The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So please point out a lesson in Primary that teaches girls have something to look forward to in the same way the boys are instructed to look forward to using the Priestood to do ordinances.

Tell me: do the Primary manuals put a lot of stress on encouraging young boys to look forward to.. eating ice cream? Playing sports? Watching movies?

In what ways do you suppose performing ordinances differs from those things?

 

[Russell C McGregor]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And...do a lot of extended family show up to see a young lady get her medallion?

I've seen that happen, yes.

At least as often as they show up for Deacon's ordinations.

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Tell me: do the Primary manuals put a lot of stress on encouraging young boys to look forward to.. eating ice cream? Playing sports? Watching movies?

In what ways do you suppose performing ordinances differs from those things?

 

Are you suggesting I don't see a difference from those things? Not getting your point.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Calm

[Russell C McGregor]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting I don't see a difference from those things? Not getting your point.

No, I'm not suggesting anything about you.

The point is that Church proactively teaches young boys to look forward to performing Priesthood ordinances, precisely because they are not naturally inclined to look forward to them. The ordinances are not inherently pleasurable or self-satisfying, but from the very beginning, they entail serving others. Which young boys are not generally inclined to see as an attractive feature.

Let's face it: a deacon passing the Sacrament is essentially functioning as a kind of waiter, bringing food and drink to people. No-one cheers or applauds when he performs this simple act of service; and nor should they. The spiritual significance of emulating what Jesus did at the Last Supper is profoundly important, but do adolescent and pre-adolescent boys really appreciate such profundities? The only way they can really learn to value them is to do them, and so we teach them to look forward to performing them so that they'll apply themselves with a will when the time comes.

It's true, though, that there doesn't seem to be anything as tangible for the girls to look forward to, and I think the Church is going to have to address that in time to come.

 

[Calm]

Good point.  I can definitely agree with that.  I think it is very important to value the Priesthood as well as desiring to be the one authorized to use it.  I think all the lessons focusing on it and having it are a good thing.  It is not usual for youth to see themselves as an important part of an organization that serves adults as wellas youth.  I think the Church does well in their integration of boys and young men into the community.  I think it is highly important for young women to value men's contributions, especially their own age group.

Having something tangible, as you say, for the girls and young women would be very helpful imo for the same reasons.  I know I felt the most distant from the Church in my teen years and college years, I was keeping a seat warm or so it seemed (being shy did not help, once I began to teach it made me feel that church would be less for many kids if I didn't show up...not because I was a great teacher, but because we had the opportunity to get to know each other and a sub wouldn't have).  While I valued my faith and community hugely for what it could do for me, I didn't feel I had any way to really return that gift.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Calm

[Traela]

I think it might be valuable to teach the youth more about the Relief Society.  Give each girl a copy of Daughters in My Kingdom when they become Laurels (if not sooner).  I would also encourage them to read The Beginning of Better Days, even though it is not an official Church manual, because that is where I first got the sense that there is a whole lot more to the Relief Society than what we usually see.  Teach them the history of the RS and what it has accomplished, with parallels to today.  When the boys learn about priesthood duties, make sure the girls are learning about visiting teaching and the Relief Society's role in taking care of the community.  Let them know that girls and women also have an important job beyond motherhood, which can be as large as they want it to be, simply because it is less defined.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I've seen that happen, yes.

At least as often as they show up for Deacon's ordinations.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Traela said:

I think it might be valuable to teach the youth more about the Relief Society.  Give each girl a copy of Daughters in My Kingdom when they become Laurels (if not sooner).  I would also encourage them to read The Beginning of Better Days, even though it is not an official Church manual, because that is where I first got the sense that there is a whole lot more to the Relief Society than what we usually see.  Teach them the history of the RS and what it has accomplished, with parallels to today.  When the boys learn about priesthood duties, make sure the girls are learning about visiting teaching and the Relief Society's role in taking care of the community.  Let them know that girls and women also have an important job beyond motherhood, which can be as large as they want it to be, simply because it is less defined.

 

 

What a great idea!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I've seen that happen, yes.

At least as often as they show up for Deacon's ordinations.

 

Good (assuming this doesn't mean never).  Unfortunately in my case not so, though I haven't noticed big gatherings.  Usually if anyone shows up, it is just grandparents...if family live nearby, aunts and uncles with their family may show up but this is rarer.

Baptisms and missions appear to be pretty equal, so I suspect if there was an occasion for girls, the family would show up in the same numbers.  They don't show up for Duty to God or similar events for young men, so it seems more the importance of the occasion than the gender for the difference between the medallion and ordination.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Storm Rider...after reading some of your posts here..I am having this wonderful fantasy..I am seeing you in an apron..you have just got done ironing your wife's cotton suit dress..doughnuts are fresh...and still baking in the oven is all the cookie dough you and kids made this afternoon..You can't wait for your friends to come over and gab for awhile..as you have been pretty much by yourself all day..with the kids.  At about 5:30 in the evening..your wife pecks you on the cheek..and says.."save some doughnuts for me dear"...I am off to Priesthood meeting...I might tell you what that was about...maybe not.  You can't go..they will turn you out at the door.  But ...have a great evening..and if you need a blessing..I am your gal!

Good image, but there are a few things wrong.  First, just watch on the television or if you are interested just go to the meeting.  If you are patient, just read the Ensign.  I already do all the cooking in the family - my wife knows how to cook about five dishes.  She is a baker, but god help her and us if she tries to cook meat or vegetables outside of her chosen set of dishes.  

You are confusing my position with stereotypes of gender roles.  It is a fair start of a counter argument, but not really helpful.  

Now explain to me or give me a counter argument to my comments on the Yin and Yang concept of male and female, please.  I would like someone to provide a logical response as to way men and women actually are the same species, but have different strengths and weaknesses - and that only together are both made whole.  The union makes a balanced whole - sort of like becoming one as Genesis mentions. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

men and women actually are the same species, but have different strengths and weaknesses - and that only together are both made whole.  The union makes a balanced whole - sort of like becoming one as Genesis mentions. 

If this is what you are arguing, not sure how it is relevant to the position of those you seem to be challenging on this thread, including my own.  I certainly don't argue with this, but this does not mean that the strengths and weaknesses of women are being well dealt with within the Church in all the ways they could be or that they don't need more concrete, visible roles and role models in our religious community especially because they are different.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Good image, but there are a few things wrong.  First, just watch on the television or if you are interested just go to the meeting.  If you are patient, just read the Ensign.  I already do all the cooking in the family - my wife knows how to cook about five dishes.  She is a baker, but god help her and us if she tries to cook meat or vegetables outside of her chosen set of dishes.  

You are confusing my position with stereotypes of gender roles.  It is a fair start of a counter argument, but not really helpful.  

Now explain to me or give me a counter argument to my comments on the Yin and Yang concept of male and female, please.  I would like someone to provide a logical response as to way men and women actually are the same species, but have different strengths and weaknesses - and that only together are both made whole.  The union makes a balanced whole - sort of like becoming one as Genesis mentions. 

I'm not sure how pointing out that you do most of the cooking is relevant to your defense of the Church's position on not ordaining women to the priesthood. If I am misunderstanding your position please correct me.

I teach math in a high school and our department chair is an award winning successful teacher. She is also younger than me. I sure am glad that our district doesn't have any rules preventing women from holding leadership positions over men. She does a great job and everybody admires and respects her.

You talk about strengths and weaknesses. All women do not have the same strengths and weaknesses. Neither do all men. What if a woman has a gift for leadership? Under the current system, women can only preside over women, but men can preside over both women and men. That sounds more like an unbalanced whole to me.

[Calm]

Not exactly parallel though are they:

I became a rightful heir, a mother, holding the right belonging to the mothers.

 I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

-------

High Priest is not equivalent to mother.  High Priest is a ritualized role that can only come through the laying on of hands by others in the Priesthood.

Motherhood can come in a completely secular environment, there is no religious ritual attached to it and may have nothing to do with spirituality and may even be the result of sin, not faithfulness.

If High Priest had been "father", then that your substitution would have made sense.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Calm

[Nofear]

At least when I was young men's president I taught them that their activities in the Aaronic Priesthood with the more temporal side of things was preparatory for when the Melchizedek Priesthood there would be more spiritual/unseen activities. Their activities brought them to better see their place in the Church as a whole and not just as placeholders (as one poster mentioned).

Things that can be done:

• Where appropriate encourage a young woman to be available to assist young children during Sacrament (e.g. one parent on stand, other has handful down below)
• If using ushers, use the young women instead of young men (my current bishop still won't do this despite us not having enough young men to handle the sacrament)
• Assist with post Sunday meeting cleanup (trash, diapers, quick chapel tidy, chairs, etc.) along with the young men

The basic idea is to get the young women more participatory in the temporal functions of worship, even if not glamorous. I'm sure there are other ideas, but have to be off now. Recognition and who comes to what may be important but not something I see the Church pushing to enact/change. That will have to be more organic. Ideas like the above are much more addressable here and now.

 

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If this is what you are arguing, not sure how it is relevant to the position of those you seem to be challenging on this thread, including my own.  I certainly don't argue with this, but this does not mean that the strengths and weaknesses of women are being well dealt with within the Church in all the ways they could be or that they don't need more concrete, visible roles and role models in our religious community especially because they are different.

My position is that the concept of Yin and Yang perfectly demonstrates that male and female are not, and should not, be viewed as independent entities.  We are made to be together and only through that union are both made whole beings.  

My argument, I think, remains the same - complaining that I am not not the other - that Yin is not Yang - misses the reason for being.  Yang does not exist without Yin and vice-versa.  If we accept that yin and yang, feminine and masculine, female and male are different why is it healthy to make one into the other?  

There will be those that will say, but the priesthood is not masculine or feminine.  My response is that God has blessed or cursed (depending on your perspective) man with the priesthood.  However, if a whole being is only made from male and female - then the being holds the priesthood and the priesthood is expressed most visibly through the male.  

Screaming at the heavens that I am not the "other" or that I don't have that which is not me is senseless.  The heavens don't change us into the other, but guides us into a greater understanding of who we are and what our role is to play in this life.  

This consistent, distant rumble about women wanting the priesthood is based on that which they don't have - it is Yin demanding to be Yang.  I am not good enough being Yin I must also have more of Yang.  This is a step toward imbalance and loses what we are created to be.  We will then not be fulfilling our purpose as set by our Father in Heaven.  

 

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Nofear said:

At least when I was young men's president I taught them that their activities in the Aaronic Priesthood with the more temporal side of things was preparatory for when the Melchizedek Priesthood there would be more spiritual/unseen activities. Their activities brought them to better see their place in the Church as a whole and not just as placeholders (as one poster mentioned).

Things that can be done:

• Where appropriate encourage a young woman to be available to assist young children during Sacrament (e.g. one parent on stand, other has handful down below)
• If using ushers, use the young women instead of young men (my current bishop still won't do this despite us not having enough young men to handle the sacrament)
• Assist with post Sunday meeting cleanup (trash, diapers, quick chapel tidy, chairs, etc.) along with the young men

The basic idea is to get the young women more participatory in the temporal functions of worship, even if not glamorous. I'm sure there are other ideas, but have to be off now. Recognition and who comes to what may be important but not something I see the Church pushing to enact/change. That will have to be more organic. Ideas like the above are much more addressable here and now.

 

I like those ideas. My only change would be that the young men could obviously help with little children as well. 

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not exactly parallel though are they:

I became a rightful heir, a mother, holding the right belonging to the mothers.

 I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

-------

High Priest is not equivalent to mother.  High Priest is a ritualized role that can only come through the laying on of hands by others in the Priesthood.

Motherhood can come in a completely secular environment, there is no religious ritual attached to it and may have nothing to do with spirituality and may even be the result of sin, not faithfulness.

If High Priest had been "father", then that your substitution would have made sense.

I could have just as easily used High Priestess as used in scripture and temple ceremonies.  I think you already know this, so want is the real issue.  

[Mars]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I could have just as easily used High Priestess as used in scripture and temple ceremonies.  I think you already know this, so want is the real issue.  

this is what is meant by men speaking for women.

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

I'm not sure how pointing out that you do most of the cooking is relevant to your defense of the Church's position on not ordaining women to the priesthood. If I am misunderstanding your position please correct me.

I teach math in a high school and our department chair is an award winning successful teacher. She is also younger than me. I sure am glad that our district doesn't have any rules preventing women from holding leadership positions over men. She does a great job and everybody admires and respects her.

You talk about strengths and weaknesses. All women do not have the same strengths and weaknesses. Neither do all men. What if a woman has a gift for leadership? Under the current system, women can only preside over women, but men can preside over both women and men. That sounds more like an unbalanced whole to me.

If a woman has a gift for leadership she will lead naturally without any need for everyone else to put her in that position.  A prophet is not a prophet because others say so; a prophet or a prophetess is a prophet because they say sthe o.  

The comment on cooking was only to push back on attempt to push against my position thinking that I am arguing roles for male and female.  

Never said all women and men have identical strengths and weaknesses.   I don't understand why you bring it up.  

You see a gender difference and want to argue only on the position of gender.  That Bishop does not stand alone but the entire ward council stands behind him to assist him do that job.  

You are still arguing the from the position of "I" want it, I need something else.  I want to be exactly equal - I want Yin to be Yang and if Yin cannot be Yang then something is wrong and out of balance.  Your position is necessarily out of balance because Yin and Yang are different and they only way to make them whole is to be one - in being one, united whole.  

[Storm Rider]

11 minutes ago, Mars said:

this is what is meant by men speaking for women.

that was a misspelling - so what is the real issue.  But your cute comment was noted and appreciated.  Doesn't mean much to me, but I am pretty thick or maybe it is my knuckle dragging heritage.  Yeah, that must be it. 

[Mars]

i'm not trying to be cute or get any jokes in, storm rider.

when you say that the only thing in play is that other women want something they don't have, so they fight for it, that is you speaking for them.  that is you dismissing their words and their explanations and their stories and substituting your own.

that is, in a nutshell, a man speaking for a woman.

[Mars]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  But I suspect we're not getting the whole story.  Remember, Kate Kelly publicly excoriated her bishop by name for months, even going so far as to publicize the the identity of his employer, apparently in an attempt to engineer a Brendan Eich-type blowback on her bishop by imperiling his employment.  As punishment.  Retribution.  And to make the LDS Church look bad.

Now we have Abby Nelson publicly vilifying her bishop in a video clip where we are introduced to Abby Nelson by . . . Kate Kelly.

Coincidence?  We report, you decide!

-Smac

not that i disagree - in the slightest.  going public with details between you and the bishop is a breach of trust and kinda betrays what a guy (or gal, as the case may be) thinks of the relationship between guy/gal and bishop.

BUT...

i think people act irrationally when they feel backed into a corner.  me, personally, MARS - not you or anyone else should feel like i'm calling you to act the same - i will try to go wayyy out of my way to help someone feel reassured that they are loved and respected and valued.  i want to neutralize the threat of fear with all the power of persuasion and long-suffering at my disposal so that they don't feel like doing the things they're doing.  i don't think abby hansen, or even kate kelly (at least at the beginning) were engaged in calculated political chess against the church to achieve their means.

it's entirely possible that people around abby hansen have done so.  i haven't, so, i'm trying.  and part of that is being as charitable as i can, choosing to interpret actions and words with the most charitable of tones.  even when it looks like abby hansen is doing really foolish things to get her point across.  i see those foolish things as a sign that she feels marginalized and threatened - so let's do what we can to neutralize that threat by showing an increase of love and kindness.

as i say, though, perhaps those around her *HAVE* done that.  and enough Christian cheek turning has been done, and now it's time to get tough...

[Rain]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

The issue at heart imo is we don't have language or rituals in the Church that identifies a religious community role that provides all this to a woman as we do for a man.  At best a woman is left to pretty much to her own devices to pull together all the various teachings that might have impact on it and write her own version of what this means to her, while men are being taught exactly what it means to them almost as soon as they enter Primary (age 4 for sure, will have to check to see if 3 year olds get the Priesthood lesson or not). 

This makes a significant difference.  An analogy might be having to learn to read on one's own without owning one's own books as opposed to being given books and instruction on how to read them.  (though this just hints at the difference, will try and think of a better one)  If we as a people want everyone to be literate, then it makes sense to provide everyone reading instructions (and it is not a bad idea to tailor it to the individual as much as possible and that would include taking into account the differences between how men and women learn, but just because there are differences does not mean that one should provide only half the same sort of reading aids)

We are beginning to frame things in some helpful ways...for example speaking more of what women's role in the temple embodies.

We know what the blessing of the fathers is for the men in the Church.  Where are Eve, Sarah, Hagar, Rebecca, Rachel, Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah and Noah's wife in the comments below?

 

Yes. Yes. Yes! I've talked about it before, but Elder Ballard's talk was so eye opening for me. I FEEL the priesthood in my life, but I don't really understand how it got there. I don't know how to use it anymore than being a person who has no connection - service to others obviously, but how do I use it to serve others better than I would if it were not in my life?

Some will ask, "does it matter?" Yes. The more we know about things the better we are able to use them. 

The lack of language and rituals is precisely why some try to equate priesthood with motherhood. There is a feeling that there is something more to being a priesthood enabled woman, but there is nothing to describe it so some try to push motherhood in that place.  But men have this priesthood/fatherhood combo and women have a ?/motherhood combo. I don't want what the men have. I just want to understand what is already there for me. 

12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

No, I'm not suggesting anything about you.

The point is that Church proactively teaches young boys to look forward to performing Priesthood ordinances, precisely because they are not naturally inclined to look forward to them. The ordinances are not inherently pleasurable or self-satisfying, but from the very beginning, they entail serving others. Which young boys are not generally inclined to see as an attractive feature.

Let's face it: a deacon passing the Sacrament is essentially functioning as a kind of waiter, bringing food and drink to people. No-one cheers or applauds when he performs this simple act of service; and nor should they. The spiritual significance of emulating what Jesus did at the Last Supper is profoundly important, but do adolescent and pre-adolescent boys really appreciate such profundities? The only way they can really learn to value them is to do them, and so we teach them to look forward to performing them so that they'll apply themselves with a will when the time comes.

It's true, though, that there doesn't seem to be anything as tangible for the girls to look forward to, and I think the Church is going to have to address that in time to come.

 

Kind of interesting isn't it. You say that boys are not generally interested in service oriented priesthood ordinances , yet I find many girls are. That is why some girls want the priesthood. They want to serve others.  So between not being taught what their priesthood role is and being told by men/boys that priesthood is no fun and only is for the service of others can you see why many girls and women feel like they are missing out on something? Then what happens is things get all twisted up and because of a lack of knowledge and natural man and it becomes more of a selfish thing for many. 

I'm glad you said "generally"  as my youngest son does look forward to his service to others through the priesthood. 

10 hours ago, Traela said:

I think it might be valuable to teach the youth more about the Relief Society.  Give each girl a copy of Daughters in My Kingdom when they become Laurels (if not sooner).  I would also encourage them to read The Beginning of Better Days, even though it is not an official Church manual, because that is where I first got the sense that there is a whole lot more to the Relief Society than what we usually see.  Teach them the history of the RS and what it has accomplished, with parallels to today.  When the boys learn about priesthood duties, make sure the girls are learning about visiting teaching and the Relief Society's role in taking care of the community.  Let them know that girls and women also have an important job beyond motherhood, which can be as large as they want it to be, simply because it is less defined.

 

 

And make sure the "youth" are hearing and not just the YW. Obviously there will be more teaching of men thing to boys and women things to girls, but if we don't have priesthood things being taught to all youth and womanhood? things taught to all youth then things will still not balance.

[JAHS]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

 But men have this priesthood/fatherhood combo and women have a ?/motherhood combo. I don't want what the men have.

The way I see it men have  Husband/Fatherhood combo and women have a Wife/Motherhood combo. If you are talking about service, I don't see any need to have the priesthood to serve others. But God does want His church to be run with the proper authority and for some reason He chose men to do that.

I think of the interview President Hinckley had with a reporter:

Interviewer:  "At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?"

Gordon B. Hinckley: "That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way."

That's all we know right now and we have been told that's the way it should still be.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The way I see it men have  Husband/Fatherhood combo and women have a Wife/Motherhood combo. If you are talking about service, I don't see any need to have the priesthood to serve others. But God does want His church to be run with the proper authority and for some reason He chose men to do that.

I think of the interview President Hinckley had with a reporter:

Interviewer:  "At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?"

Gordon B. Hinckley: "That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way."

That's all we know right now and we have been told that's the way it should still be.

The interviewer should have CFR'd that claim