The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

http://wliut.com/staff-member/ally-isom/

Thanks, I deleted my comment, because I did some research on my own.  But didn't see this one.

[consiglieri]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is the Church the LDS Church without Primary, YW, and RS?  

Can the Church function in the temple without sealings?  Since women are the only ones to give the beginning of the ordinances to women, even if women are allowed to participate, without their officiating, nothing can be done past baptism....so no sealings for either men or women, no eternal families.

So the answer to both your questions imo is No.

Men can serve in the presidencies of Primary, YW and RS.

Their gender does not disqualify them.

By contrast, the gender of women disqualifies them from serving in the Bishopric, elder's quorum and high priests.  And from there, all the way up to stake presidents and their counsellors, local area seventies; regional reps; and apostles.

Men are also able to give the initiatory ordinances to women.  It is simply because of the issues involved in having men perform these ordinances on women that women do so.

Only men perform sealings in temples.

It seems to me the answer is that the LDS Church can function perfectly well without women.

And that is a sure indicator of how patriarchal the system is as currently constituted.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Men can serve in the presidencies of Primary, YW and RS.

Their gender does not disqualify them.

By contrast, the gender of women disqualifies them from serving in the Bishopric, elder's quorum and high priests.  And from there, all the way up to stake presidents and their counsellors, local area seventies; regional reps; and apostles.

Men are also able to give the initiatory ordinances to women.  It is simply because of the issues involved in having men perform these ordinances on women that women do so.

Only men perform sealings in temples.

It seems to me the answer is that the LDS Church can function perfectly well without women.

And that is a sure indicator of how patriarchal the system is as currently constituted.

Who would men be sealing, if there were no women? Who would they be leading and teaching in young women's and relief society?

Men can be presidents of RS but there is no RS without women. It would not exist for them to preside over. 

Maybe that's what Cal was saying. 

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Who would men be sealing, if there were no women? Who would they be leading and teaching in young women's and relief society?

Men can be presidents of RS but there is no RS without women. It would not exist for them to preside over. 

Maybe that's what Cal was saying. 

You may be right, Bluebell.

I am not arguing that women are not in the Church, or that the sealing ordinance would not be performed without a woman present.

What I am saying is that women are not required for the Church to function as an organizational entity.

Each and every function that women currently perform administratively in the LDS Church can be performed by men.

But not every function that men currently perform administratively in the LDS Church can be performed by women.

Maybe that says it a bit better.

Thanks!

 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

By contrast, the gender of women disqualifies them from serving in the Bishopric, elder's quorum and high priests.  And from there, all the way up to stake presidents and their counsellors, local area seventies; regional reps; and apostles.

Years ago, I was in a ward where a woman was called and sustained to serve as the Sunday School president.  You could hear the gasps and whisperings throughout the congregation, but from what I saw, all raised their hand to sustain her.

I can't confirm this, but I heard on pretty good authority that when the Stake President heard about this, he told our Bishop to release her immediately because that was a calling only for men. Whatever took place behind the scenes, the sister was released the week after she was sustained.

I always thought that she would have made a great Sunday School president.

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It seems to me the answer is that the LDS Church can function perfectly well without women.

Not according to D&C 128:15.

“And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers—that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect.”

Note how the words “their” and “they;” and “our” and “we;” in relation to “brethren” and “sisters” and “salvation” and “perfect.” Note that the Church is all about salvation. Note that we can’t have any dead without the living, the living in the Church are not possible without a man and a woman to create them. Note that D&C 76 is about men and women, who constitute the Church of the Firstborn.

The Church is more than the mechanical provision of ordinances, it is a way of life so that the Holy Ghost, through all members with all their essential characteristics, identity and purpose that they bring to the table, establishes the whole.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Men can serve in the presidencies of Primary, YW and RS.

Their gender does not disqualify them.

Only if you redefine the fundamental current requirements of being a woman to hold these callings.

And if you do that, then why not redefine what the current requirements of the other callings?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Only if you redefine the fundamental current requirements of being a woman to hold these callings.

And if you do that, then why not redefine what the current requirements of the other callings?

And callings aside, who will do the proxy work for whom in connection with D&C 128:15?

Plus, it  is essential in the operation and functioning of the Church that “each member …pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.” (D&C 20:47). It is because of their families that the Lord’s servants serve (D&C 23:3; 52:36); the Church is organized and gathered in families (D&C 48:6; 57:14-15); and D&C 109:71-72 links these two principles.

[smac97]

.

Edited February 9, 2016 by smac97

[juliann]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

You may be right, Bluebell.

I am not arguing that women are not in the Church, or that the sealing ordinance would not be performed without a woman present.

What I am saying is that women are not required for the Church to function as an organizational entity.

Each and every function that women currently perform administratively in the LDS Church can be performed by men.

But not every function that men currently perform administratively in the LDS Church can be performed by women.

Maybe that says it a bit better.

Thanks!

 

On a primitive level, you are correct that the church could survive without women. It was started without women. But this only becomes relevant if there was a city with no men. Women would not be able to have a church or any ordinances. That could conceivably happen. With global expansion, perhaps that will be the trigger to give women basic priesthood offices to enable ongoing sacrament meetings..... much like the confusion in Brazil over race brought down the priesthood ban. 

[juliann]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I think the contributions of individuals are different.  Do you have a CFR that states a gender possesses a completely unique perspective or contributions that no man can possess? 

If it is strange then...I really don't know where you are coming from at all.  I have read feminist writings that like to infer that the feminine gender is unique, but I have not read that it is completely unique and that no other individual - specifically a male - can possess or imagine. 

I find it outrageously strange for someone to think that a gender or a race allows a completely unique perspective.  The foundation of this type of philosophy assumes that humanity is really non-existent and that we are all just small subsets of what was once considered humanity.  We either can understand one another as members of the human family or not.  If we are human, what is the benefit of breaking in down into genders, races, etc. 

I believe individuals have a wealth of diverse ideas and perspectives.  It is the individual that is paramount when it comes to contributing rather than a gender or race or whatever other group, subgroup that can be imagined. 

I don't know how to begin to respond. Forget the research, which is ubiquitous, just review General Conf talks to answer your question. Ironically ,what you seem to be saying is that men and women are the same, even feminists do not claim that (no matter how many insist they do.)  When statistics are used, it is never claimed that ALL fall into one group. If the results say "80%" that means that "20%" are not in that group. I can't have been more clear that studies can only talk about the majority and there are exceptions. It leads me to believe you  aren't following the conversation while requiring me to repeat myself but adding no data yourself.

I have put up sources. For your assertion of sameness to be discussed, you need to use some.  So I am again giving a CFR that supports an idea that men and women are interchangeable in most instances.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

On a primitive level, you are correct that the church could survive without women. It was started without women. But this only becomes relevant if there was a city with no men. Women would not be able to have a church or any ordinances. That could conceivably happen.

 This reminded me of Joseph Smith's teaching - "The church was organized by women, and God placed in the Church (first apostles, secondarily prophets,) and not first women; but Mr. Irving placed in his church first women (secondarily apostles,) and the church was founded and organized by them. A woman has no right to found or organize a church--God never sent them to do it."

Quote

With global expansion, perhaps that will be the trigger to give women basic priesthood offices to enable ongoing sacrament meetings..... much like the confusion in Brazil over race brought down the priesthood ban

Between this and public pressure, that could easily lead to a change (whether revelatory or not).  It is what happened in Brazil.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

You may be right, Bluebell.

I am not arguing that women are not in the Church, or that the sealing ordinance would not be performed without a woman present.

What I am saying is that women are not required for the Church to function as an organizational entity.

Each and every function that women currently perform administratively in the LDS Church can be performed by men.

But not every function that men currently perform administratively in the LDS Church can be performed by women.

Maybe that says it a bit better.

Thanks!

 

That's true.

From my perspective though, as a matter of importance, it's irrelevant.  A church without women would be able to function administratively, but to what end?  Could it accomplish it's four missions?  Would it be complete?  Would it be whole?  Would it be 'good' in the eyes of God?

When it comes to this kind of stuff, i think we all have to work hard against our natural man-the man (which society worships) that says that status is determined by leadership.  The boss = the greatest, and everyone filters down in importance from there.

The Savior taught the opposite.  He taught that the servant was the greatest in the kingdom.  We know that's true, but at the same time we still struggle to accept and believe it.  We still struggle not to define ourselves based on who has the power and who doesn't-who is in charge.  Maybe part of becoming one with the Savior is really really understanding and accepting that.

 

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Men can serve in the presidencies of Primary, YW and RS.

Their gender does not disqualify them.

Each and every function that women currently perform administratively in the LDS Church can be performed by men.

All from Handbook 2

9.2.1 "The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Relief Society president."

10.3.1 "The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Young Women president."

11.2.1 "The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Primary president."

[Calm]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

On a primitive level, you are correct that the church could survive without women. It was started without women. But this only becomes relevant if there was a city with no men. Women would not be able to have a church or any ordinances. That could conceivably happen. With global expansion, perhaps that will be the trigger to give women basic priesthood offices to enable ongoing sacrament meetings..... much like the confusion in Brazil over race brought down the priesthood ban. 

Neylain McBaine describes in her book Women At Church (page 62) how in Hong Kong, due to having to hold Sabbath Services every day of the week due to the huge service force getting differnt days off in addition to most of those members being women, how typically male callings have been given to women...for example, in one branch the executive secretary and the ward mission leader are women, also the RS President has stewardship over pretty much the whole congregation (since they are women).  It is a necessity because they do not have enough men to cover all the necessary callings.  The meetings themselves are overseen by two senior missionary couples who superintend the daily 3 hour block of meetings...save for Sunday (that is their P-day in fact).

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

All from Handbook 2

9.2.1 "The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Relief Society president."

10.3.1 "The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Young Women president."

11.2.1 "The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Primary president."

Also:

Quote

The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Relief Society president. He oversees the calling and setting apart of counselors in the ward Relief Society presidency, the ward Relief Society secretary, and other sisters who serve in Relief Society callings. He may assign his counselors to call and set apart these sisters.

Not "these sisters and brothers".

Edited February 9, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's true.

From my perspective though, as a matter of importance, it's irrelevant.  A church without women would be able to function administratively, but to what end?  Could it accomplish it's four missions?  Would it be complete?  Would it be whole?  Would it be 'good' in the eyes of God?

If one defines "functioning" as being able to exist on paper or in the abstract, it is true that the Church as an organization could exist without women staffing the various callings they now hold.  But would the Church actually be able to function as called of God in the terms of maintaining and supporting its membership if men were assigned to lead and teach RS, Primary, YW, to do all the visiting teaching, to staff the temple, to hold every calling in the Church?  Women have been involved in all levels of supporting the Church's missions since almost the very beginning (and I bet one could even claim since the beginning because if there was any food at when the Church was formally organized, the women were providing it; also Lucy and then Emma were there supporting Joseph in his calling, one wonders if he would have endured if his mother and his wife hadn't been supportive of his work), even when it came to construction work on the temple (women provided clothing and other necessities for the men working as well as the interiors).

If women were treated as if they were Primary children, never given any callings, never called upon to do anything to support the Church, the Church wouldn't function for long as an intact global institution.

Not only that, but given that Joseph Smith set up the Relief Society in 1842 with a specific assignment in the Church, he defined the RS in such a way that requires women as its leaders. Altering that would alter the fundamental nature of RS, the nature of it which was revealed to Joseph Smith (see bold in quote below) and imo that means it is altering the fundamental nature of the Church it is a part of and thus it would cease to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Quote

In that era, it was a popular practice for women to form their own organizations, often with constitutions and bylaws—sets of rules to govern the organizations. The women who met at Sarah Kimball’s home decided to establish a constitution and bylaws, and Eliza R. Snow accepted the responsibility to write them. Then the women asked Joseph Smith to review them and give his opinion of them. After the Prophet read them, he said they were “the best he had ever seen. ‘But,’ he said, ‘this is not what you want. Tell the sisters their offering is accepted of the Lord, and he has something better for them than a written constitution. I invite them all to meet with me and a few of the brethren … next Thursday afternoon, and I will organize the women under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood.’”2

https://www.lds.org/relief-society/daughters-in-my-kingdom/manual/something-better-the-female-relief-society-of-nauvoo?lang=eng

Edited February 9, 2016 by Calm

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

If one defines "functioning" as being able to exist on paper or in the abstract, it is true that the Church as an organization could exist without women staffing the various callings they now hold.  But would the Church actually be able to function as called of God in the terms of maintaining and supporting its membership if men were assigned to lead and teach RS, Primary, YW, to do all the visiting teaching, to staff the temple, to hold every calling in the Church?  Women have been involved in all levels of supporting the Church's missions since almost the very beginning (and I bet one could even claim since the beginning because if there was any food at when the Church was formally organized, the women were providing it; also Lucy and then Emma were there supporting Joseph in his calling, one wonders if he would have endured if his mother and his wife hadn't been supportive of his work), even when it came to construction work on the temple (women provided clothing and other necessities for the men working as well as the interiors).

If women were treated as if they were Primary children, never given any callings, never called upon to do anything to support the Church, the Church wouldn't function for long as an intact global institution.

Not only that, but given that Joseph Smith set up the Relief Society in 1842 with a specific assignment in the Church, he defined the RS in such a way that requires women as its leaders. Altering that would alter the fundamental nature of RS, the nature of it which was revealed to Joseph Smith (see bold in quote below) and imo that means it is altering the fundamental nature of the Church it is a part of and thus it would cease to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

https://www.lds.org/relief-society/daughters-in-my-kingdom/manual/something-better-the-female-relief-society-of-nauvoo?lang=eng

Exactly. 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

All from Handbook 2

9.2.1 "The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Relief Society president."

10.3.1 "The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Young Women president."

11.2.1 "The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Primary president."

Thanks for looking that up for me, ksfisher.

I was wondering what it said.

But it seems to me that this is different than saying that a man cannot serve as RS President, etc.

Especially given the fact that the immediate supervisor of the RS President, etc., is always a man, and must be a man.

It's not turtles all the way down.

It's men all the way up!

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

But it seems to me that this is different than saying that a man cannot serve as RS President, etc.

 

While it is different than saying a man cannot serve as Relief Society President, the end result is the same.  And I would venture to say that the intent of the 1st Presidency is that women, never men, serve in these positions.  

[consiglieri]

Just now, ksfisher said:

While it is different than saying a man cannot serve as Relief Society President, the end result is the same.  And I would venture to say that the intent of the 1st Presidency is that women, never men, serve in these positions.  

I think the bottom line for me is if, in a ward where there were no women "worthy" to be called as Relief Society President, a man could conceivably substitute.

On the other hand, if we had a ward where there were no men "worthy" to be called as bishop or EQP, etc., a woman could not conceivably substitute.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Neylain McBaine describes in her book Women At Church (page 62) how in Hong Kong, due to having to hold Sabbath Services every day of the week due to the huge service force getting differnt days off in addition to most of those members being women, how typically male callings have been given to women...for example, in one branch the executive secretary and the ward mission leader are women, also the RS President has stewardship over pretty much the whole congregation (since they are women).  It is a necessity because they do not have enough men to cover all the necessary callings.  The meetings themselves are overseen by two senior missionary couples who superintend the daily 3 hour block of meetings...save for Sunday (that is their P-day in fact).

That is so interesting.  May I assume that they thrived inspite of all these complications?  They might even smile at our conversations here.

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think the bottom line for me is if, in a ward where there were no women "worthy" to be called as Relief Society President, a man could conceivably substitute.

No; 9.1.4 of Handbook 1 (Membership) reads, “All adult women in the Church are members of Relief Society.” Membership is a prerequisite for leadership in the auxiliary, and (from 9.1.2) this auxiliary “was divinely made, divinely authorized, divinely instituted, divinely ordained of God” (Joseph F. Smith, in Teachings: Joseph F. Smith, 184).

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No; 9.1.4 of Handbook 1 (Membership) reads, “All adult women in the Church are members of Relief Society.” Membership is a prerequisite for leadership in the auxiliary, and (from 9.1.2) this auxiliary “was divinely made, divinely authorized, divinely instituted, divinely ordained of God” (Joseph F. Smith, in Teachings: Joseph F. Smith, 184).

I got the part you quoted from 9.1.4 about all adult women being members of Relief Society.

Of course, this is different from when it "was divinely made, divinely authorized, divinely instituted, divinely ordain of God," who had it set up so that membership wasn't mandatory and the Presidency actually got to control what happened within Relief Society, as opposed to its all being subsumed under the "priesthood" as part of the Church Correlation Program.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I got the part you quoted from 9.1.4 about all adult women being members of Relief Society.

Of course, this is different from when it "was divinely made, divinely authorized, divinely instituted, divinely ordain of God," who had it set up so that membership wasn't mandatory and the Presidency actually got to control what happened within Relief Society, as opposed to its all being subsumed under the "priesthood" as part of the Church Correlation Program.

LOL where do you get this stuff? The relief Society has always operated under the key that was turned in its behalf by the Prophet.

“I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time—this is the beginning of better days to this Society.” (Minutes, 28 Apr. 1842, p. 40.)”

Thus, “It operates under the direction of priesthood leaders” (9.1.2) just as it always has. You have issues with Correlation? That has nothing to do with men not being members of relief Society; that was the case before Correlation.

Men have to be members of their quorums to serve in their presidencies. They can only be members of their respective quorums, not the Relief Society.