Unintended Consequences Of Gender Bias In The Lds Church

[CV75]

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

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

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

[CV75]

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

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

[divinenature]

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

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

[CV75]

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

[Analytics]

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

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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

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

[CV75]

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

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

[Calm]

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

Edited May 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[divinenature]

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

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

I like your comments Nofear.

----------

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

When it becomes clear that this is undesirable, unworkable or unjust to some or many women there is the need to make the woman's sphere even more desirable.

So we hear things like we do in church. Women are more spiritual/charitable/loving/etc. Women are God's crowning achievement. Men are the head, but women are the neck that moves the head. Men wouldn't get anything done without the women. Men are lost without women. And on and on.

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

[divinenature]

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

[Calm]

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

CFR

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

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

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

Edited May 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

CFR

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

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

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

This is silly. Priesthood isn't about human anatomy.

Furthermore, it's silly to think that men may 'lose' their place in the church if women were given priesthood authority. Also, if parents are worrying about who is going to baptize their child...they have bigger problems than this.

It's a sad slippery slope.

[divinenature]

CFR

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

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

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

The priesthood ban on women is an artificial construct based on tradition and sexist interpretations of the scriptures. There is nothing inherent in femaleness that makes you unable to exercise the priesthood just like there was nothing inherent in a black man to keep him from exercising the priesthood. That is what I mean by artificial.

What keeps a man and some women from becoming pregnant is not artificially constructed. That is delegated by our DNA and other factors out of our control.

I do not believe that women having the opportunity to vote (for example) negates or deprives men of their special privilege to vote. If someone has to feel special by depriving others of rights and privileges that person has some deeper issues they need to work out.

[divinenature]

Motherhood is not the equal of Priesthood office.

Motherhood is the female counterpart to Fatherhood.

A woman outside the church can have a baby if she is able to. A woman inside the church may or may not be able to have a baby just the same.

A man can be a father in or out of the church, if he is able to.

A woman in the church no matter if she is single, married or widowed cannot have the priesthood.

A boy from age 12 on up can have the priesthood regardless of marital status or parent status.

The priesthood and motherhood are not counterparts.

[Libs]

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

I heard this sentiment often, in church. I don't believe it is true. Men and women have fairly equal abilities to be spiritual and charitable, from my observations.

I always thought that it was a sort of conciliatory remark, because women couldn't hold the priesthood.

[Calm]

This is silly. Priesthood isn't about human anatomy.

Never said it was.

Furthermore, it's silly to think that men may 'lose' their place in the church if women were given priesthood authority.

I never said that.

Also, if parents are worrying about who is going to baptize their child...they have bigger problems than this.

Indeed.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think the fundamental problem is that we've separated men and women into two easily-classifiable teams, as if we're playing sports or watching a political rally. It ends up in a false dichotomy. It means that we generalize too broadly; while there are of course beautiful biological/physiological differences between genders, it's too easy to go too far and characterize all men and all women as being more similar than they really are.

A man has experiences with a few women and because they are women he assumes that their personalities are representative of the entire gender. A woman knows a few men and because they are men she assumes that their personalities are representative of the entire gender.

(This is especially bad on social networking sites like Facebook; I see men constantly putting up jokes and complaints about "women" and women constantly doing the same about "men" when really all they're saying is these particular men/women that I know are behaving this way -- and then they go on to generalize about all men and all women, each side complaining about the double standards that only the other side ever enacts. My "masculinist" friends post articles that purport to show all the problems "feminism" is causing; my "feminist" friends post articles that purport to show all the problems "masculinism" is causing, and the divine widens.)

It's all based on false premises. It's Nibley's old problem:

"I have been quite half-hearted [...] and much too easily drawn into what I call the Gentile Dilemma. That is, when I find myself called upon to stand up and be counted, to declare myself on one side or the other. Which do I prefer -- gin or rum, cigarettes or cigars, tea of coffee, heroin or LSD, the Red Rose or the White, Shiz or Coriantumr, wicked Nephites or wicked Lamanites, Whigs or Tories, Catholic or Protestant, Republican or Democrat, black power or white power, land pirates or sea pirates, commissars or corporations, capitalism or communism [and Matriarchy or Patriarchy].

The devilish neatness and simplicity of the thing is the easy illusion that I am choosing between good and evil, when in reality two or more evils by their rivalry distract my attention from the real issue."

The real issue is that the radical Restoration posits that every single person, every man, woman and child, is a God in Embryo. But the inevitable corollary is that every single person, man, woman and child, also has the potential to be a devil, an accuser, a false God.

This is no time for patronizing stereotypes about which gender is "more spiritual." That's the false choice. Each individual -- regardless of gender! -- has equal potential to Fall, which means that each has equal potential to become a Servant of All. If we deny one gender the ability to sin grievously based on some intrinsic "goodness" which they have access to which the other gender is barred from by their very anatomy, then we've effectively denied the agency of both genders and justified it with an appeal to maudlin sentimentality. It's insulting to everyone involved.

The beauty of the Restoration is that in its best expression, it exalts both men and women, who are capable of making themselves genuinely Good because they are Free Agents deliberately choosing the right, based not on some inherent "goodness" (which, if it is truly inherent, is not "goodness" at all since there is no agency involved) but rather on their ability to act and not be acted on.

The Restoration is the ultimate form of exalted humanism, which philosophical monotheists disdain as primitive "polytheism", as if the mere number of people we give worth to means anything at all. We really do (or should) believe the Bible when it says: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant."

A True God is one who serves others, regardless of their gender. Being as Good as God -- being a servant of no reputation -- is not robbery. It takes nothing away from one good person to see another good person doing good! And since that is the case, why do we insist on withholding Priesthood from women based not on any actions which might disqualify one from being an authorized servant anointed with oil from the olive Tree of Life, but rather on their mere biology?

It makes no sense.

But because it makes no sense, some try to uphold mere tradition by claiming, for instance, that "God moves in mysterious ways!" without naming a scriptural reference for this noncanonical Proverb, which is actually from the 19th century hymnalist William Cowper.

Well, in that case, doesn't Yahweh saith "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" in Isaiah?

Yes! That's exactly right and true! Because in Ezekiel 18, God cries "O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin."

And yet we still maintain a "separate but equal" clause in the Priesthood. This is not like biological inequalities, where one gender has physical attributes that the other does not. Men and women are both equally beautiful in their unique ways, that's true; why should this uniqueness extend to the Priesthood? Why did we insert an emphatic "hereafter" into the washing and anointing ceremony for Queens and Priestesses, but not for the men who will be Kings and Priests, though they are both only anointed to "become" such?

What are we gaining by this separation into politicized teams? What would we lose if we Restored the Priesthood to women, seeing that we believe that it is not robbery to be equal with God? "The saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him." (D&C 88:107)

Note well that it says the Saints.

Not men. Not women. Those who are Servants of All.

This is like delaying the Law of Consecration because we "haven't been asked" to practice it yet. It's not going to happen unless we make it happen ourselves. Zion is not going to built unless we build it. There has to be a stirring below before Revelation is received from above; we have to be looking for an answer before we can find one, not resting on our laurels proclaiming all is well in Zion.

We, with our doctrine of a literal Mother Goddess as well as a Father God, we with our doctrine of a literal Heaven where there are Gods many and Lords many, are in an absolutely unique position in all of Christianity to offer this Restoration. Yes, there were a few tentative steps in this direction in the 19th century, with Mary Baker Eddy and others teaching about a feminine "aspect" to their disembodied deity, but it was all spiritualized abstractions, not the Gods of Flesh and Bone that we believe in. Instead of cozying up to philosophical monotheists and making ourselves indistinguishable from conservative Evangelical Protestants, why aren't we proclaiming this from the rooftops? We should have been the first people to ordain Priestesses, not the embarrassed last few, racing to catch up!

Myself, I think we should be following the spirit of Eliza R. Snow's more progressive poems ("The Significance of 'O My Father' in the Personal Journey of Eliza R. Snow" by Jill Mulvay Derr) She was the Poetess of Zion, a Priestess, a Prophet too, as Emmeline B. Wells wrote.

"While sit[t]ing here [said Snow] I have been looking upon the faces of my Sisters and can See the form of Deity there and I have been Reflecting of the Great work we have to perform, Even in helping in the Salvation of the Living and the Dead," she told sisters of the Lehi, Utah, Relief Society in October 1869. "We want to be ladys in very deed not acording to the term of the word as the world Judges but fit Companions of the Gods and Holy ones." A month earlier, she had been in Provo asking:

"Who are these my sisters they are the daughters of the most high God, and we are here in this dispensation to cooperate with God and our brethren in saving the human family. We read that one hundred and forty-four thousand Saviours are to stand upon Mount Zion, has women anything to do in this great work of salvation, or are the sisters merely machines to be saved by the brethren, In these last days woman has her part to perform, which is a significant part."

She counseled, "In your lives seek to refine and elevate, that you may be prepared to come into the presence of holy beings, and associate with Gods, we do not know our own abilities until they are brought into exercise."

So let's help each other to exercise our abilities, regardless of whether we are men or women. It's the Plan of Salvation that matters, not who brings it or what gender they are; whether by God's voice or the voice of one of His servants, the message is the same: to help in whatever way we can to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. Inasmuch as we are not Saviors, we are as salt that has lost its savor.

Edited May 1, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Calm]

If someone has to feel special by depriving others of rights and privileges that person has some deeper issues they need to work out.

I have never seen the need for equality to be based on making sure everyone has the same exact opportunities as everyone else.

I think miracles will happen when women go to the Lord asking to receive of the power and glory he intends for them rather than wishing to share in the power and glory that men currently receive.

On a side note, just to be clear Priesthood is two different issues for me, I am talking above to the performing of ordinance work and authority to act in the name of the Lord which I fully believe women are capable of doing and will do at some time in the future in ways unique for them. Second there is the issue of decisionmaking in the Church which has been tied to priesthood due to leadership position past a certain point requiring holding the priesthood. This is a separate issue for me and I see it as imperative that women are more involved and be given more control in general so that individual women will feel safer and more a part of the essential nature of the Church. I see this process happening slowly but surely in general.

[Damien the Leper]

CFR

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

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

This is ridiculous. Just to re-emphasize...bearing children and performing priesthood ordinances are NOT equivalent. I hope parents are better than that. Perhaps let the child decide who they want to perform the baptism and the parents can be mature enough to not throw a tantrum.

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

Never said it was.

I never said that.

Indeed.

[Calm]

So let's help each other to exercise our abilities, regardless of whether we are men or women. It's the Plan of Salvation that matters, not who brings it or what gender they are; whether by God's voice or the voice of one of His servants, the message is the same: to help in whatever way we can to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. Inasmuch as we are not Saviors, we are as salt that has lost its savor.

Well said.

[Calm]

This is ridiculous. Just to re-emphasize...bearing children and performing priesthood ordinances are NOT equivalent.

And I have never said anything that states that they are. You are reading into my comments about unique experiences something that isn't there.

Edited May 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

I have never seen the need for equality to be based on making sure everyone has the same exact opportunities as everyone else.

Right. Because God is not an equal opportunity God.

On a side note, just to be clear Priesthood is two different issues for me, I am talking above to the performing of ordinance work and authority to act in the name of the Lord which I fully believe women are capable of doing and will do at some time in the future in ways unique for them. Second there is the issue of decisionmaking in the Church which has been tied to priesthood due to leadership position past a certain point requiring holding the priesthood. This is a separate issue for me and I see it as imperative that women are more involved and be given more control in general so that individual women will feel safer and more a part of the essential nature of the Church. I see this process happening slowly but surely in general.

Perhaps you should read Maxine Hank's revolutionary collection of essays (various authors) in Women and Authority: Re-Emerging Mormon Feminism.

[Calm]

As long as you ignore half of what I am saying, you will not understand or address my points.

Bottomline, I don't want the Priesthood that men have, I want (because I desire the opportunity of greater knowledge and greater righteousness) the Priesthood that God has and I am willing to not only wait for that part of it I have not received yet, but am willing to ask him directly instead of going to men for permission to do so.

Edited May 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Right. Because God is not an equal opportunity God.

When has the world ever been set up in mortality as "equal opportunity". We are only promised that equal opportunity will come to us through eternity and the blessings we will receive at judgment, never is it stated that this time of probation is such.

[Damien the Leper]

As long as you ignore half of what I am saying, you will not understand or address my points.

Fair enough.

Bottomline, I don't want the Priesthood that men have, I want (because I desire the opportunity of greater knowledge and greater righteousness) the Priesthood that God has and I am willing to not only wait for that part of it I have not received yet, but am willing to ask him directly instead of going to men for permission to do so.

Thank you! I wish people could understand the necessity of such action. It's not the priesthood holders permission you should EVER be seeking. It's Gods.

[Damien the Leper]

When has the world ever been set up in mortality as "equal opportunity". We are only promised that equal opportunity will come to us through eternity and the blessings we will receive at judgment, never is it stated that this time of probation is such.

The world is what we make it. The call for change and temporal progression is forever a necessity. Tradition becomes irrelevant as paradigms shift to accomodate the changing needs of cultures and societies.