Priesthood for women

[_Mary]

I think that a lot of LDS want to retrograde fit the modern authority structure to early Christianity. But, in my opinion that is so difficult to do and is ultimately doomed to failure.

Jesus called a core group of missionaries to spread the word. As the movement grew, more took up the cause and Jesus encouraged this even where there was NO formal calling, other than 'come follow me'.

We know many women followed him. It's there in the text itself. They also provided for him. Women were attracted to his movement, we have to ask why. This involvement clearly continues in the Pauline letters that are genuine. Women teach, they own house churches and pray together, and participate in communal meals as probable origins of the later Eucharist. The sexist quote in 1 Corinthians is most likely a later interpolation, that is what some text critical scholars argue in terms of the flow and sense of the text, but anyhow the fact that it is there indicates that early scribes were having to cope WITH the involvement of women.

[_subgenius]

I think that a lot of LDS want to retrograde fit the modern authority structure to early Christianity. But, in my opinion that is so difficult to do and is ultimately doomed to failure.

Jesus called a core group of missionaries to spread the word. As the movement grew, more took up the cause and Jesus encouraged this even where there was NO formal calling, other than 'come follow me'.

We know many women followed him. It's there in the text itself. They also provided for him. Women were attracted to his movement, we have to ask why. This involvement clearly continues in the Pauline letters that are genuine. Women teach, they own house churches and pray together, and participate in communal meals as probable origins of the later Eucharist. The sexist quote in 1 Corinthians is most likely a later interpolation, that is what some text critical scholars argue in terms of the flow and sense of the text, but anyhow the fact that it is there indicates that early scribes were having to cope WITH the involvement of women.

Interesting indeed.

I can't help but notice how women are portrayed by Christ and wonder if there is an appropriate conclusion to be drawn.
For example
The parable of ten virgins
Sheba (particular to Matt 12:42)
His use of widows
and how adultery was seemingly a male offense.
yet we also see great examples in the parable of the lost coin or the parable of the leaven...these begin a more brief and female oriented version of the obviously male dominated versions offered (lost sheep and mustard seed).

all great examples of faith...but of anything else? i do not know.

what about Christ's clear endorsement of family - when he is gone for 3 days, as a child, and upon discovery proclaims that He was "about His Father's business" - yet he immediately returns with His parents in obedience (Jesus left and was subject to them).
However, Jesus refers to Mary on 2 occassions as "woman"...at the wedding and from the cross...while this word's translation is unique, its use can not be disregarded...it is distinct.
i digress
equality of justice and faith is obvious in the teachings of Christ...but
what about the 12?
all men
all Jewish men
for that fact there is little doubt and likely no argument....not a woman among the 12 at all.
por que?

Could it be that this is how it begins?...maybe...Jesus did make dramatic changes to the principles of the Church, but not its structure...but did he plant seeds? one may argue that he did, others may argue that he did not....but that would all it is...an argument.
So while their is no doubt that women were disciples (not Apostles) and that women were entitled to the same spiritual justice and faith...there is no indication that the administration of the church was being revised...several aspects of social structures were being left in tact and even reinforced (ie family).
As of yet, i have seen no fact or conclusion that would merit the Priesthood being conferred upon a female just for the sake of her being female.

[_Mary]

But subgenius there is little contemporary evidence that any of the Apostles, unless they were of Levite stock, held the priesthood. Jesus wasn't a Levite. His authority and calling, came from his close relationship to the Father, at least that is what we are told. The Apostles were missionaries, they were sent out, that is the literal meaning of term. They didn't need to be priests to do that.

Jesus, as far as I am aware, wouldn't have ordained them as Aaronic or Melchizedek priests. He called them by virtue of his own authority, and he also taught and called women. That tradition continues under Paul.

Groups of women avoided marriage by declaring themselves widows and then committed themselves full time to Jesus message.

Within an eschatological framework, a lot of the early Jesus followers weren't worried about marriage. Paul is an example of this. Jesus was coming back within their lifetime. What was the point of getting married and having children?

The hermits, and monastic movements can find good precedent for their way of life in the New Testament, and I think that without them Christianity wouldn't have survived through the middle ages and down to our time.

[_subgenius]

But subgenius there is little contemporary evidence that any of the Apostles, unless they were of Levite stock, held the priesthood. Jesus wasn't a Levite. His authority and calling, came from his close relationship to the Father, at least that is what we are told. The Apostles were missionaries, they were sent out, that is the literal meaning of term. They didn't need to be priests to do that.

Jesus, as far as I am aware, wouldn't have ordained them as Aaronic or Melchizedek priests. He called them by virtue of his own authority, and he also taught and called women. That tradition continues under Paul.

Groups of women avoided marriage by declaring themselves widows and then committed themselves full time to Jesus message.

Within an eschatological framework, a lot of the early Jesus followers weren't worried about marriage. Paul is an example of this. Jesus was coming back within their lifetime. What was the point of getting married and having children?

The hermits, and monastic movements can find good precedent for their way of life in the New Testament, and I think that without them Christianity wouldn't have survived through the middle ages and down to our time.

Paul acknowledged the authority of the Jewish high priest, described himself as a Pharisee (Acts 23:5-6)
Does not Jesus convey consecrating authority at the last supper?
What about the authority Jesus speaks about in Matthew 28:18-19?
"And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
or
"Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" James 5:14

or
"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." (John 5:26-27)
or
"And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach" (Mark 3:14)
or
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." (John 15:16)
and
"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4) - noting that Aaron was called by Moses as instructed by God.

I think you should consider an important observation about women and the priesthood as it relates to the LDS Temple recommend.
Both man and woman must be baptized to enter the Temple...but...a man must be worthy and be a priesthood bearer...a woman need only be worthy.
why do you suppose that it is? By that comparison a man is easily seen to be intrinsically less than a woman and therefore more is required of him.

How about spiritual progress? A woman spiritual progresses unfeigned by ordinations to the priesthood...whereas a man can certainly be impeded in his progress without them.

When in the Temple we see women along side of men...both as ordinance workers...not one in service of the other.

and the last point being...no man can reach the highest degree of priesthood power without a woman...they must be married in the Temple....sealed as one. This oneness is not temporary nor is it only in force within the walls of the Temple.

[Guest]

...

[_Mary]

Well the evidence is that your here talking about it , as if to say "I'm a woman and I'd like my piece of power of the priesthood to wield" So you obviously believe you need to get it from some authority above you , and this concession or propitiation if you will , holds some value. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the wanting , just that your assessment of what is valuable is in error. in my opinion

Mktavish, I left activity in the church many years ago now, and did so mostly for historical reasons. I don't want anything for myself. What I do respect is the right of any woman in any religious or non religious organisation for that matter to be treated equally. We have women who are Queens, prime ministers, CEO's, lawyers, doctors, theologians, scholars - infact women in almost every aspect of life today. Female non involvement as leaders in patriarchal religions are the exception nowadays. I say, why not? If the only thing that one can lay hold of is to say that Jesus initially called 12 men as disciples and missionaries and therefore that shows that women shouldn't lead, then I think that is a pretty shaky reason.

And if your going to go back to when Jesus was around to make a case for women. Then shouldn't you just be washing your hands of the current power structure anyways?

Of course I'm going back to when Jesus was around. For LDS the standard works are doctrine, or at least an approach to doctrine insofar as they can represent 'eternal truths' clearly. Which I would argue, more often than not, they don't. That's just how humanity works.

Lets put aside any divine power granted with the priesthood for a minute and just look at it along the lines of any other power structure out there in the world.
I think what most women tend to do when looking at it , is to lump all men into a conspiratorial group against women. When in fact its a small group that will or have the capacity to subjugate the masses.

???? Not sure how to respond to this..

I'm sure there were women back then with the Christian movment that tried to be the shepherd of a flock so to speak. But obviously that wasn't a power structure able to carry through the generations.
Why that is? I don't know for sure. But Ill bet it's because more women than men , do not want to assume that role. And some one has to do it.

The writings of Tertullian, and later redactors of the New Testament texts, indicate that the role of women was subsumed within Roman/Greek society which saw women as secondary to men, and who should be seen and not heard. It may be that some of the Apostles held prejudicial views towards women. This is hinted at in some of the gospels that didn't make it into the canon. It may be that in order to survive, various church houses saw it necessary to silence women.

Go check out all of Paul's references to women and their involvement in the early house churches and I think you will find that they had a very active role.

I'd also venture to say that the perceived inequality between men and women is at least of equal blame on the sexes , possibly even more to the side of women.

Women are physically weaker than men in the most part, I'll give you that, although there are exceptions! That means that men make better soldiers. They certainly would have done when it came down to fighting with a sword. Other than that...

[Guest]

...

[_Mary]

Subgenius, thanks for engaging me on this.

Paul acknowledged the authority of the Jewish high priest, described himself as a Pharisee (Acts 23:5-6)

Agreed, but this is significant because?

Does not Jesus convey consecrating authority at the last supper?

I appreciate that Catholics view it that way. Are you arguing that Jesus appointed men to preside over the Eucharist from that? I don't see why it would follow...

What about the authority Jesus speaks about in Matthew 28:18-19?
"And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

I think you will find that many scholars argue that this is a later interpolation. Just a thought, when Jesus was baptized by John, what words did John use? 'I baptize you in the name of the father, son and Holy Ghost' I think probably not. But who knows.

"Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" James 5:14

Presbuteros, or Presbuteras, simply meant old man or old women. The Elderly were given respect as mature in judgment.

"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." (John 5:26-27)
or
"And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach" (Mark 3:14)
or
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." (John 15:16)
and
"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4) - noting that Aaron was called by Moses as instructed by God.

None of this indicates that women are not called in a like manner subgenius? This isn't about priesthood, necessarily, but about Jesus calling people to teach others to follow his message. His way.

Who called Paul? Not the Jerusalem contingent. He claims a calling direct from God by revelation.

I think you should consider an important observation about women and the priesthood as it relates to the LDS Temple recommend.
Both man and woman must be baptized to enter the Temple...but...a man must be worthy and be a priesthood bearer...a woman need only be worthy.
why do you suppose that it is? By that comparison a man is easily seen to be intrinsically less than a woman and therefore more is required of him.

How about spiritual progress? A woman spiritual progresses unfeigned by ordinations to the priesthood...whereas a man can certainly be impeded in his progress without them.

When in the Temple we see women along side of men...both as ordinance workers...not one in service of the other.

and the last point being...no man can reach the highest degree of priesthood power without a woman...they must be married in the Temple....sealed as one. This oneness is not temporary nor is it only in force within the walls of the Temple.

I wouldn't confuse policy and cultural convention with 'eternal truth' Whatever 'eternal truth' is... I still don't see one good reason why women can't be Prophets, Popes, bishops, deacons, within any christian organisation. I'm not convinced by anything you have mentioned.

[_Mary]

Well the evidence is that your here talking about it , as if to say "I'm a woman and I'd like my piece of power of the priesthood to wield" So you obviously believe you need to get it from some authority above you , and this concession or propitiation if you will , holds some value. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the wanting , just that your assessment of what is valuable is in error. in my opinion

Mktavish. You are incorrect. I don't know what else to say.

So if you can truly go back to then ... why can't you let go of the now?

?? Mktavish. I am arguing that Jesus attitude to authority was liberal, I am arguing that women were involved in the early Jesus movement as leaders and teachers. On that basis I am arguing that there is no good reason for any religion whether it be Catholic, C of E, or Mormonism to withhold leadership from women. I have no idea what you mean by this. Seriously.

Women are physically weaker than men "Do you really believe that? " So saith the mind so will beith the body

Brawn does not Trump Brains ... Ever!!!

Mktavish. I am physically weaker than my husband. ie if I got into a fist fight with him, he would win hands down. That's all I am saying. I am not saying women are emotionally or intellectually weaker. I do recognise that there are differences. Obvious physical differences. You seem to have a complete knack of misinterpreting almost everything I say...:(

[Guest]

...