Are Latter-day Saint Women Oppressed?

[Buckeye]

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just to double-check: is the idea I presented as caricature not actually caricature for Brigham/Utah?

Not a caricature. The view espoused by Brigham and many of his peers in Utah during the polygamy years was that women’s eternal role is primarily, if not exclusively, to bring spirit children into existence through a pregnancy and birthing process similar to what happens in mortality. That’s why polygamy is so important. A man’s degree of exaltation is directly tied to how many spirit children he fathers, which is tied to how many wives he has.  More wives means more children means more glory.  

Edited October 23, 2023 by Buckeye

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just to double-check: is the idea I presented as caricature not actually caricature for Brigham/Utah?

This is how my mother imagined it when they used to describe producing spirit children:

I am pretty sure she even used a National .Geographic to laughingly show it to me the first time she mentioned it, just pictures of course, so this is better (we are talking in the 60s).  She had her own mind about what she and Dad would be doing for the eternities….as did Dad (included some sort of celestial motorcycle, he loved traveling with Mom that way and she loved being with him).  Given it’s an eternity, there is plenty of time for producing spirit children between trips, however that is done.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Calm

[Leaf474]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

“Can you turn off your omniscience for the day so I can get you a surprise gift?”

Gets them every time.

Funny 👍

 

But also, do exalted humans become omniscient?

[Leaf474]

10 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I’m late to this topic, as I was traveling through Utah and Idaho for a wedding and school visits with my daughters. Stopped in Cody, WY, on the way back and noticed a few yard signs opposing the temple location. But that’s a different topic. 
Here’s what a posted in the DN comments on the article last week. Won’t be a surprise to those who know me on this site. 

The article is well-meaning but sets the bar far too low. We are not merely to refrain from oppressing women. The gospel calls us to seek after all good things (AofF13). Throughout the restoration, we have seen women's access to good things steadily increase. As just a few examples - women now say prayers in sacrament meeting and general conference. They serve as witnesses at baptisms. Their roles in temple, missionary, and ward/stake councils have significantly expanded. 

The moral development of men does not benefit from excluding women. It is not a "fixed pie." As the restoration continues, I look forward to seeing women administer the sacrament, baptize and bless their children, serve on high councils and Q12, and many other good things. Expanding women's roles blesses us all.

Would those things (administer the sacrament, etc.) require women to become priests? Is that a possibility, at least in theory?

[Leaf474]

10 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Not a caricature. The view espoused by Brigham and many of his peers in Utah during the polygamy years was that women’s eternal role is primarily, if not exclusively, to bring spirit children into existence through a pregnancy and birthing process similar to what happens in mortality. That’s why polygamy is so important. A man’s degree of exaltation is directly tied to how many spirit children he fathers, which is tied to how many wives he has.  More wives means more children means more glory.  

Wow, fascinating!

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Would those things (administer the sacrament, etc.) require women to become priests? Is that a possibility, at least in theory?

I would think so. D/C 20 is pretty clear that only priests can administer the sacrament. But I also thought ordination would be necessary for someone to serve as a witness and that turned out to be wrong. 
So, conceivably, the church could allow women to officiate in all priesthood ordinances without being ordained - perhaps under the view that their exercising the authority of the bishop, temple president, etc who holds the keys. But in that case one would have to ask why men need ordination anymore. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Would those things (administer the sacrament, etc.) require women to become priests? Is that a possibility, at least in theory?

It depends on what you mean by administer.  In the church administering refers to saying the prayers over it. It is not about preparing it or passing it.

There are 3 offices of the priesthood in the Aaronic priesthood.  Deacon (boys starting at age 11), teacher (boys at age 13)  and then priest (boys at age 15).  To pray over it one must be at least a priest or can be someone who has also received the Melchizedek priesthood.

In the current handbook you must be at least a deacon to pass the sacrament and at least a teacher to prepare it. However, historically there have been girls/women who have both passed and prepared it.  I have heard there is a ward in HongKong where women still pass it, but have been unable to verify it.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Wow, fascinating!

@Buckeye, can you provide the references that show that BY believed that exalted women gave birth in a similar fashion to mortal women, and where JS believed that spirit children are adopted children of God rather than their children in the same way that our's are (despite them coming to us with a spirit that already existed, similar to how spirit children had an intelligence that also already existed)?

I'm not doubting the existence of the references but I'd love to look at them since there are many different views on this topic in the church.  

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

@Buckeye, can you provide the references that show that BY believed that exalted women gave birth in a similar fashion to mortal women, and where JS believed that spirit children are adopted children of God rather than their children in the same way that our's are (despite them coming to us with a spirit that already existed, similar to how spirit children had an intelligence that also already existed)?

I'm not doubting the existence of the references but I'd love to look at them since there are many different views on this topic in the church.  

T&S actually has a recent write-up on this very topic. 
 

https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2023/10/the-many-lives-of-the-king-follett-sermon/

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

T&S actually has a recent write-up on this very topic. 
 

https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2023/10/the-many-lives-of-the-king-follett-sermon/

Thanks!  Does the article include actual quotes from BY and JS on these topics or is it someone summarizing?

I've read the King Follet Sermon but it's probably been 7 or so years ago.

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

It depends on what you mean by administer.  In the church administering refers to saying the prayers over it. It is not about preparing it or passing it.

There are 3 offices of the priesthood in the Aaronic priesthood.  Deacon (boys starting at age 11), teacher (boys at age 13)  and then priest (boys at age 15).  To pray over it one must be at least a priest or can be someone who has also received the Melchizedek priesthood.

In the current handbook you must be at least a deacon to pass the sacrament and at least a teacher to prepare it. However, historically there have been girls/women who have both passed and prepared it.  I have heard there is a ward in HongKong where women still pass it, but have been unable to verify it.

 

Thanks! I was just working off of what @Buckeye had written.

 

There was "administer the sacrament", and then also "baptize and bless their children, serve on high councils and Q12...".

 

Would those other things require women to become priests?

Edited October 23, 2023 by Leaf474
Voice typing errors

[Teancum]

On 10/18/2023 at 2:41 PM, Nofear said:

The op-ed asserts that priesthood service gives men (needed) additional growth opportunities.

I never really liked this approach to the priesthood....

That somehow men were less service oriented than women and needed the extra help and push.  Seem like a specious argument to me even as a believer.

[Teancum]

On 10/18/2023 at 4:48 PM, bluebell said:

True.  Does that equal oppression? 

To be oppressed means to be subject to harsh or authoritarian treatment, subjugated, repressed, exploited, tyrannized, etc.  Does that describe latter-day saint women in your opinion?  (sincere question)

Oppression is perhaps a poor word.  But what would you call a workplace where women did not have equal opportunity to advance, to hold management and leadership positions?  Where most all decisions needed to be filtered through a man?  It was not that long ago that this described most businesses in the US and perhaps there are still some like that.  Essentially this is what you have in the church.

[Nofear]

45 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I never really liked this approach to the priesthood....

That somehow men were less service oriented than women and needed the extra help and push.  Seem like a specious argument to me even as a believer.

I don't disagree. Arguments that women are more righteous than men inherently, etc. etc.  They fall short and I tend not to buy into them.

Nevertheless, it is biologically true that mothers have a strong attachment to their children and will often sacrifice a lot because of that attachment. Not that men don't have that too but, culturally (perhaps because of biological forces) the fact is that women do adopt a greater portion of the social burden of children. Whether or not "priesthood" is needed, the Church does increase paternal involvement. Currently the Church couches that increased involvement in the language of priesthood obligation and responsibility. Right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary, the approach has garnered positive results.

The Promise Keepers is an example of an organization that uses non-priesthood oriented language that tries to do the same thing as the Church does through priesthood responsibility. Though, I can't say how efficacious they have been, I haven't/don't follow them--took me a bit to even remember the name.

[Buckeye]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thanks!  Does the article include actual quotes from BY and JS on these topics or is it someone summarizing?

I've read the King Follet Sermon but it's probably been 7 or so years ago.

This one primarily summarizes. Here are a few other sources on the topic with quotes and citations. 
 

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/12/11/a-response-to-hales-on-spirit-birth/
 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I never really liked this approach to the priesthood....

That somehow men were less service oriented than women and needed the extra help and push.  Seem like a specious argument to me even as a believer.

Maybe there should be a thread about men being oppressed in the church. Not joking either!

[Nofear]

37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe there should be a thread about men being oppressed in the church. Not joking either!

Or perhaps how Christ's Gospel oppresses us in general by asking us to change and be good and even better than good with this "impossible" injunction to emulate a perfect individual? Let's just talk about the insanity of what the Gospel really, truly asks of us. It is downright oppressive.

Edit to add C.S. Lewis's description of the oppressive pain we are put through.

“Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of - throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were being made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Edited October 23, 2023 by Nofear

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Oppression is perhaps a poor word.  But what would you call a workplace where women did not have equal opportunity to advance, to hold management and leadership positions?  Where most all decisions needed to be filtered through a man?  It was not that long ago that this described most businesses in the US and perhaps there are still some like that.  Essentially this is what you have in the church.

I think I’d use the word marginalized. 

[Leaf474]

15 hours ago, Nofear said:

Or perhaps how Christ's Gospel oppresses us in general by asking us to change and be good and even better than good with this "impossible" injunction to emulate a perfect individual? Let's just talk about the insanity of what the Gospel really, truly asks of us. It is downright oppressive.

Edit to add C.S. Lewis's description of the oppressive pain we are put through.

“Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of - throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were being made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Amen, I thought of Galatians 2:20 while reading your post

 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.