Women, Men, and Priesthood

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

You can argue that the status quo is the way it is meant to be but it does mean women are inherently excluded from decision making roles. 

Going back to the ward council example. A woman never runs this meeting or leads the discussion or prioritizes the topic. This is a huge power imbalance that is never changed. 

As a ‘president,’ I manage my meetings. Everyone has an opportunity to contribute or bring up topics that are discussed but ultimately, I decide when to move on, what to table for later and also what course of action will be taken. (Even then, this requires Bishop approval.) We seek for unanimity but it doesn’t always happen.

The difference between being a ‘president’ and a ‘counselor’ is huge.

In ward council, the female voice will always be able to be ignored or not prioritized or tabled. We may speak, express concerns but ultimately hold no power. 

This dynamic will never change. 

Woman will be always at the mercy of men on whether their views are relevant in the current operational structure of church.

(I use the words ‘always’ and ‘never’ intentionally.)

 

The bolded point, while a woman never runs the meeting (which doesn't bother me as all the person does who runs our meeting is to remind everyone who has the spiritual thought and who is saying the prayer), WC meeting everyone is treated the same as far as leading the discussion or prioritizing topics.  We have a google doc that we all have access to and everyone is supposed to put anything they want to discuss into the doc and then we go over the doc when we have WC.  

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Fair enough.  You’re helping me communicate better, thank you.  I don’t think any woman should be acknowledged for acknowledgement sake.  I think women ‘as a whole’ need acknowledgement, and sitting a woman on the stand is a low cost way of moving closer to that. 

It seems that people sit on the stand either A) because they are presiding (or a counselor to the presiding officer, or a high councilor), or B) they are giving a talk or otherwise participating in the program.

Sitting on the stand is not, I think, intended to be a means of signalling prestige or praise or esteem.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

 

“We’d like to recognize brother so and so on the stand with us today”.  This is not intended to build up a guys ego.  If it does, that’s on him. 

I always assumed such recognition was so that people understood who presided at the meeting and for no other purpose.  Are you saying that it would be nice if the RS president was also recognized each week?  (asking for clarity's sake to see if I understand what you are saying).

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not?  I thought it is about nothing but "people aspiring to or wanting callings."

And the proposed remedy is about "people (that is, women) aspiring to or wanting (leadership) callings."

No, it doesn't.  Apart from disciplinary matters (which are the exclusive province of the bishopric), women are asked to provide their "perspectives" in their callings, in ward councils, etc.

Yes, you've said this a number of times.  The questions I have are A) do you attribute this framework to God, or to (bigoted/sexist) men (it sure seems like you lean toward the latter); and B) what do you propose to do about it? 

Revelation and priesthood authority are the foundational governing principles for the Church, yet I see very little serious discussion of how these play a part in your proposed remedies.

Again, I disagree.  Quite strongly, in fact.  Our ward's council meetings are shot through with "female perspective{s}."

Who, in your view, is doing this "exclusion?"

I still don't understand where you are going with all of this.  You are not calling for priesthood ordination, yet you think women should "co-preside" with a man who does have the priesthood?

And again, where does revelation fit into all of this?  Does it play any part at all?  It seems . . . not.

Thanks,

-Smac

As a woman, especially in an organisation that gives me gender-specific roles, my needs (and the church's needs in relation to the roles women fill) have much more likelihood of being addressed if other women are making decisions over the organisation. I mean actually making decisions, not just influencing or providing perspectives to the decision-makers.

I think it would be careless to attribute the imbalanced, exclusionary framework to a loving God. It would be careless to assume that a loving God would tell men that only men can make the decisions over God's entire church, and that there's not some other explanation.

As far as any of us can see, men are the ones doing the deciding and interpreting that results in and maintains the exclusion of women. I would say that if there is fault in this, it is not from God, but mortal men.

As to revelation, this may be like the case of the helicopter and the flood. The flood victim waits on their roof, praying for rescue, and a boat, then helicopter comes, but the person refuses, insisting that a miracle will save them, when the boat and helicopter were all that came. It might be that excessive focus on a certain protocol can distract from the obvious problem before us. I do think Jesus addressed these types of blunders.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The bolded point, while a woman never runs the meeting (which doesn't bother me as all the person does who runs our meeting is to remind everyone who has the spiritual thought and who is saying the prayer), WC meeting everyone is treated the same as far as leading the discussion or prioritizing topics.  We have a google doc that we all have access to and everyone is supposed to put anything they want to discuss into the doc and then we go over the doc when we have WC.  

That's awesome, and if it is standard now, it has not always been, and would be relatively new.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You were slandering others.  So no.

Not really.

False.  I do not privilege people based on their race.

False.  I do not privilege people based on their gender.

False.  I do not privilege people based on their economic status.

False.  I do not privilege people based on their dress.

I don't even know what this means.

I privilege my boss, yes.  He gets to tell me what to do.

I privilege the judge when I stand in front of him or her.  The judge is in charge, and I defer to that.

But in the main, no, I reject your characterizations here.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think it does indeed harm, because of the way human systems work and also from observation. Also, the cautionary, careful mindset would necessarily assume that the artificial asymmetry exposes people to harm.

I'm not personally convinced that it causes harm in general.  I think it can, but I don't think it's a given.  

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Quote

What might be the benefits of the RS President sitting on the stand? Can you think of one? 

Not a meaningful one, no

Ok.  What sort of value does having the highest authority on the stand provide? If we think out of the box, I see tons of value.  In addition, I see equal value in a woman sitting in the stand.  Though she will never preside a meeting attended by any male in leadership, I see many good things that would happen for the ward. 

We are different in that aspect, I can accept that. 

 

[MustardSeed]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is there a priesthood reason that the sunday school presidency must be all male?

For that matter, executive and membership clerks? We’ve been taught today that secretaries  /clerks are not part of the bishopric 

[Nofear]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

 

Please don't pick on smac97. While I don't agree with every position he takes, I do find his perspective anywhere from useful to valuable. You as well. No ad hominem por favor.

[smac97]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

As a woman, especially in an organisation that gives me gender-specific roles, my needs (and the church's needs in relation to the roles women fill) have much more likelihood of being addressed if other women are making decisions over the organisation. I mean actually making decisions, not just influencing or providing perspectives to the decision-makers.

This is a bit too abstract for me.  What "organisation" are we talking about here?  The ward in its entirety?  We have a ward council where all the ward leaders are supposed to offer counsel.

Just now, Meadowchik said:

I think it would be careless to attribute the imbalanced, exclusionary framework to a loving God.

So you attribute the restriction on holding the priesthood to . . . whom?  To what?

And if it's not attributable to God, then why are you not advocating for female ordination?

Just now, Meadowchik said:

It would be careless to assume that a loving God would tell men that only men can make the decisions over God's entire church, and that there's not some other explanation.

Interesting.  

Just now, Meadowchik said:

As far as any of us can see, men are the ones doing the deciding and interpreting that results in and maintains the exclusion of women.

I don't think that's correct.  I don't reduce the leaders of the Church to their gender.  I think it is the priesthood keys that matter, not gender.

Just now, Meadowchik said:

I would say that if there is fault in this, it is not from God, but mortal men.

"If?"

Just now, Meadowchik said:

As to revelation, this may be like the case of the helicopter and the flood. The flood victim waits on their roof, praying for rescue, and a boat, then helicopter comes, but the person refuses, insisting that a miracle will save them, when the boat and helicopter were all that came. It might be that excessive focus on a certain protocol can distract from the obvious problem before us. I do think Jesus addressed these types of blunders.

I think Elder Oaks has done a really good job of laying out how we should address disagreements in the Church.

Publicly badmouthing the Church and its doctrines and leaders is not part of that process.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I assume so, but I honestly don't know.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps this is one of those examples of a tradition that is currently unnecessary.  There are other things in the church where tradition holds too much sway in the way that women are considered or treated.  Acknowleding and challenging the necessity of those traditions, even without the need to change them according to our own personal schedule, can go a long way to soothing the hurt that a lot of women have experienced over the years. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

Thou doth project too much, methinks.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

As a woman, especially in an organisation that gives me gender-specific roles, my needs (and the church's needs in relation to the roles women fill) have much more likelihood of being addressed if other women are making decisions over the organisation. I mean actually making decisions, not just influencing or providing perspectives to the decision-makers.

I think it would be careless to attribute the imbalanced, exclusionary framework to a loving God. It would be careless to assume that a loving God would tell men that only men can make the decisions over God's entire church, and that there's not some other explanation.

As far as any of us can see, men are the ones doing the deciding and interpreting that results in and maintains the exclusion of women. I would say that if there is fault in this, it is not from God, but mortal men.

As to revelation, this may be like the case of the helicopter and the flood. The flood victim waits on their roof, praying for rescue, and a boat, then helicopter comes, but the person refuses, insisting that a miracle will save them, when the boat and helicopter were all that came. It might be that excessive focus on a certain protocol can distract from the obvious problem before us. I do think Jesus addressed these types of blunders.

This requires either the apostles to be so blind to revelation that there is little point in having them at all or God to be powerless to do His will.

The analogy also does not work. Praying for revelation to guide you in how the church should be run is not something God can send a rescuer to help with. It needs divine command. Apostles cannot reason out things this fundamental to the way the Kingdom of God operates and press forward until they know they have divine approval. I do not trust that method of governing the church even if it is doing something I like. “I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts.”

[smac97]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Perhaps this is one of those examples of a tradition that is currently unnecessary.  There are other things in the church where tradition holds too much sway in the way that women are considered or treated.  Acknowleding and challenging the necessity of those traditions, even without the need to change them according to our own personal schedule, can go a long way to soothing the hurt that a lot of women have experienced over the years. 

Perhaps, but I doubt it that this is just a "tradition."  I'm open to correction on that point.  After all, there seems to have previously been a "tradition" of women not offering prayers in General Conference.  I'm glad we corrected that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

OK, this is getting fun to think about.  I've thought for quite awhile about symmetry where the church is concerned.  I wasn't quite sure about it though.  As I think more about balance it makes more sense then just symmetry.  

When you don't have balance in art, scrapbooking, home design etc things feel off.  It makes people uncomfortable.  It's hard to deal with.  

The easiest way to balance things is symmetry.  In this picture you can see it:

[snip big jpg]

However you can have asymmetrical balance as well:

[snip big jpg]

With asymmetrical design instead of balancing 2 identical objects in the same place you balance by color, shape, texture etc.  

You can find more about this on these sites: Design 101: Asymmetrical and Symmetrical Balance, Classic Design Theory, and Design Principles: Compositional, Symmetrical And Asymmetrical Balance. Oooo and this is a good one with lots of examples: Understanding the Importance of Balance in Graphic Design

I think there is a reason we are supposed to have male and female.  We need both.  The more I think about this the more I think that we really can't be symmetrical because we are not identical parts to the eternal picture, however we MUST have balance for this all to work.

So maybe we could think of ways that things are getting weighted to one side or the other to see where maybe we could balance things (with God's approval of course). 

 

Nice thoughts. Thank you. Similar thoughts to the message of this song.
 

 

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So . . . a "bug?"

What about Jesus calling twelve men as His apostles?  That was clearly an "imbalance."  Was that wrong of Him?  

Thanks,

-Smac

There is an early literary tradition that calls Mary Magdalene an "apostle to the apostles." There are women who acted as missionary "apostles" paired with their brothers or husbands, and there were early church leaders who were female, there were "ammas." It's quite possible that the apostasy erased much of womens' prominent roles during and immediately after Christ's ministry in the early church.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Please don't pick on smac97. While I don't agree with every position he takes, I do find his perspective anywhere from useful to valuable. You as well. No ad hominem por favor.

It is not ad hominem. He is claiming to be beyond human when he says he is beyond basic human tribalism and prejudice and has completely eliminated them from himself. If he wants to pretend he is a translated being with a perfected mortal body beyond the afflictions of tribalism our fallen forms give us he can do so but I reserve the right to mock him for that belief.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thou doth project too much, methinks.

Thanks,

-Smac

Projecting the thing I have confessed to and studies have shown is basically built into humanity? Yeah, because everyone has those blind spots and unconscious reactions.

I am not the one claiming he is beyond the temptations of tribalism burned into our fallen DNA. I am trying to fight it. You are pretending to some kind of holy state or that you are not human. More likely you are just completely blind to how your unconscious tribalism and sexism impacts your behavior. Studies show babies prejudice based on race and gender but somehow you dodged all of that without any effort?

Yeah, not buying it.

Edited August 15, 2019 by The Nehor

[Nofear]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that's correct.  I don't reduce the leaders of the Church to their gender.  I think it is the priesthood keys that matter, not gender.

Agreed. The question is why are the priesthood keys limited to just men. As the talk linked in the OP suggests, priesthood authority and power is not limited to men. Keys are not.

Positions I've seen taken:

• priesthood is an artificial construct and men exploit it to maintain power
• priesthood is real, but men have taken a hold of the reigns (keys) and release them not
• priesthood is real, keys (in mortality) are limited by God only to offices available to men and we don't know why

I subscribe to point 3, but the response "I'm getting really tired of the 'we don't know why' response. I won't buy it anymore." That, of course, speaks to a whole other level testimonial difficulties but is there reasoning that would take the edge off a little of this kind of answer.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Ok.  What sort of value does having the highest authority on the stand provide?

Structure and order, I suppose.  Not much.

As an attorney, I often attend hearing in court.  The room is divided into the "gallery" (where the public sits) and the "well" (?) (where the lawyers and litigants sit).  The bailiff is there, in uniform, and armed.  A clerk is there too, keeping notes and helping the judge.  We used to also have court reporters, but these have been mostly replaced by cameras.

The judge sits on an elevated bench.  He or she wears a black robe.  Behind the judge is the state seal (in state court), flanked by the U.S. and state flags.

The set-up is, I think, designed to impress upon the parties some clarity as to what is happening, and who is in charge.  All are equal in the eyes of the law, but the law also requires different people to play different roles, with the judge playing the "I'm in charge" role.

Nobody but the judge sits at the bench.  That is not a sign of contempt or disparagement.  It's just that the bench is for the judge, for the person in charge.

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If we think out of the box, I see tons of value.  In addition, I see equal value in a woman sitting in the stand.  

I think the value would be de minimis.  And I think most women would prefer to sit with their families.  Shoot, I know for a fact that the bishopric members would prefer to sit in the pews rather than on the stand.

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Though she will never preside a meeting attended by any male in leadership, I see many good things that would happen for the ward. 

Okay.  I've never attached any particular significance to sitting on the stand, even after having sat there many, many times.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I always assumed such recognition was so that people understood who presided at the meeting and for no other purpose.  Are you saying that it would be nice if the RS president was also recognized each week?  (asking for clarity's sake to see if I understand what you are saying).

Yes.  It seems formal ‘ recognition’ for he who is presiding offers nothing but recognition.  No one here appears to take issue with that.  But if I suggest a woman take the stand ( for multiple reasons of useful service and healthy messaging) it’s accused of as being prideful.  I suggest my recommendation is as innocent of such things as is the directive that we ‘recognize’ the highest positioned officer in the room. 

[Nofear]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

...I reserve the right to mock him for that belief.

Ummm.

Thankfully you two are still engaging in good faith.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There is an early literary tradition that calls Mary Magdalene an "apostle to the apostles."

But I don't think anyone has provided evidence that such a saying pertained to priesthood ordination.

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There are women who acted as missionary "apostles" paired with their brothers or husbands, and there were early church leaders who were female, there were "ammas."

Junia, you mean?

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's quite possible that the apostasy erased much of womens' prominent roles during and immediately after Christ's ministry in the early church.

And it's quite possible that women have never been ordained to the priesthood, and that we are simply left to wonder why.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Agreed. The question is why are the priesthood keys limited to just men.

I explored this in a thread some years ago: What Is The Scriptural Basis For Limiting The Priesthood To Males?

The long and short of it is, IMO, that the restriction is based principally on extrapolation of scriptural passages.  Thus I am open to the possibility of women being ordained.  I doubt it will happen, as I do not think it is part of the Lord's plan, but I am open to it.

2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

As the talk linked in the OP suggests, priesthood authority and power is not limited to men. Keys are not.

Positions I've seen taken:

• priesthood is an artificial construct and men exploit it to maintain power
• priesthood is real, but men have taken a hold of the reigns (keys) and release them not
• priesthood is real, keys (in mortality) are limited by God only to offices available to men and we don't know why

I subscribe to point 3, but the response "I'm getting really tired of the 'we don't know why' response. I won't buy it anymore." That, of course, speaks to a whole other level testimonial difficulties but is there reasoning that would take the edge off a little of this kind of answer.

Yes.  I think a significant part of that is to avoid importing moderns notions about sociopolitical ideologies into matters of doctrine:

Quote

8 ¶ For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55:8-9

I struggle to understand polygamy.  And animal sacrifice.  And male-only ordination.  And some other things that I will not disclose here.  I think struggling with these things is part of the deal.  The key point is to not struggle so far as to say something like "I won't buy it anymore."  

Thanks,

-Smac