Why women can't hold the priesthood??

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_SatanWasSetUp
_Emeritus
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:40 pm

Why women can't hold the priesthood??

Post by _SatanWasSetUp »

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?
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley

"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

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.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_gramps
_Emeritus
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm

Re: Why women can't hold the priesthood??

Post by _gramps »

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.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

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.)
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Why women can't hold the priesthood??

Post by _moksha »

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.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

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~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

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.
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

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

A: They do. Every 10 months or so.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Mephitus
_Emeritus
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:44 pm

Post by _Mephitus »

The same reason men aparently follow driving dirrerctions.

They have a uterus.
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew
Post Reply