Younger Mormons far more likely to be troubled by women’s roles in the LDS Church, study shows

[Gray]

https://religionnews.com/2018/11/26/younger-mormons-far-more-likely-to-be-troubled-by-womens-roles-in-the-lds-church-study-shows/

Important bit:

Quote

Dew focused on the short list of things that women can do in the LDS Church, rather than the longer list of things they cannot.

Women can teach and preach; they can be missionaries. All of that is true. They have “leadership responsibilities,” which in its own way is also true: Mormon women can have leadership responsibilities over other women and over children.

But religious leadership in other denominations goes beyond teaching and preaching. In the Mormon tradition, women are largely shut out from ritual authority and entirely shut out from administrative authority. Here are some helpful questions we can ask about religious authority, both ritual and administrative:

    Can women baptize?
    Can they be in charge of congregational finances?
    Can they plan and conduct weekly services?
    Can they plan and conduct special services (weddings, funerals, and holidays)?
    Can they supervise fellow religious leaders who are male as well as female?
    Can they formally counsel church members in an official capacity?
    Can they bless and serve communion?

The answer to all of these questions, in the Mormon context, is no. In fact, of the top seven denominations in the United States, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only one that answers all of these questions with a “no.” In the Catholic Church, the largest denomination in America, women can’t be ordained as priests but can be lay ecclesial ministers with heavy responsibilities; in the United Methodist, PC(USA), and ELCA denominations, there are no restrictions at all on what women can do.

 

Perhaps the church can at least take inspiration from the Catholic church if unwilling to consider either ordaining women or going with the more Biblical path of separating priesthood from leadership.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Gray

[Duncan]

Just a tic, my bro used to be the ward clerk and then stake clerk, he had to call SLC about a financial issue and he talked about it with, get this, a woman!!!!!!👩 it was some clerk support thing

[stemelbow]

Back when I was a missionary I worked the land of Missouri near Independence where there were those of other brands of Mormons.  The biggest difference easily notifying about us and them back then was that they gave women the priesthood.  It was a laughable joke of sorts amongst the members and missionaries a like.  I think we're in a different place now and it's not so laughable.  I suppose someday it'll happen, and someday as crazy as it might seem, the Church might have a prophetess running the corp.  It'll take a complete shift, from where we are now.  But its possible.  

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Back when I was a missionary I worked the land of Missouri near Independence where there were those of other brands of Mormons.  The biggest difference easily notifying about us and them back then was that they gave women the priesthood.  It was a laughable joke of sorts amongst the members and missionaries a like.  I think we're in a different place now and it's not so laughable.  I suppose someday it'll happen, and someday as crazy as it might seem, the Church might have a prophetess running the corp.  It'll take a complete shift, from where we are now.  But its possible.  

I don't think that will happen.  I'm quite open to it, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Maidservant]

The last shall be first, and the first shall be last.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

https://religionnews.com/2018/11/26/younger-mormons-far-more-likely-to-be-troubled-by-womens-roles-in-the-lds-church-study-shows/

Important bit:

I'll admit that I'm not entirely given over to trusting Jana Riess's poll.  

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Perhaps the church can at least take inspiration from the Catholic church if unwilling to consider either ordaining women or going with the more Biblical path of separating priesthood from leadership.

Could you elaborate on this "Biblical path of separating priesthood from leadership" thing?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

The last shall be first, and the first shall be last.

Interesting!  I hadn't thought of that passage before in this context.

Still, I remain skeptical that it will happen.  Not because the Brethren are intransigent sexists.  And certainly not because I think women are unsuited for it.  I just don't think it's part of the Plan.

But again, I'm open to further light and knowledge on the subject.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I'll admit that I'm not entirely given over to trusting Jana Riess's poll.  

Could you elaborate on this "Biblical path of separating priesthood from leadership" thing?

Thanks,

-Smac

Biblically, the priesthood was for temple rituals. Prophets and apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood.

[MustardSeed]

I think there are a few things that our youth won’t be jiggy with.   And their unprecedented outspokenness gives them fuel for change, imo. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Biblically, the priesthood was for temple rituals. Prophets and apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood.

CFR, please.

I'm also curious as to your take on Hebrews 5 (particularly verse 6).

I am also curious why you suggest the Church should take its cues from the Catholic Church rather than the voluminous guidance given in the Doctrine & Covenants?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2018 by smac97

[Maidservant]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Interesting!  I hadn't thought of that passage before in this context.

Still, I remain skeptical that it will happen.  Not because the Brethren are intransigent sexists.  And certainly not because I think women are unsuited for it.  I just don't think it's part of the Plan.

But again, I'm open to further light and knowledge on the subject.

Thanks,

-Smac

In short, I tend to agree with you actually.  Nor am I one who thinks women need the priesthood . . . but of course mainly I base that on that women already have the priesthood (in my perspective), in short.  And in my understanding of what the Church is . . . and is not.  (i.e. in short, one arena where priesthood is needed, but not the only nor even the main).

In long . . . way too long for here.

But I will say, that one way or the other, whether by the practicalities of priesthood and church administration, or by some other means, the come to the 'first, at last again' we must re-enter the Eden phase including the full position of Eve in that (and of Adam, for that matter).  This means many things, not only the man-woman axis, but would include that.  Chiasmus is not only a literary template, but a historical one, especially when it comes to the progression of the children of God.

[MustardSeed]

As the church inevitably wanes in numbers, doesn’t the great exodus fulfill prophesy? I think as the values of society shift, the church itself cannot help but suffer. 

Sometimes the youth are wiser, sometimes they are not. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

In short, I tend to agree with you actually.  Nor am I one who thinks women need the priesthood . . . but of course mainly I base that on that women already have the priesthood (in my perspective), in short.  And in my understanding of what the Church is . . . and is not.  (i.e. in short, one arena where priesthood is needed, but not the only nor even the main).

In long . . . way too long for here.

But I will say, that one way or the other, whether by the practicalities of priesthood and church administration, or by some other means, the come to the 'first, at last again' we must re-enter the Eden phase including the full position of Eve in that (and of Adam, for that matter).  This means many things, not only the man-woman axis, but would include that.  Chiasmus is not only a literary template, but a historical one, especially when it comes to the progression of the children of God.

Wow.  Applying the chiastic structure to the origins and eschatology of the descendants of Adam and Eve?  That's cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.

I'm also curious as to your take on Hebrews 5 (particularly verse 6).

I am also curious why you suggest the Church should take its cues from the Catholic Church rather than the voluminous guidance given in the Doctrine & Covenants?

Thanks,

-Smac

Should I reference the entire Old Testament and earliest books of the NT? You'll see the priesthood constantly referred to in the terms I gave. The destruction of the temple in 70 CE marks a turning point for Christianity where they started to begin to formulate their own unique ideas about authority, outside of Judaism.

Here's a summary of what Jewish priesthood meant and what priesthood holders  did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_(Ancient_Israel)

Regarding Hebrews, Jesus is compared to a high priest, because his death is being interpreted as a sacrifice for sin, like the sacrifices performed in the temple. Of course this is a retrospective interpretation.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Should I reference the entire Old Testament and earliest books of the NT?

No.  That's not how CFRs work.

You said: "Biblically, the priesthood was for temple rituals. Prophets and apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood."

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

You'll see the priesthood constantly referred to in the terms I gave.

Actually, I don't see that.  And you still haven't accounted for Hebrews 5.  And you haven't accounted for the voluminous guidance about the Priesthood given in Doctrine & Covenants.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

The last shall be first, and the first shall be last.

Woman is the first a child encounters.

Is Woman also the last the child encounters?

[SouthernMo]

I've always remembered how Gordon B Hinckley addressed this.  In an interview with Larry King, he took a question from a caller.  His view was that women can hold the priesthood any time, it just needs revelation.  This to me debunked any comparison between men's responsibilities to priesthood as women's responsibilities to child birthing.  One of those cannot change with revelation.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lkl_00.shtml

Larry King: We're back. Berry, Vermont for President Hinckley. Hello.

CALLER: Yes. Since we're getting into the 21st century, President Hinckley, what is the chance that women may hold a priesthood in the Mormon church?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, they don't hold the priesthood at the present time. It would take another revelation to bring that about. I don't anticipate it. The women of the church are not complaining about it. They have their own organization, a very strong organization, 4 million plus members. I don't know of another women's organization in the world which does so much for women as does that, as this church has. They're happy. They sit on boards and governance in the church. I don't hear any complaints about it.

Larry King: Do you know why they can't be priests?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, only that the Lord has not designated that they will be.

Larry King: And the same -- that's the same position as the pope?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Same principle, yes, I think so.

Larry King: So a revelation could come to you or it could come to the pope or the next president or the next pope?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That's what it would take -- that's exactly what it would take.

[The Nehor]

I suspect something like or actually being women holding the Priesthood is coming in the impending avalanche but that is just a suspicion.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Biblically, the priesthood was for temple rituals. Prophets and apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood.

Generally, I agree with you in regards to the OT. The law came out of Judah. However, I believe many priests served as scribes. It wasn't until Christian times that the priesthood was offered to all males, although you don't seem to see it in the early Orthodox laity. 

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

 

 

Interesting survey. Unless I misinterpreted the methods, I'm personally a little "troubled" by the way they lumped former members in with the members. Maybe there are plans for a comparative study to look at how many currently active members are troubled as compared to inactive and/or former members.

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I've always remembered how Gordon B Hinckley addressed this.  In an interview with Larry King, he took a question from a caller.  His view was that women can hold the priesthood any time, it just needs revelation.  This to me debunked any comparison between men's responsibilities to priesthood as women's responsibilities to child birthing.  One of those cannot change with revelation.

I don't think there is a one-to-one comparison "between men's responsibilities to priesthood as women's responsibilities to child birthing."

Women can be mothers, and men and be fathers.  

Holding the priesthood is not, I think, a corollary to motherhood.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think there is a one-to-one comparison "between men's responsibilities to priesthood as women's responsibilities to child birthing."

Women can be mothers, and men and be fathers.  

Holding the priesthood is not, I think, a corollary to motherhood.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps I was unclear.

In the past, I have heard some members (not authorities) say that one reason women do not hold the priesthood is because they have already been given the creative power of bearing children. Just like men cannot have children because that is their gift from and responsibility to God, women cannot hold the priesthood because that is men’s gift from and responsibility to God.

I’ve never believed this.

President Hinckley’s statement indicates to me that there is no eternal law or nature of gender that would be violated if women were to formally be ordained to the priesthood.  God just hasn’t given that revelation (yet?).

[Calm]

Quote

   
    Can they plan and conduct weekly services?
    Can they plan and conduct special services (weddings, funerals, and holidays)?
    Can they supervise fellow religious leaders who are male as well as female?
     Can they formally counsel church members in an official capacity?

They plan and conduct weekly services of Primary, YW, and RS.  They on occasion plan SM, though that is conducted by men.

I have planned baptisms and helped other women plan a funeral, though conducted by a man.  I know women who planned Christmas and other programs, though conducted by a man.

Supervising would depend on what they mean by leaders.  Certainly supervise male teachers, for example.  I supervised male leaders in Scouts...though that was following Scouting hierarchy even if it was a church calling.  Can't remember the official title, but I was board leader for a bit.  They wanted someone who was organized and had the time to figure out the agenda, keep track of stuff.  We moved shortly thereafter, so I think it amounted to one actual meeting.

Depends on what they mean by formally counsel, but I have experienced counseling from the RS Pres in her official capacity to as much extent as counseling from the Bishop.

While there are definite areas of leadership women are excluded from, I think this quote downplays the full extent of the does just as Dew downplayed the don'ts.

 

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Interesting survey. Unless I misinterpreted the methods, I'm personally a little "troubled" by the way they lumped former members in with the members. Maybe there are plans for a comparative study to look at how many currently active members are troubled as compared to inactive and/or former members.

It's a fair consideration.  Likely many of the millennials who are troubled will likely in time be those Boomers who no longer identify as Mormon and perhaps as a result are far enough removed as to not be Mormon at all.  But I like the result of all who seemingly identify as Mormon no matter the Church status designation.  It says plenty on it's own as well.  

Self-Identifying is an interesting thing when it comes to these surveys.  it says to me that many who are often not considered "active" or believers by other active members want to own their place in Mormonism.  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Biblically, the priesthood was for temple rituals. Prophets and apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood.

I think that's kind of question begging. Certainly the nature of New Testament callings is debatable. Within a Protestant tradition a priesthood of all believers is the common view. However even in our conception of priesthood one can (and perhaps should) distinguish between priesthood in its broad cosmological sense which is still primarily tied to temples and leadership positions even if we require priesthood to do the latter.

The other problem of course is that even in the Old Testament that survived the Deuteronomist and Priestly redactions of the Josiah and exilic period there's structure for the prophets. So we have the school of prophets or sons of the prophets in 1 Sam 19:18-24 and 2 Kings 2. Amos seems to suggest this in Amos 7 as well. Now some suggest these were levites and thus tied to the temple, but that's not at all clear in the texts. In particular 2 Kings 2 seems to have them functioning in non-temple roles. Further the function of the priests in the pre-King time wasn't tied to temples but merely ritual. The centralization of ritual happens quite late arguably starting with Josiah. Indeed many scholars argue that many of the rituals are actually post-exilic suggesting the ceremonial nature of Judaism in pre-Josiah era may well have been extremely different.

The second issue is that there are remnants of the Sons of Moses in the Old Testament. It's not clear why Joseph uses that term in D&C 84 for a higher priesthood, but there are hints of a rival priesthood to the levites that was expunged during the period of the centralization of the cult starting with Josiah.  Exactly what the Sons of Moses were is still a topic of debate as is its connection to Gershom, Moses' son. Some scholars suggest that priesthood was originally open to all and not just limited to the levitical tribe. (These scholars see the Deuteronomists opposing limiting priesthood to levites during this period from Josiah up through the second temple) In any case the connection of this rival priesthood to the temple is far from clear.

The third issue is what was going on prior to Moses. That is of course a Biblical question and the LDS conception of the Law of Moses as a lesser law compared to this earlier religious tradition can't be dismissed as not Biblical. Obviously LDS thought and scripture plays up the pre-Mosaic religion. But Melchizedek, if mysterious in Genesis 14, clearly is a priest. The connection of this to the temple rites seems questionable. Melchizedek seems a leader (Abraham pays him a tenth of all his wealth) and has a ritual bread and wine offering. Likewise Moses' father in law is a priest of Midian and thus not necessarily tied to the temple. He's described as a priest of Midian which is in northwest Arabia near the Gulf of Aqaba. 

Finally there's the place of Jesus as tied to Melchizedek. Again the meaning of this is disputed by scholars. But something is going on there. One can see it as the later Christian view of Christ being the sacrifice the temple rites pointed to. Or one can see Christians adopting Genesis 14 as a type of Christ, although it's not clear why they would even in terms of the Qumran theology of Melchezedek or Pslam 110. In particular though Hebrews 7 presents Melchezedek as a priesthood which is greater than the Aaronic priesthood and tied to being a Son of God. (Again a term with lots of possible meanings - yet none really tied to the temple in the sense of the offerings of the Levites)

Even if one avoids the extra-Biblical traditions of heavenly ascents and heavenly priesthoods that develop in the Hellenistic period it seems pretty problematic to say priesthood is just about temple.