Women, Men, and Priesthood

[Rain]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

How do you reconcile your call for "symmetry" with 1 Corinthians 12?

It seems that in the Lord's plan for us, "asymmetry" is a feature, not a bug.

Also, how would you reconcile your proposal for "co-presidents" with D&C 132:7 ("{T}here is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred...")?

Also, would you propose that a man would be appointed as co-president with the ward Relief Society President?  A male co-president in the YW presidency?

Thanks,

-Smac

Just to be clear here. I'm not saying we need symmetry (and I'm not saying we don't). It is not something I have prayed about though I do feel what we have now is unbalanced. Now I'm getting lots of things in my head about balance as I write this, but moving on...

The bold is so easy though to work with: 

Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

I don't think this just has to be about sex:

D&C 29:31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal— 32 First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work.

And all the other scriptures talking about how our temporal laws are spiritual.

So it is probably not going to work to have unmarried co-presidents, but I see no reason we couldn't have married ones.

 

[juliann]

We actually have a large group of people, including women unfortunately, that think the legitimacy of the church depends on the exclusion of women.  Meadowchik, I have to leave but perhaps it would be helpful if we made a very long list of what women can't do because they aren't the approved sex. 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

I appreciate your intent here. But we are not.

You'll understand that I won't take your comment as representing the views of all women in the Church.

Quote

How can you continue with this?

With reasoning, study, experience, and so on.

Quote

Look at an organizational chart for cryin' out loud!

Looked at it.  Many times.  Again, see 1 Corinthians 12.

Unless you are calling for the ordination of women to the priesthood, the basic structure of the organizational chart won't change.  It can't.

Quote

My question is, why is it so important to deny what is black and white?

I don't think the issues under discussion are "black and white."  I do not draw a one-to-one correlation between gender-based nose-counting and being "included" in the Church.

Similarly, I do not draw direct correlations based on age, race, nationality, socioeconomic status, education, and so on.  

The "symmetry" being proposed here is a pipe dream.  It's facially impractical.  If we slice and dice the membership of the Church and require "representation" based on gender, then why not age?  Race?  Nationality?  Any of a seemingly unending set of me-too demographic criteria?

Quote

What do those who deny, deny, deny, gain from the denial?

The truth?  A realistic and reasoned and informed perspective?

Quote

What is the loss in admitting that women cannot hold most positions where decisions are made?

I admit that.  What I deny is that women are not "fully include{d}" in the Church.  Again, see 1 Corinthians 12.

Quote

That they are limited to "influence" or are consulted with before a decision is made by the men in charge?

So are the vast majority of the members of the Church.  And yet I maintain that all members are "fully include{d}" in the Church.

Meanwhile, I have first-hand experience of my wife's "influence" on me.  It has been very profound.

Quote

I think that is perhaps the more revelant topic. What is at stake for the deniers? 

Resisting the effort to sow dissension in the Church?

Working against attempts to pit the women in the Church against the men, as if service in the Church is a zero sum game?

Applying the scriptural provisions before us?  1 Corinthians 12, for example?

Rejecting inaccurate or false accusations and characterizations (such as labeling me a "denier")?

I can think of quite a few more, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 15, 2019 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  I think the structure of the Church is the product of revelation, both past and ongoing.

Again, you are calling for "symmetry" without ordination to the priesthood.  It seems that the only reason the "asymmetry" you describe exists is because of ordination to the priesthood.

I think the members of the Church are already "fully include{d}."  Again, see 1 Corinthians 12.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, according to an application of any objectivity, we're not fully included, clearly.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, according to an application of any objectivity, we're not fully included, clearly.

Funny how subjective "clearly" can be applied.  I think women are "fully included."  And unless you are prepared to accuse me of being profoundly stupid and/or dishonest and/or ignorant, that means we have a substantive disagreement about something you are characterizing as "objective" and "clear."

And yet again: 1 Corinthians 12.  And 2 Nephi 26:33.  And Moroni 8:17.

Why is nobody paying attention to these?  Why is nobody addressing them?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 15, 2019 by smac97

[Nofear]

From the op, the request/challenge/invitation was to present some reasonings that would sate some of those struggling with some of these issues.

While I find much of the discussion insightful and valuable, I'm not seeing a lot of persuasion. Not necessarily that minds need be changed but that those that are troubled/bothered/whatever might understand or concede that some see rationality in the status quo.

I'm not sure that bar has been met yet. Nonetheless, I appreciate the interlocuters and this comment is by no means meant to dissuade continued discussion.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Rain said:

So it is probably not going to work to have unmarried co-presidents, but I see no reason we couldn't have married ones.

The logistical problems inherent in Meadowchik's proposal are legion.  Requiring male members of the Church to fraternize and work in private with women to whom they are not married?  For years on end?  How is this a good idea?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, juliann said:

We actually have a large group of people, including women unfortunately, that think the legitimacy of the church depends on the exclusion of women. 

Wrongthink.  Clearly.  🤨

Surely reasonable minds can disagree about such things, and do so based on reasoning, scriptures, good faith, etc.?

Quote

Meadowchik, I have to leave but perhaps it would be helpful if we made a very long list of what women can't do because they aren't the approved sex. 

Such an exercise would likely not help further the efforts outlined in Ephesians 4:

Quote

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
...
16 {Jesus Christ being} from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Fomenting grievances and disputations in the Church because women do not hold the priesthood is not helpful.

And yet again: 1 Corinthians 12.  And 2 Nephi 26:33.  And Moroni 8:17.

Why is nobody paying attention to these?  Why is nobody addressing them?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 15, 2019 by smac97

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The logistical problems inherent in Meadowchik's proposal are legion.  Requiring male members of the Church to fraternize and work in private with women to whom they are not married?  For years on end?  How is this a good idea?

Thanks,

-Smac

Men and women can't be treated like adults, we need to worry that they'll get into trouble?? Trust me, in my sister's old ward there were affairs between a few that didn't start because they worked on something together in the church. 

Also, working in a RS presidency for many years as a secretary for two different presidents, there is a difference. Such as getting a bishop's order signed, the RS president was always frustrated that she couldn't just get it taken care of soon, but had to wait until the bishop got back in town or what not. 

Plus, many neons ago women had their own entity, and no PH leader was over them as a Relief Society, and that was taken away. Why is that? Why are we worse off after the 1960's?

And this past conference seemed to have fewer women speakers, again, why is that???

Edited August 15, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

the New and Everlasting Covenant, where men are to be ready to take more than one wife...

The New and Everlasting Covenant is the Gospel.  A new and everlasting covenant that is part of it is temple marriage, including at times plural marriage.  Baptism is another new and everlasting covenant.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

Quote

The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 66:2). It is new every time it is revealed anew following a period of apostasy. It is everlasting in the sense that it is God’s covenant and has been enjoyed in every gospel dispensation where people have been willing to receive it. The new and everlasting covenant was revealed again to men on earth by Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith. It contains sacred ordinances administered by priesthood authority—such as baptism and temple marriage—that provide for man’s salvation, immortality, and eternal life. When people accept the gospel and promise to keep God’s commandments, God covenants to give them the blessings of His new and everlasting covenant.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Nofear said:

From the op, the request/challenge/invitation was to present some reasonings that would sate some of those struggling with some of these issues.

While I find much of the discussion insightful and valuable, I'm not seeing a lot of persuasion. Not necessarily that minds need be changed but that those that are troubled/bothered/whatever might understand or concede that some see rationality in the status quo.

I'm not sure that bar has been met yet. Nonetheless, I appreciate the interlocuters and this comment is by no means meant to dissuade continued discussion.

I would say the best method to deal with dissatisfaction is prayer. The cries of the saints altered things in 1978. Why not again? I am not saying for sure that female Priesthood ordination will happen (though I suspect it will) and, as with all prayers, we have to be content with a “no”, but only God can lead the apostles to changes of that magnitude.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Men and women can't be treated like adults, we need to worry that they'll get into trouble?? 

I ask you to give this some further consideration.  

Yes, we need to worry about "trouble."

Quote

Trust me, in my sister's ward there are affairs between many that didn't start because they worked on something together in the church. 

But you are only proving my point here.  The Church should not be forcing a male member of the Church to work long hours in private with a female member of the Church to whom he is not married (and vice versa).  That is a recipe for "trouble."

Quote

Also, working in a RS presidency for many years as a secretary for two different presidents, there is a difference. Such as getting a bishop's order signed, the president was always frustrated that she couldn't just get it taken care of soon, and had to wait till the bishop got back in town or what not. 

The same can be said for any member of a ward seeking the bishop's signature.  Gender is inconsequential to that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 15, 2019 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps for the same reason the EQ president is not invited, nor is the Sunday School president, or the YM president, etc

The RS President is IMO the bishops wingman over everyone else.  Just happens to be silent partner.  Bishop can still hold priesthood keys while RS President sits on the stand.  

What might be the benefits of the RS President sitting on the stand? Can you think of one? 

[Rain]

OK, this is getting fun to think about.  I've thought for quite awhile about symmetry where the church is concerned.  I wasn't quite sure about it though.  As I think more about balance it makes more sense then just symmetry.  

When you don't have balance in art, scrapbooking, home design etc things feel off.  It makes people uncomfortable.  It's hard to deal with.  

The easiest way to balance things is symmetry.  In this picture you can see it:

 

However you can have asymmetrical balance as well:

 

 

 

 

With asymmetrical design instead of balancing 2 identical objects in the same place you balance by color, shape, texture etc.  

You can find more about this on these sites: Design 101: Asymmetrical and Symmetrical Balance, Classic Design Theory, and Design Principles: Compositional, Symmetrical And Asymmetrical Balance. Oooo and this is a good one with lots of examples: Understanding the Importance of Balance in Graphic Design

I think there is a reason we are supposed to have male and female.  We need both.  The more I think about this the more I think that we really can't be symmetrical because we are not identical parts to the eternal picture, however we MUST have balance for this all to work.

So maybe we could think of ways that things are getting weighted to one side or the other to see where maybe we could balance things (with God's approval of course). 

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Rain

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, juliann said:

I appreciate your intent here. But we are not. How can you continue with this? Look at an organizational chart for cryin' out loud!

My question is, why is it so important to deny what is black and white? What do those who deny, deny, deny, gain from the denial? What is the loss in admitting that women cannot hold most positions where decisions are made? That they are limited to "influence" or are consulted with before a decision is made by the men in charge?

I think that is perhaps the more revelant topic. What is at stake for the deniers? 

Their comfort. Their complacency. Their fragile conviction that they are clean of all prejudice. 

There are some people who seem unwilling to confront anything that might require introspection or self-reflection as to how they might be part of the problem. Hence you have otherwise smart people who, against all reason, think we are living in a post-racist and post-sexist society and anyone who says otherwise is a whiner stirring up trouble or trying to steal from them or something. It is a reflexive and blinding defense mechanism. You can watch it all the time in real life and especially on the web. The brain shuts down and the situation is denied. Flimsy anecdotal pretexts for dismissing the whole situation are thrown out and, if pressed or the flimsiness is pointed out, they get angry personally and treat the whole thing as an attack on them and start lashing out.

The church leadership recognizes this to some degree. That is probably why they put this up on the church website:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/healing-the-wounds-of-racism?lang=eng

 

I can understand some people (men and women) being okay with the gender disparity in the church due to believing it is the will of God for reasons we do not understand but the denial of the disparity is just such a weird hang up.

[Rain]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The logistical problems inherent in Meadowchik's proposal are legion.  Requiring male members of the Church to fraternize and work in private with women to whom they are not married?  For years on end?  How is this a good idea?

Thanks,

-Smac

Married to each other.  

 

[longview]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

Married to each other.  

 

If the man is healthy but the wife had a stroke?

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, longview said:

If the man is healthy but the wife had a stroke?

How is that much different than if the prophet has a stroke? The cool thing with a co-president is that the healthy spouse would still be there to carry on what they have built together with the Lord.

ETA - I'm not advocating for co-presidents.  I'm still unsure about them.  I just don't think it is a no go thing.  I think there are some really good benefits to it that we are not seeing now.  

Edited August 15, 2019 by Rain

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, longview said:

If the man is healthy but the wife had a stroke?

Then release the couple as he likely should be taking care of his wife more anyway.

This would limit access of single men and women to those positions, but if others were open to them where symmetry is already built in (YW/YM, EQ/RS), they could still have representation.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Calm

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The RS President is IMO the bishops wingman over everyone else.  

Even over his counselors?

In any event, she lacks the keys to preside in Sacrament Meeting.

35 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Just happens to be silent partner.  

Yep.

35 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Bishop can still hold priesthood keys while RS President sits on the stand.  

But then, so can the EQ President, and all the other presidents of the various ward-level organizations.

35 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

What might be the benefits of the RS President sitting on the stand? Can you think of one? 

Not a meaningful one, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  I think the structure of the Church is the product of revelation, both past and ongoing.

Again, you are calling for "symmetry" without ordination to the priesthood.  It seems that the only reason the "asymmetry" you describe exists is because of ordination to the priesthood.

I think the members of the Church are already "fully include{d}."  Again, see 1 Corinthians 12.

Thanks,

-Smac

Revelation still has to go through a mortal filter. And in the church, always through a male filter.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Rain said:

Married to each other.  

So the bishop and his wife act as co-bishops?  Are they co-equal?  Or must they function and attend all meetings together?  

And if the wife is not ordained to the priesthood, how would she preside as a co-bishop?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

. Also, working in a RS presidency for many years as a secretary for two different presidents, there is a difference. Such as getting a bishop's order signed, the RS president was always frustrated that she couldn't just get it taken care of soon, but had to wait until the bishop got back in town or what not. 

I know this is a minor thing but I would point out that now this is all done online and the Relief Society President calls or texts the Bishop and the approval goes right out even if he is out of town.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Funny how subjective "clearly" can be applied.  I think women are "fully included."  And unless you are prepared to accuse me of being profoundly stupid and/or dishonest and/or ignorant, that means we have a substantive disagreement about something you are characterizing as "objective" and "clear."

And yet again: 1 Corinthians 12.  And 2 Nephi 26:33.  And Moroni 8:17.

Why is nobody paying attention to these?  Why is nobody addressing them?

Thanks,

-Smac

The exclusion is not subjective. Women are excluded from leadership and authority roles in the church because they are women. You keep citing 1 Corinthians as if it is an answer. By all means, if you think that is solves the problem of exclusion, explain how it does. 

 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Their comfort. Their complacency. Their fragile conviction that they are clean of all prejudice. 

This is getting ugly.

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There are some people who seem unwilling to confront anything that might require introspection or self-reflection as to how they might be part of the problem. 

Yep.  Ugly.

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Hence you have otherwise smart people who, against all reason, think we are living in a post-racist and post-sexist society and anyone who says otherwise is a whiner stirring up trouble or trying to steal from them or something.

I utterly reject this characterization.

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is a reflexive and blinding defense mechanism.

I reject this too.

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You can watch it all the time in real life and especially on the web. The brain shuts down and the situation is denied. 

Right.  To disagree with you and yours is to be stupid ("the brain shuts down"), irrational ("against all reason") and bigoted.

Yep.  Ugly.

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Flimsy anecdotal pretexts for dismissing the whole situation are thrown out and, if pressed or the flimsiness is pointed out, they get angry personally and treat the whole thing as an attack on them and start lashing out.

Here you are, publicly accusing people like me of being stupid and irrational and bigoted, and then in the next sentence you object to such things being treated "as an attack."

Gaslighting, anyone?

Thanks,

-Smac