New Church Life Jan/Feb 2014 | Page 18

new church life: jan uary / february 201 4 After a long, historical introduction, he became specific in his section, “The Nature of the Priesthood.” OK. Here we go! We have definitions to clarify the question. “Matters having to do with heaven are called ecclesiastical; those having to do with the world are called civil.” We must have officials to observe, reward and punish all that is done according to order or contrary to order. If this does not happen, the human race must perish. These officials are charged with keeping associations of people in order. And among the officials, there must be order. “Officials over these matters in human society which have to do with ecclesiastical matters are called priests, and their office is the priesthood.” There we have it. Have what? Nowhere in the passage, nor included in the definitions, does it state that the “officials” must be men. Nowhere. Mr. Rogers goes on to draw conclusions as if the gender of the officials was clearly stated. It was not. The duties of the priest, “to teach and lead people through truths to goodness of life,” is certainly possible by both genders. And “to teach in accordance with the doctrines of their church from the Word and lead them to live according to that doctrine” is the goal of every Sunday School teacher I know, both male and female. Here is where the definitions double back on themselves. If the “doctrine of the church” has been codified by the organized church to mean that only men may serve as priests, then anything that goes against that doctrine goes against “the doctrine of the church.” But that doctrine was based on an interpretation of what the gender of the “official” who governs the affairs of the Church must be. This is a self-fulfilling argument. It only stands on its own assumption, not on a clearly stated distinction as to the gender of an “official.” I’m afraid Mr. Rogers fell prey to his own description of doctrinal arguments that are “characterized by lengthy and tortuous reasoning.” His own argument does not “begin with the Doctrines and then lead to a conclusion.” I’m afraid he began with the thesis that only men ought to be admitted into the clergy, and “the Doctrines were searched for support, no matter how tenuous.” Thank you, Mr. Rogers. I have now formed an opinion on this matter. I do not know if women will make more effective ministers than men, or if the Church will grow more or less with them in the ranks of the clergy. It will probably depend on each individual called to the priesthood in our Church, as it does now with our men. I do know, however, that the Writings do not state that the officials who govern the associations of people having to do with ecclesiastical matters must be men. 14