- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Because the assumption is of a progression. HC, Good to hear from you. I do not have a good answer for you other than “Policy”. Men of African descent in the church were similarly denied temple ordinances because they could not have the priesthood. The good news is that policies are more open to change than what might be considered doctrines.
So I started doing some Googling with the question of whether black women could participate in temple ordinances pre-1978 (spoiler alert – they could not). I found this May 2018 Salt Lake Tribune article that had some pertinent information to this discussion:
Quote:At that time, “sealing” did not necessarily mean “marriage,” as it does in modern LDS parlance. It merely meant that individuals had been religiously attached to one another through Mormon temple ordinances. As historian Jonathan Stapley has shown, 19th century Mormons believed that being sealed to righteous men and their wives would guarantee their salvation. Righteous couples that had others sealed to them were responsible for ensuring the salvation of those that were sealed to them and were promised greater blessings and glory for each person sealed to them. Those that had participated in the sealing ordinance were believed to have become part of “priesthood order,” similar to Jesuit priests.
In other words, Mormons believed that there were two priesthoods. The first reflects modern understandings, a church office that endows those acting under its authority in God’s name. The second was a name for the group of individuals who had received the sealing ordinance.
This clearly goes back to our historical polygamy and the practice of adoption (where a man would be sealed to another man as his “son”)
Through endowment (including being clothed in the garment of the priesthood), sealing, and second anointing women become part of the patriarchal order or priesthood that is operative in our temples. I recall the titles of Priest and Priestess, Kings and Queens being associated with this order. I do not think that much is known about this. It seems like a historical vestige. Not sure how that could be applied or expanded to empower women. I shall have to think on it in this context.
I think the difference in men and women is strictly a difference in the creation of the Aaronic Priesthood, modeled after the “sons of Aaron” that became the Levite men. Since young men have the “opportunity” to accept “a lesser Priesthood”, their attendance at the temple is predicated on having been ordained into that Priesthood. There is no Aaronic Priesthood equivalent for young women (conferred by ordination), so the requirements for young men are not applied to young women. Women in the temple perform Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances. That is the power and authority they exercise. They leave the temple clothed with Melchizedek Priesthood symbols. They are told they are prepared to officiate in the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is illogical, fundamentally, but it might point to the “benevolent patriarchy cultural assumption” of natural female spiritual superiority that they are viewed as not needing a preparatory Priesthood. Mostly, however, I think it simply isn’t recognized as an issue, because it simply isn’t considered.
Tradition!! Tradition. Tradition!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.