When women get the priesthood, what will the apologists say?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Just a little Friday fun. Let's see who is the best prophet on the board (not that it's hard to predict the apologist response). Women will get the Mormon priesthood someday. It's an evolutionary certainty. The church will do what is necessary to survive and grow. The church can't be stuck in the 1930s forever. Eventually the old guard will all die off leaving the church leadership in the hands of Baby Boomers and Gen Xers. So, what do you think will be the apologists new defense of why women couldn't hold the priesthood? Here are some ideas.

The ban on females holding the priesthood was ALWAYS just temporary. We all knew women would eventually get the priesthood, when the Saints were ready for it. Anyone who actually thought women would NEVER get the priesthood obviously wasn't in tune with the spirit.

I'm not sure why women couldn't hold the priesthood, but that's behind us now.

Women ALWAYS had the priesthood. They were just not allowed to practice it until the men got a chance. It is a change in policy not doctrine. You see, women are so much more spiritual than men, no man would ever get the chance to excercise the priesthood if the women got it first.

Any other ideas?

[_Who Knows]

It is a change in policy not doctrine.

That would be my guess.

Since there is no such thing as defined LDS doctrine, you can use this excuse for pretty much anything.

[_asbestosman]

It is a change in policy not doctrine.

That would be my guess.

Since there is no such thing as defined LDS doctrine, you can use this excuse for pretty much anything.

No you can't. If the atonement is thrown out, then the church isn't true. If there is no priesthood authority exclusively held by the church, then it isn't true. If we no longer have temple sealings, endowments, and baptisms for the dead, then the church isn't true. If the resurrected Jesus didn't visit the Americas, then the church isn't true.

As for women and the priesthood, I don't expect it to happen anytime soon, but if it did I think there is some precidence in church history with women assisting husbands in blessings or something like that. I think women also annointed each other for childbirth.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

It is a change in policy not doctrine.

That would be my guess.

Since there is no such thing as defined LDS doctrine, you can use this excuse for pretty much anything.

No you can't. If the atonement is thrown out, then the church isn't true. If there is no priesthood authority exclusively held by the church, then it isn't true. If we no longer have temple sealings, endowments, and baptisms for the dead, then the church isn't true. If the resurrected Jesus didn't visit the Americas, then the church isn't true.

I disagree. The prophet could remove all those things from the church and it would still be "true," even the one and only true church in all the land. You underestimate the authority the prophet has. The only real doctrines in the church are what the current prophet says. And for those few TBMs who are troubled by the changes, the apologists step in with their creative and mind bending excuses. Meanwhile the church cash register keeps ringing up the tithing revenue and the church keeps rolling on.

[_asbestosman]

I disagree. The prophet could remove all those things from the church and it would still be "true," even the one and only true church in all the land. You underestimate the authority the prophet has. The only real doctrines in the church are what the current prophet says. And for those few TBMs who are troubled by the changes, the apologists step in with their creative and mind bending excuses.

If those things change, I will not only leave the church, I will actively preach against it.

But I have no doubt that those things will not change.

[_truth dancer]

It was just the leader's opinions.

God was just waiting until the world was ready for women to be equal... it it had happened sooner, many people would not have been able to handle the forward thinking.

It wasn't necessary for women to hold the priesthood until the world got so wicked there needed to be more priesthood holders.

God's ways are not human's ways.

If you had enough faith it would all be clear to you... I won't cast my pearls before swine.

If only you were as righteous as am I you would know exactly why.

Stop worrying about it... don't be caught up in the distractions Satan uses to get you from focusing on the really important things.

If you read the scriptures you will know that it has always been clear that women would get the priesthood at some point... we just didn't know when.

What? Who said women could never hold the priesthood? Show me where it says that... (shows various talks)... Oh please, why do you think every word out of a prophet's voice is from God? Stop being so ridiculous.

:-)

~dancer~

[_Boyd_K_Packer]

I disagree. The prophet could remove all those things from the church and it would still be "true," even the one and only true church in all the land. You underestimate the authority the prophet has. The only real doctrines in the church are what the current prophet says. And for those few TBMs who are troubled by the changes, the apologists step in with their creative and mind bending excuses.

If those things change, I will not only leave the church, I will actively preach against it.

My dear Brother Asbestosman,

So you will become an apostate? You know what happens to apostates during the millenium, right? Why would you go against the teachings of the Prophet, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the twelve if they decided to completely revamp church doctrine? The church was very dynamic with its changing doctrines and new revelations in the early days. A few saints couldn't handle it and apostacized, but the true saints remained faithful. Why would you choose to be disobedient, like William Law? I'm not saying radical changes suggested by the OP would happen, but I am concerned that you would not choose to follow the prophet in everything. I counsel you to work on your testimony.

I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Sincerely,

Boyd K. Packer

[_Jason Bourne]

Well I have a question. Where are we told that women should not have the priesthood and that it is an all male thing? I do not see it in the canon. I see no teaching on it in the early church. It seems women may have had preisthood based on what Joseph Smith was doing with the Relief Society had he not been killed. It seems women did exercise some sort of ordinance work in the 19th century and do adminster temple ordinances today.

So where did the priesthood being only for men start? Tradition?

[_Who Knows]

I disagree. The prophet could remove all those things from the church and it would still be "true," even the one and only true church in all the land. You underestimate the authority the prophet has. The only real doctrines in the church are what the current prophet says. And for those few TBMs who are troubled by the changes, the apologists step in with their creative and mind bending excuses.

If those things change, I will not only leave the church, I will actively preach against it.

But I have no doubt that those things will not change.

But where do you draw the line and consider it changed enough for you to leave the church?

What if they only change a little bit? how about a little bit more?

What i'm trying to get at, is the church harps on and on about 'continuing revelation'. How would you know a change wouldn't just be new revelation?

The early church's leaders views of god and the godhood changed. the temple ceremony changed. garments have changed. who can hold the priesthood has changed. scripture has changed. polygamy has changed.

etc. etc.

Why not just count the things you mentioned as continuing revelation?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason,

Well I have a question. Where are we told that women should not have the priesthood and that it is an all male thing? I do not see it in the canon. I see no teaching on it in the early church. It seems women may have had preisthood based on what Joseph Smith was doing with the Relief Society had he not been killed. It seems women did exercise some sort of ordinance work in the 19th century and do adminster temple ordinances today.

So where did the priesthood being only for men start? Tradition?

EXACTLY the point.

If it was written in the scriptures then it could just be one of those little things that were myth, misinterpreted, etc... ya know.. like Noah's Ark. The prophets who dictated the scripture just had a "superficial" knowledge of what they were teaching.

If we had a million statements by prophets, their teachings would just be their opinion.... no big deal to discard it.

And if a doctrine is only tradition, then the years of leaders being out of touch with truth is just, well.... behind us. (sigh)

I truly can't think of one thing that can't be changed... scripture can; interpretation can; ordinances can, doctrine can.

In terms of your question... anything written or spoken regarding the ban on women is completely insignificant... who cares what is there or not? It just really doesn't matter at all.

It is what it is... In other words, what the current leaders want it to be. They can add, remove, change, alter, take out, put in anything they want.

~dancer~