Women And The Priesthood

[Tacenda]

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

I miss the days where RS lessons were geared towards women and different than the men's. Now it's the same lesson for both. Sometimes I hate correlation.

[Calm]

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.

You've misunderstood my point, about 180 degrees actually and try as I might, I can't see where I've given that impression.

Let me clarify however....

What I meant is that in the past there has been pretty much two dominant venues where this topic was discussed, one was where dissenters determined the direction and the acceptable line was the Church's patriarchal system is oppressive, etc. where women who didn't want the priesthood or wanted to work within the system were seen as buying into the oppression. The second one was the reverse where faithful women were defined as not even wanting to discuss the possibility and the topic was not allowed to get much beyond if you trust our leaders, you won't worry about it so much. Either way, nothing really gets addressed, those involved in those types of arenas just tend support those who agree with them and try and shut down through shame anyone who disagrees. Pretty useless and ends up just increasing negative feelings about the 'other side' all around.

What the conference has demonstrated is that the Church is accepting that the discussion can and even should include women who aren't currently interested in having the Priesthood or even changing things at all, women who want to increase visibility within the system to address the needs of those who are concerned and even women who desire the Priesthood in the here and now and demonstrate their faithfulness by accepting that the process must involved the Lord and his appointed leaders, who are not "agitating" but simply want to discuss the issue and have their concerns recognized as a beginning, who see change within the Church as occurring on many levels at once, not just from the top down. Taking out the extreme positions allows for the discussion to be redefined as nonthreatening to either the individual or the institution. In other words, the polarization of the topic will eventually be weakened to the point that effective discussion can occur, things can be allowed to change for the better whatever that "better" is decided to be no matter on what level (individual, ward within the system, churchwide policy change due to leadership decisions, revelation from the Lord).

This does not mean the extreme positions don't exist or won't continue to exist or even won't try to again dominate the discussion, but what it does mean is that the rest of the population who are interested in actually having a discussion no matter what position they personally hold (rather then just promoting their own position as the only viable one) can start engaging each other without fear of being shut down.

PS: I don't see this as an argument, I see this thread primarily as an attempt to present my own POV while attempting to understand others as well. I am not asking people to accept my POV as the only valid one, but rather simply to accept it as "a" valid position. I see most participants in the thread doing the same thing, and only on a few occasions have a few posters attempted to 'shut down' others....and I am more than open to that happening due to misunderstanding what the others' positions are, thinking those positions are more extreme than they really are.

If the discussion keeps getting shut down or people keep walking away from it because it is hard (and it is a very hard discussion that is very distasteful because it does seem at times I am disagreeing with people I highly respect) then these misunderstandings will only increase. Hopefully with more discussion, more understanding will occur and common ground can be found so that those who feel the need for change (small or large) will be able to effectively and faithfully work on that without creating a situation where those who are faithfully focused on other things feel marginalized and the reverse.

PPS: I don't mean for the above PS to come across as condemnation for Evangeline for stepping out of the thread. Everyone has to judge for themselves when a conversation becomes unproductive for them, it is no more effective to force a conversation than it is to shut one down prematurely. I am not talking about specific instances of individuals seeing it's time for some greater personal space but rather more of a community making habits of always attempting to shut down or walk away from a topic.

Edited August 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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

Definitely would agree.

[Calm]

I miss the days where RS lessons were geared towards women and different than the men's. Now it's the same lesson for both. Sometimes I hate correlation.

There is still Enrichment Night or whatever it is called now. Men don't have that, am curious as to if they have something comparable.

Also women have visiting teaching, men do not have something comparable as while they hometeach together as men, they are not meeting solely with other men, but with families.

[Glenn101]

When it comes right down to it, this is the Lord's call. I think that the women who want the priesthood badly should take their desires to the Lord in fervent, sincers, and unceasing prayer. If they do so, they will receive an answer, through the channel of official revelation if the Lord should so desire it, or (probably) through personal revelation, if the Lord should deny it. I do not think that the Lord would castigate a sincere seeker for asking in faith, nothing wavering. That is how we are supposed to receive wisdom.

Right now, I do not know one way or another how the Lord would aswer. But I think that any faithful member of the church should want what the Lord wants.

Glenn

[Tacenda]

There is still Enrichment Night or whatever it is called now. Men don't have that, am curious as to if they have something comparable.

Also women have visiting teaching, men do not have something comparable as while they hometeach together as men, they are not meeting solely with other men, but with families.

True, very true.

[Cobalt-70]

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."

The terms are not equated. "Objectivity" in the sense of objectification.

[selek1]

The terms are not equated. "Objectivity" in the sense of objectification.

In other words, you misused the term, just as Evangeline pointed out.

[Calm]

In other words, you misused the term, just as Evangeline pointed out.

Something we can agree on in this thread.

[selek1]

Something we can agree on in this thread.

[Cobalt-70]

In other words, you misused the term, just as Evangeline pointed out.

See this definition of "objectivity." That's how I was using the term, and it is a concept that has been associated with "pure womanhood" since Plato.

[Calm]

But I think that any faithful member of the church should want what the Lord wants.

Amen.... though it's not always easy to find out though what the Lord wants and sometimes I think part of finding out what the Lord wants is listening to what his children have to say as well.

[CV75]

What I meant is that in the past there has been pretty much two dominant venues where this topic was discussed

What would you say is a moderate voice between “the Church’s patriarchal system is oppressive” and “the Church’s patriarchal system is emancipating”?

It may depend on whether the system is being looked at spiritually, socially or in some other way.

Edited August 29, 2012 by CV75

[Tacenda]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765599559/LDS-women-men-very-close-in-religious-observance.html?pg=1

San Diego, CA

So, the main purpose of this conference was to bring new focus to the women's side of our church's story, recognizing that focus on that side of the story has been lacking. You have a weekend FULL of wonderful women's voices: 13 out of 16 speakers are women. The weekend is hailed by all as a resounding success, with unforgettably fascinating presentations on a wide range of historical and contemporary women's issues, culminating in a look forward and outward to the experience of women in the church outside the United States and the future of growth before us.

And Joseph Walker's coverage of this event focuses on just one speaker (a man), and further narrowly focuses on the one piece of male-centered news in that presentation. I heard wonderful things about Mr. Campbell's presentation, let me be clear about that. But good grief. The first line of this piece reads like a punch line.

What a tragically missed opportunity to share the full story of the conference, and fulfill the conference's purpose of bringing much-lacking, much-needed attention to the experiences and issues of women in the church.

CLee

Note: One of the many comments posted, that disapproved of the way the article was written.

IMO, the article shows the perception that women are just something to put up with. Make them happy, give them what they want....keep sweet women. (I'm feeling snarky, sorry)

Edited August 29, 2012 by Tacenda

[Calm]

What would you say is a moderate voice between “the Church’s patriarchal system is oppressive” and “the Church’s patriarchal system is emancipating”?

It may depend on whether the system is being looked at spiritually, socially or in some other way.

I would like to see a variety of venues where a variety of moderate voices can gather together and emphasize positive experience (since these will form the best models for adaptation) as well as allow for negative feelings to be expressed, recognized as part of the process as well so that we can learn what pitfalls to avoid in our adaptations. I don't see one voice no matter how moderate being capable of reaching out and connecting with all the individuals out there whose experiences have caused them to look at these issues in pretty much unique ways. (Another reason we need to have extensive discussion so as we can bring these varied experiences closer together to establish common ground to work on.)

Realistically speaking in order to help individuals and institutions to adapt to the changing needs of its members it needs to be approach on a variety of levels just as the Church mission is fourfold to cover the large range of needs among a large range of communities and individuals in its members. I think the system needs to be evaluated for ways to approach through spiritual, social, finanicial, educational and other efforts.....though because we are first and foremost a spiritual community, if we do not place the highest priority on filling spiritual needs and approach issues through a spiritual lens we may be easily sidetracked. Of course in order to put the focus so strongly on the spiritual aspects of our lives we need to meet the basic needs of the more demanding physical and emotional needs, once people are out of a survival mode they are ready to deal more effectively in adapting to change in spiritual and rational ways.

Edited August 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765599559/LDS-women-men-very-close-in-religious-observance.html?pg=2

San Diego, CA

So, the main purpose of this conference was to bring new focus to the women's side of our church's story, recognizing that focus on that side of the story has been lacking. You have a weekend FULL of wonderful women's voices: 13 out of 16 speakers are women. The weekend is hailed by all as a resounding success, with unforgettably fascinating presentations on a wide range of historical and contemporary women's issues, culminating in a look forward and outward to the experience of women in the church outside the United States and the future of growth before us.

And Joseph Walker's coverage of this event focuses on just one speaker (a man), and further narrowly focuses on the one piece of male-centered news in that presentation. I heard wonderful things about Mr. Campbell's presentation, let me be clear about that. But good grief. The first line of this piece reads like a punch line.

What a tragically missed opportunity to share the full story of the conference, and fulfill the conference's purpose of bringing much-lacking, much-needed attention to the experiences and issues of women in the church.

Finding the women centered presentations on the second page of a report on a conference whose primary emphasis was to be on women is an excellent example of what many women are concerned about in regards to the visibility of women in the Church. Why is the big news a survey that finds LDS men have equal commitment to religious involvement as women do? And that study could have been written so it was putting the women's actions as the primary concern rather then the expressed need to keep men involved.

It is rather ironic considering many women are losing a desire to stay involved precisely because of the perceived emphasis on men's needs in order to keep them in involved due to an assumption that women will just keep coming to church almost no matter what. Unfortunately the studies are now showing young women are starting to leave in significant numbers as well and I don't see it as any easier to get them back once they've left than men and I see quite a bit of potential for it to be even harder if they tend to become more comfortable with the worldly paradigm of competition rather than cooperativeness that is the ideal within the Church.

Edited August 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

I think it'd be phenomenal to have a women's bible, book of mormon, doctrine and covenants, pearl of great price, study class with just women, like other faiths.

http://www.mountainviewbc.org/tp40/application.asp?app=CalendarDetail&type=&cid=783&id=16599&Date=8/1/2012

[Tacenda]

Finding the women centered presentations on the second page of a report on a conference whose primary emphasis was to be on women is an excellent example of what many women are concerned about in regards to the visibility of women in the Church. Why is the big news a survey that finds LDS men have equal commitment to religious involvement as women do? And that study could have been written so it was putting the women's actions as the primary concern rather then the expressed need to keep men involved.

It is rather ironic considering many women are losing a desire to stay involved precisely because of the perceived emphasis on men's needs in order to keep them in involved due to an assumption that women will just keep coming to church almost no matter what. Unfortunately the studies are now showing young women are starting to leave in significant numbers as well and I don't see it as any easier to get them back once they've left than men and I see quite a bit of potential for it to be even harder if they tend to become more comfortable with the worldly paradigm of competition rather than cooperativeness that is the ideal within the Church.

I agree Cal, there needs to be some change. And I know this isn't heretical thinking, and as you've expressed before, maybe things need to be said aloud for that change and the leadership could go to the Lord with it.

I really appreciate your input because so many on this board have alot of respect for you!

Edited August 29, 2012 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Campbell's studies did have some relevance to women that was not mentioned in the DN article that was actually very interesting and I would hope more info will be available soon:

Campbell presented other findings indicating more complexity in Mormon women’s reactions to the their religious experiences. These included women’s much greater preference for personal revelation over obedience to authority, and female emphasis on “helping others” as a mark of faithfulness over men’s emphasis on “sinlessness.”

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/forging-the-thunderbolts-a-report-of-the-“women-and-the-lds-church-historical-and-contemporary-perspectives-conference”-august-24-25-2012/

[CV75]

I would like to see a variety of venues where a variety of moderate voices can gather together and emphasize positive experience (since these will form the best models for adaptation) as well as allow for negative feelings to be expressed, recognized as part of the process as well so that we can learn what pitfalls to avoid in our adaptations. I don't see one voice no matter how moderate being capable of reaching out and connecting with all the individuals out there whose experiences have caused them to look at these issues in pretty much unique ways. (Another reason we need to have extensive discussion so as we can bring these varied experiences closer together to establish common ground to work on.)

Realistically speaking in order to help individuals and institutions to adapt to the changing needs of its members it needs to be approach on a variety of levels just as the Church mission is fourfold to cover the large range of needs among a large range of communities and individuals in its members. I think the system needs to be evaluated for ways to approach through spiritual, social, finanicial, educational and other efforts.....though because we are first and foremost a spiritual community, if we do not place the highest priority on filling spiritual needs and approach issues through a spiritual lens we may be easily sidetracked. Of course in order to put the focus so strongly on the spiritual aspects of our lives we need to meet the basic needs of the more demanding physical and emotional needs, once people are out of a survival mode they are ready to deal more effectively in adapting to change in spiritual and rational ways.

I for one don’t see the Church as having a moderate voice regarding its patriarchal system (the rights of the priesthood). The Church will say it is a God-given system that we must use well; that, referring to D&C 121:36, it is emancipating (uses the power of heaven) and can only be used to emancipate (used under the principles of righteousness). Yet such a non-moderate stance displays meekness, mildness, patience, kindness, a willingness to listen and other attributes commonly considered as being “moderate.”

When it comes to discussion, a model is given in D&C 88:118-123 and 50:22-26. Granted, not everyone is bound to use the Holy Ghost but at least a well-facilitated and moderated venue would help the “voices” stop and “listen” with edifying results. The conference from last weekend, cited in this thread, seems to have taken this kind of direction.

You mentioned the Church getting help to “adapt to the changing needs of its members” on a variety of levels. Can you explain this a bit further? I’ve seen this done with such things as changes in the organization of the seventy (addressing growth), the evolution of the welfare system (addressing economy), the “Manifesto” (addressing persecution), etc. but not in the sense of changes in the patriarchal system itself—what changing needs call for an adaptation in this system?

Also, in what ways is some of our membership in “survival mode” on this issue? I can see the Church evaluating how well its patriarchal system is functioning, but not its appropriateness, or whether it is a revealed system. For example, I’ve seen more emphasis and training on the use of councils in problem-solving, which to me is more in line with making the system function better than in adapting the system.

[Calm]

I for one don’t see the Church as having a moderate voice regarding its patriarchal system (the rights of the priesthood). The Church will say it is a God-given system that we must use well; that, referring to D&C 121:36, it is emancipating (uses the power of heaven) and can only be used to emancipate (used under the principles of righteousness). Yet such a non-moderate stance displays meekness, mildness, patience, kindness, a willingness to listen and other attributes commonly considered as being “moderate.”

I agree that the role of the Church is not to be a "moderate voice" but rather to proclaim doctrine and teach current policy (as policy), but I also believe that the Church leadership is already a moderate voice in the sense that it promotes both the idea that priesthood is not to be used as a system of oppression, but also that with its current policy and teachings about women there is nothing in there about women who are unhappy with the system are somehow less than faithful nor are those who want to discuss the issue (thus the Church sponsorship of the conference). I think of the Church as a central ground around which the participants in the discussion interact, with the Church not so much of a direct participant but more of a mentor/observer position....but that view may change the more I think about what the discussion might become....we are just at the beginnings of defining it, imo.

Have to take a break and answer the rest later...suddenly got a sick migraine and can't think....weather change perhaps? Should be back in a few hours or less if I can get a quick nap.

[Tacenda]

I agree that the role of the Church is not to be a "moderate voice" but rather to proclaim doctrine and teach current policy (as policy), but I also believe that the Church leadership is already a moderate voice in the sense that it promotes both the idea that priesthood is not to be used as a system of oppression, but also that with its current policy and teachings about women there is nothing in there about women who are unhappy with the system are somehow less than faithful nor are those who want to discuss the issue (thus the Church sponsorship of the conference). I think of the Church as a central ground around which the participants in the discussion interact, with the Church not so much of a direct participant but more of a mentor/observer position....but that view may change the more I think about what the discussion might become....we are just at the beginnings of defining it, imo.

Have to take a break and answer the rest later...suddenly got a sick migraine and can't think....weather change perhaps? Should be back in a few hours or less if I can get a quick nap.

(feel better)

[CV75]

I agree that the role of the Church is not to be a "moderate voice" but rather to proclaim doctrine and teach current policy (as policy), but I also believe that the Church leadership is already a moderate voice in the sense that it promotes both the idea that priesthood is not to be used as a system of oppression, but also that with its current policy and teachings about women there is nothing in there about women who are unhappy with the system are somehow less than faithful nor are those who want to discuss the issue (thus the Church sponsorship of the conference). I think of the Church as a central ground around which the participants in the discussion interact, with the Church not so much of a direct participant but more of a mentor/observer position....but that view may change the more I think about what the discussion might become....we are just at the beginnings of defining it, imo.

Have to take a break and answer the rest later...suddenly got a sick migraine and can't think....weather change perhaps? Should be back in a few hours or less if I can get a quick nap.

I hope you feel better soon.

Speaking of the Church's role as a moderator, it is intersting to see some of the responses from some who have "struggled with" the question of "

Why don’t women hold the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How do Mormon women lead in the Church?" on the mormon.org site: http://mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church

[Traela]

I miss the days where RS lessons were geared towards women and different than the men's. Now it's the same lesson for both. Sometimes I hate correlation.

I actually think it's pretty funny how both groups can theoretically get the same lesson, but go in entirely different directions.

That being said, I've been reading old RS Magazines that my ward was getting rid of, and I really wish there could be optional weekday meetings similar to the old program.

[BlueDreams]

Speaking of the Church's role as a moderator, it is intersting to see some of the responses from some who have "struggled with" the question of "

Why don’t women hold the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How do Mormon women lead in the Church?" on the mormon.org site: http://mormon.org/fa...n-in-the-church

Just a quick comment. I don't think this could necessarily be described as responces from those who have struggled with those questions. I assume they're those that have thought about it at some level, but I also assume they are those where the specific context is meant for those to understand current practices outside of the LDS faith. So your answers are going to differ by this. Not that they're lying or anything. I wrote my own thing on there and was honest in my answers. But I specifically did it wanting people to understand why I love and feel good within the church I'm in. I'd do the same to those who insist that I'm oppressed and being controlled by men. Or those who think women are not worth much in the LDS faith. Those, to me, are patently false. So I'd show that, yes, I do believe that I have inherent value equal to a man, based on my faith. It would be in natural defense of what I cherish.

It doesn't negate that I also think there's room to grow in improving participation, or that I haven't felt uncertain or pressed about the culture/certain beliefs, etc. But in that moment, I'd feel more of an affinity to have people understand the good things I find within my faith.

With luv,

BD