Sister Stephens And Brother Andersen's Talks/women And The Priesthood

[Stone holm]

Was that different than how single men were treated though?  If they were not going to go on a mission, did they generally still get endowed before single women in the church?

 

Sincere question as I honestly have no idea.

 

Yes it was different, as I recall.  I don't think I dare try to explain why I think there was a difference without causing the thread to lock up.  I remember some discussion that I didn't pay much attention to about some Sister Missionaries having certain parts annulled when they went back through with their husbands, but can't really remember the name of it.  Used to be they made the single sisters wait until they were fairly old before they let them go through.  I think it was changed and liberalized sometime in the early 80's.  Cannot actually recall when, it wasn't something that I was particularly interested in -- except I remember a single sister who was a close friend of mine who kept grousing that she had to be almost certified non-marriageable before she got a full temple recommend and some took it as kind of a slap in the face.  I went through a short period of being single after my first wife died and I got a full dose of all the complaints that older single women had about how they were treated in the Church...some legitimate and some just whining.

[BlueDreams]

Yes it was different, as I recall.  I don't think I dare try to explain why I think there was a difference without causing the thread to lock up.  I remember some discussion that I didn't pay much attention to about some Sister Missionaries having certain parts annulled when they went back through with their husbands, but can't really remember the name of it. 

 

Do you meant the shorter ceremony before the actual sealing? If so, that still happens...though it's not an annulment. What do you mean by annulled?

 

So did single men get to go through at generally a younger age, even if they didn't serve a mission? I'm still a little confused on that part. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Wait a minute,  am I dreaming or do I hear it quoted that "80%" of men think women should have the priesthood?  Is there some other study or have the numbers been mixed up?  

 

It could be a different poll and and a mix up of numbers combined. I've heard some form of the idea that a large number of men believe women should have the priesthood. But doing a quick search online it looks like the surprising disparity in numbers is found in the book American Grace that surveyed a variety of faiths to get a landscape of religious though in the U.S. Mormon. It's 48% not 80%.

 

Here's a blog post that discusses this poll

 

 I wish I had access to the book and could look at the exact question/responses, but this was the best I could do. He mentions a number of possible reasons. Personally, though, I wonder if it has to do with wording differences. The pew poll was extremely specific in wording about priesthood ordination. The other mentioned female clergy with the underlying assumption that it would include priesthood. It could be that more men have a broader definition of what constitutes clergy than women....such seeing RS presidency as a form of clergy. it could simple point to less an approval of priesthood and the view of leadership roles in general that is leading to such divergent opinions about female clergy. 

 

But I'm just speculating...

With luv,

BD

[juliann]

Yeah,  BD....I'd want to see the wording.  I'd definitely go with Pew on this one.  I can't imagine any situation in which half of Mormon men think women should have the priesthood.  Most of all,  I don't think priesthood defines what most women do see as unequal, one doesn't have to want priesthood to want more equal treatment and consideration. 

[Stone holm]

Do you meant the shorter ceremony before the actual sealing? If so, that still happens...though it's not an annulment. What do you mean by annulled?

 

So did single men get to go through at generally a younger age, even if they didn't serve a mission? I'm still a little confused on that part. 

 

With luv,

BD

No, I am not sure what it was called, but I think it was different, again I didn't pay that much attention. Yes, the single men went through at a younger age. But remember, back then young women were not encouraged to go on full time missions, they were encouraged to find a husband and get married. I was verbally shutdown by other Bishops for even bringing up the idea of mini missions for the YW like the YM were serving during summer vacations because YW were not to be encouraged to serve full time missions. So a disproportionate number of single younger men already had gone through the Temple.

[BlueDreams]

No, I am not sure what it was called, but I think it was different, again I didn't pay that much attention. Yes, the single men went through at a younger age. But remember, back then young women were not encouraged to go on full time missions, they were encouraged to find a husband and get married. I was verbally shutdown by other Bishops for even bringing up the idea of mini missions for the YW like the YM were serving during summer vacations because YW were not to be encouraged to serve full time missions. So a disproportionate number of single younger men already had gone through the Temple.

 

Yes, that I get. That is similar to how it is/was before the change in age with missionaries now.....they gap may have become smaller, but there was still a gap. Basically much of what you mentioned still had connections to how it was up to 2 a year ago....though it had become less formidable to try and get endowed as a younger single woman than it was before. 

 

But I meant more along the line that if he didn't serve a mission would he have still likely been endowed at a younger age also. Or would it have been similar to his young single female counterparts who also didn't serve a mission. If so the type of discrimination changes from something overt (ie. blacks not being able to go to the temple) to something covert....where the discrimination wasn't one that was the inevitable event of a series of policies that simply effected women more than men. Instead of "no single women unless you're likely to never get married or you've gone on a mission" to "no single people unless they'll likely never marry or have gone on a mission"...and other policies/ideals at the time discouraged women on going on missions while promoting men to go.

 

It would lead to an age gap in general amount of endowments. Though back in the day, probably less so than it would now considering men and women also married younger as well, statistically speaking. 

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Ahab]

 

As a woman I have no desire to be put in the position of having someone confess their sins to me nor sit in judgment of a neighbor and friend. I have enough burdens of my own, I don’t want someone else’s to stew about at 3:00 am. 

 

Having the priesthood keys of authority maybe a blessing on some level but mostly it is a great burden. 

 

Women generally do their part of sharing another person's burden when they act as a good Mother, or a good wife, or a good friend.  The role model for all men everywhere who try to be as loving as a good woman usually just is by nature.

[Ahab]

Yes it is. I think the most important part of the talk was were he said that men and women have different roles. And men having the preisthood in the capacity that they do is part of their role. It is not for women to have. I don't know why women don't hold the preisthood but what I do know is that it is a man's role to hold it and that is not going to change.

The priesthood is the power/authority of our Father in heaven and Jesus Christ, who are both holy men, and they give their power/authority to other men so that those men can do what they do.  It i's thus the role of a man to have the priesthood/authority of other holy men so that a man can do what holy men do.

 

Holy women do things that harmonize with the role of holy men but holy women have their own role to fulfill as holy women.  Their role is not to copy what holy men do, but instead do what holy women do, and ultimately their role will be the same as the role of our holy Mother in heaven, rather than the role of our Father in heaven.

 

Imagine the home of a holy man and a holy woman in heaven, comparing it to the role of a holy man and a holy woman on Earth.  Their roles are not exact copies of the other, but their role are in harmony as men act as holy men and women act as holy women.

 

I don't know about your home but in my home my wife is the Queen of the castle.  She isn't the King, but she has a lot to do with what the King is and can do.  Kinda like the woman says in My Big Fat Greek Wedding:  Man may be the head of the house, but woman is the neck and can get that head to turn in whatever way that she wants.  Except that holy women act as holy women do withough trying to compete against her man but work together with him to accomplish their mutual goals.

[Calm]

as loving as a good woman usually just is by nature.

 

Apparently it is only the natural man that we have to be concerned about, the natural woman is something to be praised and emulated by the poor men who lack the advantage in life of being a woman.

Edited November 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[juliann]

 

I don't know about your home but in my home my wife is the Queen of the castle.  She isn't the King, but she has a lot to do with what the King is and can do.  Kinda like the woman says in My Big Fat Greek Wedding:  Man may be the head of the house, but woman is the neck and can get that head to turn in whatever way that she wants.  Except that holy women act as holy women do withough trying to compete against her man but work together with him to accomplish their mutual goals.

Nooooooooooooo   

[Stone holm]

Yes, that I get. That is similar to how it is/was before the change in age with missionaries now.....they gap may have become smaller, but there was still a gap. Basically much of what you mentioned still had connections to how it was up to 2 a year ago....though it had become less formidable to try and get endowed as a younger single woman than it was before. 

 

But I meant more along the line that if he didn't serve a mission would he have still likely been endowed at a younger age also. Or would it have been similar to his young single female counterparts who also didn't serve a mission. If so the type of discrimination changes from something overt (ie. blacks not being able to go to the temple) to something covert....where the discrimination wasn't one that was the inevitable event of a series of policies that simply effected women more than men. Instead of "no single women unless you're likely to never get married or you've gone on a mission" to "no single people unless they'll likely never marry or have gone on a mission"...and other policies/ideals at the time discouraged women on going on missions while promoting men to go.

 

It would lead to an age gap in general amount of endowments. Though back in the day, probably less so than it would now considering men and women also married younger as well, statistically speaking. 

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Yes young single men who hadn't gone on a mission could get their Temple recommends earlier. We are seeing a lot of this stuff fade away, in a generation they will look back and just shake their heads. But, I don't know how old you are, but the general American culture in which the Church operates has changed radically during my life time with respect to gender. When I was in high school there were no competitive sports for young women, they were required to take home economics, and banned from shop classes. In rural areas many parents discouraged their daughters from going to college. Women entering the workforce were seen as making it difficult for men to get jobs, unless they entered the female professions of secretarial work, nursing, or non-collegiate education. Unmarried women who were not widows were given unflattering labels such as old maids or spinsters. It was a different world. Female professional athletes were oddities.

[Calm]

Nooooooooooooo 

Admit it, Juliann, and quit pretending, might as well come out into the open about it now that it has been revealed....men are just women's puppets.  Good thing we are naturally good or the world would be a horrible place.

Edited November 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Admit it, Juliann, and quit pretending, might as well come out into the open about it now that it has been revealed....men are just women's puppets.  Good thing we are naturally good or the world would be a horrible place.

How does that song in My Fair Lady go..."Why can't women be more like..."

[Tacenda]

Women generally do their part of sharing another person's burden when they act as a good Mother, or a good wife, or a good friend. The role model for all men everywhere who try to be as loving as a good woman usually just is by nature.

I think men are sometimes more loving than women. I guess I see some ugliness by some women that doesn't seem to happen with men as often. Men need to quit putting themselves down as far as nuturing or carrying out callings in church, I just don't see it. Sorry if what I'm saying has nothing to do with your post, whatever you said sparked my reaction.

[rongo]

I think men are sometimes more loving than women. I guess I see some ugliness by some women that doesn't seem to happen with men as often. Men need to quit putting themselves down as far as nuturing or carrying out callings in church, I just don't see it. Sorry if what I'm saying has nothing to do with your post, whatever you said sparked my reaction.

This has been a major point brought up *by women* in private discussions my wife and I have had with friends over ordaining women. The women on my ward councils regularly brought up the horrors of having a woman bishop over a man bishop, *for women.* All women I have talked to in private conversations like this said that it would be much more difficult to confess and work through repentance, as a woman, with another woman. Why, specifically? I asked. Women are very competitive with each other, and feel judged or self-conscious and are constantly comparing themselves to other women, often in a distorted way.

 

As my wife puts it, "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." She insists that women-led wards would be super-efficient, no-nonsense entitities, with all of the life and joy sucked out of them.

 

Then, there are the "women's drama" issues that happen on missions, and would happen in women-led Church units (I know, I know, I can't generalize like that, but . . .). There are reasons the vast majority of women in the Church oppose women ordination. Most women don't want to be presided over *under priesthood auspices* by other women. They just don't.

 

In another thread a while ago, I had shared some responses from my wife and other women to the question of why they would refuse ordination if the Church offered it (we went out to eat after going to the temple with others from our current and past wards). My wife said that she treasures the connection to the priesthood she has *through me*, and would be devastated to no longer have that connection (even though she would ostensibly have a direct connection herself). calmoriah had responded that she thought most women in the Church would see it that way. One of my former young women's presidents, now in another ward, said that she would regard women ordination to be "pragmatic caving" on the part of the Church, and not God's will, and would not want it. She wouldn't leave the Church over it ---- but wouldn't want ordination, either. Yet another sister said that it would cause people to wonder why we didn't just do it back in the 1980s with Community of Christ, and we can see how awesome that has been for that church, and for women church leaders. It would make us look tossed to and fro with every wind of changing social dynamics, etc.

 

The vast majority of active women and girls in the Church feel this way, and it's another point that the Kate Kellys of the world won't consider: if women ordination somehow came into being, it would never become like young men ordination (near universal rite of passage, etc.). We would have small numbers of girls and women who really want it (but who really want access and chances to the leadership positions priesthood entails), but most would continue on as before. And this would create a whole new dynamic from within of minority "priesthood-esses" agitating for affirmative action (i.e., more "equitable" numbers of female EQP, bishops, stake presidents, GAs, etc.).

[Tacenda]

This has been a major point brought up *by women* in private discussions my wife and I have had with friends over ordaining women. The women on my ward councils regularly brought up the horrors of having a woman bishop over a man bishop, *for women.* All women I have talked to in private conversations like this said that it would be much more difficult to confess and work through repentance, as a woman, with another woman. Why, specifically? I asked. Women are very competitive with each other, and feel judged or self-conscious and are constantly comparing themselves to other women, often in a distorted way.

As my wife puts it, "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." She insists that women-led wards would be super-efficient, no-nonsense entitities, with all of the life and joy sucked out of them.

Then, there are the "women's drama" issues that happen on missions, and would happen in women-led Church units (I know, I know, I can't generalize like that, but . . .). There are reasons the vast majority of women in the Church oppose women ordination. Most women don't want to be presided over *under priesthood auspices* by other women. They just don't.

In another thread a while ago, I had shared some responses from my wife and other women to the question of why they would refuse ordination if the Church offered it (we went out to eat after going to the temple with others from our current and past wards). My wife said that she treasures the connection to the priesthood she has *through me*, and would be devastated to no longer have that connection (even though she would ostensibly have a direct connection herself). calmoriah had responded that she thought most women in the Church would see it that way. One of my former young women's presidents, now in another ward, said that she would regard women ordination to be "pragmatic caving" on the part of the Church, and not God's will, and would not want it. She wouldn't leave the Church over it ---- but wouldn't want ordination, either. Yet another sister said that it would cause people to wonder why we didn't just do it back in the 1980s with Community of Christ, and we can see how awesome that has been for that church, and for women church leaders. It would make us look tossed to and fro with every wind of changing social dynamics, etc.

The vast majority of active women and girls in the Church feel this way, and it's another point that the Kate Kellys of the world won't consider: if women ordination somehow came into being, it would never become like young men ordination (near universal rite of passage, etc.). We would have small numbers of girls and women who really want it (but who really want access and chances to the leadership positions priesthood entails), but most would continue on as before. And this would create a whole new dynamic from within of minority "priesthood-esses" agitating for affirmative action (i.e., more "equitable" numbers of female EQP, bishops, stake presidents, GAs, etc.).

I didn't mean that women shouldn't hold the Priesthood. It seems they could in the vein that other women are ordained in other churches I guess. But you're right it would change the dynamics of the church where usually all men receive it at 12. But definitely think there needs to be change. More control in issues dealing with women and children. And there are awesome men and women everywhere, just tired of men saying they can't nurture as well, it's just not true. They just might do it differently. And I've seen men come through with callings just as well as women. These were my main points. But please do listen to the OW's angst and see that they need to be heard, and hopefully the leadership find solutions. ETA: I'm sure there's ugliness in men also, I'm just not around enough of them I guess. And for those kidders out there, I didn't mean ugliness as in looks. Edited November 28, 2013 by Tacenda

[Deborah]

I have always preferred male bosses over female. For one thing the male bosses don't get as nit-picky and you can talk to them more directly without hurting feelings. I am very direct and I can't tell you how many women bosses are so sensitive that they dinged me for being direct. I need to ask how someone is doing, ect. before I get into the business we need to discuss. With a man I can just get to it. Yes there are exceptions to this. I honestly think that the Priesthood for women in the Celestial Kingdom will be much different than the structure of Priesthood here and I have no problem waiting for the higher version.

[rongo]

I have always preferred male bosses over female.

At a middle school I taught at, with a female principal and predominantly female teachers, I once commented to a co-worker, a staunch Calvinist, that we were living the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 3 (which is also in the Book of Mormon): "And my people, women rule over them, and children are their oppressors."

 

Serious question for those encouraging women ordination: does this prophetic passage in Isaiah/2nd Nephi have any bearing on this discussion? No relation at all? If it does, what is it?

[Stone holm]

At a middle school I taught at, with a female principal and predominantly female teachers, I once commented to a co-worker, a staunch Calvinist, that we were living the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 3 (which is also in the Book of Mormon): "And my people, women rule over them, and children are their oppressors."

 

Serious question for those encouraging women ordination: does this prophetic passage in Isaiah/2nd Nephi have any bearing on this discussion? No relation at all? If it does, what is it?

Oh my....

[Calm]

She insists that women-led wards would be super-efficient, no-nonsense entitities, with all of the life and joy sucked out of them.

 

I would think one need only look at RSs, YW and Primary organizations...all led by women....to see what a women-led ward would look like.

Edited November 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I. I am very direct and I can't tell you how many women bosses are so sensitive that they dinged me for being direct. I need to ask how someone is doing, ect. before I get into the business we need to discuss. With a man I can just get to it. .

And yet we have another posting claiming that a woman led ward would be super efficient, no nonsense to the point that it would have no life or joy.

[rongo]

It is a competing dynamic, the inter-female dynamics and what happens when a female (already self-conscious about being armchair-quarterbacked by other women, and sensitive to her performance being "judged") priesthood leader hits turbulence or resistance. The "joyless" part would kick in when people/organizations don't respond well or at all to the female bishop's vision or mandate. How would she react, and what would the aftermath be? "Ain't momma happy, ain't nobody happy."

[rongo]

I would think one need only look at RSs, YW and Primary organizations...all led by women....to see what a women-led ward would look like.

The key difference is that the women leading these organizations have "just" their organization to lead. They don't issue calls and releases and don't deal with major problems in their organizations (the major things fall upon the bishopric) ---- all while presiding and administering over all other organizations at the same time. In addition to repentance issues, welfare counseling, and all of the other things. I don't think one can simply look at women-led organizations in isolation "to see what a women-led ward would look like."

 

Not that many women aren't intrinsically capable of handling all these things well simultaneously, but *other women* would give them the hardest time in doing the "what they pay us the big bucks for" things. That is, women themselves would be the biggest impediment to women performing priesthood leadership functions over an entire ward.

 

 

A couple of examples: I once met for two hours with a very active member of our ward, a former RS president and primary president with an abrasive personality who had been offending a lot of sisters with her "brutal honesty." It had gotten so bad, I called her in to talk with her, and it became a call to repentance. It was awful, with her digging in and insisting that other women needed to stop being babies and having thin skins, etc. I felt like the entire meeting was a dismal failure, but the sister did markedly change immediately, being much more diplomatic and going out of her way to mend fences. The end result was positive, even though the prospects didn't look good. But, I don't know *any* women who would handle such a frank dressing down from another woman very well, given inter-female dynamics and concerns about perceptions and "what people are saying."

 

That same week, I needed to meet with one of our sharpest sisters and one of our young women about a developing inappropriate relationship. Not a sexual one, but inappropriate nonetheless. The sister has only boys and the girl (our sharpest and most on-the-ball young woman --- I taught her at the high school --- but one who lived with a guardian. Both parents had been excommunicated, and her mother is serving consecutive life sentences for serial murders. Not kidding.) had become the daughter she never had to her. She had her over daily to talk and do things with, and she (the adult) began acting increasingly like an immature teenager at young women's (she was an advisor). Although the girl was our leader among our young women, academically, spiritually, personality, etc., she started to exhibit reckless behavior and asking the adult to cover for her lies, which she did twice (she and her boyfriend went joyriding in her guardian's car, and they found themselves in a position they couldn't get the car out of. She called the adult, and she came and drove it home, no one the wiser). While this sounds like it involved just some crazy members, both of these ladies were the absolute cream of our ward ---- not "crackpots" at all. I met with them separately, and they were extremely embarrassing and awkward for both of them ---- mainly because they of course knew that things had gotten imperceptibly out of control. I released the adult and called her into primary (she didn't want this, but it was necessary and better for her to be away from young women's at the time), and had the 17 year-old (a senior) begin attending RS. Part of what made this so harrowing for both of them was that what had developed and happened didn't happen to people like them ---- that was for insecure, flighty, silly people. It was a very tough pill to swallow to be asked to confront it by someone else. The thing is that the extremely awkward and humiliating discussions would have been compounded 1000x by being confronted by and counseling with a woman.

 

The bottom line is that there are times when a bishop has to make an (in some quarters unpopular) executive decision, and the ward or people follow it even when they disagree. There are whole degrees of emotional, ego, self-consciousness, competition, etc. complications when a woman stands in this role among a mixed congregation.

Edited November 28, 2013 by rongo

[rongo]

 The sister has only boys and the girl . . . had become the daughter she never had to her. She had her over daily to talk and do things with, and she (the adult) began acting increasingly like an immature teenager at young women's (she was an advisor).

I just remembered that after the dust had settled on all this, and the girl went to Portland for college, we had some pictures in the hallway of the ward Halloween party. One of the pictures was the sister and the young woman in coordinated, matching costumes. The sister quietly took it down ---- she didn't want reminders of any of that (or probably anyone else to remember).

[Calm]

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is anecdotal.