Women and the Priesthood--Question for DCP

[_Yoda]

Daniel--

I was going to ask you a question on Harmony's thread, but decided that it is probably a subject that deserves its own thread to explore:

In the early days of the Church, women were allowed to give blessings, and held a much more active role in the priesthood. It more closely resembled the way women utilize the priesthood in the temple, but even to a stronger degree.

It seems that when Brigham Young began organizing the Church out West, many of his cultural views skewed what Joseph had set up as far as the role of women in the Church.

Over the last 15-20 years, in particular, I have seen progress in the way women have taken more leadership roles in the Church. You mentioned that the current Vice President of BYU is female. Do you see a female BYU president happening in the future?

My main question is....Do you see the priesthood hierarchy eventually changing? I have always felt that women would eventually hold the priesthood in a similar way that the men hold it. It seems that the differences between men and women in this regard were more cultural than spiritual.

Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think it's inevitable that attitudes toward women in the Church will continue to change as they have changed in the past, though I'm not comfortable with predicting precisely which way those changes will occur.

I don't see a female BYU president on the horizon any time soon, but don't see any fundamental barrier to it. I'm not sure whether the trend -- if the past two presidencies can be called a "trend" -- of appointing General Authorities as presidents will continue. If it does, obviously there will be no women presidents. But it may not.

I see no insuperable obstacle, either, to women holding the priesthood. But I don't know whether they ever will, whether in this life or in the next -- though I'm somewhat more confident of the next. I do believe in revelation, however, and think that such a change will come, if it ever does, by distinct divine revelation and not merely by adminstrative vote or social evolution.

[_Scottie]

I think the biggest obstacle, if you can call it that, is that the LDS women are quite content not having the priesthood. There is no demand for it, so why change it?

They are taught early that God is a God of order, and that men having the priesthood and presiding over the household is Godly order. Who are they to dispute what God has restored?

[_The Nehor]

I think the biggest obstacle, if you can call it that, is that the LDS women are quite content not having the priesthood. There is no demand for it, so why change it?

They are taught early that God is a God of order, and that men having the priesthood and presiding over the household is Godly order. Who are they to dispute what God has restored?

If God were to change that they'd probably be content too. If God were to reverse the genders and only give women the Priesthood from here on out that would work for me too. It's called faith.

Revelation doesn't necessarily coincide with demand for it. Worthy of it, maybe but I often get revelation I do not necessarily want to follow.

[_Scottie]

If God were to change that they'd probably be content too. If God were to reverse the genders and only give women the Priesthood from here on out that would work for me too. It's called faith.

Revelation doesn't necessarily coincide with demand for it. Worthy of it, maybe but I often get revelation I do not necessarily want to follow.

True, but history has demonstrated that God's will, and subsequent "revelations", suspiciously follow pressures to change a policy.

One more reason I believe that between the 2, the FLDS is the more true church. They don't let man dictate the laws God has restored to them. They will suffer the persecutions from the wicked world and appease their God, unlike the LDS who will cave and change God's commands because of the threats of men.

[_The Nehor]

If God were to change that they'd probably be content too. If God were to reverse the genders and only give women the Priesthood from here on out that would work for me too. It's called faith.

Revelation doesn't necessarily coincide with demand for it. Worthy of it, maybe but I often get revelation I do not necessarily want to follow.

True, but history has demonstrated that God's will, and subsequent "revelations", suspiciously follow pressures to change a policy.

One more reason I believe that between the 2, the FLDS is the more true church. They don't let man dictate the laws God has restored to them. They will suffer the persecutions from the wicked world and appease their God, unlike the LDS who will cave and change God's commands because of the threats of men.

The FLDS can do what they will. However, dogmatic belief that because something is one way in the 1840's does not to me mean that everything taught must continue for all time. A quick perusal of the history of my own faith shows that things change. Things in the past don't always continue now (Plural Marriage, Law of Moses, United Order, Circumcision) and some things now didn't exist in the past (Word of Wisdom, Sunday School, Primary, two-year Missions). These may pass away too and I'm okay with that.

Pressures from where? Polygamy might qualify. President Woodruff makes it clear that God did this to save the Saints. He also stated he would have seen us destroyed if God commanded it. The best evidence I've seen on actual pressure for the Priesthood Ban being lifted suggests we were doing it to make sure BYU teams aren't ostracized? That sounds ridiculous to me. That's still only twice in 200 years of revelation.

[_Scottie]

Pressures from where? Polygamy might qualify. President Woodruff makes it clear that God did this to save the Saints. He also stated he would have seen us destroyed if God commanded it. The best evidence I've seen on actual pressure for the Priesthood Ban being lifted suggests we were doing it to make sure BYU teams aren't ostracized? That sounds ridiculous to me. That's still only twice in 200 years of revelation.

Okay, I'll play.

You seriously think, even though the entire nation was on an anti-racism movement, that BYU sports was the only reason that the church abandoned it policies? I believe it was the catalyst that started it, but there is no doubt the church was under enormous pressure, whether direct or indirect, to change the ban.

As for other revelations, I don't know of any that have changed policy or doctrine. Can you enlighten me to some?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I lived through the period, and was acutely, if not painfully, aware of things.

There was much more external pressure to change the priesthood policy in 1968 than there was in 1978.

[_Scottie]

I lived through the period, and was acutely, if not painfully, aware of things.

There was much more external pressure to change the priesthood policy in 1968 than there was in 1978.

If this is true, then why didn't the NCAA (or whoever it was) threaten the boycott of BYU back in 1968 rather than 1978?

[_Scottie]

Huh, interesting. While searching for some information on BYU sports and the ban, I ran across this article. It says,

Church prohibits black children from being Boy Scout leaders
Since the early part of the 20th century, each LDS ward has organized its own Boy Scouting troop. Although never denied participation in scouting, a policy called for the deacon quorum president (a priesthood office held by 12 and 13 year old boys) to be the troop leader, excluding black children from that role. The NAACP filed a federal lawsuit in 1974 challenging this racist practice, and soon thereafter the LDS church reversed its policy. Today, even non-Mormons can be leaders of an LDS Boy Scout troop.

I didn't know this. Sounds like this might have been more of a catalyst than the BYU sports boycott.