Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[Calm]

This thread kind of reminds when I was 19 and my wife left me to "go find herself".

Unfortunately when people take it to extremes that kind of stuff can happen.

[rodheadlee]

Unfortunately when people take it to extremes that kind of stuff can happen.

I hope they all make it back safely.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48sciFaO9B8

[Nofear]

I think it is much more effective to direct the conversation into 'what do you want to accomplish that you see would be accomplished by women getting the Priesthood' and then deal with these goals individually as many imo can be reached without waiting for revelation to happen....and what a shame if all change was delayed because those desiring it imagined that there was only one way for the Church to provide the environment to achieve all their goals or that they had to wait in all cases to work on change for someone else to do something rather than making those changes themselves in their lives and roles where they could...especially in their relationship of husband and wife.

 

Agreed. Indeed, it seems the Church has been making effort at making sure more women are more involved in effective administration of the affairs of the Church. Though, it also seems that little recognition is being given to such efforts beyond being a license to push further.

 

And why might not the Church move further into the woman and priesthood issue? The most accurate answer as to why priesthood keys are limited to males here in mortality is "we don't know". This has been stated a couple of times. This was also the most accurate answer when it came to the ban on priesthood to blacks. That changed, then why not this?

 

I believe that the Church has been put in an unfortunate catch-22. While it may be true that some sisters are blessed with gifts agreeable to effective governance, the Church also also proclaimed and taught repeatedly that, as a population, the gifts of men and women differ. Suppose women were given priesthood keys. Given the population differences we should not, must not, expect exact gender parity in the positions of the Church hieararchy. Nonetheless, in a society heavily influenced by the Adversary, it is exactly the kind of thing that would be demanded, e.g. "Why aren't there 6+ sisters in the Quorum of the Twelve?! The Church is soooo sexist." This would then in turn put up a huge stumbling block for many and impair the work of salvation for God's children. As it stands, the lack of priesthood keys by women is a stumbling block for some, but I would venture to say that is less a stumbling block for most women in the world than if the Church extended those keys to women and failed (rightfully) to achieve gender parity in leadership positions.

 

And so, what does the Church do? The Church makes efforts for the voice and talents of women to find effective influence in the Church. It still has a long ways to go (I've seen such shortcomings in my local ward more than once). Far better would it be for the "ordain women" movement and other similar groups to support and sustain these efforts of the Brethren than by undermining it by their loud proclamations that the efforts are not enough.

[Calm]

And so, what does the Church do? The Church makes efforts for the voice and talents of women to find effective influence in the Church. It still has a long ways to go (I've seen such shortcomings in my local ward more than once). Far better would it be for the "ordain women" movement and other similar groups to support and sustain these efforts of the Brethren than by undermining it by their loud proclamations that the efforts are not enough.

I think a lot could be done by sharing how people have currently increased the presence of women and what could be done without changing doctrine/fundamental policies that would require revelation for the whole Church.

 

For example, even though it is apparently in the current CHI, not all wards are including RS Presidents in their ward councils and not all RS Presidents where they have the opportunity are taking advantage of it.  With the internet has come massive amounts of support groups and blogs on ideas for Primary Sharing Times and lessons in general and then there is lds.tech for ward clerks and such...if the same were done for ideas about using women more effectively and extensively, perhaps a message board on lds.org for bishops and other ward and stake leaders to discuss how to implement programs in their wards and stakes that could include this category among others such as missionary efforts...I could see that as very helpful.

[Bikeemikey]

This thread kind of reminds of when I was 19 and my wife left me to "go find herself".

This thread may also help explain why in Mormonism many are married at age 19 and then have to go through this kind of very hard experience.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

Agreed. Indeed, it seems the Church has been making effort at making sure more women are more involved in effective administration of the affairs of the Church. Though, it also seems that little recognition is being given to such efforts beyond being a license to push further.

 

And why might not the Church move further into the woman and priesthood issue? The most accurate answer as to why priesthood keys are limited to males here in mortality is "we don't know". This has been stated a couple of times. This was also the most accurate answer when it came to the ban on priesthood to blacks. That changed, then why not this?

 

I believe that the Church has been put in an unfortunate catch-22. While it may be true that some sisters are blessed with gifts agreeable to effective governance, the Church also also proclaimed and taught repeatedly that, as a population, the gifts of men and women differ. Suppose women were given priesthood keys. Given the population differences we should not, must not, expect exact gender parity in the positions of the Church hieararchy. Nonetheless, in a society heavily influenced by the Adversary, it is exactly the kind of thing that would be demanded, e.g. "Why aren't there 6+ sisters in the Quorum of the Twelve?! The Church is soooo sexist." This would then in turn put up a huge stumbling block for many and impair the work of salvation for God's children. As it stands, the lack of priesthood keys by women is a stumbling block for some, but I would venture to say that is less a stumbling block for most women in the world than if the Church extended those keys to women and failed (rightfully) to achieve gender parity in leadership positions.

 

And so, what does the Church do? The Church makes efforts for the voice and talents of women to find effective influence in the Church. It still has a long ways to go (I've seen such shortcomings in my local ward more than once). Far better would it be for the "ordain women" movement and other similar groups to support and sustain these efforts of the Brethren than by undermining it by their loud proclamations that the efforts are not enough.

I don't believe the Church will resolve this issue in the same manner as they resolved the African descent issue.

[juliann]

Wow, it is so rare these days to see mysogyny waved around so brazenly.

 

On the one hand, you are being a white knight throughout this thread, which is insulting enough, since we women can fight our own battles, thank you very much.

 

But, on the other hand, comments like this one reveal a deep and profound contempt for women.

 

Let me say this:  I've been a member of the relief society for 27 years.  I've lived in 16 wards in three countries, and I've never met a single woman who wouldn't speak her mind openly, candidly, and willingly on this subject.

 

The arrogance behind your assertion astounds me.  For you to assert that we women are so cowed and intimidated that we cannot possibly say what we really think when polled on the subject.  That you would hold us in such low esteem as to claim that we cannot even be trusted to tell the truth when we are asked.

 

No, no, we need a big tall strong man like you to tell everyone what we really meant, because we are too small and scared.

 

Your behavior in this thread disgusts me.  If you have such a poor opinion of us women, why would you even want us to have the priesthood to begin with?

 

And the worst part is, I know I am just wasting my time.  I know that right now you are sitting there at your computer barely paying attention to what I'm saying, dismissing the blatant sexism in your position and comments, and thinking of excuses for why you are actually in the right.  But, I'll say it anyway:

 

Stone Holm, when we women of the church are polled, and nearly all of us say we do not want the priesthood, that is because that is EXACTLY what we think on the subject.  You do NOT represent us, you do NOT speak for us, and your opinion on this matter is a fringe extremist voice, barely a drop in the ocean.

 

We women are here in the church because we have chosen of our own free will to accept an ideology, a theology, and a loyalty to Jesus Christ.

 

We do not need you to be our champion.  We got along just fine before you came along, and we'll get along just fine after you are gone.  If you have any decency at all, you will step aside and never post on this subject again.

I should just ignore this ugly hateful rant.    But it is so hateful and ugly I can't.   Everyone got along just fine before you came along as well, Erin.  But telling you that hardly advances dialogue on a topic where it is so badly needed.  Women do not speak their minds in RS, we have no opportunity.  It is bad form to express negative thoughts for one reason.  The fact that there are so many faithful and active LDS women online saying things that we would never hear in church is proof enough that something is changing to anyone willing to look past their prejudices.  

[mfbukowski]

I would agree that if anyone is seeking leadership anywhere (whether in the Church or outside) for the purpose of fame, fortune, or power (in the sense of having control over others), they are not the best leadership material.  Christ taught that leaders should be first and foremost servants of those they lead and we can easily see what happens when this principle is forgotten in governments around the world.

 

I think that if anyone says "I want leadership so that I can...." they need to seriously look at themselves.  If on the other hand, they are saying "I believe that this particular group should have leadership positions so that they can...." then we can look at what the ultimate goal is and see if that is a desirable one or not.  For example, if a government is set up on the principle of the people having direct input into the government through voting, it makes sense to give voting rights to all adults rather than restricting it to a particular gender, ethnic group or religion though it may make sense to limit it according to ability such as having a requirement that anyone who votes is properly informed before voting...as long as you give equal access to all to that information so that anyone who desires to put in the effort may vote.

 

To avoid endless discussions that go nowhere because they hit the wall of 'revelation required' (which when it comes to fundamental changes it should if we want to have a true and living faith and not one solely built on reason and past sciptures), rather than challenging the individual when s/he states 'women should be given the Priesthood', I think it is much more effective to direct the conversation into 'what do you want to accomplish that you see would be accomplished by women getting the Priesthood' and then deal with these goals individually as many imo can be reached without waiting for revelation to happen...

We who live in democracies and republics I think are spoiled into thinking that the church is a democracy.  It is not, it is a theocracy, with Christ at the head as "king".

It's not that ANYONE as a "right" to the Priesthood or SHOULD "have a right"- the Priesthood is a gift  Men do not have a "right" to the priesthood any more than women do.

 

"And no MAN taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

 

Men do not have a right- being a man apparently is the Lord's pre-requisite

 

The priesthood is a gift and a calling and he who has it must be called.

 

Please don't stop reading here, read the rest of the post. 

 

On the other hand, I would love to see callings opened up to women which are not traditionally women's callings- including leadership callings where necessary.  In fact, quite frankly I don't see any calling except those requiring priesthood keys as requiring the priesthood.

 

But that is a different question and may be a direction women could look at discussing.  To me, it is not a question of Priesthood, it is a question of finding the best leaders which God can use for his cause.  I would have loved being able to call women to positions even as counselors in the bishopric- as long as they were endowed and had taken on the temple coventants there is no reason they could not fulfill those callings, and I think they would be excellent at them.

 

But that is a different issue that women having the priesthood- now we are talking about callings.

 

The only callings in a ward which REQUIRE priesthood keys are Deacon's quorum president, Teacher's Quorum president, Elder's Quorum president and Bishop.  And obviously one needs to be the member of a quorum to serve as a counselor in a quorum.  But women can probably do more as a relief society counselor anyway.

 

In ward council meetings, there is often frank discussion about sensitive matters so sisters already serve de facto as "counselors" to the bishop, frankly I see no reason why they could not be called to such positions, including executive secretary or certainly clerking positions.

I know of one bishop who called a widow to be "special secretary to the bishop" and she was essentially acting as an assistant clerk.  I guess it's ok for women to be "secretaries" but not "clerks". 

 

 

"....and what a shame if all change was delayed because those desiring it imagined that there was only one way for the Church to provide the environment to achieve all their goals or that they had to wait in all cases to work on change for someone else to do something rather than making those changes themselves in their lives and roles where they could...especially in their relationship of husband and wife."

 

Hate these quote formatting problems--  I say bring back the old system- at least it worked!

 

Anyway, not sure where you are going with this one. 

 

Sounds like a man who can't progess until he is called to be bishop??  Are you saying that women cannot progress until they are called to leadership?  "an environment to achieve all their goals"?

 

"Woe is me, I can't progess until someone gives me a million dollars- this working for a living is a drag!" 

Edited September 29, 2013 by mfbukowski

[juliann]

Juliann, something I read here that I thought would be really helpful (from Calmoriah as well as yourself, I think) was regarding women having more ownership and voice within your own women's group, the Rellef Society. "Restoring it to its former glory", I think I read.

In anything I say or support, I feel a need to tread lightly because I understand the wariness of crossing lines when it comes to criticizing the church or appearing to push for change.

For myself personally, I find that my sense of what it means to be a 'woman in Christ' has many different facets. I think about what it means for me as a woman to bear and reflect the Image of God. I look at the varying roles of women throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. I study how Jesus treated women and how he interacted with them through listening, teaching them and inviting them into ministry in a way unheard of within the culture of the day. (While he didn't choose women as disciples, neither did he choose Gentiles. I think he had a starting point and showed the way to future inclusion.) I ponder the words in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Something that is very compelling to me is the idea that passages about "spiritual gifts" in the Bible (Ephesians 4; Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12) include the spiritual community as a whole and are not gender specific. In fact, the whole idea of "giftedness" and using the gifts God has given us to serve others, is important to me.

It seems to me that any discussion about women's spirituality and their role in the church shouldn't be about the priesthood (something Calmoriah has said!) but about being authentic and serving God in all humility and grace out of the uniqueness and giftedness of who God made them to be.

I've been interested to see that young women constitute a large percentage of missionaries being sent out from the LDS church. Their desire to serve is evident! And in the past I've had the pleasure of knowing a number of women missionaries whose faith and passion to be in service for God "on the frontlines" is beautiful. I haven't sensed their wanting more power and authority but have seen them really enjoy wider avenues of ministry. (At least that's how it seemed to me!)

In non-LDS Christian missions (i.e what we call the "modern" missionary movement from the late 19th century until today), women have comprised more than two thirds of the total missionary number. Many have been single women. And many of them have been involved in both leadership and compassionate roles - setting up and working within hospitals, schools, orphanages, rescue ministries, etc. And an intriguing phenomena I've seen is that on the mission field, women have generally been viewed and accepted as leaders, speakers, teachers, etc. even where the home culture and often the local culture would not ordinarily sanction women in those roles.

Juliann, (and Calmoriah and others) I don't know what kind of opportunities there may be within the LDS structure to talk about what it means to be a woman of God within the body of Christ. I would hope that there would be an openness to that, and I certainly see the value of doing so in the open rather than covertly. Has the recent "I am a Mormon" ad campaign (that shows quite a lot of diversity among committed LDS folk) opened doors for talking about diversity within Mormon womanhood?

I agree with you that exploring what it means to be a Mormon woman is a needed conversation among Mormon women. I'm aware of a number of books on the subject of Christian women, and I imagine there are likely such books about women within the LDS church. Would that be a possible area of study?

Stendhahl's Holy Envy would seem to come into play here.  We may have to learn from other religions that have opened up to women.   We don't even have a woman's curriculum anymore.   We are taught from the same manual as the men...women or even women's quotes are rarely used.  Women have always had to read themselves into a male world through scriptures that were written during a time when they were not considered to be complete human beings.   Mormon women have to be even more creative since we have even more male scripture.  But we also have, ironically, a more robust women's theology than most.  It is just more of a future thing.   In the here and now...only thinking off the top of my head....womanhood is centered around supporting the men/priesthood/family.   There is little in there that applies to the whole person.    We have a very accomplished and powerful woman in our ward which has always been very conservative.  She has sat around a conference table with the President in the White House.  She has told me that she stays in her career because she was called to it. She is quiet and unassuming, never talks about it...the perfect LDS woman...except her husband stays home with the kids.    In other words, unless you knew her personally you would never know.  This is just freakin' wrong.  What an example to the possibilities to contribute to the world for our young women.  But because it conflicts with the standard marry and take care of your family teachings,  these things are not recognized.  Probably an even better example is what my sister told me about young women unable to get into nursing schools in Utah even with their A+ grades...there are just too many of them.   I think in any other place, these top students would be going into medical school instead of competing for positions in a nursing program.  But for some reason in Mormon culture, teaching and nursing seem to be socially acceptable even though they would allow less flexibility than some other professions.  So rather than our best and brightest women going for the top drawer positions they are being taught that education and jobs are "just in case".  Meanwhile, we have legions of young women who didn't graduate, didn't get experience, and are essentially unemployable or get little money for their time when they do have to make a living.  

 

This is another thing that is "missing"...the teaching that women can excell at anything and bring their talents to a world as well as a family.  The church is currently really trying to correct the perception that priesthood and man are interchangable (as in "the priesthood will set up the chairs").  There have been Gen Conf talks trying to elevate women's spiritual powers (as in through faith rather than priesthood)  that I don't think have worked well because there is a fuzzy line between that and priesthood.  We have never used the Gifts of the Spirit which are available to all to elevate women's spiritual development. That would probably be a good starting point.

 

There is so much to be done to get women to reach full personhood which includes but does not begin or end at "motherhood".   None of it has much to do with priesthood....other than the reason we are where we are is because males control doctrine, theology, and the teaching of it.

[mfbukowski]

Agreed. Indeed, it seems the Church has been making effort at making sure more women are more involved in effective administration of the affairs of the Church. Though, it also seems that little recognition is being given to such efforts beyond being a license to push further.

 

And why might not the Church move further into the woman and priesthood issue? The most accurate answer as to why priesthood keys are limited to males here in mortality is "we don't know". This has been stated a couple of times. This was also the most accurate answer when it came to the ban on priesthood to blacks. That changed, then why not this?

 

I believe that the Church has been put in an unfortunate catch-22. While it may be true that some sisters are blessed with gifts agreeable to effective governance, the Church also also proclaimed and taught repeatedly that, as a population, the gifts of men and women differ. Suppose women were given priesthood keys. Given the population differences we should not, must not, expect exact gender parity in the positions of the Church hieararchy. Nonetheless, in a society heavily influenced by the Adversary, it is exactly the kind of thing that would be demanded, e.g. "Why aren't there 6+ sisters in the Quorum of the Twelve?! The Church is soooo sexist." This would then in turn put up a huge stumbling block for many and impair the work of salvation for God's children. As it stands, the lack of priesthood keys by women is a stumbling block for some, but I would venture to say that is less a stumbling block for most women in the world than if the Church extended those keys to women and failed (rightfully) to achieve gender parity in leadership positions.

 

And so, what does the Church do? The Church makes efforts for the voice and talents of women to find effective influence in the Church. It still has a long ways to go (I've seen such shortcomings in my local ward more than once). Far better would it be for the "ordain women" movement and other similar groups to support and sustain these efforts of the Brethren than by undermining it by their loud proclamations that the efforts are not enough.

I think a lot of callings now filled only by priesthood holders do not need to be filled by priesthood holders.

 

Separating the priesthood from what calling one has might help the situation.  Only men would be called to the priesthood, but women could fill many callings on both the ward and stake level.  Any calling which does not require priesthood keys could be made available to women.

 

This does not require doctrinal changes- just policy changes.

[juliann]

I think a lot of callings now filled only by priesthood holders do not need to be filled by priesthood holders.

 

Separating the priesthood from what calling one has might help the situation.  Only men would be called to the priesthood, but women could fill many callings on both the ward and stake level.  Any calling which does not require priesthood keys could be made available to women.

 

This does not require doctrinal changes- just policy changes.

This would go a long way in calming the situation.

[Calm]

"....and what a shame if all change was delayed because those desiring it imagined that there was only one way for the Church to provide the environment to achieve all their goals or that they had to wait in all cases to work on change for someone else to do something rather than making those changes themselves in their lives and roles where they could...especially in their relationship of husband and wife."

 

Hate these quote formatting problems--  I say bring back the old system- at least it worked!

 

Anyway, not sure where you are going with this one. 

I meant when people get into their heads that there is only one solution, they don't look for other options including partial solutions that are already available. Thus those who are insisting that only giving women the Priesthood will work are most likely not looking as hard as they should for other things that can be changed now.

And I do agree quite strongly that in discussion we need to separate out the different aspects being talked about (such as callings and decision making and giving blessings, etc.) and not lump everything into one thing, Priesthood.

[mfbukowski]

For example, even though it is apparently in the current CHI, not all wards are including RS Presidents in their ward councils

That is inexcusable, and someone should complain about that- LOUDLY when it happens.  I would go straight to the area authority 70.

[Calm]

I think a lot of callings now filled only by priesthood holders do not need to be filled by priesthood holders.

 

Separating the priesthood from what calling one has might help the situation.  Only men would be called to the priesthood, but women could fill many callings on both the ward and stake level.  Any calling which does not require priesthood keys could be made available to women.

 

This does not require doctrinal changes- just policy changes.

This would be a huge change in presence, be very effective in addressing many of the issues.

[juliann]

That is inexcusable, and someone should complain about that- LOUDLY when it happens.  I would go straight to the area authority 70.

There was a recent talk by an apostle...can't remember where or who...that lamented how many times he still saw that happening.  So I think it is safe to say it is a well known problem.   The way it was said made it seem as if it was just an observation which left me wondering why these guys weren't being hauled to the woodshed...but maybe they were.  It just seems that a firmly worded letter sent to all bishops could put a stop to it for once and for all.

[mfbukowski]

I don't believe the Church will resolve this issue in the same manner as they resolved the African descent issue.

That was a policy issue that even the GA's knew was a mistake- it had no basis except tradition.

 

This is a doctrinal issue that arguably runs through all the scriptures.  It's not going away soon.

 

The whole basis for the fact that we do not call ourselves to be bishops and set up our own congregations is based on the idea of being called to leadership and not agitating for it or taking on because one feels he should have it.

 

Perhaps those who want the priesthood should just set up their own church and priesthood to get around it all.  If they think it is proper to take on the priesthood oneself, let them do so and vote with their feet.

[Calm]

There was a recent talk by an apostle...can't remember where or who...that lamented how many times he still saw that happening.  So I think it is safe to say it is a well known problem.   The way it was said made it seem as if it was just an observation which left me wondering why these guys weren't being hauled to the woodshed...but maybe they were.  It just seems that a firmly worded letter sent to all bishops could put a stop to it for once and for all.

I think it needs to be sent to RS Presidents as well that this is a necessary part of their duties and is not to be optional, only used when they feel there is a need. I would not be surprised if some RS Pres. see it as optional because it has not always been done this way and they look on it as just another meeting.

[mfbukowski]

This would be a huge change in presence, be very effective in addressing many of the issues.

I really think something along these lines would fly.  As long as a person has taken on temple covenants- I won't mention them here of course but you know what I mean- they should be eligible to do pretty much anything in the church not requiring keys.

 

That would free up worthy priesthood holders for the callings requiring the keys, and would be especially effective in areas of the church where new missions are opening up- there is always a need for more leadership there.

 

Another requirement for setting up wards and stakes is the number of Melchizedek Priesthood holders- that is because worthy endowed members are needed to handle confidential and sensitive issues.  That policy could be perhaps re-defined to include endowed sisters (demonstrating commitment to the church) in the equation. allowing for quicker growth of wards and stakes.

[mfbukowski]

There was a recent talk by an apostle...can't remember where or who...that lamented how many times he still saw that happening.  So I think it is safe to say it is a well known problem.   The way it was said made it seem as if it was just an observation which left me wondering why these guys weren't being hauled to the woodshed...but maybe they were.  It just seems that a firmly worded letter sent to all bishops could put a stop to it for once and for all.

Agree.

[Bikeemikey]

That was a policy issue that even the GA's knew was a mistake- it had no basis except tradition.

This is a doctrinal issue that arguably runs through all the scriptures. It's not going away soon.

Before African descent priesthood ordination was a policy issue it was a policy issue it was a doctrinal one.

It would be a very revisionist reading of the history to suggest it was not treated as a doctrinal concern during some portion of the history... This is not to stage such a reading was correct, simply that it occurred.

There does not seem to be any substantial difference in male priesthood restriction vs. African descent restriction based in scriptural sources... Both could be justified or not justified based on scriptural interpretation.

As for the rights to the priesthood.

All men presently have equal right to the priesthood (alma 13) in virtue of being left to chose good or evil. If we choose good we get the priesthood. (I The Lord am bound etc etc).

Seems to me women are simply asking for equal footing based on alma 13.

We will see what The Lord thinks of the question over time.

[Calm]

I really think something along these lines would fly.  As long as a person has taken on temple covenants- I won't mention them here of course but you know what I mean- they should be eligible to do pretty much anything in the church not requiring keys.

 

We would just have to get past the prejudice of allowing men and women to frequently work close together.

Edited September 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I think this is really part of the new direction the church is taking, and emphasizing.  The entire ward needs to be involved, and all the new converts will need support.

http://www.lds.org/training/wwlt/2013/hastening/a-new-vision

[mfbukowski]

We would just have to get past the prejudice of allowing men and women to frequently work close together.

Well that is a genuine problem, no question about it.  Ask any bishop you know very well and he will tell you.  People deny it, but it is a problem, if not for women, then for men.

 

But that is also a reason women should not have the priesthood, so you can't have it both ways.

[Stone holm]

That was a policy issue that even the GA's knew was a mistake- it had no basis except tradition.

 

This is a doctrinal issue that arguably runs through all the scriptures.  It's not going away soon.

 

The whole basis for the fact that we do not call ourselves to be bishops and set up our own congregations is based on the idea of being called to leadership and not agitating for it or taking on because one feels he should have it.

 

Perhaps those who want the priesthood should just set up their own church and priesthood to get around it all.  If they think it is proper to take on the priesthood oneself, let them do so and vote with their feet.

Guess I should have been a little clearer. What my unfettered speculation is is the Church will start changing leadership positions and instead of just calling a male priesthood holder to a position, they will start calling husband and wife teams. It is fairly common when considering a person for a calling to also take into consideration their spouse. On occasion when a Bishop is called he will be told to consider his wife as a counselor. We are already doing this in many callings. It will make it difficult to call some young people who have children, so that is a drawback. But my gut tells me this is the direction the Church will move in over the next couple decades. And I agree with Bikemikey that the African descent issue was considered a doctrinal issue before it was considered just a tradition, and I would go further and say they had better doctrinal pegs to hang their hats on for that one then what are commonly used for this one.

[Stone holm]

I should just ignore this ugly hateful rant.    But it is so hateful and ugly I can't.   Everyone got along just fine before you came along as well, Erin.  But telling you that hardly advances dialogue on a topic where it is so badly needed.  Women do not speak their minds in RS, we have no opportunity.  It is bad form to express negative thoughts for one reason.  The fact that there are so many faithful and active LDS women online saying things that we would never hear in church is proof enough that something is changing to anyone willing to look past their prejudices.

Thanks.