Women, Men, and Priesthood

[Bernard Gui]

27 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. 

 

See my response to smac immediately above. The leadership roles in the Godhead is gender based.

[smac97]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

I specifically excluded ordination.

How would a woman co-preside with Pres. Nelson without being ordained to the priesthood?

How would a woman co-preside with a (male) stake president?  A (male) bishop?

Just now, Meadowchik said:

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

Okay.  I cannot reconcile that with 1 Corinthians 12.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

9 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. 

At the very least, it was a failed experiment. Which was inevitable because it had no identifiable purpose that wasn't enshrouded in male privilege. Another FM speaker went into polygamy a bit and put up a quote from a woman with the last name of Larsen, can't remember the first name. It may be the earliest mention of the Abraham theory. She stated that as a personal revelation to her, that like Abraham, the trial would end. This was apparently common enough that Heber. C. Kimball thought it necessary to override women's personal revelation. I trust the women to have more knowledge of this than the men. 

Quote

The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away, although some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself. - Remarks by Heber C. Kimball, directly after the sermon by President B. Young, printed in no. 34: Bowery, Oct. 6, 1855," Deseret News Vol. V, No. 35 (7 November 1855): 274 .

 

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A and C are the status quo.

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

Yet you are hear complaining about asymmetry.

If the status quo is "symmetrical," then what is the problem?

Thanks,

-Smac

The Young Men and Young Women programs are, in a sense of gender and interior leadership, already symmetrical, I didn't say they weren't. Surely you are not forgetting the rest of the church structure?

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

See my response to smac immediately above. The leadership roles in the Godhead is gender based.

Who said so? I'll give you a hint....

 

 

 

 

 

Men.

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

 

There have been way too much acknowledgment that women have been removed by church hired historians to keep this up. I find it telling that whenever men are mentioned, it is an automatic reaction that women are to be excluded. As if we are still living thousands of years ago when that was the case. 

That men are foreordained to anything says nothing about women. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by juliann

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

You mean to make the responsibilities unequal? 

[juliann]

 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How would a woman co-preside with Pres. Nelson without being ordained to the priesthood?

How would a woman co-preside with a (male) stake president?  A (male) bishop?

Okay.  I cannot reconcile that with 1 Corinthians 12.

 

And many are also struggling with giving women credibility because of the Genesis account of Eve. Funny how the Bible allows that sort of thing, eh?

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

At the very least, it was a failed experiment. Which was inevitable because it had no identifiable purpose that wasn't enshrouded in male privilege. Another FM speaker went into polygamy a bit and put up a quote from a woman with the last name of Larsen, can't remember the first name. It may be the earliest mention of the Abraham theory. She stated that as a personal revelation to her, that like Abraham, the trial would end. This was apparently common enough that Heber. C. Kimball thought it necessary to override women's personal revelation. I trust the women to have more knowledge of this than the men. 

Quote

The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away, although some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself. - Remarks by Heber C. Kimball, directly after the sermon by President B. Young, printed in no. 34: Bowery, Oct. 6, 1855," Deseret News Vol. V, No. 35 (7 November 1855): 274 .

 

I hadn't read that quote before....thanks for posting it!   

Who was the FM speaker who went into polygamy?  (I hope there's a transcript of her presentation....I'd be very interested in reading it.)

 

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Yes, I agree with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

AHA!  I misinterpreted my interpretation of your interpretation of .......   or something like that! 

I am a little too pugnacious hereabouts I fear...

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

At the very least, it was a failed experiment. 

I question that.  Jacob 2:30 provides that "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

Did the practice of 19th-century polygamy "raise up seed?"

Also, I am not sure that the rationale in Jacob 2:30 is the sole basis for God having commanded polygamy.  FAIR has some interesting postulations:

Quote

Question: What purposes could plural marriage possibly serve?

Save for scriptural accounts, any other "reasons" which we attach, in retrospect, to plural marriage can only be based on supposition and intellectual deduction

Any such list as this is therefore tentative. Any or all of these things could have been intended by the Lord for the benefit of the Church and the Saints. A few of these benefits which have been suggested include:

1. It was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints.
2. It was to "raise up" righteous seed.
3. It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world. This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived.
4. Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things."
5. Numerous family ties were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.
6. Polygamy created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time.^[3]

Other benefits which we do not yet see or understand could also have been intended. But, it reminds us plural marriage may have accomplished more than we sometimes appreciate.

For a detailed response, see: Possible benefits of plural marriage To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here

If polygamy was "an Abrahamic test," did the 19th century Saints fail it?

If polygamy was intended to "set apart" and "solidify" the community of Saints, did it succeed at that?

If polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things," can it be accurately called a "failed experiment?"

If polygamy strengthened familial networks in the early days of the Church (when such cohesion was perhaps very critical given the turbulent and difficult times), did it succeed?

A few more potential benefits from polygamy are outlined here:

Quote

Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts.

...

Professor Kathryn M. Daynes makes the point that in nineteenth century Utah, more women arranged to hold temple recommends and receive their endowments. That is, female rates of temple-worthiness (or, at least, being willing to take the time and effort to get a recommend and actually go to the temple) were higher than male rates. And, these rates didn't really change much, regardless of how common plural marriage was (and, so, these higher rates cannot have been caused by plural marriage). Thus, women in Utah were in a difficult situation--more of them were willing and able to have temple sealings/eternal marriage than there were men willing and able to do so. Plural marriage changed this dynamic enormously. One temple-worthy man being married would not take that man out of the "potential married partners pool." This allowed more members to have temple marriages, sealings, and the blessings that came with these ordinances.

...

Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore, Brigham Young instituted the most liberal divorce policy in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women.

...

Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time.

...

Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming.

...

Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.

Interesting stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The Young Men and Young Women programs are, in a sense of gender and interior leadership, already symmetrical, I didn't say they weren't.

Okay.  The same, then, can be said for the Relief Society and the Elders Quorum.

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Surely you are not forgetting the rest of the church structure?

No, I haven't forgotten.  The First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, the Quorums of Seventy, the Presiding Bishopric, the Sunday School General Presidency, all stake presidencies, all High Councils, all bishoprics are exclusively male.  

But you are calling for "symmetry" without ordination to the priesthood.  It seems that the only reason the "asymmetry" you describe exists is because of ordination to the priesthood.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I hadn't read that quote before....thanks for posting it!   

Who was the FM speaker who went into polygamy?  (I hope there's a transcript of her presentation....I'd be very interested in reading it.)

 

Angela Hallstrom, she is working on Saints. She was selective in choosing positive polygamy stories for the most part but used women, some who weren't well known, as sources. I am waiting for the transcript to identify the quote. This is how we are going to have to piece together polygamy,  random sentences from women's writings that are just now being published. 

Anyway, I'm derailing.

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Interesting stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

Old stuff. Old thinking. But this needs it's own thread.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

And many are also struggling with giving women credibility because of the Genesis account of Eve.

"Giving women credibility?"  I don't know what this means.

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

Funny how the Bible allows that sort of thing, eh?

Or, rather, an interpretation of the Bible.  Read in isolation, and without accounting for scriptures like 2 Nephi 26:33, Moroni 8:17, 1 Corinthians 12, and many others (as well as counsel from living prophets and apostles).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

Old stuff.

Some of the best wisdom available to us is "old."  Because it has stood the test of time.

Quote

Old thinking.

Old, but not outdated.  Chesterton's Fence coes to mind.

And FAIR isn't that old.

Quote

But this needs it's own thread.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 15, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

AHA!  I misinterpreted my interpretation of your interpretation of .......   or something like that! 

I am a little too pugnacious hereabouts I fear...

No worries.  I do the same thing on occasion.  We're good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away, although some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself. - Remarks by Heber C. Kimball, directly after the sermon by President B. Young, printed in no. 34: Bowery, Oct. 6, 1855," Deseret News Vol. V, No. 35 (7 November 1855): 274 . 

Nice quote. It wasn't in Valerie Hudson Cassler's article (I don't think). But it would have fit quite nicely.

[MustardSeed]

Why does the RS President not get invited to sit on the stand? 

[Meadowchik]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You mean to make the responsibilities unequal? 

Why would you ask that?

[Meadowchik]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  The same, then, can be said for the Relief Society and the Elders Quorum.

No, I haven't forgotten.  The First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, the Quorums of Seventy, the Presiding Bishopric, the Sunday School General Presidency, all stake presidencies, all High Councils, all bishoprics are exclusively male.  

But you are calling for "symmetry" without ordination to the priesthood.  It seems that the only reason the "asymmetry" you describe exists is because of ordination to the priesthood.

Thanks,

-Smac

The assymmetry is all part of the patriarchal structure. Males created male-priesthood-based leadership. Imagine for a moment, what spiritual blind spots are being maintained because women are excluded so much from leadership. As important as women are to life and everyone's happiness, shouldn't one anxiously seek to fully include them in it? 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Why does the RS President not get invited to sit on the stand? 

Perhaps for the same reason the EQ president is not invited, nor is the Sunday School president, or the YM president, or the YW president, or the Primary president.

None of these folks has the keys to preside in Sacrament Meeting, even though they do have keys to preside in their respective groups.

There may also be practical considerations.  Would it really be helpful to have all these presidents (6 additional people, or 18 if the counselors are included) sitting on the stand, away from their families (spouses and children)?  

Again, Chesterton's Fence comes to mind.

In the aggregate, I have spent more than 11 of the past 14 years not sitting with my family in Sacrament Meeting.  Most of my children have grown up during those 11 years.

My sister's father-in-law is a GA, and a few years back he attended my family's ward to see my son give a talk prior to departing on a mission.  He later told me that sitting away from his wife during Church was one of the less pleasant of his obligations as a General Authority.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 15, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The assymmetry is all part of the patriarchal structure. Males created male-priesthood-based leadership.

With respect, I disagree.  I think the structure of the Church is the product of revelation, both past and ongoing.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Imagine for a moment, what spiritual blind spots are being maintained because women are excluded so much from leadership.

Again, you are calling for "symmetry" without ordination to the priesthood.  It seems that the only reason the "asymmetry" you describe exists is because of ordination to the priesthood.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

As important as women are to life and everyone's happiness, shouldn't one anxiously seek to fully include them in it? 

I think the members of the Church are already "fully include{d}."  Again, see 1 Corinthians 12.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Old, but not outdated.  Chesterton's Fence coes to mind.

And FAIR isn't that old.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's nice to have you back. With the emphasis on uncovering information on women (the church has hired a few women in the historical department to do just that) months old information can be old. So unless you are keeping track of every development, yes...that is old information. The more recent number of books on this and related topics should make that obvious. 

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I think the members of the Church are already "fully include{d}."  Again, see 1 Corinthians 12.

Thanks,

-Smac

I appreciate your intent here. But we are not. How can you continue with this? Look at an organizational chart for cryin' out loud!

My question is, why is it so important to deny what is black and white? What do those who deny, deny, deny, gain from the denial? What is the loss in admitting that women cannot hold most positions where decisions are made? That they are limited to "influence" or are consulted with before a decision is made by the men in charge?

I think that is perhaps the more revelant topic. What is at stake for the deniers?