Feminist Wants Women Only Speakers At General Meeting

[Deborah]

Women's session may be officially part of conference but I don't think it was necessary to add it, though I do like the fact that girls can go with their mothers which is special.

 

So I wonder if women already have something more that they don't need Priesthood ordination to have that extra something.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

So I wonder if women already have something more that they don't need Priesthood ordination to have that extra something.

 

I can't really speak to that.

But I really don't understand this desire for temporal, earthly priesthood so that power in the Church is achieved.

The Temple gives both men and women true priesthood that they will take with them into the eternities and that allows them to part the veil and commune with God while here.

The ecclesiastical priesthood is an earthly calling.  Why do so many fight for a specific calling?  It totally seems to miss the point of priesthood.

Maybe if we stopped telling people that the temple is only symbolic teachings we could get past this misconception of priesthood.

[Raingirl]

THIS is why we really must end our priesthood apartheid because it creates this type of disrespect for women AMONGST women. And I'm not picking on you. I've heard similar comments from DOZENS of women. Yet, strangely I've never heard a MAN say that he doesn't really need to hear male speakers or that he generally prefers the company of women or to have women bosses. At best, men are equally comfortable in the company of either gender, but more likely we prefer to be with, hear from and work for MEN.

It's not overt sexism, but rather a normal preference to be with those we are most like. Yet, our society (and church) conditions women to see men as superior -- more worthy of our attention and to receive their direction.

Of course, the Mormon Church didn't create this problem, but as the "one true Church," it should be the one to fix it.

Is "priesthood apartheid" the new official buzzword?

Society has conditioned women to see men as superior. Perhaps that is part of what causes women to see that viewpoint wherever they look, whether or not it actually exists. They are seeing what they expect to see.

As I have mentioned before, I did not grow up in the church. I converted in 2011. I have not experienced any conditioning by the church promoting the superiority of men over women. Even despite all of the naysayers telling me that's what I would find. What I did find was message after message that I am of equal worth to my Heavenly Father.

In fact, outside of the church, my experiences have been that those with the message that I was somehow 'less than' because I was female......invariably came from men themselves. That is where the message really come from.

[Buckeye]

Women's session may be officially part of conference but I don't think it was necessary to add it, though I do like the fact that girls can go with their mothers which is special.

 

So I wonder if women already have something more that they don't need Priesthood ordination to have that extra something.

 

I'm still wondering if you're looking forward to all of conference, or just the non-women's part?

 

As to what women "have," let me elaborate.

 

Suppose the gospel is chuck-o-rama buffet. Women and men have equal access to all the food, except that only men get pot roast (priesthood offices) and only women get salad (giving birth). In this situation, allowing women access to the pot roast would allow them something they don't already have. Period. It's not to say that they do not currently have access to nourishment, or that men have a perfect situation either. I'm simply pointing out that women would have access to something more with priesthood office than they now have - specifically the ability to perform saving ordinances.  

 

Now, maybe that "something more" really is not valuable. Maybe its better to compare it to a ketchup stain than pot roast. Fine. But if that's the case, why are we so desirous for our husbands and boys to eat pot roast, but then say there is nothing lost if our wives and daughters are turned away?

[Buckeye]

I can't really speak to that.

But I really don't understand this desire for temporal, earthly priesthood so that power in the Church is achieved.

The Temple gives both men and women true priesthood that they will take with them into the eternities and that allows them to part the veil and commune with God while here.

The ecclesiastical priesthood is an earthly calling.  Why do so many fight for a specific calling?  It totally seems to miss the point of priesthood.

Maybe if we stopped telling people that the temple is only symbolic teachings we could get past this misconception of priesthood.

 

It's not the callings, it's the spiritual experiences that bring us closer to God and require priesthood office to perform. When I bless the sacrament with my boys, or baptize my daughters on a temple trip, that is an incredibly unifying and spiritual experience that brings me closer to my kids and brings us together closer to God. I want my wife and daughters to have those same experiences. Why is that so hard to understand. Nearly every PEC and Ward Council meeting I've been involves a discussion of how to get some man access to priesthood so that he can have such experiences. It's duplicitous to spend so much effort promoting that for men, but at the same time say there would be no value in women doing the same.

[Deborah]

And I love the spiritual experience that brings me closer to God when I know I am carrying life and when I am nursing that brings me closer to my baby.

 

Women have access to the Priesthood. They may not hold the office but that certainly doesn't limit their ability to bless lives and receive spritual experiences.

[Storm Rider]

I have a hard time seeing how OW's tactics could have been more respectful. They simply asked the Brethren to "double check" with HF about ordaining women. OW didn't put any demands or conditions of their request. They didn't threaten to stop paying tithes or inserting carrots into Jello. In terms of agitation, OW doesn't qualify as "radical extremists."

And the truth is that many would attack them no matter what "tactics" they used. Contrary to smac's fond misrememberances of Dr. King, he was NOT popular amongst the defenders of the status quo. He was called an "outside agitator." Hoover called him "the most dangerous black man in America."

They didn't object to Dr. King's tactics. They objected to his MESSAGE of equality and his "temerity" to claim equality with his superiors. I'm not sure that there isn't a lesson here for us.

 

My friend, I think you are stretching to make these two topics fit under the same umbrella.  KK was many things, but promoting a desire for a respectful conversation between herself and the Church was not a path she ever chose. She had a wholly different agenda, which has been discussed enough on this Board.  

[Jeanne]

So how does this call for gender segregation square with the OW group's call for having women attend the Priesthood Session? The former kinda undercuts the latter, wot?

Thanks,

-Smac

This is true..but Priesthood holders should not have it both ways.

[Buckeye]

And I love the spiritual experience that brings me closer to God when I know I am carrying life and when I am nursing that brings me closer to my baby.

 

Women have access to the Priesthood. They may not hold the office but that certainly doesn't limit their ability to bless lives and receive spritual experiences.

 

Maybe I should just give this up. It is a limitation to exclude women from performing ordinances. Period.

 

Yes, women have other spiritual experiences. Maybe even some that men don't have. SO WHAT?

 

The point is that women are currently denied some spiritual experiences that only come through exercising priesthood office. That is a limitation. Can you at least admit that much? You don't have to admit that it's a bad limitation. You don't have admit that men have it better. Those are all separate issues.

[Storm Rider]

There are times when I question why I participate on this Board.  I think it is for those moments, rare to find at times, when I learn a better way to apply the gospel or when I sense a greater understanding of a gospel topic due to the comment of others.  However, sometimes I question if I even belong to the same tribe of everyone here.  I don't understand the apparent need to agitate, to demand, and to seek after change that several contributors promote constantly.  

 

I realize that this Board promotes an environment where almost any topic can be discussed within the Church of Jesus Christ and this will naturally attract dissenters and those with problems of all kinds.  Thankfully, when I attend Church I am struck that this Board does not represent the common members of the Church of Jesus Christ.  It is only a place where a select subset of the membership comes.  Those that like to "push buttons" or to stir the pot relentlessly about a very few topics are attracted here in numbers.  

 

The question is why do I return?  Gads, I realize that it is my own version of watching soap operas - a waste of time, but I don't cease to return. 

 

One thing that might help is if we could individually block certain topics or entries/comments that address certain topics similar to the way in which we can block specific contributors' comments.  I guess I just have extreme topic fatigue.  

[Storm Rider]

Maybe I should just give this up. It is a limitation to exclude women from performing ordinances. Period.

 

Yes, women have other spiritual experiences. Maybe even some that men don't have. SO WHAT?

 

The point is that women are currently denied some spiritual experiences that only come through exercising priesthood office. That is a limitation. Can you at least admit that much? You don't have to admit that it's a bad limitation. You don't have admit that men have it better. Those are all separate issues.

 

Grow up.  Spirituality is different because it is individual.  Things have been different for each individual from the beginning.  Life is not fair and never will be fair.  You look different; why do you get to be like you and I get to be like me?  Why do you think it is so important to make everyone look identical?  When did the this idea come into the gospel?  Never; it does not exist.  What we know by gospel principle is that God created us, full stop.  We are different and have always been different.  Some are chosen and some are not.  At the end of the day we each will have had the opportunity to be in complete unity with the Godhead.  If that is true, what the blue blazes is the problem?!?

[Buckeye]

Grow up.  Spirituality is different because it is individual.  Things have been different for each individual from the beginning.  Life is not fair and never will be fair.  You look different; why do you get to be like you and I get to be like me?  Why do you think it is so important to make everyone look identical?  When did the this idea come into the gospel?  Never; it does not exist.  What we know by gospel principle is that God created us, full stop.  We are different and have always been different.  Some are chosen and some are not.  At the end of the day we each will have had the opportunity to be in complete unity with the Godhead.  If that is true, what the blue blazes is the problem?!?

 

I guess we are different. The God I worship is no respecter of persons. He gives liberally to all. The only limitations are their desires. If growing up means abandoning these principles, I'll be staying in Primary.

[Deborah]

The point is that women are currently denied some spiritual experiences that only come through exercising priesthood office. That is a limitation. Can you at least admit that much? You don't have to admit that it's a bad limitation. You don't have admit that men have it better. Those are all separate issues.

 

No I don't admit that it is a limitation. I have my own spiritual experiences that come from being a mother. It is a limitation only in the minds of those who do not fully understand Priesthood power in my mind.

[Bobbieaware]

Vitriol? Really?

I will confess that I have yet to achieve Calmoriah or Brother Smith's zen-like cordiality, but I don't think I'm being hostile. I'm certainly not using crude or vulgar language. Nor am I calling people names.

I MAY have resorted to exaggeration or straw man building once (maybe twice), but vitriol? And sure I can be sarcastic and mocking, but I am more often than not, the brunt of my jokes (as in just the last sentence).

Now, when I resort to using expletives and calling people "poopy heads," I will accept my appointment to the high offices of vitriol, hostilely and exudor. Until such point, I remain as harmless as a serpent and as wise as a dove.

I had a thought related to the scriptures cross my mind today that really surprised me. It's one of those very obvious doctrinal principles that never before entered my consciousness even though it had been staring me right in the face for many years.

As I was thinking about the goals of the OW movement, for some reason my thoughts wandered to the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and it dawned on me that since the dawn of man the only heavenly priesthood leaders the kingdom of God has ever had have always been men, with nary a single word of revelation or commandment coming from the mouth of even a single female deity or angel. Then, after reading your post, it further dawned on me that if the scriptures and the temple offer any clues as to the realities of life in heaven, it appears your dreaded "priesthood apartheid" -- as you so graciously put it -- continues on in heaven, for it seems even there we only see men and never women in the "out front" priesthood leadership roles.

If the scriptures and temple teachings are presenting us with a true glimpse of how the priesthood leadership structures are organized in heaven, it appears the OW types are going to be in for a very, very long haul. For it could very well be that after engaging in years of futile battle with the priesthood leaders of the earthly church of Christ, the OW movement will then have to take their "battle for justice" to the throne of God himself (war in heaven anyone?). But of course, this scenario could only come to pass if any of the rebellious OW types actually make it into the celestial kingdom in the first place. And considering how great a premium the Lord places on faithful obedience, that is a very big "if."

Edited March 27, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Deborah]

from Fair Conference "This is a Woman's Church."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgTg4ZKwtwQ

[Buckeye]

Hey, look at that. Turns out some women will be attending priesthood session after all. I find it interesting how the church spokesmen emphasize that the same principles regarding reporters access will apply to the priesthood and women's session.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2339864-155/new-policy-lets-female-reporters-attend

[Buckeye]

No I don't admit that it is a limitation. I have my own spiritual experiences that come from being a mother. It is a limitation only in the minds of those who do not fully understand Priesthood power in my mind.

 

Okay. I'll ask just one more question. If women are allowed to receive priesthood offices some day, do you think that you would decline the offer? Your statements suggest that you would find no benefit from ordination.

[JLHPROF]

The point is that women are currently denied some spiritual experiences that only come through exercising priesthood office. That is a limitation. Can you at least admit that much?

 

Sure.  Why do people need to experience every kind of spiritual experience?

 

I've never been struck blind on the road to Damascus?

I've never sweat blood in Gethsemane?

I've never had my faith tested in trying to walk on water?

I've never had a resurrected being ordain me to a priesthood office?

I've never seen the Savior while in the temple?

 

Look, what it comes down to is that people are different.  Genders are different.  Blessings and spiritual experiences are different.  Priesthood offices are different.  Any two intelligences are different.

Why this fight for perfect sameness in every opportunity, experience and action?

I'm going to post this AGAIN:

 

 

It will not matter whatsoe'er is gained,

Or what on earth may seem to be obtained;

But 'tis important that each one prepare

To be with Christ, a joint, an equal heir:

Faith, and obedience, and integrity,

Will the grand test of future heirship, be.

If true and faithful to the Father's will,

It matters not what station here you fill;

As you prepare yourself on earth, will be

Your place, your portion in eternity.

.....

Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been

Subject to sorrow in a world of sin:

Through long gradation he arose to be

Cloth'd with the Godhead's might and majesty.

And what to him in his probative sphere,

Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer?

Whate'er his offices and callings were,

He magnified them with assiduous care:

By his obedience he obtain'd the place

Of God and Father of this human race.

 

Obedience will the same bright garland weave,

As it has done for your great Mother, Eve,

For all her daughters on the earth, who will

All my requirements sacredly fulfill.

And what to Eve, though in her mortal life,

She'd been the first, the tenth, or fiftieth wife?

Whether by fools, consider'd small, or great?

'Twas all the same with her--she prov'd her worth--

She's now the Goddess and the Queen of Earth.

 

Eliza R. Snow

[JLHPROF]

Okay. I'll ask just one more question. If women are allowed to receive priesthood offices some day, do you think that you would decline the offer? Your statements suggest that you would find no benefit from ordination.

 

I know this isn't addressed to me (obviously) but once again priesthood order has been established for eternities before the foundation of this world.

If Pres. Monson laid his hands upon a womans head and ordained her an Elder in the Melchezidek Priesthood she STILL WOULDN'T BE AN ELDER because it would be of no effacy.  Just as if he were to attempt to seal two men across the altar in the temple, they still WOULDN'T BE SEALED.

You cannot alter eternal order, ordinances, and laws.

 

The temple provides women with ALL the priesthood keys they need to become Gods.  Anything else is outside of what God has revealed.

Edited March 27, 2015 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

I think it's very sad that some members want to create a division in the church to exclude those who want greater access to God. 

 

What members are trying to keep people from having greater access to God?

[bluebell]

THIS is why we really must end our priesthood apartheid because it creates this type of disrespect for women AMONGST women. And I'm not picking on you. I've heard similar comments from DOZENS of women. 

 

Maybe you can fix Deborah mormonnewb.  You obviously know better than she how she should be responding to this.  Maybe you could start a class.  A "how to teach women to behave and think as they should" kind of class.  

[bluebell]

Maybe I should just give this up. It is a limitation to exclude women from performing ordinances. Period.

 

Yes, women have other spiritual experiences. Maybe even some that men don't have. SO WHAT?

 

The point is that women are currently denied some spiritual experiences that only come through exercising priesthood office. That is a limitation. Can you at least admit that much? You don't have to admit that it's a bad limitation. You don't have admit that men have it better. Those are all separate issues.

Men are currently denied some spiritual experiences that only come thru motherhood.  Some women are currently denied some spiritual experiences that only come thru motherhood.

 

Some men and women are currently denied spiritual experiences that only come thru marriage.  Some men and women are currently denied spiritual experiences that only come thru serving a mission.   

 

Does that seem to bother God?  (I'm not asking whether or not God cares when we have a righteous desire and are hurt or upset when we don't get it-i'm asking whether or not being denied a spiritual experience means that something is not God's will).

 

If whether or not women and men having spiritual experiences denied others is a "SO WHAT" kind of problem, then why should it matter if the women have the priesthood or not?

[bluebell]

I guess we are different. The God I worship is no respecter of persons. He gives liberally to all. The only limitations are their desires. If growing up means abandoning these principles, I'll be staying in Primary.

 

I'll have to let my dear friends, who desire to have a baby but can't, know that if they just wanted it more, God would liberally give them all the children they want.  

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.  

 

The God you worship tells people "no" all the time, regardless of their desires.

Edited March 27, 2015 by bluebell

[why me]

As for your last point, MOST gays did not want to serve in the military, but they almost unanimously supported the rights of OTHER gays to do so. So if an LDS woman doesn't want the priesthood, fine. But I don't get the hostility to OTHER women getting it.

Of course there is a difference. The lds church is a church that claims that it is led by Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ. It is not a military organization. It is a church. For some reason you seem not to understand it. In the secular world, changes can be made through social pressure but not inside a church. But here is something to get: the lds women do have their own meetings: relief society, young women's etc. They are alone in these meetings and can bring up anything they wish to bring up for discussion. No man hears what they say. And such institutions can create a wonderful empowering opportunity for women.

 

You seem angry at the lds church. I wish you peace that can come when it is desired.

[why me]

There are times when I question why I participate on this Board.  I think it is for those moments, rare to find at times, when I learn a better way to apply the gospel or when I sense a greater understanding of a gospel topic due to the comment of others.  However, sometimes I question if I even belong to the same tribe of everyone here.  I don't understand the apparent need to agitate, to demand, and to seek after change that several contributors promote constantly.  

 

I realize that this Board promotes an environment where almost any topic can be discussed within the Church of Jesus Christ and this will naturally attract dissenters and those with problems of all kinds.  Thankfully, when I attend Church I am struck that this Board does not represent the common members of the Church of Jesus Christ.  It is only a place where a select subset of the membership comes.  Those that like to "push buttons" or to stir the pot relentlessly about a very few topics are attracted here in numbers.  

 

The question is why do I return?  Gads, I realize that it is my own version of watching soap operas - a waste of time, but I don't cease to return. 

 

One thing that might help is if we could individually block certain topics or entries/comments that address certain topics similar to the way in which we can block specific contributors' comments.  I guess I just have extreme topic fatigue.  

I have the same sentiments as you. Ten years ago, the board was a very faith promoting board. It was a place where members could come and see genuine discussions with active members and critics. Much was discussed and the posters were wonderful in their deliberations. There were quite a few good apologists. And some very good critics. But it has now changed. The dynamics have changed. And you are right about the repetitiion of topics or in turning topics into race and gay issues, plus women issues. Not much else is on the board these days. And it is usually the same gripe over and over again by church members nonetheless.

 

I don't think that this is a faith promoting board at all these days. If I came here today with the questions that I had ten years ago, I would probably leave the church. Too much bickering among lds members with the pushing of buttons etc. But the big question is: how did this happen? And who is responsible?

Edited March 27, 2015 by why me