289 replies to this topic

[mercyngrace]

...

Edited by mercyngrace, 30 April 2012 - 06:05 PM.

[mfbukowski]

Nofear, on 30 April 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

I have long disagreed with female worship where we try to put women on a pedestal there to be awed by men. I also see the pedestal used as a way justifying gender mores that are cultural and not intrinsic (e.g. you're more spiritual and (unspoken) here, do the laundry) as well as to falsely justify gender roles that are institutional (e.g. women are naturally more spiritual so men need the priesthood).

But, gender bias favoring men exists too. Who has not heard somebody say that Priesthood Session in General Conference is always the best session? Or what generated the need to have significant time spent in the Worldwide Leadership training sessions discussing the need for sisters voices to be heard and respected in the councils of the Church?

I dunno.

Priesthood session is the only one in which it is pretty much presumed that the audience is soley Priesthood holders and therefore 1- members and 2- fairly faithful members (evidenced by the fact that they are willing to give up a Saturday evening, put on a tie and shirt, and get themselves over to a chapel)

Were I ever called on to speak at such a session (fat chance of that happening!) I would make my talk less generic (The Plan of Salvation) and more to the point of what members (specifically men) actually need to hear.

In turn, many such talks from many speakers might lead to the conclusion that the "Priesthood session is better" because the talks are more topical.

That's one theory anyway.   That theory should also apply to the Relief Society sessions as well- and I think it does.  Those talks are also more focused and relevant imo.

[mfbukowski]

LDSToronto, on 30 April 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Church attendance does not indicate spirituality.

H.

No, clearly the most spiritual among us never go to church.   That just proves that the Apostles are not spiritual at all because they always attend church.

[CV75]

mercyngrace, on 30 April 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

Do you believe that women are innately smarter, more charitable, and more spiritual than men?

What authoritative evidence validates your position (statements by GAs, scriptures, etc, not anecdotes)?

Have you heard this sentiment expressed in church by others to the extent that it may indicate a widespread belief?

Another discussion thread got me thinking about this.

I beleive there is an innate spiritual "something" inherent in women that is just as valid as anythign physical, but I'm not quite sure what it is. I have heard the sentiment of concern in the OP, and have thought twice about it, but it is such a subjective thing and expressed in such varying contexts I can't say a homogeneous belief is widespread or important.

My position is validated by my understanding of the Pearl of Great Price.

(Copy/paste from the other thread)

I see the “seed of the body” as the male contribution directly aligned with priesthood; the “fruit of the body” as the female contribution, also aligned with the priesthood but in a different way. The "seed of the body" refers to the offispring with priesthood, and the "fruit" refers to either offspring (with or without priesthood). And then either type of fruit acts as a seed for the next stage of eternal progress.

It could also be that this seed/fruit dynamic plays out in the Creation, where the priesthood set the seeds and made the command but “mother earth” brought forth the abundance as the elements obeyed once the ground was watered. Not to be taken too far, but perhaps the commanding attribute can be construed as "male" and the obeying attitbute as "female." Perhaps this is why some may say that women are more spiritual as far as the dynamics of these two forms of power (at least in this world) are concerned.

Moses 4:21 indicates that the enmity between good and evil is a “priesthood – anti-priesthood” tension, since the enmity is between the warring seeds (priesthoods) and not specifically between the woman and the serpent. The “seed of the woman” is Christ’s priesthood in His person the second estate, and the serpent’s seed is Satan’s false priesthood, since it enjoys no realization in a body / second estate. Maybe this is another basis for people to generalize that “women are more spiritual.” If she (Eve) had the capacity for enmity that priesthood (Adam) does, she would not have partaken of the fruit.

(End Copy/paste)

Taking Adam and Eve as archetypes, this kind of scripture tells me that women are naturally / ingerently / innately more inclined to obey and less inclined to enmity in their spiritual makeup. Some may say this is "more spiritual" in an environment where ungodly command and enmity are prevalent, but this is only true when obedience and affinity are expressed in godly ways. Likewise, the priesthood attribute to command and hold enmity against the adversary is only legitimate when exercsied in godly ways.

[BlueDreams]

wenglund, on 30 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

I think this is an important point to consider, though I would phrase it somewhat differently. I don't know about anyone else, but I have known a lot of women, young and old, throughout my life who have struggled with their sense of self and self-worth. It is really disheartening to see. In such cases, I am not sure it is such a bad thing to share with them areas in which they may be superior.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm aware that my problem is reversed from many women's problems. Many of my companions had major self-worth issues. What I found in working with them and being a help if I could with the Lord's help was that it was often linked in some way to pride as well. I loved Benson's talk on pride and found this point applicable to many of the women I've known closely who've struggled with low self-esteem.

"I think this is an important point to consider, though I would phrase it somewhat differently. I don't know about anyone else, but I have known a lot of women, young and old, throughout my life who have struggled with their sense of self and self-worth. It is really disheartening to see. In such cases, I am not sure it is such a bad thing to share with them areas in which they may be superior."

It was a sin of comparison where they simply did not meet up. They were often comparing themselves to something unobtainable and had learned to see themselves as something less than. Pointing out where a woman may be superior is problematic to me because it continues to look at them in comparison to another (even if that other is ficticious or generalized). Even with my sense of pride it was an ineffective tool to hide where I was weakest. I walked for years feeling better than my circumstances, greater than a majority who hadn't suffered like I had, and irreparably scarred as well as terribly inadequate at times. What I found most needed was not to look at one's good traits, but to learn to lose oneself and seek the Lord's opinion. The more one lets go of their own image for what the Lord sees the happier they are with who they are. They can accept their weaknesses and feel grateful for their strengths. They understand themselves as God sees them: fallen, but precious and worthwhile. It opens the door for greater trust in oneself, others around you, and the Lord.

Pointing out how good and amazing women (in general) are isn't often all that helpful because many women don't feel they're all that amazing. In other words they remain exactly how they've always seen themselves: comparably weak, ugly, incapable, etc compared to others unnamed.



With luv,
BD

Edited by BlueDreams, 01 May 2012 - 09:11 AM.

[wenglund]

BlueDreams, on 01 May 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

I'm aware that my problem is reversed from many women's problems. Many of my companions had major self-worth issues. What I found in working with them and being a help if I could with the Lord's help was that it was often linked in some way to pride as well. I loved Benson's talk on pride and found this point applicable to many of the women I've known closely who've struggled with low self-esteem.

"I think this is an important point to consider, though I would phrase it somewhat differently. I don't know about anyone else, but I have known a lot of women, young and old, throughout my life who have struggled with their sense of self and self-worth. It is really disheartening to see. In such cases, I am not sure it is such a bad thing to share with them areas in which they may be superior."

It was a sin of comparison where they simply did not meet up. They were often comparing themselves to something unobtainable and had learned to see themselves as something less than. Pointing out where a woman may be superior is problematic to me because it continues to look at them in comparison to another (even if that other is ficticious or generalized). Even with my sense of pride it was an ineffective tool to hide where I was weakest. I walked for years feeling better than my circumstances, greater than a majority who hadn't suffered like I had, and irreparably scarred as well as terribly inadequate at times. What I found most needed was not to look at one's good traits, but to learn to lose oneself and seek the Lord's opinion. The more one lets go of their own image for what the Lord sees the happier they are with who they are. They can accept their weaknesses and feel grateful for their strengths. They understand themselves as God sees them: fallen, but precious and worthwhile. It opens the door for greater trust in oneself, others around you, and the Lord.

Pointing out how good and amazing women (in general) are isn't often all that helpful because many women don't feel they're all that amazing. In other words they remain exactly how they've always seen themselves: comparably weak, ugly, incapable, etc compared to others unnamed. With luv,BD

Good point. Pride can be quite debilitating as also may be its twin sister, Envy.

It is just that some times you have to work with what you've got. If certain women are deep into the comparison thing, and that is what may be driving their low sense of self, it may help to some degree to meet them where they are at and given them a comparison where they come out on top.

The problem, however, as you astutely intimated, isn't so much that women compare themselves with others per se (not all comparing is unhealthy, there are some comparisons that are quite healthy, and provide useful feedback in terms of normalcy as well as possibilities), but rather it is the way they compare and the things they compare.

The tendency I have noticed is to over-inflate the positives in others and under-estimate the positives in themselves, while under-estimating the negatives in others and over-inflating the positives in themselves.

They also tend to over-inflate the importance of superficial things in others (like beauty, wealth, station, etc.), while under-estimating the importance of in-depth things in themselves (such as spirituality, charity, kindness, etc.).

This makes for a dangerous cocktail.

However, by mentioning the plausible superiority of women in terms of intelligence, spirituality, charity, and kindness, it may help certain woman look inward in a more intelligent, spiritual, and charitable way, and chance reorienting their mind to things that really matter in terms of self worth.

I am not saying this will always work, or necessarily work in the best of ways. I am saying that it may not be a bad thing, but perhaps even worth a try. I am saying that let's think of it in a positive way and recognize the loving concern and desire to help that may likely be behind such declarations in Church by men about women, and avoid the potentially prideful or envious trap of in-balanced and unhealthy comparisons and criticisms.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nofear]

CV75, on 01 May 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Taking Adam and Eve as archetypes, this kind of scripture tells me that women are naturally / inherently / innately more inclined to obey and less inclined to enmity in their spiritual makeup...

Relief Society presidents throughout the Church may have something to say about this.

[Senator]

Nofear, on 01 May 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

Relief Society presidents throughout the Church may have something to say about this.

Yeah, while I give CV75 an A+ for creativity, I don't feel that it lands very agreeably.

[wenglund]

Nofear, on 01 May 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

Relief Society presidents throughout the Church may have something to say about this.

Perhaps...that is until they compare notes with the Elders Quorum presidents.

Keep in mind that CV76 was speaking in terms of greater inclination rather than absolutes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 01 May 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[divinenature]

Mark Beesley, on 30 April 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

I wonder how many temple recommend holding women in the Church have an issue with not being able to be ordained to the Priesthood and serve as a Bishop or Stake President, I mean, really, those are such lucrative jobs.  

Is that why 12 year old boys want to be ordained to the priesthood? Because of money? Is that why any man in the church wants the priesthood or a position in the church?

And even if only a dozen women want to be ordained to the priesthood so they can participate in ordinances with their children they should be able to. Just because some women don't want something doesn't mean that it should be denied to all women.

I imagine you might be surprised how many women would enjoy blessing their baby or confirming their child or even just standing as a witness to a baptism or sealing. But we've been taught not to want that and spend lots of time in Relief Society convincing ourselves we don't want it so you might be hard-pressed to find many women who would admit it out loud.

[CV75]

wenglund, on 01 May 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Keep in mind that CV76 was speaking in terms of greater inclination rather than absolutes.

Thank you, yes -- whatever we do in the second estate is up for grabs!

Plus there is a lot to be learned from those more inclined to godly obedience and affinity, just as there is from those more inclined to godly command and warring.

[CV75]

divinenature, on 01 May 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

I imagine you might be surprised how many women would enjoy blessing their baby or confirming their child or even just standing as a witness to a baptism or sealing.

I would say the full enjoyment of the fruits of God's blessings through the priesthood far outweigh any sacred privilege of administering them, for men and women alike.

[divinenature]

CV75, on 01 May 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

I would say the full enjoyment of the fruits of God's blessings through the priesthood far outweigh any sacred privilege of administering them, for men and women alike.

Privileges are privileges and they are being denied an entire body of people based on their anatomy. Discrimination has a way of putting a damper on full enjoyment.

[CV75]

Having had a chance to read the letter, I find the sentiments expressed very much on target for the occassion.

[Analytics]

wenglund, on 30 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

So? Hopefully you aren't going to make the mistake of assuming this somehow makes men better than women.



This isn't progressive thinking. It is a throw-back to inanity of the 70's where there was a push to eliminate the lines of healthy gender diversity, which merely served to elevate the worst in both sexes. It is time to retire the headbands and tie-die shirts and unisex buttons and join the 21st century where women can be real women and men can be real men, thus heightening the attraction of each to the other--which, in case you didn't get the memo, is ultimately why there are two sexes,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Could you define "healthy gender diversity?"  In the context of this conversation, you are claiming that "healthy gender diversity" precludes women from doing the tasks associated with being a bishop, stake president, or high counselor such as leading a ward, presiding in meetings, assigning callings, giving temple recommend interviews, participating in church courts, being a leader over an entire unit (as opposed to a leader over the woman’s or children’s auxiliary), etc.

What other jobs should women not do in the name of "healthy gender diversity"? It sounds like you are saying something to the effect that "healthy gender diversity" means men should be bishops, managers, doctors, and pilots, while women should be primary teachers, secretaries, nurses, and flight attendants.

[CV75]

divinenature, on 01 May 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Privileges are privileges and they are being denied an entire body of people based on their anatomy. Discrimination has a way of putting a damper on full enjoyment.

To each their own if salt, vinegar and pepper given internally and plunging in the river when paroxysms begin is more enjoyable than the cure!

[calmoriah]

Yep, men are being discriminated against because they can't be pregnant or bond in the unique way that breastfeeding can achieve.  I feel very sorry for them and intend to write my church leaders to do something about it as soon as possible.  

I, for one at least, am very grateful that my husband has some ways of uniquely relating to our children just as I do.  I may not be the one baptizing them, but they were born of me before they are born of water and spirit with him acting as voice.

I wouldn't want to take that away from him in any way, not even in being one of the circle in a blessing (I gave my own version to my children when I was alone, I don't need more than having the Lord as my witness).

As far as being a witness, I was as much of a witness of my children's baptism as those who stood by the side of the font.  I don't need my name on a paper or something else to make me feel different about it.

I can understand the situation might be different for those who do not have active priesthood holders as husbands where neither gets to bless the child in these ordinances.

----

I also appreciate the desire for priesthood because someone believes, like Abraham, with it comes greater opportunity for knowledge and righteousness.  I have no problem with the idea of women having the priesthood, I just hope there are still unique ways of expressing love and commitment available to men when that happens.

Edited by calmoriah, 01 May 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[divinenature]

Nofear, on 30 April 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

I have long disagreed with female worship where we try to put women on a pedestal there to be awed by men. I also see the pedestal used as a way justifying gender mores that are cultural and not intrinsic (e.g. you're more spiritual and (unspoken) here, do the laundry) as well as to falsely justify gender roles that are institutional (e.g. women are naturally more spiritual so men need the priesthood).

But, gender bias favoring men exists too. Who has not heard somebody say that Priesthood Session in General Conference is always the best session? Or what generated the need to have significant time spent in the Worldwide Leadership training sessions discussing the need for sisters voices to be heard and respected in the councils of the Church?

I like your comments Nofear.

----------

I believe that the pedestal effect is a direct response to the sexism in the church. It reflects the Cult of Domesticity which had it's second rise in the 1950s. Women were told (are told) they are supposed to be and act a certain way to be a true woman. A true woman in the church is feminine, submissive to the priesthood, charitable, spiritual, happy and loving. Ideally she stays at home and raises her family in the gospel. She doesn't want the priesthood.

When it becomes clear that this is undesirable, unworkable or unjust to some or many women there is the need to make the woman's sphere even more desirable.
So we hear things like we do in church. Women are more spiritual/charitable/loving/etc. Women are God's crowning achievement. Men are the head, but women are the neck that moves the head. Men wouldn't get anything done without the women. Men are lost without women. And on and on.

It's the consultation prize to being discriminated against based on your femaleness. It's nothing but lip service. Women will never be seen as equal as long as they are put on a pedestal or made into a doormat. Neither of those positions achieve equality.

[divinenature]

calmoriah, on 01 May 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Yep, men are being discriminated against because they can't be pregnant or bond in the unique way that breastfeeding can achieve.  I feel very sorry for them and intend to write my church leaders to do something about it as soon as possible.  

There are many women who cannot get pregnant or lactate, too. Nature can keep many of us from doing many things. There is nothing in female genetics that keeps her from placing her hands on the heads of others and blessing them or fulfilling a leadership role.

Quote

I, for one at least, am very grateful that my husband has some ways of uniquely relating to our children just as I do.  I may not be the one baptizing them, but they were born of me before they are born of water and spirit with him acting as voice.

I wouldn't want to take that away from him in any way, not even in being one of the circle in a blessing (I gave my own version to my children when I was alone, I don't need more than having the Lord as my witness).

As far as being a witness, I was as much of a witness of my children's baptism as those who stood by the side of the font.  I don't need my name on a paper or something else to make me feel different about it.

I can understand the situation might be different for those who do not have active priesthood holders as husbands where neither gets to bless the child in these ordinances.

----

I also appreciate the desire for priesthood because someone believes, like Abraham, with it comes greater opportunity for knowledge and righteousness.  I have no problem with the idea of women having the priesthood, I just hope there are still unique ways of expressing love and commitment available to men when that happens.

I think it is wonderful that you are happy with how things are artificially delegated in the church. However, even a woman who has a "righteous priesthood holder" for a husband has the right to desire to be involved with the ordinances of the gospel. I do think it would be especially wonderful for single mothers, though.

I also think it would be fabulous to see girls passing the sacrament alongside the boys. There is nothing that a 12 year old girl has in place of the Aaronic Priesthood. There is no reason for them not to other than tradition.

[calmoriah]

Quote

I think it is wonderful that you are happy with how things are artificially delegated in the church.

CFR

Again I have already stated I have no problem with women who want to pursue having the priesthood for personal growth opportunities and to serve others.  That is the right intent with which to seek after the things of God.  It is my intent.  

There are many ordinances that women could participate in without removing the opportunity of men to engage in some unique experiences.  What I don't want is in the effort to supply women with the fullest of opportunities, for men to be sacrificed or deprived of what is meaningful to them.  It needs to be approached in a balanced way for all concerned.  It would be a shame, imo, for baptism of children to become a competition between parents on who gets to do it.

As in the quote in my sig below, there is much more we have to be revealed to us before we are ready to receive exaltation.  I have a feeling part of that will be priesthood ordinances that are solely the dominion of women for both men and women and their children.

Edited by calmoriah, 01 May 2012 - 01:18 PM.