- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
With all the changes happening of late, I’ve started to wonder about Women in the Priesthood as a possible major change. I’m certain it will happen eventually, but my ponderings are about the likelihood of anyone from our current FP/Q12 making this change if they become the President. Here’s what I’ve come up with: No Chance (0%):
MRB – Olde Ship Zion needs no repairs.
JRH – I just don’t see him as questioning the status quo.
DAB – Obedience is the core of his beliefs.
QLC – I think he’s a good and sincere person who would administer the most boring presidency of anyone in current leadership.
NLA – Old-school entrenchment would be the theme of his presidency.
Slim Chance (1-2%)
HBE – He’s everyone’s favorite GA Uncle, but I can’t see him making big changes. However, he’s such a kind and sincere man, maybe.
RAR – I like him a lot, and as I’ve said before, he seems like an every-man apostle, but I think he’s happy with the way it is.
US – Too early to tell. Maybe, but doubtful.
Low Chance (3-4%)
DTC – I like him a lot, and feel like he is more aware of the struggles of the average member than most, but I also think he sees the Church as a divine program that doesn’t need this level of change.
GES – I don’t see him as a revolutionary, but he’s also the second youngest of the whole group.
DGR – similar to DTC.
GWG – Hard to say, but I believe the divine program is clear to him, so possible, but not likely.
Best Chance (5%)
RMN – I would have said zero a couple of years ago, but you know, if anyone could pull it off with the least amount of dischord, I think it might be him just based on the “Prophet of Change” and lots of “Revelation” perception.
DHO – He is a very legalistic thinker who may have talked himself into being able to say, “this is the way it’s always been.”
DFU – Because, DFU.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on which of these I have pegged completely wrong. I’m sure there are some. I’m not even sure I believe my own report. After all, on DHO, it could be best chance, as I said above, or no chance, which was the other way I thought of him.
I’m going to line these guys up in order with their current ages to give people an idea of the likelihood of them actually becoming prophet some day. Russell M. Nelson(94)
Dallin H. Oaks (86)
M. Russell Ballard (90)
Jeffrey R. Holland (78)
Henry B. Eyring (85)
Dieter F. Uchtdorf (78)
David A. Bednar (66)
Quentin L. Cook (78)
D. Todd Christofferson (74)
Neil L. Andersen (67)
Ronald A. Rasband (68)
Gary E. Stevenson (63)
Dale G. Renlund (66)
Gerrit W. Gong (65)
Ulisses Soares (60)
Of those DHO, JRH, DAB would be as close to shoo-ins as it gets to becoming prophet some day. After that there’s a group of people that are roughly the same age so it would be too hard to predict.
I hope DHO would make his presidency something more than doubling down (or quintupling down) on being against all things gay marriage.
I could see JRH making the change. I’d move him to your 5% bucket. Next to DFU, I think JRH is the most popular/well liked of the apostles among general membership. He barks at the people that members feel need to be barked at, he’s emotional with respect to his convictions (more emotional range than just weeping), and he’s also done something rare among the apostles, displayed vulnerability which makes him very relatable. I think he’s your every-man apostle.
DAB. He’s a hard read for me. I know he gets a lot of flack but I’ve softened on him in recent years. Sure, he’s very literal, almost a legalistic and duty bound approach, but for whatever reason I’ve softened up to him lately.
I think there are much more factors to consider than the personalities of the prophets. We’d have to factor in the state of the world and the state of the church into the equation. I’m going to guesstimate ages just so I can associate these three (DHO, JRH, and DAB) to a year they might become prophet.
My math might be off by a year here and there:
DHO: Becomes prophet in 2020 at the age of 87 – passes away at the age of 92, serving 5 years as prophet
JRH: Becomes prophet in 2025 at the age of 84 – MRB passed away at some point during the DHO administration – passes away at the age of 90, serving 6 years as prophet
DAB: Becomes prophet in 2031 at the age of 78 – HBE and DFU passed away at some point during the JRH administration – passes away at the age of 94, serving 16 years as prophet
The year is now 2047
A lot can happen in the next 28 years. 28 years ago ETB was prophet, think how much has changed since then… or since 18 months ago for that matter. Granted… I know lots of members that still take all of their political cues from ETB, but that’s beside the point.
I’ll throw a dart at a year. 2038. DAB is the prophet. What does the world look like in 2038? What does the church look like in 2038? Irrespective of DAB’s feelings on the matter, conditions may exist that “forces” his hand to make changes that he might not otherwise make under conditions that are more favorable to what he’d desire.
So it might be worth incorporating “What changes to the world or to the church might precipitate a sitting prophet to allow women to have the priesthood?”
For instance: The church in more rural communities grows so small that women, by necessity, must have the priesthood in order to keep the wards and branches functioning. What is the chance of that happening?
I guess they could remove the priesthood requirements to hold certain callings, but you get the idea.
Another example could be that the world in the future simply will no longer tolerate inequality among the sexes. The prophet may disagree at a personal level but they may have to make a decision for the survival of the church.
Points to consider.
I think there are too many variables for any sort of decent estimate. For one thing, humans change over time. Even old, traditional, set-in-their-way humans. Society changes too. nibbler wrote:
My math might be off by a year here and there:DHO: Becomes prophet in 2020 at the age of 87 – passes away at the age of 92, serving 5 years as prophet
JRH: Becomes prophet in 2025 at the age of 84 – MRB passed away at some point during the DHO administration – passes away at the age of 90, serving 6 years as prophet
DAB: Becomes prophet in 2031 at the age of 78 – HBE and DFU passed away at some point during the JRH administration – passes away at the age of 94, serving 16 years as prophet
Yikes! Your prediction of a 16-year tenure for Bednar is depressing for me just to think about. I wouldn’t survive 16 years in the church with Bednar at the helm.
Personally, I don’t think any of the current top 15 would push for extending the priesthood to women. The only way I see it happening would be for external pressures to become so extreme that it forces them to make the change (after receiving ‘revelation,’ of course)!
🙄 But, without a lot of external pressure, I don’t see it happening. And, as long as the Catholic church continues to exclude women from the priesthood, I believe we will as well. I don’t see us making the change before them.As I’ve said elsewhere there are two sides to this: * Granting women it (the usual view).
* Accepting they already have it.
Funnily enough the second view has some substantial evidence supporting it, which can be backed up from orthodox sources.
The first view involves a transfer of power and the second recognition.
For women to have the priesthood in the traditional sense they’d eventually have to be granted somethingthat they don’t currently have, even if that something is just permission to officiate in the priesthood. Leaving it at accepting that women already have the priesthood wouldn’t move the needle very much.
Woman: I’d like to have the priesthood.
Man: You already have it.
Woman: Can I be a bishop, ward clerk, apostle, etc.?
Man: No.
Woman: Can I baptize my child?
Man: No.
Woman: Of what use is having the priesthood?
What would happen to Relief Society Organization? Assuming it wouldn’t go away, could men join?
For the record, I’m not treating this as a joke.
I think our current RS and our current EQ would be re-branded as Women’s Group and Men’s Group. In GC, there would be the General Women’s Session and the General Men’s Session. We already have a talk stating endowed women hold the Priesthood as a divine endowment of power. Most members can’t understand the talk, but we have it. The question then becomes ordination to offices in the administrative Priesthood. I can see it happening in my lifetime (I am 53.) as the next logical step, announced as revelation and referencing Elder Oaks’ talk (or another one given at some point).
What are the chances? I have no idea, especially given the global socio-political battles happening right now. The world will continue to evolve as I hope or entrench in lots of places. The answer might depend on the result of the current conflict.
nibbler wrote:
Leaving it at accepting that women already have the priesthood wouldn’t move the needle very much.Woman: I’d like to have the priesthood.
Man: You already have it.
Woman: Can I be a bishop, ward clerk, apostle, etc.?
Man: No.
Woman: Can I baptize my child?
Man: No.
Woman: Of what use is having the priesthood?
Considering that AP can do so much more now, I can see even that shifting.
Acknowledging women have the priesthood may not float the boat of feminists, but it will be the gradual change the church prefers.
Women are already in certain leadership roles – ward councils are full of women – they organize events, give talks and prayers… The shift may be less than we think.
If it happens, I think it will be gradual. Maybe allow women to be Ward clerks, Sunday School Presidents, executive secretaries, and other callings that require the priesthood, but not ordain them to an office. Then, after the distinction between male administrators and female administrators is diminished, they introduce some kind of ordination, eventually reaching a full-blown ordination where woman can hold hard core admin positions.
The leadership has too much to lose given the unequivocal statements they’ve made about gender roles and the priesthood in the past. If they go slow, the older generation will have passed on and the younger generation will not be alienated by the change.
DHO said ordination of women isn’t happening in one talk given around the time of Kate Kelly’s ordination. Can’t remember the actual verbiage but he seemed to imply it would never happen. We have to forget about those talks lest we weaken the perception of an inspired leadership.
Probability? Higher on the slow burn model above than cold turkey, but still less than 50% regardless of the method used (slow burn or cold turkey). The church just moves too slow given its gerontocracy and fear of losing traditional membership on bedrock principles that have painted them into a corner.
I have to confess, while all this change is great, it doesn’t strengthen my testimony.
When I see policies once heralded as divine, inspired doctrine suddenly become artifacts of past culture, whose origin we are not certain about (such as blacks and the priesthood, as described in the Gospel Topics essay), it makes me question if we really have inspired leadership, or just leaders as in any temporal organization. They face certain pressures, and eventually change with society to stay current and stay alive in the face of current laws and trends in society.
That was certainly the case with plural marriage, seems to fit with the priesthood ban, and I could see it expand to female ordination. Much of it any change in female ordination will depend on the impact on membership growth, and membership loss over the issue. How much longer it takes for socialist ideology to move society further left will also influence the pace and extent to which female expansion of admin roles occurs in our church.
On Own Now wrote:Best Chance (5%):
DHO – He is a very legalistic thinker who may have talked himself into being able to say, “this is the way it’s always been.”
Really? I’d have put him at 0% chance.
Quote:No Chance (0%):
MRB – Olde Ship Zion needs no repairs.
I’d actually flip MRB and DHO. I’ve always kind of liked Ballard and he just seems less legalistic than some of them.Oaks actually said the leadership sees no historical precedent – so it would have to happen by revelation. He didn’t hint it would or would not happen – but he left the door open for the possibility. With regard to this particular issue, he has been the most . . . willing to tak about it in a somewhat progressive manner, compared to the other apostles. Truly progressive? No. Comparatively progressive? Yes. I have seen the equality tide shifting for a few years, and there have been a slew of minor changes lately. The temple changes actually have been significant in that regard, and Oaks’s talk in 2014 was perhaps the first official shift-signaling event.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.