Projecting future of men only priesthood

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by brianj »

gkearney wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 5:42 pm While I would admit that ordaining women would be contrary to 187 years of church practice I fail to understand, given the lack of any direct scripture forbidding the practice how it can rise to the level of such a fundamental as to bring into doubt the whole underpinnings of the faith should that practice change in the future.

It seems to me that in making such a statement you are building a glass house and then waiting for the day to come when a stone gets thrown through it. It’s a very fragile thing to build a wall around given that there are no scriptures to support it.
I made my assertion because I firmly believe that only adherence to the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ holds the church together and allows us to advance the purposes of the gospel. And I believe just as firmly that priesthood ordination is only for men, because it is directly related to the divine roles of men.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by brianj »

eddie wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 10:59 pm The Lord organized the church that men have the responsibility of the Priesthood, I believe the women have an even greater responsibility to bear and raise children, they raise up Prophets and Apostles, bishops and missionaries. Let's face it, women almost always set the spiritual tone in the home. If you see a strong man in the church, his wife is even stronger! I believe women are far superior to men in spirit, boys love their Mothers! I read where many of the men who were dying of mortal wounds during war said" Tell my Mother I love her," in their dying breath. The first person to see the resurrected Christ was a woman.
I feel embarrassed for the women demanding the Priesthood, women have a role that is most sacred and precious, obviously they don't believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the revelation for change would come through our Prophet, w hen you fail to believe in him, you have failed in your belief in Jesus Christ.
I agree with almost everything you have said, but I have known a lot of men who are far superior spiritually to most women around them and a lot of very strong men in the church whose wives are not strong at all, at least not strong in the cause of righteousness. I know two men who were serving as elders quorum presidents, one as an exceptional president and the other I can't objectively judge because I was serving in that presidency, whose wives decided to leave them while they were serving in those callings. Brigham Young had several wives leave him.

Every single one of us needs to be able to stand alone. There may come a time when we have to do just that. Think of the early missionaries of the church, who were called to leave families behind for many years, traveling to places where they could not have regular communication with their spouses. How could a strong wife have helped these men, other than praying for them and the peace of mind that comes from knowing she's strong enough to get along just fine without him?

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by brianj »

justkeepswimming wrote: November 4th, 2017, 12:36 am Spaced Out, I like your reply but w/in it I see the following flaw: You mention at the beginning that the proclamation is absolute truth, and I agree. But at the end you mention that modern PC can't change the eternities but wasn't it adherence to once modern politics that led to the polygamy ban? I may be misunderstanding you, if so I apologize.
Polygamy wasn't banned because the church bowed to politics. It was banned because of the principle of obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law: a principle taught long before the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act or the decision in Reynolds v United States. We have record of a revelation showing an alternate future of what would happen if the church refused to accept this law, and we all should know that God could easily use His power to prevent that future from happening even if the church disobeyed that law. But what would happen to faith if the government were continually trying to destroy the church but God consistently used His divine power to prevent agents of the government from taking over church properties or arresting people? If any faithful church member who practiced this principle were continually surrounded by a bubble of light that repulsed or killed any law enforcement officer who tried arresting them, how could we exercise faith? It seems we would have a perfect knowledge at that point.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by brianj »

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 mode 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.
People left the church when polygamy was ended. People left the church when racial restrictions on priesthood ordination were ended. People leave the church almost every time a president dies and is replaced. Heck, people leave the church for not changing such as over the church refusing to change doctrine regarding marriage. If women were ordained to the priesthood, many would leave the church.

Speaking only for myself, if I heard such a letter read I don't know that I could remain in church after the sacrament meeting in which it was read. I would go home and pray. If the weather was cooperative, after praying at home i would get my dog, drive to a nice trail head, and go for a long hike in the mountains were I could continue to pray and contemplate. I would probably go to the temple almost every evening, praying fervently until I had an answer regarding this change. Then i would act in accordance with that answer.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by eddie »

brianj wrote: November 4th, 2017, 9:06 am
eddie wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 10:59 pm The Lord organized the church that men have the responsibility of the Priesthood, I believe the women have an even greater responsibility to bear and raise children, they raise up Prophets and Apostles, bishops and missionaries. Let's face it, women almost always set the spiritual tone in the home. If you see a strong man in the church, his wife is even stronger! I believe women are far superior to men in spirit, boys love their Mothers! I read where many of the men who were dying of mortal wounds during war said" Tell my Mother I love her," in their dying breath. The first person to see the resurrected Christ was a woman.
I feel embarrassed for the women demanding the Priesthood, women have a role that is most sacred and precious, obviously they don't believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the revelation for change would come through our Prophet, w hen you fail to believe in him, you have failed in your belief in Jesus Christ.
I agree with almost everything you have said, but I have known a lot of men who are far superior spiritually to most women around them and a lot of very strong men in the church whose wives are not strong at all, at least not strong in the cause of righteousness. I know two men who were serving as elders quorum presidents, one as an exceptional president and the other I can't objectively judge because I was serving in that presidency, whose wives decided to leave them while they were serving in those callings. Brigham Young had several wives leave him.

Every single one of us needs to be able to stand alone. There may come a time when we have to do just that. Think of the early missionaries of the church, who were called to leave families behind for many years, traveling to places where they could not have regular communication with their spouses. How could a strong wife have helped these men, other than praying for them and the peace of mind that comes from knowing she's strong enough to get along just fine without him?
First of all I believe most of the time it's the woman who insists that the family go to church every Sunday, she was implemental in helping him get the call and was strong enough to get through it.
Second of all I'm sorry to hear that women leave men like that, however that has not been my experience in observing the women of the church, there is an exception to every rule.
Third of all, my point is not to make anyone sensitive, I am merely expressing that behind every strong man is an even stronger woman, usually.

Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Spaced_Out »

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?
The doctrines are based on basic principles of the gospel, scripture and revelation from the HG. Polygamy is a no big issue as it has been done before throughout scripture and will be done again. It is still practised in the church -a man can be sealed to more than one wife if the first is deceased etc..

Woman serving or blessing the sacrament will not happen, and doing so will in fact be dishonouring woman.
I have mentioned this once before on this forum guys in our ward served a mission in Zimbabwe, one Sunday they went to a remote branch of the church and fund the sisters serving sacrament. In the very male dominated African culture it is a woman's job to serve food and no man will do such a humiliating thing. So they got the sisters to pass sacrament - then they were told that the sisters cant pass sacrament as they don't have the ordination. A month later they went back and the sisters were still passing sacrament - The mission president and member of the stake presidency were told that they had solved the problem by giving the woman the PH.

PH = service so lets have a church were the woman have to serve the men in all things. In all the branches and wards that I have been in, Music director it is almost exclusively given to woman. So lets make the woman the Bishops, SS presidents and disband EQ and HP and just have a combined meeting every Sunday, no more YM or YW just all combined. And of course call sisters to all the positions, no more home or visiting teaching just visiting and parting, and make them serve the men in all things....
There are way more active woman in the church than men, Isiah the prophet got it right a church were there will be 7 woman to every man, and the woman will earn their own money and wear their own cloths and look after themselves. The sitters can marry each other to solve the gender disparity and get donors to have children - O'what a blessed day that will be... And while we are about it we can rewrite the scriptures and make the woman the creators of all things and the administrators of temporal things.

The calling of a Bishop is actually an Aaronic PH calling where majority of his time should be dealing with temporal things like the building etc,,, Sitting in judgement is a very small part of the callings, but members have so many issues due to disobedience that it becomes overwhelming.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Michelle »

Something to consider.

What do you think our Heavenly Mother is doing right now?

I imagine she is bearing and nurturing spirit children.

What do I think Heavenly Father is doing? I think he is providing for and protecting their children.

I believe our life on earth is to prepare us for those two callings. I believe that men administer through the power of the priesthood and women have a different calling.

Z2100
captain of 100
Posts: 748

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Z2100 »

Michelle wrote: November 4th, 2017, 9:25 pm Something to consider.

What do you think our Heavenly Mother is doing right now?

I imagine she is bearing and nurturing spirit children.

What do I think Heavenly Father is doing? I think he is providing for and protecting their children.

I believe our life on earth is to prepare us for those two callings. I believe that men administer through the power of the priesthood and women have a different calling.

It’s been that way for countless trillions of years (I guess).

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 »

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.
During the 1870s and 1880s, a few wards started letting deacons pass the sacrament. ... When a ward member objected, citing the Doctrine and Covenants requirement that priests "administer" the sacrament, Bishop Levi Stewart told him that Brigham Young said passing the sacrament was not administering it, so it would be "perfectly right" for deacons to pass the sacrament.

...

Even passing sacrament trays among the congregation requires no priesthood authority. With or without priesthood, men, women, and children one by one pass the sacrament tray or cups to the next person down the row. Recognizing this reality, President Heber J. Grant wrote to a mission president in 1928 that there was "no rule in the Church" that only priesthood bearers could carry the sacrament to the congregation after it was blessed. While it was "custom" for priesthood men or boys to pass around the bread and water, he said, "it would in no wise invalidate the ordinance" if some "worthy young brethren lacking priesthood performed it in the absence of ordained boys" and he had "no objection" if it were done.

Women and custodians usually prepared the sacrament table, so it did not appear on a list of priesthood duties until 1933. Metal sacrament trays needed to be polished, and fine white linen or lace tablecloths needed to be laundered, starched, and pressed, traditionally the work of women. Women also baked the sacrament bread in many wards. 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.

As late as 1943, the Presiding Bishopric publicized for bishops the example of young women in one ward who "take care of washing and sterilizing the sacrament sets after each service."

From Men to Boys: LDS Aaronic Priesthood Offices, 1829-1996 by William G. Hartley in Journal of Mormon History Vol. 22, No. 1, 1996

Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Spaced_Out »

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.
If you bother to read the Old Testament you will find only the levites served in the sacrifices as they were the only ones who held the PH.

Holding the PH is much much more than simplify serving and administering the sacrament - if the sisters get the PH keys then they may as well be quorum presidents and fill the other duties of the PH the one comes withe the other....

User avatar
passionflower
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1026

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by passionflower »

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?

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by gkearney »

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.

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 »

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?

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by gkearney »

Passing the sacrament does not require the priesthood. It is not administration of the sacrament which the D&C is clear may only be done by priests. Women and girls, as well as none members pass the sacrament all the time as the trays go down the rows.

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?
Those quotes only related to sacrament cloth and baking bread - no discussion on those that serve the bread ie take it from the priest and distribute to the congregation - the same was with the levites and the sacrifices - there has been no change ever.

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 »

Spaced_Out wrote: November 5th, 2017, 12:57 pm Those quotes only related to sacrament cloth and baking bread - no discussion on those that serve the bread ie take it from the priest and distribute to the congregation - the same was with the levites and the sacrifices - there has been no change ever.
Read again, those quotes also said that passing the sacrament is not a priesthood ordinance. For example:
President Heber J. Grant wrote to a mission president in 1928 that there was "no rule in the Church" that only priesthood bearers could carry the sacrament to the congregation after it was blessed.
Anyway, today we also generally think that only teachers are allowed to prepare the sacrament (i.e., place the sacrament cloth and the trays). So, you see that a change has appeared there. Similarly a change has happened in relation to the passing of the sacrament. We have assigned these duties to priesthood holders even though they are not priesthood ordinances.

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 »

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:

Crackers
captain of 100
Posts: 584

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Crackers »

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.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by Thinker »

inho wrote: November 4th, 2017, 7:02 am
Spaced_Out wrote: November 4th, 2017, 6:06 am The Book of Mormon makes it clear that from time to time polygamy has been implemented among the house of Israel for specific purposes and revoked when not needed. It is the same that has been done in the past it is not any new thing. There is no scripture or history of woman being given the keys of the PH, or the divine nature and purpose of male and female being changed.

How is the banning of polygamy changing the eternities or some how linked to woman not able to receive the keys of the PH. It is a fake and apostate straw man argument.
I made the same point in my reply: there is no precedent for women having the priesthood. (Although, some do say that women held priesthood offices in the early Christianity and that there even female apostle and deacon in the New Testament, but the information about that is scarce and prone to misinterpretations.)
However, I wouldn't say that giving priesthood to women would change "the divine nature and purpose of male and female". We do know that in the hereafter valiant women will be priestesses. What we do not know, is what that really means.
I heard that in the preexistence, there were 2 jobs offered. “Which do you want - mothering or priesthood?” Men quickly said, “we’ll take the priesthood!” :) I realize not all women are mothers, but as mentioned in the temple all women - like Eve - are “the mother of all living.” All women mother in a way.

Yes, it’s annoying when occasionally I see chauvinism in the church, but that’s their own unrighteous dominion. Overall, I think men need the focus and sense of dutiful service priesthood gives. Women already naturally have “mother’s healing touch.”

I imagine the church will bend to social trends, but will they break? Who knows the future of the church. With the flaws I’m aware of, I still cheer and hope that the church can continue to help foster spiritual focus and growth for those that need it.

justkeepswimming
captain of 100
Posts: 104

Re: Projecting future of men only priesthood

Post by justkeepswimming »

This is a really interesting piece of our history. I wonder if rotating the passing of sacrament among girls and boys could happen in the future given the new precedent of rotating the woman's and priesthood conference sessions every six months. Who knows?

I'm all for the girls feeling more important and utilized by the Lord in this way. I don't think for one second it would deter them from their natural God given role as mothers, but simply make them feel closer to the Lord, the congregation, and be able to share a powerful experience with their future sons.
inho wrote: November 5th, 2017, 1:45 pm
Spaced_Out wrote: November 5th, 2017, 12:57 pm Those quotes only related to sacrament cloth and baking bread - no discussion on those that serve the bread ie take it from the priest and distribute to the congregation - the same was with the levites and the sacrifices - there has been no change ever.
Read again, those quotes also said that passing the sacrament is not a priesthood ordinance. For example:
President Heber J. Grant wrote to a mission president in 1928 that there was "no rule in the Church" that only priesthood bearers could carry the sacrament to the congregation after it was blessed.
Anyway, today we also generally think that only teachers are allowed to prepare the sacrament (i.e., place the sacrament cloth and the trays). So, you see that a change has appeared there. Similarly a change has happened in relation to the passing of the sacrament. We have assigned these duties to priesthood holders even though they are not priesthood ordinances.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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?

Post Reply