Projecting future of men only priesthood

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6705

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Sarah »

Crackers wrote: November 5th, 2017, 3:18 pm I really appreciate that the deacons have been given the responsibility of passing the sacrament. It gives those boys an important job: they must be responsible, reverent, discreet, clean, punctual, and even solemn. These are important things for them to begin grasping at that age. So regardless of whether it is appropriate to have women have a role in that, I like to see that job go to our young men to help shape them.
I agree with you here. This is a good way to help the boys understand that the priesthood and their office is given to help them serve the Church. We all have stewardships given to us in one way or another, and what jobs or roles we each have isn't as important as where our heart is in the matter. Are we demonstrating obedience to the Lords will? Are we acting with a willingness to serve God and others, or are we seeking power and position for selfish motives?

Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Spaced_Out »

inho wrote: November 5th, 2017, 2:24 pm The reason I wrote so much about women and the sacrament is that in order to let the women be more involved in the church, one should first reverse the so called priesthood creep. With the priesthood creep I mean the tendency to limit some functions to priesthood holders. Examples are:
Woman are more involved than what they ever used to be - those few things you list are mostly small and only occur very infrequently and mostly false practices like laying their hands on the sick and blessing expectant mothers....
Woman can now go with their husbands home teaching if he is a High Priest and permission is granted. Woman can attend Bishopric PH executive committees etc.. Woman are mostly used in LDS family services as physiologist.
The role for woman has not diminished but enlarged. You only look for the negative and bring up a lot of hearsay facilities from early church while the church was still being established and the correct way of doing things was being established.

Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Spaced_Out »

inho wrote: November 5th, 2017, 9:21 am
Spaced_Out wrote: November 5th, 2017, 4:24 am
inho wrote: November 5th, 2017, 3:54 am
Spaced_Out wrote: November 4th, 2017, 2:52 pm Woman serving or blessing the sacrament will not happen, and doing so will in fact be dishonouring woman.
Why? Passing the sacrament is not a priesthood ordinance. In the history, women have had a greater role related to the sacrament.
It is a PH responsibility only those holding the PH may do it - a deacon can, but a deacon cant administer ie say the prayer. It is twisting the words to suit some wired personal interpretation.
This is how Mormons usually see the passing of the sacrament today. However, as the quote in my previous post illustrated, this is not how Brigham Young, Heber J. Grant and the saints in general saw it earlier. What are your thoughts on that?
If we went back to the practice of women preparing the sacrament, would you see it as sacrilegious?
Woman never prepared the sacrament - they can knit the cloth wash it , bake the bread - most bread today come from a baker or unknown gender or religion. The PH has lots of duties like gathering in tithing that is not related to an actual PH ordinance, So it is with passing the sacrament it might not be a direct PH ordinance but a PH duty as part of the sacrament ordinance. You badly miss interpret the quotation that you posted to suit your own agenda. It is not current or past teaching of the church, not in the handbook of instructions, or scriptural if one refers to the NT or OT how these things were done... Some hearsay stories and fallacies of early church history is not how doctrine is established, but scriptural and through the living prophets..
For every hearsay story and quote you misinterpret I can quote 10,000 actual events that are to the contrary.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by inho »

I don't want to argue, but lets keep facts as facts.
Spaced_Out wrote: November 6th, 2017, 1:33 am Woman never prepared the sacrament - they can knit the cloth wash it , bake the bread - most bread today come from a baker or unknown gender or religion.
The article I quoted clearly said:
Kate Coreless of Salt Lake City's Fourth Ward took care of the sacrament table for a quarter century after 1906. She crocheted the cloth, polished the silver trays, baked and sliced the bread, and set the sacrament table.
Spaced_Out wrote: The PH has lots of duties like gathering in tithing that is not related to an actual PH ordinance,
This is true. To be honest, I am not aware of any priesthood ordinance that deacons and teachers could perform.
Spaced_Out wrote: Some hearsay stories and fallacies of early church history is not how doctrine is established, but scriptural and through the living prophets..
For every hearsay story and quote you misinterpret I can quote 10,000 actual events that are to the contrary.
What you call hearsay stories and fallacies, were once church-wide practices. During these almost 200 years a lot of things have changed. The gospel is the same, but the way we do things is different. If you have 10,000 actual events to quote, please do so.

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by EdGoble »

justkeepswimming wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 1:51 pm Ed, you bring up a fascinating part of our collective history that has been primarily lost.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that women have already done what today's all male priesthood does w/ the exception of holding offices. I guess, what I'm asking in my original post is, are we heading back to that? Could there be a movement w/in the higher ups at the church to return to a more original approach to priesthood? Could putting a woman on an executive board today be the first incremental move toward a traditional male church office.

Man, you've given me much to consider. Thank you.
No problem.
Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. Another clue is that in the book of Isaiah, the prophet Isaiah says that he went "in to the prophetess and she conceived". In other words, Isaiah wasn't just the prophet, but his wife was a prophetess, with the gift of prophecy. So, I have to question, does the book of Isaiah contain solely the prophecies from Isaiah, or does it contain a bunch from his wife that he recorded in with his own?

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by EdGoble »

Spaced_Out wrote: November 6th, 2017, 1:24 am . . . mostly false practices like laying their hands on the sick and blessing expectant mothers....
That isn't a false practice. It is a practice that ended with policy. It is documented by Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation and many others as being an acceptable practice .... if only it was still allowed by policy. I don't recommend that people go against policy, as I think that is wrong to do so when directed not to do something by those with the keys, but it is significant that it was accepted in the past. That means it isn't "false."

Read this carefully:

http://scottwoodward.org/priesthood_wom ... osick.html

HappyCamper8
captain of 50
Posts: 98

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by HappyCamper8 »

I'm a little surprised that women who push for priesthood ordination don't just go ahead and do the things they can do which are completely ok. For example...

1. Show up early to set up chairs/tables with the priesthood.
2. Stay to take down chairs/tables.
3. Show up early to shovel snow.
4. Stay late to lock up the building.
5. Collect and take garbage out of the building during the week.

These are very simple things they would be doing if ordained. However, I'm pretty sure no ordination is needed to do these things. Maybe I'm just assuming. Have they been doing these things? After-all, priesthood is for serving.

Side note this made me think:
Why was it wear pants to church? Shouldn't it have been wear a tie to church? Confusing...

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by inho »

HappyCamper8 wrote: November 6th, 2017, 8:47 am I'm a little surprised that women who push for priesthood ordination don't just go ahead and do the things they can do which are completely ok. For example...

1. Show up early to set up chairs/tables with the priesthood.
2. Stay to take down chairs/tables.
3. Show up early to shovel snow.
4. Stay late to lock up the building.
5. Collect and take garbage out of the building during the week.

These are very simple things they would be doing if ordained. However, I'm pretty sure no ordination is needed to do these things. Maybe I'm just assuming. Have they been doing these things? After-all, priesthood is for serving.

Side note this made me think:
Why was it wear pants to church? Shouldn't it have been wear a tie to church? Confusing...
I know you are just trying to be sarcastic, but if that list is supposed to represent duties that are seen to belong to priesthood holders, doesn't that just highlight how skewed our view on the priesthood is? I am not female and I'm not pushing for ordination of women, so I cannot answer you, why they don't do that. However, I can tell you that I have seen women doing all of those things unsolicited (expect #3, it doesn't apply to my ward). I am surprised by #5, isn't that part of the cleaning of the chapels, which is both men's and women's duty?

HappyCamper8
captain of 50
Posts: 98

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by HappyCamper8 »

That list is NOT representing duties that are seen to belong to priesthood holders. But ask yourselves...

Why are they given to the priesthood to do?

You have seen women take the building key for the week to kick people out of and lock the building at 11:00pm? Not once in my life have I seen that happen. Where do you live?!

Regarding #5. Your wards only take the garbage out during the "cleaning assignment for the chapels"? Very interesting.

HappyCamper8
captain of 50
Posts: 98

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by HappyCamper8 »

Oh, and btw, why does that have to be sarcastic? Are you saying they shouldn't do these duties?

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by inho »

HappyCamper8 wrote: November 6th, 2017, 9:20 am You have seen women take the building key for the week to kick people out of and lock the building at 11:00pm?
I have no idea what this is referring to. Why are there people hanging out in the chapel at 11:00pm? If it is because of a YW or RS activity, then yes, it will be a woman who locks the door. Here we don't have the custom of having a man to attend every event.
HappyCamper8 wrote: November 6th, 2017, 9:21 am Oh, and btw, why does that have to be sarcastic? Are you saying they shouldn't do these duties?
I said that I have seen them doing these duties.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by AI2.0 »

HappyCamper8 wrote: November 6th, 2017, 8:47 am I'm a little surprised that women who push for priesthood ordination don't just go ahead and do the things they can do which are completely ok. For example...

1. Show up early to set up chairs/tables with the priesthood.
2. Stay to take down chairs/tables.
3. Show up early to shovel snow.
4. Stay late to lock up the building.
5. Collect and take garbage out of the building during the week.

These are very simple things they would be doing if ordained. However, I'm pretty sure no ordination is needed to do these things. Maybe I'm just assuming. Have they been doing these things? After-all, priesthood is for serving.

Side note this made me think:
Why was it wear pants to church? Shouldn't it have been wear a tie to church? Confusing...
Which women are pushing for priesthood ordination? I'm pretty sure that the majority of actual, active LDS women are not. I have no interest in having to prepare the sacrament and pass it. I don't want to collect fast offerings either. I've got enough to worry about and the young men need opportunities to serve.

Those who were pushing for it are for the most part, agitators, less active, not even members--and won't be doing any of those things anyway.

Why do we keep seeing this topic resurrected? Is is simply to stir the pot on this forum? Seems we have a lot of posters who like to do this. I'm pretty sure that if you look at the women and men who actually attend church, they accept a the Priesthood organization as it stands...and if there are changes through revelation, they'll accept that to.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by AI2.0 »

HappyCamper8 wrote: November 6th, 2017, 9:20 am That list is NOT representing duties that are seen to belong to priesthood holders. But ask yourselves...

Why are they given to the priesthood to do?

You have seen women take the building key for the week to kick people out of and lock the building at 11:00pm? Not once in my life have I seen that happen. Where do you live?!

Regarding #5. Your wards only take the garbage out during the "cleaning assignment for the chapels"? Very interesting.

happycamper, wards do things differenty in different areas, you can't judge all wards/branches how things are done in your ward/branch. The women in auxillaries also have keys and if they are the last in the building after an activity, they lock up and there is no priesthood leader around.

Crackers
captain of 100
Posts: 584

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Crackers »

HappyCamper8 wrote: November 6th, 2017, 8:47 am I'm a little surprised that women who push for priesthood ordination don't just go ahead and do the things they can do which are completely ok. For example...

1. Show up early to set up chairs/tables with the priesthood.
2. Stay to take down chairs/tables.
3. Show up early to shovel snow.
4. Stay late to lock up the building.
5. Collect and take garbage out of the building during the week.

These are very simple things they would be doing if ordained. However, I'm pretty sure no ordination is needed to do these things. Maybe I'm just assuming. Have they been doing these things? After-all, priesthood is for serving.

Side note this made me think:
Why was it wear pants to church? Shouldn't it have been wear a tie to church? Confusing...
In general, your list could be seen as jobs for the men rather than jobs for those who hold the Priesthood. Building lockup is generally given to the men (not always) because of safety issues. Chair set up and shoveling is also often (not always) a job given to men due to its physicality. Our YM and YW alternate taking out the trash each Sunday when we are the last block of the day. I personally have done each of these jobs and so have other women in my ward. If, in some hypothetical future in which women were ordained, I wouldn't expect to see much of a change in who performs these duties.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by AI2.0 »

These types of threads always seem to devolve into pitting women against men? This isn't a part of the gospel, it's offensive to the spirit. It seems to bring out extremes in attitude as well.

The church follows a pattern, with Priesthood organization which runs our local stakes, wards, missions and branches. Men hold priesthood and are called to priesthood offices. They serve in various responsibilities and the women serve in auxilliaries within their congregations. It's the way it is and it works.

Some changes have been made to make women's participation in decision making and to make their influence stronger in the programs of the church. That's not a bad thing, and there was room to make these inspired changes to the traditional way things were done. Making these changes does not mean the church is going to ordain women some day. Considering the basic doctrines and practices within the church, members should not expect it to happen.
Last edited by AI2.0 on November 6th, 2017, 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
passionflower
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1026

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by passionflower »

The passing of the sacrament by the deacons truly is a very important part of the Priesthood ordinance and is not optional for men. Just because women pass the tray down a row does not negate this. It is still passed to a deacon at the other end, and he alone returns it to the Priest.

The Sacrament is an ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ Himself and just before His crucifixion. It is sacred and needs to be treated with care and great reverence. If Jesus Christ showed up at our Sacrament meeting, I think I can guess where He would be found sitting. The table itself, with the sacrament trays thereon covered with the white tablecloth are representative of His own sacrificed body, as well. Don't trifle with these things.

If you still wonder at why the Sacrament cannot and should not be passed by girls, and don't believe me about this and demand to know why, I give you this:

When you can answer these questions you will indeed KNOW why passing the sacrament can only be properly done by someone who at least holds the position of deacon in the Aaronic Priesthood.

Every Priesthood ordinance has some things in common. There is an oath, there is a covenant, there is a symbol, and there is a sign.
What is the oath and covenant taken during the Sacrament? I think most of us can answer this one, or at least get in the ballpark. What is the symbol involved? I think most of us can get this one, at least superficially. A symbol and token are the same thing. They refer to something small that means something very large that is hidden or concealed within the symbol that itself will be something ordinary and everyday. The parables of Jesus reflect this idea throughout the gospels.

But most important of all, what is the SIGN? When you see and understand the Sign of the Sacrament, you will know beyond any shadow of doubt why the Sacrament is a Priesthood only ordinance, why the Priesthood is male only, and why it will never ever be otherwise all the way down to the deacons who pass it. Signs are sure knowledge, and once someone has passed the trial of their faith to the point where the Sign is revealed, you will understand most assuredly what I speak of here. Signs are not concealed or hidden from view. I can tell you right now that the Sign of the Sacrament Ordinance, like all truth, is right out in the open as plain and straightforward as the nose on your face. The reason you do not see it is because your minds are darkened through disobedience. If you are given to have the sign revealed to you, you will KNOW the truth of this matter.

Opening up the Priesthood to female ordination will be tantamount to changing the ordinance and altering everything included in the New and Everlasting Covenant. And that's called Apostasy, and if the church does this the power and authority inherent in the Priesthood today would be completely withdrawn. Disobedience and rebellion against the Order of the Priesthood has caused its withdrawal over and over and over again. If not so, we wouldn't have needed a restoration.

User avatar
passionflower
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1026

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by passionflower »

gkearney wrote: November 5th, 2017, 7:33 am
passionflower wrote: November 5th, 2017, 4:52 am
gkearney wrote: November 4th, 2017, 7:42 am In some ways the real question here is how would or will your respond if, what you consider to be the unthinkable in the church, takes place? We can pose this question in any number of ways from the ordination of women to the reintroduction of plural marriage. These are two extremes the same test. Have you, by staking out such inflexible positions on such issues built up a house of cards? If this Sunday if the Bishop were to read a letter from the First Presidency making such a change do you get up and leave the church forever?

And what if it is not as dramatic as ordination? What if it is something like permitting women and girls to pass the sacrament or something similar? Do you decide that such an action is just another indication that the church is creeping ever closer to that line you have drawn in the sand beyond which the leadership of the church is not permitted to cross?

Many here have made very strong statements about how the church is lead and how women's ordination could never happen and if it did that would be the end of the church. However don't you see that in making such a statement you are putting conditions upon your loyalty and membership in the church. You are, in effect telling God your commitment to him is conditional, that he had better not be giving any revelations to the saints with which you do not agree. The idea that there can be actions that must never be taken flies in the face of continuing revelation which lies at the very heart of the restoration much more so, I would suggest, than if woman are ordained or not.
Is it your opinion that Masonic Lodges should begin to admit women? Would you support that?

Well there are lodges that do admit women. In the case of Blue lodge masonry the wording of the ritual itself prohibits it. You can find no such explicit prohibition within scripture and those who object to such do so by interpreting statements and not citing explicit prohibitions.

All that said I never said if I was in favor or opposed to women’s ordination only that I expect it some day and that I would not abandon the restoration over it. The same is true for masonry with me should the institution admit women I would still be a Freemason.

My question is not if you agree or disagree with woman’s ordination but how will you respond to this or any other major change in our faith. This could apply to any number of questions.



Getting everybody worried about some supposed future change you perceive nobody is ready for but you, does nothing but distract them from what the church is asking of us right now. Today is the only day anyone can live in. Today, none of the brethren are telling us to prepare for the ordination of women or we will lose our testimony, and therefore neither should you. I would suggest you stop worrying about it. Stop worrying other people and what they will be believing or doing in the future or what crises they may face. If you really want to tout the equality of women, how about respecting my ability to think for myself and solve my own problems, and quit with all the dire warnings of the spiritual disaster that await me if I don't think and worry over what you want me to. It's my head so stop trying to run it.

Telling me I live in a house of cards if I do not think, worry, and prepare as you want me to, is not your call to make. I have read what you said. Repeating it until I or others cave in to you is just more of the same pressure. My life is mine, and how I prepare for the future is my problem and not yours.

If you really think the ordination of women is possible, and you are prepared for this, then you don't have anything to worry about, do you? You are OK, so what's the big deal?

( sorry, but at least the OP was open ended. You really do come off to me in a"my way or the highway" pressuring manner when subjects like this come up. Hope we are still friends :) )

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Michelle »

passionflower wrote: November 6th, 2017, 11:51 am
Getting everybody worried about some supposed future change you perceive nobody is ready for but you, does nothing but distract them from what the church is asking of us right now. Today is the only day anyone can live in. Today, none of the brethren are telling us to prepare for the ordination of women or we will lose our testimony, and therefore neither should you. I would suggest you stop worrying about it. Stop worrying other people and what they will be believing or doing in the future or what crises they may face. If you really want to tout the equality of women, how about respecting my ability to think for myself and solve my own problems, and quit with all the dire warnings of the spiritual disaster that await me if I don't think and worry over what you want me to. It's my head so stop trying to run it.

Telling me I live in a house of cards if I do not think, worry, and prepare as you want me to, is not your call to make. I have read what you said. Repeating it until I or others cave in to you is just more of the same pressure. My life is mine, and how I prepare for the future is my problem and not yours.

If you really think the ordination of women is possible, and you are prepared for this, then you don't have anything to worry about, do you? You are OK, so what's the big deal?

( sorry, but at least the OP was open ended. You really do come off to me in a"my way or the highway" pressuring manner when subjects like this come up. Hope we are still friends :) )
I agree with you passionflower. That reminds me of these two scriptures:
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
Doctrine and Covenants 19:31 And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.

32 Behold, this is a great and the last commandment which I shall give unto you concerning this matter; for this shall suffice for thy daily walk, even unto the end of thy life.

33 And misery thou shalt receive if thou wilt slight these counsels, yea, even the destruction of thyself and property.

Juliet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3701

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Juliet »

justkeepswimming wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 12:33 am Disclaimer: If you are easily provoked, please just skip this post. My intention is honest dialogue, not to provoke. With that said, let me pose a scenario based on current events and on a historical institutional track record.

Kate Kelly, a few years ago, made waves with the ordain women movement. She was eventually excommunicated by the church for her views.

Here's where my interest in current events and our institutional history is piqued. In the 2-4 years since Kate was exed the following has changed in our church:

1. The first woman prayed in GC.
2. For the first time a woman was placed on an executive board along with other GAs.
3. Most recently, it was determined that the priesthood session on Saturday evenings will rotate every six months with the womans conference, which was previously held one week before GC, giving the woman's session equal time as the men's session.

If, and this is a very big if, but if I'm a future historian in say 2070, and IF, women, by then, have been given the priesthood, would we not be living in the very moment that it subtly and incrementally crept in, on its way to becoming a policy on some future date?

Before you crucify me, please know I am merely looking at what is happening right now and projecting into the future based entirely on what was revealed in the past. I am not suggesting I want this but I am very curious about the little events that quietly occur today that may one day snowball into a massively changing revelation. Consider the following history when speculating about the future with me:

1. There are countless quotes from varying prophets and apostles stating that polygamy would never end. But very slowly, from 1890 to 1906, it was done away with.

2. Additionally, there are countless quotes from prophets and apostles that negroes would never hold the priesthood, yet incrementally it crept in until the day of President Kimball's revelation.

Again, I am not trying to provoke a fight, I understand fully what I am saying and that is highly offensive to many, but to those who don't mind a dialogue about what our future church might look like, I invite your insightful replies.
What needs to change is men need to include their wives in their callings. A man who councils as a bishop should preside with his wife. Young women should go to an interview with the 2nd counselor and his wife. She should not be going alone into a room with a man to explain her sexual worthiness. A man is not without a woman in the Lord or his priesthood offices where the priesthood will be used to minister to people. That is what needs to change and I predict that it will.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by AI2.0 »

Juliet wrote: November 8th, 2017, 10:32 pm
justkeepswimming wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 12:33 am Disclaimer: If you are easily provoked, please just skip this post. My intention is honest dialogue, not to provoke. With that said, let me pose a scenario based on current events and on a historical institutional track record.

Kate Kelly, a few years ago, made waves with the ordain women movement. She was eventually excommunicated by the church for her views.

Here's where my interest in current events and our institutional history is piqued. In the 2-4 years since Kate was exed the following has changed in our church:

1. The first woman prayed in GC.
2. For the first time a woman was placed on an executive board along with other GAs.
3. Most recently, it was determined that the priesthood session on Saturday evenings will rotate every six months with the womans conference, which was previously held one week before GC, giving the woman's session equal time as the men's session.

If, and this is a very big if, but if I'm a future historian in say 2070, and IF, women, by then, have been given the priesthood, would we not be living in the very moment that it subtly and incrementally crept in, on its way to becoming a policy on some future date?

Before you crucify me, please know I am merely looking at what is happening right now and projecting into the future based entirely on what was revealed in the past. I am not suggesting I want this but I am very curious about the little events that quietly occur today that may one day snowball into a massively changing revelation. Consider the following history when speculating about the future with me:

1. There are countless quotes from varying prophets and apostles stating that polygamy would never end. But very slowly, from 1890 to 1906, it was done away with.

2. Additionally, there are countless quotes from prophets and apostles that negroes would never hold the priesthood, yet incrementally it crept in until the day of President Kimball's revelation.

Again, I am not trying to provoke a fight, I understand fully what I am saying and that is highly offensive to many, but to those who don't mind a dialogue about what our future church might look like, I invite your insightful replies.
What needs to change is men need to include their wives in their callings. A man who councils as a bishop should preside with his wife. Young women should go to an interview with the 2nd counselor and his wife. She should not be going alone into a room with a man to explain her sexual worthiness. A man is not without a woman in the Lord or his priesthood offices where the priesthood will be used to minister to people. That is what needs to change and I predict that it will.

But then you would have women doing double duty, fulfilling their own callings and their husband's calling too--going to all the interviews/meetings etc. that her husband has to go to. She'd be run ragged and who would care for children at home? I've got enough on my plate that I don't want to have to do more and there aren't enough who will accept callings to not give women callings who's husbands would need them to help fulfill theirs.

More efficient is that If a parent is worried about an interview, they can sit in on it--but if they are worried, there's a problem. Either the parent is over protective or the man is untrustworthy or sketchy and shouldn't be serving in that calling.

Juliet, the temple recommend interviews include a question about the Law of Chastity--it is a law, not a suggestion. Church leaders need to ask about it when determining worthiness, but if any woman or man does not want to be asked personal questions, they don't need a recommend. It's voluntary but does carry some obligations.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by inho »

This blog post has pretty much all the same points as what I have said in this thread:
What if Beehives Passed the Sacrament Too?

User avatar
LdsMarco
captain of 100
Posts: 606

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by LdsMarco »

The difference is that someone like Kate Kelly wanted to force it. If... and that's a BIG IF -- 'if' women should be ordained it is because it was 'inspired' to do so. Not forced.

What Kate was doing is creating a division and she has no authority to create groups like the one she has or had.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by inho »

I don't think anyone is defending Kate Kelly here.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by larsenb »

EdGoble wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 8:15 am . . . .


They could bring back ministration ordinances by the prayer of faith like the blessings done by women, not by the priesthood but by the prayer of faith, and washings and anointings done outside the temple for women about to have babies by the Relief Society and things like this. The only thing stopping these types of practices is policy, not that there was ultimately anything wrong with them. I have family records of the relief society and women in the family giving blessings, for example. the practice was widespread. And this type of thing would not even require giving women priesthood offices. Already they have clarified that women have priesthood authority and power in callings when they are set apart, in the ordinances they perform in the temple, and so forth. The only thing withheld now really is priesthood offices. It is not clear to me what the reason is for that, except that maybe the Lord wanted to have something uniquely reserved for men for some reason that I don't comprehend.
I'm one of those who was cured from an early and severe childhood illness through a prayer of faith by my mother. Probably when my dad was in the Navy during WWII. It was dramatic.

One reason that men (certainly in this life) may officially be given priesthood offices is to allow them to have a very real function in life complementary to child bearing and rearing. Women already are naturally created to produce and nurture babies. Men only participate in this function via marriage where they can support the woman in this function.

Outside of marriage, men are essentially loose cannons. This isn't a black-and-white statement, but single men, by far, produce the highest percentages of crimes and mayhem in general in society, compared to women. Holding the Priesthood can act as an additional anchor for men in general, that complements their role as fathers, and compensates for the fact that they cannot directly carry babies and suckle them, nor do they seem to have the general nurturing abilities and inclinations that most women have.

This of course, would not be the only reason for giving men priesthood offices.

Gage
captain of 100
Posts: 702

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Gage »

What needs to change is men need to include their wives in their callings. A man who councils as a bishop should preside with his wife. Young women should go to an interview with the 2nd counselor and his wife. She should not be going alone into a room with a man to explain her sexual worthiness. A man is not without a woman in the Lord or his priesthood offices where the priesthood will be used to minister to people. That is what needs to change and I predict that it will.
[/quote]


This is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read on this board.

Post Reply