Female Apostle

[Marduk]

A few things.

One, the priesthood (at least, as it is set up here) is a temporary institution. Why are we so worried about what will or will not happen in this life?

Two, how come no one has brought up the fact that women do certain temple ceremonies? I mean, we may not call that the priesthood, but isn't that in all reality exactly what it is?

Three, no, Queen Alice (welcome, by the way. It makes me very happy to see you here, for reasons that I'll express elsewhere, so as not to derail this answer too much). I don't find it odd that yours was the only female voice. The board is male dominated (not necessarily in number parity, I'm not sure actually what the numbers specifically are, more to the fact that the majority of answers come from men. They just happen to usually be the same men.) For the record, I agree with you that there's a (remote) possibility that women could be ordained to the priesthood in the future. And I feel you answered the question adequately.

I just feel that the question itself misses the point. It sees gender parity in terms of achieving the same roles. The priesthood doesn't elevate men over women any more than childbirth elevates women over men. (Both do, in a way, but that's another point entirely.) Anyway, the clock says I have to cut this answer short, but I'll include more thoughts later.

[NerdGirl]

I love you Queen Alice! That is all I have to say right now. But I hope you stick around here.

[Dragon Lady]

Marduk #2—they do so under the direction of the priesthood.

Her royal highness, Queen Alice—I do not discount the possibility that it could happen; it definitely could. I just don't think it will. I think in the eternities the priesthood will be man's way to "preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families" while the women will continue to be "primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."

I've never understood women's desire to hold the priesthood. I really don't. To me, it's a huge and scary responsibility. And I have enough huge and scary responsibilities, thanks. Being responsible for the raising and educating and nurturing of my children? Yipes. Please don't put even more pressure on me. But really, that's a personal opinion. I've also never wanted to be a working woman. I've loved previous jobs, they just never held the excitement to want to stay in them for the rest of my working life. So I'm not saying that women shouldn't desire it, not at all. Just that I don't understand it.

[Tao]

I've never understood women's desire to hold the priesthood.

I quite agree. I can understand outsiders' distaste for the situation, but if you believe that Christ is at the head of the church and that the prophet is receiving direction from Him, then the desire really seems to sound odd. It isn't as though a priesthood calling is carte blanche to have your will done.

Forgive me (or ignore) a quick mission story. To the thought that as missionaries we weren't doing much, though work was being done, my mission president responded along the lines of "Good! If you were to do anything, you'd get in the way and screw it up. Your responsibility isn't to teach, it is to keep yourself in line and out of the way so that the Spirit can do its job." In the end, I see all callings as similar; an honor to be able to serve, but nothing to aspire to.

[UnluckyStuntman]

I don't mean to derail the conversation at all, but I'm always disappointed when I hear women talk about how they never want to have the priesthood because it is a "huge and scary responsibility" and how they have enough to worry about "being responsible for the raising and educating and nurturing of [their] children" - because, shouldn't the mother and father be equally responsible for this? Regardless of who is in the workforce, parents share the responsibility of raising and education their children. I know that my opinion on church matters may hold little meaning to some of you, since I fell off of the Mormon bandwagon years ago, but I don't see why it can't work both ways - that is, the priesthood and parenthood being two, equally shared responsibilities among men and women.

I don't mean to pick on just you, Dragon Lady. The way you phrased what you said is kind of a pet peeve of mine. You may be the primary caregiver of your children, but I think you will agree with me that this does not diminish your husband's responsibilities as a father.

I apologize for the mini soapbox.

[Marduk]

Dragon Lady- yes, they do so under the direction of the priesthood. As do I when exercising mine, as does a bishop exercising his, as does every single priesthood holder, ever, INCLUDING CHRIST. Any exercising of divine power is priesthood, and in my honest opinion, the only reason we don't call it that is because it would make people feel uncomfortable.

To all- our understanding of the infinite is so miniscule that it makes our understanding of this concept almost nothing. Our concepts and ideas of exactly what priesthood is are inherently flawed by this. Priesthood is not a right given to God's male children, it is the eventual power by which potential worlds and peoples will be governed. So why does it matter if women don't have it now? (although, as I've said, I think in a manner of speaking they do already)

[Laser Jock]

[My answer] was also the only [answer] to recognize the possibility of a change in who is ordained to the priesthood in the future. I feel like the other writers and Mr. Gibson actually just proved my point that people's knee-jerk reaction is just to deny that things in the church could change and to quickly come up with all of the reasons why the change couldn't happen (instead of thinking of reasons why it could).

I feel like you may not have read my answer very carefully, if you think that. In quoting President Hinckley, I quite clearly addressed the possibility of women being ordained to the priesthood in the future, and neither he nor I said it couldn't happen. However, as he also said, it's profitless to speculate about such change since no revelation about it has been given. (I feel like speculative doctrine in general is pretty profitless, actually, but the quote I included in my answer doesn't directly say that.)

[Imogen]

Wait, so Daryl Gibson weighed in on this? As in the Daryl Gibson from the NewsNet? I'm interested to know any behind the scenes interactions that have taken place, perhaps from a doubly anonymous 'nym for a writer!

And I thought Gibson's response totally rocked, by the way. Something about what Queen Alice said didn't sit right with me; while I obviously can't preclude a revelation giving women the priesthood, something tells me that it isn't going to happen -- after all, there have never been any promises made of women receiving the priesthood someday, while there were plenty about the blacks.

did you seriously call us "the blacks"?

...k

[Katya]

It isn't as though a priesthood calling is carte blanche to have your will done.

No, but what's wrong with wanting to serve and wanting your voice to be heard?

[Katya]

However, as he also said, it's profitless to speculate about such change since no revelation about it has been given.

If you believe that all change in the Church is top-down and comes directly from God, then we all might as well just sit around and wait for things to change however they will. If, however, you believe that there are some changes which come from (or are partially influenced by) the bottom, even some of the time, then it's important to make sure that the leaders at the top know what's going on at the ground. And a careful evaluation of the positive and negative aspects of the status quo is part of that.

[Laser Jock]

However, as he also said, it's profitless to speculate about such change since no revelation about it has been given.

If you believe that all change in the Church is top-down and comes directly from God, then we all might as well just sit around and wait for things to change however they will. If, however, you believe that there are some changes which come from (or are partially influenced by) the bottom, even some of the time, then it's important to make sure that the leaders at the top know what's going on at the ground. And a careful evaluation of the positive and negative aspects of the status quo is part of that.

I suppose that makes sense, though I wouldn't include this as one of those (possible) changes that's going to be influenced by our discussion. President Hinckley seems to have said as much.

It isn't as though a priesthood calling is carte blanche to have your will done.

No, but what's wrong with wanting to serve and wanting your voice to be heard?

It seems to me that both wanting to serve and wanting your voice heard are (or should be) entirely separate from the priesthood. If that's not the case, that's a problem that should be addressed, but it seems entirely possible to me to have both without the priesthood. Certainly my mother both contributes tremendous service and has her voice heard.

[Katya]

However, as he also said, it's profitless to speculate about such change since no revelation about it has been given.

If you believe that all change in the Church is top-down and comes directly from God, then we all might as well just sit around and wait for things to change however they will. If, however, you believe that there are some changes which come from (or are partially influenced by) the bottom, even some of the time, then it's important to make sure that the leaders at the top know what's going on at the ground. And a careful evaluation of the positive and negative aspects of the status quo is part of that.

I suppose that makes sense, though I wouldn't include this as one of those (possible) changes that's going to be influenced by our discussion. President Hinckley seems to have said as much.

And it certainly wasn't, during his lifetime. But there were apostles who said that African-Americans would never get the priesthood . . .

It isn't as though a priesthood calling is carte blanche to have your will done.

No, but what's wrong with wanting to serve and wanting your voice to be heard?

It seems to me that both wanting to serve and wanting your voice heard are (or should be) entirely separate from the priesthood. If that's not the case, that's a problem that should be addressed, but it seems entirely possible to me to have both without the priesthood. Certainly my mother both contributes tremendous service and has her voice heard.

Certainly both men and women have opportunities to serve, but any type of service which requires the priesthood is not open to women. Women can't bless a sick child. Women can't serve as ward clerks or (in some wards, at least) as Sunday School presidents. Would you find it awkward to have to confess a sexual sin to an older women in the Relief Society? Would you find it more or less uncomfortable than talking to an older man?

It's like saying that women can't major in engineering or in science, and then saying that that's OK because there are still plenty of other majors out there that women can choose from--ones that might be more suited to their natures, anyway.

As for having one's voice heard, any council or meeting which consists entirely of priesthood holders is a council where women do not have the opportunity to speak for themselves. Yes, a woman can ask a man to relay a message to other men, or explain her point of view to a man who will hopefully stand up for her in a group of men. But if I have a really important message to give to someone, I don't want it to be relayed through two or three other people, any one of whom might decide that my message actually isn't important enough to pass on. (I'm reminded of the phrase "nothing about us, without us," which has gained popularity in the disability rights movement.)

When the political leaders in the United States were deciding if they should give women the vote, one argument against it was that their husbands (or fathers) could already vote, and women would probably agree with their husbands and fathers who, after all, must surely have their best interests at heart. Except, as it turns out, women don't vote exactly the same way as men do, which is something we wouldn't have known, otherwise.

[Craig Jessop]

Keep in mind that with the new handbook bishops can outsource their counseling to others. Granted, only the bishop can judge worthiness, but he can now give the nitty gritty of awkward counseling to ANY ward member with the consent of the counselled.

I don't think that women will get the priesthood, simply because it will become far more difficult to distinguish between gender roles. However, I can see the day when women will be ward clerks and Sunday School presidents, and the modifications needed to allow a non-priesthood holder to perform those duties are simple enough. I can also see the day when women pray at general conference, and when stake Relief Society presidents are part of the high council speaking circuit.

In other words, I don't see women receiving the priesthood, but I do see a liberalization in which roles are reserved exclusively for priesthood holders.

[Tao]

If you believe that all change in the Church is top-down and comes directly from God, then we all might as well just sit around and wait for things to change however they will. If, however, you believe that there are some changes which come from (or are partially influenced by) the bottom, even some of the time, then it's important to make sure that the leaders at the top know what's going on at the ground. And a careful evaluation of the positive and negative aspects of the status quo is part of that.

I suppose that makes sense, though I wouldn't include this as one of those (possible) changes that's going to be influenced by our discussion. President Hinckley seems to have said as much.

And it certainly wasn't, during his lifetime. But there were apostles who said that African-Americans would never get the priesthood . . .[/quote]
I'm not sure where you are going with this, are you asserting that if we get enough of the little guys together we can re-route revelation? Set up a barricade on So. Temple and gather the people in a glorious sign of our unmet desires? Perhaps its just the way I read your response, but it almost comes across that way; as though we were talking of a government wherein those at the top are making all the decisions w/o any knowledge of those at the bottom. Our understanding of the way the church runs must be significantly different if you feel that President Monson has any more say in what happens in the church than I do.

No, but what's wrong with wanting to serve and wanting your voice to be heard?

It seems to me that both wanting to serve and wanting your voice heard are (or should be) entirely separate from the priesthood. If that's not the case, that's a problem that should be addressed, but it seems entirely possible to me to have both without the priesthood. Certainly my mother both contributes tremendous service and has her voice heard.

Certainly both men and women have opportunities to serve, but any type of service which requires the priesthood is not open to women. Women can't bless a sick child...

Neither can men. As a holder of the priesthood, I can no more heal a child than I can move a mountain. I can't do much of anything, really. God does lots of things. Does He need me to help in any way? Nope. Not at all. When I pronounce a blessing, am I not praying for the child to be well? Of course. Is my prayer more potent somehow than that of the child's mother? or father? or that of the child? God forbid. Then again, the prayer in my heart may not align at all with the words coming out of my mouth. If I were to attempt that, I'd be accountable for trying to play God myself.

It's like saying that women can't major in engineering or in science, and then saying that that's OK because there are still plenty of other majors out there that women can choose from--ones that might be more suited to their natures, anyway.

As for having one's voice heard, any council or meeting which consists entirely of priesthood holders is a council where women do not have the opportunity to speak for themselves. Yes, a woman can ask a man to relay a message to other men, or explain her point of view to a man who will hopefully stand up for her in a group of men. But if I have a really important message to give to someone, I don't want it to be relayed through two or three other people, any one of whom might decide that my message actually isn't important enough to pass on. (I'm reminded of the phrase "nothing about us, without us," which has gained popularity in the disability rights movement.)

When the political leaders in the United States were deciding if they should give women the vote, one argument against it was that their husbands (or fathers) could already vote, and women would probably agree with their husbands and fathers who, after all, must surely have their best interests at heart. Except, as it turns out, women don't vote exactly the same way as men do, which is something we wouldn't have known, otherwise.

I can definitely see where such things would be grating, if you feel the men at the 'top' were actually the ones making decisions. I'm glad that they don't, else it'd be really easy for things to get off track. The way it is, even someone as young and as uneducated as I could 'lead' the church if called, simply by keeping myself in line and out of the way. I personally don't really know if it matters the timbre of the voice asked to speak God's will. I do know that men and women are inherently different, but don't know where all those differences come in to play. I do not know all things. Luckily, I do believe there is someone who does, and I'm content to leave it in His hands.

[Marduk]

So Tao, do you believe Bishops, stake presidents, apostles, prophets, etc. Use no thought or consideration whatsoever? They just pray and God directs them what to do?

Or do they come with their own ideas and notions, and work hard to make decisions to the best of their ability, and seek divine sanction in doing so?

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a second that this church is LED by men. But I'd be an ignorant fool if I said that different men don't act differently in a given calling.

[Katya]

. . . I wouldn't include this as one of those (possible) changes that's going to be influenced by our discussion. President Hinckley seems to have said as much.

And it certainly wasn't, during his lifetime. But there were apostles who said that African-Americans would never get the priesthood . . .

I'm not sure where you are going with this, are you asserting that if we get enough of the little guys together we can re-route revelation? Set up a barricade on So. Temple and gather the people in a glorious sign of our unmet desires? Perhaps its just the way I read your response, but it almost comes across that way; as though we were talking of a government wherein those at the top are making all the decisions w/o any knowledge of those at the bottom. Our understanding of the way the church runs must be significantly different if you feel that President Monson has any more say in what happens in the church than I do.

My larger point is that apostles have stated before that X would never change, when it later did. And, yes, I imagine that you and I do have a different understanding of the way that the church runs, but that's a larger issue.

Certainly both men and women have opportunities to serve, but any type of service which requires the priesthood is not open to women. Women can't bless a sick child...

Neither can men. As a holder of the priesthood, I can no more heal a child than I can move a mountain.

I didn't say "heal," I said "bless."

I can't do much of anything, really. God does lots of things. Does He need me to help in any way? Nope. Not at all. When I pronounce a blessing, am I not praying for the child to be well? Of course. Is my prayer more potent somehow than that of the child's mother? or father? or that of the child? God forbid. Then again, the prayer in my heart may not align at all with the words coming out of my mouth. If I were to attempt that, I'd be accountable for trying to play God myself.

OK, if you're genuinely going to argue that a priesthood blessing is no different from a faithful prayer, then why do priesthood blessings exist at all? Contrarily, if there is a difference between the two, then how can you argue that women have equal access to whatever opportunities it is that the priesthood confers? (I could make the same argument about any of the responsibilities or privileges of priesthood holders.)

It's like saying that women can't major in engineering or in science, and then saying that that's OK because there are still plenty of other majors out there that women can choose from--ones that might be more suited to their natures, anyway.

As for having one's voice heard, any council or meeting which consists entirely of priesthood holders is a council where women do not have the opportunity to speak for themselves. Yes, a woman can ask a man to relay a message to other men, or explain her point of view to a man who will hopefully stand up for her in a group of men. But if I have a really important message to give to someone, I don't want it to be relayed through two or three other people, any one of whom might decide that my message actually isn't important enough to pass on. (I'm reminded of the phrase "nothing about us, without us," which has gained popularity in the disability rights movement.)

When the political leaders in the United States were deciding if they should give women the vote, one argument against it was that their husbands (or fathers) could already vote, and women would probably agree with their husbands and fathers who, after all, must surely have their best interests at heart. Except, as it turns out, women don't vote exactly the same way as men do, which is something we wouldn't have known, otherwise.

I can definitely see where such things would be grating, if you feel the men at the 'top' were actually the ones making decisions. I'm glad that they don't, else it'd be really easy for things to get off track. The way it is, even someone as young and as uneducated as I could 'lead' the church if called, simply by keeping myself in line and out of the way. I personally don't really know if it matters the timbre of the voice asked to speak God's will. I do know that men and women are inherently different, but don't know where all those differences come in to play. I do not know all things. Luckily, I do believe there is someone who does, and I'm content to leave it in His hands.

If you think that every single leader at every level of the church is always perfectly in tune with the Spirit and always does everything exactly as he should, then it may not be a big problem that women aren't equally involved in the decision-making process. If, on the other hand, the Church is run by people who are doing their best but aren't perfect, then it makes a big difference that over half of the population isn't equally represented.

[wired]

Women can't bless a sick child.

Ask Eliza R. Snow about that one. Something that is probably earth-shattering unique to some people is the fact that women in the early church were allowed to use the laying on of hands in conjunction with family blessings. I'm not sure if they acted as voice, but I know they certainly stood in the blessing circle. That custom changed in the early 1900s, I think to help distinguish the role of the priesthood as the authority line of the Church.

I'll have to see if I can't find a journal article on it...

EDIT: Not a journal article, but a quote from a Wikipedia article will have to suffice for now.

"Is it necessary for sisters to be set apart to officiate in the sacred ordinances of washing, anointing, and laying on of hands in administering to the sick? It certainly is not. Any and all sisters who honor their holy endowments, not only have right, but should feel it a duty, whenever called upon to administer to our sisters in these ordinances, which God has graciously committed to His daughters as well as to His sons; and we testify that when administered and received in faith and humility they are accompanied with almighty power. " -Eliza R. Snow (Eliza R. Snow, "To the Branches of the Relief Society", Woman's Exponent 13 (15 Sept. 1884).) (emphasis added)

I post this mainly to point to the fact that our preconceived notions of what to expect in the Church don't always mesh with the history of the Church, even to this point. Those notions are often the result of a rather small instance of time. For instance, I would say all members of the Church here, with the exception of a few, have grown up in the 1980s an on. This time period is one of rapid expansion in the Church. Subsequently, all of our notions about Church authority and doctrine are colored by this context. We have to accept that context will change, and with it, the Church may change.

Ask someone in the 1920s if they every though the priesthood would be given to African Americans. Probably a similar result to what you would get in Church asking about women holding certain priesthood offices.

(Also, Eliza R. Snow spoke in tongues regularly. So did Brother Brigham. Just saying. Things change based on the context.)

[Katya]

Women can't bless a sick child.

Ask Eliza R. Snow about that one. Something that is probably earth-shattering unique to some people is the fact that women in the early church were allowed to use the laying on of hands in conjunction with family blessings. I'm not sure if they acted as voice, but I know they certainly stood in the blessing circle.

Thank you for bringing this up. I was aware of the practice, but didn't have enough information about it to bring it up as part of my argument.

[Craig Jessop]

Oh yeah, and Joseph Fielding Smith said the same thing.

[Darth Fedora]

Rating Pending also gave a lot of good references on the history of women giving blessings in Board Question #56934.