Women And The Priesthood

[Hestia]

This comes across as dangerous and arrogant to me. And I simply do not agree we need to be going and telling God what we will of Him. That's Lucifer's theology.

This is over the top. Don't make statements like this again.

[Somebodyz]

So why should men seek out the Priesthood or anyone seek out the Gospel if we all have enough at the moment to fill the measure of our creations? Was Abraham being ungrateful or wanting more than he should have or feeling inappropriately inferior when he desired the blessings of the fathers so he would be able to seek greater righteousness and greater knowledge through the Priesthood?

I don't remember anywhere that God says "seek me so far, but no further".

I meant within the Gospel. So much is asked of us already.

As for seeking, guess first there has to be a strong desire for more than we have, then listening to the Holy Ghost to know if those desires should be pursued.

Personally I've no desire for the priesthood. No problem with those who have the desire or want to talk about it.

So far those I've known who want it, have belittled me and our friends, for being happy with out lot. I've known three women, all sort power, compared themselves to men, competed with their husbands..ie claiming to be their boss, when they used to work(claim turned out not to be true). Made it obvious they felt superior to women who were content to be stay at home mothers/house wives (no matter what education those women had or sort)

This has influenced my wariness of women who seek the priesthood. -perhaps unfairly.

[juliann]

Is he mocking the idea because it comes from a women? Perhaps he would of mocked the same idea, if it had come from a man?

I'm still not convince it's a righteous desire....nor that it's an unrighteous one.

Say women get the priesthood, don't you think that will lead to some of them wanting to be Bishops etc. Why wouldn't they? Does dividing offices by gender make sense, if both sexes have the priesthood.

Sorry, I didn't formulate that well. When faithful Mormon women are expressing righteous desires and their expressions are denigrated, it is irrelevant who said what when. Those women who have expressed desire and concern....all of them...are being denigrated and demeaned with comments that mock that desire/concern. Just as you would feel demeaned if the political party you support was attacked. Perhaps that is a better example.

As for wanting offices, I honestly have never met a man who wanted to be bishop. I think that we have so conflated priesthood with gender and offices that we have a difficult time even having a discussion without getting confused about the particulars. I am simply trying to extract one concept from another for purposes of discussion, so no....women having priesthood would not necessarily mean that they would hold certain offices just as men are not visiting teachers now even though they have the same "credentials" women do. Hope that is more clear.

[BlueDreams]

Changed,

I guess I need to start working towards being a temple worker... Can you work towards a calling like that? (I do go to the temple often)

I specifically asked about temple work. The bishop/stake president were both extremely receptive to it. Beforehand I went about 4-5 months once a week to make sure I could handle that commitment. I'd strongly suggest asking about it. I love working there. But you'll want to make sure you can handle the time requirement as well as the match up to the requirements asked. THey're far more specific than your average calling.

With luv,

BD

[Somebodyz]

Sorry, I didn't formulate that well.

Welcome to my world.

[selek1]

There is no reason why women cannot hold the priesthood. It wasn't precluded by Scripture. In fact Christ allows it in 2 Nephi 26:33. Its says "...and he ^ainviteth them ^ball to ^ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ^ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ^ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the ^fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." So if all are alike unto God and God denieth none, male nor female, it should follow that Man must not deny either. Man had denied the Blacks the priesthood and God corrected it in 1978. Must we continue to deny women the priesthood and not learn from past mistakes?

First and foremost, you are misquoting 2 Nephi 26:33. In its entirety, the verse is as follows:

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

This verse is talking about the Gospel and salvation. It is talking about grace and being absolved of our sins. Nowhere does it mention the Priesthood. Nowhere does it mention the authority to act or minister in his name.

As such, your quote is (at best) a non sequitor.- it doesn't say what you think or wish it to say.

If fact, if we were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, we would be required to extend the Priesthood to non-members "for all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

This is clearly contrary to nearly every other aspect and tenet of the Gospel- and thus the rest of your argument falls apart.

Furthermore, I will point you to the first part of the verse: "he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men"

If women holding the Priesthood both a good thing and his desire, then God will decree it.

It will be done plainly, openly, and above board- not by Internet agitators, or members of the militant sisterhood, nor by picketers in the streets, nor by government decree or mandate.

Edited August 20, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

I find this statement problematic on two levels: First, this rather begs the question of whether it IS a righteous desire. That has not- to the best of my recollection- been established as fact.

Is this a righteous desire?

2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

Would this be a righteous desire for any man to have (as long as he was willing to obey the commandments so as to be worthy of the blessing?)

Was it a righteous desire for those who were not of the House of Israel to pray for the day when they could receive the gospel and all things that pertained to it, including the priesthood?

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/15.27?lang=eng#26

Was it a righteous desire for blacks to pray for the day when they could enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood?

[Buckeye]

And then I expect you would like to the have women serving as Bishops, Stake Presidents, Apostles and Prophets??? Sounds like I've heard this pattern before. Maybe we could also have male RS Presidents and Primary workers so things could get exciting again. Keep hoping. MW

Men can and do serve as RS Presidents and Primary teachers. In fact, they can serve in any calling a woman can. The same is not true in reverse.

[Somebodyz]

Men can and do serve as RS Presidents

Really? Never heard of this before.

[juliann]

I meant within the Gospel. So much is asked of us already.

As for seeking, guess first there has to be a strong desire for more than we have, then listening to the Holy Ghost to know if those desires should be pursued.

Personally I've no desire for the priesthood. No problem with those who have the desire or want to talk about it.

So far those I've known who want it, have belittled me and our friends, for being happy with out lot. I've known three women, all sort power, compared themselves to men, competed with their husbands..ie claiming to be their boss, when they used to work(claim turned out not to be true). Made it obvious they felt superior to women who were content to be stay at home mothers/house wives (no matter what education those women had or sort)

This has influenced my wariness of women who seek the priesthood. -perhaps unfairly.

I've seen this, too. I stay away from a particular woman's blog because of that. It has taken me over a decade of just watching to finally understand, even though like you, I'm just not very concerned personally. It finally clicked with me when I continued to see explanations of the unintended messages our young women were receiving....along with the unequal funding and/or staffing of their programs. When I was finally able to separate the attack dog mentality of some women from the problem itself, I was able to see it very clearly. Only then did I realize that the majority of women were actually faithful members, often holding prominent positions. That is why I always use the qualifier "faithful". I'm not too concerned for those who are only using this as a brickbat to damage the church, other than how the disparity in treatment may have driven them to that.

Edited August 20, 2012 by juliann

[Calm]

I meant within the Gospel. So much is asked of us already.

As for seeking, guess first there has to be a strong desire for more than we have, then listening to the Holy Ghost to know if those desires should be pursued.

Personally I've no desire for the priesthood. No problem with those who have the desire or want to talk about it.

So far those I've known who want it, have belittled me and our friends, for being happy with out lot. I've known three women, all sort power, compared themselves to men, competed with their husbands..ie claiming to be their boss, when they used to work(claim turned out not to be true). Made it obvious they felt superior to women who were content to be stay at home mothers/house wives (no matter what education those women had or sort)

This has influenced my wariness of women who seek the priesthood. -perhaps unfairly.

While there are some women who see the Priesthood as stepping stone to power and not as a way to greater righteousness, greater knowledge and a greater path to service as Abraham saw it, there are many in my experience who desire Priesthood because they want to do everything their power to serve God and their fellowmen and because they believe what is taught every man in the Church from youth, that the Priesthood will be and is a magnificent blessing that will aid them in serving and protecting others.

The Church teaches its members to honour the Priesthood. Why is it surprising then when faithful members desire to possess it? Why do some think this is a positive response when it comes from a man, but a negative one when it comes from a woman?

[Buckeye]

The name of Christ is more than just a namesake for His Order. A whole thread can be dedicated to what His name means, but His Order is everything that entails His identity and everything that He is and does for this earth / world, and how He serves as a Pattern, and for whom, and how. Being male is one of His eternal attributes, just as it is for all other males. He is a Pattern for males in one way and for females in another way, with a good deal of overlap of course.

Women are “excluded” from a lesser order and not the highest priesthood order because God grants each of His spirit children what they need to be tested and succeed at being tested in mortality. There are some tests that are common to all His children (the principles and ordinances of the gospel, temple ordinances, birth, death, etc.). There are other tests that are more customized (determined times, bounds of habitations, when and how they hear the gospel message, etc. – Acts 17:26), including tests that are different for males and females, such as priesthood office.

***

Thanks again for the elaboration, CV. I guess what I'm missing is any scriptural support for your view that Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood roles, responsibilities, burdens, etc. are intentionally limited by God to only males. I see a lot of speculation here. And that may turn out to be right. But its just speculation. The scriptures do not require your reading.

[Buckeye]

Really? Never heard of this before.

It was previously the practice (and I believe still is) that when a new branch is opened by missionary Elders and there are no members yet, the senior companion will serve as Branch President and the junior companion will serve as RS President.

[juliann]

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

I am curious as to if anyone has come across something that is said to young women that is parallel to what the young men are being told here that they are being given and can do through the virtue of the Priesthood.

Good question. I confess I have never paid much attention to Priesthood session. I was so inspired when I read this talk to Aaronic Priesthood holders http://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/05/sacred-keys-of-the-aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng

Now, I had never interpreted this scripture the way he did, but then, he held sacred keys that I did not have. I was being taught by a 13-year-old deacons quorum president about the revelatory power that comes to those with the sacred keys of presidency regardless of their intellect, stature, or age.

I have never heard anything even close said to girls that didn't involve purity, modesty and such. Elder Cook gave a ground breaking talk about women in the same conference with many helpful things for women. But his reference to a young woman measured her worth by what was found in her purse.

[selek1]

Is this a righteous desire?

Is it a righetous desire for members of the polygamous sects to pray for the Lord to cleanse and set in order the Church at Salt Lake in order that we, too, should practice polygamy?

Is it a righteous desire for interested homosexuals (members and not) to pray for the day when we solemnize same-sex unions in our Temples?

Is it a righteous desire for BYU fans to pray for the day when the Lord finally smites the U of U with fire and brimstone and the Courgars reign triumphant?

Was Joseph's repeated petitioning of the Lord for permission to lend Martin Harris the 116 pages of manuscript righteous?

Whether something is righteous depends upon both our motives and upon whether it is in accord with God's commandments, decrees, and desires.

As of this moment, God has decreed that the Priesthood is reserved to his sons who carry themselves in worthiness and are annointed through the proper channels.

That may change in the future. It may not.

If God wants women to have the Priesthood- then yes, the desire is righteous, if it is based in giving glory to God.

If God does not want women to have the Priesthood, then the desire is unrighteous, particularly if we persist in asking after he has made his will manifest.

At this point in time, we do not know whether this is a righteous desire or not. We await revelation from the Lord.

Does that mean I think faithful Sisters desiring to hold the Priesthood are evil? Does it mean I think they are unrighteous? Of course not.

How many hours must Emma have spent on her knees praying for Joseph's safe return, and for health and prosperity for her sons?

These things were not meant to be- does that make her prayers and her heart's desires were unrighteous? No- it means only that they were contrary to the will of God.

Edited August 20, 2012 by selek1

[JCNowandForever]

First and foremost, you are misquoting 2 Nephi 26:33.:

I understand this verse talks about the Gospel. I'm not misquoting it. I only included the latter part of the verse to emphasize that scriptures at times have double meanings (even though not implicitly stated in the verse). Other meanings that can be derived from this particular verse is the lesson that God never deny. The emphasis is DENY. The Lord never deny and conversely Man must not deny either. No, you wouldn't see the word "priesthood" in that verse because you're just reading it with your natural eyes. We are counseled to allow the Spirit to guide us as we read so we can see beyond our natural reading capabilities that allows to learn meanings of scriptures in an entirely different way in which it is normally read. (This is not to mean that we do this to support so-called "heretical" interpretations). No. One can read texts as the Spirit dictates and come up with different meanings than otherwise would have been.

[Grundelwalken]

As I said above, it is disheartening to see men mock a righteous desire of a church member merely because that member happens to be a woman or a girl. Even if women were given the priesthood, offices can still be assigned by gender so your hyperbole punctuated with insulting emoticons has little point other than to offend.

My "mocking" was not of women or the desires of some to hold the priesthood but of those who want to 'push' the leaders (and by insinuation the Lord) to do something they are not willing to do. If the day comes when women are allowed to hold the priesthood just as men do I will be grateful for the blessing. But until that time, to think that we can force or incite or somehow dictate to God the distribution of HIS power is pure mockery of what the gospel intends.

To those who want a change, I say ask away but do it quietly and through the channels of prayer, fasting and pondering that are open to every one of us. Do not make an issue of this and cause dissent in the ranks of God's kingdom. You will only lead away the weak in faith and drag yourselves away from the truth. If God wants the priesthood given to women, He will enact the circumstances by which it will happen. Let Him do His work and let us do ours. MW

[Calm]

That I do not believe the women should hold the Priesthood unless or until God says so does not mean I am mocking, belittling you, or insulting women.

It means only that I do not agree with your agenda.

Actually if what you state in the first part of your top sentence is your position, then both you and Juliann have the same ultimate agenda.

The only possible difference...and here I am unsure about your position....is that Juliann wishes to encourage public discussions about the topic so that women who do desire the Priesthood if this aligns with God's Will do not feel shame or frustration because they feel they cannot express this desire without being seen as less than faithful.

And I agree with her. I see unnecessary pain being caused because women are uncertain about themselves and about their roles in part because they are confused by the messages being taught in the Church. More discussion means a greater chance for understanding and acceptance and for creation of effective ways for all to serve as things currently stand while working toward even greater things in the future as we are taught to expect (such as in the Articles of Faith).

I don't know of any woman here who has expressed a desire for the Priesthood or who has accepted that desire in others (though she does not desire it herself) as righteous who does not include in the desire "thy Will be done", thus allowing for such a blessing to enter their life solely at the discretion of the Lord in his own way and time. All that those of us who hold this position are really asking for, imo, is the acceptance that it is okay to feel this way, that is it not sinful or prideful to believe what the scriptures say about the Priesthood can also be applied to women.

[juliann]

To those who want a change, I say ask away but do it quietly and through the channels of prayer, fasting and pondering that are open to every one of us. Do not make an issue of this and cause dissent in the ranks of God's kingdom. You will only lead away the weak in faith and drag yourselves away from the truth. If God wants the priesthood given to women, He will enact the circumstances by which it will happen. Let Him do His work and let us do ours. MW

What you are really saying is shut up. You need to ponder about who is causing dissent, those who are willing to address the concerns of faithful women on a message board or those who attack them for doing so?

BTW, there is a women's conference this week at UofU cosponsored by BYU. Neylan McBaine, the FAIR speaker who openly said the church discriminates against women is a participant. If a church university can engage with caring and courtesy, I don't think it is too much to ask.

[JCNowandForever]

If God wants the priesthood given to women, He will enact the circumstances by which it will happen. Let Him do His work and let us do ours. MW

The circumstances are already in place. First, He corrected us by reversing years of racial bias and allowed Blacks to hold the priesthood. He also indicated that WORTHINESS is the sole and only qualification, not race, not gender. Bruce R. McConkie, said it beautifully "Disregard what we knew in the past about priesthood ban... we received new light and we must walk in them." (paraphrase). I think the Lord has given us new light. The circumstances are ready. We must not allow the gender bias of our day dictate what God has already implicated to DENY NONE (2 Nephi 26:33).

[Calm]

Possibility One: God wants women to have the Priesthood- then yes, the desire is righteous, if it is based in giving glory to God.

Possibility Two: God does not want women to have the Priesthood. Once (if) he makes that clear- then no, the desire is unrighteous, no matter what our motivations for seeking it.

If someone has not yet received a personal answer that it is contrary to the Will of God to desire something that is taught in the scriptures and by the prophets as desirable, I would never assume myself that such a desire was unrighteous.

I would agree with your possibilities.

Unless someone can demonstrate that the Lord has revealed that it is contrary to his Will that women are not to desire the Priesthood, why would anyone assume that it was an unrighteous desire?

Do you believe that something has to be demonstrated to be a righteous desire before one should pray about receiving it? If not, then is there anything inherently wrong with women desiring the Priesthood in your mind? If not, then is there anything inherently wrong with discussing this desire in public? (when I say "inherently wrong" I mean assuming that it is done in a way that is intended to align with God's will, even if they are not yet aware of what God's will in the matter is, not having received an answer to any personal prayer on it).

[Calm]

To those who want a change, I say ask away but do it quietly and through the channels of prayer, fasting and pondering that are open to every one of us. Do not make an issue of this and cause dissent in the ranks of God's kingdom. You will only lead away the weak in faith and drag yourselves away from the truth. If God wants the priesthood given to women, He will enact the circumstances by which it will happen. Let Him do His work and let us do ours. MW

Is it wrong then for unmarried sisters to speak publicly about their desire to be wed in the temple and should they limit their discussions to personal prayer, etc? Is it wrong for couples who desire children but do not yet have them to publicly express this desire or should they keep such desires to themselves? Is it wrong for an 11 year old boy to speak publicly about his excitement about getting the Priesthood when he is twelve years old?

If a woman always couples her expression of her desire for the Priesthood with an expression of her desire to serve and obey God, to be listen to and obey the Prophet's instructions, to fully support the building up of the Kingdom of God through the establishment of his Church, how would that lead to dissent?

Is not the best way to address actual dissent standing up and declaring one's commitment to the Faith, one's trust in the Lord and one's leaders as well as expressing one's desires to serve faithfully and fully in all ways possible including eagerly looking forward to the new revelation that God has promised us?

Edited August 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[selek1]

Other meanings that can be derived from this particular verse is the lesson that God never deny. The emphasis is DENY. The Lord never deny and conversely Man must not deny either.

This is complete and utter rot.

God denies us our desires every day. He denies the unrighetous entrance into his presence. He denies the sinful access to his Prieshtood. By circumstances of birth, God has denied BILLIONS access to even the knowledge of his restored Church.

God denies both the sinner and the supplicant.

Somebody died to today while another prayed he or she would live.

God denied them- for his own purposes and according to his own wisdom.

Thus far, he has chosen to deny the sisters the privilege of holding the Priesthood. Whether that changes in the future remains to be seen.

No, you wouldn't see the word "priesthood" in that verse because you're just reading it with your natural eyes. We are counseled to allow the Spirit to guide us as we read so we can see beyond our natural reading capabilities that allows to learn meanings of scriptures in an entirely different way in which it is normally read. (This is not to mean that we do this to support so-called "heretical" interpretations).

I'm going to extend the benefir of the doubt here- that you are serious and not merely trolling- and point out that no other statement made by the Church, it's leaders, or those in authority have used this verse, in this way.

As such, your interpretation- not mine- is the outlier.

No. One can read texts as the Spirit dictates and come up with different meanings than otherwise would have been.

Again- this is almost a cartoon caricature of what the Church teaches about reading the Scriptures and being illiuminated by the Spirit.

It has two fundamental flaws:

First- nowhere does being "enlightened by the Spirit" require us to ignore the plain meaning of the text on the page or to abandon reason. LDS faith is an enlightened, reasoned faith- not blind obedience.

Second- we are continuously cautioned to check our own revelations against those of the Church- the Prophets and the Apostles- to ensure we are still pointed in the right direction.

As such, your interpretation of the verse- not mine- is the outlier.

No statement by the Church uses this verse in the fashion that you do, nor is it implied in any of the official statements, policies, or materials of the Church.

[juliann]

This USAToday article does a good job of explaining the different points of view, not all think the priesthood is the solution.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-08-20/mormon-women/57168094/1

Now comes a third and, some suggest, growing group of Mormon women somewhere between these two poles.

They are not pushing for ordination, but they crave a more engaged and visible role for women in the Mormon church. It is a role, they believe, that their Mormon foremothers played — and one that could fit easily into the institutional structure without distorting or dismantling doctrine.

These women — some of whom consider themselves feminists, while others avoid that label — point to little changes that would pay big dividends: treating a president of the local Relief Society (the church's main women's group) like her male counterpart and assigning her to be a regular speaker at conferences and in worship services; quoting more women in sermons and Sunday school lessons; selecting more women to speak and pray at churchwide General Conferences.

Many of them agree that no meeting should take place in which decisions about women are made without a woman being present.

Talk about such changes is buzzing around the Mormon blogosphere and was discussed at a recent gathering of FAIR (the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research). It has spawned websites such as Mormon Women Project and a blog called Young Mormon Feminists by a Brigham Young University student.

"There is a tremendous amount of pain among our women regarding how they can or cannot contribute to the governance of our ecclesiastical organization," Neylan McBaine, founder of the Mormon Women Project, said at the FAIR conference. "We need to pay attention to that pain. … The pain is real."

[Cobalt-70]

Ok. Explain how this would work in your world. How is it different from making men and women "the same"? Not in the physical sense, but in the emotional, mental, spiritual & social senses. ( I believe happy was simply using sarcasm & hyperbole when he made the statements about the physical aspects.)

I'm open to listening.

There are two different issues. I'm saying that modern feminists are not interested in making masculinity the same as femininity. That's something quite different from making men and women the same--such as what happened when women were given the right to vote, or hold property, etc.

From most feminist perspectives, the problem is that femininity has been constructed in such a way that it is (1) marginalized, and (2) linked to women in an essential way. Since Greek times and probably before, the world of ideas has been divided into two distinct binary opposites: a masculine and a feminine. This split into masculine and feminine is even reflected in grammatical elements of many languages. What is bad about this social construction is that feminine constructs have almost always been considered a supplement and a subordinate to the masculine.

For example, the subject is masculine, while the object is feminine, and we see the object as supplemental to the subject. In other words, the subject is the central idea, and the object is whatever is left behind when the subject is accounted for. The same with mind (masculine) versus body (feminine), action (masculine) versus passivity (feminine), and domination (masculine) versus submission (feminine).

There are two responses to this within modern feminism. The first one, called radical feminism, is to focus on the fact that the construct of femininity, the "skin of evil" that has become the repository of all things inferior and supplemental, has been linked in an essentialist way to women. Thus, their solution is to unlink women with the feminine. In other words, they press to ensure that women are not "put in their place" as submissive, irrational, passive, and objectified temptresses. In doing so, it will be inevitable that women will begin to take on masculine roles like becoming the subject rather than the object, being valued for their mind instead of their body, acting rather than being acted upon, and being in positions of domination or leadership rather than submission, and therefore they will become "like men." Likewise, men will be just as likely as women to be objectified, valued for their bodies, passive, and submissive. The sexes will therefore be effectively unlinked from cultural masculinity or femininity.

The second response to the gender binary problem is called liberal post-feminism. This school of thought is more theoretical than radical feminism. It does not necessarily seek to make women more masculine by reducing their subordination and objectification. Rather, it seeks to "re-center" social constructs upon the feminine. Thus, why should it be that body is supplemental to mind, and that the mind, rather than the body, is the center of a person's being? Mormonism has a lot to offer in this regard, because unique among Christian religions, it values body over mind, at least in theory. Mormonism shares this with materialistic atheism, which also regards mind as the supplement of body. But theory has not caught up with Mormon practice, because in practice, Mormons subordinate the body about as much as other Christians. Nobody in modern Mormonism teaches a celebration of the human body. Rather, the body is something to be covered up, suppressed, and erased of all expression.

Also, one of the great things about Christianity as a whole is that at least one of the persons of its godhead, Jesus, is extremely feminine. Jesus is perhaps the most feminine male god ever. He was submissive and passive. We objectify his body. He often taught by irrational paradox. ("He who loses his life shall find it," etc.)

Edited August 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70