Women At The Priesthood Session...again?

[omni]

 If they produce the 500 they claim will turn out, I'll wear a University of Utah hat for the day.

 

Hey wait a sec, I thought when you lose a bet you're supposed to receive a punishment, not a reward.

[canard78]

I've watched a number of the priesthood sessions on the internet and read many of the talks in the Ensign, partly out of curiosity (I'm incurably nosy) and partly because they can be pretty awesome sessions! If it were an open, mixed session, I'd probably go, because of that. The fact that its not doesn't bother me at all. I don't expect men at the Relief Society conferences.

I did once inadvertently attend a priesthood session of General Conference at my stake centre, not long after I'd been baptised. I thought that Conference started at 3pm since this was the time the priesthood session started. I just didn't yet understand LDS terminology. I turned up - the only female amongst a lot of men! Not one of them said anything to me, most smiled at me and no one asked me to leave. No one told me afterwards I shouldn't have been there either. I did feel a bit odd person out but it was the best session of that conference!

The talks by Bishop (Elder??) Caussé and Pres Eyring were among my favourite of the whole weekend.

[mercyngrace]

Have you never heard a woman say, "I would never want the priesthood because I have enough to do already" ...

 

 

Buckeye, 

The following conversation popped up on my facebook feed this weekend. A perfect illustration of your comment above. Sister Conventional Wisdom falls back on 'we're so busy...' and 'men need it...'. Which means what exactly? Men are abounding in free time? Men are deficient in some way and need that extra boost? There has got to be a better way to talk about the priesthood without diminishing either gender or downgrading the priesthood so that it seems like a 'gift' women don't really need anyway. What we have (at the very least) is a failure to communicate. 

 

 

Name Withheld

I want to meet this cool woman. She is awesome.

 

(links to an OW profile) 

 

• Name Withheld: And don't forget she rides horses just to top it all off...
• Sister Conventional Wisdom:  Why is she awesome? We do not need the priesthood, we have motherhood, womanhood, sisterhood and a bunch of other stuff to keep us busy. Our men need this to help them grow. We're the ones with the greater responsibility. We're the ones who are moulding the next generation. We share in all the responsibilities of the priesthood anyway.
• Sister Supportive: I think she's awesome! Thanks for sharing!
   
• MnG: I don't pretend to know why men have the priesthood and women don't but here's what I will say: I completely reject the cultural rhetoric that men need the priesthood to make up for some deficit they have by not being mothers, sisters, or women. As a mother of sons, I am convinced that God does not hold his sons in such low regard. All are alike unto God. Fatherhood is the companion to Motherhood. Brotherhood is the companion to Sisterhood. And manhood is the companion of womanhood. To suggest that priesthood ordination fills some void or closes some gap for men, is reverse sexism. And I refuse to set such a low bar for my sons and future sons in law by accepting that they are innately less.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2014 by mercyngrace

[canard78]

Buckeye,

The following conversation popped up on my facebook feed this weekend. A perfect illustration of your comment above. Sister Conventional Wisdom falls back on 'we're so busy...' and 'men need it...'. Which means what exactly? Men are abounding in free time? Men are deficient in some way and need that extra boost? There has got to be a better way to talk about the priesthood without diminishing either gender or downgrading the priesthood so that it seems like a 'gift' women don't really need anyway. What we have (at the very least) is a failure to communicate.

...

MnG: I don't pretend to know why men have the priesthood and women don't but here's what I will say: I completely reject the cultural rhetoric that men need the priesthood to make up for some deficit they have by not being mothers, sisters, or women. As a mother of sons, I am convinced that God does not hold his sons in such low regard. All are alike unto God. Fatherhood is the companion to Motherhood. Brotherhood is the companion to Sisterhood. And manhood is the companion of womanhood. To suggest that priesthood ordination fills some void or closes some gap for men, is reverse sexism. And I refuse to set such a low bar for my sons and future sons in law by accepting that they are innately less.

Excellent

Did she reply?

[Damien the Leper]

Hey wait a sec, I thought when you lose a bet you're supposed to receive a punishment, not a reward.

 

Go Utes!

[slamarwi]

Why would you want to deter them? 

 

Once in awhile it's nice to just have a meeting with the guys. You know, sit around and have the Top Brass give us a good old fashioned talking to without the distractions of "I told you so. "Also,  singing "Ye Elders of Israel" or "How Firm a Foundation" with a group of men creates that manly, tribal feeling that we need on occasion. : )

[Buckeye]

Buckeye, 

The following conversation popped up on my facebook feed this weekend. A perfect illustration of your comment above. Sister Conventional Wisdom falls back on 'we're so busy...' and 'men need it...'. Which means what exactly? Men are abounding in free time? Men are deficient in some way and need that extra boost? There has got to be a better way to talk about the priesthood without diminishing either gender or downgrading the priesthood so that it seems like a 'gift' women don't really need anyway. What we have (at the very least) is a failure to communicate. 

 

Thanks. I think the real problem is that the Lord has not given a reason.  Natural man (and woman) abhors a vaccuum and creates a reason where none is given.  Natural man assumes (IMO incorrectly) that the exclusion of women is intended, even though the Lord never expressly said so.  I would love to have real conversations on the issue, but so long as there is no direction from God, all we have is speculation. 

 

It's no different than with the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood.  First we were given doctrinal reasons for the practice.  See, e.g., the 1949 FP Letter.  Then when those doctrinal justifications proved unsound (the civil rights movement and WWII showed that blacks were equaly in competence and valiancy to whites), our high up church leaders stopped teaching those doctrines, but left the practice in place and instead taught "we don't know" for the reason.  Finally, the practice changed, but the old justifications lingered in some corners through the present (see Randy Bott).  Now, roughly 65 years after the FP Letter, we have a semi-official disvowal of the reasons.

 

The reason members speculate reasons for the exclusion of women from priesthood office is (i) higher leaders previously did the same and (ii) members need a reason for the practice.  Interestingly, the most recent addresses by apostles on the subject (Oct. 2013 conference addresses by Elders Anderson and Christhofferson) did not provide any justification, but simply said, "we don't know."  I fear it will take some time for members to catch up to the their leaders.

[mercyngrace]

Excellent

Did she reply?

 

She did not. I hope that hearing what her words actually imply caused her to stop and think. I suspect though, that the fact that she was outnumbered (there was a disparity in the number of "likes" under our respective comments), may have also been a factor. 

 

It's too bad she didn't reply because we are all active LDS and this would have been a great opportunity to speak and be heard and to hammer out a better response to questions about women and priesthood.

Edited March 10, 2014 by mercyngrace

[Damien the Leper]

Once in awhile it's nice to just have a meeting with the guys. You know, sit around and have the Top Brass give us a good old fashioned talking to without the distractions of "I told you so. "Also,  singing "Ye Elders of Israel" or "How Firm a Foundation" with a group of men creates that manly, tribal feeling that we need on occasion. : )

 

This is what Rugby and football are for. Just don't sing that awful "Put Your Shoulder to the Wheel"...blah!

[Buckeye]

She did not. I hope that hearing what her words actually imply caused her to stop and think. I suspect though, that the fact that she was outnumbered (there was a disparity in the number of "likes" under our respective comments), may have also been a factor. 

 

It's too bad she didn't reply because we are all active LDS and this would have been a great opportunity to speak and be heard and to hammer out a better response to questions about women and priesthood.

 

I failed to say "thank you" for sticking up for us men.  It's much appreciated.

 

FWIW, the majority of times I've heard the "men are lazy" justification, it has come from high counselors or other male leaders, not from sisters.  Most of the comments from sisters have been to place men on pedastals: "you're so great in your calling, I could never do that."

[slamarwi]

This is what Rugby and football are for. Just don't sing that awful "Put Your Shoulder to the Wheel"...blah!

 

Oh, If only some of us were talented enough for the camaraderie of athletic events. 

 

In all sincerity, whether women were ordained or not there should still be a place for gender specific auxiliaries. 

Edited March 11, 2014 by slamarwi

[mercyngrace]

Thanks. I think the real problem is that the Lord has not given a reason.  Natural man (and woman) abhors a vaccuum and creates a reason where none is given.  Natural man assumes (IMO incorrectly) that the exclusion of women is intended, even though the Lord never expressly said so.  I would love to have real conversations on the issue, but so long as there is no direction from God, all we have is speculation.  Ain't it the truth?!

 

It's no different than with the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood.  First we were given doctrinal reasons for the practice.  See, e.g., the 1949 FP Letter.  Then when those doctrinal justifications proved unsound (the civil rights movement and WWII showed that blacks were equaly in competence and valiancy to whites), our high up church leaders stopped teaching those doctrines, but left the practice in place and instead taught "we don't know" for the reason.  Finally, the practice changed, but the old justifications lingered in some corners through the present (see Randy Bott).  Now, roughly 65 years after the FP Letter, we have a semi-official disavowal of the reasons. The bad apologetics of today become the public apologies of tomorrow.

 

The reason members speculate reasons for the exclusion of women from priesthood office is (i) higher leaders previously did the same and (ii) members need a reason for the practice.  Interestingly, the most recent addresses by apostles on the subject (Oct. 2013 conference addresses by Elders Anderson and Christhofferson) did not provide any justification, but simply said, "we don't know."  I fear it will take some time for members to catch up to the their leaders. And I've been happy to use those talks as an authoritative source for those who need it. I've been so glad to have the public acknowledgement that the restoration is not complete and that all things are not known to us. 

[David T]

There have been two interesting mantras we've been seeing repeatedly coming from the Church lately in a few different areas:  "We don't know why" and "The Doctrine is unchanging". It's a strange combination.

[Buckeye]

There have been two interesting mantras we've been seeing repeatedly coming from the Church lately in a few different areas:  "We don't know why" and "The Doctrine is unchanging". It's a strange combination.

 

Yep.  I've also noted changes in practice directed to more inclusion of youth.  Lower missionary ages.  Women's meeting for 8+.  Stake "adult session" changed to include all youth 12+.  Stake missionary training for youth changed from 16+ to 14+.  In all these changes, two things stand out: (i) more meetings and direct counsel to younger members, and (ii) exact equal treatment of boys and girls.  For example, while it may be true that, doctrinally, young men have a priesthood duty for missionary service that young women do not, as a practial matter all youth in my stake are equally encouraged and expected to attend missionary training regardless of their gender. 

[katherine the great]

This really has an easy solution: rename the Priesthood session the General Men's Meeting. I am totally serious. 

Interesting thought.  I assume a man's priesthood credentials are not checked when he enters the meeting so what would prevent a nonmember from attending the meeting?  A nonmember does not hold the priesthood.  A woman does not hold the priesthood.  What's the difference?

[frank_jessop]

Interesting thought.  I assume a man's priesthood credentials are not checked when he enters the meeting so what would prevent a nonmember from attending the meeting?  A nonmember does not hold the priesthood.  A woman does not hold the priesthood.  What's the difference?

If they all went dressed as Rachel Maddow, and probably no make-up, enterance shouldnt be an issue. Though going dressed and looking like a man - a hipster male without facial hair - probably defeats the message OW is trying to send.

[Bikeemikey]

I just saw an interview and story about how "Ordain Women" is once again planning to attend the Priesthood Session. Only this time with twice as many women. How many more sessions will we have to endure the supposed "faithful" female members crashing Priesthood before some type of action occurs to deter it?

Perhaps until they get taken seriously?

[Bikeemikey]

Will they let me into the General Women's meeting?

Given that the general women's meeting is presided over by men I call your statement bs.

[Bikeemikey]

If the want to attend the priesthood session, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from streaming the session online. But i get the impression they don't really care what is being said in the meeting. So I think we should just ignore them.

Interesting that the opportunity to watch it steamed live online seemed to come as a consequence of last years efforts for greater female inclusion in the priesthood.

[Calm]

Interesting that the opportunity to watch it steamed live online seemed to come as a consequence of last years efforts for greater female inclusion in the priesthood.

Last time the photographer, iirc, of their demonstration noted afterwards no one was bothering to listen to it on their cell phones until he pointed out the absence of attention to what was allegedly so important to them they would fly from out of state and country to be there. Edited March 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[CMZ]

Last time the photographer, iirc, of their demonstration noted afterwards no one was bothering to listen to it on their cell phones until he pointed out the absence of attention to what was allegedly so important to them they would fly from out of state and country to be there.

 

But protesting it is more fun than listening to it.

[Calm]

I have to admit I would love to know how consistent over the years the leaders of the OW movement have been in reading the Priesthood session talks in the Ensign as well as the various Women's Conferences in addition to watching/reading General Conference talks.

I am not attempting to imply they don't. I would just like this level of insight into their commitment to hearing what our general leaders are teaching.

Edited March 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[CMZ]

I will give a very general insight here that there have been many times where someone has called a problem to my attention and I say, "You know, somebody spoke right to that topic in General Conference about a month ago." And the response tends to be something like, "That's nice. But what do you think I can do about this problem?"

Edited March 11, 2014 by CMZ

[Brian 2.0]

I just saw an interview and story about how "Ordain Women" is once again planning to attend the Priesthood Session. Only this time with twice as many women. How many more sessions will we have to endure the supposed "faithful" female members crashing Priesthood before some type of action occurs to deter it?

I think the church handled the first attempt the exact wrong way. There was an easy way to get almost no media converge and probably less interest, if any at all, to try again.

The group shows up and don't have tickets? then show them the standby line, give them standby tickets, if they get to the front, seat them wherever, and only remove them if they cause a scene... treat them like you do the men.

No story. Probably little coverage. If the church gets asked why they let them in, the newsroom response is "yes it's a male priesthood meeting intended for males, and our policy is to only allow males, but if there were women let in... so be it... not much harm there... It's available to the public in print and online shortly thereafter anyway... It's not like anything secret is going on."

Church comes out looking great and the stunt is completely diffused.

[Kenngo1969]

Interesting that the opportunity to watch it steamed live online seemed to come as a consequence of last years efforts for greater female inclusion in the priesthood.

I actually prefer my Priesthood meetings baked, thank you.  (Sorry; couldn't resist!)