"Daughters of Christ": Finding Language to talk about Women and Priesthood

[Calm]

First transcript up, enjoy:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/daughters-christ

[Calm]

"So why are we not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, if, as Elder Oaks affirms, that is the only kind of authority there is in the Church? Why did Sister Eubank feel that it wasn’t quite right to put those words together in the same sentence? The reason we feel uncomfortable with the idea that women have priesthood authority, I propose, is because we have been viewing women’s relationship to priesthood through the lens of a model developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a model whose historical roots we can trace. According to this model, priesthood is a role belonging to men and motherhood is its spiritual parallel for women. Women can enjoy the blessings of the priesthood, but only through men holding priesthood office. As Elder Oaks’ statement implies, however, the model does not accurately reflect the way women actively serve in their Church callings, on missions, and in the temple.

Most of us are familiar with the priesthood/motherhood model, but not with the details of its evolution. Today I would like to briefly review the historical sources of the model and then explore the ways priesthood and Relief Society leaders are transcending it to open up the conversation on women and priesthood. It’s always a challenge to talk about broad historical trends without being simplistic, especially in just a few minutes. Regarding Joseph Smith’s foundational ideas about women and priesthood, however, we are lucky to have the minutes of the Nauvoo Relief Society, the constitution of Relief Society, and other crucial documents more accessible than ever before in the newly published The First Fifty Years of Relief Society: Key Documents in Latter-day Saint Women’s History. Please read them for yourself and then you can supply the nuance. It’s a big book, but it’s a good read. I have a friend who hauled it all the way to Saudi Arabia so she could read it with her five daughters...."

[Calm]

"Eliza R. Snow, who became general president when the Relief Society was re-established in Utah Territory under Brigham Young’s direction, felt confident admonishing the Relief Society sisters in Ogden in 1873: “You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God..."

"But we can also enhance the status of women in the Church by learning to think and speak differently ourselves. Weigh the impact of Elder M. Russell Ballard’s challenge to women at the 2015 BYU Women’s Conference: “Like faithful sisters in the past, you need to learn how to use the priesthood authority with which you have been endowed to obtain every eternal blessing that will be yours.”[18]..."

"Keeping in mind Elder Oaks’ clear instruction that when a woman—young or old—is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization, she is given priesthood authority, we can assure young women that they also exercise priesthood authority in their callings. When a young girl asks why she cannot pass the sacrament, what is the common response? “Because women don’t hold the priesthood.” A more accurate response might be “Passing the sacrament is an assignment given to deacons in the Aaronic Priesthood. You will also have the opportunity to exercise priesthood authority—as class president in the Young Women’s organization, as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or in administering priesthood ordinances in the temple.”"

"While “enduring to the end” can mean enduring to the end of one’s life, it can also mean enduring until we become who God intends us to become. To be a priestly king or queen is to serve in a governing role for the benefit of others, but it is also tobe a certain kind of person, someone who has received “of the fullness” of God. In the Book of Revelation 1:5-6 the apostle John emphasizes that it is Jesus Christ who having “loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood…hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.” Women, therefore, become queens and priestesses not by virtue of their relationship with their husbands but by virtue of their relationship with Christ...."

"Sharon Eubank framed the question another way: “How can we talk about the divine sealed pair under the umbrella of the priesthood?”[22] Citing D&C 131:1-2, the LDS Gospel Topics Essay referred to previously states: “When a man and a woman are sealed in the temple, they enter together, by covenant, into an order of the priesthood...."

 

[Tacenda]

According to this article, it is set by the Lord that women do not hold the priesthood. How are you going to get past that one from GBH? https://www.mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church 

I wonder if we've had it all the time by accepting Jesus into our lives and that is enough. According to some faiths, just by taking His name upon us we gain the power, since he's now the only Great High Priest, since having sacrificed His life and becoming the Lamb of God.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

Women don't have the priesthood because.....

• Patriarchy
• Sexism
• Historical inequality

Or we could just say that its God's fault (part of the program).  What happens when the program has been created and based on cultural elements?  We need to rid our culture of this thinking that is so damaging to not just women but to men as well.  

Edited August 11, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Calm]

Anyone going to engage with the article?

[Ginger Snaps]

I was thrilled with this article when I read it yesterday.  I'm so glad this conversation is happening in the church. I don't have time to write more now, but I will try to comeback to this discussion later. 

[bluebell]

It's awesome. 

I think it's important though that the church start teaching this stuff on Sundays. That's the only way it will start a o stick. 

Maybe it's time to bring back "know your religion" or something similar. 

[juliann]

Her research on Leah Widstoe is incredible. She has traced the origin of motherhood=priesthood and it goes straight to Leah, not priesthood leaders. Leah elevated women's status at a time when women were to stay in the domestic arena. I loved the picture of her in the lab as she applied scientific method to domestic tasks. Women were to apply the best and most modern knowledge to their efforts. 

We see that as silly today, of course, but as women advanced in opportunity, Leah's model of motherhood=priesthood remained   But anyway, we all need to understand where the first model comes from. It is a double edged sword, of course, now that its origin is identified as having come from a woman, it is easier to discard. Yet it does need to be discarded. . Maybe it was Ulrich that said mother=father and priest=priestess.

[Buckeye]

I read it yesterday. Overall, a very good piece. It adds a lot to the discussion. As a supporter of women's ordination, I am hopeful that articles such as this will continue to move us towards that goal. And I especially appreciate the kind tone towards OW. 

A few observations.  The article is most helpful in showing the impact women have had in shaping the motherhood / priesthood discussion.  We need this historical base to not only understand how our current teachings have arrived, but how they will continue to change.  As with all developments in women's roles, it will be women who play the primary role.  Most women initially opposed women's votes and roles outside the home.  Over time, women changed their view.  The same process will have to play out if women are to be ordained.  The church isn't waiting on God.  He (and She) are waiting on women to desire greater blessings  

For me, the biggest question left unanswered by the article is what type of priestesses women should be.  The author tactfully notes the promises in the temple ceremony, but I wanted her to give more attention to the (IMO) huge difference in relationships between men and women that the priesthood is used to form in the temple.  Specifically, men becomes priests to God; women become priestesses to their husband.  As we continue to discuss women's roles in the priesthood, it is imparative that we discuss whether priesthood will allow women to be actors in their own regard or only actors under the direction of their husbands.  

Edited August 11, 2016 by Buckeye

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Maybe it was Ulrich that said mother=father and priest=priestess.

I think the mother=father relationship is too simplistic.  I believe it's very true when it comes to raising or parenting a child but that biologically speaking, becoming a mother and becoming a father probably couldn't be less alike or less equal.  I mean, a man can become a father hundreds of times over and not even know it.

I think that's part of the reason that the idea of motherhood=priesthood has been so accepted.

[Buckeye]

It depends on what one means by fatherhood and motherhood. If it's just procreation, then yes, big differences. But if parenthood is a long process of condescension, sacrifice, example and love, then fatherhood is equal to motherhood. 

In teaching youth and adults in the church I frequently ask 'what does it mean that God is our Father?'  Interestingly, no one has ever answered 'it means that once upon a time God delivered some celestial sperm.'  So if we view Gods fatherhood as more than procreation, and we teach our boys/men to pattern their fatherhood after Him, perhaps we should stop minimizing fatherhood. It can, and should be, the equal of motherhood. 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

It depends on what one means by fatherhood and motherhood. If it's just procreation, then yes, big differences. But if parenthood is a long process of condescension, sacrifice, example and love, then fatherhood is equal to motherhood. 

I agree.  I expressed the same sentiment.  I think that's a very important distinction.  I have an adopted father and I think i completely get what makes a father and sperm is, in some ways, pretty low on the list.

Quote

In teaching youth and adults in the church I frequently ask 'what does it mean that God is our Father?'  Interestingly, no one has ever answered 'it means that once upon a time God delivered some celestial sperm.'  So if we view Gods fatherhood as more than procreation, and we teach our boys/men to pattern their fatherhood after Him, perhaps we should stop minimizing fatherhood. It can, and should be, the equal of motherhood. 

When asked the question one of the main answers I usually hear is that God is our literal father, so our relationship with God is definitely defined by the biology as much as the rest.  That is one of the things that sets our doctrine a part from other Christian denominations.

But that aside, the fact that the biology of becoming a mother absolutely does not equal becoming a father is just a fact.  It does not minimize fatherhood to state the obvious.   Mothers actually create the child's body with their bodies.  It's a process that requires a lot of suffering, sacrifice, and takes the mother to the edge of death (and sometimes over the edge) to achieve.  The biological process for a man is a few seconds which results in the donation of DNA.  Saying that does not take anything away from fathers or lessen their importance in the child's life.  

Fatherhood definitely is more than just procreation, but the procreation part is also very important and we can't just pretend that it doesn't exist so that fathers don't feel minimized.  

This whole equation issue is part of the problem, i think, of trying to understand women's and men's roles in church.  I think that too often it becomes about reducing everything down to the lowest shared denominator and disregarding everything that can't be shared as if it doesn't exist.  But that ignores the unique but vital parts of each of our roles.  It's the unique parts of women and men that make the whole (men and women bound together as one) so amazing.  

For me it all boils down to this-Women have a unique role in the procreation process that men do not share.  It does not diminish men to acknowledge that.  As far as the equation "motherhood=fatherhood" completely ignores that unique role, i find it less effective.  

Edited August 12, 2016 by bluebell

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

   

For me it all boils down to this-Women have a unique role in the procreation process that men do not share.  It does not diminish men to acknowledge that.  As far as the equation "motherhood=fatherhood" completely ignores that unique role, i find it less effective.  

This is true, however, the Church had to include women who didn't have children as "mothers" because they made that the role of all women. So motherhood has  lost that distinctive meaning.  I see childbearing as unique, and all that goes with that. There is nothing to compare that to for men. But after that I do think motherhood should only be talked about in relation to fatherhood. It isn't that everything is equivalent, it is just that those two roles are the closest equivalent. 

[Calm]

We could start dividing motherhood into mothering and childbearing...

But somehow I don't think calling women who are biological mothers "child bearers" is going to catch on much.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

We could start dividing motherhood into mothering and childbearing...

But somehow I don't think calling women who are biological mothers "child bearers" is going to catch on much.

I agree. It is an issue without any easy or simple answers (like the priesthood issue as well) and I think that is why we struggle so much with it.  

I honestly wonder if our mortal brains are even capable of putting the pieces of gender/roles/blessings/duties in the right places to create a whole picture. At this point it seems like every configuration we try is flawed. 

[carbon dioxide]

I am one of those people who likes the path of least resistance to get to desired end.  Less work to achieve the same result is preferred.  So I personally can't wrap my brain around why any woman would want the priesthood.  Every single blessing that God can ever offer to them is already offered to them without them needing the priesthood.  The same exaltation awaits them as for the men.  So why ask for more work to obtain absolutely nothing other than I guess to obtain some personal need.  Is it a pride issue?   Ask me to mow a lawn for a hundred bucks or just take the money without needing to mow the lawn the decision is pretty easy for me. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am one of those people who likes the path of least resistance to get to desired end.  Less work to achieve the same result is preferred.  So I personally can't wrap my brain around why any woman would want the priesthood.  Every single blessing that God can ever offer to them is already offered to them without them needing the priesthood.  The same exaltation awaits them as for the men.  So why ask for more work to obtain absolutely nothing other than I guess to obtain some personal need.  Is it a pride issue?   Ask me to mow a lawn for a hundred bucks or just take the money without needing to mow the lawn the decision is pretty easy for me. 

Do you obtain absolutely nothing from having the priesthood?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I personally can't wrap my brain around why any woman would want the priesthood.  Every single blessing that God can ever offer to them is already offered to them without them needing the priesthood.  The same exaltation awaits them as for the men. 

I personally am one who believes women do receive the priesthood that leads to exaltation.
Why they would want the priesthood in a temporal role God didn't call them to fill nor require of them is where I am mystified.
God is a priesthood office.  Men and women will become Gods.  Is that not sufficient priesthood for anyone?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am one of those people who likes the path of least resistance to get to desired end.  Less work to achieve the same result is preferred.  So I personally can't wrap my brain around why any woman would want the priesthood.  Every single blessing that God can ever offer to them is already offered to them without them needing the priesthood.  The same exaltation awaits them as for the men.  So why ask for more work to obtain absolutely nothing other than I guess to obtain some personal need.  Is it a pride issue?   Ask me to mow a lawn for a hundred bucks or just take the money without needing to mow the lawn the decision is pretty easy for me. 

For the same reaon Abraham desired it perhaps?

[Ginger Snaps]

I agree that the idea of "motherhood" goes far beyond childbearing, but we don't give enough weight or thought to that.  I fully agree with Bluebell that physical motherhood is deeply significant.  I love the line in "O God the Eternal Father" that talks about the Lord being "veiled" in flesh.  Who did that veiling?  His mother.  His mother knit that veiling of flesh for him with her very body by processes that we still, 2000+ yrs later don't fully understand.  We usher in spirits from the other side.  In some sense our bodies are literally a veil to be passed through.  The only way to get here is through the body of a woman.  Science for all it's wonders and discoveries still can't find any way around that.  

And. . . yet, there are some women who are not able to have the physical experience of giving birth in this life.  I know there's not a neat and tidy answer to that conundrum.  But I do know that my dear SIL is just as much a mother to her adopted child as she is to the very surprise biological baby that came along afterward.  I have a mom who is one of my dearest friends, but even still I have been "mothered" by many other women in my life, in the sense that I was loved, cared for, built up, extended grace and charity.  On the flip side, I could say that I have been "fathered" by men other than my own dad.  We are used to thinking of "fathering" as "contributing genetic material", while "mothering" usually has more of a nurturing connotation, but I think there is a loving, nurturing, charitable concept to "fathering" just as much as there is to "mothering".  If you think about what we are supposed to be as a Zion society, doesn't that sound like a group of people selflessly mothering and fathering one another?

So I think the titles "mother" and "father" expand far beyond what we know or understand yet.   I think they are highly complimentary and synergistic and overlapping.   I think priesthood (as we know it now)  is wrapped up in manhood/fatherhood, but I also think womanhood/motherhood has a power that we are reluctant to call "priesthood" or "priestesshood". To me,  it's highly significant that women don't need an ordination to go to the temple.  It gives rise to the idea that women may arrive here with some inherent power (if you consider that the priesthood is the power of God, and we all arrive here with the light of Christ, then don't we all arrive with a bit of priesthood power already in place?).  I believe we're seeing some tiptoeing around that when our leaders talk of "woman's moral influence" as a companion to priesthood power, and in the tentative steps we are taking to open up the conversation about Heavenly Mother.  Maybe we're not ready to say it quite out loud yet.  Maybe we're not ready to hear it.  But I suspect eventually the conversation will turn more to exploring what inherent power women already possess and how we can better access it.  

Edited August 12, 2016 by Ginger Snaps

[Storm Rider]

Those that have an issue with how we currently talk about priesthood and women should create whatever works for them to find peace.  For me to wrap my head around this it is screaming at a person who likes chocolate ice cream that she really needs to eat Butter Pecan because it is better.  If a person, male or female, needs to create a language, a way of speaking, then go for it.

Fundamentally, I can never fully engage with feminism because at its core is assumes that a woman must be more than a mother and wife; that those roles are somehow insufficient and that more is needed.  The breakdown of the family, I think, can be laid firmly at the Feminist alter of self-aggrandizement.  That women must be super women to be fulfilled or to have any self-worth - and that those women who are "simply" mothers and wives are broken, inferior, and devoid of any merit.  

Society has suffered greatly at this onslaught and I don't see it ever healing itself.  Single mothers are the new norm for the family structure.  This not only significantly increases poverty, but it creates significant challenges for children raised in these family units where poverty is so high.  We all know or can easily find out all of the ratios and the terrible burden that this has caused society.  

And people wonder how some of us old people can think of yesteryear as a better time - there may not have been as much money, but people were happier and children were healthier. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Fundamentally, I can never fully engage with feminism because at its core is assumes that a woman must be more than a mother and wife; that those roles are somehow insufficient and that more is needed. 

Shame on us who want to be individuals!

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

First transcript up, enjoy:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/daughters-christ

Fantastic and profound paper!

The key seems understanding the function and practice of Priesthood authority and less emphasis on who "holds" it.  Again "praxis" replaces abstract "authority".

In the trenches, we all wield the shovels equally.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I read it yesterday. Overall, a very good piece. It adds a lot to the discussion. As a supporter of women's ordination, I am hopeful that articles such as this will continue to move us towards that goal. And I especially appreciate the kind tone towards OW. 

A few observations.  The article is most helpful in showing the impact women have had in shaping the motherhood / priesthood discussion.  We need this historical base to not only understand how our current teachings have arrived, but how they will continue to change.  As with all developments in women's roles, it will be women who play the primary role.  Most women initially opposed women's votes and roles outside the home.  Over time, women changed their view.  The same process will have to play out if women are to be ordained.  The church isn't waiting on God.  He (and She) are waiting on women to desire greater blessings  

For me, the biggest question left unanswered by the article is what type of priestesses women should be.  The author tactfully notes the promises in the temple ceremony, but I wanted her to give more attention to the (IMO) huge difference in relationships between men and women that the priesthood is used to form in the temple.  Specifically, men becomes priests to God; women become priestesses to their husband.  As we continue to discuss women's roles in the priesthood, it is imparative that we discuss whether priesthood will allow women to be actors in their own regard or only actors under the direction of their husbands.  

Again I would encourage you to discover the differences in initiatory blessings between men and women by visiting in the celestial room with a woman familiar with the ordinances and comparing notes