Women and priesthood

[Suzie]

The reason I put "very secret" in bold was to illustrate that the teaching and practice of Plural Marriage as taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith (just as President Hinckley stated) was very limited. It was done secretly and last time I checked secretly means:

Operating in a hidden or confidential manner

Now please make the connection between Sandra Tanner and this term.

Yes, it's THAT ridiculous.

[MarginOfError]

Suzie...if you are going to rebutt Bert's post:

Where did GOD instruct J. Smith to give priesthood to woman? And give me the name of the person who was ordained as a priestess?

Then you could have made that clear by quoting that post rather than the one regarding the declaration...no?

Senseless in that it had or seemed to have no bearing on Bert's quote which you were responding to :

Well....your post is the cause of the speculation:

I dunno maybe it's just me....but your post sounds like something that could be lifted from Sandra Tanner. Why bold "very secret". Unless you are trying to convey some other message? JMO

Well, to start, Suzie provided a reference that documents the history of women holding the priesthood in the early church. That addressed the first part of bert's post.

Then, Suzie offered a counter example to bert's claim that nothing in the Church is done unless it is taught to the general Church first. By citing the counter example, she showed bert's claim to be false.

All-in-all, I don't see how her responses were inappropriate or off topic. What's more, when bert followed up with a quote from Declaration 1, it was a quote in which President Woodruff explained that the Church was still teaching polygamy generally at a time when it was not. All it did was demonstrate that at some point in history, polygamy was taught generally, but did not show that it was taught generally before it was practiced.

I guess I'm left confused about what the contention is about.

[bytor2112]

Oh, so when you share with non-members your beliefs about Christ being the son of God, when you tell them about the story of Joseph and the First vision, etc you tell them they are just your...umm...personal opinion?

No...I tell them that I only know because of the Holy Spirit and they can find out the same way.

I didn't know a person has to be "there" in order to prove something (Poor Jesus) and darn it for all those documents through history, they are now wortheless!. Geez, do you know really know what you are saying?

Do you really know what you are saying? Perhaps you should practice what you preach and say....this is just your opinion. The "documentation" maybe used as a basis to form or even support your opinion....but it doesn't prove or hasn't thus far proven your case. And....of course the evidence supporting Jesus as an actual historical figure is a bit superior to what you are presenting...oh...JMO. :)

In this case, Margin and I have provided the documentation (and for some reason you are choosing to either ignore it or not comment on it) but I do understand it can make some people uncomfortable, however doesn't change the fact that the evidence is there.

Doesn't make me uncomfortable in the slightest....snarky posts toward a thoughtful fellow like Bert make me uncomfortable. Snarky posts toward Bytor...well, that's okay, because I am snarky.

[Suzie]

Well, to start, Suzie provided a reference that documents the history of women holding the priesthood in the early church. That addressed the first part of bert's post.

Then, Suzie offered a counter example to bert's claim that nothing in the Church is done unless it is taught to the general Church first. By citing the counter example, she showed bert's claim to be false.

All-in-all, I don't see how her responses were inappropriate or off topic. What's more, when bert followed up with a quote from Declaration 1, it was a quote in which President Woodruff explained that the Church was still teaching polygamy generally at a time when it was not. All it did was demonstrate that at some point in history, polygamy was taught generally, but did not show that it was taught generally before it was practiced.

I guess I'm left confused about what the contention is about.

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

[Suzie]

No...I tell them that I only know because of the Holy Spirit and they can find out the same way.

Do you really know what you are saying? Perhaps you should practice what you preach and say....this is just your opinion. The "documentation" maybe used as a basis to form or even support your opinion....but it doesn't prove or hasn't thus far proven your case. And....of course the evidence supporting Jesus as an actual historical figure is a bit superior to what you are presenting...oh...JMO. :)

Doesn't make me uncomfortable in the slightest....snarky posts toward a thoughtful fellow like Bert make me uncomfortable. Snarky posts toward Bytor...well, that's okay, because I am snarky.

Okay bytor, I kind of give up. :) You don't seem interested in debating this topic and the documentation presented (you haven't make any mention of it at all despite the fact I have asked you several times your thoughts on Women having the Prieshood in the early days, you reply with thoughts about women today, etc etc etc but you don't say anything at all about the evidence provided) but hey, I asked too many times already and you are actually trying to go off tangent or make offtopic/confusing remarks for no reason.

I am only left to think you do not have an opinion on the matter, you want to avoid it or you just cannot refute it. And it's fine, thanks for your thoughts. I will wait for other posters opinions and see where the discussion takes us. Thanks.

:)

[bytor2112]

Your correct...I can't refute it anymore than you can prove it. I will play nice...

[Suzie]

Who is Sandra Tanner?

Googled it. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, revised church history, etc?

Yep.

[Suzie]

I agree and thank you for bringing this up, but the trouble with historical sources is that you can't assume that they represent all of the historical situation.

I agree. How does it applies to this case in your opinion? (after reading the documented sources)

[MarginOfError]

One last quick comment that I should probably not say…

What qualities make the best leader? Imo the best leaders are those who are intimately familiar/understanding of their followers… What’s the best way to become intimately familiar with what it is to be a follower? To walk a mile as a follower… imo those who refuse to follow for a season will never have the experiences needed to one day be a great leader.

last shall be first...

why grasp for something that will pull you down in the long run? like wanting sex before marriage - there is a time for every season, those who can wait will be richly rewarded.

Haeh?

[MarginOfError]

The greatest among you shall be your servant. - Matthew 23:11

if you don't understand the point of being a servant... then I think you have missed the entire point of what Christianity is about.

I'm more confused about the relevance to the discussion.

[Suzie]

The greatest among you shall be your servant. - Matthew 23:11

if you don't understand the point of being a servant... then I think you have missed the entire point of what Christianity is about.

What it has to do with Women and the Priesthood?

[Suzie]

I agree and thank you for bringing this up, but the trouble with historical sources is that you can't assume that they represent all of the historical situation.

I was thinking: Does the historical situation at that time changes the fact that women were indeed the Priesthood in the early days?

[MarginOfError]

Women grasping for the priesthood/leadership positions = women not understanding the beauty of what it means to be a follower.

(Old Testament | Genesis 3:16)

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.

There will come a time when the curse will be removed... until that time, enjoy being a follwer, learn the lessons it has to offer, learn to submit, to be ruled, learn to be humble, and rely on another.

There is nothing wrong with not holding the priesthood.

You can go through life always looking to the other side of the fence, jealously seeking what others have... or you can recognize the beauty of what you do have. Women who seek the priesthood do not recognize the beauty of the role they have been given.

Then you've not really been following the discussion. No one has made any statement about whether or not women should hold the priesthood now. The only thing we've sought to discuss is the historical evidence that women held the Melchizedek priesthood in earlier periods of Church history.

Also, in the most recent Worldwide Leadership Training, it was stated quite clearly that women are to be leaders and not followers, and that their input is just as valuable in the proceedings of the Church as a man's. Priesthood isn't a requisite to being a leader, nor is lack of priesthood a requisite to being a follower.

But, if anyone is willing to discuss the actual topic...what say ye to the evidence presented of women holding the priesthood in earlier periods of Church history?

[Suzie]

Women grasping for the priesthood/leadership positions = women not understanding the beauty of what it means to be a follower.

(Old Testament | Genesis 3:16)

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.

There will come a time when the curse will be removed... until that time, enjoy being a follwer, learn the lessons it has to offer, learn to submit, to be ruled, learn to be humble, and rely on another.

There is nothing wrong with not holding the priesthood.

You can go through life always looking to the other side of the fence, jealously seeking what others have... or you can recognize the beauty of what you do have. Women who seek the priesthood do not recognize the beauty of the role they have been given.

Have you read the thread at all?

[IAmTheWork]

Women grasping for the priesthood/leadership positions = women not understanding the beauty of what it means to be a follower. (etc)

Respectfully, I can't believe you said all that.

I may be wide of the mark here, but having been divorced and both of us leaving the church years ago, and knowing other women who left too, words and phrases like 'submit', 'be ruled', and in that context, 'be humble' can be quite hurtful, and not just in the setting of modern days. And by hurtful, I don't mean seeing over-sensitive women acting upset, but strong women too often quietly feeling devalued and relegated to being almost second class citizens.

Not trying to be terribly contentious here, but I wonder how we men would feel if women only held the priesthood, everyone worshipped HM and never spoke of HF, etc? I'm thinking that a matriarchal church (if we can picture it) would be quite a different kettle of fish.

Edited January 3, 2011 by IAmTheWork
Clarification.

[Suzie]

But, if anyone is willing to discuss the actual topic...what say ye to the evidence presented of women holding the priesthood in earlier periods of Church history?

I just don't get why we are discussing so many other topics in this thread and no one is touching at all, the actual evidence presented.

[IAmTheWork]

I just don't get why we are discussing so many other topics in this thread and no one is touching at all, the actual evidence presented.

Oh, ok. I found the links interesting, and feel that JS saying women held the priesthood - if the quoted materials are accurate - doesn't have to be a great bone of contention. As I said, I feel that men and women hold equal powers and spirituality, etc., and the priesthood to me is more of a 'you get to officiate in things' role.

I do think that due to the changing nature of society, we can't help seeing a patriarchal church (and family organisation) in a different light. I find it funny, too, that there are so many statements in church literature, as in scriptures, saying things will remain constant. Yet the church changes policies to reflect the times. Makes me wonder if a new female priesthood role is just around the corner..? If it were to be, things JS said (as quoted here) seem ample pre-revelation hints for modern changes.

Edited January 3, 2011 by IAmTheWork
Expanded.

[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?

Suzie: It is hard for me to know in what manner I can speak to you. For example your profile does not indicate if you are a parent. In truth it is difficult to be married and try to blend traditions but adding to that mix being a parent presents even greater challenges.

Let us change directions in our questions. When should a child disobey their parents and leave the home? If we think of this in terms of age we may think a 16 year old has a fairly good chance but how about a 5 year old? How bad must it get between parents before a family ought to be torn apart by divorce? Of course we can all think of things so bad that it is worse than a broken family. But are most families that choose divorce really out of all other options?

I have known many families that have not only endured unspeakable difficulties and hardships but have found a way to get past them and even come out the better. In fact I have yet to know or meet a strong family that has not faced difficulties that have torn apart other families. Now I will be a little bold - I can do this because all my children are safely raised and on their own. I do not believe there is a parent in the entire history of mankind that has raised their children that has not made a serious mistake - serious enough that if they did not learn from that mistake and strive to do better that they would be unfit parents and that children should be removed from their home.

This may seem bold - but if a child ever realizes their parents have made a mistake - ever - should they now doubt their parents in all things and challenge everything their parents are doing and have ever done?

I learned a great lesson from my wife as we were raising our children. We were having problems with one teenage child - problems that were spilling over into violence. Did we make any mistakes? Yah. At one point my wife and I were pondering together what we could do - we were running out of options - including fasting and prayer. My wife said something along the line that regardless of whatever we do our son must understand and feel we love him. Under the circumstance that was quite difficult - it required that I make an attitude adjustment. Within days it was discovered that our son had a non-malignant brain tumor and required immediate life saving surgery to relieve pressure on the brain. A few months later we got our son back - a wonderful son that eventually served a mission.

Should a parent never again trust a child that they catch lying on one occasion? Should children leave parents that loose it and even spank (the dreaded evil spanking) the child for something the child did not really do?

I happen to believe parents should still love and trust children that sometimes lie and I believe children should trust and support parents that sometimes make foolish decisions. I believe mistakes do not have to dismantle a family - and I do not believe the church is much different then families. Yes, I do know that there are predator parents that will abuse their children and I believe that such parents must be dealt with - but most parents (all that I know) will make mistakes but families that deal with the mistakes without blame can get past the problems that most families face and become stronger for it.

I see the promise of the L-rd is much like a family and marriage so far as the church is concerned - that it is not that our leaders (wife and parents) will never error only that if we are loyal and trusting of our leaders (honor our father and mother) that the spirit of the L-rd will eventually rectify any error and we will prosper. And like a family - if we are concerned about an issue to take it up with the proper authority - if it is a past issue? Best to let it go and deal with the present.

The Traveler

[IAmTheWork]

@changed, yes, I see what you mean. I'm glad you and your wife have a happy relationship and life together too. More power to those men and women who can fulfil roles in life, family and church and genuinely feel great about it.

Sadly, many LDS women who appear to be perfectly happy, intelligent and able to talk about their roles, etc., are more like Stepford wives. When the crunch comes for them, as it sometimes does, years of resentment from feeling subservient comes to the surface. If and when that does happen, it's not a pretty sight.

HM has many names that She goes by too - like Wisdom, the Love of God, the pure love of Christ, the Tree of life, ... the power of the priesthood... Those who know Her names know we talk of Her, of Her role, and of our role, all the time.

In thirteen years in the church, that wasn't my experience, and I'd say you may be fooling yourself, or that's something common to circles you move in, perhaps? Then again, I can't say for sure as I haven't been to church for a long time. Maybe people nowadays do say, "HM's names are Wisdom, Love Of God" etc., and discuss her a fair bit? No Mormon I ever knew, or met in recent years, ever has. In fact, the usual explanation is that HF doesn't want her name sullied, is very protective of her (like she'd need it!) or something similar.

Also (and I'm not hinting about you here as of course I don't know you at all), I think too often we don't realise that others - whether women in church, employees, acquaintances, etc - submit not out of love and willingness, but so they don't rock the boat. I've never much liked the idea of any human submitting to another, to be perfectly honest, as I don't think any human being is up to the task of being the dominant one without ego coming into it in some way. And ego is oh so easily masked as various things like love, compassion, kindness, giving, and so on.

Edited January 3, 2011 by IAmTheWork
Extended. Twice!

[IAmTheWork]

Thanks. Yes, me and my husband have a happy relationship...

Had a good laugh at my assumption on seeing that! And nice post.

I don't think the women I've known who felt bad but 'behaved well' were deliberately being false. Maybe, as your post suggests, they were not understanding things in the way you do? It's difficult to tell whether someone 'fakes it to make it' though, and both men and women can have years of buried repression in their subconscious just bubbling away until one day the bubble bursts.

Blessings right back to you and yours, too!

[Backroads]

I do think that due to the changing nature of society, we can't help seeing a patriarchal church (and family organisation) in a different light. I find it funny, too, that there are so many statements in church literature, as in scriptures, saying things will remain constant. Yet the church changes policies to reflect the times. Makes me wonder if a new female priesthood role is just around the corner..? If it were to be, things JS said (as quoted here) seem ample pre-revelation hints for modern changes.

Honestly, it would not surprise me. Still good with how things are, though.

[bert10]

I believe it will take an act of GOD for this to happen in our Church. Most likely when the One mighty and Strong come to set the house of the Lord in order.

And if any women dares to use the priesthood which she is born with..she will be persecuted for it...even though she be led by the Spirit and Jesus has justified it.

Only LDS have a hope of believing this post...that Women get their priesthood from their Heavenly Mother. Why?

Because procreating is an ORDINANCE and all Ordinances requires a Priesthood to administer it. Because all things that come from an Ordinance is holy and Children are Holy before the Lord until they know the law and first choose darkness over light.

It is the way things are today. J. Smith was prevented from releasing this doctrine church wide and making it a commandment concerning woman and the priesthood. Such things are not an accident but wisdom in GOD and maybe He will reveal it at a later times. Most likely is for giving men an opportunity to cease from being a natural man by learning to love and serve as woman naturally do. This is what the priesthood is suppose to do for them.

With this priesthood there is a danger that women would try to rule the man. But if all love GOD ...they will honor and obey the order He set at the beginning.

bert10

[Elphaba]

In my experience on this board, every single time I've tried to discuss the history of women holding the priesthood, there are people who make knee-jerk reactions and presume I was insisting women should be allowed to hold the priesthood today.

I think this starts with the thread's title that includes the words "Women" and "Priesthood," which is, of course, required, given that's what the thread is about. My point is, I can understand why people would presume the thread's author is making a statement about women and the priesthood as it stands today.

What's baffling, however, is when you explain, emphatically, that you're NOT saying that, and that if they want to know what you ARE saying, they need to actually read your posts, they refuse, and continue to go off on tangents that have NOTHING to do with the actual thread.

It happens every time, and the only explanation I can think of is they just are not reading the posts, period--even the short ones that say "Go back and READ what I actually wrote."

Elphaba

Edited January 4, 2011 by Elphaba
fixed a typo

[Suzie]

In my experience on this board, every single time I've tried to discuss the history of women holding the priesthood, there are people who make knee-jerk reactions and presume I was insisting women should be allowed to hold the priesthood today.

I think this starts with the thread's title that includes the words "Women" and "Priesthood," which is, of course, required, given that's what the thread is about. My point is, I can understand why people would presume the thread's author is making a statement about women and the priesthood as it stands today.

What's baffling, however, is when you explain, emphatically, that you're NOT saying that, and that if they want to know what you ARE saying, they need to actually read your posts, they refuse, and continue to go off on tangents that have NOTHING to do with the actual thread.

It happens every time, and the only explanation I can think of is they just are not reading the posts, period--even the short ones that say "Go back and READ what I actually wrote."

Ephaba

Oh wow, it's good to know that at least this is not the first time it happens. In my entirely personal view, I think a lot of people just feel uncomfortable about the topic because they are just not familiar with it, however they feel a need to "defend" a supposed "attack or threat" (they seem to perceive it to be) when in fact it isn't... therefore since they cannot explain or disprove the documentation presented (because they are either not familiar with it, they don't understand it or simply cannot explain it) they choose to go through the tangent and assume that we are interested in having the Priesthood today.

However, I am grateful no one said: " Who cares? It's not important for our Salvation" as a way to stop the discussion altogether. :)

[bytor2112]

Who cares? It's not important for our Salvation....just sayin