427 replies to this topic

[happy]

An article came out recently in the SLC tribune concerning the other topic I brought up, women and the priesthood.

http://www.sltrib.co...eneral.html.csp

The concern I have is this new habit of bullying the Church into one's views using emotional rhetoric to shame the Church. For example, there is a lot of talk about how the Church should accept women and the Priesthood because of so much "pain" women in the Church feel (even though a separate pole showed only 10% of LDS women interviewed wanted the priesthood...) Some of this wording sounds extremely close to the wording used to try to bully the Church into accepting gays.

Some cite blacks and the Priesthood, which is flawed considering it was a policy ban, and I do not believe there was any written scripture, revelation, or doctrine that required such a ban.

Now that people want doctrinal changes, there seems to be this new strategy of shaming, and I am concerned if the Church gives in, two things become apparent.

1. The Church is not, in fact, true as social pressure changes core doctrine and our Prophet would have lost control.
2. The Church would then be easy pray to additional changes through social pressures and shaming.

As mentioned by others, the RLDS/CC did not do well by changing to social whims. They seem to be devolving into obscurity.

[Libs]

Sounds like good changes, to me.  Where is the "bullying", in this?  Asking for reasonable change is not bullying, that I can see.

Edited by Libs, 17 August 2012 - 09:26 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

Demanding unreasonable change is bullying.

[sethpayne]

happy, on 17 August 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

An article came out recently in the SLC tribune concerning the other topic I brought up, women and the priesthood.

http://www.sltrib.co...eneral.html.csp

The concern I have is this new habit of bullying the Church into one's views using emotional rhetoric to shame the Church. For example, there is a lot of talk about how the Church should accept women and the Priesthood because of so much "pain" women in the Church feel (even though a separate pole showed only 10% of LDS women interviewed wanted the priesthood...) Some of this wording sounds extremely close to the wording used to try to bully the Church into accepting gays.

Some cite blacks and the Priesthood, which is flawed considering it was a policy ban, and I do not believe there was any written scripture, revelation, or doctrine that required such a ban.

Now that people want doctrinal changes, there seems to be this new strategy of shaming, and I am concerned if the Church gives in, two things become apparent.

1. The Church is not, in fact, true as social pressure changes core doctrine and our Prophet would have lost control.
2. The Church would then be easy pray to additional changes through social pressures and shaming.

As mentioned by others, the RLDS/CC did not do well by changing to social whims. They seem to be devolving into obscurity.

I understand the SSM issues to be a doctrinal one but is there clear doctrinal support for women & the priesthood?  The scriptures do have several examples of women in prophetic roles and, I would assume, they would have had to have priesthood authority to receive and transmit revelation to Israel.  Plus, women exercise priesthood authority and perform priesthood ordinances in the temple every day.

I've always thought of the women/priesthood matter an issue of policy, not doctrine.  I mean, there was a time in the Church where women blessed their Children/animals etc...

Anyway, I'm not expert on the history of this practice so perhaps there is solid doctrinal support that I'm not aware of.

Seth

Of course, this hasn't been a huge area of study for me.

[happy]

Libs, on 17 August 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Sounds like good changes, to me.  Where is the "bullying", in this?  Asking for reasonable change is not bullying, that I can see.

If you don't believe in the Church, then yes, they seem like good changes for a man-made organization managed by social pressures.

[Libs]

thesometimesaint, on 17 August 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Libs:

Demanding unreasonable change is bullying.

Did you read the article, SS?  Can those changes really be considered unreasonable?  I sure don't think so.

[Libs]

happy, on 17 August 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

If you don't believe in the Church, then yes, they seem like good changes for a man-made organization managed by social pressures.

Really?  I think I would have considered those changes very reasonable, even as an active member.  They're not asking for women to receive the Priesthood.  Just that they be given a little more active and visible role, within church leadership.

[happy]

Libs, on 17 August 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Did you read the article, SS?  Can those changes really be considered unreasonable?  I sure don't think so.

"Those" is a generalization. The article included changing the Priesthood to include women. The doctrinal reason against it was it is a representation of Christ, who was male, and was the bride-groom of the Church.

[thesometimesaint]

Sethpayne:

I'm fine with women given more Priesthood roles at Gods' command. Until then I think we should stick with what we got.

[happy]

Libs, on 17 August 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

Really?  I think I would have considered those changes very reasonable, even as an active member.  They're not asking for women to receive the Priesthood.  Just that they be given a little more active and visible role, within church leadership.

If that is the focus, then yes, I agree. More women speakers in conference, more women praying. But that was not all the article said. It also included Ward Clerk positions, etc. which require priesthood authority.

[Libs]

happy, on 17 August 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

"Those" is a generalization. The article included changing the Priesthood to include women. The doctrinal reason against it was it is a representation of Christ, who was male, and was the bride-groom of the Church.

Well, I didn't see anything in the article that suggested changing the Priesthood.  Perhaps, I missed it.  Will read again (or maybe you could point it out).  The suggestion was to make RS President more on the level of a Stake President, to allow women to pray at GC, and have more speaking roles, in GC.  And, also, to have the RS President present, when young girls are interviewed by the Bishop (which, seems like something that would protect the Bishop, as well as the young girl).

Edited by Libs, 17 August 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

Yes they are unreasonable, and yes I did read the article.

[bluebell]

The only thing that i'm not sure i'm comfortable with in that article is that the sister speaking seems to be speaking on behalf of all LDS women when she talks about the 'tremendous pain' we all supposedly feel.

I personally don't feel that pain, and have never talked with a sister who does (though i know they are out there) so it seems dramatic and misleading for her to say that, like she (whom i have nothing at all against) is the LDS woman's spokeswoman.

I think she likely speaks for the minority.  Though there is nothing wrong with that, i wish she had been more clear in her wording so that that was evident.

[happy]

Libs, on 17 August 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

And, also, to have the RS President present, when young girls are interviewed by the Bishop (which, seems like something that would protect the Bishop, as well as the young girl).

This one is the most unreasonable (the article wanted the RS President to conduct the interview, which violates the idea that the Bishop is the Judge of Israel)

[Garden Girl]

thesometimesaint, on 17 August 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

Sethpayne:

I'm fine with women given more Priesthood roles at Gods' command. Until then I think we should stick with what we got.

I agree... but it has to be at God's command.  I personally don't think it will or should happen.

GG

[Mark Beesley]

The article was really a compilation of lots of ideas from lots of women coming from lots of different directions.  I didn't see it as a bullying tactic to force the Church into submission because the article didn't really push for any particular resolution to what a few women see as a problem in the Church.  If anything, the article seemed to focus and advocate more for a middle ground approach to greater female involvement in the Church, i.e. not necessarily advocating priesthood ordination, but giving women more access to the decision-making process in the Church.  On its face, that would appear reasonable, and to the extent the Lord needs more input from females in order to administer HIS Church, I am confident that will and does occur.

The primary problem I saw with the article is that it would seem to paint a broader picture of discontent among LDS women than actually exists.  Surely, there are some who are discontent, and they likely associate with others who share a similar viewpoint, thus magnifying the nature of the problem in their own eyes.  But in reality it would seem that very few women in the Church are discontent with their role.  And to the extent that women are not as active in in the Church hierarchy as 19th Century women were, I would attribute that to a number of factors, among them a  greater female presence in the workforce diminishing their time for Church activity, and a more complete Church organization than existed 150 years ago.

[Tacenda]

I liked the very last paragraph, and the bolded part I agree with, not so much into the idea of women holding the priesthood, but with having more power in order to lessen the load that the priesthood brethren have to hold.



Jana Riess, a Mormon writer in Cincinnati, reluctantly agrees.
"For the last 90 years, everything has been channeled through the priesthood — all decisionmaking, rituals, everything that goes on in Mormon life," Riess says. "Women are completely shut out from having input into decisionmaking that affects their lives and their families."
Riess is reconciled to the idea that she doesn’t need the priesthood to enjoy the rituals, but is deeply troubled that "women are so systematically underutilized."
She sees two paths forward: Women either get the priesthood or the priesthood is expanded to accommodate greater involvement and visibility for women.
That large middle group seems to be pushing for the latter.

[happy]

Garden Girl, on 17 August 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

I agree... but it has to be at God's command.  I personally don't think it will or should happen.

GG

But that is the problem. People seem to want to shame or bully the Church into human ideas and decisions. Wouldn't that violate the entire storyline presented in the temple?

[happy]

What is strange is that women want to be represented by women more, yet if Christ, a male Himself, wants His Priesthood to represent Him through men, that is bad.

[sethpayne]

Garden Girl, on 17 August 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

I agree... but it has to be at God's command.  I personally don't think it will or should happen.

GG

My question is did God ever commend that women NOT exercise priesthood authority.  They seemed to in a limited sense in the late 19th century (and still do in the temple today).

Is this just one of those practices that we've picked up along the way or is there revelation/doctrine to support the current practice?  Women used to not be able to pray in Sacrament meeting.  That changed.  It was a practice, not doctrine.

Again, I don't know but from my limited understanding it seems that women not exercising priesthood authority is more supported by tradition than revelation.

Sincerely -- if there are sources I'm not considering or aware of please let me know as this is an interesting subject.