Joseph Smith on women and the priesthood

[spamlds]

Pardon me if this new thread covers a topic that has been discussed before.  I searched around the forum and I did not find this specific set of citations that might be useful on the topic of ordaining women.

 

As I see the argument of the Ordain Women side (trying to understand their position), they claim that they sustain the leaders of the Church, but they are not satisfied that the question has been asked regarding the ordination of women.  Their indirect assertion is that the Prophet hasn't told them that he asked the Lord and that the answer is no.  

 

In all the discussions and debates I've seen around the Internet, I haven't seen anyone make reference to statements Joseph Smith made that are applicable to the question that are recorded in a very common source of history and doctrine, the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.  Regarding some of the contemporary religious movements of his era, Joseph critiqued a couple of them that were founded by women.  

 

Johanna Southcott professed to be a prophetess, and wrote a book of prophecies in 1804, she became the founder of a people that are still extant. She was to bring forth, in a place appointed, a son, that was to be the Messiah, which thing has failed. Independent of this, however, where do we read of a woman that was the founder of a church, in the word of God? Paul told the women in his day, "To keep silence in the church, and that if they wished to know anything to ask their husbands at home;" he would not suffer a woman "to rule, or to usurp authority in the church;" but here we find a woman the founder of a church, the revelator and guide, the Alpha and Omega, contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Four, 1839-42, p. 209).

 

This is the statement that so many of our fellow saints have missed. Having a woman hold priesthood authority is "contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order."

 

The matter is settled.  We have it from Joseph.  Why does President Monson simply entertain the request of the Ordain Women group to satisfy them and/or silence them?  Another principle comes into play here that we find in the TPJS.  

 

...And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case; and that in a council of High Priests...It is a great thing to inquire at the hands of God, or to come into His presence; and we feel fearful to approach Him on subjects that are of little or no consequence, to satisfy the queries of individuals....” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section One 1830-34, p.22)

 

The sisters and supporters of Ordain Women need to understand these two principles.  First, Joseph Smith already considered the New Testament to have defined the role of women.  They can enjoy spiritual gifts, and even be prophetesses, just like in the Bible.  However, they are not called to the priesthood, to hold keys, or to lead the Church.  Secondly, even though the Church does have continuing revelation, it is a fearful, awesome thing to approach the throne of grace and inquire of God to satisfy the queries of individuals, most especially when the matter is already settled doctrine.

 

I thought it might be useful for Church supporters to have these two quotes because they are pertinent to the issues at hand regarding the ordination of women.  If the Ordain Women supporters are sincere, they should recognize that things are exactly as the Lord has established it and accept it.  Their queries have already been answered.  The question is now whether or not they will accept the revealed will of the Lord or whether they will continue to badger the Lord's Anointed for something it would not be appropriate to ask of the Lord.

 

If you would like to read more on the topic, please visit my article at the Examiner.

[Traveler]

As I understand the proper channels for inquire for such matters is to inquire first from the bishop who will, if they feel the question is necessary but to which they have no answer then then defer to the Stake President.   If the Stake President has no response but feels the question should be answered then petitions the quorum of the 12 Apostles.   Finely the question can go before the President that if circumstance requires waits on the L-rd for a response.  Sometimes there is no “yes or no” answer.

 

Many years ago when I was young enough to compete as a bicyclist I inquired if it was possible to have a special temple garment (similar in purpose to the military temple garment) that could be used while training and competing.  The answer, through channels was no, with a caveat – being that a special temple garment available to the general body of the saints would be misused and abused outside of the sacred initial purpose of the garment and contrary to covenants.  While in council with my bishop I determined that I could train and compete without putting my sacred covenants in jeopardy.  

 

As for the Ladies of “Ordain Women”.  I see nothing wrong with making an inquiry through channels and being patient for a response.  I believe their error, leading to apostasy, is in making their inquiry public, resorting to demonstrations of various kinds to disrupt the general congregation of the saints, demanding an answer one way or another and thinking of making public pressure as a means to bring about change.

[Latter Days Guy]

Pardon me if this new thread covers a topic that has been discussed before.  I searched around the forum and I did not find this specific set of citations that might be useful on the topic of ordaining women.

 

As I see the argument of the Ordain Women side (trying to understand their position), they claim that they sustain the leaders of the Church, but they are not satisfied that the question has been asked regarding the ordination of women.  Their indirect assertion is that the Prophet hasn't told them that he asked the Lord and that the answer is no.  

 

In all the discussions and debates I've seen around the Internet, I haven't seen anyone make reference to statements Joseph Smith made that are applicable to the question that are recorded in a very common source of history and doctrine, the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.  Regarding some of the contemporary religious movements of his era, Joseph critiqued a couple of them that were founded by women.  

 

Johanna Southcott professed to be a prophetess, and wrote a book of prophecies in 1804, she became the founder of a people that are still extant. She was to bring forth, in a place appointed, a son, that was to be the Messiah, which thing has failed. Independent of this, however, where do we read of a woman that was the founder of a church, in the word of God? Paul told the women in his day, "To keep silence in the church, and that if they wished to know anything to ask their husbands at home;" he would not suffer a woman "to rule, or to usurp authority in the church;" but here we find a woman the founder of a church, the revelator and guide, the Alpha and Omega, contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Four, 1839-42, p. 209).

 

This is the statement that so many of our fellow saints have missed. Having a woman hold priesthood authority is "contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order."

 

The matter is settled.  We have it from Joseph.  Why does President Monson simply entertain the request of the Ordain Women group to satisfy them and/or silence them?  Another principle comes into play here that we find in the TPJS.  

 

...And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case; and that in a council of High Priests...It is a great thing to inquire at the hands of God, or to come into His presence; and we feel fearful to approach Him on subjects that are of little or no consequence, to satisfy the queries of individuals....” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section One 1830-34, p.22)

 

The sisters and supporters of Ordain Women need to understand these two principles.  First, Joseph Smith already considered the New Testament to have defined the role of women.  They can enjoy spiritual gifts, and even be prophetesses, just like in the Bible.  However, they are not called to the priesthood, to hold keys, or to lead the Church.  Secondly, even though the Church does have continuing revelation, it is a fearful, awesome thing to approach the throne of grace and inquire of God to satisfy the queries of individuals, most especially when the matter is already settled doctrine.

 

I thought it might be useful for Church supporters to have these two quotes because they are pertinent to the issues at hand regarding the ordination of women.  If the Ordain Women supporters are sincere, they should recognize that things are exactly as the Lord has established it and accept it.  Their queries have already been answered.  The question is now whether or not they will accept the revealed will of the Lord or whether they will continue to badger the Lord's Anointed for something it would not be appropriate to ask of the Lord.

 

If you would like to read more on the topic, please visit my article at the Examiner.

 

 

Interesting, but what about the female deacons mentioned by Paul in his NT letter to the Romans? 

[The Folk Prophet]

Interesting, but what about the female deacons mentioned by Paul in his NT letter to the Romans? 

 

the word "diakonos" renders -- a waiter, servant; then of any one who performs any service, an administrator. The word deacon is derived from it, but the original Greek word does not mean an office in the priesthood.

[Latter Days Guy]

the word "diakonos" renders -- a waiter, servant; then of any one who performs any service, an administrator. The word deacon is derived from it, but the original Greek word does not mean an office in the priesthood.

 

That is correct but the context of the word used in Romans 16:1 refers here to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways; similarly in Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8-12.

 

My NT greek is a bit rusty having not done any serious study since leaving bible college but it is clear from the passage that Phoebe is a deacon and served in that position within the structure of the early church.

[The Folk Prophet]

That is correct but the context of the word used in Romans 16:1 refers here to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways; similarly in Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8-12.

 

My NT greek is a bit rusty having not done any serious study since leaving bible college but it is clear from the passage that Phoebe is a deacon and served in that position within the structure of the early church.

 

It is NOT clear. If it was clear, it would be clear and there would be no questions or debate as to it's meaning. That is simply not the case. There are many, many debates as to it's meaning.

 

The LDS church, having access to modern day revelations, and the actual restoration of truth as intended by God, knows it's meaning though. She was not ordained to a priesthood office, whatever Greek word was used to describe her.

[spamlds]

I assume you're referring to Phoebe in Romans 16:1.  I used to be president of a small branch in rural Virginia and we had our own Phoebe.  In the earliest days of the branch, there was only one priesthood holder who was the branch president.  His job required him to travel a lot and many Sundays, he had to be out of town.  On the weekends when he wasn't there, one of the Relief Society sisters would lead a scripture study, report attendance, visiting teaching, and other information to a stake high councilman.  She visited members and did missionary work.  She and a few other sisters were really the ones responsible for the branch surviving its "infancy" and surviving in a remote area some two hours away from the rest of the stake.  

 

This faithful sister would scoff at the very idea that women should be ordained to the priesthood, but believe me, no branch president or elder's quorum president would be stupid enough to discount this lady's wisdom and experience.  If we were in biblical times, I'm sure Paul would have mentioned her in an epistle.  

[Latter Days Guy]

It is NOT clear. If it was clear, it would be clear and there would be no questions or debate as to it's meaning. That is simply not the case. There are many, many debates as to it's meaning.

 

The LDS church, having access to modern day revelations, and the actual restoration of truth as intended by God, knows it's meaning though. She was not ordained to a priesthood office, whatever Greek word was used to describe her.

 

Actually it is clear, the wording is exactly the same as Paul uses to describe himself, does that mean that he didn't hold the priesthood either or is this just a example of turning a blind eye to an inconvenient truth?  

[The Folk Prophet]

Actually it is clear, the wording is exactly the same as Paul uses to describe himself, does that mean that he didn't hold the priesthood either or is this just a example of turning a blind eye to an inconvenient truth?  

 

You're right! Let's ordain all women to the priesthood tomorrow! It is clear. How have I been so blind? 

[Just_A_Guy]

That is correct but the context of the word used in Romans 16:1 refers here to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways; similarly in Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8-12.

My NT greek is a bit rusty having not done any serious study since leaving bible college but it is clear from the passage that Phoebe is a deacon and served in that position within the structure of the early church.

 

Phoebe as a trusted servant, fellow laborer, and courier/emissary for Paul? Sure. Phoebe as a bishop-in-training? Not so sure . . . 

 

If we accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, and accept that in the primitive church women could serve as deacons--not generic servants/fellow laborers, but deacons--then why didn't Smith (who had done a run-through translation of/commentary on the New Testament jointly with Sidney Rigdon, who presumably was aware of the Greek usages) ordain any women to the office of deacon (or any other priesthood office)? 

[Latter Days Guy]

You're right! Let's ordain all women to the priesthood tomorrow! It is clear. How have I been so blind? 

 

Maybe because you have always been taught that women aren't allowed to have the priesthood?  Clearly in the NT there is reference to woman deacons, what that role was is unclear, though there is speculation that it was limited to service to other females only.

[Latter Days Guy]

Phoebe as a trusted servant, fellow laborer, and courier/emissary for Paul? Sure. Phoebe as a bishop-in-training? Not so sure . . . 

 

If we accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, and accept that in the primitive church women could serve as deacons--not generic servants/fellow laborers, but deacons--then why didn't Smith (who had done a run-through translation of/commentary on the New Testament jointly with Sidney Rigdon, who presumably was aware of the Greek usages) ordain any women to the office of deacon (or any other priesthood office)? 

 

There is speculation that female deacons had roles relating to other woman only, maybe as the church grew this role diminished until it was no longer needed.  This could be a reason for it not being brought back into use with the restoration of the church, as unlike those of the NT times who were encountering Christianity as a new faith, those in the restoration had some knowledge of the Christian scriptures so had a foundation for the restored gospel to build upon.  

[The Folk Prophet]

Maybe because you have always been taught that women aren't allowed to have the priesthood?  Clearly in the NT there is reference to woman deacons, what that role was is unclear, though there is speculation that it was limited to service to other females only.

 

Keep saying it and it must be true. But until it's "clear" to everyone, it's clearly not clear, despite your repetitions.

[Finrock]

Kate Kelly is a liar. I don't have any animosity towards her. I don't dislike her. I don't think she is a horrible, horrendous person. I'm not glad, in a personal sense, that she go excommunicated but I am glad in the sense that her excommunication lessens her influence to shake the faith or lead Latter-day Saints astray with her cunning ploys. I do think she is a liar. I think this because she is lying about her bishop, her stake president, and she is also lying about the apostles. Her lies are subtle. They are partially true and this makes it difficult to discern. She is using rhetorical tricks to obfuscate the truth.

 

The argument that Ordain Women uses to support it's position is also a work of sophistry. Their argument is contingent upon several falsehoods, including: 1. Legalism (in the sense that they use the gospel and doctrine of the church as some legal document or tool). 2. Special Pleading (justifying their rebellion as a special case because they are only asking questions or that what they are doing isn't rebellion but something more noble) 3. Missing the Point (using the CHI as some sort of legal and/or absolutely binding document).

 

Ordain Women refuses to accept that the answer to their question is no. They are using political activity and secular tactics such as public protest, vigils, and other such activities to affect change in the Kingdom of God.

 

Ordain Women does not recognize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Kingdom of God on earth. They are treating it as any other worldly or secular organization.

 

Ordain Women is using all tools at its disposal to try to actively recruit members to its movement. They are using the mantra of "education" to push their philosophy and to undermine the faith of Latter-day Saints.

 

Ordain Women is using the rhetorical guise of "only trying to be equal" to obfuscate the fact that they are actually vying for power. This is ultimately the goal of OW. They want power. They believe that being ordained in to the priesthood will give them clout, influence, and authority in the Church. This principle is Satanic.

 

Those who support OW fall in to one or more of the following: they are delusional, they are naïve, they are ignorant, or they are liars.

 

-Finrock

[Suzie]

Interesting, but what about the female deacons mentioned by Paul in his NT letter to the Romans? 

 

I suppose that's why we believe in the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly". It is hard sometimes to determine exactly the meaning of some of these words in a book with quite a few mistranslations.

[Str8Shooter]

Interesting, but what about the female deacons mentioned by Paul in his NT letter to the Romans? 

 

Let's say you are 100% correct, and that there were women ordained to priesthood office in the past.

 

The current doctrine of the church revealed to the current prophet and apostles says that women are not to hold administrative priesthood callings. 

 

What say ye to this?

[Just_A_Guy]

There is speculation that female deacons had roles relating to other woman only, maybe as the church grew this role diminished until it was no longer needed.  This could be a reason for it not being brought back into use with the restoration of the church, as unlike those of the NT times who were encountering Christianity as a new faith, those in the restoration had some knowledge of the Christian scriptures so had a foundation for the restored gospel to build upon.  

 

In other words, as Spamlds has hinted here--the RS fills the void left by the absence of the primitive office of "deaconess"?

 

 

Let's say you are 100% correct, and that there were women ordained to priesthood office in the past.

 

The current doctrine of the church revealed to the current prophet and apostles says that women are not to hold administrative priesthood callings. 

 

What say ye to this?

 

Latter Days Guy can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's saying that women were necessarily ordained to the priesthood in the primitive Church--just that women officiated in an office called "deacon" whose functions, in the latter days, have either been abandoned/relegated to the Relief Society (as they pertained to women) or folded into the actual priesthood (as they pertained to men).

 

It would be like, in AD 3500, a new incarnation of the Church included new office of the Melchizedek Priesthood called "missionary"; and a subset of the Church then arguing that since in AD 2014 the term "missionary" included women, the Church of AD 2014 must have made a practice of ordaining women to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

It's suddenly interesting to me that in the sixth article of faith, when Joseph Smith claimed the LDS Church followed the same organization that existed in the primitive Church--he did not include an explicit reference "deacons".

[Latter Days Guy]

Keep saying it and it must be true. But until it's "clear" to everyone, it's clearly not clear, despite your repetitions.

 

I'm not the one saying it, its what is being taught in bible colleges, it is what I was taught at bible college.  Clearly the NT refers to woman deacons, what their roles where other than that which Paul talks about is not known.  Does that mean that there should be woman deacons now?  Well if they are supposed to be then surely that office would have been restored when the church was restored in 1830.  As that hasn't happened then obviously it is a redundant position.

[Latter Days Guy]

I suppose that's why we believe in the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly". It is hard sometimes to determine exactly the meaning of some of these words in a book with quite a few mistranslations.

 

When I read my greek new testament, the reading I get is deacon.  Its the same word used to discribe every other reference to the position of deacon in the NT, why would it suddenly change its definition/meaning just because its mentioned in the same sentence as a woman?

[Latter Days Guy]

Let's say you are 100% correct, and that there were women ordained to priesthood office in the past.

 

The current doctrine of the church revealed to the current prophet and apostles says that women are not to hold administrative priesthood callings. 

 

What say ye to this?

 

That its no longer a position that is needed in the restored church maybe?

[Latter Days Guy]

In other words, as Spamlds has hinted here--the RS fills the void left by the absence of the primitive office of "deaconess"?

 

 

 

Latter Days Guy can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's saying that women were necessarily ordained to the priesthood in the primitive Church--just that women officiated in an office called "deacon" whose functions, in the latter days, have either been abandoned/relegated to the Relief Society (as they pertained to women) or folded into the actual priesthood (as they pertained to men).

 

It would be like, in AD 3500, a new incarnation of the Church included new office of the Melchizedek Priesthood called "missionary"; and a subset of the Church then arguing that since in AD 2014 the term "missionary" included women, the Church of AD 2014 must have made a practice of ordaining women to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

It's suddenly interesting to me that in the sixth article of faith, when Joseph Smith claimed the LDS Church followed the same organization that existed in the primitive Church--he did not include an explicit reference "deacons".

 

I would agree with you!

[spamlds]

I'm not the one saying it, its what is being taught in bible colleges, it is what I was taught at bible college.  Clearly the NT refers to woman deacons, what their roles where other than that which Paul talks about is not known.  Does that mean that there should be woman deacons now?  Well if they are supposed to be then surely that office would have been restored when the church was restored in 1830.  As that hasn't happened then obviously it is a redundant position.

 

Hmmm.  I don't mean to be snarky, but Bible colleges are where people go to get indoctrinated into the apostate creeds of men--the ones that the Lord called "abominations" when he appeared to Joseph Smith in the first vision. Term "deaconess" is commonly believed to simply be the wife of a deacon.  Other interpretations, especially in the light of Joseph Smith's own instructions regarding ordaining women referenced in the original post in this thread are misguided attempts to teach a corrupt doctrine.

 

Please remember, Joseph Smith saw and communed with many Biblical figures. He was instructed by Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Peter, James, John, and Paul.  Joseph even described the physical appearance and the sound of Paul's voice.  To suggest that he did not have a clear understanding of the order of priesthood is to suggest that he was making things up or that he was merely interpreting the Bible like any other uninspired sectarian minister.

[Latter Days Guy]

Hmmm.  I don't mean to be snarky, but Bible colleges are where people go to get indoctrinated into the apostate creeds of men--the ones that the Lord called "abominations" when he appeared to Joseph Smith in the first vision. Term "deaconess" is commonly believed to simply be the wife of a deacon.  Other interpretations, especially in the light of Joseph Smith's own instructions regarding ordaining women referenced in the original post in this thread are misguided attempts to teach a corrupt doctrine.

 

Please remember, Joseph Smith saw and communed with many Biblical figures. He was instructed by Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Peter, James, John, and Paul.  Joseph even described the physical appearance and the sound of Paul's voice.  To suggest that he did not have a clear understanding of the order of priesthood is to suggest that he was making things up or that he was merely interpreting the Bible like any other uninspired sectarian minister.

 

Its also taught in secular theology department in the universities that I've had contact with.  I've not read or heard anyone teach that deaconess was simply the wife of a deacon.  It is clear in the NT and in the documents of the early church fathers that there were female deacons, there are even secular accounts of female deacons being tortured for information on Christianity.  So from a purely historical point of view, and from the sources of the time we can only come to the conclusion that there was in some way, shape or form a position in the early church for female deacons.  What that role was or even if it was a priestly office is where the contention lies.  As I have said previously, it has been said that it was a role relating to ministry to other women, and that role simply was withdrawn or seen as redundant and never re-organised with the restoration of the Gospel and the church, or is what is now the relief society.  

Let me make it clear, I'm in no way saying that this is evidence that there should be female members of the priesthood today.  As clearly that is not the case as revealed to the prophets of the restoration in whom the keys of the priesthood reside.  Heavenly Father has clearly laid out his teachings on the priesthood in these latter days through his servants the prophets, from Joseph Smith to Thomas S Monson, that the priesthood is available to and bestowed upon all worthy male members in the church is clearly the teaching of the restored church today.