Caroline Kline : Mormon Women Have Their Say

[Bob Crockett]

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. 

Things were different then.   For good reason the Church eliminated advertising from its general publications and has directed stake directories to cease advertising by bookstores and the like.   It has to do with public perception and tax issues. 

 

Bro. Reel's ministry is a for-profit ministry, like Meldrum's, if anybody cares.   He's entitled to make a pitch for funds.  I'm entitled to ignore podcasts in general and particularly ignore ones put out by for-profits on religious matters.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[bluebell]

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

 

I use the html codes and the toggle switch to split up posts.  The old format was much easier!

 

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.

 

It wasn't outside of God's though.  Knowing that there are distinct and truly awesome blessings allowed to women alone through childbirth, He still purposefully denied men the ability to experience them.

 

Why would God purposefully keep men from being able to obtain such wonderful blessings?

 

 

[bluebell]

 I'd also stay clear of the current church publications which, while ad-free, require a subscription for in-print delivery. 

 

They are free in electronic form though, implying that the cost for the physical copy only pays for it's physical printing and distribution. 

 

Not that it's wrong for podcasts to attempt to make money.

[The Nehor]

To be fair some men want to fight for the right to bear children:

[Deborah]

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?

 

These are my thoughts. I think it rather naive to think that because one has the Priesthood ordination they somehow get more personal revelation or receive a greater blessing. Women by virtue of their roles receive the same blessings or become more Christlike. The act of bearing a child puts her in closer contact with the powers of heaven then any ordination.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=543109912416326

[Deborah]

I would add that the power of the Priesthood isn't centered in the ordination. One is given the authority to act on that power but that doesn't mean he actually has that power.

[bluebell]

To be fair some men want to fight for the right to bear children:

In all seriousness, it's a wonderful 'right'. (I love this show, by the way!)

[Buckeye]

It wasn't outside of God's though.  Knowing that there are distinct and truly awesome blessings allowed to women alone through childbirth, He still purposefully denied men the ability to experience them.

 

Why would God purposefully keep men from being able to obtain such wonderful blessings?

 

I'm not so sure that God intends (now, or especially forever) for men to be denied the same blessings of childbirth as women.  I can't possibly fathom how that could happen, but I'm not closed to the idea.  As Joseph famously said, we don't know any more of our destiny than a babe in it's mother's arms (paraphrase). 

 

And while I do agree that, at least for now, there is no plausible way for men and women to equally share the burden/blessing of pregnancy and birth, where I really disagree is the implication of that reality on the priesthood.  "Only women have babies so only men have the priesthood" makes as little sense as "only women breastfeed so only men can vote" or "only men get testicular cancer so only women can learn to read."  There is simply no logical tie between the two propositions.  Yes, we should take into consideration that the burdens on women are greater for pregnancy than for men, and so perhaps we adopt maternity leave or enact a policy that pregant women are not called as bishops.  Great.  But why in the world should women be denied the chance to bless their children just because they gave birth to them?  You might as well argue, "only men grow substantial facehair so only women can eat Cheetos."  It's just as illogical. 

[Buckeye]

These are my thoughts. I think it rather naive to think that because one has the Priesthood ordination they somehow get more personal revelation or receive a greater blessing. Women by virtue of their roles receive the same blessings or become more Christlike. The act of bearing a child puts her in closer contact with the powers of heaven then any ordination.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=543109912416326

 

I couldn't disagree more.  Are you saying all men have less access to heaven than women?  That's the problem when we try to put one gender on a pedastal.  Inevitably, in our zeal to lift the one, we debase the other. 

 

And if gender is really eternal and non-changeable, than any proposition comparing men to women - whether in terms of spirituality, access to heaven, whatever - is inherently untestable.  None of us can make a valid comparison because none of us has experienced both genders.  How can you say your child-bearing is equal to, or greater than, priesthood ordination if you only have experienced one of them?

[Buckeye]

I would add that the power of the Priesthood isn't centered in the ordination. One is given the authority to act on that power but that doesn't mean he actually has that power.

 

Correct.  Which is another reason why the child bearing - priesthood comparison breaks down.  Priesthood only functions under righteous use.  Not so with child bearing. 

[bluebell]

These are my thoughts. I think it rather naive to think that because one has the Priesthood ordination they somehow get more personal revelation or receive a greater blessing.

 

I was actually thinking about this yesterday because our RS lesson was on the priesthood.

 

I had an experience this last week as the RS president where I was called to take a woman I did not know to the emergency room and then was able to sit and wait with her for 4 hours until she was admitted (after midnight).  While we were there, the elder's quorum president and one of his counselors came to the ER and gave this woman a blessing.  They were at the hospital for about 45 minutes, top.

 

Now I'm not at all comparing the time each of us spent with the woman.  I served her in my capacity, they served her in theirs, and each of us was at the hospital for the amount of time it took us to do so.  The comparison I did make was that our service to this woman, though different, benefited her, as well as well as each of us, equally. 

 

I needed to be there, and my role was not one that they could have filled by the priesthood.  I was not just a body to sit next to her and keep her company, I was a woman who had the ability to succor and comfort her, another woman, in a way that a man could not have done. 

 

They also needed to be there, and their role was one that I could not have filled.  They had the ability to stand in Christ's place and use His power to bless her in His name in a way that no woman could have done. 

 

Each of us was needed by her, and each of us was needed by the other.  None of us was given the opportunity to become more Christlike than the next.  Our opportunity for spiritual growth was exactly the same.  Together, two men and a woman, we became a whole that was more powerful than our individual parts.

 

The way the church is organized right now, men and women have the opportunity to work together just as the scriptures say:  Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

 

What a blessing to need each other the way we do.

[DBMormon]

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

 

Mark - I spend about 7 hours a week working on the podcast not to mention an additional 3-4 hours working on FAIR's podcast.  I also work a full time job in addition to that.  I lost about $400.00 on the podcast last 12 months (podcast is 1 year old) and am trying to at least break even.  I am a retail salesman and not a laywer and my family's household income is meager. If the podcast could break even, awesome.  Otherwise don't worry, this will likely be the last year I do it.  I do FAIR's at no cost and I do mine at a loss.  FYI  and all it was asking for was $1.00 a month or $10.00 a year and those who pay that, get exclusive benefits.  Sorry

[DBMormon]

Things were different then.   For good reason the Church eliminated advertising from its general publications and has directed stake directories to cease advertising by bookstores and the like.   It has to do with public perception and tax issues. 

 

Bro. Reel's ministry is a for-profit ministry, like Meldrum's, if anybody cares.   He's entitled to make a pitch for funds.  I'm entitled to ignore podcasts in general and particularly ignore ones put out by for-profits on religious matters.

 

 

I thought I remember you swearing to leave this board and never come back?   Or are you a different Bob Crockett? as I posted $400.00 loss on the podcast... so say what you want.  Your speaking legal terms and I am using common sense, those usually never mesh

[Buckeye]

BB - that is a touching story. I also see the benefits of working in complimentary roles. But very often we see complimentary as exclusionary where it need not be. My wife loves photography. I prefer gardening. So we compliment each other. But that shouldn't mean she can ever grow a tomato or I take a picture. Likewise, allowing women to be ordained would not detract from any of the good women are already doing. So it's a bit of a strawman to point to that good as a reason to maintain the status quo.

 

I've answered some of your questions. Let me ask you a few. Were you to be ordained, would you be any less of a compliment to your fellow brothers and sisters? Were you able to lay hands on this sister (as Eliza R. Snow did) would anyone else in the church be less important?

Edited September 9, 2013 by Buckeye

[bluebell]

 

And while I do agree that, at least for now, there is no plausible way for men and women to equally share the burden/blessing of pregnancy and birth, where I really disagree is the implication of that reality on the priesthood.  "Only women have babies so only men have the priesthood" makes as little sense as "only women breastfeed so only men can vote" or "only men get testicular cancer so only women can learn to read."  There is simply no logical tie between the two propositions.  Yes, we should take into consideration that the burdens on women are greater for pregnancy than for men, and so perhaps we adopt maternity leave or enact a policy that pregant women are not called as bishops.  Great.  But why in the world should women be denied the chance to bless their children just because they gave birth to them?  You might as well argue, "only men grow substantial facehair so only women can eat Cheetos."  It's just as illogical. 

 

I think the implication is that God seems to be fine with denying half of His children certain blessings that He grants to the other half.  Especially as He allows those who do not get to experience the blessings firsthand, to still share in the results, and therefore be blessed through a relationship with those afforded the blessings.

 

Other than that, I don't know that comparing the two (pregnancy and birth to the Priesthood) is really as illogical as you have stated.  Women, in general, share with God the primary responsibility for the physical birth of His children, with the aid of men.  Men, in general, share with God the primary responsibility for the spiritual birth of His children, with the aid of women.  

 

Why God would deny His sons the chance to give carry and give birth to their children is a mystery, but He has.  It is not the role He would have them perform.  Is it illogical to believe that God would behave similarly towards His daughters?

[bluebell]

Correct.  Which is another reason why the child bearing - priesthood comparison breaks down.  Priesthood only functions under righteous use.  Not so with child bearing. 

 

Child bearing only functions under specific physical use.  The only real difference is that men have control over their righteousness and women have little control over their bodies.  Both abilities (to bear children or hold the priesthood) are completely in the hands of God, however.

[bluebell]

BB - that is a touching story. I also see the benefits of working in complimentary roles. But very often we see complimentary as exclusionary where it need not be. My wife loves photography. I prefer gardening. So we compliment each other. But that shouldn't mean she can ever grow a tomato or I take a picture. Likewise, allowing women to be ordained would not detract from any of the good women are already doing. So it's a bit of a strawman to point to that good as a reason to maintain the status quo.

It would take away from the men such opportunities however.

 

If I held the priesthood, those men would not have been there that night.  They would not have been needed, they would have had no role to fill there at all.  I would gain little through a change of ordination but they would lose much.

 

I've answered some of your questions. Let me ask you a few. Were you to be ordained, would you be any less of a compliment to your fellow brothers and sisters? Were you able to lay hands on this sister (as Eliza R. Snow did) would anyone else in the church be less important?

Yes, as I explained above, the men would have been much less important.  In fact, they would have been completely disposable in that scenario.

 

And I do realize that women used to be much more 'hands on' with blessings and such in the early years.  Given that we also use to seal people to the prophet instead of their own families, I don't know that that's much of an endorsement.  I'm not saying its definitely not, but I don't think that by itself, it means much.

[Buckeye]

It would take away from the men such opportunities however.

 

If I held the priesthood, those men would not have been there that night.  They would not have been needed, they would have had no role to fill there at all.  I would gain little through a change of ordination but they would lose much.

 

Yes, as I explained above, the men would have been much less important.  In fact, they would have been completely disposable in that scenario.

 

And I do realize that women used to be much more 'hands on' with blessings and such in the early years.  Given that we also use to seal people to the prophet instead of their own families, I don't know that that's much of an endorsement.  I'm not saying its definitely not, but I don't think that by itself, it means much.

 

That's helpful.  Thanks.  I can only provide my perspective, but I guess I see it 180-degrees differently.  My wife joining with me in blessing our children would mean the world to me.  Just like cooking, reading, hiking, praying, fasting, attending church, and many other activities, her inclusion does not lessen my experience, it makes it more special.  I don't play with my kids any less because she does so too.  She doesn't cook for them any less just because I help from time to time.  None of these things are a "fixed pie" where one's gain is the other's loss.  For me, the priesthood is the same.  Nothing to lose and everything to gain by bringing women into the service.  Men don't become disposable through women's ordination any more than their votes became disposable when women were given equal access to the ballot box or their ability to enhance their lives through education was lessened when women were given the same opportunities. 

 

I'm curious, do you know any men who say they would feel "disposable" by women's ordination?  I have yet to meet one.  You're not the first to raise this idea so I'd like to know where these men are.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Buckeye

[bluebell]

That's helpful.  Thanks.  I can only provide my perspective, but I guess I see it 180-degrees differently.  My wife joining with me in blessing our children would mean the world to me.  Just like cooking, reading, hiking, praying, fasting, attending church, and many other activities, her inclusion does not lessen my experience, it makes it more special.  I don't play with my kids any less because she does so too.  She doesn't cook for them any less just because I help from time to time.  None of these things are a "fixed pie" where one's gain is the other's loss.  For me, the priesthood is the same.  Nothing to lose and everything to gain by bringing women into the service.  Men don't become disposable through women's ordination any more than their votes became disposable when women were given equal access to the ballot box or their ability to enhance their lives through education was lessened when women were given the same opportunities. 

 

I'm curious, do you know any men who say they would feel "disposable" by women's ordination?  I have yet to meet one.  You're not the first to raise this idea so I'd like to know where these men are.

 

Personally, I don't know any men who have given it a second's thought so I can't help you there.  If there are men around me who want women to be ordained, they are keeping it very much to themselves.  The same if there are men around me that don't.

 

I know a WHOLE bunch of women who feel that it would be the height of unfairness to ordain women, because they feel that to do so would increase women's responsibility while decreasing men's (and a lot of women feel like they already do more 'work' at church than men anyway).

 

I also know women who have husbands who do not live up to their priesthood blessings and responsibilities as it is, and if they (the women) were to gain the opportunity to serve in that capacity, they greatly fear their husbands would quite happily leave everything up to them, only this time without any real argument against doing so.

 

And I know women, myself included, who are not opposed to the idea, but see no scriptural basis for the belief that God actually wants it that way (and see scriptural evidence supporting that He doesn't).

 

I really can't speak for any men on the subject though.

[Bob Crockett]

I thought I remember you swearing to leave this board and never come back?   Or are you a different Bob Crockett? as I posted $400.00 loss on the podcast... so say what you want.  Your speaking legal terms and I am using common sense, those usually never mesh

Perhaps you can ask one of your knowledgeable friends in Ohio about the difference between a for-proft and a not-for-profit company.  It has nothing to do whether you post a loss or a gain.  I was just responding to somebody's comments about the money pitch you do on the podcast; nothing more.

 

I am of the opinion that podcasts are terrible genres for discussion and that podcasts to support money-making operations are even worse, which means that I'm not sure I would get much out of the one mentioned in the opening thread.  That's all.  Others are different. 

Edited September 9, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Deborah]

I couldn't disagree more.  Are you saying all men have less access to heaven than women? 

 

No, but it sounded like you were saying women have less access and are less Christlike because they don't have the Priesthood.

[TAO]

I'll be honest about this... I think the priesthood is God's way of turning boys into men.  As a man, I will admit, I am a bit lazy.  It has taken the priesthood obligations to counteract that.

[DBMormon]

I'll be honest about this... I think the priesthood is God's way of turning boys into men.  As a man, I will admit, I am a bit lazy.  It has taken the priesthood obligations to counteract that.

I agree with it being a motivation.  So that leads to the question of - We are not speaking about taking your PH away but rather making the group bigger (hypothetically and based on revelation by leaders) by including women.

 

- Is your PH reduced or your motivation to be a Christlike Man reduced when other men are given PH?

-  Would including women in PH make you less motivated or reduce your PH?

[Buckeye]

No, but it sounded like you were saying women have less access and are less Christlike because they don't have the Priesthood.

 

 I see.  What I was trying to say is that, to the degree priesthood service makes us Christlike, denying priesthood office to women means they will not have that avenue for developing Christ's attributes.  Obviously, they have many other avenues.  But I would love to see them have this one as well.  I was not trying to say that men, overall, have more access to becoming like Christ than women.  I don't think any of us can make that judgment.

[Storm Rider]

I see the effort to make men completely unnecessary as very dangerous, naive, and poorly considered. This may come from the misguided concept of making humanity equal, but it ends in the destruction of society and certainly the plan of salvation. I find few things as misguided as this.