- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have great love and respect for the priesthood as the men I know here and now use it. I’m not saying that people interested in women’s ordination don’t, just that I’m not inclined in this direction. On less of a gut level, it doesn’t make sense to me by itself. Women are ordained, but the temple doesn’t change? Women are ordained, but we’re all good with Section 132?
Brown wrote:HSAB wrote:I don’t see a real reason why women don’t have it other than tradition.
I tried to think of a reason and I can’t come up with one either, other than it seems weird because it goes against what we’ve always done. I know you probably think I am sexist from your other thread, but I have no issue with women performing ordinances. In fact it makes more sense to me because in my family the only time a man did anything with the priesthood is when his wife or mother told him it needed to be done! Might as well skip the middle “man”.
One of the usual claims is that they get to have babies and we don’t…
I would not oppose ordination of women to the priesthood. In fact, I would welcome it. However, I don’t think there is any value campaigning for it. I don’t think this will happen any time soon. Maybe in our lifetimes, but distantly at best. I think a more realistic goal, one that is actually attainable, would be to seek for the separation of priesthood and hierarchy. It’s one thing to perform ordinances as a designated priesthood holder, it is another to manage the ward finances or conduct meetings or lead missionaries or to participate in the stake high council. Unless there are specific priesthood ordinances or priesthood keys involved, women should be able to act in those roles without the need of the priesthood. The only specific roles I can think of that require the priesthood are 1) ordinances (sacrament, baptism, certain blessings, conferring of priesthood and/or keys, ordination), 2) General Authority (First Presidency, Q12, Seventy), 3) local authority (Stake Presidency, Bishopric, Quorum Presidency), and 4) specific roles requiring specific keys (Temple Presidency, Patriarch). Mission President is a special case, because he may have local church responsibilities, but that could easily be handled as one-off cases, or could be handled by the MP’s priesthood-holding husband when needed.
What I’m getting at, I think, is that there is a significant possibility and even probability of change that can and should happen without getting to the level of doctrine.
On Own Now wrote:
I think a more realistic goal, one that is actually attainable, would be to seek for the separation of priesthood and hierarchy. It’s one thing to perform ordinances as a designated priesthood holder, it is another to manage the ward finances or conduct meetings or lead missionaries or to participate in the stake high council.I agree that this should happen, and if it did happen, it could facilitate women ordination.
I call this “priesthood creep.” The role of the priesthood keeps growing beyond it’s original purposes. First we have a priesthood holder do something, like manage ward finances, then we decide that since a preisthood holder is doing it, the priesthood is necessary to perform the task.
I don’t see any doctrinal reason why a woman couldn’t be a Sunday school president, ward mission leader, ward clerk, or executive secretary. If these callings were open to women, more women’s voices would be heard in local church councils, and local leaders could call the most qualified people to these callings regardless of gender.
Well said, On Own Now. I have extensive experience in organizational change management, and I’m a big fan of the principle of pruning the tree according to the strength of the root.
There are LOTS of things that would be major organizational changes that could be done without having to perform radical, traumatic tree surgery. If they were done, eventually the tree would be ready for the same surgery, only it would be much less traumatic.
I think another useful step towards more equality for women in the church would be revelation about Heavenly Mother, and some information on what an exalted woman does for eternity. They did mention Heavenly Parents a few times in conference, but I also heard two speakers refer to Heavenly Father and Jesus in a sense of them being like our parents. A brother and a father aren’t parents. The church is so big on father and mother families, it would be amazing to have something revealed about a divine mother and get some idea of what perfect parents working together are like. Does she have priesthood? Did she help create the world? Are women created in her image? The answers to these kinds of questions could make a big difference I think. Maybe we are moving towards that as part of things yet to be revealed. Two things up journey girl!! I would love to hear more about heavenly mother and her role. In life mothers are so important but in eternity she sounds like a baby machine…in a stable of them (polygamy in heaven). Thing is we haven’t had a revelation in that sense of the word since Joseph as far as I know.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.