Uncomfortable Truths and how we deal with them

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If presiding means has authority….

If he is acting as a Primary teacher or Cub Scout leader, he takes direction from the Presidency.  A male Primary teacher does not preside in Primary.  If a husband comes with his wife to a RS meeting (perhaps she needs his physical assistance), he does not by default become the presider.  If the EQ president comes into watch his kid give a talk, he isn’t suddenly presiding in Primary.

I was Ward Librarian, I had two high priests working under me.  The nonPriesthood auxiliaries and committees do not give standing to someone because they hold a priesthood office.  A music/choir director is over the organist, even if male (as is common in my wards).  When I was building supervisor or whatever it was called, everyone, male or female, had to receive and give me the building keys according to my schedule, not theirs.

If presiding means they are in charge of the meeting…the Handbook language is “conduct” for both male and female leaders in the auxiliaries, so my question is does the bishop preside even in his absence?

Found this in handbook…women can preside:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/29-meetings-in-the-church?lang=eng#title_number2

Gotcha ya.  Thanks for the clarification.  I hadn't thought of it that way.

 

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is quite common among Latter-day Saints to ignore the Bible, even though it is part of the canon of Holy Writ, and this is a major cause of dysfunction among them.  Unable to temper their narrow and synchronic opinions, they fail to come to terms with the real world.  They have got a Bible, but are not thanking the Jews for it (II Ne 29:4).  While an understandable human tendency, there really is no excuse for it.

Not sure how I earned your reproach.

The context is Alma 13 and D&C 107 which provide revelatory information on the Priesthood that is not found in the Bible…hardly a narrow synchronic opinion and has nothing to do with ingratitude to the Jews.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not sure how I earned your reproach.

The context is Alma 13 and D&C 107 which provide revelatory information on the Priesthood that is not found in the Bible…hardly a narrow synchronic opinion and has nothing to do with ingratitude to the Jews.

No reproach to you, Bernard, because you are a more than ordinary student of Scripture.  Yes, of course, Alma and the D&C are Scripture, and are an important part of the Canon of Holy Writ, and of the synchronic understanding of what that means.  Latter-day Saints seldom study the Bible seriously.  They go no further than their Sunday School lessons, and so are basically unaware of the extenuating circumstances which the Bible brings to their modern, synchronic assumptions -- many of which are simply false.  Studying Scripture diachronically means studying it in depth over its entire history, not getting stuck in a modern time warp.  When exceptions show themselves, it is very important to understand them and place them in context, rather than assume that everything today is as it always has been.

Sometimes this problem even extends to recent history -- so that most modern LDS women are totally unaware of the very different rules under which Emma Smith and her Relief Society sisters functioned.  The most important lesson to be learned from such exceptions is the rule of change.  Things do not stay the same, and God does not expect them to stay the same.  The Bible provides many stark examples of that rule.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If presiding means has authority….

If he is acting as a Primary teacher or Cub Scout leader, he takes direction from the Presidency.  A male Primary teacher does not preside in Primary.  If a husband comes with his wife to a RS meeting (perhaps she needs his physical assistance), he does not by default become the presider.  If the EQ president comes into watch his kid give a talk, he isn’t suddenly presiding in Primary.

I was Ward Librarian, I had two high priests working under me.  The nonPriesthood auxiliaries and committees do not give standing to someone because they hold a priesthood office.  A music/choir director is over the organist, even if male (as is common in my wards).  When I was building supervisor or whatever it was called, everyone, male or female, had to receive and give me the building keys according to my schedule, not theirs.

If presiding means they are in charge of the meeting…the Handbook language is “conduct” for both male and female leaders in the auxiliaries, so my question is does the bishop preside even in his absence?

Found this in handbook…women can preside:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/29-meetings-in-the-church?lang=eng#title_number2

Two weeks ago I attended a training meeting called by our Primary Presidency.  There is roughly a 50/50 split of teachers (male and female).  Two of the male teachers previously served as the ward's bishop, and all but one of the men are high priests.

The first counselor in the Primary Presidency opened the meeting, called on someone to offer an opening prayer, conducted the meeting, concluded by again calling on someone to offer a closing prayer.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kimpearson]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

For the bolded fact, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying but if you are saying that women cannot preside where any man who holds the priesthood is present, that is false.

A woman can never be bishop, elders quorum president, deacon's quorum president, teachers quorum president, priest quorum president, stake president, area authority, seventy, presiding bishopric, apostle, prophet, patriarch, branch president, district president, temple president, mission president, counselor to any of these, clerks, executive secretaries.  If there is a husband and wife, the husband presides not the wife (By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families).  Just reviewed the handbook and the bishop is head of the primary.  No statement that even comes close to indicating that primary president presides over anybody.  The bishop presides over relief society, Sunday school, young women's and young men's.  I can't find a priesthood calling were women preside over men.  Lead, guide, teach, encourage, yes preside no.  No woman can set any one apart for any calling.  That's the current doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  Men sitting in a primary meeting are not there as priesthood holders but as members.  If the Bishop or his counselor's are there, they are the presiding priesthood authority otherwise there is no presiding priesthood authority in the meeting but merely women and men called by priesthood authority to serve in callings.

Edited February 28, 2022 by kimpearson

[Calm]

Then why does the handbook state “he or she” when it talks about presiding over meetings if there is never a chance that a woman presides?

A husband may preside in the home, but if there is no husband, does not the mother rather than a priesthood holding son?  There is nothing that teaches the son has authority over his mother in the home.

Priesthood holders do not preside over meetings they have no stewardship over. A visiting bishop wouldn’t assign presiding over a ward he is visiting if their bishop is out of town. Thus for the same reason the EQP won’t preside in Primary, YW, or RS. If the Bishop is present in those, he will preside, but if he isn’t the president does or her counselor if she is not present as demonstrated by the quote from the handbook above. 
 

Nor would a son preside in his family because that is not his stewardship, but his mother’s.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

there is no presiding priesthood authority in the meeting but merely women and men called by priesthood authority to serve in callings

Why can’t there be a President who presides with priesthood authority without holding a priesthood office given how all authority in the church is through delegation by those who have priesthood keys?

Quote

We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[Calm]

Quote

In introducing the president of the Relief Society, I stated that “this woman presides over an organization of a million and a half women.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1992/03/ambitious-to-do-good?lang=eng

[Calm]

Quote

Under the priesthood authority of the bishop, the president of a ward Relief Society presides over and directs the activities of the Relief Society in the ward. A stake Relief Society president presides and exercises authority over the function to which she has been called. The same is true for the other auxiliaries. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/04/the-relief-society-and-the-church?lang=eng

Quote

The formation of a presidency is also a priesthood pattern. Every ward elders quorum president and Relief Society president presides over and directs the activities of the elders quorum or Relief Society in the ward.15 Quorum and Relief Society leaders have a “measure of divine authority” given to them regarding the government and instruction of those they are called to lead.16They are men and women who are “called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands.”17 To preside means to stand guard, to superintend, and to lead.18 This means that Relief Society and quorum leaders in a ward carry the responsibility to supervise, oversee, and regulate the work of the Relief Society and the quorums on behalf of the bishop.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/callings/relief-society/messages-from-leaders/2012-jan-byu-devotional-beck?lang=eng

Edited February 28, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Thus for the same reason the EQP won’t preside in Primary, YW, or RS.

And in fact, the person who presides over a Young Women class is the class president. For this reason, whenever I wished to visit a Young Women class or activity as a bishopric member, I always consulted with the class president first. It never happened, but if the president had ever said that the proposed day was not the best time, I would have arranged with her for a more suitable day.

One of the things that I have come to know intimately is that God expects us to take seriously those who have been called to preside.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[CV75]

7 hours ago, kimpearson said:

A woman can never be bishop, elders quorum president, deacon's quorum president, teachers quorum president, priest quorum president, stake president, area authority, seventy, presiding bishopric, apostle, prophet, patriarch, branch president, district president, temple president, mission president, counselor to any of these, clerks, executive secretaries.  If there is a husband and wife, the husband presides not the wife (By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families).  Just reviewed the handbook and the bishop is head of the primary.  No statement that even comes close to indicating that primary president presides over anybody.  The bishop presides over relief society, Sunday school, young women's and young men's.  I can't find a priesthood calling were women preside over men.  Lead, guide, teach, encourage, yes preside no.  No woman can set any one apart for any calling.  That's the current doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  Men sitting in a primary meeting are not there as priesthood holders but as members.  If the Bishop or his counselor's are there, they are the presiding priesthood authority otherwise there is no presiding priesthood authority in the meeting but merely women and men called by priesthood authority to serve in callings.

There are always presidents of presidents, with the Church President presiding over all other presidents, directly or by delegation.

Is the "uncomfortable truth" really that the Lord has not set up the kingdom with a female Church President?

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There are always presidents of presidents, with the Church President presiding over all other presidents, directly or by delegation.

Is the "uncomfortable truth" really that the Lord has not set up the kingdom with a female Church President?

This exactly.

In all of eternity there will always be someone presiding over you and those you will be assigned to preside over.

This is an eternal principle.  Worrying about who is over who is a mortal concern and completely misses the point.  Even the Savior has those above him.

Edited February 28, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There are always presidents of presidents, with the Church President presiding over all other presidents, directly or by delegation.

Is the "uncomfortable truth" really that the Lord has not set up the kingdom with a female Church President?

The President of all Presidents is God the Father. His Presidency is founded on justice, mercy, charity, kindness, love unfeigned….

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Worrying about who is over who is a mortal concern and completely misses the point.

Eternally God presides over all who have a one heart and one mind with him, so that is hardly an issue for me.

Of course it is a mortal concern and it should be because while God may preside over the Church, the men and women who are delegated his authority are not quite of one heart and mind even at the best of times and efforts (though they may come close enough) and may even be quite self centered, harbor irrational and selfish biases and even anger and hate, be blind to their own weaknesses and obsessed with others’, may even be abusive and criminal…since the quality of our leaders can be questionable at times, I believe God doesn’t have a huge issue with us questioning…especially if our questions take us directly to him.  
 

 But one can both question and trust….it is a necessity in a world where those we should trust the most, our families and close friends, are also the ones most likely to abuse and kill us.  Then there all too common crimes of affinity and family fraud, employees that steal from their bosses.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I’m assuming that they have direct responsibility over. Like the Bishop presides over the ward sort of thing. It’s still not fully correct since primary usually has calling of men and women who are teaching the kiddos (also male/female). So in presiding in the primary presidency one would be over several men in their calling. But It could technically be kinda true if you count only the kids (though I’m not sure why you would ignore the teachers). 
 

with luv, 

BD 

I was more thinking of the example that was shared in publication of how, in meetings with the Relief Society Pres. and the Elder's Quorum Pres., that both presidents should take turns presiding.  This came out a few years ago when the RS and EQ got their new duties.  I don't remember what the publication was anymore so I can't provide the reference off of the top of my head, but we did discuss it on the board so it's quoted here somewhere (which I know is not at all helpful for anyone trying to look it up).

Women do not generally preside like men do in the church, but in a list of "facts", if kim is saying that they never preside over men who hold the priesthood then that isn't actually a fact.

I agree that it wouldn't make sense not to count the teachers in primary since the presidency is the one giving them their assignments and training them.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

This is new to me.  And it seems like you got three up votes for your statement.  But I thought that the highest ranking priesthood holder always presided in the meeting.  For example in a sacrament meeting, a bishop might conduct, but if the stake president is there, he would preside.  

Are you saying that a woman can preside over a priesthood holder?  Are you talking about presiding or conducting.    I guess what I am asking is, how can or does a woman preside over a priesthood holder?

I'll copy and paste what I just posted to BD since it's easier--

I was more thinking of the example that was shared in publication of how, in meetings with the Relief Society Pres. and the Elder's Quorum Pres., that both presidents should take turns presiding.  This came out a few years ago when the RS and EQ got their new duties.  I don't remember what the publication was anymore so I can't provide the reference off of the top of my head, but we did discuss it on the board so it's quoted here somewhere (which I know is not at all helpful for anyone trying to look it up).

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Then why does the handbook state “he or she” when it talks about presiding over meetings if there is never a chance that a woman presides?

A husband may preside in the home, but if there is no husband, does not the mother rather than a priesthood holding son?  There is nothing that teaches the son has authority over his mother in the home.

Priesthood holders do not preside over meetings they have no stewardship over. A visiting bishop wouldn’t assign presiding over a ward he is visiting if their bishop is out of town. Thus for the same reason the EQP won’t preside in Primary, YW, or RS. If the Bishop is present in those, he will preside, but if he isn’t the president does or her counselor if she is not present as demonstrated by the quote from the handbook above. 
 

Nor would a son preside in his family because that is not his stewardship, but his mother’s.

It was either Pres. Oaks or Pres. Nelson that specifically taught in GC that if there is no father in the home the mother presides, not a son, regardless if the son is ordained or not.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It was either Pres. Oaks or Pres. Nelson that specifically taught in GC that if there is no father in the home the mother presides, not a son, regardless if the son is ordained or not.

Just curious - does the endowed status of the Mother change that?  Just speaking doctrinally. (I don't think any 14 year old should be dictating to his mother). But from a priesthood perspective I feel like endowed females hold more priesthood authority than Aaronic Priesthood holders.

[rongo]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Just curious - does the endowed status of the Mother change that?  Just speaking doctrinally. (I don't think any 14 year old should be dictating to his mother). But from a priesthood perspective I feel like endowed females hold more priesthood authority than Aaronic Priesthood holders.

To me, it has nothing to do with priesthood. Mothers preside over their children in the absence of a father --- by virtue of being the mother. Regardless of whether a boy holds the Aaronic Priesthood or not. It's not like a boy can "rise up" and take the reins over the family because he's a deacon, teacher, or priest. The mother is the parent in the home, and presides over it, in my view. 

[longview]

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It was either Pres. Oaks or Pres. Nelson that specifically taught in GC that if there is no father in the home the mother presides, not a son, regardless if the son is ordained or not.

And also she gets to preside even if she is not a member.

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Just curious - does the endowed status of the Mother change that?  Just speaking doctrinally. (I don't think any 14 year old should be dictating to his mother).

No it don't.  Because God gave her the privilege of child-bearing, she PRESIDES over her posterity.  With or without her husband.  Along with her husband OR along with God OR both.

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Just curious - does the endowed status of the Mother change that?  Just speaking doctrinally. (I don't think any 14 year old should be dictating to his mother). But from a priesthood perspective I feel like endowed females hold more priesthood authority than Aaronic Priesthood holders.

 

This link is from 1991 so it is "old school" but it teaches that being endowed has no bearing on who presides in the home (though it, being old school, neve uses the word preside).  It is always the parent.

And I agree with you that an endowed woman would hold more priesthood authority than aaronic priesthood holders.

I believe that the statement from either Pres. Oaks or Pres. Nelson (maybe both of them said it, I don't remember) makes a similar point but for some reason it's not loading on my computer so I can't see it right now.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, longview said:

And also she gets to preside even if she is not a member.

No it don't.  Because God gave her the privilege of child-bearing, she PRESIDES over her posterity.  With or without her husband.  Along with her husband OR along with God OR both.

Agreed

[BlueDreams]

On 2/26/2022 at 9:12 PM, kimpearson said:

I have been thinking about a number of issues that cause most of the faith crisis or hard discussions in the Church.  I have thought about Brad Wilcox's attempts to give explanations to those issues.  I have recently been listening to Jared Halverson's explanation of those issues.  In my opinion, neither Brad nor Jared, give explanations that in the following words of Joseph Smith tastes sweet.

"This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which are given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more." (King Follet sermon)

So I would like to present some of those issues, what I see as the facts the Church claims on the issue and my views.  Would you please share your views on the issue and how you find an explanation that "tastes good" to you.

Women and the priesthood

Facts -

• Women cannot be ordained to the priesthood
• Women cannot preside over any man in a priesthood calling
• Women cannot preside over a ward, stake, area or world as the final authority
• Women cannot perform priesthood ordinances with the exception of washing and anointings
• Women cannot perform priesthood blessings by anointing with consecrated oil
• Women cannot stand on the other side of the veil in the temple
• There is no revelation anywhere in any canonized scripture that says women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no modern prophet who has ever said women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no explanation anywhere of why women can't hold the priesthood
• There appears to be no effort by current prophets to get revelation on this matter
• Numerous changes have been made in recent years to give women a greater voice
• Numerous general authorities have explained that women have access to all the blessings of the priesthood but never attempt to explain why women can't be ordained to the priesthood
• Many women and young women who are members of the Church really struggle with all the above and feel pain related to it

My views

• Women not being ordained to the priesthood appears to be the result of thousands of years of cultural indoctrination with no indication that God was ever behind it.
• Leaders of the Church don't dare change anything unless they get a revelation from God.  Only President Kimball appears to have been willing of recent prophets to put the work in to get such a revelation.
• Our cultural conditioning conditions us to believe that men and women could never function smoothly together is a bishopric, stake presidency or high council.
• A very significant portion of the male active members of the Church would really struggle if women were ordained to the priesthood.
• Other churches have demonstrated beyond any doubt that women are capable of leading congregations and church leadership.
• I am not comfortable and feel nothing sweet tasting with any explanation I have ever been given as to why true doctrine is that women shouldn't be ordained to the priesthood.

Your views

I would love to hear your views on this issue and how you find a sweet taste with any explanation that has been given.

 

More issues to come but let us address them one at a time.

1. I double check if what I assume is correct…for example some of your “facts” are not actually facts. They’re either opinions/assumptions, overlook some things, or oversimplifications on certain point. (See below)
2. I look into the whys of what people are telling me
3. I seek out the limitations not just in current church structures but in the “solutions” people are offering and past variations
4. I seek the strengths in the current structure and/or past ones.
5. I work to stay humble in what I don’t fully know.

 

 Here is my take on some of your facts (Bold are ones I don't view as facts, italics is my responses, underlined I have caveats or am uncertain about):

• Women cannot be ordained to the priesthood
• Women cannot preside over any man in a priesthood calling - see response to bluebell and calm's response
• Women cannot preside over a ward, stake, area or world as the final authority - i think this points more to culturally how we view and sometimes engage with certain authorities…something that I actually see being chipped away.
• Women cannot perform priesthood ordinances with the exception of washing and anointings- and parts of the endowment
• Women cannot perform priesthood blessings by anointing with consecrated oil - not currently, they did to some degree in the past
• Women cannot stand on the other side of the veil in the temple - true though women do present the person, help the person through, and proclaim them ready to go through the veil.
• There is no revelation anywhere in any canonized scripture that says women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no modern prophet who has ever said women cannot hold the priesthood- this one I’m more just curious about your sources on this. I haven’t looked at every statement on women and priesthood
• /There is no explanation anywhere of why women can't hold the priesthood - there isn’t; there’s still a lot of scripture and rites that talks about the priesthood as well as distinct roles.
• There appears to be no effort by current prophets to get revelation on this matter- this can’t be substantiated and based on the shift in practice recently I could point to signs that questions surrounding this have definitely been a topic of discussion and prayer for the leaders of the church
• Numerous changes have been made in recent years to give women a greater voice
• Numerous general authorities have explained that women have access to all the blessings of the priesthood but never attempt to explain why women can't be ordained to the priesthood - same curiosity as an earlier fact
• Many women and young women who are members of the Church really struggle with all the above and feel pain related to it - I don’t disagree..i would say my problems with this are less tied to priesthood and moreso having women’s roles, voices, and capacities underutilized though.

 

As you can imagine, since I see facts differently my views also are likely to differ. On top of that there’s other facts that I add to this list that are not exactly negative.

 

My other facts:

• my husband holding the priesthood does not change the equitable structure in our home…nor does it exclude my own priesthood power (as in power and authority to receive and act on revelation for our family) in the home. Several talks have been given differentiating priesthood at home v priesthood office to dismiss more sexist interpretation that put husbands as “final authorities,” heads of households, etc as somehow doctrinal.
• There’s no evidence that even in zion societies or more balanced relationships (ex. Adam and eve) that women were officiating certain rites/orders.
• Priesthood doesn’t magically fix some of the issues I’ve heard from those seeking priesthood ordination as a solution (this one comes from me actively seeking perspective/voices from those who advocate for said change. My conclusion was that many of their concerns didn’t need priesthood ordination to change or that it wouldn’t be sufficient to root out other concerns).
• Women still practice and utilize priesthood power in callings, in their daily lives, and in temple rites. Roles and understanding within this have changed over the years…in some practices it shrank in others it’s expanded.
• Women play important roles and the strongest wards that I’ve been in are ones where those roles are strongly utilized and is more equitable in practice if not name. I see some of the changes in policy, working to encourage these forms of power (power with v. power over models)
• Priesthood ordination of women may not improve visibility or expand roles in the church when in practice. Especially in societies or cultures that are more sexist than ours and diminish female input in all aspects of life as a norm. Gender blind policies there would not remain gender blind in practice.
• The divine feminine is extremely underutilized and not understood.

My personal views:

• gender in the church had made me itchy in the past and still a bit in the present. Meaning I knew I/the church was missing some things, but I didn’t know exactly what...though there were parts I had some ideas about. For example the temple rites. Many of the verses or aspects added to the temple rites in the last shift were ones I was already using to help me interpret said rites away from more sexist renditions. That itch significantly reduced with the change.
• There is more we can and should do to expand women’s voices/experiences as equally needed that priesthood ordination either wouldn’t fully fix or may inadvertently undermine. The divine feminine/ heavenly mother come directly to mind. I don't have a deep urge to have male ordination...I have a stronger urge for women's power and lives to have more practical recognition and equitable utility. 
• If we lived in zion and men were still those to be ordained to hold certain keys, I don’t think I would really care that much. When you nail down what being ordained really is about it falls into only a couple things that are super specific. It’s basically officiating in specific rites and dispersing the use of authority in certain ways. That’s about it. How that’s done is where the rub is. Let me return to my family as an example of what I mean. We have a very equitable relationship. Covid ironically augmented that, since we now both work from home more. I take care of our daughter a little more he works for money a bit more. We both have talents we bring to our relationship that we use together for the purpose of strengthening our family (both immediate and extended) and our communities. We make decisions together, spiritual and practical. The one difference? When I'm not feeling well I ask for a priesthood blessing from him. When he's not feeling/doing well, I use wisdom and guide him to a best course/pray for him. If he needed a priesthood blessing, yes we'd have to go outside the home. When we prep for home sacrament, we have different roles.* I have no doubt that if there was no one available, God would hear my cries.** That's it. I can't think of anything else. So for me, there's not really an "itch" of something missing in my home, even though he "has" something I don't. There's a lot of things I don't have that he does and vice versa...those don't make one of us better, it just gives us different means to come together and build up as one. Ideally, I hope the church becomes more and more like that. Where women's voices are seen as necessary at every point of decision making. That there is more collaboration than dissemination. Where women's experiences as seen as valuable insights into understanding god and discerning where we need to go as a people. In my experience that's accessible without ordination.
• I'm not sold on ordination like a man is what that "itch" is leading me. What I want is more discourse and revelation on priestesshood....or in other words the power wrought in women that we are endowed with and receive. The more I see and experience this the less I itch.  

 

* I really love sacrament at home...it's been the best part of 2 years of isolations from church as it becomes a family experience. All of us actively do things to prepare and make sure sacrament goes smoothly.

**I would be down if it became some form of policy for women to do some form of blessings again. But that's not something that ordination is needed to do. 

 

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

On 2/26/2022 at 8:12 PM, kimpearson said:

Women cannot stand on the other side of the veil in the temple

Wouldn't it be odd to cast a woman as Jehovah, in a play? 

This is a part in a "presentation".

All ordinances represent blessings from  Male deity.

Would it be good to have a male play Mary in a Nativity play?

Why not?

All of liturgy is symbolic, right?

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

1. I double check if what I assume is correct…for example some of your “facts” are not actually facts. They’re either opinions/assumptions, overlook some things, or oversimplifications on certain point. (See below)
2. I look into the whys of what people are telling me
3. I seek out the limitations not just in current church structures but in the “solutions” people are offering and past variations
4. I seek the strengths in the current structure and/or past ones.
5. I work to stay humble in what I don’t fully know.

 

 Here is my take on some of your facts (Bold are ones I don't view as facts, italics is my responses, underlined I have caveats or am uncertain about):

• Women cannot be ordained to the priesthood
• Women cannot preside over any man in a priesthood calling - see response to bluebell and calm's response
• Women cannot preside over a ward, stake, area or world as the final authority - i think this points more to culturally how we view and sometimes engage with certain authorities…something that I actually see being chipped away.
• Women cannot perform priesthood ordinances with the exception of washing and anointings- and parts of the endowment
• Women cannot perform priesthood blessings by anointing with consecrated oil - not currently, they did to some degree in the past
• Women cannot stand on the other side of the veil in the temple - true though women do present the person, help the person through, and proclaim them ready to go through the veil.
• There is no revelation anywhere in any canonized scripture that says women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no modern prophet who has ever said women cannot hold the priesthood- this one I’m more just curious about your sources on this. I haven’t looked at every statement on women and priesthood
• /There is no explanation anywhere of why women can't hold the priesthood - there isn’t; there’s still a lot of scripture and rites that talks about the priesthood as well as distinct roles.
• There appears to be no effort by current prophets to get revelation on this matter- this can’t be substantiated and based on the shift in practice recently I could point to signs that questions surrounding this have definitely been a topic of discussion and prayer for the leaders of the church
• Numerous changes have been made in recent years to give women a greater voice
• Numerous general authorities have explained that women have access to all the blessings of the priesthood but never attempt to explain why women can't be ordained to the priesthood - same curiosity as an earlier fact
• Many women and young women who are members of the Church really struggle with all the above and feel pain related to it - I don’t disagree..i would say my problems with this are less tied to priesthood and moreso having women’s roles, voices, and capacities underutilized though.

 

As you can imagine, since I see facts differently my views also are likely to differ. On top of that there’s other facts that I add to this list that are not exactly negative.

 

My other facts:

• my husband holding the priesthood does not change the equitable structure in our home…nor does it exclude my own priesthood power (as in power and authority to receive and act on revelation for our family) in the home. Several talks have been given differentiating priesthood at home v priesthood office to dismiss more sexist interpretation that put husbands as “final authorities,” heads of households, etc as somehow doctrinal.
• There’s no evidence that even in zion societies or more balanced relationships (ex. Adam and eve) that women were officiating certain rites/orders.
• Priesthood doesn’t magically fix some of the issues I’ve heard from those seeking priesthood ordination as a solution (this one comes from me actively seeking perspective/voices from those who advocate for said change. My conclusion was that many of their concerns didn’t need priesthood ordination to change or that it wouldn’t be sufficient to root out other concerns).
• Women still practice and utilize priesthood power in callings, in their daily lives, and in temple rites. Roles and understanding within this have changed over the years…in some practices it shrank in others it’s expanded.
• Women play important roles and the strongest wards that I’ve been in are ones where those roles are strongly utilized and is more equitable in practice if not name. I see some of the changes in policy, working to encourage these forms of power (power with v. power over models)
• Priesthood ordination of women may not improve visibility or expand roles in the church when in practice. Especially in societies or cultures that are more sexist than ours and diminish female input in all aspects of life as a norm. Gender blind policies there would not remain gender blind in practice.
• The divine feminine is extremely underutilized and not understood.

My personal views:

• gender in the church had made me itchy in the past and still a bit in the present. Meaning I knew I/the church was missing some things, but I didn’t know exactly what...though there were parts I had some ideas about. For example the temple rites. Many of the verses or aspects added to the temple rites in the last shift were ones I was already using to help me interpret said rites away from more sexist renditions. That itch significantly reduced with the change.
• There is more we can and should do to expand women’s voices/experiences as equally needed that priesthood ordination either wouldn’t fully fix or may inadvertently undermine. The divine feminine/ heavenly mother come directly to mind. I don't have a deep urge to have male ordination...I have a stronger urge for women's power and lives to have more practical recognition and equitable utility. 
• If we lived in zion and men were still those to be ordained to hold certain keys, I don’t think I would really care that much. When you nail down what being ordained really is about it falls into only a couple things that are super specific. It’s basically officiating in specific rites and dispersing the use of authority in certain ways. That’s about it. How that’s done is where the rub is. Let me return to my family as an example of what I mean. We have a very equitable relationship. Covid ironically augmented that, since we now both work from home more. I take care of our daughter a little more he works for money a bit more. We both have talents we bring to our relationship that we use together for the purpose of strengthening our family (both immediate and extended) and our communities. We make decisions together, spiritual and practical. The one difference? When I'm not feeling well I ask for a priesthood blessing from him. When he's not feeling/doing well, I use wisdom and guide him to a best course/pray for him. If he needed a priesthood blessing, yes we'd have to go outside the home. When we prep for home sacrament, we have different roles.* I have no doubt that if there was no one available, God would hear my cries.** That's it. I can't think of anything else. So for me, there's not really an "itch" of something missing in my home, even though he "has" something I don't. There's a lot of things I don't have that he does and vice versa...those don't make one of us better, it just gives us different means to come together and build up as one. Ideally, I hope the church becomes more and more like that. Where women's voices are seen as necessary at every point of decision making. That there is more collaboration than dissemination. Where women's experiences as seen as valuable insights into understanding god and discerning where we need to go as a people. In my experience that's accessible without ordination.
• I'm not sold on ordination like a man is what that "itch" is leading me. What I want is more discourse and revelation on priestesshood....or in other words the power wrought in women that we are endowed with and receive. The more I see and experience this the less I itch.  

 

* I really love sacrament at home...it's been the best part of 2 years of isolations from church as it becomes a family experience. All of us actively do things to prepare and make sure sacrament goes smoothly.

**I would be down if it became some form of policy for women to do some form of blessings again. But that's not something that ordination is needed to do. 

 

With luv,

BD

Truth. Thank you.

Liturgy is symbolism; every person has their own spiritual power