Unintended Consequences Of Gender Bias In The Lds Church

[divinenature]

It has been fascinating to read the shaming tactics used against those who are questioning tradition and the status quo.

The argument that women would become hermaphrodites or manly/unattractive if they entered the public sphere is an old one. It's as old as the Cult of Domesticity itself. Funny enough, women who vote and work out in the world can still be mothers. They have retained their femaleness.

I am not a spleen or an eyeball. I am a full human who would like to be treated as such. That is not such a big thing to demand.

There is no more reason to deny women the priesthood than their was to deny black men the priesthood.

*cue Tradition*

http://youtu.be/Zovz8ZV_B6s

[Mark Beesley]

There is no more reason to deny women the priesthood than their was to deny black men the priesthood.

So, I take it that you reject any possibility that the Lord is responsible for deciding who may be ordained?

[Log]

So, I take it that you reject any possibility that the Lord is responsible for deciding who may be ordained?

Do you even have to ask? There might be a pro-forma acknowledgement of the mere logical possibility forthcoming, but that will be lost in the rest of what gets written.

[mfbukowski]

What priesthood will I be ordained to in order to officiate in the temple ordinances?

Wait until you are set apart and then you will learn how it works. Or ask your temple president.

[Libs]

My opinion doesn't count either since I leave it in the capable hands of the Lord to convey to us who it is that may or may not be in fuller contact with him and more enlightened. Others are free to usurp that role unto themselves.

As I said, it's a matter of having different beliefs about, with whom the Lord communicates. I have no problem believing that the Lord may be telling some women (and perhaps many, eventually) that they are to bear the priesthood, along with their brothers. If that is truly the case, then the blindness is not with those who "see" this, but rather with those who don't. If the Lord wants a change, it will occur, and it may not, necessarily, start from the top down, but rather from the bottom up.

[mfbukowski]

It has been fascinating to read the shaming tactics used against those who are questioning tradition and the status quo.

The argument that women would become hermaphrodites or manly/unattractive if they entered the public sphere is an old one. It's as old as the Cult of Domesticity itself. Funny enough, women who vote and work out in the world can still be mothers. They have retained their femaleness.

I am not a spleen or an eyeball. I am a full human who would like to be treated as such. That is not such a big thing to demand.

There is no more reason to deny women the priesthood than their was to deny black men the priesthood.

*cue Tradition*

http://youtu.be/Zovz8ZV_B6s

No, cue Helen Reddy

[Mark Beesley]

As I said, it's a matter of having different beliefs about, with whom the Lord communicates. I have no problem believing that the Lord may be telling some women (and perhaps many, eventually) that they are to bear the priesthood, along with their brothers. If that is truly the case, then the blindness is not with those who "see" this, but rather with those who don't. If the Lord wants a change, it will occur, and it may not, necessarily, start from the top down, but rather from the bottom up.

I dunno LIbs. I think in matters of this nature, it is always a top to bottom flow. The Lord hasn't really demonstrated a need to be counseled by HIs children.

[Libs]

Mark, I am not talking about "counseling God". Not at all.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

The default position of the Church is that current policy is practiced until God tells us differently.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The Lord does not, in my experience, micromanage the Church. Mistakes happen; that's life. Inasmuch as we err, we might be corrected so long as we search out Wisdom, gathering all that is good and accepting truth, let it come from wherever it may. There is precedent in both the ancient world and the Restored Gospel for women to be Priestesses (such as those who officiated in Temple rites like Emma Smith, Eliza R. Snow, Bathsheba W. Smith, and Zina Diantha Huntington).

To claim that those of us who desire the Priesthood to be restored to women officiating outside the Temple are somehow opposed to the idea of the Lord leading the church is a blatant misdirection away from the real issue, and indeed rests on the unsupported assumption that the Lord doesn't want women to receive the Priesthood, in a similar way that it has long been (falsely) argued that He didn't want black men to receive it.

But that's exactly what we're questioning here. What if the Lord does want women to receive the Priesthood? Why wouldn't He? Absent an actual positive argument -- an argument, note, that does not rely on appeals to the mysterious ways in which God works -- there is no more reason to deny women the priesthood than there was to deny black men the priesthood. ("Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason." When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to come to us.)

I hear it far too often when people defend our doctrine that things are the way they are just because "God said so," and therefore we have to accept it because not all of God's commands are subject to logical analysis. There is no idea so calculated to retard the growth of the human mind than the one which forbids or promotes an action simply because someone says so. Scripturally, we are explicitly asked in Isaiah to come reason with God. If the work of Justice is destroyed, God would cease to be God, and that's not an idle rhetorical threat. Enos had to wrestle mightily with God before being blessed with the knowledge that He dispenses from time to time. As Apostle Charles Penrose said, "President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but [...] when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill."

So why can't the denial of Priesthood to women simply be a human error? We already believe our leaders are fallible! I'm certainly glad no one in the Elder's Quorum class I teach expects me to be perfect, despite the fact that everyone in such leadership roles has been called by God by the laying on of hands by those in authority.

There's no shame in having made mistakes in the past, so long as we correct them when presented with new light! Why are we supposed to content ourselves with a mere pro-forma acknowledgement of the mere logical possibility that our leaders can err without actually investigating to see if they ever do? Why the constant attempt to find a way, no matter how convoluted, that absolutely everything in the Church is done according to God's will? Why should we even bother to have in the very first chapter of the Doctrine & Covenants a lengthy statement about the explicit fallibility of the Church if we constantly attempt to explain away any mistakes we have made and pretend they're somehow not mistakes at all but rather secretly part of God's Machiavellian plan?

Elder Hinckley said that the Revelation on Priesthood "came as a result of great effort and prayer, anxious seeking and pleading. Anyone who does not think that is a part of receiving revelation does not understand the process." The Lord will not force us into anything; that was the other guy's plan. President Uchtdorf said awhile back: "Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

It seems to me that the idea of a male-only Priesthood is not a fundamental doctrine based on Revelation, but rather a cultural practice, a mere policy, a mere tradition of the fathers, which has become a massive iron gate which stands in the way of further light, which, remember, we are to accept wherever it may come from, even if it comes from someone we don't personally like. As such, we don't even need a big Revelation to change; we could do it tomorrow with no problem, if a President with stewardship over the entire Church were to authorize it.

It seems to me that not allowing women to participate in sacred ordinances with their own families is an unfairness, an inequity. We constantly tell our young men that being worthy of the Priesthood is something they should desire, and then turn around and claim that's it's something women shouldn't also desire, because hey, they weren't born with a penis. If God's ways are not like man's ways because He is equitable when Zion is not, then to become more Godlike we should logically extend the opportunities for women to serve in Priesthood roles.

This will not diminish the worth of men in any way. This will not harm any yin-yang symbolism about the beautiful differences between men and women. All that this will do is heal an inequity.

Edited May 2, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Mark Beesley]

Mark, I am not talking about "counseling God". Not at all.

Kinda seems like it.

For those of us who believe the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, policies, practices and doctrines as fundamental as ordination to the Priesthood are a reflection of the Lord's Will. Changes in those policies, practices and doctrines occur at the command of Him whose Church it is. Now, if a change were to occur, as you put it, from the bottom to the top, it would be because the Saints petitioned the Lord in prayer for such a change, and the Lord would then reveal His WIll to the Prophet, thus preserving the order set forth by the Lord. In other words, all of the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth won't change ordinations to the Priesthood unless the Lord decides to do so. And my personal view is that it will never happen because Priesthood ordination is a calling that, for some reason best known to Him whose Priesthood it is, has always been and will always be reserved to men.

[Damien the Leper]

Tell that to my former "dorm mother," who, when periodically striding unabashed onto the 2nd floor of our men's dormatory where I lived, and at times into the bathroom/shower, would gleefully exclaim: "Cover your priesthood!"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You make me laugh, Wade. That's pretty awkward.

[Damien the Leper]

This is a seminal work, and ought to be more important than the scriptures since Maxine obviously knows more than God about how to run God's church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know that wasn't my point. The call for feminine authority is traced to 1843 and is not a new idea.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

For those of us who believe the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ...

Would you please stop trying to insinuate that if we disagree with you that it implies that we don't accept the truth claims of the Church? Some of us are petitioning the Lord in prayer for a change in Priesthood practices.

[Mark Beesley]

It seems to me that the idea of a male-only Priesthood is not a fundamental doctrine based on Revelation, but rather a cultural practice, a mere policy, a mere tradition of the fathers, which has become a massive iron gate which stands in the way of further light, which, remember, we are to accept wherever it may come from, even if it comes from someone we don't personally like. As such, we don't even need a big Revelation to change; we could do it tomorrow with no problem, if a President with stewardship over the entire Church were to authorize it.

You might try reading the 20th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants to see how many references there are to "shes" fulfilling the duties of the Priesthood. A pretty good indication that a male-only Priesthood is a result of Revelation and not merely tradition.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Mark Beesley]

Would you please stop trying to insinuate that if we disagree with you that it implies that we don't accept the truth claims of the Church?

No.

[thesometimesaint]

Both the Priesthood and Relief Society are calls to serve. I just don't see a hue and cry for men to be in Relief Society.

[Calm]

As I said, it's a matter of having different beliefs about, with whom the Lord communicates. I have no problem believing that the Lord may be telling some women (and perhaps many, eventually) that they are to bear the priesthood, along with their brothers. If that is truly the case, then the blindness is not with those who "see" this, but rather with those who don't. If the Lord wants a change, it will occur, and it may not, necessarily, start from the top down, but rather from the bottom up.

Do you think it is also possible that the Lord is instead communicating with others that women are not to hold the priesthood in the identical way that men do at this time? If so, then the "blindness" would be among those who are assuming or interpreting that God's answer to a righteous desire is in the affirmative at this time.

[Calm]

Would you please stop trying to insinuate that if we disagree with you that it implies that we don't accept the truth claims of the Church? Some of us are petitioning the Lord in prayer for a change in Priesthood practices.

Libs, who he was addressing with this comment at least in my reading, has already stated she doesn't accept all of the truth claims of the LDS faith, including the one that it is God's authorized representative. I didn't read his comment as a complete condemnation of all who disagree in any way with him.

[Mark Beesley]

What is the harm if women are not ordained? What is the purpose of ordination? It is to ensure that the blessings of heaven are available to all, i.e. that the savlic ordinances can be performed, that the gospel can be preached to others, that the saints can be taught.

The whole purpose of the Priesthood is so that others might be served, not so that we can serve.

Who is not served by women not being ordained? No one.

So, what would be the purpose of ordaining women. As divinenature put it, she wants to be able to bless her children, etc. Well, that's not the purpose of the Priesthood, so she, I, or anyone else can do something . . . it is so that someone else can receive something.

Bemoaning the exclusion of women from the Priesthood reveals a basic misunderstanding of its purpose.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Mark Beesley]

Libs, who he was addressing with this comment at least in my reading, has already stated she doesn't accept all of the truth claims of the LDS faith, including the one that it is God's authorized representative. I didn't read his comment as a complete condemnation of all who disagree in any way with him.

That's cause you have a bad habit of reading things in context . . .

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

You might try reading the 20th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants to see how many references there are to "shes" fulfilling the duties of the Priesthood. A pretty good indication that a male-only Priesthood is a result of Revelation and not merely tradition.

Whereas you might try rereading the 20th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants to see how many references there are to the Holy Spirit of Wisdom -- ie, Lady Wisdom, by whose authority we offer Rebirth from the waters of Baptism and who, according to Luke, is Justified of Her Children -- and see if that changes your opinion.

By the way, verse 54 states that we are to "see that there is no iniquity in the church", including, I should think, inequities such as unfairly universalizing the use of the "he" in some of those verses, none of which explicitly exclude women from being Apostles, Elders, Deacons, Priests, etc.

If you are arguing that the use of "he" in that section is some sort of binding gender-based segregation, then, welp, I guess women aren't allowed in the church at all, seeing as verse 71 says explicitly that "no one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance."

("Hey guys, let's go get some pizza!" she said to her daughters and sons.)

Verse 65 states that "No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church."

So let's vote women in.

Edited May 2, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[wenglund]

I wasn't entirely sure if your previous post was an expression of sincere gratitude or a gratuitous attack. Thanks for the clarification.

It was a sincere expression of gratitude for letting me learn from your mistakes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

The whole purpose of the Priesthood is so that others might be served.

But there are blessings that are inherent to possessing the Priesthood for the holder himself. These are frequently alluded to by church leaders. One only has to read the basic manuals for Priesthood holders, Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood, Part A and Part B to see this. Abraham describes his desire for the Priesthood as want greater knowledge and greater righteousness, so he sees both personal and 'public' benefit in possessing the Priesthood. There are other avenues to finding of such, but I don't think it is of value to downplay the importance of holding the Priesthood for the holder himself.

[Calm]

That's cause you have a bad habit of reading things in context . . .

I try.