The Value Of The Priesthood

[Brenda]

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.

I don't think women necessarily are more efficient than men. I'm certainly not. So statements that say women would do it this way or that way, aren't true always. It's about personalities and not gender. I'm not a cook. I'm not that nurturing. And I don't care for children, except for my own. My husband would happily work in the nursery and can nurture up a storm. So we're all different.

And I don't know of one man who ever wanted to be a bishop. If any did, then they likely had no idea what they were wishing for. So I can't imagine a woman wanting it either. And stake presidents serve for a l-o-n-g time. It's exhausting. Those who do it are obedient and humble servants, and they definitely earn their spot in heaven.

As for me ... just give me an adult class to teach and I'm happy.

[Buckeye]

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.

IMO, those are the biggest objections. (1) Women view holding the priesthood as more of a burden than blessing. (2) Women don't trust the men to pitch in equally if they bear the same burdens. Ironically, it's the reverse of what happened with the racial priesthood ban. With race, we didn't have a revelation setting up the ban, so we created folklore that blamed the victims (curse of cain; premortal valiancy). With gender, we also don't have a revelation setting up the ban, so we create folklore blaming the "non" victims (men are less spiritual than women so only men "need" the priesthood; men would sit on the couch if women had the priesthood, etc.). Neither folklore is accurate, but one is still very pervaisive.

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.

If the men in your life suddently didn't have the priesthood, what would be different. They could still do service - eagle projets, chop wood for widows, etc. But obviously *something* would be no longer available. That's the same something that women are currently denied. It's not just the ability to receive ordinaces. We don't need to ordain all men in order for that to happen. Bring back the Levites. Rather, priesthood service builds men in ways they cannot otherwise grow. Same thing holds true for women.

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.

Each stake has 12 high counselors. Together with the stake presidency they function very similarly to how the first presidency and Q12 do. Obviously, this was just an example. Women would make great clerks, auditors, sunday school presidents, bishops, and on an on. They would, of course, still serve in primary, RS, YW.

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.

The biggest limitation for church growth is priesthood leadership. Many smaller units out in the "mission field" struggle to have enough priesthood holders to function. For those units, any man willing to give his all will largely spend his life in priesthood administration, never having a chance to be with his children in primary.

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.

Wow. All the best with your pregnancy. I hope you have good counselors. I could never assert that you were not carrying your fair share. They'd laugh me out of here.

FWIW, I do think that pregnancy is one of the factors in the background on the priesthood restriction. Some feel that because pregnancy is an "unfair" burden on women, we should compensate somehow by placing more burden on men. I agree with the sentiment, but only so far as the term of the pregnancy and recovery goes (maybe 12-18 months). In past generations, maybe it made sense to have strict gender roles for life because women were pregnant and raising children their whole lives. But that is not the case anymore. Pregnancy and recovery periods will only be a small portion of any normal lifespan. Priesthood restrictions are still life-long. It doesn't make any sense anymore. Certainly a pregnant women should not be called as bishop. But what about a 55 year old woman whose children are out the house and who is not working? Seems like a lot better option than calling a 32 year old man with 4 children and job. The man's family would be better with him at home. The church would be better with a bishop who could devote her whole time.

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).

Things will never be perfect in this life. Thus, we will always need to have some "get over it" mentality. That said, I still think it worthwhile to push forward on good causes, and none is a good as this.

Again, all the best with the pregnancy.

[Buckeye]

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 . . .

No hard numbers. Pure anecdotal experience. I really wish the storyline was something else, but that's what we're seeing in my part of the vineyard.

[rongo]

No hard numbers. Pure anecdotal experience. I really wish the storyline was something else, but that's what we're seeing in my part of the vineyard.

But when you say "leaving the Church," do you mean "going inactive," or formal name removal?

[Buckeye]

But when you say "leaving the Church," do you mean "going inactive," or formal name removal?

Oh, I see. The vast majority are simply drifting away.

[rongo]

The vast majority? Where are you located?

Columbus?

Edited March 18, 2013 by rongo

[Buckeye]

Cleveland, though my anectdotes come from all over the US.

And to be clear, I was saying the vast majority of men who leave because of overburden choose to do so by simply drifting away. I was not suggesting that the vast majority of men feel that way, though I think more men feel that way than women.

[CASteinman]

Women feeling judged in church by other women is a big problem in a lot of wards.

Interesting point.

The issue of "Molly Mormon" does not really come up among men. And I don't think men spend a great deal of time getting bent out of shape over someone being a better more wholesome and accomplished "mormon" than another.

It might happen sometimes, I can imagine it happening. But I have never actually seen it. But I have actually seen women be envious and jealous of these things. It was, really, a weird thing to me.

[rongo]

my anectdotes come from all over the US.

So do mine (including the Chicago area, where I lived while in high school), and my anecdotes differ significantly from yours. I've also been a WML (twice), EQP (twice), counselor (twice), and bishop (once), including places outside the intermountain west (and in the intermountain west), and I don't see a sea change in people going inactive (no more so than in times past).

What was it Paul Simon said? "A man, he hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest?" I think people generally do see what they want to see.

And to be clear, I was saying the vast majority of men who leave because of overburden choose to do so by simply drifting away. I was not suggesting that the vast majority of men feel that way, though I think more men feel that way than women.

Thanks for the clarification. I was actually referring more to your observation that "recently the young women are catching up" to the men's levels in drifting away.

Edited March 18, 2013 by rongo

[CASteinman]

Its possible women would be awful at priesthood. Or they might be better than men. And maybe they want the priesthood. Or maybe they don't.

Either way, its irrelevant. Its not a matter of quality. Its not a matter of quantity. Its not a matter of wanting it. Its a matter of who the Lord calls.

[rongo]

FWIW, I do think that pregnancy is one of the factors in the background on the priesthood restriction . . . I agree with the sentiment [that women shouldn't serve in common judge callinge while pregnant], but only so far as the term of the pregnancy and recovery goes (maybe 12-18 months). In past generations, maybe it made sense to have strict gender roles for life because women were pregnant and raising children their whole lives. But that is not the case anymore.

I had never thought of the "pregnancy angle" before, but I think it is a significant factor. And one that points to the biological differences between men and women which, coupled with temperamental and psychological factors alluded to in the PotF (in stating the general division of responsibility, "by divine design" --- presiding vs. primarily nurturing), seems to support the conservative, "old-fashioned" orientation instead of the "new" progressive way of looking at ordaining women.

[Buckeye]

So do mine (including the Chicago area, where I lived while in high school), and my anecdotes differ significantly from yours. I've also been a WML (twice), EQP (twice), counselor (twice), and bishop (once), including places outside the intermountain west (and in the intermountain west), and I don't see a sea change in people going inactive (no more so than in times past).

What was it Paul Simon said? "A man, he hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest?" I think people generally do see what they want to see.

I'm actually thrilled to hear that you are not seeing what we are. Simon's line is true, but I hope you know I do not wish to see people drifting away. I'm doing all I can to prevent it.

[rongo]

I'm actually thrilled to hear that you are not seeing what we are.

In the case of those who do drift away, are you certain that is mostly because of these social issues and not simply because inactivity has been part and parcel of the Church since its inception (i.e., harking back to the New Testament Church)? In my experience, most people who go inactive do so because they just don't have the commitment to be active, not because of intellectual or social issues.

Simon's line is true, but I hope you know I do not wish to see people drifting away. I'm doing all I can to prevent it.

I get the sense, though, that you want the Church to allow gay marriage without formal discipline, women to be ordained, etc. And that you perceive the Church's conservative/"old fashioned" orientation to be the cause of people "drifting away" (i.e., "it's the Church's own fault, and we can stop the bleeding by getting on board with these progressive measures").

[tyler90az]

I have often wondered if Heaven is more matriarchal then we think. At the very least men & women equal in all things. We all agree that mortality is a time of learning. Are we being told that men need to work on having power? Power has caused men to be corrupt throughout history. In the D&C it speaks about men becoming corrupt from power also. Generally, women handle power better then men. They are able to have power without corrupting themselves.

Another thing we all agree on is that God knows us better then ourselves. Psychology tells us that men generally have a strong desire for power. Is the Priesthood in place for God to save and exalt his sons easier?

Then I start thinking about Heavenly Mother. Why is it that Heavenly Father protects her so much is that symbolic of why only men hold the Priesthood? I think of worker ants working for the queen.

As I have stated before I would joyfully welcome the news of women getting the Priesthood. I also trust that God knows more then us and his plans are perfect.

[Calm]

Generally, women handle power better then men. They are able to have power without corrupting themselves.

Examples please.

I've known plenty of women who've let power go to their head or misuse it....even just within their families.

Edited March 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

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.....

The final decisions made by good leaders includes getting information from all parties. In a Church setting like say a ward council, everyone discusses something and all points are to be considered and then the Bishop decides what's best for everyone, a good Bishop anyways!