Women are given priesthood power and authority

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

With regards to the Church, this seems to assume that God is not aware of it and/or does not want to do anything about it. Or are the church prophets not listening to Him? 

First, I don't accept infallibility. I'm fairly certain that any scholar of the priesthood ban will now say there was no indication it came from God, quite the opposite. Also, what about that horrid gay policy that was first put out. It was changed within months. Were the prophets not listening? Or did they make what they thought was a sound policy. God isn't going to act until he is approached. I do not for one second believe the First Prez is concerned about this, let alone enough to act. I think they are as unaware of how women are feeling about it as some of those on this board. That is why 18,000 comments from women who aren't hostile or critics is so meaningful. 

There was a horrific defense of the current situation printed in Deseret News recently. It was particularly striking to me because it regurgitated the age old excuses that have long since been refuted. It didn't address any of the problems head on, it merely talked around them and set up strawmen.  It should be required reading for anyone who thinks they are defending the status quo. 

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

Has anyone here faulted Sis Dennis?

I mean, it sure sounds like it - specifically, for the wording in her follow-up Instagram post where she used the phrase "we and our Church leaders." 

 

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

She said was is expected of her.

Not what she believes?

 

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

This is the first time I've been hopeful about change beyond the few changes we get here and there that don't significantly change the bottom line problem.

Could you please articulate for me what you see as the bottom line problem?

 

[juliann]

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

 

Could you please articulate for me what you see as the bottom line problem?

 

Women are invisible. All we see is a wall of men. At least they put some women in the stand at GC but the speakers are almost all male. 

The glass ceiling is firmly in place beginning at the ward level. The RS should be and used to be independent. That would be a good start. It is encouraging that more councils were opened up to women, but anyone who has studied such things knows that women are still routinely silenced through a variety of indirect means (this is not research on the church but in general.) For example, it is now well known that men interrupt women more than other other men, they give women negative feedback more than men, and on and on. Women will react differently depending on the makeup of the council. (And when this stuff happens, it is the most educated women who pick up on it first and go silent.) So merely being seated on a council is meaningless unless you know how it is being managed. 

The bottom line problem is that women need to be in every deliberative body on every level. There should never be a bunch of men making decisions for women. EVER. And that includes the First Presidency. Most callings can be opened up regardless of ordination. If there needs to be an ordained man, there can be one. Sort of in the same way they wanted a man in the building when only women are present. They do nothing but lend their manliness (or priesthood) in some corner. 

The fear seems to be over ordination. But that is the last problem and why people need to stay educated on this topic. There is a lot more going on that needs to be done right now. 

*I should add that a huge problem at top leadership level is that women are booted as officers after 5 years. Anyone who has had a job knows how long it takes to become proficient. So they are cleared out when they reach that level while men are put in for decades. I suspect Sis Dennis is new? 

Edited March 29, 2024 by juliann

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

First, I don't accept infallibility. I'm fairly certain that any scholar of the priesthood ban will now say there was no indication it came from God, quite the opposite. Also, what about that horrid gay policy that was first put out. It was changed within months. Were the prophets not listening? Or did they make what they thought was a sound policy. God isn't going to act until he is approached. I do not for one second believe the First Prez is concerned about this, let alone enough to act. I think they are as unaware of how women are feeling about it as some of those on this board. That is why 18,000 comments from women who aren't hostile or critics is so meaningful. 

There was a horrific defense of the current situation printed in Deseret News recently. It was particularly striking to me because it regurgitated the age old excuses that have long since been refuted. It didn't address any of the problems head on, it merely talked around them and set up strawmen.  It should be required reading for anyone who thinks they are defending the status quo. 

Unaware? The complaints from SOME (not most women) has been going on for many years. Of course they are aware of it. And you only think or believe the First Presidency is not concerned about it. You don't know that for sure, except for the fact that they are not doing what you want them to do. 

[juliann]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Unaware? The complaints from SOME (not most women) has been going on for many years. Of course they are aware of it. And you only think or believe the First Presidency is not concerned about it. You don't know that for sure, except for the fact that they are not doing what you want them to do. 

You have been on this board long enough to know that it never used to get the blowback from women posters as it does now. Why is that? Especially when we used to be almost stoned for presenting our opinions on women's issues?

I have never liked Mormon feminist groups. They were mean and sometimes devious (which is why I think they imploded.) But in order to defend against them, as I used to do, I had to read them. So I did. For years. And then, suddenly, I understood. My turning point was a long discussion of what our daughters were being told. I had a daughter. I couldn't ignore it anymore. 

So unless these leaders have spent YEARS reading and analyzing this stuff, no, they don't get it. And they never will. It will take younger men who have experienced more of it.  I doubt even you think they are studying this, they wouldn't have the time let alone the desire. I'm pretty sure they live in a bit of a bubble, surrounded by people who only want to please and agree with them. I don't fault anyone for this, it is just what happens, especially when we have a problem of hero worshipping leaders in this church.  

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, JAHS said:

With regards to the Church, this seems to assume that God is not aware of it and/or does not want to do anything about it. Or are the church prophets not listening to Him? 

I think it is less not listening and more not asking with all their mind and soul. The scriptures suggest that knowledge comes to us with effort and strong commitment to the seeking. It can be hard to feel committed to a problem someone else has even when you care about them. It is still distant, not intimate. One has to truly thirst for it, not just be curious or even deeply interested.  Even then it may not be the right time, but it seems to be a required first step imo.  I would not be surprised to know they are troubled, even very troubled by the suffering of others, but it hasn’t harmed them personally yet.  It is not a significant personal loss yet. 

Edited March 29, 2024 by Calm

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Unaware? The complaints from SOME (not most women) has been going on for many years. Of course they are aware of it. 

You are right, they are aware of that. But that has nothing to do with knowledge or understanding of the problem. 

The recent Instragram posts are miles away from the years of complaints by often hostile women. (Not blaming them, they were right to be angry but it's never effective in these situations.) Also, their awareness probably didn't materialize until it hit the papers. I doubt they started reading books and interacting with the complainers after an article. They saw them as troublemakers, as most of us did then, not reliable sources.

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

You are right, they are aware of that. But that has nothing to do with knowledge or understanding of the problem. 

The recent Instragram posts are miles away from the years of complaints by often hostile women. (Not blaming them, they were right to be angry but it's never effective in these situations.) Also, their awareness probably didn't materialize until it hit the papers. I doubt they started reading books and interacting with the complainers after an article. They saw them as troublemakers, as most of us did then, not reliable sources.

It will be interesting to see if someone says something about this in the next General Conference.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

And what has changed for us since this? As welcomed as this was as a first step, it merely opened Pandora's Box. In the effort to keep women away from ordination, all it has done is muddy the waters about priesthood. The biggest question now is, what IS priesthood? They keep talking about it but don't define it. But they now have to say women's faith based prayer, etc., is equivalent because that is all they are going to allow us.  Then why does anyone need priesthood? What is it, aside from it being paired with ordination and leadership authority through callings that exclude women? 

We are offered and promised in this Church in many ways concrete answers to our questions. Step by step ordinances to receive salvation and exaltation. Even the afterlife is described with our families and godhood as exalted men and women, so even if wrong, many of us have pretty clear pictures of what eternal life will be. 
 

And many other things in our religious life are pretty well defined. The temple is the most nebulous, but that isn’t discussed in Church save for the blessings that come from it so people don’t get experience wrestling with the unknown unless they seek it out personally, which many don’t because they aren’t aware of a need to do so.

So we as a people are trained to expect answers. Sometimes detailed ones. Practical answers. 

Except we aren’t getting them very much, very defined when it comes to women’s spiritual roles anymore. At least not beyond what has been offered in the past (motherhood and wife hood and people trying to extrapolate from that) which leaves a lot of gaps. 
 

Telling someone they need to find the answers for themselves after telling them come to us because we have the answers is confusing and frustrating for those who come to leaders sincerely seeking.

Not recognizing the difference in experience with answers, why others need them even if one doesn’t, causes problems, such as lack of understanding why others are struggling. 

Edited March 29, 2024 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Or (hear me out)...

Perhaps, the Priesthood powers associated  with women are of such sublime magnificence they can't be contained in a manual designed for the eyes of the world.

Perhaps, they can only be communicated by the One who holds all those powers within Herself to those who have been endowed and received and exercised the gifts of knowledge on how to part the veil and ask for, and receive, Divine communications given in the House of the Lord.

The wisdom books are (in our Bible and the Apocrypha) are filled with praise for the Divine feminine (Wisdom). The tree of life in Lehi's vision who surpasses all beauty and from whom Messiah comes is representative of the Divine feminine. There are type, shadows, hints, clues everywhere. Pres. Nelson (who has 9 daughters) has been dropping hints for those who will listen and obey his counsel.

As a woman you are more special, unique, awesome, surpassing in beauty, holiness and wisdom than you can possibly imagine. No manual, class, talk designed for us thick-headed men can hope to communicate the magnificence that lies within you. That can only be found by following the instructions found in the Endowment.

We men need you to rise up to the unsurpassing magnificence of who you are because we are struggling to get this whole mortality thing right. As Pres. Nelson has said (paraphrasing)- if we lose the righteousness of our women this world is doomed.

Hi Zealously, 

I'm going to start with what I agree with first. That's what's in the Bold. I think we do not fully have a grasp on what the divine feminine is. I think there's hints of it everywhere. I think much of it is not structural per se. 

Italicized are the parts that I'm ehh on. As in I don't fully agree nor disagree with you. The first one I italicized, I think there's aspect that are largely creative and nuanced in manifesting the powers of God, period. That includes Priesthood and anyone who utilizes it. The second one is that I believe that about all humans everywhere. People in general have more capacity that mortality, circumstance, and our current values give full access to. I think most people miss the beauty in each individual quite a bit. 

The underlined I'm either uncomfortable with or makes me wince. Those fall under 3 reasons:

1.) I don't like only-isms. As in I don't like or believe the idea that only those endowed and only through the temple can we come to know the divine feminine. For one, that's not true from my experience. For another it ends up limiting potential wisdom/knowledge sources. And lastly, that's not the point of the Temple.    

2.) This is a classic description of putting women on a pedestal. It's by no means comforting or enlightening for women. It can often feel patronizing and IMHO also leads to a false form of humility among the men who share it. It also ironically can leave men more dismissive of women's voices. Because those who disagree with it (which I promise you, will be basically about every woman on this board no matter their level of current affiliation with the church) are going to be dismissed as "not getting it." Which is a bit ironic. Because women, who are supposedly filled with untapped wisdom and supposedly have such saving power as to impede the doom of humanity...are dismissed when they point out a problem in this line of thought. So without meaning to, it becomes a man who needs to teach us women about our real worth and place. 

3.) the set up leaves women realistically at a reduced space of voice and pragmatic power. It maintains a problem rather than fixes it, by trying to make women feel special. It also leaves women having as the main reason for their own sense of injustice, inequity, or dissatisfaction with the status quo. 

 

Again, I don't think you mean any harm. But parts of your assumptions have been harmful for many of us. I do not like pedestals. I do not enjoy an overly idealist and beatific view of women. My power and my beauty comes in my capacity to turn sh*t and trash into compost and compost into life. In dreadging into the ugly corners of a person's soul to participate deeply in the work of redemption. It comes in getting dirty. It comes in active participation and equal partnership with men. Etc. We are not there yet in having women's experiences, voice, and capacities fully realized in the church. That is a cultural heritage that's stuck with us from the many cultures of the past that have reduced the significance and importance of women's voices and power in institutional, familial, and communal spheres. We've grown. We have some solid doctrine that could lead to even further growth that's still not well fleshed out. But we've got quite a ways away. We being all of us.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited March 29, 2024 by BlueDreams

[ZealouslyStriving]

22 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Hi Zealously, 

I'm going to start with what I agree with first. That's what's in the Bold. I think we do not fully have a grasp on what the divine feminine is. I think there's hints of it everywhere. I think much of it is not structural per se. 

Italicized are the parts that I'm ehh on. As in I don't fully agree nor disagree with you. The first one I italicized, I think there's aspect that are largely creative and nuanced in manifesting the powers of God, period. That includes Priesthood and anyone who utilizes it. The second one is that I believe that about all humans everywhere. People in general have more capacity that mortality, circumstance, and our current values give full access to. I think most people miss the beauty in each individual quite a bit. 

The underlined I'm either uncomfortable with or makes me wince. Those fall under 3 reasons:

1.) I don't like only-isms. As in I don't like or believe the idea that only those endowed and only through the temple can we come to know the divine feminine. For one, that's not true from my experience. For another it ends up limiting potential wisdom/knowledge sources. And lastly, that's not the point of the Temple.    

2.) This is a classic description of putting women on a pedestal. It's by no means comforting or enlightening for women. It can often feel patronizing and IMHO also leads to a false form of humility among the men who share it. It also ironically can leave men more dismissive of women's voices. Because those who disagree with it (which I promise you, will be basically about every woman on this board no matter their level of current affiliation with the church) are going to be dismissed as "not getting it." Which is a bit ironic. Because women, who are supposedly filled with untapped wisdom and supposedly have such saving power as to impede the doom of humanity...are dismissed when they point out a problem in this line of thought. So without meaning to, it becomes a man who needs to teach us women about our real worth and place. 

3.) the set up leaves women realistically at a reduced space of voice and pragmatic power. It maintains a problem rather than fixes it, by trying to make women feel special. It also leaves women having as the main reason for their own sense of injustice, inequity, or dissatisfaction with the status quo. 

 

Again, I don't think you mean any harm. But parts of your assumptions have been harmful for many of us. I do not like pedestals. I do not enjoy an overly idealist and beatific view of women. My power and my beauty comes in my capacity to turn sh*t and trash into compost and compost into life. In dreadging into the ugly corners of a person's soul to participate deeply in the work of redemption. It comes in getting dirty. It comes in active participation and equal partnership with men. Etc. We are not there yet in having women's experiences, voice, and capacities fully realized in the church. That is a cultural heritage that's stuck with us from the many cultures of the past that have reduced the significance and importance of women's voices and power in institutional, familial, and communal spheres. We've grown. We have some solid doctrine that could lead to even further growth that's still not well fleshed out. But we've got quite a ways away. We being all of us.

 

With luv,

BD 

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my message instead of just reacting.

A few years back my wife, before "graduating to Paradise", bought me a book series by K.E. Ganshert titled "The Gifting". After reading the series I asked my wife, "Is that really what goes on in women's minds?!?" based on the internal dialogue of the lead female character. She informed me that it was. That day I gained a new appreciation for what women go through. I know I can never really know, but just know that, however unartfully I express myself, that I am trying to understand, even if I can't agree with the conclusions being reached by some women

Edited March 29, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Women are invisible. All we see is a wall of men. At least they put some women in the stand at GC but the speakers are almost all male. 

The glass ceiling is firmly in place beginning at the ward level. The RS should be and used to be independent. That would be a good start. It is encouraging that more councils were opened up to women, but anyone who has studied such things knows that women are still routinely silenced through a variety of indirect means (this is not research on the church but in general.) For example, it is now well known that men interrupt women more than other other men, they give women negative feedback more than men, and on and on. Women will react differently depending on the makeup of the council. (And when this stuff happens, it is the most educated women who pick up on it first and go silent.) So merely being seated on a council is meaningless unless you know how it is being managed. 

The bottom line problem is that women need to be in every deliberative body on every level. There should never be a bunch of men making decisions for women. EVER. And that includes the First Presidency. Most callings can be opened up regardless of ordination. If there needs to be an ordained man, there can be one. Sort of in the same way they wanted a man in the building when only women are present. They do nothing but lend their manliness (or priesthood) in some corner. 

The fear seems to be over ordination. But that is the last problem and why people need to stay educated on this topic. There is a lot more going on that needs to be done right now. 

*I should add that a huge problem at top leadership level is that women are booted as officers after 5 years. Anyone who has had a job knows how long it takes to become proficient. So they are cleared out when they reach that level while men are put in for decades. I suspect Sis Dennis is new? 

I don't have time for a lengthier response, as we've got family stuff picking up this afternoon through the weekend, but I just wanted to express my appreciation for your thoughtful reply.

I would say that I'm not reflexively against anything you've said here, but I also freely admit that I have a difficult time conceptualizing what some of that would look like in practice - not the increased representation in Conference or anything like that; I'm thinking more along the lines of how the RS would operate independently within the Church or how would we go about accommodating women in the First Presidency without being ordained to a priesthood office as the FP is a priesthood quorum, exercising priesthood keys. It's something I'll need to give more consideration to. Thanks again for your thoughts.

 

[manol]

@juliann, I hope you don't mind a former member tossing out some unorthodox opinions.

3 hours ago, juliann said:

The biggest question now is, what IS priesthood?

Imo, what Joseph Smith called “the priesthood” is the connection to and power from God that every child of God innately possesses. Joseph's innovation was to label it and validate it by ritual ordination, which in turn enhances people's confidence in their permission and ability to act in the name of Christ on someone's behalf, and/or their confidence in someone else's permission and ability to do so.

Before he was killed, it looks to me like Joseph Smith was moving in the direction of the sisters being on equal footing with the men, presumably without having been ordained. If so, that was subsequently reversed, which I think was a big step backwards.

3 hours ago, juliann said:

why does anyone need priesthood?

The LDS Church has put a lot of stock in the concept that intact priesthood lines of authority are the determining factor in validity before God, and that only men are entitled to it for whatever reason.  I question both concepts.

Imo God needs no intermediary lines of authority in order to work with or through anyone. 

 

Edited March 29, 2024 by manol

[Rain]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Thanks for sharing. Sorry you are mad right now. I hope your day gets better.

I was specifically referring to your initial reaction my post wherein you accused me of putting down men, and making women an object to look at.

 

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Or (hear me out)...

Perhaps, the Priesthood powers associated  with women are of such sublime magnificence they can't be contained in a manual designed for the eyes of the world.

Perhaps, they can only be communicated by the One who holds all those powers within Herself to those who have been endowed and received and exercised the gifts of knowledge on how to part the veil and ask for, and receive, Divine communications given in the House of the Lord.

The wisdom books are (in our Bible and the Apocrypha) are filled with praise for the Divine feminine (Wisdom). The tree of life in Lehi's vision who surpasses all beauty and from whom Messiah comes is representative of the Divine feminine. There are type, shadows, hints, clues everywhere. Pres. Nelson (who has 9 daughters) has been dropping hints for those who will listen and obey his counsel.

First topic: instructions for how men or women should work/hold/understand priesthood power/authority as it applies to their sex 

So if I understand right you are saying that whatever it is that concerns women with the priesthood is so sacred that it shouldn't be shared with anyone who doesn't understand. You feel like sharing these things as they concern women would be trampling sacred things. Kind of like one doesn't share what goes on in the temple? 

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

As a woman you are more special, unique, awesome, surpassing in beauty, holiness and wisdom than you can possibly imagine. No manual, class, talk designed for us thick-headed men can hope to communicate the magnificence that lies within you. That can only be found by following the instructions found in the Endowment.

We men need you to rise up to the unsurpassing magnificence of who you are because we are struggling to get this whole mortality thing right. As Pres. Nelson has said (paraphrasing)- if we lose the righteousness of our women this world is doomed.

Second Topic: the spiritual states of women and of men

 

When you say this my impression is that you feel women are at a higher place than men, but you had an issue with me stating that so if I'm discussing this for understanding does that mean you believe men and women are on the same level, but we can't get get mortality right without combining our equal strengths? 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

First topic: instructions for how men or women should work/hold/understand priesthood power/authority as it applies to their sex 

So if I understand right you are saying that whatever it is that concerns women with the priesthood is so sacred that it shouldn't be shared with anyone who doesn't understand. You feel like sharing these things as they concern women would be trampling sacred things. Kind of like one doesn't share what goes on in the temple? 

I believe that is a real possibility. But I would say, instead of "who doesn't understand", perhaps "who isn't ready for that knowledge"

 

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

Second Topic: the spiritual states of women and of men

 

When you say this my impression is that you feel women are at a higher place than men, but you had an issue with me stating that so if I'm discussing this for understanding does that mean you believe men and women are on the same level, but we can't get get mortality right without combining our equal strengths? 

 

Absolutely! We need the unique strengths of men and women to get things right. I believe Pres.Nelson has been saying as much, but I'm afraid in the current culture of niceness he may not be saying it forcefully enough. If local male leadership aren't getting it, he should probably be more direct and perhaps initiate more intensive leadership training on counsels and REALLY involving women in decision making.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

So talks in General Conference from Apostles, like this one from President Oaks, are just empty words?

I didn't say that.  I said, " So many women would like to know more about this power and authority that compliments what the men have and they want to know how and why it is different than being ordained as men do.  Until they understand that then talking about the priesthood that women hold? (do they hold it?  what exactly is their relationship with it?) feels kind of like empty words to many. "

I don't doubt that President Oaks was sincere about all of this.  He may even have the answers to questions women are asking, but feel he can't share them.  I'm saying that it feels empty to some women when they don't really have any understanding of how this is supposed to work for them and are not given direction except to go to the temple or read their scriptures or get inspiration.

Years ago I was provident living specialist.  When I read the handbook it did not say to be the food storage lady.  It did say to work with my ward leaders as to how I should help people in the ward with their needs. So I talked with my leaders and I talked with them and I prayed over what to do.  And prayed more and pondered.  And my answer was that I needed to know from leaders who to help or at very least find out what specific areas I need to focus classes or fliers. So I went to the bishopric counselor over me and asked and he said...pray about it.

Finally I went to the bishop and I said there are two possible callings here.  One is someone who tells all about food storage.  The second is someone who finds out from leaders what the needs are (finances, cleaning, cooking - all those basics) and helps those who need help with them.  I showed him where the handbook said my calling was the second.  Then I told him it didn't matter to me which calling he told me he was giving me, I only wanted to know which calling he meant to give me and if it was the second then I needed the leaders to give me the information I needed to do it.  He listened well and he said I was right about it all, that he would talk with the ward council and he would get back with me.  When the time came he told me that the ward didn't really need a provident living leader at that time and he released me. 

So this women and the priesthood is kind of like that.  Women are sort of being told they have a responsibility. They are being told it is wonderful. They have been praying for it for years and have been praying for more practical and spiritual understanding of it.  But when they want to know the information they need to know in order to do it they are told "pray about it".  THAT FEELS empty. 

 

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

I genuinely wasn't trying to offend anybody, which is why I made sure to communicate that I was being lighthearted with that particular phrasing, but if anybody was hurt by my comment, I sincerely apologize. 

And, for the record, I don't believe that women who would be willing to serve in any capacity the Lord calls them are being prideful in saying that they are willing to do exactly that, for that is what everyone ought to be willing to do. 

 

I appreciate that.

Edited March 29, 2024 by Rain

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I don't have time for a lengthier response, as we've got family stuff picking up this afternoon through the weekend, but I just wanted to express my appreciation for your thoughtful reply.

I would say that I'm not reflexively against anything you've said here, but I also freely admit that I have a difficult time conceptualizing what some of that would look like in practice - not the increased representation in Conference or anything like that; I'm thinking more along the lines of how the RS would operate independently within the Church or how would we go about accommodating women in the First Presidency without being ordained to a priesthood office as the FP is a priesthood quorum, exercising priesthood keys. It's something I'll need to give more consideration to. Thanks again for your thoughts.

 

I know you're busy, so no need to respond sooner than later, but I think a great start is giving women the RS back like it once was, and the purse strings it once had and the curriculum decisions that it once had. 

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Rain said:

I didn't say that.  I said, " So many women would like to know more about this power and authority that compliments what the men have and they want to know how and why it is different than being ordained as men do.  Until they understand that then talking about the priesthood that women hold? (do they hold it?  what exactly is their relationship with it?) feels kind of like empty words to many. "

I don't doubt that President Oaks was sincere about all of this.  He may even have the answers to questions men are asking, but feel he can't share them.  I'm saying that it feels empty to some women when they don't really have any understanding of how this is supposed to work for them and are not given direction except to go to the temple or read their scriptures or get inspiration.

Years ago I was provident living specialist.  When I read the handbook it did not say to be the food storage lady.  It did say to work with my ward leaders as to how I should help people in the ward with their needs. So I talked with my leaders and I talked with them and I prayed over what to do.  And prayed more and pondered.  And my answer was that I needed to know from leaders who to help or at very least find out what specific areas I need to focus classes or fliers. So I went to the bishopric counselor over me and asked and he said...pray about it.

Finally I went to the bishop and I said there are two possible callings here.  One is someone who tells all about food storage.  The second is someone who finds out leaders what the needs are (finances, cleaning, cooking - all those basics) and helps those who need help with them.  I showed him where the handbook said my calling was the second.  Then I told him it didn't matter to me which calling he told me he was giving me, I only wanted to know which calling he meant to give me and if it was the second then I needed the leaders to give me the information I needed to do it.  He listened well and he said I was right about it all, that he would talk with the ward council and he would get back with me.  When the time came he told me that the ward didn't really need a provident living leader at that time and he released me. 

So this women and the priesthood is kind of like that.  Women are sort of being told they have a responsibility. They are being told it is wonderful. They have been praying for it for years and have been praying for more practical and spiritual understanding of it.  But when they want to know the information they need to know in order to do it they are told "pray about it".  THAT FEELS empty. 

 

I appreciate that.

Wow, they dropped the ball having a person like you be released when you'd have given your all. Sorry that happened to you. Not related but it feel it's like a slap in the face, to me anyway, when they decided to allow women to now witness a baptism, like that is a big deal. 🙄

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, they dropped the ball having a person like you be released when you'd have given your all. Sorry that happened to you. Not related but it feel it's like a slap in the face, to me anyway, when they decided to allow women to now witness a baptism, like that is a big deal. 🙄

It does show that they are reevaluating tradition in light of scripture. So while it is no big, breaking news story- it is progress.

[Rain]

31 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I believe that is a real possibility. But I would say, instead of "who doesn't understand", perhaps "who isn't ready for that knowledge"

Then why not teach it in the temple?

And what kind of thing it too sacred to share out of the temple?  The church tells boys and men to be ordained hands will be placed on their heads. They tell the words that should be used.  They tell the age it can be done.  They tell them the different blessings ordinances they can do in the different offices.   The church tells it is a sacred duty.  The sacrament is considered to be very sacred, but it allows young boys/men to participate and exactly the words used and the process of it all.  What of these kind of things which have to do with women are too sacred to share outside of the temple?

  

31 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

 

Absolutely! We need the unique strengths of men and women to get things right. I believe Pres.Nelson has been saying as much, but I'm afraid in the current culture of niceness he may not be saying it forcefully enough. If local male leadership aren't getting it, he should probably be more direct and perhaps initiate more intensive leadership training on counsels and REALLY involving women in decision making.

If the men aren't getting it then how does that have them on the same level?

[Rain]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, they dropped the ball having a person like you be released when you'd have given your all. Sorry that happened to you. Not related but it feel it's like a slap in the face, to me anyway, when they decided to allow women to now witness a baptism, like that is a big deal. 🙄

No, they were right to release me.  It truly didn't matter to me what happened as long as I was given the tools I needed for whatever was decided. That particular ward just didn't have a lot of those needs and what few they had leadership could take care of.  Most of the ward knew how to do a budget or clean their house etc. My calling just wasn't a need in the ward.  I think he had been thinking of me as someone who would teach about food storage (he called my husband as an emergency preparedness specialist at the same time), but that calling wasn't in the handbook.  At the time there were wards all over the area that had food storage people so it probably seemed the thing to do.   Besides in praying about it I also did that food storage stuff on top of trying to figure out the provident living stuff so the ward had what they needed there as well.    

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't have time for a lengthier response, as we've got family stuff picking up this afternoon through the weekend, but I just wanted to express my appreciation for your thoughtful reply.

I would say that I'm not reflexively against anything you've said here, but I also freely admit that I have a difficult time conceptualizing what some of that would look like in practice - not the increased representation in Conference or anything like that; I'm thinking more along the lines of how the RS would operate independently within the Church or how would we go about accommodating women in the First Presidency without being ordained to a priesthood office as the FP is a priesthood quorum, exercising priesthood keys. It's something I'll need to give more consideration to. Thanks again for your thoughts.

 

Speaking of the RS operating independently, could it look a little like how Bishops operate?  Bishops are still 'overseen' by the stake president (their priesthood leader) but they are not micromanaged.  They have weekly meetings with him but He basically allows them to do their bishoping without his input.

I know that bishops hold keys of presidency which give him the right to lead, so perhaps that's a bad example. 

Maybe it could look like area presidencies?  I'm guessing (though I could be wrong) that they do not have to get permission from the quorum of the 12 for every decision that they make but are allowed to operate slightly autonomously, because one of their duties is to preside over the leaders in their area.  And they hold no keys but work through the delegated priesthood and keys of the apostles.

Or perhaps not being ordained means that a woman must always have priesthood permission for every action and decision, despite having both priesthood power and priesthood authority in her calling?  

[juliann]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I know you're busy, so no need to respond sooner than later, but I think a great start is giving women the RS back like it once was, and the purse strings it once had and the curriculum decisions that it once had. 

Yes. There is no need for a lot of thinking as to how because it was done before and written about. They held their own conferences, chose the speakers, had an independent magazine. Most of all, as you point out, they managed their own finances and did so well the men stepped in and took it all along with their RS building.