Practical Implications Of Ordaining Women To The Priesthood

[Tacenda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fhlzlTN2cs

 

YouTube of Kate Kelly's father and many others standing in front of the COB I believe, stating they will no longer be silenced.  Here is the longer version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arCbiizTNYY which btw brought tears to my eyes.  I guess for all these years of being a woman in the church it never impacted me much of the discrepancies between men and women in the church, I'm still chewing on that a bit.  Maybe now the women won't be silenced anymore and we'll get the conversations going.  At first glance this appears to be in the wrong thread, but in my mind this is where the conversation in church can begin for some changes.  Not really any doctrines but maybe a few policies? 

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fhlzlTN2cs

 

YouTube of Kate Kelly's father and many others standing in front of the COB I believe, stating they will no longer be silenced.  Here is the longer version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arCbiizTNYY which btw brought tears to my eyes.  I guess for all these years of being a woman in the church it never impacted me much of the discrepancies between men and women in the church, I'm still chewing on that a bit.  Maybe now the women won't be silenced anymore and we'll get the conversations going.  At first glance this appears to be in the wrong thread, but in my mind this is where the conversation in church can begin for some changes.  Not really any doctrines but maybe a few policies? 

In the YouTube video, one of the women says, "I will not be silent because in a church of continuing revelation, I should be able to ask a question and not be afraid of church disciplinary action."

 

The fact of the matter is, one is able to do that now in the Church.

 

This thread I started two days ago hasn't gotten much attention, but it has a direct bearing on this. Here is a copy-and-paste from my opening post in that thread:

 

While browsing the net I ran across this article.

https://www.lds.org/...stions?lang=eng

It's in the New Era magazine, but I see it as beneficial for adults as well as youth.

It draws a distinction between questioning and asking questions.

I have to observe that in fora pertaining to the Church such as this one, I see more questioning than I do the more beneficial and productive asking of questions.

The distinction is explained in the article. It's worth a read.

 

Under the definitions outlined, I don't see that asking questions would put one in jeopardy of Church disciplinary action. But questioning, depending on how aggressive and hostile it gets, might lead to such a thing.

[Calm]

Maybe now the women won't be silenced anymore and we'll get the conversations going. At first glance this appears to be in the wrong thread, but in my mind this is where the conversation in church can begin for some changes.

Women and men have been "silenced" over the years and women and men have been heard. Conversations have been going on as long as I've been aware for decades at all levels when there have been those open and comfortable to do such and conservations have been squelched for a variety of reasons.

There does need to be change to increase the sense of comfort and safety to increase communication, but presenting the past as some bizarre place where all women in every case were sent from the room if they dared open their mouths is more likely to prevent progress than to help. Kate Kelly and her mother's own stories contradict the "women have no voice" meme.

Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Zakuska]

In a church of Continuing Revelation... I want to know where the notion came that only the Prophet could receive Revelations for the whole Church, when indeed several of our past prophets have named Revelations that came through women to the whole church but aren't in our Scriptural canon. We see women in the OT getting revelations all the time that changed policies and practices of tribal Israel. Take Miriam for example. She received Revelations in the form of a Hymn (Kind of Like Eliza R. Snow) its in the Canon. But because she questioned Moses Authority, she was excommunicated for seven days(periods). Kind of like Ms. Kate I suppose.

 

I liked the one about living the united order. A Zion nation. Full of FULLY equal members. Joseph Smith also makes mention of ZION in the RS notes when he says hes going to make the RS a... and I quote "Nation of priests ... as in the times of Paul and Enoch".  Enoch's city was translated because they lived the United order and fully Equal members of both sexes were a big part of that.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Zakuska

[watermelongirl]

... presenting the past as some bizarre place where all women in every case were sent from the room if they dared open their mouths is more likely to prevent progress than to help.

 

It might not help to portray it this way, but sometimes even now women are sent from the room when they dare open their mouths. Granted it's usually more subtle than in this example: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/06/please-dear-bishop/

[Calm]

I would love to read them, Cal.

Maybe at another time when I am not using my iPad.

[Calm]

It might not help to portray it this way, but sometimes even now women are sent from the room when they dare open their mouths. Granted it's usually more subtle than in this example: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/06/please-dear-bishop/

I am not saying it doesn't happen at all, just that it is not the only thing that happens.

Only realistic appraisals of current status will result in realistic solutions that will work.

We need to pay attention to where it works and where it doesn't and why in order to find effective means and not just assume a feel good solution is the best. One could give women the Priesthood but if they chose to set aside for men or if women were hardly ever called to hold bishop and higher offices, it would be a cosmetic change only....and if the church membership was not emotionally behind ordination that is what would most likely happen.

We need to find out what attitudes promote communication for both women and men (because men need to talk up as much as women and women need to listen to men as well) and which ones don't and find ways to promote the first and change the hearts of those who hold the latter.

And change isn't going to occur appealing to slogans...at least not at the level it needs to.

PS: sounds to me like the kind of bishop who would do that to a guy as much as he would women. I hear stories from men just as often as women when it comes to micromanaging and not wanting to be challenged. There have been a number related on the board in fact.

Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Maybe at another time when I am not using my iPad.

Me too! 

[Calm]

I think one problem with the "women have no voice" meme is that it shifts attention away from what is a huge factor in our church dynamics that affects men just as much as women. That a small percentage of men become part of the authoritative decision line (meaning they are the ones saying what should be acted upon and what shouldn't, not meaning anyone with input including formulation of the decision itself...which can actually be anyone the decision maker chooses to listen to) does affect the attitudes that women have about their roles and standing in the Church. I assume the limited probability of ever being a bishop or higher up affects men's attitudes as well but I haven't seen much discussion on that in a sociological context. I would be very interested to see it though.

Anyway back to the factor I think is often forgotten and that is conformity as a community and an attitude of acceptance of leadership...not a bad thing in and of itself, but like most good things can be taken too far.

If overconformity and idea that leaders shouldn't be challenged at all is seen as only a vehicle to silence women, then it will be much harder to overcome because it will be still seen as acceptable for men or at least it will be allowed to still have influence on behaviour which in turn will slow actual removal of that attitude towards women. One doesn't compartmentalise one attitudes that easily, you teach someone to love all mankind by teaching them to move their love out beyond their families to their neighbours, you teach it by changing the concept of family to include neigbours and everyone else....even one's 'natural' enemies. If someone is told to pay attention to not discriminating against women, but continues to treat men with the same level of disrespect that man's behaviour towards women will have more incidents of disrespect than if he is being taught to change his fundamental outlook towards all.

This is what equality (in a good way ) means to achieve...not just having the same level of respect for women as men, but having a high level of respect for everyone and wanting to hear from everyone, etc. if this is achieved, then it doesn't matter if the procedures are in place because that individual's respect will drive him/her to listen to everyone, not just those who are in agreement or who have power over him/her, etc.

I am not saying changing procedures aren't helpful, but how long have women been able to attend ward council? It seems to me it had to be changed to making it a rule because the attitude of inclusion wasn't there even if the procedure is. And even with it being a rule now, it is still not happening in places whether it is intentionally exclusion or unintentional (not ensuring that time is given to all who need to speak up by rotation or better budgeting or whatever works).

Tying this back to the problem of thinking that ordination is the end all answer....it should be obvious when even some of those demanding ordination also demand conformity, won't allow others to have a voice that the fundamental problem won't disappear just by giving women the Priesthood. And so much focus on this supposedly best solution is, IMO, diluting attention from the real problem solving approaches....exemplified IMO in Pres. Utchdorf's talks about love and acceptance. Those talks instead are being used as hammers to justify behaviour he is teaching against.

In watermelon's example, notice the YM were being ignored as well. This bishop more than likely needed to be given instruction on respecting all of his flock more, including more listening to all of his leaders and not just assuming he knew what was right (for all we know, the Sister who the RS Pres wanted to call was not acceptable to the bishop because of another woman's influence, not because he just thought as a man he had better discernment over who should be given what, I know plenty of women who think they know better than the rest of the world....one of my grandmother's stock phrases was "you know I'm right" repeated until some sign she accepted as agreement was shown and as far as I could tell she treated the men at church to her wisdom as much as the women, she certainly wasn't more respectful of the men in her family). If the bishop's problem is seen as solely with women when it is not, that ward will still continue to have similar dysfunctions.

Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

I've noticed that sometimes localized experiences are characterized as being common to the whole church. Many of the concerns women have about issues in the church have been addressed officially by the church, both by procedure and in conference, but are not being followed by some local leaders. The correction of those issues then needs to be on a local level; it doesn't do anything to picket the church for resolution because the guidelines have already been set in place.

 

When it happens that someone characterizes their personal experience as being SOP in the church, and continues portraying it that way, those who don't see those localized issues (because their leaders are following policy) don't take them seriously.  Care is needed in how issues are presented. Too much of what is being touted as "issues" with the whole church are localized problems with individuals not following policy.

 

Such things divert attention from or dilute the real issues that need to be resolved. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I've noticed that sometimes localized experiences are characterized as being common to the whole church.

Heh. That happens more often than not, I'm afraid!

[toon]

I've moved pianos and refrigerators and couches and king size mattresses...without my nose twitching a bit.

You clean any counters lately?

 

 

Counters?  I just want the restrooms cleaned properly, and I don't care who does it.  As it now stands, I hop in the car and drive home if I need to go during church.

[mtomm]

Counters?  I just want the restrooms cleaned properly, and I don't care who does it.  As it now stands, I hop in the car and drive home if I need to go during church.

 

May I suggest the thread -- On A Lighter Note--

[watermelongirl]

We need to find out what attitudes promote communication for both women and men (because men need to talk up as much as women and women need to listen to men as well) and which ones don't and find ways to promote the first and change the hearts of those who hold the latter.

Agree!

 

PS: sounds to me like the kind of bishop who would do that to a guy as much as he would women. I hear stories from men just as often as women when it comes to micromanaging and not wanting to be challenged. There have been a number related on the board in fact.

I don't disagree, but as the author of that post believes, I think such a situation is much more likely to happen to a woman than it is to a man. Abuses of power shouldn't happen to either gender, but when it happens to a woman, it is underlined by the authority of the priesthood that the woman lacks.

 

I think one problem with the "women have no voice" meme is that it shifts attention away from what is a huge factor in our church dynamics that affects men just as much as women. That a small percentage of men become part of the authoritative decision line (meaning they are the ones saying what should be acted upon and what shouldn't, not meaning anyone with input including formulation of the decision itself...which can actually be anyone the decision maker chooses to listen to) does affect the attitudes that women have about their roles and standing in the Church. I assume the limited probability of ever being a bishop or higher up affects men's attitudes as well but I haven't seen much discussion on that in a sociological context. I would be very interested to see it though.

Anyway back to the factor I think is often forgotten and that is conformity as a community and an attitude of acceptance of leadership...not a bad thing in and of itself, but like most good things can be taken too far.

If overconformity and idea that leaders shouldn't be challenged at all is seen as only a vehicle to silence women, then it will be much harder to overcome because it will be still seen as acceptable for men or at least it will be allowed to still have influence on behaviour which in turn will slow actual removal of that attitude towards women. One doesn't compartmentalise one attitudes that easily, you teach someone to love all mankind by teaching them to move their love out beyond their families to their neighbours, you teach it by changing the concept of family to include neigbours and everyone else....even one's 'natural' enemies. If someone is told to pay attention to not discriminating against women, but continues to treat men with the same level of disrespect that man's behaviour towards women will have more incidents of disrespect than if he is being taught to change his fundamental outlook towards all.

This is what equality (in a good way ) means to achieve...not just having the same level of respect for women as men, but having a high level of respect for everyone and wanting to hear from everyone, etc. if this is achieved, then it doesn't matter if the procedures are in place because that individual's respect will drive him/her to listen to everyone, not just those who are in agreement or who have power over him/her, etc.

I am not saying changing procedures aren't helpful, but how long have women been able to attend ward council? It seems to me it had to be changed to making it a rule because the attitude of inclusion wasn't there even if the procedure is. And even with it being a rule now, it is still not happening in places whether it is intentionally exclusion or unintentional (not ensuring that time is given to all who need to speak up by rotation or better budgeting or whatever works).

Tying this back to the problem of thinking that ordination is the end all answer....it should be obvious when even some of those demanding ordination also demand conformity, won't allow others to have a voice that the fundamental problem won't disappear just by giving women the Priesthood. And so much focus on this supposedly best solution is, IMO, diluting attention from the real problem solving approaches....exemplified IMO in Pres. Utchdorf's talks about love and acceptance. Those talks instead are being used as hammers to justify behaviour he is teaching against.

In watermelon's example, notice the YM were being ignored as well. This bishop more than likely needed to be given instruction on respecting all of his flock more, including more listening to all of his leaders and not just assuming he knew what was right (for all we know, the Sister who the RS Pres wanted to call was not acceptable to the bishop because of another woman's influence, not because he just thought as a man he had better discernment over who should be given what, I know plenty of women who think they know better than the rest of the world....one of my grandmother's stock phrases was "you know I'm right" repeated until some sign she accepted as agreement was shown and as far as I could tell she treated the men at church to her wisdom as much as the women, she certainly wasn't more respectful of the men in her family). If the bishop's problem is seen as solely with women when it is not, that ward will still continue to have similar dysfunctions.

There's a lot of good stuff here that agree with. I think that greater love and respect across the board is a worthy goal. I think your points about inclusion in ward council along with the 2010 leadership training and new handbook passages underscore the fact that the brethren want women to be included in councils at a high level with the men. The problem I'm having is that there may be little accountability for that at the local level. There is risk associated with speaking up and going to the SP with a problem and I have no idea how to eliminate that feeling of risk. It may not be warranted, but that doesn't mean isn't there.

Even at the higher levels, inclusion in decision making is at the discretion of the current men holding the callings, even when it applies to RS. Sister Okazaki's comments about curriculum development under President Hinckley really underscore how it can vary from administration to administration. I don't think that saying "well that happens for men too" addresses the nature problem for women. The causes may be very different.

Edited June 26, 2014 by watermelongirl

[ELF1024]

Agree!

 

I don't disagree, but as the author of that post believes, I think such a situation is much more likely to happen to a woman than it is to a man. Abuses of power shouldn't happen to either gender, but when it happens to a woman, it is underlined by the authority of the priesthood that the woman lacks.

 

Complete and Utter Poppycock! The Priesthood "authority" is null and void when any man would abuse another. (male/female/Non-RM/RM/Etc)

 

D&C 121

 

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 

 

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—

 

 

This idea that the Priesthood is some sort of crown or power that somehow makes men better than women needs to be completely dispelled. It is simply not so. The Bishop has a calling that is service oriented, he may have the responsibility to make choices for the ward, however that does not make him a better man than anyone else. His responsibility is greater.

 

An Elder's Quorum president who ignores a part of his quorum because they are not return missionaries is not living up to his Priesthood responsibility. Any man who would simply out of hand dismiss an opinion from a woman, simply because she was a woman instantly loses his authority in the matter as he is guilty of Unrighteous Dominion.

 

This is not a matter of both parties not holding the Priesthood, nor is it a matter of women needing equal footing, as in that moment, IMHO, the woman is on higher ground than the person whose authority was revoked.

 

Furthermore, I would advise the female membership to swat such a man down like the upstart brat child he is. That is not a problem with the church, that is not a problem with policy or doctrine, that is just a pinhead being in the Church in a calling they are not magifying.

 

I have had plenty of dealings with pinheads in the church. I've had pinheaded Bishops. One such pinheaded Councilor to the Bishop told me at one point in time that I was possessed by Satan. (Now in his defense, I was a teenager)

 

I've also had some awfully good men who I learned alot from. Some men are put in positions, the Lord knowing that they will be awesome. Other men are put in positions because they need the opportunity to become awesome... not everyone lives up to the challenge. However that is not a problem with the Church, that is a problem with the imperfect membership.

 

Church is not a party for the perfected, but a hospital for the sinners.

Edited June 26, 2014 by ELF1024

[watermelongirl]

Complete and Utter Poppycock! The Priesthood "authority" is null and void when any man would abuse another. (male/female/Non-RM/RM/Etc)

I wish I lived in your world where it seems a priesthood holder who exercises unrighteous dominion is immediately released (does lightning strike him right then and there?).

Here in reality, there are a variety of obstacles that have to be overcome in order to call someone out, let alone have him removed. The fact that one person has been ordained to the authority to act on behalf of Jesus Christ and the other hasn't does in fact lend some unfortunate credence to the priesthood holder's words and actions, except in perhaps very clear, very extreme cases. Real situations are rarely so black and white as to allow one to "swat such a man down like the upstart brat child he is." We want to believe that the church is run by inspired men.

 

In fact, it may be that she (or he) doesn't even realize the wrongdoing or they may blame themselves, as is so very often the case with abuse. If she or he does realize the abuse, it may be another matter entirely to convince someone else to believe them and that is an absolute requirement when finding justice for a priesthood holder. You have to be believed by another priesthood holder. That might not be as easy as you think.

 

Now obviously, the Lord deals with this in the hereafter with harsh consequences. We shouldn't wait for that to protect our sisters (and brothers).

[Calm]

Counters?  I just want the restrooms cleaned properly, and I don't care who does it. .

As long as it isn't you.

[ELF1024]

I wish I lived in your world where it seems a priesthood holder who exercises unrighteous dominion is immediately released (does lightning strike him right then and there?).

Here in reality, there are a variety of obstacles that have to be overcome in order to call someone out, let alone have him removed. The fact that one person has been ordained to the authority to act on behalf of Jesus Christ and the other hasn't does in fact lend some unfortunate credence to the priesthood holder's words and actions, except in perhaps very clear, very extreme cases. Real situations are rarely so black and white as to allow one to "swat such a man down like the upstart brat child he is." We want to believe that the church is run by inspired men.

 

In fact, it may be that she (or he) doesn't even realize the wrongdoing or they may blame themselves, as is so very often the case with abuse. If she or he does realize the abuse, it may be another matter entirely to convince someone else to believe them and that is an absolute requirement when finding justice for a priesthood holder. You have to be believed by another priesthood holder. That might not be as easy as you think.

 

Now obviously, the Lord deals with this in the hereafter with harsh consequences. We shouldn't wait for that to protect our sisters (and brothers).

 

Dismissing your own responsibility to call it out for what it is, doesn't make you any less guilty than the person who did it in the first place. By not standing up for yourself, to the person who did you wrong, you allow it to continue.

 

When I was 17, my best friend, (who happened to be the son of the man who was in the Bishopric, and who told me I was possessed by Satan), got kicked out of his house, and disowned for playing rock & roll music on the piano, on Sunday. Now mind you this wasn't the first instance, or the second instance, but more than likely a regular thing for my friend to do, against his parents wishes. However, the punishment did not fit the crime.

 

My parents were kind enough to take him in and he ended up graduating High School and joining the Navy during the year he lived with us. During that time, my parents took it up with the Bishop, and the Stake President... and to my knowledge, Dear old Dad did not lose his job in the Bishopric, even though no-one in my family could stomach the idea of sustaining him... and did not.

 

We did what our conscience required, and then we waited for change. I don't know why Dear Ol' Dad wasn't punished. I'm sure someone had their reasons. I think it was a miscarriage of justice... but that wasn't my place, and still isn't my place.

 

I did hear from my best friend that his father was excommunicated years later for sexually abusing his sister. 

 

I do not regret speaking out against that man; even if no good came of it.

Edited June 27, 2014 by ELF1024

[Calm]

"Abuses of power shouldn't happen to either gender, but when it happens to a woman, it is underlined by the authority of the priesthood that the woman lacks"

I honestly have never associated authority of the Priesthood as being the authority that prevents me from getting a guy to do something. It is the decision making authority that is underlined. For example, if a male teacher told me as Primary President he wouldn't do something I had instructed him to do, I would have no problem letting him know he could choose to do it that way or be released as a teacher (if it mattered that much to me). And it wouldn't bother me that he was a former bishop or SP.

Practically all men in the Church above the age of 12 have the Priesthood nd the vast majority of them have no authority over me or any other woman outside their stewardship...and women have authority over those in their stewardship where applicable.

I am not saying that this doesn't happen. It does often for a lot of women. My husband even complained one time to a counselor (he was going through depression due to stress) that I used the Priesthood as a complaint against him for stuff I thought he should be doing and didn't, but he was projecting because it never would have occurred to me to do so because I dont look at the Priesthood in that way...so even men do it to themselves at times.

I am just saying it does not inherently follow. It is an "underlining" people impose upon the relationship, most likely because they see others do it.

So if we can consciously stop reinforcing it, maybe it will stop being imposed and the actual issue be dealt with.

Edited June 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[toon]

As long as it isn't you.

 

Of course.  I want it done properly.

[rongo]

Brian 2.0:

 

(By the way, does anyone know why I can't paste *or* use the quote feature? It's only for this site, but whether I paste or click "quote," I still just have the blank reply field. No matter what I do).

 

Bishop is a priesthood *office* (deacon, teacher, priest, bishop, elder, high priest, patriarch, seventy, apostle). We can't just say that men or women can be the bishop, with or without the priesthood. The office itself is a priesthood office.

[ELF1024]

The fact that one person has been ordained to the authority to act on behalf of Jesus Christ and the other hasn't does in fact lend some unfortunate credence to the priesthood holder's words and actions, except in perhaps very clear, very extreme cases. Real situations are rarely so black and white as to allow one to "swat such a man down like the upstart brat child he is." We want to believe that the church is run by inspired men.

 

The church is run by flawed human beings, both male and female. Sometimes we are inspired, but more often than not... we are just doing the best we can with the light and knowledge we have. Inspired might be a bit much to ask of the local leadership...

[Calm]

You have to be believed by another priesthood holder. That might not be as easy as you think.).

If one accuses a woman, one has to be believed by a priesthood holder as well. I am not really getting the difference. Are you saying if a man is a priesthood holder and accused of something he is more likely to be believed innocent than a woman is?

Or are you saying a man's accusations are more likely to be believed than a woman's because he is a priesthood holder?

[rongo]

I've shared this before, but women I've asked (ward RS, YW, Primary leaders) overwhelmingly say that they would have a much harder time confessing and working through repentance with a woman than with a man (some of these sisters have been excommunicated/disfellowshipped before). I don't think a female bishop would be the panacea some think it would be, and it might be worse than some think it would be.

Edited June 27, 2014 by rongo

[watermelongirl]

Dismissing your own responsibility to call it out for what it is, doesn't make you any less guilty than the person who did it in the first place. By not standing up for yourself, to the person who did you wrong, you allow it to continue.

 

I tried to stand up for myself, but it did not work. Things aren't always so cut and dried.

 

If one accuses a woman, one has to be believed by a priesthood holder as well. I am not really getting the difference. Are you saying if a man is a priesthood holder and accused of something he is more likely to be believed innocent than a woman is?

Or are you saying a man's accusations are more likely to be believed than a woman's because he is a priesthood holder?

 

I do believe this can and does happen. I have no statistics, no scientific studies. It's personal experience, anecdotes, etc. Take it for what you will.