The key difference in how LDS view the priesthood (compared to other Christian sects) is that we usually distinguish between spiritual gifts that we all have as members of the church and the administrative offices of the priesthood (more formal like the Roman Catholic version of the Priesthood). We believe that priesthood authority was lost on the earth as a result of apostacy (many protestant churches agree). Where we differ is that we believe that it was restored. Because protestant churches are not restorationist, their organizations do not have this form of administrative priesthood. The term priesthood is more generally applied in that context to mean spiritual gifts or a “calling” to preach rather than an official administrative role. But, the general definition of priesthood (performing action in the name of God) can be applied to all forms of doing God’s will. It is just not how we normally use the term in an LDS context because of the more formal priesthood roles. Shawn’s post was a nice reminder that we believe all members can do great things in the name of God, regardless of official capacity, and that the administrative roles aren’t always the most effective method for God to do His work.

I would, however, like to now give my 2cents worth (if I may). I don’t want to start a debate or anything, just give my opinion. It seems as though some have forgotten about the two women Prophetesses that I know were mentioned in the Bible: Deborah (Judges 4) and Anna (Luke 2:36). Also, don’t forget that God even used a donkey to get HIS point across.

From my understanding, we are not ordained to anything, in or out of the temple, except in the offices of the Priesthood as typically understood. Even in the temple, I believe we are making covenants to become, not to be. I don’t understand much about one’s calling and election being made sure, but I imagine it is an exception and represents the point at which we are rather than are learning to become. As has been mentioned before, anyone who is a member can be given the authority to administer in Priesthood ordinances by one who has both the keys and the authority to do so. This is reflected in the doctrine that those not of the lineage of Aaron may act in that priesthood so long as one who is a high priest in the Melchizedek priesthood authorizes it.

The Priesthood authority is the authority to act in God’s name, whereas the Spirit might move someone to act in His stead. There is a difference in this. I think we have lost some of the nuance of acting in another’s name in the course of daily thought, though I imagine the lawyers of the group may understand a little better. Essentially, acting in someone’s name means you can make decisions as if you were that person, where acting in a person’s stead means you do what they would do, were they there. It is a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

At any rate, the things that most describe here as women “holding the priesthood” are actually, as has been said to one point or another, gifts of the Spirit which they can have as members of the Church. It is parallel to, but distinct from being ordained to a Priesthood office. It is neither greater than or less than the Priesthood, merely different than it. A member with the Spirit may pray a prayer of blessing, but only one with authority may pronounce a blessing upon a person. I think that we are all mostly in agreement to what women can and cannot do, despite the argument, because we are getting caught in terminology rather than the meaning behind the words.

Shawn said in the original post:

“Before going any further, let me say that I don’t have the stomach for yet another long-winded (and assuredly acrimonious) debate about whether, and to what extent, LDS women hold the Priesthood, and whether they should be included in ecclesiastical leadership positions. Such posts are legion on the Bloggernacle, and I have nothing new to add on the subject here.”

To respect that statement, this is my last word on this specific issue.

I also have been a temple worker. I have tried hard to distinguish the way that women are endowed with power through the Priesthood that they then can exercise - and I was very careful not to go into any detail that would be inappropriate to discuss here. Just because I won’t share that detail in an open forum like this, doesn’t mean it is not real.

Let me be perfectly clear:

I don’t “want women to hold the Priesthood” in the traditional sense. I don’t have any problem whatsoever with the way that the Priesthood operates in the Church. In fact, I am convinced it is inspired, especially as I look around at far too many men in the world today. Nothing I have said disputes that or challenges the Church in any way.

All I am saying is that even our baptized and confirmed children are able to “act in the name of God” in a very real and powerful way - and that is exactly how we normally define the Priesthood. My firm belief is that once you are blessed through the Priesthood in any official, ordinal way, you carry a residual portion of that Priesthood, if you will, that allows you to act in the name of God. Frankly, I don’t see how that can be disputed, given the actual wording of the ordinances themselves and our understanding of the covenants we make through them.

Having been a temple worker I can state unequivocally that women never are delegated the priesthood nor do they perform rites that are required to be performed by someone holding the priesthood. Everything that must be done by a member of the priesthood in the temple is done by a man.

It is important to examine things not so much for what we want them to be but for what they actually are. Without any doctrinal evidence to support the idea I fail to see how or why it is even a point of confusion. I understand how this issue could be frustrating for some who want women to hold the priesthood but it should not be for those who are simply examining how church responsibilities are assigned. Consider that if women did hold the priesthood wouldn’t we all be taught about it. Would God make it a mystery for the sisters of the church to have to unlock and decipher? If so, what would be the point of holding such an important truth in such enigmatic coverings.

The evidence from what we are taught by LDS sources (which are the authority on this matter) is that no women hold the priesthood in the temple or without in this Earthly existence. It is a responsibility that men bear alone. Having said that I know that my wife’s influence on how the priesthood is exercised is very significant and should not be minimized but I am addressing only the actual issue of the bearer of the priesthood.

I must also say that it is curious to me why anyone would attempt to convince others (in the church or not) that women hold the priesthood. Such a proposal is baffling especially given the logical contortions that must be done to support such an idea. I am very curious as to what the motive is for making the claim? I ask this in all sincerity.

The idea that the words of a living prophet are certainly more relevant than those of a dead prophet is not simply a cultural issue - it is dogmatic. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is actually built on that concept. Examine if you will the restoration of the gospel wherein a living prophet (Joseph Smith) restored the gospel and provided guidance on the depth and breadth of key points, restored ordinances and established organization. He even revised certain texts providing clarity and correction where necessary. It is hard to argue that there was a dead prophet who possessed more influence and relevance than Joseph Smith did during his life.

I understand what you mean by saying that it is a cultural issue but I think you are mistaken given the counsel of the brethren who have definitely established the fact that the words of living prophets take precedence over the words dead prophets. The church focus, initiative and direction is defined by who the living prophet is and what his current counsel is. Take for example the initiative by President Hinckley to have every member read the Book of Mormon in a given time frame and his expansion of Temples. This was clearly a manifestation of the point I was making. Another example is what had been revealed by President Kimball regarding blacks receiving the priesthood. Go back further and review the direction provided by President Snow and the issue of tithing. The statement I made is not simply cultural issue it is even larger than doctrine - it’s fundamental.

There is certainly an abundance of information that is available and useful for us written in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon written by dead prophets that I acknowledge is important. However, when seeking direction on issues that confront church members at this time or for clarification on such issues as women holding the priesthood we should be taking our counsel from President Monson more than any previous prophet. For example, President Monson has provided the direction for how the church views homosexual marriage and has made it very clear what church members should be doing in response to efforts that attempt to redefine marriage. His words are more relevant and more important for us now than even referring back to the Proclamation given not long ago of which he was a part though not the prophet. Having a living prophet is important for the church and for gospel because it provides clarity in the time we live about issues that may become murky due to a change in society or a cry for better understanding.

As to your statement, “As a former member you no doubt know that the words of a live prophet are more relevant than those of a dead prophet.” I don’t think that is true now nor did I ever think it in my adult life as a Latter-day Saint. I have long admired, probably because I’m “wired” this way, the story of the Bereans in Acts 17. They actively received the Word with the Spirit but went home and studied it out with scripture. Their thoughtful (and skeptical?) nature was not criticized by Paul. Instead they were praised as “noble.”

The rest of your argument doesn’t follow with me, though I appreciate your perspective. I never could quite reconcile what made something ultimately a trustworthy and authoritative LDS source — even ‘prophethood.’ But I still was and am an avid reader seeking out different thoughts when it comes to faith and religion. That doesn’t mean that I devalued an LDS argument, living or dead, just because something was contradictory with what seemed sensible to me. But neither did I buy the de facto “living trumps the dead” argument either. That seems more like public relations management than faith and the pursuit of God.

Still, I appreciate your skepticism if you perceive I am trying to define LDS doctrine from inappropriate sources. Where I state LDS doctrine, I try to do so honestly from within the LDS framework as I know it. Yet I do often present Christian theology and biblical exegesis as a point of making it, if not sympathetic, persuasive and possibly bridge-building for interfaith purposes, at least a little better understood and worthwhile for discussion.

In the end, I probably don’t contribute anything worthwhile for any except kindred spirits “wired” similarly as me. We kindred may not believe the same, but it is enjoyment enough to think through my own thinking by writing and see what holes, flaws, responses, whatever, comes of it though the dialog of others.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

This is a direct response to you because you posted a direct response to me. I am not claiming that your wife received the priesthood when she went through the temple. (Please reread my post #28 also my post #4 for context) However, ask your wife, who performed the initiatory work for her and other women in the temple. These women in the temple who perform these ordinances have been given Priesthood authority to perform the initiatory ordinances. Having this authority does not mean they have keys, which is separate; however Melchizedek Priesthood authority has been delegated to women for the performing of these initiatory ordinances to women. That is all my post is referencing nothing more nothing less.

I am sorry if you viewed my statement as taking a shot at you. My point was that non LDS sources are inherently inferior to LDS sources when discussing LDS doctrine. If you found my response to your citing Luther as defensive then I failed to communicate my point effectively. As a former Lutheran I appreciate the work done by the great reformer and recognize that without him the spread of the restored gospel would have been significantly more difficult.

What I was trying to point out was the idea that we observe in the church that relates to the reliability or relevance of various sources. As a former member you no doubt know that the words of a live prophet are more relevant than those of a dead prophet. Moving along that idea it stands to reason that the words of an LDS authority have more weight and more relevance than a non LDS authority. I am not saying that there is no value in such writings or observations as many general authorities quote C.S. Lewis who, despite not having the advantage of the restored gospel wrote great truths and provided tremendous insight into the nature and workings of Christianity. That said, members of the church would not be well served by referring to Lewis when discussing important doctrinal points where modern day revelation or direction has been given on a particular topic.

I do take issue with non-members, particularly former members who attempt to define doctrinal points. The reason it concerns me is that misunderstandings can lead to considerable heartache. If a member of the church was seeking guidance on a doctrinal issue on a site called Mormon Matters they could be easily confused by non-members attempting to define LDS doctrine. I don’t say that with any animosity I am simply making an observation. Many converts struggle as I did attempting to grasp the vastness of the gospel and reach out regularly for assistance. I was given considerable incorrect information in the years following my conversion which made things extremely difficult for me. Because of this I am naturally zealous in the defense of the church which sometimes, as in this case, has come across poorly. For this I apologize.

I’m not sure about the issue you are raising so if you would like to clarify your point I would appreciate it (by email preferably so that we don’t get this subject off on a tangent). My intent was to respond to issues that had been raised with respect to my previous post. I made no suggestion about anyone being further away from the Iron Rod than I myself am - in fact my own fallibility is something that I fully acknowledge. If there are specific analysis that are prohibited on the site please direct me to them so that I can familiarize myself with the guidelines. In addition, if you have a specific objections to a stylistic method I have used feel free to contact me via email and please be precise. If my remarks were interpreted as uncivil that was certainly not my intent so if I offended you or anyone else with a remark please allow me to apologize for the offense. I want to engage in an exchange that is meaningful and substantive so I am open to your advice on which points are considered inappropriate. Thanks.

I’m not so sure one should dilute the discussion down to “just” semantics and terminology. I think such are important. But I also agree with you that there may be more agreement on the core of what I raised, and particularly what Shawn raised in terms of the LDS laity being empowered in God to accomplish His Work. I’m glad we see who is behind it.

Because the male ordinational Priesthood is pretty much the only framework by which LDS understand the term, despite the clues within Temple Mormonism describing otherwise, I think there is a significant nuance and benefit the faith would derive to look to the New Testament, as Luther did, to enlarge what had changed between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant when it comes to priesthood. (In this forum, I am a bit surprised to find resistance to this context.)

Do you read Hebrews, 1 Peter and Corinthians as they teach about the new priesthood, new temple, new covenant, spiritual gifts, body of Christ and dismiss what Luther invited us all the reflect more diligently upon? Furthermore, how do you explain in the Gospels, Acts and Romans women being called into the core discipleship, teaching, functioning as deaconess, prophesying as prophetesses, anointing the sick and the dead, etc.? How can you say this is not part of the apostolic tradition? Do you think (little-p) “priesthood” is a renegade, imprecise or heretical term to describe what the epistles teach and what the historical narrative records — especially where it concerns women? (I’m not talking ordinal clergy, here.)

I agree that within denominational traditions that ordained clergy does have a different emphasis, but I see this more as a reflection of denomination not Gospel. (I recognize others may disagree.) Hence I don’t get too bothered with the variety, though I do side more with Protestantism’s sola scriptura emphasis for answering the question of authority — and what is meant by the “new priesthood” “new temple” and “Body of Christ”. I also admire the balance in emphasis that the RCC has stuck on matters of Priesthood clergy and priesthood laity even though I’m not Catholic. I think theirs is a healthy nuance.

Obviously, the modern LDS claim to be “patterned directly after Christ’s organization” is to impose an order and unity that never has existed within the Body once the group of believers and disciples grappled and worked to perform the Savior’s Great Call. (That’s not to say such a “unified organization” isn’t a noble ideal, and not to say that the Catholic/Orthodox denominations don’t have some great things to show for aspiring to that ideal, but it certainly is historically specious, to my mind, to insist on a total apostasy and claim modern Mormonism represents a “restored” organization. “Reimagined,” “reinterpreted” or “refreshed” might be more accurate, and polite, terms.)

I guess my own guilt made it appropriate for me.

It may be, as Ray stated, just a matter of semantics and terminology. It may be what Hawk and I have agreed on, which what you are calling priesthood, we are calling “the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

As for Luther, you say he did not “invent” the doctrine. But most of my sources, non-LDS, seem to say that he did espouse it as “All Christian are Priests in direct response to the RCC structure.” And I do disagree that it is part of the Bible and apostolic tradition. The tradition, going back to the Old Testament, speaks to a established pattern of hierarchy and structure.

The difference, I think, is while the protestant tradition allows for an ordained clergy, it does not require it in the same sense that the LDS Church and the Catholic Church do, in order to show a direct link with the organization as set up by Jesus. the RCC is not quite in line but, as you know the LDS claim the church is patterned directly after Christ’s organization.

I liked what Shawn had originally posted because, first, it describes a true experience that I think is fair to say all contributing here have observed first-hand in our own lives. I don’t think Shawn is being heretical in any sense to LDS orthodoxy to describe such ministering of women as “priesthood.” I tried to divert what I’ve posted on this matter from issues of gender within the ordinal Priesthood, toward that of the “priesthood of the laity” because I think that herein we find support from the Bible and Christian tradition for what Shawn described. I wanted to add an underline to the validity and significance of what I think he expressed.

I am flummoxed why the doctrine of the priesthood of the laity so challenges the allegiance some LDS may have to their hierarchical Priesthood. I think the LDS tradition is admirable in the Relief Society organization and mission. I just think it is regrettable when some LDS persons, men especially, get their authoritarian defenses up to describe this “laity” ministry as “priesthood.” As I said before, “priesthood” is a very significant term we shouldn’t sidestep nor dismiss.

Is the Luther argument really that threatening: that authority in God’s Work is bestowed on all believers, but that order in role and administration of ordinances/sacraments by the clergy is still important even if a matter of permission and culture, if not unique or privileged authority? What I tried to make a point is that Luther did not “invent” the doctrine — it’s easily observed within the Bible and apostolic history — nor did he coin the terminology — that came after. (Just like Calvin wasn’t quite a “Calvinist”.) Yet, Luther was not in opposition to an ordained clergy nor am I. Even in Protestant tradition there is still administrative Priesthood order. For LDS not to recognize that I think is just a matter of ignorance, and I hope becoming less so a matter of willing and head-strong prejudice. Protestants may call this Priesthood by more New Testament terms, frame them within distinctly informed Protestant culture, and define “offices” more by scope of roles and permissions, but the belief and function of a capital-P Priesthood is still there.

What Luther did was to observe, revolutionize and formulate an explanation for what had occurred within the Roman Catholic Church — the distinct and unfortunate separation of spiritual worlds (of access to God) between clergy and laity and confront directly the matter of authority. It’s an important question as authority informs the validity of God’s Work. So the communication barrier starts as a matter of parsing what is “doctrine” — doctrine is both our reasoned explanation for scripture but also the scripture content itself. But I suspect, even in my effort to recognize the validity of Christ’s work, His priesthood of all believers, in the lives of dedicated Latter-day Saints of both genders, the barrier may be the one of tossing down the usual gauntlets that prevent unity in the Body between traditional Christians and LDS. We creedal Christians end up fighting over the term “Christian” and dismiss Christ’s work among Latter-day Saints. And Latter-day Saints, similarly, dismiss the ultimate authority of Christ’s Work in our Body, and lay claim to “only Trueness.”

If that’s where we’ve ended up again, then this helps inform the barriers to my hopeful ideal of lessening the religious apartheid that exists in my life and community between LDS and other Christians.

Oh, please.

With all due respect, we strive to have civil conversations here about the topics we post on. Not a finger pointing contest as to who is more faithful and holding tighter to the iron rod. That is better left to our own introspection. We invite all points of view as long as people are nice and respectful. I am sure you can respect that.

thanks

Moreover if my statements made you feel as though you were accused personally then perhaps some soul searching is in order. I mentioned no names but it was clear that some felt the reproach not from me from within themselves. No one in good standing has need to presume I meant them because no such inference was made.

The evidence in this matter is that (temple ordinances referring to an afterlife notwithstanding)there is no female priesthood or Priesthood on this Earth in the church. The great lengths and parsing of phrases that many use to promote such false doctrine shows the very weakness of the proposition. Were it not so there would be ample evidence among the writings and teachings of modern day prophets. Gathering scraps to form support for such a notion is not in keepimg with God’s House of Order. There simply is no evidence and straining at the point should surely help provide a clue. The scarcity of evidence proferred through choosing a single word such as quorum and extrapolating meaning is better evidence of the fallacy of such an idea. As faithful Latter-day Saints We should take as a matter of principle that when we must rely on interpretations from other faiths and non members that our point is not only invalid but smacks of influence from the adversary. Again I am not speaking to anyone in particular nor even of this specific issue on this point but provide that standard as a yardstick for measuring the distance one has strayed from the Iron Rod.

I think you are right as to where the two POVs diverge. We have an organized Priesthood where most protestant denominations do not.

Faith is THE power of the priesthood.

With this in mind, little debate is necessary…

Wonderful discussion:-)

tDMg
LdsNana-AskMormon

As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t see the need for female priesthood that is administrative. We could probably cut back on how many members have that type of priesthood and not be at a loss at all. If there were large societies of women living without men (which wouldn’t last for more than a generation by my reckoning, despite what people may think of SSM’s equality), that would make a case for it. As for spiritual gifts, I’ve got plenty of those. I can be healed by my faith, with or without the laying on of hands, and I have access to the guidance of the HG. So-called “leadership” roles in the church are administrative and necessary, just like janitors and window-washers. Not having access to those callings isn’t prohibiting me from anything but more work.

“I was under the impression that the initial post was submitted in connection within an LDS context.”

Yes, it was/is.

“Clearly in the LDS church there is no female priesthood or Priesthood and women do not exercise any such authority.”

I simply disagree with this. Other commentators have already dealt with this subject, so I won’t repeat their arguments here. All I will say is, listen to what’s said in the Temple. That language is unambiguous, as far as I am concerned.

“Wouldn’t it be more advantageous to rely on the insight of members in good standing at a minimum and better yet those called by God to clarify the finer points of gospel doctrine regarding the priesthood in connection with women.”

James, don’t assume that just because I espouse a point of view that is different than yours that I am necessarily not “in good standing.” Such assumptions can lead to nasty prejudices. If you had taken the time to read anything else I have written here on this site before making such an accusation, you would see how ill-informed your statement is.

It is not my intention to denigrate any one else’s beliefs, but to support the concepts of the restored church. I would be surprised if you really thought that all things are equal.

It is, and has been, my intention to have a reasonable dialog about the subject. As I have said all along, one of the things that brought my to the LDS Church was the more logical explanation for things in the bible. That I never really understood where the other Christian denominations were coming from. In many ways, that is still true for me.

In a real and important way, this is one very good example of Joseph Smith’s and Gordon B. Hinckley’s belief that others can bring every good thing (their understanding of the priesthood of believers) with them when they join the Church and have more added to it (our concept of an ordained Priesthood). We needn’t throw out one just because we have the other, imo.

There is a distinct difference between three concepts which are lost in this discussion. The Priesthood (capital P) held by Christ and given to man by ordination and authority, The Power of the Priesthood, which is held jointedly by husband and wife (if the man is properly ordained) or delegated to women, for example, to administer certain ordnances in the Temple, and Gift of the Holy Ghost, which is given to all who are properly baptized and receive the laying on of hands for that gift.

There is a big difference between holding the Priesthood and administering the Power of the Priesthood by delegation. There is also a link to administering certain keys of the Priesthood (like a calling of Bishop or Stake President) but not actually holding those keys except for the time which they are administered. Same basic concept as what goes on with women as set apart Temple Workers. Same holds true for men in the Temple. You cannot administer those ordnances unless you are set apart to do so.

So, if you want to describe all that as the “Priesthood of all Believers,” I guess that is ok, but the key here is having the Authority and I do not see that outside the LDS Church. If it were so, then all Churches would be the same and, in my mind that is not the case.

“I think learning about other faiths is interesting but I fail to see how applying non-LDS interpretations or information from ex members furthers a discussion on priesthood within the church. Wouldn’t it be more advantageous to rely on the insight of members in good standing at a minimum and better yet those called by God to clarify the finer points of gospel doctrine regarding the priesthood in connection with women.”

I’m not sure where this came from, frankly. Much of the discussion here comes from “members in good standing”, and I (for one) am serving in a position where I have been called partially to “clarify the finer points of gospel doctrine” for members. The various interpretations and perspectives here haven’t claimed that Mormon women “hold the Priesthood” in the classic sense understood by most members (meaning having the authority to administer Priesthood ordinances generally and acting as presiding authorities - although the Relief Society originally was described by Joseph as a quorum); what is being said is that there are things women do that fit the original “priesthood of believers” concept taught by Luther. 1 Peter 2 can be interpreted as applying the term “an holy priesthood” (lower case “p”) to all members, since the chapter is addressed to all converts, and it is this concept (all members working through the power of the Priesthood as “an holy priesthood”) that is a legitimate usage to discuss how women can “exercise Priesthood power”.

Finally, there is no denying the fact that women perform “Priesthood ordinances” in the temple. There also is no denying that endowed women are “clothed in the Priesthood” - both inside and outside of the temple. They “bear” or “hold” the Priesthood symbolically, at the very least. (I won’t get explicit here; please respect that.) It is this aspect of what occurs in the place we deem most representative of the ideal (and what women take with them when they leave that ideal place) that is intriguing to me - and many others.

Re-read tk’s #4. There are some interesting quotes there.

Finally, James, I will reiterate something I said earlier. When a member is confirmed, they have hands laid on their head and are told to “receive the Holy Ghost” - generally with counsel to hearken to the promptings they receive from that member of the Godhead. We believe the Holy Ghost will help us ascertain the will of God, the Father, and Jesus, the Son - meaning that all who are confirmed have access to the will of the Godhead. We literally teach that a member of the Godhead can share God’s will with us *continually*, if we strive to live in harmony with His will for us. Therefore, the ideal is that we act through the direction of the Godhead in everything we do - men and women.

We speak of “the Priesthood” as the “power and authority to act in God’s name” - and all who are baptized covenant to “take His name upon them” and “keep His commandments”. This means they promise to “act in His name” through the power and authority of the Holy Ghost they have received. That’s not the same as being ordained into the presiding, ordinance administering Priesthood, but it is a pretty good description of Luther’s “priesthood (lower case “p”) of believers” and Paul’s “holy priesthood” that includes men and women - and all baptized children.

Having said that I would not presume to stifle the viewpoints of others but I will be more careful in replying to people and take into account their perspective.

With that said what is the distinction between priesthood and Priesthood in the LDS church? I have never heard of such a concept so I look forward to reading the reply. Also what, if any doctrine is there to support the distinction? Thanks.

No, it’s not - if what you are saying is understood. Sometimes I hate the limits of language.

Still, given that this site is the venue for the discussion, and that I was once a Mormon, I understand the difficulty in separating capital-P Priesthood/clergy from that of the little-p priesthood we all believers in Christ possess. (Or, perhaps, the capitalization should be reversed…) My point was that I think it is significant to use the term ‘priesthood’ to apply to this universal empowerment in Christ’s Body, as I think it gives credit where it is deserved for the good work that is accomplished in Him: to Jesus, and not to the “two worlds” of perception that clergy vs. laity often creates — not only in the LDS faith but also within the larger Christian body. Yet I also appreciate the order and familiarity that many pursuers of Christ have for ecclesial hierarchies. Therefore, my point in addressing the priesthood import of women wasn’t really from that perspective. What role women should have in ordained clergy is another discussion.

I do think it would be a huge positive to see LDS women’s role within the church described as a function of (little-p) priesthood. It’s [New Testament] biblical. It’s a very important word that shouldn’t be sidestepped to allieve discomfort about encroachment on ordinational tradition. And, I think, it’s good and ennobling human relations, especially because ordinational Priesthood does not create an exalted, spiritual or leadership class. Our Savior is the suffering and triumphant servant of us all. Clergy likewise are also servants of the Body who have special permission and roles but not special authority. I’m not sure that is really that foreign of a concept to the LDS worldview, is it?

If women hold the priesthood which priesthood is it? Is it the Aaronic or Melchizedek or is there another women’s priesthood that is not named? Also, when is their priesthood conferred upon them and do they have different offices such as deacon, teacher, priest, etc.? To my knowledge, my wife has never received the priesthood so I am curious how she obtained it (she and I were sealed in the temple 20 years ago and I didn’t see it happen there but I admit perhaps she received it during mutual or maybe when I had my back turned). Certainly to make such claims there should be evidence for the statements that you are making or defined ordinances for something of such significant import. My three sons of priesthood age all had specific interviews and rites performed to confer the priesthood upon them. If women hold the priesthood wouldn’t it be valuable if not essential for them to know it so that they can perform their responsibilities correctly and effectively. In addition, shouldn’t the RS teach sisters about the female priesthood so they can understand how to exercise it?

It is easy to conflate Luther, Calvin, Wesley and other reformers (to jumble their messages and confuse their primary points), but, frankly, I view Luther as one of the most inspired men since the death of Jesus - and I believe that his inspiration shines brightly when you compare much of what I see as his preparatory work to what was implemented by Joseph.

Similarly, using all the the scripture sources which I have cited he argued how all believers have authority conferred on them. Therefore, when a man was ordained to the clergy, authority was not conferred upon him, rather permission by the body to act in the office was. Luther still favored order and a hierarchy — a priesthood — of leadership. What he argued against was the belief they had special authority that raised them as a Stände above the rest of the believing laity. Luther was right to condemn the perspective that the Catholic Priesthood had become. It had become ahistorical and anathema to the model of the apostolic church. Most importantly his argument was centered on Bible scripture, which had been deemphasized by literate clergy for so long as to have been functionally removed from the minds of the Body — resulting in the perceived and accepted two Ständes. There is only one spiritual class, world or Stände before the Lord and the cross. Yet Luther never argued for the “priesthood of all believers” as I believe you are perceiving it, which is more informed by the American Protestant perspective of the last two centuries.

I appreciate the measure that Luther maintained for order and dislike for anarchy within the Body. And truly in Protestant history, especially from the 18th century forward, we have seen some anarchy result, especially in the meritocratically-oriented United States. Yet in spite of this, or perhaps a hidden virtue of it, the core scripture that informs this doctrine has been upheld by the modern traditions including the Catholic and Lutheran traditons. Yet have they disbanded their clergy? No. Nor do I think they should. Yet it is our duty as the Body to stand aware to abuse, whether in the traditional denominations or by anarchist renegades, of those who would use the authority conferred by the Lord on all believers to usurp authority, position or control and even claim special spiritual privilege.

I think if you would study this matter greater you could overcome your distaste for referring to this authority all believers bear as the priesthood scripture declares it to be. I am not advocating anarchy, and I respect the denominational traditions that maintain order in the Body, including that of the LDS tradition. I, merely, in the spirit of Luther, think he had it right to remember the Bible in our emphasis. There are not two worlds where authority is conferred. Where organizational models within the Body result differently, that is more a reflection of our cultures but not of Him who we all claim we serve. And, especially, where women do not share leadership roles, I think it wise to remember this is a function of culture, tradition and order, but not to devise silly notions that dismiss or diminish the authority they bear, yes even a priesthood, to be empowered to carry of out work of our Master. Such righteous and spiritually empowered women may not always be ordained clergy, but they certainly are priests of the Lord in their authority.

As a convert, one of the great things I loved learning about the gospel was the order and clarity that is provided by a living prophet. Issues like this are not subject to public opinion no matter how filled with lofty ideals one supposes that a notion possesses. To say that women exercise the priesthood is to actually diminish the role they have not just in the church but in society at large. Such a declaration seeks to nullify the tremendous power that women exercise in performing charitable works, the role of primary child rearer and the endless amounts of service that is done each day by humble and righteous servants of God. Such women do not aspire to something to which they are not asked by God to bear. To claim that women must have the priesthood in some capacity is to nullify the work they do because it is tantamount to expressing that serving God is somehow less valid without a priesthood exclamation point behind it.

I continue to submit that gifts of the spirit are not exclusive to Priesthood and of course, Women enjoy them just as men. As for the other scriptures you have quoted, it is very clear. When we have faith in Jesus Christ, repent and are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost, we are His. There is no example in scripture where a woman receives the Priesthood and yet, countless examples and declarations regarding the use of Gift of the Spirit by women. You say that is the “Priesthood of all Believers.” I would say it is the Holy Ghost that we have as a constant companion.

The New Testament establishes the “priesthood of the laity” in numerous instances, explicitly and implicitly. As I cited earlier, a strong one is the dialog on the order of the King of Salem, or gentile high priest, Melkizedek, in Hebrews 7. The usage of Melkezidek is not only significant, but the chapter goes further to talk how “the priesthood is changed” and ends with the significant statement,

27. For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27. who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: [see Lev. 9.7] for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Another significant and interconnected symbolism comes in 1 Peter 2 as we are referred to as “living stones” of a new temple and a “chosen generation, a (royal) kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people.” This address is directed to the Body of Christ, which is all believers. In 2 Corinthians 2 we the believers are referred to as the “sweet fragrance” of sacrifice, and in Ephesians 5 Jesus is referred to as the same sweet fragrance — connecting us the believers as the Body of Christ, standing in contrast to the smoke of the burnt offering of the Levitical order. These believers, the Royal Priesthood, are not just males. And not just called for administrative functions we often consider hierarchically contained.

Hebrews 13 calls us to continually offer our sacrifices of praise. These “spiritual sacrifices” — our spiritual works performed through us — in numerous instances are cited as coming through the Spirit and as function of the Body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 12 explicitly connects the gifts of the spirit to the various parts of the Body of Christ.) I’m not sure how one could argue that such spiritual works are disconnected from the teachings of the universal priesthood.

Furthermore, to support the necessary and valued part of women in this priesthood, we can look at Acts and Romans for diverse examples. Acts 2 , referring back to the Hebrew scripture, cites that “daughters shall prophesy” along with young and old men seeing visions and dreams. In the Gospels we see women anointing and being praised for it, including at the death of our Lord — which is significant because lay people, and especially women, were forbidden from such an act. We see women in Acts and Romans, including extra-biblical historic documents, called as disciples, including Anna, Mary, Prisca, Phoebe, among many other named and unnamed women. We see them anointing the sick and the dead, blessing, prophesying (specifically as prophetesses), teaching, proselytizing, acting as deaconesses.