Women And Priesthood Essay

[jkwilliams]

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

 

I suck at dragging them to hell, as we have another temple wedding coming up.

[KevinG]

I suck at dragging them to hell, as we have another temple wedding coming up.

 

Ed Decker would argue they are worshiping the Devil there.  So either way you are covered!

 

[jkwilliams]

Ed Decker would argue they are worshiping the Devil there.  So either way you are covered!

I've done my best to teach my kids values and critical thinking skills. Their religious choices are up to them, and I have told them many times I support them whichever way they choose.

[Zakuska]

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.

 

And here I thought Eve was an Help-meet to her husband and is to shoulder the weight and responsibility of the burden WITH her husband just like a yoke of oxen?

 

You were talking about men not following teachings.  What are we teaching our boys in a patriarchal order?  

 

That the responsibility and burden is all theirs?

Edited October 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

And here I thought Eve was an Help-meat to her husband and is to shoulder the burden and yoke with her husband just like a yoke of oxen?

What kind of meat? Steak? Chicken?

[BlueDreams]

And here I thought Eve was an Help-meat to her husband and is to shoulder the burden and yoke with her husband just like a yoke of oxen?

 

Hey now, a woman is far more than her meaty body. That's objectification. Or at least Meatification.

[KevinG]

And here I thought Eve was an Help-meet to her husband and is to shoulder the weight and responsibility of the burden WITH her husband just like a yoke of oxen?

 

You were talking about men not following teachings.  What are we teaching our boys in a Patriarticle order?  

 

That the burden is all theirs?

 

Quite the opposite.  That the burden is theirs to share.  That they have specific duties and obligations put upon them as patriarchs, complementary to matriarchs.

 

There is no inherent harm in those roles being different.

[Buckeye]

Hey now, a woman is far more than her meaty body. That's objectification. Or at least Meatification.

 

According to the World Health Organization, apparently women now also cause cancer .... at least processed women.

[BlueDreams]

 

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 only club and they end up resenting it and having all kinds of sexual hangups and other emotional and spiritual problems.

I haven't been an LDS sex therapist for super long, but it's been long enough that I can honestly say that I have never met anybody who would connect their sex problems with lack of priesthood office ordination. I will be astounded when/if that day ever comes (I'm not writing it off...anything is possible in beliefs surrounding sexuality). Sexual hold-ups and poor beliefs are tied to cultural/religious thoughts that can develop over time. I can think of several that I've seen come into play in my practice. And as much as I'm sure priesthood ordination into office may help/be good in certain beliefs and practices around gender that are unhealthy, it isn't outright necessary and certainly not sufficient to deal with many sexist views and inequitable beliefs, customs, or practices in the church. Especially problems with sex.

 

Which is why I'm a fence-sitter on this issue and personally lean toward not necessarily giving male ordination practices to women. A lot of the problems I see wouldn't go away just by doing so. And personally, I don't read the article in the same way for those that do. I see a number of areas that show a practice that just became ingrained and promoted and could definitely change (ie. women blessing the sick). And I see a recognition of a practice based in their culture. But I also see that the revelation of creating a society where women have voice and pertinent/distinctive roles in the church body (ie. Relief Society) and the priesthood restoration (ie. temple ordinances) as the revealed direction for addressing these false cultural practices. My guess is that change to address and foster greater gender equity will continue by further developing these areas into more robust structures within the church.  

 

       

With luv,

BD

Edited October 27, 2015 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

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

Oh yes, the vacillating victim-persecutor complex...

[Scott Lloyd]

I've stated before that I don't agree with every approach she took, nor every statement she made.  But Peterson's "I told you so" based on statements she made AFTER being excommunicated is unfair.

 

She has been particularly harsh in public statements since her excommunication.  My point is:  what did you expect after we excommunicated her?  It doesn't mean that she separated herself before her excommunication.  If Peterson wants to draw such a conclusion he needs to back it up.  You'd expect that from me or anyone else here.

It's a fair question. If she holds Mormons in such contempt, why was she seeking to be a leader of them? Was she being disingenuous then or now?

[rockpond]

It's a fair question. If she holds Mormons in such contempt, why was she seeking to be a leader of them? Was she being disingenuous then or now?

 

I think she's showing hurt and pain right now.  I listened to her at length prior to her excommunication and didn't sense any of the contempt she is showing now.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think she's showing hurt and pain right now.  I listened to her at length prior to her excommunication and didn't sense any of the contempt she is showing now.

Whatever.

 

I think we're repeating ourselves. Probably time to move on.

[Zakuska]

I haven't been an LDS sex therapist for super long, but it's been long enough that I can honestly say that I have never met anybody who would connect their sex problems with lack of priesthood office ordination. I will be astounded when/if that day ever comes (I'm not writing it off...anything is possible in beliefs surrounding sexuality).

Thank heavens neither have I and good thing that wasn't what I was trying to say.

The girl had issues all around and most of them stemmed from belonging to one of the most prude and pharisaical families I have ever met in the church. 3 Bishops from that family one of them currently serving.

Their son plays with ours and there have been some issues because we take a more liberal approach to the WOW and drink herbal green tea sometimes in the winter (of every herb you may freely eat God told Noah) and he's of the opinion that that and Coke Products are one of the gravest sins you could ever commit.

I bought a coffee pot once from DI so I could cook some electronics parts and get the gold off of them and when he saw it his jaw hit the floor thinking we had been drinking coffee. He told his Dad. It wasn't pretty.

But enough about the mixed up young lady.

My point is... male only priesthood has been pounded so hard into these young ladys heads that they are becoming spiritualy handicapt.

My wife and own mother both thought I was Apostitizing from the church when I brought up the fact that women used to give healing blessing and exercise that spiritual gift. They didn't even know they could give heeling blessings if only in the name of Jesus because it's been pounded into their head so hard that healing blessings are strictly to be done by super special male only priesthood holders with the right decoder rings.

I've reminded both of them that they wear the garb of a Melchezidek Priestess and they perform healing blessings in the temple. So If they can do it inside the temple all the better to do it outside as well where its needed even more in a fallen temporal world.

What duties and responsibilities are young women given on a per-sunday basis? Hardly anything. Teaching a class maybe.

My girls want and need more to do, why are we tying their hands, stunting their spiritual growth and sending the message that boys are better than girls because they belong to the special club for boys only?

There was a Matriarchal Priesthood order of Aaronic women too ya know. (The Daughters of Aaron) Elizabeth, Jesus' aunt belonged to that order.(Luke 1:5) What did they do?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Zakuska

[Meadowchik]

Thank heavens neither have I and good thing that wasn't what I was trying to say.

The girl had issues all around and most of them stemmed from belonging to one of the most prude and pharisaical families I have ever met in the church. 3 Bishops from that family one of them currently serving.

Their son plays with ours and there have been some issues because we take a more liberal approach to the WOW and drink herbal green tea sometimes in the winter (of every herb you may freely eat God told Noah) and he's of the opinion that that and Coke Products are one of the gravest sins you could ever commit.

I bought a coffee pot once from DI so I could cook some electronics parts and get the gold off of them and when he saw it his jaw hit the floor thinking we had been drinking coffee. He told his Dad. It wasn't pretty.

But enough about the mixed up young lady.

My point is... male only priesthood has been pounded so hard into these young ladys heads that they are becoming spiritualy handicapt.

My wife and own mother both thought I was Apostitizing from the church when I brought up the fact that women used to give healing blessing and exercise that spiritual gift. They didn't even know they could give heeling blessings if only in the name of Jesus because it's been pounded into their head so hard that healing blessings are strictly to be done by super special male only priesthood holders with the right decoder rings.

I've reminded both of them that they wear the garb of a Melchezidek Priestess and they perform healing blessings in the temple. So If they can do it inside the temple all the better to do it outside as well where its needed even more in a fallen temporal world.

What duties and responsibilities are young women given on a per-sunday basis? Hardly anything. Teaching a class maybe.

My girls want and need more to do, why are we tying their hands, stunting their spiritual growth and sending the message that boys are better than girls because they belong to the special club for boys only?

There was a Matriarchal Priesthood order of Aaronic women too ya know. (The Daughters of Aaron) Elizabeth, Jesus' aunt belonged to that order.(Luke 1:5) What did they do?

 

Wow, I have seen enough to know that such families exist but that is a totally different world from so many people in the Church.  What else is going on there?  I would wonder if there is some superstitious belief that even bad things don't happen to God's people when they are righteous enough.  This might explain the very pressure which seems to be overwhelming their perception of the world: if they can possibly "immune" themselves, then the tiniest details become enormously significant.  On the other hand, if we know that bad things still happen even to the most righteous, then we know we cannot control and we re-prioritize on developing a relationship with the Savior, which would naturally be more concerned with the rebirth of one's own personal character rather than material "obedience."

[Zakuska]

Things are a changing for the better:

Mormon women to have more say in plans for weekly services

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2627089-155/mormon-women-to-have-more-say

Edited October 28, 2015 by Zakuska

[HappyJackWagon]

Are women now permanent members of local "priesthood councils" like the essay states?

I recall the change being made at the general level, even so far as they changed the name of the council, but I haven't seen a similar change being made locally. Can anyone confirm?

[carbon dioxide]

I guess this is the rub. Where did you get the idea that women's ordination would detail "de-emphasizing" men's roles?

The issue would be that men would naturally dish off things to the women.  I probably would fall into the same attitude as well even if I accepted ordination of women.  I think I remember reading article that church attendance has declined among men in other religions that ordained women.  I would not be surprised that if women were ordained that there would in an uptick in the numbers of women attending church but a decline in the number of men attending on the regular basis. 

[Buckeye]

The issue would be that men would naturally dish off things to the women.  I probably would fall into the same attitude as well even if I accepted ordination of women.  I think I remember reading article that church attendance has declined among men in other religions that ordained women.  I would not be surprised that if women were ordained that there would in an uptick in the numbers of women attending church but a decline in the number of men attending on the regular basis. 

 

So, once again, your point is that Eve should be punished for Adam's transgression?

[Buckeye]

Are women now permanent members of local "priesthood councils" like the essay states? I recall the change being made at the general level, even so far as they changed the name of the council, but I haven't seen a similar change being made locally. Can anyone confirm?

 

Women have been part of ward council for as long as I remember. Local leaders have been directed to involve the entire ward council in planning sacrament meeting. However, as far as I've been told, formal inclusion of women in PEC has only been done at the general level so far. I imagine it will eventually trickle down to the local as well.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Women have been part of ward council for as long as I remember. Local leaders have been directed to involve the entire ward council in planning sacrament meeting. However, as far as I've been told, formal inclusion of women in PEC has only been done at the general level so far. I imagine it will eventually trickle down to the local as well.

 

That's what I was thinking. Ward council always included women but it's not really a "priesthood" committee like PEC (Priesthood Executive Committee) would be. So I'm thinking the essay wasn't exactly accurate.

[Lachoneus]

That's what I was thinking. Ward council always included women but it's not really a "priesthood" committee like PEC (Priesthood Executive Committee) would be. So I'm thinking the essay wasn't exactly accurate.

 

Handbook 2 (section 4.3) provides that the Relief Society President meets with the Priesthood Executive Committee at the invitation of the Bishop.

 

As needed, the bishop may invite the Relief Society president to attend some ward PEC meetings to discuss confidential welfare matters and to coordinate home teaching and visiting teaching assignments.

 

Our Relief Society President has been meeting regularly with the PEC for several years now.

[Zakuska]

This just in... some quotes about women participating in priesthood healing blessings in the early church.

 

 

It is certain that for a long period of Church history, it was common practice for women to lay their hands on others for the purpose of blessing. A fairly exhaustive research paper on this topic (that focuses primarily on women washing, anointing and blessing the sick) written by Linda King Newell can be found here. There is also a thorough discussion regarding fathers' blessings and women participating in them here (which is refreshingly free of arguments and criticism for an online forum regarding Mormon doctrine; many of the cited quotes below come from this discussion).

Parents' Blessings

To begin with, here are some quotes from early members' diaries that mention times when both parents laid their hands on children to bless them.

From Wilford Woodruff's Journal (4:244). Occasion: Wilford Woodruff's namesake son, just ordained a priest, was about to begin his duties.

 

3 February 1854: His father and mother [Phoebe Carter Woodruff] laid hands upon him and blessed him and dedicated him unto the Lord.

 

George Goddard, Diary 1875-76, 8 Sept. 1875 (George Goddard was the first assistant to George Q. Cannon and a patriarch). Occasion: George Goddard recorded an incident about his sixteen-year-old son, Brigham H. on his birthday.

 

8 September 1875: his Mother and Myself, put our hands upon his head and pronounced a parents blessing upon him.

 

Those are the only examples I could find of parents' blessings (like the kind I think you are asking about). I think it's interesting how President Woodruff and his wife were blessing and dedicating their son to the Lord (in a way that sounds reminiscent of the mother of the prophet Samuel in the Old Testament or the parents of John the Baptist in the New Testament. Does anyone dedicate their almost-adult, sixteen-year-old children to the Lord any more? Perhaps we should.).

Joseph F. Smith, in an article titled "Questions and Answers" published in the Improvement Era in February 1907 answered a question about a wife laying on hands with her husband:

 

8 September 1875: his Mother and Myself, put our hands upon his head and pronounced a parents blessing upon him.

 

I think the line "It is no uncommon thing for a man and wife unitedly to administer to their children" (emphasis mine) could be considered indicative of blessings in general and just blessings of healing. President Smith, though, brings up a key point that will be reemphasized later and that I think is important to the whole discussion that we'll get more into later. 

Those are the only examples and quotes that seem to discuss general blessings. There are many more quotes regarding the Church practice of women blessing the sick.

A History of Women Blessing the Sick

In a meeting of the Relief Society on April 28, 1842, Joseph Smith discussed women anointing and healing. Eliza R. Snow reported the minutes and wrote this (I have put what could attributed to quotes from Joseph Smith in bold):Q: 'Does a wife hold the priesthood with her husband? and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority?'

A: A wife does not hold the priesthood in connection with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hand on the sick with him, or with any other officer holding the Melchizedek priesthood, she may do so with perfect propriety. It is no uncommon thing for a man and wife unitedly to administer to their children, and the husband being mouth, he may properly say out of courtesy, "By authority of the holy priesthood in us vested."

 

Brigham Young said:Prest. Smith continued the subject (of healing the sick by the laying on of hands) by adverting to the commission given to the ancient apostles "Go ye into all the world" . . . No matter who believeth; these signs such as healing the sick, casting out devils . . . should follow all that believe whether male or female. He ask'd the Society if they could not see by this sweeping stroke that werein they are ordained, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is conferr'd on them--and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on. . . . Respecting the females laying on hands, he further remarked, there could be no devil in it if God gave his sanction by healing-- that there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on the sick than in wetting the face with water. It is no sin for any body to do it that has faith, or if the sick has faith to be heal'd by the administration.

 

Heber C. Kimball said this:Why do you not live so as to rebuke disease? . . . it is the privilege of a mother to have faith and to administer to her child; this she can do herself, as well as sending for the Elders. (14 Nov. 1869, JD 13:155.)

 

In a message from the First Presidency to stake presidents and bishops, President Joseph F. Smith, together with Anthon H. Lund and Charles W. Penrose, issued a statement answering a list of questions regarding women anointing and ministering to the sick. I am not including the entire letter (simply to try to cut down on the length of what I know will be a long, long answer), but the First Presidency was attempting to clarify procedural questions about the practice of women washing and anointing and blessing others. The Relief Society leadership had sent out a circular (i.e., pamphlet) with information regarding the washings and anointings, but the First Presidency was attempting to clarify any lingering questions people might have.

 

Some of you, ladies, that go abroad from house to house, blessing the sick, having your little circles of women come together, why are you troubling yourselves to bless and lay your hands on women, and prophesy on them, if you do not believe the principle? (Heber C. Kimball Journal of Discourses, 5: 176 - 177.)

 

 

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by the term "their confinement" as used in question number seven (and used in the sections of the letter I didn't include), but it was common practice for women to be washed and anointed before childbirth, with specific blessings on her body that it would be capable and healthy during labor, and I surmise that "confinement" is a term for the period of labor associated with childbirth. 

During the 1920s through the 1940s, priesthood leaders began to make statements about women's blessings that indicated that anointing and blessing the sick would be primarily, if not solely, a priesthood responsibility. In 1946, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote to the Relief Society Presidency and said this:4. Have the sisters the right to administer to sick children?

Answer: Yes; they have the same right to administer to sick children as to adults, and may anoint and lay hands upon them in faith.

5. Should the administering and anointing be sealed?

Answer: It is proper for sisters to lay on hands, using a few simple words, avoiding the terms employed in the temple, and instead of using the word "seal" use the word "confirm."

6. Have the sisters a right to seal the washing and anointing, using the authority, but doing it in the name of Jesus Christ, or should men holding the priesthood be called in?

Answer: The sisters have the privilege of laying their hands on the head of the person for whom they are officiating, and confirming and anointing in the spirit of invocation. The Lord has heard and answered the prayers of sisters in these administrations many times. It should, however, always be remembered that the command of the Lord is to call in the elders to administer to the sick, and when they can be called in, they should be asked to anoint the sick or seal the anointing.

7. Are sisters who have not received their endowments competent to wash and anoint sisters previous to confinement?

Answer: It must always be borne in mind that this administering to the sick by the sisters is in no sense a temple ordinance, and no one is allowed to use the words learned in the temple in washing and anointing the sick. Sisters who have had their endowments have received instructions and blessings which tend to give them stronger faith and especially qualify them to officiate in this sacred work; but there are good faithful sisters, who through circumstances have not received their endowments, and yet are full of faith and have had much success in ministering to the sick, who should not be forbidden to act, if desired to do so by our sisters.

In conclusion we have to say that in all sacred functions performed by our sisters there should be perfect harmony between them and the Bishop, who has the direction of all matters pertaining to the Church in his ward.

 

Years later, President Joseph Fielding Smith, in his book Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3 wrote,While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the Elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.

 

I hope you don't think it's redundant that I included in the quote from Doctrines of Salvation two other quotes, from Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith, that I included above. I happen to think they are indicative of President Fielding Smith's desire to align his opinions with the scriptures and with the modern day prophets.

It might be appropriate to include a quick tangent paragraph here. Regarding the shift in the 1920s toward the priesthood alone blessing the sick, there are a few paragraphs of Linda Newell's paper that I think unfairly characterize this move on the part of Church leadership as an unfair restriction and domination of the women of the Church, who timidly accepted this "death-knell" of the practice. I think that Sister Newell's paper shows fantastic historical and scholarly attention. But I also think that since we can't say exactly what the motivation and reasons behind the Church leaders' statements were (for good or for bad), I think Sister Newell unfairly editorializes and inserts (in my opinion) too much personal bias. Without pretending that sexism didn't exist in Church history, I think there are some legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons why women's blessings faded from common practice.

This also might be a good time to get back to the original question about the "appropriateness" of parents' blessings, which I have clearly expanded into all cases of women laying on hands to bless others. Let me reiterate that I could find no examples of statements saying that a joint blessing with a husband would be inappropriate, and that President Fielding Smith's quote clearly shows his openness to women joining in on blessings of healing. I have some ideas as to why women laying on hands as a general practice in the Church hasn't been encouraged (and in cases of healing, even discouraged), but I'll say now (and again in case you didn't have the patience to get even this far in this essay of an answer) that on apersonal, case-by-case basis as directed by the Spirit, I see no reason why a parents' blessing would be inappropriate.

 

If a man and his wife were alone with a sick person, could he anoint with the oil and then seal the anointing with his wife assisting using the priesthood she holds jointly with her husband? President Joseph F. Smith answered this question as follows: "Does a wife hold the priesthood with her husband, and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority? A wife does not hold the priesthood with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, or with any other officer holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, she may do so with perfect propriety. It is no uncommon thing for a man and wife unitedly to administer to their children."

When this is done the wife is adding her faith to the administration of her husband. The wife would lay on hands just as would a member of the Aaronic Priesthood, or a faithful brother without the priesthood, she in this manner giving support by faith to the ordinance performed by her husband. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, "Respecting females administering for the healing of the sick, . . . there could be no evil in it, if God gave his sanction by healing; that there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on and praying for the sick, than in wetting the face with water; it is no sin for anybody to administer that has faith, or if the sick have faith to be healed by their administration." Such an administration would not be by virtue of the priesthood, but a manifestation of faith.

 

 The appropriateness of parents' blessings (with both parents laying their hands on their child's head) has not, I would say, been expressly addressed in any authoritative way by Church leaders. It is important to realize, however, that for many people the important issue that is inherent in this question is whether or not women can lay their hands on anyone at all for purposes of providing blessings of comfort or healing the sick. Onthat question there is certainly more information than on the specific subquestion of a joint parents' blessing.

 

https://theboard.byu.edu/questions/56934/

Edited October 28, 2015 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

Meadow

Let me run this by you.

Are you aware that women receive superior temple blessings to men? It is quite clear in the initiatory ordinances- ? Maybe go with your husband, do some and then compare in the celestial room?

Anyway, what if women do not need the experience of "presiding" as part of moving beyond the male ego to become righteous leaders who lead in love. Clearly men need such training to learn how to quit beating our chests gorilla style and get to play "boss" while yet learning that to be a leader one must be a servant, as Christ taught.

I think women know that naturally and why they end up often being the de-facto leaders of their families in every way, through service

Suppose Priesthood is to teach men to lead in love, it is a schoolmaster like the law of Moses was, to teach us just that?

It is a preparatory Gospel to allow us to become part of a Divine Pair without having our domineering biological instincts, which were necessary in our evolutionary past. Somebody had to go slay the beast and keep the other tribes from stealing our people and somebody had to take care of the babies and obviously women were equipped mentally and physically for the latter.

Now things have changed.

Men and women are equal partners but yet men need to learn how to lead by being servants, and that is the function of the priestood.

My wife totally buys this and so do a few other women I have shared this with. In fact she pretty much came up with the idea. I suppose it is politically incorrect because people see it as a variation of the "women don't need the priesthood" argument.

But it is a fact that in the temple, they don't. They get given instantly what men have to spend a lifetime learning, and it says so.

Wow, I have seen enough to know that such families exist but that is a totally different world from so many people in the Church. What else is going on there? I would wonder if there is some superstitious belief that even bad things don't happen to God's people when they are righteous enough. This might explain the very pressure which seems to be overwhelming their perception of the world: if they can possibly "immune" themselves, then the tiniest details become enormously significant. On the other hand, if we know that bad things still happen even to the most righteous, then we know we cannot control and we re-prioritize on developing a relationship with the Savior, which would naturally be more concerned with the rebirth of one's own personal character rather than material "obedience."

Edited October 29, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Buckeye]

Handbook 2 (section 4.3) provides that the Relief Society President meets with the Priesthood Executive Committee at the invitation of the Bishop.

 

 

Our Relief Society President has been meeting regularly with the PEC for several years now.

 

This was the case at the general level too. The general RS president could be invited. But now she is an actual formal member of the committee. No invitation needed.