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