DiscussMormonism.com

Here is one reason given on another board, and I've heard this reason from real life TBMs too:

Why do women need 'substantive administrative authority' in the church?

For my part-i would imagine that women do not have these kinds of callings because they involve working closely and in private (on a regular basis) with other men and that could be very inappropriate.

I don't think it is a doctrinal issue but one of propriety because of the duties of the calling.

So what exactly do the priesthood men do together in private that would be inappropriate if a woman joined in? Do they give each other back rubs? Take sauna's together? Play twister? Ride tandem bicycles? I don't understand why men and women couldn't perform priesthood duties together without getting it on. Was this argument used to prevent women from getting management positions back in the 50s?

My understanding is that males who experience same-gender attraction (but don't act on it) can hold the priesthood. It may be that case, however, that they do not get 'substantive administrative authority'. I couldn't say either way.

SatanWasSetUp wrote:Here is one reason given on another board, and I've heard this reason from real life TBMs too:

Why do women need 'substantive administrative authority' in the church?

For my part-i would imagine that women do not have these kinds of callings because they involve working closely and in private (on a regular basis) with other men and that could be very inappropriate.

I don't think it is a doctrinal issue but one of propriety because of the duties of the calling.

So what exactly do the priesthood men do together in private that would be inappropriate if a woman joined in? Do they give each other back rubs? Take sauna's together? Play twister? Ride tandem bicycles? I don't understand why men and women couldn't perform priesthood duties together without getting it on. Was this argument used to prevent women from getting management positions back in the 50s?

It is a good question. It happens in the business and governmental worlds all the time. We are led to think that anyone in such a situation can't but help to turn it into a sexual encounter. It doesn't speak highly for men or for women, does it? Pretty lame excuse. Obviously.

asbestosman wrote:My understanding is that males who experience same-gender attraction (but don't act on it) can hold the priesthood. It may be that case, however, that they do not get 'substantive administrative authority'. I couldn't say either way.

I can. One of the Joseph F. Smiths, during the early part of the 20th Century, was "exiled" off to Hawai'i (or someplace like that) after it was discovered that he was a homosexual. What was his "substantive administrative authority", you might ask? He was Presiding Patriarch. There have also been accusations that Pres. Hinckley has been involved in homosexual activity. (Accusations that were investigated for years by other of the Brethren, apparently without any clear resolution.)

SatanWasSetUp wrote: So what exactly do the priesthood men do together in private that would be inappropriate if a woman joined in? Do they give each other back rubs? Take sauna's together? Play twister? Ride tandem bicycles?

Don't ask - don't tell.

Why can't women hold the priesthood?

Because in utero, various chemicals created certain body parts in the human embryo that some men believe are the determining factor in who God wants to be in charge.

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:Why can't women hold the priesthood?

Because in utero, various chemicals created certain body parts in the human embryo that some men believe are the determining factor in who God wants to be in charge.

~dancer~

Because men say so.

Q: Why can't LDS women hold the Priesthood?

A: They do. Every 10 months or so.

The same reason men aparently follow driving dirrerctions.

They have a uterus.