Uncomfortable Truths and how we deal with them

[poptart]

On 2/26/2022 at 11:13 PM, Peacefully said:

I’ll just sit back and let the men explain. 

I think She and Her Son might have something to say about that, if the men will listen.  I'm not holding my breath....

[2BizE]

Women are so super special and have the ability to give birth that they do not need the priesthood….they can just walk into any temple without the priesthood….they are that special….

Said by Brad Wilcox and Mormon leaders all the time, which I believe is gaslighting.

[2BizE]

On 2/26/2022 at 10:05 PM, Bernard Gui said:

FWIW, the pattern we follow on earth was established before the foundation of the world with the Father and the Son as the source of all authority. The doctrinal position of the First Born as God, Creator, Savior, and Father of the Faithful is set forth in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve’s doctrinal exposition “The Father and the Son” (1916). The doctrine of foreordination to the Priesthood After the Order of the Son of God (what we call the Melchizedek Priesthood) is expounded in Alma 13 and D&C 107. As far as has been revealed, Priesthood authority is invested in God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and their sons. Unless there is further revelation to the contrary, this is how the Kingdom of God is organized.

This reminds me a lot of this statement from the church in 1949, which has since been disavowed by current church leaders…

”The attitude of the church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.”

President George Albert Smith, August 17, 1949, speaking on behalf of the First Presidency.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

This reminds me a lot of this statement from the church in 1949, which has since been disavowed by current church leaders…

”The attitude of the church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.”

President George Albert Smith, August 17, 1949, speaking on behalf of the First Presidency.

This wasn't disavowed by current church leaders. Past explanations were in general, but it goes without saying that the priesthood was denied "at the present time" (1949). How do you disavow that?  I'm not aware of any commentary by Church leaders that this should not have happened.

Likewise, Church leaders have been silent on whether this was a commandment, just a policy, or what. They aren't touching it with a ten-foot pole --- only the disavowal of past explanations exists currently (with no actual explanations given),

[2BizE]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

This wasn't disavowed by current church leaders. Past explanations were in general, but it goes without saying that the priesthood was denied "at the present time" (1949). How do you disavow that?  I'm not aware of any commentary by Church leaders that this should not have happened.

Likewise, Church leaders have been silent on whether this was a commandment, just a policy, or what. They aren't touching it with a ten-foot pole --- only the disavowal of past explanations exists currently (with no actual explanations given),

I find this topic similar to the OPs where the church seems reluctant to address priesthood ordination of women.  Leaders will occasionally give some platitudes to grease over the question, but fail to actually take it to the Lord in serious consideration….which seems to be in the job description of the Prophet.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Women are so super special and have the ability to give birth that they do not need the priesthood….they can just walk into any temple without the priesthood….they are that special….

Said by Brad Wilcox and Mormon leaders all the time, which I believe is gaslighting.

How is it gaslighting if they actually believe it?

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

This wasn't disavowed by current church leaders. Past explanations were in general, but it goes without saying that the priesthood was denied "at the present time" (1949). How do you disavow that?  I'm not aware of any commentary by Church leaders that this should not have happened.

Likewise, Church leaders have been silent on whether this was a commandment, just a policy, or what. They aren't touching it with a ten-foot pole --- only the disavowal of past explanations exists currently (with no actual explanations given),

If they could prove that it was a commandment, I believe they would have presented that evidence already. 

I don't think they have come out one way or the other because the origins are murky, and landing on either side of the isle is going to cause problems for different groups of people.  For example, this quote right here will be a problem if they come down on the 'it was not of God' side.  The other side has different problems, but they would not be less significant.

I don't know how long they can keep up the agnostic line on it though.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

How is it gaslighting if they actually believe it?

People forget that in order to gaslight someone, you have to believe that you are deceiving them.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I find this topic similar to the OPs where the church seems reluctant to address priesthood ordination of women.  Leaders will occasionally give some platitudes to grease over the question, but fail to actually take it to the Lord in serious consideration….which seems to be in the job description of the Prophet.

Evidence suggests that past prophets took the issue of blacks and priesthood to the Lord many times.  It's hard to believe that they aren't doing it with other difficult issues as well.  You'd have to believe that they actually don't care about seeking the will of the Lord to believe that they aren't doing so, which would mean that they are just pretending at their beliefs.

And that's a serious accusation without much to back it up.

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think they have come out one way or the other because the origins are murky, and landing on either side of the isle is going to cause problems for different groups of people.

I also think it's possible that the 'answer' doesn't fit neatly on either side of the perceived aisle.

Elder Corbitt in his essay on race specifically references John 9 in relation to this matter:

Quote

 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

 

[kimpearson]

Well I do have to say I didn't quite expect the general response I got.  The following are just my views and opinions on your responses.

• Most of you either don't believe or won't admit there are any uncomfortable truths currently taught as truth in the Church about women and priesthood.  Do you believe there are any other  uncomfortable truths taught?

 

• Based on responses, anybody who is uncomfortable with any thing taught as truth related to women and the priesthood in the gospel is wrong and has no basis for such feeling.  So I guess many of you believe there is no need to even address this as it isn't an issue.

 

• Many of  you have no problem with gas lighting.  You knew exactly what I was saying about women not presiding over men in priesthood callings but instead you sought to convince me I was wrong.  No deacon is presided over by a women in the priesthood, no teacher is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no priest is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no elder is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no high priest is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no seventy is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no apostle is presided over by a woman in the priesthood.  No woman is presided over by another woman in the priesthood as the presiding priesthood authority over women is the bishop.  No man or child who doesn't hold any priesthood is presided over in the priesthood by a woman as the presiding priesthood holder of unordained men and children is the bishop.  All the talk about primary presidents and women presiding in meetings is an attempt to gaslight my original statement.

 

• Some of you gas lighted my statements that there are no scriptural or authoritative explanation of why women can't hold the priesthood by asking me for evidence when I am telling you I can't find anything so there is nothing to offer.  If you thought my statement was wrong, the only way to show I am wrong is find scriptures or authoritative statements that give a clear explanation why women can't hold the priesthood.  Saying the Godhead is all made up of men is not an explanation of anything about why anyone doesn't hold the priesthood.  Its a statement of who does hold the priesthood.

 

• I am curious if any of you have talked to anyone troubled about women and the priesthood.  Have the arguments you have used in my discussion comforted such people and answered all their questions?

Thanks for all the responses.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

No deacon is presided over by a women in the priesthood, no teacher is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no priest is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no elder is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no high priest is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no seventy is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no apostle is presided over by a woman in the priesthood. 

If that was what you meant you should have said it originally.  Would have save me quite a bit of time.  I honestly thought you were talking about presiding in general because others have claimed women can’t preside in any situation over any man with the priesthood…such as claiming if a husband dies, divorces, or is otherwise not in the home, even a deacon will preside over his mother (becomes the man of the house, which is a trope that not only occurs within the Latter-day Saint culture).  There has also been the claim that women never preside because they don’t hold a priesthood office….some refuse to accept that calling a RS President by her title is acceptable and insist using “Sister” with every woman is a sign they can’t preside.

I was addressing this simply for accuracy, not as a defense for women not being given priesthood office.  And yes, I have had endless discussions about women and the priesthood, many with women who are very troubled by it, including the teaching husbands preside in the home (in some cases it has been used as an excuse for abuse, including for my own sister).

Edited March 1, 2022 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

 

• Most of you either don't believe or won't admit there are any uncomfortable truths currently taught as truth in the Church about women and priesthood.  Do you believe there are any other  uncomfortable truths taught?

If a truth is uncomfortable does that make it less true?

Yes, there are things taught that make me uncomfortable.  But I also don't consider what is taught to be true.  I consider it error.

If an actual truth makes us uncomfortable I would worry about the warning to those that taketh the truth to be hard.

[BlueDreams]

41 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I am curious if any of you have talked to anyone troubled about women and the priesthood.  Have the arguments you have used in my discussion comforted such people and answered all their questions?

Personally, a lot. With several different women in a range of differing circumstances. I've also seen what happens in our church communities when gender issues go very very wrong. And I've spent a lot of time studying it out, pondering, re-looking, and exploring my beliefs/experiences on this. Particularly when I was a YSA 4 ish years ago. Not to say it still doesn't happen. My last in depth convo was probably less than a month ago with a friend who recently resigned from the church. But considering none of the 4 descriptions fit what I was relaying, I also assume my post wasn't really apart of this or you grossly misunderstood what I was trying to say. 

 

With luv,

BD

[strappinglad]

7 hours ago, 2BizE said:

but fail to actually take it to the Lord

Maybe they did and got an answer similar to the one Joseph got when he asked about the timing if the second coming. 

[Peacefully]

I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I am a faithful, believing member who has been an RS President, a YW President and an ordinance worker and I look forward to the day women serve as bishops, stake presidents, and General Authorities. I look forward to women not being leaders by being married to the leader such as a mission President but can be a mission President in her own right. These callings aren’t for every woman just like they aren’t for every man, but 50% or more of our membership is being under-utilized, imho. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I believe our Heavenly Father and Mother are all about equal rights. So, I may have to wait until the next life to see this come to fruition. It makes me sad, but I think much of this inequality is a product of the times in which the church grew up.   Denying priesthood ordination to women and then saying some callings can only be held by priesthood holders pretty much shuts women out.  If we say it isn’t about ordination, but it is about leadership roles, but we can’t be called to the leadership roles without ordination, we just go round and round. 

[Calm]

I don’t see holding callings as a right, but it is a privilege and a blessing as well as a responsibility.  
 

However, the way Abraham talked*** about why he sought after the right to hold the priesthood as well as how Joseph organized the Relief Society, I see it as highly likely either the priesthood itself or something tailored to women (perhaps after the Order of God the Mother) will likely be available as a right and blessing in the future for women. As to what that means in terms of the priesthood offices we currently have, don’t know. 

***

Quote

And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Got interrupted.

There are a few things I strongly desire—hopefully righteously like Abraham—to see restored, one of which is the acceptance and instruction of women to anoint and give blessings as they did in Joseph and Brigham’s time and later, including my great great grandmother who was called and trained and set apart as a midwife**.  I would like to hold the right belonging to the mothers, assuming that which Joseph instructed was the beginning of it. 
 

I absolutely love that men have the unique opportunity to interact with their children and friends through the ordinances of naming, baptism, and confirmation. I do not want to see women sharing in those areas unless that is something God means for us to do as I think there is great value in the formal, public recognition of the connection between father and child and even the connection between the one who invites another to join our community and then participates as God’s representative in performing the baptism and/or confirmation.  I think it greatly important that men have something unique to share among themselves as well as unique between father and child. I would like to see it continue to be that way.
 

Since witnesses were rarely the father, I don’t see opening that up to all of the ward as diminishing that uniqueness at all. In fact the witnesses being anyone of the community is a great symbol of the community being there as part of the ritual of acceptance of the covenant and acceptance of the community as well as the community accepting the covenanter. 

But I do see a massive gap of any formal ritual that declares the bond of mother and child before the community as is so well done in the case of a worthy, priesthood holding father (I think it would be an appropriate touch to let a nonmember father, who is allowing his child to be named and bless in the Church because the mother desires it, to sit in the center and hold his child while the other men lay their hands to bless him/her.)  I don’t see many moments where there is any formal ritual or even just recognition of mother and child comparable to father and child.  Men get to in essence declare “this child is mine!” (in the awesome, not selfish sense) before the whole ward multiple times throughout a child’s life, more for boys even if he chooses to ordain his sons.
 

I suspect that many don’t see a comparable need for mothers to do the same since in the past women were at times completely defined by the relationship they have with their children (quite a few East Asian dramas have the mothers’ nicknames being “so and so’s mother”, they aren’t even called their actual names by their friends and relatives even after a child grows up or dies) they were always around their children and always would be.  The relationship is clear and apparent to all, so why have something formal?  But we even have “Daddy-Daughter*** dates” when dads should be always around their children and always will be if they are good dads, so why not do the same for women?  Would a formal, communal recognition of a mother and child relationship be less meaningful than the formal communal rituals that exist today for fathers?  Makes little sense to believe it would be meaningless, so why don’t we have them?

For those that say the naming, baptism, and confirmation ordinances are not ordinances for fathers to formalize their bond before the community as any worthy and ordained man really could do them, please tell me why the tradition is so strong that when my husband chose to let our son baptize our daughter, he actually got some resistance from those making it seem like he was making a huge sacrifice in giving up that opportunity.  Whether those ordinances were originally meant to be done by fathers, they certainly are now and that meaning is so strong I have seen men ashamed they were not worthy when they could care little the rest of the time and great inconvenience undertaken to ensure a worthy father was given the opportunity to perform the ordinance. 

And such things are not just meaningful to the father, but it is very important to most child that their father is the one that brings them into the fold, that is their guide so to speak  

What these ordinances that mothers might perform are likely to entail, I don’t know, but Joseph Smith said there was a lot left to learn of the endowment and it sounded to me as it wasn’t just knowledge, but ritualized knowledge we would be receiving—meaning additional ordinances—and I wonder if perhaps there are also ordinances that pertain to joining the community of Saints, enabling us to more fully take upon us Christ’s name that we still haven’t received….Ordinances that are perhaps waiting for the priestesshood to be fully restored before they can be properly performed. 
 

Or perhaps healing will come to be seen as the province of the sisters.

And just as ward members are set apart often by the bishop or others, I can see such callings and setting apart being performed by the RS President if there comes a time the RS operates again in a more independent fashion as occurred under Joseph. 

In no way am I agitating for such changes. Merely I see a need to reconcile certain doctrines and practices and I am exploring what reconciliation might occur through restoration and revelation, what might be these expressions.

**My memory is she used the word “ordained”, but I may be wrong or she misunderstood. 

***Anyone have ward “Mother-Sons’ dates” similar to the daddy daughter dates?

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Calm

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Got interrupted.

There are a few things I strongly desire—hopefully righteously like Abraham—to see restored, one of which is the acceptance and instruction of women to anoint and give blessings as they did in Joseph and Brigham’s time and later, including my great great grandmother who was called and trained and set apart as a midwife**.  I would like to hold the right belonging to the mothers, assuming that which Joseph instructed was the beginning of it. 
 

I absolutely love that men have the unique opportunity to interact with their children and friends through the ordinances of naming, baptism, and confirmation. I do not want to see women sharing in those areas unless that is something God means for us to do as I think there is great value in the formal, public recognition of the connection between father and child and even the connection between the one who invites another to join our community and then participates as God’s representative in performing the baptism and/or confirmation.  I think it greatly important that men have something unique to share among themselves as well as unique between father and child. I would like to see it continue to be that way.
 

Since witnesses were rarely the father, I don’t see opening that up to all of the ward as diminishing that uniqueness at all. In fact the witnesses being anyone of the community is a great symbol of the community being there as part of the ritual of acceptance of the covenant and acceptance of the community as well as the community accepting the covenanter. 

But I do see a massive gap of any formal ritual that declares the bond of mother and child before the community as is so well done in the case of a worthy, priesthood holding father (I think it would be an appropriate touch to let a nonmember father, who is allowing his child to be named and bless in the Church because the mother desires it, to sit in the center and hold his child while the other men lay their hands to bless him/her.)  I don’t see many moments where there is any formal ritual or even just recognition of mother and child comparable to father and child.  Men get to in essence declare “this child is mine!” (in the awesome, not selfish sense) before the whole ward multiple times throughout a child’s life, more for boys even if he chooses to ordain his sons.
 

I suspect that many don’t see a comparable need for mother’s to do the same since in the past women were at times completely defined by the relationship they have with their children (quite a few East Asian dramas have the mothers’ nicknames being “so and so’s mother”, they aren’t even called their actual names by their friends and relatives even after a child grows up or dies) they were always around their children and always would be.  The relationship is clear and apparent to all, so why have something formal?  But we even have “Daddy-Daughter*** dates” when dads should be always around their children and always will be if they are good dads, so why not do the same for women?  Would a formal, communal recognition of a mother and child relationship be less meaningful than the formal communal rituals that exist today for fathers?  Makes little sense to believe it would be meaningless, so why don’t we have them?

For those that say the naming, baptism, and confirmation ordinances are not ordinances for fathers to formalize their bond before the community as any worthy and ordained man really could do them, please tell me why the tradition is so strong that when my husband chose to let our son baptize our daughter, he actually got some resistance from those making it seem like he was making a huge sacrifice in giving up that opportunity.  Whether those ordinances were originally meant to be done by fathers, they certainly are now and that meaning is so strong I have seen men ashamed they were not worthy when they could care little the rest of the time and great inconvenience undertaken to ensure a worthy father was given the opportunity to perform the ordinance. 

And such things are not just meaningful to the father, but it is very important to most child that their father is the one that brings them into the fold, that is their guide so to speak  

What these ordinances that mothers might perform are likely to entail, I don’t know, but Joseph Smith said there was a lot left to learn of the endowment and it sounded to me as it wasn’t just knowledge, but ritualized knowledge we would be receiving—meaning additional ordinances—and I wonder if perhaps there are also ordinances that pertain to joining the community of Saints, enabling us to more fully take upon us Christ’s name that we still haven’t received….Ordinances that are perhaps waiting for the priestesshood to be fully restored before they can be properly performed. 
 

Or perhaps healing will come to be seen as the province of the sisters.

And just as ward members are set apart often by the bishop or others, I can see such callings and setting apart being performed by the RS President if there comes a time the RS operates again in a more independent fashion as occurred under Joseph. 

In no way am I agitating for such changes. Merely I see a need to reconcile certain doctrines and practices and I am exploring what reconciliation might occur through restoration and revelation, what might be these expressions.

**My memory is she used the word “ordained”, but I may be wrong or she misunderstood. 

***Anyone have ward “Mother-Sons’ dates” similar to the daddy daughter dates?

 

I also see callings as a privilege, and not a right. I just think women should have the same privileges as the men. As far as things like baby blessings and such, I see it a bit differently. First, my kids were too old for baby blessings when I joined the church. Their dad never became a member so other priesthood holders baptized them. They were never sealed to me. So I was the only member in my family, but could not perform any of the ordinances for my kids. I know this is probably very controversial, but I wish my kids could have been sealed just to me since their father did not convert. In some ways I feel I’ve been penalized even though I’ve tried to do everything right. I totally see where you are coming from, though. We just have different lived experiences and that’s ok. Not all of us women types have to be in lock-step:) 

[Calm]

On 3/1/2022 at 4:13 AM, Peacefully said:

They were never sealed to me. So I was the only member in my family, but could not perform any of the ordinances for my kids.

Yes, it would be loving to have a sacred ritual for part member families…maybe not sealing itself, but the promise of a sealing to come….or something that reminds and strengthens the covenant and commitment we made together by choosing to embrace God’s plan and then taking this step together as a family.  I don’t see a big stretch though to sealing to one worthy parent given my own understanding that sealing parents to children is not a direct parallel to the family experience we have in mortality.

I am trying to keep speculation to least amount that still fills the gap in the most recognizable way (based on what happened in past and could be restored and then extrapolation from there).  I think given the value and comfort/connection with the divine that can occur through sacred ritual, I would very much like to see communal rituals for those who are non-binary, noncis, single, or part member families or other non-traditional ideal ‘category’ that clearly teaches their roles, but what doctrine we have is based on the ideal of male-female, equally yoked, etc., so that is how I framed it.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[CA Steve]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

People forget that in order to gaslight someone, you have to believe that you are deceiving them.

My understanding of gaslighting is that it does not have to be intentional.

From Wiki.

Quote

Gaslighting is a colloquialism, loosely defined as making someone question their own reality.[1][2]

The term may also be used to describe a person (a "gaslighter") who presents a false narrative to another group or person which leads them to doubt their perceptions and become misled (generally for the gaslighter's own benefit), disoriented or distressed. Generally, this dynamic is possible only when the audience is vulnerable, such as in unequal power relationships, or when the audience is fearful of the losses associated with challenging the false narrative. Gaslighting is not necessarily malicious or intentional, although in some cases it is.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

My understanding of gaslighting is that it does not have to be intentional.

From Wiki.

 

That has changed the fundamental experience of gaslighting, which was intentional and abusive, significantly broadening it to the point I believe the term loses most of its value.  Language is dynamic and there are no rules that prevent the transition, but I think it confuses more than is helpful if used in such a fashion.  It was a very powerful and useful term IMO, great for intentional lies of Holocaust deniers and politicians as well as a certain type of relationship abuse.

The loose definition of making someone question their own reality could be applied to any situation that provides a different perspective.

It reminds me of the expansion of the term Nazi to anyone who was ultra rigid in applying rules or ultracomitted to an ideal, decoupling the term from its original with its horrific history…turning the label into a joke mostly for pejorative purposes.  

Gaslighting then just becomes one more pejorative rather than informative label and is more likely to inflate the sense of victim hood than to inform it, IMO (since the original connotation of maliciousness and abuse is not required if unintentional, but still likely taints the sense of the label).

Edited March 1, 2022 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I am a faithful, believing member who has been an RS President, a YW President and an ordinance worker and I look forward to the day women serve as bishops, stake presidents, and General Authorities. I look forward to women not being leaders by being married to the leader such as a mission President but can be a mission President in her own right. These callings aren’t for every woman just like they aren’t for every man, but 50% or more of our membership is being under-utilized, imho. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I believe our Heavenly Father and Mother are all about equal rights. So, I may have to wait until the next life to see this come to fruition. It makes me sad, but I think much of this inequality is a product of the times in which the church grew up.   Denying priesthood ordination to women and then saying some callings can only be held by priesthood holders pretty much shuts women out.  If we say it isn’t about ordination, but it is about leadership roles, but we can’t be called to the leadership roles without ordination, we just go round and round. 

I agree on a lot of this, but have just come with a different end conclusion as to what I’d like to see for a more equitable relationship. I like female space in the church and I want that to be more than just a glorified girls club that has little meaning or significance. So part of me is just fine with different roles as long as those roles are actually fairly equitable as opposed to playing lip service to “women are important.” I don’t like how the roles have been culturally placed in a way over the years that have severely limited women’s input and roles in decision making. especially once you get past the ward where the higher up you go the less women are directly involved. To me this is a decision of how we order the church. Some of these to me would be fairly easy fixes (ex. Make missions President more of a joint calling with more balanced roles between the two partners as opposed to having the wife be a glorified tag along). Some would likely include structural shifts to increase female presence and work in general callings. I’m hesitant for them having the exact same callings in part because I’m concerned about losing female space; in part from some sacred experiences in said spaces that have developed my sense ofHeavenly Mother/divine feminine. I prefer (actually) equitable roles that focuses more and more on dispersed power through seeking collaboration than women having the same roles in a structure that i don’t see as ideal in the first place. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I also see callings as a privilege, and not a right. I just think women should have the same privileges as the men. As far as things like baby blessings and such, I see it a bit differently. First, my kids were too old for baby blessings when I joined the church. Their dad never became a member so other priesthood holders baptized them. They were never sealed to me. So I was the only member in my family, but could not perform any of the ordinances for my kids. I know this is probably very controversial, but I wish my kids could have been sealed just to me since their father did not convert. In some ways I feel I’ve been penalized even though I’ve tried to do everything right. I totally see where you are coming from, though. We just have different lived experiences and that’s ok. Not all of us women types have to be in lock-step:) 

I empathize. Due to the complexity of my family relationships, I’m sealed to no one besides my husband. It really bothered me when I was younger. I married 6 days shy of 30…so I had a long time to ponder the many messages that didn’t fully apply to me. It still does as I’ve fostered stronger relationships with my bio-dad’s side and come to love them as family. There’s not a working recognition or affirmation of deep relationships that don’t fit cleanly into a nuclear family where both parents are endowed members.
 

With said complicated family, my experience of a priesthood holder in the home was…let’s go with underwhelming as the most judicious description. The (2?) times I had my step-father blessed me were awkward and more cajoled by our home teachers. I have no spiritual respect for my step, though at this point in my life i also hold no hard feelings. I knew very very very little about priesthood before my mission. And most of what I learned was self taught. I do wonder how that effects my views too. So much of my perceived spiritual development happened outside a direct relationship with ordained priesthood members and since this was before recognizing female priesthood authority or power what I was most effected by didn’t have a name beyond “the spirit.” So priesthood ordination has played out in my life as something “nice, but optional” when it comes to spiritual growth and development. I know it’s not optional in the church as a whole and I’ve benefited from it for several important points in my life. But since I very rarely had a direct connection to it growing up, my experience of it was limited and not the main driver for my spiritual development. 
(for the record, my mom being ordained would not have helped my situation. It may have honestly made it worst) 

 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited March 1, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yes, it would be loving to have a sacred ritual for part member families…maybe not sealing itself, but the promise of a sealing to come….or something that reminds and strengthens the covenant and commitment we made together by choosing to embrace God’s plan and then taking this step together as a family.  I don’t see a big stretch though to sealing to one worthy parent given my own understanding that sealing parents to children is not a direct parallel to the family experience we have in mortality.

I am trying to keep speculation to least amount that still fills the gap in the most recognizable way (based on what happened in past and could be restored and then extrapolation from there).  I think given the value and comfort/connection with the divine that can occur through sacred ritual, I would very much like to see communal rituals for those who are non-binary, nonCSI, single, or part member families or other non-traditional ideal ‘category’ that clearly teaches their roles, but what doctrine we have is based on the ideal of male-female, equally yoked, etc., so that is how I framed it.

You say things so much better than I do:)