Women, Men, and Priesthood

[smac97]

On 8/15/2019 at 9:31 AM, Meadowchik said:

As I said to Bluebell, symmetry would not create equality or equity. However, it could help with the addressment of them, and might in fact help the church better avail itself of the diversity of gifts of the members.

Okay.  But I still do not understand your position.  Here are the questions I have about it:

1. How do you rationalize the ancient asymmetrical structure established by Jesus Christ?  He called twelve men to be His apostles.  Was he wrong to do so?  Do you fault Him for not calling six women and six men?  Or twelve women alongside the twelve men?

2. How would you reconcile your proposal for "co-presidents" with D&C 132:7 ("{T}here is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred...")?

3. How do you reconcile your call for "symmetry" with 1 Corinthians 12?

4. Would your proposal include requirements that a man would be appointed as co-president with the ward Relief Society President?  A male co-president in the YW presidency?

5. Do you agree with the proposition that the only person who can legitimately change the church structure is Jesus Christ, who would provide such instruction to His Presiding High Priest, President Nelson?

6. Notwithstanding 2 Nephi 26:33 and Moroni 8:17, you seem to be suggesting that God views women as less than men, such that the Gospel is "male-centered."  Is that a fair summary of your position?  If not, how would you describe what you mean by "male-centered?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 10, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Also, how would you reconcile your proposal for "co-presidents" with D&C 132:7 ("{T}here is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred...")?

Also, would you propose that a man would be appointed as co-president with the ward Relief Society President?  A male co-president in the YW presidency?

For the first point, it wouldn't be the fist time for the plan to be revised.

Okay.  So who, in your view, would do the revising?

Quote

Second, I think the meaning of symmetry is obvious enough here to surmise that, were there a female co-president over the Young Men, there would me a male co-president over the Young Women, but having neither would also be symmetrical.

So "symmetry" can mean either having "a female co-president over the Young Men {and a male co-president over the Young Women}" and not having "a female co-president over the Young Men {and a female co-president over the Young Men}?" 

And this is the "obvious" meaning of "symmetry?"

I'm not being obtuse.  I really don't understand your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 15, 2019 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

On 8/13/2019 at 8:43 PM, sunstoned said:

I do understand that this practice is done with the best intentions.  But it does bother many people.  I believe it is an old school holdover from years ago when society imposed many more restrictions on women.  Things have changed.  Now, most families have two bread winners, the husband and wife.  I believe that governance of the home should be equally shared as a partnership. 

Who disagrees with that?

Certainly not the Proclamation 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Who disagrees with that?

Certainly not the Proclamation 

Yep:

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

But you seem to be suggesting that God views women as less than men, such that the Gospel is "male-centered."  I don't understand or agree with that sentiment, hence my request for clarification.

Thanks,

-Smac

To be clear, I only include the part which I intend to directly address.

The church structure (I didn't say Gospel) is male-centered, and the way it is male-centered is that leadership roles in the church are extremely gender-based and the vast majority of church authority is exercised by males. 

 

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  So who, in your view, would do the revising?

So "symmetry" can mean either having "a female co-president over the Young Men {and a male co-president over the Young Women}" and not having "a female co-president over the Young Men {and a female co-president over the Young Men}?" 

And this is the "obvious" meaning of "symmetry?"

I'm not being obtuse.  I really don't understand your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Young Women are all female and the Young Men are all male. That's already symmetrical, right? So, each respectively having leaders of the same gender, or male and female co-presidents, would be symmetrical.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Who disagrees with that?

Certainly not the Proclamation 

The Proclamation will most likely, as with almost all scriptural writings, be subject to revision and re-interpretation.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep:

Thanks,

-Smac

Misinterpretation.

I agree with you re equal partnership.

Who would disagree with the equal partnership was my question 

A father can preside and still be an equal partner the way I see it. That is what the Proclamation says

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

To be clear, I only include the part which I intend to directly address.

The church structure (I didn't say Gospel) is male-centered, and the way it is male-centered is that leadership roles in the church are extremely gender-based and the vast majority of church authority is exercised by males. 

To be clear, I only include the part which I intend to directly address.

As you like.  You certainly have no obligation to answer questions about your proposal.  But you will understand why your refusal to explain or rationalize your proposal makes it less likely for others to find it reasonable or feasible.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The church structure (I didn't say Gospel) is male-centered, and the way it is male-centered is that leadership roles in the church are extremely gender-based and the vast majority of church authority is exercised by males. 

How does the asymmetry in leadership roles make the "church structure" "male-centered?"

Again, how do you reconcile your call for symmetry with 1 Cor. 12?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

27 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I find I agree with Valerie Hudson Cassler a fair bit. http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerPolygamy.html

Her position (and mine) is that polygamy is A) not something that will practiced long term in the eternities but that, for reasons explained in the article, B) the historical practice had the hand of God in it. Granted this is not a majority opinion among orthodox LDS believers (who reject premise A) and accept B)). Nor, is her position a majority view among not-quite-as-orthodox LDS believers who accept premise A) but reject premise B) as a man-made mistake. But, this isn't an example of something I share with those who are struggling.

I believe that polygamy was a grave error from the very beginning and that it created moral hazards that corrupted the church, and still impacts it today. 

[Nofear]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Who disagrees with that?

Certainly not the Proclamation 

Indeed, Elder Oaks was explicit in how the concept of presiding is different for the family and the Church.

"...misunderstanding priesthood authority and the great principle that while this authority presides in both the family and the Church, the priesthood functions in a different way in each of them. "
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/10/priesthood-authority-in-the-family-and-the-church?lang=eng

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I believe that polygamy was a grave error from the very beginning and that it created moral hazards that corrupted the church, and still impacts it today. 

This is so true.  I honestly believe it is the number one issue many have difficulty with when they learn the truth (regarding how it was practiced by Joseph Smith and others).  As a bishopric, we agree that it is almost always the first issue a member comes to us with questions when they start delving into the essays or church history.  

(It is awesome to see you posting here again!  Hope you are well and that you stick around  )

Edited August 15, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The Young Women are all female and the Young Men are all male. That's already symmetrical, right?

Yes.  And the Young Women are presided over by women, and the Young Men by men.  That's symmetrical, too, I suppose.

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So, each respectively having leaders of the same gender, or male and female co-presidents, would be symmetrical.

I still don't understand.  You said: "Second, I think the meaning of symmetry is obvious enough here to surmise that, were there a female co-president over the Young Men, there would me a male co-president over the Young Women, but having neither would also be symmetrical" (emphasis added).  So as I read this:

• A. Women presiding over the Young Women = Symmetry
• B. Male and Female Co-Presidents presiding over the Young Women = Symmetry
• C. Men presiding over the Young Men = Symmetry
• D. Male and Female Co-Presidents presiding over the Young Men = Symmetry

Am I misunderstanding you?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Misinterpretation.

I don't think so.  I was agreeing with you.

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with you re equal partnership.

Who would disagree with the equal partnership was my question 

A father can preside and still be an equal partner the way I see it. That is what the Proclamation says

Yes, I agree with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

To be clear, I only include the part which I intend to directly address.

The church structure (I didn't say Gospel) is male-centered, and the way it is male-centered is that leadership roles in the church are extremely gender-based and the vast majority of church authority is exercised by males. 

 

And yet you will see pages devoted to men, who have the only access to that authority throughout their lives, denying it. 

I have come to look at these denials and excuse making as a wonder. It has to be going on a decade now that I have said the obvioius, it is in front of your face, denial is irrational. We can make no progress until adults can merely acknowledge what everyone else can see and then address it or deny that it matters. It has become somewhat of a flat earth society. 

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How does the asymmetry in leadership roles make the "church structure" "male-centered?"

Again, how do you reconcile your call for symmetry with 1 Cor. 12?

Thanks,

-Smac

An almost exclusively male church authority means that the majority of decisions are made by men and therefore through male perspectives. Even the most well-intended person cannot experience someone else's perspective.

I would say that it is most important to reconcile the church with the First and Second Great Commandments. Loving others--loving everyone--in my opinion, implies that we hear them, and, to put it simply, take turns.  Let the body of Saints be directed through more eyes, more perspectives. Enrich it with that light.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This is so true.  I honestly believe it is the number one issue many have difficulty with when they learn the truth (regarding how it was practiced by Joseph Smith and others).  As a bishopric, we agree that it is almost always the first issue a member comes to us with questions when they start delving into the essays or church history.  

(It is awesome to see you posting here again!  Hope you are well and that you stick around  )

Thank you for the kind welcome!

As an aside, my husband converted to the church when he was 20 in France. He specifically asked the missionaries who baptised him whether polygamy started with Joseph or Brigham. They were assured him that it started with Brigham. That made a fundamental difference to him.

[smac97]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

An almost exclusively male church authority means that the majority of decisions are made by men and therefore through male perspectives. Even the most well-intended person cannot experience someone else's perspective.

I see your point.  I am therefore grateful that the Church has put so much emphasis on A) counseling in councils, and B) seeking revelatory guidance.

Just now, Meadowchik said:

I would say that it is most important to reconcile the church with the First and Second Great Commandments. Loving others--loving everyone--in my opinion, implies that we hear them, and, to put it simply, take turns. 

Loving others requires ordaining women to the priesthood?

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Let the body of Saints be directed through more eyes, more perspectives. Enrich it with that light.

Again, 1 Cor. 12...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  And the Young Women are presided over by women, and the Young Men by men.  That's symmetrical, too, I suppose.

I still don't understand.  You said: "Second, I think the meaning of symmetry is obvious enough here to surmise that, were there a female co-president over the Young Men, there would me a male co-president over the Young Women, but having neither would also be symmetrical" (emphasis added).  So as I read this:

• A. Women presiding over the Young Women = Symmetry
• B. Male and Female Co-Presidents presiding over the Young Women = Symmetry
• C. Men presiding over the Young Men = Symmetry
• D. Male and Female Co-Presidents presiding over the Young Men = Symmetry

Am I misunderstanding you?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

A and C together is symmettrical. B and D together is symmetrical. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

A and C together is symmettrical. B and D together is symmetrical. 

A and C are the status quo.

You are saying that A and C are "symmetrical."

Yet you are here complaining about asymmetry.

If the status quo is "symmetrical" (as to these groups, at least), then what is the problem?

Can I also assume that you think there is "symmetry" in all-female leadership for the Relief Society, and all-male leadership in the Elders Quorum?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 15, 2019 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

And yet you will see pages devoted to men, who have the only access to that authority throughout their lives, denying it. 

I have come to look at these denials and excuse making as a wonder. It has to be going on a decade now that I have said the obvioius, it is in front of your face, denial is irrational. We can make no progress until adults can merely acknowledge what everyone else can see and then address it or deny that it matters. It has become somewhat of a flat earth society. 

Yes, it is almost as if people do not realise that, when the words of the prophets and apostles and scriptures are spoken and written, they are usually men's words repeated by men. Thus it is quite possible and reasonably likely that women in history including ancient and modern church history have been erased and ignored.

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do you reconcile your call for "symmetry" with 1 Corinthians 12?

It seems that in the Lord's plan for us, "asymmetry" is a feature, not a bug.

Also, how would you reconcile your proposal with D&C 132:7 ("{T}here is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred...")?

Also, would you propose that a man would be appointed as co-president with the ward Relief Society President?  A male co-president in the YW presidency?

Thanks,

-Smac

To eliminate the “asymmetry.” (a wonderful new buzzword, btw), some changes would need to be made to foundational doctrines. For example, Alma 13 concerning the foreordination of men to the High Priesthood would have to be rewritten.

The cause of this “asymmetry” (which is related to patriarchy and the Priesthood) is the eternal Father/Son relationship in the Godhead. This relationship is the foundation of our existence. 

Quote

[Nothing], however, can change in the least degree the solemn fact of the literal relationship of Father and Son between Elohim and Jesus Christ. Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors. The Father and the Son. A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, 1916.

D&C 50:43 clarifies this patriarchal relationship and it’s importance to us.

Quote

And the Father and I are one. I am in the Father and the Father in me; and inasmuch as ye have received me, ye are in me and I in you.

Perhaps we can strive for a better understanding of the true meaning of patriarchy... how it figures into our eternal existence, how we can best adapt ourselves to its proper implementation.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I see your point.  I am therefore grateful that the Church has put so much emphasis on A) counseling in councils, and B) seeking revelatory guidance.

Loving others requires ordaining women to the priesthood?

Again, 1 Cor. 12...

Thanks,

-Smac

I specifically excluded ordination. But, loving others does, in my opinion, imply something closer to symmetry in church leadership.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps we can strive for a better understanding of the true meaning of patriarchy... how it figures into our eternal existence, how we can best adapt ourselves to its proper implementation.

Indeed.  This would be more preferable than importing the Gender Wars into the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, it is almost as if people do not realise that, when the words of the prophets and apostles and scriptures are spoken and written, they are usually men's words repeated by men. Thus it is quite possible and reasonably likely that women in history including ancient and modern church history have been erased and ignored.

So true! 

Scripture has not been kind to women.