Amen, Sherri Dew!

[bluebell]

Reposted because the only response so far is ... [Crickets chirping].

I assume, at some point, that we're all going to become privy to the true nature and extent of the Atonement. Will the response of some then be, "Sure, I get the whole 'bleeding-from-every-pore' and 'even-more-than-a-[wo]man-can-suffer-except-it-be-unto-death' thing, but hey ... You think that's bad, try childbirth [or some other ordeal unique to women]"? What, if anything, does the infinite Atonement not cover?

I didn't reply to your post because I didn't think you were being serious.

Obviously, it's impossible to compare Jesus to anyone else. He is male yes, but He also suffered the pains (emotional and physical) of every woman who would ever live, making him unique from any other male in mortality.

Since no other guy can say the same, trying to use Christ being a guy as an argument against the idea that guys can't know what it feels like to be a girl is silly.

[Tacenda]

If I said the same thing to you, inserting "man" in the place of "woman", I would be labeled insensitive and disrespectful to women

What things are the women not able to decide? I am sure you know that every organization in a ward falls under the jurisdiction of the bishop or stake president. Even the Melchizedek priesthood quorums have to clear things with the bishop before acting.

Now getting back to the questions I asked Juliann, do you have answers to them? I am truly interested as I just don't see the growing problem that she does. If it exists, help me see it so I can add my effort to changing it.

Yes, but it's a man who's the higher up, never a woman, like it had been in the beginning of RS with it being it's own society, no one to get permission from, signature for food distribution if the RS president can get the bishop before he leaves on business out of town. Conference talk for monthly RS lesson from the bishop, you name it. Can't a RS president be on her own ever? Maybe the RS president is inspired to have the ladies taught another conference talk, but who is she to change it? Edited November 22, 2013 by Tacenda

[changed]

Yes, but it's a man who's the higher up, never a woman...

The story I tell my daughters:

Once upon a time, there was a princess born into a loving noble family in beautiful castle - but due to an unfortunate (or fortunate) series of events, this little baby was taken away from the castle, and raised by 3 fairy godmothers.  She grew up not knowing who she was, and lived as a commoner (you know that part of the story).  As a commoner she felt the injustice of being ruled over - she felt small and powerless, but as a commoner she learned many valuable lessons.  She learned that it was better to be "with" others than "in front of" them, she learned the nobility of being a servant, and she gained a deep respect for the poor and humble commoners... then one day she meets this crazy guy out in the forest, and finds out who she really is yada yada, only here's the thing, when she becomes queen she ends up being the best queen the kingdom has ever had, and it was all because she was raised as a commoner - you see the best leaders are those who intimately understand their followers - who have experienced what it is to be a follower... so as a queen she does not hold herself to be above anyone, she opens up her caste to be a community center for everyone, she respects others rather than lording it over them, she has love for everyone, and serves everyone, and they view her not as a queen - but as something more than that, they see her as one of themselves. 

Edited November 22, 2013 by changed

[juliann]

I didn't reply to your post because I didn't think you were being serious.

Obviously, it's impossible to compare Jesus to anyone else. He is male yes, but He also suffered the pains (emotional and physical) of every woman who would ever live, making him unique from any other male in mortality.

Since no other guy can say the same, trying to use Christ being a guy as an argument against the idea that guys can't know what it feels like to be a girl is silly.

There is no way to respond to an appeal that men are like Jesus because of maleness.    Not to mention the question begging underlying it. 

[juliann]

In an attempt to get past the strawmen and red herrings....this is a good timeline analysis, with graph,  of the interplay between priesthood authority and the RS.  It is advocating for priesthood ordination for a solution... but the historical analysis stands on its own.

 

http://www.the-exponent.com/confirming-our-hope-women-and-priesthood/

[Tacenda]

In an attempt to get past the strawmen and red herrings....this is a good timeline analysis, with graph,  of the interplay between priesthood authority and the RS.  It is advocating for priesthood ordination for a solution... but the historical analysis stands on its own.

 

http://www.the-exponent.com/confirming-our-hope-women-and-priesthood/

Might I add this podcast, that has been mentioned before.  It is interesting the viewpoints that each woman had.  This podcast would enlighten the souls on this thread that misunderstand some of us and that to some, it isn't that we want the Priesthood, some may feel they already have that (power) from going through the temple, but that sometimes it's not utilized as it should be in our regular church life.   http://mormonstories.org/alternative-feminist-approaches-to-ordain-women/

 

ETA: It's the one with Maxine Hanks, Fiona Givens, Margaret Young, and Neylane McBaine.  When you have watched/listened, and you know who you are, maybe we can have a real conversation. 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

 What I am attempting to do is to ask, in light of the arguments which have been made on this thread, would anyone making those arguments also attempt to make that argument when she stands before Christ?....

 

if someone (of whatever gender) feels that not another soul on the planet understands his or her particular trials, tribulations, experiences, and point of view, in the end, does lack of human understanding really matter as long as Christ does understand because He took those things upon Him in the course of completing the Atonement?

So to the questions...I have never seen from members and other Christians that I remember a discussion where there is a question that somehow Christ or the Father themselves might lack in understanding due to them being male.  I would assume that somewhere out there that there may be some woman who feels that way who doesn't believe in a male God that took on the suffering for all mankind or a male God that is truly omniscient.  It would be interesting to discuss her reasonings of applying such a limitation to an actual god.  However, it seems like a total nonsequiter/logically incompatible idea to me when it comes to an LDS understanding of the Atonement and Christ and any woman who holds that belief that Christ suffered all things would at the very least logically come to that belief even if for some reason due to past experience of abuse or lack of good relationships with men from which she can emotionally extrapolate what a relationship with God the Father and God the Son might be like, she might not be able to have the emotional confidence and security of knowing she was known down to the molecular level by God at this very moment no matter how screwed up or confused or clueless about herself she was.

 

Since I have gone through some experiences that took me to the point of feeling completely isolated in the sense of ever being understood in my fundamental core being by another mortal being, I have already reached a point where I believe that only God (the Father, the Son and the Spirit and any others who belong to his exalted family) are the only ones out there who see me as I really am.  It is in fact why the verse that describes us as seeing as we are seen in the next life is my favourite scripture.

 

And while it may not matter in the long run because things will change, is it right to simply dismiss or ignore as trivial something that is problematic now, that may potentially creates division and contention now because all is resolved in the future?

 

It is a fact of human life in my opinon that we won't be understood.  It is also a fact imo that it is essential that we continue to try to be understood and to understand others because understanding is a godly attribute and God has commanded us to be like him....and even if one doesn't believe in God, there is the true Golden Rule about treating others as you would want to be treated (which imo really means treating others in the way they want to be treated just as you want others to treat you in the ways you want to be treated) and living the Rule takes at least some attempt at understanding so we don't end up causing pain when we really want to bless others' lives.  

 

And a key part in understanding is recognizing the limitations of that understanding so that we don't make assumptions and decisions we shouldn't make and continue to work on increasing our level of understanding where possible while accepting where it is not possible so that we can turn over the decision making to someone who does understand when they would do a better job of it or at the very least, seek out information from those more wise and experienced in those areas we lack.

 

For a simple example, let me use the fact that I will not ask my daughter to tell me what my husband wants for Christmas, I ask my husband (well, I might in hopes of him telling her while I was not around so I could surprise him...but he is still the ultimate source of my information, not my daughter).  I wouldn't ask husbands what their wives need without asking the wives as well and checking with them if their husbands' ideas work for them or not and the reverse is true.  

 

If my husband had never asked me or if I had not just come out and told him that I didn't want flowers, candy or cards for holidays and birthdays, I would have gone through 30+ years of being frustrated by what is to me a useless expenditure of money we didn't have to waste on such things.  Instead I told him what I really wanted...which was power tools (no longer since I don't have the energy, now it is things that makes life simpler).  And trust me, that was a major surprise to him since he could not know until I have told him of the hours I spent in my grandfather's workshop in the quiet, smelling the sawdust and wanting to know how to use the dozens of occult objects that surrounded me.  I had already had the experience of my dad suddenly waking up after 17 years of me living with him that I wanted to learn about such things and him finally teaching me how to wire a plug a day or so before I left for college....the only thing he ever taught me in that area.  And I would have loved to have spent my Saturday afternoons with him learning this stuff for the previous 17 years but had missed out on the opportunity because Dad never took the time to really look at what I was doing in my own spare time (not playing with dolls or dressup...that was only when my sister forced me to) and I looked on that as "Dad's territory where no one else dared go".

 

And because of that, my dad and I have never bonded because we don't have something to bond over he feels comfortable enough in to open himself as one needs to do when bonding as he has done with my sisters (he rescued them when their marriages failed, helped them through the practical side of life while Mom gave emotional support...I never had the need after leaving home for him to step in to help, especially after marrying the wonderful husband that I have).

 

God is there to make up the lacks in others for us, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our hardest to eliminate the gaps we are capable of closing ourselves.

 

I am relatively sure that you agree with me in this Ken from the way you have talked in the past.  I am thinking that perhaps you are misunderstanding the implications of what many of us are saying here and making assumptions about how we understand things that are faulty.  Hopefully they have been cleared up some at least by now from what I and others have said.  

 

So far as I can see, the women involved in this discussion aren't demanding total control of their own lives or the lives of others based on the fact men don't completely understand them and they don't understand men either, it is simply about awareness of the limitations of such understandings of each other (both as individuals and groups) and how that can impede addressing everyone's needs in the best way possible and thus a desire to grow in awareness of how we are communicate with each other so we can achieve the better harmony and eventually unity as the faithful community that we belong to is striving for.  Unfortunately that communication will be bumpy because it means we have to work at removing obstacles including faulty assumptions and messy work at that, often leading to feelings of defensiveness because of the inherent implication that we haven't been good enough in the past, we've made mistakes and even worse, we've hurt other people...good people who care about others don't like feeling responsible for causing others suffering and sometimes we react in such a way to remove that feeling that we end up causing more.  It is one of those silly, frustrating and totally illogical human qualities...the same feelings that drive us to progress and reach out to others and God in love can drive us to build walls and retreat behind them.  In the end if we are to be a true family of God, those walls have to come down...hopefully because we remove them ourselves, but if necessary God will find a way---and sometimes that is our fellow members in the faith, our family or even total strangers---to take the wall down himself so that we may have that experience of knowing and being known and choose whether or not that is a relationship and a way of sharing life we wish to continue in for eternity or if we prefer to rebuild our walls back up and retreat into our own wills and our own limited creation behind them.

Edited November 22, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Yes, but it's a man who's the higher up, never a woman, like it had been in the beginning of RS with it being it's own society, no one to get permission from, signature for food distribution if the RS president can get the bishop before he leaves on business out of town. Conference talk for monthly RS lesson from the bishop, you name it. Can't a RS president be on her own ever? Maybe the RS president is inspired to have the ladies taught another conference talk, but who is she to change it?

I think it is important for women not to confuse what is different about the experience of being a woman in the Church as opposed to a man with the experience of operating an auxiliary that men are just as likely to share.  The RS President can change somethings on her own, others not just as the Elders Quorum and HP Group Leader have the same limitations.  For example the conference talk...the teachers in Priesthood can't change it if they don't like it any more than the RS President...in fact, I bet in most wards if the RS wanted to change it and put it to the Bishop that she was going to, it would be less likely for him to question that and put his actual authority forward than he would for Priesthood leaders...because he would probably figure the RS President knew better what the women needed while he would see himself as better understanding the men in the quorums than the women in RS.

 

Can't a RS president be on her own ever?

 

Tacenda, if you haven't experienced being a RS president, perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions that she is in no way independent and must get approval for all decisions from the Bishop.  From what I've heard this just isn't so.

 

And I personally like the idea that while the RS needs to get the signature of the Bishop on the food request, the Bishop must get the food request from the RS President.  It is a good check balance system, imo.  I believe there is a lot of those in place for RS, YW and Primary where the Bishop is not able to dictate to the President and other women what is to happen, but that both must approve the final decision...even though a Bishop is able to release the RS so one might assume that he has more ultimate power in the situation than she does...though I never heard a woman who was a RS who was afraid of being released to the point that she would suppress her own opinion, though she might for other reasons.

 

I've heard a lot of women focusing on never being able to be a bishop, seeing that as a limitation while the reality is that the vast majority of men won't be able to be bishop either in their lifetimes.  And women must if the communication about the topic is to work must recognize that most men get that feeling because they have the same expectation of their lives...at least as they grow older and time diminishes the chances of them holding that calling.  However, there is a difference in the experience of why that limitation exists---women will most likely define that limitation as resulting from the fact that they are women and thus their experience will be different than a man who may appeal to simple numbers and probability or define the limitation as a more personal thing as in 'I am not the Bishop type' for whatever reason or he may even be one who expects to be a bishop someday or sees the reason he is not because of other people not liking him or being petty, etc.  Even the experience of experiencing the limitation will be different as men have multiple options of interpreting what the reason is.  Women will never interpret the experience of not having the Priesthood in such terms because their limitation is completely defined for them.  There is a very clear cut reason why women won't have the Priesthood experience, they never have to wonder about it.

 

So while we must not completely discount experiences based on the lack of sharing some aspect of it, inflating differences where commonality of experience actually exists, we must also just as clearly for effective communication recognize where things are different and yield to the other acknowledgement of a greater understanding of their group that shares that experience in a different way than the group one personally belongs to.  Just because we belong to a greater unity of the gospel faith doesn't mean we should ignore the implications of the smaller groups of gender, family, age, ethnicity, culture and a host of other 'groupings' that exist down to individuals.

Edited November 22, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

There is no way to respond to an appeal that men are like Jesus because of maleness.    Not to mention the question begging underlying it. 

I didn't read it that way, more of wondering how far women would take the limitation of maleness...but I don't get the reason for the comment if so as it seems not to follow from the discussion (is it logically wrong for a woman to point out that men may make mistakes with women even if as a woman she accepts that Jesus won't make mistakes, of course not as surely no man is claiming never to make a mistake simply because he is male like Jesus) so perhaps I am misreading it.  Maybe Ken and ERayR can clarify what they mean.  Perhaps they are implying one shouldn't assume there is a mistake or a meaningful lack of understanding in every case simply because one is male and the other female....if so, I agree with that as there is much of shared experience between the two groups so that understanding can and does exist quite a lot.  The question for me is if that meaningful but also limited understanding is enough to address the given need under discussion or if more understanding is needed than can be had and thus men must trust women's perception of their experience to be the best while in other cases women must trust men due to their greater access to the experience being examined.  I think one needs to be open to what is done right as much as what is done wrong and thoroughly accept the possibility that something is right if it belongs in the category of 'we don't know if it is right or wrong yet'.

Edited November 22, 2013 by calmoriah

[juliann]

I didn't read it that way, more of wondering how far women would take the limitation of maleness...but I don't get the reason for the comment if so as it seems not to follow from the discussion (is it logically wrong for a woman to point out that men may make mistakes with women even if as a woman she accepts that Jesus won't make mistakes, of course not as surely no man is claiming never to make a mistake simply because he is male like Jesus) so perhaps I am misreading it. 

There are presuppositions behind the need to pull out Jesus' maleness in arguments over gender.  That is why I think BB said

 

Since no other guy can say the same, trying to use Christ being a guy as an argument against the idea that guys can't know what it feels like to be a girl is silly.

 

Our insistence on picturing Gods as male, including the male only priesthood, does carry the risk of making maleness part of godness.  That comes out in statements like those that were made.

[Kenngo1969]

I didn't reply to your post because I didn't think you were being serious.

Obviously, it's impossible to compare Jesus to anyone else. He is male yes, but He also suffered the pains (emotional and physical) of every woman who would ever live, making him unique from any other male in mortality.

Since no other guy can say the same, trying to use Christ being a guy as an argument against the idea that guys can't know what it feels like to be a girl is silly.

See my post immediately above yours.  Thanks.

[Kenngo1969]

There is no way to respond to an appeal that men are like Jesus because of maleness.    Not to mention the question begging underlying it. 

You're attempting to respond to an argument I did not make.  See my post #250.  Thanks.

 

P.S.: I'm simply saying that Christ, despite His maleness, can still relate to womens' unique challenges.  I'm not comparing any earthly man to Jesus.  Thanks.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[juliann]

 

 

I've heard a lot of women focusing on never being able to be a bishop, seeing that as a limitation while the reality is that the vast majority of men won't be able to be bishop either in their lifetimes.  And women must if the communication about the topic is to work must recognize that most men get that feeling because they have the same expectation of their lives...at least as they grow older and time diminishes the chances of them holding that calling.  However, there is a difference in the experience of why that limitation exists---women will most likely define that limitation as resulting from the fact that they are women and thus their experience will be different than a man who may appeal to simple numbers and probability or define the limitation as a more personal thing as in 'I am not the Bishop type' for whatever reason or he may even be one who expects to be a bishop someday or sees the reason he is not because of other people not liking him or being petty, etc.  Even the experience of experiencing the limitation will be different as men have multiple options of interpreting what the reason is.  Women will never interpret the experience of not having the Priesthood in such terms because their limitation is completely defined for them.  There is a very clear cut reason why women won't have the Priesthood experience, they never have to wonder about it.

But isn't how many people have access to leadership positions irrelevant to the fact that who does is decided solely by one's gender not worthiness or capability?   I always replace church with business so the full import is more apparent.  I don't think anyone would argue that any woman should work in a company that did not allow women access to all positions.  We would, in fact, consider that appalling and instruct our daughters to stay away.   It took a long time for that to sink in for me.  If we are to defend the church, that is what we have to defend.  And I am at a loss as to how unless the church removes the limitations on women that don't even have anything to do with positions.

Edited November 23, 2013 by juliann

[Calm]

But isn't how many people have access to leadership positions irrelevant to the fact that who does is decided solely by one's gender not worthiness or capability?  

 

No disagreement, I am just saying one needs to be careful in what one uses as an example of the differences between men and women because some of them are not real gender differences so as not to exaggerate one's claims (especially since this is more likely to result in all the claims being dismissed rather than recognized)...such as the claim that the RS Pres can't change a conference talk lesson assigned to her as if a man who was in the position of Priesthood Quorum or Group leader could.  It is the auxilary position calling there that is making the difference between the Bishop and the RS Pres, not that it is a female calling.  And the fact that the RS has to have the Bishop's signature for a food order doesn't somehow make the fact that the Bishop is required to get the RS President to fill out the food order in the first place less important.  It would be inappropriate in my view to use either of these as circumstances to show how women are treated unequally in the Church.  On the other hand, there are plenty of other circumstances that are unequal, some meaningful, others not so much that we can and should use imo...though I might differ from some women in the discussion on why we should use them (for example I differ as many here do as well from the women in OW that we should use the differences to promote change that results in women getting the Priesthood).

 

The example of how many people have access to leadership position has been used at times as justiication for dimissing or at least diminishing women's concern in this area as in "while women may never be a bishop or Stake President, the vast majority of males in our Church never will be either so most men are in the same boat as women" which is of course right in the sense of never holding the position, but wrong in the reason for never holding the position or why one has the expectation of never holding the position.

 

Just as it is important to not ignore commonalities in favour of differences, we need to not ignore differences in favour  of commonalites.  We should try to be as realistic as possible, imo.  Benefit of the doubt should be given to people's motivations, but I don't think we should look at what is actually going on through rose colour glasses just because we are taught and hopefully practice "Love God" and "Love Your Neighbour" and "Follow the Commandments".

 

I think my priorities of change are to work to getting as much as possible to get everyone on the same page (though with the number of people involved that isn't going to happen completely) and then come up with acceptable to most changes based on that realistic view of the issue.  It is how I approach life in general when my problems involved other people and I supposed I should be honest about it and admit that it doesn't work too often as there are too many times the group involved has never progressed to a commonly enough held viewpoint where successful, worthwhile movement forward can be commenced.  But I prefer this slow, labourious way to other, sometimes more effective ways because I see long term negative fall out from them that doesn't happen otherwise...that is if it is not a job that can be accomplished by independent work, if it can, then just assign the jobs and let people accomplish it how they want....but I don't see that working when one's goal is about find a better way of defining and then teaching the role of a large group of women inside a larger group of humans inside the entire group of humanity.  

[rongo]

  If we are to defend the church, that is what we have to defend.  And I am at a loss as to how unless the church removes the limitations on women that don't even have anything to do with positions.

What other limitations are there that don't even have anything to do with positions? Do you mean like giving blessings and things like that?

[rongo]

. . . the claim that the RS Pres can't change a conference talk lesson assigned to her as if a man who was in the position of Priesthood Quorum or Group leader could.

 

I always asked my leaders what talks they would like to have as 4th Sunday lessons, and pretty much would go with anything that people felt strongly about (even primary or ym/yw leaders, who wouldn't actually have the lessons). Is it common for bishops to simply inform the ward which six talks there will be until next Conference? I'm not a big fan of the Conference talks as 4th Sunday lessons in general.

 

 And the fact that the RS has to have the Bishop's signature for a food order doesn't somehow make the fact that the Bishop is required to get the RS President to fill out the food order in the first place less important.

 

Bishops don't have to have the RS President fill out the food orders, although they are largely filled out by them. I often  went ahead and filled them out with people I was meeting with if they were going to get one, since I was already meeting with them about welfare issues, anyway. My past RS presidents have told me they *greatly* appreciated me doing this, because it helped lighten their loads. I even gave them a couple of pre-signed ones for emergencies, because I live far outside of 95% of the ward, and having to meet up to get my signature was often a huge complication (time and distance). This is a technical violation of Church policy, but I felt that it was appropriate given the circumstances and initiative of my calling. The interesting thing about this, as far as this discussion goes, is that they often needed to use these emergency ones, and they had the initiative to do so and inform me later. I completely trusted their judgment and discernment, and they always were worthy of this trust. It was a big lifting of a burden for them not to have to meet with them, fill it out, get my signature, and return and give them the form ---- although all some would care about was them acting on their initiative without the bishop's immediate oversight.

 

I do need to emphasize that the vast majority of food orders were done with either me signing it at the time, or getting my signature afterwards. But, my ward's geography sometimes necessitated that RS presidents be able to use judgment and discretion, and they always conferred "for ratification purposes only" (don't you love that particular Mormonism? )  when this happened.

[Jazzdreamer]

Here is the news article where Kate Kelly talks about OW's efforts to attend the priesthood session and shares their reasoning with the public.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56795670-180/women-says-church-kelly.html.csp

Note the part where she says-"Since the meeting is open to men who are "prospective elders," Kelly says, "were we permitted to attend, it would help church leaders see us as the prospective elders we believe ourselves to be."

If the church has no intentions of seeing these women as 'prospective elders', using this language does make it difficult for the church to acquiesce without encouraging people in a pursuit that the church doesn't support.

When saying that, she meant to show that as women we don't want the priesthood and then no responsibility-we understand that along with "great power" comes great responsibility. That it's how we view ourselves.

[Jazzdreamer]

But isn't how many people have access to leadership positions irrelevant to the fact that who does is decided solely by one's gender not worthiness or capability? I always replace church with business so the full import is more apparent. I don't think anyone would argue that any woman should work in a company that did not allow women access to all positions. We would, in fact, consider that appalling and instruct our daughters to stay away. It took a long time for that to sink in for me. If we are to defend the church, that is what we have to defend. And I am at a loss as to how unless the church removes the limitations on women that don't even have anything to do with positions.

Agreed on so many levels.

[juliann]

What other limitations are there that don't even have anything to do with positions? Do you mean like giving blessings and things like that?

 

So many small things that have just settled into the way things are....my biggest concern is the difference in the messages we give our YM and YW.   We need to remove the passiveness assigned to YW...as in they are to "receive" the blessings of the priesthood.  I really encourage you to examine the differences in Priesthood session talks to boys as compared to talks given to girls.  The boy talks are dynamic and go conquer the world, here are the keys.  All of their lives are examined, education, career, fatherhood, the power of their priesthood.  The girl talks are likely to be about how they look and motherhood, support the boys/men who get the cool stuff,  and how to receive blessings.  The worst example of this that I remember is the year that Elder Cook gave a good talk telling women to stop judging each other's lifestyle choices...but including an example of how he could tell the content of a girl's character by what was in her purse.  The priesthood talk to the boys that year made me want to stand up and cheer...I am saving that one for my grandson.  I have never seen anything like that for girls.  I am also hearing more and more and more accounts of questions girls are raising in Primary (one from my own daughter who didn't know how to answer a little girl's question as to why she couldn't get the priesthood).   Another I just read was from a woman whose children go to the father's Catholic church and are liking it better because "they can't do anything in your church" and they get to be altar girls in the father's church.  We haven't come to terms with that reality.

 

Things like more female conference speakers....who preach to everyone.  Opening up callings that don't require priesthood.  We have made good progress in putting men into the Primary.   Stop telling women they have something men don't...but then exclude them from equal participation in decisions.  Stop, stop, stop the motherhood=priesthood.  Equalize the emphasis of fatherhood to that of motherhood.  Stop the slavish overseeing of women by men.  It should be a matter of concensus rather than only a man can approve stuff (and giving the bishop final say is part of concensus, all groups have to have a final position).  Just reframing it while doing the same thing can make such a difference.

 

Allow women to stand in blessing circles.  It makes me cringe that they are excluded while boys are there holding microphones.  Create manuals for RS that include lessons on women.  Again, if women have so much to offer...why aren't we learning about them?  That is why the talks about how awesome we are ring hollow.   Emphasize education for girls at the same level it is for boys.  Letting girls just help pass the sacrament would let them feel they matter...it would also have the side benefit of making them wearing a similar uniform, the greatest lesson in modesty ever.  And oh, my gosh stop the dress right so boys can be protected from their thoughts garbage.  What a scary not empowering message to boys. 

 

I think just changing the way we talk about women would go a long, long way.   What happens when people (and leaders) dig their heels in and try to defend all of the status quo rather than making relatively minor change ups, is that the status quo is eroded.  There is no way to defend "you can't have the priesthood" without eroding the priesthood unless there is an admission that it is discriminatory.  Since most won't admit that, they are forced into giving reasons why the priesthood isn't important.  I'm seeing this in GC talks where excluding women is defended by telling them they can do the same thing through faithful prayer.  I also see it when men insist the priesthood doesn't give them personal blessings so why want it (when the benefit to the individual holding it is ubiquitous in all of our discourse).

 

Putting up defenses rather than admitting to discrimination just creates a new set of problems.  Not allowing women into the Priesthood session just means that they now need to exclude men from the RS session to escape the discrimination charge.  That there is so much defending and talking around the word discrimination is, in fact, an admission that we discriminate.  We then look either dishonest or stupid.  We would be on much stronger ground to begin with the obvious...we do discriminate on the basis of gender...and then explain why.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Amen, juliann. Excellent post. 

[juliann]

When saying that, she meant to show that as women we don't want the priesthood and then no responsibility-we understand that along with "great power" comes great responsibility. That it's how we view ourselves.

Jazz,  even I don't see any of that in what she actually said.  I'd like to...but I only see the confrontational aspect.  On the other hand,  there is no more demeaning way to speak of priesthood than to declare it isn't wanted because it will be too much work. 

[Calm]

When saying that, she meant to show that as women we don't want the priesthood and then no responsibility-we understand that along with "great power" comes great responsibility. That it's how we view ourselves.

Whatever she meant, it still means that if the Church let the OW women attend the Priesthood session, it would imply that anticipating that women would be getting the Priesthood in the way described by the OW was seen as inevitable and necessary not only by OW, but by the Church....because that was how OW wrote the script---this action equals this conclusion, since the Church disagreed with that conclusion, they couldn't act in that fashion without a huge amount of confusion occurring.

 

It would be counterproductive for them to have allowed the OW women to attend.  It would have given false hope imo as well as being very confusing to the media that OW brought in with their PR, etc.  Setting up false expectations in and outside of the Church is not a good thing in the long run even if it might have made people involved as well as bystanders feel better.

[bluebell]

 

You're attempting to respond to an argument I did not make.  See my post #250.  Thanks.

 

P.S.: I'm simply saying that Christ, despite His maleness, can still relate to womens' unique challenges.  I'm not comparing any earthly man to Jesus.  Thanks.

 

 

Why are you saying that though?  No one has argued against that premise, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what Tacenda said, which instigated your original post on the topic.

 

Bringing Christ into this conversation makes no sense, if that's all you are simply saying.   

[bluebell]

When saying that, she meant to show that as women we don't want the priesthood and then no responsibility-we understand that along with "great power" comes great responsibility. That it's how we view ourselves.

 

If that's what she meant, then she failed, because I don't know anyone who's not a part of OW who interpreted her words in that way.  And that failure likely caused the answer to be 'no' to getting into the Priesthood session when it otherwise might not have been.

 

This is a good example of why she is not always the best spokesperson for OW (nothing against her personally.  I'm sure she's a very nice and capable person). 

[CMZ]

"Video watching"? I always knew you were a little old school.

Kind of off-topic, but a DVD is still a video, even though it's not a videocassette.