Projecting future of men only priesthood

[justkeepswimming]

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.

[Spaced_Out]

This is the Messiah's church no the church of man so woman will not get the keys of the PH. They already have the PH. Joseph Smith had woman in the upper rooms of the temple in the school of the prophets, nothing has really changed.
In the old testament there are a few account of the people of Israel going to woman to be judged. It is the same today we have through LDS social services female psychologists, where Bishops and Stake presidents send difficult cases to be counselled - nothing has changed woman were never given the keys of the PH. The few changes you mention are not really any change.

Judges 4:4 ¶ And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

You make a date of 2070 well the second coming will have occurred by then, and the so called modern political correctness will no longer exist on the earth.

[Yahtzee]

Women already exercise in the priesthood in the temple. Because I have been through the temple, I have priesthood power without actually being ordained.
So is it conceivable?
Sure. I suppose so. But I don't personally think it will happen.
But you either believe the brethren receive revelation from God, or you don't. It's a fundamental tenant of our faith. Demanding a doctrinal change like Kate Kelly did is in my opinion, apostasy. Asking why women didn't pray in General conference never called doctrine into question.
The Lord does things in His own time. Personally, I get a strong feeling from the spirit not to dwell on these sorts of matters but to do our best with what we are currently given. We are told to humbly seek His will, not ask Him to do ours.

[Robin Hood]

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

No she wasn't.
She was excommunicated for her conduct.

[janderich]

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?

I believe we are seeing a major shift in a women's position in the church and how they are viewed by the general authorities. However, it would be surprising if women were ordained to the priesthood as men are today. That being said, I think we will see even more changes in the future. Here are a few:

1. More women speaking in general conference
2. The doing away of Priesthood Executive Committee in its current form (with the Relief Society President invited as needed)
3. Women allowed to be Sunday School Presidents and concilors
4. Wording changed in the temple endowment related to a woman's subordinate role
5. Sister missionaries allowed to serve 24 months instead of 18, and called at the same age as the young men

I have been internally debating with myself about why the changes we have seen were made now. Was it because some women were exerting their right to equality and desire to have the priesthood? Would these changes have happened if some had not spoken out? In my own mind I have concluded that what some women did has made a difference in their roles within the church and will continue to do so for quite a number of years.

Where then is the line between direct revelation and society impacting decisions of the LDS church? I'm starting to think that groups of people have a larger impact than I previously thought.

[Z2100]

You make a date of 2070 well the second coming will have occurred by then, and the so called modern political correctness will no longer exist on the earth.

Nah. It’s more like 2100.

[Z2100]

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.

There’s so many things I don’t know about the church, like why the seed of Cain wasn’t able to get the priesthood until the 70s. If they let women in on the preisthood, this church might as well not be true. Only men hold the priesthood. God has the preisthood; that’s how and why he created the universe. Might as well let the gays marry in temples. But maybe the Lord will refurbish the church before his coming.

Either way, if women get the preisthood and gays get married in temples during my lifetime, I’m going to convert to satanism.

[gkearney]

This raises an interesting set of questions. First among these is this: Is male only priesthood some form of absolute gospel essential, like a belief in Christ or is it something more akin to the priesthood ban. Second just what are the things so fundamental that they may never change? If this is such a fundamental why is this so? How does this issue rise to the level of denying the Christian faith?

It is often said that Christ did not call any women to be given the priesthood however I find this line of reasoning flawed. Christ also did not call any Asians, Africans, aboriginal Australians or for that matter even any white European men to the priesthood either. So simply having no such record in scripture does not prove the case. Some here act as if the ordination of women is absolutely forbidden somehow in scripture but I really fail to see where such is the case.

With that said here is what I see, along with the others changes already listed here, as change in the future .

1. A review of what calling require priesthood and which ones do not. For example do Sunday School presidencies really require priesthood? What about the membership or financial clerks?
2. Inviting women and girls to pass the sacrament. Again this is not a function of the priesthood and women, girls and non-members perform this function every sunday as the sacrament is passed from one member to the next.
3. Expanding the leadership roles of sister missionaries.
4. Going along with number 2 on this list is the rather meaningless and downright silly tradition of having only boys (deacons usually) hold the microphone for testimony and baby blessings.
5. Women will be able to hold their babies while they are being blessed. I mean really don't they hold them in the home when they are getting a blessing?

In the longer term the ordination of women and girls to the Aaronic Priesthood, followed at some point in the future by full priesthood ordinations. This changes would not come as a shock to me.

Some method of dealing with the issue of not having adult men (Bishops) interviewing women and girls, in particular, about things like morality (read that as sex) without a woman present in the room. I suspect that we will end up seeing a greatly expanded role for the wife of a bishop.

This last point looks to me to be perhaps the greatest danger to the church of any of our current practices.

So I guess I am saying that I see the eventual possibility of women's ordination as not only possible but even likely in the future. I'm not pushing for it, like that would do nay good anyway, but I expect it to happen, likely within my lifetime.

[EdGoble]

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.

The Lord can do whatever he wants through his prophets so it is kind of pointless to speculate. It is better to remain neutral on the future rather than trying to project it, because it could go either way. We just don't know really what the future holds on this issue.

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.

[justkeepswimming]

You have touched on a very interesting part of our history. Thanks for the kind and informative reply.

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.

The Lord can do whatever he wants through his prophets so it is kind of pointless to speculate. It is better to remain neutral on the future rather than trying to project it, because it could go either way. We just don't know really what the future holds on this issue.

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.

[justkeepswimming]

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.

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.

[justkeepswimming]

G, you make so much sense it's almost scary. I too am not pushing for anything, I have a wife who opposes this idea strictly for traditions' sake, but when I read her your simple but eloquent analysis and possible changes, even she could see sense in some of them. She cringed at the idea of girls passing the sacrament but loved the idea of mothers holding babies for blessings as well as a female office for girl interviews.

So, your first paragraph made me remember an interview I heard with the Church PR spokeswoman around the time of the ordain women movement. She was asked by a reporter if there was a scripture, just one, that stated women could not have the priesthood. The PR rep answered, no.
I remember being surprised when hearing that because I had never asked that question of myself, or my leaders. Why hadn't I? Because I was trained not to question it. But as Ed showed in another post, the role of women in our past was very different.

I guess what I'm saying is that I feel this collective fear that we can't change what we're so used to right now even though right beneath our noses we're incrementally being prepared (potentially) for just that change, and I only say that based on our past. Again, I have no dog in the fight other than wanting to be aware of the small changes today, so I'm not blindsided in the future.

Just out of curiosity, which female leader today do you think would be a great influence for the better if given the chance?

Thank you for your very interesting perspective!

This raises an interesting set of questions. First among these is this: Is male only priesthood some form of absolute gospel essential, like a belief in Christ or is it something more akin to the priesthood ban. Second just what are the things so fundamental that they may never change? If this is such a fundamental why is this so? How does this issue rise to the level of denying the Christian faith?

It is often said that Christ did not call any women to be given the priesthood however I find this line of reasoning flawed. Christ also did not call any Asians, Africans, aboriginal Australians or for that matter even any white European men to the priesthood either. So simply having no such record in scripture does not prove the case. Some here act as if the ordination of women is absolutely forbidden somehow in scripture but I really fail to see where such is the case.

With that said here is what I see, along with the others changes already listed here, as change in the future .

1. A review of what calling require priesthood and which ones do not. For example do Sunday School presidencies really require priesthood? What about the membership or financial clerks?
2. Inviting women and girls to pass the sacrament. Again this is not a function of the priesthood and women, girls and non-members perform this function every sunday as the sacrament is passed from one member to the next.
3. Expanding the leadership roles of sister missionaries.
4. Going along with number 2 on this list is the rather meaningless and downright silly tradition of having only boys (deacons usually) hold the microphone for testimony and baby blessings.
5. Women will be able to hold their babies while they are being blessed. I mean really don't they hold them in the home when they are getting a blessing?

In the longer term the ordination of women and girls to the Aaronic Priesthood, followed at some point in the future by full priesthood ordinations. This changes would not come as a shock to me.

Some method of dealing with the issue of not having adult men (Bishops) interviewing women and girls, in particular, about things like morality (read that as sex) without a woman present in the room. I suspect that we will end up seeing a greatly expanded role for the wife of a bishop.

This last point looks to me to be perhaps the greatest danger to the church of any of our current practices.

So I guess I am saying that I see the eventual possibility of women's ordination as not only possible but even likely in the future. I'm not pushing for it, like that would do nay good anyway, but I expect it to happen, likely within my lifetime.

[justkeepswimming]

Just curious about your opinion, and not trying to stoke the fire.

When you learned about the reversal of the priesthood ban were you old enough to understand its significance? I only ask because I feel that when we don't live through such significant changes we tend to not take them as seriously. For example, most of us really don't fully recognize nor understand just how serious it was to practice polygamy and those Mormons then never thought it would change. Next came the priesthood reversal.

My point in asking is this: if we're not living through the change it's not a big deal to us. Of course, right now, to even broach the subject of female priesthood brings mostly scorn, but I see the possibility of preparing ourselves mentally, little by little, for what appears to be a very slow change. If you look at the millenial generation today, who will be leading the church in 30 years, they have very different ideas than our current leaders and they may make Elder Oaks look like some of our former polygamist defending apostles when it comes to a future priesthood change. Are we ready for that possibility?

I appreciate your candid answer and your passion. It's your church as much as anyone's and you are entitled to your opinion as much me or anyone else.

There’s so many things I don’t know about the church, like why the seed of Cain wasn’t able to get the priesthood until the 70s. If they let women in on the preisthood, this church might as well not be true. Only men hold the priesthood. God has the preisthood; that’s how and why he created the universe. Might as well let the gays marry in temples. But maybe the Lord will refurbish the church before his coming.

Either way, if women get the preisthood and gays get married in temples during my lifetime, I’m going to convert to satanism.

[justkeepswimming]

What an incredible analysis!

I too, found the timing just too curious, that's why I wrote this post. I'm not pushing anything but my goodness, Kate Kelly gets exed and THEN things that hand't happened started to happen? When the first woman was placed on an executive board, I remember reading that in the newspaper and thinking it was just a token gesture and kind of demeaning but, even if it was just that, it was and is an incremental change that could snowball into a massive institutional change. In a way, with that appointment, it was almost like making a precedent to justify a future socially-pressured change.

Anyway, I agree with you that social groups help the process of institutional change. I do not think this negates the role of and purpose of revelation. I think the Lord guides his church with all members in mind and what we minions do and think at the bottom level of the hierarchy does actually matter to God, just as much as what those at the top think.

Thanks for you insight!

I have been internally debating with myself about why the changes we have seen were made now. Was it because some women were exerting their right to equality and desire to have the priesthood? Would these changes have happened if some had not spoken out? In my own mind I have concluded that what some women did has made a difference in their roles within the church and will continue to do so for quite a number of years.

Where then is the line between direct revelation and society impacting decisions of the LDS church? I'm starting to think that groups of people have a larger impact than I previously thought.

[justkeepswimming]

Agreed, not disputing the cause of her excommunication, but rather the immediate impact she influenced after she was out. It was almost like they couldn't keep her as a member and make those changes because that would validate her movement, so they got rid of her and then made the small subtle changes, but the general focus was on her being exed, not on the slow incremental changes that took place after.

I'm not a KK fan, just to make that clear. Just looking at what factually happened after she left and trying to make sense of it.

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

No she wasn't.
She was excommunicated for her conduct.

[justkeepswimming]

You make great points about revelation. My only question based on our past is do small, almost unnoticeable changes spread out over years, influence the revelation give to the brethren?

Women already exercise in the priesthood in the temple. Because I have been through the temple, I have priesthood power without actually being ordained.
So is it conceivable?
Sure. I suppose so. But I don't personally think it will happen.
But you either believe the brethren receive revelation from God, or you don't. It's a fundamental tenant of our faith. Demanding a doctrinal change like Kate Kelly did is in my opinion, apostasy. Asking why women didn't pray in General conference never called doctrine into question.
The Lord does things in His own time. Personally, I get a strong feeling from the spirit not to dwell on these sorts of matters but to do our best with what we are currently given. We are told to humbly seek His will, not ask Him to do ours.

[inho]

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.

In my opinion, there is a difference between these two examples and giving priesthood to women.
1. There has been times when polygamy was not allowed (Jacob in Book of Mormon), thus not allowing it again was not a revolutionary thought.
2. There were times when black people hold the priesthood (Elijah Ables and others), thus giving them priesthood wasn't revolutionary either.

However, we do not know about women holding the priesthood. There are some hints about women having priesthood offices in the early Christianity, but we don't know much about it. Thus, I think that before priesthood could be given to women some sort of new revelation would be necessary. We know that in eternities faithful women will be queens and priestesses. But we do not know whether priesthood and priestesshood are the same thing.

I do believe that in the future we will see women having more active role in the church. Perhaps some of the duties that have traditionally been carried out by priesthood holders will be given to women (Sunday School president would be an easy start). Maybe some day we will see women again healing sick through faith and laying on of hands

[brianj]

Let me correct a fact then address your hypothetical question.

You claimed Kelly was excommunicated for her views. The church doesn't tell us what we have to believe to be considered worthy, with very few exceptions (the Godhead, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the truth of the church, the authority of the Priesthood, etc.). But they do make it very clear that we have to follow codes of conduct. As a new member of the church I didn't believe in the law of chastity. I obeyed that law but didn't believe in it or agree with it, and those beliefs were never held against me. If I had started going around telling people the prophet is wrong and demanding the church change its teachings, I should have been excommunicated. Kelly didn't just believe the First Presidency and Twelve were symbols of the evil patriarchy, she preached that belief and worked hard to get church members to turn against the leaders. That is why she was excommunicated.

Regarding your hypothetical question, you asked in such a way that the only answer is yes. Therefore I believe you were trying to make a point instead of asking a sincere question. I will say this about your hypothetical situation: ordaining women to the priesthood would be so contradictory to 187 years of church teachings that it could not be reconciled and would be a strong evidence that the church isn't really true.

[gkearney]

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.

[Michelle]

When I think of the example of Deborah being asked to give counsel, I understand it was because the men were so wicked and weak that she was the best option, even an excellent option and a prophetess, but only because the men of the day did not do their duty.

Judges 4:6-9 6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh-naphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?

7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.

8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.

When I consider the women being given many of the responsibilities you speak of, I think it would have more to do with a lack of righteous men, not an abundance of righteous women.

Why? Because most women I speak to, like me, have enough to do already. We aren't seeking more work or some misguided notion of honor through more priesthood power and authority to do ordinances. All true disciples of Christ are honorable in his eyes. Some are just given different jobs than others. Remember Christ's disciples arguing about who would be on the right hand and who on the left in heaven.?

I know this will definitely rile up some, but it is my honest opinion: Women aren't being obedient enough to the role God gave us. If we were doing all the Lord asked us to do, we would not be seeking more to do. Now, having said that, I make exception, like many do, for those who are doing their best to get married and have a family but don't have the opportunity or health to do so. I judge no person personally in this regard, I cannot, I don't have the authority or wisdom to do so. But I can judge a trend among the Saints by appealing to the words of the prophets, apostles and female leadership of the church. But being the exception isn't most of us. Many are unnecessarily limiting family size, outsourcing our children's education, and adopting the norms of society.

Before you think I am totally off my rocker, let me share a recent example of counsel from church authorities on this matter.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/quentin- ... t-choices/

FAMILY CHOICES
Family choices follow a similar pattern. In the Father’s plan, the role of families is clearly set forth. In “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” we read:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.20

It is fairly common in today’s world, in another paradigm shift, to trumpet alternative choices in a positive way that are in direct conflict with this plan and that are unfavorable to marriage and family. Let me mention a few.

The choice for both women and men to put education and careers ahead of marriage and family.
The choice to purposefully have no or few children or to terminate pregnancy when it is inconvenient.21
The choice to engage in immoral conduct as a substitute for the sacred institution of marriage.
The adversary has targeted women and has painted motherhood as a dead-end road of drudgery. He has targeted men and has painted fatherhood as unimportant and fidelity as “old-school.” The alienation and objectification of pornography is an example of immoral conduct being substituted for the sacred institution of marriage. It underscores the horrific turning from truth and righteousness that the adversary seeks.

Inappropriate alternative choices are painted as appropriate in helping to achieve the worldly goals of freedom and equality. As a result of such choices, the average number of children a woman will bear in her lifetime is declining dramatically. It is estimated that 46 percent of the world lives in countries in which the fertility rate is below 2.1 children—the rate necessary for the population to remain stable. Most European and Asian countries are below this level. Italy and Japan are both at about 1.3 births. Japan is expected to decrease in population from 120 million to about 100 million by the year 2050.22

This worldwide decline in population has been described by some as the “demographic winter.”23 Many countries are not having enough children to replace the generation that is dying.

Let’s see if we can illustrate this problem here in the Marriott Center. Will all of you who are the oldest child in your family please stand and remain standing? In today’s world, in many of these countries, but not in the United States, most of the rest of you who are still seated would never have been born.

Thank you. Please be seated.

Now, everybody who is the third or later child in your family, please stand and remain standing. You would not have been born, even in the United States, if the current trends applied. Can you see why they call it the demographic winter?

Thank you. Please be seated.

Let me share one other reality that is of great concern to me. I had a sobering experience in Jerusalem last October. We visited the Children’s Memorial, which is part of the World Holocaust Remembrance Center. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland and I, together with two American Jewish leaders, laid a remembrance wreath. As you move through the Children’s Memorial, the first names of the children and their ages at death are announced one after another with a background of music that portrays this terrible atrocity. It is believed that more than one million Jewish children were killed during the Holocaust.24

As I experienced the museum, I was overcome with emotion and completely devastated. Standing outside to regain my composure, I reflected on the horror of the experience and suddenly realized that in the United States alone there are as many abortions every two years25 as the number of Jewish children killed in the Holocaust during the Second World War.

Now, as a lawyer, I am cognizant that the motives and intent of these two tragedies are entirely different. The Jewish children were killed because they were Jews, and there is no analogue to this in all history, but the intensity of my feeling was about the loss of children. Bringing children into the world is a sacred part of our Father in Heaven’s plan of happiness. We are so numbed and intimidated by the immensity of the practice of abortion that many of us have pushed it to the back of our minds and try to keep it out of our consciousness. Clearly the adversary is attacking the value of children on many levels.

Abortion needs to be approached very carefully. This is a problem that will probably not be solved by personal condemnation or judgmental accusations. Some have cautioned to not judge a ship—or men or women—without understanding the length of the voyage and the storms encountered.26 I might add, many who engage in this deplorable conduct do not have a testimony of the Savior or knowledge of the Father’s plan.

However, for those who believe we are accountable to God—and even for many of those not of our faith who are secular but pride themselves on being on the so-called “right side of history”—this has become a tragedy of monumental proportions. When you combine it with the demographic winter that we have just explored, it is a serious moral blot on our society.

President Spencer W. Kimball taught:

Supreme happiness in marriage is governed considerably by a primary factor—that of the bearing and rearing of children. . . . The Church cannot approve nor condone . . . measures which . . . greatly limit the family.27

With respect to the number and spacing of children, the health of the mother must be considered, and the decision should be made prayerfully by husbands and wives.28 Such decisions should never be judged by outsiders.29 Some faithful Saints are not able to have children or may not have the opportunity to marry. They will receive every blessing at the ultimate banquet of consequences.30

Nevertheless, Lucifer has supported abortion and convinced many people in a horrific paradigm shift that children represent lost opportunity and misery instead of joy and happiness.

As Latter-day Saints, we must be at the forefront of changing hearts and minds on the importance of children. The attacks on the family that I just described ultimately result in grief and misery.

The Lord has declared that His work and His glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”31 The plan is established through families. Every family member is important, and their roles are beautiful, glorious, and fulfilling.

The family proclamation could not be more clear about the consequences of choices inconsistent with the Father’s plan. It unequivocally proclaims:

We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.32

This clearly sets forth the ultimate banquet of consequences and the cumulative impact of choices not in accordance with the Father’s plan of happiness.

In all marriages and in raising children there are challenges and sacrifices. But the rewards both in this life and in the eternities are breathtakingly beautiful. They emanate from a loving Father in Heaven.

I already have a testimony that if priesthood power is not available during a crisis (for example, if I was home alone with my children and someone had a terrible accident) the Lord would hear my prayer and bless me according to my faith and his will. I also believe, however, that when the ideal is available: a priesthood holder is available, I should ask him for a blessing in such a case and that ignoring that option would be me abdicating my right to that blessing.

I would compare this to the advice to store a year supply of food for my family. If I have done so, I believe I will have food when we need it. If I was not able to do so, but would have if the means had been available, I would expect the Lord would still make sure we had food, even if by miraculous means if needed.

[Yahtzee]

You make great points about revelation. My only question based on our past is do small, almost unnoticeable changes spread out over years, influence the revelation give to the brethren?

Women already exercise in the priesthood in the temple. Because I have been through the temple, I have priesthood power without actually being ordained.
So is it conceivable?
Sure. I suppose so. But I don't personally think it will happen.
But you either believe the brethren receive revelation from God, or you don't. It's a fundamental tenant of our faith. Demanding a doctrinal change like Kate Kelly did is in my opinion, apostasy. Asking why women didn't pray in General conference never called doctrine into question.
The Lord does things in His own time. Personally, I get a strong feeling from the spirit not to dwell on these sorts of matters but to do our best with what we are currently given. We are told to humbly seek His will, not ask Him to do ours.

I would counter with another question, does revelation have to occur all at once or can the Lord do it through small, unnoticeable changes?
Or, let's get to what I think is the heart of the matter. Are the small changes revelation or are they just policy and are policy changes only made by revelation? I think women praying in General conference is a good example of that kind of "policy". Seemed archaic and pointless to me (although I've found since the ladies tend to be more long winded, ugh!), but I haven't inquired of the Lord because I just don't care. Maybe He had a reason. Maybe it was a held over tradition. Maybe no woman asked wanted to pray in GC (I certainly wouldn't prefer it). There's a lot of maybes.
The problem is, we can only speculate about why these changes happen.
So it comes back to - you either believe the brethren receive revelation for Christ's church, or you don't.

[Spaced_Out]

This raises an interesting set of questions. First among these is this: Is male only priesthood some form of absolute gospel essential, like a belief in Christ or is it something more akin to the priesthood ban. Second just what are the things so fundamental that they may never change? If this is such a fundamental why is this so? How does this issue rise to the level of denying the Christian faith?...

The family a proclamation to the world spoken about in latest GC is an absolute truth - gender and the roles of gender are cast in concrete and are not movable. A man can still be sealed to more than one woman - the reverse will not happen. The divine eternal roles for male and female have been before the foundations of the world and throughout all eternity unchanging - so called modern political correctness can't change the eternities, our God the Father has to work within the bounds of those eternal laws...

Again nothing new has changed in the church in regards to woman - there is no political influence on the General Authorities, it is the over imagination of an over active mind.

[eddie]

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.

[justkeepswimming]

Michelle, I thoroughly loved reading your post, including the copied BYU talk.

After re reading through it again, there was this one sentence that stuck out, the one about a lack of righteous men for the Lord to choose from. This whole time I have been focused on the small changes that came after Kate Kelly was exed were as a result of A, B or C, but what I hadn't considered until you mentioned it was that maybe the Lord was saying, look, I don't have enough righteous men to choose from so I'm going to start leaning more on the women for these traditional male roles.

I have to ask this question even though it may be hard to answer; when you consider that the first woman placed on an executive board full of male GAs could have been placed there, not as a token gesture to women in general but for the lack of righteous men, what do you suppose is the cause of unrighteousness among available men?

What a powerful message you have conveyed. This is why I posted this question, to get possibilities I had not yet considered. Thank you.

When I consider the women being given many of the responsibilities you speak of, I think it would have more to do with a lack of righteous men, not an abundance of righteous women.

[justkeepswimming]

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.

This raises an interesting set of questions. First among these is this: Is male only priesthood some form of absolute gospel essential, like a belief in Christ or is it something more akin to the priesthood ban. Second just what are the things so fundamental that they may never change? If this is such a fundamental why is this so? How does this issue rise to the level of denying the Christian faith?...

The family a proclamation to the world spoken about in latest GC is an absolute truth - gender and the roles of gender are cast in concrete and are not movable. A man can still be sealed to more than one woman - the reverse will not happen. The divine eternal roles for male and female have been before the foundations of the world and throughout all eternity unchanging - so called modern political correctness can't change the eternities, our God the Father has to work within the bounds of those eternal laws...

Again nothing new has changed in the church in regards to woman - there is no political influence on the General Authorities, it is the over imagination of an over active mind.