Did women ever hold the Priesthood?

[pam]

Did women ever hold the Priesthood?

 

Find out what gramps has to say on Ask Gramps:

 

http://askgramps.org/24053/women-ever-hold-priesthood

[MarginOfError]

My short answer to such a question is, "yes, they did, they have, and they do."  But that's a gross oversimplification of church history, and we need to also discuss which order of the priesthood to they hold and what right, privileges, and authorities are they authorized to use?  That's a much messier question, as is the question, does it have to remain the way it always has?

[Just_A_Guy]

Great article.

The elephant in the room, given the current controversy--and I'm not sure Gramps hit this quite as hard as he could--is that there is zero evidence of any female ever being ordained to a priesthood "office" as we currently understand the term, in Joseph Smith's ministry or later. Church records are completely devoid of any references to females being ordained to the priesthood offices of deacons, teachers, priests, bishops, elders, seventies, high priests, patriarchs, or apostles.*

One can argue generically that women were more "empowered" in the early days of the "church" (I'm not sure I agree with the argument, but I can sympathize with it to some degree), but as I understand it Kate Kelly and her merry band of agitators are asking for ordination to priesthood office and seats in priesthood quorums up to and including the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. That goes far beyond anything Joseph Smith even suggested implementing.

*Of course, you do have the NT references to (allegedly) deaconesses and a purportedly female "apostle" named Junias/Junia; but those references aren't conclusive and beg the question of to what degree NT uses of words like "deacon" and "apostle" always denote an equivalent to the modern priesthood office, versus to what extent they simply refer to their generic Greek meanings of "servant' and "one sent forth", respectively.

[The Folk Prophet]

Of note: There is a particular key phrase in the temple related to queens and priestesses that is all but ignored in what otherwise might be the strongest and most logical of arguments from those arguing that women have or will have the priesthood. I claim no insight as to it's meaning, but I do feel that it's quite glaring to ignore it. That phrase is "..to her husband." 

[Seminarysnoozer]

Of note: There is a particular key phrase in the temple related to queens and priestesses that is all but ignored in what otherwise might be the strongest and most logical of arguments from those arguing that women have or will have the priesthood. I claim no insight as to it's meaning, but I do feel that it's quite glaring to ignore it. That phrase is "..to her husband." 

Even though you say you don't know the meaning of the phrase, I am not seeing how you are linking that up to whether women have or will have the Priesthood.  Could you explain why you think that phrase is significant?  Thanks

[The Folk Prophet]

Even though you say you don't know the meaning of the phrase, I am not seeing how you are linking that up to whether women have or will have the Priesthood.  Could you explain why you think that phrase is significant?  Thanks

 

I don't know the full meaning. But I think it is significant to put it in terms of "...priestess to her husband", whereas the husband is not referred to in terms of "priest to his wife".

 

If I was going to throw a guess, I'd put it something along the lines of this: Men become priests through ordination to the priesthood. Women become priestesses by marrying their husbands. There is no implication therein as to the power and authority the woman has,- that simply is what it is -- but there is, perhaps, a strong implication that ordination is not, and will not be, the means women become priestesses.

 

Realistically, I also think that the usage of the term priest and priestess in the temple is much more universal than the way we use the term priest in the mortal order of the priesthood. Anyone who reaches the highest kingdom permanently joins the Celestial order and becomes a part of the "priesthood" (meaning an organization of priests and priestesses) of God, with all the attending power, glory, and dominion. Whereas on this earth we are only given authority to act for God, rather than actually holding any power ourselves. The ultimate requirement (as far as ordinances go) for achieving this is marriage, which responsibility is equal to men and women. Without marriage, neither qualify. But men have the additional requirement of being ordained to the priesthood in life to qualify, whereas women join the order when they marry.

[mordorbund]

From Elder Oaks' talk:

 

 

In an address to the Relief Society, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said this: “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.”

 

If women can be authorized to perform saving ordinances for the sake of convenience (or propriety, if you prefer), why can they not be authorized to perform other saving ordinances (like baptism, or sealings)? What about non-saving ordinances or duties (such as passing the sacrament)?

 

Doesn't this open entire "desert island"-style scenarios where a woman can be authorized to perform priesthood ordinances and duties?

[Traveler]

I don't know the full meaning. But I think it is significant to put it in terms of "...priestess to her husband", whereas the husband is not referred to in terms of "priest to his wife".

 

If I was going to throw a guess, I'd put it something along the lines of this: Men become priests through ordination to the priesthood. Women become priestesses by marrying their husbands. There is no implication therein as to the power and authority the woman has,- that simply is what it is -- but there is, perhaps, a strong implication that ordination is not, and will not be, the means women become priestesses.

 

Realistically, I also think that the usage of the term priest and priestess in the temple is much more universal than the way we use the term priest in the mortal order of the priesthood. Anyone who reaches the highest kingdom permanently joins the Celestial order and becomes a part of the "priesthood" (meaning an organization of priests and priestesses) of God, with all the attending power, glory, and dominion. Whereas on this earth we are only given authority to act for God, rather than actually holding any power ourselves. The ultimate requirement (as far as ordinances go) for achieving this is marriage, which responsibility is equal to men and women. Without marriage, neither qualify. But men have the additional requirement of being ordained to the priesthood in life to qualify, whereas women join the order when they marry.

 

I wanted to both allow you to answer and see how you would answer before I responded.  I believe your line of thinking is critical to understanding men and women are different and fulfill different roles - not just in mortality but in eternity.  I believe your observation of a particular phrase enlightens in part that difference.  It is obvious that in creation, especially in the creation of human life - men and women fulfill different and necessary roles.

 

By the nature of creation a woman gives herself (both physically and spiritually) to the creation of human life as she becomes pregnant with child.    Without giving herself in such a manner children could not be created.  But at the same time she should not be alone - thus there is also a role of husband and father that the man needs to take upon himself to take or received the woman unto himself to oversee and provide for her being a mother.

 

The problem is that many see the woman giving herself as being subservient to the man that in taking her and her pregnancy unto himself she becomes less than him.  It seems most obvious to me that a woman cannot give herself in selfishness.  The problem is in understanding the man receiving or taking the woman and child unto himself.  This act of receiving is often seen as selfishness in the role of men but the truth could not be farther from this understanding.   Taking a woman in pregnancy is and ought to be understood as complementary to the unselfishness of the woman and makes the whole of unselfishness greater than the sum of it parts. 

 

But the role of men and women do not suddenly just start when the woman is pregnant but rather is part of the eternal nature of creation which is in the greatness of G-d.  Thus it seems to me that priesthood and the man being ordained to priesthood is an element of the eternal order of G-d.  The priesthood being the means by which manhood and woman hood is fulfilled.  It seems clear to me, concerning righteous and unrighteous dominion that the priesthood is useless to the man that uses priesthood to have unrighteous dominion of women.  Likewise the woman cannot fulfill her giving of herself outside of giving herself to a man that does not honor her and the priesthood through which he receives her.

 

As I understand the priesthood - it is the divine order of G-d.  What I am not sure is if in this life the priesthood is given unto man only as training and preparation for roles that will be such the same or different in eternity.  I am inclined to believe that when we understand the eternal nature of marriage and the eternal roles of giving and receiving as a divine order or G-d - we will understand the priesthood and why men and women have different eternal roles.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I wanted to both allow you to answer and see how you would answer before I responded.  I believe your line of thinking is critical to understanding men and women are different and fulfill different roles - not just in mortality but in eternity.  I believe your observation of a particular phrase enlightens in part that difference.  It is obvious that in creation, especially in the creation of human life - men and women fulfill different and necessary roles.

 

By the nature of creation a woman gives herself (both physically and spiritually) to the creation of human life as she becomes pregnant with child.    Without giving herself in such a manner children could not be created.  But at the same time she should not be alone - thus there is also a role of husband and father that the man needs to take upon himself to take or received the woman unto himself to oversee and provide for her being a mother.

 

The problem is that many see the woman giving herself as being subservient to the man that in taking her and her pregnancy unto himself she becomes less than him.  It seems most obvious to me that a woman cannot give herself in selfishness.  The problem is in understanding the man receiving or taking the woman and child unto himself.  This act of receiving is often seen as selfishness in the role of men but the truth could not be farther from this understanding.   Taking a woman in pregnancy is and ought to be understood as complementary to the unselfishness of the woman and makes the whole of unselfishness greater than the sum of it parts. 

 

But the role of men and women do not suddenly just start when the woman is pregnant but rather is part of the eternal nature of creation which is in the greatness of G-d.  Thus it seems to me that priesthood and the man being ordained to priesthood is an element of the eternal order of G-d.  The priesthood being the means by which manhood and woman hood is fulfilled.  It seems clear to me, concerning righteous and unrighteous dominion that the priesthood is useless to the man that uses priesthood to have unrighteous dominion of women.  Likewise the woman cannot fulfill her giving of herself outside of giving herself to a man that does not honor her and the priesthood through which he receives her.

 

As I understand the priesthood - it is the divine order of G-d.  What I am not sure is if in this life the priesthood is given unto man only as training and preparation for roles that will be such the same or different in eternity.  I am inclined to believe that when we understand the eternal nature of marriage and the eternal roles of giving and receiving as a divine order or G-d - we will understand the priesthood and why men and women have different eternal roles.

As a sister in the Church, I think the other misconception created by this issue is that there is some limitation to one's progress by that separation of roles.  In other words, can women really become like our Heavenly Father or not?  Can women have all that the Father has like it is promised to anyone entering the Celestial Kingdom?  (key word being all)

 

I think the answer to that is that a role doesn't necessarily change the quantity of glory available.  And, I think the way around that is to understand that in the Celestial Kingdom everyone is part of the "one" body. 

 

1 Corinthians 12; "18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

 23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

 24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

 25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another."

 

I don't think there is more honour in one role than another when in the Celestial Kingdom as it is shared as one body without schism.  I think one would see herself as the whole while in the Celestial Kingdom and not as an individual, in other words.  In this life, we tend to separate the two, which I believe is what you are saying as well.

[The Folk Prophet]

Can women really become like our Heavenly Father or not?

 

This is an interesting question and brings up some interesting thoughts. From a certain perspective...not. They can become like our Heavenly Mother. From another perspective, yes, we can all become like Heavenly Father. But this is one specific way in which there has to be a literal difference and women will not become just the same as our Father. Gender is eternal. The Father is male. Women will never be male. So women will never be exactly like Heavenly Father.

 

Can women have all that the Father has like it is promised to anyone entering the Celestial Kingdom?  (key word being all)

 

Yes. And no. I will never have dominion over Jesus, for example. God the Father does. We will never have the same dominion as the Father, but we will share in His full Glory. So "all" is an interesting idea in this regard.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This is an interesting question and brings up some interesting thoughts. From a certain perspective...not. They can become like our Heavenly Mother. From another perspective, yes, we can all become like Heavenly Father. But this is one specific way in which there has to be a literal difference and women will not become just the same as our Father. Gender is eternal. The Father is male. Women will never be male. So women will never be exactly like Heavenly Father.

 

 

Yes. And no. I will never have dominion over Jesus, for example. God the Father does. We will never have the same dominion as the Father, but we will share in His full Glory. So "all" is an interesting idea in this regard.

Thanks, I agree with your responses.

 

What really does dominion mean in that sense?  Is it like the word, presiding?  If the stake president attends sacrament meeting and presides over the meeting for that day, what does that mean for him or us in the congregation?  Did something happen that wouldn't have happened if he wasn't there?  If two Stake Presidents happen to be in the same sacrament meeting, only one presides, the one that is over that particular stake.  So the one has "dominion" over the other but when comparing the amount of keys and authority the two have, side by side, the quantity is no different.  Dominion, in this sense and when compared to others of the same glory, is just the order of things not a description of quantity of anything. Right?

 

I kind of think of the word dominion the same way.  I am not sure if that translates into any real glory, power or anything really.  It is also kind of like using the word honorable.  It is a title of respect but isnt really attached to any specific authority that is greater necessarily than anyone else. 

 

Gospel Principles Chapter 47, on what is received with exaltation; "They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original)."

 

I don't know; all is all.  100% looks exactly like 100%. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Thanks, I agree with your responses.

 

What really does dominion mean in that sense?  Is it like the word, presiding?  If the stake president attends sacrament meeting and presides over the meeting for that day, what does that mean for him or us in the congregation?  Did something happen that wouldn't have happened if he wasn't there?  If two Stake Presidents happen to be in the same sacrament meeting, only one presides, the one that is over that particular stake.  So the one has "dominion" over the other but when comparing the amount of keys and authority the two have, side by side, the quantity is no different.  Dominion, in this sense and when compared to others of the same glory, is just the order of things not a description of quantity of anything. Right?

 

I kind of think of the word dominion the same way.  I am not sure if that translates into any real glory, power or anything really.  It is also kind of like using the word honorable.  It is a title of respect but isnt really attached to any specific authority that is greater necessarily than anyone else. 

 

Gospel Principles Chapter 47, on what is received with exaltation; "They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original)."

 

I don't know; all is all.  100% looks exactly like 100%. 

 

I don't see dominion in the same way as you are describing presiding. Jesus did the Father's will. Not the other way around. It's as simple as that. All things submit to the Father. Ownership is another way to look at dominion. God owns all His creations. We will not own all of His creations. We will own our creations.

 

Per the scripture you use, I really think "all" has to be understood generally and not specifically. God, our Father, will still continue to create worlds and children without end. These will be under His dominion, but not ours. He will own them. We will not. Reasonably speaking, they could be under our dominion, if there was need, but as that need will not exist, they will not. And in a way we will share in the glory of those -- I agree with you there -- but...well...it's a bit beyond us to really understand, you know what I mean?

 

It's interesting though, isn't it?

[Just_A_Guy]

If I was going to throw a guess, I'd put it something along the lines of this: Men become priests through ordination to the priesthood. Women become priestesses by marrying their husbands. There is no implication therein as to the power and authority the woman has,- that simply is what it is -- but there is, perhaps, a strong implication that ordination is not, and will not be, the means women become priestesses.

 

It might be worth noting that there's a difference between being anointed to become [hereafter] something, versus being anointed to actually be that thing.  Compare, for example, David's anointing to become a king by Samuel in 1 Samuel 16; to his later anointing as a king by the elders of Israel in 2 Samuel 5.

 

As I recall the verbiage from the endowment (and from what my wife tells me of the initiatory), what (typically) happens in the temple falls under the first category--not the second.

 

Incidentally:  My wife and I made a pact once, before going into the temple for initiatories, that we would memorize as much of the rituals as possible and then try to find a quiet place in the temple together immediately afterwards, and compare notes.  I'd highly recommend the experience--there are some interesting differences between the ritual as administered to males and the ritual as administered to females, that go beyond what is hinted at in the endowment.

[Traveler]

I don't see dominion in the same way as you are describing presiding. Jesus did the Father's will. Not the other way around. It's as simple as that. All things submit to the Father. Ownership is another way to look at dominion. God owns all His creations. We will not own all of His creations. We will own our creations.

 

Per the scripture you use, I really think "all" has to be understood generally and not specifically. God, our Father, will still continue to create worlds and children without end. These will be under His dominion, but not ours. He will own them. We will not. Reasonably speaking, they could be under our dominion, if there was need, but as that need will not exist, they will not. And in a way we will share in the glory of those -- I agree with you there -- but...well...it's a bit beyond us to really understand, you know what I mean?

 

It's interesting though, isn't it?

I agree - when I was in college I worked for a while as an office assistant in an insurance office - because of legal problems in accidents (including insurance coverage) I determined that I would not loan my car.  I use to say two things in life I do not loan - my car and my girl friend.   Humor aside I think you make an important point - not all of us can inherit every thing G-d has.  In particular G-d's gender - I do not think the ladies will inherit that -- ever.    

[Dravin]

Doesn't this open entire "desert island"-style scenarios where a woman can be authorized to perform priesthood ordinances and duties?

 

Ultimately it's God's authority to give or not give isn't it? So it doesn't matter if it is a desert island scenario or not, if God gives it then you have it. If he doesn't, you don't. All the hypothetical scenarios in the world are simply window dressing to that central premise.

[The Folk Prophet]

It might be worth noting that there's a difference between being anointed to become [hereafter] something, versus being anointed to actually be that thing.  Compare, for example, David's anointing to become a king by Samuel in 1 Samuel 16; to his later anointing as a king by the elders of Israel in 2 Samuel 5.

 

As I recall the verbiage from the endowment (and from what my wife tells me of the initiatory), what (typically) happens in the temple falls under the first category--not the second.

 

Incidentally:  My wife and I made a pact once, before going into the temple for initiatories, that we would memorize as much of the rituals as possible and then try to find a quiet place in the temple together immediately afterwards, and compare notes.  I'd highly recommend the experience--there are some interesting differences between the ritual as administered to males and the ritual as administered to females, that go beyond what is hinted at in the endowment.

 

I might contend (thought I'd have to think a bit more about it) that as men are "priests" in this life but anointed to become "priests" of a different nature in the hereafter, so women are priestesses to their husband in this life in like manner as they will be hereafter priestesses of a different nature to their husbands. Hmm....

[mordorbund]

Ultimately it's God's authority to give or not give isn't it? So it doesn't matter if it is a desert island scenario or not, if God gives it then you have it. If he doesn't, you don't. All the hypothetical scenarios in the world are simply window dressing to that central premise.

 

We've acknowledged that God has given it. Since the camel's nose is already in the tent, why don't we just invite him in and make it official? I'm hearing that those with keys can (and admittedly, it may currently be keys the prophet has decided to hold for himself rather than delegating down) authorize women to perform any priesthood function - short of holding keys themselves. What's preventing president(s) from "turning the key" in behalf of women for a broader ministry?

[Seminarysnoozer]

I don't see dominion in the same way as you are describing presiding. Jesus did the Father's will. Not the other way around. It's as simple as that. All things submit to the Father. Ownership is another way to look at dominion. God owns all His creations. We will not own all of His creations. We will own our creations.

 

Per the scripture you use, I really think "all" has to be understood generally and not specifically. God, our Father, will still continue to create worlds and children without end. These will be under His dominion, but not ours. He will own them. We will not. Reasonably speaking, they could be under our dominion, if there was need, but as that need will not exist, they will not. And in a way we will share in the glory of those -- I agree with you there -- but...well...it's a bit beyond us to really understand, you know what I mean?

 

It's interesting though, isn't it?

I am not sure how one could interpret receiving all that the Father has any differently, especially when one looks at Christ' prayer that we be "one" with the Father as He is "one" with him.  The parable of the prodigal son says; " 31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine."  According to Gospel Principles, last chapter, those that are in the Celestial Kingdom are eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father - meaning, He will never go off and do something else that we are not privy to.  Just like the parable of the prodigal son, all that the Father has is the son's.  The son give to His Father but all that the Father has is His as well.  This is what makes it from everlasting to everlasting, the fact that we believe in vicarious acts.  Jesus acted on our behalf.  We do believe that we can benefit from someone else' act.  When the Father does something, those that are eternally in His presence benefit from that act and it works the other way around too.

 

What you are describing, where an individual receives glory for their personal acts is what Satan wanted.  He did not want a Savior, he wanted all the credit for himself and of himself.  Those that have similar ideas will receive what they want - they will be put into a Kingdom where one is separate from the other like the stars differ one from another.  The glory of God is one, it is not various.  If one receives the glory of God it can only be one thing, it is not something that varies or is proprietary.

 

D&C 132; "...Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."

 

What other definition do you have for the words "inherit" (typically meaning something given that was not created by the person receiving it but from someone else) and the repeated use of the word "all"???   ALL power and ALL glory.  God's glory is based in giving ALL that he has.  The father in the parable of the prodigal son rejoiced in his sons return.  That is where that father received his happiness in that he could share everything he had with his sons.  Likewise, our Father in Heaven receives glory by sharing all His glory with whoever is worthy to receive it, that is His work and glory.  It does not give Him glory to claim it as a proprietary act. That sounds like a Satanic god to me. God does not want to step above us, He wants us to step up to Him and have everything He has.  That is the God I worship, not one that wants to keep us under His foot.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I agree - when I was in college I worked for a while as an office assistant in an insurance office - because of legal problems in accidents (including insurance coverage) I determined that I would not loan my car.  I use to say two things in life I do not loan - my car and my girl friend.   Humor aside I think you make an important point - not all of us can inherit every thing G-d has.  In particular G-d's gender - I do not think the ladies will inherit that -- ever.  

I have news for you.  If I make it into the Celestial Kingdom with my husband, everything he has will be mine.

 

The reason there are separate Kingdoms is for the issue you are addressing.  If one is not worthy to be loaned something of God's, believe me, they are not going to be found in the Celestial Kingdom.

[The Folk Prophet]

We've acknowledged that God has given it. Since the camel's nose is already in the tent, why don't we just invite him in and make it official? I'm hearing that those with keys can (and admittedly, it may currently be keys the prophet has decided to hold for himself rather than delegating down) authorize women to perform any priesthood function - short of holding keys themselves. What's preventing president(s) from "turning the key" in behalf of women for a broader ministry?

 

We've acknowledged that God has given what? I'm not sure what you think is foregone here? I can see no reasoning behind the idea that someone could authorize a woman to do a baptism, for example.

 

As to what's preventing the keys being turned? That would be the will and word of God.

[mordorbund]

We've acknowledged that God has given what? I'm not sure what you think is foregone here? I can see no reasoning behind the idea that someone could authorize a woman to do a baptism, for example.

 

As to what's preventing the keys being turned? That would be the will and word of God.

 

http://lds.net/forums/topic/54066-did-women-ever-hold-the-priesthood/#entry777367

 

We've acknowledged that women have been given authority to perform saving ordinances in the temple every bit as binding as though they were performed by a priesthood holder. Why stop there? What is so different about washings and anointings that they can be authorized to perform that ordinance but not baptism?

[The Folk Prophet]

I am not sure how one could interpret receiving all that the Father has any differently, especially when one looks at Christ' prayer that we be "one" with the Father as He is "one" with him.  The parable of the prodigal son says; " 31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine."  According to Gospel Principles, last chapter, those that are in the Celestial Kingdom are eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father - meaning, He will never go off and do something else that we are not privy to.  Just like the parable of the prodigal son, all that the Father has is the son's.  The son give to His Father but all that the Father has is His as well.  This is what makes it from everlasting to everlasting, the fact that we believe in vicarious acts.  Jesus acted on our behalf.  We do believe that we can benefit from someone else' act.  When the Father does something, those that are eternally in His presence benefit from that act and it works the other way around too.

 

What you are describing, where an individual receives glory for their personal acts is what Satan wanted.  He did not want a Savior, he wanted all the credit for himself and of himself.  Those that have similar ideas will receive what they want - they will be put into a Kingdom where one is separate from the other like the stars differ one from another.  The glory of God is one, it is not various.  If one receives the glory of God it can only be one thing, it is not something that varies or is proprietary.

 

D&C 132; "...Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."

 

What other definition do you have for the words "inherit" (typically meaning something given that was not created by the person receiving it but from someone else) and the repeated use of the word "all"???   ALL power and ALL glory.  God's glory is based in giving ALL that he has.  The father in the parable of the prodigal son rejoiced in his sons return.  That is where that father received his happiness in that he could share everything he had with his sons.  Likewise, our Father in Heaven receives glory by sharing all His glory with whoever is worthy to receive it, that is His work and glory.  It does not give Him glory to claim it as a proprietary act. That sounds like a Satanic god to me. God does not want to step above us, He wants us to step up to Him and have everything He has.  That is the God I worship, not one that wants to keep us under His foot.

 

I've read your views before. You like to see the Celestial kingdom as some sort of hive community it seems. I don't see it that way. I find your logic, in some cases, a bit askew.

[The Folk Prophet]

Why stop there?

 

 

...That would be the will and word of God.

 

 

 

 What is so different about washings and anointings that they can be authorized to perform that ordinance but not baptism?

 

The difference seems stunningly obvious to me. We simply cannot have men do the washing and anointings with any level of propriety.

 

I did have another thought however...it's a bit out there...but....

 

Is it reasonably to accept that the washing and anointing of women is NOT a priesthood ordinance? It is an ordinance performed under the authority of the priesthood, yes. But the relief society also, as we know, functions under the authority of the priesthood. Could it reasonably be that where all ordinances require priesthood authority, some (at least one) does not require the performer to have the priesthood, but others do? I know this thought goes into a bit of wordplay, but... Well, it's a thought. There is some logic behind this in the idea that the washing and anointing is considered "initiatory" or preparatory to recieving the endowment.  I know, I know...more word play...because all ordinances are preparatory to the higher ones. But....well....like I said, it's a thought.

[Seminarysnoozer]

We've acknowledged that God has given it. Since the camel's nose is already in the tent, why don't we just invite him in and make it official? I'm hearing that those with keys can (and admittedly, it may currently be keys the prophet has decided to hold for himself rather than delegating down) authorize women to perform any priesthood function - short of holding keys themselves. What's preventing president(s) from "turning the key" in behalf of women for a broader ministry?

I can answer that, somewhat.  From an LDS woman's standpoint, I see that the basic unit of organization for God is the family unit.  From the Garden of Eden on, God has always established his order based in the family unit.  It will be the same in the next life.  Whatever my husband has, if he and I both make it to the Celestial Kingdom, will be mine too.  We will share those burdens and I will help him with his roles and he with mine.  This is the basic unit of organization with God. The basic unit of organization is not the individual.  Satan wanted that.  He wanted to be recognized in and of himself without anybody else to attribute his glory to.  He couldn't stand the idea of saying that his glory was given to him by someone else.

 

Exaltation itself is based in that family unit.  The pathway to exaltation would not deviate from that or provide opportunity to receive all the blessings in some secondary fashion. 

 

Why is the family unit the basic unit of organization for God?  that is a question for another thread.

[Traveler]

I have news for you.  If I make it into the Celestial Kingdom with my husband, everything he has will be mine.

 

The reason there are separate Kingdoms is for the issue you are addressing.  If one is not worthy to be loaned something of God's, believe me, they are not going to be found in the Celestial Kingdom.

You will inherit the Father's gender?    or do you believe he does not have or possess gender?