Caroline Kline : Mormon Women Have Their Say

[Storm Rider]

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. 

 

What service are women missing out on? The Priesthood's most common expression the right to preside.

 

BBC had a great discussion this week; I unfortunately have the memory of an ant and cannot remember the gentleman's name. The context was that the males of GB have lost the ability to be adventurous. The education of GB was producing men that were resistant to taking risks.

 

Our education today is highly feminized. There are few opportunities for physical exercise. Excelling is frowned upon unless it is the group that excels. Little boys that once were eager to raise their hands to answer questions have learned that this is not encouraged or acceptable behavior.

 

Little girls are supported and encouraged while we put little boys on drugs because they are just too rowdy for classrooms. There is a good body of evidence that we have emasculated the men in our society so that women can feel more comfortable being....being men or at least filling roles that were most often done by men. Little boys are lost, but little girls, those founts of early language skills are prized; besides they like to do things in teams and groups so much more. Those naughty boys; all they ever wanted to do was run the fastest, play the hardest; hells-bells, those little demons wanted to compete, to excel. We cannot have that because, well because that is not where the feminine excels.

 

I know that some people really think that there should be no gender norms; if a man feels more comfortable in a dress, then he should be able to wear a dress and use a female bathroom; afterall, this little boy prefers to see himself as a little girl and we need to accommodate these exceptional children and adults.

 

I think we have royally messed up the pooch. We don't have leaders who are the most qualified, we have appointed people leaders because they have the right gender, the right race, the right whatever someone thinks is a characteristic that needs to be highlighted. Actual qualifications are secondary because isn't it way cool that no woman has ever done, pick whatever you want to fill in the blank.

 

No, I don't support the idea of letting society devolve into a free fest of whatever feels good do it. Yes, I am so old fashioned that I like to have standards. I appreciate when we keep score in a game and there is a clear winner and a clear loser and that we can use those experiences to motivate us to move forward. No, I don't think it is horrible that little Johnny was not chosen first, second or third, but last when picking teams. The take-away is not that everyone else is being unfair, it means little Johnny is not physically gifted and that he either needs to work harder to gain those skills or he needs to assess his other qualities and use them. There is no shame in finding what is our best quality or in working harder to gain a quality.

 

Do I think a woman should be ordained to the priesthood? No, not now and not ever. I like to have roles in society and in church. It allows for organizations to function efficiently and properly. What should we do with woman and men that are desperate to ordain women? Invite them to start their own church, join the CofC, or any other church that fits their itching ears. Do I think that is harsh? No in a million years. People have been creating their own religions to fit their own objectives for thousands of years. I see no need for it to stop now or prevent these people from doing what they think is best..

 

I think the eternal purpose is for man and woman to be one; their skills are complimentary and together they can accomplish all things. I see a man and a women holding the priesthood together; though the man usually will express or act; he presides with the priesthood. However, he does not do this alone; he is made for the woman as much as the woman is for the man.

[Stone holm]

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.

I didn't think we were suppose to ask questions anymore, just raise our hand to sustain people and otherwise keep our mouths shut.

[Storm Rider]

I didn't think we were suppose to ask questions anymore, just raise our hand to sustain people and otherwise keep our mouths shut.

 

No, you have that wrong. It is more personal than that. Everyone else can question, but you cannot. We got together after Priesthood meeting and decided you could not ask questions anymore. I was sure the letter went out to inform you; it was an unanimous vote. Sorry.

[Buckeye]

Buckeye - a qustion.  If revelation came tomorrow that said women can not and do not hold Priesthood.  But rather there is a power women hold  called XYZ

(i don't buy into the opposite of priesthood is motherhood or Womenhood as those opposites are father hood and manhood)

 

But there is a power that heavenly Mother Holds that sisters have naturally.  With that power while not priesthood allowed them to participate jointly in blessings and other gifts of the spirit (gifts of the spirit such as gift of healing ar enot gendered)

 

Would this satisfy this issue from your point of view?

 

That would be a great step, but not a final one.  Whatever is revealed will not be final.  Each revelation opens the way for additional ones.  I don't intend to be satisfied until we arrive at the full measure of Christ.  At the same time, I see value in patience.  Not patience in God, he has no time is not the one who is changing.  Patience with our fellow brothers and sisters without whom we cannot be saved.  And hopefully a lot of patience with the odd ducks like myself.

[Buckeye]

Storm Rider, ordination is not a panacea.  There will still be plenty of problems to work on regardless of how things go with this issue.  I'm actually in strong agreement with you regarding boy's education.  One possible solution would be to call lots of men to serve in the primary - thereby setting examples and encouraging boys to participate as well as girls.  That is tough to do though in most wards where the men are tied up in priesthood leadership positions.  Perhaps opening up more roles for women - clerks, executive secretary, sunday school presidency, etc. - would allow for more boys to be nurtured by men.

 

As to excluding people from the church who have different desires, unfortunately, I couldn't disagree with you more.  In 2007 PBS did a documentary on the Mormons.  In his interview for the program, Elder Holland discussed that, prior to the 1978 revelation he was not in agreement with the practice of excluding blacks and prayed for the practice to change.  I'm very grateful he was not kicked out of the church for having different views.  We would be much the worse if he had.  Likewise, even though we disagree on this issue, I very much want you in the church.  And I think in the long term, uniters will set policy, not dividers.  It's a function of Solomon's wisdom.  The woman who wants to keep the baby whole is the real mother.  The one who is ok cutting it in half should not be trusted.  Sorry if that sounds too harsh.  But I've heard too many stories of good members who hear harmful counsel such as yours and choose to take it.

[Storm Rider]

Storm Rider, ordination is not a panacea.  There will still be plenty of problems to work on regardless of how things go with this issue.  I'm actually in strong agreement with you regarding boy's education.  One possible solution would be to call lots of men to serve in the primary - thereby setting examples and encouraging boys to participate as well as girls.  That is tough to do though in most wards where the men are tied up in priesthood leadership positions.  Perhaps opening up more roles for women - clerks, executive secretary, sunday school presidency, etc. - would allow for more boys to be nurtured by men.

 

As to excluding people from the church who have different desires, unfortunately, I couldn't disagree with you more.  In 2007 PBS did a documentary on the Mormons.  In his interview for the program, Elder Holland discussed that, prior to the 1978 revelation he was not in agreement with the practice of excluding blacks and prayed for the practice to change.  I'm very grateful he was not kicked out of the church for having different views.  We would be much the worse if he had.  Likewise, even though we disagree on this issue, I very much want you in the church.  And I think in the long term, uniters will set policy, not dividers.  It's a function of Solomon's wisdom.  The woman who wants to keep the baby whole is the real mother.  The one who is ok cutting it in half should not be trusted.  Sorry if that sounds too harsh.  But I've heard too many stories of good members who hear harmful counsel such as yours and choose to take it.

 

I think you misunderstand my position. I tend to reject almost all of the nouveau mentality to question all things related to gender roles. I find the vast majority of it short-sighted and without any thought to effects on society.

 

Further, if someone is desperate to change the church to match their personal issues of the day; those people I invite to create their own church. Not because they bother me, but because they obviously are not happy and I want them to find their own happiness wherever it is that will make them happy....except for where I am happy. I don't accept and I do not abide that the tail must wag the dog.

 

I believe in God. No, I don't believe that God only reacts to the demands of humanity. God actually has a handle on things and knows what is best. I don't think most people know what is best for them. I particularly have little patience for those who have deemed themselves enlightened and need to guide the rest of poor uneducated sots in their new ways to live our lives.

 

I have worked with women in corporate environments when they were leaders and when they were not. I don't see religion as a construct for us to tell God how it needs to be so that we can be happy. We are far more capable of destroying things than in building things. We often do not have the first clue on what brings us happiness. We are far too clued into instant gratification rather than in learning self-discipline, harnessing one's passions, and self-sacrifice.   

 

There is only one that brings us together and that is Jesus Christ. It is not your vision to unit us; it is not your vision to free all women from their uninteresting lives of being mothers and spouses; in fact, it is not anyone's vision of how God could really get it right for us. I am a skeptic at heart and organized religion is hard enough as it is for me to swallow.

 

I do not want to follow in the path of the CofC. Been there, saw that, not interested, knew was wrong when they did it. My uncle stayed around in the CC; however, their recent decision to ordain active gay people to the priesthood has pretty much cooked his goose.

 

No, I will not follow a church of man and I do not want to attend church with people who are always fussing about what is wrong. I enjoy people who love God and are earnestly seeking to serve him without any pretense or restrictions about how God needs to be.

[Buckeye]

Storm Rider, you have as much right to your views as I do to mine.  Neither of us knows each other so let's try to give each other the benefit of the doubt that we are all trying to follow Christ's will.  But let's not "invite" one another to leave the church.  None of us on this board has that authority.  I find it highly offensive that you and others who insist that direction must come through proper channels, nevertheless feel it appropriate to "invite" your fellow saints to make their way to the exit.  You don't have that authority.  I know men who do.  They never take it lightly.  They never raise it in public forums. 

[BlueDreams]

 

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?

 

 

I've missed the boat a little. School's started, so I don't have as much time.  But I did listen to the podcast. She did not present her views in an unreasonable way. But I didn't find her views very persuasive either. It's why I still don't believe that women will receive the priesthood (at least in the same way and manner men hold it now). I don't know all the answers for why not.....or still feel I have a firm grasp on it. But the arguments for why a person should have it are often just as (if not more so) holey. For example I find that the interview often worked with false definitions of the word (often enough believed by lay-fold, but not doctrinally supported) as a legitimate usage to make the contradictions that they viewed.

 

For example they found the word preside to be in conflict with the idea of equal partnership. At one point it was equated to having a dominate position over women. In this format she paints a picture of a tension between these "competing" ideas of preside and equal partnership where you either fall for either one of the camps to follow. She also pointed out the "change" of preside lately from final say to male involvement. IMHO it's not an accurate depiction. The word preside has been linked to equal partnership for decades, it's not a new phenomenon. I wanted to make sure I wasn't making things up in my head and did a quick search on LDS.org to see if the tone had changed drastically over the decades. The quotes I could find off the bat all had the same emphasis. Men preside...with three major caveats: in love, the principles of righteousness, and in equal partnership with their spouse. It was the same if the quote was from 10 yrs ago or 80.  25 years ago there was a talk that stated this: 

 

Sometimes a husband may believe that his role as head of the house gives him a right to be exacting and to arbitrarily prescribe what his wife should do. But in a home established on a righteous foundation, the relationship of a man and a woman should be one of partnership. A husband should not make decrees. Rather, he should work with his wife until a joint decision palatable to both is developed.

 

 

I'd also recommend that defining preside as male involvement in the family is not exactly accurate either. So basically when I see her position and others I find it raises more questions than it actually resolves. 

 

 

 

As for crossing the line, I don't feel she did. Describing your hopes and opinions is just fine....as long as they're depicted as your hopes and opinion and not something that should be taken as what must be done in the church or usurps ones call and authority within it. 

 

 

 

For those who haven't watched it, the rundown of topics entailed presiding and the fine line between that and unrighteous dominion, women and the priesthood movements (particularly ordainwomen.org), unnecessarily gendered callings in the church, Blessings of children/family, heavenly mother and changing rhetoric to be more inclusive of the divine feminine to God, and feelings of diminished participation, etc.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 11, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Storm Rider]

There is a difference between inviting and directing. I think anyone can invite.

I am happy you know people who you think can direct people to the door. I know someone like that to. He has been a little harsh toward those who think the gate is wide open. But hey, we gotta do what gotta do.

[Buckeye]

There is a difference between inviting and directing. I think anyone can invite.

I am happy you know people who you think can direct people to the door. I know someone like that to. He has been a little harsh toward those who think the gate is wide open. But hey, we gotta do what gotta do.

 

No, both are inappropriate.  It is not any more acceptable for me to invite you to beat your wife than for me to direct you to do so.  "What's the problem?  I was just inviting."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I've missed the boat a little. School's started, so I don't have as much time. But I did listen to the podcast. She did not present her views in an unreasonable way. But I didn't find her views very persuasive either. It's why I still don't believe that women will receive the priesthood (at least in the same way and manner men hold it now). I don't know all the answers for why not.....or still feel I have a firm grasp on it. But the arguments for why a person should have it are often just as (if not more so) holey. For example I find that the interview often worked with false definitions of the word (often enough believed by lay-fold, but not doctrinally supported) as a legitimate usage to make the contradictions that they viewed.

For example they found the word preside to be in conflict with the idea of equal partnership. At one point it was equated to having a dominate position over women. In this format she paints a picture of a tension between these "competing" ideas of preside and equal partnership where you either fall for either one of the camps to follow. She also pointed out the "change" of preside lately from final say to male involvement. IMHO it's not an accurate depiction. The word preside has been linked to equal partnership for decades, it's not a new phenomenon. I wanted to make sure I wasn't making things up in my head and did a quick search on LDS.org to see if the tone had changed drastically over the decades. The quotes I could find off the bat all had the same emphasis. Men preside...with three major caveats: in love, the principles of righteousness, and in equal partnership with their spouse. It was the same if the quote was from 10 yrs ago or 80. 25 years ago there was a talk that stated this:

I'd also recommend that defining preside as male involvement in the family is not exactly accurate either. So basically when I see her position and others I find it raises more questions than it actually resolves.

As for crossing the line, I don't feel she did. Describing your hopes and opinions is just fine....as long as they're depicted as your hopes and opinion and not something that should be taken as what must be done in the church or usurps ones call and authority within it.

For those who haven't watched it, the rundown of topics entailed presiding and the fine line between that and unrighteous dominion, women and the priesthood movements (particularly ordainwomen.org), unnecessarily gendered callings in the church, Blessings of children/family, heavenly mother and changing rhetoric to be more inclusive of the divine feminine to God, and feelings of diminished participation, etc.

With luv,

BD

BD

For evolving church rhetoric I suggest you compare the following two ensign articles:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/equal-partnership-in-marriage?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/02/strengthening-the-patriarchal-order-in-the-home?lang=eng

Here is a nice side by side comparison:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/03/21/truth-for-our-times/

Can you really say church emphasis hasn't changed?

[SamIam]

And I can tell you another story where my father informed two young ladies that if they were ever in trouble to put their arms to the square and in the name of Jesus Christ, demand that Satan depart....they had asked him (he was their SS teacher) what to do if someone ever attacked them and he responded without really thinking about it.  As it turned out, not long after that, they were attacked and they did exactly what was told them to do without any appeal to the Priesthood and the attackers ran off.

 

Perhaps it was their faith that the Lord would save them in both situations that mattered and not exactly what they did.

 

That leaves a lot of families without the Priesthood, including in the Church.

 

My point if it was not clear, is that perhaps it is wiser not to try and teach doctrine based on personal anecdotes, but on revelation given to the Church as a whole.

 

That's the same thing I have taught my daughter.  I have another story that is told by Harold B. Lee in the book “Remembering the Miracles” that may be germane to the discussion as well.  He tells of a time he was on a flight and mid-route he was becoming increasingly and dreadfully ill.  This was, if memory serves, related to the development of the illness that finally took his life.  Still enroute he was becoming increasingly extremely ill. He closed his eyes and pled with the Lord for relief and in but a few moments he felt a pair of hands laid on his head by an unseen emissary and he was relieved of his immediate illness.

 

 

From this story I have wondered.  I am convinced that all things effected by the Lord that alter the current state of any type of event or matter that requires authority to effect that change is always done by priesthood authority.  While my daughter may not have the priesthood and even if she was not sealed to anyone in this immediately life who did, in faith she could call upon the Lord and someone of authority would be sent and would manage the situation if that was the Lords intent.

This should address the concern you feel about the actual aspect of priesthood present in a family or in a non-member instance but as the conversation was on the specifics of member sisters seeking personal priesthood authority I didn't toss that into the mix before.

 

As far as doctrine Calmoriah, I taught no new doctrine.  That some folks do not understand the current standings of how the priesthood functions, which is the presiding priesthood holder blesses the lives of those that comprise his family and others as directed by the spirit is nothing new.  All I provided is more specificity.

 

Do you really think the Lord has left you without protection should it be necessary. I'm sure you do not.  Even in the exercise of faith do you suspect there is no authority involved? How it is affected may seem a mystery but it is illustrated time and time again throughout the scriptures.

 

 

Must a priesthood holder be in the room to be effective?  Was the centurion’s daughter healed from the distance as the father requested he only speak the word and she would be healed. In theory could not another priesthood holder exercise the same if situations warranted? 

 

 

If you had a daughter and you taught her what your father taught the two girls and your daughter commanded Satan to depart and she did not put the name of Jesus Christ in the mix, would he inquire by what authority. And would she not specify by what authority she acted? Would you consider this borrowing upon his authority as new doctrine when you taught it to her?

 

 

Of course, what is his authority? What authority is that of a Melchizedek priesthood holder? Is it not one and the same - Perhaps an expansion of understanding in your case but not new doctrine.

 

 

These are all variations on a theme.  Is any of it "new" doctrine or is it possible that maybe we sometimes just do not think through what is actually taking place within the constraints of the doctrine we know. Things we see in the scriptures or other sources that we do not make all of the connections to recognize that the limitations on God are simply the limitations we place on him.  

 

 

As far as the second story perhaps that will be more acceptable since, while along the same lines of my original story, it is printed in a book. 

 

 

Kindest regards

J. Brock Lenox

Edited September 11, 2013 by SamIam

[Storm Rider]

No, both are inappropriate.  It is not any more acceptable for me to invite you to beat your wife than for me to direct you to do so.  "What's the problem?  I was just inviting."

Another discussion into the absurd. This seems to become a common strategy. I will pass.

[BlueDreams]

Can you really say church emphasis hasn't changed?

 

church emphasis has changed. But I don't think the overall meaning and message has. what I found when digging around were old quotes that to me 21st century ears sound awkward and weird. But still the same. That is not to say that I don't find any ideas that were perpetuated by various people over the eras as equally worthwhile.

 

Also I had a class with Hudson on the international political economy of women at BYU (dead serious, that was the name of the class and it had a reading list much longer than the name . It was an amazing class). I'm well aware of her stances on familial structure and sense of patriarchy, particularly her belief that patriarchal order is different than patriarchy as is commonly understood in the world today. 

 

Reading Barlow's article I would state that there would be people in his own era (like prophets) that would find his ideals problematic and false. I am not stating that no dialogue has changed ever. Of course it has. What I am stating is that the doctrinal stance has not. Comparing the family unit to the church unit is a poor one no matter who implements it. A wife is not a councilor and the quotes/words used in or before his time would be enough to poke questions into his reasoning alone. (Such as kimball describing his wife as an equal partner, Widstoe describing women as having a gift of equal magnitude, etc....these statements don't mesh well with the idea as a wife as a councilor). My problem with Kline's representation is the assumption that the definition of "preside" has fundamentally changed and that the only way to view preside & and equal partnership is as conflicting messages. My point is that there are other ways to view it. And considering a fuller context, I'm more apt to put weight in another version as more valid. 

 

It would also go back on a fundamental difference mentioned at the beginning of the podcast....that our faith is founded on change. I think I would disagree with that. It's founded on the doctrines of Christ and refinement to it. It's not a basis of change as we see it or desire it. But a change that is based on refining our understanding of God, the Gospel, and the core doctrines of our faith. BB mentioned that she doesn't see a lot of wiggle room for the idea of female ordination. I've got the same issue. It's not easily found....anywhere. Not without a lot of extrapolation and ignoring some key points. And I'm not seeing anything leading to a core change in doctrinal understanding by the prophets/apostles either. What I'm seeing is greater care in understanding these points and a greater understanding of the practical implementation, importance, and use of women's role in the family, church body, and society. 

 

I'd say more, but I'm running late. 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 11, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

 

Cal I tried to PM you but it appears your box is full so I will post my inquiry here. Feel free to PM if you can send outgoing:

 

It may be my imagination but for whatever reason there seems a tone in your posts that indicates at some point I may have offended you in some fashion. As well there is no dialogue on my responses to your responses to me.  Which leaves me wondering...

 

No, I cannot think of one thing that you have said that has bothered me in the least, even if I've disagreed with you.

 

As for not responding, it is more because I am just making simple points here and there and don't feel the need to expand on them.  And it is quite possible that I may have missed a response to a comment as well if it is mixed in with other comments and sometimes even if not as on occasion the new posts are all automatically 'marked' as read for some reason and since I depend pretty much completely on the computer telling me what I have and haven't read, when that happens I can miss several threads of comments.

[Stone holm]

BD

For evolving church rhetoric I suggest you compare the following two ensign articles:http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/equal-partnership-in-marriage?lang=enghttps://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/02/strengthening-the-patriarchal-order-in-the-home?lang=eng

Here is a nice side by side comparison:http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/03/21/truth-for-our-times/

Can you really say church emphasis hasn't changed?

To determine whether anything pertaining to the family is true doctrine it is necessary to compare what is said with the ideal American WASP middle class suburban or rural family of the 1950's, that is the litmus test of correctness.

[Kenngo1969]

[E]ven though we disagree on this issue, I very much want you in the church.  And I think in the long term, uniters will set policy, not dividers.  It's a function of Solomon's wisdom.  The woman who wants to keep the baby whole is the real mother.  The one who is ok cutting it in half should not be trusted.  Sorry if that sounds too harsh.  But I've heard too many stories of good members who hear harmful counsel such as yours and choose to take it.

 

Was (is) Christ a uniter or a divider?  (Sorry if it sounds like I'm channeling former President George W. Bush. )  Perhaps we shouldn't forget that the same person who gave us Doctrine & Covenants 38:27 also gave us Matthew 10:34-38.

[bluebell]

I'm actually in strong agreement with you regarding boy's education.  One possible solution would be to call lots of men to serve in the primary - thereby setting examples and encouraging boys to participate as well as girls.  That is tough to do though in most wards where the men are tied up in priesthood leadership positions.  Perhaps opening up more roles for women - clerks, executive secretary, sunday school presidency, etc. - would allow for more boys to be nurtured by men.

 

 

 

There are actually quite a few 'priesthood' callings in the church right now, that don't require the priesthood (like Sunday school president, ward clerk, etc...). 

 

With a few cultural shifts in the church, we could easily free up more males for primary without needing to ordain women to do so.

[Buckeye]

Was (is) Christ a uniter or a divider?  (Sorry if it sounds like I'm channeling former President George W. Bush. )  Perhaps we shouldn't forget that the same person who gave us Doctrine & Covenants 38:27 also gave us Matthew 10:34-38.

 

Paradoxes about the gospel.  I find much of my spiritual progress has come through wrestling with such paradoxes.  Christ's own teaches create a lot of them, including this one that you point out.  At this time, the conclusion I've come to is that Christ's gospel divides and unifies at different points in time and in different circumstances, but that the overall eternal purpose is one of unity.  Divisions are sometimes a necessary step back, but never a goal in themselves.  Unity is the real eternal goal.

[Buckeye]

There are actually quite a few 'priesthood' callings in the church right now, that don't require the priesthood (like Sunday school president, ward clerk, etc...). 

 

With a few cultural shifts in the church, we could easily free up more males for primary without needing to ordain women to do so.

 

I fully expect these things to happen before female ordination.  They're logical stepping stones.  IMO, the reason for exclusing women from sunday school presidency, clerk's office, executive secretary or other callings that shouldn't require priesthood authority is just a cultural angst with women presiding over and leading men.  We're fine with women leading other women (RS, YW) and with leading children (Primary), but not yet with leading men.  That's changing.  Another calling that could possibly open up prior to ordination would be ward mission leader - though that's a little more difficult that the others. 

 

Other stepping stones include (i) calling Laurels and maybe Mia Maids as visiting teachers (an obvious help for transitioning YW into RS and preparing them for missions), (ii) treating VT as importantly as we treat HT, (iii) expaning female missionaries age and length of service to match those of men (just another "miracle" to quote Elder Holland), and (iv) allowing YW to prepare and pass the sacrament (there is no scriptural requirement for priesthood in order to do these; priesthood is only required to "administer" the sacrament - which we interpret to mean "bless")

[DBMormon]

This has been an interesting discussion.  I lved the side by side of hudson and barlow, it shows we are changing tone on certain issues.  What was good council 40 years ago would be hurtful and contrary to policy and tone today in some ways

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I fully expect these things to happen before female ordination.  They're logical stepping stones.  IMO, the reason for exclusing women from sunday school presidency, clerk's office, executive secretary or other callings that shouldn't require priesthood authority is just a cultural angst with women presiding over and leading men.  We're fine with women leading other women (RS, YW) and with leading children (Primary), but not yet with leading men.  That's changing.  Another calling that could possibly open up prior to ordination would be ward mission leader - though that's a little more difficult that the others. 

I'm not sure that would be the only reason.  I could see the church concerned about impropriety where you have a Bishop and his female executive secretary alone in a building, or a female ward clerk alone with a male counselor in the bishopric counting tithing. Just another thing to think about.

[Buckeye]

I'm not sure that would be the only reason.  I could see the church concerned about impropriety where you have a Bishop and his female executive secretary alone in a building, or a female ward clerk alone with a male counselor in the bishopric counting tithing. Just another thing to think about.

 

There's some of that, sure.  But oddly not so much concern with a bishop meeting for a PPI with the RS president or for a 20-minute annual interview with a beehive.  In my experience, the clerk's office is about the last place something fishy is going to happen (chastity-wise at least). 

[Calm]

I'm not sure that would be the only reason.  I could see the church concerned about impropriety where you have a Bishop and his female executive secretary alone in a building, or a female ward clerk alone with a male counselor in the bishopric counting tithing. Just another thing to think about.

That has always been the reason given in any real life case I've known.

[bluebell]

I'm not sure that would be the only reason.  I could see the church concerned about impropriety where you have a Bishop and his female executive secretary alone in a building, or a female ward clerk alone with a male counselor in the bishopric counting tithing. Just another thing to think about.

 

I think you are probably right in that, as far as the way things work right now. It would probably be easy enough to fix that so that men and women aren't asked to often work closely with each other though (which I think is more the issue than simply being alone together).