Did women ever hold the Priesthood?

[The Folk Prophet]

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

 

Not to mention the traits of Gender. Men, even exalted, I think it's fair to say, will never bear children. :)

[mordorbund]

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

 

 

Really? The way they're performed now cannot be done with any level of propriety? As compared to the wet-jumpsuit ordinance of baptism?

[The Folk Prophet]

Really? The way they're performed now cannot be done with any level of propriety? As compared to the wet-jumpsuit ordinance of baptism?

 

You're right. Let's start having men do the washing and anointing of women immediately.    I'm sure they won't mind.

[Seminarysnoozer]

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

You know I am not saying that.

 

God's plan for us is the same plan that He followed, that of eternal marriage and the family unit.  My family unit can have all that God's has.  Within that unit, His gender is possessed. 

 

Like what was mentioned, if God being male does not bear children, how can he know all and understand and even receive the joy from child bearing?  However you want to answer that question would be the same response to how a woman could possess all that the Father has.

 

We believe in the divine ability to share experience.  That is the basis of Christ' atonement. Don't you think that power, of vicarious experience sharing will be given to all those in the Celestial Kingdom.  I think that is why one of the requirements to enter in the Celestial Kingdom is to love thy neighbor as thy self.  If one has that power to the nth degree then it will be as if they are doing the thing their self.  My husband's acts will be mine as will my acts be his.  We beleive in the divine power of vicarious experience. Propietary experience is Satan's desire, to be self focused only, with which a Savior would not be accepted.   

[The Folk Prophet]

You know I am not saying that.

 

God's plan for us is the same plan that He followed, that of eternal marriage and the family unit.  My family unit can have all that God's has.  Within that unit, His gender is possessed. 

 

Like what was mentioned, if God being male does not bear children, how can he know all and understand and even receive the joy from child bearing?  However you want to answer that question would be the same response to how a woman could possess all that the Father has.

 

We believe in the divine ability to share experience.  That is the basis of Christ' atonement. Don't you think that power, of vicarious experience sharing will be given to all those in the Celestial Kingdom.  I think that is why one of the requirements to enter in the Celestial Kingdom is to love thy neighbor as thy self.  If one has that power to the nth degree then it will be as if they are doing the thing their self.  My husband's acts will be mine as will my acts be his.  We beleive in the divine power of vicarious experience. Propietary experience is Satan's desire, to be self focused only, with which a Savior would not be accepted.   

 

I mostly agree here--though I think there's a fair amount of guessing going on and we don't really understand these things at all. But it argues for the point that women will never need the priesthood, because they can experience the blessings of it vicariously. It also argues (going back to an old thread debate with you) for the potential of polygamy, in that one celestial sister-wife would vicariously share in the joy of all her celestial sister-wives joy in progeny. I believe you argued before that celestial polygamy could not be fair because the husband's progeny would be greater than the wife's. According to this vicarious sharing theory, that would not be true.

[rayhale]

Female terms of Priestess and Prophetess, could have been just honorary titles given to the wives of Priests and Prophets, but who really knows?

[Just_A_Guy]

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?

 

I suspect it goes back into the idea of gender roles/separate stewardships.  Holding the priesthood gives one a degree of ministerial responsibility towards the Church and its members (and indeed, the world at large) that will necessarily pull the priesthood holder away from the home.  To facilitate child-rearing the Lord has set up a system where one parent is primarily responsible for ministering outside of the home, while the other parent is free to make ministering inside the home her number one priority.  (Could the Lord change this?  Of course.  But up to now, He hasn't.)

 

With regard to the initiatory ordinances, I think the Lord makes an exception to the paradigm outlined above for the reasons TFP suggests vis a vis the initiatory ordinances--although, with the 2006-ish changes to the ritual, I think it would be highly amusing to see the Church leadership decide that the reasons for allowing women to officiate in those rituals for other women are no longer valid and instruct that henceforth only (male) priesthood holders may officiate in that ritual as well.  There's certainly precedent--IIRC, women giving (non-priesthood) blessings by laying-on-of-hands was fairly common up until the 1940s at which time the First Presidency decided that that function rightly pertained to the priesthood, and the Relief Society was instructed to stop doing it.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I mostly agree here--though I think there's a fair amount of guessing going on and we don't really understand these things at all. But it argues for the point that women will never need the priesthood, because they can experience the blessings of it vicariously. It also argues (going back to an old thread debate with you) for the potential of polygamy, in that one celestial sister-wife would vicariously share in the joy of all her celestial sister-wives joy in progeny. I believe you argued before that celestial polygamy could not be fair because the husband's progeny would be greater than the wife's. According to this vicarious sharing theory, that would not be true.

Thanks for your comments.  This is a tangent from this thread but the sharing of experience between husband and wife has to be 100%.  I would have a hard time seeing it any other way.  That is what is difficult about the polygamy idea is that the husband would be partitioning off some aspect of his glory from one wife that belongs with his relationship to another.  And if everything is 100% shared then essentially one wife is married to the other, which we don't believe in that kind of relationship.  The whole idea that there is some kind of relationship called "sister-wife" is the problem.  The wives are not married to each other!  Polygamy creates this unnecessary relationship called "sister-wives".  Why would there be any special relationship that woman would have with a fellow wife compared to their relationship to a woman who was married to some other man.  If there is value to the so-called "sister-wife" relationship then men would be missing out on the synonymous "brother-husband" relationship.  There is no such thing as a "sister-wife" relationship described in the gospel. 

 

If the relationships are separate then there is not 100% sharing on the husbands part and if they are shared then this creates this bizarre relationship called "sister-wives".

 

D&C; "22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."

[The Folk Prophet]

Thanks for your comments.  This is a tangent from this thread but the sharing of experience between husband and wife has to be 100%.  I would have a hard time seeing it any other way.  That is what is difficult about the polygamy idea is that the husband would be partitioning off some aspect of his glory from one wife that belongs with his relationship to another.  And if everything is 100% shared then essentially one wife is married to the other, which we don't believe in that kind of relationship.  The whole idea that there is some kind of relationship called "sister-wife" is the problem.  The wives are not married to each other!  Polygamy creates this unnecessary relationship called "sister-wives".  Why would there be any special relationship that woman would have with a fellow wife compared to their relationship to a woman who was married to some other man.  If there is value to the so-called "sister-wife" relationship then men would be missing out on the synonymous "brother-husband" relationship.  There is no such thing as a "sister-wife" relationship described in the gospel. 

 

If the relationships are separate then there is not 100% sharing on the husbands part and if they are shared then this creates this bizarre relationship called "sister-wives".

 

D&C; "22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."

 

Your opinions on this matter, per this and the other thread, have been duly noted.

[Guest]

Really? The way they're performed now cannot be done with any level of propriety? As compared to the wet-jumpsuit ordinance of baptism?

 

No it cannot.  I'm a woman, I've been through the anointing part.  Trust me.  It can't.

[Just_A_Guy]

No it cannot.  I'm a woman, I've been through the anointing part.  Trust me.  It can't.

 

Since 2006-ish?

[onethatislazy]

But the relief society also, as we know, functions under the authority of the priesthood.

This was not the case prior to the 1890's. Lots of things changed during this time period. It was meant to be an independent organization above all other creatures. Priesthood is NOT given to control. D&C 124:41. 

 

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

 

Here is what Joseph said.

 

Joseph Smith papers.

 

favorable opportunity, wherein so goodly a number  of you may be inform’d that no such authority ever  has, ever can, or ever will be given to any man, and  if any man has been guilty of any such thing, let  him be treated with utter contempt, and let the  curse of God fall on his head, and let him be  turned out of Society as unworthy of a place among men, & denounced as the blackest & the most unprincipled wretch; and finally let him be  damned!

We have been informed that some unpri ncipled men, whose names we will not mention  at present, have been guilty of such crimes. We  do not mention their names, not knowing but what  there may be some among you who are not sufficiently  skill’d in Masonry as to keep a secret, therefore,  suffice it to say, there are those, and we therefore warn  you, & forewarn you, in the name of the Lord, to check & destroy any faith that any innocent person  may have in any such character; for we do not  want any one to believe any thing as coming from us,  contrary to the old established morals & virtues &  scriptural laws, regulating the habits, customs &  conduct of society; and all persons pretending to be  authoriz’d by us, or having any permit, or sanction  from us, are & will be liars & base impostors, & you are authoriz’d on the very first intimation of  the kind, to denounce them as such, & shun them  as the flying fiery serpent, whether they are prophets,  Seers, or revelators;Patriarchs, twelve Apostles, Elders,  Priests, Mayors, Generals, City Councillors, Aldermen,  Marshalls, Police, Lord Mayors or the Devil, are  alike culpable & shall be damned for such evil  practices; and if you yourselves adhere to anything [p. 87] (link here)

Can the “Female Relief Society of  Nauvoo” be trusted with some important  matters that ought actually to belong to them  to see to, which men have been under the necess ity of seeing to, to their chagrin & mortification,  in order to prevent iniquitous characters from  carrying their iniquity into effect; such, as for  instance, a man who may be aspiring after power  and authority, and yet without principle,—  regardless of God, man, or the devil, or the interest  or welfare of man, or the virtue or innocence of woman?

Shall the credulity, good faith, and stedfast  feelings of our sisters, for the cause of God or truth, be  impos’d upon by believing such men, because they say  they have authority from Joseph, or the First Presidency,  or any otherPresidency of the Church; and thus,  with a lie in their mouth, deceive and debauch  the innocent, under the assumption that they  are authoriz’d from these sources?May God  Forbid! (pg 83) (link here)

 

*Moderator edit*

This portion deleted.  This is something that should not be discussed outside of the temple.

[The Folk Prophet]

This was not the case prior to the 1890's. Lots of things changed during this time period. It was meant to be an independent organization above all other creatures. Priesthood is NOT given to control. D&C 124:41. 

 

You're twisting things. Control is irrelevant to authority. And nothing in the church is or ever has been independent of the priesthood. (D&C 107:5) Being authorized to act independently still fits very nicely into having been authorized.

 

As to your Joseph Smith quote, you don't seem to understand the context or meaning of it. Do some research on John C. Bennett and what was happening relating to him around the time this quote was given and you will understand it's meaning better and why Joseph addressed the sisters in this manner.

[Guest]

Since 2006-ish?

Yes.

Let's not even talk about the pre-2005 version... that was quite something else... and I was 8 months pregnant when I went through that version the first time... Awkward doesn't quite cut it.

[mordorbund]

Yes.

Let's not even talk about the pre-2005 version... that was quite something else... and I was 8 months pregnant when I went through that version the first time... Awkward doesn't quite cut it.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience Anatess.

 

I was about to ask a follow up question regarding baptism, but I found myself phrasing it in a way reminiscent of former members who take a cynical look toward the Church and the Priesthood.

 

So I'll leave it at 'thanks'.

[pam]

Thanks for sharing your experience Anatess.

 

I was about to ask a follow up question regarding baptism, but I found myself phrasing it in a way reminiscent of former members who take a cynical look toward the Church and the Priesthood.

 

So I'll leave it at 'thanks'.

 

Oh.my.word.  I just noticed your avatar. That's totally hilarious.

[mordorbund]

Now I'll finally get the respect I demand!!!

[classylady]

Mordorbund, I'm getting totally confused with the avatar change.  lol

[pam]

Mordorbund, I'm getting totally confused with the avatar change.  lol

 

You saw Heather's right?

[classylady]

You saw Heather's right?

 

Yes!  notmordorbund. Hilarious!

[MarginOfError]

Yes.

Let's not even talk about the pre-2005 version... that was quite something else... and I was 8 months pregnant when I went through that version the first time... Awkward doesn't quite cut it.

 

I'm not sure why the current form of the initiatory couldn't be performed across genders.  It it no more invasive than any other priesthood blessing.

[Guest]

I'm not sure why the current form of the initiatory couldn't be performed across genders.  It it no more invasive than any other priesthood blessing.

 

The baptism is a very open space with other people all around you.  The initiatories are not.  The baptism and confirmation do not mention any part of your body nor your clothes.  The intiatories do.  I'm not a prude but I'm Filipino - we're a bit on the conservative side of physical things - as we should. 

[MarginOfError]

The baptism is a very open space with other people all around you.  The initiatories are not.  The baptism and confirmation do not mention any part of your body nor your clothes.  The intiatories do.  I'm not a prude but I'm Filipino - we're a bit on the conservative side of physical things - as we should. 

 

Regarding the initiatories not being performed in an open space, if the Church were to move to a model where all initiatories would be performed by males, they would have to move the ordinance to a more open space.  There's no way they could do it while having men walk through the women's changing rooms.  So the open space thing, I imagine, would be an issue that would go away.

 

As for mentioning body parts and clothing, the references seem so sterile that I can't imagine it being an issue.  The most explicit word I can think of from the ordinance is "loins."  Is there any word more sterile than that*?  Plus, with the most recent changes, there is really no reason the initiatory can't be done in the basic temple whites.  The whole thing could become entirely innocuous very easily.

 

* It's possible that my attitude is biased by my career.  

[The Folk Prophet]

Regarding the initiatories not being performed in an open space, if the Church were to move to a model where all initiatories would be performed by males, they would have to move the ordinance to a more open space.  There's no way they could do it while having men walk through the women's changing rooms.  So the open space thing, I imagine, would be an issue that would go away.

 

As for mentioning body parts and clothing, the references seem so sterile that I can't imagine it being an issue.  The most explicit word I can think of from the ordinance is "loins."  Is there any word more sterile than that*?  Plus, with the most recent changes, there is really no reason the initiatory can't be done in the basic temple whites.  The whole thing could become entirely innocuous very easily.

 

* It's possible that my attitude is biased by my career.  

 

This sort of thing would be a very interesting change indeed. The feminists would flip. :)

[MaggieM]

Yes women administered in the early church. There are documents that show that they laid their hands on the sick.