Women At The Priesthood Session...again?

[Buckeye]

He's saying if the women ran everything the men would have nothing to do and idle hands would send us to hell.

 

So female ordination also entails denying men ordination?  All I've heard from these sisters is that they want the priesthood also.  Nothing about denying men the priesthood.

 

We actually have a good track record of including women in new areas and still keeping men's participation.  Men still say prayers, go on missions, get education, etc.  Why do we think it will be any different with priesthood ordination?  Seems like there is way more work than hands, regardless of the gender of the hands. 

 

Edited for grammer. 

Edited March 10, 2014 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

So, fundamentally, you think women haven't been ordained to the priesthood because the man doesn't think they are competent and men are do-nothings?  Yeah, I'll vote for you for being all-knowing and having it all figured out.  

 

No, actually quite the opposite.  I appreciate your vote, though. 

[David T]

There are some interesting ordinance-related precedents in the Church that could theoretically allow women to participate in saving ordinances without ordination proper. Just as set apart female Temple Workers perform the ordinances of the initiatories 'under proper authority', as well as personally present key parts of the Endowment to patrons through the keys of the Temple President.

 

It should then theoretically, then, be possible for set apart Sister Missionaries (at the least) to be authorized to perform saving ordinances such as Baptism through the keys of their Mission President.

 

The argument, 'well, that's how it practically HAS to be for initiatories' doesn't really work, because it shows the ability of women to perform what are seen as saving/exalting ordinances is not apparently seen as a problem by the Lord. 

 

The role of a Deacon is passing the Sacrament is not set out in scripture as a Priesthood-officer-only repsonsibility, as can be seen by the trays being practically passed by the men and women in the congregation down the rows.

 

Up until shortly after the middle of the Twentieth Century, women were understood to be able to perform healing blessings as part of exercising the spiritual gift of healing, by virtue and authority of their Baptism and Confirmation.

 

While none of these would involve the bestowal of keys (one of the , well, 'key issues' when it comes to the idea of equality, and the ability to lead and preside in the Church), it shows that there are ways already present, without a need to have a revelation changing Doctrine within the Church, to allow for more participation of women in physically exercising and participating in what are seen as Priesthood Ordinances.

 

I don't think there's much of a chance of new revelation or doctrinal shifts coming until all of the arenas currently doctrinally permitted, but culturally prohibited, have been explored and taken advantage of.

Edited March 10, 2014 by David T

[Damien the Leper]

I think that there should be no men at the General Women's Meeting and that the General Relief Society Presidency should preside and conduct. Likewise, I agree with DavidT. Rename it the General Men's meeting and no women are to be there either.

[Buckeye]

I think that there should be no men at the General Women's Meeting and that the General Relief Society Presidency should preside and conduct. Likewise, I agree with DavidT. Rename it the General Men's meeting and no women are to be there either.

 

Why would the RS President preside?  Her position is co-equal with the other female presidents (YW and Primary) who were all called by the same male, priesthood holder, the President of the Church.

[juliann]

Many of the comments here explain why we have such a bad reputation when it comes to how women are treated. You cannot claim women are respected on one hand and then demean them on the other. 

 

I also see no recognition that men can attend the women's meetings which does make a considerable difference in the debate. I think changing the title to men rather than priesthood would completely resolve this...and then keeping men out of the women's meetings as well.  It is not wrong or bad how it is, but it should be of great concern that there is such astounding inability to at least recognize why the unequal treatment does present an unfortunate image today.  It should also be acknowledged that men participate in the sit-ins, too.

 

I suspect they will continue to do this as long as they get media coverage. From what I can see, that is the angle they are going to work. I see little evidence that they are trying to reach the rank and file. Words are critical and the vocabulary they use is alien to Mormonism. Thus, I take issue with the methods but that doesn't have to mean belittling women or denying the problem that feeds this. I have been shocked by many things Kelly has said, I don't know if it is intentional, but she repeatedly dlsmisses or even demonizes other feminists.  She even sort of backhanded the Pants Day event, which was predated OW. I'm almost getting the impression that she doesn't want any competition.  That again is where I find fault, not with the women who are asking for more participation and visibility within the church.

 

Also, just as I see in those who denounce women, they demand that words take on new meaning. Where one side wants inequality to mean something it doesn't, OW wants protest to take on a different meaning...that doesn't include this event. Now that they can no longer claim they didn't know they wouldn't be let in, this is a protest and nothing more. It will be very interesting to see numbers. From what I can see, this is becoming convention like, it is just plain fun to get together and that alone can solidify a yearly event. They are also funding some plane fares.

[Damien the Leper]

Why would the RS President preside?  Her position is co-equal with the other female presidents (YW and Primary) who were all called by the same male, priesthood holder, the President of the Church.

 

I was thinking in terms of womens groups as a progression. RS is the last step for women in the church as they can go to no other higher quorum.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm curious whether anyone here would view the OW movement in a better light if these sisters chose to sit out this (or future) Priesthood Sessions.  My guess is that if they chose not to show up, we would see posts discussing how the sisters were (i) not really serious, (ii) came to their senses, or (iii) were resigned to failure just like all of satan's minions.  So I don't really see much point to this post.

 

For what it's worth, I'm with David T as far as the end-game.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the Priesthood Session renamed "Men's Session," but substantively remain the same.  Perhaps it would also be open to 8 year olds, but the talks would still pertain to priesthood issues.

 

Such a change would be symptomatic of many recent changes that have led to increased women's participation; namely, if women are not given the priesthood, and if women's roles expand, then the sphere of influence for the priesthood will necessarily diminish.  A few examples:  (i) when women were allowed to pray in sacrament meetings, it meant that those were not merely "priesthood meetings" as some had believed, (ii) when women were allowed to serve missions, it meant that missionary service was not just a priesthood function, as Joseph and others had believed, (iii) when women were allowed to give blessings, it meant that such ordinances were not only a priesthood rite, as many now believe.  I believe that, absent female ordination, we will see this trend continue.  Women's roles will expand because women are competent, have increasingly available time, and because men don't step up to the plate enough.  As women's roles expand, the uniqueness and necessity of the priesthood will coorespondingly diminsh. 

My hunch is that there is a substantial portion of women in the Church who want to see neither their roles expand beyond what they already are nor priesthood diminish. I heard an incident related the other day. The wife of someone at Church headquarters, upon hearing that women will now be called upon to say prayers at general conference, phoned her husband and, in a disgruntled tone, exclaimed, "Do they expect us to do everything?"

[Damien the Leper]

Many of the comments here explain why we have such a bad reputation when it comes to how women are treated. You cannot claim women are respected on one hand and then demean them on the other. 

 

I also see no recognition that men can attend the women's meetings which does make a considerable difference in the debate. I think changing the title to men rather than priesthood would completely resolve this...and then keeping men out of the women's meetings as well.  It is not wrong or bad how it is, but it should be of great concern that there is such astounding inability to at least recognize why the unequal treatment does present an unfortunate image today.  It should also be acknowledged that men participate in the sit-ins, too.

 

I suspect they will continue to do this as long as they get media coverage. From what I can see, that is the angle they are going to work. I see little evidence that they are trying to reach the rank and file. Words are critical and the vocabulary they use is alien to Mormonism. Thus, I take issue with the methods but that doesn't have to mean belittling women or denying the problem that feeds this. I have been shocked by many things Kelly has said, I don't know if it is intentional, but she repeatedly dlsmisses or even demonizes other feminists.  She even sort of backhanded the Pants Day event, which was predated OW. I'm almost getting the impression that she doesn't want any competition.  That again is where I find fault, not with the women who are asking for more participation and visibility within the church.

 

Also, just as I see in those who denounce women, they demand that words take on new meaning. Where one side wants inequality to mean something it doesn't, OW wants protest to take on a different meaning...that doesn't include this event. Now that they can no longer claim they didn't know they wouldn't be let in, this is a protest and nothing more. It will be very interesting to see numbers. From what I can see, this is becoming convention like, it is just plain fun to get together and that alone can solidify a yearly event. They are also funding some plane fares.

 

You are so much better at saying things than I am.

[Calm]

I find it very unfortunate when women don't recognise the huge amount of work that men do voluntarily in the faith.

That anyone would really believe that the men would be turning down the hard callings or not getting any in the first place is astounding to me. It is a strange sort of arrogance and patronising of the men.

[juliann]

Keep up the flattery, V!   I have long said that if you talk to a Mormon woman for over ten minutes, the discontent will burble up. Even the NYT reported internal church data that showed "streaks" of discontent. I suspect those are pretty big streaks.That would be why they are making changes, not OW.

 

I had a good example of how this works when talking about the NYT article with someone I visit teach. The disconnect is with the priesthood grab, that is the perception the OW has created (another of my beefs with it.)  As soon as anyone hears feminist or priesthood, the thinking stops. The shoulders go back and the nose goes up in disgust. But as I explained to her the underlying problems that so many, many women are now reacting to...something very interesting happened. As I brought it back to what we experience just at the local level there was the biggest "OH!" reaction I have seen.  Her eyes widened, she almost shot up.  At that level, she totally recognized the discontent because she, like almost all of us, can identify with it at that level. As a minor example, the GD teacher was asking for the women's opinion of the Sarah/Hagar story. His wife had given him an ear full. This insistence on listening from a solely female perspective was a first in my experience. I turned it into a discussion of Hagar's experience and how unfortunate it was that she was overlooked considering her direct interactions with God...and how we couldn't afford to lose one female role model in scripture because there were so few. A few women's heads were nodding furiously. And then the men jumped in to bring it back to the truth of the matter (the teacher had had to shut a couple down just to get the women to talk). One even said with obvious petulance that he just didn't understand the women's perspective. So the women who did speak were "corrected" by men. This is life in the church, we are so used to it, most aren't even aware of it anymore.

 

This is where I see almost no understanding by those who simply swat this away with a wave of a hand and "well, my wife/sister/mother says..."  But there is no discernible attempt to bring the discussion to the level of recognition...it is safely kept at the level where there will be almost unanimous agreement, "those feminists are bad".  But beyond this is a meaningful discussion of why these streaks of discontent matter so very much, just because it hasn't been put into words does not mean that women are not experiencing it.  This moves into such areas as the lack of women role models, having to read ourselves into all the male scripture, the frustration of dealing with men who can be so very insulting because they have never had to think of women in terms of an equal in church matters.  Perpetuating the lack of awareness with the my way or the highway approach is why OW is such a major fail in reaching the population the church will continue to respond to.

[Buckeye]

I was thinking in terms of womens groups as a progression. RS is the last step for women in the church as they can go to no other higher quorum.

 

My understanding is that RS, YM, and Primary are all viewed as equal roles.  Each is part of the ward council.  It is not a "progression" to move from YW to RS or a demotion to go from RS to Primary.  In fact, if people were truly given the option, I think most members (women and men) would consider Primary to be the highest group to be assigned to.

 

More to the point, there still exists in the church the notion that there is one presiding authority in any meeting.  That authority is generally the last speaker and has the responsibility to correct any prior speakers.  That is a primary reason why a member of the FP attends the Women's Meeting.  And speaks last.  His role is to correct anything the women say in error.  That's why it would be difficult to have only women leaders at the meeting.  Since it's a "women's meeting," either none or all of them would have equal claim to preside.  I guess the best work-around would be if the Prophet appointed one of them to be the presiding authority at the meeting. 

 

The extreme version of this is found in a Primary 11-year old class.  It is not uncommon for a boy to turn 12, be ordained a deacon, begin attending deacon's quorum third hour, but for the remainder of the calendar year continuing attending the primary class during the second hour.  Scripturally speaking, when that boy attends primary, he is the presiding authority over his teacher and even over the primary president.  Culturally speaking, no one adheres to this.  But it does give weight to the feeling some women express that they are viewed as lesser to children.  It's important to note that, when the church was initially organized, and the roles of deacons, teachers, etc. created, it was expected that only men would hold those positions, not boys.

 

Edit for clarity.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

My hunch is that there is a substantial portion of women in the Church who want to see neither their roles expand beyond what they already are nor priesthood diminish. I heard an incident related the other day. The wife of someone at Church headquarters, upon hearing that women will now be called upon to say prayers at general conference, phoned her husband and, in a disgruntled tone, exclaimed, "Do they expect us to do everything?"

 

I completely agree.  For most members, especially women, the burdens of personally holding the priesthood outweigh the blessings.  It's just easier to free-ride off of others' efforts.  The priesthood is a net-negative for the average member.  That's why we have to teach "duty" so much.  Very few take to priesthood service out of love. 

[Calm]

I disagree. The NYT described Pres Burton as the senior female leader and as I though about, I agreed if she mirrors the RS leader. The RS leader works most closely with the bishop in many matters. Her stewardship overlaps into other aux. she had stewardship over leaders in the othe aux. where they don't have it in hers.

[Calm]

I completely agree.  For most members, especially women, the burdens of personally holding the priesthood outweigh the blessings.  It's just easier to free-ride off of others' efforts.  The priesthood is a net-negative for the average member.  That's why we have to teach "duty" so much.  Very few take to priesthood service out of love.

Are you serious?

[cdowis]

 I do hope Sister Kelly wears something less garish than that yellow jacket (crossing guard uniform?) she showed up in last conference.

 

 

I guess you are unfamiliar with the YM program..  Each "Value" has a colour, and yellow represents.... something.  At the last conference, the organist wore a yellow jacket with the YM choir.

 

A few years ago we had a sister speak at our stake priesthood meeting, so don't be shocked if the same thing happens at the general Phd Meeting.  Why not?

Edited March 10, 2014 by cdowis

[juliann]

 

 More to the point, there still exists in the church the notion that there is one presiding authority in any meeting.  That authority is generally the last speaker and has the responsibility to correct any prior speakers.  That is a primary reason why a member of the FP attends the Women's Meeting.  And speaks last.  His role is to correct anything the women say in error.  That's why it would be difficult to have only women leaders at the meeting.  Since it's a "women's meeting," either none or all of them would have equal claim to preside.  I guess the best work-around would be if the Prophet appointed one of them to be the presiding authority at the meeting. 

 

 

They don't correct speakers in General Conference. Ever. Corrections are made in the printed version.  Although I see the reasoning behind current practice, it does not ennoble women.  What this boils down to is that women can't be trusted.  No matter how scripturally literate, downright brilliant  a woman is...she can outshine any priesthood holder on the planet...she has to be watched.  Now, anyone would of course want to be in the company of the prophet or apostles. But only for that reason. One of the greatest misuses of priesthood, IMO, is that it magically grants someone knowledge and wisdom they have not acquired on their own.

Edited March 10, 2014 by juliann

[juliann]

I completely agree.  For most members, especially women, the burdens of personally holding the priesthood outweigh the blessings.  It's just easier to free-ride off of others' efforts.  The priesthood is a net-negative for the average member.  That's why we have to teach "duty" so much.  Very few take to priesthood service out of love. 

No. You didn't just say that.

[Buckeye]

I disagree. The NYT described Pres Burton as the senior female leader and as I though about, I agreed if she mirrors the RS leader. The RS leader works most closely with the bishop in many matters. Her stewardship overlaps into other aux. she had stewardship over leaders in the othe aux. where they don't have it in hers.

 

That statement is also in the newroom article, but I can't find any support for it. 

 

In what way does the RS President have authority over the YW or Primary Presidents?  They don't report to her.  They are not called or released by her.  If the RS President disagrees with something going on in YW or Primary, she has no ability to correct it other than to complain to the Bishop.  Within the Ward Council, they are all equals.  Yes, the Bishop works directed with the RS for welfare and other matters pertaining to the RS.  But he (or his counselors) do likewise with the YW and Primary. 

 

More to the point, having a "highest" authority suggests some sort of heirarchy.  The only heirarchy in the church proper comes through the priesthood.  That's why YM, YW, and the other organizations are called auxiliaries.  They are not part of the governing structure of the church.  They are temporary side-elements. 

 

Perhaps this is changing.  I welcome more involvement and authority for women.  But as I said earlier, if women's roles expand without their receiving the priesthood, it will necessarily mean that priesthood's role is diminished. 

 

Edit for grammer.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

They don't correct speakers in General Conference. Ever. Corrections are made in the printed version.  Although I see the reasoning behind current practice, it does not ennoble women.  What this boils down to is that women can't be trusted.  No matter how scripturally literate, downright brilliant  a woman is...she can outshine any priesthood holder on the planet...she has to be watched.  Now, anyone would of course want to be in the company of the prophet or apostles. But only for that reason. One of the greatest misuses of priesthood, IMO, is that it magically grants someone knowledge and wisdom they have not acquired on their own.

 

Not recently, but they have every right to.  Have you ever read general conference addresses from the 1800s?  Today, bishops and stake presidents are counseled, when they are called, that it it is their responsibility to ensure that doctrine is taught properly.  That's why they speak last.  As the saying goes, "when they speak, the meeting is over."  All of the bishops and stake presidents I've spoken with about this responsibility agree that it is not one they enjoy, and they use it rarely, but it is their job.  That's how correlation works.  It's also why hometeachers have a fundamentally different role than visiting teachers.  Their job to help correlate the members' homes.  Visiting teaching doesn't have that responsibility.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that this sits well with me.  I'm just explaining how the church is organized and the natural affect of excluding women from the governing structure, which is the priesthood. 

[Buckeye]

No. You didn't just say that.

 

I don't like it, but that's the reality.  If priesthood were optional of men, if they could attend the temple, serve missions, and gain exaltation without it, I believe most men would decline the priesthood because the burdens of hometeaching, and the risk of being called as EQP or bishop, is simply greater than the blessing of baptizing or blessing your children.  Most men.  By our nature, we all (men and women) prefer to let others lead, at least when the ship is running fairly smoothly. 

 

Have you never heard a woman say, "I would never want the priesthood because I have enough to do already" or "I could never be the bishop"?  That's the sentiment I'm talking about.  For most members, personally holding the priesthood is a net-negative.  Their glad others use it.  But they don't personally want it.  Most current priesthood holders don't really value it.  That's why "duty" is always a part of the BINGO board for the priesthood session.  The word comes up over and over and over. 

[Calm]

That statement is also in the newroom article, but I can't find any support for it. 

 

In what way does the RS President have authority over the YW or Primary Presidents? 

 

Edit for grammer.

They are women in the RS and thus her stewardship includes them.

[juliann]

 

 

Have you never heard a woman say, "I would never want the priesthood because I have enough to do already" or "I could never be the bishop"?  That's the sentiment I'm talking about.  

There is a stock set of  knee jerk responses that have accumulated as one line conversation stoppers.  What it ultimately does is demean the priesthood itself. Women refusing it because it's just one more job is particularly galling. When did it become fashionable to jeer and refuse callings?  But equally as damaging are the men who respond with priesthood as not being a big deal.

 

It would be interesting to start a thread with all of the comments that have coalesced around priesthood.

 

[on-line corrected to read one line]

Edited March 10, 2014 by juliann

[Buckeye]

They are women in the RS and thus her stewardship includes them.

 

That's a very good point.  Numerically, the RS President has a bigger scope than other female leaders.  Also, her scope encompasses the sisters as adults, rather than counselors or fellow-teachers.  If I had to quantify the hours spent or the respect given a position, I would probably pick the RS President as the "highest" female position too.  And if the President of the Church were to assign one female leader to oversee the Women's Meeting, I'd bet he would pick President Burton. 

[Buckeye]

There is a stock set of  knee jerk responses that have accumulated as on- line conversation stoppers.  What it ultimately does is demean the priesthood itself. Women refusing it because it's just one more job is particularly galling. When did it become fashionable to jeer and refuse callings?  But equally as damaging are the men who respond with priesthood as not being a big deal.

 

It would be interesting to start a thread with all of the comments that have coalesced around priesthood.

 

I agree 100%.  I'm sorry if I came off as rude before.  I'm not supportive of these views.  But there's a reason they exist and that reason is that the priesthood really is the governing structure of the church.  As long as women are excluded from that structure, there will be a tension whenever we try to include women in roles of authority.  Currently that tension is growing. 

 

As for a thread about knee-jerk reactions, this is a good start:  http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/03/unless-a-woman-wants-it/