Logical argument for male-exclusive Priesthood authority

[Anonymous]

I also agree with what Ray said.

Roy wrote:

We may criticize changes in other churches as evidence of apostasy but we hail them in our own as signs of continuing revelation.

Double-edged swords cut both ways. 😆

[Anonymous]

DancingCarrot wrote:

I also agree with what Ray said.

Roy wrote:

We may criticize changes in other churches as evidence of apostasy but we hail them in our own as signs of continuing revelation.

Double-edged swords cut both ways. 😆

When you belong to the One True Church, everything else is a sign of apostasy.

[Anonymous]

Beefster wrote:

I suppose it shows that God works through imperfect people, and much like with the law of Moses, He will adapt to their traditions and weaknesses. Heavenly Father is a personal God, and he is often quite pragmatic and not quite as absolute as the orthodox crowd tends to make him out to be.

In the grand view of history, women have been considered more like property than people for the vast majority of it, with egalitarianism being relatively new at just under a hundred years old.

Thanks for these thoughts. I feel like you’ve hit on something. Seems we could use this same explanation to justify the vengeful, violent, jealous Old Testament god. If He reveals, or tries to get His people to live, the “ACTUAL 100% COMPLETE Fullness of the Gospel,” you know, the “Gospel the Way People Live it on Kolob” or something, the whole thing would implode, because culture/small minds can’t handle it. They need it line upon line, precept upon precept. Kinda like the United Order seemed like what God would actually want from a Zion people, but the 19th century Saints just couldn’t pull it off, because…some stuff’s just too hard. Like, if you give the kindergarteners college-level reading material and expect them to write an essay, you’re gonna have zero books read, zero essays written, and zero kids wanting to come back to class the next day because they can’t handle it, can’t pull it off, and it doesn’t make any sense. Maybe that was us (the collective “us”…not every single one of us, individually) with blacks and the Priesthood. Maybe that was the Israelites with “turn the other cheek”. Maybe that’s us, now, with women and the Priesthood. But if you give the kindergarteners some salt-filled lunch trays and have them trace alphabet letter shapes, they may not be living up to their fullest eternal potential in that moment, but they’re doing something that can eventually BUILD to their fullest potential, and that will prevent them all throwing in the towel and running screaming from the classroom.

Maybe if we give women the Priesthood right now, we get this massive outcry from the older generations that causes such confusion and pandemonium and mass exodus that the church becomes unable to perform the most basic fundamentals, like reminding everybody to love one another, and before we know it the church no longer exists as an organization and can’t bless lives at all. The bad would outweigh the good if we bring in the “good” too early. In other words, a good change (for example, giving the Priesthood to all worthy members) can be quite bad if the negative ramifications of implementing the change would outweigh the positive ones.

Beefster wrote:

Jesus was a champion of women in a world that treated women only slightly better than dirt (perhaps an exaggeration, but let’s be real: that’s what it looks like through a modern lens). In every instance I can think of where Jesus interacted with women, he treated them with the utmost dignity and respect.

Good point. I don’t know enough about first century Jewish culture to know how exceptional His treatment of women actually was. I’ll take your word that it was not the norm.

Old Timer wrote:

I actually like that the leadership now isn’t making justifications. They simply are saying it will take a revelation, since they don’t see it in our scriptural canon. That is a good first step, since it finally opens the door for it to change at some point.

Yes! That’s really encouraging!

My 13-year-old daughter’s SS teacher evidently (according to her) told the class that in the next life women would be given the Priesthood. I wanted to track him down and hug him for saying that, (or just for giving my daughter the impression that that would happen) even though I don’t know that there’s much, if any, doctrinal basis for it!

[Anonymous]

Elder Oaks already said in 2014 that endowed women have the Priesthood in this life. They simply aren’t ordained to offices currently in the hierarchical Priesthood organization. (The keys haven’t been used to allow that.)

Unfortunately, he said it to the men in their session of General Conference. It was a fascinating talk.

I would love to see it re-read or updated in a general session of conference.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

By modern standards, the ancient world was sexist and misogynistic and if he had called some women to be his apostles, the sexist Jews would have crucified him a lot sooner.

Nevertheless, the NT does refer to a female apostle (post-JC) named Junia in Romans 16:7.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. Didn’t know about that one. Junia is definitely an Apostle there.

I hate to be a party pooper, but are you sure Junia is a woman? There are some names that might sound feminine that are actually masculine, plus there are a handful of names that are feminine now but were once masculine (e.g. Andrea, Courtney, Ashley).

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Quote:

By modern standards, the ancient world was sexist and misogynistic and if he had called some women to be his apostles, the sexist Jews would have crucified him a lot sooner.

Nevertheless, the NT does refer to a female apostle (post-JC) named Junia in Romans 16:7.

The text seems to imply that she was either an apostle, or was highly regarded by the apostles. The exact text says “of note among the apostles”, which could be interpreted either way.

[Anonymous]

According to Bart Ehrman, it’s a female name, and the phrasing means she was an apostle. I defer to his superior scholarship.

[Anonymous]

If an apostle is a “special witness of Christ”, Mary Magdalene certainly fits that definition as the first person to see the resurrected Jesus. She has been called “the apostle of the apostles” by none other than the Roman Catholic Church just back in October. See https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2016/06/10/160610c.html

Here is an interesting link that not only references Junia being female, but talks about women with priesthood in ancient Christianity. See https://mormonheretic.org/2010/10/19/women-with-the-priesthood-in-ancient-christianity/

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

According to Bart Ehrman, it’s a female name, and the phrasing means she was an apostle. I defer to his superior scholarship.

Daniel B. Wallace’s superior scholarship claims otherwise. Both men are far beyond my expertise in both Greek and biblical studies. All the same, it is still very much open to debate.

[Anonymous]

I’m pretty convinced by some of these early church fathers.

Quote:

Early Christian Father John Chrysostum (who lived from 347-405 AD) is quoted as saying,

Greet Andronicus and Junia–who are among the apostles’: To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles— just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.” (In ep. ad Romanos 31.2)

Jack refers to female Deacons in Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 3:8-11.

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.”

“Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money; they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.”

Ancient Church Father Origen (185-253) also discussed Phoebe.

“‘I commend to you Phoebe . . .’ This passage teaches by apostolic authority that women also are appointed in the ministry of the church, in which office Phoebe was placed at the church that is in Cenchreae. Paul with great praise and commendation even enumerates her splendid deeds . . . And therefore this passage teaches two things equally and is to be interpreted, as we have said, to mean that women are to be considered ministers in the church, and that such ought to be received into the ministry who have assisted many; they have earned the right through their good deeds to receive apostolic praise.” (Commentary on Romans 10.17)

John Chrysostum discussed 1 Tim 3:11,

“‘Likewise women must be modest, not slanderers, sober, faithful in everything.’ Some say that he is talking about women in general. But that cannot be. Why would he want to insert in the middle of what he is saying something about women? But rather, he is speaking of those women who hold the rank of deacon. ‘Deacons should be husbands of one wife.’ This is also appropriate for women deacons, for it is necessary, good, and right, most especially in the church.” (Homily 11)

Theodoret of Cyrrus (lived 393-460 AD) said,

“‘In the same way, women’ that is, the deacons, ‘are to be serious, not irresponsible talkers, sober, faithful in everything.’ What he directed for the men, he did similarly for the women. Just as he told the male deacons to be serious, he said the same for the women. As he commanded the men not to be two-faced, so he commanded the women not to talk irresponsibly. And as he commanded the men not to drink much wine, so he ordered the women should be temperate.” (Commentary on 1 Timothy)

[Anonymous]

That sounds pretty convincing to me. Good sources GT.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

Elder Oaks already said in 2014 that endowed women have the Priesthood in this life. They simply aren’t ordained to offices currently in the hierarchical Priesthood organization. (The keys haven’t been used to allow that.)

Thanks, Curt! I found it. Here’s an excerpt:

“We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Nevertheless, the NT does refer to a female apostle (post-JC) named Junia in Romans 16:7.

Yeah, Junia!! I’d like to meet her, one day. I knew there was evidence in scripture of women doing what our church considers exclusively male responsibilities. I’d searched a few days ago for the term “priestess” and didn’t find anything. Thanks for that reference. So it seems pretty likely that Jesus called at least one female Apostle. Or maybe Peter or someone called her, if not Jesus. Paul says, “…who were in Christ before me,” which could mean that Junia was called while Jesus was alive, or at some point during the brief period between Jesus’ crucifixion/resurrection and Paul’s conversion. I feel pretty confident deferring to Bart Ehrman on Junia being female. I’m currently reading his “Lost Christianities” and he does a great job of pretty objectively picking apart the differences between various manuscripts and hypothesizing motivations that may have existed for making changes to them (for example, “Junia” to “Junis”).

gospeltangents wrote:

Here is an interesting link that not only references Junia being female, but talks about women with priesthood in ancient Christianity. See https://mormonheretic.org/2010/10/19/women-with-the-priesthood-in-ancient-christianity/

This link is fantastic. Thanks so much. It’s going to be the basis for tonight’s FHE lesson.

[Anonymous]

squarepeg wrote:

“We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

It sounds like a setup for one day saying “We’re not ‘giving’ women the priesthood. They’ve actually had it all along.We’re just making it official.” And thus doctrine gets turns into “early Church culture” once again.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

It sounds like a setup for one day saying “We’re not ‘giving’ women the priesthood. They’ve actually had it all along.We’re just making it official.” And thus doctrine gets turns into “early Church culture” once again.

For sure. It fails to address why men are authorized do things that women aren’t, when women used to do them and are presumably capable. But it does kinda have the ring of progress to it, all the same…as if we’re baby-steppin’ in the right direction. Or at least that is what I’m telling myself. And if I recall correctly, based on when this was given, the reason Elder Oaks talks about women so much in a talk on Priesthood authority, here, is because this was around that same time when the Ordain Women group was becoming more vocal. So he is bending (even if it’s a weak bend) to pressure, much as Pres. Kimball bent to pressures and that eventually led to the 1978 revelation.

[Author]

Posts