Is it doctrine or culture that keeps women from being ordained?

[UVACoug]

You're right. Discrimination based on race and gender are totally different.

They are totally different. Are there similarities? Of course. But there are more differences than similarities. For one thing, there are real anatomical, hormonal, and other biological differences between men and women that don't necessarily exist between races. Additionally, men and women have been culturally integrated throughout history. Indeed, if men and women did not live together, there would be no history. That isn't true with the races. Segregation has been the rule, not the exception, throughout history. Living in a racially integrated society is a modern ideal, and it is still only an ideal. Racial segregation is still the predominant way we live in the United States.

The history of gender based discrimination and race based discrimination are really nothing alike. That doesn't excuse gender based discrimination, but it does undermine a lot of comparisons to the history of race based discrimination. When blacks couldn't hold the priesthood, they were effectively shutout from the Church. Sure, there were some black Mormons, but they could never be fully endowed members of the Church. That has never been the case with women, they have been an integral part of Mormonism from the very beginning. The role of women in the endowment is crucial. It wouldn't make any sense without women.

I am not aware of any clear doctrinal statement that says that the priesthood is reserved for men and will always be reserved for men. That is the current practice, and I am open to the possibility that it might change. It has little to do with my testimony though, and I am not advocating that the Church go in one direction or another. I'll leave that up to people that really care and that are more enlightened than I am on the subject. But comparisons to the status of black men (and women, for that matter) in the Church before 1978 and the status of women in the Church today are superficial. They really are two completely different situations.

[SoonerCoug]

They are totally different. Are there similarities? Of course. But there are more differences than similarities. For one thing, there are real anatomical, hormonal, and other biological differences between men and women that don't necessarily exist between races. Additionally, men and women have been culturally integrated throughout history. Indeed, if men and women did not live together, there would be no history. That isn't true with the races. Segregation has been the rule, not the exception, throughout history. Living in a racially integrated society is a modern ideal, and it is still only an ideal. Racial segregation is still the predominant way we live in the United States.

The history of gender based discrimination and race based discrimination are really nothing alike. That doesn't excuse gender based discrimination, but it does undermine a lot of comparisons to the history of race based discrimination. When blacks couldn't hold the priesthood, they were effectively shutout from the Church. Sure, there were some black Mormons, but they could never be fully endowed members of the Church. That has never been the case with women, they have been an integral part of Mormonism from the very beginning. The role of women in the endowment is crucial. It wouldn't make any sense without women.

I am not aware of any clear doctrinal statement that says that the priesthood is reserved for men and will always be reserved for men. That is the current practice, and I am open to the possibility that it might change. It has little to do with my testimony though, and I am not advocating that the Church go in one direction or another. I'll leave that up to people that really care and that are more enlightened than I am on the subject. But comparisons to the status of black men (and women, for that matter) in the Church before 1978 and the status of women in the Church today are superficial. They really are two completely different situations.

I think I get it now! Women shouldn't be leaders because of anatomical and hormonal differences. That makes perfect sense!

What about men born without testicles? Or a woman born with ovaries a penis? Priesthood or no priesthood?

[All-American]

What about men born without testicles?

I was going to ask you to tell us all about it, but I decided not to go for the low-hanging fruit.

[woot]

I was going to ask you to tell us all about it, but I decided not to go for the low-hanging fruit.

Or lack thereof!

[Tex]

We need to be careful going back to the bible for guidance. There was no concept of priesthood in the sense that we use it. Priesthood simply meant those who were in a position to minister. Miracles were performed by the power of faith or Spirit and there was no mention of someone needing to be ordained and given a divine power prior to ministering. Ditto for the BOM.

Furthermore, there are many references to prophetesses in the bible (http://www.openbible.info/topics/prophetess). And quite a few people believe that Romans 16:7 is evidence that there was a female apostle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia).

I would like to declare this quote as priceless.

[UVACoug]

I think I get it now! Women shouldn't be leaders because of anatomical and hormonal differences. That makes perfect sense!

What about men born without testicles? Or a woman born with ovaries a penis? Priesthood or no priesthood?

That's exactly what I said ... moron.

[Solon]

We need to be careful going back to the bible for guidance. There was no concept of priesthood in the sense that we use it. Priesthood simply meant those who were in a position to minister. Miracles were performed by the power of faith or Spirit and there was no mention of someone needing to be ordained and given a divine power prior to ministering. Ditto for the BOM.

Furthermore, there are many references to prophetesses in the bible (http://www.openbible.info/topics/prophetess). And quite a few people believe that Romans 16:7 is evidence that there was a female apostle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia).

In Strangers in Paradox, the Toscanos make a case that in Genesis priesthood was passed down through Matriarchal descent. Hence the great efforts to get Isaac & Jacob to marry Rebekah & Rachel respectively. It's an interesting concept.

But the story suggests something even more revolutionary than this. It suggests that in the culture of Abraham and Sarah, the right to the priesthood was not passed down through the father but through the mother. This hypothesis explains to some extent why the Book of Genesis seems overstocked with stories of courtship and marriage and is so preoccupied with assuring us that Isaac and Jacob in particular married the right women. The evidence, we think, is sufficient to justify this hypothesis.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=4438

[All-American]

That's exactly what I said ... moron.

Sooner is a very intelligent person. He's just not as strong a troller as some of our best. No shame in that.

[Pelado]

Interesting, but it seems a little light on connecting the dots between the evidence and their conclusions. I missed any source for this assertion:

In her day kings often claimed descent from a god or goddess and ruled by virtue of their priestly inheritance. To be a mother of kings was in essence to be a priestess with power to confer upon her children the legacy of priesthood.

Did they include any kind of footnote for that?

Also the Mormon teaching that the Melchizedek priesthood is “without father, without mother” (Heb. 7:3) suggests the existence of a priesthood which belongs to or is derived from the mother as well as one that is derived from the father.

Wouldn't "without father, without mother" suggest just the opposite - that it belongs to or is derived from neither a mother nor a father?

Paul’s announcement that the gospel and its associated priesthood inheritance is available to all believers follows from the way Jesus treated disenfranchised peoples. In his treatment of women, he deviated significantly from the norms of his time and culture. He did this not only by dealing with them in a spirit of great equality but also by including them in his ministry at all the important junctures of his life— his birth, his preaching, his miracle working, his crucifixion, and his resurrection.

And yet he left little to no evidence of annointing/endowing/ordaining these women with priesthood power/authority.

Moreover in Romans 16:7, we read the statement of Paul: “salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles. “Junia is the name of a woman. In spite of this fact, she is clearly included among the apostles of Paul’s day in this scripture.

Could this passage be read instead that Andoronicus and Junia, while not themselves apostles, were highly thought of by the apostles?

[Indy Coug]

Undoubtedly Elaine Dalton is thought highly of by all of the Apostles.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Could this passage be read instead that Andoronicus and Junia, while not themselves apostles, were highly thought of by the apostles?

Seems to be an issue of debate among biblical scholars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia

See the second section.

[Maximus]

So is it just dumb to think that maybe the leaders of the church are actually guided by revelation and would receive revelation if God wanted women to have the priesthood?

[TexTechCoug]

So is it just dumb to think that maybe the leaders of the church are actually guided by revelation and would receive revelation if God wanted women to have the priesthood?

Yes. The assumption is that from Brigham Young to Thomas Monson most Church leaders are misogynistic racists who wield their power and influence for the sole purpose of oppressing blacks, women, and homosexuals.

[Pelado]

Yes. The assumption is that from Brigham Young to Thomas Monson most Church leaders are misogynistic racists who wield their power and influence for the sole purpose of oppressing blacks, women, and homosexuals.

Except for SWK.

[Harry Tic]

What if there are no sound doctrinal reasons for keeping women from exercising the priesthood but perhaps there are sound sociological reasons for keeping the policy in place, at least for now? I have absolutely no trouble at all imagining that men would become darn near extinct in church if they didn't have a gender-defined role to play and weren't essentially required to fulfill it.