Joseph Smith and Priesthood for women.

[RMGuy]

Here's what I do know:

Women officiate in the temple in priesthood ordinances.

We know that women (at least historically in the church) gave blessings of healing through the laying on of hands.

Now that sounds pretty priesthood orientated to me. At the same time, I'm not aware of any instances in which a priesthood holder has ordained a female to the priesthood without it resulting in discipline.

-RM

[annewandering]

An unmarried woman has the benefits of the priesthood through her father or bishop. She is NEVER without it married or not.

[Guest]

An unmarried woman has the benefits of the priesthood through her father or bishop. She is NEVER without it married or not.

Yes. FAMILY is where the Priesthood presides over. With wards and stakes and the church being the extension of the group of families... you are a priest of your family first and foremost even if that priest or priestess is a single adult - he/she still has mothers and fathers (even those beyond the veil whose ordinances are still being worked on in the temple or already done) or brothers/sisters/aunts/uncles/cousins... etc. etc. etc.

Edited December 12, 2012 by anatess

[Guest]

If there is an imbalance of power in a marriage because the man holds the priesthood, that's the fault of the man, not of the institution. Priesthood is for service, not for power.

[Anddenex]

anne...

I would not be surprised, my open opinion, if Joseph Smith's words were no different than the bible speaking of a prophetess:

1. Miriam (Exodus 15:20)

2. Deborah (Judges 4:4)

3. Huldah (2 Kings 22:14)

4. Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14)

5. (Isaiah 8:3)

6. Anna (Luke 2:36-38)

A prophetess did not equate with a prophet as to the sense of priesthood office.

[Backroads]

I was involved with the priesthood on Saturday. My husband gave me a blessing. It was very nice. Yes, I sure do like having access to the priesthood.

[Wingnut]

anne...

I would not be surprised, my open opinion, if Joseph Smith's words were no different than the bible speaking of a prophetess:

1. Miriam (Exodus 15:20)

2. Deborah (Judges 4:4)

A prophetess did not equate with a prophet as to the sense of priesthood office.

"No special ordination in the Priesthood is essential to man's receiving the gift of prophecy; bearers of the Melchizedek Priesthood, Adam, Noah, Moses, and a multitude of others were prophets, but not more truly so than others who were specifically called to the Aaronic order, as exemplified in the instance of John the Baptist. The ministrations of Miriam and Deborah show that this gift may be possessed by women also." (Talmage, Articles of Faith, pp. 228-29)

[roytucker]

What I find interesting is I don't know of any scriptures that explain an actual justification for not ordaining women to offices in the priesthood. In my mind, I liken this situation to exclusion of black men from the priesthood, in two important ways:

1. No clear scriptural justification for denial of ordination

2. Joseph Smith seemed more open to alternative ordination scenarios than any President since

Give it another 50 years I guess. :) Then we can start saying "It's behind us" as we do for 1978.

Roy

[Just_A_Guy]

2. Joseph Smith seemed more open to alternative ordination scenarios than any President since.

Sure, but we can name black elders ordained by Joseph Smith. Female elders (or any other AP/MP office)? Not so much.

Give it another 50 years I guess. :) Then we can start saying "It's behind us" as we do for 1978.

You can keep saying that if it makes you feel better. I do wonder whether an all-male slate of GA's in 2062 or 2112 will make you tire of that line of argument; but ultimately that really isn't my affair.

[Suzie]

Give it another 50 years I guess. :) Then we can start saying "It's behind us" as we do for 1978.

Roy

I doubt it VERY much. Imagine that almost in 2013, the whole "pants to Church" issue was so full of drama, let alone the topic you brought up. Nah, I don't think it will ever happen but who knows. The Lord is in charge.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Suzie

[roytucker]

Sure, but we can name black elders ordained by Joseph Smith. Female elders (or any other AP/MP office)? Not so much.

That's true, but we can point to instances where Joseph had no problem with women laying hands on the sick and healing, plus the piece by the OP, etc.

You can keep saying that if it makes you feel better. I do wonder whether an all-male slate of GA's in 2062 or 2112 will make you tire of that line of argument; but ultimately that really isn't my affair.

LOL. You may be right. But it is interesting to compare with the other two big changes: polygamy and black male ordination. Prior (and right up to) the changes, GA's public comments were along the lines that these practices will never change. So ya just never know!

[roytucker]

I doubt it VERY much. Imagine that almost in 2013, the whole "pants to Church" issue was so full of drama, let alone the topic you brought up. Nah, I don't think it will ever happen but who knows. The Lord is in charge.

Yes, the battle of pantsmageddon was an interesting one. It did show, though, that at least some women are looking for change. (although the pants issue itself was a bit silly)

You may be right. It may never happen. But the interesting aspect for me is that it's another practice that is accepted across the church, that maybe doesn't have a strong scriptural foundation, and for which the church receives negative attention (inside and out). Stay tuned. :)

[mnn727]

After reading Joseph Smiths statement I want to understand what he meant.

Those were in no way Josephs Smiths Statement - they were minutes of a meeting kept by someone.

[Just_A_Guy]

That's true, but we can point to instances where Joseph had no problem with women laying hands on the sick and healing, plus the piece by the OP, etc.

Sure; we can also point to more than one woman being married to a single male. If we're going to bring back the glory days, let's really bring back the glory days!

LOL. You may be right. But it is interesting to compare with the other two big changes: polygamy and black male ordination. Prior (and right up to) the changes, GA's public comments were along the lines that these practices will never change. So ya just never know!

Well, you can know whether the Church is taking the position God wants it to take on a particular issue. It's just that the manner in which that knowledge is obtained, doesn't tend to make it very persuasive when you share it with someone who doesn't want to be persuaded.

As for comparing other "changes" to the issue of female ordination to the Aaronic/Melchizedek Priesthoods: I had a long post ready to go about why they're different situations; but for now I'll simply say that I don't think the current theology regarding the scope and duties of the Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood is very conducive to family life if both the mother and father are ordained to an office within one of those priesthoods. I don't think it's primarily about what a priesthood holder does within the family; it's that a priesthood holder's major obligations necessarily lie outside of the family and focus on the salvation of the entire human race.

Plainly speaking, my view is that two priesthood holders running a family necessarily entails either neglected children or a neglect of priesthood duties. We could solve the problem if we "water down" the idea that priesthood entails a special responsibility to the Church and, as missionaries, to the world; but I think if we do that we lose a lot of the sense of vitality that makes the Church so effective.

[MarginOfError]

As for comparing other "changes" to the issue of female ordination to the Aaronic/Melchizedek Priesthoods: I had a long post ready to go about why they're different situations; but for now I'll simply say that I don't think the current theology regarding the scope and duties of the Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood is very conducive to family life if both the mother and father are ordained to an office within one of those priesthoods. I don't think it's primarily about what a priesthood holder does within the family; it's that a priesthood holder's major obligations necessarily lie outside of the family and focus on the salvation of the entire human race.

Plainly speaking, my view is that two priesthood holders running a family necessarily entails either neglected children or a neglect of priesthood duties. We could solve the problem if we "water down" the idea that priesthood entails a special responsibility to the Church and, as missionaries, to the world; but I think if we do that we lose a lot of the sense of vitality that makes the Church so effective.

I think those are largely social obstacles that can be overcome, but I will confirm your belief that it would create issues. Women don't have to hold the priesthood for there to be problems arising from our duties to the Church. For almost two years, I was the clerk and my wife was the young women president. The logistical difficulties for us of having both parents serving on the ward council were bad enough that my bishop instituted a strict policy that only one parent from any family could be in a calling that sat on the ward council.

But regardless, this was a difficulty that was easily overcome by being aware and sensitive to the issue.

On another note, there are a lot of people that want us to go back to the old days of the Church when women gave blessing with laying on of hands (I myself have openly stated I don't oppose the idea). Usually the argument goes that they started doing so when Joseph Smith was the presiding authority and it was to social and cultural biases of the subsequent leaders that took it away. But once you accept that social or cultural biases caused such a change, you have to also accept the possibility that Joseph Smith instituted policies under his own biases that were later 'corrected' by subsequent leaders. That is to say, the argument goes both ways. How do we know who was right? Well, we don't really. And that's a matter that gets complicated by people getting different answers to their prayers on the matter.

Alright...time to go home.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think those are largely social obstacles that can be overcome, but I will confirm your belief that it would create issues. Women don't have to hold the priesthood for there to be problems arising from our duties to the Church. For almost two years, I was the clerk and my wife was the young women president. The logistical difficulties for us of having both parents serving on the ward council were bad enough that my bishop instituted a strict policy that only one parent from any family could be in a calling that sat on the ward council.

But regardless, this was a difficulty that was easily overcome by being aware and sensitive to the issue.

In practice, yes. But - and I realize I'm extraordinarily hard-nosed on this - IMHO, holding the priesthood means you aren't allowed to say "no" or even say "my family needs me more right now". You've got Jacob and Moroni in the Book of Mormon (and I think maybe King Benjamin too, if memory serves) openly saying that their priesthood means that they will be held guilty for the sins committed by their audiences if they do not carry out their duties to the letter. The initiatory and endowment reinforce this concept--but, pointedly, only for males.

We can be as warm-fuzzy in practice as we wish; but the theology is remarkably draconian. As it currently stands, males bear a fearsome obligation that women aren't subject to.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I didn't know that, JAG. Thanks. Maybe hubby and I need to compare notes next time we're in the Celestial room.

[Vort]

I didn't know that, JAG. Thanks. Maybe hubby and I need to compare notes next time we're in the Celestial room.

Just pay close attention during the endowment presentation.

[mordorbund]

That's true, but we can point to instances where Joseph had no problem with women laying hands on the sick and healing, plus the piece by the OP, etc.

And in those instances Joseph refers to healing as a gift of the spirit and not as a practice exclusive to the priesthood. From his remarks in a Relief Society meeting:

President Smith continued the subject, by quoting the commission given to the ancient Apostles in Mark, 16th chapter, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th verses, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

No matter who believeth, these signs, such as healing the sick, casting our devils, etc., should follow all that believe, whether male or female... it is no sin for anybody to administer that has faith, or if the sick have faith to be healed by their administration. [Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 224]

[MarginOfError]

In practice, yes. But - and I realize I'm extraordinarily hard-nosed on this - IMHO, holding the priesthood means you aren't allowed to say "no" or even say "my family needs me more right now". You've got Jacob and Moroni in the Book of Mormon (and I think maybe King Benjamin too, if memory serves) openly saying that their priesthood means that they will be held guilty for the sins committed by their audiences if they do not carry out their duties to the letter. The initiatory and endowment reinforce this concept--but, pointedly, only for males.

We can be as warm-fuzzy in practice as we wish; but the theology is remarkably draconian. As it currently stands, males bear a fearsome obligation that women aren't subject to.

That isn't an interpretation I can really get behind. The rhetoric on this issue appears to be changing. We could start tracking from "no success outside of the home can compensate for failure in the home" to "men and women are to be equal partners in these responsibilities." (I would do links to sources, but I'm on my iPod at the moment).

In the training meetings I've attended in the past ten years, I've come away with the impression that ward and stake leaders are expected to balance the needs of the Church with the needs of the family. I could ask any of the counselors I have served with (even the ones that I rarely got along with) and to the man they would say that if a brother couldn't satisfy the needs of both the Church and his family, the Church would be better served to let him have more time for his family.

[Suzie]

IMHO, holding the priesthood means you aren't allowed to say "no" or even say "my family needs me more right now".

Even if your family needs you right now? I never heard this concept. It has been my understanding for years that the first and most important responsibility a Priesthood holder has is his family. Everything else goes second.

President Hinckley said to Priesthood holders:

"Each of us has a fourfold responsibility. First, we have a responsibility to our families. Second, we have a responsibility to our employers. Third, we have a responsibility to the Lord’s work. Fourth, we have a responsibility to ourselves.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/priesthood-responsibilities?lang=eng

Notice that the responsibility to the Lord's work is listed third, not even second because simply this Church cannot move forward if our families are falling apart and well, yes you need your job to financially take care of them in order to continue working effectively for the Lord. So yes, I think a Priesthood holder is allowed to say "my family needs me more right now" because families come first.

[roytucker]

And in those instances Joseph refers to healing as a gift of the spirit and not as a practice exclusive to the priesthood.

Absolutely. But good luck to the sister who tries to claim those healing spiritual gifts today. I'm not sure it would be as well received. :)

I'm loving this discussion on what equality of roles might mean in a priesthood sense and the shifting rhetoric between church duty and family duty. It's great to hear people's perspectives.

[Just_A_Guy]

MOE and Suzie, I agree that the rhetoric has softened. Arguably, the Church's needs aren't as exigent at present, so we can afford to be more generous. But again: the theology, the scripture, and the temple liturgy are what they are.

And I would respectfully suggest that the down-playing of these obligations are a major reason for the current glut of snot-nosed little boys who think they "deserve" entry to the temple to be sealed to some gullible sweet young thing, even though missionary service - indeed, any kind of sacrifice for the Church - just "wasn't for me".

(Toldja I was extraordinarily hard-nosed. )

Suzie, I'm not convinced President Hinckley meant that those be listed in order of priority. If it is, then what of Brigham Young and Heber Kimball (and countless other nameless missionaries), who left their wives on their sickbeds to go serve as missionaries in Britain? What of George Albert Smith, who married his wife and left to the Southern States Mission within a couple of weeks? What of David O. McKay, who - about to start a new job, and just beginning a courtship with the woman who was to become his wife - was spontaneously called on a mission, threw the written mission call on the table with an exclamation of "Isn't that hell?!" - and went anyways?

Would the men of this Church today tolerate the kind of requests that were made in the first decades of the Church's existence? Would we do a latter-day equivalent of Zion's Camp, or the Mormon Battallion, if circumstances were sufficiently exigent? Would they put up with a request to up and relocate their families? Would they stick with the Church even after the leadership engaged in a set of business decisions that reset everyone's net worth back to zero?

I don't think they would, on the whole. And I think that's a tragedy.

It's wonderful that we are currently at a point, as a Church, where we don't currently need to extract the kinds of service that we used to from our priesthood holders. But on the other hand: by ignoring the obligations that do indeed run with the oath and covenant of the priesthood, and assuming that this time of plenty and ease will continue in perpetuity, I think we're crippling ourselves for the coming day when openly being a Mormon is not nearly so easy as it is now.

/rant

Edited December 20, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

JAG, if you happen to have any unspoken-for sons, I'm all for arranged marriage and have 4 wonderful daughters.

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, if you happen to have any unspoken-for sons, I'm all for arranged marriage and have 4 wonderful daughters.

He's 6 months old. PM me.