Priesthood

So, I've been thinking about the Priesthood a lot recently. There's the "Women in the Priesthood" movement who think women should receive the Priesthood and I've met those who resent the Church for denying the Priesthood to Blacks for a time. I'm going to start with definitions and then back track to the Old Testament and work my way forward in time.

Priesthood definition according to lds.org, "The word priesthood has two meanings. First, priesthood is the power and authority of God. ... Through the priesthood, God created and governs the heavens and the earth. Through this power, He exalts His obedient children, bringing to pass “the immortality and eternal life of man” ( Moses 1:39; see also D&C 84:35–38).

Second, in mortality, priesthood is the power and authority that God gives to man to act in all things necessary for the salvation of God’s children. The blessings of the priesthood are available to all who receive the gospel. (“Priesthood Authority,” Handbook 2, Administering the Church)" (https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng)

To me that means that the Priesthood is the power of God and permission and authority to use God's power. The Priesthood is required in order to perform any saving ordinance, like baptism or the Sacrament.

Now, back to the Old Testament. I'm going to talk mostly about the Levitical/Aaronic Priesthood and not the Melchizedek Priesthood. Jacob or Israel had 12 sons. The first was Reuben. Reuben had the birthright until he "uncovered the nakedness of his father". Then the second born was Simeon and third born was Levi. Simeon and Levi slaughtered a whole group of people because one of them had defiled their sister and then tried to make it right by marrying her, but Simeon and Levi wouldn't let it go and slaughtered a whole tribe/nation/town of people. The birthright is then passed on to Judah. Reuben, Simeon and Levi are all chastened when Jacob/Israel is giving blessings to his sons and decides to claim Ephraim and Manasseh (of Joseph) as his own. Later, after they have left Egypt by following Moses, all are given an inheritance except.... Levi. Levi is to be scattered throughout Israel and is to be servants to the rest of Israel. Granted Israel is supposed to take care of them but technically good slave owners took care of their slaves so they would be able to perform what their masters wanted of them, so I believe the Levites were in a similar position. They were to be taken care of, but that does not mean they have a lofty position and means to make money, but merely to be able to live and fulfill their purpose. So, this is the beginnings of the Priesthood. To me it comes across as more of a punishment. They had nothing to their name except by generosity of the tribes they lived among. They were to serve others. I feel Levi was given the Priesthood so they would learn to serve others. In other words, they needed to learn something from their assigned, humble position. 

Jump forward to the mid 1800s. Blacks were denied the Priesthood. Actually I'm going to backtrack just for a moment. The Church was restored in 1820. Why? Didn't the people who lived between when the Apostles were on the Earth and 1820 deserve the Gospel and blessings of it? There was a speech called "Why 1820?" by I think Franklin R Covey that speculates as to why the Lord didn't restore His Church sooner. Without reading it too recently, what I remember is that the Church needed a country to establish religious freedom in order for it to survive a restoration. And the Church wasn't immediately restored after religious freedom was gained here, and even when it was restored, the Church struggled at first to survive. The Church was not popular and was persecuted. It was persecuted for its beliefs but also for polygamy. The Civil War was fought and before that Blacks were not recognized by this country as even a full person. How much more would the country have persecuted the Church if Blacks had the Priesthood? And even after the Civil War, things did not magically get better for the Blacks. They were persecuted for several more years before they had other rights. When the Black finally received the Priesthood they at least officially had the same rights as their White counterparts (even if there is still racism- which is a different matter, legally they should have the same rights now). I believe that the Lord has a purpose to His timing, and I believe that the conditions relating to Blacks in this country at least played a part in why the Lord waited. Just like the Lord waited to restore His Church, the Lord waited to give the Priesthood to all men.

Now, on to women and the Priesthood. Let's consider the nature of men and women. How many married women who step up and take over things in their marriage have spouses who try to fight them for leadership? How many men gladly take the back seat and allow the wife to lead in things when they want to? I know my husband would gladly let me be in charge of all household duties. If I took over making all the money he would gladly step back (and likely play video games in his new spare time, instead of doing what I do with our kids and around the house). Now, this is not true of all men, some will fight for the ability to lead, but most men need a responsibility in order to take charge. Giving men the Priesthood gives them something they feel responsible for. It is that responsibility that often will motivate them to work and become better. The Priesthood is meant to serve and many women are conscious of others and are willing to serve without having the responsibility of the Priesthood. I don't know if I'm explaining this part well, but I feel men need the Priesthood to become better people and active members in the Church and to help them be aware of the needs of others. The Priesthood teaches them to be kind and forgiving of others.

Now back to the definition. The Priesthood is the power of God. Well what can God do? We know that with the Priesthood God created the world. What office in the Priesthood allows men to create? None of them. Men and women can create--life, buildings, roads, computers, furniture, a home... For some of those, both a man and a woman is needed and for others, one can do it based on their talents. God can do other things as well. The Priesthood callings given to men revolve around the power to perform ordinances and to speak for God and lead His Church. Lets analyze those backwards.

Lead His Church. A Prophet is called. This is a man. Why? I don't know. Maybe because He symbolizes Christ (a man). Maybe because He can perform any saving ordinance. Maybe because men need to learn how to lead. Maybe so that by becoming responsible for so many, their hearts grow. Maybe women don't need that. But for whatever reason, the Prophet is a man. But the Prophet calls a General Relief Society Board and Young Womens Board and Primary which is usually full of women. So women are needed to lead, in local branches all the way up to the top. But the man is the head- whether it's because they need to grow the most, because they perform any saving ordinance or because they represent Christ or another reason, this is the case.

To speak for God. This kind of goes hand in hand with the previous statement. Any woman (or man) can speak for God in reference to those for whom she is responsible as designated by her family or calling.

The power to perform ordinances. Men perform baptisms and confirmations. They bless and pass the Sacrament. They can perform temple ordinances (including initiatories and endowments). But wait a second.... I'm a woman. I worked in the temple. I was not given the Priesthood. I was set apart, but the same as I am when I become a teacher or ward greeter. Yet, as a temple worker I performed initiatories and endowments for women. How is this possible unless I have the Priesthood? It isn't.

My conclusion: Women have the Priesthood. I may never be a deacon, teacher, priest or elder. I do not know what my calling within the Priesthood is called, but I have the power of God in me. And it's not just about bearing children. Perhaps I am capable of all that a man is. Perhaps I am not allowed to do certain things because just as men need to learn to serve, I need to learn to depend on them. But I am allowed to do a great many things, and just because it is different or not publicly recognized (welcome to motherhood) does not mean that I do not have the power of God in me. But everyone needs to learn to step up and become the best they can be. Perhaps if women were to claim the Priesthood- the same Priesthood that men have, the men would not step up... or not enough would... and then there would be 80 women to 20 men in the Celestial Kingdom....

One last thing to consider- in the world we have doctors. Doctors can save lives and perform surgeries on others. They cannot perform surgeries on themselves (yes I've seen shows where they take a bullet out themselves or sew themselves up or direct someone else but they cannot perform in depth surgeries on themselves alone.) In the world is it more important that everyone becomes a doctor or that everyone has access to a good doctor that their lives may be saved and they can receive proper care and be healthy? I think it's the same with the Priesthood. I may have some of the power of God within me, but regardless of that, it is not as important who the doctor is (who holds the Priesthood) as it is important for everyone to be able to be blessed by the doctors (Priesthood). Just as doctors cannot perform surgery on themselves, neither can the Priesthood be used by oneself for their personal gain. And unlike doctors, there is no money or prestige to be made by holding the Priesthood. It may seem like there's prestige because we honor and know who holds the Priesthood, but I would argue that we only know them so we know where to turn for help and blessings and so that the Church stays a Church of order. Matthew 23:11, "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."

Questions

I am a growing person. As I experience different things in life and continue to learn, sometimes my opinions and views change or are refined. With this said, if you read something I have posted previously, it may or may not be my current view, but I don't have time presently to find and delete posts that have become outdated.

With this post however I want to address questions. I like questions. Questions give you something to study in seeking an answer. I think questions can be good. Some people who sign petitions or are vocal about their questions against things that are happening in the LDS Church use this to prove they are correct in questioning things. While I think questions are good, I don't think ALL questions are good. If you are taking an academic class- a stupid question (there are such a thing) would be a completely off-base question for the topic of the class. (For example, don't ask your Calculus teacher for their analysis of why the Roman Empire fell). And then on top of stupid questions there are rude questions. For example- let's say you're a music major and talking to someone who wrote a nationally used textbook for Physics. Don't ask the physics expert a question and phrase it in a way that implies that you somehow, studying music, know more about their life's work than they do.  With these things said- I feel that questions are good, so long as they are not stupid or rude.

Now, let's start applying this to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The whole basis of this church is founded on the principle that we believe that God has once again called Prophets to be His mouthpiece. We are told in the Bible to judge between a true and false prophet by their fruits- so the fruits of Joseph Smith are the Book of Mormon and this Church. There are break-offs of the Church who believe that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet but that the succeeding prophets were not called of God. If you believe the current prophet is not called of God or that Joseph Smith and the first few prophets set up a faulty Church then perhaps you do not belong in this Church but a break off. If you do still believe that things are for the most part good and led by God then I just think you need to be aware of how you word your questions, and hold onto your faith whilst waiting for answers to your questions.

Prophets. They are men and still capable of making mistakes. They are human after all and to say they are incapable of making mistakes would be blasphemy since we believe Christ is the only perfect person to walk this Earth. I hold to this scripture, in Deuteronomy 18:20, "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die." And D&C 1:38, "What I the Lord I have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  These scriptures mean that the Lord will not allow His prophets to lead the Church astray. Does this mean that everything will be right? No. But we will be blessed for obedience and proper questions. Hold onto your faith that the Lord still leads and guides this Church and that any policy that may have faults in it will change (for policies of the Church CAN and do sometimes change). If the policy was made with a doctrine in mind, the doctrine will not change, but depending on the world and men, policies can change and hopefully will become better and better.

So let's talk about proper questions. If you truly believe that God leads the Church then you believe that whether it is by the Lord's voice or His servants it is the same. To question the Prophet in a way that challenges his authority, you are in essence saying that you know better than an all-knowing and perfect God and His choice to pick an appropriate mouthpiece. Be careful how you word your questions. Your same concerns can be addressed without challenging a perfect God's authority and choice in servants.

So what is the proper way to phrase a question? Think about your concern or problem with an issue. Ponder it and pray for understanding as to why the Prophets (in at least trying to do what is right) might have felt this was the right path. Pray for personal understanding and acceptance and to strengthen your testimony. Because of the faults of man, there are times when a mistake can be made and so even in your attempt to understand your concern may not vanish. But if you hold onto your faith that God leads this Church and will not allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray (this is different than a Prophet putting a bump in the path that may not need to be there) then you can trust that they at least had good intent in making any decision or policy. If you successfully complete this step and still have a question/concern, you should be able to at least phrase your concern in a way that doesn't challenge God as well as the Prophet/leader whom you disagree with.

Consider outside circumstances. For example, doctrinally we know there is nothing against blacks holding the Priesthood, yet there was a policy in place for a time that didn't allow them to hold the Priesthood. Was this a mistake? My theory is that it was not a mistake or fault of the Prophets. David O McKay wanted to change the policy long before he got the approval to do so. This tells me that it was in place for a reason, even if there was nothing doctrinally wrong with it. So here's the theory of me: maybe the world was not ready for it to happen. Let's take a different scenario. Why did people in the 1700s not have the blessing of the gospel? Was there something wrong with everyone living at the time? The answer is no. But the Lord was preparing the way for a time in which the Church could survive. He was working on a country that established religious freedoms. It was not a perfect country (as can be seen from the Civil War and many changes, amendments and extra laws to ensure the proper freedoms are indeed granted to all). I think the Lord waited long enough so that the Church could survive. Yet they were still persecuted because of religious beliefs. My theory on blacks and the Priesthood was that God was still working on the country, through the Civil War and Civil Rights issues with Martin Luther King, Jr and Rosa Parks to prepare them to accept what doctrinally was known- Blacks are equal to Whites. Perhaps if the Church had been granting Blacks the Priesthood before when they did it might have started persecution against the Church again. He did not wait til things were perfect to grant Blacks the Priesthood (as can be seen by ongoing racist problems) but perhaps He waited long enough that the Church would not suffer as a result. So, with your question, consider if there could be things outside of the Church that may justify making a policy that seems to postpone blessings of the gospel that doctrinally belong to all eventually. (For example, the new policy concerning children of homosexual parents- they are not permanently denied baptism. Children are not eternally condemned, if we believed this then there would be no purpose in doing baptisms for the dead for people who had encountered the Church in life. Agree with it or not, but the policy does not eternally condemn any.)

Third, the proper way to go about things. Let's briefly address the wrong way. The wrong way to go about displaying your disagreement is to shout loudly at conference "NO" when sustaining your leaders. There are many who disagree with things the Church is doing. Not all can come to the Conference Center. Even if everyone with concerns could come to the Conference Center to shout no, the Prophet and apostles would not have time to address each concern. All it does is disrupt the mood of conference. I'm sure someone would say, 'But if I don't shout, they won't know that I have a concern in such a big crowd'. True, but even with hearing you they direct you to talk to your local leaders. Might I suggest skip coming to Saturday afternoon's conference with the only intent of shouting no and going straight to your local leaders. It has to go through local leaders because the Church is too big for the people at top to one on one address every concern and still lead the rest of the Church. Sometimes local leaders don't pass on every concern because you have not phrased it as a genuine concern but more as a lack of faith in God to choose appropriate servants. This is why you should take time for my first two steps.

I loved my Mission President. He once told me a story about his Stake President and how he didn't think he was doing something right. He prayed for understanding and still felt uneasy. He was friends with the Stake President and so went to him and said, look, I know you're trying to do your best, and if you don't change your policy I will still follow it but I see possible problems with________. I learned from him that you can show that you trust in God to call proper servants. Because even local servants are called of God. If you have faith that God calls His prophet, then you have faith that he chose the right person to call lower leaders who are the right people to call others and others down to a Relief Society President. Granted you may not like everyone called for every calling but perhaps it is the right thing to do to give the person a chance to grow because God cares about every single individual. But you can trust in your leaders and still bring possible problems to their mind. Then they can pray to know what is right, knowing all the proper information and sometimes (not always) things will change.

I feel I have said everything I wanted to. Please remember the faith you do have and seek to understand "the other side" to either change your own opinion or understand it well enough so that your questions do not challenge authority but only the problems at hand.