Women teaching patriarchy to women.

[UtahDan]

The real beauty of the 1978 priesthood revelation is in its value as a crutch for every pet doctrine any given member wants the church to change.

I don't think you need that when we have always had this:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I don't ever expect to see women get the priesthood, but can anyone really rule out the possibility that God will reveal it? I don't know how anyone can.

[UtahDan]

BTW, I didn't intend for this thread to be negative. The author of the original blog is a faithful, brilliant woman who teaches in the Ivy League as well as teaching young women. What she is attempting to do there is handle, in a faithful way, a subject that a lot of people have a negative view of such as the woman who responded.

I appreciate that there are people out there trying to address some of the concerns people have in a serious and faith way rather than poo poo them. There is real value in that and I respect the effort.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The Church is sexist and patronizing. One of the most absurd ways it is sexist is in the cultivation of the idea that "healing" is a priesthood function. It's like no one reads 1 Corinthians 12 or D&C 46 (where healing is clearly a gift of the Spirit and there is no connection to priesthood or being male whatsoever.) Until the 1930s it was fairly common for women to give blessings of healing. The only vestige of it I've seen lately is the watered-down blessing of the ox in the Legacy film.

Back in the 50s Joseph Fielding Smith discouraged women from exercising a gift of healing. I think it was in Doctrines of Salvation. Today, the notion gets poo-pooed with some dismissive, patronizing statement about, "well, women heal in other ways." As though Paul or D&C 46 were talking about cooking up a batch of chicken soup.

The whole mess is revolting.

[Sleeping in EQ]

BTW, I didn't intend for this thread to be negative. The author of the original blog is a faithful, brilliant woman who teaches in the Ivy League as well as teaching young women. What she is attempting to do there is handle, in a faithful way, a subject that a lot of people have a negative view of such as the woman who responded.

I appreciate that there are people out there trying to address some of the concerns people have in a serious and faith way rather than poo poo them. There is real value in that and I respect the effort.

As do I. I hope you'll forgive my seeting rant!

[LA Ute]

I don't ever expect to see women get the priesthood, but can anyone really rule out the possibility that God will reveal it? I don't know how anyone can.

As I said earlier (prompting a rude and hurtful response by El Duderino), the older I get, the less I think I know.

[UtahDan]

Back in the 50s Joseph Fielding Smith discouraged women from exercising a gift of healing. I think it was in Doctrines of Salvation. Today, the notion gets poo-pooed with some dismissive, patronizing statement about, "well, women heal in other ways." As though Paul or D&C 46 were talking about cooking up a batch of chicken soup.

I have always wondered why this came about. In reading Compton there is evidence in great abundance that women in the church performed what they called "washing and anointings" of other women (not the temple washing and annointing) which were done for the healing of the sick in the name of Jesus. This was not some obscure or poorly documented or uncommon practice. This was very common and performed by the leading ladies of the church such as Zina Huntington, her sister Presida and Eliza Snow.

There are more journal entries than you can shake a stick at which detail powerful experiences of faith and healing administered at the hands of these sisters, again, performed as ordinances in the name of Jesus. This practice was just as common as can be.

There is one in Compton's book where in 1882 Eliza Snow visits her friend Elizabeth who is on her death bed. Mutual friend Emmaline Wells was present and recorded that Elizabeth on the occasion of the visit was "quite insensible and when E.R.S.S. anointed her she said for her burial [dedicated her to death]." This came after many other ministrations to Elizabeth by Eliza Snow and others, but after Eliza's ministration she gave up the ghost very soon thereafter.

Of course, not everything done in the early church survives today, but this survived a very, very long time. I view this as a very muddy area that we could very easily get further light and knowledge on. That doesn't mean anyone is currently "wrong," just that there is ample precedent for a return to the performance of certain ordinances by sisters.

EDIT: I want add anecdotally, and this is just the doctrine according to me, but does any married man here think that if their child were in dire danger and no priesthood holder were near that their wife could not show mighty faith and call down the power of heaven? I'm certain mine could.

[LA Ute]

The Church is sexist and patronizing. One of the most absurd ways it is sexist is in the cultivation of the idea that "healing" is a priesthood function. It's like no one reads 1 Corinthians 12 or D&C 46 (where healing is clearly a gift of the Spirit and there is no connection to priesthood or being male whatsoever.) Until the 1930s it was fairly common for women to give blessings of healing. The only vestige of it I've seen lately is the watered-down blessing of the ox in the Legacy film.

Back in the 50s Joseph Fielding Smith discouraged women from exercising a gift of healing. I think it was in Doctrines of Salvation. Today, the notion gets poo-pooed with some dismissive, patronizing statement about, "well, women heal in other ways." As though Paul or D&C 46 were talking about cooking up a batch of chicken soup.

The whole mess is revolting.

I really don't know if women will ever receive the priesthood, but you seem to overstate your case. Just taking a quick look at D&C 42:43-43 and 48 makes me think that there is a basis for connecting healing to the priesthood. Again, maybe it's not so; but it is not idiotic or plainly wrong to think it is.

[Tex]

The garment change was a response to cultural pressure. My point is just that not every change in the Church comes by way of "Thus saith the Lord..." A lot of it comes by way of societal pressure. Some of it comes by way of individual members saying, "We should change this Church into something a little bit better."

Not all policy changes are made equal. Comparing the 1978 priesthood revelation or the idea of women receiving the priesthood to the evolution of the 2-piece garment trivializes both.

It's not my imagination. You were pwned in this thread (admittedly, mostly by UD and MW) and you ended up resorting to not-so-pithy one-liners and s. In the words of MW, "Mullahs are on the run."

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...t=25733&page=4

Yeah, it's your imagination. That, or you don't know what "pwned" means.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I really don't know if women will ever receive the priesthood, but you seem to overstate your case. Just taking a quick look at D&C 42:43-43 and 48 makes me think that there is a basis for connecting healing to the priesthood. Again, maybe it's not so; but it is not idiotic or plainly wrong to think it is.

I haven't said anything about women receiving the priesthood. I've indicated that healing is a gift of the Spirit. D&C 42:43,48 is, if you'll pardon my French, complete bullocks if its being cited as "this is how women have a gift of healing." Yes, D&C 42 says to call on the Elders of the Church, but that doesn't replace a gift of the Spirit. D&C 42 doesn't even say that the Elders laying on hands is a priesthood function. It says they should lay on their hands in "my name," just as sisters did.

There is a huge historical precedent for women healing by laying on of hands in the name of Jesus, and as UD correctly cites, of doing annointings.

Since I'm ranting, I'll throw "prophecy" on the pile as a gift of the Spirit that has been unjustifiably connected to priesthood and being male. In the OT, Deborah prophesies in the name of the Lord (Judges 4), but an LDS woman who tries that today could very well find herself in a Church court toot sweet. There's also Ana, Huldah, and a few others about which we know little. I think Eliza R. Snow had the gift of prophecy too.

[Tex]

I don't think you need that when we have always had this:

I don't ever expect to see women get the priesthood, but can anyone really rule out the possibility that God will reveal it? I don't know how anyone can.

Sure, by that logic anything is possible. Perhaps Jesus is not really the Savior after all. Or maybe the Book of Mormon really IS just a bunch of allegorical folklore that Mormon decided to finally write down. I've told the story twice on CG about a missionary I knew who persuaded a woman to be baptized by citing the 9th Article of Faith when she wouldn't give up a belief in reincarnation.

We all must maintain an open mind to new revelation, especially to that which contradicts what we thought we knew. But surely there is a line between being teachable and receptive, and mere wildly speculative wishful thinking.

I lament that the role of the priesthood is not more properly understood; it would go a long way toward resolving concerns both for men and women.

[TripletDaddy]

Jesus is not really the Savior after all...the Book of Mormon really IS just a bunch of allegorical folklore that Mormon decided to finally write down.

TEX has finally snapped. All those years of ridiculous Pharisaical behavior have finally boiled over into an epic meltdown.

SeattleUte, what does TEX do now? Is there a website where he should officially register? Is there a welcoming kit or a new move-in manual?

[UtahDan]

Sure, by that logic anything is possible. Perhaps Jesus is not really the Savior after all. Or maybe the Book of Mormon really IS just a bunch of allegorical folklore that Mormon decided to finally write down. I've told the story twice on CG about a missionary I knew who persuaded a woman to be baptized by citing the 9th Article of Faith when she wouldn't give up a belief in reincarnation.

We all must maintain an open mind to new revelation, especially to that which contradicts what we thought we knew. But surely there is a line between being teachable and receptive, and mere wildly speculative wishful thinking.

I lament that the role of the priesthood is not more properly understood; it would go a long way toward resolving concerns both for men and women.

I think you go a little too far with this because there is no precedent for Jesus not being the savior, but there is precedent for women doing things both in the early church and the old testament that are the exclusive domain of the priesthood today. Ehrman is even fairly persuasive that the role of women during Jesus' ministry was significant but later redacted during the apostacy by those who sought to minimize their role.

In any event, it is true was are arguing a bit about how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin, but I don't view it at all as wild eyed to imagine that the role of women could evolve when there is scriptural and historical precedent for it.

I also think the role of the priesthood is not well understood and I lay that (myself included) primarily at the feet of priesthood holders who fail to teach it and exemplify it adequately. I think the celebrity worship of GA's is not helpful in this regard. I hope you understand that I truly am agreeing with you here. We could do a much, much better job on this front.

EDIT: It should be obvious from my comments that I also think SEIQ (love you man) goes too far here as well.

[LA Ute]

I haven't said anything about women receiving the priesthood. I've indicated that healing is a gift of the Spirit. D&C 42:43,48 is, if you'll pardon my French, complete bullocks if its being cited as "this is how women have a gift of healing." Yes, D&C 42 says to call on the Elders of the Church, but that doesn't replace a gift of the Spirit. D&C 42 doesn't even say that the Elders laying on hands is a priesthood function. It says they should lay on their hands in "my name," just as sisters did.

There is a huge historical precedent for women healing by laying on of hands in the name of Jesus, and as UD correctly cites, of doing annointings.

Since I'm ranting, I'll throw "prophecy" on the pile as a gift of the Spirit that has been unjustifiably connected to priesthood and being male. In the OT, Deborah prophesies in the name of the Lord (Judges 4), but an LDS woman who tries that today could very well find herself in a Church court toot sweet. There's also Ana, Huldah, and a few others about which we know little. I think Eliza R. Snow had the gift of prophecy too.

I think your thinking is entirely defensible. My point is that it is also certainly defensible to find a connection between healing and the priesthood. Your post above suggested there is none, and I just don't see that. Having said that, I am frequently wrong about many things. Just ask my wife.

[Sleeping in EQ]

EDIT: It should be obvious from my comments that I also think SEIQ (love you man) goes too far here as well.

My blood is up tonight! I'm grading papers and just told SIRS that our educational system is "No Child Left Behind, All Children Run Over."

[Sleeping in EQ]

I think your thinking is entirely defensible. My point is that it is certainly defensible to find a connection between healing and the priesthood. Your post above suggested there is none, and I don't see that at all.

What you're saying is true. Behind my high-flown rhetoric is just an argument that I don't think either the scriptures or Church history demand the current state of affairs on this topic.