Did women ever hold the Priesthood?

[The Folk Prophet]

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

 

By which you mean to say.... ??

[MaggieM]

By which you mean to say.... ??

That women in the early days were documented to have gave healing blessings.  Joseph wanted the Relief Society to be "a kingdom of priests".

Eliza Snow said this:

Is it necessary for sisters to be set apart to officiate in the sacred ordinances of washing, anointing, and laying on of hands in administering to the sick? It certainly is not. Any and all sisters who honor their holy endowments, not only have right, but should feel it a duty, whenever called upon to administer to our sisters in these ordinances, which God has graciously committed to His daughters as well as to His sons; and we testify that when administered and received in faith and humility they are accompanied with almighty power

(To the Branches of Relief Society, Women's Exponant, 1884)

[The Folk Prophet]

That women in the early days were documented to have gave healing blessings.  Joseph wanted the Relief Society to be "a kingdom of priests".

Eliza Snow said this:

Is it necessary for sisters to be set apart to officiate in the sacred ordinances of washing, anointing, and laying on of hands in administering to the sick? It certainly is not. Any and all sisters who honor their holy endowments, not only have right, but should feel it a duty, whenever called upon to administer to our sisters in these ordinances, which God has graciously committed to His daughters as well as to His sons; and we testify that when administered and received in faith and humility they are accompanied with almighty power

(To the Branches of Relief Society, Women's Exponant, 1884)

 

I know the history of it. I'm asking if you are trying to argue the women did or should have the priesthood.

[Guest]

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

 

 

That women in the early days were documented to have gave healing blessings.  Joseph wanted the Relief Society to be "a kingdom of priests".

Eliza Snow said this:

Is it necessary for sisters to be set apart to officiate in the sacred ordinances of washing, anointing, and laying on of hands in administering to the sick? It certainly is not. Any and all sisters who honor their holy endowments, not only have right, but should feel it a duty, whenever called upon to administer to our sisters in these ordinances, which God has graciously committed to His daughters as well as to His sons; and we testify that when administered and received in faith and humility they are accompanied with almighty power

(To the Branches of Relief Society, Women's Exponant, 1884)

 

 

Uhmm... that's the same as today.  You don't wait for some Priesthood holder to be available to give your child a healing blessing and give him medicine.

[MaggieM]

Uhmm... that's the same as today.  You don't wait for some Priesthood holder to be available to give your child a healing blessing and give him medicine.

No, it isn't actually - they gave actual blessings, not just a mother's prayer of healing. 

[MarginOfError]

I know the history of it. I'm asking if you are trying to argue the women did or should have the priesthood.

 

By itself, it doesn't make a case either way.  You can use the information to argue that women did perform priesthood ordinances before and therefore could do so now, or you could argue that their having done so was an inappropriate assignment of priesthood authority that was rectified by subsequent leaders.

 

You can't actually argue* that they should or should not, as that is a decision that ultimately lies between the President of the Church and the Savior.

 

* at least not beyond a simple "I think they should" expressed as a matter of personal opinion.

 

Uhmm... that's the same as today.  You don't wait for some Priesthood holder to be available to give your child a healing blessing and give him medicine.

 

As liberal as I am, and as much as I feel that women ought to be able to bless their own children, I wouldn't recommend doing this in the current climate unless you're willing to be put to the coals.

[The Folk Prophet]

Uhmm... that's the same as today.  You don't wait for some Priesthood holder to be available to give your child a healing blessing and give him medicine.

There is a difference in understanding, policy, practice, etc...

 

Joseph Fielding Smith:

 

“While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the Elders of the Church to come and minister to the sick and afflicted.”

[The Folk Prophet]

By itself, it doesn't make a case either way.  You can use the information to argue that women did perform priesthood ordinances before and therefore could do so now, or you could argue that their having done so was an inappropriate assignment of priesthood authority that was rectified by subsequent leaders.

 

Or, as I believe,...option 3, they appropriately for the time gave blessings of healing by the power of faith and it wasn't a priesthood ordinance at all. Per policy, and to keep things clear and dissuade confusion, the policy changed so that women are now to heal by prayer and faith alone, rather than by the use of anointing and the laying on of hands.

 

Technically, except for the directives of those who guide the church, a woman could anoint and bless the sick. They do not need to be given the priesthood to do this. Per current policy, they should not do this. Either way, it just doesn't play into ordination to priesthood offices.

[MarginOfError]

Or, as I believe,...option 3, they appropriately for the time gave blessings of healing by the power of faith and it wasn't a priesthood ordinance at all. Per policy, and to keep things clear and dissuade confusion, the policy changed so that women are now to heal by prayer and faith alone, rather than by the use of anointing and the laying on of hands.

 

Technically, except for the directives of those who guide the church, a woman could anoint and bless the sick. They do not need to be given the priesthood to do this. Per current policy, they should not do this. Either way, it just doesn't play into ordination to priesthood offices.

A third option kind of bolsters the point that there are mutliple (logically) valid ways to interpret those events.  

[The Folk Prophet]

A third option kind of bolsters the point that there are mutliple (logically) valid ways to interpret those events.  

 

True. I generally choose to go with interpretations that support the paths taken by our leaders and exert trust in their knowledge, wills, efforts, humility, and submission to He who truly leads this church.

[MaggieM]

I know the history of it. I'm asking if you are trying to argue the women did or should have the priesthood.

I don't see why women cannot hold the priesthood, so I wouldn't mind if that happened. There is no reason why a woman can't place her hands and bless her sick child instead of calling her hometeacher late at night to come over, or being a part of her child's baby blessing. I also don't think there is anything wrong with giving women a more prominant role in the church. Letting women pray in General Conference was a step forward in that respect.

 

Well, it seems like women weren't ordained per say, but they were allowed to give priesthood blessings.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't see why women cannot hold the priesthood, so I wouldn't mind if that happened. There is no reason why a woman can't place her hands and bless her sick child instead of calling her hometeacher late at night to come over, or being a part of her child's baby blessing. I also don't think there is anything wrong with giving women a more prominant role in the church. Letting women pray in General Conference was a step forward in that respect.

 

Well, it seems like women weren't ordained per say, but they were allowed to give priesthood blessings.

 

*nod*

 

My thinking on why women don't hold the priesthood is fairly straight forward. Their role is to be mothers and that is the priority. Their role is not to administer in the church. It's pretty simple.

[MaggieM]

*nod*

 

My thinking on why women don't hold the priesthood is fairly straight forward. Their role is to be mothers and that is the priority. Their role is not to administer in the church. It's pretty simple.

Yes, but not every woman is married, or can have children - or even wants to. what about them? Isn't fatherhood a big job as well? Why is it okay to take a father away for priesthood duties but not a mother?

 

Another part of thinks women are lucky for not having to attend all those meetings. :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes, but not every woman is married, or can have children - or even wants to. what about them?

 

Want is irrelevant. What about those who want to be alcoholics, thieves, murderers, whoremongers, idolaters, etc., etc...? What we want has nothing to do with the policies, standards, and organization of the church.

 

As to the other exceptions to the rules -- roles are roles and there is no distinct need for an exception policy that would benefit none but those unwilling or unable to humble themselves and submit to the order God established.

 

The entire argument loses sight of what actually matters in life -- returning to God and gaining our Salvation. Women's ordination is not necessary for this, not even for the exceptions. An overall ordination of women would, certainly, be harmful to this end, as it would take women out of their homes and diminish their capacity to be effective mothers.

[MarginOfError]

Want is irrelevant. What about those who want to be alcoholics, thieves, murderers, whoremongers, idolaters, etc., etc...? What we want has nothing to do with the policies, standards, and organization of the church.

 

That's a pretty awful counter argument.  You might want to rethink how you present that concept.

 

As to the other exceptions to the rules -- roles are roles and there is no distinct need for an exception policy that would benefit none but those unwilling or unable to humble themselves and submit to the order God established.

 

The entire argument loses sight of what actually matters in life -- returning to God and gaining our Salvation. Women's ordination is not necessary for this, not even for the exceptions. An overall ordination of women would, certainly, be harmful to this end, as it would take women out of their homes and diminish their capacity to be effective mothers.

 

 

At the same time, it would create opportunities for men to stay home and be more effective fathers.  There's an equation that can be balanced here, and you're not really representing the full effects of what could be were were to allow women the priesthood.  Is there the potential for problems to arise if a husband and wife both held the priesthood and were both called into prominent positions?  sure.  But my ward council figured out pretty quickly that it was too much to ask of a single family to have a husband and wife on the ward council, and we didn't need women to be ordained to figure out how to avoid that.

[MaggieM]

Want is irrelevant. What about those who want to be alcoholics, thieves, murderers, whoremongers, idolaters, etc., etc...? What we want has nothing to do with the policies, standards, and organization of the church.

 

As to the other exceptions to the rules -- roles are roles and there is no distinct need for an exception policy that would benefit none but those unwilling or unable to humble themselves and submit to the order God established.

 

The entire argument loses sight of what actually matters in life -- returning to God and gaining our Salvation. Women's ordination is not necessary for this, not even for the exceptions. An overall ordination of women would, certainly, be harmful to this end, as it would take women out of their homes and diminish their capacity to be effective mothers.

Okay, but doesn't then the priesthood take fathers out of the homes and make them less effective? And really, do you believe someone who has no desire to be a parent should in fact be a parent? How horrible for the child who is unwanted.

 

Life isn't one size fits all. It can't be - and doesn't have anything to do with humility. You could have legitimate reasons for not marrying. Perhaps there just was no one you met that  you were compatible with, or you realize you have personal difficulties that would make marriage and parenthood impossible for you.  And having children has a lot to do with biology, not going with God's will. I know women who have a difficult time because they can't easily concieve. 

[The Folk Prophet]

That's a pretty awful counter argument.  You might want to rethink how you present that concept.

 

Not really.

 

At the same time, it would create opportunities for men to stay home and be more effective fathers.  There's an equation that can be balanced here, and you're not really representing the full effects of what could be were were to allow women the priesthood.  Is there the potential for problems to arise if a husband and wife both held the priesthood and were both called into prominent positions?  sure.  But my ward council figured out pretty quickly that it was too much to ask of a single family to have a husband and wife on the ward council, and we didn't need women to be ordained to figure out how to avoid that.

 

It doesn't matter what might logically equate from it. It matters what our roles are meant to be. The fact that father's could spend more time with their families if women were to (insert any typical male thing here...were bishops, stake presidents, worked on the ranch, went off to war) has nothing to do with what our roles are meant to be. Men's roles are to administer in the church and to support their families. That means they are in the home less. Arguments that would change this dynamic do not appropriately support why the dynamic should change.

 

Yes, men could be better homemakers if women were more involved in the bread winning.

[MarginOfError]

Not really.

I'm sorry you don't think so.  But what that counter-argument does is cause you to come across as equating people who genuinely want more opportunity to serve the Lord with murderers and adulterers.  It's combative and off-putting.  If you want people to hear what you're actually trying to say, you might want to rethink how to approach it.

 

It doesn't matter what might logically equate from it. It matters what our roles are meant to be. The fact that father's could spend more time with their families if women were to (insert any typical male thing here...were bishops, stake presidents, worked on the ranch, went off to war) has nothing to do with what our roles are meant to be. Men's roles are to administer in the church and to support their families. That means they are in the home less. Arguments that would change this dynamic do not appropriately support why the dynamic should change.

 

Yes, men could be better homemakers if women were more involved in the bread winning.

 

 

And if this is your stance, then your argument "but if we ordain women to the priesthood, women will be out of the home more" doesn't fit.  Your conclusion assumes the premise of ordination.  If you're going to assume the premise, then you need to include all of the effects of that premise in your conclusion.  If that's not something you want to do, then you should abandon that argument against ordination.

[The Folk Prophet]

Okay, but doesn't then the priesthood take fathers out of the homes and make them less effective?

 

As pseudo-mothers? Yes. As fathers, no...because part of a father being "effective" is to fulfill his responsibilities to administer in the priesthood.

 

 

And really, do you believe someone who has no desire to be a parent should in fact be a parent? 

 

Hmmm. Let's see. I do seem to recall, now that you mention it, that God said something along the lines of, keep my commandments unless you have no desire to do so. 

 

Of course I believe we should do as God commands. He has commanded us to multiply and replenish the earth. You're question is built on a false premise though, as if we either desire good or we do not. Not true.  If one has no desire to be a parent, one had best get to work on that attitude, overcome, humble themselves, and learn to desire as the Lord would have them desire.

 

 

Life isn't one size fits all. It can't be - and doesn't have anything to do with humility. You could have legitimate reasons for not marrying. Perhaps there just was no one you met that  you were compatible with, or you realize you have personal difficulties that would make marriage and parenthood impossible for you.  And having children has a lot to do with biology, not going with God's will. I know women who have a difficult time because they can't easily concieve. 

 

Now you're throwing a bunch of non-sequitur thinking at me to try and force your point.

 

My comment about humility has nothing to do with life being one-sized fits all or not. It has to do with a willingness to be content without the priesthood even if one's life does not seem to fit the mold. It has to do with being content with what the Lord has given us in His goodness. love, and mercy, and trusting in him, rather than determining that we know better and therefore cannot be content without something He has chosen not to give.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm sorry you don't think so.  But what that counter-argument does is cause you to come across as equating people who genuinely want more opportunity to serve the Lord with murderers and adulterers.  It's combative and off-putting.  If you want people to hear what you're actually trying to say, you might want to rethink how to approach it.

 

Sure it does. That's obviously what I meant. Women who want the priesthood are as bad as murderers. Give me a break.

 

And if this is your stance, then your argument "but if we ordain women to the priesthood, women will be out of the home more" doesn't fit.  Your conclusion assumes the premise of ordination.  If you're going to assume the premise, then you need to include all of the effects of that premise in your conclusion.  If that's not something you want to do, then you should abandon that argument against ordination.

 

I cannot make any sense of what you're trying to say here.

 

If the conclusion of the premise is based on the premise then the conclusion must be based of the effects of the premise.

 

Huh?

 

Edit: I understand the sentence. Just not the point.

[MarginOfError]

Sure it does. That's obviously what I meant. Women who want the priesthood are as bad as murderers. Give me a break.

 

I'm trying to help you here.  If you are content to come across like a jerk, then you're free to ignore the advice.  But you're presentation is greatly distracting from your message.

 

I cannot make any sense of what you're trying to say here.

 

If the conclusion of the premise is based on the premise then the conclusion must be based of the effects of the premise.

 

Huh?

 

Edit: I understand the sentence. Just not the point.

 

 

The point is that you were employing a circular logic that lacks internal validity.  Again, I'm trying to help you here.  

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm trying to help you here.  If you are content to come across like a jerk, then you're free to ignore the advice.  But you're presentation is greatly distracting from your message.

 

I suppose I must be content being viewed as a jerk when, in fact, I have not been. I cannot help it if others purposefully misreading my points and take offense where there was clearly none intended.

 

The point is that you were employing a circular logic that lacks internal validity.  

 

I'm not answering a "Why don't women have the priesthood?" question with the answer, "Because women don't have the priesthood." If anything I would answer that question with, "Because God said so. Deal with it."

 

I offer no reasoning behind why women are given the roles to be mothers instead of administrators in the church. I am simply affirming that this is so.  I am also saying that the two do not co-mingle so well and to give both roles to either sex would be harmful to the other role.

 

 Again, I'm trying to help you here.  

 

Trying to help me what?

[Traveler]

Okay - I thought I would take this thread a very different direction for what it seems to be going.  I would preface my main remarks with a couple of things from my past.  The first I would sight was the role of lady missionaries when I served almost 50 years ago.  It was not that I did not believe that the lady missionaries should not serve - just that I did not see their service much of a game changer.  I am sorry that my expression in the matter upsets anyone - but I am just being honest about my thoughts and observations at the time when I served as a missionary.  There were a few lady missionaries in my mission that I felt contributed but I honestly felt that most were wasting their time.   Not to appear too much the sexists but I also believed that close to half the elders were a bit of a wast as well.

 

When I returned from my mission I had served two years in the military (having lost some friends in combat) and a two year mission.  I felt that the ladies at BYU were disconnected from reality, somewhat immature and for the most part a wast of my time except for social relief from stress of what seemed to me to be a world falling apart.  I was tired of dating the prototypical elementary ed, family relations and speech and drama majors.  I believe that women could and should play a more prominent role in the church and in society.  I was very vocal about my beliefs (is this a surprise to anyone?)  It would be 6 years before I would get married.

 

Back then I was not sure if women were even capable of doing priesthood kind of things.  I thought that they ought to be able - but I was resolved to accept them as a partner that had to be taken care of and protected.  Kind of the extension of opening doors for ladies, paying for dates and thinking I had to make all the important decisions while they managed the home and kids.

 

Now I would like to bring everybody up to date.  I married an extreme type A ultra Red personality.  The truth is that I married way over my head.  Over years of marriage I have had a very dramatic paradigm shift.  In addition I have been observing the recent influx of lady missionaries that are amazing.  

 

There is no need to protest at general conference, write general authorities or make statements of demands in the media.  It is my belief that the role of righteous women in the church and kingdom of G-d is going to significantly change.   Their spiritual strengths and abilities all on there own are going to bring about things never before seen - not just within the church but in the world in general.

 

To be honest I am not the least bit concerned with the role of women moving forward.  I believe that what is being set in motion will resolve any issues concerning their contribution.  As I look at the current trends - I am not sure why anyone would think righteous women are at any risk from contributing their share and more in the kingdom of G-d. 

 

My concern is that the men of the faith keep up.  Seriously!!!  I am beginning to think that if the ladies do not let up on the gas a little that men will be left far behind in the dust.

[The Folk Prophet]

There is no need to protest at general conference, write general authorities or make statements of demands in the media.  It is my belief that the role of righteous women in the church and kingdom of G-d is going to significantly change.   Their spiritual strengths and abilities all on there own are going to bring about things never before seen - not just within the church but in the world in general.

 

President Kimball agrees with you:

 

"Finally, my dear sisters, may I suggest to you something that has not been said before or at least in quite this way. Much of the major growth that is coming to the Church in the last days will come because many of the good women of the world (in whom there is often such an inner sense of spirituality) will be drawn to the Church in large numbers. This will happen to the degree that the women of the Church reflect righteousness and articulateness in their lives and to the degree that the women of the Church are seen as distinct and different—in happy ways—from the women of the world.

 

Among the real heroines in the world who will come into the Church are women who are more concerned with being righteous than with being selfish. These real heroines have true humility, which places a higher value on integrity than on visibility. Remember, it is as wrong to do things just to be seen of women as it is to do things to be seen of men. Great women and men are always more anxious to serve than to have dominion.

 

Thus it will be that female exemplars of the Church will be a significant force in both the numerical and the spiritual growth of the Church in the last days.

 

No wonder the adversary strives, even now, to prevent this from happening! Regardless of who is getting the adversary’s special attention at any given time, he seeks to make all people “miserable like unto himself” (2 Ne. 2:27). Indeed, he seeks “the misery of all mankind” (2 Ne. 2:18). He is undeviating in his purposes and is clever and relentless in his pursuit of them."

[yjacket]

As with most things in life, issues boil down to power.  

 

There are two separate aspects about the Priesthood that should be kept in mind.  The first aspect is the ability to provide Priesthood services and by that I mean to in prayer use the Priesthood to bless the lives of others.  I haven't kept up too much on things, but from outward appearances this is what many Ordain Women seem to focus on.  However, one cannot use the Priesthood on himself and in most instances one is in the company of another holder to use the Priesthood.

 

The 2nd aspect is the authority to lead, guide, and direct the Church.  And IMO that is what Ordain Women is really about, it's about the fact that some women want the authority to lead, guide and direct the Church.  They want power.  If women are given the Priesthood, it would mean full access to all of that, women Bishops, women SP, women MP, Patriarchs, etc.  If God commands it, then so be it, but at present I feel that it is an extremely bad road to go down, for multiple reasons.

 

1) Co-mingling of sexes results in very different dynamics in group settings (if anyone disputes this, then why do we have separate RS vs. Elders quorum.)  Now imagine a High Council meeting with mixed genders, I can guarantee the dynamics will change.  Put 10 guys in a room with a good-looking gal or 10 women with a good looking guy and it'll change.

 

2) The entire structure of the church would be changed (RS and Elder's quorum for example) if women were Elders then they would all attend Elder's quorum, now how does RS function.  You won't have just one sister ordained and the rest not, all sisters would be Elders.

 

3) Leadership dynamics change.  I've had men and women bosses and there is a huge difference in how each function.  Women currently hold 4.8% of Fortune 500 CEO positions and 5% of Fortune 1000.  If people think it's b/c these companies are sexists, you don't know a thing about running a business.  Businesses care about one thing and one thing only . . .making money.  If more women were capable of running Fortune 500 companies, there would be more women in Fortune 500 CEO positions.

 

4) For whatever reason, people just don't want to see or understand that not only are there actual physical difference between male and female, but there are chemical differences.  Those chemical difference produce different feelings, different results and ultimately different actions.  

 

Can a father be a stay at home dad and be better at it then his wife? Sure, just like a woman can be stronger than a man.  On average, can a woman be stronger than a man? Heck no!!  On average women will be better caretakers than men.  All one needs to do is take a look at the nursing industry vs. the engineering industry.  The ratio of male-to-female are pretty divergant and it's not because anyone is preventing males or females from entering either field.

 

Women who are very good in leadership roles are used in the church . . .they are called to be RS presidents, Primary presidents, Stake RS, etc.

 

I have never understood this idea that seems to pervade feminists, it appears from my optic that they want to deny their own feminality to be men.  

 

I will never know what it is like to birth a child, to bond that closely with my children.  I will never know what it's like to have that motherly instinct and urge.  But I'm okay with that, I recognize that it is something very special and sacred that only women can have.

 

I don't understand the drive to make men and women the same; we aren't the same we are different that's why we fall in love and get married, have families.  I'm glad for the differences; different doesn't mean better or worse, it just means different.