Mormon Women Roles Overseas

[Nofear]

Mormon Women: Some Global Perspectives

Taking stock of Mormon communities outside the U.S. yields a more complete picture of the range and the dynamism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' engagement with women's issues.

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/2014-Religious-Trends/Mormon/Mormon-Women-Melissa-Wei-Tsing-Inouye-071514

Very interesting article. The Church is apparently more flexible to certain administrative roles than some would have imagined. The Africa bit is interesting too.

[Buzzard]

Very interesting article. The Church is apparently more flexible to certain administrative roles than some would have imagined. The Africa bit is interesting too.

The "Africa bit" is actually the most important part of the article. Just as the church holds meetings in Qatar on Fridays (Jerusalem on Saturdays). the accommodation in Hong Kong is to meet an extraordinary circumstance. But in countries where husband and wife raising a family as equal partners goes against the entrenched culture, the gospel message on family and gender roles is truly revolutionary. 

Just wait until the gospel is preached in the Muslim world. Gonna be some fireworks there!

[rlds_coc_lds]

This article brings up a question that is very heavy on my mind. Can an organization that is hypocritical be the True Church? If different standards exist for different countries (even to the extent of having church services on days other than Sunday or having the Temple open on Sundays) but insist on not allowing this for the United States (for example), doesn't mean that they are not being true to their values? The same thing with Temple marriage in the United States versus in some other countries where a civil ceremony is allowed before the Temple ceremony.

 

I have strong positive feelings towards the Church, but these hypocritical practices make me wonder if it is indeed the True Church.

[ksfisher]

This article brings up a question that is very heavy on my mind. Can an organization that is hypocritical be the True Church? If different standards exist for different countries (even to the extent of having church services on days other than Sunday or having the Temple open on Sundays) but insist on not allowing this for the United States (for example), doesn't mean that they are not being true to their values? The same thing with Temple marriage in the United States versus in some other countries where a civil ceremony is allowed before the Temple ceremony.

 

I have strong positive feelings towards the Church, but these hypocritical practices make me wonder if it is indeed the True Church.

 

23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

 25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

 

- Mark 2

[bluebell]

This article brings up a question that is very heavy on my mind. Can an organization that is hypocritical be the True Church? If different standards exist for different countries (even to the extent of having church services on days other than Sunday or having the Temple open on Sundays) but insist on not allowing this for the United States (for example), doesn't mean that they are not being true to their values? The same thing with Temple marriage in the United States versus in some other countries where a civil ceremony is allowed before the Temple ceremony.

 

I have strong positive feelings towards the Church, but these hypocritical practices make me wonder if it is indeed the True Church.

 

Are you saying that exceptions to the rule always have to be interpreted as being hypocritical?

 

If you are, how does that square with the teachings or examples in the scriptures that are exceptions to the rule-like when Christ helped the gentile woman, even though that was a big 'no-no' still?  Was Christ being hypocritical and not being true to His values in your opinion?

[rlds_coc_lds]

Are you saying that exceptions to the rule always have to be interpreted as being hypocritical?

 

If you are, how does that square with the teachings or examples in the scriptures that are exceptions to the rule-like when Christ helped the gentile woman, even though that was a big 'no-no' still?  Was Christ being hypocritical and not being true to His values in your opinion?

 

If you are saying it's ok for certain workers in some countries to change the day of the Sabbath but it's NOT ok for those in the United States (despite whatever unique circumstances individuals have) I feel that's hypocritical. There's an insistence on making sacrifices for the Lord (in this case the Lord's will being equivalent to the Church's will). This is repeated to no end. Tithing is a sacrifice to the Lord. You will get more blessings if you sacrifice and pay a full tithing even if you can't afford your other bills. If you don't take a job that requires you to work on Sunday everything will be OK because you are sacrificing for the Lord and things will work out alright. BUT... those guys in Hong Kong don't have to sacrifice in the same way you do, because they're somehow different. I don't think Jesus said I'll help this Gentile woman, but not that Gentile woman. That's where I see a difference.

 

Another example is in holding Sabbath meetings in Muslim countries on Friday, because that is what is required by law. In China, for decades no Christian worship was allowed at all but Christians risked being arrested in order to practice their faith together in secret. IF Sunday as the Sabbath is important, than I find making exceptions in order to maintain a "status quo" or be convenient is hypocritical unless you are willing to make exceptions for all people everywhere depending on their specific circumstances. What if a single working mother can't avoid working on Sunday. There is no provision for any exception to the rule here in the United States.

[ksfisher]

If you are saying it's ok for certain workers in some countries to change the day of the Sabbath but it's NOT ok for those in the United States (despite whatever unique circumstances individuals have) I feel that's hypocritical. There's an insistence on making sacrifices for the Lord (in this case the Lord's will being equivalent to the Church's will). This is repeated to no end. Tithing is a sacrifice to the Lord. You will get more blessings if you sacrifice and pay a full tithing even if you can't afford your other bills. If you don't take a job that requires you to work on Sunday everything will be OK because you are sacrificing for the Lord and things will work out alright. BUT... those guys in Hong Kong don't have to sacrifice in the same way you do, because they're somehow different. I don't think Jesus said I'll help this Gentile woman, but not that Gentile woman. That's where I see a difference.

 

Another example is in holding Sabbath meetings in Muslim countries on Friday, because that is what is required by law. In China, for decades no Christian worship was allowed at all but Christians risked being arrested in order to practice their faith together in secret. IF Sunday as the Sabbath is important, than I find making exceptions in order to maintain a "status quo" or be convenient is hypocritical unless you are willing to make exceptions for all people everywhere depending on their specific circumstances. What if a single working mother can't avoid working on Sunday. There is no provision for any exception to the rule here in the United States.

 

You seem to be demanding a rigidness in the church today that the Savior did not demand of himself or his disciples in the scripture I cited from Mark above.  The purpose of the sabbath is to bless man, not curse him. 

[rlds_coc_lds]

23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

 25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

 

- Mark 2

 

This is irrelevant to my point related to the Church's attitude towards the keeping of the Sabbath. If the Church says. "The Sabbath can be any day, and we will decide this on a ward by ward basis, because the Sabbath was made for man" and takes into account everyone's personal circumstances than I think it's a non-issue. But if they insist on saying that Sunday is THE Sabbath (not just one of many possible sabbaths) in one place and not in another I find that hypocritical. 

[rlds_coc_lds]

You seem to be demanding a rigidness in the church today that the Savior did not demand of himself or his disciples in the scripture I cited from Mark above.  The purpose of the sabbath is to bless man, not curse him. 

 

Everyone is ignoring my point. I am suggesting the Church have a uniform attitude towards exceptions. Jesus would not have said to Matthew "You mustn't help anyone on the Sabbath no matter what, but John, he can." And not only that, but the only reason anyone would know about these discrepancies is if it was reported by the media or they happened to visit one of these locations. It is not being broadcast to the membership in the United States that these kinds of leniencies exist. Instead, those with difficulties  upholding Sunday as the Sabbath have no choice but to tow the line or not attend.

 

Ultimately the difficulty for me is deciding if I believe this kind of behavior is compatible with the True Church.

Edited July 17, 2014 by rlds_coc_lds

[Buckeye]

rlds_coc_lds,

 

Here's another one for you.  According to Elder Oaks, we don't have authority to allow women to baptize their children.  However, we can make an "exception" - his words - to authorize women to perform the temple initiatory for other women.  I've wondered a lot why we have the authority to make one exception but not others.

[juliann]

In Hong Kong, structures for women's roles within Church institutions are flexible and expanding. For instance, in certain Hong Kong congregations composed entirely of female foreign domestic workers, women comfortably occupy many of the ecclesiastical positions usually held by men. They serve in branch presidencies (the top local leadership unit) as executive secretaries, exercise stewardship over the entire congregation as presidents of the Relief Society (the women's organization), keep track of money as ward clerks, and coordinate proselytization efforts as branch mission leaders.

 

 

These accommodations show that many gendered positions are only policy.  Obviously, women can and are doing these things.  But of more interest is the emergence of female only congregations. Without a man, they cannot even hold a sacrament meeting. This may drive more change than protests...nothing points out the situation women are in better than this.

[bluebell]

I don't think Jesus said I'll help this Gentile woman, but not that Gentile woman. That's where I see a difference.

 

 

 

But that's exactly what He did.  He refused to help all other Gentiles (until it was time for that doctrine to be fulfilled, later after His death) except that one woman. 

 

Knowing that, the question becomes, why?  Why did He make an exception to His doctrine, and does that exception make Him a hypocrite?

[Duncan]

These accommodations show that many gendered positions are only policy.  Obviously, women can and are doing these things.  But of more interest is the emergence of female only congregations. Without a man, they cannot even hold a sacrament meeting. This may drive more change than protests...nothing points out the situation women are in better than this.

 

I have heard rumours but no real hard facts that during WW2 a lot of branches in Germany and other parts of Europe were almost run by women due to male shortages

[bluebell]

rlds_coc_lds,

 

Here's another one for you.  According to Elder Oaks, we don't have authority to allow women to baptize their children.  However, we can make an "exception" - his words - to authorize women to perform the temple initiatory for other women.  I've wondered a lot why we have the authority to make one exception but not others.

 

Perhaps because some exceptions are allowed or even commanded, and for other things, no exceptions are ever allowed?

 

When I think of this issue in relation to my dealings with my own children, i see that there are some rules which my husband and i have which have exceptions built right into them (don't be a tattle-tale, unless someone's about to get hurt, then you come running to tell me quick!) and other's which never will have exceptions (don't ever say that word again!).

 

Depending on the age of my children (and their level of understanding) sometimes they understand the exceptions without being told because they are obvious.  Other times they have to be taught.  Same goes for the rules that have no exceptions.  

 

Whether or not a rule has an exception in our home tends to be determined by why the rule exists in the first place, and it's purpose.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if gospel doctrine as well as divine policy (if that exists) functions the same way.

[mfbukowski]

These accommodations show that many gendered positions are only policy.  Obviously, women can and are doing these things.  But of more interest is the emergence of female only congregations. Without a man, they cannot even hold a sacrament meeting. This may drive more change than protests...nothing points out the situation women are in better than this.

I have been in a ward where a woman was called to be a "special assistant" to the bishop where she essentially performed most of the tasks of a membership clerk, and some of those of an executive secretary.  No one made a big deal about it because only the bishopric even knew about it.

 

There was a shortage of worthy men who would accept callings and that was the perfect solution.

 

I suspect it is done more widely than is known.  Bishops have the discretion to create callings like that as needed.

Edited July 17, 2014 by mfbukowski

[EllenMaksoud]

The "Africa bit" is actually the most important part of the article. Just as the church holds meetings in Qatar on Fridays (Jerusalem on Saturdays). the accommodation in Hong Kong is to meet an extraordinary circumstance. But in countries where husband and wife raising a family as equal partners goes against the entrenched culture, the gospel message on family and gender roles is truly revolutionary. 

Just wait until the gospel is preached in the Muslim world. Gonna be some fireworks there!

Maybe no fireworks. I am tutoring a Saudi man in English right now, and he is telling me that in the last 5 years, the culture is moderating significantly. The absolute rule that woman must wear Niqab has eased and in some places, women do not even wear Hijab. In 10 years maximum, we will see Christianity openly discussed in  Saudi Arabia. I speak to him as a Muslim woman who has been Evangelical and Mormon, and he surprises me when he says I should not give up all Mormon thought.

 

We had a lengthy discussion about Allah SWT, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Muhammad PBUH, the angels, and other Prophets two weeks ago, and it is amazing to me how close Mormon thought is to Islam. And, were I to remain Mormon, I would want it to remain somewhat patriarchal as Islam is.  I have no issue with men being in charge in the church but do not wish for men to demean women in word and deed.

[rlds_coc_lds]

But that's exactly what He did.  He refused to help all other Gentiles (until it was time for that doctrine to be fulfilled, later after His death) except that one woman. 

 

Where's your proof of that? There is only one account of it in the New Testament. But where does it ever say that another Gentile in the exact same situation was turned away? The compilers of the Scriptures didn't record every single word and event of Jesus' life. They recorded those things that were meaningful. So, was there a need to list every time an exception was made?

 

Knowing that, the question becomes, why?  Why did He make an exception to His doctrine, and does that exception make Him a hypocrite?

 

From a human standpoint, without explanation, to aid one faithful person and tell another equally faithful person unequivocally no, it IS hypocritical. One could debate whether God has the ability to be hypocritical (i.e. if He is above the concept) or if we even have the right to question God's actions. The problem becomes, this debate is only convincing on any level if you've already accepted that the one committing the action IS God or IS God's church. If you are trying to determine that for yourself than the argument doesn't hold water. Just like telling someone who is not Christian that the Bible is God's word because it claims to be so.

Edited July 18, 2014 by rlds_coc_lds

[Nofear]

We had a lengthy discussion about Allah SWT, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Muhammad PBUH, the angels, and other Prophets two weeks ago, and it is amazing to me how close Mormon thought is to Islam.

 

This is part of Dr. Peterson's specialty. You may be interested in looking up some of his efforts in this.

[EllenMaksoud]

This is part of Dr. Peterson's specialty. You may be interested in looking up some of his efforts in this.

I have read some of his work. He understands better than many people I know. Living both as Christian and later as Muslim and finally as Mormon has given me much to reconcile, and it has been most rewarding. It is now clear that only people who have not had the experience insist that there can only be one belief.

 

Yesterday, I listened to a video on Youtube, "Draw My Life by Amenakin". She is the sort of Muslim woman I wish to be, though the age difference can not be resolved in this life.   In this video, quite a charming one, she mentions having "fallen in love with God". When she said that, it resonated quite strongly with me because that is what I have always tried to do.

 

Where shall I go? What shall I do? I don't know because there is no one in flesh and bone to guide me. I do not mean God, but someone who can touch me physically and we can share our lives together. So many women I know are in the same situation. There must be a purpose in this.

[CV75]

I have been in a ward where a woman was called to be a "special assistant" to the bishop where she essentially performed most of the tasks of a membership clerk, and some of those of an executive secretary.  No one made a big deal about it because only the bishopric even knew about it.

 

There was a shortage of worthy men who would accept callings and that was the perfect solution.

 

I suspect it is done more widely than is known.  Bishops have the discretion to create callings like that as needed.

Similar experience: I was a stake clerk who trained the sister who was called as a clerk in a branch due to a lack of brothers who could navigate the computer system (new in that area at the time, mid-1990s).

[Buckeye]

Perhaps because some exceptions are allowed or even commanded, and for other things, no exceptions are ever allowed?

 

When I think of this issue in relation to my dealings with my own children, i see that there are some rules which my husband and i have which have exceptions built right into them (don't be a tattle-tale, unless someone's about to get hurt, then you come running to tell me quick!) and other's which never will have exceptions (don't ever say that word again!).

 

Depending on the age of my children (and their level of understanding) sometimes they understand the exceptions without being told because they are obvious. Other times they have to be taught. Same goes for the rules that have no exceptions.

 

Whether or not a rule has an exception in our home tends to be determined by why the rule exists in the first place, and it's purpose.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if gospel doctrine as well as divine policy (if that exists) functions the same way.

 

I understand these general principles but that doesn't solve the problem. Exceptions have reasons that can be explained by the need to adhere to superceeding principles. For example, "kids, don't jump out your bedroom window unless the house is on fire" can be explained by the principle of bodily safety. Jumping out the window can break your legs, so don't do it. But if staying in your room could cost your life, well in that situation it is better to risk breaking your legs. Knowing the superceeding principles allows one to correctly fashion additional rules that comform with the principle. Then, even without being instructed, the kids would understand that it is acceptable to jump out the window if an intruder comes into the house with an intent to cause them harm.

 

Returning to the issue of women's ordination, I want to know the reason for the initiatory exception in order to understand the general principles that underlying priesthood authority. Elder Oaks taught the following: (i) the church cannot ordain women because we lack authority; (ii) in order for the church to have authority additional keys would need to be given; (iii) priesthood ordinances are only performed by those with priesthood authority, with the exception of the female initiatory.

 

So far, I can't find a superceeding principles that unites the rule with the exception. Perhaps women are performing the initiatory without authority and the church will have to remedy that in the future. Perhaps God gave special authority to the prophet to allow just this one avenue for female priesthood authority, but for some odd reason the prophet can't tell the church about this authorization. Perhaps the church actually does have the ability to give women priesthood authority to perform all kinds of ordinances but limits it to the initiatory because of cultural/victorian reasons. Or perhaps something else entirely. I don't know. But just saying that "rules have exceptions" doesn't get us anywhere. In order for the kids/church to actually understand, the parent needs to explain the reason for the exception. And so far neither Elder Oaks or anyone else has tried to do that.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Buckeye

[ksfisher]

 

 

(iii) priesthood ordinances are only performed by those with priesthood authority, with the exception of the female initiatory.

 

Just to modify your statement a bit, female initiatory workers do have priesthood authority to perform this ordinance.  They receive that authority from the temple president who holds the necessary priesthood keys. 

[Buckeye]

Just to modify your statement a bit, female initiatory workers do have priesthood authority to perform this ordinance.  They receive that authority from the temple president who holds the necessary priesthood keys. 

 

So then it is false to say that women cannot be given priesthood authority?  If so, what is the underlying principle that allows us to ordain women for purposes of the initiatory but not for purposes of baptisms, confirmations, consecrating oil, administering the sacrament, etc? 

 

Without an explanation, the exception risks swallowing the rule. 

[ksfisher]

So then it is false to say that women cannot be given priesthood authority?  If so, what is the underlying principle that allows us to ordain women for purposes of the initiatory but not for purposes of baptisms, confirmations, consecrating oil, administering the sacrament, etc? 

 

Without an explanation, the exception risks swallowing the rule. 

 

Women do have priesthood authority.  A Primary President receives priesthood authority to act in that office from the bishop.  A sister missionary receives priesthood authority to preach to gospel.  Receiving priesthood authority is different than being ordained to a priesthood office.  Everything that is done in the church is done under the authority of the priesthood

 

Women are not ordained to a priesthood office to serve in the temple.  They are set apart to perform specific functions within the temple. 

 

The underlying principle does not seem to be fully revealed at this point.  But, this is the order of the temple that was revealed to Joseph Smith.  I have faith that what was revealed to Joseph Smith was in accord with the mind and will of God.  Modern prophets may be inspired to make modifications to the temple service from time to time, but I have faith that they are fulfilling their stewardship.

 

 

"Every act or ordinance performed in the Church is done under the direct or indirect authorization of one holding the keys for that function."

 

" In an address to the Relief Society, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said this: “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.”⁷"

 

The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood By Elder Dallin H. Oaks Edited July 18, 2014 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

I understand these general principles but that doesn't solve the problem. Exceptions have reasons that can be explained by the need to adhere to superceeding principles. 

 

You are assuming though that if you can't figure out the reason, or if one isn't given when you want it, that it's a 'problem'.

 

I don't find that to be an issue-i'm fine with the idea that an exception can occur and be legitimate completely separate from what I personally understand or know.  So from my perspective, it does solve the problem.