Caroline Kline : Mormon Women Have Their Say

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

I don't follow. Why would men be unnecessary if women get the priesthood? Does that mean that women are unnecessary right now?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

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

Me either. But I am a dude so here goes. I agree with you that if women were ordained and could do all that men could in terms of the preisthood I definatly would be less likely to do certain things as women now can and I don't have to. I mean that reason alone is a reason why I don't see women having the priesthood in the same capacity as men today. Because I think men will be more likely to be lazy. Sorry to say but that is just the reality of it. I mean the priesthood is all about service. I think it is desinged this way because of a man's nature. He needs it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't follow. Why would men be unnecessary if women get the priesthood? Does that mean that women are unnecessary right now?

If a woman could do everything a man could. What would be the point of a man giving a blessing if a women could?

No, women are not unnecessary. They have different roles. That is the whole point.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Buckeye]

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.

 

But that is not the intent of anyone I know.  Equality does not mean that exactly 1/2 of all bishops must be women or that mothers and fathers spend exactly the same amount of time doing exactly the same things with their children.  Equality means that all people are allowed to pursue "every good gift" regardless of gender.  It is equality of opportunity, not a forced numerical exactness, that people are asking for.

 

As one example, in the US culture I live it is commonly thought that boys like trucks and girls like dolls.  In my experience there is some truth to that.  But some boys still like some dolls some time.  And visa versa with girls and trucks.  For me, equality does not mean that boys and girls must each play with trucks 50% of the time and dolls the remainder.  It means that all kids can play with whatever toy they want and not be limited due to their gender.  If, in the end, boys prefer trucks 82% of the time and girls prefer dolls 61% of the time, great, that is real equality.

 

And as to "making men completely unnecessary," that is up to men.  If men stop serving in the priesthood because it is not exclusively their domain, well, so much their loss.  But I can't justify depriving women of the blessings of priesthood service just because some men are unfaithful.  Should we deprive women of educational opportunities or voting rights on the same logic?  Of course not.  None of these things are a fixed pie.  They can be shared equally by both sexes. 

 

Storm Rider, do you know any men who would stop serving in priesthood roles just because women were allowed to do the same?  I have yet to meet one, but would interested to understand why. 

[Buckeye]

If a woman could do everything a man could. What would be the point of a man giving a blessing if a women could?

No, women are not unnecessary. They have different roles. That is the whole point.

 

If a father can cook for his children, what good is a mother? If a mother can throw a baseball with her son, what good is a father? If women can go camping, men won't want to anymore. If women can be astronauts, no boys will ever want to go to space. Everything in life must be given to only one gender. There can be absolutely no overlap between men and women's roles. That just can't work. Never has. Never will. That's why only men pray in General Conference. If women could pray too, men wouldn't see any purpose in speaking to God. Why don't people get this?

Edited September 10, 2013 by Buckeye

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If a woman could do everything a man could. What would be the point of a man giving a blessing if a women could?

No, women are not unnecessary. They have different roles. That is the whole point.

So men's unique role is the priesthood. Giving women the priesthood makes men unnecessary to the church. What is the unique role (that a man couldn't fulfill) of women in the church that makes them necessary again? 

[Buckeye]

So men's unique role is the priesthood. Giving women the priesthood makes men unnecessary to the church. What is the unique role (that a man couldn't fulfill) of women in the church that makes them necessary again? 

 

If men could have babies, women wouldn't want to anymore and so no more babies would be born.  That's why God designed for only women to have babies.  Women are naturally lazy.  They wouldn't rise to their role if it wasn't unique.  Same thing with other roles given to women, such as nurturing.  If men are allowed to nurture children, lazy women will play video games all day.hang out on pinterest all day.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Buckeye

[Deborah]

But that is not the intent of anyone I know.  Equality does not mean that exactly 1/2 of all bishops must be women or that mothers and fathers spend exactly the same amount of time doing exactly the same things with their children.  Equality means that all people are allowed to pursue "every good gift" regardless of gender. 

 

Equality also doesn't mean you have to have the same roles.

[Buckeye]

Equality also doesn't mean you have to have the same roles.

 

Of course not. But it does mean that everyone should be allowed the roles they desire. Again, equal opportunity. Not forced sameness.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't follow. Why would men be unnecessary if women get the priesthood? Does that mean that women are unnecessary right now?

 

As Priesthood holders yes women are unnecessary. As delightful RS sisters they are very necessary.

[bluebell]

Of course not. But it does mean that everyone should be allowed the roles they desire. Again, equal opportunity. Not forced sameness.

 

God has never worked that way, so I don't understand where members of the church are coming from when they say stuff like this.  If we were talking about a secular organization, then yes, I would get it, but from a doctrinal standpoint, it doesn't seem very valid.

[Buckeye]

God has never worked that way, so I don't understand where members of the church are coming from when they say stuff like this.  If we were talking about a secular organization, then yes, I would get it, but from a doctrinal standpoint, it doesn't seem very valid.

 

Actually, that's exactly how God works.  Alma 29:4 reads:

 

I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their ^adesire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their ^bwills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.

 

Now, we can disagree as to whether something is good or not.  That's why this life is a probation.  We get to try things out.  We get to watch other people try things out.  We get to choose our desires.  And in the end, God does grant to us according to our desires.

[SamIam]

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?

 

There is a tendency to miss certain patterns that have literally existed from the very beginning that are theologically significant but get lost in the crys of dissent of the current era.  Prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve appear to have functioned in their relationship differently than after the fall. While we can debate the why of that issue all day long the fact is that the Lord established a pattern of having the women look to her husband.  Still it is very important to realize that this is a condition of the fall. Men received their burdens in the form of by the sweat of their brow shall they feed themselves and their families as well the pattern was clearly mandated that he would look to God for his direction.  Thus we have a common mandate for both men and women that they will look to a particular source for direction. Nonetheless, the woman was not a servant but a helpmeet.  Thus the man was required to look to the Lord for the direction and he and the woman would strive to be united in achieving the direction of Lord as it was provided.  That is not to say that the women may also understand a direction that is important for the family but simply that the man is entitled to ask and recieve confirmation from the Lord that the direction suggested is indeed His will and he can know it is so by virtue of this order of things.

 

Again for reasons subject to debate, the Lord established that in thier role of presidence righteous men could be given the priesthood which has, as part of it's function, the right to preside in the organizations of God's Kingdom relative to assignment.  The family is the core of all of the organizations of God's kingdom. An organization cannot have 2 presiding entities or the potential confusion that results creates grief. This is the pattern that has always been since the beginning and those who wrest the scriptures to find another order are simply in great error.

 

Still since the roles of looking to another source are shared by both men and women perhaps the ludicrous proposal that men should seek to alter the order of the Lord's assigment in the fall should be considered.  After all is it not equally true that as we look to our source from time to time we suffer greatly.  The time lag between seeking the Lords insight as we move through life makes for stress and worry that seems an unneccesary burden.  Why can't I as a man simply disregard the order the Lord established and take it upon myself to direct my family as I think best.  I'm a good guy and I'm sure I would be more fulfilled and confident if I could just place myself at the head without all the mystery and waiting on the Lord stuff that I can just handle on my own...and so on

 

First off we have plenty of examples of men who take this approach.  While there are good men, as a whole, how many women want to be married to the typcial man who is not trying to establish the Lord as his head. It is sad enough that in the church some men just play the game and try to fake the process.  Is it not evident that when we breach this order of the relationship between man and the Lord we get chaos, destruction, wickedness and suffering. 

 

What man would be foolish enough, and what women would agree that we are better off establishing a new order for men.  Don't let the Lord preside over your husbands. They're smart, talented, capable men who surely can see their way clearly without the wisdom of the order the Lord established as a guide rail to help him along the path. 

 

Okay ladies ... that's enough laughter (or crying as the case may be) at the thought of such a prospect.

 

I am not saying that the results would be as catastrophic if women altered the order just as if all men ceased to adhere to the order the Lord established.  The world has and continues to suffer through some very dark times for the issue of men who seek to be laws unto themselves and seek not the Lord. Sadly in this day and age a great deal of the departure from true principles is at the behest of and with the agreement of the women of the world. 

 

However, I think for all of the examples we have in this existence of men who fail to look to the Lord and the resulting agony, we have equal examples to wonder if indeed it might not be exactly the same if women continued to seek to alter the order.  The ramifications never stay limited to the venue we think they will.  Already we see much of the harm that can be done when we disrupt the order of the family with working mothers and fathers who encourage the added income for their material satisfactions. I'm not even going to go any further it is simply too apparent that when fathers fulfill their riles properly and mothers fulfill their roles properly everything works better and this order has been from the beginning.

 

There is a warning in Isaiah that speaks to the breech of the proper order of things: 

 

Isaiah 3:12

12 ¶As for my people, children are their oppressors, and ^awomen rule over them. O my people, they which ^blead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

 

 

Now I end where I began.  This order is established as a result of the fall.  It is potentially true that this may be the order of heaven to some degree as well but if it is it will be apparent how proper order is what establishes the kingdom of God. Nonetheless, I think the order of the fall is better seen as where Adam and Eve ceased to function as one and began to operate independently.  thus why theh Lord established a change to the order.  After the effects of the fall are removed, I am sure that the design of heaven is that the order is husbands and wives established as one working together united in their cause.

 

When we speak of steadying the Ark, my favorite verse on the subject makes it clear that moving the ark is not the issue, instead:

1 Chronicles 15:13

13 For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.

 

We can attempt to change an order that has existed since the dawn of time however I do not suspect it will bode any good to do so. There is a proper order and that is important to observe.

 

There is one more analogy from the steadying the ARK story that applies.  The idea to move the Ark in a “new cart” filled with Gold and of ornate design pulled by oxen was from the example of how the Philistines returned the Ark to Israel after it wreaked havoc on the communities of Philistia.  The Philistines did not know the proper order of how the ark was to be moved on poles on the shoulders of the set apart men of priesthood at the front of the procession never to be looked upon by the eyes of men.  The uneducated to the things of God people of Philistia were tolerated of the Lord for looking on the ark and for moving it improperly because they knew no better. 

 

Symbolically, the Philistines represent the thorn of the flesh or carnal man.  They have always been located surrounded entirely on three sides by the land of Israel with the sea at their back … just as Gaza is now and in the same location.  It is always been the source of chastisement to the people of Israel when they were not living according to the commandments of God.

 

Philistia is the world of man that knows no better.  For many years now the world has redefined and undermined the roles of men and women altering the natural order of things.  They have built a “new Cart” with new definitions and expectations of the roles of men and women and should we be the unwitting House of Israel that says that we should pattern our cart after the “new cart” of the Philistines, I suspect that in the end the result shall be the same.

 

The due order of how the priesthood is administered in the Lord’s church has never changed and simply because some cannot learn from the lessons of the past does not mean that all should turn away from the due order of the Lord to embrace this new cart.  We are only having this discussion at this time simply because the world is attempting to dictate to women and men their idea of a better way.  It is not and I for one would rather turn this “new cart” around and send it out of town.

Edited September 10, 2013 by SamIam

[Buckeye]

Sam - I used to serve as an 11-year old scout master.  I worked under the direction of a woman - the Primary President.  She was my presiding authority.  The heaven's didn't fall.  In fact, the program worked pretty well. 

 

In my own family, my wife and I are co-presidents.  Neither stands in between the other and the Lord.  We stand on equal footing and try to walk together toward Him.  From time to time one of us may first receive an inspiration from the Lord and present it for the others' consideration.  But I do not preside over my wife.  She is my equal.  Again, the heaven's haven't fallen.  Things are working out very well.

[SamIam]

Of course not. But it does mean that everyone should be allowed the roles they desire. Again, equal opportunity. Not forced sameness.

 

Often I note how some people communicate in the terminolgies of the day repeating the mantras they have heard using the buzzwords of the moment and perceive that they are simply products of the wisdom of the small window in time in which they dwell. It is not that they express the way things should be but that they are sustaining the comfortable ideologies of the generation in which they have grown up in.

 

I often suspect that many of these such thinkers are simply those that have been dictated a line of reasoning that is dominantly dictated by the times.  Where we living in the 1820's, I wonder if these types if men would as adamantly demand that their wives and daughters should be at the wash tub scrubbing the clothes as servants to their husbands, demand they not vote in the elections and insist that the womenfolk keep quiet when they was getting a talkin too.  It might be the opposite message but the force behind it is of identical origin.  

Edited October 4, 2013 by SamIam

[Buckeye]

Often I note how some people communicate in the terminolgies of the day repeating the mantras they have heard using the busswords of the moment and perceive that they are simply products of the wisdom of the small window in time in which they dwell. It is not that they express the way things should be but that they are sustaining the comfortable ideologies of the generation in which they have grown up in.

 

I often suspect that many of these such thinkers are simply those that have been dictated a line of reasoning that is dominantly dictated by the times.  Where we living in the 1820's, I wonder if these types if men would as adamantly demand that their wives and daughters should be at the wash tub scrubbing the clothes as servants to their husbands, demand they not vote in the elections and insist that the womenfolk keep quiet when they was getting a talkin too.  It might be the opposite message but the force behind it is of identical origin.  

 

Or .... sometimes those people actually believe their convictions.  And such people would prefer you address their arguments head on rather than talk circles around their motives.  I believe such people would respond in kind if you did. 

[Calm]

That is not to say that the women may also understand a direction that is important for the family but simply that the man is entitled to ask and recieve confirmation from the Lord that the direction suggested is indeed His will and he can know it is so by virtue of this order of things.

 

And the only way the woman would know that the man is following in the direction of the Lord (which is the only time she is to follow him) is to seek and receive confirmation of what the Will of the Lord is for herself to compare it to what her husband is saying it is.

Edited September 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

Actually, that's exactly how God works.  Alma 29:4 reads:

 

I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their ^adesire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their ^bwills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.

 

Now, we can disagree as to whether something is good or not.  That's why this life is a probation.  We get to try things out.  We get to watch other people try things out.  We get to choose our desires.  And in the end, God does grant to us according to our desires.

 

I think if you were to quote that verse of scripture to a woman who has prayed desperately for a baby, or a single person who has prayed desperately to be married, or to someone who has cancer and who's only desire is to be healed, that they would argue with your interpretation of it. 

 

God grants unto men their desires for eternal life or damnation.  That verse doesn't make any sense if we try to make it mean more than that.

 

The truth is that while it is good to seek after good gifts and things we desire, God never promises to grant those things to us, and many times, He doesn't because it is not His will to do so.

 

So yes, in a secular organization it could be valid for someone to teach that "everyone should be allowed the roles they desire."  In a church though, especially one which claims that God is the ultimate authority, what matters is what God desires.  The church has never operated under the premise that everyone get's the role they desire.  Men don't have a choice on the role that God has given to them.  Women don't either.

 

However, don't misunderstand me.  I believe that there are many cultural practices within the LDS church which are sexist and which can and should be changed. 

Edited September 10, 2013 by bluebell

[SamIam]

Sam - I used to serve as an 11-year old scout master.  I worked under the direction of a woman - the Primary President.  She was my presiding authority.  The heaven's didn't fall.  In fact, the program worked pretty well. 

 

In my own family, my wife and I are co-presidents.  Neither stands in between the other and the Lord.  We stand on equal footing and try to walk together toward Him.  From time to time one of us may first receive an inspiration from the Lord and present it for the others' consideration.  But I do not preside over my wife.  She is my equal.  Again, the heaven's haven't fallen.  Things are working out very well.

 

You mistake Buckeye.  Your argument is not with me, I did not dictate the order of things.  You can eqivocate and place me as the object of your disagreement but in reality you would be better served to inquire of He who set the rules. 

 

As for your comments above I believe you are conflating the debate.  The ideologies of your role to preside do not mean that you are to rule over your wife in the manner of the defintiions of modern society. That definition is also an adulterated semantical debate used to force a wedge between ideologies of truth and error.  What it means is that there is a responsiblity on you placed there by God that he is not going to inquire of your wife if it was fulfilled - he is going to ask you.  How you define that execution of that responsibility is between you and the Lord and perhaps your approach is absolutely perfect however it is your duty to find out. 

 

As for your wife it is the same.  She has been given a charge concerning roles particularly defined for God's daughter's.  As equal as you may feel you are if she fails in her role guess what, if you failed to preside properly and that was the cause he will still come to you to inquire why she did not fulfill her role according to His expectations.  So I hope for your sake she is equally as contributing to your success and it sounds as if perhaps she is.  However, if she was successful inspite of any unwillingness to preside on your part guess what...you loose and she is afforded the opportunity to be given to another who understands not only how to preside in the home but who will now be added unto and able to preside in the eternities.

 

I would be really seeking the Lords guidance to make sure I understood what it is to preside as there are some big stakes on the table otherwise.

[Buckeye]

Sam, I take the stakes as seriously as it sounds like you do.  Perhaps we come to different conclusions.  I can't really tell from your comments.  Rest assured that the order my wife and I establish is exactly what we believe the Lord intends.  And we'll keep counseling with him about it. 

 

There is one point I'm sure my wife would quibble with you about - the part about "being given" to another if I were to fail.  She's much more than a mere gift.  She's a full-fledged independent agent acting according to her own designs.  Unlike in traditional civil ceremonies, no one "gave her away" to me at our sealing.  She alone made that choice.  Whatever happens to me, she will continue to make her own choice.  She's no one's prize to be given.

[SamIam]

And the only way the woman would know that the man is following in the direction of the Lord (which is the only time she is to follow him) is to seek and receive confirmation of what the Will of the Lord is for herself to compare it to what her husband is saying it is.

 

While I give a rep point on one hand, it is only that I agree in essance but not perhaps in totality if we examine the patterns of the  scriptures. I do not want to diminish from the order of how these things may occur as it is not often in the comfortable order of pray get confirmation and then follow your husband.

 

Consider this exchange here:

 

1 Nephi 5:2-4 

2 For she had supposed that we had perished in the wilderness; and she also had ^acomplained against my father, telling him that he was a ^bvisionary man; saying: Behold thou hast led us forth from the land of our inheritance, and my sons are no more, and we perish in the wilderness.

3 And after this manner of language had my mother complained against my father.

4 And it had come to pass that my father spake unto her, saying: I know that I am a ^avisionary man; for if I had not seen the things of God in a ^bvision I should not have known the goodness of God, but had tarried at Jerusalem, and had perished with my brethren.

 

Sariah is in a very difficult position here of having to follow her husbands lead and she is stating that she does not trust that he is being lead of the Lord. Lehi is perfectly appropriate in this situation he does not retaliate in anger or challenge but he assures her that is is lead of the Lord.  His proper response is one key that he is right with the Lord as men lacking in confidence of acting according to the Lords will often respond in anger.

 

However, now we have to see the brilliance of the Lords strategy:

 

 

1 Nephi 5:7-8

7 And when we had returned to the tent of my father, behold their joy was full, and my mother was comforted.

8 And she spake, saying: Now I know of a surety that the Lord hath ^acommanded my husband to ^bflee into the wilderness; yea, and I also know of a surety that the Lord hath protected my sons, and delivered them out of the hands of Laban, and given them power whereby they could ^caccomplish the thing which the Lord hath commanded them. And after this manner of language did she speak.

 

This is not a simple- boy you are lucky you guessed right Lehi.  This is a moment of binding. Sariah and Lehi have literally become one over this issue and she acknowledges that Lehi is led of God and she is now converted to him in his role of presidence.  It is my observation that every righteous couple will go through such a challenge, or several as this was the issue of the fall. She wanted to dictate to Lehi that he should not be obediant to the direction of the Lord and she had to wait without a confirmation until in was confirmed not by the voice of the Lord to her but by the successful completion of what the Lord commanded Lehi to do.  This is the pattern of confirmation not infrequently.  If a women expects the Lords confirmation each and every time before she will sustain her husband then she will be in error.  However, if over time the Lord proves her husband as his servant that will be the confirmation until such time as this status changes and she should not seek to undermine those things that come under his role of presiding authority unless he falls from the favor of the Lord.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

However, don't misunderstand me.  I believe that there are many cultural practices within the LDS church which are sexist and which can and should be changed. 

Many? I would not even classify them as sexist. But more a tradition. And those will change with time.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So men's unique role is the priesthood. Giving women the priesthood makes men unnecessary to the church. What is the unique role (that a man couldn't fulfill) of women in the church that makes them necessary again? 

I am sorry I am talking about the role men play vs the role women play. It is really interesting that there are those in this thread that don't get that. If women could fulfill the same role of a man what is the point. After all you are all asking for "equality".  And this all boils down to having equal roles. I cannot find that concept anywere in the scriptures. We are not talking about if men could cook what is the point of a woman. We are talking about very specific roles in which God has given to men an to women which are different roles. I think it would be a colossal mistake to try and change those roles. One of those mistakes would be giving women the preisthood in the same capacity as men. At least as far as this life is concerned.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If a father can cook for his children, what good is a mother? If a mother can throw a baseball with her son, what good is a father? If women can go camping, men won't want to anymore. If women can be astronauts, no boys will ever want to go to space. Everything in life must be given to only one gender. There can be absolutely no overlap between men and women's roles. That just can't work. Never has. Never will. That's why only men pray in General Conference. If women could pray too, men wouldn't see any purpose in speaking to God. Why don't people get this?

Sigh. We are not talking about merely doing a job. Sorry that that is what you are thinking I am talking about. We are talking roles of men vs women. And it is a total strawman of yours to think I am saying that no overlap can occour. But child bearing was broughtup in this thread. This comparrision gets ignored alot in these types of threads. Women bear the children men hold the priesthood. You cannot change that. That is the role's that each were given respectivily.  If a man could bear children what would be the point of a woman? You still never answered my question. Instead you deflected by inaccurate comparisions to cooking and camping.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I am sorry I am talking about the role men play vs the role women play. It is really interesting that there are those in this thread that don't get that. If women could fulfill the same role of a man what is the point. After all you are all asking for "equality". And this all boils down to having equal roles. I cannot find that concept anywere in the scriptures. We are not talking about if men could cook what is the point of a woman. We are talking about very specific roles in which God has given to men an to women which are different roles. I think it would be a colossal mistake to try and change those roles. One of those mistakes would be giving women the preisthood in the same capacity as men. At least as far as this life is concerned.

Are you saying that women's unique role in this life is the ability (for some of them) to get pregnant? (I'm not trying to be obtuse)