Practical Implications Of Ordaining Women To The Priesthood

[mfbukowski]

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.

Let's talk about men's needs for a minute. We are simple creatures who like clear directions. We are not too complicated and like lists. On the other hand, pleasing women is what we live for.

Now that said, what is it you want. A list would be nice.

[watermelongirl]

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.

One of the heartbreaking aspects of OW is the polarization of feminists versus the rest of the church. I fall in the middle and do not consider myself to be advocating that receiving the priesthood is the only way that women could viewed as equal in the church. I do think that there are institutional sexisms and problems with the current system. I believe that the restoration is ongoing, and that women and their rights and roles are a part of it. (See my writing about that here: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/06/as-they-were-in-the-beginning/)

 

As a middle of the road feminist, I think it is not productive to try to impose what the priesthood might look like when given to women. BUT... y'all want a list. Here's a moderate woman's list of grievances.

 

What I want is less sexism in the church in general.

• I've been in situations in which my voice was minimized solely because of my gender. I don't like that. It's always a possibility in our current patriarchal system.
• I would like to see expanded acceptance for women's roles beyond SAHM. Each husband and wife determine the best way for their family to have their needs met. Non-SAHMs are seen as less righteous by both men and women.
• Why in the world does the last talk always have to be given by a man?
• Why do modesty lessons almost inevitably tell girls that they are responsible for keeping boys in line? I want modesty lessons to change focus and have a MUCH smaller place.
• The programs for YM/scouting and YW need to be on par with one another. This should not be so terribly difficult to figure out.
• RS should be given greater autonomy to determine how their budgets are used and what there curriculum should be.
• Females should be allowed to confess their sins at least with another woman present or to another woman alone.
• I don't like the use of the word "preside" when we talk about families. We *say* that it means that husbands and wives are equals, but that's not what the word really means.
• The blessings of fulfilling any calling that does not require priesthood keys should be available to both men and women. Why do we insist on pigeonholing people based on their gender?
• I believe that there are a great many possible situations for abuse with women and little to no recourse for them to get the help that they need, other than to ultimately talk to another man (RS Pres first, but then it has to go to a man again at some point). 
• I want to be able to talk about Heavenly Mother without the cultural ban on her invoked. There's no justification for it. I want to know more about Her. If we believe so much in family, why do we erase her from the picture. (https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=8669)
• I would like to see a reexamination of the practice of women's healings and birth anointings. These never required priesthood ordination and yet were phased out for reasons that are less than clear.

 

There's a start. I'm not claiming that it is comprehensive. I know it doesn't answer your exact questions, but I'm not qualified to do so since I don't think that ordaining women is by necessity the best or only option.

[mfbukowski]

So these are typical problems of priesthood leadership. A person who has worn out the ward needs help, and only someone of the opposite sex can help.

Alone together- Yes or no? You must decide in the next 3 minutes or nothing happens.

Under the new regime you are a 25 year old female youth leader with the priesthood who needs to interview a 17 year old boy for worthiness. No one else is available, and if you don't do it now, he will not make it to the temple to do baptisms.

What do you do?

[mtomm]

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!

 

Lame-o.  We had a sister that would call the R.S. president in the night and ask her to come to home and sleep with her.  She couldn't sleep since her husband had passed away.  The amazing thing is the R.S. president did!  Several times!  That's love people.  That's probably one situation that you wouldn't really want a brother to step in.  

[mfbukowski]

One of the heartbreaking aspects of OW is the polarization of feminists versus the rest of the church. I fall in the middle and do not consider myself to be advocating that receiving the priesthood is the only way that women could viewed as equal in the church. I do think that there are institutional sexisms and problems with the current system. I believe that the restoration is ongoing, and that women and their rights and roles are a part of it. (See my writing about that here: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/06/as-they-were-in-the-beginning/)

 

As a middle of the road feminist, I think it is not productive to try to impose what the priesthood might look like when given to women. BUT... y'all want a list. Here's a moderate woman's list of grievances.

 

What I want is less sexism in the church in general.

• I've been in situations in which my voice was minimized solely because of my gender. I don't like that. It's always a possibility in our current patriarchal system.
• I would like to see expanded acceptance for women's roles beyond SAHM. Each husband and wife determine the best way for their family to have their needs met. Non-SAHMs are seen as less righteous by both men and women.
• Why in the world does the last talk always have to be given by a man?
• Why do modesty lessons almost inevitably tell girls that they are responsible for keeping boys in line? I want modesty lessons to change focus and have a MUCH smaller place.
• The programs for YM/scouting and YW need to be on par with one another. This should not be so terribly difficult to figure out.
• RS should be given greater autonomy to determine how their budgets are used and what there curriculum should be.
• Females should be allowed to confess their sins at least with another woman present or to another woman alone.
• I don't like the use of the word "preside" when we talk about families. We *say* that it means that husbands and wives are equals, but that's not what the word really means.
• The blessings of fulfilling any calling that does not require priesthood keys should be available to both men and women. Why do we insist on pigeonholing people based on their gender?
• I believe that there are a great many possible situations for abuse with women and little to no recourse for them to get the help that they need, other than to ultimately talk to another man (RS Pres first, but then it has to go to a man again at some point). 
• I want to be able to talk about Heavenly Mother without the cultural ban on her invoked. There's no justification for it. I want to know more about Her. If we believe so much in family, why do we erase her from the picture. (https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=8669)
• I would like to see a reexamination of the practice of women's healings and birth anointings. These never required priesthood ordination and yet were phased out for reasons that are less than clear.

There's a start. I'm not claiming that it is comprehensive. I know it doesn't answer your exact questions, but I'm not qualified to do so since I don't think that ordaining women is by necessity the best or only option.

Thanks for the response, and I will tackle it later today. What is SAHM?

[escott3564]

Personally, I just find it sad that they don't realize they already have the priesthood and it is called the Relief Society. Since they are roughly equivalent to a Melq. P Elder. Not much would need to change at all. None of the prayers or anything that I'm aware of. Because they are to be done by a "holder of the Melq. P" If we admit that they do hold the Melq P. boom.  All done.

This is my feeling as well.

 

Why couldn't YW and YM remain as it is now?  The only difference would be that 12 year old Young Women would hold the same keys that 12 year old Young Men hold as Deacons.  14 year olds are Teachers, and 16 year olds are Priests.  They could still have their separate meetings, which has been pointed out by others on the thread would be a good thing considering that needs are still different.

 

You would have the YW Deacons Quorum and the YM Deacons Quorum, etc.  How hard is that?  The Bishop could preside over both YW and YM Priest Quorums.

 

RS could still meet as is.

 

I really don't see a huge upheaval here.  As Juliann pointed out, the changes suggested in that initial list were clearly from a very narrow male point of view.

[mtomm]

One of the heartbreaking aspects of OW is the polarization of feminists versus the rest of the church. I fall in the middle and do not consider myself to be advocating that receiving the priesthood is the only way that women could viewed as equal in the church. I do think that there are institutional sexisms and problems with the current system. I believe that the restoration is ongoing, and that women and their rights and roles are a part of it. (See my writing about that here: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/06/as-they-were-in-the-beginning/)

 

As a middle of the road feminist, I think it is not productive to try to impose what the priesthood might look like when given to women. BUT... y'all want a list. Here's a moderate woman's list of grievances.

 

What I want is less sexism in the church in general.

• I've been in situations in which my voice was minimized solely because of my gender. I don't like that. It's always a possibility in our current patriarchal system.
• I would like to see expanded acceptance for women's roles beyond SAHM. Each husband and wife determine the best way for their family to have their needs met. Non-SAHMs are seen as less righteous by both men and women.
• Why in the world does the last talk always have to be given by a man?
• Why do modesty lessons almost inevitably tell girls that they are responsible for keeping boys in line? I want modesty lessons to change focus and have a MUCH smaller place.
• The programs for YM/scouting and YW need to be on par with one another. This should not be so terribly difficult to figure out.
• RS should be given greater autonomy to determine how their budgets are used and what there curriculum should be.
• Females should be allowed to confess their sins at least with another woman present or to another woman alone.
• I don't like the use of the word "preside" when we talk about families. We *say* that it means that husbands and wives are equals, but that's not what the word really means.
• The blessings of fulfilling any calling that does not require priesthood keys should be available to both men and women. Why do we insist on pigeonholing people based on their gender?
• I believe that there are a great many possible situations for abuse with women and little to no recourse for them to get the help that they need, other than to ultimately talk to another man (RS Pres first, but then it has to go to a man again at some point). 
• I want to be able to talk about Heavenly Mother without the cultural ban on her invoked. There's no justification for it. I want to know more about Her. If we believe so much in family, why do we erase her from the picture. (https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=8669)
• I would like to see a reexamination of the practice of women's healings and birth anointings. These never required priesthood ordination and yet were phased out for reasons that are less than clear.

 

There's a start. I'm not claiming that it is comprehensive. I know it doesn't answer your exact questions, but I'm not qualified to do so since I don't think that ordaining women is by necessity the best or only option.

 

 

^^This.  Well done.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

 

You would have the YW Deacons Quorum and the YM Deacons Quorum, etc.  How hard is that?  The Bishop could preside over both YW and YM Priest Quorums.

 

 

No one is saying it's hard. 

 

But you HAVE identified something in our doctrine that would need to change.  Currently, the scriptures only list a single reason why a ward could have multiple deacons, teachers, priests, or elders quorums.  What you have suggested would require a second reason to form such additional quorums.  No one is saying such a change makes ordination for women impossible, but it IS an additional change to our doctrine.  I'm just trying to identify WHAT those changes would be.

 

Thank you.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Stormin' Mormon

[Buzzard]

 

What I want is less sexism in the church in general.

You are closer than you think.

• I've been in situations in which my voice was minimized solely because of my gender. I don't like that. It's always a possibility in our current patriarchal system.
•       ​The potential exists in any system, including matriarchal ones. Until or unless you can take humans out of the loop, personalities and prejudices will rear their heads.
• I would like to see expanded acceptance for women's roles beyond SAHM. Each husband and wife determine the best way for their family to have their needs met. Non-SAHMs are seen as less righteous by both men and women.
•        I don't mean to sound stupid, but have no idea what a SAHM is. 
• Why in the world does the last talk always have to be given by a man?
•       It doesn't and isn't. I see women given the last speakers slot often in my ward. And I live deep in the heart of Utah County. 
• Why do modesty lessons almost inevitably tell girls that they are responsible for keeping boys in line? I want modesty lessons to change focus and have a MUCH smaller place.
•       Maybe I have been sheltered, but it's been a few decades since I heard the "boys can't help themselves" line. There will always be more talks about YW's modesty because that is where Satan goes with it. I have heard YM counseled not to go shirtless on a casual basis, if that helps.
• The programs for YM/scouting and YW need to be on par with one another. This should not be so terribly difficult to figure out.
•       In my ward, Girls camp has always cost more than Scout Camp, or even the High adventure for older boys. And I have been in a position to see the budgets handed out. The YW dinner and auction is a big deal on the ward calendar each year, and makes it so that the YW don't have to pay. Other wards might be different, but the days when the boys flew to Hawaii for deep sea fishing seem to be a thing of the past. 
• RS should be given greater autonomy to determine how their budgets are used and what there curriculum should be.
•       Don't know about autonomy, but any of the Priesthood quorums would be delighted to swap their budgets for that of the RS. We get 3-4 socials a year where the main attraction is BYU creamery ice cream. The RS has that many full dinners annually. 
• Females should be allowed to confess their sins at least with another woman present or to another woman alone.
•      Nobody gets 100%. It's the bishops job to be a common judge in Israel, and not likely to change anytime soon.
• I don't like the use of the word "preside" when we talk about families. We *say* that it means that husbands and wives are equals, but that's not what the word really means.
•      Rhetoric vs. real world. We may preside, but I have been married 34 years and can't remember the last time my wife did something just because I said so. OTOH, the reverse happens fairly regularly. Other marriages may be different, but that's often a relationship dynamic rather than a religious one. 
• The blessings of fulfilling any calling that does not require priesthood keys should be available to both men and women. Why do we insist on pigeonholing people based on their gender?
•       I think there is currently a thread going on this subject. I'll defer the discussion to there. 
• I believe that there are a great many possible situations for abuse with women and little to no recourse for them to get the help that they need, other than to ultimately talk to another man (RS Pres first, but then it has to go to a man again at some point). 
•       ​See, Bishop, common judge in Israel, above. I do know that Bishops have professional resources available to them and are trained to refer people there when circumstances warrant. And if your husband smacks you around, no one says you have to call the bishop before you call the police.  
• I want to be able to talk about Heavenly Mother without the cultural ban on her invoked. There's no justification for it. I want to know more about Her. If we believe so much in family, why do we erase her from the picture. (https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=8669)   Cultural ban? She's in the hymnbook. The only counsel I have ever heard over the pulpit is that we don't pray to her. Is that what you are asking about?
• I would like to see a reexamination of the practice of women's healings and birth anointings. These never required priesthood ordination and yet were phased out for reasons that are less than clear.
•         Neither of us were there in 1946. There may have been good reasons and/or revelation involved. I think its a legitimate question to be asked, is it the hill to die on? Personally (just me, not the church), I'd be OK with a mother in the circle at a baby blessing or even during a blessing where a MP holder was voice. If I may speculate, I wonder if the concern is that allowing this would be seen as a stepping stone to ordination, something that is clearly not on the church's plan at the moment. FWIW, in my ward, the mother brings the child forward and presents/displays/shows the baby to the congregation before handing him or her to the father for the blessing. It's a tradition that goes back further than anyone in the ward can remember.

 

There's a start. I'm not claiming that it is comprehensive. I know it doesn't answer your exact questions, but I'm not qualified to do so since I don't think that ordaining women is by necessity the best or only option.

[escott3564]

No one is saying it's hard. 

 

But you HAVE identified something in our doctrine that would need to change.  Currently, the scriptures only list a single reason why a ward could have multiple deacons, teachers, priests, or elders quorums.  What you have suggested would require a second reason to form such additional quorums.  No one is saying such a change makes ordination for women impossible, but it IS an additional change to our doctrine.  I'm just trying to identify WHAT those changes would be.

 

Thank you.

It seems to me that these are procedural changes rather than doctrinal changes.  What scripture are you referring to that specifies only one quorum per ward?  And even if that is listed in the scriptures currently, if we truly believe in continuing revelation, then certainly new organizational edicts could be presented in the Ensign or some other proclamation which would then be considered modern scripture.

 

As other posters here have pointed out, all of the organizations at some point had to be planned...Primary, Sunday School, etc.  Heck, changes involving correlation happen all the time.

 

And as far as missionary work is concerned, maybe it would mean that women as well as men would be required to go.  I don't think that would really be such a traumatic thing.  Since the lowering of the age for female missionaries, look at the volume of how many sisters have volunteered to go.

[Brian 2.0]

under our current structure is there ever an instance where a women will "preside" over a man?  

 

Do not account for children in this scenario.  I'd imagine primary and such you would have that happen over primary age males.

 

Is there ever a women presiding over a man in any meetings, even committee meetings etc?

[jwhitlock]

 

Is there ever a women presiding over a man in any meetings, even committee meetings etc?

 

Yep. The Primary presidency gives direction to primary teaches and nursery leaders, who can be men.

[Kaleb Webb]

escott, I what Stormin' Mormon is saying is that the scriptures [i believe it's in D&C 20] specify certain reasons for having multiple priesthood quorums in a ward, and that if women's ordination were possible than there would have to be new reasons for having women's quorums as well, I believe

[Buzzard]

Yep. The Primary presidency gives direction to primary teaches and nursery leaders, who can be men.

I'm a Cubmaster, and my direct report in the church structure is the Primary President.

[Stormin' Mormon]

The scripture in question is in D&C 107, actually.  Although wards aren't mentioned (since the revelation pre-dates modern wards by several decades), the practice has been one quorum per ward up to the maximum quorum size at which point the quorum is split.  This maximum number is spelled out explicitly in the D&C 107: 12 deacons, 24 teachers, 48 priests, and 96 elders.  Having separate quorums by gender would require multiple quorums that together would not have the numbers to be scripturally justified in keeping them separate.

 

This is NOT TO SAY that additional revelation can't come, or even that the change can't be implemented at the policy level.  But it IS a change to the current day-to-day operations of the Church. 

 

My intent in identifying these issues is NOT to make a list of why this can't happen.  Rather, I'm trying to understand the magnitude of the change.  If you tweak one thing in any system, there are going to be changes and reactions throughout the entire system.   

[Nofear]

SAHM = stay at home mom

[Brian 2.0]

The scripture in question is in D&C 107, actually.  Although wards aren't mentioned (since the revelation pre-dates modern wards by several decades), the practice has been one quorum per ward up to the maximum quorum size at which point the quorum is split.  This maximum number is spelled out explicitly in the D&C 107: 12 deacons, 24 teachers, 48 priests, and 96 elders.  Having separate quorums by gender would require multiple quorums that together would not have the numbers to be scripturally justified in keeping them separate.

 

This is NOT TO SAY that additional revelation can't come, or even that the change can't be implemented at the policy level.  But it IS a change to the current day-to-day operations of the Church. 

 

My intent in identifying these issues is NOT to make a list of why this can't happen.  Rather, I'm trying to understand the magnitude of the change.  If you tweak one thing in any system, there are going to be changes and reactions throughout the entire system.   

 

We don't follow this today to the letter though.  I'm sure there are plenty of wards on the Wasatch front with more that 12 deacons.  

[watermelongirl]

 

 

What I want is less sexism in the church in general.

You are closer than you think.

 

We're not there yet. By a long shot.

• I've been in situations in which my voice was minimized solely because of my gender. I don't like that. It's always a possibility in our current patriarchal system.
•       ​The potential exists in any system, including matriarchal ones. Until or unless you can take humans out of the loop, personalities and prejudices will rear their heads.

I'm not arguing matriarchy as the answer to patriarchy. I'm saying find a way to institutionalize parity/equity in a way that doesn't always always always put women at the mercy of men.

• I would like to see expanded acceptance for women's roles beyond SAHM. Each husband and wife determine the best way for their family to have their needs met. Non-SAHMs are seen as less righteous by both men and women.
•        I don't mean to sound stupid, but have no idea what a SAHM is. 

Stay At Home Mom

• Why in the world does the last talk always have to be given by a man?
•       It doesn't and isn't. I see women given the last speakers slot often in my ward. And I live deep in the heart of Utah County. 

Have you counted how often? Is it roughly half of the time? It happens once in a while in my ward. I live WAY outside of Utah.

• Why do modesty lessons almost inevitably tell girls that they are responsible for keeping boys in line? I want modesty lessons to change focus and have a MUCH smaller place.
•       Maybe I have been sheltered, but it's been a few decades since I heard the "boys can't help themselves" line. There will always be more talks about YW's modesty because that is where Satan goes with it. I have heard YM counseled not to go shirtless on a casual basis, if that helps.

I hope you're right about this changing. I have not been in YW lately. My daughters will enter the program in a couple of years, and I hope to see this trend gone completely.

• The programs for YM/scouting and YW need to be on par with one another. This should not be so terribly difficult to figure out.
•       In my ward, Girls camp has always cost more than Scout Camp, or even the High adventure for older boys. And I have been in a position to see the budgets handed out. The YW dinner and auction is a big deal on the ward calendar each year, and makes it so that the YW don't have to pay. Other wards might be different, but the days when the boys flew to Hawaii for deep sea fishing seem to be a thing of the past. 

Fundraising in our ward far favors the boys in our ward. It's not just money though. It's about personnel resources and what we are asking the youth to learn and experience. The male emphasis on scouting severely skews balance toward the boys.

• RS should be given greater autonomy to determine how their budgets are used and what there curriculum should be.
•       Don't know about autonomy, but any of the Priesthood quorums would be delighted to swap their budgets for that of the RS. We get 3-4 socials a year where the main attraction is BYU creamery ice cream. The RS has that many full dinners annually. 

Each month, 50% of lessons come from correlated manuals about the teachings of our prophets. Wonderfully, we've recently had one slim volume about the RS presidents/history added to our possible curriculum resources for use once per month. We are far from autonomous about what we can teach. It is not about the amount of money in this instance either. It is about having more say in the direction that RS funds can be used, from top to bottom. It's also about having the passion and ability to organize events and service the way we see fit. Anectodally, the women in our RS tell about the time when they used to raise funds to donate to shelters and the like. They are not allowed to raise funds for anything anymore. The independence of RS has slowly eroded since its inception and the current manifestation does not match in many respects what we know JS said about his vision of it.

• Females should be allowed to confess their sins at least with another woman present or to another woman alone.
•      Nobody gets 100%. It's the bishops job to be a common judge in Israel, and not likely to change anytime soon.

I would like this to change. I feel very strongly about it for personal reasons. Why would we not minimize the risk of ecclesiastical or other abuses?

• I don't like the use of the word "preside" when we talk about families. We *say* that it means that husbands and wives are equals, but that's not what the word really means.
•      Rhetoric vs. real world. We may preside, but I have been married 34 years and can't remember the last time my wife did something just because I said so. OTOH, the reverse happens fairly regularly. Other marriages may be different, but that's often a relationship dynamic rather than a religious one. 

It's a word thing, I won't argue there. It opens the possibility for men to exert their authority unrighteously over his wife. We should try to say words that match what we mean.

• The blessings of fulfilling any calling that does not require priesthood keys should be available to both men and women. Why do we insist on pigeonholing people based on their gender?
•       I think there is currently a thread going on this subject. I'll defer the discussion to there. 
• I believe that there are a great many possible situations for abuse with women and little to no recourse for them to get the help that they need, other than to ultimately talk to another man (RS Pres first, but then it has to go to a man again at some point). 
•       ​See, Bishop, common judge in Israel, above. I do know that Bishops have professional resources available to them and are trained to refer people there when circumstances warrant. And if your husband smacks you around, no one says you have to call the bishop before you call the police.  

I think we can do better on this one, and I believe it to be important.

• I want to be able to talk about Heavenly Mother without the cultural ban on her invoked. There's no justification for it. I want to know more about Her. If we believe so much in family, why do we erase her from the picture. (https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=8669)   Cultural ban? She's in the hymnbook. The only counsel I have ever heard over the pulpit is that we don't pray to her. Is that what you are asking about?

She's got one line in the hymnbook. Hallelujah! I want to know more. Cultural ban = we shouldn't talk about her because Heavenly Father wants to protect her. As the linked article shows, that is entirely a cultural construct, not stated by any GA. We can and should say more about her to better reflect what we believe about eternal families.

• I would like to see a reexamination of the practice of women's healings and birth anointings. These never required priesthood ordination and yet were phased out for reasons that are less than clear.
•         Neither of us were there in 1946. There may have been good reasons and/or revelation involved. I think its a legitimate question to be asked, is it the hill to die on? Personally (just me, not the church), I'd be OK with a mother in the circle at a baby blessing or even during a blessing where a MP holder was voice. If I may speculate, I wonder if the concern is that allowing this would be seen as a stepping stone to ordination, something that is clearly not on the church's plan at the moment. FWIW, in my ward, the mother brings the child forward and presents/displays/shows the baby to the congregation before handing him or her to the father for the blessing. It's a tradition that goes back further than anyone in the ward can remember.

I would humbly ask the brethren for further light and knowledge on that. I think it has the potential to bless many lives. If I had known that there was such a thing as the birth anointing before I had my children, I might have seriously considered having it done before the births of my four children. It sounds like a beautiful woman to woman ritual and it makes me so sad that it has been lost.

 

 

Part of the problem with many of your arguments is that you cite anecdotally "well that's not how my ward works." These things are all problems in my ward and potentially in any ward, depending on the man that is in charge. When do we discount abuses or issues just because we can't see them?

 

One of the arguments I've had cited to me, and it seems that Buzzard might agree is that the church is trying to encourage some of these changes. I agree there, but I think that it is far short of being sufficient, as I see no viable system of accountability in place for addressing sexism.

[juliann]

So these are typical problems of priesthood leadership. A person who has worn out the ward needs help, and only someone of the opposite sex can help.

Alone together- Yes or no? You must decide in the next 3 minutes or nothing happens.

Under the new regime you are a 25 year old female youth leader with the priesthood who needs to interview a 17 year old boy for worthiness. No one else is available, and if you don't do it now, he will not make it to the temple to do baptisms.

What do you do?

I don't understand the problem here, other than you are switching genders which seems to make being female the problem.  Would any of these situations be considered a problem if men were doing them?

 

It is helpful, I think, to insert men in what is told to women....and vice versa.  If it sounds absurd (beyond a few things), then we need to work on our attitudes.  For example, I find it astonishing that so many think having a woman in a meeting causes sexual problems....the assumption being the woman shouldn't be there. Until removing the men and leaving the women becomes an equally plausible solution, we really aren't to the point of being able to have a discussion about anything but the status quo which maintains men's positions

 

And SAHM is stay at home mom.

Edited June 25, 2014 by juliann

[watermelongirl]

 

I find it astonishing that so many think having a woman in a meeting causes sexual problems....the assumption being the woman shouldn't be there. Until removing the men and leaving the women becomes an equally plausible solution, we really aren't to the point of being able to have a discussion about anything but the status quo which maintains men's positions

Well stated.

[juliann]

One of the heartbreaking aspects of OW is the polarization of feminists versus the rest of the church. I fall in the middle and do not consider myself to be advocating that receiving the priesthood is the only way that women could viewed as equal in the church. I do think that there are institutional sexisms and problems with the current system. I believe that the restoration is ongoing, and that women and their rights and roles are a part of it. (See my writing about that here: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/06/as-they-were-in-the-beginning/)

 

Yes, yes, yes, yes.   I loved this,

 

 

The most important thing in this moment is that we learn to love and support each other in our diversity, in our desire to do good and in our willingness to follow the teachings of our Savior. Let us be a loving, nonjudgmental, righteous example to those of us who might “caress and fondle the very chains and manacles which fetter an enslave them.”

 

[Rock_N_Roll]

 

 

What I want is less sexism in the church in general.

You are closer than you think.

• I've been in situations in which my voice was minimized solely because of my gender. I don't like that. It's always a possibility in our current patriarchal system.
•       ​The potential exists in any system, including matriarchal ones. Until or unless you can take humans out of the loop, personalities and prejudices will rear their heads.
• Of course the potential exists in any system, but the church should be better than 'any system'. 
• I would like to see expanded acceptance for women's roles beyond SAHM. Each husband and wife determine the best way for their family to have their needs met. Non-SAHMs are seen as less righteous by both men and women.
•        I don't mean to sound stupid, but have no idea what a SAHM is. 
• That would be "Stay At Home Mom", and I agree with Waterm on this.  
• Why in the world does the last talk always have to be given by a man?
•       It doesn't and isn't. I see women given the last speakers slot often in my ward. And I live deep in the heart of Utah County. 
• I too live in the heart of Utah County.  In my ward, the last talk is always a male (except on Fathers Day). 
• Why do modesty lessons almost inevitably tell girls that they are responsible for keeping boys in line? I want modesty lessons to change focus and have a MUCH smaller place.
•       Maybe I have been sheltered, but it's been a few decades since I heard the "boys can't help themselves" line. There will always be more talks about YW's modesty because that is where Satan goes with it. I have heard YM counseled not to go shirtless on a casual basis, if that helps.
• YW harp on modesty to no end, YM harp on pornography ad nauseam. Yes, this should change. 
• The programs for YM/scouting and YW need to be on par with one another. This should not be so terribly difficult to figure out.
•       In my ward, Girls camp has always cost more than Scout Camp, or even the High adventure for older boys. And I have been in a position to see the budgets handed out. The YW dinner and auction is a big deal on the ward calendar each year, and makes it so that the YW don't have to pay. Other wards might be different, but the days when the boys flew to Hawaii for deep sea fishing seem to be a thing of the past. 
• The budgets for YM and YW in my ward are on par with each other as well.  I do believe the church should drop the BSA and form their own program that includes both YM and YW. 
• RS should be given greater autonomy to determine how their budgets are used and what there curriculum should be.
•       Don't know about autonomy, but any of the Priesthood quorums would be delighted to swap their budgets for that of the RS. We get 3-4 socials a year where the main attraction is BYU creamery ice cream. The RS has that many full dinners annually. 
• I agree that the RS should have more say in what their curriculum should be. 
• Females should be allowed to confess their sins at least with another woman present or to another woman alone.
•      Nobody gets 100%. It's the bishops job to be a common judge in Israel, and not likely to change anytime soon.
• I think females should be asked if they want to have a second person (female) in the room, but the bishop is the judge in Israel, so confessing sins, only to the RS President would not fly. 
• I don't like the use of the word "preside" when we talk about families. We *say* that it means that husbands and wives are equals, but that's not what the word really means.
•      Rhetoric vs. real world. We may preside, but I have been married 34 years and can't remember the last time my wife did something just because I said so. OTOH, the reverse happens fairly regularly. Other marriages may be different, but that's often a relationship dynamic rather than a religious one. 
• I agree with Buzz here, but maybe preside isn't the best word. 
• The blessings of fulfilling any calling that does not require priesthood keys should be available to both men and women. Why do we insist on pigeonholing people based on their gender?
•       I think there is currently a thread going on this subject. I'll defer the discussion to there. 
• I agree with WaterM on this one.  There are a few positions that don't necessarily have to be held by priesthood holders that are always given to men. 
• I believe that there are a great many possible situations for abuse with women and little to no recourse for them to get the help that they need, other than to ultimately talk to another man (RS Pres first, but then it has to go to a man again at some point). 
•       ​See, Bishop, common judge in Israel, above. I do know that Bishops have professional resources available to them and are trained to refer people there when circumstances warrant. And if your husband smacks you around, no one says you have to call the bishop before you call the police.  
• Maybe the RS should have lessons on what/who/where to go when abuse is occurring?  Maybe they do? I don't know.
• I want to be able to talk about Heavenly Mother without the cultural ban on her invoked. There's no justification for it. I want to know more about Her. If we believe so much in family, why do we erase her from the picture. (https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=8669)   Cultural ban? She's in the hymnbook. The only counsel I have ever heard over the pulpit is that we don't pray to her. Is that what you are asking about?
• One or two mentions in the hymn book does not make it culturally acceptable to teach or even speak openly in SS, etc. about Heavenly Mother. 
• I would like to see a reexamination of the practice of women's healings and birth anointings. These never required priesthood ordination and yet were phased out for reasons that are less than clear.
•         Neither of us were there in 1946. There may have been good reasons and/or revelation involved. I think its a legitimate question to be asked, is it the hill to die on? Personally (just me, not the church), I'd be OK with a mother in the circle at a baby blessing or even during a blessing where a MP holder was voice. If I may speculate, I wonder if the concern is that allowing this would be seen as a stepping stone to ordination, something that is clearly not on the church's plan at the moment. FWIW, in my ward, the mother brings the child forward and presents/displays/shows the baby to the congregation before handing him or her to the father for the blessing. It's a tradition that goes back further than anyone in the ward can remember.
• I would be OK with a mother holding her child while her husband and other PH holders blessed a child etc.  I don't see any reason for this not to be the case. 

 

There's a start. I'm not claiming that it is comprehensive. I know it doesn't answer your exact questions, but I'm not qualified to do so since I don't think that ordaining women is by necessity the best or only option.

 

[watermelongirl]

Yes, yes, yes, yes.   I loved this,

 

Thank you juliann. At the risk of thread-hijacking, I've been really, truly heartbroken that moderate feminists are rather homeless at the moment. fMh aligned itself so thoroughly with OW that now many of them are giving up. It's a terrible and sad thing that I just wish were not happening. It's a simple matter of prioritizing. We can work and desire for greater equality for women, but it should not come above and beyond our loyalty to the Savior.

 

That being said, I also long for guidance and further direction about this from the GAs and GRS presidency. My heart aches because it *feels* like they're silent about the struggles of women right now.

[Zakuska]

escott, I what Stormin' Mormon is saying is that the scriptures [i believe it's in D&C 20] specify certain reasons for having multiple priesthood quorums in a ward, and that if women's ordination were possible than there would have to be new reasons for having women's quorums as well, I believe

There is already a women's quorum of sisters.  Its called the Releif Society.

 

I can think of one change though.

 

The Releif Society would have to start teaching their sisters how to concecrate oil, and perform priesthood blessings, and men would have to allow them in the circles. Just think. Mom could hold baby while getting a name!

Edited June 25, 2014 by Zakuska

[ELF1024]

What I want is less sexism in the church in general.

• I've been in situations in which my voice was minimized solely because of my gender. I don't like that. It's always a possibility in our current patriarchal system.

Uh... I've had my opinion completely ignored because I was a white male. That's life...

• I would like to see expanded acceptance for women's roles beyond SAHM. Each husband and wife determine the best way for their family to have their needs met. Non-SAHMs are seen as less righteous by both men and women.

I've always worked on the assumption that parents determine what is best for their family. If someone outside of your family unit has an issue with you working then they need to get over themselves.

 

I took it in the shorts economically between 2009 and 2010. As a consequence of that, my wife has to work. It's inconveient because I have a special needs child. However, it is required to make ends meet.

 

I've often felt looked down on because we don't home-school our kids... which seems to be all the rage with LDS Families. Frankly, I want my kids to live  thru the day and keep my sanity.

• Why in the world does the last talk always have to be given by a man?

It does? Not the norm in my ward.  However, why does a youth have to give the first talk? (the norm in my ward)

• Why do modesty lessons almost inevitably tell girls that they are responsible for keeping boys in line?

I'll blame the double standard social stigma on this one. And I find it more insulting to men than to women. At least you're expected to be the good girls.

 

Boys are expected to be sinful, lustful, and up to no good. They enjoy putting pigtails in ink and stealing your daughter's virtue. We are just devilish sinners that way, and for whatever reason it's just expected and excused. So, take it as a back handed compliment... the men are idiots and you young ladies have to be on your game to keep them from being dead beats.

• Females should be allowed to confess their sins at least with another woman present or to another woman alone.

Is there some reason why you can't take someone in with you to the Bishops office? I was run in there enough times with my parents as a youth that I think I'm missing something.

• I don't like the use of the word "preside" when we talk about families. We *say* that it means that husbands and wives are equals, but that's not what the word really means.

I think you may be picking nits. The more important thing is that we live by D&C 121:

 

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

 

I know if I ever attempted to tell my wife to "make me a sandwich, because I'm the patriach of the house" or because I was a Priesthood holder, I'd be needing to make a dental appointment shortly after as my wife would knock my teeth clean out of my head... and rightfully, and righteously so.

• I believe that there are a great many possible situations for abuse with women and little to no recourse for them to get the help that they need, other than to ultimately talk to another man (RS Pres first, but then it has to go to a man again at some point).

Are you attempting to say that all men will back each other up? Surely you aren't pigeonholing all men here are you? You don't have female cops in your town? You don't have to go to the Bishop first...

 

I didn't have a good answer for the rest of it...

 

I may not have have a good answer for any of it 

Edited June 25, 2014 by ELF1024