Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Women recieving the priesthood


Recommended Posts

Nevermind

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

 

Quote
8 hours ago, 2BizE said:

3) My theory: A stake President of mine used to frequently state that our church is a church of primarily women and children. While it may not look like this in Utah, when you go out of this small geographical area, the church has a growing problem with having sufficient males who hold the priesthood. There was a reason 11 year old boys now can receive the priesthood, and why the HP and EQ were combined, and why the YM program was revamped. A growing decline in priesthood makes contributed to these changes.  Fast forward 30 years, and there will not be enough males to run the branches, wards, stakes and districts. Women will be called to the priesthood to fill these gaps.

 What you say is true as far as gender disparity in the small branches abroad (and even increasingly in North America, although not to the same extent) ...

This really depends on where one is. I know there are places where Church membership skews heavily female, such as Japan and, I think, Mexico. Possibly parts of Europe? At the same time, I served my mission in a corner of the US about as far from Utah as one can get, and the Church there was heavily male across the entire region. We consistently baptised two men for every woman, and this had been a long-standing pattern. Our wards and branches were filled with faithful, active men who were single or had non-member wives. In one ward I served in, our ward mission leader and every single ward missionary had a non-member wife. (After I was transferred, the WML was actually told by his wife after ward council one evening that he had to choose between her and Church, so he moved out into his own flat.) My sense is that local culture didn't reflect the false notion that women are somehow more spiritual than men.

When I lived in Indonesia, the Church there was also heavily male. District YSA activities were filled with single men, and in my last branch adult men outnumbered adult women by a ratio of 5 to 2. Again, this seems to have a cultural dimension to me.

I also worked in the Caribbean for a time, and our sole branch on the island was again very strongly male. We had zero issue 'staffing' the branch presidency, the elders quorum presidency, or the Young Men presidency, and many of our primary and Sunday school teachers were likewise men.

I obtained my master's degree in the American Midwest, and our stake's active YSA group there was about 70 per cent male. Before moving here, I was working in the American West, and my singles ward had literally two men for every woman. (Leadership there blamed this on most females leaving the area to attend university.)

I have been in my current ward for nearly 18 years, during which time things have fluctuated somewhat, but again the number of active males has always been predominant. As I've mentioned before on this forum, when I was newly arrived, we used to jokingly refer to our YSA Sunday school class as 'first elders quorum'. I don't think we ever had more than two females attend at any point, and some weeks there were none. When I was Young Men president and the bishopric counsellor over Young Men, we had many more boys at church on Sunday and at mutual activities than we had girls, and my sense is that this hasn't changed much in the intervening six years. (ETA: the report from Q4 2019 shows the ratio of youth in my ward attending Sunday classes as 64.3 per cent male, 35.7 per cent female.)

Beyond this anecdotal 'evidence,' one of my Institute instructors in America had a PhD in history and had done his research in the Church's archives. He told us in class one day that the male/female split in the global Church closely reflects the world's population. I think he said that, according to membership records, women make up 51 per cent of members; men, 49 per cent. According to the World Bank, the global population is currently 49.58 per cent female, though my understanding is that the ratio of females increases with age because of the higher mortality rate amongst males, meaning that the adult population may actually be above 50 per cent female. (Anyone able to comment on that? ETA: this is a bit outdated but gives some sense of how this works in real life.)

Remembering this statement, I just used Leader and Clerk Resources and the last quarterly report before COVID to check our stake's stats. Of adult members, women make up 50.97 per cent, and men make up 49.03 per cent. Using the 'attending Sunday School or RS or EQ' metric as an imperfect proxy for activity, the result is 52.3 per cent female, 47.7 per cent male. I strongly suspect the youth figures may be more accurate. These from the same quarter show that those between the ages of 12 and 18 who were attending SS, YM or YW were 56.64 per cent male, 43.36 per cent female. But keep in mind that 57.22 per cent of the youth in our stake are currently boys.

Quote

Our landlord and her husband lived in her native Malaysia when we were housesitting for them, and the problem there is as stark as in Hong Kong. Almost all of the men have had to be disciplined because of a larger culture of rampant adultery in Malaysian society (according to her. This included her ex-husband and many branch presidents). The priesthood consists of missionaries, especially the husband in missionary couples.

A stake member I know well returned from serving his mission in Malaysia about a year ago. I'm interested to get his take on what you've been told. I'll do so and report back. Malaysia and Indonesia have much in common, but there are also clear cultural differences, both local and as a result of very different colonial histories.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It does seem like that is what they are saying.  JLH, Rongo, and everyone else that was pre 1990 got to go into the building, but we just get to look in the windows.  

I guess I'm one of those that got to go into the building, but I don't know how happy I was to see inside. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You may have a point here. But who's fault would it be if individuals are unprepared to receive what is being given? The individual who is blindsided by a very non-mormon like ritual with very violent overtones, or the church that didn't prepare that individual and thus blindsided them? And if people didn't adequately understand the symbolism, why is that?  I think the church's current approach of greater transparency is a benefit to the church and the people and specifically those going to the temple. If it had been as transparent in 1990 (and before) much of the confusion and angst could have been dealt with in a positive way instead of cutting stuff out people had not been prepared for. Is it possible that the 1990 changes (and perhaps others) reflect a failure of the church more than a failure of the individuals?

 

Interesting you say this.  I am reading "The Design of Everyday Things".  You describe here what he would call a poor design. 

He also describes how people think of poor designs and it fits me so well.  I used to think there was something really wrong with me that I couldn't love going to the temple and want to stay there.  I am just barely getting past wanting to berate myself for that.  Teddy would blame it on me and judge me as not being a deep thinker.  

But what if the problem wasn't me, but the design?  Now I am no way going to say God made a poor design.  Not will I claim that I am even close to perfection.  But what if God really inspired the prophet to change the temple with a better "design".  I need to study this out.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Rain said:

I told my husband about the power part of this discussion and he talked about how in the scriptures etc that power with the priesthood comes through personal righteousness.  This would be a reason who no power would be lost through the changes.

I wish I could fully clarify what I feel has been lost.  But I do agree with your husband.  As Joseph taught:

"All who are prepared, and are sufficiently pure to abide the presence of the Savior, will see him in the Solemn Assembly."

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Rain said:

But what if God really inspired the prophet to change the temple with a better "design".

An interesting quote from the book you're referencing:

Quote

The presence of affordance is jointly determined by the qualities of the object and the abilities of the agent that is interacting. The relational definition of affordance gives considerable difficulty to many people. We are used to thinking that properties are associated with objects. But affordance is not a property. An affordance is a relationship. Whether an affordance exists depends upon the properties of both the object and the agent.

It seems to me that a loving/living God is always going to be adjusting the 'objects' He provides us so that they better relate to our constantly developing abilities -- at the same time that He seeks to shape and guide the development of those abilities.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

An interesting quote from the book you're referencing:

It seems to me that a loving/living God is always going to be adjusting the 'objects' He provides us so that they relate to our constantly developing abilities.

I got to that part just this afternoon.  Have you read the book or just knew about this quote? And do you feel like the others that the temple changed because our abilities are lesser now?

Link to comment
11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

God can give the priesthood to dogs and cats if he wants to.   I could accept any revelation on that subject as long as it comes through the proper channels and right way.  God is not going to inspire outside organizations like Ordain Women to agitate general authorities to make changes.   God's house is on of order and not confusion or contention.   Plus one can just imagine how many other outside groups would start petitioning the Church on their own pet causes if the Church was to initiate change from outside groups.   Personally I don't think it will happen but it is a billion times more likely than those that claim the church will accept gay marriage. 

You said "Gods house is one of order and not confusion or contention " I agree, but he's the one who's not confused, not us. Plus, I believe he uses certain situations to inspire the brethren. You dont? 

     If Gods house isnt confusing to US, then life wouldn't be much of a test or learning experience, I think it would be more like satans version of Heavenly Fathers plan. 

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A stake member I know well returned from serving his mission in Malaysia about a year ago. I'm interested to get his take on what you've been told. I'll do so and report back. Malaysia and Indonesia have much in common, but there are also clear cultural differences, both local and as a result of very different colonial histories.

 

One other thing she pointed out was the cosmopolitanism of the branches. She said they were chock full of different nationalities and languages (English was actually her sixth language, and though Malaysian herself, Malaysian was actually only her second language, in school along with the beginnings of British English. Her native language was a Chinese dialect I hadn't heard of). They had a lot of Muslim women, and it was a delicate situation threading the needle between Church ministering/teaching and not running afoul of cultural problems in teaching and helping them. It was fraught with risk and danger. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Nice talkin to ya again CV75. First, let me just say, alot of what I post is just my opinion. I dont post alot scripture verses because I dont like reading the scriptures. I do read my scriptures at church, or if I'm filling in for a teacher, but not outside of church. But I've read or listened to every general conference talk on the church website, some 3 or 4 times. I also listen to the brethren on foreign speaking church websites, that's the best because most of the time they're off teleprompter and you really see who they are. Alot of the time they're with their wife so you get to hear her perspective also. So why am I telling you this? Just so you know most of my post won't be backed up like smac97 post. I love his post though, I learned alot yesterday, and one day I will learn how to break down post, just cant right now.

      So I'm very conservative,  and most people would think a conservative would be on the side of not giving women the priesthood. But I'm also a realist, and thats what I'm using to form my opinion. Utimately women will receive the priesthood because society will demand it. Now, I know what I just said is very very controversial, but let me explain. The brethren cant give women the priesthood right now because it's just to divisive of a time. Once it calms down, I think women will receive the priesthood and it will come through revelation. Personally,  I think the main problem is how most people envision what a revelation is. I think very few revelations come from and actual face to face with the lord. I think a lot of revelations are worked out over time. Plus, before everyone gets mad because I said society will demand it, how do you know God didn't plan it that way. You dont.

     As far as my view on Heavenly Mother. When I pray, I see Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, been like that since I was a kid. I could never see leaving her out of the picture.  So I personally think in the last days women will use the priesthood to help fight against evil. I've always felt that. And now going through a faith crisis I feel even stronger that will happen. I cant explain because it has to do with the temple, but I watched something through my research that made me realize women will one day receive the priesthood. And actually,  I think there's a handful of women on earth today that already have it. 

 My view on the churches wealth is that one day it will be used to bring together all believing Christians and maybe even other faiths and some atheists possibly, and be used to push back the rising tide of evil. I think the brethren are set up perfectly to be leaders for the movement, just as the lord wants it to be. And if you think about, they already are. The prophet isnt the prophet of Mormons, hes the prophet of all Gods children, just like a bishop isnt the bishop of a few hundred people, hes the bishop of everyone in his Geographical area. The year, maybe months before the second coming is going to be days like we've never seen I suspect, that's when we as latter day Saints will understand why we are here and called Latter Day Saints.

    Sorry for all the opinions, but like I said, my testimony is built mainly on the love of people, watching and learning how they act, seeing their divine possibilities even if they dont. Ive used what Mormonism has taught me to put a smile on many a frowning face. I think our positivity is part of our glory and a divine influence. I hope I answered your questions. 

All of what we post here is subjective: opinion, perception, interpretation, wishful thinking, wise cracks, all of it!

Even providing references is a subjective exercise, used to justify our subjective bias to fulfill the need to unite and connect, drawing on any sliver of similar bias in our interlocutor. (My opinion). People generally look to evidence and rationale to convince them, but I believe they are already convinced on a fundamental level and the evidence and rational explains or justifies why they do what they do. This fundamental level is where our inherited makeup and the Spirit exert their influence on us in our fallen world, perhaps more optimistically referred to as our probationary state, hence our capacity to change for better or worse -- by God’s grace (via the Atonement of Christ) or the devil’s enticements, respectively. (My opinion).

God inspiring (given that inspiration is a form of revelation) more and more people to demand social change gets to answering my question, so here’s your big THANK YOU! (for answering). Personally, I think the relationship between God and His children in and out of His kingdom and by extension the Church and society is a topic I hope somebody might want to start a thread about.

I think someone earlier in the thread teased apart the various distinctions between conscience, the Light of Christ, inspiration, revelation, the Lord moving in mysterious ways, etc., and how these processes tie to Church doctrine, policy and practice (ethos, folk customs, corporate) on one hand and the society within which she functions on the other, and wherever the twain are congruous (we hear in General Conference that society and the Church are drifting further apart). Another distinction made was between formal (priesthood keys and offices) and moral (inborn inclinations) authority and the role of the Restoration in either.

Do you have a couple of examples where you see society heading in a harmful direction, where the Church and a "Zion society" offerthe best alternative for that?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

You said "Gods house is one of order and not confusion or contention " I agree, but he's the one who's not confused, not us. Plus, I believe he uses certain situations to inspire the brethren. You dont? 

     If Gods house isnt confusing to US, then life wouldn't be much of a test or learning experience, I think it would be more like satans version of Heavenly Fathers plan. 

 

I disagree. Life is a huge test even if everything were totally clear. Even if God himself were present telling us exactly what he wanted us to do, it would still be a challenge. But translating God's will through imperfect/inconsistent messengers adds a severe level of difficulty to the challenges of life. I think God understands that and will be more merciful than we can imagine.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I disagree. Life is a huge test even if everything were totally clear. Even if God himself were present telling us exactly what he wanted us to do, it would still be a challenge. But translating God's will through imperfect/inconsistent messengers adds a severe level of difficulty to the challenges of life. I think God understands that and will be more merciful than we can imagine.

Now I'm confused 😁. You said "But translating Gods will through imperfect/inconsistent messengers adds a severe level of difficulty to the challenges of life." I agree with you, but isnt that how God communicates with his children currently, I dont think Pres. Nelson considers himself perfect, and I'm sure he has felt inconsistent just like the rest of us imperfect mortals. 

      

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Now I'm confused 😁. You said "But translating Gods will through imperfect/inconsistent messengers adds a severe level of difficulty to the challenges of life." I agree with you, but isnt that how God communicates with his children currently, I dont think Pres. Nelson considers himself perfect, and I'm sure he has felt inconsistent just like the rest of us imperfect mortals. 

      

I think that may be in part what the church teaches but I don't believe the requirement to trust mortal/imperfect beings to tell us God's will is in harmony with the lessons we should learn from the First Vision. So if there is any inconsistency it's on the part of the church.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think that may be in part what the church teaches but I don't believe the requirement to trust mortal/imperfect beings to tell us God's will is in harmony with the lessons we should learn from the First Vision. So if there is any inconsistency it's on the part of the church.

I think it is perfect harmony. What do you think Joseph Smith did by taking the verses in James to heart? 1) He trusted mortal/imperfect James' representation of God's will, and 2) he did not stop there.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually I was post 1990, but I also have studied the endowment extensively.  I know what I missed out on.  I know what Joseph restored and was later removed. I know it's purpose and design. And it saddens me more than any other change.

To have the greatest possible blessings withheld by policy.  

I agree with others who have said that no greater blessings have been denied, but I very much sympathize with those who sincerely believe blessings are being withheld from them through no fault of their own.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think that may be in part what the church teaches but I don't believe the requirement to trust mortal/imperfect beings to tell us God's will is in harmony with the lessons we should learn from the First Vision. So if there is any inconsistency it's on the part of the church.

I both agree and disagree with this.
I believe it is a requirement to learn to trust our priesthood head, even when we don't want to.  In fact I think this is a requirement for exaltation.
However, I also believe it is a requirement in life to at some point have to stand on our own testimony even if it disagrees with our head.

That might sound contradictory, but I think the precedents have been clearly set by righteous examples.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with others who have said that no greater blessings have been denied, but I very much sympathize with those who sincerely believe blessings are being withheld from them through no fault of their own.

Thank you.
If you read the purpose of the endowment as described at its restoration in the numerous quotes attributed to Joseph and Brigham I think that much of that purpose is lost.  Replaced by a new purpose that is much more esoteric but doesn't match with how the endowment experience is presented in scripture.
It's entire purpose involves the removal of the veil and direct communion with God.  Now that communion with God has been reframed to be purely spiritual.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually I was post 1990, but I also have studied the endowment extensively.  I know what I missed out on.  I know what Joseph restored and was later removed. I know it's purpose and design. And it saddens me more than any other change.

To have the greatest possible blessings withheld by policy.  

You could tell us now if you want to.  Unless maybe it is one of those things about the temple experience that we are not supposed to talk about.  But most of it is something we can all freely talk about if we want to talk about it.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it is perfect harmony. What do you think Joseph Smith did by taking the verses in James to heart? 1) He trusted mortal/imperfect James' representation of God's will, and 2) he did not stop there.

I understand why you'd say he trusted, but it may be that he tested. He heard wisdom and thought he'd give it a try. God knew him and he discovered he could uncover God's will for himself without anyone else telling him. After all, as an imperfect being he was just as capable of understanding God's will for him than some other imperfect being telling him what God's will is.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I both agree and disagree with this.
I believe it is a requirement to learn to trust our priesthood head, even when we don't want to.  In fact I think this is a requirement for exaltation.
However, I also believe it is a requirement in life to at some point have to stand on our own testimony even if it disagrees with our head.

That might sound contradictory, but I think the precedents have been clearly set by righteous examples.

I disagree. Trusting an imperfect being is not a requirement for exaltation. God would be a monster if he required me to trust someone and put my faith in them when they are not completely trustworthy. No mortal person is completely trustworthy. We are all fallible. Requiring me to trust someone who is fallible is no basis for exaltation. I'd argue it isn't really even a basis of righteousness.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Now I'm confused 😁. You said "But translating Gods will through imperfect/inconsistent messengers adds a severe level of difficulty to the challenges of life." I agree with you, but isnt that how God communicates with his children currently, I dont think Pres. Nelson considers himself perfect, and I'm sure he has felt inconsistent just like the rest of us imperfect mortals. 

      

When God/our Father communicates with us he always does that personally and individually according to what we are ready and willing to receive from him.   Words we hear or read may help to stimulate our minds toward receiving communication from him but any thought we get from him is always received personally and individually.  Otherwise we are only hearing or reading the words of someone else who may or may not be in tune with God/our Father.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I both agree and disagree with this.
I believe it is a requirement to learn to trust our priesthood head, even when we don't want to.  In fact I think this is a requirement for exaltation.
However, I also believe it is a requirement in life to at some point have to stand on our own testimony even if it disagrees with our head.

That might sound contradictory, but I think the precedents have been clearly set by righteous examples.

IMO, most of the difficult issues (like women and the priesthood) are often rooted somehow in this tension. It also seems to me that we have not really talked about this tension in any substantial way and how to navigate it. For example, I recall a recent face to face with Elder Rasband where he was asked by a Harriet in Wyoming how to deal with this tension. Rather than fully address the question, Elder Rasband merely doubled down on the "follow the prophets because that is the safest way" message. Not that I have any kind of answer to the tension, I'm still trying to figure out how to navigate it myself. It seems like it would be a valuable conversation to have.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...