Women And Priesthood Essay

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

So men receiving the priesthood is a counterpoint to the church's own designation of gender roles. You might be right. I find that interesting.

[Zakuska]

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.

 

And yet we see more and more women feeling they are being excluded at church and at home because of the current practices. I have two daughters and they have asked why they cant pass the sacrament too. If women could participate in the wheels of priesthood and practice the art of healing like they used to it would make a big difference. We are stunting their spiritual growth and sacrificing our daughters spiritual well being for that of our sons.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[CV75]

I agree that the purpose of priesthood office is in governing. It's about an order of who is in charge; who has the power. Anything can be a delegated authority.

In this system a seasoned RS President has less power than a 12 year old Deacon who still doesn't know how to tie a tie or tuck in his shirt.

And evidently both have more power than you!

 

Jesus is in charge. He delegates keys to President Monson and instructs Him on how to use them. All other offices and callings in the Church flow from there. All members fall under this priesthood organization in some manner. The power enjoyed by any one of us as we act within this organization comes from faith and obedience.

 

I don't think you understand true power.

[HappyJackWagon]

And evidently both have more power than you!

 

Jesus is in charge. He delegates keys to President Monson and instructs Him on how to use them. All other offices and callings in the Church flow from there. All members fall under this priesthood organization in some manner. The power enjoyed by any one of us as we act within this organization comes from faith and obedience.

 

I don't think you understand true power.

Why do both have more power than me?

What are you implying?

Are you trying to make things personal?

Edited October 27, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[CV75]

Why do both have more power than me?

What are you implying?

Are you trying to make things personal?

Both have more power than you because, according to your criteria, a RS president is more seasoned than you, and the deacon is at least wearing a tie and a shirt.

 

Why do you think I’m implying and not stating what I did? What do you think I’m implying?

 

You said the essay’s message feels like double speak to you. Your posts seem like you don’t understand true power to me. My replies are not to make it personal except to acknowledge how the essays come across to you, and how your posts come across to me. Both the essays and your posts address  "power" but I see a significant disconnect between your use of the term and the essays'.

 

Just trying to take it back to what the essays are teaching!

[Buckeye]

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.)

 

I already did. See the comment above about the bishop who wanted a female counselor. I could also mention that I've been a member of ward and stake councils for the past decade-plus. In my experience, the council works better, and revelation comes better, when sisters are involved. It's not that the men are trying to abuse those they serve, or misuse their priesthood, it's that any organization is handicapped if half of the group it serves is excluded from the discussion. Ward councils simply work better than PEC. Stake high councils work better when sisters are invited; they'll work even better with sisters are formal members of the council. Same with bishoprics and (dare I say) the Q12. The guidance we receive from above is lessened by culture of discrimination. Stop dwelling on whether things are horrible at the moment and consider instead whether they could become so much better.

[KevinG]

 

Why do you think I’m implying and not stating what I did? What do you think I’m implying?

 

 

Claiming to be a victim (offended and taking it personally) is so much easier than addressing substance.

[KevinG]

I already did. See the comment above about the bishop who wanted a female counselor. I could also mention that I've been a member of ward and stake councils for the past decade-plus. In my experience, the council works better, and revelation comes better, when sisters are involved. It's not that the men are trying to abuse those they serve, or misuse their priesthood, it's that any organization is handicapped if half of the group it serves is excluded from the discussion. Ward councils simply work better than PEC. Stake high councils work better when sisters are invited; they'll work even better with sisters are formal members of the council. Same with bishoprics and (dare I say) the Q12. The guidance we receive from above is lessened by culture of discrimination. Stop dwelling on whether things are horrible at the moment and consider instead whether they could become so much better.

 

In my real life experience not being ordained has never prevented my wife from influencing, counselling, and having her voice heard by me or her priesthood leaders.

 

If that is a real danger and trend then we should be suggesting to the brethren how to fix it.  But throwing out the current church practice for the current trend in man bashing and diversity uber alles, without seriously considering the cost/benefit would be rash.

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[Buckeye]

And yet we see more and more women feeling they are being excluded at church and at home because of the current practices. I have two daughters and they have asked why they cant pass the sacrament too. If women could participate in the wheels of priesthood and practice the art of healing like they used to it would make a big difference. We are stunting their spiritual growth and sacrificing our daughters spiritual well being for that of our sons.

 

I gave you a +1, but would phrase this a little different. YW participating in the sacrament will not take away from the YM's experience; it will enhance it. Priesthood is not a fixed pie where your participation diminishes mine. It's a shared experience where the more others are involved, the more unity we all experience, and therefore the closer we all come to Christ. Family scripture reading is a better experience when everyone participates, not just dad. Excluding women from performing priesthood ordinances does not only limit their growth, it limits the growth of the men/boys who would be serving at their sides.

[Buckeye]

 

In my real life experience not being ordained has never prevented my wife from influencing, counselling, and having her voice heard by me or her priesthood leaders.

 

If that is a real danger and trend then we should be suggesting to the brethren how to fix it.  But throwing out the current church practice for the current trend in man bashing and diversity uber alles, without seriously considering the cost/benefit would be rash.

 

It's a matter of degree, not absolutes. Women have a lot of opportunities for good in the church. I dare so many more opportunities than most women throughout history. But so what? We're supposed to seek after all good. Your wife (and mine) are currently prevented from influencing, counseling, and having their voice heard in some pretty important functions - namely, giving priesthood blessings to their own children. Let's open our hearts to allowing them that good and see if God confirms that it is his will too. I can't imagine he would not bless our desires. 

 

General conference is better now that women can pray. Missions are better now that more sisters are serving. Seminary is better because YM and YW both serve as class presidents. BYU is better for having female students. On and on and on we go. Women make things better. Giving women priesthood office will make our priesthood service better. 

 

I'll give you one final example and then I need to step off. In working with the youth I get to help set up our temple baptism trips. One of the best things we've accomplished is to have fathers participate in the ordinances with their children. By performing the baptisms and confirmations, they experience a spiritual experience that creates eternal bonds. You ask about what our sisters are missing. They're missing that opportunity. And so are their children. It's not uncommon for sisters in the church to testify to the great value they've seen when their husbands perform ordinances for their children. So why is it so hard to understand that men like me would similarly desire to bring those valuable experiences to our own wives and children?

 

ETA: you mention the cost/benefit analysis. I've spoken to a lot of benefits. You haven't responded. I would really be interested to known what costs you see. How will things be worse, in any degree, if women are ordained to a priesthood office?

Edited October 27, 2015 by Buckeye

[Zakuska]

I gave you a +1, but would phrase this a little different. YW participating in the sacrament will not take away from the YM's experience; it will enhance it. Priesthood is not a fixed pie where your participation diminishes mine. It's a shared experience where the more others are involved, the more unity we all experience, and therefore the closer we all come to Christ. Family scripture reading is a better experience when everyone participates, not just dad. Excluding women from performing priesthood ordinances does not only limit their growth, it limits the growth of the men/boys who would be serving at their sides.

 

AMEN!  In the true order of prayer women stand at their mens side as equals.  If women can perform and participate in such ordinances/practices inside the temple in private.  Whats the harm of letting them do it outside as well in public other than restrictive out of date cultural moors that are holding us down from our full potential?

 

My son is currently playing little league football he's a lineman.  There is one girl on the team who plays right next to him in the line.  Rather than detracting from the team its only enhanced his experience.  He turns red every time we tease him about him and her double teaming and pushing over some bigger player on the other team.

[KevinG]

As I said before giving women ordinations would not cause me to apostatize.  I believe the practice is not an eternal doctrine, especially given examples to the contrary in our history and the scriptures.

 

However- I'd want to be darn sure to avoid the potential negative and unintended consequence of excusing men from their duties towards the family by virtue of letting the women do it.

 

I am witnessing the "Peter Pan Syndrome" among my daughters peer group in the college branch, and it scares me for our future.  Men are in need of a structured responsibility towards their families.  A foil against the terribly harmful culture of fatherlessness.  Priesthood duties are a great way to reinforce a father and future fathers duty as a man, that does not really deny significant leadership and parenting opportunities from women, as long as that priesthood is exercised according to gospel teachings.

[rockpond]

 

 

 

It's a matter of degree, not absolutes. Women have a lot of opportunities for good in the church. I dare so many more opportunities than most women throughout history. But so what? We're supposed to seek after all good. Your wife (and mine) are currently prevented from influencing, counseling, and having their voice heard in some pretty important functions - namely, giving priesthood blessings to their own children. Let's open our hearts to allowing them that good and see if God confirms that it is his will too. I can't imagine he would not bless our desires. 

 

General conference is better now that women can pray. Missions are better now that more sisters are serving. Seminary is better because YM and YW both serve as class presidents. BYU is better for having female students. On and on and on we go. Women make things better. Giving women priesthood office will make our priesthood service better. 

 

I'll give you one final example and then I need to step off. In working with the youth I get to help set up our temple baptism trips. One of the best things we've accomplished is to have fathers participate in the ordinances with their children. By performing the baptisms and confirmations, they experience a spiritual experience that creates eternal bonds. You ask about what our sisters are missing. They're missing that opportunity. And so are their children. It's not uncommon for sisters in the church to testify to the great value they've seen when their husbands perform ordinances for their children. So why is it so hard to understand that men like me would similarly desire to bring those valuable experiences to our own wives and children?

 

ETA: you mention the cost/benefit analysis. I've spoken to a lot of benefits. You haven't responded. I would really be interested to known what costs you see. How will things be worse, in any degree, if women are ordained to a priesthood office?

 

 

This a great summary.  Thank you.

[Buckeye]

 

As I said before giving women ordinations would not cause me to apostatize.  I believe the practice is not an eternal doctrine, especially given examples to the contrary in our history and the scriptures.

 

However- I'd want to be darn sure to avoid the potential negative and unintended consequence of excusing men from their duties towards the family by virtue of letting the women do it.

 

I am witnessing the "Peter Pan Syndrome" among my daughters peer group in the college branch, and it scares me for our future.  Men are in need of a structured responsibility towards their families.  A foil against the terribly harmful culture of fatherlessness.  Priesthood duties are a great way to reinforce a father and future fathers duty as a man, that does not really deny significant leadership and parenting opportunities from women, as long as that priesthood is exercised according to gospel teachings.

 

Ironically, the peter pan syndrome is the most likely reason that women will get the priesthood. I wish it were otherwise, but as with ending the racial ban, I fear that the church will back into this change more out of necessity than because of a desire for more good.

 

Regardless, you raise a valid concern about the young men. But let me ask you if you really think that artificially excluding women results in a better world for the boys. This is the same line of reasoning that imposes tariffs so that domestic markets don't have to compete. In the short term they might be helpful, but in the long term they just cripple you more. 

 

I know lots of boys who don't serve missions. But none of them make that choice "because the girls can serve." I know lots of boys who don't go to college. But none of them make that choice "because the girls can go." And on and on. When women are given priesthood office, there will (still) be lots of men who decline the office or fail to magnify it. But again, none of them will do so "because the women are allowed to serve." They will do it because of their own choices.

 

If we really believe the 2nd AOF, let's stop punishing Eve for Adam's transgressions. And just perhaps, we'll see that the change actually make things better for the boys. More homes where children get back to school blessings. More avenues for men to serve with children (especially primary-age boys). And more examples of righteous priesthood holders for boys to follow.

 

ETA: Exactly how does women's ordination "excuse men from their duties"? We're talking about adding women, not subtracting men. Fathers will have the same obligations and duties as before.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Buckeye

[jkwilliams]

When my daughters have asked me why women can't be ordained to the priesthood, I've just told them that just because the church teaches something, it doesn't mean God agrees or that it's right.

[KevinG]

 

 

 

Ironically, the peter pan syndrome is the most likely reason that women will get the priesthood. I wish it were otherwise, but as with ending the racial ban, I fear that the church will back into this change more out of necessity than because of a desire for more good.

 

Regardless, you raise a valid concern about the young men. But let me ask you if you really think that artificially excluding women results in a better world for the boys. This is the same line of reasoning that imposes tariffs so that domestic markets don't have to compete. In the short term they might be helpful, but in the long term they just cripple you more. 

 

I know lots of boys who don't serve missions. But none of them make that choice "because the girls can serve." I know lots of boys who don't go to college. But none of them make that choice "because the girls can go." And on and on. When women are given priesthood office, there will (still) be lots of men who decline the office or fail to magnify it. But again, none of them will do so "because the women are allowed to serve." They will do it because of their own choices.

 

If we really believe the 2nd AOF, let's stop punishing Eve for Adam's transgressions. And just perhaps, we'll see that the change actually make things better for the boys. More homes where children get back to school blessings. More avenues for men to serve with children (especially primary-age boys). And more examples of righteous priesthood holders for boys to follow.

 

ETA: Exactly how does women's ordination "excuse men from their duties"? We're talking about adding women, not subtracting men. Fathers will have the same obligations and duties as before.

 

 

Including men in a duty and covenant is not done for the purpose of excluding women.  Purpose and intent count here.

 

I am currently witnessing young men who don't feel compelled to excel in school, work, or other related priesthood duties, precisely because it is socially acceptable for them to rely on women to do the providing, disciplining, and educating of their children.  Both those who are yet to marry and those who are already married.

 

Using the priesthood as a teaching and practice tool is a positive force for manhood.  It is a severe contrast from what is now socially normative for men when it comes to family, and duty.

 

That is why I'm not keen on changing that reality in the LDS church as of today.  In fact ordaining women to the priesthood would be a sign that we as men in the church (in general not individually) have failed to uphold our duty and obligations to use the priesthood as God intended us to.

[KevinG]

When my daughters have asked me why women can't be ordained to the priesthood, I've just told them that just because the church teaches something, it doesn't mean God agrees or that it's right.

 

I taught it is a practice not a doctrine.  However I did add that I thought the practice was intended to help make men more responsible fathers and husbands for their future families.

[jkwilliams]

I taught it is a practice not a doctrine.  However I did add that I thought the practice was intended to help make men more responsible fathers and husbands for their future families.

As a wretched apostate, I didn't feel the need to offer a rationale.

[Buckeye]

Including men in a duty and covenant is not done for the purpose of excluding women.  Purpose and intent count here.

 

I am currently witnessing young men who don't feel compelled to excel in school, work, or other related priesthood duties, precisely because it is socially acceptable for them to rely on women to do the providing, disciplining, and educating of their children.  Both those who are yet to marry and those who are already married.

 

Using the priesthood as a teaching and practice tool is a positive force for manhood.  It is a severe contrast from what is now socially normative for men when it comes to family, and duty.

 

That is why I'm not keen on changing that reality in the LDS church as of today.  In fact ordaining women to the priesthood would be a sign that we as men in the church (in general not individually) have failed to uphold our duty and obligations to use the priesthood as God intended us to.

 

Women can now pray in conference. Is that a sign that men failed in their duty to pray?

 

Women can now serve missions at 19 and sisters direct the missionary efforts for other sisters. Is that a sign that men failed in their missionary duties?

 

Women are now formal members of the Priesthood (and Family) Executive Committee. Is that a sign that the previous members of the committee - including President Monson - failed in their duties?

 

Seriously, if exclusion is the way to foster male action, then do you support excluding women from BYU, denying women the vote, and denying women the opportunity to learn to read? Maybe men would do those things a lot better if society only allowed them to perform those function. Or maybe, just maybe, we'd all be poorer for the change. I think it's the latter.

 

I'm with you that more needs to be expect of our boys and men. But denying opportunities to women is counterproductive.

[Zakuska]

Including men in a duty and covenant is not done for the purpose of excluding women.  Purpose and intent count here.

 

I am currently witnessing young men who don't feel compelled to excel in school, work, or other related priesthood duties, precisely because it is socially acceptable for them to rely on women to do the providing, disciplining, and educating of their children.  Both those who are yet to marry and those who are already married.

 

Using the priesthood as a teaching and practice tool is a positive force for manhood.  It is a severe contrast from what is now socially normative for men when it comes to family, and duty.

 

That is why I'm not keen on changing that reality in the LDS church as of today.  In fact ordaining women to the priesthood would be a sign that we as men in the church (in general not individually) have failed to uphold our duty and obligations to use the priesthood as God intended us to.

 

Perhaps this is a wider syndrome than you think Kevin, because I'm personally witnessing the same syndrome both among boys AND girls of this generation, but its not them relying on women but their parents for support.

 

My nephew just went through a temple divorce because the girl he married had very bad hangups about sex and flat out wanted 0 children. After 5 years he said to her I either want a child for my birthday or a motorcycle, guess what she chose?  I found out later that they had spent their honeymoon in Walmart rather than going to their hotel, and it wasn't until a few months after their wedding that they finally consummated it. She also had bad issues about nudity infront of her husband of all people. And so after being intimate only twice in 5 years my Nephew finally couldn't take it anymore and got a temple divorce with the full blessing of his Bishop and Stake President.

 

Don't you think it would be a good idea for BOTH sexes to have Strong Priesthood based role models to follow from both sexes?  We could use the priesthood of their mothers as a teaching and practice tool and as a positive force for womanhood as well.

 

By disinvolving the young women  from the priesthood model we are raising young girls who don't know what the priesthood is all about, thinking its a "men's only club" and they end up resenting it and having all kinds of sexual hangups and other emotional and spiritual problems.

BTW, I think you're right we really aren't using the priesthood as God intended us too. Let's not tie the hands of our young women, let them excel in the priesthood too.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

 

Perhaps this is a wider syndrome than you think Kevin, because I'm personally witnessing the same syndrome both among boys and girls of this generation, but its not them relying on women but their parents for support.

 

My nephew just went threw a temple divorce because the girl he married had very bad hangups about sex and flat out wanted 0 children. After 5 years he said to her I either want a child for my birthday or a motorcycle, guess what she chose?  I found out later that they spent their honeymoon in Walmart rather than going to their hotel, and it wasn't until a few months after their wedding that they finally consummated it. And so after being intimate only twice in 5 years my Nephew finally couldn't take it anymore and got a temple divorce with the full blessing of his Bishop and Stake President.

 

Don't you think it would be a good idea for BOTH sexes to have Strong Priesthood based role models to follow of both sexes?  We could use the priesthood of their mothers as a teaching and practice tool and as a positive force for womanhood as well.

 

By disinvolving the young women  from the priesthood model we are raising young girls who don't know what the priesthood is all about, thinking its a men only club and they end up resenting it and having all kinds of sexual hangups and other emotional and spiritual problems.

 

So is your solution to scrap the current program, or do more educating about what the current program is intended to do for men and women?

 

My solution is to train up men to be more aware of their responsibilities and to honor them.  

 

Scrapping the patriarchal system has had terrible effects on our general culture today.  I'm truly worried that de-emphasizing the special role we have assigned to men will have the same unintended consequence for the LDS.

 

To put that in perspective I am adamant my boys learn to counsel with their wives, and I have never used the "because I'm the priesthood holder" excuse in my marriage.  I am also convinced we must make YW activities and events as important, if not more important, than scout courts of honor, etc.

[Buckeye]

So is your solution to scrap the current program, or do more educating about what the current program is intended to do for men and women?

 

My solution is to train up men to be more aware of their responsibilities and to honor them.  

 

Scrapping the patriarchal system has had terrible effects on our general culture today.  I'm truly worried that de-emphasizing the special role we have assigned to men will have the same unintended consequence for the LDS.

 

To put that in perspective I am adamant my boys learn to counsel with their wives, and I have never used the "because I'm the priesthood holder" excuse in my marriage.  I am also convinced we must make YW activities and events as important, if not more important, than scout courts of honor, etc.

 

I guess this is the rub. Where did you get the idea that women's ordination would detail "de-emphasizing" men's roles? When women started serving missions, the church didn't emphasize the program any less for men. Same with educational opportunities. Even now as the church is slowly coming around to women working outside the home, there's been no de-emphasis of men's role to provide. All that's been lost is the "unique" - read exclusiveness - of the role.

[Meadowchik]

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.

 

Yes, it's gotta be a tough position to experience, and sometimes when there is so much turmoil, especially when we've contributed to it significantly, lashing out and blaming almost comes automatically.  I certainly can relate to that!

[KevinG]

As a wretched apostate, I didn't feel the need to offer a rationale.

 

You drag your children to hell your way.  I will drag my children to hell mine.

 

[KevinG]

I guess this is the rub. Where did you get the idea that women's ordination would detail "de-emphasizing" men's roles? When women started serving missions, the church didn't emphasize the program any less for men. Same with educational opportunities. Even now as the church is slowly coming around to women working outside the home, there's been no de-emphasis of men's role to provide. All that's been lost is the "unique" - read exclusiveness - of the role.

 

De-emphasize in the sense that an unplanned side effect is taking the weight of the responsibility from men's shoulders.

 

Some of that exclusivity sets men apart in a way that encourages them to be active participants in the nurturing of their families.  There are plenty of men who would abandon that role if a women were available to step in.