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

[rongo]

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is anecdotal.

That's true, but people's own anecdotal evidence is convincing *to them,* and when this piles up into collective "impressions" and perceptions in a large group, it carries weight among that group. There are very good reasons, borne of experience, why Mormon women overwhelmingly do not believe they should be ordained to the priesthood and hold priesthood leadership callings. That a few Kate Kellys exist to beg to differ doesn't negate the overwhelming experience and anecdotal evidence of the vast majority of the other women.

[rongo]

Oh my....

That doesn't answer the serious question.

 

What, exactly, does it mean when Isaiah prophesied "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths?" Is this just a misogynistic rant from ca. 700 B.C., with no relevance to today? Does it have any bearing on the question of whether women should have ordained priesthood and priesthood leadership roles?

[Calm]

There were 'very good reasons' why many LDS believed that the blacks weren't being given the priesthood, many reasons why many LDS believed plural marriage was undertaken, many reasons given for a host of commandments...reasons not provided by God, but by men.

 

Sometimes we learned those reasons were actually wrong.

 

Perhaps it is better not to speculate on the reasons and simply accept that this is the way the Lord currently wants things done and that if he wants things changed that he will reveal it through his Prophet rather than risking putting words into the Lord's mouth and them being wrong.

Edited November 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

That doesn't answer the serious question.

 

What, exactly, does it mean when Isaiah prophesied "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths?" Is this just a misogynistic rant from ca. 700 B.C., with no relevance to today? Does it have any bearing on the question of whether women should have ordained priesthood and priesthood leadership roles?

Was just contemplating where one might go with a quote like that...

[Calm]

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."

 

Right, better to just ignore the closest thing we have to it and guess how women in general would handle it...and apparently assume that they couldn't.  

 

Honestly, it just seems ridiculous to me this reasoning.  How are men usually chosen to be bishops?  Do leaders completely ignore their experiences as quorum and group leaders where there is no issuing of calls or releases and none of the types of problems that bishoprics handle?

Edited November 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[BlueDreams]

That's true, but people's own anecdotal evidence is convincing *to them,* and when this piles up into collective "impressions" and perceptions in a large group, it carries weight among that group. There are very good reasons, borne of experience, why Mormon women overwhelmingly do not believe they should be ordained to the priesthood and hold priesthood leadership callings. That a few Kate Kellys exist to beg to differ doesn't negate the overwhelming experience and anecdotal evidence of the vast majority of the other women.

 

No. Anecdotal evidence builds up stereotype, which is what I see from the long list of "impressions" and perceptions in a large group. There are reasons why Mormon women do not believe they should be ordained to the priesthood. But the litany of ones you've given have got to be among the worse. It ignores every good leader, every astounding example of spiritual powerhouse women, every non-dramatic moment, or the fact that just as there's things women may have discomfort speaking to women about there are just as many if not more that they don't feel comfortable talking to men about. Or what female leadership and egalitarian roles have correlated with in larger societies (greater prosperity/stability). It is looking at every female stereotype (even when they conflict) into some crazy montage of what female leadership would look like....when most examples that we have, in and outside the church, doesn't really fit that caricature (unless, of course, we look for it).  It makes it no better whether the reasons come from men or women in why they wouldn't want it. It's only more depressing when I think that women have internalized this perspective of how (in)effective they could be as leaders in their communities. 

 

But I'll go with the one I have the most inside experience with: the "women's drama" on mission. It's not just a generalization, it's a stereotype that's annoying and false.

A.) when there is drama it is more noted and becomes a caricature for female missionaries because it already fits into stereotypes, are being address by young boys....often as their first introduction into the lives of girls in the first place, and lastly (esp pre age-change) there were so few sisters out there.

B.) When elders had issues they had a series of support structure to help take the edge off of it. Sisters did not. When I served, I was the only sister in my zone for 6 months. It specifically states that sisters couldn't share more difficult issues with the elders, including out DL's/ZL's. It's very isolating. All you have is your companion to work things out with. 

C.) And despite the "drama" and the "issues" that sisters brought, with few exceptions members loved us! We got the work done. We often worked with people with very difficult emotional baggage. There wasn't much difference at the end of the day to how effective men or women were in doing the work of the Lord. You do the work by bringing the spirit. 

 

Women would bring a different perspective in charge of the wards. There would be differing challenges and concerns I'm sure. But there would also be an equal amount of potential good to it as well. All your lists suggests to me is that by women's "intrinsic" nature, they would somehow be intrinsically poorer leaders of both men and women in the church (and possibly outside it). And yet my true intrinsic nature calls me to lead. So worrying about the shortcomings or some mythical intrinsic nature of women bringing about ineffective leadership is just not cutting anything for me. It tells me more of how far we need to go as a people/women to see ourselves as we truly are than it does about how well women would be in servings in priesthood leadership callings.

 

With luv,

BD  

Edited November 29, 2013 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

That doesn't answer the serious question.

 

What, exactly, does it mean when Isaiah prophesied "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths?" Is this just a misogynistic rant from ca. 700 B.C., with no relevance to today? Does it have any bearing on the question of whether women should have ordained priesthood and priesthood leadership roles?

 

A general rule of mine is that I don't take gender role ideas 2000-3000 yrs in the past in a society with strict gendered hierarchy as excessively pertinent to how I view things going today. More specific to this quote, I take this as about as literal as believing that the 7 brides taking one groom literal....or when it talks about kings and queens raising them, that the queen of england will be personally nursing israel, etc. It's means to indicate the utter disruption of the fundamentals to society. It in no means indicates that children will literally oppress them and that women ruling over them is a sign of pending doom. Or that women and children are equivalent in comparison to leading a people. And I sincerely don't see it having any connection to the question of ordination. And lesser still to a female principle/female teachers in a middle school.

 

with luv,

BD

Edited November 29, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

I have to say that the idea that keeps hitting me reading about all these presumed negatives for those that have such great concerns about women being bishops and other leaders, especially with the idea that somehow woman leaders would suck the life and joy out of anything is why in the world do you let any woman within ten feet of a child?

If a woman can't handle callings and releasings, making welfare assessments and counselling, etc, if we need to protect other women from having female leaders, then how can she manage a home, counsel her children and husband, etc.?

[Calm]

I am not at all surprised when I hear women say their worst bosses were women.or hear men say the same thing. I've also heard women say they like working for a woman better, I've heard men say their best boss was a woman. And I've heard many say their experience was a mixed bag. It makes sense given the majority of studies find only small differences (and generally positive when they do) or no differences between the quality of male and female leaders in the workplace. One should expect given the number of people in the workforce, all types of experiences will be found.

Those studies that have found women to be superior leaders/bosses haven't been able to control for the current reality that generally speaking in our culture women have had to try harder or at least had the perception that they have to try harder in order to compete with men, so it is possible that if men worked as hard as the women in those studies, it would balance out and it is not some inherently different leadership style that makes women better leaders generally.

Edited November 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"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"

I don't remember suggesting that women would be devestated if they possessed the Priesthood as well as their husbands, I see it as likely they treasure that part of their relationship, that it draws them together as it does me and my husband and it is likely in my view that many would prefer not to have to try and find a replacement for that special connection...but I have no doubt that with some thought and effort and prayer, couples could and do find additional ways to get deep meaningful connections, just as a father and son can bond over sharing the Priesthood instead of looking on it as some sort of competition. I myself would not in the least wise be devestated to receive the Priesthood even though I currently have no desire for it nor do I believe that women will receive an identical Priesthood, instead I believe there is a Priestesshood waiting for the appropriate time.

I don't personally see how getting the Priesthood would necessarily change that connection either, does a son suddenly feel he doesn't need his dad to function in Priesthood ways for him once he receives the Priesthood himself or does it rather add a layer to the relationship while leaving all bonds intact?

Edited November 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

A general rule of mine is that I don't take gender role ideas 2000-3000 yrs in the past in a society with strict gendered hierarchy as excessively pertinent to how I view things going today. More specific to this quote, I take this as about as literal as believing that the 7 brides taking one groom literal....or when it talks about kings and queens raising them, that the queen of england will be personally nursing israel, etc. It's means to indicate the utter disruption of the fundamentals to society. It in no means indicates that children will literally oppress them and that women ruling over them is a sign of pending doom. Or that women and children are equivalent in comparison to leading a people. And I sincerely don't see it having any connection to the question of ordination. And lesser still to a female principle/female teachers in a middle school.

 

with luv,

BD

Ah but this is such a fun quote to throw in the face of those pesky feminists, now where is the remote, I don't want to miss the football game.

[bluebell]

I have to say that the idea that keeps hitting me reading about all these presumed negatives for those that have such great concerns about women being bishops and other leaders, especially with the idea that somehow woman leaders would suck the life and joy out of anything is why in the world do you let any woman within ten feet of a child?

If a woman can't handle callings and releasings, making welfare assessments and counselling, etc, if we need to protect other women from having female leaders, then how can she manage a home, counsel her children and husband, etc.?

Excellent point Cal.

It's frightening that anyone, male or female, thinks so little of women.

[juliann]

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."

Oh. My. Gosh.   And we wonder why women are starting orgs like OW.  

 

How very sad you have such low opinions of women.

[juliann]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I'm always interested in the back up plan after the first one is a major fail.  Now it is those competitive, emotionally incompetent women keeping those self-conscious, fearful women back. 

 

Rongo, does it never occur to you that anyone reading your accounts of private conversations on a public message board could identify themselves or neighbors?   Or that they might now be aware of your breathtakingly low judgment of women's feelings, capabilities and ability to act like adults?

[Stone holm]

Excellent point Cal.

It's frightening that anyone, male or female, thinks so little of women.

Well but what did you expect with those polls about LDS women not wanting the Priesthood?

[juliann]

Well but what did you expect with those polls about LDS women not wanting the Priesthood?

It does make me wonder if the anecdotal reactions we see here showing a correlation between the desire to withhold priesthood and a low opinion of women in general.   I would really like to see a study on men that measures how they rate women on the attributes we have seen denigrated...and then asks if they should have the priesthood.  Are there specific attributes that are associated with priesthood, i.e., women are ineffective leaders,  women can't get along with each other, etc, ....or is it just overall respect for women (aside from traditional how they support men stuff) ?

[juliann]

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.

It would never even occur to me to assign business interactions by gender unless the person in question was behaving in an overtly sexist manner.     

[bluebell]

Well but what did you expect with those polls about LDS women not wanting the Priesthood?

I expect better.

I don't want the priesthood, and it has nothing to do with me thinking women wouldn't be able to handle it.

[Calm]

I expect better.

I don't want the priesthood, and it has nothing to do with me thinking women wouldn't be able to handle it.

I admit it really makes me wonder when people have to take it farther than either 'this is the way things are right now' or even 'women don't generally want it right now'. Why the need to start speculating...especially when we have seen where speculation takes us in the past and the huge effort the Church has put into removing speculations across the board in our faith and teachings.

[juliann]

I have to say that the idea that keeps hitting me reading about all these presumed negatives for those that have such great concerns about women being bishops and other leaders, especially with the idea that somehow woman leaders would suck the life and joy out of anything is why in the world do you let any woman within ten feet of a child?

If a woman can't handle callings and releasings, making welfare assessments and counselling, etc, if we need to protect other women from having female leaders, then how can she manage a home, counsel her children and husband, etc.?

It really is a puzzle when women are told they are the nurturers by nature,  have "moral authority"....it would seem those who are deriding women's abilities are going against direct counsel from the Brethren.  I find it stunning that anyone would tolerate anyone saying they would have a hissy fit if women got the priesthood...if there is a revelation these people will be defying revelation as well.

[Stone holm]

I expect better.

I don't want the priesthood, and it has nothing to do with me thinking women wouldn't be able to handle it.

So long as women are willing to abide those attitudes, they are going to be served up the same stuff. Expect what you want, but until they stand up for different treatment...well they will get this as a regular menu item...now where are my slippers...

[Calm]

One can "stand up for different treatment" without adding "require the Priesthood" to the mix.

[Bernard Gui]

 Men and women are just different. Period.

Vive le difference!

[Bernard Gui]

When African Americans weren't allowed the priesthood they also couldn't go to the temple. Women not having the priesthood conferred upon them does not keep them from going to the temple.

Hmmmm. I seem to remember African American members could do baptisms for the dead....

[Stone holm]

One can "stand up for different treatment" without adding "require the Priesthood" to the mix.

Really? You don't want to have authority from God because that isn't your role, but you expect that some men won't take that as a sign that you are not capable of properly wielding authority? Interesting, naive, but interesting.