Women and the priesthood

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Thanks for the post. You just made my day brighter. The women of the church are the sleeping tiger. Some day they will have their day and make the church better in my opinion.

Whether women are designated to receive the priesthood or not, that is not my issue. It's the leadership role.

It could be pretty unwieldy, having women without the priesthood presiding in leadership roles.


Should revelation be given to extend the priesthood to women, I'd be first in line to get my wife on the train. Until then, I'm perfectly happy with the status quo.

[MikeWaters]

Is the priesthood the assignment, in effect, to administer ordinances, or is more along the lines of "the authority and power to act in the name of God"?

If the latter, then are we to say that women do not have the authority and power to act in the name of God? See, that makes no sense to me.

Have we conflated the assignment to administer ordinances with leadership and governance?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is the priesthood the assignment, in effect, to administer ordinances, or is more along the lines of "the authority and power to act in the name of God"?

If the latter, then are we to say that women do not have the authority and power to act in the name of God? See, that makes no sense to me.

Have we conflated the assignment to administer ordinances with leadership and governance?

No. The responsibilities of the Melchizedek priesthood are two-fold:

1. To administer the gospel
2. To hold the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom, and administer the corresponding ordinances

Maybe you should spend less time posting and more time studing D&C 84.

[MikeWaters]

SEIQ is right. Tex is worthless. Bye-bye Tex.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

SEIQ is right. Tex is worthless. Bye-bye Tex.

So you're banning Tex?

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Whether women are designated to receive the priesthood or not, that is not my issue. It's the leadership role.

I want to agree with you here, Mike. In fact, I think increased leadership roles would be a welcome addition. The problem is that it wouldn't get around the fundamental problem that we are dividing membership possibilities based on sex because they make much of the heirarchy out of priesthood roles.

I'm not sitting around waiting for women to be ordained. I'm living my life as best I can within the perameters that exist because I believe the gospel itself does not hinge on priesthood power. I think that last sentence it likely to be misunderstood or misinterpreted, but I put it out there nevertheless. When asked, however, I cannot embrace sexism. Being a woman is part of who I am but it does not define me, so I never like being defined by it.

[malapert]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So you're banning Tex?

NO, he's not going to ban Tex. Like it or not, Tex is part of the fabric here, and banning him would alter the balance in the CG universe.

IMHO, the level of offense taken by each of you to Tex's input is directly commensurate with your level of insecurity.

For example, in this instance, if MikeWalters didn't feel a flinch of insecurity about his level of understanding of the 84th Section of the D&C, he would not have felt the need to respond with, "...bye, bye Tex"

Grow some skin people.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by malapert

NO, he's not going to ban Tex. Like it or not, Tex is part of the fabric here, and banning him would alter the balance in the CG universe.

IMHO, the level of offense taken by each of you to Tex's input is directly commensurate with your level of insecurity.

For example, in this instance, if MikeWalters didn't feel a flinch of insecurity about his level of understanding of the 84th Section of the D&C, he would not have felt the need to respond with, "...bye, bye Tex"

Grow some skin people.

Why don't you shut up until you know something. I've known Tex since he was "Mex." You're johnny come lately trying to tell the old-timers how it is.

[malapert]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Why don't you shut up until you know something. I've known Tex since he was "Mex." You're johnny come lately trying to tell the old-timers how it is.

That's a clever response...."shut up"

"...until (I) know something"?

This much I do know after reading your posts for several months now, your self-absorbsion knows few bounds and you need to get off the horse that makes you the ultimate arbiter.

The use of the pronouns "I" "me" and "my" in your posts is astounding.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by malapert

That's a clever response...."shut up"

"...until (I) know something"?

This much I do know after reading your posts for several months now, your self-absorbsion knows few bounds and you need to get off the horse that makes you the ultimate arbiter.

The use of the pronouns "I" "me" and "my" in your posts is astounding.

this could get interesting...I await Mike's retort. I wonder if this exchange will be long enough for me to grab some popcorn..