Will Men In The Church Be Upset If Women Held The Priesthood?


miztrniceguy
 Share

Recommended Posts

So you think that Christ called female apostles and then the authors of the New Testament lied about it?

I do. At least one woman: Mary of Magdala.

People keep mentioning Jesus never called a woman apostle. Yet, since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi papers, there is evidence that Mary wrote her Gospel of Mary, and in it, combined with other gospels, she is considered one of Jesus' apostle, often his "top" or most blessed apostle.

I’m going to present a paper by Blair Tolbert discussing this possibility, and I’m sure some of you already know much about Mary's gospel.

But I want to make myself very clear: I am only presenting this information for discussion. I do not know enough about the subject to absolutely say that Jesus did appoint Mary an apostle. I think there is strong evidence he did, but I do not know for sure. I have only done a little reading on the subject and watched a few documentaries, so I am obviously not a subject matter expert. But I know enough about it that it is worth bringing up.

BLAIR TOLBERT

This paper won the Hines Award Humanities/Social Sciences Division of 2005.

The following are excerpts from Mr. Tolbert’s paper:

. . . .

One critic suggests, “Many proponents of a revisionist version of early Christian history suggest that the role of Mary Magdalene was diminished in canonical literature because of the patriarchal

of early Church structures”

. . . .

The Gospel of Mary of Magdala is the final element that reveals the true authority of Mary, consecrated by Jesus.

. . . .

The beginning of Mary’s gospel creates an understanding of the deep bond that the disciples had

with their beloved Savior. The ending of this scene is when Mary steps into a leadership position. “Here Mary intervenes to comfort the disciples and draw them out of their indecision” (Puech 342). King’s introduction in the Nag Hammadi Library backs this image, “Mary Magdalene comforts them and turns their hearts toward the Good and a consideration of the Savior’s words” (King, “Gospel” 523). In another text, King parallels these actions to those of the Savior because she becomes the leader that gives spiritual instruction (Gospel 30).

. . . .

This parallel is given further distinction when comparing the ending of the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mary. Both gospels have similar phrasing (“Let not your hearts be troubled” vs. “Nor let your hearts be irresolute”) in which Jesus and Mary bring comfort to the disciples (King, Gospel 129).

. . . .

The second section pertains to Mary’s “special revelation” that comes from Jesus. Setzer says, “In it, Peter, Andrew, Levi and Mary of Magdala discuss the path of discipleship after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. he is depicted as a person with great insight and an intense spiritual relationship with Jesus” (25). The insight she offers to the other disciples has to do with the path to eternal rest. Puech summarizes the revelation to Mary as such, “ In addition [Jesus] described how a soul journeying through the planetary spheres converses with five hostile powers, from which it frees itself in order to attain rest” (342). Other sources note there are four or seven powers. Once past the aggressive powers, the soul is released forever.

After she reveals these new and abstract messages from Jesus, the disciples have mixed responses. King’s summary insists that “First of all, Andrew says, these teachings are strange. Secondly, Peter questions whether the Savior really have told such tings to a woman and kept them from the male disciples. Levi admonishes Peter for contending with the woman as against the adversaries and acknowledges that the Savior loved her more than. . . .

. . . .

Mary is given a revelation by Jesus that comes in the form of a dialogue of questions. In all these texts it becomes evident that Mary has a close relationship with Jesus. She has the authority to speak to Christ, teach other disciples, and is constantly acknowledged by name. She is given more power than most men are in these passages.

. . . .

Nevertheless, other traditions present a different meaning of apostolic authority. Luke’s assumptions present a narrower view to the apostolic definition. Brock explains, “These two discrepancies are related because the Pauline definition would/could include Mary, while the Lukan definition would certainly exclude her as she is 1) a woman and 2) superfluous to the ‘twelve’” (162). Once again, the Lukan tradition diminishes the role of women. Though this is only one account, more churches follow the Lukan tradition.

. . . .

Other texts outside of the canonical texts, including the Acts of Philip, the Virgin Mary resurrection literature, and the Acts of Peter, similarly downgrade the authority of Mary Magdalene; thus, creating further opposition for her title as an apostl

. . . .

Lucy Winkett illustrates the progress and the rejection to the apostolic authority of Mary Magdalene:

The ancient tradition of Mary of Magdala as apostola apostolorum (apostle to the apostles) is used today by Pope John Paul II. However, her place as a Biblical saint, as an apostle, as a woman who spoke with authority about what she knew of the suffering and pain of life, is still in doubt in churches today. (26)

Mary of Magdala is a loyal follower and resurrection witness who is charged by Jesus to teach the faithful followers. She is placed above men, given superiority in many accounts. She is considered pure at heart and having spiritual maturity. Mary, as Claudia Setzer proclaims, is an “excellent woman” (259). She is an apostle. Most importantly, she is the first apostle. She is the one who had courage and devotion to announce the resurrection first. Mary Magdalene is the apostle to the apostles.

````````````````````````````````````````

http://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pdf/cita...n/magdalene.pdf

Again, I’m only posting this as something to consider when discussing whether or not Jesus appointed a woman as an apostle. I believe there is a possibility he did appoint Mary Magdalene to an apostleship. But I do not know.

I hope this will be taken in the way it is offered.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is offered as speculation. I don't think anyone has a problem with speculation. I don't.

What would concern me is when speculation is held to be superior to canonized scriptures and modern-day revelations.

I know you're not doing that, Elphaba, but others are and it is to them that I speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And pushka rushes to Elphaba's defense, right on cue. :animatedtongue:

Oh please. You're the one who has a timer at your side that you set every time Jason or Six, sometimes even Snow makes a post. Five minutes after one of them has posted, your timer goes of and we have to look at :rockon: <---- this obnoxious thing until we can spin past the post.

Pot meet kettle.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>So dinner went on, and the entire time I'm asking myself if I have the faith to do this...I received the distinct impression that before the blessing, I should ask her Father (inactive) who was the patriarch in this home, if he would mind offering a prayer to ask for the Lords Spirit to be here. He agreed. So we assembled in the livingroom and placed a diningroom chair in the center of the room where the young woman sat...My nerves are shot, I'm feeling a bit emotional, and inadaquate to the task...Her Father begins to pray and asks for The Lords Spirit to be with me...in an instant The calming influence of The Holy Spirit of God settled upon me like warm water...from head to toe...my mind became very focussed, doubt was gone, feelings were in control, and I absolutely knew that God was with me...My companion annointed, and as I layed my hands upon her head and stated my authority(MP) etc...I could feel energy flowing through my hands as they connected to her head... the words just flooded my mind...I don't want to say I was compelled to speak the words...that would not be quite right...The only way I can explain it is that I felt "empowered" to say the words. I told her she would carry her child to term, and HE would be a healthy and strong child...gave her some general council about going back to church and studying scriptures etc... 15 years later, I still remember the exact words that concluded the blessing...they were: "Be assured that THE LORD will fulfill the words which he has spoken through his servants this day. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen."

I was very moved by your experience. To me, it personifies the true, exquisite meaning of beauty, and I think your fear before the blessing, and them ultimate calm, must have been a profound experience. It was all so loving and intimate and, best of all, a new life was born into a human cradle of comfort, safety and unconditional adoration. Without you, I suspect the baby still mght have been born, but it wouldn't have been the same. You gave the whole experience a gift of surety, a connection with your belief in God, with God, and what a powerful thing for everyone to rely on while waiting for your little one to arrive. What joy you gave!

Elphaba

Man - you really lay it on thick. You're an ATHEIST. You beleive there is no God and that believers in God believe in a fantasy.

I appreciated Elphs comments(Thanks Elph) as well as the expressions of thanks by others for sharing the story(Thanks everyone!) ...I have known a few athiests. As "unbelievers" they can still appreciate the spiritual or supernatural experiences of others, and they will seldom stomp on those personal experiences...They might usually say something like:"Wow, that's really neat that YOU had that experience."

I think the trouble everyone is having with Elph here is that she is intellectual in her evaluation of the topics discussed(not being critical of her...she is an athiest, so faith in God is not in the equation).While many of us do not agree with her opinions on some issues, we employ the intellect in our arguments, we also have expressions of belief based on faith...So while we might believe that The Brethren have a more authoratative opinion on the present subject, she might feel the paper of a gifted historian might carry more weight...

If she says she was moved, I'm glad, and I have no cause to doubt her word...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that means that she's not allowed to express compassion for somebody who does believe in God and the power of PH blessings? She's also not allowed to be moved by a very touching story? :angry:

Why don't you leave Elphie alone now Snow, it's getting tiresome...

You can fawn all over El if you want. You're not required to read my posts.

What's it called when someone whines that someone else is doing what they themselves do (complaining about other's posts)?

I think the trouble everyone is having with Elph here is that she is intellectual in her evaluation of the topics discussed...

If that were the case, I'd have less trouble with the content of her posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so i wanted to get on the bandwagon.

Men: as a Priesthood holder, would you be upset if the Prophet said God had revealed to him that all worthy members, male or female. would be allowed to hold the Priesthood?

NO

Nope, but I wouldn't hold your breath. That would make women vastly superior to us men, and they would no longer have any use for us...:)

What a pile of undefined material emmitted from the rear orifice of a donkey (political parties unwithstanding).

Equal means equal. Do not define your equality only as based on your service in the PH.

To be honest I have not been upset then the priesthood was given to men I knew to be complete idiots and morons – why would I be upset if an intelligent, loving and kind lady was given the priesthood. To be honest, it is not my priesthood so I do not get to determine such things and I have great respect for the one that provides us with that priesthood.

The Traveler

Love this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Pot meet kettle.

:rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

Did you say something, Elphaba? I didn't hear it, I was too busy rockin' on! :rockon:

OK, YEP, That was funny...You have to admit you set yourself up for that one Elph! LOL... :pcguru:

Did you say something Isaac? Isssaaaaccccc?????????

That @#$@%! If he doesn't stop playing that stupid music of Satan, these young punks of today. Why, if they only had Jesus in their hearts. (Raises arm) Oh Lord, Oh Jesus, that boy, he's a good boy Jesus. I pray fo him Jesus. I know what to do! Bust his speakers Father! I know you can, I KNOW you can, I say I KNOW YOU CAN bust his speakers! Then he'd know you Jesus. Oh, the boy, he's a good good boy, he just got that devil music in him. I pray for him, I do I do.

Hey, you know, my foot's startin' to twitch a bit....hmmm...well, now, that music, that music it ain't half bad! Sort of reminds me of Jethro when we were young and cuttin' a wrong at the Palladium. Oooo looord . . . hahaha, we were happier than pigs in mud!

Hmmm...let's see now where's my cane, oh there it is. Praise Jesus! What's that! My hip's a movin! Oh dear sweet Jesus MY HIPS'a MOVIN! Right! Now left! Oh that music aint half bad, not half bad at all! Not HALF bad! . . O sweet Jesus, thank you for bringin' me that tall glass of water with his sweet sweet music. What does he say all the time . . . oh yea, something about a rock? oh . . what is it!! Rock up??? Yeah, that's it. Now, a little hip to the right, and a little hip to the left. Rock up! baby! :animatedlol:

Oh, oh....oh Lord I better set back down, he he he. Well, Jethro, I still got it! You know, that boy ain't ha. . . . snort . . snooze. :closedeyes:

Elphie

:headphones:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

Nope, but I wouldn't hold your breath. That would make women vastly superior to us men, and they would no longer have any use for us...:)

What a pile of undefined material emmitted from the rear orifice of a donkey (political parties unwithstanding).

Equal means equal. Do not define your equality only as based on your service in the PH.

[

That was a joke, as I have stated many times! I was not saying we are superior because we have the priesthood...I was saying that men are woefully inadequate without it, so if women had that too, it would make their superiority that much greater than it already is...ITS CALLED SARCASM! You know...HAHA? Read the other stuff I have said on the subject and take it in context...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Nope, but I wouldn't hold your breath. That would make women vastly superior to us men, and they would no longer have any use for us...:)

What a pile of undefined material emmitted from the rear orifice of a donkey (political parties unwithstanding).

Equal means equal. Do not define your equality only as based on your service in the PH.

That was a joke, as I have stated many times! I was not saying we are superior because we have the priesthood...I was saying that men are woefully inadequate without it, so if women had that too, it would make their superiority that much greater than it already is...ITS CALLED SARCASM! You know...HAHA? Read the other stuff I have said on the subject and take it in context...

Yep, I read them and after reading it I decided to let my post stand. You might call it sarcasm, but once something is said, the sayer no longer owns it and can thus be interpreted in any way the hearer wants.

Regarding context think of my donkey metaphor, if you can't understand what my context is find a donkey. There were better posts expressing what equality means. I have heard for years how people pedestalize women and I am tired of it. I dislike this kind of behavior as much as I dislike illinformed remarks made about women and their place in society (as if such a position could be defined). Men and women are as agregate wholes equal, and yet are completely different. This does not mean one is priveledged over the other.

Men need to get over the thought that the PH somehow is the great equalizer. It is not, it is a resposibily and joy given men by G-d, but it does not make a man better or worse than a woman.

What makes a person who they are is what they define themselves as by choice. An example is Jason's new claims at a particular faith, or that only a few weeks ago, El decided to call herself an athiest. This is how they have decided to identify themselves llike I have decided to say I am LDS. The way one works within the PH is personal choice. If you define yourself only by the priesthood, then go right ahead. This definition does not make you in anyway different then the woman who claims to be the most scrapbookinest Molly Mormon on the planet who has determined that her skills with a label maker are more important to her then her ability or opportunities to procreate.

What makes a person different is only of real value when viewed from the eyes of the L-rd not anyone else. The L-rd determines value and only his measurement matters, no one else's.

The L-rd has yet to say if gender or the priesthood makes one of more value, but society does it constantly. The L-rd has told us to throw off the natural man and when society becomes a natural limb of the natural man we are to ignore it unless one decides not to. These choices are what matters, not on the false ways in which society measures a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Nope, but I wouldn't hold your breath. That would make women vastly superior to us men, and they would no longer have any use for us...:)

What a pile of undefined material emmitted from the rear orifice of a donkey (political parties unwithstanding).

Equal means equal. Do not define your equality only as based on your service in the PH.

That was a joke, as I have stated many times! I was not saying we are superior because we have the priesthood...I was saying that men are woefully inadequate without it, so if women had that too, it would make their superiority that much greater than it already is...ITS CALLED SARCASM! You know...HAHA? Read the other stuff I have said on the subject and take it in context...

Yep, I read them and after reading it I decided to let my post stand. You might call it sarcasm, but once something is said, the sayer no longer owns it and can thus be interpreted in any way the hearer wants.

So then you are CHOOSING to interpret it incorrectly. Since I am the one who said it, I think that makes me a bit more qualified to provide clarification when someone misinterprets what was said or what my views are, not you...LOL! If you "WANT" to interpret it differently that's your problem I guess, since I "no longer own it..."

Since my intent was not how you interpreted, to repond to the rest of your post is totally pointless since your arguing against a viewpoint that I do not share...I do not think the priesthood has anything to do with the equality, or inequality of men and women, nor have I stated anything on the subject...sorry we don't share the same sense of humor...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then you are CHOOSING to interpret it incorrectly. Since I am the one who said it, I think (prove it) that makes me a bit more qualified to provide the correct interpretation, not you...LOL!

Yeah . . . lol . . . I guess . . . did you listen or think about anything I said? I guess not. That's okay, enjoy the bliss you undoubtedly feel at the moment . . . I guess.

BTW, because you have appointed yourself the new authority on what is correct, should I then petition you regarding everything because if you claim to be an authority over anything you have said then you may as well claim the correct interpretation of everything said (I sure hope you have oiled your pocket Urrim & Thummin so you'll be able to get it all right and accurate)?

I am not to worried about it though . . . you are continuing to defend a sandy position long ago washed out by water. It's not that I claim the higher ground. Regarding any conversation had between us, I don't believe in a possible higher anything when it comes to disscussion held between two people (remember the agregate equal comment?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

So then you are CHOOSING to interpret it incorrectly. Since I am the one who said it, I think (prove it) that makes me a bit more qualified to provide the correct interpretation, not you...LOL!

I do not have to prove it...my words speak for themselves on this entire thread and the other two on the same general subject...That you choose to misinterpret them does not saddle me with the burden of beating a dead horse...

Yeah . . . lol . . . I guess . . . did you listen or think about anything I said? I guess not. That's okay, enjoy the bliss you undoubtedly feel at the moment . . . I guess.

Oh, undoubtedly...Are we a seer now?

BTW, because you have appointed yourself the new authority on what is correct, should I then petition you regarding everything because if you claim to be an authority over anything you have said then you may as well claim the correct interpretation of everything said (I sure hope you have oiled your pocket Urrim & Thummin so you'll be able to get it all right and accurate)?

I have not appointed myself the authority on anything and this accusation is totally unfounded based on the actual things I have said. I do not have to possess a seer stone in order to know or be able to interpret what I was thinking and what I wrote... Your the one who seems more intent on pronouncing yourself the judge of what is or isn't an acceptable thing to say, and not only that, you set yourself up as interpreter of my words and insist that I "prove" your interpretation of my words is incorrect. I don't have to do that...I know what I meant, and most reasonable people do as well. Stop looking for a contest of words in everything people say, or you make yourself look like your name. :foaming:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciated Elphs comments(Thanks Elph) as well as the expressions of thanks by others for sharing the story(Thanks everyone!) ...I have known a few athiests. As "unbelievers" they can still appreciate the spiritual or supernatural experiences of others, and they will seldom stomp on those personal experiences...They might usually say something like:"Wow, that's really neat that YOU had that experience."

I think the trouble everyone is having with Elph here is that she is intellectual in her evaluation of the topics discussed(not being critical of her...she is an athiest, so faith in God is not in the equation).While many of us do not agree with her opinions on some issues, we employ the intellect in our arguments, we also have expressions of belief based on faith...So while we might believe that The Brethren have a more authoratative opinion on the present subject, she might feel the paper of a gifted historian might carry more weight...

If she says she was moved, I'm glad, and I have no cause to doubt her word...

It is obvious you're new Isaac. Just wait until the 'victim' card, or the 'the church is deficient' card is played...

There is a reason she draws the ire she does...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

I appreciated Elphs comments(Thanks Elph) as well as the expressions of thanks by others for sharing the story(Thanks everyone!) ...I have known a few athiests. As "unbelievers" they can still appreciate the spiritual or supernatural experiences of others, and they will seldom stomp on those personal experiences...They might usually say something like:"Wow, that's really neat that YOU had that experience."

I think the trouble everyone is having with Elph here is that she is intellectual in her evaluation of the topics discussed(not being critical of her...she is an athiest, so faith in God is not in the equation).While many of us do not agree with her opinions on some issues, we employ the intellect in our arguments, we also have expressions of belief based on faith...So while we might believe that The Brethren have a more authoratative opinion on the present subject, she might feel the paper of a gifted historian might carry more weight...

If she says she was moved, I'm glad, and I have no cause to doubt her word...

It is obvious you're new Isaac. Just wait until the 'victim' card, or the 'the church is deficient' card is played...

There is a reason she draws the ire she does...

Yep, I'm new...Have not read the hundreds of posts she has done so I guess I have to reserve judgement... :angel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

I appreciated Elphs comments(Thanks Elph) as well as the expressions of thanks by others for sharing the story(Thanks everyone!) ...I have known a few athiests. As "unbelievers" they can still appreciate the spiritual or supernatural experiences of others, and they will seldom stomp on those personal experiences...They might usually say something like:"Wow, that's really neat that YOU had that experience."

I think the trouble everyone is having with Elph here is that she is intellectual in her evaluation of the topics discussed(not being critical of her...she is an athiest, so faith in God is not in the equation).While many of us do not agree with her opinions on some issues, we employ the intellect in our arguments, we also have expressions of belief based on faith...So while we might believe that The Brethren have a more authoratative opinion on the present subject, she might feel the paper of a gifted historian might carry more weight...

If she says she was moved, I'm glad, and I have no cause to doubt her word...

It is obvious you're new Isaac. Just wait until the 'victim' card, or the 'the church is deficient' card is played...

There is a reason she draws the ire she does...

Yep, I'm new...Have not read the hundreds of posts she has done so I guess I have to reserve judgement... :angel:

The Church is deficient? Care to show me an example of that Six?

To the best of my knowledge I have never said the Church is deficient. I woudn't say that because I do not believe that.

What I have said is that a church member has acted inappropriately. One time it was a patriarch who had acted extremely inappropriately.

But there is a huge difference between saying the Church is deficient and a member has acted inappropriatedly. And I am going to speak about it if I feel the need to, whether it offends you or not. I never disrespected the Church itself when discussing the Patriarch incident.

So don't put words in my mouth and work on your own inferences.

And thank you Isaac, for being willing to listen to me to decide whether I'm worth listening to. Sometimes I actually have something worthwhile to say. B) Unfortunately, ears were closed long ago because they could not see the difference between criticizing a person as opposed to the Church.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

There are several here whose posts are really enjoy: You, Pale Rider, Prison Chaplain, Snow, Shanstress, Traveler, even Jason, with whom I disagree most of the time, to name a few.

Thanks! I enjoy your posts too. It's one thing to disagree, but we should be able to discuss them without insulting each other or take offense too easily... otherwise, why are you coming to a forum such as this?

Why is there such a controversy about women ministers in the Methodist Church since they have had their priviledge for almost thirty years. What example has that Church set and are all the women in the Methodist Church equal to those who have become ministers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

There are several here whose posts are really enjoy: You, Pale Rider, Prison Chaplain, Snow, Shanstress, Traveler, even Jason, with whom I disagree most of the time, to name a few.

Thanks! I enjoy your posts too. It's one thing to disagree, but we should be able to discuss them without insulting each other or take offense too easily... otherwise, why are you coming to a forum such as this?

Why is there such a controversy about women ministers in the Methodist Church since they have had their priviledge for almost thirty years. What example has that Church set and are all the women in the Methodist Church equal to those who have become ministers?

I am really hurt six. I don't see my name mentioned as one of the posters you enjoy. haha :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

There are several here whose posts are really enjoy: You, Pale Rider, Prison Chaplain, Snow, Shanstress, Traveler, even Jason, with whom I disagree most of the time, to name a few.

Thanks! I enjoy your posts too. It's one thing to disagree, but we should be able to discuss them without insulting each other or take offense too easily... otherwise, why are you coming to a forum such as this?

Why is there such a controversy about women ministers in the Methodist Church since they have had their priviledge for almost thirty years. What example has that Church set and are all the women in the Methodist Church equal to those who have become ministers?

I am really hurt six. I don't see my name mentioned as one of the posters you enjoy. haha :P

Pam,

You were in there. Didn't you see 'to name a few'? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a joke, as I have stated many times! I was not saying we are superior because we have the priesthood...I was saying that men are woefully inadequate without it, so if women had that too, it would make their superiority that much greater than it already is...ITS CALLED SARCASM! You know...HAHA? Read the other stuff I have said on the subject and take it in context...

GAIA:

Hello Isaac --

The thing is, it's a well-known principle that humor is often a disguise for an uncomfortable or difficult truth.

In fact, the idea that women are superior and that their receiving and using Priesthood would make men virtually irrelevant, has been re-stated many times --

For example, In a well-publicized statement, misogyny hit a new low when an LDS General Authority (Hartman Rector, Jr) predicted that if the female portion of humankind were to receive the Priesthood, then:

"...The male would be so far below the female in power and influence that there would be little or no purpose for his existence [--] in fact, he would probably be eaten by the female as is the case with the black widow Spider."

(Hartman Rector Jr, President of the First Quorum of the Seventy, to Mrs. Teddie Wood, 29 August, 1978, photocopy in "Utah Women's Issues, 1970s-80s", Western Americana, J Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah; quoted in Sonia Johnson, "From Housewife to Heretic", and in Robert Gottlieb and Peter Wiley, "America's Saints: The Rise of Mormon Power" 212.)

I think there is a reason why this "women are superior" notion (which btw, i think is completely bogus) is so frequently repeated, especially in the Church. We might discover some very interesting things about Mormon gender politics, attitudes and values, by prayerfully meditating on it a bit, and observing how things are in the Church .....

Blessings --

~Gaia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church is deficient? Care to show me an example of that Six?

To the best of my knowledge I have never said the Church is deficient. I woudn't say that because I do not believe that.

Man-o-man... there you do with that whole everybody-but-me-is-an-idiot-but-me-mentality-so-I-can-say-whatever-I-want approach.

Your posts consistently and predictable malign the Christ, his Church and his gospel. It drips from whatever you post. Your compliments are merely set-ups to further denigrate the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

That was a joke, as I have stated many times! I was not saying we are superior because we have the priesthood...I was saying that men are woefully inadequate without it, so if women had that too, it would make their superiority that much greater than it already is...ITS CALLED SARCASM! You know...HAHA? Read the other stuff I have said on the subject and take it in context...

GAIA:

Hello Isaac --

The thing is, it's a well-known principle that humor is often a disguise for an uncomfortable or difficult truth.

In fact, the idea that women are superior and that their receiving and using Priesthood would make men virtually irrelevant, has been re-stated many times --

For example, In a well-publicized statement, misogyny hit a new low when an LDS General Authority (Hartman Rector, Jr) predicted that if the female portion of humankind were to receive the Priesthood, then:

"...The male would be so far below the female in power and influence that there would be little or no purpose for his existence [--] in fact, he would probably be eaten by the female as is the case with the black widow Spider."

(Hartman Rector Jr, President of the First Quorum of the Seventy, to Mrs. Teddie Wood, 29 August, 1978, photocopy in "Utah Women's Issues, 1970s-80s", Western Americana, J Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah; quoted in Sonia Johnson, "From Housewife to Heretic", and in Robert Gottlieb and Peter Wiley, "America's Saints: The Rise of Mormon Power" 212.)

I think there is a reason why this "women are superior" notion (which btw, i think is completely bogus) is so frequently repeated, especially in the Church. We might discover some very interesting things about Mormon gender politics, attitudes and values, by prayerfully meditating on it a bit, and observing how things are in the Church .....

Blessings --

~Gaia

Sounds like he is joking to me...He is acknowledging the superiority of women, and saying atleast men have one use, and that's the Priesthood...I don't think his or my statements say anything about an inferiority complex or anything of the sort...its a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share