Women And Priesthood Essay

[Maedros]

So you believe both men and women will have the Priesthood given to them by Christ as they inherit all that he has...just to be clear.

 

I assume that "will have the Priesthood given to them" means that women will be ordained to the order of Priesthood? Then no, I don't. If it means that women will be joint heirs to the priesthood, then yes.

[Maedros]

Maedros, you're all over the place on this one and really jumped the gun on what I actually said.

 

I said you had a problem with women entering male spheres (Ie. receiving priesthood ordination). Ie. women insisting on taking on male roles....particularly those you view as ordained of God to be male roles. I would assume you'd have a problem in the reverse order as well. I didn't assume you had a problem with women in general, nor would I. And trust me....this is not me psycho-analyzing you. I do that for my job so I definitely know when that's happening. For one, I look for patterns...not a singular post. For another I'm far more conservative than jumping to things like you must be a woman-hater. Even the more chauvinistic/sexist men I've had in my office don't usually get labeled in such a way. 

 

Also Cal's question is in no way foolish. I don't know if I've ever read something Cal said that I would label as foolish, whether I agree or not. The point is the problem that happens when you start disseminating women from priesthood-oriented scriptures. Or read assumptive roles (like prophet and church-wide revelation) as male-only experiences. You can't without a preliminary assumption that for some reason these scriptures, and only these scriptures, are meant to only apply to men. Even with that, it's still extremely difficult to pull that off because so much of the language, blessing and priesthood edicts apply equally to men as they do to women. 

 

 

Also that's not the point I said was blatantly false. The one I said was blatantly false was about the prophets who received revelation for the church were all men from adam on down. THAT's blatantly false. Several women gave directive revelation in their time to the spiritual body that are canonized doctrine. Female ordination to priesthood office on the other hand is at best somewhat contested but I haven't seen it done well enough to persuade me. Still, being a prophet and receiving revelation has never been a male-only action. But please, read up on these 4 women's stories and explain how they were not receiving revelation, leading the church/spiritual body, and acting prophetically... 3 out of the 4 were blatantly called prophetesses.

 

Towards your viewpoint I highlighted in blue. The amount of women doing so is very, very small. Most who have concern in this area, whether they want the changes to be basic policies or more radical changes like priesthood ordinations, do not fall in this category. Plus, whether you meant to or not, you're changing the scope of what you mentioned. First it was simply if women felt a desire for priesthood ordination and verbalized that publically. Now it's just those who believe this and actively lobby for it. They're not the same. 

 

Finally for your question in purple. Personally I'm the type of person who must understand people even when I think they're wrong. I read 30 or so of the OW profiles, categorizing their concerns and reasons for ordination because of this. But it's not about entertaining the opposing notion. It's the basic idea that you cannot really address concerns or understand your own stance until you understand an opposing view. I can't really respond if I don't have a basic understanding of my sister's concerns. Plus, the argument against female ordination equally needs fine-tuning. I want to know the exact parameters for what I believe and why. I also want my beliefs to be cogent and without obvious blind spots. So just as I've torn through OW or others explanations for why priesthood ordination is their desire, I've also torn through my own beliefs tho understand better the parameters of my beliefs in this. 

 

I think there are clear and concise arguments that make women's ordination not necessary and certainly not sufficient as a goal for greater gender balance in the church. Some of the ones you've given, though, are just plain holey.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Well stated! 

[Meadowchik]

It is not about the value of service...it is about being frustrated because one wants to do more,  I get was Zabruska is saying.  Surely a woman's usefulness can be put to even more good use in a unified spirit of blessings.  There are times when it would be a wonderful thing to feel edified i your service to others.  I don't think women get that.

 

You don't feel women feel edified in a unified spirit of service?

[Meadowchik]

Meadowchik, 

I'm having a hard time following your line of thought on this one....could you clarify a little for me?

 

What is the subject that you're referencing? And I'm not sure how this indicates that male presiding over the church body indicates this. How is this presiding solely a male role? And how does solely having men do so somehow show God's love to all humankind. Would it be somehow different if a woman did? 

 

 

Ok, I think the difficulty I'm having is needling out the words Preside and Nurture....and then these as male and female stewardships....and then the idea that women "preside" over nurturing God's children. While men preside over telling the world God's message. And then the re-splitting of the roles of leadership and the roles of nurturing as two generally split domains. 

 

To me that's the main rub I've seen with the topic of preside + nurture...or how preside is a male role and entails some form of being subject to one's spouse but also, somehow, being equal partners and deciders in the family. Preside, in an LDS context very obviously seems to have a different definition, not only from the general world but also how that term is used for the home compared to the church hierarchy. 

 

I personally have a hard time following it, because having a split language on this also feels contradictory to blessings that I have that include call to leadership judgment and speaking as the "prophets of old." And I know plenty of men who are great nurturers....Christ is the best example of nurturing/succoring and his atonement is often directly paralleled with mother acts (see Holland's talk). These roles, in actual application do not seem so easily split into stewardship.

 

I don't have a problem for men having stewardship over certain priesthood ordinances in the home and the church. But I do have a problem when we try to gender terms and concepts that may not actually need to be so gendered. I think part of the problem I have is that these also have never been so straight-forward in my daily life. 

 

Anyways, help me if I'm misunderstanding you on this. Because I certainly feel like I'm missing your point.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Well, you did needle at the way in which I was thinking, at least in that there is a splitting of domains

 

So, what I'd like to do is to try to consider what God is dealing with, from our own limited understanding of the human condition and logistics.

 

First, the need for presiding is self-evident, if a group, whether small or large, seeks to act with any authority. From couples to wards to the Church, presiding seems necessary.  Since presiding is something necessary in such a universal way (within couples, wards, stakes, regions,...then, the entire Church) we are then left with the potentially complicated question of Who. Who will preside? Deciding that presiding is most frequently based on gender takes care of the majority of instances where presiding is needed, that is, in couples.

 

Why are men granted the role of presiding within a married couple? This might be pretty self-evident, too. The man "stands watch" in presiding so the woman can be available to nurture the most helpless of the helpless, the children.  (Sometimes, and quite often enough, and at critical junctures, she in indispensable to this, making the universal rule an easy decision.) 

 

Splitting domains offers similar benefits to those provided by any other division of labor.  And such a clear splitting of domains offers the opportunity of creating dual cultures along gender lines within the greater all-encompassing culture of the Church.  Effectively, by reinforcing gender roles, the Church is also potentially reshaping the culture gender-based roles into more refined, righteous roles.

 

The result is perhaps most impactful with each new generation: an infant has a mother and a father.  At this critical juncture of helplessness, the child has a mother who is indispensable, and--because of the presiding role assigned to him along with his other jobs as partner, provider, and protector--a father who is also indispensable.

 

By making the structure emphasize both major roles, presiding leadership and nurturing, God is teaching us the importance of both.

 

Of course there are going to be lots of roles reversals, even in a given day.  Except these decisions allow for a structure to be built, one that can be reinforced along the existing gender lines, but hopefully in more edifying ways than society at large does so.

 

Then, on the Church-wide level, those familial roles and the righteous cultures supporting them (as opposed to the unrighteous buttressing of gender-based roles) can extend into the larger Church circle.  What would prepare a woman to be mother and wife can also prepare her to specialize in nurturing in the Church, what can prepare a man to be husband and father can also prepare him to fill presiding priesthood roles in the Church.

 

So perhaps the Priesthood as we now currently have it assigned is near its fullness as far as it can be instituted to mortals. (Maybe not, we can keep that thought open.) But perhaps, it is.  It is up to us to magnify our calls, and not just the gender-based ones, but the universal fraternal roles as brothers and sisters in Christ reaching out to those who don't quite fit in.  And if we don't quite fit, to seek out ways to serve and use our gifts to further the work.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

"The man "stands watch" in presiding so the woman can be available to nurture the most helpless of the helpless"

In many organizations, the person who presides appoints and directs those who stand watch.

You don't send your generals to the front of the line...though if we did less wars might be fought.

It is, in fact, quite stupid for captains to lead away-teams to unknown territory, contrary to certain popular TV series.

It actually would make sense for the woman to preside so she could ensure all the needs for maximising her ability to nurture were met in your scenario, instead of having to depend on someone else getting it right.

Iow, I don't find this expanation of why men preside as valid speculation. Sorry. I like many other ideas you've posted about.

[carbon dioxide]

Random question. If women ever do receive priesthood offices, would the Relief Society still exist? Or Young Womens'? It is my understanding that these organizations were created to mirror the Aaronic and Melchezidic Priesthoods.

Or would womens' ordination make it so there is no longer seperate organizations for men and women?

I would not see a reason for them to exist.  In fact the Church would have to do away or modify the stake patriarch position as women would be appointed to that as well.  So instead of getting a patriarchal blessings as some would have to be called matriarchal blessings if they are given by women.  Which then raises the question can a member get both a patriarchal blessing and a matriarchal blessing? 

Edited November 7, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Meadowchik]

"The man "stands watch" in presiding so the woman can be available to nurture the most helpless of the helpless"

In many organizations, the person who presides appoints and directs those who stand watch.

You don't send your generals to the front of the line...though if we did less wars might be fought.

It is, in fact, quite stupid for captains to lead away-teams to unknown territory, contrary to certain popular TV series.

It actually would make sense for the woman to preside so she could ensure all the needs for maximising her ability to nurture were met in your scenario, instead of having to depend on someone else getting it right.

Iow, I don't find this expanation of why men preside as valid speculation. Sorry. I like many other ideas you've posted about.

Thank you for the compliment on the other ideas.

Perhaps I do not explain this one adequately, though. I think you missed my point because you talk about the woman being able to preside over her nurturing as a counterpoint, when, to me, a woman presiding over her nurturing fits in.

The overall presiding, though, is what I'm trying to understand.

Consider the possibility of God prioritizing nurturing enough that He wants the nurture-presiders to be able to focus completely, a significant amount of time, on nurturing. This, rather than functioning as a sign of inferiority of nurturers could be seen more as a sign of God prioritizing nurturing.

In a household and family, though, "standing watch" is only a tip of the potential multiple needs that need attending while nurturing is also taking place, but I use it as a metaphor for that. This division of labor allows the most helpless to have 2 major spheres of protection: the one giving immediate nurturing and the one taking care of all other needs--a prioritizing which allows nurturing to be the subject of intense focus.

Again, though, these roles can switch and intersect, but the structure itself actually facilitates the possibility that both are happening!

[BlueDreams]

Meadowchik, thanks for clarifying...this helped me better understand what you meant and why I wasn't really following it. There are some fundamental differences in thought that made this difficult to follow for me. 

 

Well, you did needle at the way in which I was thinking, at least in that there is a splitting of domains

 

So, what I'd like to do is to try to consider what God is dealing with, from our own limited understanding of the human condition and logistics.

 

First, the need for presiding is self-evident, if a group, whether small or large, seeks to act with any authority. From couples to wards to the Church, presiding seems necessary.  Since presiding is something necessary in such a universal way (within couples, wards, stakes, regions,...then, the entire Church) we are then left with the potentially complicated question of Who. Who will preside? Deciding that presiding is most frequently based on gender takes care of the majority of instances where presiding is needed, that is, in couples.

 

Why are men granted the role of presiding within a married couple? This might be pretty self-evident, too. The man "stands watch" in presiding so the woman can be available to nurture the most helpless of the helpless, the children.  (Sometimes, and quite often enough, and at critical junctures, she in indispensable to this, making the universal rule an easy decision.) 

 

 

In hierarchical structures (like church) I think there may be something self-evident to have someone(s) preside (though I don't see why this could not be more equitable among genders in presiding over the church body). But I have a hard time seeing this in the home. Partially because I have 2 households in my immediate family and neither have a self-evident "presider." It was always funny to me when they would ask my Step-dad who he would like to pray as "head of the household" because he certainly wasn't the head. Or at least the only head (there were 3-4, mom, step, me, and then a brother once I left) and no one in my family would turn to him as a spiritual leader. In my other family both parents could fit what you describe as "preside." One family was chaotic and nigh dysfunctional, but the other is very healthy and the kids thrive. So I don't see it as self-evident. More like optional at best. Though labor in both can be split, they fall around lines that both are best at. Sometimes that falls on traditional gender lines. Other times it didn't.    

 

Splitting domains offers similar benefits to those provided by any other division of labor.  And such a clear splitting of domains offers the opportunity of creating dual cultures along gender lines within the greater all-encompassing culture of the Church.  Effectively, by reinforcing gender roles, the Church is also potentially reshaping the culture gender-based roles into more refined, righteous roles.

 

 

This does not sound like a good thing to me. Splitting domains can create inflexibility. So if there is a problem it can be more difficult for one or the other partner to pull up the slack. This is also not what I've seen actually happen in regards to "reshaping the culture-gender based roles." What I've seen more is a blending of the two: family cultures intermingle with the religious ascribed roles to create something in between. At times there can be a good and healthy reshaping, such as a respect for women's contributions in certain patriarchal societies where this was minimal at best. Other times it can just reinforce unhealthy cycles. I've seen this with what I call benevolent patriarchy. What happens in these cases that I've noticed is that men can ware out or become unintentionally overbearing. Meanwhile women are infantilized and have less confidence in their decision making capacities. What I see now, in my younger friends where men "preside" and it seems ok is that it's almost entirely in directing certain spiritual rites. In every other aspect of their lives it would be hard to tell who "presides" in the sense of who is giving leadership. They work together, they have differing roles, sometimes they swap roles, and often they share them. Some roles can't be shared (such as breastfeeding). 

 

The result is perhaps most impactful with each new generation: an infant has a mother and a father.  At this critical juncture of helplessness, the child has a mother who is indispensable, and--because of the presiding role assigned to him along with his other jobs as partner, provider, and protector--a father who is also indispensable.

By making the structure emphasize both major roles, presiding leadership and nurturing, God is teaching us the importance of both.

Of course there are going to be lots of roles reversals, even in a given day.  Except these decisions allow for a structure to be built, one that can be reinforced along the existing gender lines, but hopefully in more edifying ways than society at large does so.

 

 

Though I now understand your POV better, I just don't agree. I don't like gendering presiding leadership, it doesn't seem necessary and at times can be detrimental. I prefer co-leaders/nurturers and co-presiders in the home. On top of that, with your other post about presiding over nuturing it still doesn't explain the order to me of having men as overarching presiding as leaders in the home. 

 

Then, on the Church-wide level, those familial roles and the righteous cultures supporting them (as opposed to the unrighteous buttressing of gender-based roles) can extend into the larger Church circle.  What would prepare a woman to be mother and wife can also prepare her to specialize in nurturing in the Church, what can prepare a man to be husband and father can also prepare him to fill presiding priesthood roles in the Church.

So perhaps the Priesthood as we now currently have it assigned is near its fullness as far as it can be instituted to mortals. (Maybe not, we can keep that thought open.) But perhaps, it is.  It is up to us to magnify our calls, and not just the gender-based ones, but the universal fraternal roles as brothers and sisters in Christ reaching out to those who don't quite fit in.  And if we don't quite fit, to seek out ways to serve and use our gifts to further the work.

 

 

 

Again, this feels disjointed because church roles are blatantly hierarchical....partners in a marriage are explicitly told not to be. As Cal mentioned, I don't feel this a valid explanation for males presiding.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited November 7, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Rain]

this sounds like you're fighting windmills here. Or at least caricatures of women who would like change in the church. Like I said, I would like change and greater parity between men and women in the church. I'm not stating priesthood ordination..but change none the less. I do just about everything on this laundry list of righteous acts you've given....and I still feel we are missing things. I've had this feeling before. I remember it most clearly on my mission. You would be doing and working and praying all the time, yet there would be this plateau of revelation or forward movement. It wasn't anything to do with something I or my companion were doing wrong. It was just something that would happen because we/I needed something that was missing and to move in a slightly different direction. And that's what it feels like now. I do all those things, love my blessings, etc. But I feel missing pieces that need not be missing...that would move me/us just that much more forward. Some of it is happening already and I'm pleased by those changes. But some of it is still not there.

 

I miss an active relationship with Mother. The smallest brushing with Her presense makes me ache for more.

 

I desire to lay my hands on others outside of the temple like in times past. That's a simple practice change and it comes from loving and working hard to magnify the privilege I have of doing so in the temple.

 

There are other desires that I yearn for and no one questions my righteousness for being unwilling to let them go. I desire children with a poignant ache. I desire a spouse and partner...to be sealed.

 

Those are not quelled by  what you mentioned. Having a sit down, be silent, and just be grateful attitude won't fix it. The desire is still there and sometimes is only amplified by doing those faith-promoting things you've mentioned.

 

I speak of myself, because I only know myself when it comes to my heart. Yet if this fails for me I assume that I'm not super exceptional. Most of the women who may desire priesthood ordination I doubt are whining, ark-steadying, malcontents who just won't try on the virtues of humility and gratitude. And speaking of them like so does not help balm up wounds and give correction when needed.

 

with luv,

BD

 

I have tried several times to read through this thread, but something was always in the way and I couldn't finish.  Finally!

 

I have been so excited by some of the things you say.  I have always felt, there was something more, but I didn't really realize that till this last year or so.  After reading a talk from President Packer in the marriage and family relations class, elder oaks talk and and one from elder Ballard all of the sudden I felt like I was just getting this big bolus of spiritual info from the Lord about the roles of women.  It's kind of just floating around me if that makes any sense at all.  I haven't been sure if it was something I should ask about or not, though honestly I haven't felt a great need to do it.  Perhaps because of other things on my mind.  Perhaps because some day, maybe soon, it may be revealed.  

 

It has kind of bothered me when men have talked about hoping women will be ordained to the priesthood.  It's kind of like my husband loving me so much that he would give me his new, wonderful engineering computer.  I would love that he was so selfless and loved me, but really what I would like is a great glass grinder and soldering iron for stained glass.  I would like to know how to use the female equivalent of priesthood - whatever that is.    

 

I think you have a good point about lacking the words or language to describe it all.  I think a lot of the problem is that most are not even aware that there is something to describe.  Others put men's words to it, but it it just isn't accurate.  I think that the Proclamation on the family is just barely touching the surface with all of this.  So many feel that it is just a way to keep families traditional, but if women really understood what was being hinted at they would embrace it.  

 

A bunch of rambling words I know. I'm just glad that someone else is thinking along similar lines to what I have been thinking!  

 

 

I'm voicing great concern right now. Taking the healing anointing blessings away from the sisters has stunted the spiritual growth of many of our women and reduced their duties of healing the sick to nothing more than a chamber made and cook. Bringing in casseroles and green jello with carrots when someone is sick. Feeding the, sick chicken soup, nursing them and then cleaning up the other end when it comes out.

 

It doesn't work that way.  The only person who can stunt my spiritual growth is me.  We are not victims. I may not have the opportunity to do the annointings, but the Lord compensates for that in other ways and allows me to grow fully.  

Edited November 10, 2015 by Rain

[Meadowchik]

Meadowchik, thanks for clarifying...this helped me better understand what you meant and why I wasn't really following it. There are some fundamental differences in thought that made this difficult to follow for me. 

 

 

In hierarchical structures (like church) I think there may be something self-evident to have someone(s) preside (though I don't see why this could not be more equitable among genders in presiding over the church body). But I have a hard time seeing this in the home. Partially because I have 2 households in my immediate family and neither have a self-evident "presider." It was always funny to me when they would ask my Step-dad who he would like to pray as "head of the household" because he certainly wasn't the head. Or at least the only head (there were 3-4, mom, step, me, and then a brother once I left) and no one in my family would turn to him as a spiritual leader. In my other family both parents could fit what you describe as "preside." One family was chaotic and nigh dysfunctional, but the other is very healthy and the kids thrive. So I don't see it as self-evident. More like optional at best. Though labor in both can be split, they fall around lines that both are best at. Sometimes that falls on traditional gender lines. Other times it didn't.    

 

 

This does not sound like a good thing to me. Splitting domains can create inflexibility. So if there is a problem it can be more difficult for one or the other partner to pull up the slack. This is also not what I've seen actually happen in regards to "reshaping the culture-gender based roles." What I've seen more is a blending of the two: family cultures intermingle with the religious ascribed roles to create something in between. At times there can be a good and healthy reshaping, such as a respect for women's contributions in certain patriarchal societies where this was minimal at best. Other times it can just reinforce unhealthy cycles. I've seen this with what I call benevolent patriarchy. What happens in these cases that I've noticed is that men can ware out or become unintentionally overbearing. Meanwhile women are infantilized and have less confidence in their decision making capacities. What I see now, in my younger friends where men "preside" and it seems ok is that it's almost entirely in directing certain spiritual rites. In every other aspect of their lives it would be hard to tell who "presides" in the sense of who is giving leadership. They work together, they have differing roles, sometimes they swap roles, and often they share them. Some roles can't be shared (such as breastfeeding). 

 

Though I now understand your POV better, I just don't agree. I don't like gendering presiding leadership, it doesn't seem necessary and at times can be detrimental. I prefer co-leaders/nurturers and co-presiders in the home. On top of that, with your other post about presiding over nuturing it still doesn't explain the order to me of having men as overarching presiding as leaders in the home. 

 

 

Again, this feels disjointed because church roles are blatantly hierarchical....partners in a marriage are explicitly told not to be. As Cal mentioned, I don't feel this a valid explanation for males presiding.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

The need for presiding is self-evident, not the existence of a presider in each home.  Sometimes there isn't one, of course.

 

Someday I might be able to describe what I mean more clearly.  Basically, it's about mathematical results.

 

I really liked what Rain said about the something more and also your comments on that.  I do believe there is absolutely so much more!

 

The question is, even if MORE is revealed on an individual basis, does that make the Church or the World ready?  Not all the time, for sure.  It's like a hiking group of dozens of people that strove to not lose stragglers. They would make progress up the mountain as quickly as they could, but part of what they were was functioning as a body of Christ.  So, they'd have to stop while the slower hikers kept up. Then they'd move.  The major thing that kept them a cohesive, functioning, interactive, loving, group was loyalty to the lead hiker, who'd stop and start the group when needed.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Meadowchik