Women At The Priesthood Session...again?

[Bikeemikey]

God teaches us by example and is immune to modern trends.

 

What if a women chooses to be called a father instead of a mother, or a man a mother instead of a father, should society just accept it? Before you call that absurd let me point ot he fact that society is doing just that. We can call a duck a horse but we still can't hitch it to a cart. We can call a woman a man, or a man a woman, we can even surgically alter their body, but we can't change their human nature or their soul.  

 

Does societies acceptance of homosexuality make it right? Is it somehow now moral to act in ways that for thousands of years were considered immoral? As society seeks to redefine the meaning of family and our roles within should we then accept it as moral?

 

Why did God give us families, and roles within those families, if not to teach us? This entire earth experience is to teach us and every part of that experience is by design. God is our Father in heaven, not our Mother. And if we have a Mother in heaven she is our Mother, not our Father. One of the tasks of life is to understand our Father in heavens nature, the charecter and content of God if you will, and one of the ways he teaches us this is by making us fathers and mothers ourselves so we can understand the term father.

 

I have no anger towards these women only sorrow. They seek to destroy what they pretend to want because they do not see the reason for anything beyond the acceptance and acclaim of society.

 

The great thing about God being immune to modern standards is that when God does change his mind you can be sure he was pressured into it. When you link this with God being unchangeable you do run into a couple of conundrums that I will not dwell on here.

 

For the faithful LDS member it is clear that God does change his opinion on things, or that some laws are contextually dependent. We have the Word of Wisdom for one: it appears Christ likely consumed wine (he sure made it for others to drink), Noah the Prophet got so drunk his sons stole his clothes and he slept through it, early Latterday Saint prophets used both alcohol and tabaco. Polygamy was legit then it wasnt. Blacks couldnt have the priesthood now then can. 

 

I dont want to discuss these examples specifically, rather I want to point out that God is both immune to modern trends and yet also a God who sometimes gives new direction (that can often parallel modern trends).

 

That which is acceptable today may not be tomorrow, and that which is Sin today could possibly be accepted at a later date. This is up to God. The impact of this reality on the issue of Homosexuality is obvious.

 

So now that we have that cleared up.

 

To answer some of your more simple questions:

 

If a women wants to be called a father you should probably do it, failure to do it will likely get you kicked out of her house.

 

Given that you are not in a position to either view someone else's human nature or their soul i suggest to limit your assertions about the limits of things to things you know about.

 

What society accepts has no bearing on what God considers moral or immoral, you stated this at the beginning of you post. It is foolish to then ask if changing societal trends impacts morality (assuming you mean morality is defined by God). However, it is reasonable for society to tolerate all sorts of actions that may be immoral to God. Society can also tolerate without acceptance.

 

God gave us all sorts of things to teach us. Most roles on this earth were not given us by God. They were generated by society. 

 

Thats great you have no anger towards these women.

 

Please remember that we live in a male dominated and saturated religious climate. There is no evidence that God wants this. Presumably one of our challenges in life is to learn the character of God. It is totally feasible that one of life's challenges is also to learn the character of heavenly mother. Our religious texts have come from male dominated societies and cultures, predominately pre-modern, with little or no respect for women. 

 

Right now God may be begging us to be more inclusive of female deity, we are only just no listening. If men in history were unable to respect there temporal female partners, what makes you think they would have been willing to respect a feminine divine?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What would you suggest? Have them tear gassed?

No, give them Home Teaching assignments...that will teach them.

[jaxenro]

"Please remember that we live in a male dominated and saturated religious climate. There is no evidence that God wants this. Presumably one of our challenges in life is to learn the character of God. It is totally feasible that one of life's challenges is also to learn the character of heavenly mother. Our religious texts have come from male dominated societies and cultures, predominately pre-modern, with little or no respect for women. 

 

Right now God may be begging us to be more inclusive of female deity, we are only just no listening. If men in history were unable to respect there temporal female partners, what makes you think they would have been willing to respect a feminine divine?"

Interesting. I will skip the comments on blacks for now as they seem out side the scope of this thread.

And if a woman asked me to call her " father" I would leave her house anyway.

Was Joseph Smith "pre-modern"? He spoke plainly on this subject. Or was it valid only in his time?

Polygamy is interesting. Are there any instances of the church condoning multiple husbands for one woman? Or biblical examples? Or for two men marrying? It appears to me that except for recent times in mainly Western culture that although the structure of marriage may change (multiple wives, ages of marriage, etc.) the nature of marriage (male leadership role with one or more wives). This seems to have held true for most of recorded history with few exceptions.

I know for most of recorded history the world was male dominant but then I ask you why was this true? Does it seem odd this dynamic seems to hold true for almost all cultures at all times? Did it just spontaneously erupt or was it a construct of the natural condition man found himself in due to the needs of child birth, the long gestation period, and the total reliance of the child on the mother for many years? And if this is true the are we to believe such constructs evolved independently of their correlated outcome?

And how would you define pre modern anyway? It seems modern culture defines it as pre1960's as if morality begins there?

And how would you define moral, given, for example the absense of a God given moral code? Perhaps when we speak of moral we may have different meanings

[Buckeye]

I think the point is that each gender has roles and that no one is being denied any blessing they are entitled to. If the prophet states women are not to hold the preisthood what blessings to you see accruing from using temporal and sociatal pressure to change that decision?

 

If the preisthood structure comes from God and belssings come from God what blessings will you get by forcing God to accede to your wishes?

 

You just changed your argument, so I assume you now agree that we should not base our policies on what other churches do.

 

Moving to your new argument, there are significant blessings that come only from adminstering the priesthood.  The fullness of the blessings of the priesthood do not come by only receiving.  Otherwise, we should approve of men who decline the priesthood on the grounds that they are happy to simply receive the blessings from others rather than adminster themselves.  Whatever it is that men get from administering that they would not if they only received, that is the thing women are currently denied.

 

I would love for God to provide guidance on this subject.  Unfortunately, most members assume that his silence is refective of approval. 

[jaxenro]

You just changed your argument, so I assume you now agree that we should not base our policies on what other churches do.

 

 

Really in what way and where did I state that? I don't think I mentioned what other churches do at all I think it was Buzzard perhaps? Personally I think LDS policies should be set by the first presidency.

[jaxenro]

Moving to your new argument, there are significant blessings that come only from adminstering the priesthood.  The fullness of the blessings of the priesthood do not come by only receiving.  Otherwise, we should approve of men who decline the priesthood on the grounds that they are happy to simply receive the blessings from others rather than adminster themselves.  Whatever it is that men get from administering that they would not if they only received, that is the thing women are currently denied. 

 

Are there? Then am I also to assume that these blessings come from God and not the priesthood office itself and that they come from God, during the administering of priesthood duties, based on ones adherence to the office God has ordained them to?

 

For instance I understand Joseph Smith established the Relief Society under the power and structure of the priesthood so anyone exercising their calling within the Relief Society, from visiting teaching to helping the sick to holding a calling would be getting a blessing from membership in an organisation under the power and structure of the priesthood? Yet for some reason I, a male, can not get those blessings? Is this fair or should I call on the Relief Society to admit male visiting teachers?

 

Do you really think a male get more blessings from administering a priesthood blessing to a sick person then a female would from preparing that same sick person a meal? If so then I think we have not been reading the same scriptures. Both the spiritual and the temporal needs of the sick must be met for the person to return to health.

 

Again to me it appears this whole discussion is focused around the temporal world and the "I want it now" mentality prevelant in todays culture. If God, through his prophet, the only person on earth to hold the keys ordaining the priesthood on men, assigns me to be an Elder, fine. If he instead assigns me to clean the chamber pots then again, fine. Both need to be done and it isn't my place to dispute that. I have free agency to accept or decline his assignment but not change the structure of the assignments to suit my whims. Otherwise everyone would run the church and it would be overrun with chamber pot drippings.

 

Blessings are bestowed by God on who and when he will. He promises us blessings if we are faithful and obedient not if we hold office and exrcise power.

[mtomm]

 

To those married women here that want the priesthood I would like to ask do they also want to assume their husbands role in giving fathers blessings?

I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer because I'm just watching and learning and thinking about ordination but I am a woman.  Supposedly we can already give blessings as a mother so this really is a moot question.  We just cannot do it invoking priesthood authority.  If I am able to do something it doesn't take someone else's ability away.  My husband can still give father's blessings even if I  could give a mother's priesthood blessing.  I'm not sure why it has to be one or the other.  My husband can hold and cuddle his children, he can nurture them and he can cook and clean for them, too.  It doesn't mean that I am could/would/should no longer do those things, too.  We would never tell a father he couldn't do those things because "that's the mom's role."  That would be ridiculous and absurd. 

 

 

In teaching their sons to be good fathers, husbands, and leaders themselves?

 

Or their daughters to be good mothers, wives and leaders?  How come if I held the priesthood it would keep my sons from being good leaders, husbands or fathers?  Would I expect them to be less?  Why?

 

 

Do they want leadership of the home?

Since you are just re-activating your membership perhaps you've missed out on the the shift the church has taken on how husbands and wives are perceived in the home.  I suggest the April 2013 Ensign article:  Equal Partnership in Marriage.  Supposedly we are already co-leaders in the home with our husbands, one not being over the other.  

 

Do they, as today's society does, seek to disenfranchise their husbands roles?

 

How would a woman holding the priesthood disenfranchise the father?  Am I currently disenfranchised as a mother because I do not hold the priesthood?

 

To marginalize their husbands?

 

How do they then teach the parts of the Bible that describe, and ascribe, these family roles after they have ursurped their husbands role, marginalized him in the eyes of their children, to those same children?

 

Again, I'll quote the Ensign article cited above:  There is a crucial relationship between equality and love in LDS doctrine. Spouses are to enter their marriage relationship convinced of each other’s equality. The first utterance Adam made after God created him and Eve in the Garden of Eden was to declare Eve’s equality with him—that they would be “one flesh”

 

If ordained as Bishops do they then assume spiritual leadership in the home as well as the ward?

 

Um, does this not just sound utterly ridiculous?  Of course they would assume spiritual leadership of the ward.  Do men give up their role in the home when they become a bishop?  No, they carry out both roles as needed.  Are women not capable of doing two things at once?  I thought we were the great multi-taskers!

[Buzzard]

 

I would love for God to provide guidance on this subject.  Unfortunately, most members assume that his silence is reflective of approval. 

You assume that God has not provided guidance on this subject. Given that the brethren have stated that the Priesthood, at least in this world, is a calling for males, it would seem that there has been some study given to the priesthood and gender, and the men that we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators are unanimous that this is the will of our Heavenly Father. That is not silence, that is inspired leadership. Or are they only inspired when they agree with you?

[frank_jessop]

You assume that God has not provided guidance on this subject. Given that the brethren have stated that the Priesthood, at least in this world, is a calling for males, it would seem that there has been some study given to the priesthood and gender, and the men that we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators are unanimous that this is the will of our Heavenly Father. That is not silence, that is inspired leadership. Or are they only inspired when they agree with you?

and all one need to do is change "males" to "non-black males" and we have exactly what was used to defend the Priesthood restriction prior to 1978.

[DJBrown]

 As a rationale for excluding men from the General Women's Meeting, many would argue that women have specific needs, points of view, ways of looking at the world, and so on, that the meeting is designed to address, and they would argue that, therefore, physical space there should not be taken up by someone who (while his needs, points of view, ways of looking at the world, and so on are no less valid) does not share those of women. They would also argue that the physical space at that meeting should be reserved for women, for those reasons.  They would be right, of course.  In the eyes of many (or most) of those in the Ordain Women, movement, however, it appears they believe that the reverse is not true: men have no specific needs, points of view, or ways of looking at the world that a meeting meant specifically for them should be designed to address, and, therefore, there is no need to preserve physical space for men at such a meeting.

 

In the case of Ordain Women and many of those who support it, perhaps their motto when it comes to the question of admitting men to the General Women's Meeting is, ¡Viva la semejanza!  However, in the case of the question of admitting women to the General Priesthood Meeting is ¡Viva la diferéncia!   It's not consistent, but there it is.  (You're welcome.  Glad I could clear that up for you.)   You know, another thought just occurred to me: Ordain Women and those who support it could take their complaints to Management (you know, on their knees in prayer).  But that wouldn't garner as many photo-ops, as many news segments, as much print media ink, and so on.  They could have a Web site dedicated to a campaign to appealing to the Lord, in prayer, for change, with invitations to post experiences resulting from those prayers on the site.  It makes one wonder who Ordain Women and its supporters think is really in charge.  If, as they appear to believe, the Lord really isn't in charge, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, at bottom, a man-made organization ("sexist" usage intended), I would expect their public pressure campaign, eventually, to succeed, and I wish them all the success in the world (again, usage intended). 

 

Leaving aside, for a moment, the merit (or lack thereof, depending on one's vantage point) of Ordain Women's position, perhaps I missed it, but could you point to me where anyone has suggested that those opposed to the Ordain Women organization should appeal for government intervention to silence it?  Thanks in advance!

 

 

In discussing this topic with many women from that movement, I think it is interesting that most of them have little interest in the Women's meeting.  Many of them that I have discussed this with do not even attend the Women's broadcast.

[jaxenro]

1. I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer because I'm just watching and learning and thinking about ordination but I am a woman.  Supposedly we can already give blessings as a mother so this really is a moot question.  We just cannot do it invoking priesthood authority.  If I am able to do something it doesn't take someone else's ability away.  My husband can still give father's blessings even if I  could give a mother's priesthood blessing.  I'm not sure why it has to be one or the other.  My husband can hold and cuddle his children, he can nurture them and he can cook and clean for them, too.  It doesn't mean that I am could/would/should no longer do those things, too.  We would never tell a father he couldn't do those things because "that's the mom's role."  That would be ridiculous and absurd. 

 

 

2. Or their daughters to be good mothers, wives and leaders?  How come if I held the priesthood it would keep my sons from being good leaders, husbands or fathers?  Would I expect them to be less?  Why?

 

3. Since you are just re-activating your membership perhaps you've missed out on the the shift the church has taken on how husbands and wives are perceived in the home.  I suggest the April 2013 Ensign article:  Equal Partnership in Marriage.  Supposedly we are already co-leaders in the home with our husbands, one not being over the other.  

 

 

4. How would a woman holding the priesthood disenfranchise the father?  Am I currently disenfranchised as a mother because I do not hold the priesthood?

 

 

5. Again, I'll quote the Ensign article cited above:  There is a crucial relationship between equality and love in LDS doctrine. Spouses are to enter their marriage relationship convinced of each other’s equality. The first utterance Adam made after God created him and Eve in the Garden of Eden was to declare Eve’s equality with him—that they would be “one flesh”

 

 

6. Um, does this not just sound utterly ridiculous?  Of course they would assume spiritual leadership of the ward.  Do men give up their role in the home when they become a bishop?  No, they carry out both roles as needed.  Are women not capable of doing two things at once?  I thought we were the great multi-taskers!

 

Not sure how you did the multi quote so I assigned numbers.

 

1. I always assumed mothers could give blessings and do. I always assumed fathers could give a fathers blessing without the priesthood. But yes I do think a clear division is helpful in establishing male and female roles within marriage and yes I am old fashioned enough to think such roles are helpful in an orderly society.

 

2. I think you would be blurring the line between men and women which is blurry enough already. Boys in todays society have a hard enough time trying to learn to be men when much of societies teachings is against it. Not sure where you live but I spent much of my life in Massachusetts and "male" activities are basically frowned upon. Look at the declining ercentage of males attending college to females, the replacement of males as breadwinners and leaders in their homes.

 

Sorry but all you want to have happen comes at a cost. We see the cost in society today.

 

Teach men that their main role in life is sperm doner and then act surprised when half the children don't have the biological father in the home. Yes I know you would teach different but every step that reduces the males traditional role in the household is like another drip in the bucket of destroying those households. Look up the statistics for the number of children without a biological father in the house

 

3. Don't tell my wife, after 30 years of marriage I am sure she is far superior to me. Personally I consider myself the equal of any man, Bishop, Prophet, or President, but I accept that some have leadership roles. Leadership does not mean superior it means someone accepts responsibility for a given task or assignment and others agree to follow and respect that person. I think you misunderstand leadership for inequality. I will not deny that men have misused the leadership spoken of in biblical terms, and submission, for their own ends but to me that is the sign of a weak mind.

 

A good leader is co-equal with his followers. Joseph Smith taught that man is co-equal with God are we somehow then to ask God to abrogate His leadership role to one of us?

 

4. Are you currently disenfranchised as a mother because you do not hold the priesthood? Are you currently disenfranchised as a person because you do not hold the priesthood? Personally I think the answer to both questions is no. Yet you seem to be the one claiming so.

 

5. See my answer to 3 above. Yes male and female become one flesh, what one holds the other holds. We form a pair bonding, male and female, that is essential for human happiness and eternal progression. Yet to each of us is given different gifts and abilities just as within the human race each of us is given different gifts and abilities. It is the blending of these different abilities, ones we were physically and psychologically designed for before the world was formed, that creates such a dynamic and powerful bond.

 

6. Actually my point was how can the wife hold the superior office in the social structure yet accept the husband as leader in the home.

 

Sorry but I see it all the time both in the church and out. In fact it is prevelant in modern culture and treated as a punch line (Everybody Loves Raymond) of women who have no respect for their husbands and seek to subtly demonstrate their superiority in public and presumably private. Like this whole topic I find it a bit sad for it simply demonstrates to me a women who choose a husband she does not respect. I could never treat a wife like that

[jaxenro]

As a quick postscript to 3 and 5 I have often used this analogy, imperfect though it is.

 

Is the bow superior to the arrow, or the arrow to the bow? Neither is complete without the other, although they are not the same (equal) and have different qualities, natures, and make ups. Each has a different role but only by working together do they produce results.

 

A leader needs a follower that respects and trusts him just as a follower needs to trust and respect the leader. But the leader must also trust and respect his follower and the follower should expct that respect and trust in return. Neither, like the bow or arrow, is superior to the other. And a wise leader always listens to and solicits the council and advice of his follower. Often leadership means following the course the followers lay out, even if wrong, to help teach them.

 

This holds true in work, marriage, church, or any position if leadership.

 

Of course both need the additional guiding hand of man also

[Bikeemikey]

I know for most of recorded history the world was male dominant but then I ask you why was this true? Does it seem odd this dynamic seems to hold true for almost all cultures at all times? Did it just spontaneously erupt or was it a construct of the natural condition man found himself in due to the needs of child birth, the long gestation period, and the total reliance of the child on the mother for many years? And if this is true the are we to believe such constructs evolved independently of their correlated outcome?

 

 

You are aware that for most of History males were dominant because they were stronger right? They were able to kill easier than they were able to be killed with respect to contests with women. 

 

They were able to perform more physically demanding work, and most work was physically demanding labor up until the industrial revolution.

 

Physical superiority and the permissibility of violence against women made societies male dominated. You only need to look at some cultures that still practice extreme patriarchal orders to see the impact of this. It is not a good set up.

 

As the advantage of physical strength has been diminished and subordinated to a broader spectrum of skills and intelligence, combined with the increase of laws against violence and harm to others the capacity for gender equality became possible.

 

But sure, your take on it is that because men were stronger for 1000's of years and the law did not offer women serious protection from violence (or things like the right to won property) this is how things should always be.

 

I just happen to think that gender equality is a high celestial order that we should strive towards. You think that because women have always been dominated by men there must be a good reason for it and God intended it that way... and it probably has to do with making babies.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Buzzard]

and all one need to do is change "males" to "non-black males" and we have exactly what was used to defend the Priesthood restriction prior to 1978.

Find me a pronouncement from the church that ever said that women would eventually get the priesthood-except as priestesses and Queens to their husbands in the Celestial Kingdom, after this life.

Then find me a pronouncement pre-1978 that did NOT say that African/black males would not eventually get the priesthood, the only question was when.

See now, it didn't take long to wipe out that "parallel",  now did it.

Totally apples and oranges. Saying women will someday have the priesthood is more analogous to saying that non-members will be allowed into the temples to watch sealings. Could happen, I suppose, but no indication whatsoever that it ever will. 

[Truth 101]

I don't know why my first post was deleted, it didn't break any of the rules of the TOS which I did read before I signed up for this site. I would rather post and discuss mormon issues on this website than a website say exmormon.org

 

It is more diverse here and I get to discuss things with TBM's, jack mormons, post-mormons, ex-mormons, etc.

 

I'm sorry if it was a bit too abrasive, I will try to be more passive in the future so people will take me seriously.

 

But back to the topic on hand: Women and the Priesthood.

 

Seriously, can't a woman technically receive the priesthood through the 2nd anointment ceremony? I've read enough about it to believe that it exists, what do you guys think?

 

I said a lot of this already but my first post was deleted so I have to repeat a few things.

 

I remember asking my mom (who is a TBM) once if she thought that women should have the priesthood and she said that for her personally she doesn't want the responsibility that comes with the priesthood and can't understand why women want to be able to carry it anyway. I asked my fraternal grandma who is also a TBM on the issue and her opinion is that men have their place in the church, and men have their place in the church. My grandma is a convert from North Carolina, I would describe her as the polar opposite of a feminist, she puts men up on a pedestal. I can see why though, my grandma's mother was a tramp (my grandma's words, not mine) and walked out on my grandma, her sister, and my great-grandpa, so she was raised by a single father with her sister. She is easily the strongest woman I know.

[Truth 101]

dammit, I meant to say that she thought both women and men have their place on the church. I feel dumb asking but where is the edit button so I can edit my posts after I have posted them?

[bluebell]

Truth- (my quote function isn't working so sorry I can't quote you directly).

 

Many LDS believe that women 'hold' the priesthood when they go thru the temple for their endowment, even though they are not ordained to it, so what you are saying concerning the 2nd anointing is probably similar.

 

And once you hit 25 posts you'll be able to edit.

[Kenngo1969]

In discussing this topic with many women from that movement, I think it is interesting that most of them have little interest in the Women's meeting.  Many of them that I have discussed this with do not even attend the Women's broadcast.

By contrast, if they want to, they now can tune in to the broadcast of the Priesthood Session.

[pogi]

Seriously, can't a woman technically receive the priesthood through the 2nd anointment ceremony? I've read enough about it to believe that it exists, what do you guys think?

 

Not to be a jerk, but if I know I probably wouldn't tell you.  If these 2nd anointings are still being practiced, the details are not being disclosed. 

[halconero]

You've hit the nail, or at least grazed it!

 

Women do have access to the priesthood, and the temple is the clearest indicator of this. Women perform ordinances there necessary for the salvation of their own gender, but also men as well.

 

I don't know if you have ever done baptisms for the dead, but they're always aligned with your gender. Men only get baptized for me, women for women. I believe this also extends to the priesthood, where people act as proxies for deity. You see this reflected in multi-priesthood ordinances, such as baptism and the sealing. Three priesthood holders are required to represent the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. For other ordinances, done in the name of Christ, only one is required (though more may participate). The priesthood holders are men they are proxies for the Godhead, which are also men. 

 

I personally believe that when women perform ordinances in the temple they are proxies of Heavenly Mother.

[jaxenro]

You are aware that for most of History males were dominant because they were stronger right? They were able to kill easier than they were able to be killed with respect to contests with women. 

 

They were able to perform more physically demanding work, and most work was physically demanding labor up until the industrial revolution.

 

Physical superiority and the permissibility of violence against women made societies male dominated. You only need to look at some cultures that still practice extreme patriarchal orders to see the impact of this. It is not a good set up.

 

As the advantage of physical strength has been diminished and subordinated to a broader spectrum of skills and intelligence, combined with the increase of laws against violence and harm to others the capacity for gender equality became possible.

 

But sure, your take on it is that because men were stronger for 1000's of years and the law did not offer women serious protection from violence (or things like the right to won property) this is how things should always be.

 

I just happen to think that gender equality is a high celestial order that we should strive towards. You think that because women have always been dominated by men there must be a good reason for it and God intended it that way... and it probably has to do with making babies.

Ok I see how the game played. Recast what I said so it sounds intellectually vapid and then rebut it? But are you seriously making the claim that every male dominant marriage from Adam and Eve to Joseph and Emma Smith was based on the threat of physical violence? And that the Celestal world exists as some sort of gender neutral paradise where males and females hold the same callings, have the same roles and responsibilities, and act in a gender neutral manner? If this is the case, and Gods kingdom is a gender neutral paradise, why did He only send male messengers to Joseph Smith and male priesthood holders to restore the priesthood keys to the earth? We're no female messengers or priesthood holders available? Or was Joseph Smith another pre modern abusive male who wouldn't accept female messengers?

Seriously if you want to debate the origins of the male dominant family unit, from a biological, social, evolutionary, or theological manner let me know I would be happy to oblige you. Personally I find your theory regarding physical strength to be immature (meaning not well thought out, not childish) which I take to mean you haven't given the subject much thought. For instance I seeno mention of the maternal instinct prevelant in females coming into play, nor a host of other factors relating to early mans need for survival and propagation of the species in your argument. I could list a dozen other factors without getting to physical strength.

[frank_jessop]

Find me a pronouncement from the church that ever said that women would eventually get the priesthood-except as priestesses and Queens to their husbands in the Celestial Kingdom, after this life.

Then find me a pronouncement pre-1978 that did NOT say that African/black males would not eventually get the priesthood, the only question was when.

See now, it didn't take long to wipe out that "parallel", now did it.

Totally apples and oranges. Saying women will someday have the priesthood is more analogous to saying that non-members will be allowed into the temples to watch sealings. Could happen, I suppose, but no indication whatsoever that it ever will.

"all are alike unto God."

[Bikeemikey]

Ok I see how the game played. Recast what I said so it sounds intellectually vapid and then rebut it? But are you seriously making the claim that every male dominant marriage from Adam and Eve to Joseph and Emma Smith was based on the threat of physical violence?

Not at all. I'm making the claim that with out coercive force (in our time from either gender in a relationship) there is no "dominant" partner. In order for a relationship to have dominance by one party over another there must by default be an asymmetrical power dynamic. Now, having a relationship based around mutually agreed to roles is not the same as having a "dominant" relationship. I have not objection to partners in relationships coming together and determining roles around strengths and weaknesses.

And that the Celestal world exists as some sort of gender neutral paradise where males and females hold the same callings, have the same roles and responsibilities, and act in a gender neutral manner?

I think God is concerned about fruit, the value we produce. God will allocate callings based on who can do them. In this sense I guess god is gender neutral. God does not assess our capacity based primarily on our gender, he makes judgement about our capacity based on our capacity, of which gender is only one of many facets.

We are now approaching a point in history where more women are more educated than men and more employable than mean. There are women out there who are more capable of leading congregations etc than men in the same wards. Are we going to start using that talent, I don't know. It's up to god in the end. But we should at least recognize it.

If this is the case, and Gods kingdom is a gender neutral paradise, why did He only send male messengers to Joseph Smith and male priesthood holders to restore the priesthood keys to the earth? We're no female messengers or priesthood holders available? Or was Joseph Smith another pre modern abusive male who wouldn't accept female messengers?

For clarity's sake pre-modern was a reference to biblical times, not Joseph Smith, so you can jump off that high horse already.

As for the rest. If pre-modern societies did not provide equality to women, and withholding the priesthood from women maybe an example of this, why would a pre-modern woman turn up to give JS something she never had. Assuming that JS was visited by historical personages who did have the priesthood, and that pre-modern society's did not provide women priesthood, then we would not expect women to turn up, even if they have the priesthood in the afterlife. This is glaring obvious.

Seriously if you want to debate the origins of the male dominant family unit, from a biological, social, evolutionary, or theological manner let me know I would be happy to oblige you. Personally I find your theory regarding physical strength to be immature (meaning not well thought out, not childish) which I take to mean you haven't given the subject much thought. For instance I seeno mention of the maternal instinct prevelant in females coming into play, nor a host of other factors relating to early mans need for survival and propagation of the species in your argument. I could list a dozen other factors without getting to physical strength.

Seriously, if you want to claim that the prevalence of male dominated society/family units in the pre-modern era is evidence of gods intention for society you are going to need to enter the debate about all of the potential origin components you mentioned above. You are welcome to find my theory however you want. I invite you to list your dozen other factors so we can continue the conversation.

However, I think you are likely arguing from a poor semantical standpoint. My guess is that you are more likely expressing a belief about the importance of gender roles, which can and do exist without gender dominance. If however, you simply think that god wants a world in which women are subordinate to men because this is reflective of some celestial divine truth then we will likely need to debate this more; because that is a really dumb idea.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[wenglund]

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 we men should be flattered. It is not often that we are envied to this degree.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

In discussing this topic with many women from that movement, I think it is interesting that most of them have little interest in the Women's meeting.  Many of them that I have discussed this with do not even attend the Women's broadcast.

I understand it if they don't feel it resonates for them...I have a very bad record for attending the women's stuff due to a bad attitude I carried from YWs after being taught makeup and other lessons I had no interest in. It is an elitest attitude I should get over, unfortunately now I can't go enough to rewrite that script emotionally yet. However, I also don't think I have a right to ask for more if I am not even trying to make use of what I have.

From what I've seen of adult classes and read of priesthood sessions, I don't see a sudden commitment to attending happening just because someone gets the priesthood, man or woman, the classes aren't sufficiently different.