Women And Priesthood Essay

[HappyJackWagon]

  Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man

So if a woman can show that a priesthood holder has abused this principle, is she in charge? Or would the authority and power be transferred to another man?

 

This conversation is clearly going in circles between the two of us so I'll opt out until/if others choose to jump in.

[rockpond]

Personally, if I felt allegiance to the Church because I believed God worked within it, but was ex'ed because of "decisions of men," then I think there'd still be some element of believed God was still there, in the Church, working within it. And so, wholesale condemnations of the Church do not seem consistent with believing beforehand that there was something good in the Church despite the faults of men.

 

I don't know, but my perception is that Kelly's actions seem shallow-minded. She seems to have approached the church as if it is only an American political machine and she, only a public relations facilitator.  I grant that there could be more going on, but that is how it looks to me. There's so much good in the Church, because of the Church, for women.  Perhaps looking from the WEIRD (Western; Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic--see The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt) perspective is not enough.  Most of the world is not among our privileged class, generally speaking.

 

I agree.  I also imagine she's feeling somewhat betrayed and that is reflected in her commentary.  I'm not saying she's justified in feeling betrayed, just trying to get into her head a little.

[KevinG]

So if a woman can show that a priesthood holder has abused this principle, is she in charge? Or would the authority and power be transferred to another man?

 

This conversation is clearly going in circles between the two of us so I'll opt out until/if others choose to jump in.

 

A woman is always in charge of herself.  

 

Showing examples of men who fail in the exercise of their priesthood is not a good way to demonstrate the priesthood any more than showing examples of arsonists in the fire department demonstrate the usefulness of having trained and licensed firefighters.

 

As long as you stay in hypothetical land you will be going in circles.

[KevinG]

... And as long as we're exercising that control as we've been assigned or ordained to do then we are exercising compulsion in righteousness

 

That is as false a notion as any I've heard.  Read again:

 

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.

 

Ordination or having the priesthood conferred upon us does not confer righteousness upon us.  In fact the above verse makes is explicitly clear that it does not. 

 

What are the principles of righteousness?  later verses make it very clear.

 

D&C 121:41 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—

 

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

 

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

 

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[HappyJackWagon]

A woman is always in charge of herself.  

 

Showing examples of men who fail in the exercise of their priesthood is not a good way to demonstrate the priesthood any more than showing examples of arsonists in the fire department demonstrate the usefulness of having trained and licensed firefighters.

 

As long as you stay in hypothetical land you will be going in circles.

You're the one who keeps pounding the scripture. So what happens if the man is in violation of the principle? That's the question. I'm offering possibilities to draw out an answer. It's not working because you don't want to seem to accept the conclusion that the power and authority is never the woman's. It is always the mans, even if men abuse it. To me this seems unfair but maybe it seems reasonable to others.

[KevinG]

You're the one who keeps pounding the scripture. So what happens if the man is in violation of the principle? That's the question. I'm offering possibilities to draw out an answer. It's not working because you don't want to seem to accept the conclusion that the power and authority is never the woman's. It is always the mans, even if men abuse it. To me this seems unfair but maybe it seems reasonable to others.

 

If he fails in exercising his priesthood in righteousness his authority is removed.  Perhaps he can fool other mortals but God will not be mocked.

 

Read the scripture for comprehension and I may stop "pounding" it.  Although pounding is awfully hyperbolic since I've only quoted it a few times and you have not comprehended it yet.

 

Your questions about authority are clearly answered in those verses.

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[HappyJackWagon]

His authority is removed.  

 

Read the scripture for comprehension and I may stop "pounding" it.  

 

Your questions about authority are clearly answered in those verses.

You're either blatantly ignoring my point or you just can't see it.

At this point I don't care much which it is.

[KevinG]

Asked and answered.  

 

Your position is based in the erroneous assumptions that because a woman cannot be a Deacon she has no authority or power, and that because a man has priesthood conferred on him he always has authority and power.  Both are blatant falsehoods and un-doctrinal. 

 

I cannot help you with reading comprehension.

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[HappyJackWagon]

Asked and answered.  I cannot help you with reading comprehension.

Yes. I'm sorry for being so stupid. I don't read tu good but I is takin classes and such.

[Buckeye]

So let's get this straight...  You are upset over women not being in charge of announcing the speakers on Sunday?

 

For bonus points cite a time in the last century a ward was actually down to the Deacon's quorum and no High Priest was there to step in from the Stake.

 

You spend more time being offended by hypotheticals...

 

In the early 90s I was the first assistant in the priest quorum in a small congregation in downstate illinois. There were serious floods that year and for a few sundays the bishop would hold sacrament meeting and then cancel the rest. We would change clothes and go help fill sandbags at the river. At the peak of the floods, at one point he considered having all the men spend the whole day working, and leaving the priest quorum in charge of running sacrament meeting. That never happened, but we did discuss how the meetings would run.

 

And let's be fair. Do we really want to denigrate what a bishop (or stake president or president monson) does when presiding as "announcing the speakers"? In our zeal to say that women's exclusion from presiding is substantively unimportant, we seriously risk undermining our claim that priesthood office and presiding have any real value.

 

I'm stumped, why was it that Abraham sought so strongly to obtain the priesthood? Oh right, it was because he wanted to announced the speakers.

[KevinG]

Yes. I'm sorry for being so stupid. I don't read tu good but I is takin classes and such.

 

You accused me of "not seeing your point" intentionally or by inference, being stupid.

 

Don't play the victim.

[bsjkki]

You're the one who keeps pounding the scripture. So what happens if the man is in violation of the principle? That's the question. I'm offering possibilities to draw out an answer. It's not working because you don't want to seem to accept the conclusion that the power and authority is never the woman's. It is always the mans, even if men abuse it. To me this seems unfair but maybe it seems reasonable to others.

The power is always with the Priesthood authority.  There is a tendancy to "circle the wagons" in support of a priesthood leader.  In most LDS stakes, if you complain about the actions of a Bishop to a stake authority, you will never come out in a good position.  You will be labeled as a complainer or whiner or an over protective parent or lacking faith or a testimony or "speaking evil of the Lord's annointed."  It actually doesn't matter if you're male or female except females never have any authority ever.  Nothing happens to a Bishop who violates these principles because they are subjective and the "authority" will back him even if the spirit wont.  He just leaves a trail of carnage behind him in his unrighteous acts.

[KevinG]

In the early 90s I was the first assistant in the priest quorum in a small congregation in downstate illinois. There were serious floods that year and for a few sundays the bishop would hold sacrament meeting and then cancel the rest. We would change clothes and go help fill sandbags at the river. At the peak of the floods, at one point he considered having all the men spend the whole day working, and leaving the priest quorum in charge of running sacrament meeting. That never happened, but we did discuss how the meetings would run.

 

And let's be fair. Do we really want to denigrate what a bishop (or stake president or president monson) does when presiding as "announcing the speakers"? In our zeal to say that women's exclusion from presiding is substantively unimportant, we seriously risk undermining our claim that priesthood office and presiding have any real value.

 

I'm stumped, why was it that Abraham sought so strongly to obtain the priesthood? Oh right, it was because he wanted to announced the speakers.

 

In the scenario you just presented would the Deacon do anything more than deliver the agenda the Bishop had put together?

 

If you think so then feel free to add those duties to my description.

 

Again hypotheticals and almost happeneds do not do justice to the actual role of the priesthood.

 

The actual duties of Deacons boil down to passing the sacrament, keeping the chapel clean, and administering in temporal duties like assisting the Bishop on the stand.

 

Conflating the office of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator with what a Deacon does in the ward is a misrepresentation of the topic at hand.

[Zakuska]

The thing I do like about this essay is the way women's participation is very active in the priesthood. They are not merely receivers of the blessings but they are practitioners of priesthood power and authority in their ministry.

 

The thing that is confusing to me is that women have the authority, the power, and are even able to preside in certain areas but the distinction is made that "priesthood office" is not conferred and "keys" are not given.

 

But what is a key, except the authority to direct the work of the priesthood. If a RS president presides over the relief society, and women exercise the power and authority of the priesthood, then how is she not exercising a key when she assigns visiting teaching and serves the needy.

 

What value is a priesthood office if women exercise the same authority without office?

 

To me this feels like double speak. "Women, you have power and authority but not really. But be happy with what you've got."

 

I think the church has opened  the door to many interesting conversations that are worth having.

 

Isn't it wonderful how consistently inconsistent the other side of the argument really is and how deep the mincing of words really goes to try and maintain consistency?! The word "preside" is minced-meat. "Ordain" is hamburger. and "Key" is toast. "order" is anything but order.

 

We are being told the word "preside" in a family setting really doesn't mean "preside" that, the husband and wife are "equal partners".  Yet in a Ward family setting "preside" really does mean "preside" when it comes to the Bishop (Judge in Israel) and his counselors vs the run of the mill ward members. Even though women have filled the position of "Judge in Israel" and "Presided" over the tribe in the fullest sense of the word berfore.

 

Judges 4:4

Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time

 

Its been brought up that the only deacon mentioned by name in the Bible is a woman.

 

Romans 16:1

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.

 

Also worthy of note is the fact that in the job description for deacons given by Paul to Timothy the qualifications for women deacons are given.

 

1 Tim. 3:8-16

 

And even the essay describes how Emma was given by revelation the job description of deacon.

D&C 20

59 They are, however, to warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ

Jan 9, 2013 - Joseph Smith later explained that Emma “was ordain at the time, the Revelation was given, to expound the scriptures to all; and to teach"

I also noticed that the essay conspicuously stayed away from the Releif Society organization notes with a ten foot pole:

During the very first meeting of the Relief Society Joseph Smith instructed them that officers should “be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, &c. are among [the church].”

Of the Relief Society Joseph also said:

“he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day.”

Edited October 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

The power is always with the Priesthood authority.  There is a tendancy to "circle the wagons" in support of a priesthood leader.  In most LDS stakes, if you complain about the actions of a Bishop to a stake authority, you will never come out in a good position.  You will be labeled as a complainer or whiner or an over protective parent or lacking faith or a testimony or "speaking evil of the Lord's annointed."  It actually doesn't matter if you're male or female except females never have any authority ever.  Nothing happens to a Bishop who violates these principles because they are subjective and the "authority" will back him even if the spirit wont.  He just leaves a trail of carnage behind him in his unrighteous acts.

 

Citing an example of abuse does not negate the way it is supposed to work.

 

I have known sisters who were abused and their abusers did not get punished.  I have seen that happen outside the church with my own wife and her step father.  That is not because of the priesthood it is in spite of the priesthood.

 

I have also seen cases where the sisters were concerned about the behavior of brethren, made their concerns known, and those brethren were restricted from activities or duties because of it.

[KevinG]

Challenge:

 

Cite a real example of a Priesthood holder exercising their priesthood in righteousness and a woman being subjugated due to it.

 

Otherwise you are blaming the priesthood for things it is designed to prevent.  Much like blaming the Gospel for people who don't obey it.  

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[TheSkepticChristian]

Who would preside over the entire congregation on Sunday if there were no M Priesthood, Priest or Teacher present? Would it be the Relief Society President or the Deacon?

 

LOL you still with that? Gladly 99% of active LDS women don't give a da about receiving the priesthood. They are happy and that is what matters.

 

Ordaining women to the priesthood won't solve the gender pay gap and many other issues that do actually matter. 

[Buckeye]

In the scenario you just presented would the Deacon do anything more than deliver the agenda the Bishop had put together?

 

If you think so then feel free to add those duties to my description.

 

Again hypotheticals and almost happeneds do not do justice to the actual role of the priesthood.

 

The actual duties of Deacons boil down to passing the sacrament, keeping the chapel clean, and administering in temporal duties like assisting the Bishop on the stand.

 

Conflating the office of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator with what a Deacon does in the ward is a misrepresentation of the topic at hand.

 

You're avoiding the point. As a priest, I would have been a boy presiding over my mother and all the other sisters. 

 

I'll give you another one. A bishop I know wanted to call at least one sister as a counselor. He believed she would add insight to the bishopric that no brother could bring, and do a better job counseling and interviewing the sisters and young women. Obviously, he was turned down. But the exclusion of women does not lead to just hypothetical concerns. There's a real desires for something better that is being squelched by our priesthood policy.

[Buckeye]

Challenge:

 

Cite a real example of a Priesthood holder exercising their priesthood in righteousness and a woman being subjugated due to it.

 

Otherwise you are blaming the priesthood for things it is designed to prevent.  Much like blaming the Gospel for people who don't obey it.  

 

It's not just matters of abuse. The real harm is the good that could happen, but does not. See my above example about a female bishopric counselor.

[KevinG]

It's not just matters of abuse. The real harm is the good that could happen, but does not. See my above example about a female bishopric counselor.

 

OK then.  Cite an example of when a woman should have been presiding, but wasn't, and a loss of good things happening came of it.

 

That would be fair too.

 

But don't fall into the trap of using the failure of a Priesthood holder to honor his marriage into arguing that women would be better off without Priesthood holders.  (I've started a new thread on that.)

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[Zakuska]

A good read here which describes exactly what I'm trying to say...

"We can further see the Relief Society’s role as a parallel priesthood organization in Cahoon’s statement that “the organization of this Society & the Church is similar[,] according to the mind & order of God.” The church leadership(First presidency, Elders, Priest, teachers, Deacons, etc.) are to be mirrored in the Relief Society. Joseph established it this way to be a parallel priesthood organization for women. This follows the Masonic model and also manifests the complimentary male-female duality of humanity. When some people discuss women and the priesthood they expect it to be some androgynous concept with women in the First presidency, and potentially men in the Relief Society Presidency. But this is not the case as it does not preserve the unique qualities of each.

The biggest problem in people’s minds is that they view genders as competitive. They believe that there must be women in the First presidency or else women are not equal with men. This is because they view the Relief Society as lesser than that First Presidency. But they are not. Remember what Joseph Smith stated about the Relief Society Presidency; that they should preside “just as the Presidency, preside over the church.” The Relief Society is the female priesthood counterpart to the male priesthood offices. One is not higher than the other, rather they are complimentary. Just as males and females are complimentary to each other."

 

https://zomarah.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/the-history-and-purpose-of-the-relief-society/

[KevinG]

A good read here which describes exactly what I'm trying to say...

 

 

 

https://zomarah.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/the-history-and-purpose-of-the-relief-society/

 

I have no qualms with that.  And just as I've said in the past if the Lord decided we should be ordaining women into the Priesthood, I would not apostatize.  

 

However I see benefit to our current practice in that it prescribes an active, serving, nurturing role to men, that society does not naturally assign them outside of the priesthood and church structures.  I do not see the intent of our current priesthood practices as being purposefully exclusionary of women as much as purposefully inclusionary of men in the role they play in family and church.

[HappyJackWagon]

I have no qualms with that.  And just as I've said in the past if the Lord decided we should be ordaining women into the Priesthood, I would not apostatize.  

 

 

However I see benefit to our current practice in that it prescribes an active, serving, nurturing role to men, that society does not naturally assign them outside of the priesthood and church structures.

 

 I do not see the intent of our current priesthood practices as being purposefully exclusionary of women as much as purposefully inclusionary of men in the role they play in family and church.

So, men receiving the priesthood is a counter-cultural response to encourage men to be more nurturing even though the Proclamation teaches that the primary nurturing role is a woman's?

 

It isn't necessary that a priesthood practice be "purposefully exclusionary of women" to be functionally exclusionary of women.

[KevinG]

Yes.  Men receiving the priesthood and taught to have an active role in their family (up to and including nurturing) is a very good thing and counter to the role of men in society in general.

 

Things that are inclusionary to some may be exclusionary to others.  That is not necessarily a bad thing.

[bsjkki]

Citing an example of abuse does not negate the way it is supposed to work.

 

I have known sisters who were abused and their abusers did not get punished.  I have seen that happen outside the church with my own wife and her step father.  That is not because of the priesthood it is in spite of the priesthood.

 

I have also seen cases where the sisters were concerned about the behavior of brethren, made their concerns known, and those brethren were restricted from activities or duties because of it.

And this is where the problems happen.  How it's supposed to happen versus what actually happens.  My experiences versus your experiences will not be the same.  Acknowledge that the inherent power difference between men and women living the gospel is inherantly not the same nor can be due to the structure of authority.   There are a lot of experiences women have that men can not relate too nor experience due to gender differences and as women, we are, at church always subservient to the opinions and actions of men.  Many women's concerns are dismissed.   In past posts, I have stated I am still pondering on these issues and don't have any answers.  I sustain the bretheren but it would be nice if the inherent problems of all male leadership were not dismissed as being without merit.

 

 

Yes.  Men receiving the priesthood and taught to have an active role in their family (up to and including nurturing) is a very good thing and counter to the role of men in society in general.

 

Things that are inclusionary to some may be exclusionary to others.  That is not necessarily a bad thing.

...until it is.