Equality in priesthood between men and women

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
Posts: 944
Joined: 27 Jul 2017, 05:50

Re: Equality in priesthood between men and women

Post by AmyJ » 01 Apr 2019, 10:34

Roy wrote:
01 Apr 2019, 09:16
Roy wrote:
01 Apr 2019, 09:05
Finally, there is no doctrinal reason to require any priesthood to pass the sacrament. Women, young women, and even non members could perform this task commonly assigned to deacons without any change to our doctrine.
In rereading my own post, I have this relevant thought. Doctrinally, no power is required to pass the sacrament, but through culture and policy we as an organization reserve this privilege exclusively for male members that have received the "priesthood". Therefore it could be said the women have the "power" to pass the sacrament (since no power is required) but lack the authority (since any woman attempting to pass the sacrament as the deacons do would probably be physically stopped from doing so). Is it just that easy to create, define, and delegate power and authority from God?
Well yes. Since the priesthood authority (and potentially the priesthood power innately depending on how you look at it) comes from God through the church organization, it is a church organization and administration function. What it would take is an explicit statement (and convincing proof) that the administration change was from God. Some general direction on what that would look like in dealing with the fallout would be helpful.

User avatar
On Own Now
Posts: 1736
Joined: 18 Jan 2012, 12:45

Re: Equality in priesthood between men and women

Post by On Own Now » 02 Apr 2019, 06:31

The reason for the current dialog that women do have priesthood authority (not to give, but to receive) and that the only distinction is in the office, appears on the surface to be for the purpose of placating women and to convince members that we are all equal. It's a step in the right direction, but I think it falls well short, as I've said. However, there is another possible intent of the message: to lay the groundwork for the eventual and inevitable ordination of women.

Taking the case of the Ban, it was always the teaching of the Church that the priesthood would 'someday' be given to black people. So, when it happened, it seemed like the culmination of something rather than a reversal. Of course, there were still many who were opposed, but they were few in number compared to those who embraced the change as the long-awaited day.

Whether the current 'brethren' intend for this to be the case or no, this new messaging about women does help provide a way ahead that will someday be leveraged as "just like we always said...".

In fact, I think the Church should look at all the doctrinal changes that COULD need to occur in a distant future (SSM in the Temple, endowment changes to take out all the remaining weird stuff (special clothing, secret tokens), non-members attending Temple sealings, WoW reboot, repudiating polygamy) and start to introduce dialog that could be used at a future time to show that this is something "we always said". This would provide a future 'out' if a future generation does activate those changes.
"Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another." --Romans 14:13

Post Reply