Counterpoint To Gender Discrimination Claims

[Brian 2.0]

A comment from Phaedrus in the BSA survey got me thinking...

I don't want to support any organization that discriminates based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc..

I agree with Phaedrus. I as well don't want to support those groups.

Critics point to the Temple and Priesthood ban as "discriminating based on race" but the church does not practice that ban now so please no comments on that in this thread.

The church has seemed to make it clear that it does not discriminate based on sexual orientation with sexual behavior being another matter.

On the idea of gender, though, I find it hard to defend the critical point that the church "discriminates based on gender" because the higher levels of governing authority are only available to men. And those positions of authority govern both men and women. If Company XYZ had male and female employees but female employees were not eligible for upper management positions that managed groups of both men and women in the company, then I would see that as "discrimination based on gender."

Curious to hear responses on that point.

[Buckeye]

One of my favorite quotes from Joseph is this: "The things men believe in are the things they do." In the long term you cannot separate belief from behavior. Take polygamy as an example. We stopped the behavior 100 years ago and tried to continue the belief. We failed. Very few members today believe that polygamy will be anything more than an "option" and many don't even believe that. I'm not saying which is right, just that our beliefs today are quite different from our beliefs 100 years ago - a fact directly related to our stopping the practice.

Likewise, the racial priesthood ban was dropped after enough members (particularly in the leadership) stopped believing in it. The same thing would happen with the gendered priesthood ban, but currently most members (particularly women) do not want women to have the burden of the priesthood. Many think it would be nice to have women give blessings, perform baptism, etc. But too few men think women capable of bearing the burden of the priesthood and way too few women want to bear the burden. Better to let the men do that. And so we'll see a widening gender gap in the church as the men get overburden and defect. Eventually the women will have to step up, but by then much damage will have been done.

[halconero]

My feelings? As I come to understand the priesthood more I come to understand that "acting as a proxy" for God is a more accurate term than "acting under His authority." I think I'm on safe grounds here. The ordinances performed that invoke the names of the Godhead (those being baptism and the sealing) also need three priesthood holders as a requirement for the performance of the ceremony? Why? To stand as proxies for the Godhead. Every other ordinance only requires one priesthood holder, though more can participate, to stand as a proxy for the Saviour. In the performance of the ordinances both the performer and the receiver of the ordinance (if it is vicarious), must represent his or her own gender.

Prayers are different, as Christ acted as a proxy for all of humanity, and so we communicate with Deity in His name.

I believe this to apply to the First Presidency as well. The President and his councilors act as proxies for the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, representing that they, the Godhead, are in charge of the Church.

Woman, can and do perform ordinances in the temple. They have authority. The question, for me is, for whom are they acting as proxies? Eve? Heavenly Mother? I have my opinions but not the answer.

Edited March 14, 2013 by halconero

[Brian 2.0]

But too few men think women capable of bearing the burden of the priesthood and way too few women want to bear the burden. Better to let the men do that.

Granted I'm in California, but my exposure to church membership does not jive with the statement. Most men I know think women would be just fine if they were in leadership positions, that's not part of their reasoning as to why the women don't have the priesthood.

Perhaps it's a generational thing.

[Calm]

I don't think discrimination is inherently wrong. I would hope my doctors insist on dealing with me as a woman rather than as a man for example.

The question for me is if the discrimination is reasonable, which includes the possibility that it may harm some but is beneficial overall.

The Church does discriminate in many ways (agewise, genderwise, behaviourwise, marital statuswise), in most ways I think such discrimination is indeed wise...for those areas where it is unnecessary and unhealthy, hopefully it will continue to change as I have seen it changing all of my life as leaders become more aware of the connection between certain policies, behaviours and consequences and deal with them, bringing us that much closer to Zion.

Having said that, I think members' personal behaviour will bring us to Zion much faster than church policy so the real responsibility for that is in the hands of each and every one of us, not just the leaders.

[Brian 2.0]

My feelings? As I come to understand the priesthood more I come to understand that "acting as a proxy" for God is a more accurate term than "acting under His authority." I think I'm on safe grounds here. The ordinances performed that invoke the names of the Godhead (those being baptism and the sealing) also need three priesthood holders as a requirement for the performance of the ceremony? Why? To stand as proxies for the for the Godhead. Every other ordinance only requires one priesthood holder, though more can participate, to stand as a proxy for the Saviour. In the performance of the ordinances both the performer and the receiver of the ordinance (if it is vicarious), must represent his or her own gender.

Prayers are different, as Christ acted as a proxy for all of humanity, and so we communicate with Deity in His name.

I believe this to apply to the First Presidency as well. The President and his councilors act as proxies for the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, representing that they, the Godhead, are in charge of the Church.

Woman, can and do perform ordinances in the temple. They have authority. The question, for me is, who are they acting as proxies for? Eve? Heavenly Mother? I don't know the answer to that, but it's something I hope to find out.

Interesting take. I had not heard that before.

[Calm]

O Very few members today believe that polygamy will be anything more than an "option"

I wonder how many of the general membership thought polygyny wasn't going to be optional in the next life and how they thought such might be accomplished.

But too few men think women capable of bearing the burden of the priesthood

I have never heard a man say this, most men I've talked to about it think that women would do as good as or better job than most men....where are you getting this idea? Edited March 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Granted I'm in California, but my exposure to church membership does not jive with the statement. Most men I know think women would be just fine if they were in leadership positions, that's not part of their reasoning as to why the women don't have the priesthood.

Perhaps it's a generational thing.

If it is generational, it would have to be those in their 70s or higher and I never heard it growing up either so I have great doubts about that (I am in my 50s).

[Brian 2.0]

The question for me is if the discrimination is reasonable, which includes the possibility that it may harm some but is beneficial overall.

Are you saying that the discrimination is reasonable? Or that women not holding the priesthood "may harm some but is beneficial overall"?

Or are you saying that that is one of the options out there, not necessarily your opinion on it.

[Calm]

Are you saying that the discrimination is reasonable? Or that women not holding the priesthood "may harm some but is beneficial overall"?

Or are you saying that that is one of the options out there, not necessarily your opinion on it.

I am saying it is an option...and in my opinion a likely one.

My opinion at this point is that it is likely true that the discrimination is both reasonable (due to the division of labour making for a more efficient use of resources...including the members themselves as well as the consequences that bind a couple together more securely by having each partner having to contribute in significant ways to the partnership in ongoing, 'being there' ways) and likely that it is harming some due to a variety of reasons (mainly in attitudes, but also in some cases deprivation of ordinances because of lack of priesthood presence) but that such harm can be healed through a greater understanding of the gospel and a closer relationship with God (something that does not require the priesthood to seek out) and it is likely beneficial overall at this time (though this may change in the future).

However, I am also open to being wrong as my opinion is based on personal experience and observation and that of course will always be limited.

[Brian 2.0]

I am saying it is an option...and in my opinion a likely one.

My opinion at this point is that it is likely true that the discrimination is both reasonable (due to the division of labour making for a more efficient use of resources...including the members themselves as well as the consequences that bind a couple together more securely by having each partner having to contribute in significant ways to the partnership in ongoing, 'being there' ways) and likely that it is harming some due to a variety of reasons (mainly in attitudes, but also in some cases deprivation of ordinances because of lack of priesthood presence) but that such harm can be healed through a greater understanding of the gospel and a closer relationship with God (something that does not require the priesthood to seek out) and it is likely beneficial overall at this time (though this may change in the future).

However, I am also open to being wrong as my opinion is based on personal experience and observation and that of course will always be limited.

Thanks! Appreciate the well thought out response.

Sure beats the "my wife says she doesn't want it" response. Which doesn't really mean much.

[Calm]

Thanks! Appreciate the well thought out response.

Sure beats the "my wife says she doesn't want it" response. Which doesn't really mean much.

And since I am a wife who "having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge" ....or rather wants what the Lord has promised us in the temple whatever that is (I think it is likely not the Priesthood itself, but something that the Priesthood is a subset or preparatory experience of (much like the AP in relation to the MP) whenever the Lord judges it proper to give me and other women, it wouldn't be true. Edited March 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[DJBrown]

A comment from Phaedrus in the BSA survey got me thinking...

I agree with Phaedrus. I as well don't want to support those groups.

Critics point to the Temple and Priesthood ban as "discriminating based on race" but the church does not practice that ban now so please no comments on that in this thread.

The church has seemed to make it clear that it does not discriminate based on sexual orientation with sexual behavior being another matter.

On the idea of gender, though, I find it hard to defend the critical point that the church "discriminates based on gender" because the higher levels of governing authority are only available to men. And those positions of authority govern both men and women. If Company XYZ had male and female employees but female employees were not eligible for upper management positions that managed groups of both men and women in the company, then I would see that as "discrimination based on gender."

Curious to hear responses on that point.

It is a very dangerous thing to take the position that I know more than the brethren. Every generation suffers from chronocentrism- the prideful perspective that "we" see things more clearly than past generations. Such a self-centered viewpoint opens the door for people to look down their noses at others from the past who practiced polygamy, etc.

President Packer and others have stated that the greatest threats to the well-being of the church are the feminist, homosexual, and "intellectual" movements. Common to each of these is the position that each is more capable or qualified to direct the church, in whole or in part, than the prophets and apostles.

We have all grown up in a society very much filled with feminist sensitivities. While some of this has resulted in progress in society, some has resulted in sadness, conflict, and isolation. It is a striking human characteristic that we struggle to see ourselves clearly. I think all of us have been affected by the culture we live in to a degree far greater than we recognize.

I have seen many people come to a place where the only thing they feel they should do is leave the church because of these sensitivies and perceived inequities. And we are all fools if we think we are not vulnerable to such a process. And that process begins with investing our energy focusing on just these types of questions- which at their heart are all essentialy- how are the brethren wrong?

There is a reason the first principle of the gospel is faith. Second only to Christ, Abraham is the great examplar of faith- doing what one is commanded when it doesn't make sense. Such faith is the safest course for the church and its members.

This doesn't mean we stick our heads in the sand. But humble discipleship is more about following than lobbying.

[Buckeye]

I have never heard a man say this, most men I've talked to about it think that women would do as good as or better job than most men....where are you getting this idea?

They tend to be older; the same lot that think women should not drive. I don't think most men believe this, but even one is too many in my book. I still find it interesting, though, that when polled, most men do not think women should have the priesthood. So there must be some reason.

[wenglund]

Refusing to belong to an organization that discriminates, is itself a form of discrimination.

I can't think of a single organization that doesn't discriminate in some fashion or another. The educational system discriminate with students based on age (K-12), scholastic achievement (A,B, C, D, F, graduate, honors, etc), and they discriminate with teachers based on licenses and tenure, etc. So, should we not go to school?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 14, 2013 by wenglund

[Brian 2.0]

And since I am a wife who...

This exposes my male-centric brain. But I never envisioned you to be a women, Calmoriah. Not that I looked through your posts of whatever, and it's not like I've been here all that long. But i guess I never really imagine anyone on here as a women. If I thought about it I probably would assume there are plenty here, but I guess I never thought about it. Don't know why, but that's my bad.

Of course I've always known you were Canadian. I can smell the maple and free health care in every one of your words. I mean, we get it, Canada's awesome, geez.

[Brian 2.0]

Refusing to belong to an organization that discriminates, is itself a form of discrimination.

I can't think of a single organization that doesn't discriminate in some fashion or another. The educational system discriminate with students based on age (K-12), scholastic achievement (A,B, C, D, F, graduate, honors, etc), and they discriminate with teachers based on licenses and tenure, etc. So, should we not go to school?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course you are correct but I'm using the term discriminate in the negative connotation that has become common in the late 20th century. As in "unfair treatment of people, based on racism, sexism, homophobia, or another prejudice"

Obviously the critic means this when they are talking about it so the argument is really "is it unfair to discriminate based on gender who should hold the Priesthood and other leadership positions" And people are debating on whether or not it's "unfair."

Edited March 14, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[wenglund]

Of course you are correct but I'm using the term discriminate in the negative connotation that has become common in the late 20th century. As in "unfair treatment of people, based on racism, sexism, homophobia, or another prejudice"

Obviously the critic means this when they are talking about it so the argument is really "is it unfair to discriminate based on gender who should hold the Priesthood and other leadership positions" And people are debating on whether or not it's "unfair."

I am not so sure what the critics mean. Often, they haven't thought things through enough to really know, themselves, what they mean. From my experience, they tend to use the term "discriminate" in rote recital of pop cultural slogans by which they have been uncritically indoctrinated.

So, I have found it useful to test the shallowness of their meaning before testing their oft selective application of the term, and then possibly even delve somewhat into the criteria they may use to determine "fairness" (assuming it even crossed their mind).

This helps to set the groundwork for where real effective discourse may occur--i.e. in challenging whether "discrimination" or "unfairness" or "equality" (which is what discussions like this tend ultimately to be about) should be the focus of our concerns rather than what Christ would have us concern ourselves with--i.e. coming unto him and becoming like him.

Perhaps I can save some time by referring the participants on this thread to my thread about, Equality May Lead To Banality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Brian 2.0]

I am not so sure what the critics mean. Often, they haven't thought things through enough to really know, themselves, what they mean. From my experience, they tend to use the term "discriminate" in rote recital of pop cultural slogans by which they have been uncritically indoctrinated.

I agree that the term has been hijacked. Everyone technically "discriminates" CONSTANTLY, practically second by second in their lives.

[Brian 2.0]

This helps to set the groundwork for where real effective discourse may occur--i.e. in challenging whether "discrimination" or "unfairness" or "equality" (which is what discussions like this tend ultimately to be about) should be the focus of our concerns rather than what Christ would have us concern ourselves with--i.e. coming unto him and becoming like him.

I agree. But I also feel that people want to be comfortable with the organization they associate with (and maybe give money to) in their quest to become like Christ, or for any other reason one would associate and sponsor any organization. And it's valid choice for someone to choose not to associate with people/organizations/churches that they feel are being "unfair."

So the debate has merit, because you may be able to convince someone how they can view it differently, and as not "unfair", and thereby keep the person in that organization.

[omni]

And so we'll see a widening gender gap in the church as the men get overburden and defect. Eventually the women will have to step up, but by then much damage will have been done.

Excellent observation! I don't think it's as pronounced in the areas of the US where the church is strong, but I remember when I served in my European mission we were always desperately looking for males for priesthood leadership. It was not uncommon for the branches to have twice as many women as men, yet most of the leadership callings had to be held by men. I would be interested to see how much of an effect this has on the disaffection rate of men in the church.

On a personal note it always drove me crazy to be blamed by my wife (who i love very much ) if we didn't have daily scripture study and family prayer, weekly FHE, and monthly temple attendance simply because I was the priesthood holder and it was my duty (not hers) to ensure it was done. She came from a very devout family who's father is very patriarchal, but I think this is a relatively common belief in the church that if those things aren't getting done, then it's the fault of the father/priesthood holder.

[Stone holm]

We sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that since the Church is true it necessarily is at the cutting edge or even where the Savior necessarily eventually wants the Church to end up. I believe that culture most frequently changes first and then the Church catches up. Unfortunately, whenever a cultural tradition that may have not the slightest connection with the core realities or truths of the Gospel become entrenched there is always somebody ready willing an able to come up with some profound sounding spin to justify why it is thus and so. In my, less than humble opinion, you will see women holding the Priesthood or something very much there unto and serving in the same roles as Bishops and Stake President by at least the end of the collective lifespans of my grandchildren. Somebody is going to come along and say exactly what did the Prophet Joseph mean when he used the word ordained in reference to Emma and what was with all those titles he bestowed on Eliza Snow and then...oops guess this really was more about men getting over themselves than any big gender issue. Just hopefully, we don't get too carried away with declarations about how wonderful the 1950's White Middle-class families were before then

[Kenngo1969]

... However, I am also open to being wrong ...

Cal is simply being modest.

Even the mere possibility of that happening approaches nil.

I've never known Cal to be wrong.

About anything.

Ever.

Some people say we should ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?" I say we should ask ourselves, "What would Cal do?" and then act accordingly.

[Calm]

Of course I've always known you were Canadian. I can smell the maple and free health care in every one of your words. I mean, we get it, Canada's awesome, geez.

Actually I am American, but I lived in Canada for 13 wonderful years...the longest I've ever lived in one place and probably the first place that ever felt like home since I first moved at the age of 8. I think the Canadian identity probably fits me a bit better than the American one, but I don't see myself as "Canadian" or "American" for some reason, never really identified with a country (just a city, San Francisco where I was born and now Calgary where we lived).

And no, I can never resist a chance to talk about Canada....

Edited March 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Cal is simply being modest.

Even the mere possibility of that happening approaches nil.

I've never known Cal to be wrong.

About anything.

Ever.

Some people say we should ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?" I say we should ask ourselves, "What would Cal do?" and then act accordingly.