Caroline Kline : Mormon Women Have Their Say

[DBMormon]

Caroline Kline : Mormon Women Have Their Say

http:mormondiscussion.podbean.com

Today we sit down with Caroline Kline one of the Editors of the book "Mormon Women Have Their Say"

We discuss Feminism, Priesthood, Patriarchy and Unrighteous Dominion.
Check out the book here
http://www.gregkofford.com/products/mormon-women-bushman-kline
or
http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Women-Have-Their-Say/dp/1589584945

 

 

Caroline Kline share a very level headed view of feminism and her thoughts of social issues (my opinion anyway) and she simply pleads for us to talk about the issues and see if we can as truth seekers open up discussion that leads to questions and at least a possibility of revelation and increased truth (AoF #9)

 

Do you see her view as unreasonable?

 

What is the safe way to approach these issues without crossing the line of sustaining the church and the brethren?

 

[ERayR]

I believe there are too many people trying to ell God how it should be done.

[DBMormon]

ErayR, did you listen to the episode or as without doing so you may be misjudging her views.

OR are you just speaking generally

[Calm]

at least a possibility of revelation and increased truth

 

Not being inclined to listen to podcasts, I am interested to know if she states what type of revelation and increased truth she is hoping for and if she claims there is a limited amount of revelation now or if it just comes across that way from the way you have phrased it.

[DBMormon]

I think both her and I see room for expansive revelation as AoF #9 says there is a lot yet to come.  She feels like revelation comes from asking questions.  Sidney asking Joseph, Blacks asking the brethren, Paul asking Peter, ect...  and that by our discussing feminist issues at least puts them on the table and may lead to questions and maybe if God's will... revelatory answers.

[ERayR]

ErayR, did you listen to the episode or as without doing so you may be misjudging her views.

OR are you just speaking generally

 

 

We do tend to see a lot of that on this board.

[DBMormon]

We do tend to see a lot of that on this board.

 

It's just the question in the OP referred to her views specifically and I would love for you to clarify.

[foster]

Delete

Edited September 9, 2013 by foster

[bluebell]

I don't listen to podcasts either so this may have been covered....

 

I'm wondering though, if the leadership essentially said, 'we have prayed about this and women are not to have the priesthood' (or something along those lines), would  those sisters who are asking or expecting ordination be content with that?  Do they really only want to ask the question, or is asking the question their way of saying 'this is how it needs to be'?

 

I'm honestly wondering.

[CV75]

What is the safe way to approach these issues without crossing the line of sustaining the church and the brethren?

I did not see the link, but I would try to open up a conversation with the women leaders of the Church about it first. In doing so, it would be important to understand (from their perspective) what kind of current projects and priorities they are working on and see how these issues can be made relevant. It would also be important not to set or project expectations for any particular defined outcome or results.

[Deborah]

I don't listen to podcasts either. I do think that too many of these women are asking but then demanding. On the issue with blacks and the Priesthood, the leaders of the church had also been asking the Lord if it were time. I think the leaders are aware of the issues and when the time is right they will receive the answers.

 

What I don't understand is the push to have the Priesthood now when women already have the blessings of the Priesthood and can call on it's power when needed. It's not like it's and issue of salvation or exaltation as was the Priesthood.

[cdowis]

I agree with the others -- don't listen to podcasts.

 

Perhaps you can summarize the salient points for.

[Buckeye]

I don't listen to podcasts either. I do think that too many of these women are asking but then demanding. On the issue with blacks and the Priesthood, the leaders of the church had also been asking the Lord if it were time. I think the leaders are aware of the issues and when the time is right they will receive the answers.

 

What I don't understand is the push to have the Priesthood now when women already have the blessings of the Priesthood and can call on it's power when needed. It's not like it's and issue of salvation or exaltation as was the Priesthood.

 

So we're past 10 comments now and no one has listened to the podcast. I am just as guilty, though. I haven't listened yet (I will at some point), but I still want to respond to your comment Deborah.

 

From my limited experience, church practices do not change on God's timeline, but man's. God has no time. He waits patiently on us. For example, at Sinai, he wanted to give a higher law but could not because they people were not ready. That's the same thing that happended with the 1978 revelation. The brethren weren't waiting on the Lord so much as the Lord was waiting on the people.  It is understandable that the people were reluctant to open their hearts to change.  Their leaders had told them the racial ban was doctrine and would remain in place until all non-cursed men had the opportunity to hear the gospel (see the 1949 FP letter).  And until the 1960s-70s the doctrine did not directly impact the saints very much because few people of color wanted to join the church.  It was only when Brazil began to grow quickly, a temple needed to be staffed, and the local leaders admitted they were unable to determine who was of african decent and who wasn't, that the church body finally opened their minds to the possibility that this teaching was not a core doctrine and could be changed.  Not everyone, of course.  But most.  And that was enough for the leadership to be unified and receive the wonderful 1978 revelation.  Now we treat the racial ban as a practice, but it was very much a doctrine prior to 1978.

 

While the situations are not exactly the same, there is significant overlap between our prior practice of exluding blacks from the priesthood and our remaining practice or excluding women.  Fortunately, we've moved to the point where we are not officially defending the current restriction.  In his recent remarks at BYU, Elder Ballard said the reason is unknown.  But that admission alone will not change things.  For that to happen, the people's hearts have to be opened to the possibility that this restriction really is not doctrine and, most importantly, that women participating in priesthood functions would be a blessing.  So far, as a people, we don't desire that.  And this is where the ordain women project can make the most help - not in demanding change, but opening a dialogue whereby it is acceptable for women to express a desire to participate.  Only through that dialogue, can the people fully open their hearts to the possibility of female ordination.  And only after that dialogue has happened will any clear revelation come down.

 

For myself, Deborah, the priesthood is not just authority, it is power.  If it was just authority to perform certain ordinances, than no specific individual would need it - male or female.  A ward could function with 5-10 priesthood holders to administer baptisms, sacrament, and blessings.  But in my experience, the greatness of the priesthood is not so much that God recognizes the actions done through it, but that the people who work through it become more godlike in the process.  It is a truely exalting work.  That is why I want the women in my life to have the priesthood.  It will make them more Christlike.  And it will unify me with them in ways not currently allowed.  Just as ward councils function better when female voices are present, so will family priesthood blessings function better when mothers' voices are heard.

[bluebell]

So we're past 10 comments now and no one has listened to the podcast. I am just as guilty, though. I haven't listened yet (I will at some point), but I still want to respond to your comment Deborah.

From my limited experience, church practices do not change on God's timeline, but man's. God has no time. He waits patiently on us. For example, at Sinai, he wanted to give a higher law but could not because they people were not ready. That's the same thing that happended with the 1978 revelation. The brethren weren't waiting on the Lord so much as the Lord was waiting on the people. It is understandable that the people were reluctant to open their hearts to change. Their leaders had told them the racial ban was doctrine and would remain in place until all non-cursed men had the opportunity to hear the gospel (see the 1949 FP letter). And until the 1960s-70s the doctrine did not directly impact the saints very much because few people of color wanted to join the church. It was only when Brazil began to grow quickly, a temple needed to be staffed, and the local leaders admitted they were unable to determine who was of african decent and who wasn't, that the church body finally opened their minds to the possibility that this teaching was not a core doctrine and could be changed. Not everyone, of course. But most. And that was enough for the leadership to be unified and receive the wonderful 1978 revelation. Now we treat the racial ban as a practice, but it was very much a doctrine prior to 1978.

While the situations are not exactly the same, there is significant overlap between our prior practice of exluding blacks from the priesthood and our remaining practice or excluding women. Fortunately, we've moved to the point where we are not officially defending the current restriction. In his recent remarks at BYU, Elder Ballard said the reason is unknown. But that admission alone will not change things. For that to happen, the people's hearts have to be opened to the possibility that this restriction really is not doctrine and, most importantly, that women participating in priesthood functions would be a blessing. So far, as a people, we don't desire that. And this is where the ordain women project can make the most help - not in demanding change, but opening a dialogue whereby it is acceptable for women to express a desire to participate. Only through that dialogue, can the people fully open their hearts to the possibility of female ordination. And only after that dialogue has happened will any clear revelation come down.

For myself, Deborah, the priesthood is not just authority, it is power. If it was just authority to perform certain ordinances, than no specific individual would need it - male or female. A ward could function with 5-10 priesthood holders to administer baptisms, sacrament, and blessings. But in my experience, the greatness of the priesthood is not so much that God recognizes the actions done through it, but that the people who work through it become more godlike in the process. It is a truely exalting work. That is why I want the women in my life to have the priesthood. It will make them more Christlike. And it will unify me with them in ways not currently allowed. Just as ward councils function better when female voices are present, so will family priesthood blessings function better when mothers' voices are heard.

A woman does not need the priesthood to have their voices heard though. I honestly don't understand the connection you are trying to make here.

And in what way will the priesthood help me to be more Christlike that I don't have access to right now?

[DBMormon]

I don't listen to podcasts either so this may have been covered....

 

I'm wondering though, if the leadership essentially said, 'we have prayed about this and women are not to have the priesthood' (or something along those lines), would  those sisters who are asking or expecting ordination be content with that?  Do they really only want to ask the question, or is asking the question their way of saying 'this is how it needs to be'?

 

I'm honestly wondering.

 

 

I can only speak for myself.  I would take that as the answer and be content with it.

[Buckeye]

A woman does not need the priesthood to have their voices heard though. I honestly don't understand the connection you are trying to make here.

And in what way will the priesthood help me to be more Christlike that I don't have access to right now?

 

I'm speaking of her voice being heard during a priesthood blessing.  For instance, it would be a great blessing for children to hear their Lord's will spoken to them through their mother's voice as well as their father's voice during a back-to-school blessing.

 

An example for becoming more Christlike can be seen in young men who receive the aaronic priesthood.  I've personally seen many young men become more Christlike as they worthily prepare and participate in the administration of the sacrament, baptize their siblings, aid in collection of fast offerings, serve as home teaching, and other priesthood duties.  By doing the very acts of Christ, one necessarily becomes like him.  Just like by immitating the actions of a parent (pretend cooking, etc.) a child becomes like the parent.  Currently, young women are not provided with these means to become like the Savior that young men are.

 

The priesthood is about doing, not just receiving.  Otherwise, there should be no objection to an 18-year old boy who says, "I'd like to serve a mission, but I don't really want the priesthood.  I can still receive all the blessings of the priesthood without exercising it myself."

Edited September 9, 2013 by Buckeye

[DBMormon]

The priesthood is about doing, not just receiving.  Otherwise, there should be no objection to an 18-year old boy who says, "I'd like to serve a mission, but I don't really want the priesthood.  I can still receive all the blessings of the priesthood without exercising it myself."

 

Now that's an interesting thought.  Why is PH necessary to serve a mission for a male if in every other way he is worthy anyway.  that said I don't think that will fly

[Buckeye]

Now that's an interesting thought.  Why is PH necessary to serve a mission for a male if in every other way he is worthy anyway.  that said I don't think that will fly

 

The quickest answer is that priesthood is required as a matter of practice by the CHI.  Same thing with the CHI requirement that YM receive the AP in order to do baptisms in the temple.  Theoretically, no priesthood is really needed in these instances.  A YM could be baptized without priesthood.  And a male missionary could teach, serve, tract (whoops, no more tracting) and do everything but ordinances as a missionary just fine.  So in theory he could serve a mission and let others do the priesthood ordinances. 

 

Why the church requires ordination is an interesting question.  For missionaries, I think we feel some need for servants to be "authorized."  An AOF comes to mind.  But that begs the question of how Sister Missionaries can be deemed authorized representatives of the Lord.  If they can do it without ordination than perhaps so could men. 

 

And to be clear, I don't want YM to turn down the priesthood.  I think they lose out on a lot when they do.  But when someone asks what women "miss out on" by not being ordained, I find the quickest way to get to the answer is to ask what men would miss out on if they declined ordination. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A woman does not need the priesthood to have their voices heard though. I honestly don't understand the connection you are trying to make here.

And in what way will the priesthood help me to be more Christlike that I don't have access to right now?

You don't understand You need to listen to the podcast. Ugh.

[Mark Beesley]

I tried to listen to the podcast, but got turned-off by the preliminary solicitation for money.

[bluebell]

I'm speaking of her voice being heard during a priesthood blessing.  For instance, it would be a great blessing for children to hear their Lord's will spoken to them through their mother's voice as well as their father's voice during a back-to-school blessing.

I guess I just don't understand this mindset.

 

My children hear my voice more often than they hear my husband's, simply by virtue of my role as a stay at home mother.  It starts in the womb and frankly, my husband's presence in their lives never really catches up.  Not because he's not a great father but simply because I spend much more time with them than he does.  He doesn't work more than 40 hours a week or anything, but that's 40 hours a week he doesn't get to spend with them, and I do.

 

I guess that's why they say the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

 

So in that regard, I don't see how my children hearing my husband's voice speaking the will of the Lord even less than they do now, would be a good thing for them.  Nor do I feel that increasing my voice in their world would benefit them, as it would have to come with a decrease of my husband's voice.

 

Even taking out my husband's and I's roles as my children's mother and father and coming at this from the angle of female and male voices-my children still hear a disproportionate amount of female verses male voices in their lives.  Most of their teachers and authority figures in their lives are women.  So still, I don't see what benefit would come to them from making that amount even smaller than it is now.

 

An example for becoming more Christlike can be seen in young men who receive the aaronic priesthood.  I've personally seen many young men become more Christlike as they worthily prepare and participate in the administration of the sacrament, baptize their siblings, aid in collection of fast offerings, serve as home teaching, and other priesthood duties.  By doing the very acts of Christ, one necessarily becomes like him.  Just like by immitating the actions of a parent (pretend cooking, etc.) a child becomes like the parent.  Currently, young women are not provided with these means to become like the Savior that young men are.

 

Do you find the YM in your ward to be more Christlike than the YW then?  Is that what you are saying?

The priesthood is about doing, not just receiving.  Otherwise, there should be no objection to an 18-year old boy who says, "I'd like to serve a mission, but I don't really want the priesthood.  I can still receive all the blessings of the priesthood without exercising it myself."

In this regard, the Priesthood is a bit like motherhood. We are told over and over that a woman does not need to bear or raise a child to be a mother, and also that a woman will not lack any blessing that comes from motherhood if she cannot become one during mortality (and it's all true!)

But, at the same time would the Lord be o.k. with a woman purposefully turning her back on the blessings that come from motherhood with the justification that she can still receive all those blessings without doing it herself?

For whatever reason, it seems that the Lord expects us to take advantage of the specific blessings He offers us, even if He still blesses those He offers different blessings to in similar ways.

Maybe obedience to His will is what is most important, and not knowing the formula for how to get the blessings we want thru different means.

Which leads me to another question. Your response in this post seems to imply that you believe that God wants women to have the Priesthood right now and not that you simply want the leaders to ask Him His will on the matter. If that is the case, what will you do if they ask and the answer is a different one than the one you believe they need to get?

[Buckeye]

I tried to listen to the podcast, but got turned-off by the preliminary solicitation for money.

 

Then don't try reading the Juvenile Instructor or other early church publications (see http://archive.org/details/juvenileinstructor).  Those things are chauk full of ads for fire insurance, travel agencies (to exotic California!), baby formula, overalls, pie filing, new garment designs (authorized, or course), church history maps, christmas presents, and lots of books by church leaders.  I'd also stay clear of the current church publications which, while ad-free, require a subscription for in-print delivery. 

[Buckeye]

I guess I just don't understand this mindset.

 

My children hear my voice more often than they hear my husband's, simply by virtue of my role as a stay at home mother.  It starts in the womb and frankly, my husband's presence in their lives never really catches up.  Not because he's not a great father but simply because I spend much more time with them than he does.  He doesn't work more than 40 hours a week or anything, but that's 40 hours a week he doesn't get to spend with them, and I do.

 

I guess that's why they say the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

 

So in that regard, I don't see how my children hearing my husband's voice speaking the will of the Lord even less than they do now, would be a good thing for them.  Nor do I feel that increasing my voice in their world would benefit them, as it would have to come with a decrease of my husband's voice.

 

Even taking out my husband's and I's roles as my children's mother and father and coming at this from the angle of female and male voices-my children still hear a disproportionate amount of female verses male voices in their lives.  Most of their teachers and authority figures in their lives are women.  So still, I don't see what benefit would come to them from making that amount even smaller than it is now.

 

 

Do you find the YM in your ward to be more Christlike than the YW then?  Is that what you are saying?

In this regard, the Priesthood is a bit like motherhood. We are told over and over that a woman does not need to bear or raise a child to be a mother, and also that a woman will not lack any blessing that comes from motherhood if she cannot become one during mortality (and it's all true!)

But, at the same time would the Lord be o.k. with a woman purposefully turning her back on the blessings that come from motherhood with the justification that she can still receive all those blessings without doing it herself?

For whatever reason, it seems that the Lord expects us to take advantage of the specific blessings He offers us, even if He still blesses those He offers different blessings to in similar ways.

Maybe obedience to His will is what is most important, and not knowing the formula for how to get the blessings we want thru different means.

Which leads me to another question. Your response in this post seems to imply that you believe that God wants women to have the Priesthood right now and not that you simply want the leaders to ask Him His will on the matter. If that is the case, what will you do if they ask and the answer is a different one than the one you believe they need to get?

 

BB - your mindset and desires are just as valid as mine or Caroline Kline's.  I'm not trying to convert anyone.  I'm just explaining where I and others are coming from and why we desire more than is currently offered.  For me, it's not a competition between men and women (not to imply you think it is).  Regardless of whether my children hear more of my voice or my wife's voice, I want them to have all good things.  IMO, women exercising priesthood is a good thing, just as with men.  Therefore I want it to happen.  It's really that simple.  If men are missing out on other things, well, let's fix that too.

 

I'm also all in favor of obedience.  But I chafe at the suggestion (not that you're making it, but others do) that asking for more good is an act of disobedience.  I think we grow line up line.  Those who are asking for more are not doing so out of disobedience, but because they are obeying what they have received and therefore want to add to it.

 

What will happen if the brethren ask and say "no"?  Hopefully, I'd react the same way Jane Manning James, Elijah Abel, and others did when church policies limited their progress - wait patiently and faitfully, but still plead my case.

[bluebell]

BB - your mindset and desires are just as valid as mine or Caroline Kline's.  I'm not trying to convert anyone.  I'm just explaining where I and others are coming from and why we desire more than is currently offered.  For me, it's not a competition between men and women (not to imply you think it is).  Regardless of whether my children hear more of my voice or my wife's voice, I want them to have all good things.  IMO, women exercising priesthood is a good thing, just as with men.  Therefore I want it to happen.  It's really that simple.  If men are missing out on other things, well, let's fix that too.

I agree. Let's start working on men having periods, being pregnant, and going through childbirth. It is honestly and sincerely one of the most awesome blessings I've ever had the privilege of experiencing, but I'm more than willing to share.

And if bearing children is a good thing, then I agree, let's get the men involved in that!

 

I'm also all in favor of obedience.  But I chafe at the suggestion (not that you're making it, but others do) that asking for more good is an act of disobedience.  I think we grow line up line.  Those who are asking for more are not doing so out of disobedience, but because they are obeying what they have received and therefore want to add to it.

 

 

I agree in part. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking.  I guess what I chafe at (and I'm not saying you are doing this either) are those people who think they already know the answer--know the will of the Lord for His church--better than His chosen prophets.

 

What will happen if the brethren ask and say "no"?  Hopefully, I'd react the same way Jane Manning James, Elijah Abel, and others did when church policies limited their progress - wait patiently and faitfully, but still plead my case.

 

So, you would believe that the answer of 'no' would not actually be the will of the Lord, but you would accept it and hold out hope that His will would come out eventually?  (Just wanting to make sure I understand what you are saying)

[Buckeye]

I agree. Let's start working on men having periods, being pregnant, and going through childbirth. It is honestly and sincerely one of the most awesome blessings I've ever had the privilege of experiencing, but I'm more than willing to share.

And if bearing children is a good thing, then I agree, let's get the men involved in that!

 

 

I agree in part. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking.  I guess what I chafe at (and I'm not saying you are doing this either) are those people who think they already know the answer--know the will of the Lord for His church--better than His chosen prophets.

 

So, you would believe that the answer of 'no' would not actually be the will of the Lord, but you would accept it and hold out hope that His will would come out eventually?  (Just wanting to make sure I understand what you are saying)

 

Sorry I'm answering in bulk.  I haven't yet figured out how to split the quotes into separate blocks. 

 

As for pregnancy, most women (including my wife) find the experience to be a positive on the whole.  So if there is a way for men to experience that I'm all for it.  I actually mean that.  Realistically, though, no one knows how to make that happen.  It's outside our ability.  That is where female ordination differs.  All of the physical and spiritual pre-reqs are already there for women to bless the sacrament, baptize their children, preside over wards, etc.  They just lack the permission to act.

 

Most - actually all - of the women and men I know who support female ordination are expressing their personal desires.  They know what is best for them and their family, but they are not claiming to know what is best for the whole church.  Each of us is just 1 out of 14+million.  If someone does claim to have received revelation for the whole church (ala Sonia Johnson) then IMO they crossed a serious line.

 

If the answer came back "no" and I still felt women's inclusion were good, I would take the answer as a temporary no.  I would still hope that some day either my desires would be granted or I would be given more understanding for why this is not good.  Until then we continue to wrestle - with the spirit and with each other.