Women At The Priesthood Session...again?

[jaxenro]

So what's your opinion on it?

On what others do their business. As I said we are all individuals and each situation is different.

My opinion on it is families should be aware of all the ramifications of their decisions, including theories I proposed above, when making the decisions that affect their families.

I am not advocating that we be ruled by our biology just that we be aware of it. It should be one factor, among many, when making decisions.

[Buckeye]

"My husband can hold and cuddle his children, he can nurture them and he can cook and clean for them, too"

 

Been thinking about this and wanted to address it in a general way. Yes males can hold, cuddle, nurture, cook, clean, and care for children but they can never be as good mothers as a female can and I don't mean childbirth.

 

On average men simply do not have the instinctive, empathic, ability to comprehend the needs of a non verbal infant to the degree the average female does. I base this on personal observation as a father, grandfather, and friend of many parents. When a baby cries men often try, and sometimes succeed, in figuring out why. We check the diaper to see if they are wet, remember when they were last fed, try to hold and soothe them, but we don't (on average) seem to have that instinctive understanding that many women do that can tell a wet cry from a hungry cry to a I just want to be loved cry. Men and women are not interchangable cogs in a machine but intricate beings each designed for specific roles. Not that each can't substitute for the other in many roles, they often do, but each has unique gender related abilities.

 

Before you automatically dismiss this out of hand discuss this with your female friends and ask them just how clueless many of their husbands are when it comes to understanding the needs of non verbal infants. Personally I am often awe struck at the ability many women instinctively have. For the first year or so of their lives babies are so dependant on their mothers and the ability of mothers to comprehend their babies needs at a deeply emotional level is often just sort of miraculous.

 

Often we dismiss the most miraculous events around us because they are so commonplace. Motherhood, because everyone has or had a mother, is one of these but not one we should ever dismiss or take lightly. The often complete sublimination of the mothers own needs given to care for the child, the ability to develop non verbal means of communication and understanding, the transfer of love and protection to such a fragile soul in such a delicate vessel at such an important time, what position in society or career or accomplishment can compete with such an everyday event in magnitude?

 

Each of us is a soul God has placed on this earth and with mothers he has added the additional burden of nurturing that souls vessel at a time of it's most vulnerbality. What trust and love God showers on mothers to give them that oppourtunity and what pains He must have gone to for them to have these unique abilities to enable them to fulfill this calling

 

Absolutely false. We do not need to demean men to elevate women.  My father was equal to my mother in his ability to nurture.  I am likewise equal to my wife.  (And she's just as good as I at presiding).  I currently serve with the Young Men of my ward.  They are equal to the young women in their ability to care for, have empathy, and nurture one another.  These boys are just as naturally spiritual as the girls, even those ones who are not ordained. 

 

I'm not dismissing your view out of hand.  I'm dismissing it out of an abundance of evidence. 

[jaxenro]

Then you live in a very unique ward or I have lived in a very different world. As I have said I based my opinions on life experience, mostly outside the church, while you do on yours.

I have been having this discussion for going on twenty years with different people and find, on average, more agree then disagree.

And nothing I said was to denigrate men I just said we, on average, are wired differently for different things. Usually I am accused of denigrating women for saying that so it is refreshing to hear I don't like men as well. Maybe next I can be accused of kicking puppies.

What I was discussing was what is often known as the maternal instinct. If you want to claim men have that as well, fine, do so, but next time you see a new baby at church watch how many men versus women cluster around it to goo and gaw at it. They'd probably rather goo and gaw over a new truck. Yet too a man they'd probably also lay down their life to protect that baby, even someone elses.

 

Men can be nurturing, spiritual, caring, and all the rest but we often approach it differently. Our biological role for thousands of years was provide and protect and like the lion, whose weight, bulk, and mane make him a poor hunter but an excellent protector, we were biologically and psychologically designed for that role. That doesn't deman men, or women, it just is. You can deny that it is but it is.

 

But we have a brain, and emotions, and a soul, that does to a degree transcend the natural man, or brute beast, within. For at least some of us

Edited March 14, 2014 by jaxenro

[Calm]

 When a baby cries men often try, and sometimes succeed, in figuring out why. We check the diaper to see if they are wet, remember when they were last fed, try to hold and soothe them, but we don't (on average) seem to have that instinctive understanding that many women do that can tell a wet cry from a hungry cry to a I just want to be loved cry.

 

This may simply be amount of exposure.  New mothers are well known for feeling clueless and helpless about understanding what their baby needs.

 

As a grandmother, I am much less insightful about what my grandchildren need than my son and yet according to this theory, because I am a woman I should be able to have more of an instinctual understanding that makes up for not being around them.

 

IIRC, women's brains do tend to respond more to a level of cry than men's do, but I don't remember seeing any data that this can't be balanced out by exposure and/or training.

Edited March 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Buckeye]

Then you live in a very unique ward or I have lived in a very different world. As I have said I based my opinions on life experience, mostly outside the church, while you do on yours.

I have been having this discussion for going on twenty years with different people and find, on average, more agree then disagree.

And nothing I said was to denigrate men I just said we, on average, are wired differently for different things. Usually I am accused of denigrating women for saying that so it is refreshing to hear I don't like men as well. Maybe next I can be accused of kicking puppies.

What I was discussing was what is often known as the maternal instinct. If you want to claim men have that as well, fine, do so, but next time you see a new baby at church watch how many men versus women cluster around it to goo and gaw at it. They'd probably rather goo and gaw over a new truck. Yet too a man they'd probably also lay down their life to protect that baby, even someone elses.

 

Men can be nurturing, spiritual, caring, and all the rest but we often approach it differently. Our biological role for thousands of years was provide and protect and like the lion, whose weight, bulk, and mane make him a poor hunter but an excellent protector, we were biologically and psychologically designed for that role. That doesn't deman men, or women, it just is. You can deny that it is but it is.

 

But we have a brain, and emotions, and a soul, that does to a degree transcend the natural man, or brute beast, within. For at least some of us

 

Jax, I've argued (and seen argued) this point too many times.  No one is going to convince the other.  I was simply setting out a counter factual to your experience.  I have no basis to claim that my experience is more typical of the real world than is yours or anyone elses. 

 

I'm glad you agree that men can be nurturing and spiritual, etc.  I assume you also would acknowledge that women can preside and lead (else why so many female presidents in the church).   My disagreement is with your claim that one gender is better or more naturally adept than the other.  That's simply not true. 

 

But instead of debating that point, I would proffer it much more fruitful to just agree that men and women are both capable of doing good in these spheres (presiding, providing, protecting, nurturing) and suggest we lend support for all men and women, regardless of gender, to do all the good they can in the sphere they choose.  Let's support and applaud those who preside regardless of their gender.  Same with those who provide.  Or protect.  Or preside. 

 

If there is anything virtuous lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, let us all seek after that thing.  In a nutshell, that's why I support female ordination.  The priesthood is good.  Women are good.  Ordained women will be great. 

[Buckeye]

This may simply be amount of exposure. New mothers are well known for feeling clueless and helpless about understanding what their baby needs.

 

As a grandmother, I am much less insightful about what my grandchildren need than my son and yet according to this theory, because I am a woman I should be able to have more of an instinctual understanding that makes up for not being around them.

 

IIRC, women's brains do tend to respond more to a level of cry than men's do, but I don't remember seeing any data that this can't be balanced out by exposure and/or training.

 

I personally had a strong paternal instict the time before each of my children were born. At times in my marriage, my wife and I have traded who has responsibilty for getting up with each specific child at night. After about a week, we find that each of us only hears the children we are assigned to. We sleep through the others' cries. It's a learned/trained affect. And it's the same affect for both of us.

[AndyDnom]

I went to the website and I am confused by it. They say they are not trying to be politcal action in nature, but trying to get into Preisthood Session knowing full well they will not be allowed in seems "stunt-ish" to me. It seems like a political play to make the church look bad to get thier way.

 

whats the connection between not being political, and putting on a "stunt-ish" activity?

[jaxenro]

I'm glad you agree that men can be nurturing and spiritual, etc. I assume you also would acknowledge that women can preside and lead (else why so many female presidents in the church). My disagreement is with your claim that one gender is better or more naturally adept than the other. That's simply not true.

But instead of debating that point, I would proffer it much more fruitful to just agree that men and women are both capable of doing good in these spheres (presiding, providing, protecting, nurturing) and suggest we lend support for all men and women, regardless of gender, to do all the good they can in the sphere they choose. Let's support and applaud those who preside regardless of their gender.

I didn't say men and women both can't do good at things I said they are different.

Yes I think women make better mothers, on average, then men do. If you want to claim fathers and mothers are interchangeable for the first year of a baby's life I won't argue as I agree doing it would not be productive. But I don't agree with it.

If you think the last hundred years have so changed men's and women's biological make up from the prior (insert your favorite time span) then go for it but if seems outside the controlled somewhat artificial setting that modern technology has allowed we revert to type. Sorry again to me it just is.

For the first year of its life, except in moden times, the father was far more replaceable in the baby's life than the mother. A mother can nurse and wean a baby, a father can't. Each were designed for different roles.

I think God created these roles for a reason, you may not. As I think they were created by God so integrally with who we are I try to understand them and make use of them as I do all the gifts God gives us.

 

What I am trying to explain is, yes, males and females may both be good leaders. But it may be different qualities that makes them so. By trying to understand these qualities, that God has designed into us, we can make better use of the gifts he has given us. Sorry if you somehow see that as deingrating men, or women

Edited March 14, 2014 by jaxenro

[jaxenro]

" In a nutshell, that's why I support female ordination.  The priesthood is good.  Women are good.  Ordained women will be great."

 

Sorry I don't see that happening for quite some time. For several reasons, unlike the extension of the priesthood to men of all races, which seemed logical at the time if not overdue

 

1. Unlike the Pope the President of the Church isn’t elected but appointed based on seniority in the Quorum of the Twelve. The Quorum tends to be a theologically conservative group and members of any organization such as this tend to get more, rather than less, conservative with age and length of service.
2. As the President of the Church fills vacancies in the Twelve it is likely he will continue to select theologically conservative members, who will also grow more conservative over time
3. The majority of members now reside outside the United States, many in socially conservative areas such as Africa and South America. There isn’t the large groundswell of members advocating for such a position that such a change would require.
4. In the mid to late 1970’s as more temples were being opened in areas such as Brazil the lines between races were getting increasingly hard to manage without resorting to a Church version of the “black codes” or “Nuremburg laws” that defined what percentage of a mixed race male was considered eligible, a place I am sure the Church did not want to go.
5. Continuance of withholding the priesthood from all worthy males was and would have a hindering effect on missionary work in these fast growing areas
6. Extending the priesthood to females could have a hindering effect on missionary work in these fast growing more socially conservative areas. Look at how the African Anglican church is distancing itself from its Western brothers over “gay rights” today

So essentially you are relying on a conservative group of elderly men to make a controversial change that many members of their body are not advocating for and that could have a deleterious impact on the future growth of the church.

 

But I’ve been wrong before

Edited March 14, 2014 by jaxenro

[jaxenro]

"As a grandmother, I am much less insightful about what my grandchildren need than my son and yet according to this theory, because I am a woman I should be able to have more of an instinctual understanding that makes up for not being around them"

 

No but their mother might more then your son. As I stated individual cases may vary and there are many factors besides this. This is just one among many.

 

But I ask you as well, is it usually the relief society members or the elders quorum clustering around a new baby?

[slamarwi]

This objection is sophomoric.

That's simply your opinion. Just because we don't agree does not make something sophomoric. However, I started the topic to express my objection since the lack of objection would be to condone. 

 

True faith would dictate that if ordaining women was the will of God he would simply command it. Protesting is the self-serving method of attempting to change His doctrine.

Edited March 15, 2014 by slamarwi

[changed]

What happened to just trusting God's order of things, regardless of logical justifications?  Do we trust our logic more than we trust God?  It's not really having faith in God, or in his prophets, if we put our own logic ahead of everything else.  Sometimes I think we are asked to do illogical things just as a test to see if we can trust something outside of ourselves.  

Yes, the priesthood is wonderful, but there are lessons to be learned with and without it, so it is ok not to have it... Many do not have the gift of the Holy Ghost, that is how God has set it up, and they are progressing on their journey just as we are progressing on ours... some people have not been baptized with the proper authority - does this mean they are damned? or lesser than us? No, it does not.  It does not matter who you are, or what you have or do not have, there are lessons within it all.

Edited March 15, 2014 by changed

[EllenMaksoud]

That's simply your opinion. Just because we don't agree does not make something sophomoric. However, I started the topic to express my objection since the lack of objection would be to condone. 

 

True faith would dictate that if ordaining women was the will of God he would simply command it. Protesting is the self-serving method of attempting to change His doctrine.

This reminds me of reading about the women's movement in the 19th century. All that is missing is the smoky rooms with men sitting in over stuffed chairs, drinking whiskey and smoking expensive cigars. Pitiful.

[slamarwi]

This reminds me of reading about the women's movement in the 19th century. All that is missing is the smoky rooms with men sitting in over stuffed chairs, drinking whiskey and smoking expensive cigars. Pitiful.

I think "repugnant" might be more appropriate. At least you didn't have to live through it : )

 

We really do live in a very unique and fragile time. Let's hope when civilization begins to unravel, the pendulum doesn't swing too far in the opposite direction.

Edited March 15, 2014 by slamarwi

[EllenMaksoud]

I think "repugnant" might be more appropriate. At least you didn't have to live through it : )

 

We really do live in a very unique and fragile time. Let's hope when civilization begins to unravel, the pendulum doesn't swing too far in the opposite direction.

Mother did not know that she could own property in the early 50's.

 

Now days, in some colleges, more than half the students are women. In some sects of Islam, it is still acceptable for a husband to beat his wife.

 

Yes, I agree that our culture is failing.  I just hope it does not take that for women to be respected on an equal basis. Though I would not want priest hood. I can't do one more thing ! 

[Calm]

If the culture actually fails it will be equal disrespect for the sexes I believe, not equal respect unfortunately.

[jaxenro]

This reminds me of reading about the women's movement in the 19th century. All that is missing is the smoky rooms with men sitting in over stuffed chairs, drinking whiskey and smoking expensive cigars. Pitiful.

In for a penny in for a pound I guess

Yet these politicians in these smoke filled rooms gave women the vote. Ever wonder why? Out of the goodness of their hearts, a sense of justice, the pressure the movement applied? Or maybe that by pandering to the women's they could achieve power for their own ends? Is it any wonder the rise of the all encompassing nanny state began with women getting the vote?

So you think women in society today have achieved independence? Sorry, they have just changed masters. Where before they traded obedience to a husband in return for provision and protection for them and their offspring now they trade obedience to the state in return for the supposed provision and protection of the state. At least their husbands cared for them snd had a vested interest in their and their offsprings welfare. The state has neither.

And along the way they have emasculated men to the point that they think the paternal instinct, developed over thousands of years for specific biological purposes, was designed to make them good mommy's.

You go to church on Sunday and decry the breakdown you see in dociety at large of the family unit, the essential building block of Gods plan, and then advocate during the week to introduce those same conditions into church.

Society works hard to deny men are men, women are women, that each are different and both are necessary to a family. Instead it tells us two men can be mommy's and two women daddy's, that the traditional mothers role can be fulfilled by surrogates and a fathers role by a welfare check, that marriage is an evolving concept, then pretends to decry the results. Politicians don't want to dismantle the welfare state and strengthen families, they want to dismantle families and expand governments reach so that at every aspect of our lives it is there to "help". And every helping hand comes with just that much more control.

In this world you reap the seeds you sow. And what we sow today is a me mentality that wants what it wants regardless of cost.

You look at the world around you as seen through the prism a society that has turned upside down and advocates what you know is against God's commandments and think you can pick and choose the good from the bad, separating the cause from the effect. Good luck with that one. If you embrace societies causes you will reap societies effects.

At least I am old enough, and my children grown, that I can be somewhat detached at this point. It is my children now, and maybe yours, that will determine the world their children inhabit

PS. I saw here also that Muslims are allowed to beat their wives. Yes some probably do as do many Christians. But in my time away from the church I spent a year or two attending a local Masjid (Mosque) and found for the most part the Muslim men love, honor, respect, and revere their women as much, or more, than many Christians. It really strikes me as rank prejudice to read comments like that

PPS

"You" was used rhetorically not towards a specific person here or elsewhere

Ok let the attacks begin

 

You will get one warning. Please review the pinned Hot Topics thread for guidelines.

[why me]

What happened to just trusting God's order of things, regardless of logical justifications?  Do we trust our logic more than we trust God?  It's not really having faith in God, or in his prophets, if we put our own logic ahead of everything else.  Sometimes I think we are asked to do illogical things just as a test to see if we can trust something outside of ourselves.  

 

I think that you are right. Many members seem to have forgotten about the lds church being a revelatory church. It seems that some members believe that social pressure will have its effect on church policy and revelation will play no part. Once the church becomes a social pressured church, it will be lumped with many other protestant churches that have succumbed to the world. 

[Tacenda]

In for a penny in for a pound I guess

Yet these politicians in these smoke filled rooms gave women the vote. Ever wonder why? Out of the goodness of their hearts, a sense of justice, the pressure the movement applied? Or maybe that by pandering to the women's they could achieve power for their own ends? Is it any wonder the rise of the all encompassing nanny state began with women getting the vote?

So you think women in society today have achieved independence? Sorry, they have just changed masters. Where before they traded obedience to a husband in return for provision and protection for them and their offspring now they trade obedience to the state in return for the supposed provision and protection of the state. At least their husbands cared for them snd had a vested interest in their and their offsprings welfare. The state has neither.

And along the way they have emasculated men to the point that they think the paternal instinct, developed over thousands of years for specific biological purposes, was designed to make them good mommy's.

You go to church on Sunday and decry the breakdown you see in dociety at large of the family unit, the essential building block of Gods plan, and then advocate during the week to introduce those same conditions into church.

Society works hard to deny men are men, women are women, that each are different and both are necessary to a family. Instead it tells us two men can be mommy's and two women daddy's, that the traditional mothers role can be fulfilled by surrogates and a fathers role by a welfare check, that marriage is an evolving concept, then pretends to decry the results. Politicians don't want to dismantle the welfare state and strengthen families, they want to dismantle families and expand governments reach so that at every aspect of our lives it is there to "help". And every helping hand comes with just that much more control.

In this world you reap the seeds you sow. And what we sow today is a me mentality that wants what it wants regardless of cost.

You look at the world around you as seen through the prism a society that has turned upside down and advocates what you know is against God's commandments and think you can pick and choose the good from the bad, separating the cause from the effect. Good luck with that one. If you embrace societies causes you will reap societies effects.

At least I am old enough, and my children grown, that I can be somewhat detached at this point. It is my children now, and maybe yours, that will determine the world their children inhabit

PS. I saw here also that Muslims are allowed to beat their wives. Yes some probably do as do many Christians. But in my time away from the church I spent a year or two attending a local Masjid (Mosque) and found for the most part the Muslim men love, honor, respect, and revere their women as much, or more, than many Christians. It really strikes me as rank prejudice to read comments like that

PPS

"You" was used rhetorically not towards a specific person here or elsewhere

Ok let the attacks begin

I don't want to waste my time, you wouldn't change your mind.

[Bikeemikey]

If the culture actually fails it will be equal disrespect for the sexes I believe, not equal respect unfortunately.

It's failed unequally in the past, why not in the future also.

When society fails it will be at the greater detriment to the already marginalized and less powerful. Unless we are talking of failure through revolution - the all bets are off.

[Bikeemikey]

In for a penny in for a pound I guess

Yet these politicians in these smoke filled rooms gave women the vote. Ever wonder why? Out of the goodness of their hearts, a sense of justice, the pressure the movement applied? Or maybe that by pandering to the women's they could achieve power for their own ends? Is it any wonder the rise of the all encompassing nanny state began with women getting the vote?

So you think women in society today have achieved independence? Sorry, they have just changed masters. Where before they traded obedience to a husband in return for provision and protection for them and their offspring now they trade obedience to the state in return for the supposed provision and protection of the state. At least their husbands cared for them snd had a vested interest in their and their offsprings welfare. The state has neither.

The rest of the diatribe no withstanding, it's a shame we don't have annual forum awards for the most unfounded ridiculous yet totally creatively insane BS to be posted.

I would nominate the above for such and award.

[Bikeemikey]

I think that you are right. Many members seem to have forgotten about the lds church being a revelatory church. It seems that some members believe that social pressure will have its effect on church policy and revelation will play no part. Once the church becomes a social pressured church, it will be lumped with many other protestant churches that have succumbed to the world.

I think that many members are aware a social impetus is sometimes required for before new ideas are grappled with in such a way that revelation is even possible.

The 1978 revelation on priesthood is a perfect example of this. It took a couple of decades of sincere inquiry and consideration (prompted in some part by changing social pressures) before new revelation was received.

That revelation comes in response to context does not diminish the value. It simply emphasizes that revelation is for us, driven by the real proximate concerns (context) that we face.

[changed]

I think that you are right. Many members seem to have forgotten about the lds church being a revelatory church. It seems that some members believe that social pressure will have its effect on church policy and revelation will play no part. Once the church becomes a social pressured church, it will be lumped with many other protestant churches that have succumbed to the world. 

It's a delicate balance to be in the world, but not of it.  

[Tiki]

Women are already allowed to attend priesthood meetings. The ones called Sacrament Meetings.

They occur on most Sundays except when priesthood meetings called Stake Conference and General Conference are scheduled - and the occasional regional- or church-wide priesthood meeting called Temple Dedication.

And I actually can't think of any Church Meeting which isn't a priesthood meeting, including Relief Society.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Tiki

[jaxenro]

The rest of the diatribe no withstanding, it's a shame we don't have annual forum awards for the most unfounded ridiculous yet totally creatively insane BS to be posted.

Yup kind of like if I'd said striking down the Texas sodomy laws would lead to same sex marriage? Oh wait it was Scalia that said that and was ridiculed for it.

I've seen the effects of these policies, of 4 and 5 generations on welfare. Don't think generational welfare is a form of slavery? Or that politicians use it to buy votes and have no interest in ending it? I guess you never spent time in the D street projects in Boston. Or watched a organized crime figure run voters to the polls from his bar. Ones that are on welfare. Not sure where your from but go live in Massachusetts for fifty years. Hang out with some junkies and watch them trade their good stamp EBT card for drugs at 65 cents on the dollar while their kids go hungry and the politicians block trying to stop it. Maybe I'm more cynical than you but maybe I've seen more of the seamier side of life. Hard to say I don't know you or where your from.

What I do see is more and more children born out of wedlock, more and more children without a biological father in the home, gender roles being blurred as to non existent, more and more men not going to college compared to women, a gay and feminist agenda being pushed in schools, and traditional male roles being frowned on and ridiculed. This is the society I see in New England, along with confiscatory gun laws. And one it seems some want the Church to embrace?

 

Hijacking threads with political stands and off-topic tirades = out.