Women And The Priesthood

[CV75]

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

Where they actually used the word “struggle,” and I think we all have them on some point or another, I also understand the answers are intended to be Church-friendly. I think these “struggle” references are indicative of the Church’s not white-washing the members’ experience, although we know the more extreme or critical responses have been censored out.

I agree there's room to grow in improving participation (as in the improved functioning of councils and programs), and treating people better within the membership’s “home” cultures and beliefs which can continue to carry harmful or at least very annoying traditions that are not inherently part of but may invade the Church culture wherever it is established.

I have bit of difficulty addressing the Church’s culture, because I think ideally and fundamentally it is a Zion culture and don’t have any qualms about that. So I tend to segregate the negative aspects of “Utah,” “Intermountain West,” “Western,” “Settler / Agrarian,” “Northern European Immigrant,” “Materialistic / Consumerist” and other “cultures” that impinge upon the Zion culture when talking about the Church itself.

[BlueDreams]

Where they actually used the word “struggle,” and I think we all have them on some point or another, I also understand the answers are intended to be Church-friendly. I think these “struggle” references are indicative of the Church’s not white-washing the members’ experience, although we know the more extreme or critical responses have been censored out.

Oh, I see what you're talking about, the first time I clicked on it there weren't any that described someone who'd struggled with the answers. I think they randomly generate each time. This time I saw two or three who mentioned previous uncertainties. The one I saw stated they didn't know why women didn't have the priesthood. Their modes for acceptance included recognizing that women have a role in the church, that women are loved and respected of God, and that they still have oppurtunities to serve or still have a relationship with God as well. Would you say that's what you saw? Just want to make sure you were seeing similar themes. On a side note, this may be what Calmoriah is talking about with "survival" mode spiritually: our answers aren't really thorough explanations or deeper understandings of the priesthood but means to cope within the system as currently in place.

I didn't think the church actively works to white wash things....not in a sinister or suppressive way at least. I do think it's culturally accepted though in some ways. For example I had heard some people wonder about the accuracy of the I'm a mormon campaign by the women they used, many who worked outside the home. They didn't seem like the best version of mormon women out there, apparently. And as a missionary tool they'd assume that we would want to proscribe the ideal mormon lifestyle.

I agree there's room to grow in improving participation (as in the improved functioning of councils and programs), and treating people better within the membership’s “home” cultures and beliefs which can continue to carry harmful or at least very annoying traditions that are not inherently part of but may invade the Church culture wherever it is established.

Yup. I'd agree

I have bit of difficulty addressing the Church’s culture, because I think ideally and fundamentally it is a Zion culture and don’t have any qualms about that. So I tend to segregate the negative aspects of “Utah,” “Intermountain West,” “Western,” “Settler / Agrarian,” “Northern European Immigrant,” “Materialistic / Consumerist” and other “cultures” that impinge upon the Zion culture when talking about the Church itself.

I see this a little differently. I do not believe we are close to the Zion ideal within the church. I believe we are growing closer and that we have since the restoration. But I don't think it's here yet beyond smaller/isolated glimspes that have not fully permeated throughout. I think there are definitely class or geographic based cultures that influence things but I also believe there are institutional and generally accepted practices, beliefs, etc that fall short of Zion. I can't say I recognize all of them, but when I ponder the history of the church, it's growth, and its changes, that's what I see: a constant change and development towards Zion. One day, we'll get there.

With luv,

BD

[CV75]

Would you say that's what you saw?

Yes, that is the kind of thing I saw.

On a side note, this may be what Calmoriah is talking about with "survival" mode spiritually: our answers aren't really thorough explanations or deeper understandings of the priesthood but means to cope within the system as currently in place.

I think this may be the case for those who are "struggling," or who have decided not to, or at least have decided not to struggle any further with it. But not with those who no longer struggle or never did.

I didn't think the church actively works to white wash things....not in a sinister or suppressive way at least. I do think it's culturally accepted though in some ways. For example I had heard some people wonder about the accuracy of the I'm a mormon campaign by the women they used, many who worked outside the home. They didn't seem like the best version of mormon women out there, apparently. And as a missionary tool they'd assume that we would want to proscribe the ideal mormon lifestyle.

I agree. Are there cases of women working outside the home who were screened out of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign on that basis alone?

I do not believe we are close to the Zion ideal within the church.

Same here; I was trying to get that across. I see it as an ideal--that the Church's ideal is a Zion culture and promotes it in precept and by example wherever teh saints can live up to it-- and if we could really live up to it we would realize Zion. I think the Church faces many obstacles in the way of many contrary traditions (and fads, come to think of it) wherever it is established. The "Perfect Church but imperfect members" sort of deal. Not one to judge, but I think the membership overall is headed in the right direction.

[BlueDreams]

I agree. Are there cases of women working outside the home who were screened out of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign on that basis alone?

Not that I'm aware of. I personally think it would be antithetical to what the overall goal of mormon.org is. To show people from all walks of life using the Gospel to navigate their struggle and unique challenges. They generally want to show people with diverse opinions, occupations, challenges, etc. They especially want to dispel myths, such as Mormon are oppressed and don’t have much a place outside of the home. So if anything I’d assume they want women who are working and/or have active roles in the community. I meant this was some reactions that I’d heard after the fact, not in the making.

Edited August 30, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

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.

Yes, and this is why I am hopeful that things are going to improve though the media's response of focusing on the one thing having to with men in a conference that was supposed to be an example of an extended community discussing women is very disheartening as it makes it appear there is little actual interest in expanding the discussion outside of the immediate participants and it definitely isn't encouraging to grassroot groups to start up their own little discussion groups since while the conference itself was a great example to follow, there was little shared in the media so far at least that showed the process. In fact, I came across one media report that only talked about the study in regards to men, there was no mention of women at all...granted it was a soundbite piece but how strange that the 'top story' to come out of a women's conference is about men. How would that run if there was a conference on how blacks were integrating into certain businesses or educational levels and the top story reported was about how the whites were doing so well? Anyway...enough complaining about that.

You mentioned the Church getting help to “adapt to the changing needs of its members” on a variety of levels.

Actually it was less about the Church getting or giving help, but just pointing out that change could occur on a variety of levels...some of which would be addressed by different areas of church leaders, others by individuals themselves. If you want change to occur on a ward level, you involved not only the general membership of the ward, but tend to need to involve ward leaders for at a minimum scheduling issues. However, if one was just getting together a group of women for a book group as is done in my ward and using that to create a safe haven for discussion, not much leadership if any needs to be involved though it can make it a safer appearance if leadership is involved because then it has the appearance of "church approved" which with a controversial, sensitive subject may be needed. Sister McBaine gave a presentation that suggested many things that could occur on a ward level such as encouraging YW to get involved in Visiting teaching as the YM are in hometeaching, having YW take a visible role in helping the ward function as greeters and bulletin preparers. In our ward, the YM take half of the Church (it is a big building) for cleanup on Sunday (our ward is last) and the YW take the other half. Individually it may be just being brave enough to be the one to bring up the subject of how women's roles are changing consistently in a positive way without being offended by the extremes and working at guiding the conversation away from those extremes so that others not in the extremes start participating as well.

Also, in what ways is some of our membership in “survival mode” on this issue?

When I mentioned survival mode, I wasn't talking about this issue itself, but rather if someone is operating in survival mode---a day to day struggle to have enough to eat, safe place to live, perhaps a chronic health issue in the family---that individual isn't going to be concerned about expanding one's spiritual role. In wards where there are many suffering from lack of jobs, poverty, lack of education and other basic needs, it seems to me to be an admirable, but noneffective approach to focus efforts on increasing their opportunities to discuss issues that they probably care very little about at that point in their lives. Basically what I am saying is that the value of having this discussion must be measured against the immediate needs of the women of the local community, otherwise it becomes something like teaching women how to present a fine table with beautiful clothes and polished silverware in all the right places when their focus is more on getting enough food to put on that table to feed their families. This last comment was a caution about inflating the importance of the issue for the church as a whole, we don't want to neglect more fundamental issues in pursuit of finding answers for this one that may be troubling only a segment of the LDS population due to their cultural environment.

I think there is something analogous to the Priesthood ban for blacks happening now for women in the sense of church dynamics (I am not suggesting that this implies the ultimate result will be the ban being lifted on women and they receiving full authority to operate in all areas of the priesthood as men do now). The impact on the Church was very time and culturally dependent, for investigators in the US and Canada it was a very different problem of perception than it was for US and Canada faithful members who desired their temple ordinances as well as needing enough priesthood holders to care for functioning wards in areas of spiritual growth such as were occurring in Africa and Latin America. Depending on one's culture and how women are treated outside of the Church, a woman will be looking at how the Priesthood impacts her life inside the Church as well as her own Church role very differently. This is a global church, any global change will have an varied effect due to the varied cultures it exists in. That is why I think it is so important to get a broad discussion going...think of it as a grand group therapy movement where those involved both offer support and acceptance of the individual but also can provide reality checks and suggestions for improvements, but it is primarily left up to the individual to figure out what works as a rationale for him or herself rather than something being imposed upon her or him from outside and being told what to do (which does not contribute to long term internal or external change).

Edited August 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Ares]

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

Stop equating political or personal views with worthiness.

[selek1]

Stop equating political or personal views with worthiness.

I did not. I was not. I have not.

I was refering specifically to those " [who demand] that we alter the Church and its doctrines to conform to an external, arbitrary, and Babylonian concept of 'equality'."

I didn't say anything about "worthiness", nor did I say or imply anything about any person in particular.

I was, instead, referring to the time-proven, doctrinal principle that criticism and fault-finding of the Church lead inexorably, almost inevitably to apostacy.

To quote President Uchtdorf (who was himself citing President George Q. Cannon):

"I knew that apostasy frequently resulted from the indulgence of the spirit of criticizing and faultfinding."

There is no end to the creativity, ingenuity, and tenacity of those who look for reasons to criticize. They cannot seem to release their grip on grudges. They gossip and find fault with others. They nurse wounds for decades, taking every opportunity to tear down and demean others. This is not pleasing to the Lord, “for where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work”

To quote President Marvin J. Ashton:

As I continued my walk to the visitors’ center, I began to ponder the actions of those persons who are giving time and money to discredit, embarrass, ridicule, and shame those who have religious views that differ from their own. Sometimes such actions can unify and strengthen those who are attacked. However, in some few instances they plant seeds of discord, and at times righteous people are hurt by their slander.

I doubt that such actions can be called Christlike. At no time did Jesus Christ encourage us to spend time participating in damaging, destructive criticism. His message was to encourage us to seek, learn, and share all that is praiseworthy and of value as we associate with our fellowmen. Only those who are vindictive and cantankerous participate in ferreting out and advertising the negative and unsavory.

No religion, group, or individual can prosper over an extended period of time with fault-finding as their foundation. To the world, and especially to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we declare there is no time for contention. “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” (James 1:26.)

Edited August 31, 2012 by selek1

[CV75]

Not that I'm aware of. I personally think it would be antithetical to what the overall goal of mormon.org is. To show people from all walks of life using the Gospel to navigate their struggle and unique challenges. They generally want to show people with diverse opinions, occupations, challenges, etc. They especially want to dispel myths, such as Mormon are oppressed and don’t have much a place outside of the home. So if anything I’d assume they want women who are working and/or have active roles in the community. I meant this was some reactions that I’d heard after the fact, not in the making.

Glad to hear that! Funny- just by coincidence, a woman I home taught this evening shared with me that she was interviewed, filmed/videoed, and put on billboards for the campaign. Without going into detail, she definitely doesn't fit the stereotype that some seem to charge the Church as holding up as the ideal.

[CV75]

Yes, and this is why I am hopeful that things are going to improve though the media's response of focusing on the one thing having to with men in a conference that was supposed to be an example of an extended community discussing women is very disheartening as it makes it appear there is little actual interest in expanding the discussion outside of the immediate participants and it definitely isn't encouraging to grassroot groups to start up their own little discussion groups since while the conference itself was a great example to follow, there was little shared in the media so far at least that showed the process. In fact, I came across one media report that only talked about the study in regards to men, there was no mention of women at all...granted it was a soundbite piece but how strange that the 'top story' to come out of a women's conference is about men. How would that run if there was a conference on how blacks were integrating into certain businesses or educational levels and the top story reported was about how the whites were doing so well? Anyway...enough complaining about that.

Actually it was less about the Church getting or giving help, but just pointing out that change could occur on a variety of levels...some of which would be addressed by different areas of church leaders, others by individuals themselves. If you want change to occur on a ward level, you involved not only the general membership of the ward, but tend to need to involve ward leaders for at a minimum scheduling issues. However, if one was just getting together a group of women for a book group as is done in my ward and using that to create a safe haven for discussion, not much leadership if any needs to be involved though it can make it a safer appearance if leadership is involved because then it has the appearance of "church approved" which with a controversial, sensitive subject may be needed. Sister McBaine gave a presentation that suggested many things that could occur on a ward level such as encouraging YW to get involved in Visiting teaching as the YM are in hometeaching, having YW take a visible role in helping the ward function as greeters and bulletin preparers. In our ward, the YM take half of the Church (it is a big building) for cleanup on Sunday (our ward is last) and the YW take the other half. Individually it may be just being brave enough to be the one to bring up the subject of how women's roles are changing consistently in a positive way without being offended by the extremes and working at guiding the conversation away from those extremes so that others not in the extremes start participating as well.

When I mentioned survival mode, I wasn't talking about this issue itself, but rather if someone is operating in survival mode---a day to day struggle to have enough to eat, safe place to live, perhaps a chronic health issue in the family---that individual isn't going to be concerned about expanding one's spiritual role. In wards where there are many suffering from lack of jobs, poverty, lack of education and other basic needs, it seems to me to be an admirable, but noneffective approach to focus efforts on increasing their opportunities to discuss issues that they probably care very little about at that point in their lives. Basically what I am saying is that the value of having this discussion must be measured against the immediate needs of the women of the local community, otherwise it becomes something like teaching women how to present a fine table with beautiful clothes and polished silverware in all the right places when their focus is more on getting enough food to put on that table to feed their families. This last comment was a caution about inflating the importance of the issue for the church as a whole, we don't want to neglect more fundamental issues in pursuit of finding answers for this one that may be troubling only a segment of the LDS population due to their cultural environment.

I think there is something analogous to the Priesthood ban for blacks happening now for women in the sense of church dynamics (I am not suggesting that this implies the ultimate result will be the ban being lifted on women and they receiving full authority to operate in all areas of the priesthood as men do now). The impact on the Church was very time and culturally dependent, for investigators in the US and Canada it was a very different problem of perception than it was for US and Canada faithful members who desired their temple ordinances as well as needing enough priesthood holders to care for functioning wards in areas of spiritual growth such as were occurring in Africa and Latin America. Depending on one's culture and how women are treated outside of the Church, a woman will be looking at how the Priesthood impacts her life inside the Church as well as her own Church role very differently. This is a global church, any global change will have an varied effect due to the varied cultures it exists in. That is why I think it is so important to get a broad discussion going...think of it as a grand group therapy movement where those involved both offer support and acceptance of the individual but also can provide reality checks and suggestions for improvements, but it is primarily left up to the individual to figure out what works as a rationale for him or herself rather than something being imposed upon her or him from outside and being told what to do (which does not contribute to long term internal or external change).

I hope you're feeling better!

I think the council approach, used effectively, would adress each of the opportunities you mention. Especially the example of YW helping with visit teaching--I would think any Church unit would be able to implement that if so inspired. I've seen it done, but mostly on an informal basis with mothers inviting daughters to join them. I've also seen RS "special interest pods" in some areas, more in the last decade than this one. While they were activity/subject-themed rather than issue-themed, I imagine there was/is great opportunity to share ideas about womens' roles in the Churchin those venues.

I think the media coverage issue must be broader than the Church; I don't live in Utah and I saw the report about the comparative religiosity between men and women on CNN's news feed (nothing about the conference). I actually would have thought the conference itself would have made bigger news in the Utah news market.

I agree there is something to be said about prioritizing the important issues. I personally believe that the Lord is very much invested and engaged in setting them.

In receiving revelation for OD2, three conditions were met: 1) "people of many nations ...have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers;" 2) "a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords;" and 3) "promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church" from prior Church administrations. I see paralells to these conditions today, and I think this serves as a formula for conditions under which revelation is received for general, Church-wide application (for example, building temples, emphasis on harnessing the power of councils, humanitarian and perpetual education funds, etc.).

Especially with the PEF, it is interseting to see that women, as they become more educated and afluent, participate more fully in the kingdom, which is the ultimate aim (and in line with what you descibed as meeting immediate needs before spiritual needs, which is something Brigham Young had a famous quote about, which escapes me--so don't ask for a CFR!!! Just kidding).