Guest LDS_Guy_1986 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 That might almost make sense except for the quote below (provided by Quinn), that illustrates the conferral of priesthood being tied to the endowment--an individual ceremony and ordinance--and not to any joint ordinance. But, then again, I think you illustrate another case of only seeing what it is you want to see.Say what you will but I just don't see how once receives a priesthood through the endowment. The endowment is a ceremony and rite, not a setting aside. Even if some early members held this view on the endowment, the current policy has no inferred priesthood so this point is moot. Like I said before unless it is a Doctrine (aka a permanent policy received through revelation) recorded in the scriptures then it is NOT valid. There could of been a policy where women were considered part of the priesthood through the endowment or marriage sealing under President Joseph Smith, but since this is not revelation that policy is subject to change under each President after Smith. The 15 Presidents since have not continued this policy hence there is no women in the priesthood. Like I previously said I have no problem with women holding priesthood positions, if and only if it is something done by the will of the Lord through his chosen Prophet Thomas S. Monson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LDS_Guy_1986 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 No offense to women or anything but the minute they ordain women into the priesthood and give them the same duties as men I will be through with the church. It is just so wrong on so many different levels.This is what many Saints said about Baptism for the Dead, the Endowment, and Temple Marriage in Joseph's day also. If the Lord reveals that women are to be ordained to the priesthood (I think it is unlikely but the Lord will be done not mine) through his chosen Prophet Thomas S. Monson I will welcome the Sisters into my Quorum with open arms. Until then the policy of 15 (and in my opinion all 16) Presidents of the Church stands that only men receive the Priesthood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Say what you will but I just don't see how once receives a priesthood through the endowment. The endowment is a ceremony and rite, not a setting aside. Even if some early members held this view on the endowment, the current policy has no inferred priesthood so this point is moot. Like I said before unless it is a Doctrine (aka a permanent policy received through revelation) recorded in the scriptures then it is NOT valid. There could of been a policy where women were considered part of the priesthood through the endowment or marriage sealing under President Joseph Smith, but since this is not revelation that policy is subject to change under each President after Smith. The 15 Presidents since have not continued this policy hence there is no women in the priesthood. Like I previously said I have no problem with women holding priesthood positions, if and only if it is something done by the will of the Lord through his chosen Prophet Thomas S. Monson.What you say here I won't bother to pick apart because it's relatively accurate. My objection was to your claim that no individual woman had ever held the priesthood, which was clearly wrong, according to historical record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LDS_Guy_1986 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 What you say here I won't bother to pick apart because it's relatively accurate. My objection was to your claim that no individual woman had ever held the priesthood, which was clearly wrong, according to historical record.Ok, show me in the ordination records of the individual or the scripture from the Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price and I will study and ponder it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Ok, show me in the ordination records of the individual or the scripture from the Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price and I will study and ponder it.I already did. It was all documented in Quinn's article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LDS_Guy_1986 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I already did. It was all documented in Quinn's article.I'm not seeing it, the only references to the preisthood and women I saw was the anointed quorum. If I am mistaken I am sorry, but I don't see any individual ordination presented, besides these so called "endowment ordinations". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan6329 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 This is what many Saints said about Baptism for the Dead, the Endowment, and Temple Marriage in Joseph's day also. If the Lord reveals that women are to be ordained to the priesthood (I think it is unlikely but the Lord will be done not mine) through his chosen Prophet Thomas S. Monson I will welcome the Sisters into my Quorum with open arms. Until then the policy of 15 (and in my opinion all 16) Presidents of the Church stands that only men receive the Priesthood.If a prophet says that the lord has revealed women should receive the priesthood I just probably won't believe it. Sorry to tell the truth but the priesthood is for men only and that is the way it should always be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm not seeing it, the only references to the preisthood and women I saw was the anointed quorum. If I am mistaken I am sorry, but I don't see any individual ordination presented, besides these so called "endowment ordinations".You must think you've found a very clever loop hole. I already explained here that women received the priesthood, and provided documentation through Quinn (the quote is here). Your best rebuttal so far was that reception of the priesthood through the endowment isn't actually reception of the priesthood. Yet, both Smith and Young taught that women received the priesthood specifically through the endowment ceremony. This leaves a couple of questions where the burden of proof falls on you:1) If Smith and Young were convinced that the priesthood was given through the endowment, what reason(s) do you have to disagree?2) Why exactly is reception of the priesthood through the endowment any less of a reception than through any other means of authoritative transmission of authority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 If a prophet says that the lord has revealed women should receive the priesthood I just probably won't believe it. Sorry to tell the truth but the priesthood is for men only and that is the way it should always be.It's good to know that sexism and bigotry are alive and well in the modern church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan6329 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Men and women have separate duties in the church and I will never accept the idea of women in the priesthood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Men and women have separate duties in the church and I will never accept the idea of women in the priesthood.You may want to think that through some, because women have held the priesthood, and continue to hold priesthood power (and I'm not the only person here that will support that claim). Perhaps you should do a little more study into priesthood and figure out what part(s) of priesthood women haven't had a part in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Men and women have separate duties in the church and I will never accept the idea of women in the priesthood.Nathan? I suspect you're having one on to try to get Moe to lose his cool.You can't say:If a prophet says that the lord has revealed women should receive the priesthood I just probably won't believe it. Sorry to tell the truth but the priesthood is for men only and that is the way it should always be.And then say that Men and women have separate duties in the church. If the Prophet says something that guides the future of the church and you disagree, then you are wrong. It's really that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan6329 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Let's just hope the prophet never says that because I really would prefer this religion not be liberalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 And then say that Men and women have separate duties in the church. If the Prophet says something that guides the future of the church and you disagree, then you are wrong. It's really that simple.My grandpa heard similar sentiments about blacks receiving the Priesthood, and I imagine similar sentiments were bandied about by some where it concerned the termination of the practice of polygamy. You hear the polygamy thing now but about the potential resumption of the practice. I wonder if people said the same thing about the possibility of Birth Control not being deemed sinful or being homosexual not inherently being a sin. It wouldn't surprise me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Let's just hope the prophet never says that because I really would prefer this religion not be liberalized."Prefer" doesn't enter in to it, Nathan. God teaches what he teaches. Religion isn't here to give you what you want. It's here to teach you what you need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LDS_Guy_1986 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Let's just hope the prophet never says that because I really would prefer this religion not be liberalized.You are entitled to your own opinion but how can you accept that we are lead by a Prophet of God if you are saying you would ignore any revelation in regards to women holding priesthood?If Prophet ever decides to change the priesthood requirements to allow women to hold the priesthood, it is the will of God that he do. I just fail to understand you logic that Revelation from God is liberalizing our fatih. Was the revelation that Gentiles could hold the priesthood (since the Bible says only Levites can hold the priesthood) or that black members could hold the priesthood liberalizing also?I don't understand how one can honesty accept the revelations of past prophets but say that they would reject the revelation of a living prophet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan6329 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm just saying I would have a hard time believing a prophet was speaking the truth if the allowed women in the priesthood. Say as time goes on we get a more liberal society and we constantly get harped on for not allowing women the same opportunities as men and then shortly thereafter they announce women will be allowed to hold the priesthood. Doesn't that seem kind of a like a coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm just saying I would have a hard time believing a prophet was speaking the truth if the allowed women in the priesthood. Say as time goes on we get a more liberal society and we constantly get harped on for not allowing women the same opportunities as men and then shortly thereafter they announce women will be allowed to hold the priesthood. Doesn't that seem kind of a like a coincidence?Doesn't 1978 seem like a coincidence?Doesn't 1890 seem like a coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan6329 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm not talking about those issues. There are much more logical explanations for those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 And what could be more logical than God saying, "It's time now for women to hold the priesthood?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LDS_Guy_1986 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 You must think you've found a very clever loop hole. I already explained here that women received the priesthood, and provided documentation through Quinn (the quote is here). Your best rebuttal so far was that reception of the priesthood through the endowment isn't actually reception of the priesthood. Yet, both Smith and Young taught that women received the priesthood specifically through the endowment ceremony. This leaves a couple of questions where the burden of proof falls on you:1) If Smith and Young were convinced that the priesthood was given through the endowment, what reason(s) do you have to disagree?2) Why exactly is reception of the priesthood through the endowment any less of a reception than through any other means of authoritative transmission of authority?1) Even if they did believe what you say they did, (which I don't agree with) a man or men can be convinced of anything it doesn't make it the will of God without a revelation through a Prophet of God. If they allegedly believed that God revealed that women should had they priesthood then why didn't they record the revelation in the D&C like all other revelations?2) See the problem is that there is only 1 authorized method of ordaining someone to the priesthood. It is recorded in the Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C and the Pearl of Great Price. You must be called of God and ordained by laying on of hands to an specific office in the priesthood. There is not doctrine for ordianation by any other method other than being called by God and ordained by laying on of hands. This concept of recieving the priesthood through the Endowment (or throught any other ordiance such as baptism or temple marriage) is in conflict with all the scriptures so even if a prophet proclaimed it to be a revelation I would have doubt (it would take a lot of prayer and fasting to receive a confirmation) because I would have to accept something that goes against all of our scriptures. Our God's house is an house of order there is only one way in through the straight and narrow gate. His only way of ordaining his priesthood is by laying on of hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DeborahC Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Personally, I don't have the desire nor the time to hold the priesthood... and my generation has seen an interesting cycle occur, from the 1960's when we burned our bras and insisted on "liberation" to the 2000's where the wisdom of mothers staying at home rearing children has become a strong desire and a recognition (for me) that perhaps the Prophets are wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan6329 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Well I intend to pray about this some more and ask of God not to make any rash changes then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LDS_Guy_1986 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm not talking about those issues. There are much more logical explanations for those.You can't accept some revelations and reject others, that's what the Pharsees do. You either accept all of Gods revelations or none. If the Peophet was to reveal women can hold the priesthood and you reject that you also reject all the modern-day revelations. There is a term for picking and choosing what doctrine to believe and what ones to ignore it's calle Apostasy. The Great Apostasy in the early Church was caused by rejecting and modifying the doctrine Christ set up and refusing to accept the revelations of the Apostles. If God commands, I follow!Now I don't think that women will ever be ordained to the preisthood but if the Prophet says to I will gladly follow the revelation of God as his humble servant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LDS_Guy_1986 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm just saying I would have a hard time believing a prophet was speaking the truth if the allowed women in the priesthood. Say as time goes on we get a more liberal society and we constantly get harped on for not allowing women the same opportunities as men and then shortly thereafter they announce women will be allowed to hold the priesthood. Doesn't that seem kind of a like a coincidence?Wow, you know that the revelation regarding the removal of the ban on blacks in the priesthood came during a lawsuit against the Church for discrimination!By your own arguments the lifting of this priesthood ban is not valid! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.