Women and priesthood

[MarginOfError]

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?

Under this line of reasoning, the Patriarchal Order of the Priesthood isn't doctrinal either, because it does not appear in the standard works. Yet, multiple church leaders have confirmed that it exists and was taught by Smith.

Keep in mind, also, that most of the Doctrine and Covenants and we know it was published by 1835. There was another edition printed in 1844 in which only 8 additional sections were printed. The Relief Society wasn't established until 1842 and the Patriarchal Priesthood wasn't introduced until 1843. Smith was killed in 1844. So, as it turns out, there were 9 years between editions of the Doctrine and Covenants in which a lot was revealed but very little canonized. It's also interesting to note that Smith said more would be revealed about some of these things after the temple was completed, but he did not survive the completion of the temple. President Young seems to have had other things on his mind--for instance, orchestrating a mass migration to the Salt Lake Valley.

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's also only one method of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost--by the laying on of hands. Yet, record exists of the Lamanites being baptized and showing such faith that the were baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost "and they knew it not" (3 Nephi 9:20). So if the Holy Ghost may be conferred without the laying on of hands, what's to say the priesthood could not be conferred by the laying on of hands?

Also, you should go back and read my original post in this thread. I explained there that there was a time in the Church's history where people exercised priesthood authority without having been ordained to a priesthood office. It was from summer of 1829 to April 6th, 1830, when Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith had the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred upon them, but were not ordained to any office in that priesthood until the formal organization of the Church. Is it your claim that all of the work done in the interim was invalid?

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.

You mean that it goes against your understanding of the 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.

Well, I already provided a counter example to the "only way" theory. At the current time, it would seem that the only approved procedure for conferring priesthood is through the laying on of hands. But such practices are procedural and may be changed. In fact, procedures for priesthood blessings using the laying on of hands has been changed in the past. Still, the historical record is pretty clear that women were receiving the priesthood.

[MarginOfError]

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.

Irony

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.

That's a little bit strong. I wouldn't call someone apostate just because they aren't ready to accept a new policy or practice. I'd call them works in progress.

[MarginOfError]

Well I intend to pray about this some more and ask of God not to make any rash changes then.

That's a more solid attitude. Personally, I like the attitude of asking the Lord to help me understand. There isn't much I can do to persuade him one way or the other, but I do think it's fair that we get to ask for guidance in understanding.

[Nathan6329]

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!

That is a very flawed argument though, because the church is a private organization which funds are contributed through it's own members. I think that was just a theory in my opinion that either someone made up, or the church took it too seriously.

For example, a black guy can't sue the KKK for not allowing him membership.

Why is an employer not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation and yet the Boy Scouts of America can? Just because someone is gay they don't have a case that they are a harm to the children.

So every time someone mentions some garbage about a lawsuit I toss it out because they would have never won and I think the church knew that. I think maybe it could have opened their eyes to the fact that the threat of having blacks serving as leaders creating hate crimes against the religion like it would have in the late 1800s to the 1960s was no longer there due to a more acceptable society in which we learned from people like Sitting Bull, Chief Joseph, and Martin Luther King that it is wrong to deny people blessings based on race, but do I believe the church was really afraid of losing a court case over it? No.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

There is no separate Partriarch Priesthood, the office of Patriarch is held in the Melkesidek Priesthood. Once more unless it is a revelation isn't doctrine.

You are somewhat correct all revelation isn't contained in the standard works. We have the Family: A Proclamation to the World which was recieved by revelation but isn't doctrine but revelation from God reaffirming the sacred nature of the Family and how it is the Saints duty to defend marriage.

Of course this revelation is not doctrine it is a proclimation so it is not in the D&C but is still scripture.

You are wrong Section 138, Offical Declaration 1 & 2 were received years after the death f Jospeh Smith and were canonized into the D&C (OD 2 was canonized in 1979, only 32 years ago!)

If it isn't canonized it isn't scripture, when we jar received new Doctrine we receive canonize it in the D&C anythig else is policy and is not revelation from God.

If these things you speak of were doctrine they would be in the D&C but they are not because they were at best policy and is not even close to doctrine.

There is no loophole or other way to make doctrine except through valid canonized revelation recorded in our scriptures.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

That is a very flawed argument though, because the church is a private organization which funds are contributed through it's own members. I think that was just a theory in my opinion that either someone made up, or the church took it too seriously.

For example, a black guy can't sue the KKK for not allowing him membership.

Why is an employer not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation and yet the Boy Scouts of America can? Just because someone is gay they don't have a case that they are a harm to the children.

So every time someone mentions some garbage about a lawsuit I toss it out because they would have never won and I think the church knew that. I think maybe it could have opened their eyes to the fact that the threat of having blacks serving as leaders creating hate crimes against the religion like it would have in the late 1800s to the 1960s was no longer there due to a more acceptable society in which we learned from people like Sitting Bull, Chief Joseph, and Martin Luther King that it is wrong to deny people blessings based on race, but do I believe the church was really afraid of losing a court case over it? No.

I'm not saying yet were afraid of losing a lawsuit but what I am saying is that when the lawsuit was about to go to court the revelation wa received making the point moot and unable to be tried. This saved the Church the public embarisment of trial even though coviction was unlikely the bad PR was dividing the Church.

You said that you can't accept that a revelation regarding women holding the priesthood as valid because it was received when the Church is under pressure to give women the priesthood.

The only way you can accept that baloney is to declare Offical Declaration 1 (polygamy ended) and Official Declaration 2 (lifting of the Priesthood ban on black men) as equally invalid since both revelations were received under the exact same pressure from outside sources.

You can choose to believe what you want but you can only cannot defen your position without destroying both OD 1&2. There is no logic or loophole that magically erases te tremendous pressure that the Church was under in 1890 and 1987 when these revelations were received.

Like I said you can accept all revalation or one once you start picking and choosing you are following the same pattern of the Early Church of Christ and falling into apostasy from truth.

[MarginOfError]

There is no separate Partriarch Priesthood, the office of Patriarch is held in the Melkesidek Priesthood. Once more unless it is a revelation isn't doctrine.

The Patriarchal Order of the Priesthood and the office of patriarch in the Melchizedek Priesthood are two entirely different things.

Go back and read this post and then get back to me.

You are somewhat correct all revelation isn't contained in the standard works. We have the Family: A Proclamation to the World which was recieved by revelation but isn't doctrine but revelation from God reaffirming the sacred nature of the Family and how it is the Saints duty to defend marriage.

Of course this revelation is not doctrine it is a proclimation so it is not in the D&C but is still scripture.

I think you've got this backward. The Family: A Proclamation to the World explains LDS doctrine concerning family life. You could define it as scripture, depending on how loose a definition of scripture you use, but under the terms you've been using thus far (essentially, canonized scripture), it does not qualify.

You are wrong Section 138, Offical Declaration 1 & 2 were received years after the death f Jospeh Smith and were canonized into the D&C (OD 2 was canonized in 1979, only 32 years ago!)

I failed to be specific enough in stating that I intended to compare the editions published before Smith's death. I assumed that the context of the discussion made that obvious. For that I apologize. I linked to an article about this history of the Doctrine and Covenants in my first post in this thread. The article includes a full history of the editions and what sections were added when.

If it isn't canonized it isn't scripture, when we jar received new Doctrine we receive canonize it in the D&C anythig else is policy and is not revelation from God.

No, it may very well be revelation from God, it just isn't canonized.

Side note: think about the implication of canonizing a single new revelation. That means updating the Doctrine and Covenants, reprinting it for millions of members around the world, and disposing of the hundreds of thousands of copies left in warehouses. The expense and logistical difficulty makes it a bit impractical to canonize a single revelation at a time. Which is probably why new editions have only been printed about once every 30 - 50 years since 1844.

If these things you speak of were doctrine they would be in the D&C but they are not because they were at best policy and is not even close to doctrine.

I never claimed it was doctrine. I only said it was historical fact that women held the priesthood. I'm happy to accept the statement that such was the policy at the time. If it were only policy, I'm still right.

However, the Patriarchal Priesthood is doctrinally sound, even if it doesn't appear in the Doctrine and Covenants (most likely because we never received the rest of the revelations about it).

There is no loophole or other way to make doctrine except through valid canonized revelation recorded in our scriptures.

That certainly isn't true. Doctrine is doctrine, whether it be found in the scriptures or not. The scriptures (more specifically, the Standard Works) are the measuring stick by which we evaluate new doctrines. But the Standard Works alone certainly are not complete.

[Nathan6329]

I am not saying the revelation in 1978 is phony, but I think they may have waited too long to acknowledge it because I don't believe you receive revelations until there is much prayer involved in it which is what they did in Kirtland, Ohio before receiving the word of wisdom which never would have happened had Emma not have been sick of cleaning all the tobacco spit between the ceiling cracks.

However, I guess I wasn't totally correct but I just have a bad feeling about something like that ever changing because all of the prophets and leaders throughout the Bible and Book of Mormon have been men and I hold a conservative attitude to that. It isn't the same as giving up smoking or an issue of racism.

Should a woman try to sue the church for discrimination, I don't think the church would pray for a revelation and if they did I still don't think they'd budge, which is why even if a prophet does say he received such a revelation that will be something very huge bigger than anything that has been changed before and I would have to pray for weeks about that one and my faith in the church might be shaken.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Irony

That's a little bit strong. I wouldn't call someone apostate just because they aren't ready to accept a new policy or practice. I'd call them works in progress.

I never said anyone was an apostate, I never would call anyone an apostate. Judge notnleast us be judged.

What I said was that picking and choosing what to follow is apostasy, the scripture is extremely clear on this. I warn against falling into apostasy and nothin more.

The term apostasy is a bold term but then too is it bold to publicly question the revelations of previous prophets that are canonized into the D&C.

Like I said earlier I dumpy warn that such thoughts lead to apostasy. I never intended to call anyone an appstate and if this was implied I am terribly sorry because it was unintentional.

[MarginOfError]

However, I guess I wasn't totally correct but I just have a bad feeling about something like that ever changing because all of the prophets and leaders throughout the Bible and Book of Mormon have been men and I hold a conservative attitude to that. It isn't the same as giving up smoking or an issue of racism.

With this statement, you've won me onto your side, and I think this is a very honest and common feeling. It's hard to go against what we've been brought up with and what we've always known. And it's okay to be uncomfortable with change. I just get queasy when people are so uncomfortable with change that they refuse to investigate its merits (if that makes sense).

[Nathan6329]

Like I said, whether or not women are capable of doing just as good work for the church as men isn't the point. However, I do think women being part of a priesthood would really completely change everything the church is and has ever been.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

The Patriarchal Order of the Priesthood and the office of patriarch in the Melchizedek Priesthood are two entirely different things.

Go back and read this post and then get back to me.

I think you've got this backward. The Family: A Proclamation to the World explains LDS doctrine concerning family life. You could define it as scripture, depending on how loose a definition of scripture you use, but under the terms you've been using thus far (essentially, canonized scripture), it does not qualify.

I failed to be specific enough in stating that I intended to compare the editions published before Smith's death. I assumed that the context of the discussion made that obvious. For that I apologize. I linked to an article about this history of the Doctrine and Covenants in my first post in this thread. The article includes a full history of the editions and what sections were added when.

No, it may very well be revelation from God, it just isn't canonized.

Side note: think about the implication of canonizing a single new revelation. That means updating the Doctrine and Covenants, reprinting it for millions of members around the world, and disposing of the hundreds of thousands of copies left in warehouses. The expense and logistical difficulty makes it a bit impractical to canonize a single revelation at a time. Which is probably why new editions have only been printed about once every 30 - 50 years since 1844.

I never claimed it was doctrine. I only said it was historical fact that women held the priesthood. I'm happy to accept the statement that such was the policy at the time. If it were only policy, I'm still right.

However, the Patriarchal Priesthood is doctrinally sound, even if it doesn't appear in the Doctrine and Covenants (most likely because we never received the rest of the revelations about it).

That certainly isn't true. Doctrine is doctrine, whether it be found in the scriptures or not. The scriptures (more specifically, the Standard Works) are the measuring stick by which we evaluate new doctrines. But the Standard Works alone certainly are not complete.

I disagree with pretty much everything you say and so does (as far as I know the various manuals and the scripture) the Church does too.

The Partiarch Priesthood is contained within the melkesidek priesthood. This is covered in the Gospel Principals manual under priesthood orginization.

All inspired words of the prophet and apostles (inspired is determined by the unanimous agreement of the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) is scripture (even The First Preaidency message in each ensign is accepted as canon scripture) this is covered in the Gospel Principals handbook when they explain what the scriptures are.

I am sorry but I cannot agree with your position here the scriptures and teachings we have in the LDS Church are in conflict with your opinion.

I am not unreasonable here I accept what has been tested by the Chrh leadership and accepted as true, unless there teaching is in conflict with the Scriptures (for example if the Church said today that Same Sex Marriage is fine, I would be very, very, hesitant and would spend a lot of time fasting to receive conformation since it is in violation of every sacred text we have).

I respect your beliefs but I cannot accept them as truth because they are in conflict with Church Doctrine and The Standard Works as well as all the scriptures. If these things were suppose to be doctrine they would of been vetted by the proper process and canonized in te D&C no scripture = no doctrine! Period in my book.

[MarginOfError]

I disagree with pretty much everything you say and so does (as far as I know the various manuals and the scripture) the Church does too.

The Partiarch Priesthood is contained within the melkesidek priesthood. This is covered in the Gospel Principals manual under priesthood orginization.

You said previously

There is no separate Partriarch Priesthood, the office of Patriarch is held in the Melkesidek Priesthood.

So let's make this clear. All priesthood is Melchizedek. But there are different orders of the priesthood. There is the Aaronic Priesthood, which is a subset of the Melchizedek; and there is the Patriarchal Priesthood, which is a subset of the Melchizedek. The Melchizedek order comprises all of those and all the powers not possessed by either of the others. But the Patriarchal order of the Priesthood is not the same as the office of patriarch in the Melchizedek Priesthood. If you were reading what I've posted thus far, you would see the difference.

All inspired words of the prophet and apostles (inspired is determined by the unanimous agreement of the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) is scripture (even The First Preaidency message in each ensign is accepted as canon scripture) this is covered in the Gospel Principals handbook when they explain what the scriptures are.

The definition given by the Gospel Principles manual is based on D&C 68:4 and is the looser definition of scripture I referred to earlier (which, coincidentally, also adds strength to my argument since many of the things Joseph Smith taught about women holding the priesthood were done so under inspiration). But the LDS canon includes only the Standard Works. If it is not in the Standard Works, then by definition, it is not canonizes scripture.

I am sorry but I cannot agree with your position here the scriptures and teachings we have in the LDS Church are in conflict with your opinion.

It isn't my opinion. It's historical fact. It's in the Church archives.

I am not unreasonable here I accept what has been tested by the Chrh leadership and accepted as true, unless there teaching is in conflict with the Scriptures (for example if the Church said today that Same Sex Marriage is fine, I would be very, very, hesitant and would spend a lot of time fasting to receive conformation since it is in violation of every sacred text we have).

I'm still interested in knowing what I've said that's contrary to the scriptures.

I respect your beliefs but I cannot accept them as truth because they are in conflict with Church Doctrine and The Standard Works as well as all the scriptures. If these things were suppose to be doctrine they would of been vetted by the proper process and canonized in te D&C no scripture = no doctrine! Period in my book.

Again, these aren't my beliefs or opinions. I've only presented the historical record. From everything I've studied, I've found nothing contrary to Church doctrine, only changes in Church policy on the matter.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

The patriarch is in the D&C the D&C covers the ordination of both Joseph Smith Sr. and later Hyrum Smith as Partiarch.

I will have to find the sections but it is in there.

Like I said I'm not pulling this out of a hat, nor even denying that women were ordained into the Annoited Quorum. But there is no records of any woman recieveing individual ordination as an deacon, teacher, priest, bishop, elder, high priest, patriarch, seventy, or apostle. These are the only offices of the priesthood no women has been ordained to them. I'd there is a church record or a Scripture that shows me to be wrong please present it.

Like I also said I am not against women priesthood holders if the lord reveals his will to his prophet that women are to hold the priesthood I will be more than happy to ordain a sister into my wards elder's quorum.

I think that I have stated all I can, I you find scripture or church records for an individual women beig ordained into the Aaronic or Melkesidek priesthood then we can discuss that.

[MarginOfError]

Since you refuse to do the necessary reading:

In Nauvoo, Illinois on August 27, 1843, while the Nauvoo Temple was being constructed, Joseph Smith, Jr., the first president of the restored Church of Christ, taught, using Hebrews 7[2] as background material, the "Three Grand Orders" of priesthood:

There are three grand orders of priesthood referred to here.

1st. The King of Shiloam (Salem) had power and authority over that of Abraham, holding the key and the power of endless life.... The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right from the eternal God, and not by descent from father and mother; and that priesthood is as eternal as God Himself, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.

The 2nd Priesthood is Patriarchal authority. Go to and finish the temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood.

The 3rd is what is called the Levitical Priesthood, consisting of priests to administer in outward ordinances, made without an oath; but the Priesthood of Melchizedek is by an oath and covenant.

The Holy Ghost is God's messenger to administer in all those priesthoods.

Patriarchal Priesthood

This patriarchal order is an order of the priesthood without offices, ordinances, nor administrative authority. It is commonly held that it is received during the sealing ordinance (without the laying on of hands, I might add).

And I've already provided the documentation that women were ordained to the priesthood--or more exactly, had priesthood conferred upon them. I've never claimed that they were ordained to any office of the priesthood. No one ever has. That's one of the fascinating points of this part of history is that women were receiving priesthood but were never given administrative authority in the Church. But they performed healing ordinances--including annointings and sealings--for decades.

I've already demonstrated that ordination to an office of the priesthood wasn't always the norm (it was introduced as normative in the late 1800's), and shown instances where ordinances that are performed "only by the laying on of hands" have been performed without the laying on of hands.

Along with this, you've refused to read the things I've asked you to read, or worse, refused to read them with any other intent than to malign them to your pre-conclusion. The problem is not that the evidence isn't available. The problem is that you refuse to see the evidence.

[Wingnut]

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.

Well, the women in the Church probably won't miss you.

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.

Show me your individual ordination record in the D&C. Or my husband's. Or my bishop's. Or President Monson's.

Oh wait, you can't. Does that mean they aren't actually ordained? Does it mean none of those people actually hold the Priesthood?

Let's just hope the prophet never says that because I really would prefer this religion not be liberalized.

Good thing your preferences don't matter to worldwide Church policy.

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?

Wait, you mean the women's liberation movement didn't start decades ago?

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!

Source?

There's also only one method of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost--by the laying on of hands. Yet, record exists of the Lamanites being baptized and showing such faith that the were baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost "and they knew it not" (3 Nephi 9:20). So if the Holy Ghost may be conferred without the laying on of hands, what's to say the priesthood could not be conferred by the laying on of hands?

Like, for example, how did Alma the Elder get the authority to baptize at the waters of Mormon? He was a priest in King Noah's court, but we know that when Noah became king, he got rid of all the old priests and got his own. Do we know if those he chose actually had the priesthood of God, or if they were just called priests?

All inspired words of the prophet and apostles (inspired is determined by the unanimous agreement of the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) is scripture (even The First Preaidency message in each ensign is accepted as canon scripture) this is covered in the Gospel Principals handbook when they explain what the scriptures are.

Well now you're not only wrong, you're contradicting yourself as well. Not only are First Presidency messages in Church magazines not canonized scripture, you don't even believe that, as you've repeatedly stated that the only thing that can present real doctrine and truth are the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

@ wingnut

I said individual record OR the scripture verse that tells of there ordianation.

There are no Church records for Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, or any of the Apostles yet we know they were ordained because there ordination is told in the scripture.

Also the D&C announces the ordination of Joseph and Oliver as Elders on April 6, 1830.

It also announces the ordinations of all the original apostles an members of the First Presidency.

Also records the Ordianations of Joseph Smith Sr and Hyrum Smith as the 1st and 2nd Patriarch of the Church.

So plent of ordinations are recorded throughout the scriptures actually.

Also I cleary said individual records OR the scripture that announces/ records there ordination.

Half of the battle is reading the comment LOL

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

*peeking in*

I teach a class of 9 girls ages 10-11. Last Sunday was a lesson on the childhood of Jesus, in which we learned about Anna:

(Guide to the Scriptures | A Anna:Entry)

ANNAIn the New Testament, a prophetess of the tribe of Asher. At the time of Jesus' birth, she was an aged widow. She saw the infant Jesus at his presentation in the temple and recognized him as the Redeemer (Luke 2:36–38).

As it was a group of girls, we talked a bit about Anna, how she was a prophetess, the qualities that made her what she was. I then went on to talk about the following:

(New Testament | Acts 2:17 - 18)

17 And it shall come to pass in the alast days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall edream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

that in the latter days daughters will prophesy, that the Spirit will bhe poured out on handmaidens and they shall prophesy - I told my girls to live worthy of that blessing.

Anna and the other prophets are blessed people! They are not priests though, Thomas S. Monsoon holds the Priesthood office of Apostle not prophet.

I know we will have many wonderful women who will reveal the secrets of the lord in that latter days, but being a prophet of god does not confer the priesthood.

[MarginOfError]

@ wingnut

I said individual record OR the scripture verse that tells of there ordianation.

There are no Church records for Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, or any of the Apostles yet we know they were ordained because there ordination is told in the scripture.

Also the D&C announces the ordination of Joseph and Oliver as Elders on April 6, 1830.

It also announces the ordinations of all the original apostles an members of the First Presidency.

Also records the Ordianations of Joseph Smith Sr and Hyrum Smith as the 1st and 2nd Patriarch of the Church.

So plent of ordinations are recorded throughout the scriptures actually.

Also I cleary said individual records OR the scripture that announces/ records there ordination.

Half of the battle is reading the comment LOL

More irony.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Even if there are examples of women holding the priesthood through the Levitical order, which seems that it may even be obtained through lineage and not just ordination, at this point the law associated with that priesthood has been abrogated by the higher law and priesthood. Priesthood is exercised through the current law. So, the details of who holds it and how it is used is more determined by the law then it is the office of the Priesthood. It's similar to a Police Officer's power and authority being determined by the law of the land.

[Casper]

This is a question that might be a little of topic, did God use the priesthood in the creation of Adam?

[Just_A_Guy]

Isn't the priesthood, by definition, the power and authority of God? If God didn't use His own power and authority to create Adam, I have a hard time visualizing whose power and authority He did use.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Isn't the priesthood, by definition, the power and authority of God? If God didn't use His own power and authority to create Adam, I have a hard time visualizing whose power and authority He did use.

No priesthood is man's authority to act on behalf of God. Christ holds the priesthood and is the head of the Priesthood, man holds the priesthood as they are worthy to do so and have been called and ordained to the priesthood.

God does not hold the Priesthood since he has no need forbid being supreme above all things. The priesthood priesthood power comes from God so there is no need for him to be called by himself or ordained (who could ordain God?) to act on his own behalf.

I hope this makes sence to you. Jesus Christ (then called Jehovah) did make the Heavens and the Earth through the priesthood power of God.

[MarginOfError]

No priesthood is man's authority to act on behalf of God. Christ holds the priesthood and is the head of the Priesthood, man holds the priesthood as they are worthy to do so and have been called and ordained to the priesthood.

God does not hold the Priesthood since he has no need forbid being supreme above all things. The priesthood priesthood power comes from God so there is no need for him to be called by himself or ordained (who could ordain God?) to act on his own behalf.

I hope this makes sence to you. Jesus Christ (then called Jehovah) did make the Heavens and the Earth through the priesthood power of God.

For what sacred functions must one hold the priesthood? We find our answer in the fact that priesthood is the power and authority of God delegated to man on earth to act in all things pertaining to the salvation of the sons and daughters of God. . . . Just as priesthood is the power of God, priesthood authority is the power to act for God, such as in the ordinances of His kingdom. Dallin H. Oaks

The priesthood is the power of God. As such, it is the greatest power on earth. We can honor the priesthood by remembering that we hold the authority of God and that the Lord requires that we honor that authority. We bear the priesthood with dignity when we obey the commandments and do all we can to be righteous. Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood

See also

LDS.org - Primary Chapter Detail - The Priesthood Is Restored

LDS.org - Young Women Chapter Detail - The Melchizedek Priesthood

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Blessings of the Priesthood

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

Isn't the priesthood, by definition, the power and authority of God? If God didn't use His own power and authority to create Adam, I have a hard time visualizing whose power and authority He did use.

So with Adam being created by the power of the priesthood, and he was made out of the dust of the earth, that would mean that creating a person out of the dust of the earth would be a priesthood ordnance; this would also mean that a person that is authorized to create a person out of the dust would need to also hold the priesthood of God.

From scriptures we learn that Adam was not the only person that was created out of the dust of the earth king Benjamin was also and infect so is every other person how has ever lived.

…ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth; but behold, it belongeth to him who created you.

And I, even I, whom ye call your king, am no better than ye yourselves are; for I am also of the dust. And ye behold that I am old, and am about to yield up this mortal frame to its mother earth. (Mosiah 2:25-26)

And also all flesh is of the dust. (Jacob 2:21, Psalms 103:14)

So how is this done? How is it that a person is created of the dust of the earth and becomes a living soul? This is revealed in Moses 6:58-59

The Lord is talking to Adam explaining why we must be baptized, he is then given a commandment to teach his children about baptism by showing the connection of the physical birth with that of spiritual birth or baptism in verse 59 Adam is referring to his children not him.

…and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven of water, and of the spirit, and be cleansed by blood,…(Moses 6:59)

The first half outlines the proses by which dust becomes a living soul and it is by the proses of physical birth. Then the second half is about being born again and entrance into the kingdom of heaven by baptism.

Going further with this, it is women that have the power to create living souls out of the dust of the earth, not men. They of course need men for a relatively small part of this role; but there is no man that can ever create a person of the dust of the earth. With this all being said I would put forward that this is how women partake in the priesthood with their husbands. When sealed to a husband they are authorized to create life and then enter into Motherhood.

As a last remark I don’t believe that women will ever be able to hold the priesthood to baptize, bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost or seal a marriage; any more than a man will one day be able to conceive and nourish an embryo, seal a spirit and body together or give birth to a physical chilled.