Uncomfortable Truths and how we deal with them

[Peacefully]

22 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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 

The work I do probably informs my conclusion. I am in the construction industry and have worked in a “man’s” world for 30 years. The CEO of our billion dollar company is female as is the VP over our department. It has been a long slog to see these examples in our industry, so coming to church and seeing such a patriarchal order makes me think have some work to do. I appreciate where you are coming from, but there are women, myself included, who gravitate more toward what we think of as masculine than feminine, and then to get pigeon-holed at church as women do this and men do that is a bit disconcerting. However, I don’t believe Heavenly Father and Mother pigeon-hole us, so that is where my faith lies:) 

Love to all:)

Peace

[BlueDreams]

5 hours 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 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?

 

Small side note, I wrote my daughter a “mother’s blessing” sometime after she was born. It was something prayerfully done, summarizing what I knew of her during the process of bringing her to earth as well as what I felt prompted to tell her to help her in her time here. I plan to do the same for any other children i have. I’m all for expanding rites that are women centered. 
 

i also see passing the sacrament as one of those areas that could be rearranged to have more a community experience. I get that this is also one of those things that culturally has come to be a form of initiation for deacons…but it doesn’t have to be just that. Family sacrament has strongly taught me that there’s other formats that can be equally significant/meaningful. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

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

From Wiki.

 

Wiki has changed the meaning.  The term comes from a movie and it was specific on how it was done. 

I'm guessing that the definition has changed because so many people are now using the term whenever someone says something they don't believe matches their worldview, and it was easier to change the meaning than get everyone to use the phrase correctly.  

I think Cal has it right.  The change has stripped the term of almost all of its power.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

also see passing the sacrament as one of those areas that could be rearranged to have more a community experience. I get that this is also one of those things that culturally has come to be a form of initiation for deacons…but it doesn’t have to be just that. Family sacrament has strongly taught me that there’s other formats that can be equally significant/meaningful. 

I think having girls participate in passing the sacrament would create a more communal experience in that this is something we do together, we participate actively in rather than just passively…. one of the few current ordinances I would like open to women and girls so as they can see early on they are a part of the sacred structure of the community and are not just appendages, auxiliaries, accessories to the real spiritual part of the Gospel, the Priesthood…as I have had it explain to me more than once (the Church does not technically need women to function (except in the temple for certain ordinances except for bringing the butts that sit on the pews into the world).  Other public ordinances if women are involved, we sit silent under the hands that bless up; nothing wrong with monents of passiveness.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

18 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

The work I do probably informs my conclusion. I am in the construction industry and have worked in a “man’s” world for 30 years. The CEO of our billion dollar company is female as is the VP over our department. It has been a long slog to see these examples in our industry, so coming to church and seeing such a patriarchal order makes me think have some work to do. I appreciate where you are coming from, but there are women, myself included, who gravitate more toward what we think of as masculine than feminine, and then to get pigeon-holed at church as women do this and men do that is a bit disconcerting. However, I don’t believe Heavenly Father and Mother pigeon-hole us, so that is where my faith lies:) 

Love to all:)

Peace

I’ve felt the pidgeon hole before. I think I’ve mentioned this before, but certain roles/spiritual blessings were so pidgeon holed in my head that I ended up confused by my own patriarchal blessing because the traits that defined me were ones I’d come to see as male only (to be fair i was 14 at the time and likely had more rigid constructs of male-female roles). There were also power dynamics that I had viewed from a cultural lens that were also challenged in general…like what it meant to be a leader, assertive, etc…that were in direct contradiction with being humble meek or soft-spoken. Both of which were frequently mentioned in my PB.
 

along with that, in my job now I constantly utilize feminist theory…but in a way that’s also recognizing different experiences and pressures on women’s sexuality or life in relationship with their husband who can have their own set of poor and gendered beliefs. There’s this hyper masculine vision of sex that’s ingrained in our society that shoots both men and women in the foot in their own monogamous long-term relationships (which is generally not well modeled). My job often is literally to change their small scale culture to have a more dynamic and flexible culture. One that’s not the same for each partner but more equitable/responsive in how they reach out to each other. 
I’m not a fan of hierarchy, I’m more into structural shifts that change the game rather than work within the existing game. Likely for a lot of what I mention 😉 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[Mark Beesley]

A response to the opening poster’s so-called facts:

Women and the priesthood

Facts -

• Women cannot be ordained to the priesthood

Women are not currently ordained to the priesthood offices of Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder, Seventy, High Priest, or Apostle. They may be ordained to any one of these offices on the same conditions as men, i.e. by prophecy and revelation, and the laying on of hands. As soon as someone with the same revelatory prowess as the Prophet Joseph arises and performs such ordinations, then we can certain of the mind and will of the Lord on the matter. 

• Women cannot preside over any man in a priesthood calling

See above.

• Women cannot preside over a ward, stake, area or world as the final authority

See above.

• Women cannot perform priesthood ordinances with the exception of washing and annointings

See above.

• Women cannot perform priesthood blessings by anointing with consecrated oil

See above

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

See above.

• There is no revelation anywhere in any canonized scripture that says women cannot hold the priesthood

That is because women can hold the priesthood.  See above.

• There is no modern prophet who has ever said women cannot hold the priesthood

Because to say such a thing would be untrue. See above.

• There is no explanation anywhere of why women can't hold the priesthood

See above

• There appears to be no effort by current prophets to get revelation on this matter

I do not believe this. I believe the leadership of the Church diligently seeks direction from the Lord regarding all matters affecting the Lord’s Church.

• Numerous changes have been made in recent years to give women a greater voice

Some revelations are of God, some are of men, snd some are of the devil.

• 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

Why would they try to explain something that is not factual?

• Many women and young women who are members of the Church really struggle with all the above and feel pain related to it

And I suspect there are just as many who trust the Lord.

Regards,

Mark Beesley

[BlueDreams]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wiki has changed the meaning.  The term comes from a movie and it was specific on how it was done. 

I'm guessing that the definition has changed because so many people are now using the term whenever someone says something they don't believe matches their worldview, and it was easier to change the meaning than get everyone to use the phrase correctly.  

I think Cal has it right.  The change has stripped the term of almost all of its power.

Ironically this definition is so loose that if I were to apply this in my office, I would technically be gaslighting a narcissistic client who’s psychologically abusive by making them question or feel distress in their current views/experiences. 
 

 

with luv, 

BD 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Ironically this definition is so loose that if I were to apply this in my office, I would technically be gaslighting a narcissistic client who’s psychologically abusive by making them question or feel distress in their current views/experiences. 
 

 

with luv, 

BD 

I admit that this kind of stuff really frustrates me, because it makes communication practically impossible.  We have an example in this thread, where posters are being accused of gaslighting because they either asked clarifying questions or have a different perspective than the OP.  

If you aren't allowed to question or disagree without being told you are gaslighting, then there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss the topic.  

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours 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.

Well, no. It’s not even remotely similar.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

As soon as someone with the same revelatory prowess as the Prophet Joseph arises

This is kind of a strange phrase.  What do you mean?

Are you implying that current church leadership lacks the necessary "revelatory prowess" to understand the mind and will of the Lord in relation to priesthood ordinations?

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Wiki has changed the meaning.  The term comes from a movie and it was specific on how it was done. 

I'm guessing that the definition has changed because so many people are now using the term whenever someone says something they don't believe matches their worldview, and it was easier to change the meaning than get everyone to use the phrase correctly.  

I think Cal has it right.  The change has stripped the term of almost all of its power.

I have no dog in the fight for what it meant vs what it now means. If everyone is using a phrase differently than we do, the onus is on us to adapt. Perhaps the solution is to use the term 'intentional gaslighting' . 

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I admit that this kind of stuff really frustrates me, because it makes communication practically impossible.  We have an example in this thread, where posters are being accused of gaslighting because they either asked clarifying questions or have a different perspective than the OP.  

If you aren't allowed to question or disagree without being told you are gaslighting, then there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss the topic.  

The term that frustrates me in this regard is "cancel culture".  Every time I read it I just see someone who is upset because someone else is disagreeing with them.

Edited March 1, 2022 by CA Steve

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Women are not currently ordained to the priesthood offices of Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder, Seventy, High Priest, or Apostle. They may be ordained to any one of these offices on the same conditions as men, i.e. by prophecy and revelation, and the laying on of hands. As soon as someone with the same revelatory prowess as the Prophet Joseph arises and performs such ordinations, then we can certain of the mind and will of the Lord on the matter. 

That is pure assumption, that these things are subject simply to what God wants and directs. Is there any indication that God bases such things on his own will and choice?  Is that how God operates?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Small side note, I wrote my daughter a “mother’s blessing” sometime after she was born. It was something prayerfully done, summarizing what I knew of her during the process of bringing her to earth as well as what I felt prompted to tell her to help her in her time here. I plan to do the same for any other children i have. I’m all for expanding rites that are women centered. 
 

i also see passing the sacrament as one of those areas that could be rearranged to have more a community experience. I get that this is also one of those things that culturally has come to be a form of initiation for deacons…but it doesn’t have to be just that. Family sacrament has strongly taught me that there’s other formats that can be equally significant/meaningful. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Wow, I wish I'd thought of writing a mother's blessing!!! 

[kimpearson]

Thanks for the recent responses, especially from the women.    That was the discussion I was hoping to generate.  I guess I need to work on my phrasing.  I just wanted to know what people feel in their hearts about an issue that is troublesome to so many members I know.   I am currently watching my bishop's wife struggle with issues and this is one of them and my heart goes out to her because she is a very good woman with a heart that reaches out.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

 

• There appears to be no effort by current prophets to get revelation on this matter

I do not believe this. I believe the leadership of the Church diligently seeks direction from the Lord regarding all matters affecting the Lord’s Church.

If history is any indicator, prophets are often just following the traditions of previous prophets and are not seeking revelation "regarding all matters affecting the Lord's Church".  They are just humans and are not covering all the bases all the time.   It can take many, many, many, many decades before a prophet decides to question the status quo and seek revelation on a specific matter facing the Church.  They have been known to say "what more can be done than what has been said and done", before one (Spencer W. Kimball) decides to seek a revelation on a matter. 

I will say however, that if a prophet is seeking revelation on the matter, it is unlikely that he would make it publicly known. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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

From Wiki.

 

“The term is derived from the 1944 film Gaslight,[4][5][6] in which a husband uses trickery to convince his wife that she is mentally unwell so he can steal from her.[7]”

Given this derivation, the term originally denoted behavior that was very much intentional and malicious. To use it in any other sense, therefore, is to rob the word of much of its power and meaning. Or, conversely, to slanderously apply it to someone whose behavior does not warrant it. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

They have been known to say "what more can be done than what has been said and done",

Do you have a specific attribution for the words you placed in quotation marks? 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“The term is derived from the 1944 film Gaslight,[4][5][6] in which a husband uses trickery to convince his wife that she is mentally unwell so he can steal from her.[7]”

Given this derivation, the term originally denoted behavior that was very much intentional and malicious. To use it in any other sense, therefore, is to rob the word of much of its power and meaning. Or, conversely, to slanderously apply it to someone whose behavior does nit warrant it. 

Language and usage evolve, though, and sometimes usage gets "commandeered" for other purposes (but when these pass into common usage, they are not "illegitimate" usages. They are bona fide usages). An example is "accolade," which today means praise and gravitas, but originally was a blow to the neck knights were given from behind, strong enough to knock them to the ground, as part of the knighting ceremony. The knight couldn't flinch or look like he anticipated the accolade. This was symbolic of many things, among which was the fact that the duties weren't all wine and roses; sometimes, they required you to take a blow.

The evolved usage doesn't "rob the word of much of its power and meaning." It is being applied in a different way to a modern setting. 

Teenagers are using "gaslighting" now in ways that don't involve "trying to get people to doubt their sanity." I think the people who try to pedantically insist on only the "doubt your sanity" or "malicious manipulation" meaning are getting left behind in current usage, as used by people using it in everyday speech.

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Language and usage evolve, though, and sometimes usage gets "commandeered" for other purposes (but when these pass into common usage, they are not "illegitimate" usages. They are bona fide usages). An example is "accolade," which today means praise and gravitas, but originally was a blow to the neck knights were given from behind, strong enough to knock them to the ground, as part of the knighting ceremony. The knight couldn't flinch or look like he anticipated the accolade. This was symbolic of many things, among which was the fact that the duties weren't all wine and roses; sometimes, they required you to take a blow.

The evolved usage doesn't "rob the word of much of its power and meaning." It is being applied in a different way to a modern setting. 

Teenagers are using "gaslighting" now in ways that don't involve "trying to get people to doubt their sanity." I think the people who try to pedantically insist on only the "doubt your sanity" or "malicious manipulation" meaning are getting left behind in current usage, as used by people using it in everyday speech.

Personally, the only place I've heard the word used is on this board.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Personally, the only place I've heard the word used is on this board.

I hear it at school --- a lot. "Aw, you're gaslighting me!" (when they didn't turn it in, but insist that they did). 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Language and usage evolve, though, and sometimes usage gets "commandeered" for other purposes (but when these pass into common usage, they are not "illegitimate" usages. They are bona fide usages). An example is "accolade," which today means praise and gravitas, but originally was a blow to the neck knights were given from behind, strong enough to knock them to the ground, as part of the knighting ceremony. The knight couldn't flinch or look like he anticipated the accolade. This was symbolic of many things, among which was the fact that the duties weren't all wine and roses; sometimes, they required you to take a blow.

The evolved usage doesn't "rob the word of much of its power and meaning." It is being applied in a different way to a modern setting. 

Teenagers are using "gaslighting" now in ways that don't involve "trying to get people to doubt their sanity." I think the people who try to pedantically insist on only the "doubt your sanity" or "malicious manipulation" meaning are getting left behind in current usage, as used by people using it in everyday speech.

If gaslighting no longer carries the potency it originally did, and if its explicit meaning has been blurred over time, then by definition, it has been robbed of much of its power and meaning. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Personally, the only place I've heard the word used is on this board.

It’s used a lot here, because it has become a favorite blunt instrument with which to bludgeon believers. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I hear it at school --- a lot. "Aw, you're gaslighting me!" (when they didn't turn it in, but insist that they did). 

The term now doesn't really seem to mean anything other than "I don't like what you are doing/saying because it has a negative impact on me".  I think that a lot of people (including teens) use it for two reasons.

Either they are being ironic/sarcastic or they want to legitimize their complaint by using a term that they believe carries social weight.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

Language and usage evolve, though, and sometimes usage gets "commandeered" for other purposes (but when these pass into common usage, they are not "illegitimate" usages. They are bona fide usages). An example is "accolade," which today means praise and gravitas, but originally was a blow to the neck knights were given from behind, strong enough to knock them to the ground, as part of the knighting ceremony. The knight couldn't flinch or look like he anticipated the accolade. This was symbolic of many things, among which was the fact that the duties weren't all wine and roses; sometimes, they required you to take a blow.

The evolved usage doesn't "rob the word of much of its power and meaning." It is being applied in a different way to a modern setting. 

Teenagers are using "gaslighting" now in ways that don't involve "trying to get people to doubt their sanity." I think the people who try to pedantically insist on only the "doubt your sanity" or "malicious manipulation" meaning are getting left behind in current usage, as used by people using it in everyday speech.

For people who actually do experience gaslighting, using the word incorrectly does cause some damage.  Gaslighting is psychological manipulation and abuse and watering it down doesn't do much good for those who are dealing with it.

https://www.wellandgood.com/misuse-gaslighting/