Women And The Priesthood

[Cobalt-70]

If you think nurturing is subordinate to providing that is your problem. I happen to think it is the most critical role for mothers and fathers- and the science backs me up.

I didn't say, and don't think, that nurturing is a subordinate role. What makes the ideal Mormon women subordinate is the fact that her husband is the "president" of the household, while she is not, and that she has to covenant to hearken to his righteous counsel.

[Deborah]

That's because, by and large, Mormon families pretty much ignore the Family Proclamation in this regard.

What proclamation are you reading? It very clearly states "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

I guess people read what they want to read into something.

[Deborah]

I didn't say, and don't think, that nurturing is a subordinate role. What makes the ideal Mormon women subordinate is the fact that her husband is the "president" of the household, while she is not, and that she has to covenant to hearken to his righteous counsel.

Preside is not the same as president nor does it even mean that one is making all the decisions. In Sacrament meeting the person who presides may have nothing to do with conducting the meeting or even arranging the speakers. It simply means one who is in charge to keep things moving along.

[TAO]

If someone is happy with the traditional patriarchal structures where men rule over women and the world centers on men, then they'd have no reason to complain.

Luckily, the word 'rule' as it means to other people doesn't really apply to the way most LDS men preside over their families. To be quite honest, I think you are using a definition of rule which, to be plain, communicates an incorrect implication.

But the people who are comfortable within such a patriarchal framework are slowly dying off.

Your framework, yes. The one in which the church runs... not so much =p.

This is a church for people with modern sensibilities, too, which which includes young people and most new converts.

I AM a young person. I'm not really very conservative either. Modern sensibilities is neither here nor there. In any case, I believe you are overestimating changes in how young people in the church view things. In my experience, most young people in the church have been holding to the usual opinions of the church.

A women who is used to being of equal rank to her husband is going to have a hard time joining the LDS church if she takes at face value the non-canonized patriarchal directives of church leadership, whom I love, but whom I recognize are old men from a different era.

Naturally. But, conversion is a powerful thing, which changes opinions. I'm sure there are some who have had this challenge, but I'm also sure there are many who have been fine with it. Mainly because it doesn't turn out to be much like people suppose it to be.

Just because the woman is supposed to be "primarily" assigned the role of nurturing does not in any way diminish the man's supposed role of being the "president" of the home.

Nor does a man's role at being "president" of the home diminish the "primarily" assigned role of women to nurture and care for their children.

The Mormon man is the CEO of the home, and the Mormon woman is assigned to be the "vice president of nurturing."

Maybe in some household you have been in, but in the households I've experienced, good luck with getting that concept to fly.

[TAO]

That's because, by and large, Mormon families pretty much ignore the Family Proclamation in this regard.

They ignore your interpretation of the Proclamation. Considering what President Hinckley has said on the subject of 'love your wives' (which is quite alot), I'm pretty sure that the leaders of the church have an opinion that is distant from what you think they have.

It's a pronouncement of 1950's-style patriarchal roles that has already fallen out of step with the times.

We're Mormons. Being in the times is nice, but, we don't care that much about it.

I have heard of a very few families of my generation and younger where the man is the "president," but these are extremely rare in my experience. This is the way it worked in my parent's generation, but not now. It is also getting much more common to see Mormon fathers who see the importance of their role in nurturing the children as exactly the same as that of their wives.

To be quite honest, I think most LDS fathers see themselves under the lines of 'role models' for their children.

[BlueDreams]

That's because, by and large, Mormon families pretty much ignore the Family Proclamation in this regard. It's a pronouncement of 1950's-style patriarchal roles that has already fallen out of step with the times.

The proclamation was made in 1995, In my (relatively short) lifetime. I do not see it as a pronouncement of 1950 gender roles at all. If people read that into it, that's their prerogative. That does not fit what it states and what prophets and apostles have taught about/used it since its creation. And Mormon families do not ignore it. It's quoted from frequently in local talks, placed on people's walls, and used regularly. I personally keep a copy on my lap top and have read it at least twice through in the last year to enhance my scripture studies.

With luv,

BD

[CV75]

It's wrong to presume that leadership is a "manly" thing, and that when women lead, they are "like a man."

I hope folks got a chuckle out of it. The song came to mind when thinking about the question “Why can’t a woman have a priesthood office?” The question often presumes she is somehow incomplete or inferior without it, which I find misogynistic.

In LDS belief she makes the same covenant as the man, under the same Christ-administered sealing keys that bind them as one, rendering any other conferring or ordaining inconsequential. Making the several priesthood offices more than that is an affront to all involved. The "temporal" priesthood structure of the Church only serves to support this highest order in mortality until the Church of the Firstborn takes over.

Men take on this “subordinate” order of priesthood office as a means of serving the higher order that they and their wives enter into. Women take on other commitments as a means of serving this order with their husbands. The Proclamation gets into this in more detail.

Leadership is a separate issue. “Why can’t a woman lead like a man?” I think it is because she leads in her own way. In every organization there is a formal and informal leadership structure, and in the Church, this occurs whether some leaders (formal and informal) have a priesthood office or not. Ideally all kinds of leaders use Christ as their model and reflect Him in their inherent talents / spiritual gifts.

[happy]

It amazes me how the feminist movement is pushing for women to become men. Somewhere we have equated "equal" with "same". Will someday women have their breasts removed, dock their hair, and have their voiceboxes lowered? I don't understand this idea that women and their uniqueness are somehow a bad thing.

[thesometimesaint]

I didn't say, and don't think, that nurturing is a subordinate role. What makes the ideal Mormon women subordinate is the fact that her husband is the "president" of the household, while she is not, and that she has to covenant to hearken to his righteous counsel.

No. it is closer to a Bishop, and only a fool of a Bishop wouldn't heed the righteous counsel of his 1st counselor.

[Cobalt-70]

What proclamation are you reading? It very clearly states "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

I guess people read what they want to read into something.

Evidently so. In the context of the document, it means "equal partners" in the sense that the Bishop is an "equal partner" with his Relief Society president. But they are not of the same rank. As the "president," the man is the executive in charge who still delegates his power to the woman, he has the final say, and the woman must [edit] even though the husband has no such responsibility with regards to his wife.

[Cobalt-70]

Preside is not the same as president nor does it even mean that one is making all the decisions. In Sacrament meeting the person who presides may have nothing to do with conducting the meeting or even arranging the speakers. It simply means one who is in charge to keep things moving along.

Anyone who "presides" is by definition the "president." That's what the word means. The president of a company doesn't make all the decisions, either, but he is of higher rank than any VP, and ultimately he is the boss, no matter how benevolent and deferential he is in practice.

[thesometimesaint]

Sethpayne:

http://mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church

[happy]

Anyone who "presides" is by definition the "president." That's what the word means. The president of a company doesn't make all the decisions, either, but he is of higher rank than any VP, and ultimately he is the boss, no matter how benevolent and deferential he is in practice.

Well, then in a free America, you don't have to be a member. Simple.

[Verum]

I think I mentioned this in another thread at some point, but a lot of of the duties and tasks are unnecessarily put under the umbrella of priesthood responsibility. Besides not being able to lead, its really unfortunate that women can't even fill the water in the sacrament trays, clean the trays, place bread in trays, be a witness that someone was fully immersed during a baptism, collect fast offerings, be a clerk, and traditionally not pray in GC..

Some of these specific priesthood "duties" should be re-examined because I see no reason why these should be priesthood specific and especially are not gender specific.

I think this what the article is really saying, not that all women should now have the priesthood.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Verum

[CV75]

Evidently so. In the context of the document, it means "equal partners" in the sense that the Bishop is an "equal partner" with his Relief Society president. But they are not of the same rank. As the "president," the man is the executive in charge who still delegates his power to the woman, he has the final say, and the woman must "hearken to his counsel," even though the husband has no such responsibility with regards to his wife.

Whoa, Nellie! Where, how does, and why would this Proclamation to the world frame itself in a context so narrow as a ward (the Bishop’s partnership with his Relief Society president)? Similarly, where and how is “rank” addressed in the Proclamation? These questions are rhetorical, of course. Truly, people do read what they want to read into something.

[Cobalt-70]

Luckily, the word 'rule' as it means to other people doesn't really apply to the way most LDS men preside over their families. To be quite honest, I think you are using a definition of rule which, to be plain, communicates an incorrect implication.

Moses 4:22 uses the word "rule" also. But I usually have used the word "preside," because I think the idea of "presidency" best reflects the ideal taught by church leaders up to, and including, the time of the Family Proclamation. The idea of presidency does not, however, reflect the actual practice of most Mormons born after about 1960 or so. Younger Mormons may say that they believe that the husband "presides" over the wife, but they don't actually believe that the man gets the final say.

Nor does a man's role at being "president" of the home diminish the "primarily" assigned role of women to nurture and care for their children.

That's like saying that the status of the CEO of a company does not, in any way, diminish the primary responsibility of the HR director for meeting the day-to-day needs of the company staff. Okay, sure, but the CEO is still the boss.

[CV75]

Anyone who "presides" is by definition the "president." That's what the word means. The president of a company doesn't make all the decisions, either, but he is of higher rank than any VP, and ultimately he is the boss, no matter how benevolent and deferential he is in practice.

Whoa, whoa, Nellie! “Preside” by definition is to be in authority or in charge of a group or gathering, and it doesn’t have to be all-encompassing, unshared and disruptive of healthy individual and group relationships and dynamics. The proclamation speaks of presiding in love and righteousness and establishing a relationship where the parents as equal partners help each other.

[CV75]

(I think this is another case where someone confuses Mormons with Mormonism, and views and treats either as an extension of their own experieince and paradigm).

Edited August 17, 2012 by CV75

[Cobalt-70]

It amazes me how the feminist movement is pushing for women to become men. Somewhere we have equated "equal" with "same". Will someday women have their breasts removed, dock their hair, and have their voiceboxes lowered? I don't understand this idea that women and their uniqueness are somehow a bad thing.

No feminist argues that women should become men, or even like men. You are presenting a straw (wo)man. Feminism is, in part, the idea that women and femininity should not be marginalized or subordinated to men and masculinity. A woman who has her breasts removed to become like a man is actually a transgendered man, not a woman.

[TAO]

Moses 4:22 uses the word "rule" also.

Again, how does Christ expect us to 'rule', and does that fit the definition of 'rule' that the world connotates it with so often?

But I usually have used the word "preside," because I think the idea of "presidency" best reflects the ideal taught by church leaders up to, and including, the time of the Family Proclamation.

CFR please.

The idea of presidency does not, however, reflect the actual practice of most Mormons born after about 1960 or so.

CFR please.

Younger Mormons may say that they believe that the husband "presides" over the wife, but they don't actually believe that the man gets the final say.

I rather doubt you will find Mormons even before that believed that 'the man gets the final say'. For example, Brigham Young didn't stop one of his wifes from divorcing him. While Mormons of earlier centuries may have believed stronger in the authority of men, I think you will find that how they interpret it doesn't mean what you imply.

That's like saying that the status of the CEO of a company does not, in any way, diminish the primary responsibility of the HR director for meeting the day-to-day needs of the company staff.

That's a poor analogy. A CEO has the capability to fire people. A CEO's goal is having the company make money. A CEO doesn't do a similar job compared to those working in the company. And there are many other differences. An analogy is as strong as it's similarities, yes, but it's also as weak as it's differences.

Okay, sure, but the CEO is still the boss.

Boss's act differently than Fathers.

[KevinG]

Christ is the model for Priesthood leadership. He sacrificed His life for the church. Ultimately the role of father presiding boils down to sacrificing his time, talents and energy to build his family.

That is how I define preside. Ultimate service to my family.

[CV75]

That is how I define preside. Ultimate service to my family.

Yes, which I think the way the Lord intends it. All one needs to do to disagree is to view these very things through the most toxic lens they can find

[Deborah]

Evidently so. In the context of the document, it means "equal partners" in the sense that the Bishop is an "equal partner" with his Relief Society president. But they are not of the same rank.

Rank? Where does that come in? You seem obsessed with rank and position and status.

[Maidservant]

The Church is an Aaronic Priesthood structure. It is a priesthood structure (offices, etc) meant to function in the telestial kingdom. It IS the Gathering of Israel. It is the Gate, one enters and begins the path of covenant to exaltation. It is the interface between hell and the telestial kingdom and/or the interface between the telestial kingdom and the terrestrial kingdom. Those who have been given the main portion of that stewardship are the brothers, yes. One of the needs (better word?) or directives from our Father to the brothers is to become clean from the blood and sins of this generation.

Both men and women, sons and daughters of God, have priesthood. The priesthood can be organized into any structure or set of offices that seems to be good to our heavenly Father for his purposes. It is true that women do not hold offices in the Aaronic Priesthood structure headed by the bishop. Melchizedek Priesthood holders only hold these Aaronic Priesthood offices due to the unavailability (word?) of literal Aaronic descendents, and can officiate in these 'lower' offices as needed.

Now I could discuss forever on Aaronic Priesthood theory and the relationship each man and woman has with their bishop (and he with them), but the entire rest of what we do in the ward body really hinges on this, and it has to do with the atonement. Again, women do not hold these offices. And it has nothing to do with subordination and leadership. However, whenever a woman (or a man) takes a calling from the Bishop, he or she has a priesthood delegation and acts just as the bishop would if he were there (and they both, each act as Christ would if he were there).

I do believe that men require brotherhood for their salvation (and women, sisterhood) not to mention their psychological health. The structure of quorums is not so much important in terms of a man's relationship to women (in terms of the church proper) but in terms of the man's relationship to other men. It is not about how he relates to his wife, but about how he becomes a brother to other men, and becomes a BODY--a quorum--that becomes one. So that intimacy can be created between men according to God's plan and in foil and peculiarity in some instances to what may be lacking in the world at large.

If you have girls become deacons, then where will the boys find their brotherhood? Where will they find the structure that admits them into the passage of manhood? It's not about what girls can do, it's about providing something young men need from somewhere. If you have girls passing the Sacrament, then you will have to create another type of brotherhood structure or activity (and I say this as a mother of sons), but why? when we already have one? And it's not about who can carry Sacrament trays, it's about Atonement symbolism (hinging in the Sacrament, and the bishop/Aaronic priesthood) and about letting young men begin to learn how to be a servant at this GATE. It's not about what ISN'T happening (for women), it's about what IS happening (for men and their relationship to God, to each other, to the atonement, and to who they serve). It's not about leadership or hierarchy; it's about atonement. (And what the Aaronic priesthood symbolisms are in the entire plan of God--it's one pieace).

Marriage is an order of the priesthood (patriarchal order?). Both men and women have this priesthood together. Again, so much I could say here as well, but this is sufficient for now. I think we have had 'here a little', 'there a little' over the decades of this church as to how this priesthood order should function and its eternal purpose, and I am glad I live at this day and age when things are a bit clearer.

they already are temples

I often have said to myself that women ARE priesthood, which men receive when they are worthy by passing through the previous sets of priesthood. But I may be learning more on that, so I'm not sure even this saying holds for me any more.

I wonder, then, whether Madsen would have agreed with Gordon Hinckley that there is something wrong with praying to the Heavenly Mother. If she has equal priesthood authority in heaven, then why can't we pray to her? I don't buy the rationale that her feelings are too delicate, and that the Father is protecting her by keeping her in a box. She's God! She can handle it!

There is a council of Gods of which the Godhead represents. The council of Gods represents an entire society of beings.

The bishop's wife is not the mother of the ward. The Relief Society president is. They (bishop and R.S. president) have authority together over the ward. The bishop's wife generally has a smaller or no calling due to the demands on her husband at that given point. Thus, when you mention heavenly mother, do you mean the wife or the R.S. president? To pray to heavenly Father is to access our access to ALL OF GOD which is every body waiting for us on the other side, the assembly of the Firstborn, etc. In this sense, to pray to heavenly Mother is meaningless (as I understand it).

We are still putting sectarian frames on our understanding of the plan of God and the structure of heaven.

Having said this, I do not know how much heavenly administration has to do with earthly structures. Probably not much, so they may not look the same; on the other hand the council and the Godhead were created specifically to interact, preside over and administer this earth, so it may be very Aaronic in structure, after all.

I do agree with you that the gloss of protecting her is not convincing (to me).

the womb is a veil, then women are already priestesses the moment they are born.

I really liked everything you said, and it is helping me to think through some things I am working on, even though my conclusions are not exactly on your lines. (The temple symbolisms have multiple meanings by the way.)

Our entire mortal experience is the veil, as I understand. And our bodies are the garment of the priesthood.

Bottom line: I have priesthood. I have authority. I do not hold any offices in the Aaronic Priesthood structure we call the church, nor would I consider it to be a progression if I did.

Small note: right now women are eligible for the 'celestial kingdom' without having taken on them covenants relating to participating in the Gathering of Israel (i.e. Aarronic and Melchizedek priesthood offices). Men are not. I would prefer not to have that kind of eligibility erased for me, I'm thankful.

Also--I don't think that the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods as manifested in the church structures should be corresponded one-to-one with the Aaronic and Melchizedek progressions in the temple. They are related, of course. But sometimes I think they are devices used to describe something a little different. Aaronic and Melchizedek as used in the temple are a path on a larger progression of exaltation that, by the way, started before we came to the mortal sphere. There are many things in the temple, if not all, that refer to our "pre-mortal" progression as well, and the Aaronic and Melchizedek are devices in this story. But I am just starting to suss this out, I don't have a clear picture yet.

You know how a computer (hardware) can manifest the workings of innumerable softwares? Using the same motherboard, you can call up whatever program you like. Sometimes I think the devices and symbolisms in the temple (and scriptures etc etc etc) can do the same thing, and one program someone is dealing with is not the same another is dealing with--depends on which keys (of understanding) you have (or need to learn in your journey)--of course it all ends in the same place, I would imagine .

Edited August 18, 2012 by Maidservant

[Alvino]

A lot of people feel two things will be happening soon. One is gay marriages in the temple or at least some abridged version. But another I see commonly floating alongside people's comments is Women and the Priesthood. A friend of mine challenged me on the doctrinal reasons behind women and the priesthood (certainly not just an LDS issue) and I have heard Catholic explanations (mostly focused on the fact Jesus is male and it is His priesthood), but what is ours? Do we have actual scripture or doctrinal references to a male priesthood? I am not sure how likely a change would take place. Even as recently as a few weeks ago, there were lessons in Priesthood on being the patriarch of the house.

I don't know if other people have mentioned it but it isn't just that you would have to find good reason why everything points to a Priesthood held by men to try to resolve the issue. The question is, why not allow women to hold the Priesthood as men do?

"It has always been done like this" doesn't mean "it shouldn't be done in any other way".

As a side note, such a move didn't seem to help many of the other faiths. The Episcopal faith isn't doing so well, and our cousins over in the Community of Christ have been really a mess. So I do not see a PR based reason to make such a change?

Since when did what other people think stop the true Church of Jesus Christ from doing what was correct (if it were)?