Can The Book Of Mormon & The Pearl Of Great Price Help To Restore Priesthood To Women?

[Calm]

We both agree that women-bishoping would be much more "letter," while men-bishoping is much more "life."

Considering how it has been men who have created the "letter" it is strange to claim that it is women who are more prone to viewing it that way.

For example, who do you think created the 'hedge' that was formed around the core of the God-given commandment in the OT?

[CV75]

Frankly I have always seen the tree of life as just that- the history of life- the great family tree of all living things- as the unity of male and female

I think that is a common use of the symbol, and quite valid; I think you understand that the point I'm making is that the Book or Momon doesn't use it that way (at least as a "female-only lifeforce" or entity) in Lehi's dream, but as a repeesentation of God's work on/in this world and how He conducts it through the Christ, a priesthood-bearing male; anyone/thig else is an appendage (as branches to the Vine), male or female.

[mfbukowski]

As a thought exercise, imagine how the Church or life in the Church would be different if women served as bishops. I think this would be very problematic, and my wife and I have had many discussions about this (she absolutely agrees with me, and the basis for our discussion is what she has observed in my 4+ years and counting of being a bishop).

One inside joke we have, as we have discussed women hypothetically being bishops, is "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." We both agree that women-bishoping would be much more "letter," while men-bishoping is much more "life."

There are probably many who take the gravest exception to the above, but I'd be interested in people's thoughts.

Well after my 5 plus years and my recent release (definitely a mixed blessing) as a bishop I agree.

The tough part of being released was, like hitting a wall at a hundred miles per hour, the sudden stop. We went from the phone constantly ringing off the hook to total silence over night. Those who's problems yesterday were shared freely and about whom I cared deeply - those problems and their solution suddenly became (rightly) "none of my business". It's pretty strange.

But I suppose we are old fuddie duddies.

Now I will really get everyone mad by showing my sexist tendencies- to which my wife and 4 daughters agree but of course I have oppressed them mercilessly and brainwashed them into this opinion- and they know they must agree with me in all things at the peril of their lives- I think women tend to be much more into "following the rules" than men. I have been known to park illegally for a few minutes- my wife and daughters never do. If it is midnight and I hit a red light and there are no cars around for miles- I am going to go straight through that redlight after a check for oncoming traffic. If my daughters are in the car, they would be totally scandalized!

As far as I am concerned, rules are made to be bent or even broken if a greater good is served

So yes, the bottom line is that I think you are right!

[BlueDreams]

One inside joke we have, as we have discussed women hypothetically being bishops, is "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." We both agree that women-bishoping would be much more "letter," while men-bishoping is much more "life."

There are probably many who take the gravest exception to the above, but I'd be interested in people's thoughts.

If a woman was called, I would assume she would have what was needed to be a good bishop. Gender has no correllation to what makes good leadership.

As for sticking to the rules...depends your person. If you emphasized following the spirit and that the spirit was the overarching principle to applying guidance and counsel, I doubt you'd really have a problem with what's on the books. Besides following rules/authoritative figures isn't a gender specific trait.

With luv,

BD

Edited March 2, 2012 by BlueDreams

[aspire]

Again, just to make sure it isn't lost in the noise, Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism by Jonathan A. Stapley & Kristine Wright is an excellent resource on the question.

Excellent paper, thank you for suggesting it. By the way, love you theory.

[rongo]

Well after my 5 plus years and my recent release (definitely a mixed blessing) as a bishop I agree.

The tough part of being released was, like hitting a wall at a hundred miles per hour, the sudden stop. We went from the phone constantly ringing off the hook to total silence over night. Those who's problems yesterday were shared freely and about whom I cared deeply - those problems and their solution suddenly became (rightly) "none of my business". It's pretty strange.

But I suppose we are old fuddie duddies.

Now I will really get everyone mad by showing my sexist tendencies- to which my wife and 4 daughters agree but of course I have oppressed them mercilessly and brainwashed them into this opinion- and they know they must agree with me in all things at the peril of their lives- I think women tend to be much more into "following the rules" than men. I have been known to park illegally for a few minutes- my wife and daughters never do. If it is midnight and I hit a red light and there are no cars around for miles- I am going to go straight through that redlight after a check for oncoming traffic. If my daughters are in the car, they would be totally scandalized!

As far as I am concerned, rules are made to be bent or even broken if a greater good is served

So yes, the bottom line is that I think you are right!

Since my wife feels even more strongly about women not having priesthood leadership roles than I do, I asked her to give me specifics as we drove to the temple on Saturday (a triple sealing ----- a sister was sealed to her visiting parents and to her husband, and their son was sealed to them. What a treat!). She’s the one who applied the phrase “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth light” with respect to how the Church would look and be run with women vs. men in priesthood leadership roles. Here are her thoughts:

1. As difficult as confession to anyone, male or female, is, period, it would be much more difficult for women to confess to another woman in the ward as part of the repentance process.

[rongo --- I am amazed at the courage and guts it takes to repent through the priesthood. This emphatic statement from my wife shocked me. She said that women have a complex psychological competitiveness with other women (and undergo constant insecure comparison between themselves and other women), which would add another layer of difficulty on a completely different level].

2. Women’s tendency to engage in and carry out countless “petty squabbles” (her words) would create problems (not with a woman bishop herself, necessarily, but with other women and their “petty squabbles”). The usual amount of armchair quarterbacking/ark-steadying/second guessing that ward members engage in about their bishop/stake president would be much worse under a woman ----- from the other women.

[rongo ---- my observation as a bishop and from my mission is that women tend to carry hurts, real and imagined, much longer than men, and that hurts have a much deeper effect on women than on men. “Hell hath no fury greater” than a woman hurt or offended by someone, and bishops and other priesthood leaders are constantly criticized, disagreed with, etc. and have to sometimes step in and have very difficult conversations with people when there are problems. I think that hurt feelings and offense in both directions under a woman bishop would be problematic].

3. Obviously, time away from home would be a major problem with a woman bishop, unless it were limited to “empty nesters” only. While it’s less than ideal for dad to be gone so much, too, it is not even close to the same thing.

[rongo ---- I would add that there are specific promises to men in Journal of Discourses that their children’s spiritual and emotional development would not suffer due to long absences ----- years, in many cases. A special endowment of the Holy Ghost would enable mother to be “both father and mother.” The special role of mothers as nurturers (cf. the Proclamation) do not allow the reverse to be true. It is much, much harder on children when mother is gone a lot than when dad is. Of course, it is catastrophic when dad is completely absent or distant, too ---- that goes without saying, but the Lord blesses families who are required to share dad with Church service if they keep their end of the bargain. For specific reasons having to do with our “eternal identity and purpose,” I don’t think the gender roles can simply be reversed in Church service].

4. Women are much less likely to make snap, “game time decisions” that deviate from established routine (this is what mfbukowski essentially agreed with).

[rongo ---- My wife brought up something I had forgotten: we were able to get Dan Peterson to come to our stake (outside of Utah) and do a stake/community fireside last year. He and his wife attended church services at our ward the next day, and I asked him after sacrament meeting to address a combined priesthood/Relief Society during the third hour. Most members were fascinated and enthralled, but there were some grumblings from women that we should have stuck to the lesson schedule. One sister, a very active, strong mother of four young children, actually was in tears and had to pray about whether or not she “could sustain this” ---- I kid you not (I wasn’t aware of this at the time, but one of my counselors saw her very distraught and calmed her down). Most of the women were delighted by Dan’s “open mike” Q&A covering Book of Mormon items, Islam, experiences, etc., so I’m *not* saying that all women would react this way. I do think, though, (and my wife agrees), that women are much less inclined to consider doing something “outside the routine or structure” when opportunities arise or when there is potential.]

Anyway, these are our thoughts, for what they’re worth. In summary: if women were priesthood leaders, I think the Church would be much more efficiently-run, but not nearly as exciting or as much fun. Without hopefully offending anyone, I think God got it right with how things have always been (as far as we have any scriptural or traditional indication), and how things are is "the best of all possible worlds."

[mfbukowski]

Since my wife feels even more strongly about women not having priesthood leadership roles than I do, I asked her to give me specifics as we drove to the temple on Saturday (a triple sealing ----- a sister was sealed to her visiting parents and to her husband, and their son was sealed to them. What a treat!). She’s the one who applied the phrase “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth light” with respect to how the Church would look and be run with women vs. men in priesthood leadership roles. Here are her thoughts:

1. As difficult as confession to anyone, male or female, is, period, it would be much more difficult for women to confess to another woman in the ward as part of the repentance process.

[rongo --- I am amazed at the courage and guts it takes to repent through the priesthood. This emphatic statement from my wife shocked me. She said that women have a complex psychological competitiveness with other women (and undergo constant insecure comparison between themselves and other women), which would add another layer of difficulty on a completely different level].

2. Women’s tendency to engage in and carry out countless “petty squabbles” (her words) would create problems (not with a woman bishop herself, necessarily, but with other women and their “petty squabbles”). The usual amount of armchair quarterbacking/ark-steadying/second guessing that ward members engage in about their bishop/stake president would be much worse under a woman ----- from the other women.

[rongo ---- my observation as a bishop and from my mission is that women tend to carry hurts, real and imagined, much longer than men, and that hurts have a much deeper effect on women than on men. “Hell hath no fury greater” than a woman hurt or offended by someone, and bishops and other priesthood leaders are constantly criticized, disagreed with, etc. and have to sometimes step in and have very difficult conversations with people when there are problems. I think that hurt feelings and offense in both directions under a woman bishop would be problematic].

3. Obviously, time away from home would be a major problem with a woman bishop, unless it were limited to “empty nesters” only. While it’s less than ideal for dad to be gone so much, too, it is not even close to the same thing.

[rongo ---- I would add that there are specific promises to men in Journal of Discourses that their children’s spiritual and emotional development would not suffer due to long absences ----- years, in many cases. A special endowment of the Holy Ghost would enable mother to be “both father and mother.” The special role of mothers as nurturers (cf. the Proclamation) do not allow the reverse to be true. It is much, much harder on children when mother is gone a lot than when dad is. Of course, it is catastrophic when dad is completely absent or distant, too ---- that goes without saying, but the Lord blesses families who are required to share dad with Church service if they keep their end of the bargain. For specific reasons having to do with our “eternal identity and purpose,” I don’t think the gender roles can simply be reversed in Church service].

4. Women are much less likely to make snap, “game time decisions” that deviate from established routine (this is what mfbukowski essentially agreed with).

[rongo ---- My wife brought up something I had forgotten: we were able to get Dan Peterson to come to our stake (outside of Utah) and do a stake/community fireside last year. He and his wife attended church services at our ward the next day, and I asked him after sacrament meeting to address a combined priesthood/Relief Society during the third hour. Most members were fascinated and enthralled, but there were some grumblings from women that we should have stuck to the lesson schedule. One sister, a very active, strong mother of four young children, actually was in tears and had to pray about whether or not she “could sustain this” ---- I kid you not (I wasn’t aware of this at the time, but one of my counselors saw her very distraught and calmed her down). Most of the women were delighted by Dan’s “open mike” Q&A covering Book of Mormon items, Islam, experiences, etc., so I’m *not* saying that all women would react this way. I do think, though, (and my wife agrees), that women are much less inclined to consider doing something “outside the routine or structure” when opportunities arise or when there is potential.]

Anyway, these are our thoughts, for what they’re worth. In summary: if women were priesthood leaders, I think the Church would be much more efficiently-run, but not nearly as exciting or as much fun. Without hopefully offending anyone, I think God got it right with how things have always been (as far as we have any scriptural or traditional indication), and how things are is "the best of all possible worlds."

Thanks for this great reply- we are definitely on the same page on every point!

[mfbukowski]

Rongo

Thanks for this great reply- we are definitely on the same page on every point!

I think my wife and yours would hit it off well. She also confirms the tacit competition making it more difficult to confess to another woman.

But I know of other women who have confessed serious sins to me as a Bishop after two or three other women already knew about what had happened- and specifically told me they were afraid to confess because I was a man. I can understand that- I would rather confess to a man- a person of the same sex really. I would think that a man would understand me better.

Speaking to my wife about it, she added that if she was hearing a confession from someone she would tend to be overly compassionate and would not be able to put in any elements of "tough love" into her comments to the person who was already hurting. She said she also might want to always take the woman's side against her "scoundrel husband" in a potential divorce, without giving the husband (perhaps) a fair hearing.

She has also said that she would just want to have to listen to all that "stuff"- the pain that is often poured out in a bishop's office. I think no one would if they knew, but that is for another discussion I suppose.

I can also sympathize with getting serious flak from deviating from lesson plans for special occasions, as well as problems sometimes with women who were uncomfortable accepting callings because they "had never done that before", but I have never had that problem with men. My reply was always that I had never been a bishop before I was called either- but that didn't help much!

Another aspect to this is I don't know why anyone would aspire to be a bishop male OR female, but I suppose people have their reasons

Edited March 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Storm Rider]

Another aspect to this is I don't know why anyone would aspire to be a bishop male OR female, but I suppose people have their reasons

I have always believes that everyone that aspired to be called as a bishop should be. Each of them should be called immediately. Too often men think they are not worthy unless they have a high calling in the Church. I say give it to them until they understand how utterly silly that position or thought process is. That is one calling that I do not wish on my worst enemy. I guess I could tell you how I really feel about it, but I will refrain by guarding my tongue.

[mfbukowski]

I have always believes that everyone that aspired to be called as a bishop should be. Each of them should be called immediately. Too often men think they are not worthy unless they have a high calling in the Church. I say give it to them until they understand how utterly silly that position or thought process is. That is one calling that I do not wish on my worst enemy. I guess I could tell you how I really feel about it, but I will refrain by guarding my tongue.

I think you are right. There is good news though- I am convinced that one cannot come out of that calling without an absolute knowledge that the mantle of bishop is "real". My mouth would open up and words would just flow that I knew for sure were not mine. I knew who was to have callings even when they seemed to make no sense. Now that's gone.

Of course I know that some have left the church and would disagree after being a bishop- but such it is with all things.

But to be honest, I must admit I could well have done without some of the psychological burdens of dealing with making serious judgement calls on how best to handle people with serious sin, and the burden of speaking for the Lord on those issues. Who should you hold a disciplinary council on and who should you not- what is "adequate repentance" and how do you handle infidelity when the spouse does not know and telling the spouse might destroy the family- all of those are typical of the "fun" one gets to have as a bishop. And making these decisions on behalf of the Lord- knowing you will be held accountable.

Great times! The good news is the sheer number of hours you get to put into serving! But if called again, I would do it in a minute!

[rongo]

Rongo I think my wife and yours would hit it off well. She also confirms the tacit competition making it more difficult to confess to another woman. But I know of other women who have confessed serious sins to me as a Bishop after two or three other women already knew about what had happened- and specifically told me they were afraid to confess because I was a man. I can understand that- I would rather confess to a man- a person of the same sex really. I would think that a man would understand me better.

Without a doubt. It must certainly be very difficult for a woman to confess embarassing and uncomfortable things to a man, and yet this happens all the time. I think considering the dynamic for both men and women in confessing to a woman is interesting.

I, for one, have appreciated it when trusted confidants have encouraged someone to go through the formal repentance process. I think it's appropriate for a person to tell whomever they want whatever they want (it's their secrets, after all), and it has been helpful when a trusted friend has given the support necessary to help the person take a difficult "jump off the cliff" and start the process. In some cases, I don't think the person would ever have taken the first steps without the encouragement and prodding of friends.

Speaking to my wife about it, she added that if she was hearing a confession from someone she would tend to be overly compassionate and would not be able to put in any elements of "tough love" into her comments to the person who was already hurting.

I agree, and conversely, I think that women in many cases would be much harsher than men (i.e., "off with his head," hanging judge, etc.). My wife and I have discussed this tendency when she has known background through common knowledge and found the apparent outcomes "interesting." This is also part of "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth light."

She said she also might want to always take the woman's side against her "scoundrel husband" in a potential divorce, without giving the husband (perhaps) a fair hearing.

Oh, the tales to tell on this score . . . It doesn't even have to rise to the level of divorce ------ women definitely tend to instinctively side with women in couple disputes, even when the woman is clearly more "at fault" than the man (from my biased male perspective).

It would be interesting to see how a woman would handle having a couple in her office with the wife "going off" on the husband, and being inappropriately "over-the-top" in doing so. I once had a couple (they've moved out of the ward) who were going through marital trouble. The husband had made tremendous progress and had made huge changes, such as spending much more time with his family and purposely doing things with each child (he had been very distant and detached, leaving the wife to shoulder almost all of the parenting burden). He also brought the four kids to church alone for almost a year while his wife struggled with testimony issues, and through it all was very patient ----- never an ill word about his wife or his lot. She made an appointment and they walked in, and he sat in one of the two chairs in front of the desk, while she sat all the way in the corner of the room by the window. She said that she wanted a divorce, and I said that I would feel better about talking if they were sitting together. She said, "Yeah, did you see that! He wouldn't even sit by me just now!" I have noticed that women tend to stand up for each other, even when they know or sense that the offending woman is "in the wrong" (this is increasingly a problem in the Facebook echo chamber, where issues percolate and fester).

[BlueDreams]

Rongo and mfbukowski,

Though I’m skeptical of the reasoning in the OP I think the reasons you both mentioned for why things are and should be problematic. They both operate on cultural stereotypes to back up spiritual matters. This, to me, is problematic for a number of reasons:

1. Human culture can change any answer based on thus is as malleable as the culture itself.
   
2. Stereotypes are by no means universal and based on our perspective. A good example is the one about women being more comfortable to confess things to a man over a bishop. Some might, some won’t. It’s not set. Personally I’d far more desire to confess to a woman than a man. It may cause even more ability to help and recognize female problems. I’m less likely to put another woman on a pedestal where they’re less likely to have sexual sins or strong temptations they’re facing. (using from personal conversations where a woman felt she couldn’t discuss more serious issues because the bishop assumed her worse temptations really couldn’t be that bad)
   
3. Many of the detrimental points mentioned for women are equally as problematic for a man. Ex. Just as a woman might be more likely to take the side of a woman, men would be more likely to take a side of a man. Men aren’t suddenly more objective than women. They simply have a different frame of reference that is just as biased and problematic as the other. Objectivity isn’t one of the prerequisites to the calling of the bishop. It’s simply not possible.
   
4. Many of the responses are based on the “natural woman…”ergo they’re the presupposed nature of women at their worse or at the base. In a sense many of the reasons read to me, women can’t because women’s nature would be a detriment to the call. But human nature in general is opposed to the way God would desire for us. The idea of callings is not only to serve, but to develop the attributes of Christ, which is universal and not attributed solely to men or women. Callings are spiritually based, not gender-based in my opinion. I don’t notice a major difference between a woman gospel doctrine teacher and a male one. I don’t notice huge differences between Pres Monson and Pres Beck based on gender. Different perspectives and life experiences, yes. Different calling and thus keys/responsibilities (for Monson and Beck), yes. But the differences are specific to their calls, not their gender.
   

I don’t see that there is something absolutely essential to a spiritual calling by gender….especially one that is based on our cultural interpretation of what it means to be a man or a woman. There are different eternal roles to gender, but we’re simply not as distinctive as I feel the responses you guy mentinoed place us. With this, it is our cultural references that have helped to define these roles as far more distinctive than they actually are.

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

I agree with Blue Dreams here.

I don't agree that women prefer confessing to a man than a woman. While some women may, I think other women have an extreme aversion to it. And what of men, could there not be just as many men out there that are more comfortable talking such things over with a woman than a man? I've known of men who say they feel more open with women than they do with other men. Young men might feel more at home talking with someone who is like their mother, certainly young women would feel much more comfortable from what I've heard.

As far as the rest, I have seen many instances where a man's flexibility with the rules has actually led to dangerous and inappropriate activities so being flexible isn't always a good thing. One would assume that the Spirit would just as strongly direct a female bishop as a male bishop so these types of decisions of when to hold to the rod and when to make accommodations would surely be as valid for a female bishop as a male.

And the same thing applies to any other decision making process. Either you believe that a bishop is influenced in his (or her if it ever happens) decisions by the Spirit or you don't. And if you don't, then in my view then a man in a bishop's calling isn't going to be any better than a woman in that calling, it is the Spirit that makes the holder a good and effective bishop.

Edited March 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[birdgirl]

Since my wife feels even more strongly about women not having priesthood leadership roles than I do, I asked her to give me specifics as we drove to the temple on Saturday (a triple sealing ----- a sister was sealed to her visiting parents and to her husband, and their son was sealed to them. What a treat!). She’s the one who applied the phrase “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth light” with respect to how the Church would look and be run with women vs. men in priesthood leadership roles. Here are her thoughts:

1. As difficult as confession to anyone, male or female, is, period, it would be much more difficult for women to confess to another woman in the ward as part of the repentance process.

[rongo --- I am amazed at the courage and guts it takes to repent through the priesthood. This emphatic statement from my wife shocked me. She said that women have a complex psychological competitiveness with other women (and undergo constant insecure comparison between themselves and other women), which would add another layer of difficulty on a completely different level].

2. Women’s tendency to engage in and carry out countless “petty squabbles” (her words) would create problems (not with a woman bishop herself, necessarily, but with other women and their “petty squabbles”). The usual amount of armchair quarterbacking/ark-steadying/second guessing that ward members engage in about their bishop/stake president would be much worse under a woman ----- from the other women.

[rongo ---- my observation as a bishop and from my mission is that women tend to carry hurts, real and imagined, much longer than men, and that hurts have a much deeper effect on women than on men. “Hell hath no fury greater” than a woman hurt or offended by someone, and bishops and other priesthood leaders are constantly criticized, disagreed with, etc. and have to sometimes step in and have very difficult conversations with people when there are problems. I think that hurt feelings and offense in both directions under a woman bishop would be problematic].

3. Obviously, time away from home would be a major problem with a woman bishop, unless it were limited to “empty nesters” only. While it’s less than ideal for dad to be gone so much, too, it is not even close to the same thing.

[rongo ---- I would add that there are specific promises to men in Journal of Discourses that their children’s spiritual and emotional development would not suffer due to long absences ----- years, in many cases. A special endowment of the Holy Ghost would enable mother to be “both father and mother.” The special role of mothers as nurturers (cf. the Proclamation) do not allow the reverse to be true. It is much, much harder on children when mother is gone a lot than when dad is. Of course, it is catastrophic when dad is completely absent or distant, too ---- that goes without saying, but the Lord blesses families who are required to share dad with Church service if they keep their end of the bargain. For specific reasons having to do with our “eternal identity and purpose,” I don’t think the gender roles can simply be reversed in Church service].

4. Women are much less likely to make snap, “game time decisions” that deviate from established routine (this is what mfbukowski essentially agreed with).

[rongo ---- My wife brought up something I had forgotten: we were able to get Dan Peterson to come to our stake (outside of Utah) and do a stake/community fireside last year. He and his wife attended church services at our ward the next day, and I asked him after sacrament meeting to address a combined priesthood/Relief Society during the third hour. Most members were fascinated and enthralled, but there were some grumblings from women that we should have stuck to the lesson schedule. One sister, a very active, strong mother of four young children, actually was in tears and had to pray about whether or not she “could sustain this” ---- I kid you not (I wasn’t aware of this at the time, but one of my counselors saw her very distraught and calmed her down). Most of the women were delighted by Dan’s “open mike” Q&A covering Book of Mormon items, Islam, experiences, etc., so I’m *not* saying that all women would react this way. I do think, though, (and my wife agrees), that women are much less inclined to consider doing something “outside the routine or structure” when opportunities arise or when there is potential.]

Anyway, these are our thoughts, for what they’re worth. In summary: if women were priesthood leaders, I think the Church would be much more efficiently-run, but not nearly as exciting or as much fun. Without hopefully offending anyone, I think God got it right with how things have always been (as far as we have any scriptural or traditional indication), and how things are is "the best of all possible worlds."

Women don’t have the priesthood because the prophets of the LDS God have said they can’t. Some women in the early days of the LDS (and primitive Christian) church had some form of the priesthood. Now they don’t. I think the PR department’s response would be somewhere along the lines of “we don’t know the reasons for this.” African Americans could have the priesthood and then they couldn’t. Well-meaning leaders (even prophets and apostles) and members of the church erroneously tried to construct reasons for it derived from their own speculation and current cultural theories (and scriptures). We have recently learned from the PR department that they were wrong to do so.

The reasons your wife presents, or variations of them, have been used to deny women education, the right to own land, the right to have their own bank account/credit, voting rights, the right to work outside the home, and the power to make their own reproductive decisions. If your wife were to relate her reasons to a Washington Post reporter, I suspect that the PR department of the one true church might very well repudiate her claims and go so far as to say that they condemn sexism both outside and within the church (or something like that).

Your wife and other women may have a “complex psychological competitiveness” with those of their own gender (unlike men) that render them unfit for positions of leadership in the LDS church (and possibly other organizations) but I assure you I know women who can lead, take confession from and confess to other women, council others in emotionally charged male/female conflicts etc. without insecurity or immature reactions.

Some women can even make “snap, ‘game time decisions’ that deviate from established routine.” If women are really “much less likely” to do this perhaps it is because they have not been raised to value or develop this ability rather than an irreparable estrogen-induced failing. I’ve had some great bishops and some truly horrible ones (Ponzi scheme, creepy, and old-school misogynist). I think the ability to lead depends more on personality, upbringing and education than maleness. Neither my totally awesome husband nor I aspire to be the POTUS but this is due to temperament and interests rather than our differing reproductive systems. Just because some women don’t want to be bishop doesn’t mean that other women shouldn’t or couldn’t be great bishops or that we females who do not desire the position shouldn’t support those who do. Being a leader in the church would not detract in any way from a woman’s ability to nurture or diminish a man’s ability to lead or his value to the organization or family.

I think many women are taught by example to be competitive, passive-aggressive and to engage in “petty squabbles”. If girls were taught from the age of 3 in primary that someday they might be the bishop or stake president - and saw women in those roles on a regular basis - I think they would view themselves differently and be more likely to develop leadership qualities. With regard to the overly-broad generalizations as to gender-based willingness to do things outside normal routine, efficiency, excitement and fun mentioned above, I think they have little to do with the possession or lack of a womb and more to do with personality. And to the extent these characteristics appear to follow gender, I think the ways in which religious and political cultures socialize people depending on gender bears significant responsibility. Men and women are different in some ways, no doubt, but the question is how much is truly inherent and how much is learned behavior based on what is modeled to them.

In regard to time spent outside the home, I think this would actually help create a balance that is lacking for many Mormon families. Fathers who are bishops often work a full work week or more and then see to their church duties for hours on evenings and weekends. If women were bishops, they could still see to their family’s needs for many, many hours each week and then the husband could spend much needed time with his children while she conducted interviews etc. If men can carve out time to be bishops, they could easily carve out the exact same amount of time to nurture their children while someone else does the job. Is this service less valuable to the Lord? Does the value depend on the gender of the provider? Does it diminish the man because his wife got to give birth AND sometimes lead while he can only lead? Really? Furthermore, stay at home moms would be more available to take calls during the day and perform some clerical duties while children are napping or at school thus reducing their time away from home even more than would working men.

The LDS church provides a lot of structure and guidance when it comes to clothing, earrings, tattoos, underwear, what to/not to eat and drink, when to/not to have intimate relations and with whom, when to: pray, have children, go to church, have FHE, go on a mission, etc. I think this creates a tendency to fill in the void when a policy (doctrine?) isn’t explained in great detail. We are seeing the folly of this very propensity in leaders and members alike in regard to extending/denying/extending the priesthood to those formerly referred to as “Negros.” The prudent approach to the subject of women and the priesthood is that this is the current doctrine (policy?) and you will receive further light and knowledge on the subject after death and/or in the undetermined future.

I predict that because I’m a woman some will see my response as “catty” or will use what, to my parents and in-laws, is the F word--FEMINIST (gasp!) usually preceded by the word “angry”. It pains me that I can’t discuss this with my father on equal terms since he views my disagreement as egregious disrespect from a subordinate. He can dispassionately debate the exact same subject with my husband and then slap him on the back and say, “Well, you’re wrong, but you’re a good guy!” and then move on to football or politics.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Thank you, BlueDreams, Calmoriah, and birdgirl - I haven't had enough time to give this thread the attention some of the responses deserve, but you all have expressed many of the things I would have tried to add as well.

Edited March 7, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Traela]

At last April's General Conference, Elder Cook quoted a non-LDS woman as saying, "I don't believe women need any more unpaid jobs." That, pretty much in a nutshell, is my opinion of women holding the Priesthood. There are still too many cultures, and individuals, that would use the excuse of women holding the Priesthood to basically shove all the responsibilities on to them. Then there are the women who would simply take over and shut out the men.

I really don't think it's a horrible thing for men to have specific, unpaid, service opportunities that they alone are responsible for. I have never felt that the men of our Church consider me less competent or worthy of respect simply because I don't have the same responsibilities. (Obviously, there are a few idiots that need to read D&C 121 again, but so far I haven't had to deal with one.)Rather, they fully acknowledge that the Relief Sociey works differently from, but no less effectively than, the Priesthood.

But then, I don't underestimate the value of influence. Cardinal Richelieu was not the king, but he was usually the one setting policy, even if it had the king's seal on it. The women of the Church have a huge amount of influence, and therefore power.

[mfbukowski]

I frankly think that the notion that men and women are identical in every respect in rational and emotional makeup is unscientific and absurd. Every cell in the body contains X and Y chromosomes and their function is not just to turn on and off sexual behavior.

It doesn't matter if it is cultural or physical- you can't separate the two. It is what it is, pragmatically speaking.

And we do not receive callings because we are "good" at something- we usually receive callings because it is precisely what we need to learn.

[Calm]

And we do not receive callings because we are "good" at something- we usually receive callings because it is precisely what we need to learn.

Then there should be no problem with women getting to be called as bishop (if it ever happens) due to being too competitive or not prone to quick decision making, etc. because obviously they will need to learn to be better at those kinds of things.

[BlueDreams]

I frankly think that the notion that men and women are identical in every respect in rational and emotional makeup is unscientific and absurd.Every cell in the body contains X and Y chromosomes and their function is not just to turn on and off sexual behavior.

I never said that they were. What I'm saying is that they're not as different as we often see them in society. And human behavior, in general, can be quite unscientific. What appears "universal" is often only within similar demographics. For example, it might be asserted, through stats, that women often have major body image problems and are prone to eating disorders. What becomes more apparent, if you fiddle with the numbers is that women of a certain ethnic and racial group are prone to eating disorders. Same with math and science scores. Same with a million other things that we've come to accept as "natural" differences in men and women. We're not as distinctive as we often have come to believe.

It doesn't matter if it is cultural or physical- you can't separate the two. It is what it is, pragmatically speaking.

Yeah, you can separate the two. Physical differences are very hard to change. Culture is very malleable. Social norms about the relationship between men and women are almost unrecognizable from what they were century ago.

And we do not receive callings because we are "good" at something- we usually receive callings because it is precisely what we need to learn.

Yep, I agree. That's what I said under #4. And because they are there to help us learn christ-like traits, to me they're even less out of gender norms. Because Christ-like traits are universal. A personal example is in my Patriarchal blessing. By worldly standards there are a number of traits that are traditionally attributed to the male sex in there: leader, bold, my career alongside my family, having a big interest in the world and secular knowledge, etc. There are things that go against what both of you mentioned as why a woman shouldn't be a bishop, like the gossip mill or "petty squabble" lines. There are things that also fit within the traditional view of my gender: mother, gentle, needing help, etc. If I look based on expected gender roles there is something fundamentally wrong with my patriarchal blessing. But there isn't. IMO, there's something fundamentally wrong with how we've attributed gender roles and characteristics to men and women. It's not right. If we are getting closer to Christ, we are becoming one, and the differences between men and women should dissipate. I believe that we have roles to play. Proclamation to the family makes that pretty clear. But what we have in society is a false dichotomy and (IMHO) an abomination against the laws of God when it come to male-female interaction.

For the record: I don't think women should have the priesthood responsibilities that men do. I think it's part of their role. But I don't think the reasoning you guys have mentioned are why that should be and are harmful because of the ways they portray women (and men), and the large acceptance of the natural man as the way it is and always will be. If they're not eternal traits, it's not of God, and it shouldn't be what defines our capabilities as children of God.

With luv,

BD

[rongo]

Women don’t have the priesthood because the prophets of the LDS God have said they can’t. Some women in the early days of the LDS (and primitive Christian) church had some form of the priesthood. Now they don’t.

Wow, a lot to respond to. Thanks, calmoriah, Blue Dreams, and birdgirl!

I'd like a CFR on women in the Primitive Church. And that Eliza R. Snow, et. al. "had some form of priesthood." I'm well aware of women healing and anointing with oil in the early days. I have (family records) a lenghty and detailed account of President Snow, as general Relief Society president, healing many people in Morgan, Utah during a cholera epidemic. And they were miraculously healed, too. But I've never seen her or anyone else claim that this was through the priesthood. The other sources people suggest are what happens in the temple, but I haven't seen any indication that this extends beyond the temple.

I would be fascinated to learn of sources I don't know about . . .

[mfbukowski]

For the record: I don't think women should have the priesthood responsibilities that men do. I think it's part of their role. But I don't think the reasoning you guys have mentioned are why that should be and are harmful because of the ways they portray women (and men), and the large acceptance of the natural man as the way it is and always will be.

Everything else aside, I totally agree with the above part of your post. If my characterization of what (it seemed to me) the differences are between men and women, were offensive in any way, I sincerely apologize. But I think that as long as we have different bodies and different genetic make up, and as you yourself say, different roles, there will be differences in other areas as well. That may not be politically correct- but I think it is true.

If they're not eternal traits, it's not of God, and it shouldn't be what defines our capabilities as children of God.

But if the Priesthood defines different roles, and the priesthood is eternal, it would seem that the difference in roles would also be eternal?

We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

What appears "universal" is often only within similar demographics

I have always loved your siggy! But it seems inconsistent with your present position or at least my understanding of it. "As we are" is partially physical and genetic and part cultural as well, like it or not. We cannot survive without culture and if you have studied "nature vs nurture" you know that the lines between them are extremely blurry

Gender is part of who we ARE, and I think it is "eternal"- that we will always be male and female, even in the resurrection. It is doctrinal that we have a heavenly Mother. Doesn't that make gender an "eternal trait"? Perhaps you are disputing that, I don't know.

And why would we have gender in the first place if we were not to be different and complementary? There are methods of asexual reproduction which work quite well.

Maybe I mischaracterized the differences- but surely there are differences? And even if we accept that there is a difference in "roles" wouldn't that create a true difference at least culturally?

Edited March 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[BlueDreams]

Everything else aside, I totally agree with the above part of your post. If my characterization of what (it seemed to me) the differences are between men and women, were offensive in any way, I sincerely apologize. But I think that as long as we have different bodies and different genetic make up, and as you yourself say, different roles, there will be differences in other areas as well. That may not be politically correct- but I think it is true.

No, you didn't offend me specifically. It's not like I haven't heard similar thoughts. I have. And they've personally been alienating because i simply don't fit them. I knew, at a young age, I never really would. Nor do most of the girl friends I keep around. I don't really want to either. I find most of the things mentioned as weaknesses. I don't mind whether they're PC or not, but whether its true. Personal experience tells me the distinctions are subjective and overblown by social circumstances.

But if the Priesthood defines different roles, and the priesthood is eternal, it would seem that the difference in roles would also be eternal?

The question is, what are these eternal roles? Personally, I'm not comfortable in many of the roles that are attributed intrsically as being a woman. But I strongly see myself as feminine.

I have always loved your siggy! But it seems inconsistent with your present position or at least my understanding of it. "As we are" is partially physical and genetic and part cultural as well, like it or not. We cannot survive without culture and if you have studied "nature vs nurture" you know that the lines between them are extremely blurry

Psych major, I've studied nature v nurture and the folly in the entire deterministic argument that's assumed in there. And my sig still fits my post. The arguments placed aren't seeing women as they are but what he/she has attributed to being a woman. I'm coming from a different perspective and see culture as fluid and changeable. And I'm not suggesting we get rid of culture to nothingness...it's not possible. I'm stating that we rid of worldly pov to a celestial and become more zion-like. I'm a firm believer that what we have is intrisically flawed when it comes to gender roles

Gender is part of who we ARE, and I think it is "eternal"- that we will always be male and female, even in the resurrection. It is doctrinal that we have a heavenly Mother. Doesn't that make gender an "eternal trait"? Perhaps you are disputing that, I don't know.

Nope, not disputing that. What I'm disputing is our current understanding of it. Let's start with Heavenly Mother: I have no idea what She's up to....none whatsoever. I know she exists, that's the gist of it. I have a basic outline of the divine role of motherhood from the proc: nurturing children. But then what does it mean to nurture really? Am I to define it some traditional ideal as staying at home and learn some "homemaking skills" (that often equivilates to craft making skills IMO)....cuz if so, I'm probably going to fail? And to be a woman? There's not even something that explicit in the proc. There's nothing as nearly defnitive as our respective cultures have set up for what makes a woman/mother as there is in a gospel context. What I see stated are a number of those world-based assumptions of what it means to be a woman or a mother or a wife. I don't want to subscribe to it. I know I won't be happy in them. Happiness is found in how God defines me. So I find myself often working to redifine words in context of what I have come to know to be true. I'm seeking out what it means to be a woman. I'm not satisfied with what has previously been written on the drawing board.

I can change who I am. When I do I come to see and experience things differently. There are things about my character that are intrinsic, I'm trying to develop those and slough off the crap the world gives me for the image of God. So yep, the sig still works I'm working to see as God sees, which mean I must become as He is.

Maybe I mischaracterized the differences- but surely there are differences? And even if we accept that there is a difference in "roles" wouldn't that create a true difference at least culturally?

Like I said, I think there's differences, I just think we've gotten a lot of those differences wrong. Personally, many of those things considered "natural" about being a woman, I find stifling to who I am. Which means I'm either doing something wrong or against God or something is wrong with our beliefs about the nature of women. Since I've personally haven't felt closer to my Creator than at anytime in my life and am working to understand how He see's women and myself, I'm inclined to believe the former.

With luv,

BD

Edited March 8, 2012 by BlueDreams

[zeez]

Love the OP. This is the kind of thinking we really need.

[mfbukowski]

No, you didn't offend me specifically. It's not like I haven't heard similar thoughts. I have. And they've personally been alienating because i simply don't fit them. I knew, at a young age, I never really would. Nor do most of the girl friends I keep around. I don't really want to either. I find most of the things mentioned as weaknesses. I don't mind whether they're PC or not, but whether its true. Personal experience tells me the distinctions are subjective and overblown by social circumstances.

The question is, what are these eternal roles? Personally, I'm not comfortable in many of the roles that are attributed intrsically as being a woman. But I strongly see myself as feminine.

Psych major, I've studied nature v nurture and the folly in the entire deterministic argument that's assumed in there. And my sig still fits my post. The arguments placed aren't seeing women as they are but what he/she has attributed to being a woman. I'm coming from a different perspective and see culture as fluid and changeable. And I'm not suggesting we get rid of culture to nothingness...it's not possible. I'm stating that we rid of worldly pov to a celestial and become more zion-like. I'm a firm believer that what we have is intrisically flawed when it comes to gender roles

Nope, not disputing that. What I'm disputing is our current understanding of it. Let's start with Heavenly Mother: I have no idea what She's up to....none whatsoever. I know she exists, that's the gist of it. I have a basic outline of the divine role of motherhood from the proc: nurturing children. But then what does it mean to nurture really? Am I to define it some traditional ideal as staying at home and learn some "homemaking skills" (that often equivilates to craft making skills IMO)....cuz if so, I'm probably going to fail? And to be a woman? There's not even something that explicit in the proc. There's nothing as nearly defnitive as our respective cultures have set up for what makes a woman/mother as there is in a gospel context. What I see stated are a number of those world-based assumptions of what it means to be a woman or a mother or a wife. I don't want to subscribe to it. I know I won't be happy in them. Happiness is found in how God defines me. So I find myself often working to redifine words in context of what I have come to know to be true. I'm seeking out what it means to be a woman. I'm not satisfied with what has previously been written on the drawing board.

I can change who I am. When I do I come to see and experience things differently. There are things about my character that are intrinsic, I'm trying to develop those and slough off the crap the world gives me for the image of God. So yep, the sig still works I'm working to see as God sees, which mean I must become as He is.

Like I said, I think there's differences, I just think we've gotten a lot of those differences wrong. Personally, many of those things considered "natural" about being a woman, I find stifling to who I am. Which means I'm either doing something wrong or against God or something is wrong with our beliefs about the nature of women. Since I've personally haven't felt closer to my Creator than at anytime in my life and am working to understand how He see's women and myself, I'm inclined to believe the former.

With luv,

BD

Well straight up, I agree with you. We are here to create our own worlds/world views- (same thing) out of matter unorganized and that seems to be exactly what you are doing.

Dunno if you are familiar with social constructivism- if you are not you should be. I had a dual major for my bachelors- philosophy and psych so I am kinda up on psych too. But I didn't do any grad work in psych.

[BlueDreams]

Dunno if you are familiar with social constructivism- if you are not you should be. I had a dual major for my bachelors- philosophy and psych so I am kinda up on psych too. But I didn't do any grad work in psych.

I'm hopng to go into grad school in psych and hopefully my PhD as well. I want to go into therapy and my interest is in women's issues. Women, how society views us, and how we come to view ourselves, is a constant interest for me. And I haven't heard too much about social constructivism....but I could probably take a guess.