- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Could someone explain what it means to be prepared to “officiate” in a priesthood ordinace? Is it the same things as “administer” or something different altogether? In other words, would we say a priest is officiating the ordinance of the Sacrament or would we say he’s administering the sacrament but the Bishop is officiating?
How would endowed women be “prepared to officiate” in ordinances of the A or M Priesthood?
When you officiate, you stand in to play a role to carry out the service. I officiate my son’s basketball game, so I have to park my personal biases and play the part of carrying out the job so others can benefit from it, and the game is played according to the rules. Of course…in basketball…my son hates it because he feels if there is any doubt, I’ll lean more to making the call against him instead of for him…but that is just him. But…I think the idea is, you officiate to stand in and perform the role as a selfless act.
Administer means oversee; officiate means perform. Sometimes, in the LDS Church, they are used interchangeably.
Like many other things, we often aren’t the most precise people.
😳 Thanks. So how would endowed women be “prepared to officiate” in ordinances of the A or M Priesthood?
When people say “prepared to officiate” I think they mean: 1) Holding the priesthood is assumed.
2) The person is worthy enough to perform the ordinance.
3) The person knows the ordinance mechanics. Like what to say when consecrating oil, what to say and do when performing a baptism, etc.
Some ordinances require people with the proper priesthood keys to delegate the ability to another person to perform an ordinance. Perhaps that’s what it would mean in the context of women. Women have been delegated the ability to perform certain ordinances in the temple by the proper priesthood channels… which opens things up to all kinds of really interesting questions.
nibbler wrote:When people say “prepared to officiate” I think they mean:
1) Holding the priesthood is assumed.
2) The person is worthy enough to perform the ordinance.
3) The person knows the ordinance mechanics. Like what to say when consecrating oil, what to say and do when performing a baptism, etc.
Some ordinances require people with the proper priesthood keys to delegate the ability to another person to perform an ordinance. Perhaps that’s what it would mean in the context of women. Women have been delegated the ability to perform certain ordinances in the temple by the proper priesthood channels… which opens things up to all kinds of really interesting questions. This is an interesting take. But if women are prepared to officiate in Aaronic or Melchezidek Priesthood ordinances it would tend to imply that they could be assigned to perform ordinances in those priesthoods, not just in the temple. Restricting practice of priesthood to temple ordinances only seems to be a limitaion on the wording.
Men must already hold the priesthod before entering the temple. Women do not. So it would seem that the temple equalizes their positions.
Steve-o wrote:This is an interesting take. But if women are prepared to officiate in Aaronic or Melchezidek Priesthood ordinances it would tend to imply that they could be assigned to perform ordinances in those priesthoods, not just in the temple. Restricting practice of priesthood to temple ordinances only seems to be a limitaion on the wording.
Those restrictions exist among men as well. For instance, as a Melchizedek Priesthood holder I have the authority to confer the Melchizedek Priesthood on someone else but I can only do it when authorized by a Stake or Mission President. Perhaps it is the same with women. They have the authority to do things but they are only authorized to do them in the temple.
Steve-o wrote:Men must already hold the priesthod before entering the temple. Women do not. So it would seem that the temple equalizes their positions.
That’s where the “interesting questions” come in. If women don’t need to be ordained to the PH but can officiate when the responsibility is delegated to them, why isn’t it the same for men? Are women born with the priesthood? If women are born with the priesthood then it stands to reason that men would be also. Why are men ordained to the priesthood if they are born with it? Is the priesthood like Dumbo’s feather, only giving men something that they already had in order to bolster their confidence in themselves? The list goes on and on.
Is there any Aaronic Priesthood ordinance that is administered in the temple? I can’t think of anything. So that would indicate that women would be prepared to officiate outside the temple, even if it requires approval. That would also indicate that we’re simply waiting for that approval to be given. It’s not a question of if, but when. Elder Oaks most recent talk about the Priesthood pretty much says, without saying it explicitly, that endowed women “hold the Priesthood” in every way that men do – except the authorization to be ordained to offices in the Priesthood and perform ordinances that are tied to ordination. The implications of that talk, which I am very glad he gave, are staggering – and I think it will take some time to reach the institutional point where the Church can implement what the talk teaches – by having the male leadership authorize the things that currently are closed to women. I think this is a perfect example of the root being pruned at a pace that will not kill the tree – as much as I want that particular pruning to occur faster than it has. It certainly is happening at a much more advanced rate now than it was in my youth and at any other point in my adulthood.
Ray, I agree. Endowed women already possess the power but leadership is not authorizing them to engage that power via performance of ordinances. All it would take is for authorization to be given. In some ways it seems like such a simple step that seems inevitable. It’s just a matter of timing.
Hmmm… This is taking an interesting turn. I’ve often wondered why women in the early days of the church, at least under Brigham Young, could anoint and bless other women with the laying on of hands, but they can’t do it now. I can’t find any information about when this changed. Any writings I’ve found from the past century or so make it sound like women have never been able to perform priesthood rituals outside of the temple, but the history shows that they definitely have, even when other men were there who could have performed those blessings. Anybody know when this changed? Like almost everything we have in the church, the restoration of things was a process, not an event. Things have evolved over time. Step back from the woman issue for a minute, and just study how the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods evolved into what we have today, with offices and responsibilities. It’s a pretty interesting history to see how things started and morphed over the years as it went. It’s not so clean, like an angel appeared, restored it, and it has been the same until today. Bill Reel did a very interesting podcast on the Aaronic priesthood. Heads would be spinning if they gave this in Priesthood general conference. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/09/men-to-boys-development-of-the-priesthood/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/09/men-to-boys-development-of-the-priesthood/ There is a good article in Dialogue that lists some history, and women did participate in blessings (laying hands on the sick), and mothers and fathers together blessing their children, but with the questions of RS sisters being ordained (not just set apart) they wondered if that meant they held the priesthood. It continued to become more clarified, and it is interesting to see Joseph Smith seemed to talk about it differently than his successors. Source:
The Historical Relationship Between Mormon Women and Priesthood
Quote:By the time the Relief Society was organized, women had already exercised such spiritual gifts as speaking in tongues and blessing the sick. These practices made a natural entrance into the Relief Society.
There seemed to be healing and temple washing and anointings and spiritual gifts that sisters held keys to. Keys were also used in connection with the Priesthood, which blurred the lines further.
Quote:I thought of the instructions I had received from time to time that the priesthood was not bestowed upon women. I accordingly asked Mr. Kimball [her husband, Heber C] if woman had a right to wash and anoint the sick for the recovery of their health or is it mockery in them to do so. He replied inasmuch as they are obedient to their husbands they have a right to administer in that way in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ but not by authority of the priesthood invested in them for that authority is not given to woman.
Mary Ellen concluded with the kind of argument that would calm women’s apprehensions for the next four decades: “He also said they might administer by the authority given to their husbands in as much as they were one with their husband” (March 1857)
It seems that although Joseph in the early 1840s was establishing the RS with its own authority to preside, that in the 1850s Brigham Young and others were clarifying it as meaning it is in connection with the priesthood their husband holds, not holding the priesthood right out (of course, with Brigham also emphasizing the need for women to be obedient to their husbands:eh: ).So, prior to 1857, there are stories in the church history of woman doing things we consider today as priesthood functions, such as healing the sick, anointing with oil, or blessing others. But there really isn’t accounts of women holding the priesthood or being ordained to it. As I said…the priesthood was morphing and shaping over time, so these issues and questions were being dealt with over periods of decades, after Joseph’s life, even.
As if further went on and morphed, things like healing the sick with consecrated oil, or priesthood blessings, made their way into the priesthood functions as exclusive to males holding the priesthood.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.