Women And The Priesthood

[Cobalt-70]

Also thoughts from Sheri Dew:

https://www.lds.org/...-alone?lang=eng

What do you suppose "pure womanhood" means? Pure submission, irrationality, objectivity, and physicality, without contamination by domination, rationality, subjectivity, and mind?

[Evangeline]

What do you suppose "pure womanhood" means? Pure submission, irrationality, objectivity, and physicality, without contamination by domination, rationality, subjectivity, and mind?

Absolutely NOT, and what a caricature. Actually, your comment doesn't even make any sense to me. The first time I have seen "objectivity" equated with "irrationality."

Edited August 28, 2012 by Evangeline

[juliann]

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?

Cobalt, it was one gentleman who slowed down the works by going to the press when church leaders were giving every indication the ban would be lifted. It slowed it down for many years. Again, this is very well documented by Armand Mauss, who was involved. I can't remember where he talks about it off the top of my head (I am remembering this from conversations with him). This had nothing to do with how vocal people were, many were not silent in the sense that you mean by that time.

------

CV, those are some good thoughts.

[selek1]

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

This argument might have real teeth if not for the fact that sponsorship and endorsement of the results of the conference are two entirely different things.

What comes out of General Conference is vetted and approved by the Church as doctrinal, and are spoken with the authority and imprimatur of the Church by people authorized to do so (male or female).

The women's conference the Church sponsored can make no such claims.

And the quotes that Erin dug up show one thing very clearly: that at least one of the speakers was agitating for a change- and was openly willing to discard doctrine in order to achieve her ends.

This goes beyond your stated aim of "legitimizing the discussion" and nose-dives right into the realm of "causing the changes we seek".

Erin's charge of "activism" is accurate.

Your argument about the innocent intentions of the attendees might also persuade- except for the fact that the September Six were no less eager to trade on their standing as "good Mormons" in order to advance their views- right up until the Church denied them that option.

The Church has (nearly) always drawn a clear line between asking "Why?" and pronouncing "You should do it myway".

At least one of the speakers at the Conference has already crossed that line.

It does not help your argument that a new standard of fealty towards feminism has been imposed in this very thread.

The implication has been very strong that if one is not willing to curtsy or genuflect towards this Conference and its speakers, one is somehow "anti-woman" or disloyal to the Sisterhood.

What you are saying about good LDS women is despicable.

This is the fifth or sixth time you've levelled this charge (and at least the third person you've used it against)- without any evidence to support it.

It is part-and-parcel of the demand for fealty I mentioned above.

Contrary to what you might believe, disagreeing with a feminist it is not automagically "an insult to all women", nor is disagreeing with a Mormon feminist it automagically "an insult to all Mormon women".

This becomes especially clear when it is Mormon women you are accusing.

In another sense, however, the accusation is a lot like the "race card" we see being played in national politics.

It is not a serious argument- but merely a demand that we "shut up".

Edited August 28, 2012 by selek1

[Deborah]

From William J. Critchlow, Jr., Conference Report, October 1965, pp. 36-40

The emancipation of women in this mortal sphere does not yet involve priesthood.

Women in our great nation enjoy civil rights and liberties like men: they can vote and run for public offices like men: they can own property and drive cars like men; they can frequent public places like men, they can work when, where, and if they please like men; they can smoke, curse, and blaspheme the name of God like men; they can eat, drink, and be merry like men; they can cut their hair like men and wear men's clothes. One thing they cannot do as men—they cannot violate the oath and covenant of the priesthood as some men who bear the priesthood do. Maybe you should thank God for that. If that, dear Sister, gives comfort to your soul, then let me disturb your comfort by reminding you that by reason of your temple experience, you do have certain priesthood covenants to keep and to uphold. Had you forgotten them?

Just as that great unseen electrical power flows through wires to bless mankind, so does that great unseen priesthood power flow through ordained men to bless mankind. Can anyone come close enough to its source to actually see and know it?

I've been thinking about this as I see the heated discussion. I think Br. Critchlow reminds us that women do now participate in priesthood through the covenants we make. Furthermore I think that when we read that neither is the man without the woman or the woman without the man that is telling us that the Priesthood ordinations we have now in this life are just a shadow of what true Priesthood is and that it involves the man and woman together. When I see how women have been treated throughout history I can understand why the Lord hasn't given us (that is mankind) the fullness of this great power, which in my mind is when men and women are ordained as one to exercise the great power of creation, the ultimate power of Priesthood. At this time men and women have a portion of this power, as they act separately. We catch a glimpse of the power when husband and wife come together as one to create a new life. We are limited by our own thinking and desires and righteousness, just as in ancient times the people were limited from the higher Priesthood by their own desires and righteousness.

[Evangeline]

Here is another address regarding women and the priesthood by Patricia T. Holland:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/07/a-womans-perspective-on-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I believe that we made sacred promises in premortal councils regarding our role in building the kingdom of God on earth. In turn we were promised the gifts and powers necessary to fulfill those very special tasks. I would like to quote from President Kimball again: “Remember, in the world before we came here, faithful women were given certain assignments while faithful men were foreordained to certain priesthood tasks. … You are accountable for those things which long ago were expected of you just as are those we sustain as prophets and apostles!” (Ensign, Nov. 1979, p. 102). I also believe that those assignments and roles differ as much from woman to woman as they do from man to woman.

We’ve all been taught to have role models. It is good to have someone to look up to. However, there is great danger in wanting to be too much like someone else. We will feel competitive jealousy and self-defeat. No two people are the same. Some women have been given large families, some small, and some none at all. Many wives are exercising their gifts and talents in sustaining husbands in their work as community leaders, business leaders, stake presidents, bishops, or General Authorities, and encouraging their children’s development. Other women apply their gifts and talents directly as leaders in their own right. Still other women combine both the supportive and the direct roles in exercising their gifts and thus serve in dual capacities. We all know there was a great difference between the assignments of, say, Mary Fielding Smith and Eliza R. Snow. Yet both eagerly sought the will of the Lord. Both sought marriage andfamily. Both gave everything they had to the kingdom.

It seems clear, then, that our greatest task is to live worthily enough to know step by step what the Lord’s will is regarding us, remembering that occasionally what we may want to do today because of the trends and vanities of the world may not be what we covenanted to do long ago. We should be willing to live and pray like Mary, the mother of Jesus, when she said to the angel who had just given her her assignment, “Be it unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38).

...[W]hy is there such incredible energy expended by Latter-day Saint men and/or women over issues like women and the priesthood?

I offer this one answer to my own question. It seems to me that if there is a conflict, it is because someone, male or female, isn’t living the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, I did not say that the person who has the concern isn’t living the gospel. That may or may not be true. What I said is that someone isn’t living the gospel. A woman in pain may be living the gospel the very best she knows how and yet still find herself hurting. But if that’s the case, I still believe that someone in her life isn’t living—or hasn’t lived—the gospel: some man she knows, some men she has known, some woman, some group of women she knows. Somewhere, somehow, promises have not been kept or obligations have not been honored, and thus the hurt. But that is not a priesthood problem. The most we can say is that it’s a man or woman problem. Thus, the responsibility is on us all, male and female, to live as section 121 prescribes and as every other Christlike example requires. With that kind of loving male and female relationship and with those kinds of promises, the pain and despair and frustrations of this world disappear. I believe that with all my heart. The answers to our challenges are gospel answers (priesthood answers if you will), not male or female answers. They are promises to the faithful. Note again the beautiful gifts of verse 45 and verse 46. [D&C 121:45–46]

We all have rights and the freedom to pursue them. That much the Lord has promised us. I believe, then, that the crucial point we need to come to as Latter-day Saint women is not to allow ourselves to feel forced into righteous choices, but to come to them of our own free and anxious will. In feeling compelled or forced lies some of the pain and frustration and depression we hear about. We should seek diligently and prayerfully the light that would quicken our hearts and minds to truly desire the outcomes we make in righteous decisions. Our prayers ought to be to see as God sees, to flip the switch in our minds so we may see things eternally. If we listen too often to the voices of the world, we will become confused and tainted. We must anchor ourselves in the spirit and that requires daily vigilance.

[juliann]

Deborah, the first sentence is so telling.

The emancipation of women in this mortal sphere does not yet involve priesthood.

This is what I noticed in sorting through some conference talks. To date, I have seen more equivocating than absolutism. I think that is significant, especially given the date of the talk. The rest of the talk is a good example of why we should always use modern talks when dealing with modern problems, however. No GA would ever talk about women as if they were children as they did in the 60s.

Evangeline, there are endless talks like these. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with how badly women who are seeking more are being treated by many church members.

[Evangeline]

But they have nothing whatsoever to do with how badly women who are seeking more are being treated by many church members.

That is not a male or female issue. That is an issue of humans needing to learn to be more Christ-like. I would have to say that the issue of treating others badly for having opposing viewpoints goes both ways.

[selek1]

Evangeline, there are endless talks like these. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with how badly women who are seeking more are being treated by many church members.

This, of course, begs the question: "More what?"

More "light", more "knowledge", more "understanding"? Despite your repeated claims, you've presented zero evidence that our good sisters are, in fact, treated badly for desiring these things- nor has anyone here advocated for such treatment.

More "authority"? More "priesthood"? As has been stated repeatedly, those things are not ours to dispense.

Once again, you are fundamentally ignoring the divide between asking the question "Why are things done in this way?" and demands that we alter the Church and its doctrines to conform to an external, arbitrary, and Babylonian concept of "equality".

None of us here have a problem with the former- the latter, however, is the low road to apostacy.

[Deborah]

The rest of the talk is a good example of why we should always use modern talks when dealing with modern problems, however. No GA would ever talk about women as if they were children as they did in the 60s.

That's why I hesitated using it, but then the point of the Priesthood being not yet given even back in 1965 says something important.

[CV75]

CV, those are some good thoughts.

I think so, and If they are the most salient points (at least according to you and calmoriah at this point), it might be worth steering the discussion toward adressing them in the Lord’s way:

1) perceiving the way things are;

2) wondering why things are the way they are;

3) dealing with another person’s understanding of the way things are (including doctrine);

4) administering to another’s pain as it relates to the top 3 items.

While they do seem to be a bit general, maybe that's a good thing; and then apply anyhting of value to the OP later.

Edited August 29, 2012 by CV75

[Evangeline]

I just found a few blog entries that I believe are relevant to this discussion:

http://www.millennia...-in-the-church/

also:

http://wellbehavedmo...rmon-women.html

I'm saddened to discover that Kathryn Skaggs (also a "good LDS woman," albeit one with more conservative leanings) was apparently misrepresented and her views considered "insensitive" by Sister McBaine at the latest FAIR conference.

Also, I should acknowledge that the references to talks by Sheri Dew and Julie Beck that I provided in post #424 had come from my reading a post by Kathryn Skaggs written in May of this year:

http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.ca/2012/05/mormon-women-priesthood-and-equality.html

This is the post, to my surprise, that Sister McBaine criticized.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Evangeline

[BlueDreams]

Evangeline,

I've read both Mcbaine's and Skaggs original comments. I don't find it all that misrepresenting. Skaggs drew circles as to what could be considered faithful that were pretty limiting and alienating. Skaggs probably couldn't see how that was so. McBaine is pointing out just how much it can be.

Here's what McBaine said:

Similarly insensitive statements come from women, too. Consider this statement from a female blogger: “It’s been my experience in speaking to and reading the thoughts of many progressive Mormon women, that they do not have a strong, LDS doctrinal understanding of priesthood and womanhood…. Faithful, active Mormon women do not oppose the counsel and inspired direction of living prophets….”

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?

Here's what Skaggs said

It's been my experience in speaking to and reading the thoughts of many progressive Mormon women, that they do not have a strong, LDS doctrinal understanding of priesthood and womanhood, in general -- or, that they are openly choosing to be in opposition to the direction and revelation received by those called of God to direct these affairs -- and whom are sustained regularly by the body of the Church as prophets, seers, and revelators. Thus the discomfort that I, and many other LDS members share, when their liberal ideas, philosophies and advocacies are broadcast as false representations of how the majority of active Mormon women think and feel.

Faithful, active Mormon women do not oppose the counsel and inspired direction of living prophets, called specifically to address our day and whom members of the Church, by covenant, sustain.

{Sorry my computer is glitching, I can't seem to get off of bold text...even if I copy and paste. The last part was specifically bolded in Skaggs' blog, though.}

You can judge for yourself, but to me it's not an unfair quotation or use of said quote.

With luv,

BD

Edited August 29, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Evangeline]

Personally, when Skaggs is saying adamantly that she feels she was misrepresented, I will take her at her word.

Here is something that she has said in a desire to defend herself:

Being a Mormon women blogger that, at times, takes on some of the more hot-button and controversial issues that affect members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the media also find of great interest, has taken me on a very unanticipated journey, and in particular, over the past 12 months. And being a conservative one, at that, who speaks her mind, has added a dynamic that, in and of itself, has become somewhat controversial in online discussions about Mormonism, amongst Mormons' themselves.

In other words, faithful Mormons don't always agree on what it means to act faithfully.

From my perspective, and the way I write, is that to act faithfully is to hearken to the words of living prophets, and I emphasize, whom members sustain by covenant. Which does not mean blind adherence, but is rather an exercise of faith -- trusting that the Lord is directing this work, and will uphold those whom He has called. However, some strongly disagree with me, to the point of taking on my positions, even seeing them as oppositional to the progress of the modern Church.

I don't know what is offensive in her perspective. When did expressing her belief about this become offensive?

Edited August 29, 2012 by Evangeline

[Calm]

That is not a male or female issue. That is an issue of humans needing to learn to be more Christ-like. I would have to say that the issue of treating others badly for having opposing viewpoints goes both ways.

And the best way to deal with it is to bring the rationales for mistreatment of anyone to the front and center to discuss it publicly so people first and foremost realize what they are doing (because so often when it is culturally determined, people don't realize the dynamics of their actions) and second so that options on how to change both individually and the culture to promote more Christ-like behaviour can be presented.

[Calm]

More "light", more "knowledge", more "understanding"? Despite your repeated claims, you've presented zero evidence that our good sisters are, in fact, treated badly for desiring these things- nor has anyone here advocated for such treatment.

I think Erin's statement that seeking for more light and knowledge is code for political activism is a great example of how intimidation through accusations of apostasy, etc. is used to try and shut down the conversation.

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.

Edited August 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

This argument might have real teeth if not for the fact that sponsorship and endorsement of the results of the conference are two entirely different things.

It is not about endorsement of any position, it is that the conference was specifically set up with the intent to allow all these women to openly discuss the various positions without giving preference to one over the other.

The viewpoints of the women chosen to participate by those setting up the conference (which involved the Church Historian who focuses on the history of women in the Church) would have been known prior to the conference, that they have publicized their viewpoints, etc. is the reason they were chosen to participate so that gives us the implication that the Church is okay with this whole discussion being taken to a public setting, that they don't see the sole proper course to be one of personal prayer and personal struggle but that it should be addressed as well on a community level.

At least that is how I am interpreting why the conference was set up in the first place. Is there any evidence that supports a different view of the Church's acceptance and support of a public discussion on these issues?

[Evangeline]

And the best way to deal with it is to bring the rationales for mistreatment of anyone to the front and center to discuss it publicly so people first and foremost realize what they are doing

Can you point to some "rationales for mistreatment" in this thread (other than people expressing beliefs and concerns that can be supported by the words of church leaders)?

[Calm]

Already have in Erin's use of the label of "political activism".

I also think that selek's use of "feminism" (which is certainly not a one size fits all community nowadays) is overgeneralized and is another rationale that is confusing the issues, not helping to define them effectively. (And I am confused now by some of his recent comments which seems to contradict some that he has said in the past.)

selek's expressing a feeling that he is being told to shut up by those who hold to a feminist POV (I don't know exactly what he means by this because the "feminist" POV is so varied these days) is a great contrast to those women who feel that being labeled a "feminist" is being told to "shut up" due to some of the condemnation of feminists by a few church leaders in the past (a past where feminism was much better defined, but even then focusing on the actual issue being condemn rather than condemning all those who saw themselves as feminists would have been better because there was never a time that it was a one size fits all movement). This contrast is a great demonstration of how the discussion needs to be redefined so that there is no sense of being threatened for expressing one's POV if one is a faithful LDS.

I think the conference is a great example of how the Church is trying to help the discussion be redefined, taking the accusation of agitation and political activism from any angle (from the more traditional or nontraditional angles) out of the equation by setting up an open discussion with participants of varied POVs.

Edited August 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Evangeline]

Already have in Erin's use of the label of "political activism".

I also think that selek's use of "feminism" (which is certainly not a one size fits all community nowadays) is overgeneralized and is another rationale that is confusing the issues, not helping to define them effectively. (And I am confused now by some of his recent comments which seems to contradict some that he has said in the past.)

selek's expressing a feeling that he is being told to shut up by those who hold to a feminist POV (I don't know exactly what he means by this because the "feminist" POV is so varied these days) is a great contrast to those women who feel that being labeled a "feminist" is being told to "shut up" due to some of the condemnation of feminists by a few church leaders in the past (a past where feminism was much better defined, but even then focusing on the actual issue being condemn rather than condemning all those who saw themselves as feminists would have been better because there was never a time that it was a one size fits all movement). This contrast is a great demonstration of how the discussion needs to be redefined so that there is no sense of being threatened for expressing one's POV if one is a faithful LDS.

I think the conference is a great example of how the Church is trying to help the discussion be redefined, taking the accusation of agitation and political activism from any angle (from the more traditional or nontraditional angles) out of the equation by setting up an open discussion with participants of varied POVs.

I agree that labels are problematic. Would you mind providing a reference where it says that the Church is "taking the accusation of agitation and political activism.... out of the equation?"

[Calm]

The existence of the conference is the reference.

[Evangeline]

To me, "taking the accusation of agitation and political activism out of the equation" is a blanket shutdown of many people's perspectives. I'm not convinced that having a woman's conference talking about women's issues exactly means an endorsement from the Church that these things are not to be discussed in any venue.

I'm going to bow out of this because I dislike arguing, especially with people that I admire greatly.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Evangeline

[Maidservant]

Is there an implication that men do not need a brotherhood (a unity of brothers) and that women do not need a sisterhood? Because I think men do need a brotherhood, and if you remove that brotherhood from the device of quorums, you will need to make a replacement, and women will not enter the replacement. There has to be SOME way for male expression where women are not (and vice versa). Maybe the way it is now is not the best way, but something has to be (as I understand), and I love the brotherhood of quorums. And perhaps this is most critical at the teen age.

http://www.lds.org/g...&query=peterson

Edited August 29, 2012 by Maidservant

[BlueDreams]

To me, "taking the accusation of agitation and political activism out of the equation" is a blanket shutdown of many people's perspectives.

I don't... unless one's perspective entails analyzing character and motives for other people. Where people can be labeled as politically motivated, agitating for change, or feminists (as a bad thing), etc. It's not a means of discussion but a means of discreditting and to weed out those who are "truly" faithful or have the church in mind. Which is incorrect. I, personally, find it off-putting to hear feminists lumped into one ball and painted in a negative light....if only because i consider myself a feminist. Or when questioning practices and wanting room to air concerns or questions is somehow construed as inappropriate...it dichotomizes the discussion. Either you're good and true to the teaching of the Church or you are trying to turn the church into a worldly organization. With that, many of the moderate voices, the critical concerns or questions of LDS women go unoticed because the discussion is constantly polarized.

I'm not convinced that having a woman's conference talking about women's issues exactly means an endorsement from the Church that these things are not to be discussed in any venue.

Clarification: Did you mean "an endorsement fromt he church that these things are to be discussed in any venue"....just uncertain about your statement.

With luv,

BD

[Maidservant]

And just for fun--I tried to find a place where I ever heard this, but I cannot recall and it does not seem to come up on google or LDS.org--but some LDS dignitary in many years past visited (Salt Lake? where?) and he stopped by a young man in the street and asked, "Who is the bishop here?" And the young man said, "I think Sister Peterson is." She was doing a lot for the ward and community. She was everywhere.

Does anyone else recall this tidbit of a story and where it comes from?