Practical Implications Of Ordaining Women To The Priesthood

[Brian 2.0]

What about this wild option... obviously it requires changes...

 

DON'T give women the priesthood, but change the structure so that priesthood isn't a requirement to be part of the main governing councils of the church.  Men (with the priesthood) can be bishops and well as women (who don't have the priesthood).  Males still have the priesthood and women, while not holding the priesthood, are equal and have equal opportunity to serve in the positions we know today as Bishops, on the High Council, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, General Authorities, in the Quorum of the 12, and the President of the Church.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[ELF1024]

What about this wild option... obviously it requires changes...

 

DON'T give women the priesthood, but change the structure so that priesthood isn't a requirement to be part of the main governing councils of the church.  Men (with the priesthood) can be bishops and well as women (who don't have the priesthood).  Males still have the priesthood and women, while not holding the priesthood, are equal and have equal opportunity to serve in the positions we know today as Bishops, on the High Council, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, General Authorities, in the Quorum of the 12, and the President of the Church.

 

Uh... I'd be more open to the idea of any position that doesn't require keys. Bishop, Stake President... sorry, doesn't work for me, however any job that doesn't require specific keys, I suppose I'd be ok with that.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Thanks, but I am not creating the problem, those who see the problem are creating it. I don't even see the problem.

Honestly, I know all that about inserting the word "men" into what is told to women. I have three adult daughters and a wife who actually like me and don't think I am one bit sexist, and a whole ward full of sisters who would agree.

But you raised one issue and watermelon girl raised another which seemed inconsistent. I have no problem with women in meetings whatsoever and agree they should be in more- for all I care, ALL meetings are fine with me.

You complained that men and women together in a car was seen as a "problem", and should not be, WMG complained that a "power differential" existed when men interview girls. You can't have it both ways- either men and women can be together alone for church purposes or not. It is a simple issue of making a policy, which is what the thread is about.

So can you two agree about the hypothetical policy? And yes I know that people DO disagree, and you two might. No biggie.

But we are trying to get to a bottom line on this thread- if there is no unity in "the movement"- if there is one- there are no goals or objectives to be reached. If those who are dissatisfied can't agree in precise terms about what they are dissatisfied about, movement will be impossible.

The OP essentially was saying that the problem with OW was that no one there seems to have defined how all this is supposed to work on a practical basis.

THAT is still the case, and we don't appear to be moving in that direction. You won't get my support until there is something to support besides vague feelings of what might be nice.

I did not bring up the notion of "power differential" being a problem- to me it is a part of life. That's the way hierarchies work. There is sexual tension sometimes between people of the opposite sex. That is part of life.

[mfbukowski]

oops

Edited June 25, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Zakuska]

I can see some issues happening in the Aaronic priesthood. Girls would not be able to hold the highest office in the Quorum as to not preside over males,  But then again. Girls have not been endowed at that age and neither boys.  So they have not made that particular covenant.

 

Can you imagine the mayhem at a sacrament table with both girls and boys standing up their giggling when some one messes up on the prayer or knocks the tray on the side of the table and spills it?

 

But maybe Id better not underestimate our female youth and their commitments to such a solemn sacred thing.

 

I know... a female sacrament brigade staffed by  Myamades, behives and laurels might work. Alternate between the girls and boys each week.

 

Then a Girl could be president and still be presided over by a Bishop. The position of Bishop would still need to be filled by a male Priesthood holder, because of covenants.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

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

Temple matrons tell men how the sisters will do things all the time. YW family history project- tells the High Council guy how it will be done, and where he needs to be and when to be there, when youth baptisms will be and where to show up to be chauffeur etc. Primary pres tells bishop when and where primary activities will be and when to be there- same for Relief society and sister ward missionaries.

[watermelongirl]

But you raised one issue and watermelon girl raised another which seemed inconsistent. I have no problem with women in meetings whatsoever and agree they should be in more- for all I care, ALL meetings are fine with me.

You complained that men and women together in a car was seen as a "problem", and should not be, WMG complained that a "power differential" existed when men interview girls. You can't have it both ways- either men and women can be together alone for church purposes or not. It is a simple issue of making a policy, which is what the thread is about.

 

It is my opinion that policies can and should be written and exercised to protect people of both sexes, which may often mean that they shouldn't be alone together. but I'm not so naive as to think exceptions shouldn't be made on occasion, as may be the case in the car example. I have sat in PEC and WC meetings where I was the only woman. That did not make me particularly uncomfortable, more women is better.

 

I think that abuses within the church (ecclesiastical, verbal, emotional, even sexual) and how abuse is dealt with by the church when it happens in the home is something that the power differential problem speaks to. Not only can a(n untrained) man in a counseling position of authority damage a girl (or boy or woman or man) who was previously abused by a man, but the possibility even exists, however much we might not like think about it, that he himself will abuse her in some way.

 

It is my sincerest desire to protect both my boys and my girls. I do not want it to simply boil down to trusting that men in authority will act the way they should. I think we can come up with a better policy than that.

 

Why should a fifteen year old girl ever be asked to discuss her sex life with a middle aged man? Alone? And yet to suggest that she take her mother or YW leader in can send up flags to those involved about their faithfulness. I'm not on board with that policy.

[watermelongirl]

I have to apologize for terrible grammar and sentence structure in that last post. I'm rushing out the door.

[ELF1024]

Why should a fifteen year old girl ever be asked to discuss her sex life with a middle aged man? Alone? And yet to suggest that she take her mother or YW leader in can send up flags to those involved about their faithfulness. I'm not on board with that policy.

 

It would be to leave the child in an enviroment where, if need be, she could tell the bishop about the abuse she is suffering at the hands of her parents.

[mfbukowski]

It is my opinion that policies can and should be written and exercised to protect people of both sexes, which may often mean that they shouldn't be alone together. but I'm not so naive as to think exceptions shouldn't be made on occasion, as may be the case in the car example. I have sat in PEC and WC meetings where I was the only woman. That did not make me particularly uncomfortable, more women is better.

 

I think that abuses within the church (ecclesiastical, verbal, emotional, even sexual) and how abuse is dealt with by the church when it happens in the home is something that the power differential problem speaks to. Not only can a(n untrained) man in a counseling position of authority damage a girl (or boy or woman or man) who was previously abused by a man, but the possibility even exists, however much we might not like think about it, that he himself will abuse her in some way.

 

It is my sincerest desire to protect both my boys and my girls. I do not want it to simply boil down to trusting that men in authority will act the way they should. I think we can come up with a better policy than that.

 

Why should a fifteen year old girl ever be asked to discuss her sex life with a middle aged man? Alone? And yet to suggest that she take her mother or YW leader in can send up flags to those involved about their faithfulness. I'm not on board with that policy.

It's a non- issue.

The teen can already have anyone they want in the meeting. If the teen is being abused by her parents, I would imagine the parents would not be invited. But it is up to the teen.

Maybe they should be taught they have the option. But what if the teen is being abused? Won't NOT inviting the parents now become an issue?

You can't please everyone all the time.

[mfbukowski]

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.

OK I am finally getting to this post- and a fine one it is. I asked for a "list" and you gave it to me- thanks again.

 

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.

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.

Fine, but that is vague and undefined.

 

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.

The problem is not patriarchy- You have all that Heavenly Mother has as a potential, and Father is a Patriarch. That is pretty basic doctrine. What do you want- the Trinity of the Creeds?

That is the issue always left out- and I cannot understand why. God and our Mother are our ideals- we are to be like them. This is a direct challenge to that view and no one wants to acknowledge that. Think of the temple. We cannot do away with patriarchy.

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

It doesn't and isn't now even. Sisters speak last all the time.

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.

OK as long as that includes training for the boys on avoiding pornography and the consequences of abusing women and objectifying them. THAT we need more of.  I honestly do not think most women understand men very well on these points.  Maybe we should train young women about pornography just to keep it fair.

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.

Of course the programs should be the same. Budgets are not controllable - the ward is allocated what it is allocated and RS gets its share. You can tell the bishop which auxiliary you would like him to cut in favor of Relief Society if you feel that strongly about it.  Curriculum comes from Salt Lake.

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

They already are- I don't know why you think they are not. You can have anyone you want with you when you talk to the bishop, or in a disc. council.

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.

Does Heavenly Father "Preside" over his family? This is a theological issue.

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 probably fully agree- but specifics would help. What positions?

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).

Vague. Unless the RS pres is ordained and holds keys, it will always have to go to a priesthood holder at some point. I thought you were against ordaining women?

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.

I fully agree. I think this is a done deal because it has historical precedent, and already happens in my family. THIS will happen, I am certain. That is the easy compromise for the brethren.

Edited June 25, 2014 by mfbukowski

[watermelongirl]

It's a non- issue.

The teen can already have anyone they want in the meeting. If the teen is being abused by her parents, I would imagine the parents would not be invited. But it is up to the teen.

Maybe they should be taught they have the option. But what if the teen is being abused? Won't NOT inviting the parents now become an issue?

You can't please everyone all the time.

It is an issue because having anyone they want in the meeting is not the norm, nor is it even really known. And some might not even agree with you. Obviously, there should be a certain amount of leeway with who accompanies the teen.

 

I believe the default should be that girls go to their YW leaders first. Eliza R. Snow told RS sisters to discuss personal problems with the RS president, and I would argue that this should be put into place as the default option for where conversations about worthiness begin for both RS.

 

While this might now be an option, it is not the default and all such conversations end up at the judge's desk. I'm hoping we can go about finding a better way.

[jwhitlock]

Temple matrons tell men how the sisters will do things all the time. YW family history project- tells the High Council guy how it will be done, and where he needs to be and when to be there, when youth baptisms will be and where to show up to be chauffeur etc. Primary pres tells bishop when and where primary activities will be and when to be there- same for Relief society and sister ward missionaries.

 

This triggered something in my mind. When I served as a counselor in the bishopric, I didn't have any real decision making authority. I was "over" the Primary, which meant that I went to the Primary president, she gave me directions on what was needed, and I went back to the bishop with that information. The bishop would meet regularly directly with the Primary president, but my job was to assist her as needed under her direction for what the Primary organization needed. In effect, both the bishop and the Primary president had more authority and decision making power than I did. While I could express my opinion, that was all I could do.

 

High councilors are much the same. They are to serve and assist and don't have any decision making authority other than as directed. The vast majority of men in the church, who don't hold keys, aren't really part of the authority hierarchy.

[mfbukowski]

It is an issue because having anyone they want in the meeting is not the norm, nor is it even really known. And some might not even agree with you. Obviously, there should be a certain amount of leeway with who accompanies the teen.

 

I believe the default should be that girls go to their YW leaders first. Eliza R. Snow told RS sisters to discuss personal problems with the RS president, and I would argue that this should be put into place as the default option for where conversations about worthiness begin for both RS.

 

While this might now be an option, it is not the default and all such conversations end up at the judge's desk. I'm hoping we can go about finding a better way.

Well you might be right, some may not follow the handbook.  Certainly anyone the person wants may attend a disciplinary council, and obviously simple interviews are of far less importance.

 

I agree with the rest you have said here, but you have still not addressed the problem of parental child abuse and excluding parents from those discussions.  You just seem to not acknowledge that there is any purpose for excluding parents at all, when there plainly can be.

 

We are not all lustful ogres- some of us are actually trying to help the children.

[mfbukowski]

This triggered something in my mind. When I served as a counselor in the bishopric, I didn't have any real decision making authority. I was "over" the Primary, which meant that I went to the Primary president, she gave me directions on what was needed, and I went back to the bishop with that information. The bishop would meet regularly directly with the Primary president, but my job was to assist her as needed under her direction for what the Primary organization needed. In effect, both the bishop and the Primary president had more authority and decision making power than I did. While I could express my opinion, that was all I could do.

 

High councilors are much the same. They are to serve and assist and don't have any decision making authority other than as directed. The vast majority of men in the church, who don't hold keys, aren't really part of the authority hierarchy.

Mark 9:35

And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.

 

[watermelongirl]

I agree with the rest you have said here, but you have still not addressed the problem of parental child abuse and excluding parents from those discussions.  You just seem to not acknowledge that there is any purpose for excluding parents at all, when there plainly can be.

 

We are not all lustful ogres- some of us are actually trying to help the children.

I don't disagree at all about the parent thing. That's why I said the default should be the YW leader.

 

I also don't think all men are lustful ogres and there is a large portion of this protection stuff that works in their favor also. I've seen false accusations fly.

[Vanguard]

I suppose anything is possible with the Lord. And so though these exchanges about the practical effects of granting women the Priesthood are interesting, it is simply an academic exercise in speculation. Rest assured that should the Lord decide such a course, there will be made a way. And in that case, I would fully support that direction. According to the general leadership, however, the Lord has not revealed such a course shift as of yet.

 

To answer the question, I am concerned about a different kind of practicality. I'm not clear exactly what OW's position is? Do they want the Brethren to announce that they themselves have decided the Priesthood should be granted? That the Brethren have received revelation from the Lord that it is time? That the Brethren should go against the Lord's direction and grant the Priesthood anyway? As I see it, OW puts the leadership in a predicament. Let's suppose the GAs do diligently seek out the word of the Lord in this matter but do not get any discernable direction on the matter. What are they to do? Will OW accept such an announcement? I don't think so.

 

And so here's the bottom line as I see it. OW has got to better articulate what their position is. Do they believe the GAs should move forward on such important matters without the Lord's blessing or not? I suspect the consensus is that were the Brethren to announce such a revelation, most of the world as well as a significant percentage of OW would conclude that with a little pressure from the lay membership, the Brethren will acquiesce - much like what the reaction was to granting our African-American brothers the priesthood. What stance would be next in line at that point? I'm sure we can all imagine lots of candidates.

 

The more they push, the more OW goes against the very core of what the LDS gospel stands for - that being, the Brethren cannot move forward in a new direction without the consent of He who is supposed to be "running the show". How many in OW would still want the Priesthood if the GAs decided to grant it without any clear direction from the Lord?   

Edited June 26, 2014 by Vanguard

[Pahoran]

It wasn't your list, SM.  But please take a careful look at it and see how it is all based on a male point of view.  That is the very thing that has gotten us where we are right now.  Women are tired of being considered outsiders that need to be let in to a male club...only to ruin it as this list suggests.  The best thing men can do in current circumstances is start to analyze the unintended message in their words. This should concern you:  "Relief Society would be abolished since it would be redundant. Young Women would be folded into the Young Men priesthood structure, which would probably be renamed."  Surely you can see this list is obliterate women not only organizationally but by name. That it would never occur to the person who created this that men might be the ones obliterated, that it couldn't even be considered (and it would be just as absurd) is the problem.  Not anything about the priesthood.

 

We have no idea what would happen.  And the idea that this would be some kind of disaster is implying the church is incompetent to fulfill God's commands.

Yes, Juliann. It's all tongue in cheek, but it is all based from a male POV. After all, the body of Priesthood holders is currently male.

Thus, those women demanding (or politely requesting) ordination are ipso facto seeking admission into that body.

Which, like it or not, is presently a male "club."

By pouring ridicule upon the premise of the OP -- i.e. if women were ordained, what else would have to change? -- you seem to be operating from a different assumption. Would you care to articulate what that assumption might be?

If the men were clamouring to be admitted to Relief Society, wouldn't the starting point be how Relief Society works today?

Unless, of course, those demanding admittance thought they were in a position to somehow dictate the terms. "You're going to let us in, and this is how it is going to be from now on." Is that how you see the dialogue from a "moderate" POV?

Richard Armour wrote a satire (that's what he did) in which he contrasted the Bolsheviks with the "more moderate" Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks, you see, wanted to hang capitalists from every lamp-posts; the Mensheviks merely wanted to hang them from every second lamp-post.

Which reminds us that "moderate" is the most weaselly of weasel words. It simply means that we know of someone even more extreme.

Rejecting as "ridiculous" the notion that female ordination would take the present structure and look to adapt it rather seems to take for granted that the Priesthood would be thoroughly (or at least significantly) feminised. There wouldn't be "accommodation" of the new Priesthood holders, but a complete back-to-the-drawing-board for the entire structure.

And this is a "moderate" view, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[sethpayne]

Yes, Juliann. It's all tongue in cheek, but it is all based from a male POV. After all, the body of Priesthood holders is currently male.

Thus, those women demanding (or politely requesting) ordination are ipso facto seeking admission into that body.

Which, like it or not, is presently a male "club."

By pouring ridicule upon the premise of the OP -- i.e. if women were ordained, what else would have to change? -- you seem to be operating from a different assumption. Would you care to articulate what that assumption might be?

If the men were clamouring to be admitted to Relief Society, wouldn't the starting point be how Relief Society works today?

Unless, of course, those demanding admittance thought they were in a position to somehow dictate the terms. "You're going to let us in, and this is how it is going to be from now on." Is that how you see the dialogue from a "moderate" POV?

Richard Armour wrote a satire (that's what he did) in which he contrasted the Bolsheviks with the "more moderate" Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks, you see, wanted to hang capitalists from every lamp-posts; the Mensheviks merely wanted to hang them from every second lamp-post.

Which reminds us that "moderate" is the most weaselly of weasel words. It simply means that we know of someone even more extreme.

Rejecting as "ridiculous" the notion that female ordination would take the present structure and look to adapt it rather seems to take for granted that the Priesthood would be thoroughly (or at least significantly) feminised. There wouldn't be "accommodation" of the new Priesthood holders, but a complete back-to-the-drawing-board for the entire structure.

And this is a "moderate" view, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Awww.... Julie was just mansplained by Pahoran.

 

How precious!

[mfbukowski]

I suppose anything is possible with the Lord. And so though these exchanges about the practical effects of granting women the Priesthood are interesting, it is simply an academic exercise in speculation. Rest assured that should the Lord decide such a course, there will be made a way. And in that case, I would fully support that direction. According to the general leadership, however, the Lord has not revealed such a course shift as of yet.

 

To answer the question, I am concerned about a different kind of practicality. I'm not clear exactly what OW's position is? Do they want the Brethren to announce that they themselves have decided the Priesthood should be granted? That the Brethren have received revelation from the Lord that it is time? That the Brethren should go against the Lord's direction and grant the Priesthood anyway? As I see it, OW puts the leadership in a predicament. Let's suppose the GAs do diligently seek out the word of the Lord in this matter but do not get any discernable direction on the matter. What are they to do? Will OW accept such an announcement? I don't think so.

 

And so here's the bottom line as I see it. OW has got to better articulate what their position is. Do they believe the GAs should move forward on such important matters without the Lord's blessing or not? I suspect the consensus is that were the Brethren to announce such a revelation, most of the world as well as a significant percentage of OW would conclude that with a little pressure from the lay membership, the Brethren will acquiesce - much like what the reaction was to granting our African-American brothers the priesthood. What stance would be next in line at that point? I'm sure we can all imagine lots of candidates.

 

The more they push, the more OW goes against the very core of what the LDS gospel stands for - that being, the Brethren cannot move forward in a new direction without the consent of He who is supposed to be "running the show". How many in OW would still want the Priesthood if the GAs decided to grant it without any clear direction from the Lord?

I agree with your general point.

 

As I see it, I think the purpose of the thread is to make the point that not only OW, but those who make vague points about "sexism" in the church haven't got a solution or any real definitions for the behavior.  OW is on the far end, but there are many more sisters I think who have these vague feelings, but no real practical solutions.

 

Yes the YW need something like Boy Scouts, but what?  Girl Scouts?  I mean what kind of program precisely is desired.  I have seen nothing specific from anyone, because all are waiting to see what happens and no one is making concrete suggestions.

 

That's a great way to keep the status quo in any organization.  You have to suggest and discuss specifics.

[mfbukowski]

The best thing men can do in current circumstances is start to analyze the unintended message in their words.

 

No, our vocabulary is our vocabulary.  If our messages are "unintended" they are obviously invisible to us. We cannot analyze the invisible.

 

If you want us to change you have to teach us instead of sitting back and expecting us to read your mind.

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I don't disagree at all about the parent thing. That's why I said the default should be the YW leader.

 

I also don't think all men are lustful ogres and there is a large portion of this protection stuff that works in their favor also. I've seen false accusations fly.

But you are not seeing the practical implications of this.

 

So now the YW leader is the common judge in Israel?  How did we get there?

 

You have seen the false accusations fly- so what do you do to prevent them?  Women get falsely accused too- I gave an example of a 25 year old female priesthood holder interviewing a 17 year old male for worthiness. Or make it a 45 year old woman instead.

 

Where could that possibly go with what kind of accusations?

 

People make accusations.  It doesn't have to all get blamed on those nasty old men.

[Calm]

I agree with your general point. As I see it, I think the purpose of the thread is to make the point that not only OW, but those who make vague points about "sexism" in the church haven't got a solution or any real definitions for the behavior. OW is on the far end, but there are many more sisters I think who have these vague feelings, but no real practical solutions. Yes the YW need something like Boy Scouts, but what? Girl Scouts? I mean what kind of program precisely is desired. I have seen nothing specific from anyone, because all are waiting to see what happens and no one is making concrete suggestions. That's a great way to keep the status quo in any organization. You have to suggest and discuss specifics.

I have made very specific suggestions about both Primary and YW, spent a goodly amount of time on them...but that was with people who could actually do something about them. Implemented a lot the the changes I could in my own clases. And I have donated some hours for when thebChurch asked me to participate in somefeedback groups, including making changes there.

Since no one here can implement the changes, I don't see much reason to put them up especially after being told I was wrong a while back during one of the flare upon the topic, it would have to be done a certain way, etc. And he kept ratttling on as if none of us had spoken. Not much point in that kind of discussion.

Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[escott3564]

I have made very specific suggestions about both Primary and YW, spent a goodly amount of time on them...but that was with people who could actually do something about them. Implemented a lot the the changes I could in my own clases. And I have donated some hours for when thebChurch asked me to participate in somefeedback groups, including making changes there.

Since no one here can implement the changes, I don't see much reason to put them up especially after being told I was wrong a while back during one of the flare upon the topic, it would have to be done a certain way, etc. And he kept ratttling on as if none of us had spoken. Not much point in that kind of discussion.

 

I would love to read them, Cal.

[watermelongirl]

But you are not seeing the practical implications of this.

 

So now the YW leader is the common judge in Israel?  How did we get there?

 

Okay so I read this at 2am and spent some insomniac time thinking (and actually praying, for what it's worth) on this. I've reversed what I think about the YW president, but I do have a very theoretical, possibly heretical proposal, since that seems to be what you want...something specific about this particular judging thing. Rock N Roll mentioned it in his response to as being a hurdle.

 

Bishops are defined as the common judge in D&C 107 with the specific caveat that he can delegate to his counselors "chosen from among the elders."

 

The pragmatic implication of this is that for instances of transgressions the common judge does NOT have to be the only one to act in the capacity of interviewer and confessor. CH#1 goes on to instruct that counselors can perform worthiness interviews on both stake and local level, but the D&C is not so limiting in its language as to what can be delegated.

 

So, here's a highly imperfect proposal, but one that I think that could be enacted if the Lord so approved. It would require some sort of divine revelation to redefine who a bishop can delegate to. Oaks has already said that women use the priesthood in their callings, I honestly don't think it would be asking too much.

1. Formally redefine the office of Relief Society President (and probably her counselors also) to something along the lines of a women's counselor to the bishop. We could even rename it if we wanted. It *could* even be a separate calling to RS Pres.
2. Give her a separate office and a copy of General Handbook 1. Train her.
3. By default, YW and adult female worthiness interviews go to the this female counselor. We could be somewhat flexible here, if someone really wanted to talk to the bishop, they could do so - but to overcome past tradition it would have to be discouraged as we get used to change.
4. All disciplinary councils should be held with the bishopric and this female presidency. The bishop retains his function at this level as judge in Israel. He would still be the one to administer church discipline.
5. The new female president would be considered the default counselor for spiritual guidance to the women of the ward, involving the bishop on occasion as needed.
6. In cases of serious sin that are short of church disciplinary action, I would like to see the RS president able to act as an official intermediary to the bishop. She would have the delegated authority to guide a sister through the repentance process and back to full worthiness. As a final step in this process, a joint interview with bishop and RS president would allow the bishop to use his discerning keys to judge the sincerity of repentance and welcome a sister back into full fellowship.
7. In cases where discipline has been administered, the RS sister can counsel a woman back to full fellowship, with the final "judgment" being also a meeting held in the presence of the bishop.

I want to add some heartfelt testimony to this. I believe in the role and capacity of bishop and judge in Israel. I do not diminish the priesthood keys needed to do what the bishop is asked to do. As I've contemplated these possible changes, I find myself optimistic that these would not diminish the role of the priesthood, but underscore it's importance while giving woman a safe space in which to understand and discuss things that are at best awkward between the sexes, and many times wholly inappropriate for in depth discussion.

 

As an added bonus, it would cut down on the bishop's time required in office and allow him to be with his family more. As a downside, it makes the calling of a RS president way more obnoxious than it already is.

 

I'm also adding a disclaimer...it's not perfect and neither am I. It's just one possibility, Insha'Allah.