Counterpoint To Gender Discrimination Claims

[Stone holm]

Which came first, priesthood or gender? And is discrimination based on priesthood a bad thing?

Hard to say, but on the Earth if there is any credence in the Garden story, gender. Course the Jews have a story about Adams supposed intended first wife, Lilith who refused the subordination placement and was therefore set aside. And supposedly Augustine destroyed the early Christian manuscripts regarding the joint worship of Elohim and Istar, heavenly Mother. So it's hard to tell.

[CV75]

Hard to say, but on the Earth if there is any credence in the Garden story, gender. Course the Jews have a story about Adams supposed intended first wife, Lilith who refused the subordination placement and was therefore set aside. And supposedly Augustine destroyed the early Christian manuscripts regarding the joint worship of Elohim and Istar, heavenly Mother. So it's hard to tell.

This is why the spiritual gift of discernment is so essential (see my remarks in #44).

I think that both priesthood and gender are co-eternal. The one-and-only priesthood co-exists eternally with the two genders, resulting in two respective manifestations. Each child of God, according to gender, discerns how best to manifest his or her priesthood. This is why the fullness of the priesthood is expressed only as a couple is sealed, and as generations are sealed back to Adam, and then to God.

Discrimination against one gender or another is discrimination against the fullness of the priesthood in its proper order. Church administration is only a function of priesthood office, a subset of the priesthood order. The Church is a temporary construct (a survival strategy) until we enter into the Church of the Firstborn by virtue of the full priesthood order.

As I mentioned before, discernment is a spiritual gift and discrimination is a survival skill. In the case of Church administration, this survival skill is not to the detriment of women (since the priesthood order is the aim that priesthood officers must fulfill for everyone in their congregations, regardless of gender), and so is not inherently bad. However, the mistreatment of either gender is inherently bad, and in this case, “Amen to the priesthood [whether authority or order]” of the offending party.

[Stone holm]

This is why the spiritual gift of discernment is so essential (see my remarks in #44).

I think that both priesthood and gender are co-eternal. The one-and-only priesthood co-exists eternally with the two genders, resulting in two respective manifestations. Each child of God, according to gender, discerns how best to manifest his or her priesthood. This is why the fullness of the priesthood is expressed only as a couple is sealed, and as generations are sealed back to Adam, and then to God.

Discrimination against one gender or another is discrimination against the fullness of the priesthood in its proper order. Church administration is only a function of priesthood office, a subset of the priesthood order. The Church is a temporary construct (a survival strategy) until we enter into the Church of the Firstborn by virtue of the full priesthood order.

As I mentioned before, discernment is a spiritual gift and discrimination is a survival skill. In the case of Church administration, this survival skill is not to the detriment of women (since the priesthood order is the aim that priesthood officers must fulfill for everyone in their congregations, regardless of gender), and so is not inherently bad. However, the mistreatment of either gender is inherently bad, and in this case, “Amen to the priesthood [whether authority or order]” of the offending party.

Although speculative, I agree with your reasoning. In fact, I recently had a speculative conversation with my wife about how this might unfold since it probably would not work for example to have Bishopric with mixed genders, and indicated they might start calling couples into the Bishopric instead of just calling individuals and you can kind of see a possible preparation for this in some Wards where HT and Vt is combined and where they call missionary couples --all of this being speculative of course.

[CASteinman]

I am a firm believer in discrimination.

I think it is part of the Gospel Plan.

Where I think people get upset is not really about discrimination -- something that they would even practice in their lives.

Instead, I think this is all about people in their fallen state being upset about "unfairness". What we in the Church call "unrighteous dominion".

They are protesting what to them appears to be "unrighteous dominion". They feel a certain moral magnificence and authority in doing so -- because after all, from their perspective it is immoral.

But in this worldly view one very important thing has been overlooked: Not all Discrimination is Unrighteous.

[CV75]

Although speculative, I agree with your reasoning. In fact, I recently had a speculative conversation with my wife about how this might unfold since it probably would not work for example to have Bishopric with mixed genders, and indicated they might start calling couples into the Bishopric instead of just calling individuals and you can kind of see a possible preparation for this in some Wards where HT and Vt is combined and where they call missionary couples --all of this being speculative of course.

Although speculative, I agree with your reasoning. In fact, I recently had a speculative conversation with my wife about how this might unfold since it probably would not work for example to have Bishopric with mixed genders, and indicated they might start calling couples into the Bishopric instead of just calling individuals and you can kind of see a possible preparation for this in some Wards where HT and Vt is combined and where they call missionary couples --all of this being speculative of course.

Great! To continue speculating, as far as HT and VT go, VT assignments are given irrespective of priesthood office, yet HT assignments are given as a priesthood "duty" for those holding some level of a priesthood office. The couples that share a HT/VT assignment are still operating within their traditional spheres of office/non-office ministry, but in perhaps a more perfected sphere of the priesthood order as a couple (marriage is instituted of God), and especially if they are sealed together.

Calling a couple as a "bishopric" could get dicey unless what was done by virtue of office and keys and what is done by virtue of the prieshood order (inlcuding the power of unity, love and the Spirit) were made very clear.

So I guess my original question should be, "Which came first, the priesthood order (which involves both genders) or priesthood office (which so far, at least, has been conferred only upon males) or authority (which so far, at least, could be said to involve both genders only in the administration of temple ordinances)?"

[Stone holm]

Great! To continue speculating, as far as HT and VT go, VT assignments are given irrespective of priesthood office, yet HT assignments are given as a priesthood "duty" for those holding some level of a priesthood office. The couples that share a HT/VT assignment are still operating within their traditional spheres of office/non-office ministry, but in perhaps a more perfected sphere of the priesthood order as a couple (marriage is instituted of God), and especially if they are sealed together.

Calling a couple as a "bishopric" could get dicey unless what was done by virtue of office and keys and what is done by virtue of the prieshood order (inlcuding the power of unity, love and the Spirit) were made very clear.

So I guess my original question should be, "Which came first, the priesthood order (which involves both genders) or priesthood office (which so far, at least, has been conferred only upon males) or authority (which so far, at least, could be said to involve both genders only in the administration of temple ordinances)?"

Understand the argument just do not find it persuasive since the Priesthood has during various times been distributed differently, and it is a bit unclear as to the gender distribution in ages past because we know the Bible has been tampered with while in the hands of the Israelites and later by Roman culture, and in these Latter-Days culture has also impacted its distribution.

[CV75]

Understand the argument just do not find it persuasive since the Priesthood has during various times been distributed differently, and it is a bit unclear as to the gender distribution in ages past because we know the Bible has been tampered with while in the hands of the Israelites and later by Roman culture, and in these Latter-Days culture has also impacted its distribution.

Since priesthood office has been distributed differently, is the basis of distribution is discriminatory, or based on discerning the will of the Lord?

Priesthood order, on the other hand, has been shared between husbands and wives in the patriarchal order, irrespective of office. In our times, a man must hold the office of Elder. I thought you were alluding to this patrirachal order when commenting on how husbands and wives share a stewardship (their family, United Order, etc.).

It does seem to be a leap that any and all reference to women holding a priesthood office would be discriminatorily withheld from the Jewish record or from the Book of Mormon. Of course some women were documented as prophetesses, but this spiritual gift can be received and exercsied without a priesthood office.

[CASteinman]

Since when has culture been the vehicle through which God leads prophets?

Seems to me it was after Adam ...but not long after Adam. So, essentially, since man has been around.

[CASteinman]

Does God love His sons less than He does His daughters? In most churches, faithful women far outnumber the men. The LDS church is unusual in that it is one of the few for which men's religiosity is approximately equal with the women's. At a time in history when men are increasingly marginalized, the Church is ensuring that men are always needed, because they have responsibilities that they cannot hand over to the women. I believe that if women hold the Priesthood they will end up with most of the duties, because men will no longer be expected to step up.

Of all the non-spiritual speculations I have heard on this matter -- this one resonates with me the most. It intuitively makes a lot of sense to me.

the impression that the Relief Society still has a LOT more potential than we realize. When the sisters start to fully appreciate and take advantage of it, it will be clear that the RS is not just an "auxiliary" (I hate that designation), but the Lord's organization for women that is every bit as important and necessary as the Priesthood.

Based upon what I have read from the life of Joseph Smith and the founding of the Relief Society -- I believe you are correct.

I think this is one area where the leadership of the Church might be open to some criticism with regard to how they have handled their stewardship -- but I will not join in to criticize. I would merely suggest that it would be a good thing to figure out how to achieve the vision that Joseph Smith seems to have had.

[Stone holm]

We can only be certain that much has been lost of the historical record. Perhaps you are right. We know very little about the third Priesthood, the patriarchal priesthood, time I guess will tell whether this is a cultural or a Divine discrimination.

[CASteinman]

I admit to this: When it came to selecting a wife, I discriminated on the basis of Gender and eliminated around half of the world population right there.

[Tacenda]

Of all the non-spiritual speculations I have heard on this matter -- this one resonates with me the most. It intuitively makes a lot of sense to me.

Based upon what I have read from the life of Joseph Smith and the founding of the Relief Society -- I believe you are correct.

I think this is one area where the leadership of the Church might be open to some criticism with regard to how they have handled their stewardship -- but I will not join in to criticize. I would merely suggest that it would be a good thing to figure out how to achieve the vision that Joseph Smith seems to have had.

Having served in two RS Presidencies, I totally agree especially the last paragraph! Had we stuck better to JS's vision, we probably wouldn't have women vying for some sort of Priesthood authority..

[CASteinman]

Having served in two RS Presidencies, I totally agree especially the last paragraph! Had we stuck better to JS's vision, we probably wouldn't have women vying for some sort of Priesthood authority..

I did not say this because I want to stop women from that -- I figure such things would go on regardless.

BUT.. I think Joseph Smith had a much more expansive vision than we have developed. Now maybe things have gone as they should have. I am not in a position to know. But his vision -- the very limited degree that I am aware of it -- strikes me as wonderful. And it is that wonderfulness that I want to see happen.

However, I think I understand how it is difficult to implement. Sacrifice is hard.

Edited March 19, 2013 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

But in this worldly view one very important thing has been overlooked: Not all Discrimination is Unrighteous.

You are so right!

Many years ago I used to think it was unfair that I had to go to bed earlier than my older siblings--that is until later in life when I learned about increased latitude with increased responsibility and maturity.

A few years later I thought how unfair and discriminatory it was that men had to hold doors for women and pay for their dates, get them valentines gifts, and eventually an expensive wedding ring. It seemed like unrighteous dependency--that is until I came to understand the wisdom of division of labor, interdependency, and that it was only right that were I to ask a women to put tremendous trust in me and devote her time and efforts in raising our children, that I needed to demonstrate some level of commitment and capacity for financially supporting her in her role as mother, I need to demonstrate that I could be trusted.

I suspect that, as others have hinted, some day we will realize that what may seem unfair and discriminatory today in terms of the priesthood, will be found to be wisdom in God, if not also wisdom in nature. I don't think that it is coincidental that over thousands of years of human and social evolution, societies in the last several thousand years have been predominately, if not exclusively, patriarchal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

You are so right!

Many years ago I used to think it was unfair that I had to go to bed earlier than my older siblings--that is until later in life when I learned about increased latitude with increased responsibility and maturity.

A few years later I thought how unfair and discriminatory it was that men had to hold doors for women and pay for their dates, get them valentines gifts, and eventually an expensive wedding ring. It seemed like unrighteous dependency--that is until I came to understand the wisdom of division of labor, interdependency, and that it was only right that were I to ask a women to put tremendous trust in me and devote her time and efforts in raising our children, that I needed to demonstrate some level of commitment and capacity for financially supporting her in her role as mother, I need to demonstrate that I could be trusted.

I suspect that, as others have hinted, some day we will realize that what may seem unfair and discriminatory today in terms of the priesthood, will be found to be wisdom in God, if not also wisdom in nature. I don't think that it is coincidental that over thousands of years of human and social evolution, societies in the last several thousand years have been predominately, if not exclusively, patriarchal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Except that is not the question. The question is not whether something is righteous or unrighteous, but whether it is whether it is necessary. Is it necessary to subordinate women with respect to the Priesthood. With regards to something being tested over thousands of years -- that is a very Euro-centric position there have been societies that were matriarchal in nature. And the length of time during which something was practiced does not mean it should continue to be practiced. Slavery was practiced for almost as long as humankind have existed on this planet, that didn't make it right. Humans of both genders were denied participation in civic leadership for a much longer time we have allowed nearly everyone to vote -- that does not mean it should continue in practice. Paul, in his Roman mode, thought that women should keep their mouths shut in Church -- try taking that out for a spin sometime at Fast and Testimony and see exactly how bloodied you are by the time you get back to your seat.

[CASteinman]

The question is ... whether it is necessary... to subordinate women with respect to the Priesthood.

No, that is very definitely not the question. Where did you come up with that issue?

[Stone holm]

No, that is very definitely not the question. Where did you come up with that issue?

Why isn't that the issue? Its certainly the way many members view it? The whole Adam throwing Eve under the bus and then Eve throwing the Serpent under the bus in response to the God's inquiry as to why they realized they were nude thing. So Eve gets subordinated to Adam and Adam gets the Priesthood. Some Jews go even farther to say that Adam's first intended wife, Lilith, said the heck with that I'm outta here. One could as easily argue that men have the primary responsibility to provide for the money, clothing, food and shelter and therefore those duties so require their attention that it made sense to give women the Priesthood instead of men. Its a made up argument that depends on the culture. The Cherokee went with a matriarchal society and subordinated the men, the Americn slave culture developed as a matriarchal society because the men kept getting sold down the river. Truth is that when we don't really have a firm grasp on something we tend to say, oh well it had to do with the pre-existence or its because of the gender assignment of roles. Kind of like the flippant comment sarcastic males sometimes make about the reason women have hips is to balance the baby when they carry them -- therefore, they are equipped not me, etc.

[DJBrown]

Having served in two RS Presidencies, I totally agree especially the last paragraph! Had we stuck better to JS's vision, we probably wouldn't have women vying for some sort of Priesthood authority..

Do you mean that the prophets are wrong with regard to the policy/doctrine of only men holding the priesthood?

[CASteinman]

Why isn't that the issue?

Because the Priesthood is not ours. It is God's.

It does not matter if the men take women and children and non members, enslave them to drive chariots in which the men ride and get fed peeled grapes.

While that would be extremely unrighteous -- its up to God what happens to HIS priesthood.

Any other considerations are simply non-factors.

[Stone holm]

Do you mean that the prophets are wrong with regard to the policy/doctrine of only men holding the priesthood?

No, not necessarily. I think right now it would be very difficult to alter the policy/doctrine because we are in a male dominant culture. Do I necessarily believe everything that is being said and has been said to justify that position? No, I don't. I know that if there is going to be a change, that it is going to have to come through the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve -- not because of random speculation on our part. On the other hand, I also believe that culture determines to a certain extent timing and change, and that the Church does not push cultural change (in other words its teaching do not promote cultural change) and it tends to wait for the culture to change before it institutes a change. (That is not true during the short establishment or restoration eras -- Christ was very much a radical, but the early Church rapidly became more set in its ways and eventually basically adopted Roman culture. The Church as initially established by Joseph Smith, Jr. was very radical -- but then became more set in its way and eventually adopted American Middle-Class White culture as its normative behavior. Eventually, however, as the American Middle-Class disappears and the dominance of the male may shift dramatically in the culture. Will that lead to changes in the Church's position on certain subjects? I think the evidence already points in that direction.)

[Stone holm]

Because the Priesthood is not ours. It is God's.

It does not matter if the men take women and children and non members, enslave them to drive chariots in which the men ride and get fed peeled grapes.

While that would be extremely unrighteous -- its up to God what happens to HIS priesthood.

Any other considerations are simply non-factors.

Not sure we are supposed to get into the Priesthood ban, but what I see is that White culture which was also the dominant culture of the Church had to change its attitudes before the Priesthood could be extended. Did God have a hand in changing that culture, I believe He did, just like He had a hand in preparing the political culture of America to allow for the Restoration. We tend to think that because we belong to the True Church that our Church is leading the way on all issues -- not necessarily true.

[wenglund]

Except that is not the question.

It is very much the question for me and others who have an accurate grasp of the gospel.

You, on the other hand, are free to define the issue how ever you wish for yourself, but not for me and others who are like-minded. And, you are at liberty to use as much straw as suits your fancy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

It is very much the question for me and others who have an accurate grasp of the gospel.

You, on the other hand, are free to define the issue how ever you wish for yourself, but not for me and others who are like-minded. And, you are at liberty to use as much straw as suits your fancy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh , well I will have to defer to those who have "an accurate grasp of the gospel". Are you completely tone deaf when you type responses?

[CASteinman]

Not sure we are supposed to get into the Priesthood ban, but what I see is that White culture which was also the dominant culture of the Church had to change its attitudes before the Priesthood could be extended.

OK.. So you have a view. But your view is not the factor. I also have a view and I do not think it was primarily a cultural issue -- although I consider that it might have been in part. But my view is also not a factor.

Its a matter of the President of the Priesthood and the revelations he receives. Its not a matter of the President just imposing his will upon the issue.

Making a declaration that the Priesthood should be given to women because it is convenient or that not doing so is somehow "unnecessary" is usurping the throne of God and pretending to his wisdom in how He wants His program to operate. Imputing unrighteousness to the motives of either God or the Prophet is rebellion.

And that is why I object to when you say "Is it necessary to subordinate women with respect to the Priesthood?" It is an arrogant, irrelevant question premised on a whole series of false notions.

Yes, it is necessary for women to be subordinate to the Priesthood. It is necessary for EVERYONE to be subordinated to the priesthood -- and women are not to be excluded from that necessity. The priesthood is the Authority of God. He gets to declare how His Government will be run. If we do not like His programs we are free to leave them. He actively gives us this choice and freedom for now. We may take it if we so choose.

[DJBrown]

No, not necessarily. I think right now it would be very difficult to alter the policy/doctrine because we are in a male dominant culture. Do I necessarily believe everything that is being said and has been said to justify that position? No, I don't. I know that if there is going to be a change, that it is going to have to come through the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve -- not because of random speculation on our part. On the other hand, I also believe that culture determines to a certain extent timing and change, and that the Church does not push cultural change (in other words its teaching do not promote cultural change) and it tends to wait for the culture to change before it institutes a change. (That is not true during the short establishment or restoration eras -- Christ was very much a radical, but the early Church rapidly became more set in its ways and eventually basically adopted Roman culture. The Church as initially established by Joseph Smith, Jr. was very radical -- but then became more set in its way and eventually adopted American Middle-Class White culture as its normative behavior. Eventually, however, as the American Middle-Class disappears and the dominance of the male may shift dramatically in the culture. Will that lead to changes in the Church's position on certain subjects? I think the evidence already points in that direction.)

"Male dominant culture?" There has never been a culture more influenced by feminist thought and activism.

Do you find it interesting that Isaiah said of the last days "and women shall rule over them?"

We live in a very peculiar era, for both good and bad.

Do you not think that all of us, to varying degrees, are influenced in our thinking and feeling by the culture in which we live and were raised? And ours is an era more deferential toward women than any other, at least as far as we can tell.

It sounds like you feel as if the church policy is determined by cultural trends as much as anything else. In the church adapting a "American middle-class white culture," do you feel it has to some degree suffered an apostasy? It sounds like that. And I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying.

What do you make of President Packers statements to the effect that the greatest dangers to the church are feminism, homosexuality, and intellectualism? Does it relate to our current discussion?