Comments about ‘Women hear LDS Priesthood meeting, but not at conference center’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Oct. 5 2013 10:20 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Whos Life RU Living?
Ogden, UT

There are many posts condemning these women for their actions. I am curious about these peoples thoughts in regards to past history.

Around 1977-78 there were many members who sided with blacks and the priesthood, would those individuals also be considered out of line?

once free
Manila, UT

The Savior selected MEN for his 12 Apostles. HE and THE FATHER are men. Women have children - a gift not given to men. Our purposes are distinctly different....still we are instructed to be "ONE, and if ye are not ONE ye are not MINE". Says it all to me. "Contention is not of me, but is of the devil", saith the Lord. We know the Church will have dissenters. It's been fortold for millenia. You are meeting some of them. Recognize them for "WHAT" they represent as well as WHO they are.

sandy, ut

once free

So anybody that has a doctrinal or procedural question has the spirit of contention?? Your comment says it all. Closed minded thinking is never the answer.

Spider Rico
Greeley, CO

@Ranch Brahm and Truthseeker
Not surprised to see you three as the main supporters of the OW here. Same on all the articles about the LDS Church as those that constantly find fault in our doctrine and beliefs. You all cite "sexist" remarks on the comment board. Could you point some out? I bet you can find one here too.

Newbury Park, CA

The Church has scriptural and traditional reasons why women are not given the Priesthood at this time. As one of the speakers at conference noted the Temple ordinances provide Priesthood powers to both genders equally.

I have more fundamental questions. Other churches ordain women and they have positions of leadership. Have more people "come unto Christ" as a result? Have these churches held to Gospel principles or has the influence of feminists changed their moral compass? If some one wants to advocate this change as "progress", then show that "progress" makes a difference in building the Kingdom.

Layton, UT

My wife thought it ironic the location in which the Ordain Women watched conference, stating that City Creek was the perfect place for them, observing, "I mean c'mon... All that shopping!!"


Any report on how many men were turned away from the Women's conference? I wonder if any of the women in this group tried to attend at a local stake center. I guess none because no news media would be there.

Anyone else find it ironic that the leader of the group is an attorney?

Belinda, Melbourne Australia
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

@Brahmabull, the one thing you are forgetting that this happened in Old Testament times when there were no righteous men to fulfil the duties within their land. It was not evident in New Testament times. What are you saying about these latter-day times? That it doesn't matter if there are worthy priesthood holders on the earth, women deserve this right and privilege. That the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 are not worthy priesthood holders? That my Bishop is not a worthy priesthood holder? That his wife could do things better? I find that thinking sad.

You also mention about these women having the right to voice their concerns, they already did that prior to the Priesthood Session and were told it would not be possible. So what did they do, rather than listen and be guided by the Priesthood, they protested and bought notoriety to their cause. Why is that not considered wrong or inappropriate?? Just curious.

Gillette, WY

To Mom25 from Minot, ND! Thank you for saying exactly how I feel also!

reno, NV

I have tried several times to post references to women holding the priesthood in the early days of the church, but the moderators won't allow my comment to come through. Apparently they feel it is better to ignore historical facts.

Nevertheless, women were given the authority to give blessings of healing using the laying on of hands in the 1800's, there are many examples of this, yet mainstream mormons seem unaware of this fact.

That is why it is not so far fetched that women now want to be included. Why not? It happened in the past.

1.96 Standard Deviations

Brahmabull & DocHolliday-

Please stop spreading false information about the church conferring the priesthood upon women in the 1800s. Women were given permission from the Prophet Joseph to lay hands on people in the prayer of faith -- likely related to the church being small at the time and many men called away to serve missions. This continued for a time and stopped. Women did not receive the priesthood or perform priesthood ordinances or perform priesthood blessings. The laying on of hands is not the priesthood itself and does not mean the women were given the priesthood. The women gave a prayer of faith on someone's behalf while laying their hands on a person. End of story.

Dan Maloy
Enid, OK

So, ladies, now you've seen behind the impregnable 'Priesthood Curtain', now that you've seen our most closely guarded 'secrets', 'secrets' like "love God, be kind to your neighbors", and, yes, most amazingly of all, "love and serve your wives and children", was the Priesthood session everything you hoped it would be?

OK, I'm being teasingly sarcastic, but what is discussed at a General Conference Priesthood meeting was no 'secret' at all and is nothing worth "demanding" admittance to as a woman. Get real, you wanted "equality" when "equality" has existed all along.

I agree with some other posters here: what may have started out as a desire to be treated as 'equal' (again, when it already exists) will result in some women AND some men choosing to lose their testimony (Yes, losing, or maintaining a testimony is indeed a "choice") because they were not admitted to the meeting.

However, as the Church leaders said, it is simply a matter of logistics: seats for women means there's FEWER seats for Priesthood holders....Priesthood holders who desperately need to feel the Holy Spirit by attending the meeting.

What's next?, men in Relief Society meetings?

reno, NV

1.96 Standard Deviations

Wrong. you are the one that is incorrect. you are spreading false information. You make excuses for them laying on the hands and giving blessings. You have also made other excuses that don't hold water regarding other topics, so it isn't surprising. So you think they used the layin on of hands, but didn't hold the priesthood? That makes sense. The only blessings I know of that use laying on of hands are priesthood blessings.

Joseph Smith specifically addressed the propriety of women giving blessings:If God gave his sanction by healing there could be no more sin in any female laying hands [27] on the sick than in wetting the face with water. There were women ordained to heal the sick and it was their privilege to do so. If the sisters should have faith to heal the sick; he said, let all hold their tongues.(grand palmer, women and authority)

reno, NV


in Cache Valley, Apostle Ezra T. Benson had called on women who had been ordained and held the power to rebuke diseases to do so and urged all the women to gain the same power by exercis[ing] faith.

This was not in the early days of the church, as you claim, and plenty of men were present to give blessings (against what you claim). So why would they have women pronounce non-priesthood blessings by the laying on of hands? What good can a blessing do if it isn't by the priesthood? If it does work, then there is no use for the priesthood because anybody can do it by the laying on of hands.

the picture you paint doesn't add up, and it doesn't make sense.


1.96 Standard Deviations

I have to comment here. You are the one that is spreading false information. You have done it before on other posts. The evidence is out there - women were encouraged to administer to the sick. Now they aren't. why is that? Did god change his mind? If women are allowed to give a blessing to heal the sick, but without the priesthood power, then what is the point of the priesthood? If anybody can give a blessing, and they don't need the priesthood to heal, then why would anybody ever use the priesthood to give a blessing. Your excuses are confusing, and it doesn't make sense.

1.96 Standard Deviations

Silverprospector & DocHolliday-

Both of you have missed the point and keep avoiding the key to everything. To have priesthood, it needs to be conferred upon you. It was never conferred upon women by the Prophet or by other church leaders who held Priesthood Keys.

In short, a presiding authority (like the Prophet) holds priesthood keys which allows him to direct and preside over priesthood work (which includes conferring Priesthood on someone). Women were given permission to lay their hands on people in the prayer of faith (a prayer can include a request to rebuke illness). You have been terming this a "blessing," but it shouldn't be confused with having the priesthood or giving a priesthood blessing.

Priesthood blessings start with a declaration, "By the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood." The women never stated this when laying their hands on someone in the prayer of faith to call down God's blessings. Therefore, their prayers of faith by the laying on of hands were NOT priesthood blessings.

Silverprospector - People can be healed with no priesthood involved. This is related to faith and a spiritual gift for some. Go read Moroni 10 if you do not believe me.

1.96 Standard Deviations


One last note. Priesthood authority is not just about giving blessings. Priesthood authority is needed to administer ordinances such as performing baptism, giving the gift of the Holy Ghost, giving the sacrament, and so on. Another way to know women did not receive priesthood authority is because they did not performed priesthood ordinances (baptism, sacrament, etc). You should not get caught up about their giving prayers in faith by the laying on of hands. I repeat, Priesthood itself is not the laying on of hands.

Salt Lake City, UT

As far as I'm concerned, these sisters are welcome to the priesthood if they want it. I've got some hometeaching they can help me with.


Anyone else wonder why the sister who was to lead the "300 protesters" in singing "The Spirit of God Like a Fire in Burning" did not know the hymn and needed a Hymnbook? This is not an obscure hymn. A news photographer separately noted that most of the protesters were the same people often seen at LGBT rallies.

I am thinking this "movement" is not much of one at all. It is just another opportunity for the haters to make a scene.

"You can leave the LDS Church but you can't leave the LDS Church alone".....

Spider Rico
Greeley, CO

@RedWings - you can see that same pattern in the comments here.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments