Practical Implications Of Ordaining Women To The Priesthood

[juliann]

 

 

The current structure of the church has allowed it to evolve to meet the different needs of women while giving them priesthood authority in how they operate. When men conform as they're required to the order of the priesthood and obey the CHI, then both men and women in the ward have a great deal of power and the ward operates as the Lord would have it. The fact that some men in positions of authority don't conform (and D&C 121 addresses that specifically) isn't justification for changing the order of the priesthood as is being demanded by some.

And it isn't justification for not changing it so what is your point other than to keep arguing that women shouldn't have the priesthood by any means you can contrive?  This was supposed to be a hypothetical situation about what would change not why it shouldn't...which is what your list was really about. 

[Buzzard]

One practical consideration: this is a church of councils. Mixed gender presidencies, bishoprics, and high councils are just asking for trouble. It's just human nature. Unless we mix gay brothers with the sisters.

[juliann]

One practical consideration: this is a church of councils. Mixed gender presidencies, bishoprics, and high councils are just asking for trouble. It's just human nature. Unless we mix gay brothers with the sisters.

Well, that's too bad.  Men's participation would have been useful.

[Thinking]

Co-ed basketball?

[wenglund]

Co-ed basketball?

 

What about coed-wrestling? I doubt the men would object.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Brian 2.0]

One practical consideration: this is a church of councils. Mixed gender presidencies, bishoprics, and high councils are just asking for trouble. It's just human nature. Unless we mix gay brothers with the sisters.

Is this in jest? I sure hope so.

If not, what kind of trouble are you referring to? Sexual trouble? If so, we better hurry up and disband the countless committees in each ward that are mixed gendered.

[jwhitlock]

And it isn't justification for not changing it so what is your point other than to keep arguing that women shouldn't have the priesthood by any means you can contrive?  This was supposed to be a hypothetical situation about what would change not why it shouldn't...which is what your list was really about. 

 

It's really too bad that your assumptions about me in all of this are simply false. Rather than having any real discussion about this, you've decided that I'm a misogynist,demeaning woman-hater and that everything I post is driven by that characteristic on my part.

 

You couldn't be more wrong, including your assumption about what my list was all about.

 

Since this whole discussion has been in the context of OW and their non-negotiable demand that women be given the priesthood, it was more than appropriate to consider what might be behind such demands. Among those considerations would be the question as to whether anyone demanding the priesthood had given any thought to the changes it would entail in the church and in the revealed structure and oath and covenant of the priesthood.

 

Instead, my questions and observations have been summarily dismissed by you as just evidence that I think that "women shouldn't have the priesthood by any means [i[ can contrive" followed by a declaration that you have determined that this is "what [my] list was really about".

 

As far as I'm concerned at this point, my questions are out there for people to think about. They're inconvenient questions with difficult answers that are not satisfied by shallow "God can do anything He wants" types of rationalizations. No one on your side of the fence appears to want to deal with such questions, other than ridicule the knuckle dragging, woman-hating priesthood holder who would dare have the temerity to explore things that only certain types of women can truly understand.

 

So in the context of how you have posted about me on this thread and given the tone and content of your responses to me elsewhere on this subject, I think that it's improbable that you and I will be able to interact productively on this subject. It's really a shame, because I think that men do want to have thought-provoking discussions about this issue, but that's not really possible where the real attitude is that men are only really welcome to participate in women's issues in a supportive role, as was expressed on the OW web site.

 

I'm sure you'll find plenty to be displeased with in this post, so I'll leave you to it. Maybe you'll prove me wrong, but if not, then have fun sniping at me. I'll explore the inconvenient questions with whoever else wants to productively participate.

[Calm]

One practical consideration: this is a church of councils. Mixed gender presidencies, bishoprics, and high councils are just asking for trouble. It's just human nature. Unless we mix gay brothers with the s.

We already have mixed councils though. There is the ward council for one thing. And we have apostles meeting with the general boards, stake presidents meeting with the stake boards and bishops meeting with RS Presidents.

Then there is Sunday School with all those men meeting with all those women.

And wouldn't gay brothers have the same issue meeting with other males so there could be only one gay male per council in your scenarios.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[juliann]

This has gotten so ridiculous that I got a call about taking a handicapped (and inactive member) sister to the doctor...she has worn the ward out for a couple of decades.  (She is so demanding they had to remove visiting teachers because she would call them in the middle of the night ordering them to come over right away and becoming verbally abusive if they wouldn't.)  I couldn't help and was asked for names, so I suggested a brother who is home during the day, had a truck for a wheelchair if necessary, etc.  The response?  Well, we can't have a man in a car with a woman!

[frank_jessop]

These types of threads are very humorous.

This thread inspired me to watch the final 30 minutes of "Apocolypse Now" (it is now available streaming on Netflix). The final words of Colonel Kurtz are all I can think of, when I see these types of threads.....

"The horror...The horror."

Juliann and Calmoriah, thank you each for you voice on these topics. Your voices are rays of sunshine scattered about the gloom and doom.

Edited June 25, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/scatter-sunshine?lang=eng

[rameumptom]

When women get an official ordination to the priesthood (outside the current temple work they can do), I strongly believe it will be a different priesthood than men get.  We learn in the temple that we have kings and priests, queens and priestesses, suggesting important and similar, but separate roles.  The things taught on priesthood by Elder Oaks suggest also a separation of some duties and responsibilities in these things.  I think we will see the Relief Society set up as Joseph Smith set it up in Nauvoo, with more independent power and its own keys to perform their specific work.

[rodheadlee]

Wow, the refusal of you women to engage in a conversation on the practical applications of giving women the MP amazes me. I expected a lot more than one liner zingers and an attitude about how we men perceive women.

[watermelongirl]

One practical consideration: this is a church of councils. Mixed gender presidencies, bishoprics, and high councils are just asking for trouble. It's just human nature. Unless we mix gay brothers with the sisters.

I think there are already issues in this area... the discipline council structure brings this to light. YW interviews with much older men... and this is when there is a power differential. I don't think using the mixed gender potential problems is a good argument unless we do away with all of the other potential problem situations that currently exist.

[mfbukowski]

I think having gender-separated meetings for third hour would still be good, because in a lot of ways [especially for the youth], girls and boys have different needs.

Sounds to me like you still believe in those old fashioned gender roles! Disciplinary Council for you!

You need re-education!

Edited June 25, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think there are already issues in this area... the discipline council structure brings this to light. YW interviews with much older men... and this is when there is a power differential. I don't think using the mixed gender potential problems is a good argument unless we do away with all of the other potential problem situations that currently exist.

What's wrong with a "power differential"?

[mfbukowski]

Deleted for being too politically incorrect even though it was a joke.

Edited June 25, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

When women get an official ordination to the priesthood (outside the current temple work they can do), I strongly believe it will be a different priesthood than men get.  We learn in the temple that we have kings and priests, queens and priestesses, suggesting important and similar, but separate roles.  The things taught on priesthood by Elder Oaks suggest also a separation of some duties and responsibilities in these things.  I think we will see the Relief Society set up as Joseph Smith set it up in Nauvoo, with more independent power and its own keys to perform their specific work.

Absolutely agree.

[mfbukowski]

This has gotten so ridiculous that I got a call about taking a handicapped (and inactive member) sister to the doctor...she has worn the ward out for a couple of decades.  (She is so demanding they had to remove visiting teachers because she would call them in the middle of the night ordering them to come over right away and becoming verbally abusive if they wouldn't.)  I couldn't help and was asked for names, so I suggested a brother who is home during the day, had a truck for a wheelchair if necessary, etc.  The response?  Well, we can't have a man in a car with a woman!

But I thought it was bad to have a power differential?

[watermelongirl]

What's wrong with a "power differential"?

As we were talking about potential problems of mixed gender meetings, etc... we like to think that those in authority over us would never do anything to hurt one of their flock, but there are so many ways in which this can and does go wrong.

 

Teenage girls in rooms with older males... whether they have the priesthood or not... is one of those areas where potential problems arise. And when there is a power differential, there is greater opportunity for abuse - ecclesiastical or otherwise.

[Buzzard]

I think there are already issues in this area... the discipline council structure brings this to light. YW interviews with much older men... and this is when there is a power differential. I don't think using the mixed gender potential problems is a good argument unless we do away with all of the other potential problem situations that currently exist.

I was thinking about the time that ExSec's and Ward Clerks spend alone with bishops. Not just 15 minute interviews, but hours. And it's a world of difference between a Ward council where it's an open, meeting with several people present to driving around to members homes doing ministry. Some of the closest friendships in my life have come in quorum leadership roles. When you work side by side with someone, pray with them, serve others with them, and meet with them, often and often alone, you get close, you just do. Don't think that it can be a problem? I personally know of two bishops who got too close with RS presidents, one ending with both parties being exed, the other requiring that both be released prematurely, though the affair had not progressed to it's physical conclusion. Why go looking for more trouble than you have to?

[mfbukowski]

Can we just get a list of what this faction of sisters want instead of vague generalities that cannot be defined?

I know what my wife wants, and I suspect 90% of the sisters want, and that this the status quo.

Can we just get a plan of what this would look like?

I think we are seeing gender differences right here on this thread in the ways we discuss this.

[watermelongirl]

I was thinking about the time that ExSec's and Ward Clerks spend alone with bishops. Not just 15 minute interviews, but hours. And it's a world of difference between a Ward council where it's an open, meeting with several people present to driving around to members homes doing ministry. Some of the closest friendships in my life have come in quorum leadership roles. When you work side by side with someone, pray with them, serve others with them, and meet with them, often and often alone, you get close, you just do. Don't think that it can be a problem? I personally know of two bishops who got too close with RS presidents, one ending with both parties being exed, the other requiring that both be released prematurely, though the affair had not progressed to it's physical conclusion. Why go looking for more trouble than you have to?

I'm not at all arguing that mixed councils would be the right way to go. It's definitely a problem that would need worked out. I'm hoping that if/when greater light and knowledge comes, an inspired solution would present itself.

 

That being said, I would like to find a way to work the problems that the system already has as well.

[mfbukowski]

As we were talking about potential problems of mixed gender meetings, etc... we like to think that those in authority over us would never do anything to hurt one of their flock, but there are so many ways in which this can and does go wrong.

 

Teenage girls in rooms with older males... whether they have the priesthood or not... is one of those areas where potential problems arise. And when there is a power differential, there is greater opportunity for abuse - ecclesiastical or otherwise.

So brothers and sisters in a car together. Yes or no.

[Rain]

Stormin - thank you for this thread. I think for some it could be a good exercise.

I think it was you that mentioned being a planner. A few tears back I was provident living specialist and searched the scriptures relating to my calling. I was truly amazed how much of a planner the Lord is than I ever thought to even imagine before. It showed me his love for me through his plans.

I think I am more of an information gatherer. I like to gather any and all the info that I can and then use it to go with the flow.

I don't see women being ordained to the priesthood in this life anyway. While if it were to be the Lord's will I would accept it I think I would be a little disappointed that my understanding of my wonderful role is so wrong. I feel empowered through my understanding. I'm sure my understanding is very incomplete.

The fact of the matter is if Heavenly Father wants to ordain women then he has a plan for it and the plan is so much better than man will come up with.

For these reasons I don't have a desire to come up with things that would need to change. I don't have a desire to plan for it. This doesn't make me shallow as has been suggested. It just means I have different priorities.

But I do think it is a good topic, because there could be some good learning in it and I have to say I'm disappointed in how it has been treated. On the other thread I felt it would just turn into an argument so I had hopes something would come of this one.