Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[Senator]

Do you think that the OW group would want to sit on the men's side in the temple during the endowment?

 

That would be silly, especially if said women professed to accept the other gender specific things they are taught in the temple.

[JLHPROF]

Kind of like say people of African descent were not impeded?

This parallell bugs me, as does the one with the Jews and Gentiles.

 

Race and gender are NOT the same thing, despite modern society constantly equating them.

Depending what teachings of Mormonism you accept race has a specific origin, a time when it started, and perhaps even a time when it will end.

Gender is eternal - we have always been male and female and will always be male and female.

 

You cannot compare a permanent condition with its eternal roles with what may well be a temporary classification.

[Buzzard]

I am not sure that we are losing young adult women at a faster rate than we are losing young men. If anything, I would think that the reverse would be true. The YSA ward that meets in my building has significantly more women attending it than men, and it is my understanding that this is a fairly common ratio throughout the Church.

But the overall concern - that we are losing many youth in the Church to inactivity - is unfortunately correct. The Church is aware of this and I think is working hard to address it.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is correct, but it is not necessarily more correct than in the past. Just anecdotally,I have always seen a sifting take place among 16-20 year old youths. That's when you make a lot of the decisions that will determine the course of your life. I saw many of my friends growing up decide to check out in their late teen years, and it's been a long time since I was a teenager.  

Which is not to say that every young man or woman that goes less active is not a precious soul and worth time and effort to keep them in the fold. 

[Buckeye]

This parallell bugs me, as does the one with the Jews and Gentiles.

 

Race and gender are NOT the same thing, despite modern society constantly equating them.

Depending what teachings of Mormonism you accept race has a specific origin, a time when it started, and perhaps even a time when it will end.

Gender is eternal - we have always been male and female and will always be male and female.

 

You cannot compare a permanent condition with its eternal roles with what may well be a temporary classification.

 

Well, there is this from our hymnal:

 

There is no end to matter;

There is no end to space;

There is no end to spirit;

There is no end to race.

 

Granted, I interpret that to mean "human race" or something like that.  Definitely not skin color.  But others could view it differently.

[Senator]

 

Gender is eternal - we have always been male and female and will always be male and female.

 

You cannot compare a permanent condition with its eternal roles with what may well be a temporary classification.

 

I see only two roles that are inherent and inescapably tied to gender; they are the roles that a man and women perform (respectively)  in the reproduction of themselves.  All other roles are a matter of convention. 

 

For instance, tell me what the gender specific roles were of Adam and Eve before the fall? Things were certainly different after the fall.

 

What if Adam had been the first to partake of the fruit?

Edited September 26, 2013 by Senator

[Buckeye]

I do not think women lack sufficient agency or ability to act for good.

 

"Sufficient" is a tricky term. I currently don't have the agency to do all good. I can't yet move mountains, create worlds, etc. I have hope that I can gain those agencies as I righteously exercise the agency I currently have. But I don't have all agency.

 

Likewise, women have a lot of agency now. But would it be bad if they had more? For instance, how could it be anything but good for mothers to be given the agency to annoint and bless their children by the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood (putting aside whether they already have that agency through some other means)?

[Duncan]

Lack of priesthood leadership is a very real problem in much of the world. This is enhanced by the fact that in many of these areas the activity rate of men is significantly lower than that of women.

By ordaining women we would instantly double the numbers of priesthood holders and improve the quality of the leadership.

 

 

I know that's the case here-my brother who is the stake clerk, said that if they released some of the High Council these brethren would go inactive. They are hardly around to do what they are asked to do now and so if they got released they would quit altogether. it seems they put brethren in leadership to get them to fly right, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. So, I can't count how many inactive High Priests I know, former leaders, it's sad and crazy and nuts

[omni]

Is anybody aware of any non-religious major organization/company/government that has equal numbers of men and women participants, but does not allow those women in its highest leadership positions?

[Stone holm]

I see only two roles that are inherent and inescapably tied to gender; they are the roles that a man and women perform (respectively)  in the reproduction of themselves.  All other roles are a matter of convention. 

 

For instance, tell me what the gender specific roles were of Adam and Eve before the fall? Things were certainly different after the fall.

 

What if Adam had been the first to partake of the fruit?

 

Am thinking it was probably strong odds that Adam would not partake of the fruit first.  There may have been a time when given the physical environment that society needed to evolve and that during the early period since brute strength was important that it may have well followed that men should "preside" and have a "protector" role.  Given that the human species is considered to be mildly polygynous it probably made sense for men to be territorial with their tribe of women which in turn caused natural selection to favor the strongest male descendants of Adam to be the ones who would perpetuate the species.  However, we no longer live in an environment where brute strength is all that important and the social and religious conventions that grew up surrounding male dominance no longer adhere.  So the question is -- the current male only status of the Priesthood is it a religious doctrinal necessity, or is it just a hangover tradition from a bygone age.  In that sense, the issue may well parallel the race issue.  Gender is eternal, but we know so very little about our Heavenly Mother and the actual eternal roles She plays.  It is has been strongly suggested outside the Church that the ancient Church knew more about Her than we do today and that knowledge and her worship was suppressed by certain organizations that controlled Christianity for centuries.  We just do not know.  My personal inclination is to believe there is no real doctrinal issue with women receiving the Priesthood, just as there was no real doctrinal issue with Africans holding it.  So I suspect that eventually they will in fact receive it -- in the Lord's due time.  For us to condemn women for seeking the Priesthood in tactful ways, I think is just wrong.  We can complain about tactics, and we may disagree on what the eternal nature of gender portends -- but to shame women for wanting the Priesthood or inquiring as to why they haven't been given it, personal view is unrighteous dominion -- they at this point need some real answers, my personal opinion is they are not getting them.

[Stone holm]

I know that's the case here-my brother who is the stake clerk, said that if they released some of the High Council these brethren would go inactive. They are hardly around to do what they are asked to do now and so if they got released they would quit altogether. it seems they put brethren in leadership to get them to fly right, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. So, I can't count how many inactive High Priests I know, former leaders, it's sad and crazy and nuts

 

True, but don't think that is a good reason to deny Priesthood to the women because the men would go inactive -- or are you not saying that?

[omni]

I know that's the case here-my brother who is the stake clerk, said that if they released some of the High Council these brethren would go inactive. They are hardly around to do what they are asked to do now and so if they got released they would quit altogether. it seems they put brethren in leadership to get them to fly right, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. So, I can't count how many inactive High Priests I know, former leaders, it's sad and crazy and nuts

Why not just put them in the primary, they'll still be required to be there every week?

Before I get any hate mail, er I mean responses--to all primary workers please do not take offence. As a former primary teacher myself, I am in no way trying to say your calling is any less important than a priesthood leadership calling

Edited September 26, 2013 by omni

[smac97]

Kind of like say people of African descent were not impeded?

Nope, not like that at all. Black people were impeded. They could not go to the temple. Moreover, there was no revelation which established the policy, as compared to the numerous scriptural references which restrict the priesthood to men.

Again, it is ironic that folks like you purport to speak for LDS women, 90% of whom disagree with your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Garden Girl]

I can't provide formal numbers because the church doesn't provide them.  But anectdotally, it is definintly the case in my area.  I've spoken to many local leaders (the majority of whom I assume would not support OW) and they all believe the age limit was changed in order to help retain the youth.  Missionary work is becoming sort of an extension of our youth program now.  But we're still loosing lots when they get back.  There is a vaccuum for the age group after they leave missions and before they start families.  We just don't have a lot to offer that group.  I'm not saying this will be the cause, but it is not unreasonable to conclude that priesthood service could help retain some young adult women.

Don't have a lot to offer??  We offer them the restored gospel... and always have, pre-mission and post-mission.  I find this bolded point of view incredible.  If they choose to turn away from the truths they have been teaching for the past two years, then so be it... many, even the majority?, of returned missionaries do not turn away. 

There is a "sifting" taking place in these last days, as was prophesied... (That said... I do know a married couple, both of whom served honorable missions, who are now inactive.  OTOH, I also know several young men who were less than active pre-mission who are now very active post-mission.)

 

GG

[why me]

Do you think that the OW group would want to sit on the men's side in the temple during the endowment?

Of course. They would want whatever would disrupt the traditions of the lds church. The point would be to change the infrastructure.

[smac97]

"Sufficient" is a tricky term. I currently don't have the agency to do all good. I can't yet move mountains, create worlds, etc. I have hope that I can gain those agencies as I righteously exercise the agency I currently have. But I don't have all agency.

 

Likewise, women have a lot of agency now. But would it be bad if they had more? For instance, how could it be anything but good for mothers to be given the agency to annoint and bless their children by the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood (putting aside whether they already have that agency through some other means)?

You seem to be under the impression that I oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood. As I have said several times, I am open to this. I don't think it will happen, but I am open to it. This thread is about tactics being used by people who are agitating for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

True, but don't think that is a good reason to deny Priesthood to the women because the men would go inactive -- or are you not saying that?

 

 

I wasn't saying that, I was just saying that men or "lifters" as the local terms is are in very short supply and so to get these brethren active or active again they give them these callings and sometimes they get going again and sometimes they don't do it and it doesn't work out well. One thing I see a lot is people get bishopric callings or High Council callings and aour Patriarch is totally inactive so they got another one but as soon as they get released that's the last you typically see of them,not all but.  I don't have very high opinions of men in general especially ones in church leadership, as in localwise

Edited September 26, 2013 by Duncan

[Buckeye]

Duncan, that's a tough spot to be in.  I'm not sure any global program and idea would fit your stake exactly.  There is always local adaptation.  So take this counsel with a grain of salt, as you know your local situation infinitely better than I. 

 

Would it possibly help these men if they had less time-consuming or less-prominent positions?  Perhaps some of the reason for their falling away is that they know they will be given significant callings if they participate at all.  Also, if these are older men, it could be that they are burned out from doing the same things for so long.  I'm only in my mid-30s and I'm pretty sick of talks on hometeaching.  I can't imagine what it will be like when I'm 80.  I personally know some wonderful sisters who got burned out of primary after 20-30 years there.  These are exceptional women.  They would be on the list of possible bishops if they had the priesthood.  But they just can't stomach the thought of spending more time in primary.  For me, that's one positive of removing gender barriers to callings.  It may well be that sisters who are burned out from primary would flourish on the high counsel.  And the men who are burned out from high counsel could flourish as a primary teacher. 

[Tacenda]

Duncan, that's a tough spot to be in. I'm not sure any global program and idea would fit your stake exactly. There is always local adaptation. So take this counsel with a grain of salt, as you know your local situation infinitely better than I.

Would it possibly help these men if they had less time-consuming or less-prominent positions? Perhaps some of the reason for their falling away is that they know they will be given significant callings if they participate at all. Also, if these are older men, it could be that they are burned out from doing the same things for so long. I'm only in my mid-30s and I'm pretty sick of talks on hometeaching. I can't imagine what it will be like when I'm 80. I personally know some wonderful sisters who got burned out of primary after 20-30 years there. These are exceptional women. They would be on the list of possible bishops if they had the priesthood. But they just can't stomach the thought of spending more time in primary. For me, that's one positive of removing gender barriers to callings. It may well be that sisters who are burned out from primary would flourish on the high counsel. And the men who are burned out from high counsel could flourish as a primary teacher.

Wow, when you put it that way maybe it shouldn't be biased. Maybe one day women won't be restricted, and be able to serve in the "bigger" callings and give blessings etc. I think I just got my eyes open, where before I thought Priesthood was really just for the men, but wished for women to have more say in some areas.

[Stone holm]

Nope, not like that at all. Black people were impeded. They could not go to the temple. Moreover, there was no revelation which established the policy, as compared to the numerous scriptural references which restrict the priesthood to men.

Again, it is ironic that folks like you purport to speak for LDS women, 90% of whom disagree with your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Really?  Numerous Scripture references.  CFR please on that.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Nope, not like that at all. Black people were impeded. They could not go to the temple. Moreover, there was no revelation which established the policy, as compared to the numerous scriptural references which restrict the priesthood to men.

It's interesting how the interpretation of scriptures change. Bruce R McConkie (in Mormon Doctrine) cited the following scriptures to support the ban:

Moses 5:16-41

Moses 7:8

Moses 7:12

Moses 7:22

Abraham 1:20:27

Also interesting how the interpretation of revelation also changes. The header of OD 2 now states: "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice." and leaves it very ambiguous as to whether or not it was implemented by the Lord. Brigham Young however felt no ambiguity as to its source as being revealed truth as demonstrated by his statement to the Utah Legislature: "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."

In 1949, the first presidence issued the following: "The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord," - sounds like they sure thought the Lord had given revelation on the subject.

Edited September 26, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

Really?  Numerous Scripture references.  CFR please on that.

Here's a starting point: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60432-what-is-the-scriptural-basis-for-limiting-the-priesthood-to-males/#entry1209240010

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stone holm]

It's interesting how the interpretation of scriptures change. Bruce R McConkie (in Mormon Doctrine) cited the following scriptures to support the ban:

Moses 5:16-41

Moses 7:8

Moses 7:12

Moses 7:22

Abraham 1:20:27

Also interesting how the interpretation of revelation also changes. The header of OD 2 now states: "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice." and leaves it very ambiguous as to whether or not it was implemented by the Lord. Brigham Young however felt no ambiguity as to its source as being revealed truth as demonstrated by his statement to the Utah Legislature: "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."

In 1949, the first presidence issued the following: "The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord," - sounds like they sure thought the Lord had given revelation on the subject.

 

I suspect there were more scripture references in support of the black ban than there are for not ordaining women -- if there are any that support that notion.  There may be a valid reason, but if there is it is not readily apparent and I suspect in order to really support and defend it, more disclosures will have to take place about Heavenly Mother and perhaps even more information about the personage of the Holy Ghost.

[MorningStar]

So here's the graphic on the "OrdainWomen.org" website:

 

 

 

 

Yep.  Usurpation.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

None of the women are wearing pants?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I suspect there were more scripture references in support of the black ban than there are for not ordaining women -- if there are any that support that notion. There may be a valid reason, but if there is it is not readily apparent and I suspect in order to really support and defend it, more disclosures will have to take place about Heavenly Mother and perhaps even more information about the personage of the Holy Ghost.

It depends on how you want to read them. Aside from a handful of (disputed) cases in the New Testament all scriptures referring to Priesthood refer to men. That said I'm not aware of scriptures that specially ban women from the priesthood (they may exist I'm simply unaware if them).

Interestingly one of the scriptures used to overturn the ban says that all are alike unto God including "black and white, bond and free, male and female"

Edited September 26, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Buckeye]

It's interesting how the interpretation of scriptures change. Bruce R McConkie (in Mormon Doctrine) cited the following scriptures to support the ban:

Moses 5:16-41

Moses 7:8

Moses 7:12

Moses 7:22

Abraham 1:20:27

Also interesting how the interpretation of revelation also changes. The header of OD 2 now states: "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice." and leaves it very ambiguous as to whether or not it was implemented by the Lord. Brigham Young however felt no ambiguity as to its source as being revealed truth as demonstrated by his statement to the Utah Legislature: "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."

In 1949, the first presidence issued the following: "The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord," - sounds like they sure thought the Lord had given revelation on the subject.

 

Bingo.  While we interpret these scriputes differently today, they were certainly cited back then as support for the racial ban.  And at least those verses talk about a priesthood ban being applied to some group.  I dislike the verses being applied to blacks.  But at least I can understand the logic of that ban as being premised on a misunderstanding of the seed of cain rather than being made up wholecloth.  In other words, they just misread the scriptures. 

 

When it comes to female restriction, there are zero verses that address the issue.  You can only cite to an inference that Christ disapproved of female ordination because he never did it.  But by the logic you can also argue that he disapproved of female missionaries, females attending synagogue, or females riding on a boat.