contract for a minute or two - so someone could be healed even though she didn't have the power?

Sheesh. (Meant kindly, and only as a generalisation). :)

Edited January 3, 2011 by IAmTheWork
Clarification.

[Suzie]

So, in an ordinary 'Mormon' sense, do you think that when a woman puts her hands on a sick child and helps heal them in an instant because a priesthood holder isn't there that she did less than the priesthood holder could have done? Do you think that she could only do it because her husband held the priesthood? Do you think that the lord blessed her to do it - but only as a temporary contract for a minute or two - so someone could be healed even though she didn't have the power?

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?

[IAmTheWork]

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?

I don't know. I don't care! A goddess is the equal of a god. :) Although in terms of whether conferring the priesthood as ordinance and authority to women, I can see that it can be an interesting subject.

Edited January 3, 2011 by IAmTheWork
Clarification.

[bytor2112]

I don't know. I don't care! A goddess is the equal of a god. :)

True indeed. We must become ONE...husband and wife in order to have Eternal Life or to be as a god if you will.