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

[Gray]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Hi Gray, maybe I can help.

When random anonymous people make a claim about something on the internet, people wonder why they should care.  After all, the internet is full of random anonymous people making all sorts of claims.  And as we all know, a portion of them are clueless, ignorant, on drugs, wrong, off topic, or even lying.  The internet tends to just dismiss random claims that disagree with the reader out of hand.  If you want to be taken seriously when someone disagrees with you, you have to do more than just claim something, you have to persuade.  And key to that, is giving people a reason why you believe your claim is correct.  Hence, the Call for References.  It helps the internet know that they need to do more than just dismiss you as a random know-nothing, they actually need to interact with the defenses behind your claim.  

Basically, when someone makes a claim (Like "Biblically, the priesthood was for temple rituals. Prophets and apostles generally didn't hold any kind of priesthood."), they're expected to divulge why they believe their claim to be true.  

So, you've claimed prophets and apostles didn't hold the priesthood.  Your reference is a wikipedia article that says absolutely nothing about whether prophets or apostles held it or not.  Neither the word "prophet" nor "apostle" appears in the link you cited.  You might as well have given us a link to types of apples, or GDP of Malaysia, to support your point.  The link you gave doesn't support your point.  It says nothing about your point.  You haven't cited a source for your claim, you've cited a source that says nothing about your claim. 

As things stand now, the internet has no reason to consider your claim as anything other than the product of someone who doesn't have the faintest clue why they believe what they believe.   You're at risk of being thought of as "one of those guys who talk crap but can't back anything up." 

My suggestion: Don't be one of those guys.  Either back up your claim with a valid reference, or retract your claim.  There are many ego-saving ways to do it.  Something like "Sorry folks, I could have sworn that link directly mentioned apostles, but I guess I misread." 

Hope this helps.  

The link in question lays out the characteristics of priesthood, and it's exactly as I described. Not connected whatsoever with the prophets.

If you doubt me, try to find the Biblical passage that says prophets must hold some kind of priesthood. I'll wait.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Gray

[cherryTreez]

I think I may one of the few women that doesn't want the priesthood.  I am perfectly content to not have it ever. I am also thankful that I cannot be bishop. Men can have it all and the responsibility that comes with it.

   I am thankful for the men in my life that hold it. My dad, my dear husband and my 13 year old son. 

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not true.  Unlike other religious organizations, LDS women are authorized to perform complex and powerful priesthood functions in LDS temples.  Since those rites are not performed out in the open, they tend to be ignored or reduced in value by critics.  In addition, LDS women were at one time authorized to perform healing blessings on their own, so the potential authority is still there.

A chart which excludes a scale to 100% is a manifestly unfair scale.  Likely deliberately so.

Having said that, the stats seem to fit modern expectations and are predictable.  However, as in Roman Catholicism, ordination for women is very unlikely.  I am far more troubled by the foot-dragging by LDS men in accepting women as high level administrators or bosses in secular endeavors outside the Church.  I like to see women as high level executives in corporate hierarchies, as police chiefs, county sheriffs, mayors, deans, and university presidents (I love it that Utah Valley University has a female president).  We need secular, not religious equality.

Great points - temple ritual is often forgotten.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

I think I may one of the few women that doesn't want the priesthood.  I am perfectly content to not have it ever. I am also thankful that I cannot be bishop. Men can have it all and the responsibility that comes with it.

   I am thankful for the men in my life that hold it. My dad, my dear husband and my 13 year old son. 

Yeah, I sometimes wish I did not have it.

Then again, I expect women will get it or perhaps a female equivalent with separate spheres of power and responsibility. Another thing I could see happening as we spiritually progress is the oneness of a married couple matching the oneness of our heavenly parents as one God in our callings. A husband and wife serving as a bishop perhaps? As an apostle? Definitely very speculative though.

[Gray]

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Depends upon what you mean by controversial. The idea that Melchezedek and Jethro were priests unrelated to the temple seems uncontroversial as well. Depending upon what group you're in the Documentary Hypothesis and associated conceptions of the Priestly and Deuteronomist traditions shouldn't be controversial either. It is of course among some groups. Which puts us in the ironic position of you adopting the position against scholarship in preference for a "Biblical reading" ala Evangelicals and my seeing the Documentary Hypothesis as the appropriate lens to read the Bible.

 

I'm not sure what this would have to do with what I said?  How does this make prophet some kind of office within the priesthood? That's the LDS view, which can't be supported with the Bible. References to legendary priests from outside of Judaism proper doesn't seem relevant. Pharaoh has priests as well.

 

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Nothing in that link discusses apostles. Nor says priesthood is only for the temple. (Indeed it explicitly discusses Melchezedek and Jethro) That link also discusses the basic scholarly view that aspects of priesthood is redacted from the text. "The starting point of much critical scholarship of the priesthood in ancient Israel is the thesis of Julius Wellhausen that Israel's history is redacted and represents three stages; (1) non Levitical priests, (2) Levitical priests, (3) Aaronids and Levites."

Certainly there may have been other forms of priesthood in the distant past. Judaism after all evolved from the polytheistic traditions of the region.  That still doesn't connect priesthood to prophets.

Regarding apostles, even from the received tradition none of them are identified as priests. They are in fact described as illiterate peasants in Acts. When we're talking about the 12 apostles, especially during the life of Jesus, we're still discussing Judaism, not Christianity.

 

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I assume from your comments that you're attempting to distinguish priesthood from priests. But if that is your argument I think you have to make it clearer and more explicit as to how you see the meaning as different. After all if you're following that Wiki page then in that sense Mormons don't have priesthood either since there's not a class ala the Aaronids and Levites. So my sense is that there's some equivocation over terms going on.

I'm actually distinguishing the priesthood from prophets/apostles.

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure what this would have to do with what I said?  How does this make prophet some kind of office within the priesthood? That's the LDS view, which can't be supported with the Bible.

Again, it's getting at the ambiguity of the term priesthood. What do we mean by that? Mormons mean something specific by it but often when scholars use the term relative to the Bible they mean something quite different.

As for the LDS view it's not that prophets are an office within the Melchezedek Priesthood. Quite the contrary. It makes apostles a priesthood office but again to ask the question of the Bible we have to be clear what we mean by priesthood relative to ecclesiastical offices. Mormons often abstract priesthood from ecclesiastical duties or offices, but as Elder Oaks noted in his talk on priesthood a few years back, we need to be careful how we use the terms and what we mean by keys and so forth. More particularly within Mormonism a prophet isn't a priesthood office although the priesthood office of apostle includes being a prophet. So you need to be clear whether you're talking apostolic office, apostle in a looser sense, or prophet in the broad sense. 

In other words there's a lot of foundational discussion of terms you need to make before you start making these claims.

I'd certainly agree that many matters are ambiguous in the text of the Bible itself. But ambiguity isn't being unBiblical. Further what is or isn't Biblical depends upon context to the Bible. 

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

References to legendary priests from outside of Judaism proper doesn't seem relevant. Pharaoh has priests as well.

It certainly do if those legendary priests are in the Biblical text seen essential to conceptions of priesthood. To say that Melchezedek is outside Judaism proper seems problematic since Judaism proper isn't the Bible. You said Biblical. So one thing you need to keep straight is whether you're talking about purported historic Judaism of one form or an other (with first century Christianity just being one tradition within Judaism) or whether you're talking about a particular text. You're switching between the two as convenient which is an equivocation fallacy.

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Regarding apostles, even from the received tradition none of them are identified as priests. They are in fact described as illiterate peasants in Acts. When we're talking about the 12 apostles, especially during the life of Jesus, we're still discussing Judaism, not Christianity.

Certainly they aren't priests in the sense of normative Levitical priesthood. Again you need to be clear what you mean by priesthood for that to matter. If by priesthood you just mean religious authority that has a formal structure of being set apart that's different from Levitical priesthood which was lineage based although often had setting apart rites as well.

So it's not clear what you mean. It seems undeniable that apostles in the NT had unique authority, and were chosen by other apostles who had that authority. To me that's priesthood as I use the term. It's not clear to me how you are using the term and as I said I think you're likely equivocating over terms.

[carbon dioxide]

I am all for giving women more responsibility.  That means less responsibility for the men.  In fact is the Lord was to give a revelation that all men are not relieved from the priesthood and it is transferred to women, I would be all for that.  I bet however that some women would then complain that they would be doing all of the work. 

[USU78]

22 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m saying that because I grew up in a whitewashed area, I assumed I was not a racist because I knew a black kid and liked him. Then as an adult I learned that my limited scope and experience had misled me. 

I had to challenge my own preduduces later in life when I experienced life and could see myself more clearly. 

I still do. 

I think when you are used to one way, it’s hard to see anything else.  I think we are used to women being less powerful than men and we accept that, in the church. 

Thanks for clarifying.  I had perceived that you were imputing a mere personal experience to others.  I'm still unconvinced you are so terrible a person as you apparently have perceived.  Maybe the black folks you later encountered just happened to be unpleasant people.  It happens.

[USU78]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Analyzing yourself for your natural and in built tribal biases to compensate for them is not guilt.

Contextualizing your youthful self-examination's conclusions following a lengthy period of a life experienced, including self-forgiveness, even if the concluded guilt was imposed from without, is wisdom.

[The Nehor]

Just now, USU78 said:

Contextualizing your youthful self-examination's conclusions following a lengthy period of a life experienced, including self-forgiveness, even if the concluded guilt was imposed from without, is wisdom.

Unless of course you decide that you do not have a tribalism or racist or sexist impulse within you and this miss a part of your personality and nature you should be examining.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I bet however that some women would then complain that they would be doing all of the work. 

Many women feel that way now and in some situations they are right. 

[Avatar4321]

Interesting surveys. I wonder what young Latter Day Saints think of all this

[Avatar4321]

On 11/27/2018 at 2:51 PM, USU78 said:

We should all remember that President Nelson won't be with us much longer  ...  and that Elder Oaks is next in line.

USU "Thinks Concerns of Whiny Millennials Aren't Driving This Bus" 78

Do you know something we don’t?

[Avatar4321]

On 11/27/2018 at 3:02 PM, pogi said:

Interestingly, priesthood authority is exercised by both men and women in the temple and elsewhere. 

Priesthood authority has been delegated to women in the Relief Society, and through temple ordinances both men and women enter into an "order of the priesthood".  

 

I hope the apostles teach us more about priesthood orders in the future

[MustardSeed]

22 hours ago, USU78 said:

Maybe. My cui bono analysis of your unearned guilt sez different.

Guys.  I recognized my racist issues long ago.  Yes, I had racist attitudes, not realizing it at the time.   I’m not a bad person.  I don’t feel guilt, I do experience self awareness.  I am less racist now than I was.  The term is horribly incriminating and maybe I should feel guilt.  Instead, I feel human.  I have been corrected by life but I still find myself falling short in some of my private thoughts.  I do try to do no harm. 

I think this is often the attitude towards women in society and thus at this church which is a part of our human society. 

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Do you know something we don’t?

Naw. Just been paying reasonably close attention.

[Teancum]

On 11/27/2018 at 11:57 AM, 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:

 

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.

 

 

I can tell you that for two of my three daughters, one 36, the other 23, these type of women issues are a major issue for their disaffection with the LDS Church. and for the older who is married to an LDS man in the Temple, these are issues for him as well.

[Avatar4321]

26 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Naw. Just been paying reasonably close attention.

I’d think oaks is the less healthy of the two. Of course the Lord will do as He pleases when He wants

[Calm]

6 hours ago, cherryTreez said:

I think I may one of the few women that doesn't want the priesthood

Actually I think you are in the majority in the Church.

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am all for giving women more responsibility.  That means less responsibility for the men.

Not really.  Anymore than women have less responsibility now.  It is only different.  If women start to share some of men's responsibilities they don't now, then men will have to step in to cover what women spend their time and resources on now.

 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Many women feel that way now and in some situations they are right. 

I agree so why put more on their plate?

[carbon dioxide]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really.  Anymore than women have less responsibility now.  It is only different.  If women start to share some of men's responsibilities they don't now, then men will have to step in to cover what women spend their time and resources on now.

You assume that men will do that. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

You assume that men will do that. 

Why not when they often accept responsibility now?  I may have a higher opinion of men than you do because all my life I have seen men step up, often without being asked, to help where help is needed.  My dad took out young men in his wards and bought them suits when their fathers were not able to even when he wasn't their home teacher.  My husband keeps an eye on families he was once assigned as well as neighbours and relatives...and has helped out an endless list of students outside of class.  I have neighbours always asking if there is something they can help with and never once had someone say he couldn't do something when asked.  My former bishop revamped his basement to set up tutoring for the local kids.  Could keep going...but think I have established my point.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why not when they often accept responsibility now?  I may have a higher opinion of men than you do because all my life I have seen men step up, often without being asked, to help where help is needed.  My dad took out young men and bought them suits when their fathers were not able to.  My husband keeps an eye on families he was once assigned as well as neighbours and relatives.  I have neighbours always asking if there is something they can help with and never once had someone say he couldn't do something when asked.  My former bishop revamped his basement to set up tutoring for the local kids.

Such great examples! I feel the same as you and have a really high opinion of most of the LDS men in all of my wards. 

[pogi]

On 11/27/2018 at 6:55 PM, USU78 said:

I was thinking of the women's work performed at the Master's death: who showed up with the clean linens and spices?

My mind went to Heavenly Mother when you said it.  At birth, earthly mother comes first, earthly father last; at death Heavenly Father first, and lastly I imagine Heavenly Mother welcoming us with open arms at the culmination of our return home.