The Value Of The Priesthood

[Brenda]

Revelation comes from the top down. Preparation to receive revelation comes from the bottom up. Both are necessary.

I agree. I like the way you put that. I think that can all happen w/o us sending a request to Pres. Monson. If it's right and the Lord knows we are ready, he'll inform Pres. Monson.

Prophets inquire of the Lord not for their own sake, but on behalf of their people. They will not inquire, even if they think something right, if the people are not prepared for it. Public discussions such the ordainwomen.org allow the people to express that they are ready for additional light. Only then will the Prophet ask.

Possibly. I also think the Prophet can be inspired on his own. We certainly have precedents for that.

I don't have any desire to force women to be ordained. But I don't see why all women should be denied the right until all are ready for it. Should your choices limit other women's choices? Also (not that this applies to you), but I struggle with women who say they do not want the priesthood, but at the same time insist men take on that responsibility. If women should not be required to take on the priesthood, neither should men. But current church policy prevents a man from serving a mission, attending the temple, or doing other things women can if he is not a priesthood holder.

Hmmmm. I had to think about that. Do I insist that men take on the priesthood? I guess I do expect them to step up and be a man in the Church, as a part of expecting them to lead and care for their families. I also expect women to do their part too. Yeah, there are expectations. You are right about that.

I have never struggled with the different roles of men and women in the Church for the most part, and I'm honestly trying to understand those who do. I see the wisdom in how it is, and have always trusted that the Lord knows best.

[Buckeye]

CASteinman,

So long as your dialogue based on attacking the motives, worthiness, and faith of those who disagree with you, there is really not any ground to plow.

All the best, Buckeye.

[Nathair/|\]

I could support a movement built around a public statement like this:

Recognizing that the Priesthood is the Lords to grant or withhold as He wills, we humbly pray that He will soon extend it to women or at least give us a definitive revelation on the subject, and we ask that President Monson, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve seek His guidance in this matter. As in all things, we accept his will.

However, the present movements, as well as the condemnation of of the Church for not ordaining Africans, smack of something entirely different to me.

[Buckeye]

I agree. I like the way you put that. I think that can all happen w/o us sending a request to Pres. Monson. If it's right and the Lord knows we are ready, he'll inform Pres. Monson.

Possibly. I also think the Prophet can be inspired on his own. We certainly have precedents for that.

Thank you Brenda. I would agree that Prophets can receive direction sua sponte. But particularly on large issues like this, I do not feel the Lord will simply direct the Prophet until the people have vetted the issue themselves, made up their mind, and are ready for the Prophet to ask on their behalf. Admittedly, this is just my view. Other views are also valid. I just don't envision this life experience as designed for us to sit around docile waiting for God to speak to the Prophet. As a people, we are required to ask, inquire, discuss, even wrestle with these hard issues.

Hmmmm. I had to think about that. Do I insist that men take on the priesthood? I guess I do expect them to step up and be a man in the Church, as a part of expecting them to lead and care for their families. I also expect women to do their part too. Yeah, there are expectations. You are right about that.

I have never struggled with the different roles of men and women in the Church for the most part, and I'm honestly trying to understand those who do. I see the wisdom in how it is, and have always trusted that the Lord knows best.

I have the same impression. I think more women in the church are content with their roles than are men. At least for women who stay in the church. But I also think that is why more men are leaving (though recently the young women are catching up). One of the reasons why I want women to share in the priesthood is so they can share the burden. Admittedly, that may sound selfish, but so be it. Like many men, I am unhappy with my role being such that I rarely get to be in my children's lives. I have yet to meet a women would be happy being away from her children all day for work, away from them all weekend for priesthood work, and only being able to watch them from the stand during sacrament meeting. So why do women expect men to be happy in that role?

[bluebell]

I have the same impression. I think more women in the church are content with their roles than are men. At least for women who stay in the church. But I also think that is why more men are leaving (though recently the young women are catching up). One of the reasons why I want women to share in the priesthood is so they can share the burden. Admittedly, that may sound selfish, but so be it. Like many men, I am unhappy with my role being such that I rarely get to be in my children's lives. I have yet to meet a women would be happy being away from her children all day for work, away from them all weekend for priesthood work, and only being able to watch them from the stand during sacrament meeting. So why do women expect men to be happy in that role?

Are you saying that you don't believe that women carry their weight in the church, that men work harder and are much more busy and therefore that women need the priesthood, not to share in the blessings, but to share in the workload and make things fair for men?

[Buckeye]

Are you saying that you don't believe that women carry their weight in the church, that men work harder and are much more busy and therefore that women need the priesthood, not to share in the blessings, but to share in the workload and make things fair for men?

None of us, myself especially, have any basis to make such a comparison. Where I live, I know many women who dedicate more time and energy to the church than do their husbands or the "average man". I also know many men who dedicate more time and energy to the church than do their wives or the "average woman". I image that can be said for most places. I guess, to be blunt, I don't think any of us "carry our weight". We're all rather poor servants. Some generalizations can be made, but they are more a function of church culture than any inherent differences between the sexes.

What I am comforable saying is that both men and women would greatly benefit from women taking the priesthood. Most importantly, women would have involvement in the types of service that can only be performed by the priesthood - service that more than any other makes us more like Christ. But of secondary importance, it would be a benefit for women to share the burden of the priesthood (which is real). Many sisters I know in the 50s and 60s can't stand the thought of another year in primary or YW or RS. Why not call them to the High Council? Many brothers I know would love to be with their children in primary - particularly because they are away from them for work during the week - but instead find themselves in the clerk's office and elder's quorum. By enforcing these and many other gender-based barriers, we limit all members' potential for growth.

Just as with voting, education, and other women's issue, moving forward on this front is a win-win for all, both women and men.

[Brenda]

I have the same impression. I think more women in the church are content with their roles than are men. At least for women who stay in the church. But I also think that is why more men are leaving (though recently the young women are catching up). One of the reasons why I want women to share in the priesthood is so they can share the burden. Admittedly, that may sound selfish, but so be it. Like many men, I am unhappy with my role being such that I rarely get to be in my children's lives. I have yet to meet a women would be happy being away from her children all day for work, away from them all weekend for priesthood work, and only being able to watch them from the stand during sacrament meeting. So why do women expect men to be happy in that role?

What an interesting perspective. I have been married for over 37 years and figured out recently, that over half of my marriage I have not sat by my husband in Sac. Mtg. He has been a counselor twice, bishop twice, High Council several times, and Stake Presidency. I spent many years alone with our kids in our meetings. And I would have GLADLY changed places with their dad. He got to sit quietly and listen. I was in and out, and doing the usual dealing-with-restless-kids thing. And all those hours he was away from home, I was stuck, and very restricted in what I could do or where I could go. He got to attend meetings and talk with adults. Don't get me wrong -- I wouldn't have changed a thing! I DO see the blessings and I am EXTREMELY grateful for my life! But it wasn't easy. Raising kids was the hardest thing I've ever done, and I did a lot of it alone. But they honestly don't remember their dad being gone that much and all speak of happy childhoods. And they all choose to be active in church today.

So IMO, the women have a more difficult time ..... but obviously I'm just going by my own experience and it's different for everyone.

[Buckeye]

Thanks Brenda. Your experience sounds a lot like how my Mother would describe hers. The one difference is that some of us kids (including me) do begrudge the amount of time Dad was away. But we are all still active as well.

Have you ever asked your husband if he was completely happy in his role? Would he have preferred to wrestle with the kids and let you sit on the stage all those years? Perhaps its just a generational thing, but most dads my age no only feel expected to spend more time with their children than did prior generations, but we actually want to.

PS - Oh, and one more question, do you think you would have been happy if you had been given your husband's role? I'm not trying to be devisive. I really would like to know.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Buckeye

[Brenda]

None of us, myself especially, have any basis to make such a comparison. Where I live, I know many women who dedicate more time and energy to the church than do their husbands or the "average man". I also know many men who dedicate more time and energy to the church than do their wives or the "average woman". I image that can be said for most places. I guess, to be blunt, I don't think any of us "carry our weight". We're all rather poor servants. Some generalizations can be made, but they are more a function of church culture than any inherent differences between the sexes.

What I am comforable saying is that both men and women would greatly benefit from women taking the priesthood. Most importantly, women would have involvement in the types of service that can only be performed by the priesthood - service that more than any other makes us more like Christ. But of secondary importance, it would be a benefit for women to share the burden of the priesthood (which is real). Many sisters I know in the 50s and 60s can't stand the thought of another year in primary or YW or RS. Why not call them to the High Council? Many brothers I know would love to be with their children in primary - particularly because they are away from them for work during the week - but instead find themselves in the clerk's office and elder's quorum. By enforcing these and many other gender-based barriers, we limit all members' potential for growth.

Just as with voting, education, and other women's issue, moving forward on this front is a win-win for all, both women and men.

The men who want to be in Primary need to inform their Primary president who, I'm sure, always needs teachers. And I hope they do, because I prefer not to be there. Although, I did love being the chorister years ago. My brother always said his favorite calling would be Mia Maid advisor, because he loved going to Girl's Camp. I've never thought about being on the High Council, but I'd probably love it. But along with that privilege would come the possibility of being called into scouting, from which I would die a painful death ..... so, no thank you.

My biggest problem with traditional women's callings is that they too often involve food. I don't like to cook. Therefore, I LOVE teaching Sunday School. No food there!

That said, I still feel that the Lord knows best regarding who is to be ordained and that women are not being short-changed. And I believe, with all my heart, that the Lord is totally on our side, and knows how each of us can find happiness.

[Brenda]

Thanks Brenda. Your experience sounds a lot like how my Mother would describe hers. The one difference is that some of us kids (including me) do begrudge the amount of time Dad was away. But we are all still active as well.

Have you ever asked your husband if he was completely happy in his role? Would he have preferred to wrestle with the kids and let you sit on the stage all those years? Perhaps its just a generational thing, but most dads my age no only feel expected to spend more time with their children than did prior generations, but we actually want to.

PS - Oh, and one more question, do you think you would have been happy if you had been given your husband's role? I'm not trying to be devisive. I really would like to know.

I'm sure my husband would have happily taken turns with the kids in church. He is a wonderful, caring man, and did his best to support me. But to take the kids on full time like I did, would not have been his choice, I don't think. He loved his callings, and still does.

Btw, I was raised primarily by my dad, so not all men used to be less involved with their kids. Society, and the Church also, stress more today, that fathers spend more time with their kids, and that's good. But many men always did.

I've seen, up close, what being a bishop is like, and I would not like it. I've never been a RS president and dread the thought. I'm not naturally compassionate -- nothing to do with genders, just more a personality thing -- and such roles are uncomfortable for me. My husband, on the other hand, is the most compassionate soul I've ever known, so being a bishop came more naturally to him. It was hard for him with all the responsibility, but he loves people so easily. I'm entirely too judgmental and expect people to buck up. So no, I've never wanted to do what he's done.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Brenda

[Buckeye]

Thank you Brenda. Very helpful.

[Calm]

Why do they need to ask Pres. Monson to seek the Lord's will? We all have access to the Lord through prayer, and he (the Lord) is the only one with the authority to make such a change.

They don't need to anymore than Oliver and others needed to ask Joseph to ask the Lord for His Will in regard to themselves. It is something that has been going on since there have been prophets from what I see in the scriptures....people going to the prophet to speak to God for them. Perhaps they see it as a more humble approach than asking for themselves or perhaps they see it as a more effective approach, thinking they for some reason don't have the Lord's ear as much as the Prophet does or perhaps it is about in their view following the order of things just as you would ask the bishop what you could do for the ward or if you had need of something from the ward, so you go to the Prophet if you want to offer yourself to the Church in service (as many did in the early days of the LDS faith) or because you might feel in need of something from the Church.

[bluebell]

None of us, myself especially, have any basis to make such a comparison. Where I live, I know many women who dedicate more time and energy to the church than do their husbands or the "average man". I also know many men who dedicate more time and energy to the church than do their wives or the "average woman". I image that can be said for most places. I guess, to be blunt, I don't think any of us "carry our weight". We're all rather poor servants. Some generalizations can be made, but they are more a function of church culture than any inherent differences between the sexes.

What I am comforable saying is that both men and women would greatly benefit from women taking the priesthood. Most importantly, women would have involvement in the types of service that can only be performed by the priesthood - service that more than any other makes us more like Christ. But of secondary importance, it would be a benefit for women to share the burden of the priesthood (which is real). Many sisters I know in the 50s and 60s can't stand the thought of another year in primary or YW or RS. Why not call them to the High Council? Many brothers I know would love to be with their children in primary - particularly because they are away from them for work during the week - but instead find themselves in the clerk's office and elder's quorum. By enforcing these and many other gender-based barriers, we limit all members' potential for growth.

Just as with voting, education, and other women's issue, moving forward on this front is a win-win for all, both women and men.

I just thought your previous post was interesting because many of the women who do not want the priesthood that i have spoken to, do not want it because they feel they are carrying too much of the burden already and that men would take advantage of having to share the responsibility with women, leaving the women to do even more work than they are right now.

I am wondering though, what are the types of service (which is the most important service per your words) that women can't be involved in right now because they don't hold the priesthood? I'm not sure what you mean there.

Also, how many high council members are there in a stake? A handful? Under such circumstances, most women would never serve in the high council, even if they were ordained to the priesthood (just like most men don't ever serve in one, or even have serious leadership positions like being in a bishopric or stake presidency). If the whole point of a woman being ordained is so she can branch out in callings, that doesn't seem like a very good way to accomplish that goal. Most will still serve in primary, sunday school, YW's and RS.

And there is nothing stopping men from servingin the primary right now. My husband, who has served in a bishopric, has also been a primary teacher four different times (he, like most primary teachers, does not enjoy it but does it because he knows it's important). I don't see women getting the priesthood suddenly increasing the number of men serving in the primary, but maybe.

Of my own feelings, i don't really know how i feel about your post. Personally, i would love men to be able to share in the burden of carrying and birthing a child and then being it's primary caretaker 24/7 after it's born (especially since i'm 7 months pregnant and it has been a fairly miserable pregnancy so far ), but I don't have an option to lobby for that (so there is a part of me-and probably not my best part-that is annoyed by men who try to share burdens with women that should be their's alone to bear while women have no option of such an escape from their primary roles in this world).

But though the burden of bringing children into this world is huge in that regard (especially since women are asked to do it while also being very involved in serving in their wards. ANd this as well is on my mind especially because i'm the RS president right now), I do feel blessed (in a bit of a contradictory way for sure) that God doesn't allow men to take some of that burden.

Though it would be great to share it, I recognize something special about it being 'only mine' at the same time. In this way, while i can understand a brother's desire for women to share in the burden of the priesthood, i also believe that there is something special about him recognizing that that role (at least right now) is solely his and to learn to rejoice in the uniqueness of it.

But, i'm a bit like Brenda and tend to have more of a 'get over yourself and deal with it' attitude that is many times more of a weakness than a strength, so compassion is not always my first response (though i'm working on it).

[Tacenda]

I didn't want to hold the Priesthood per se. But think women involved with Priesthood duties is fine, just a little shocking to my system. But slowly, slowly I see no problem with sharing responsiblities in the church. Then it dawned on me, what is wrong with a woman prophetess if they existed in the bible or even in latter times? Or just like a woman president of a country, which there are or have been, why not? Hey, I think I'm starting to get it. For so long I've been stuck in the mindset that a woman in the Priesthood was absurd, and I hate to admit I even struggled with a woman president (non church), (don't hate me, you know who you are). When I think of women leaders of countries, I think of Margaret Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth. These women are strong, capable, smart women. Now when I think of the prophet being a woman, I'm totally fine with it. I'd love to sit in on a meeting with one and contribute, there are many things our church could do to help families/communities. A woman's touch could do very well. Boy, I think I just became a feminist in the span of 2 minutes!!

ETA: I know several on here will say women already contribute, I agree, just one problem, they don't make the final decision. Ok, pretty soon I'm going to change my mind.....

Edited March 18, 2013 by Tacenda

[Brenda]

They don't need to anymore than Oliver and others needed to ask Joseph to ask the Lord for His Will in regard to themselves. It is something that has been going on since there have been prophets from what I see in the scriptures....people going to the prophet to speak to God for them. Perhaps they see it as a more humble approach than asking for themselves or perhaps they see it as a more effective approach, thinking they for some reason don't have the Lord's ear as much as the Prophet does or perhaps it is about in their view following the order of things just as you would ask the bishop what you could do for the ward or if you had need of something from the ward, so you go to the Prophet if you want to offer yourself to the Church in service (as many did in the early days of the LDS faith) or because you might feel in need of something from the Church.

I agree. Yet, I always wondered why Jared (of the BoM) didn't go to the Lord himself, instead of asking his brother to pray. It seems to me that as a woman, if I desired to have the priesthood, I am capable of praying to the Lord to know when, or why, or why not. He answers my prayers on other issues, so why not that? I know of one person who, in the days before the priesthood became available to all worthy men, was very troubled about it, and prayed as an individual and received the answer to be patient. That answer gave him hope.

If I was troubled about women not receiving the priesthood, that's what I'd do. At least I hope that's what I hope I'd do .... I use to wonder about the Catholics who would rally and petition and publicly pressure their leaders about changes they wanted in their church. I mean, didn't they believe that God was in control? So why didn't they petition God? But maybe that's too simplistic.

[JAHS]

This group of women makes a big mistake by demanding a change be made without any mention of prophetic or revelatory

involvement. From their website:

"...we call on them to ordain us. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need

for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood."

"We call for the ordination of women and their full integration into the governance of the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints."

Such language is called murmuring:

"Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves."(John 6:43).

"Do all things without murmurings and disputings

That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation,

among whom ye shine as lights in the world;"(Phil 2:14)

There is a big difference between asking the prophet to ask God if the time is right to ordain women and simply demanding

church leaders to make the change. By their action this group of LDS feminists are in effect trying to put social pressure

on church leaders to change the policy. This murmuring attitude attracts unwanted media attention; making the church and

its leaders look bad and is clearly discouraged in the scriptures quoted above. Such activity is not what I would call shining as lights in the world.

They need to start their own church; call it "The Church of Latter-Day Feminists".

[rongo]

I have the same impression. I think more women in the church are content with their roles than are men. At least for women who stay in the church. But I also think that is why more men are leaving (though recently the young women are catching up).

Where in the world are you getting these "numbers" (other than your feeling on the relative number of men/women and young men/young women leaving/staying in the Church)? It sounds like a desired storyline in some quarters, but I can't even begin to imagine how someone would even begin to try to document something like that. Especially to skeptical people like me . . .

[rongo]

Then it dawned on me, what is wrong with a woman prophetess if they existed in the bible or even in latter times?

There is a difference between being a prophet/prophetess and holding the priesthood. The prophetesses of the Old Testament held prophetic gifts independent of holding priesthood authority. Samuel the Lamanite and others with prophetic gifts cannot be proven to have been ordained. There are women who hold the gift of prophecy, and this is sometimes spelled out in their patriarchal blessings. It doesn't require holding the priesthood.

[Brenda]

But, i'm a bit like Brenda and tend to have more of a 'get over yourself and deal with it' attitude that is many times more of a weakness than a strength, so compassion is not always my first response (though i'm working on it).

Okay, I'm not THAT bad. And it is definitely a weakness. I applaud you for your hard work and selfless service as a RS pres. It is truly a labor of love.

[rongo]

But, i'm a bit like Brenda and tend to have more of a 'get over yourself and deal with it' attitude that is many times more of a weakness than a strength, so compassion is not always my first response (though i'm working on it).

When I was a bishop, my wife and I were good friends with several sisters who had served as auxiliary presidents. On several occasions, I remember talking, in the course of conversation, about what the Church would look like if women held priesthood positions of authority. Universally, the sisters' reactions were that it would be *worse* in a lot of ways (my wife's phrase was "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life"). I'm sure that the feminist/feminist-leaning response to this is that the sisters couldn't freely express what they really thought with men present, that they secrety agree with them, etc., but it was what it was.

In what way? The wards would be much more efficiently-run, but the "spirit" would be different. Another area brought up was confession: these sisters felt it would be much harder for women to confess to other women than it is to confess to men (two of them have been through formal Church discipline before). Some felt that sisters wouldn't handle problems involving other sisters very well (we had a prominent problem in mind that had arisen and that affected young women's, primary, and relief society --- a prominent sister in the ward who has held multiple leadership callings and has a very abrasive and offensive personality had burned several bridges and severely hurt some feelings. I met with her for 2+ hours and called her to repentance, and she "ceased and desisted" and drastically improved her behavior, including making genuine overtures to those she had hurt. Several sisters felt that a female bishop calling her on the carpet would have been a mess).

Let's be honest, here. Those clamoring for "women to get the priesthood" are not really talking about them blessing the sacrament or giving blessings. They are really talking about women bishops and stake presidents. These people won't feel satisfied until "the glass ceiling" is "shattered" within Mormonism. I don't think these people have really thought about the implications and ramifications of what they want, other than at the "wouldn't it be great" level.

Edited March 18, 2013 by rongo

[Calm]

these sisters felt it would be much harder for women to confess to other women than it is to confess to men

That surprises me.

[rongo]

That surprises me.

I thought it was interesting, too. As they explained it, women are much more competitive with, self-conscious and aware of other women than men are of other men (what they think, are they judging, etc.). For especially the two who had been disfellowshipped before (one of whom was disfellowshipped in our bishop's court, and whom we later called to serve as primary president after she was reinstated), the thought of confessing to and counseling with a woman over those sorts of things was unbearable.

Edited March 18, 2013 by rongo

[Wanderer7]

To answer the original question, the Lord determines who gets the priesthood... but it is always through already established priesthood lines. Even Joseph Smith received it under the legal key holders. As far as this particular issue goes, I don't care if women want to be ordained. But where this idea comes from that we as lay members can petition the First Presidency for change is beyond me. The correct course of action is to talk to your local leaders about it. If they think there's an issue, they will contact the higher authorities. This isn't and has never been a democracy. Even the sustainings come down to us from the priesthood, not the other way around. Even early in the church, it was Joseph and the presiding elders who formulated the questions. Yes rare exceptions exist, such as the word of wisdom. Even then, Emma only complained about it to her current priesthood leader (Joseph), not to the church at large.

[bluebell]

I thought it was interesting, too. As they explained it, women are much more competitive with, self-conscious and aware of other women than men are of other men (what they think, are they judging, etc.). For especially the two who had been disfellowshipped before (one of whom was disfellowshipped in our bishop's court, and whom we later called to serve as primary president after she was reinstated), the thought of confessing to and counseling with a woman over those sorts of things was unbearable.

I could see that.

Women feeling judged in church by other women is a big problem in a lot of wards. We have to spend some of our presidency's time in RS reminding the sisters to be compassionate with each other's weakness (as well as their own-which is another big problem among sisters). And we have a great ward with sisters that really do get along well together. It's not that the women are behaving badly at all. It just seems to be that women have a hard time trusting other women, so they feel judged when they aren't really being judged, and then get judgemental in return.

[bluebell]

Okay, I'm not THAT bad. And it is definitely a weakness. I applaud you for your hard work and selfless service as a RS pres. It is truly a labor of love.

Haha, most of the time i'm not that bad either!

I can be very empathetic most of the time, but my struggle is women complaining about having to do things or serve in ways that seem to me to obviously be part of the price of discipleship (things like helping out in nursery for RS meetings that aren't on Sundays, taking in dinners to less-active families who they visit teach...doing visiting teaching in general....) I don't handle those issues in the best way sometimes, and though part of me feels justified in that, the other better part knows that there is a better, more loving way, and that those sisters need my understanding as well.

Those are the times when i know there needs to be much more love in my labor.