Male Ordination: Weekend Poll

By: wheatmeister
April 20, 2013

“What a diverse group of people we are.”

The ordain women movement is focused on asking why females should not be ordained.  Let’s flip that around and ask why males are ordained.

Why do only men hold the LDS priesthood? (choose the answer that most closely fits your view)

  • Cultural artifact. Men haven't asked God whether female ordination should exist. (52%, 55 Votes)
  • When the priesthood was restored, only men were ordained by Peter, Paul, and James. That's the precedent. (21%, 22 Votes)
  • Other (please add below in the comments). (13%, 14 Votes)
  • Men would take their ball and go home if they couldn't be the boss. (8%, 8 Votes)
  • Because Eve ate the forbidden fruit first. (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Motherhood is equivalent to priesthood. Women can use God's creative power to nurture life biologically. (1%, 1 Votes)
  • Women are naturally spiritual and don't need it. (0%, 0 Votes)

Total Voters: 105

Loading ... Loading ...

Discuss.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to Male Ordination: Weekend Poll

  1. anon on April 20, 2013 at 3:01 PM

    Jesus is male.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  2. Roger on April 20, 2013 at 3:53 PM

    I suppose Satan is male as well.

    So ……

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 14

  3. LDS Anarchist on April 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

    I chose “Because Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.”

    This: “When the priesthood was restored, only men were ordained by Peter, Paul, and James. That’s the precedent.”

    is based on that:

    “Because Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  4. Hedgehog on April 20, 2013 at 11:13 PM

    Well… the comments in the following would seem to indicate to keep them engaged… sigh…
    http://archive.org/stream/improvementera5711unse#page/n67/mode/2up
    Leastways, that was the reason given for changing the ordination ages for boys…
    Kind of makes me wonder if it is actually of any importance at all in that case…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  5. Howard on April 21, 2013 at 8:52 AM

    It’s ritual that formaly invites one to engage and use God’s power, it’s authority to do so or pretend to in the LDS community within limits set by LDS leaders and it’s placebo to help one believe they actually have access to that power.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  6. Henry on April 21, 2013 at 9:00 AM

    Howard:
    What are you on?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  7. Howard on April 21, 2013 at 9:14 AM

    Henry,
    The Spirit.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  8. Jenn on April 21, 2013 at 11:42 AM

    I wish this poll allowed multiple choice…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  9. Douglas on April 21, 2013 at 8:24 PM

    Because it’s revelation that started it, and for males only, that’s why. If and when the Lord wants to change it, HE can (and that there’s a Heavenly SHE that would undoubtedly weigh in is no theory to me), and should that happen, we males had better get on board with it. That’s what I would have wrote as a reason rather than any of those leading explanations.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  10. Glenn Thigpen on April 21, 2013 at 11:33 PM

    I chose other because the Lord has not revealed the reason why only worthy males are ordained to the priesthood. I believe that God is firmly in control of His church and the He chooses wise and just men to lead it. Else I would not be a member.

    Glenn

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  11. Will on April 22, 2013 at 3:05 PM

    Douglas (and Glenn) is totally correct on this. It is about obedience. It is the way God set it up in the 1830’s (well really since Adam) and this concept was reinforced through scripture and proclamations. It is the same reason why the blacks did not, but do now holds the priesthood – revelation to prophets. Until (or if) that revelation comes, I will respect the doctrines currently in place; and certainly will mock the current leadership because it has not. When, or if it comes, I will respect that relevation.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  12. Mormon Heretic on April 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM

    Will, there is evidence of female priesthood anciently. In fact, the RLDS Church used this evidence to help them decide to ordain women. See http://mormonheretic.org/2010/10/19/women-with-the-priesthood-in-ancient-christianity/

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  13. Glenn Thigpen on April 23, 2013 at 7:48 PM

    I have read Mormon Heretic’s bit on women and the priesthhod evidence. It is shaky at best. The strongest evidencethat he producesthrough the lens of Bridget Jack Jefferies is a quote from from Romans 16 verse 7 “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”

    This could be interpreted that Andronicus and Junia were actually apostles, or that they were very well known among the apostles.

    Another quote by MH’s source is from Romans 16:1 “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well”

    However, this translation as “deacon” or dwaconess shows up in none of the earlier translations. The older translations pretty uniformly show the word “servant” rather than deacon.

    The next verse that is quoted to show that there were women ordained to the priesthood anciently actually argue against female deacons in the early church.

    Look at 1 Timothy 3:8-12 from the NIV, which seems to be the source that Ms. Jeffries is using.

    8.In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.
    9. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience.
    10. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
    11. In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
    12. A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.

    Note that verse 11 clearly differentiates women from the deacons in earlier verses.

    Then verse 12 notes that a deacon must be faithful to their wives. That verse in and of itself would argue against female deacons, unless women could also marry women back in the day.

    Myself, I think that the NIV translators were a bit overzealous for gender equality in the Romans verse and that the actual evidence for women holding the priesthood in the very early church is extremely weak.

    Glenn

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  14. Lee on April 24, 2013 at 4:46 AM

    Mormon Heretic:

    No.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  15. Mormon Heretic on April 24, 2013 at 7:46 PM

    Lee, I have 2 words for you: peanut butter.

    Glenn, given that you haven’t examined historical references such as John Chrysostum clearly identifying Junia as a woman, I wouldn’t call your opinions as the most scholarly I’ve ever heard on the subject. Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’d say your scholarship on the issue is “shaky at best” and your opinions are “extremely weak” on this particular topic (to use your phraseology.) I’d say you are a bit “overzealous for gender [in]equality.”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  16. Glenn Thigpen on April 25, 2013 at 6:16 AM

    MH, If you will go back and read my post again, you will note that I did not address the issue of the gender identification of Junia at all. In fact I did say that was the strongest of all of the evidence that you produced, with an implicit afreement that Junia was actually a femkale.

    What I did note was that the wording of the verse could be interpreted that Andronicus and Junia were either apostles themselves, or were well known by the apostles.

    I also pointed out specific reasons I felt that the argument for female deacons was unfounded, using the same bible translation used in your blog. That was the 1 Timothy 3:8-12 analysis.

    The translation of Romans 16:1 calling Phebe a deacon is problematic because the Greek word used there is diakonos. In every other place and translation that noun is used, the translation is servant.

    In all five instances of the word deacon in the New Testament, the Greek root word is diakoneō.

    I am afraid that your analysis of my analysis is faulty and lacking in substance.

    Glenn

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Subscribe without commenting

Archives

%d bloggers like this: