Women and priesthood

[Suzie]

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

You are very predictable bytor. Geez, if I was a gambler I would have bet that you would be the first one to say that right after my post. :)

Edited January 4, 2011 by Suzie

[bytor2112]

You are very predictable bytor. Geez, if I was a gambler I would have bet that you would be the first one to say that right after my post. :)

Sorry...couldn't resist Oh, I read the link from Quinn...interesting.

[sixpacktr]

Typical Mormon forums discussion. If the internet was available during the Middle Ages, a lot of you would be arguing about angels and dancing on the heads of pins.

Alma the Elder was a very wise leader of the church. His rule?

for there was nothing preached in all the churches except it were repentance and faith in God.

(Mosiah 25:22)

Then of course there is the example of those that argued about trivial matters about things they understood nothing about, and what was the result?

And they were a separate people as to their faith, and remained so ever after, even in their carnal and sinful state; for they would not call upon the Lord their God.

5 And now in the reign of Mosiah they were not half so numerous as the people of God; but because of the dissensions among the brethren they became more numerous.

(Mosiah 26:4 - 5)

You all argue too much about things that don't matter a tinker's damn in the scheme of things. And why is that?

and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

(Jacob 4:14)

Think about your motives in posting to these forums. Is it to show how smart you are, or to build testimony? Is it to trip people up with your dazzling logic, or to help someone that needs it to return with honor to his/her Heavenly home?

Remember, arguing about trivia only helps spread dissension and gives the adversary more converts....

[Dravin]

for there was nothing preached in all the churches except it were repentance and faith in God.

(Mosiah25:22)

They call this here a message board not a church.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Dravin

[bert10]

[Suzie]

Sixpacktr:

*sigh*

What all this has to do with the thread? Are you going to actually contribute to the topic at hand?

Edited January 11, 2011 by Suzie

[MarginOfError]

sixpacktr, I refer to to a recent thread

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36491-back-basics-ummm-again.html

Happy reading.

[bert10]

You are right this is in a sense taking us away from the main thread. However, the gospel is ONE. Every thread relate to each other in a way...only you do not see it. Debating woman and the priesthood and how many ways the priesthood can be conferred...we must leave the what is given and go into the area of inspiration.

Endless debates in these areas will not do anything except to divide. And whatsoever men do to divide themselves is not of GOD.

I have explained that woman have a priesthood whether it is the same priesthood as men I do not know at this time. Women are born with it. They have it automatically because of their nature and what they need to do on the earth concerning pro-creating. If I pursue it I will know at some point in the future. So they do not need men's priesthood. We deal directly authority wise with the Father via Jesus. Our heavenly Mother has no direct dealing with us on the earth. And so it is written....

The order was set at the fall see Genesis....When God made the man the head of woman...by Saying to Eve....Thy desire shall be to thy husband and He shall rule over thee. It is at this time impossible to give woman anything that would give them authority over the man. That is not GOD's way. There is Order in heaven so there is order here on the earth. The scriptures say that the head of woman is the man and the head of the man is Jesus and the head of Jesus is the Father.

Remember Adam was formed first and the woman is the rib of man. Adam was both Mother and Father to Eve since she came from him. They are one flesh. And remember that Eve was given to Adam as a solution to his Loneliness. The man was not created for the woman but the woman for the man. Another reason why man was made the head of woman is that Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in transgression.

Any teachings that seek to make this of none effect is not of GOD but of Satan.

And so we have in the NT....the method of salvation for woman.

1 Timothy 2:13 - For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

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

The key for woman at this time....childbearing, faith, charity, holiness with sobriety.

There are enough clues in the bible to teach the highlights but not enough to fill in the fine points unless we learn to listen. And they who shall receive who shall believe them since it is of the Spiritual and most likely will go against the will of the woman who have been led astray by philosophies of men inspired by Satan?

I normally answer the question being posed and sometimes it leads us into other areas of the scriptures. By going for example to Melchizedek there is more of the priesthood that I would have spoken on and who Melchizedek was before God gave Him His new and everlasting Name that will never be removed and so on.

Every part of the gospel holds a bit of the answers that we are seeking. Since the gospel is One.

bert10

Sixpacktr:

*sigh*

What all this has to do with the thread? Are you going to actually contribute to the topic at hand?

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

I think the scriptures are pretty clear here. There has never been a female priesthood holder as far as I know.

I know some will point to the many women prophets but remember that a prophet is not a office in either priesthood. The living prophet Thomas S. Monson is ordained an Apostle not as a Prophet.

A prophet is simply a servant of God called to reveal his will to the world. So a women can be a prophet since it is not a priesthood office.

Leviticus is clear that only men are to be ordained to the Levitical (Aaronic) Priesthood, logically that same requirement applies to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Why is this restriction in place, I don't know. Just like I don't know why the priesthood was previously restricted from black men or why it was restricted from all except the people of the Tribe of Levi.

What we do know is that if God wanted things to be changed at this time he would reveal it to the Prophet just as he revealed in 1978 to President Kimball that the previous priesthood restriction was to be lifted.

If and when the Lord decides to extend the priesthood responsibilities to women he will reveal his will to the Prophet and it will be done.

Other than that all I can do is follow the word of God to the best of my abilities!

[MarginOfError]

I think the scriptures are pretty clear here. There has never been a female priesthood holder as far as I know.

Time to get some edumacation!

Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Time to get some edumacation!

Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843

I have heard of this and my point still stands that an individual women has never been ordained into the priesthood. Couples have been ordained into the Holy Order or Anointed Quorum but never to a women as in individual.

I am not against women holding the priesthood if that be the will of God, but that is up to God and to be revealed through his Prophet.

Also remember that Joseph Smith ordained several black men as Elders and under President Brigham Young a ban against any new ordinations for black men came into effect and stood till 1978.

So even if there was individual women ordained that is the policy of the Presidency of Joseph Smith and not the policy of any other President after him.

Policy can change from presidency to presidency unless the policy is canonized into the D&C at which point it becomes a revelation and Church Doctrine.

Like I said I am not against women holding the Priesthood but I am against people thinking they can demand the priesthood. Things happen in God's time and in his ways, patience and prayer is the answer here, and faith that the will of God will be done through his Prophet!

If and when God wishes the priesthood to be given to women then he will do so in his time and through his prophet.

[pam]

Policy can change from presidency to presidency unless the policy is canonized into the D&C at which point it becomes a revelation and Church Doctrine.

Can I get a clarification? Just reading this, it would seem that you are saying that unless it's in the D&C it's not Church Doctrine. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Can I get a clarification? Just reading this, it would seem that you are saying that unless it's in the D&C it's not Church Doctrine. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

If your definition of doctrine is permanent policy that cannot be changed or modified since it is revelation from God, then yes.

What is in the D&C is revelation from God and is scripture unable to be changed.

The policy of the Church is decided by the leadership and can be changed at anytime.

The Doctrine of the Church is the permanent policy of the Church received through Revelation from God.

Look at the name of the text it is the DOCTRINE & Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

So yes the Doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only found in the scripture, modern doctrine is found in the D&C.

Anything outside of the D&C is policy or theology which is non revelatory and is not permanent or binding in nature.

[pam]

Okay then can you provide to me a reference to the revelation and policy change of blacks holding the priesthood which occurred in 1978 in the D&C?

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Anything outside of the D&C is policy or theology which is non revelatory and is not permanent or binding in nature.

I should clarify here that anything outside the Scriptures (Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price) is policy or theology which is non revelatory and is not permanent or binding in nature.

The D&C is not the sole source of doctrine, all the revelations of God are doctrine of the Church, I apologizes for this misrepresentation.

[pam]

I should clarify here that anything outside the Scriptures (Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price) is policy or theology which is non revelatory and is not permanent or binding in nature.

The D&C is not the sole source of doctrine, all the revelations of God are doctrine of the Church, I apologizes for this misrepresentation.

Yet don't you just contradict yourself here? Your first comment is anything outside of the standard works is non revelatory and not permanent or binding in nature. Then you state that ALL the revelations of God are doctrine of the Church. The change of policy in 1978 was by revelation and is binding. Binding in that I don't ever see the Priesthood being taken away from blacks in the future. Yet it is not in the any of the standard works.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Okay then can you provide to me a reference to the revelation and policy change of blacks holding the priesthood which occurred in 1978 in the D&C?

Not a problem Official Declaration 2 is the revelation received by President Kimball in 1978 that permenately changed the long standing priesthood ban for black me. It is canonized in the D&C as scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Here is the address you can copy and paste to read the declaration yourself: Official Declaration 2 

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Yet don't you just contradict yourself here? Your first comment is anything outside of the standard works is non revelatory and not permanent or binding in nature. Then you state that ALL the revelations of God are doctrine of the Church. The change of policy in 1978 was by revelation and is binding. Binding in that I don't ever see the Priesthood being taken away from blacks in the future. Yet it is not in the any of the standard works.

It is in the standard works, It is canonized in the D&C as Official Declaration 2.

Go to: Official Declaration 2 

Also like I said I am sorry that I misrepresented what I was trying to see all along. The scripture is the doctrine of the Church, modern doctrine is contained in the D&C hence the name Doctrine & Covenants.

[pam]

Thanks for the clarification. My older version of the Quad didn't have this in there. So I had never noticed it was in my new version.

[beefche]

Thanks for the clarification. My older version of the Quad didn't have this in there. So I had never noticed it was in my new version.

Just so you know, pam, it's called Doctrine and Covenants now--a change from the Book of Commandments you may still have a copy of.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Thanks for the clarification. My older version of the Quad didn't have this in there. So I had never noticed it was in my new version.

Not a problem! Your welcome, I support women holding the priesthood, if the prophet receives revelation or makes policy making it so.

[pam]

beefche

Banned

[MarginOfError]

I have heard of this and my point still stands that an individual women has never been ordained into the priesthood. Couples have been ordained into the Holy Order or Anointed Quorum but never to a women as in individual.

I am not against women holding the priesthood if that be the will of God, but that is up to God and to be revealed through his Prophet.

Also remember that Joseph Smith ordained several black men as Elders and under President Brigham Young a ban against any new ordinations for black men came into effect and stood till 1978.

So even if there was individual women ordained that is the policy of the Presidency of Joseph Smith and not the policy of any other President after him.

Policy can change from presidency to presidency unless the policy is canonized into the D&C at which point it becomes a revelation and Church Doctrine.

Like I said I am not against women holding the Priesthood but I am against people thinking they can demand the priesthood. Things happen in God's time and in his ways, patience and prayer is the answer here, and faith that the will of God will be done through his Prophet!

If and when God wishes the priesthood to be given to women then he will do so in his time and through his prophet.

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.

A common misunderstanding claims that women receive priesthood only through temple marriage or through the second anointing—both of which a husband and wife must receive together. However, such was not the view expressed by many of the Anointed Quorum's original members, who learned about the endowment directly from Joseph Smith.

Brigham Young's 1843 diary associated the endowment of women with receiving priesthood. On 29 October 1843, for example, he noted that Thirza Cahoon, Lois Cutler, and Phebe Woodworth were “taken into the order of the priesthood.” That was the day those three women individually received their endowment. They did not join with their husbands to receive the second anointing until 12 and 15 November 1843, respectively. When his own wife received the endowment on 1 November 1843, Brigham Young wrote: “Mary A. Young admitted in to the hiest [highest] orderer [order of] Preasthood [sic].” She did not receive the second anointing with him until three weeks later.

[Nathan6329]

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.

[MarginOfError]

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.

Now that's interesting. Would you care to explain?