Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

If Jesus Christ was so radical, why not buck the system and....


Recommended Posts

...treat women as equals the way I believe He actually sees me? 

Why not have women as apostles? 

Would it have been “too” radical , or maybe it’s just that women are indeed not actually designed to be leaders? 

Or another reason? 

I have to admit, when in Sunday school today a picture of the general authorities in the Rome temple was passed around, zero female presence in the picture,  I thought to myself, it’s really no wonder women rarely contribute in Sunday school (for one).  I for one feel I’m really along for the ride.... unless there’s a personal service to fill or a children’s class to be taught. 

It never bothered me that there is a seeming imbalance, til today. 

Edited by MustardSeed
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

...treat women as equals the way I believe He actually sees me? 

Why not have women as apostles? 

Would it have been “too” radical , or maybe it’s just that women are indeed not actually designed to be leaders? 

Or another reason? 

I have to admit, when in Sunday school today a picture of the general authorities in the Rome temple was passed around, zero female presence in the picture,  I thought to myself, it’s really no wonder women rarely contribute in Sunday school (for one).  I for one feel I’m really along for the ride.... unless there’s a personal service to fill or a children’s class to be taught. 

It never bothered me that there is a seeming imbalance, til today. 

It will take a brave and inspired LDS prophet to make a strong move in this direction. If the priesthood ban is any indication, then we’ll have to wait for the right policital climate among the apostles and inspiration to strike.

I strongly believe that male priesthood/ecclesiastical leadership is the result of centuries of a male dominated world in so many aspects. History and even the scriptures reflect that, at least from my perspective. My guess is that God doesn’t care what gender organizational leaders and authority holding figures are. Why would he?

Edit: It struck me as funny that even our conception of God is nearly entirely male, nicely illustrated by my last question.

Edited by Benjamin Seeker
Link to comment

I think the church leaders have gone as far as they can go in giving the sisters more responsibility and recognition. Any imbalance that still exists, perceived or real,  is something that only God can change. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, JAHS said:

I think the church leaders have gone as far as they can go in giving the sisters more responsibility and recognition. Any imbalance that still exists, perceived or real,  is something that only God can change. 

You don't think they could have made a big deal about having RS and possibly YW leaders with them at Rome?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

You don't think they could have made a big deal about having RS and possibly YW leaders with them at Rome?

Somebody has got to stay home and run the church while they are gone. I think some of the female leaders were out on assignments in other countries.

Link to comment

I think it would be great idea that would not require an official revelation I suspect to give the wives of apostles who speak a great deal a calling, lifetime in fact that continues even after the death of her husband.  I don't particularly care to listen to someone who is seen only as worthwhile to listen to because she is someone's wife.  If it is appropriate to see her as a church leader while her husband is alive, it seems to me what makes her a valued speaker---her own personal experience with the Lord as well as being a witness of the Lord working in leaders' lives as well as in the lives of those she meets traveling with her husband---is still there all her life in the same way it is for apostles.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Somebody has got to stay home and run the church while they are gone. I think some of the female leaders were out on assignments in other countries.

I am not saying all would have to be there, but one at least would have been nice.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

I am not saying all would have to be there, but one at least would have been nice.

Perhaps. I don't know. I guess it's considered a priesthood responsibility. I don't recall any female church leaders going to any other temple dedications. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, JAHS said:

Perhaps. I don't know. I guess it's considered a priesthood responsibility. I don't recall any female church leaders going to any other temple dedications. 

Yes...that is the crux of the issue.  There is a difference between what went on in the dedication and the publicizing, picture taking opportunity.  All the apostles didn't need to be there as evidenced by this being the first time it happened outside the US.  They are therefore not all there because it was their Priesthood responsibility.

If it was to show the significance of the global quality of church membership, than it makes sense to me to include female leaders too given half that globe (or more) is female.

Quote

President Nelson said the Church leaders’ time in Rome will be “a blessing for the people all over the world, because these Apostles now will go all over the world and recap the experiences that they felt here as this holy house was dedicated.”

Edit:  DeseretNews article, forgot the link...

Could not female officers be doing the same?

Just an FYI, this to me is simply a failing of organizational leadership (they are leaders of women as well as men) and not of being prophets.  I do not doubt their call because they didn't think of or decided not to include female officers, but apparently just brought wives or at least didn't use/promote an "iconic" picture of both male and female leadership in Rome.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

In the wards I’ve been in, women contribute in Sunday school  as much, if not more, than the men.

I don't ever remember a ward since my college years (76 and on) where women didn't participate as much or more than men.  

Now looked on as authorities...men still generally are viewed more that way, whether because of church callings or being professors (husband is a professor so we have always lived in wards since the 80s that have had lots of profs).

Women have been called as much to teach gospel doctrine classes in them as well.  In fact, in Canada iirc, it was probably about 2 or 3 women teachers per man called for adult gospel doctrine.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

In the wards I’ve been in, women contribute in Sunday school  as much, if not more, than the men.

I wish that were the case in my ward.  It’s heavily imbalanced here. We have a plethora of insecure intellectuals in my ward, who over participate and set the tone.  The women just sit back and let them have at it. 

I used to teach gospel doctrine 20 years ago.  In the last several years I only recall one other female GD teacher.  It’s too bad. 

Edited by MustardSeed
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I wish that were the case in my ward.  It’s heavily imbalanced here. We have a plethora of insecure intellectuals in my ward, who over participate and set the tone.  The women just sit back and let them have at it. 

I used to teach gospel doctrine 20 years ago.  In the last several years I only recall one other female GD teacher.  It’s too bad. 

I would say in my ward, women participate as much as the men and we currently have two female teachers. I had a sister in a college town and she got very frustrated with the “professors” who took over Sunday School and due to their education, set themselves above others.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I would say in my ward, women participate as much as the men and we currently have two female teachers. I had a sister in a college town and she got very frustrated with the “professors” who took over Sunday School and due to their education, set themselves above others.

With my wards, I think it is more people appealing to professors for info, but that may be my proprofessor bias coming through....when BYU Religious Education profs are in a ward, might as well take advantage of that, right?(they have all been very nice people, that helps).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yes...that is the crux of the issue.  There is a difference between what went on in the dedication and the publicizing, picture taking opportunity.  All the apostles didn't need to be there as evidenced by this being the first time it happened outside the US.  They are therefore not all there because it was their Priesthood responsibility.

If it was to show the significance of the global quality of church membership, than it makes sense to me to include female leaders too given half that globe (or more) is female.

Could not female officers be doing the same?

Just an FYI, this to me is simply a failing of organizational leadership (they are leaders of women as well as men) and not of being prophets.  I do not doubt their call because they didn't think of or decided not to include female officers, but apparently just brought wives and didn't use/promote an "iconic" picture of both male and female leadership in Rome.

Especially when some or most of their wives are left home continually to raise their families alone while the apostles travel to take care of their many duties. ETA: Just re-read your post and misread it. You meant the women leaders at the end of this post. But IMO they should have had a couples photo. But maybe they did and I missed it. I don't think we give their wives enough credit. But you're so right about the RS/Primary/YW's presidencies that were able, should have been invited with their husbands. Even Sheri Dew got invited.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

...treat women as equals the way I believe He actually sees me? 

Why not have women as apostles? 

Would it have been “too” radical , or maybe it’s just that women are indeed not actually designed to be leaders? 

Or another reason? 

I have to admit, when in Sunday school today a picture of the general authorities in the Rome temple was passed around, zero female presence in the picture,  I thought to myself, it’s really no wonder women rarely contribute in Sunday school (for one).  I for one feel I’m really along for the ride.... unless there’s a personal service to fill or a children’s class to be taught. 

It never bothered me that there is a seeming imbalance, til today. 

Hi, MustardSeed.

I don't know that the premise of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that Jesus is 'radical'.  I mean, I can see how that can be taken from the scriptures, and I tend to go there myself; but I just don't see it as a traditional LDS description of the Savior upon which to base further premises.

Secondly, I really, really challenge the reduction of priesthood offices (i.e. Apostleship) versus women's place in the universe (and church) as a question of leadership.  For example, if a person were to take that issue out of the picture, then it becomes a much more interesting question about the nature of men's and women's priesthood(s).  Of course, again without referring to leadership per se, and understanding Apostleship as Witnesses of Christ, it's still a good question about why women can't do that.  I think perhaps the brotherhood aspect of it is important, perhaps.  Anyway, for me, the leadership question clouds the salvific nature of priesthood(s) I think.

The women in our ward are major contributors, and our GD teacher is a woman.

 

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

It will take a brave and inspired LDS prophet to make a strong move in this direction. If the priesthood ban is any indication, then we’ll have to wait for the right policital climate among the apostles and inspiration to strike.

I strongly believe that male priesthood/ecclesiastical leadership is the result of centuries of a male dominated world in so many aspects. History and even the scriptures reflect that, at least from my perspective. My guess is that God doesn’t care what gender organizational leaders and authority holding figures are. Why would he?

Edit: It struck me as funny that even our conception of God is nearly entirely male, nicely illustrated by my last question.

Although I think that the Church has done more than, say, other Christianity and, say, Islam; other than Catholicism and Mother Mary, Queen of Heaven; and perhaps Hinduism with its Shakti, to bring the Mother God back into the picture.

Edited by Maidservant
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Especially when some or most of their wives are left home continually to raise their families alone while the apostles travel to take care of their many duties.

Really? Do any of them have young children at home?

94, 86, 89, 85, 77, 77, 66, 78, 73, 68, 67, 63, 65, 64, 60.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Really? Do any of them have young children at home?

94, 86, 89, 85, 77, 77, 66, 78, 73, 68, 67, 63, 65, 64, 60.

I assume the wives don't travel all the time, but my memory says I see them mostly with the apostles when I am searching out news, so I would be surprised if they mostly home.  Iirc, Sharon Eubank mentioned through a story that the wives are out there teaching when they accompanying their husbands, though it may not have been in reference to apostles.  If so they are doing more than just speaking at the pulpit and it makes sense to me if so, they should be set apart for that stewardship.  Knowing our church, I would be shocked if the wives aren't involved in training and things happening with the women of an area when the husbands are with the men simply because leaders just look for work that needs to be done in my experience.

I would love to see wives who accept the task of speaking along side their husbands frequently, such as Sis. Nelson, being officially set apart as a missionary (or something along those lines).  They are often acting, imo, like a senior missionary couple.  It makes more sense to me than having a woman speak from the standpoint of every other member could be in her position as she is not set apart and is only there because she is married to someone who needs to be there for his calling.  Recognize it as a calling for her because that is what she is functioning as and senior missionary seems to fit as far as I could tell.  

"Itinerant minister" perhaps?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

....................  I thought to myself, it’s really no wonder women rarely contribute in Sunday school (for one).  ........................

Very strange.  In my ward, women frequently comment during Sunday School.  I have never been in a ward in which that is not the case, and have had many female Sunday School teachers.  Women also frequently teach early morning seminary.

Indeed, in the New Testament and early Christian church, women were very important and even held leadership positions.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I strongly believe that male priesthood/ecclesiastical leadership is the result of centuries of a male dominated world in so many aspects. History and even the scriptures reflect that, at least from my perspective. My guess is that God doesn’t care what gender organizational leaders and authority holding figures are. Why would he?

Perhaps it has something to do with the Father/Son/Elder Brother relationship in the Godhead. If there is a bone to pick, it would be with this - the fundamentally male figure relationship in the equations of salvation.

Quote

“And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn; And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn” (D&C 93:21–22)

Quote

Scriptures embodying the ordinary signification--literally that of Parent --are too numerous and specific to require citation. The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title “Elohim,” is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of the spirits of the human race. Elohim is the Father in every sense in which Jesus Christ is so designated, and distinctively He is the Father of spirits....

That Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, Elohim, in the work of creation is set forth in the book Jesus the Christ, chapter 4 [by James E. Talmage]. Jesus Christ, being the Creator, is consistently called the Father of heaven and earth in the sense explained above; and since His creations are of eternal quality He is very properly called the Eternal Father of heaven and earth. 

“The Father and the Son” a doctrinal exposition by The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916

Quote

Alma 13:1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.
2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained--being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

If you have some revealed knowledge to support the notion that God doesn’t care about gender-based authority, could you please share it?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

...................... Recognize it as a calling for her because that is what she is functioning as and senior missionary seems to fit as far as I could tell.  

Wasn't Pres Oaks just asking recently what else than priesthood power could sister missionaries be exercising?  He meant to be understood that those sisters were indeed exercising priesthood power.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

........................

If you have some revealed knowledge to support the notion that God doesn’t care about gender-based authority, could you please share it?

Aside from all that, how do you feel about women being university presidents, CEOs, or other high executives and leaders in secular institutions? Or in religious universities, colleges, and LDS institutes?

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Wasn't Pres Oaks just asking recently what else than priesthood power could sister missionaries be exercising?  He meant to be understood that those sisters were indeed exercising priesthood power.

Which means if Sis Nelson, for example, is serving in much the same way, it makes sense to view her work as a calling and set her apart as a sister missionary or some appropriately defined calling.  She should not be viewed, imo, as some random woman who just happened to be in the right time and place with the right connections.  The only real valued imo "it's who you know" position in the Church is those who know God.  Being someone's wife says nothing about her or her work in the Church, just her role in her family.  So define what she is doing so we understand the purpose of it better.

And if she is speaking about women's roles in Church leadership, etc, then hopefully she is attending the meetings so she sees it firsthand and not just what she is told by her husband.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...