Continuity In Change: Paikea As A Model For Extending Priesthood To Women

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

First, if you haven't done so already, watch Niki Caro's brilliant adaptation of Witi Ihimaera's book Whale Rider, with a stunning performance by Keisha Castle-Hughes as Paikea, granddaughter of the Chief. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yAkMjRR-Fs

 

The MÄori culture and New Zealand geography in the film is very similar to the culture and land in Hawaii, where I grew up. People think of Hawaii as being a paradise (which it is), but in my neighborhood there was also drugs, poverty, and domestic abuse. I grew up with divorced parents, and was painfully aware of the inequalities I saw between men and women in my town, in my little school. Boys and girls teased each other, men and women screamed at each other and hit each other; I didn't want to be on either side. 

 

A few decades later, living on the mainland, I joined the Church. I was aware of all the usual points critics like to bring up (racism, polygamy, Magical Worldviews, etc.), but what I was interested in was Joseph Smith's radical revisioning of Christian theology. I'd read Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series and wasn't shocked by frontier folk magic; I knew Joseph Smith had ordained black men to the Priesthood, and that the racial ban was just a product of typical Christian rhetoric seeping into Mormon culture; I had no problem with polygamy (though I'm definitely not interested in practicing it myself), and I knew Joseph Smith was a flawed man who made mistakes. 

 

What I loved was the theology, the doctrine of Uncreated Intelligence, the idea that the mind of man is coeternal and coequal with God, and therefore we are all of equal worth. That there is no immaterial material, that we can Create by imposing order on preexisting chaotic matter. That there is no 'Hell' except that which we make in our own minds through the guilt we suffer for our own actions. That there is no black and white separation between Good People and Bad People, but rather a continuum of degrees of glory, like the stars and moon and sun. That Christ was a teacher who showed us a better way of living, a great rabbi who loved us first and who taught us the principles of eternal progression, of never ceasing to learn truths that set us free. 

 

That every single man and woman who ever has or ever will live is a God or a Goddess in embryo. That we have a Mother in Heaven alongside our Father. That Gods with the capacity to weep are not Academic Neoplatonic abstractions, but simply good people, doing the best they can for others. Despite what has been written in some of our fallible and errant translations of scriptures, Gods cannot be cruel, vengeful, manipulative, or jealous deities, because they cease to be Gods the minute they break the laws of justice and use a mere Priesthood for power and gain and authority. The only 'authority' is persuasion, and truth, and love. Mormonism is the Apotheosis of Humanism.    

 

So when I see us setting up stakes and claiming that extending the Priesthood to women would destroy the church from the inside out, I am completely baffled, and extremely disheartened. It seems so ... small. Small in comparison to the grandeur of Joseph Smith's vision of Gods and Goddesses working to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. It brings me back to when I was a kid witnessing all the terrible, petty things that men and women say to each other to keep each other in their rigidly-designated places instead of allowing them to grow and flourish into Trees of Life. 

 

But Joseph Smith said that he was giving a Priesthood Key to the Relief Society. Women were brought into a ritual related in some way (whatever we might think of the specifics) to what was previously a fraternity. Early pioneers like Eliza Snow were brilliant thinkers and poets and healers, and our Sisters were instrumental in the movement for women's suffrage. 

 

But much of that revolutionary spirit seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the way. I have yet to hear a convincing reason why women should not be ordained. Priesthood is not equivalent to motherhood; fatherhood is. The only reply seems to be that God Said So -- but he has not explicitly said so anywhere in our canonized scriptures. It seems to me to be a cultural practice which causes pain to people needlessly. So why do we need to keep defending it?  

 

It's heartbreaking because there are no badguys here, just as there are no badguys in Whale Rider. Only people, doing the best they can with what light they have.  

 

But Paikea has proven herself capable and willing. She loves her grandfather, who is a good man, her guest of honor. She doesn't want to hurt him. She doesn't want to embarrass him. She doesn't want to usurp his authority or influence, or shame him, or anything of the kind. All she wants to do is help, to be a part of it all, to keep the old ways alive, to join in more fully. She doesn't want to destroy the law, or the Prophets, she wants to fulfill. She wants to seek out anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy. 

 

What is causing the pain is not unrighteousness on either side, what is stopping her from taking part more fully in the Work is ... the fact that she is a girl. (As a recent Mormon Transhumanist article points out, gender is more complicated than Man vs. Woman. According to Joseph Smith, it is the Intelligence, the Mind of humanity which is eternal.)

 

Change can be good, can't it?

 

Brigham Young said:

"I have never received one iota of intelligence, from the letter A to what I now know, I mean that, from the very start of my life to this time, I have never received one particle of intelligence only by revelation, no matter whether father or mother revealed it, or my sister, or neighbor.

 

Who reveals? Every body around us; we learn of each other. I have something which you have not, and you have something which I have not; I reveal what I have to you, and you reveal what you have to me. I believe that we are revelators to each other. Are the heavens opened? Yes, to some at times, yet upon natural principles, upon the principle of natural philosophy."

 

No matter whether my mother or sister revealed it. It doesn't matter where truth comes from, so long as it is true. 

 

Thessalonians says to prove all things, and only hold fast to that which is good. 

 

Why shouldn't we learn from Paikea's story by likening it to ourselves? 

Edited September 27, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Nofear]

Repost from the Elder Ballard talk on Women's Unique Roles:

 

http://www.lds.org/c...n-week?lang=eng

 

Lots of things said, all of which I essentially agree with. Two highlights:

 

Elder Ballard: "In the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by a husband and wife."

 

He doesn't quite go so far to say that in the eternities priesthood keys may be held be women (which I suspect) but nor is the door closed to that perspective.

 

Elder Ballard: "'Why are men ordained to the priesthood offices and not women?' he asked, later explaining, 'When all is said and done, the Lord has not revealed why He has organized His Church as He has.'"

 

Still the best most accurate answer, "We don't know."

[Abulafia]

Great post Jeremy and very thought provoking.

[CV75]

Why shouldn't we learn from Paikea's story by likening it to ourselves? 

 

 

Repost from the Elder Ballard talk on Women's Unique Roles:

I saw the film; thought it was wonderful.

 

In one instance, we do not know why ordination to priesthood office is the way it is (males only). On the other hand, we know that priesthood power is shared, and to that I would add priesthood order. The shared power and order are not attained by ordination (the laying on of hands upon an individual to confer and ordain), but by temple ordinance (a different process to give this gift to male-female couples). I’m not sure why that is, except that it is the only light and instruction we have been given.

 

Perhaps the intermediate step (the individual endowment of males and females) is a way of introducing members of both sexes into this higher order or priesthood as individuals, regardless of conferral or ordination, and then to fully integrate them into this highest order through marriage.

 

I think we also know that the real power is based in righteousness, which is what we are gaining as we strive to do the best with the light we have--and who knows when we will have it all?. In the meantime, any bridge that exists between that which is “spiritual” and that which is “rational” is a rare treat indeed!

[Storm Rider]

Change for changes sake holds little interest or value. What is the cost of change? How is the body of Christ improved? A political dispute and a demand for perceived power is evil.

[Vance]

OP,

 

Very thoughtful.  I disagree with a few of the minor things, but over all I give you a giant Thumbs up!!

[Lachonius]

  I would surmise that there are a great number of men in the church who would take no issue with the concept of extending priesthood power and ordination to women, should that be the revealed word of the Lord.  Indeed, based on prophetic writings, it would appear that women will have such power in the eternities; the concern arises in how such a change on the earth takes place.  

  Political activism to bring about a desired change seems to be the new flavor of the month, but ignores the concept that God is directing His church.  If we as members agitate and expect that the answer will be what we want, I expect we will be greatly disappointed.  Based on the Brethren's responses to OW, I get the impression that it is a question which does arise in their councils, and that it is considered.  

[juliann]

 

 

Brigham Young said:

 

No matter whether my mother or sister revealed it. It doesn't matter where truth comes from, so long as it is true. 

 

Thessalonians says to prove all things, and only hold fast to that which is good. 

 

Why shouldn't we learn from Paikea's story by likening it to ourselves? 

 

Do you have a reference for this quote?  

 

I loved that movie!

[JLHPROF]

I appreciate the eloquence of the OP (and I loved Whale Rider when I saw it years ago) but it still fails to address the key issues of extending priesthood to women.

The key issues aren't whether it's good or bad for the church, what the majority of members feel is right, or even our potential to become Gods and Goddesses.  Even interpreting the intentions of the Prophet Joseph doesn't cut to the root.  It's not about equality or faith.  It's not about having a say in the Church or capablity to perform the office.  These are all irrelevant and until we address the real issue we are heading wrong.

 

All that matters is the will of God on the issue and what are the eternal laws governing the principle.

If it was matter of ANYTHING else then I might be ok with extending ordination.  But if the order of priesthood in the eternities and the order by which God is bound to operate doesn't allow for it then we really have no business arguing for it and never will.

The order of God's kingdom and the principles of eternity don't change just because we think that it is right to do so.  We just need to be sure we are following them correctly and that is when we seek revelation.

[Cobalt-70]

In one instance, we do not know why ordination to priesthood office is the way it is (males only). On the other hand, we know that priesthood power is shared, and to that I would add priesthood order. The shared power and order are not attained by ordination (the laying on of hands upon an individual to confer and ordain), but by temple ordinance (a different process to give this gift to male-female couples). I’m not sure why that is, except that it is the only light and instruction we have been given.

 

Perhaps the intermediate step (the individual endowment of males and females) is a way of introducing members of both sexes into this higher order or priesthood as individuals, regardless of conferral or ordination, and then to fully integrate them into this highest order through marriage.

 

I think we also know that the real power is based in righteousness, which is what we are gaining as we strive to do the best with the light we have--and who knows when we will have it all?. In the meantime, any bridge that exists between that which is “spiritual” and that which is “rational” is a rare treat indeed!

It's not exactly true that priesthood power is shared. We say that a 12-year-old boy has priesthood power, even though he is neither part of a couple nor has he been to the temple. Yes, currently in the temple women become priestesses only "to their husbands" (even if she is going through the temple prior to a mission and therefore she has no husband) but there is no reason why it has to be this way. I think that's just one of the carryovers from more patriarchal times that has not yet been excised from the temple ceremony. An endowed woman can still perform the temple ordinance of washing and anointing, on her own, without male supervision.

[pogi]

Wonderful post Jeremy!

 

While it is true that priesthood is not equivalent to motherhood, fatherhood is not really equivalent either.  Motherhood, as outlined in the proclamation to the world is a distinguished role apart from the priesthood and fatherhood.  Do we really want to take our mothers away from their children even more than society already has?  According to the proclamation to the world, the mother's "primary" responsibility is for the nurture of their children.  The question we should ask is this, would the priesthood and all of the leadership callings that come with it (bishop, stake president, etc), positively or negatively affect the "primary" role of a mother?  I can understand why the priesthood might be reserved for women in the next life. 

 

If this were put to vote, I would vote for the women to hold the priesthood if it meant that the church organization was unchanged (relief society, young women's, and visiting teaching would be threatened by them holding the priesthood) , and if women held the priesthood without the obligation of fulfilling leadership roles such as bishop etc.  I wouldn't mind seeing women give blessing etc., but I would be hesitant to take them away from their children more than society is already doing.  I do feel like motherhood is a special calling and distinguished role that we should not pollute with even more obligatory duties outside the home. 

[CV75]

It's not exactly true that priesthood power is shared. We say that a 12-year-old boy has priesthood power, even though he is neither part of a couple nor has he been to the temple.

A 12-year old girl has priesthood power when she exercises her faith in the preisthood that is at her service.

 

When the 12-year olds grow up and marry in the temple the couple enters into (together, as in sharing) the highest order of priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage], and all associated power (and thrones, kingdoms, principalities, dominions, all heights and depths), assuming they are righteous enough to have any.

 

Even a 2-year old can have priesthood power.

 

We all share priesthood power when we unitedly exercsie faith in it.

Edited September 27, 2013 by CV75

[Cobalt-70]

A 12-year old girl has priesthood power when she exercises her faith in the preisthood that is at her service.

 

When the 12-year olds grow up and marry in the temple the couple enters into (together, as in sharing) the highest order of priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage], and all associated power (and thrones, kingdoms, principalities, dominions, all heights and depths), assuming they are righteous enough to have any.

 

Even a 2-year old can have priesthood power.

 

We all share priesthood power when we unitedly exercsie faith in it.

It sounds like you are generalizing "priesthood power"  to be synonymous with "power." Where is the "priesthood" part of that phrase? You can't be a true priest or priestess if you have no keys. What you are saying is like giving women a Ferrari, but not giving the keys, and requiring that they can only be a passenger, while a man does the driving.

[EllenMaksoud]

It sounds like you are generalizing "priesthood power"  to be synonymous with "power." Where is the "priesthood" part of that phrase? You can't be a true priest or priestess if you have no keys. What you are saying is like giving women a Ferrari, but not giving the keys, and requiring that they can only be a passenger, while a man does the driving.

Lol, that sounds like Saudi Arabia. 

[EllenMaksoud]

I personally have no issue with women whose children are grown and gone. Still, I would prefer first right of refusal. In my short time as Mormon, I have seen things that I would not wish to experience.

[Calm]

I personally have no issue with women whose children are grown and gone. Still, I would prefer first right of refusal. In my short time as Mormon, I have seen things that I would not wish to experience.

I personally would feel better if where possible both parents of small children were not given jobs that demanded excessive time commitments, but I know of a woman who was called as a RS President while pregnant and I have no doubt that she is a magnificent RS President which can be a huge time consuming job...and if so, then I see little reason why women should be restricted from being a Bishop on that basis.

Edited September 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[EllenMaksoud]

I personally would feel better if where possible both parents of small children were not given jobs that demanded excessive time commitments, but I know of a woman who was called as a RS President while pregnant and I have no doubt that she is a magnificent RS President which can be a huge time consuming job...and if so, then I see little reason why women should be restricted from being a Bishop on that basis.

I still want unprejudiced first right of refusal. 

[webbles]

It sounds like you are generalizing "priesthood power"  to be synonymous with "power." Where is the "priesthood" part of that phrase? You can't be a true priest or priestess if you have no keys. What you are saying is like giving women a Ferrari, but not giving the keys, and requiring that they can only be a passenger, while a man does the driving.

What do you mean by the bolded?  The majority of priesthood holders have no keys.  So are the majority of priesthood holders not true priests?

[Darren10]

I really enjoyed your "conversion" to Mormonism, Jeremy. Here's one part I'll take issue a bit:

 

 

 

So when I see us setting up stakes and claiming that extending the Priesthood to women would destroy the church from the inside out, I am completely baffled, and extremely disheartened. It seems so ... small. Small in comparison to the grandeur of Joseph Smith's vision of Gods and Goddesses working to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. It brings me back to when I was a kid witnessing all the terrible, petty things that men and women say to each other to keep each other in their rigidly-designated places instead of allowing them to grow and flourish into Trees of Life. 

 

If you see the priesthood purely in terms of the social and political leadership in the LDS church, than, yes, in comparison to the doctrine of the existence of gods and goddesses and that man (and women) may become gods and goddesses themselves, it does seem minuscule. However, is it so minute in significance? Isn't it the priesthood which governs the heavens and all that is? Is it not the holy priesthood which "dictates" how the gods and goddesses should behave? Is it not by the power of the holy priesthood which would strip a being of \his or her godly power and state of being if that god or goddess "misbehaved"?

 

I've always seen the priesthood as establishing strict order in the Church and in the eternities. One aspect of the priesthood is that men have it and women do not to the extent of a man having it. However, also LDS doctrine is the fact that no man may ever be able to use the full power of the priesthood without a woman by his side. Likewise, no woman may reach her full eternal power without a man by her side. This is the full progress which we all make in Christ the Lord and it is this process which harnesses the full power of the priesthood of the Son of God.

 

The way I see it, ordaining women to the priesthood equal to a man will undo much of what the eternities is founded upon.

 

 

 

But Joseph Smith said that he was giving a Priesthood Key to the Relief Society. Women were brought into a ritual related in some way (whatever we might think of the specifics) to what was previously a fraternity. Early pioneers like Eliza Snow were brilliant thinkers and poets and healers, and our Sisters were instrumental in the movement for women's suffrage. 

 

From what I remember from the Joseph Smith Papers, I would agree. From what I remember, Joseph Smith immediately saw the Relief Society as vital to the restoration of the gospel and carrying it to the millennium. Also, the LDS people were the first to practice women's suffrage even though Wyoming was the first state to make it law.

 

 

 

 but he has not explicitly said so anywhere in our canonized scriptures

 

Perhaps not but in the scriptures who are the explicit leaders carrying out the teaching God's will? Were they not prophets who were male? Was is not male prophets who made sure that the Law was carried out in fidelity? Wasn't Jesus a male? What female did He ordain to be an apostle? And there is the clear general theme of scriptures that men represent spiritual matters and women physical / earthly matters.

 

 

 

It seems to me to be a cultural practice which causes pain to people needlessly.

 

(Just for disclosure, a pet peeve of mine is to use emotion to make an argument. Pulling out the bleeding heart card won't do much for me. )

 

 

 

 

Why shouldn't we learn from Paikea's story by likening it to ourselves? 

 

Paikea's story is purely cultural. It's about being a warrior. In the United States it is proper to honor women during World War II for it was they who picked up the industrial slack when their men went off to war. They were valiant warriors just as much as the men so far as I'm concerned. however, since then, eroding distinction between men and women has resulted in many hardships in the country. I've no doubt ordaining women to the priesthood at the same level as men would do the same. When women picked the industrial slack for their country, that was undoubtedly honorable but challenging the role of women as primary caretakers has never been honorable and even has been tragic.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Darren10

[mfbukowski]

Yin and yang, Gods and Goddesses,all equal different roles, complimentary characteristics, puzzle pieces completing each other.  Opposites combining in unity.

 

And this is morally wrong?  Why?

 

Because husbands and wives sometimes argue?

 

Sorry, I am not getting it.

[Tacenda]

I really enjoyed your "conversion" to Mormonism, Jeremy. Here's one part I'll take issue a bit:

If you see the priesthood purely in terms of the social and political leadership in the LDS church, than, yes, in comparison to the doctrine of the existence of gods and goddesses and that man (and women) may become gods and goddesses themselves, it does seem minuscule. However, is it so minute in significance? Isn't it the priesthood which governs the heavens and all that is? Is it not the holy priesthood which "dictates" how the gods and goddesses should behave? Is it not by the power of the holy priesthood which would strip a being of \his or her godly power and state of being if that god or goddess "misbehaved"?

I've always seen the priesthood as establishing strict order in the Church and in the eternities. One aspect of the priesthood is that men have it and women do not to the extent of a man having it. However, also LDS doctrine is the fact that no man may ever be able to use the full power of the priesthood without a woman by his side. Likewise, no woman may reach her full eternal power without a man by her side. This is the full progress which we all make in Christ the Lord and it is this process which harnesses the full power of the priesthood of the Son of God.

The way I see it, ordaining women to the priesthood equal to a man will undo much of what the eternities is founded upon.

From what I remember from the Joseph Smith Papers, I would agree. From what I remember, Joseph Smith immediately saw the Relief Society as vital to the restoration of the gospel and carrying it to the millennium. Also, the LDS people were the first to practice women's suffrage even though Wyoming was the first state to make it law.

Perhaps not but in the scriptures who are the explicit leaders carrying out the teaching God's will? Were they not prophets who were male? Was is not male prophets who made sure that the Law was carried out in fidelity? Wasn't Jesus a male? What female did He ordain to be an apostle? And there is the clear general theme of scriptures that men represent spiritual matters and women physical / earthly matters.

(Just for disclosure, a pet peeve of mine is to use emotion to make an argument. Pulling out the bleeding heart card won't do much for me. )

Paikea's story is purely cultural. It's about being a warrior. In the United States it is proper to honor women during World War II for it was they who picked up the industrial slack when their men went off to war. They were valiant warriors just as much as the men so far as I'm concerned. however, since then, eroding distinction between men and women has resulted in many hardships in the country. I've no doubt ordaining women to the priesthood at the same level as men would do the same. When women picked the industrial slack for their country, that was undoubtedly honorable but challenging the role of women as primary caretakers has never been honorable and even has been tragic.

Two things...first, the women getting the vote was to help the church and the state of Utah. Second, maybe we should just leave the PH where it belongs, to Jesus. Then we'd all have access, everyone. Which many non LDS Christians already know. Edited September 28, 2013 by Tacenda

[Storm Rider]

Two things...first, the women getting the vote was to help the church and the state of Utah. Second, maybe we should just leave the PH where it belongs, to Jesus. Then we'd all have access, everyone. Which many non LDS Christians already know.

That would be a minority of Christians that believe in the priesthood of the believer. More importantly, the early apostles certainly refute this position. Wasn't it Simon that wanted to buy the authority, but was rejected? That wayward Evangelical part of you refuses to die to the truths of scripture and the Gospel.

[Tacenda]

That would be a minority of Christians that believe in the priesthood of the believer. More importantly, the early apostles certainly refute this position. Wasn't it Simon that wanted to buy the authority, but was rejected? That wayward Evangelical part of you refuses to die to the truths of scripture and the Gospel.

It does doesn't it? You pegged me right Stormrider. But what I meant is that shouldn't we take Him on ourselves? That way we have the power?

[mfbukowski]

Honestly I wish someone would explain it to me.

 

Clearly it is wrong for people to have unrighteous dominion over anyone.  What does that have to do with genders being complimentary, with different roles, equal in all things, each serving mankind in different complimentary ways. 

 

Unquestionably women have been downtrodden- forever, and that should never have been the case.  But we believe that one should be "called of God as was Aaron".

 

I didn't choose to have the priesthood, I didn't choose to be a bishop or have any calling I have ever had.

 

I have never aspired to any callings.  I have never wanted to be a mother, I am fine being a dad.  Being a bishop is horrendously difficult- at least it was for me.  I felt like I was the servant of every person in the ward.  Need something at 3 am?  I am there.

 

Who would want that?  You serve not because you want to have glory but because you are called. 

 

It is not like equality in hiring- if a woman wants combat duty- fine with me.  If a woman wants to play NFL football or if a man wants to be a stay at home dad and watch 4 year olds all day- who cares?

 

I didn't want to be a bishop and I have never met anyone who was a bishop who wanted it either.

 

But the priesthood is not like that.  It is a CALLING that no one - let me repeat NO ONE takes on of their own volition.

 

So why do women want to take it on of THEIR own volition?

 

What is the magic in the Priesthood than women want it?

 

Priesthood callings are not based on the "best person for the job" - clearly women could probably all priesthood callings- including prophethood- as well as men.  I can see no specific gender reason why a woman could not head the church, except they are not called to it!

 

Could any successful person who is familiar with how the world works and who is spiritual and receives revelation and is worth be a prophet and function in that calling?  I think of course they could.  Anyone who is both spiritual and has had experience running a large organization could handle it as a job I am sure!

 

But God calls whom he wants to call- for his own reasons, and has set up a structure for doing that

 

I honestly do not get it.  To me it is just the world's influence trying to take over the church, and I see no other reason for it.

 

To me, anyone who WANTS to be in leadership should be automatically disqualified.  They are in it for the wrong reasons.

Edited September 29, 2013 by mfbukowski

[juliann]

But the priesthood is not like that.  It is a CALLING that no one - let me repeat NO ONE takes on of their own volition.

 

So why do women want to take it on of THEIR own volition?

 

 

 

 

To me, anyone who WANTS to be in leadership should be automatically disqualified.  They are in it for the wrong reasons.

Except that anyone who is trying to keep leadership from others should also be disqualified according to that logic.   There is a real lapse in logic in these arguments which I why I think they do more harm than good.    None of this works unless you are willing to let go of the thing that you deny to others.  It inevitably ends up with statements like this:

 

 

What is the magic in the Priesthood than women want it?

 

You really didn't just say that the priesthood isn't worth wanting....       

 

What is the magic in it that makes you want it for yourself?