- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Aside from non-mainstream LDS sources, I maintain women may already have the priesthood but it is unacknowledged. Without going into priesthood power and functions… I present the following evidence IMHO from mainstream practice –
* Confirmation = a kind of initiation into lower priesthood.
* Endowment = a kind of promotion into higher priesthood. Endowed women wear garments, a priestly costume.
* Missions – women are welcomed into these and set apart.
Women can also (in orthodox Mormonism) –
* Bless food.
* Offer prayers in:
** Relief Society
** Gospel Doctrine/Principles.
** YW etc
** SM
** GENERAL CONFERENCE!!!
* Teach many classes.
* Play music and write hymns.
* Participate in temple ceremonies, and despite an inferior position can witness everything apart from male initiatory.
Lastly, for your consideration, I have seen evidence that suggests JS wished RS to evolve into a priesthood organization but this was cut short by his murder.
Yes, I believe endowed women have the Priesthood. I think that is crystal clear. There is a difference between having the Priesthood and administering non-temple ordinances. One is structual and theologically embedded, and the other is policy and cultural.
As an aside, to a degree, I have heard of wards that are allowing Young Women to act as ushers in Sacrament Meeting. There certainly isn’t any scriptural or handbook prohibition against it, and I think it is a great thing. Obivously, it won’t happen in wards with higly conversative leaders, but there’s no theologoical reason it can’t happen.
I can see you point point of this, but if the priesthood that women hold is not recognized by the church then the list of can’t do’s is longer than the list of cans. I think so too, and I suspect that one day when the church recognizes it, it will be like at the end of the Wizard of Oz when Glinda tells Dorothy she’s had the power all along. On some level you kind of want Dorothy to kung fu her for messing around with her for the last two hours. Ha ha. Like. I just discussed this in my post on Priestesses: http://mormonheretic.org/2013/03/24/mormon-doctrine-priestesses/ When priesthood ordinances are typically performed outside the temple (blessing the sick, confirmation, ordination, etc), men pronounce that the blessing/ordination is performed “by the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood.” However, in the temple, the ordination is performed by one “having authority.” The phrase “Melchizedek priesthood” is specifically absent. Furthermore, the proper name of the temple garments that both men and women wear are called “the garment of the holy priesthood” and during the endowment, men and women are clothed in the robes of the holy priesthood, and given the right to officiate in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. It is clear that men hold the priesthood in the temple, but if women don’t hold the priesthood, why are they wearing the garment of the holy priesthood? Why are women wearing the robes of the holy priesthood? Why are women told in the temple that they are prepared to officiate in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood? (Go listen for these phrases if you are not familiar with them.) It would seem my mission president disagrees with Elder McConkie that “Women do not have the priesthood conferred upon them…” I’m pretty sure that female temple workers perform the same initiatory ordinance (substituting female pronouns as necessary) using the same wording and “having authority” to perform the ordinance. If they do not hold the priesthood, under what authority are they performing the ordinance?
It seems to me women are in a closer position than blacks pre-1978. Or closer to our priesthood than RC women. However, so near can be so far. I agree with Hawkgrrl, about the Oz thing being annoying but in that it was a plot device. (The journey’s important blah blah) I found the point about female roles in the temple highly interesting.
My take is that more reactionary elements might find it easier to accept what’s obviously already there than campaigning for what isn’t there yet.
SamBee wrote:My take is that more reactionary elements might find it easier to accept what’s obviously already there than campaigning for what isn’t there yet.
I don’t understand what you mean by thisI’ll try and explain it… If I say to some of the more conservative elements, “Women have the right to the priesthood, and you’ve got to give it to them,” they’ll say that “God hasn’t allowed it”, or the Prophet hasn’t etc. They’ll also emphasize gender roles etc, and blame those pesky feminists outside the church for giving me such an idea…
However, if I say to them, “Look at this [stuff I listed earlier]… all these things that women can already do in the church,” they’re less likely to turn around and say that I’m being corrupted by outside influences. I can say to them that the church, under guidance of prophets agrees to, and allows women to do these things, which I consider to be aspects of our church’s priesthood.
The first will be seen as an outrageous assault on church values, the second can be seen as an extension of church values which are already there. Thus nothing changes, and everything changes. I see the second as being easier to swallow for many more traditional people, although personally I have no problem with either the first or the second notion. The first is also more confrontational.
For some reason our church seems to prefer to think that it has always taught certain things, rather than bringing around a radical change. Look at the black priesthood thing, for example, there are several examples of early black members holding the priesthood, and these are continually emphasized to say that the pre-1978 was a misunderstanding. (Which is wrong, but another matter)
Old-Timer wrote:As an aside, to a degree, I have heard of wards that are allowing Young Women to act as ushers in Sacrament Meeting. There certainly isn’t any scriptural or handbook prohibition against it, and I think it is a great thing. Obivously, it won’t happen in wards with higly conversative leaders, but there’s no theologoical reason it can’t happen.
I was recently BLOWN away by the following:
At the close of the nineteenth century, Elder Francis Lyman of the Council of the Twelve was asked if it was alright for members not holding the priesthood to pass the sacrament. Elder Lyman responded:
Quote:“You pass it to one another, do you not, all the time, all you sisters and all you brethren? Then why ask the question? The administering of the sacrament is not passing it to the people. The administering of the sacrament is when the brethren offer the prayer in blessing the bread or water. That is the administration of the sacrament. That cannot be done by Deacons, nor by members of the Church who do not bear the Priesthood.”
😮 😯 
:angel: Roy, I’ve drawn that distinction in lots of conversations (“administer” – which means “supervise” or “oversee” – and “pass” – which means “hand to someone else”), and I think it’s an important one. The exact “form” of how the sacrament gets passed from the table to each member varies radically from congregation to congregation. For example, theoretically, one priest could say both prayers, pick up the trays and hold them in front of every member as they all parade to the table. I’d love to see unendowed members of both sexes “pass the sacrament” in the more formal, traditional sense, especially because I don’t see passing as part of administering, but I like the following: The only thing that tends to be constant everywhere I’ve attended my entire life is that everyone can “pass” the sacrament to someone else.
SamBee, so you mean in talking to people, try to convince them that women have the priesthood already? That makes sense. I just came across a campaign for ordaining women. Exactly what you were just saying would be viewed as blashpemy. 😆 [
Admin note: There is another new thread that deals specifically with the campaign mentioned in this comment. The url is in that thread.] What about Junia from Romans 16:7? Quote:Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
It’s generally accepted Junia is a woman but the phrase “of note among the apostles” is being debated with some thinking there was a female apostle back in the day.
I’m not on that boat yet but is interesting to ponder…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.