Priesthood for women

[_jo1952]

Now that is funny. I think you might be amazed at how women feel about the superiority of men. I do invite the women on this thread to tell you what they feel. It might open your eyes to just how smart and with it they are. They let men think they are in charge. It is really funny.

To All:

I made Frank say that.

jo

[_Franktalk]

Actually it has to do with who wins. If men think they win by force in the world then they don't know Christ. Force has never won anything except earthly treasures. As He said the meek shall inherit the earth. So who is that exactly? It seems that men have short term goals but women will win where it counts.

[_subgenius]

My point is to provoke thought. If you want to assume women have less intellectual aptitude by my question. That is your prerogative.
My question is more to let the evidence speak for itself.

Fact : Women are most commonly in a position of subservience to a man. The question is .... why?
For we cannont begin to fix or change something without first knowing how it got that way.

If the evidence says they are inferior then so be it. I will not bow to political brow beating or be subservient to it. The first lesson in how not to be subservient.

i think the idea that a woman is commonly subservient to man is incorrect. Subservience is subjective in this respect. That is like stating that since women have traditionally held a monopoly on pregnancy, men are commonly subservient in procreation.

[_Jutta]

Aren't you all forgetting the whole reason behind women asking for church leadership positions and getting ordained with the power of the priesthood? If men get to do it, why can't they?
However , I think it creates a bit of a paradox ... how can you believe in the power of the priesthood , without believing in the doctrine that came with it. "All that fuzzy warm talk about how god made man and woman for separate roles"
And then the common misconception that , it is mans superior brawn keeping women in the subservient role as second class. When all of human history shows that brains does dominate brawn.

So then your left with the question of why do males (hypothetically) routinely hold a dominant position to a woman?

you make a good point.
a point that i am sure, Jutta is not ready to admit.

If I have understood the comment correctly, then you think; that women therefore want the priesthood because men have it. This, however, is not the reason! This one is the main reason as the Roman Catholic theologian Norbert Greinacher wrote that the conditions were different in the early Church. There was no woman oppression there. Women and men were deacons and apostles. Both baptized and lead house churches. These are theological facts.
Facts also are, however, that women were just oppressed by these male churches within later centuries. E.g. why can't a woman baptize other in the LDS? She do (did) (had done) this in the early Church?

[_Mary]

This is an area that greatly interests me, so I thought I would have a shot at it..

Firstly, Priesthood in the Old Testament came with certain advantages and certain disadvantages. The Sons of Aaron and their Levite helpers were given no inheritance, so they relied on Tithes for theirs and their families upkeep. They were a paid ministry.

It seems to me, that it quickly got messy. Who had a legitimate claim to the functions of an Aaronic and Levite Priest and who didn't? I think there were a lot of claims and 'endless' genealogies to try and prove a claim.

The roles of the Levitical and Aaronic Priests were quite specific, particularly in terms of their roles within the temple, which was mainly based around sacrifice and certain functions during various religious events during the year.

This isn't how the Aaronic Priesthood functions in the LDS church today. Or so it seems to me. There may be some superficial similarities but that is where it ends.

Secondly, Jewish Society wasn't one cohesive whole. There were various movements with various beliefs, some more patriarchal than others.

Thirdly, When Jesus was told by the Apostles that others were fulfilling duties that he had specifically set for them, he is portrayed as having a liberal attitude in terms of the authority to carry out work in his name as seen in Mark 9

John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.”But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.“For he who is not against us is for us.“For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.

Actually, the Didache supports this idea. Written at a time when there were still travelling Apostles, Prophets, Missionaries and Teachers. The guidance given was that insofar as they taught in accordance with the Two Ways, they should be accepted, but if they started to take advantage or stay longer than a few days they were false Prophets/Apostles. Full time teachers that were of benefit to the community (this particular one anyway) were worthy of being paid.

Paul does mention a variety of women in his genuine letters, many of whom held positions of authority whether that be leading house churches, financing ministries, and teaching. The Eucharist in the Didache was more of a Meal, rather than the Sacrament that is conducted in the LDS faith. Interestingly, Jewish influence is indicated by the drinking of wine first. I'm not saying it matters, I don't think it does. But things have changed and developed in terms of praxis and doxy over time.

I guess what I am getting at, is that it seems to me that Priesthood wasn't necessarily required for many of the ordinances and leadership within the early church. That fluidity didn't last long, because, well most organisations tend to slide towards orthodoxy and institutionalisation. In a way, they have to, to survive.

It may be that Jesus attitude towards women, who followed him, whom he taught (Mary sitting at his feet), was just too anarchic for wider Greek and Roman Society. Philo and Josephus were quite dismissive of women on the whole. I think a good argument can be made that Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians were a later interpolation, and that initially at least, when the church was eschatological in outlook, women met men on an equal par. As Christ's return was seen to be delayed then in order to survive, the orthodox movements moved towards a Patriarchy that we still feel the effect of today.

However, as the Montanists and various Gnostic Groups indicate, there were movements that survived for a while that were more egalitarian in their approach to women.

[_Mary]

Just another couple of points to add.

I think that just as Joseph Smith developed (in my opinion) the stories of Peter, James and John, and John the Baptist to embed his authority in the fledgling LDS movement, I can see an argument that a similar thing happened within early christianity. The closest documents to the time of Jesus don't appear to work on strict and rigid lines of authority. Later Jesus was given the title of a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, but this doesn't feature in earlier documents as far as I am aware.

In the Didache Jesus is referred to as the Holy Vine of David. His Messiahship seems to be based around his linkage to the Davidic throne. No idea of priesthood is mentioned?

[_Jutta]

by the way, the aaronic priesthood belongs ONLY to the successors of Aaron, not to ANY Kind of church priesthood. Not LDS, not RCC, not FLDS or different sects and cults.

[_Mary]

by the way, the aaronic priesthood belongs ONLY to the successors of Aaron, not to ANY Kind of church priesthood. Not LDS, not RCC, not FLDS or different sects and cults.

Well, I think the LDS would look to the restoration of the priesthood authority through John the Baptist. for what it's worth I don't believe that event actually happened, though I can see why Joseph would use it to enhance authority at a time when his authority was being questioned.

Another point on the need for authority is Jesus attitude to the Levite who passed by the man left dying in the road. His teachings would have led the Levite to the point where he felt that he couldn't touch a body (perhaps dead), and so he ignored the need of his 'neighbour'. It was the Samaritan, the one who, in the eyes of his contemporaries had 'no' legitimate authority, who was a neighbour to the injured man, and thus fulfilled the Jewish Law that the greatest commandments were to love God and love our neighbour as ourselves. (rather than the ...what 613 different rules on how that should be done)

For me, this 'higher law' if you like is more important than any claims to authority, valid or not. What validates any act is 'love'. What gives authority is 'love'.

You can have all the claims in the world to some kind of mystical authority, but without love it's useless, empty, dead.

I happen to believe that Jesus' liberal attitude to authority is authentic. It goes against the grain of later developing orthodoxy as seen in the writings of Paul, and then 1 Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp.

Although I am 100% for the ordination of women in any christian religion on the grounds of equality and just plain common sense, I think that the LDS claims to authority have particular problems in terms of perspective, and what makes an act valid. It's not about a piece of paper tracing authority back to any man, genealogy or lineage. It's about an attitude towards others.

[_Mary]

Jutta, you might enjoy this article by Jimmy Carter. Personally, I feel that the LDS church will find itself more and more out of step with contemporary society, as will the Catholic Church and many other Patriarchal organisations...

http://www.womenspress-slo.org/?p=11440


Patriarchy might have been useful for tribal societies where a group's strength was seen by the size and dedication of its 'male' army, but it's long outlasted it's usefulness in my opinion. Like many other areas, religious dogma blinds so many of us to issues of truth, love, honour, egalitarianism and equality. Sad really.

[_Franktalk]

Although I am 100% for the ordination of women in any christian religion on the grounds of equality and just plain common sense, I think that the LDS claims to authority have particular problems in terms of perspective, and what makes an act valid. It's not about a piece of paper tracing authority back to any man, genealogy or lineage. It's about an attitude towards others.

I agree but it is God who cares for lineage. Obviously not in all cases but in some He does go out of His way to make certain people of a certain lineage carry out His plans.