Women are given priesthood power and authority

[Damien the Leper]

On 3/22/2024 at 11:49 AM, juliann said:

That only works when those "tests" haven't been overdone and amply refuted. It is no different than anti-Mormons who never bother to read the arguments put out by academics. You don't need to understand it if that is too difficult. You do need to acknowledge the existence and merits of an argument.

This approach sounds no different than the men who insist cat calling is a compliment or telling women to smile is a help to them.  That time has passed and it didn't end well for those men.

Back when I was a server, a woman told me to smile because it would make me look more handsome. Keep in mind that this was during a very busy shift. My polite but equally aggressive response was that I'm not here to be handsome or someone's eye candy. I'm here to be efficient and provide guests with a positive experience. 

[Damien the Leper]

17 minutes ago, JAHS said:

That probably applies to me. Such ceremonies of other faiths don't do it FOR ME, because I am ignorant of the symbology. I do understand how it can be a very spiritual thing for those who have lived with and understand it better than I do.

Do you really understand considering @bluebell had to call you out on your direct judgement? 

[Damien the Leper]

I'm not sure how much more receptive members of this board are to Margaret Merrill Toscano today rather than in the past. However, this article she wrote seems appropriate for this conversation. It was published in Sunstone in June of 2007.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

You would still need women for the true order of prayer, which needs an equal amount of men and women. Even with the most recent changes, that's still a thing. When I was a worker, if there were not enough women in the session, they'd ask us to fill in at this part to complete the session. I haven't gone to a ton of endowment sessions post changes, but from what I could see they called men and women and if there was an uneven number to volunteer, they would ask for the needed amount of men or women to fill the gaps. 

So you wouldn't be able to complete an endowment ceremony, even with the most recent changes. 

And symbolically it wouldn't work/make sense, even with the new changes. It's strongly about bringing the two genders together and in an alignment that expands the work of God through said ordering. 

The aspects that can be done without women are the preparatory aspects of the endowment for the men: the initiatory and new name ceremony. And obviously baptism, the GoHG, and Sacrament can be done without women present. 

All higher ordinances though entail and need both men and women to function. And since you need both and initiatory/new name are preparatory ordinances for the endowments, you can't have a functioning ordinance without the women's side being done as well. Which makes the work of the matrons and female temple workers (particularly ordinance workers) essential. 

 

With luv,

BD

Brilliant!  Agree.  Also for those who know this, some of the blessings on women exceed those for men, but cannot really be perceived until men and women discuss it in the Celestial room after the session.  It takes male and female discussion to even know THAT it is also a "true order"- demonstrated symbolically.

Notice also the two workers whom are called "officiators" are also one man and one woman.  "The officiaters will lead the company..." to the next room, etc.   Even the aisle in the seating between men and women demonstrates and symbolizes the divine difference.  What else could it be?  We sit together in church, which symbolizes to me, the family, while the temple shows us the important differences between men and women and then the spiritual unity which can be obtained in the sealing.  So single men and women, are symbolized separately, and together in, as you mention, the prayer circle, and then the eternal unification of the two in the sealings.

Again, we see demonstrated male and female discussion without which even know THAT it is also a "true order"- is demonstrated symbolically.

I can't imagine a more beautiful way to make the point.

In a sense then, to understand the full importance of the endowment, in addition to the principles addressed directly in words, men and women must reveal the differences between each other, actually paralleling what happens in life as one half of the rest of humanity is revealed to us through experience.

Every part of the endowment demonstrates both the differences and then the dialectical unity of men and women.  There is opposition in all things, as proven by the "contradictions".  The "fortunate fall" concept is also raised in the story of Adam and Eve- without transgression there can be no repentance, and no growth.

The fact that no one can be perfected without repentance also represents that perfection cannot be achieved without opposition.

One poster here tends do think about the difference of genitals between the sexes whenever I raise this important spiritual principle- If he does it again, I will not respond.  I find those responses rather disgusting in this context, actually.

[JAHS]

24 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

51 minutes ago, JAHS said:

That probably applies to me. Such ceremonies of other faiths don't do it FOR ME, because I am ignorant of the symbology. I do understand how it can be a very spiritual thing for those who have lived with and understand it better than I do.

Do you really understand considering @bluebell had to call you out on your direct judgement? 

I thought it was clear that what I said was my personal opinion on what for me constitutes a spiritual experience and not a judgment against them personally. I guess it wasn't clear enough.

I have been to church services where the preacher is yelling fire and brimstone at the congregation and then a rock group starts plays loud music and people start dancing in the aisles. One place even had a small bowl full of ear plugs for members with sensitive ears. FOR ME that was not a spiritual experience but it apparently was for them.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Brilliant!  Agree.  Also for those who know this, some of the blessings on women exceed those for men, but cannot really be perceived until men and women discuss it in the Celestial room after the session.  It takes male and female discussion to even know THAT it is also a "true order"- demonstrated symbolically.

Notice also the two workers whom are called "officiators" are also one man and one woman.  "The officiaters will lead the company..." to the next room, etc.   Even the aisle in the seating between men and women demonstrates and symbolizes the divine difference.  What else could it be?  We sit together in church, which symbolizes to me, the family, while the temple shows us the important differences between men and women and then the spiritual unity which can be obtained in the sealing.  So single men and women, are symbolized separately, and together in, as you mention, the prayer circle, and then the eternal unification of the two in the sealings.

Again, we see demonstrated male and female discussion without which even know THAT it is also a "true order"- is demonstrated symbolically.

I can't imagine a more beautiful way to make the point.

In a sense then, to understand the full importance of the endowment, in addition to the principles addressed directly in words, men and women must reveal the differences between each other, actually paralleling what happens in life as one half of the rest of humanity is revealed to us through experience.

Every part of the endowment demonstrates both the differences and then the dialectical unity of men and women.  There is opposition in all things, as proven by the "contradictions".  The "fortunate fall" concept is also raised in the story of Adam and Eve- without transgression there can be no repentance, and no growth.

The fact that no one can be perfected without repentance also represents that perfection cannot be achieved without opposition.

One poster here tends do think about the difference of genitals between the sexes whenever I raise this important spiritual principle- If he does it again, I will not respond.  I find those responses rather disgusting in this context, actually.

I don't think the blessings on women are intended to exceed those for men, but I can see why some may take them that way. I do think the distinct blessings and promises upon each are intended to be shared. These blessings are conveyed by grace in one context for one purpose, and are yet to be realized in another context for another purpose, but neither one of the couple have them both until they are sealed and share them. I think the wording allows for this interpretation, which is also what is experienced by the faithful couple over time.

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

FOR ME that was not a spiritual experience but it apparently was for them.

I am with you for the most part.  I have wonderful friends in Oklahoma whose church services were very much as you describe here.  It isn’t very spiritually-uplifting for me either, but I acknowledge that it seemed to be edifying to my friends — wonderful people that they are.  I will also say that I am quite sure I felt the Spirit of God while attending midnight mass at an Evangelische Kirche in northern Germany on Christmas Eve.  It was full of light and wonderfully communal (gemuetlich) — and the music was exquisite.  I imagine that for a great many of those in attendance, tradition rather than belief was the motivator; but there was (I think) still a certain kind of faith that the Lord honored by granting a small outpouring of spiritual peace and joy that night.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don't think the blessings on women are intended to exceed those for men, but I can see why some may take them that way. I do think the distinct blessings and promises upon each are intended to be shared. These blessings are conveyed by grace in one context for one purpose, and are yet to be realized in another context for another purpose, but neither one of the couple have them both until they are sealed and share them. I think the wording allows for this interpretation, which is also what is experienced by the faithful couple over time.

I can go with that, and I like the wording better than mine! 👍

[JAHS]

Insta gram message from Sister Annette Dennis.

"Last week, I spoke during a worldwide Relief Society broadcast. I want to thank all of you who were a part of that historic gathering. An excerpt taken from my remarks generated responses from thousands of sisters. Thank you for reaching out and taking the time to share your feelings.
As we read through the comments, we were moved by some of the experiences you've had. As a member of the General Relief Society Presidency, I can assure you that we and our Church leaders are listening and learning from the things you have shared with us. We love and pray for you and all our sisters
everywhere. Please know we hear you, we care."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I can assure you that we and our Church leaders

Why do you think she worded it this way?

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why do you think she worded it this way?

I love her response and I'm so glad to know that they are listening.  But yes, the way she worded that is very telling, and kind of makes the argument for a lot of sisters.

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why do you think she worded it this way?

They all work and council together to receive revelation on such things.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

They all work and council together to receive revelation on such things.

So why not ‘we and other Church leaders’ ?

Edited March 28, 2024 by Calm

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So why ‘we and other Church leaders’ ?

I assume she means the general women officers(we) along with the General Authorities of the church (other leaders).
Not sure I understand the question.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

They all work and council together to receive revelation on such things.

Sorry it was more of a rhetorical question and it’s possible she misspoke. But, in my opinion,  it’s more likely she worded it the way she did because (subconsciously) that’s how she feels. That is, there is what she does, and then there is a separate group of people who lead the church. 

Edited March 28, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Rain]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sorry it was more of a rhetorical question and it’s possible she misspoke. But, in my opinion,  it’s more likely she worded it the way she did because (subconsciously) that’s how she feels. That is, there is what she does, and then there is a separate group of people who lead the church. 

I don't think that is uncommon with women leaders.  My husband is on the high council and is assigned to help the stake RS presidency. In meetings where they asked him to speak or in other places they would often say he was over them.  He would be very clear to them that he wasn't over them,  but was assisting them, but they didn't quite get it. Then one day he and I were helping with clean up and I don't remember the situation clearly, but something was said and he told them again and then left the room to go take care of something.  I told the RSP that this was important for them to understand.  The women kind of laughed. I said, really it was important.  Then said something like "he is telling you that YOU are the leader here as president.  You are the one in charge. You have the authority.  He is only assigned to assist in what you feel is best as president." I was amazed at their reactions. This was a whole new thing to them and they had been in several years.  They were finally beginning to understand that it was they who were called as leaders. I loved how 2 of their husbands (one a former bishop) immediately agreed even though I'm not sure they had completely caught it before either. 

That's the thing. The church calls the women, but the men who call them or who are on their same level (or really even lower) need to treat the women leaders like leaders for the women to be true leaders.  When women aren't allowed that they often don't understand that principle.

So I don't know if she mispoke or not, but it is just not uncommon to not feel like the leader they are called to be when treated the way they are.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

I assume she means the general women officers(we) along with the General Authorities of the church (other leaders).
Not sure I understand the question.

I left out a “not”.

The fact that she uses “leaders” for the men and not the women could be seen as problematic if the concern is the perceived limited value that is placed on women leaders…even by themselves.

Edited March 28, 2024 by Calm

[JAHS]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't think that is uncommon with women leaders.  My husband is on the high council and is assigned to help the stake RS presidency. In meetings where they asked him to speak or in other places they would often say he was over them.  He would be very clear to them that he wasn't over them,  but was assisting them, but they didn't quite get it. Then one day he and I were helping with clean up and I don't remember the situation clearly, but something was said and he told them again and then left the room to go take care of something.  I told the RSP that this was important for them to understand.  The women kind of laughed. I said, really it was important.  Then said something like "he is telling you that YOU are the leader here as president.  You are the one in charge. You have the authority.  He is only assigned to assist in what you feel is best as president." I was amazed at their reactions. This was a whole new thing to them and they had been in several years.  They were finally beginning to understand that it was they who were called as leaders. I loved how 2 of their husbands (one a former bishop) immediately agreed even though I'm not sure they had completely caught it before either. 

That's the thing. The church calls the women, but the men who call them or who are on their same level (or really even lower) need to treat the women leaders like leaders for the women to be true leaders.  When women aren't allowed that they often don't understand that principle.

So I don't know if she mispoke or not, but it is just not uncommon to not feel like the leader they are called to be when treated the way they are.

The General authorities are the leaders of the "whole Church". The relief Society are specifically the leaders of the women of the Church. I am sure she understands and believes that and that the General authorities support and consider them as such. 

[BlueDreams]

On 3/26/2024 at 2:08 PM, mfbukowski said:

Brilliant!  Agree.  Also for those who know this, some of the blessings on women exceed those for men, but cannot really be perceived until men and women discuss it in the Celestial room after the session.  It takes male and female discussion to even know THAT it is also a "true order"- demonstrated symbolically.

Notice also the two workers whom are called "officiators" are also one man and one woman.  "The officiaters will lead the company..." to the next room, etc.   Even the aisle in the seating between men and women demonstrates and symbolizes the divine difference.  What else could it be?  We sit together in church, which symbolizes to me, the family, while the temple shows us the important differences between men and women and then the spiritual unity which can be obtained in the sealing.  So single men and women, are symbolized separately, and together in, as you mention, the prayer circle, and then the eternal unification of the two in the sealings.

Again, we see demonstrated male and female discussion without which even know THAT it is also a "true order"- is demonstrated symbolically.

I can't imagine a more beautiful way to make the point.

 Sorry for the delay. I'm in the middle of garden busy season moving a ton of dirt wood chips and keeping an excessive amount of plants  alive (last time I counted I had around 300 starts...I have a problem) is currently my main priority among all the other balls I'm trying to keep juggling.

I absolutely wouldn't say that the women's blessings "exceed" those for the men. I think that's tied more to how one prioritizes looking at the differences in both ceremonies. There are and were other differences that could easily be interpreted in the reverse. The overarching temple ceremony, IMHO, isn't supposed to indicate one gender is getting something better or worse. 

Technically It would probably be more than two workers as there's usually the man who officiates from the alter, 1-2 women and 1-2 additional men also in there. I don't put much umph on where they're seated. For one, if there are too many of one gender to seat on one side, they'll have spill over on the other side. Usually a couple or two will take advantage of this and sit together. No one stops them.

I think there is lovely symbolism in the dualism though. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I can't imagine a more beautiful way. For one Prior to the many shifts in the last few years, and when I was a temple worker, I absolutely could imagine a better way. I spent my time deeply studying the temple as much as I could I could see both where the temple was pointing to and also see how it could feasibly do better in pointing to it. Many of the recent changes were a bit validating to what I was seeing in my studies. So even within the temple, It can be (and has become) more beautiful. I also think there's other religious practices that have far more fleshed out and nuance rituals/doctrines and beautifully described the duality of life and of humanity. Right now I'm studying Odinali, which is the igbo religion prior to christian colonization. There are aspects of it that I've found absolutely breathtaking and envious (in a holy way  ) on how they better flesh out the complex engagements of dual natures, including masculine and feminine. 

I deeply value the temple but believe that in terms of its expression of eternal matters it is based in part by what we are willing and able to see within our generation. I expect more beauty to come because it in it's own ways is also sealing our communal growth in knowledge and restoration. 

 

 

On 3/26/2024 at 2:08 PM, mfbukowski said:

In a sense then, to understand the full importance of the endowment, in addition to the principles addressed directly in words, men and women must reveal the differences between each other, actually paralleling what happens in life as one half of the rest of humanity is revealed to us through experience.

Sorta...there's still a major aspect of non-parallel sharing in the ordinances. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't think that is uncommon with women leaders.  My husband is on the high council and is assigned to help the stake RS presidency. In meetings where they asked him to speak or in other places they would often say he was over them.  He would be very clear to them that he wasn't over them,  but was assisting them, but they didn't quite get it. Then one day he and I were helping with clean up and I don't remember the situation clearly, but something was said and he told them again and then left the room to go take care of something.  I told the RSP that this was important for them to understand.  The women kind of laughed. I said, really it was important.  Then said something like "he is telling you that YOU are the leader here as president.  You are the one in charge. You have the authority.  He is only assigned to assist in what you feel is best as president." I was amazed at their reactions. This was a whole new thing to them and they had been in several years.  They were finally beginning to understand that it was they who were called as leaders. I loved how 2 of their husbands (one a former bishop) immediately agreed even though I'm not sure they had completely caught it before either. 

That's the thing. The church calls the women, but the men who call them or who are on their same level (or really even lower) need to treat the women leaders like leaders for the women to be true leaders.  When women aren't allowed that they often don't understand that principle.

So I don't know if she mispoke or not, but it is just not uncommon to not feel like the leader they are called to be when treated the way they are.

My wife served in young women’s for years. As leaders they were asked to prayerfully recommend youth for leadership roles. And their prayerful recommendations were almost always ignored. So while telling women that they are in charge is great, until they are treated like they are in charge 🤷‍♂️. 

Edited March 28, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

I assume she means the general women officers(we) along with the General Authorities of the church (other leaders).
Not sure I understand the question.

She might have meant that, but what she actually said (probably accidentally) is that as the RS general president she is separate from, and therefore not, a church leader. 

And that is the point that a lot of women (and some men) have been making this last week. That women are given the title of leader but aren't actually seen as leaders in the church.  

Many in the church see the women general officers as the equivalent of being given an honorary doctorate.  It's a nice gesture and it shows appreciation and implies value of their presence in the world, but it is largely empty of any real authority or power.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The General authorities are the leaders of the "whole Church". The relief Society are specifically the leaders of the women of the Church. I am sure she understands and believes that and that the General authorities support and consider them as such. 

The general relief society president is not a general authority though.  She is a general officer, which is a different.

 

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My wife served in young women’s for years. As leaders they were asked to prayerfully recommend youth for leadership roles. And their prayerful recommendations were almost always ignored. So while telling women that they are in charge is great, until they are treated like they are in charge 🤷‍♂️. 

Sometimes that's because the person they chose would not accept or there were mitigating circumstances that only the bishop knew and wasn't allowed to share.  And it happens to the male presidencies as much as the female.

I agree it makes it really difficult for the presidencies though and can be incredibly frustrating.  In my opinion bishoprics need to make sure that they are following the lead of their presidents unless they absolutely can't, and when that happens they should let the presidencies know why (while keeping confidentialities of course) so they don't feel ignored or vetoed.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My wife served in young women’s for years. As leaders they were asked to prayerfully recommend youth for leadership roles. And their prayerful recommendations were almost always ignored. So while telling women that they are in charge is great, until they are treated like they are in charge 🤷‍♂️. 

Doesn't this affect all the organizations?  Back when there was a Young Men's presidency, didn't they have that same issue?  They could make recommendations and those could be ignored.  Similarly with Elder's Quorum, Primary, Sunday School?  Or does this issue affect women's organizations more than men's organizations?

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

She might have meant that, but what she actually said (probably accidentally) is that as the RS general president she is separate from, and therefore not, a church leader. 

Imagine for a moment that Brad Wilcox had said or posted something that caused a similar uproar (hard to believe, I know ).

If he then came out and said the same sort of thing, "As we read through the comments, we were moved by some of the experiences you've had. As a member of the Young Men General Presidency, I can assure you that we and our Church leaders are listening and learning from the things you have shared with us." Would you find that equally problematic?

I take the "we" as being a reference to themselves as a presidency. And I don't really think the "our Church leaders" wording was intended to emphasize their otherness in the sense that they don't view themselves as leaders per se, but merely to acknowledge that the leaders who they share in common with us are doing the same thing they are (i.e., listening).

 

Quote

And that is the point that a lot of women (and some men) have been making this last week. That women are given the title of leader but aren't actually seen as leaders in the church.  

Many in the church see the women general officers as the equivalent of being given an honorary doctorate.  It's a nice gesture and it shows appreciation and implies value of their presence in the world, but it is largely empty of any real authority or power.

I suspect it will be the case for quite some time (possibly always) that there will be those who consider only those with institutional administrative authority as being "real" leaders. I fell into that camp myself when I was younger (like tween-age, younger), but it was something I grew / matured out of.

So, here is my question: If this is the problem then what is the remedy?

Is it something that, culturally, we just need to grow / mature out of collectively? Or was Kate Kelly right - the only way to remedy the problem is to ordain women to priesthood office and place them into positions where they can wield supreme executive power?*

 

*Sorry, I was going to say something else, but the Monty Python bug hit me and I couldn't resist.