Here we go again

[Dravin]

Genuine question does the priesthood make you more worthy or a better person in heavenly fathers eyes or is it just that these things need to be done so men are ordained to do them?

I keep shifting my opinion I can see where your coming from Wingnut if a woman didn't want priesthood she wouldn't seek it but does that equally mean not all men should be ordained that it should be something that is earned like in other churches? I am in favour of this but I am sure some one will come and shift my mind again

The priesthood doesn't make one more worthy/better, in the way I think you're asking the question. That is to say, men aren't somehow more worthy than women. Doctrine and Covenants 84 indicates though that men are be ordained and take on the responsibilities associated with the priesthood and those who fail to do so are under condemnation. As it stands it isn't voluntary for men, and if the priesthood is extended to women I don't see a rational for it being voluntary for them. When this topic comes up two verses from Doctrine and Covenants 84 come to mind:

41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.

42 And wo unto all those who come not unto this priesthood which ye have received, which I now confirm upon you who are present this day, by mine own voice out of the heavens; and even I have given the heavenly hosts and mine angels charge concerning you.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

I think you do men a disservice here. I also think this is a problem endemic in the Church: the feminist groups complain about women being marginalized in the Church, but it's the men that get unfairly ragged on.

I sort of feel uncomfortable with that kind of thing, too. But Fiona Givens has an interesting (tangential) take on it, here. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

I think many of the women in the Ordain Women group understand the whole temple/sealing/sharing thing as related to the Priesthood.

Granted; but (in addition to your subsequent points) I think it's worth noting that many of them openly disdain the temple sealing. They hate the way it's worded. They hate the way the covenant of obedience in the endowment ritual is framed. I understand that it conflicts deeply with their sociopolitical beliefs and results in some hurt feelings--but, nevertheless, the animus it generates creates a HUGE stumbling block to any kind of meaningful learning or revelatory experience.

Not all men might be ordained. Certainly not all women would be.

Could that be theologically tenable in light of D&C 84:42, which Dravin cites above? Like Dravin, I read that verse as saying that anyone who has an opportunity to receive the priesthood is under obligation to seek and actually obtain it; and I think that perception (though not necessarily always clearly articulated) is at the root of the common pressure in LDS wards for a male to be ordained as quickly as possible. If a woman can receive priesthood, why shouldn't that opportunity come on the same terms and with the same obligations as it does for a man?

Edited March 18, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Wingnut]

I sort of feel uncomfortable with that kind of thing, too. But Fiona Givens has an interesting (tangential) take on it, here. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

I'll try to read it later. Thanks!

Granted; but (in addition to your subsequent points) I think it's worth noting that many of them openly disdain the temple sealing. They hate the way it's worded. They hate the way the covenant of obedience in the endowment ritual is framed. I understand that it conflicts deeply with their sociopolitical beliefs and results in some hurt feelings--but, nevertheless, the animus it generates creates a HUGE stumbling block to any kind of meaningful learning or revelatory experience.

That's fair. I'm not crazy about some of the temple wording in general. I have a slightly different take on it, though. Some might ask that language regarding a woman's relationship to her husband's be more closely aligned the the language regarding a man's relationship with the Lord. I think it needs to be changed further than that. I have no problem with the first part. But it would be nice if my husband were as accountable to me as I am to him, and for me to be as accountable to the Lord as my husband is. The current language is very linear and patriarchal. A change like what I described would make it more circular, and Christ-centered.

Could that be theologically tenable in light of D&C 84:42, which Dravin cites above? Like Dravin, I read that verse as saying that anyone who has an opportunity to receive the priesthood is under obligation to seek and actually obtain it; and I think that perception (though not necessarily always clearly articulated) is at the root of the common pressure in LDS wards for a male to be ordained as quickly as possible. If a woman can receive priesthood, why shouldn't that opportunity come on the same terms and with the same obligations as it does for a man?

Yep, and this is why I said, "Perhaps some of my language here is imprecise, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to convey" and "...I think if this change were made, many other changes would also need to be made" in other posts. I have ideas floating around in my head (which is a scary place, BTW), but I haven't worked out all the kinks, you know? If such a change were made, obviously not all women would want the Priesthood. Would they be compelled into it, under threat of loss of their temple recommend? If not, how do we reconcile the "optional nature" of it with what you and Dravin have referenced?

I don't know.

I definitely don't believe that women can't hold the Priesthood. I don't know if I will ever see it changed during my life. But there would have to be a lot of changes in order to make such a transition, and I don't think the Church as a whole is ready for those changes. And like I've said, I don't even know what many of those changes would have to be.

[Just_A_Guy]

I know; and I'm kind of hard-nosed in this regard. I've had this discussion with MoE before, I think, and he disagrees with me; but I basically take the position that having the priesthood means you can never say 'no' to the Church and that having two parents with this level of commitment to the Church would be disastrous for LDS child-rearing practices. But I suspect that lots of folks would disagree with my characterization of the obligations of a priesthood holder to the Church, and how they would interact with family life.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Str8Shooter]

I've got to speak my peace about the women being ordained to the Priesthood/Ordain Women topic.

1. Those that feel that men are above women because men currently hold the Priesthood do not understand the Priesthood, it's blessings, and how it actually empowers equality.

2. Those that feel women should hold the priesthood now are not unlike the dissenters spoken of in the Book of Mormon. They should study D&C section 28 thoroughly and realize that they may likely be in spiritual peril being deceived by the sophistry of man. By definition, Ordain Women is an apostate group. Those affiliated with it should be remember that what they feel are good intentions may bring upon themselves serious consequences that are detrimental to eternal progression.

"And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church;" D&C 28:6

I am not here to create contention, only to convey my opinions.

[The Folk Prophet]

I know; and I'm kind of hard-nosed in this regard. I've had this discussion with MoE before, I think, and he disagrees with me; but I basically take the position that having the priesthood means you can never say 'no' to the Church and that having two parents with this level of commitment to the Church would be disastrous for LDS child-rearing practices. But I suspect that lots of folks would disagree with my characterization of the obligations of a priesthood holder to the Church, and how they would interact with family life.

I don't usually disagree with you, but I do on this one. The church clearly teaches family, job, then callings.

However, to flip on my own opinion, anyone who is unwilling to give up family, home, jobs, etc., for the Lord is unworthy of salvation. But this would apply to women too and has nothing to do with the Priesthood.

[The Folk Prophet]

That's fair. I'm not crazy about some of the temple wording in general. I have a slightly different take on it, though. Some might ask that language regarding a woman's relationship to her husband's be more closely aligned the the language regarding a man's relationship with the Lord. I think it needs to be changed further than that. I have no problem with the first part. But it would be nice if my husband were as accountable to me as I am to him, and for me to be as accountable to the Lord as my husband is. The current language is very linear and patriarchal. A change like what I described would make it more circular, and Christ-centered.

Which part of a covenant to obey the Lord leaves a husband unaccountable to his wife?

Changing the wording, as you have implied, would make things less patriarchal. That would be a denial of truth. The church is patriarchal. The gospel is patriarchal. The priesthood is patriarchal. And the patriarchal order is scriptural, eternal truth.

If not, how do we reconcile the "optional nature" of it with what you and Dravin have referenced?

The Priesthood is not optional for men. Not at all. Ordination to the Priesthood is a saving ordinance.

I definitely don't believe that women can't hold the Priesthood.

Then you misunderstand the nature of the Priesthood and the patriarchal order, which is synonymous with it. A woman cannot be a patriarch any more than a man can be a matriarch.

The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.

[The Folk Prophet]

More scriptural support of "patriarchal" priesthood:

2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.

4 I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.

[MarginOfError]

Which part of a covenant to obey the Lord leaves a husband unaccountable to his wife?

Changing the wording, as you have implied, would make things less patriarchal. That would be a denial of truth. The church is patriarchal. The gospel is patriarchal. The priesthood is patriarchal. And the patriarchal order is scriptural, eternal truth.

The Priesthood is not optional for men. Not at all. Ordination to the Priesthood is a saving ordinance.

Then you misunderstand the nature of the Priesthood and the patriarchal order, which is synonymous with it. A woman cannot be a patriarch any more than a man can be a matriarch.

I believe the part she is referring to makes reference to a covenant by the woman to obey her husband as he obeys to Lord. This covenant is asymmetrical as he is only under covenant to obey the Lord. If I understand Wingnut correctly, she would prefer language that makes these covenants symmetrical.

I also suspect you and she are using different connotations of 'patriarchal.' While you are using it in the sense of 'the male presides over the family,' she appears to be more concerned with the connotation of 'the male has final say over the family.' The latter connotation runs against current teachings about husbands and wives being equal partners.

[The Folk Prophet]

I believe the part she is referring to makes reference to a covenant by the woman to obey her husband as he obeys to Lord. This covenant is asymmetrical as he is only under covenant to obey the Lord. If I understand Wingnut correctly, she would prefer language that makes these covenants symmetrical.

It is asymmetrical because it is meant to be. Preference to altering the order of God has no meaning. The meaning is intentional and tied to the patriarchal order. It is important, doctrinal, scriptural, and it matters. We are taught to go to the temple to gain new insight, not prefer wording that suits our own politically correct preferences.

I also suspect you and she are using different connotations of 'patriarchal.' While you are using it in the sense of 'the male presides over the family,' she appears to be more concerned with the connotation of 'the male has final say over the family.' The latter connotation runs against current teachings about husbands and wives being equal partners.

Actually, I was talking about why only men will have the priesthood and the viewpoint that women could have it someday is nonsense.

I was also talking about it in terms of the temple wording, in that she said she'd like it to be less patriarchal. I reject that as a viable philosophy. The patriarchal wording has meaning and intent and is not just based on chauvinistic archaic philosophies that needs updating to modern sensibilities.

[Wingnut]

I believe the part she is referring to makes reference to a covenant by the woman to obey her husband as he obeys to Lord. This covenant is asymmetrical as he is only under covenant to obey the Lord. If I understand Wingnut correctly, she would prefer language that makes these covenants symmetrical.

Yes, thank you for clarifying. Also, language in the sealing ordinance/ceremony doesn't ask the husband to give himself to his wife. It asks her to give herself unto him, but it only asks him to receive her unto himself.

I also suspect you and she are using different connotations of 'patriarchal.' While you are using it in the sense of 'the male presides over the family,' she appears to be more concerned with the connotation of 'the male has final say over the family.' The latter connotation runs against current teachings about husbands and wives being equal partners.

Yes. This. ^

[MarginOfError]

It is asymmetrical because it is meant to be. Preference to altering the order of God has no meaning. The meaning is intentional and tied to the patriarchal order. It is important, doctrinal, scriptural, and it matters. We are taught to go to the temple to gain new insight, not prefer wording that suits our own politically correct preferences.

Well, since, as you say in the Doctrine thread, doctrine can change, perhaps preferences are important, and when enough people in proper positions of authority go to the temple and gain the further insight that the wording should be changed, then the doctrine will change.

Actually, I was talking about why only men will have the priesthood and the viewpoint that women could have it someday is nonsense.

I was also talking about it in terms of the temple wording, in that she said she'd like it to be less patriarchal. I reject that as a viable philosophy. The patriarchal wording has meaning and intent and is not just based on chauvinistic archaic philosophies that needs updating to modern sensibilities.

That one went entirely over your head, didn't it?

There is a difference between "the father presiding over the family" and "the father having ultimate say for the family." The former is consistent with the term patriarchal as you are using it, and with current counsel that husbands and wives are equal partners. The latter is consistent with neither, and is the connotation of patriarchal that Wingnut is intending to use.

But I'll have to bow out unless you're going to show a good faith attempt to understand the ways that others are using and defining the terms they use. If you're going to insist that we all use the words in the manner that you are defining them (as you are here and in the Doctrine thread) then I'm afraid any discussion with you will be about as productive as teaching a rock to do arithmetic.

[Wingnut]

It is asymmetrical because it is meant to be. Preference to altering the order of God has no meaning. The meaning is intentional and tied to the patriarchal order. It is important, doctrinal, scriptural, and it matters. We are taught to go to the temple to gain new insight, not prefer wording that suits our own politically correct preferences.

Now, now. You can't have it both ways:

Doctrine is just a word. So is policy. They can, theoretically, mean the same thing when applied to a church. We get so caught up in defining the words that we look past what's actually important. Who cares what is or isn't "doctrine"?

(emphasis mine)

[Wingnut]

There is a difference between "the father presiding over the family" and "the father having ultimate say for the family." The former is consistent with the term patriarchal as you are using it, and with current counsel that husbands and wives are equal partners. The latter is consistent with neither, and is the connotation of patriarchal that Wingnut is intending to use.

The Church currently uses "patriarchal" in the former sense, and I have no problem with that use of the word, or of the practice. But the language in the temple is somewhat archaic, and hearkens to a time when "patriarchal" was an oppressive state for women. That is what I have a problem with.

The wording may be deliberate (I'm sure it is). It may matter (I'm sure it does). The Patriarchal Order is important and doctrinal. But when I hear certain language in the temple, I'm sometimes uncomfortable, to the point that I don't wish to go again. When I attend the temple anymore, I make a point of visiting the baptistry or the washing and anointing areas. Those are the only areas where I can truly feel uplifted and instructed by the Spirit while in the temple.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well, since, as you say in the Doctrine thread, doctrine can change, perhaps preferences are important, and when enough people in proper positions of authority go to the temple and gain the further insight that the wording should be changed, then the doctrine will change.

Logically, yes, it could change. But not because of preference. The Lord's doctrine is the Lord's and He will do as He will. Our preference is meaningless. Our whole goal should be to bend our will and understanding to His. Also, as I also said in the doctrine thread, eternal truth does not change.

That one went entirely over your head, didn't it?

Not at all.

There is a difference between "the father presiding over the family" and "the father having ultimate say for the family."

There is no difference. Trying to say there is a difference confuses things that are plain. What, exactly, does "preside" mean if it doesn't mean "preside". The prophet presides over the church. Who has final say there? The bishop presides over the ward. Who has final say there?

pre·side[ pri zī́d ]

1 be officially in charge: to be the chairperson or hold a similar position of authority at a formal gathering of people

2 have control: to be the most powerful person or the one everyone else obeys, usually in a specific place or situation

3 perform as instrumentalist: to be the featured instrumentalist in a musical performance

How can one preside if one doesn't actually preside? The concept is mystifying at best.

The former is consistent with the term patriarchal as you are using it, and with current counsel that husbands and wives are equal partners. The latter is consistent with neither, and is the connotation of patriarchal that Wingnut is intending to use.

The husband and wives are equal because the Priesthood is never, can never be, enforced. The powers of the priesthood may only be exercised through the means dictated in D&C 121. The righteous husband and righteous wife will be equal partners because they will both pursue righteousness. The unrighteous husband loses his right to preside. The unrighteous wife will not follow the righteous husband anyway, and the righteous husband will never exercise unrighteous dominion. But the husband does preside, and then the righteous wife should follow his counsel. That is doctrinal whether people have a problem with it or not.

But I'll have to bow out unless you're going to show a good faith attempt to understand the ways that others are using and defining the terms they use. If you're going to insist that we all use the words in the manner that you are defining them (as you are here and in the Doctrine thread) then I'm afraid any discussion with you will be about as productive as teaching a rock to do arithmetic.

Well, you may bow out if you wish. But I'm not sure wherein we should be accepting definitions for words that don't mean what the words actually mean. The meaning words have actually does matter, and using words in ways that they don't mean causes a breakdown in communication. Clarification of what a word means is meant to help communication. But if some choose to ignore the meanings and press forward belligerently, that's their prerogative. However, I am not defining these words. They are already defined. Hence the dictionary definition posts.

If you find discussion based on the actual meaning of words like teaching a rock to do arithmetic then you're probably right, we won't go far in useful conversation.

Regardless, the doctrine thread and this one are two different points. My post in the doctrine thread is, very clearly, my point of view on it. But the points I'm trying to make in this thread (while, obviously, still my point of view, as anyone's points are) are based on scripture and doctrine. My so-called "defining" of patriarch is not really the point though. The patriarchal order, what it means, how it's established doctrinally, scripturally, and in LDS theologically, are concrete principles and it has nothing to do with defining the actual word. It has to do with the way we interact in the church, the priesthood, and in our own homes. There is effort to alter these things, and it is to our detriment to do so. The Lord's order is His, not ours to do with as we prefer.

Your overall response seems to have turned fairly antagonistic. So I think, for that reason, I too will bow out of further responses if the tone remains the same. I'm not interested in antagonism. I'm more than happy to discuss the philosophy and even challenge each other's thinking. I'm not interested in moving into territory that intentionally, directly insults one another.

Edited March 19, 2014 by church

[The Folk Prophet]

Now, now. You can't have it both ways:

(emphasis mine)

You misunderstand my meaning in that thread. Truth does matter. Truth is ALL that matters. And doctrine matters. By my saying "who cares..." I did not mean to imply that it doesn't matter what we believe. I meant to say who cares if we call it doctrine or not. People get so hung up on what's considered "doctrine" instead of worrying about trusting the Lord, His plan, His church, and His anointed ones' counsel.

Edited March 19, 2014 by church

[SpiritDragon]

I believe the part she is referring to makes reference to a covenant by the woman to obey her husband as he obeys to Lord. This covenant is asymmetrical as he is only under covenant to obey the Lord. If I understand Wingnut correctly, she would prefer language that makes these covenants symmetrical.

I understand how some perceive this wording as asymmetrical, but ultimately both are only covenanting to obey the Lord, at least this is how my wife and I see it. A wife is only under covenant to follow her husband as he FOLLOWS the lord, otherwise she is under no obligation to follow her husband. Any attempt to exercise unrighteous dominion will eliminate the authority given to a man.

God has organized everything to have order. The family order is for the husband/father to seek direction and lead the family. The wife/mother is equally yoked with the responsibility to seek confirmation that her husband has indeed followed the Lord, and if not propose a reappraisal of the direction or to veto it outright. It is a beautiful check and balance system to ensure the Lord is guiding the church at the family level.

[SpiritDragon]

LDS Church: Aims of 'Ordain Women' detract from dialogue | Deseret News

I thought the graphs were especially telling. Oh well. To each his/her own. Some people just have to rock the boat for a little attention.

Some do indeed feel the need to rock the boat.

I thought you might find these statements from "The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" interesting:

Words to the Relief Society (applicable to all)

President Smith arose and called the attention of the meeting to the 12th chapter of

Corinthians7

—“Now concerning spiritual gifts, I would not have you ignorant.”

Said that the passage in the third verse, which reads, “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost,” should be translated “no man can know that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” He continued to read the chapter, and give instructions respecting the different offices, and the necessity of every individual acting in the sphere allotted him or her, and filling the several offices to which they are appointed. He spoke of the disposition of many men to consider the lower offices in the Church dishonorable, and to look with jealous eyes upon the standing of others who are called to preside over them; that it was the folly and nonsense of the human heart for a person to be aspiring to other stations than those to which they are appointed of God for them to occupy; that it was better for individuals to magnify their respective calling, and wait patiently till God shall say to them, “come up higher.”

******

President Smith continued by speaking of the difficulties he had to surmount ever since the commencement of the work, in consequence of aspiring men. “Great big Elders,” as he called them, who caused him much trouble; to whom he had taught the things of the kingdom in private councils, they would then go forth into the world and proclaim the things he had taught them, as their own revelations; said the same aspiring disposition will be in this Society, and must be guarded against; that every person should stand, and act in the place appointed, and thus sanctify the Society and get it pure. He said he had been trampled under foot by aspiring Elders, for all were infected with that spirit; for instance, John E. Page and others had been aspiring; they could not be exalted, but must run away as though the care and authority of the Church were vested with them. He said he had a

subtle devil to deal with, and could only curb him by being humble.