- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As usual, it’s good to see you, Bruce. Thanks Tom…good to see you guys as well. It just always blows me away that less than 200 years after the restoration, the idea that the Priesthood and the Church can’t/don’t exist without each other seems to prevail.
Who the heck come up with that?
Yeah, it’s one of those ideas that we don’t consider very deeply because it doesn’t fit the actual historical record. There are many things about the general Priesthood narrative that don’t quite jive with our own records. For example, according to the D&C Moses received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Jethro, his father-in-law – who, btw, was not “of the chosen people”. Rather, he was a Midianite.
Melchizedek was the king of Jerusalem – long before that city was occupied by the Israelites. Abraham paid tithes to him, but we have no record whatsoever about how he received the Priesthood that bears his name.
Elijah lived long after Moses, and we speak of his sealing Priesthood power – in an age when we also speak of the Melchizedek Priesthood as having been lost.
We talk of Alma having received the Melchizedek Priesthood, but we have no record of any visitation to confer it.
We assume Jesus himself held that Priesthood due to being the Son of God and God in his own right, but we also say he had to be baptized to show the universal order of things. Did he not receive the MP in mortality until the Mount of Transfiguration – and, if so, what does that say about his mortal power and authority prior to that event?
Frankly, this is one of those issues about which I don’t care in the slightest. I love the symbolism and connectedness of the concept of a Priesthood Line of Authority, even though I am not convinced it is as exclusive as it appears or is presented to be. I certainly look at the records we have and am fine with the idea of non-Mormon modern holders of the Priesthood authority – or the idea of an unknown succession of MP holders through the ages right down to our time – or lots of other postulations. I have no problem with the idea that our current President and Head Prophet can speak as God’s representative for the collective LDS Church to the whole earth – if you notice how carefully I worded that idea.
“The Priesthood” is much more expansive than “The Church” to me, but I can’t get upset at those who conflate the two.
Bruce in Montana wrote:It just always blows me away that less than 200 years after the restoration, the idea that the Priesthood and the Church can’t/don’t exist without each other seems to prevail.
Who the heck come up with that?
Heh. Talk to David Whitmer about that. I love the way his “Address to All Believers in Christ” insists the priesthood was with them (the early Mormons) from the beginning, before the church was organized and the classic LDS restoration visions (now seen as visitations) were invoked.
Heber13 wrote:SamBee wrote:I think the priesthood is the sum of its parts.
Please Mr. Yeti, expound on this further for me💡 The priesthood, as opposed to priesthood power, is represented by its holders – good, bad and ugly, but it is unfair to judge it purely on the merits of bad priesthood holders.
Bruce in Montana wrote:I find the priesthood hundreds of times more important, and more relevant, than the Church. As far as women go, when one recieves their second annointing (yep…it’s still necessary), this is when women really do receive the priesthood. Until then, women have the higher calling as mothers. After the second annointing, women have a tremendous responsibility….it’s only right….us slob men barely can handle the priesthood by itself.
Bruce, I don’t want to dismiss. However, I do want to call sexism. Men are more than capable of “handling” the priesthood plus fatherhood, partnership and other wordly responsibilities. It is sexist to think otherwise. The men I know are not slobs and are not spritually inferior. I cringe to think of my beautiful boys being taught that God gave them the PH because they are basically worthless without it.
Women do not hold a HIGHER calling by becoming mothers. Motherhood is a wonderful, fantastical experience. But, guess what? Women are also capable of blessing, serving in the community, taking responsibility for a church, working outside the home in many various careers, etc, etc. To think otherwise is sexist. Besides, saying things like this is a kick in the gut to women with fertility issues. It objectifies women by reducing them to a uterus. I cringe when I remember my beautiful daughter with tears in her eyes upon discovering that she cannot hold the Mormon priesthood like her brother does.
Quote:To think otherwise is sexist. Besides, saying things like this is a kick in the gut to women with fertility issues. It objectifies women by reducing them to a uterus.
It’s also biological fact. Men can’t have babies, although I’m sure we’ll see it attempted in the near future. Why should we belittle it?
Of course it’s “sexist”, sex = gender. Women have uteruses, and functioning mammary glands, men don’t. With the exception of some hermaphrodites.
I’m not saying it’s right to think of women purely as baby makers, but women produce life and nurture it with their bodies, and men don’t. Men have fertility issues too sometimes, not to mention impotence. A man with impotence doesn’t even get to have sex, whereas an infertile woman can at least enjoy some aspects of it. Infertility is sad, but I’m sure one of my relatives who is an amputee probably gets upset when he sees some of the athletics on television. Doesn’t make it wrong though.
Child bearing is a wonderful, if somewhat painful thing, and part of the continuation of the community. However, in the sick consumerist world we live in children have become commodified and having children is less important than chasing a dead end career. Modern children are also turned into little emperors through advertising etc and they get spoiled and because they are indulged all the time, they grow up into adults with serious problems. (Not to mention self-absorbed teenagers – interestingly, this seems to be a specific problem to this culture, it doesn’t happen to the same degree in very different ones, teenagers are largely a 1950s American invention) It’s all short term thinking, and this generation in the West is going to pay for it when it gets old. In fact, Italy and Japan are already paying for their selfishness in this regard.
It is our duty to have a few children (not an excessive number) to keep the species going. We don’t have a population problem in the Western World really, but we do have a problem with the neglect of child bearing and rearing, with all the consequences that entails.
I don’t have an issue with women getting the priesthood, but when it comes to reproduction the simple fact of the matter is that there are certain things that they’re capable of and we’re not. Personally I don’t envy them childbirth, but I think fathers have the responsibility to lighten the burden on the mother after then.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.