Women And The Priesthood

[Evangeline]

.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Evangeline

[Calm]

I see a lot of potential problems resulting from moving the discussion from actual current behaviours to speculations about those behaviours whether those speculations are intended to justify or simply are engaged in because people like to know the reasons for why the world is structured the way it is.

Unfortunately we have seen extensive damage done when speculations have been used in the past to fill gaps in revelation, in circumstances surrounding the ban on the Priesthood where the worthiness of a massive amount of individuals was drawn into disrepute when the fencesitter speculation gained traction as well as damage being done nowadays because of the speculation that polygyny was instigated due to the high loss of men due to persecution....a speculation that also gained traction and became folklore and was taught at alleged doctrine in the past and even currently and we all know by now what can happen when someone who was comfortable with that explanation finds out that it just wasn't so.

I think discussion on issues, behaviours resulting from them and how we would do better to respond either as individuals or as a church as whole are necessary even if at the end all we have done is informed the general membership that there are those who are troubled by such issues and if by chance we are not one of them, we can do as scripturally instructed and given comfort to those who mourn or suffer.

However, when unauthorized, nondoctrinal and nondocumented (so one can't even find the source of them) speculations are being handed out as part of the comforting process.....I see the problems being inflated 20fold.

I think examining in depth the dynamics of the Ban on the Priesthood for the last 50 years of its existence would be an excellent template on which to base our current discussion. We could see what worked and what didn't (such as folklore speculations)...not in terms of getting the Ban lifted, but rather what worked in helping members deal in positive ways with the discrimination that they saw and that some were very troubled by.

Edited August 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[Maidservant]

And what was the point of all this naming, if it was in the Adamic Language, which was just going to be "confounded" a few centuries later at the tower of Babel? All that work for nothing.

You might like reading the Poisonwood Bible and taking research from there. It is a novel, but it presents an idea of naming = creating. I don't know where she got this idea, if it is really based on African traditions of thought (as she presents) or if she took great liberties. I never followed that through, but someone with your research abilities might be able to.

[BlueDreams]

I respectfully disagree. The gateway to recieve further light and knowledge is obedience to the light and knowledge we already have. When moving up line upon line, precept upon precept, we do not move up to the next rung by asking the right questions, we do so by becoming worthy to recieve it by obedience to the previous rung.

That’s an unnecessary dichotomy. I believe strongly that it’s about both. It’s about obedience as well as asking and receiving more. But we can only receive when we are willing to ask the right things. I’ve seen this in my own life as well as the lives of others. It wasn’t that there wasn’t answers, it was that I was asking the wrong questions. This has been very instrumental because the right question also means a change of perspective. For example a person that is facing a chronic struggle and weakness may ask for the problem to be removed with no such luck. God will not answer them on this. It’s not unheard of that people then assume that God does not exist or will not listen to their prayers. That’s untrue, it’s simply not the right plea/question. “What must I learn?” can be better.

Questions are extremely important for our spiritual development. It is a fundamental means to receiving more. Our religion is founded on questions…on asking them, pondering them, seeking answers. Now, I do not mean that we live life doubting or fully of skepticism. James is pretty clear on that one, we ask in faith. We trust what we’ve received and grow on it.

As smart as we humans are, there is no amount of discussion that will make the truths of the universe known to us. They can only be recieved by revelation from on high, and the revelation we merit at any given time is predicated by eternal and immutable laws of obedience that not even God himself can violate.

In just around 6 weeks I’ve received revelation that I personally needed, quite often through discussions with others. If I hadn’t talked I wouldn’t have learned. I wouldn’t have grown. Again, this is not necessarily true. Discussion is not bad, especially when it is guided by the spirit, it can be a very important teaching tool from the Lord. It renders understanding, brings new perspective, and enhances our connection with each other and God. Discussion is also pertinent within the faith. 2/3 of our Sunday church meetings are discussion based. The missionary lessons are set up as a means to encourage spiritual discussion. Again Obedience is definitely necessary, but to not understand what we are obeying and why….well frankly it’s near useless.

By desiring discussion, by desiring questions, I am not inferring the extremes that are mentioned labeled often as “agitating” or “ark-steadying” or becoming part of the head, anything of the like. (You have not mentioned all of these, but they register I similar complaint). I am not entirely satisfied with the status quo. I don’t believe it’s perfection. I know it’s not Zion yet. If it were, I wouldn’t feel the tension between what I know I need to do spiritually to what is expected of me in a religious context*. I also don’t believe it’s completely wrong that we need to radically alter everything that exists to the point of it hardly being recognizable. It’s not an either, or scenario. Desiring more, does not mean I depreciate what I already have. What God has taught me personally, through His gospel and the church are precious to me.

It may be desired but it is certainly not needed. We do not need to know the mysteries of the kingdom to gain our salvation and exaltation. It might even be said that searching after such things could make us guilty of going beyond the mark as the jews of ancient times did. Our focus should be on living the principals we already have fully, rather than yearning after that which we don't yet know.

That is pertinently false. Knowing the mysteries of God is portrayed as a gift of diligently seeking God (1 Ne 10:19). The base word to revelation is to reveal. God is literally revealing things beforehand unknown to a person through a process called revelation. The whole temple ceremony is a use of symbols and ordinances to prepare our minds for further knowledge and so that the mysteries of God can be revealed. Our ultimate goal is to see God and know him to eventually understand all mysteries, which is exaltation. In the bible dictionary it states “one progresses only as fast as he gains knowledge.” I understand that you are defending the church and its practices. And that’s commendable…our church is great. But in doing so the implications to what you are stating would fit that whole “baby with the bathwater” saying. Whether intentional or not, by protecting against one extreme, it is heading to another extreme that is just as incorrect.

*By this, I’m talking about specific spiritual answers that I’ve received that fly in the face of conventional LDS thought or culture, currently.

With luv,

BD

Edited August 28, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

I respectfully disagree. The gateway to recieve further light and knowledge is obedience to the light and knowledge we already have. When moving up line upon line, precept upon precept, we do not move up to the next rung by asking the right questions, we do so by becoming worthy to recieve it by obedience to the previous rung.

And yet God has commanded us to ask of him....and told us we would receive.

Matt 7:7 "Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you.

The Restoration started with a question from someone unsatisfied with the current light and knowledge he already had.

Edited August 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

And yet God has commanded us to ask of him....and told us we would receive.

IMHO, women already had/have the power of the priesthood, it's just that somehow it's been downplayed through the years. Don't have the answer to why that is so. Kind of bothers me.

[Calm]

Are you asking the Lord about it? If not, why not?

[Erin15]

We are told to seek knowledge, all knowledge. Joseph Smith said we could not be saved in ignorance. Our scriptures are full of exhortations to pursue light and knowledge.

Perhaps it is time we stop hiding behind pretext and simply look at this movement for what it is.

At the Woman and the LDS Church Conference, when members of the audience objected strongly to the assertion that giving the women the priesthood would be a change in policy and not a change in doctrine, Claudia Bushman quipped, “I say we define doctrines we do not approve of as policies and act accordingly.”

Now, I ask you, in all candor, juliann, does that sound like a humble disciple seeking truth and knowledge? Of course not, that is outright apostacy to claim that we, as the members of Christ's church, should or even can decide which practices of His church that we like and which ones that we do not like and arbitrarily decide which ones we prefer to be commandments and which ones we prefer not to be.

This is HIS church, not ours.

To me it seems very disengenuine to dress up this issue as if it were a simple search for light and knowledge, when it is clearly political activism.

[juliann]

I think you are too quick to play the victim card on this issue.

I think you may have applied more demeaning negative labels to faithful women you have judged than any other poster and you have done it in far fewer posts.

I took some time to research the conference you are holding onto so tightly.

As I said, you are almost completely nonresponsive to what I say. You have not demonstrated any willingness to discover what the issues are, often using items that no one is disagreeing with, such as unattributed quotes from a Deseret News article. Here is the link you didn't provide:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765599559/LDS-women-men-very-close-in-religious-observance.html

The really groundbreaking thing about the conference was actually the research that shows that, while in all other churches, women are far more active then men several times over, in the LDS faith men and women exhibit equal levels of religious observance and participation.

Since the LDS church has the only priesthood authority that is actually recognized by The Lord, this would indicate very strongly that the current dileniation of gender roles in the church has a highly positive effect. Here is an excerpt:

"From a sociological perspective, the priesthood system works," said Dr. David C. Campbell, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. "It appears to motivate Mormon men to a level of religiosity that is equivalent to Mormon women."

And that, Campbell said, is news.

"Sociological research consistently shows that American women are more religious than American men by almost any standard that you can measure," Campbell told an audience of about 300 people — mostly women — attending a conference called "Women and the LDS Church: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives" in the Fort Douglas Officer's Club Theater Saturday afternoon. "But our research shows that LDS men and women are very close to each other in terms of religiosity."

Yes, this essentially verifies earlier studies that need updating and expansion. Earlier studies were often extrapolated so this is much more useful than those we used from the 1980s. Now here is the rest of the story from a SL Tribune article (cited below):

Other speakers took on the questions of contemporary Mormon women — how to be more involved, bring about policy changes without disputing doctrine, and how to change the conversation around female sexuality.

Mary Farrell Bednarowski, a Catholic feminist in Minneapolis, spoke eloquently about the similar problems faced by women in "male-dominated, hierarchical religious institutions."

Bednarowski said that it is worth asking feminist questions because "they open up the depth and breadth of our traditions, testifying that there is living water in the well."

As I said, the discussion (or "agitation" as you label it) has begun in church sanctioned forums. It creates the question of who is actually in step with the church, these women and those like them or those that judge them as unworthy troublemakers.

Ironically, this conference you were holding onto so tightly actually makes a very strong case for why the current system is a good thing.

Again, you have completely ignored my previous comments which are not about good or bad. It is about how members treat other members who desire more. It is not only annoying that you continue to attribute things to me that I have not said, it is intellectually dishonest and you need to stop doing it. I will refresh your memory from my posts:

". . . we have to start at a position of women being discriminated against by any definition used by modern societies...and we do have to start there." [as evidenced by the conference proceedings you quote.]

"This idea that these things should not be talked about has already passed us by." [as evidenced by the conference proceedings you quote.]

"I do not expect women to be receiving the priesthood, but I do expect men and women of the church to be charitable and understanding of those who do seek more. For crying out loud, what does it cost anyone to just say that those who seek more blessings should pray about it and keep the unseemly sniping and ungraciousness to sisters in the gospel private."

Here is an article from the Tribune that talks more about the other speakers. You will notice that this conference was " to discuss the issue of Mormon women and their choices. In essence, all the speakers considered how women who belong to a religious institution with clearly delineated gender roles could exercise agency."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54764689-78/women-lds-church-mormon.html.csp

Mary Farrell Bednarowski, a Catholic feminist in Minneapolis, spoke eloquently about the similar problems faced by women in "male-dominated, hierarchical religious institutions."

Bednarowski said that it is worth asking feminist questions because "they open up the depth and breadth of our traditions, testifying that there is living water in the well."

• Has the discussion begun... in a church sponsored forum?
  
• Are the limitations on women part of the discussion?
  
• Are these women not only treated respectfully but given a forum?
  

Perhaps there should be a re-evaluation of what following the gospel means when someone denigrate these women's motives, character, and worthiness.

[juliann]

This is HIS church, not ours.

Good grief, have you still not processed the fact that HIS church sponsored this conference?

I have known Claudia Bushman for many years and I can't count the number of times I have heard her speak. Her husband is probably the most prominent academic spokesperson for Mormonism on the national stage. What you are saying about good LDS women is despicable.

[Calm]

To me it seems very disengenuine to dress up this issue as if it were a simple search for light and knowledge, when it is clearly political activism.

And lumping everyone attempting to publicly discuss this issue under one label of "political activism" no matter what their position is on priesthood is what exactly....?

[Erin15]

Good grief, have you still not processed the fact that HIS church sponsored this conference?

Surely you do not actually believe that church sponsorship of an academic conference is tacit approval of whatevere is said there.

What you are saying about good LDS women is despicable.

When I see someone about to step on a landmine, I shout a warning. It is not only my duty as a disciple but it is also just the way I am naturally.

When someone says, “I say we define doctrines we do not approve of as policies and act accordingly," that is false, unscriptural, illogical, and inappropriate. When I read it I had the same sensation in my heart that I had the first time I read anti-mormon literature. The spirit grieved and retreated, and that is a powerful indicator I would be foolish to ignore.

The fact that she is someone you know should not be as important to you as whether or not what she said is true. If my best friend said something heretical, I would still point that out to her because I care about her and her spiritual well-being.

Let me say this clearly, I am not your enemy, julann. I am someone who does not want to see people like you and Claudia kick themselves out of the kingdom and deny yourselves an eternity of blessings that you might have otherwise enjoyed.

I want you to recieve your exhaltation, so I am obligated by that desire to warn you that this path leads away from the kingdom.

Erin: Accusing others of apostasy is not acceptable here.

[MorningStar]

I believe that if women are meant to be given the priesthood, it will happen. I know that our prophets love us and would love to give us an answer as to why this isn't currently the Lord's will. I don't feel bad that we don't have the priesthood, but I can understand why some women would feel hurt. My mom raised three children in the church by herself. To me, her influence was just as powerful as the priesthood.

[Calm]

When I see someone about to step on a landmine, I shout a warning. It is not only my duty as a disciple but it is also just the way I am naturally.

When someone says, “I say we define doctrines we do not approve of as policies and act accordingly," that is false, unscriptural, illogical, and inappropriate. ...... Claudia kick themselves out of the kingdom and deny yourselves an eternity of blessings that you might have otherwise enjoyed.

I want you to recieve your exhaltation, so I am obligated by that desire to warn you that this path leads away from the kingdom.

It is unfortunate that you only care enough to judge these women based on a oneliner that is not given enough context to indicate what Sister Bushman actually meant rather than caring enough to try to actually understand their positions.

[Calm]

To me it seems very disengenuine to dress up this issue as if it were a simple search for light and knowledge, when it is clearly political activism.

I use Abraham 1:2 quite a bit in discussing why the Priesthood looks like a good thing to seek after.

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.

So because I frame a desire for the priesthood in terms of seeking greater righteousness and knowledge, does this mean I am a political activist?

Was Abraham?

[CV75]

juliann and calmoriah, would you mind recapping what you think the most salient church-wide issue surrounding “Women and the Priesthood” is, and why you think it is so?

[Calm]

It might even be said that searching after such things could make us guilty of going beyond the mark as the jews of ancient times did. Our focus should be on living the principals we already have fully, rather than yearning after that which we don't yet know.

If we allow our yearning to crowd out more essential thigns, then we truly could stumble, and that yearning itself could become a stumbling block to us.

Surely you do not actually believe that church sponsorship of an academic conference is tacit approval of whatevere is said there.

What the Church sponsorship of the conference demonstrates is that Church leadership does not see public discussion of this topic from a variety of opinions as inappropriately yearning after that which we don't yet know instead of learning to live the principles that we already have.

[juliann]

At the Woman and the LDS Church Conference, when members of the audience objected strongly to the assertion that giving the women the priesthood would be a change in policy and not a change in doctrine, Claudia Bushman quipped, “I say we define doctrines we do not approve of as policies and act accordingly.”

You were either there and transcribing the Q&A, or you are plagiarizing again. For a verifiable report, I suggest this source: http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/women-and-the-lds-church-conference-part-ii/

Audience comments seconded the notion that gender stereotyping damages spiritual progress but questioned the boundary McBaine had drawn between unassailable doctrine and malleable policy. Laurel pointed out that she had grown up in a church where a priesthood ban was doctrine that turned out to be policy, to which Claudia quipped, “I say we define doctrines we do not approve of as policies and act accordingly.”

[Cobalt-70]

This assumes that the alleged discrimination is, in fact, taking place. You do not- and cannot- know God's reasons- but you assume they are discriminatory based solely on gender.

That is exactly what I am not assuming. I don't think God is a sex discriminator at all. I think that it is we imperfect mortals in the church who are sex discriminators.

As Erin pointed out- if the Church and the Priesthood are what we claim them to be, then no one is being deprived of anything to which they are entitled.

Are you sure? So you think that it was God's intent that black people should be entitled to the priesthood before 1978? If so, then please tell me why God was not a racist, without referring to any of the discredited racist theologies that are off-limits in this forum.

Which is why none of us are arguing that women will never hold the Priesthood.

If you don't believe that there is some theological incongruity between the priesthood and female genitalia, then it's fair to ask who made the decision to create that arbitrary linkage between genitalia and priesthood. Either God did it, or we did. Considering that secular human history has traditionally been extremely patriarchal, I think it is more than just a coincidence that church policy happens to conform to the long-standing patriarchal philosophies of men.

As Erin and many others have pointed out- whatever God's reason for "discriminating", it is not OUR place to tell him to change.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it is our place to open our hearts and minds so that we can can hear the voice of our Heavenly Mother and (assuming she is a feminist) end this policy sooner rather than later.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Calm]

juliann and calmoriah, would you mind recapping what you think the most salient church-wide issue surrounding “Women and the Priesthood” is, and why you think it is so?

I think Sister McBaine framed it well:

We may be tempted to justify the idea that people who leave the Church look for scapegoats for their inactivity, and that blaming women’s issues is just a way to deflect attention away from personal sin or loss of the Spirit. While this may be true in some cases, to use this as a rationalization for claiming women’s pain is overstated is patronizing and naïve. The bottom line is that women’s role in church governance is a primary reason many people are telling themselves it is okay to leave, and at the very least we should be distraught that this issue opens the door to the way out.

This statement leaves absolutely no room for a woman to even wonder why things are the way they are and it condemns her for opposing the prophet if she does. Are we really going to let wondering become a red flag of lack of faith? Are we going to deny any give and take, any room for struggle, for doubt, for weakness, for pain, which often are the tools that bring us to more solid testimonial foundations than we started on? Can this absolutist approach of claiming to know another’s depth of doctrinal understanding really represent the inquisitive gospel of love and moral agency that we cherish?

While some too flippantly dismiss or judge the pain, there are others for whom the pain seems to define their spiritual lives and, like my former Relief Society president, they measure every element of their church experience through the lens of that pain. “Women are the support staff to the real work of men. Period,” is one woman’s statement, as she describes how she understands the division of labor. “It’s a patriarchal tradition” is another response I noted in my own personal survey. “There is no such thing as ‘good’ patriarchy,” concludes yet another. Most of our women, however, are somewhere in the middle: not sweeping the issue under the carpet or judging those who struggle, but also not dismissing our ecclesiastical organization as entirely flawed or even abusive to women.

How can we help more in our community find peace in a middle ground, where the pain is acknowledged and we provide doctrinally sound tools and behavioral guidelines for addressing that pain? The first step must be to extract exactly what it is about our current rhetoric and practices that is at the source of this crisis among our women.

I think this is a problem because of discussions I've seen and heard among faithful women, discussions that rarely end in anything productive because even the suggestion of being dissatisfied is viewed by some as being unfaithful, apostate, looking past the mark, yearning inappropriately for the mysteries, etc.

Edited August 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[juliann]

juliann and calmoriah, would you mind recapping what you think the most salient church-wide issue surrounding “Women and the Priesthood” is, and why you think it is so?

My first post (#165):

This is the appropriate response. We are told to seek for good things. It is scriptural. I do not see leaders mocking women who do and it is disheartening to see members speaking so disrespectfully to and about women who do not think as they do on this topic. No one loses anything by simply acknowledging that the priesthood is a good thing and we are to seek after good things. It is particularly shocking to see those who do hold the priesthood do anything less. The only thing these tedious finger pointing arguments do is denegrate the priesthood, there is nothing elevating about anyone who seeks to withhold something that is considered the greatest blessing the gospel can bestow. There is an unflattering greediness to it, as if another sharing in something means less for someone else. The gospel doesn't work like that.

I do not expect women to be receiving the priesthood, but I do expect men and women of the church to be charitable and understanding of those who do seek more. For crying out loud, what does it cost anyone to just say that those who seek more blessings should pray about it and keep the unseemly sniping and ungraciousness to sisters in the gospel private.

[CV75]

I think Sister McBaine framed it well:

I think this is a problem because of discussions I've seen and heard among faithful women, discussions that rarely end in anything productive because even the suggestion of being dissatisfied is viewed by some as being unfaithful, apostate, looking past the mark, yearning inappropriately for the mysteries, etc.

That some leave the Church over issues relating to women’s role in Church government is one thing, and assuming that this is not the “real” or a “valid” reason judges and condemns them out of hand. I think we need to take people at their word.

I think it is fine (not looking past the mark) for people to wonder why the way things are the way they are (however it is that they perceive “the way things are”), and not fine for people to “[claim] to know another’s depth of doctrinal understanding.”

I think addressing (relieving) another’s pain is a function of ministering, whether in an official or brotherly/sisterly capacity, and I think this has to come before any subsequent, meaningful exchange about the cause of the pain.

So, rather than a “Women and Priesthood” issue, this particular point, to me, seems to be more directly an “interpersonal application-of-the Gospel” issue, whether those involved have the priesthood or not. But the application of the Gospel could certainly form the basis of any priesthood-related dynamic, actual or perceived.

[Cobalt-70]

Actually, political agitation slowed it down. Armand Mauss has that pretty well documented. This will never be considered a good strategy by anyone who values the church. Thus, as in this thread, you will see any attempt to discuss the different treatment of women in the church labeled as agitation, feminism, disobedience, apostasy or other trigger terms in an attempt to shut it down....even as the church is sponsoring conferences where women are discussing these allegedly wicked things.

I disagree with the notion that people's hearts and minds will change faster if you just keep quiet about it than if you are vocal. If the church leadership did become obstinate in the face of agitation on racial equality, there is no proof that the delay caused by such supposed resentment was longer than the delay that would have been caused by people remaining silent. In the case of women's ordination, Gordon B. Hinckley is on record saying that he was of the impression that LDS women were happy as clams in their subordinate roles, and there was no agitation for priesthood ordination, so why should things change?

[Evangeline]

Just some thoughts from Julie B. Beck:

http://ce.byu.edu/cw/womensconference/archive/2011/pdf/JulieB_openingS.pdf

****I'd like to be able to cut and past some of the quotes that I found relevant to this discussion, but I don't believe I can for some reason.

Also thoughts from Sheri Dew:

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2002/01/it-is-not-good-for-man-or-woman-to-be-alone?lang=eng

My young sisters, some will try to persuade you that because you are not ordained to the priesthood you have been shortchanged. They are simply wrong, and they do not understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. The blessings of the priesthood are available to every righteous man and woman. We may all receive the Holy Ghost, obtain personal revelation, and be endowed in the temple, from which we emerge “armed” with power.¹²The power of the priesthood heals, protects, and inoculates all of the righteous against the powers of darkness. Most significantly, the fulness of the priesthood contained in the highest ordinances of the house of the Lord can only be received by a man and woman together.¹³Said President Harold B. Lee: “Pure womanhood plus priesthood means exaltation. But womanhood without priesthood, or priesthood without pure womanhood doesn’t spell exaltation.”¹⁴

Sisters, we as women are not diminished by priesthood power, we are magnified by it. I know this is true, for I have experienced it again and again.

[CV75]

My first post (#165):

I think some of my ideas in the post above (#422) reflect yours:

"We are told to seek for good things."

"I do not expect women to be receiving the priesthood, but I do expect men and women of the church to be charitable and understanding of those who do seek more."

It seems the charitable and understanding comportment of those discussing the priesthood seems to be the most important issue and probably the key to finding the good things we seek.