Unintended Consequences Of Gender Bias In The Lds Church

[wenglund]

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

I don't know who you consider as using shaming tactics, but I am using perspective re-orienting tactics. I see no shaming in me questioning the tradition and status quo of your thinking.

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.

Speaking of old, this straw man is getting moldy

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.

You also seem to be someone who is apparently analogy-challenged.

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

Women envying or coveting men their priesthood and complaining about not having it, is, as explained earlier, inconsistent with a mature understanding of the gospel of Christ.

Cue the "Tenth Commandment"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mark Beesley]

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."

Touché. (Of course, I said it was a good indication, not that it was difinitive.)

[wenglund]

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.

Actually, this misses the real issue by quite some margin. To see what the real issue is, please take some time to contemplate the subtle nuances in Mark 10:35 - 45.

The kind of gender issues being discussed here, while perhaps well intended, tend to foment envy and pride, and stir up contention and divisiveness, and shifts our eyes from Christ and becoming like him, to coveting what each other may have or the positions each other may be called to. In the end we all seem diminished rather than uplifted by the exercise. To me, this is so wrong and so dysfunctional and so un-Christ-like (as if I am one to talk LOL), as if such isn't inherent to ark-steadying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Some of us are petitioning the Lord in prayer for a change in Priesthood practices.

Those of us who aren't presuming to steady the ark, may be listening intently to the Spirit to tell us what to pray for, and humbly seeking guidance and strength in fulfilling the commandments and duties we have already been given, desiring what God desires, and expressing gratitude for the bounteous wealth in all that we have been given by him and the opportunity he has afforded us, in a multitude of ways, to serve.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

[Edit: nevermind, this is pointless.]

Edited May 2, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Mark Beesley]

Yes, you're so very much more righteous than us blasphemous ark-steadiers. Have fun with your reward.

Just a little bit snarky. Well played.

[wenglund]

Yes, you're so very much more righteous than us blasphemous ark-steadiers.

Humility inclines me to disagree.

Have fun with your reward.

Are you referring to the benefit of not having to shoulder the usurped and unnecessary burden of minding other people's business--including the weighty business of the Lord?

If so, then I don't know about it being fun, but it sure makes my life a whole lot easier, leaving me with sufficient time and energy to shoulder the oft weighty business that is actually mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Just a little bit snarky. Well played.

Well, just remember that I did try to edit that out before you reposted it. As I've said before, I need to do a better job of controlling my sarcasm on this board, because for every point I make using an actual reasoned argument, I'm sure I lose just as many for my lame smarta$$ remarks, which does absolutely nothing to further any good points I make, even if it sure makes me feel a little better. I apologize to Wade or anyone else for any insulting comments. This topic is immensely frustrating for me, but that's no excuse to be a jerk. I just wish you guys [inclusive, referring to guys and girls] would try to see where my side is coming from on this without jumping to the conclusion that we must not believe the founding truth claims of the church or whatever.

[Log]

Jeremy,

I refrain from taking a position on the way things ought to be unless I have had it revealed directly to me. As an example, I was against Prop. 8 type actions before I was for them.

May I suggest adopting the same position, even if it leads to a more boring board?

Edited May 2, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

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.

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

http://www.lds.org/f...mation?lang=eng

Edited May 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Libs]

Kinda seems like it.

Well, I apologize, if it appears that way, but that's not my meaning. I'm probably not expressing it well. I remember a discussion in church, one time, about receiving revelation, and that all members have the ability to receive revelation, and may even receive something intended for the whole church, before the Prophet does. That doesn't mean they can act on it (make a decision for the whole church), just that they are seeing something that the Prophet is going to see, eventually. That is more what I had in mind. If a lot of women (and even men) are receiving a prompt that it may be time for women to receive the priesthood (perhaps even petitioning the Lord on this, as Jeremy has stated), if it is God's will, the Prophet will make the change....even though he may not have been the first to receive this revelation.

Do you believe the Prophet has to be the first to know about changes that may occur within the church? A lot of LDS don't believe that, which is what I meant by a revelation coming from the "bottom up".

Edited May 2, 2012 by Libs

[Mark Beesley]

Well, just remember that I did try to edit that out before you reposted it. As I've said before, I need to do a better job of controlling my sarcasm on this board, because for every point I make using an actual reasoned argument, I'm sure I lose just as many for my lame smarta$$ remarks, which does absolutely nothing to further any good points I make, even if it sure makes me feel a little better. I apologize to Wade or anyone else for any insulting comments. This topic is immensely frustrating for me, but that's no excuse to be a jerk. I just wish you guys [inclusive, referring to guys and girls] would try to see where my side is coming from on this without jumping to the conclusion that we must not believe the founding truth claims of the church or whatever.

I feel your pain, and I hope you realize that it is equally as frustrating for some of us when we encounter seemingly faithful Latter-day Saints who nevertheless struggle with issues that, to us, are self-evident. And I say that as a Christian Socialist who advocates for economic political reforms that most members think are Satanic.

[Log]

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

[Mark Beesley]

Well, I apologize, if it appears that way, but that's not my meaning. I'm probably not expressing it well. I remember a discussion in church, one time, about receiving revelation, and that all members have the ability to receive revelation, and may even receive something intended for the whole church, before the Prophet does. That doesn't mean they can act on it (make a decision for the whole church), just that they are seeing something that the Prophet is going to see, eventually. That is more what I had in mind. If a lot of women (and even men) are receiving a prompt that it may be time for women to receive the priesthood (perhaps even petitioning the Lord on this, as Jeremy has stated), if it is God's will, the Prophet will make the change....even though he may not have been the first to receive this revelation.

Do you believe the Prophet has to be the first to know about changes that may occur within the church? A lot of LDS don't believe that, which is what I meant by a revelation coming from the "bottom up".

As a general rule I would say Yes, changes in policy, practice and doctrine that affect the Church as a whole will originale with the Lord, and be first communicated to His prophet, notwithstanding what you may have heard in some classroom, one time.

[mfbukowski]

oops

Notice I edited out that comment, since I am not crazy about that scene in the movie, the context of which I had forgotten until I played it again.

[Log]

Oh. I've never seen the movie at all. Only that clip, because Guns 'N' Roses sampled it for what might be their best. song. EVAR. - Civil War.

[mfbukowski]

The Proclamation also says this:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

To me, "presiding" includes the Priesthood. I suppose we could just change the wording of the argument and speak about why men are to "preside" in families, but to me, that would be what it would be- a change in wording only.

"Presiding" IS the Priesthood imo. And that is a differentiation in gender roles which is dictated by a direct statement of the First Presidency, and is not a simple "policy". That was my point.

[mfbukowski]

Oh. I've never seen the movie at all. Only that clip, because Guns 'N' Roses sampled it for what might be their best. song. EVAR. - Civil War.

Guns N what?? Oh, that was after the Beatles, huh? Don't you know that's when music stopped?

Just not crazy about that context mixed with this context. Not exactly a Christ-like approach to communication, and of course we have the sensitivity of those here who see men as "foul oppressors" of women's rights, stamping out their freedom of speech and all. I can see one of those comments coming.

Edited May 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

"Presiding" IS the Priesthood imo. And that is a differentiation in gender roles which is dictated by a direct statement of the First Presidency, and is not a simple "policy".

You're correct.

If I may observe further, the relationship between the Prieshood and the Relief Society in the Church is, to my mind, a rather apt illustration of the true roles and relationships of the genders. While it is incumbent upon both the men and the women to labor in the fields of the Lord, it is the privilege of the priesthood to direct the labors.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"May I suggest adopting the same position?"

You can suggest it, but I'll disagree. As an example, I was against Prop. 8 type actions all the way through.

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

Not at all. I fully understand that some leaders have proclaimed what I believe to be -- in just a few details -- a false tradition. Proclamations and statements can be wrong, and have been in the past. It was certainly not offered as a binding Revelation, and I did not sustain it as scripture. I agree that men and women should be equal; I don't see how, then, a male can "preside over" anyone else. I love all the stuff about the family being sacred, etc., and largely agree with what the proclamation says; that doesn't change my dissenting opinion that the sacredness of a heterosexual marriage is not lessened if homosexuals are able to marry as well.

Well, I apologize, if it appears that way, but that's not my meaning. I'm probably not expressing it well. I remember a discussion in church, one time, about receiving revelation, and that all members have the ability to receive revelation, and may even receive something intended for the whole church, before the Prophet does. That doesn't mean they can act on it (make a decision for the whole church), just that they are seeing something that the Prophet is going to see, eventually. That is more what I had in mind. If a lot of women (and even men) are receiving a prompt that it may be time for women to receive the priesthood (perhaps even petitioning the Lord on this, as Jeremy has stated), if it is God's will, the Prophet will make the change....even though he may not have been the first to receive this revelation.

Do you believe the Prophet has to be the first to know about changes that may occur within the church?

Fantastic post. I fully believe that individuals can receive inspiration before the Prophet authorizes the Church to change practice. I know a few members who knew the Revelation on Priesthood was coming years before it actually hit, for instance, who were petitioning the Lord in prayer for a change long before then. They were still perfectly faithful to the church, but they were certainly disagreeing with the common interpretation of "doctrine".

I feel your pain, and I hope you realize that it is equally as frustrating for some of us when we encounter seemingly faithful Latter-day Saints who nevertheless struggle with issues that, to us, are self-evident. And I say that as a Christian Socialist who advocates for economic political reforms that most members think are Satanic.

I do understand. And from one filthy socialist to another, I'd appreciate it if you'd make a little room in that handbasket you're sitting in.

Edited May 2, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Calm]

I don't see how there is any problem with praying to the Lord for anything as long as we sincerely include in that prayer not only "Thy Will be done" but also a prayer to better align our will with the Lord's Will. Then even if we are in error in our request, we have left the door open for learning and change in ourselves as well as others.

[divinenature]

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

Is it a secret? Hey, I have young children...can I still do it?

[Log]

You can suggest it, but I'll disagree.

You're willing to publicly oppose the Brethren without knowing for yourself from God whether you're right or wrong, and consider yourself wise in this?

As an example, I was against Prop. 8 type actions all the way through.

Why do you think I changed positions?

Edited May 3, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Is it a secret? Hey, I have young children...can I still do it?

No, and neither can your husband.

[Senator]

You're correct.

If I may observe further, the relationship between the Prieshood and the Relief Society in the Church is, to my mind, a rather apt illustration of the true roles and relationships of the genders. While it is incumbent upon both the men and the women to labor in the fields of the Lord, it is the privilege of the priesthood to direct the labors.

Is privilege the right word?

Is it therefore a privilege for the women to be directed?