Women are given priesthood power and authority

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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?

Not as much because even if they didn’t present themselves as leaders, there are other men that boys and young men and mature adult men for that matter can identify with who do present themselves as leaders who are quite noticeable.

 

Edited March 28, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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?

I hope not.  I want there to be something unique for women and unique for men even if there are shared attributes.

Edited March 28, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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?

 

That's a good question.  It's hard for me to answer that because I don't think it would ever happen. 

I don't think that Bro. Wilcox would ever be speaking to the Young Men of the church and imply to them that he wasn't one of their leaders.  If he did, it would certainly get a lot of attention since it would very odd.

Quote

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).

I agree and said as much.  I think it was an accident.  But it's an odd accident.  Like I said above, I don't think Bro. Wilcox would ever make that mistake.  

Quote

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.

Very lucky that you could mature and grow up out of that.  But the idea that only those with institutional administrative authority are real leaders is not what I was talking about.

Quote

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?*

I think in the "ideas" thread I started a little while ago there were some good ideas of possible ways to remedy the situation.  There are probably more that we having considered yet.  

 

 

 

[manol]

3 hours 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 🤷‍♂️. 

Many years ago I was a counselor in a bishopric and working with the Relief Society presidency was one of my responsibilities.  The Relief Society president was moving to another state and the bishop had already decided who the next Relief Society president would be. 

Anyway the outgoing RS president and one of her counselors pulled me aside to excitedly tell me that they had prayed about it and knew who should be the next Relief Society president.  It was not the person the bishop had decided on.  I told them I would tell the bishop.  He held his ground and he had multiple reasons for doing so, as there were major factors that made it impractical.  I relayed the bishop's reply to the Relief Society presidency and they were devastated.  They insisted that they KNEW.  I was in the very uncomfortable position of having to defend the bishop's decision when I personally agreed with the sisters, and I hated doing that and did not handle it well.  They were so persistent that I finally told them quite bluntly that the bishop outranks them.  I have regretted doing that ever since.

Well apparently the bishop prayed about it again, because the call was extended to the sister that the outgoing Relief Society presidency knew was the right person. And that's how the New Orleans Ward got its first Black Relief Society president.  She was magnificent. 

I wonder how many other decisions would have been better made with the fully-honored input of the sisters. 

(Incidentally, that bishop was a remarkable man.  One of my predecessors in the bishopric was a gay man, living with his partner, both of whom were active members.  This man died of AIDS while he was a counselor in the bishopric.  The stake president was furious with the bishop for withholding so much information from him, but the bishop knew that otherwise his calling that man would not have been approved.  And I've never been in a ward that was closer than we were at that time, as the entire ward rallied around and took turns caring for our dying friend and second counselor in the bishopric.)

Edited March 28, 2024 by manol

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not as much because even if they didn’t present themselves as leaders, there are other men that boys and young men and mature adult men for that matter can identify with who do present themselves as leaders who are quite noticeable.

So, given the current state of affairs, do you think there is an added measure of pressure for women in leadership positions to clearly represent themselves as leaders? Or, maybe said another way, it isn't enough for them to merely be leaders - they need to affirmatively present themselves as leaders as well?

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

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?

Absolutely. There is one ultimate leader in the ward (the bishop) and the bishop is always male. 

Edited March 28, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That's a good question.  It's hard for me to answer that because I don't think it would ever happen. 

I don't think that Bro. Wilcox would ever be speaking to the Young Men of the church and imply to them that he wasn't one of their leaders.  If he did, it would certainly get a lot of attention since it would very odd.

Well, maybe that's where our disconnect is: I don't see Sister Dennis' comment as implying she isn't a leader.

Her wording may have been a little inartful, but I clearly don't think she was trying to communicate that she, herself, is not a leader.

 

Quote

I agree and said as much.  I think it was an accident.  But it's an odd accident.  Like I said above, I don't think Bro. Wilcox would ever make that mistake.  

I don't really view it as a mistake. If you have to look for it to be there, then maybe there's not much there there.

 

Quote

But the idea that only those with institutional administrative authority are real leaders is not what I was talking about.

I guess I misunderstood then, or maybe I'm reading other sentiments into what you were saying. I've seen several comments (not necessarily from you, specifically) that seem to express the sentiment that 'being able to decide' is what matters, so that's where I'm getting the notion that institutional administrative authority is what is wanted.

 

Quote

I think in the "ideas" thread I started a little while ago there were some good ideas of possible ways to remedy the situation.  There are probably more that we having considered yet.  

It's certainly an area where I would welcome more light and knowledge.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

So, given the current state of affairs, do you think there is an added measure of pressure for women in leadership positions to clearly represent themselves as leaders? Or, maybe said another way, it isn't enough for them to merely be leaders - they need to affirmatively present themselves as leaders as well?

 

I think they should as there are many women troubled by this and if we have actual women leaders, than why not make it obvious what they are to everyone (which is more about unspoken behavior than spoken usually in my experience). Whether they felt that pressure in the past or currently do because of the recent feedback, I don’t know. 

Edited March 28, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

you have to look for it to be there, then maybe there's not much there there

I didn’t have to look for it to be there. It jumped out at me. 

I think that might be the issue. Those who don’t feel a lack or don’t care to care won’t see it unless it’s pointed out. Those who feel the need are more likely to see a lack there.

But if the intent is to help those who feel undervalued in the Church, then trying to look at what is said in the way they see it would be wise. 

Not seeing may be a result of not needing, but often it is a result of not caring or worse, not wanting to care as in the case of bigotry (not saying those who don’t see an issue are bigots, just that it could be one of many reasons).

Edited March 28, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Love the experiences of this member of the church!!

https://atlastshesaidit.substack.com/p/say-more-at-last-she-writes-it-d9a?utm_campaign=email-post&r=1il8c8&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Love the experiences of this member of the church!!

https://atlastshesaidit.substack.com/p/say-more-at-last-she-writes-it-d9a?utm_campaign=email-post&r=1il8c8&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

I read the article and it was an interesting read.  What jumped out at me the most was how little I could connect with the experiences of that sister and what move her and what she wanted to hear from church and what touched her soul.  That isn't a judgement against any of what she said, just my personal observation.

I cannot relate to finding peace or God in the kinds of worship services that she was so excited about.  I cannot relate to her struggle to desire a religion where women can be in charge.  That doesn't mean anything in particular but I found the realization intriguing.  I don't think it's wrong for her to be excited or want those things, but to be honest some of it sounded just awful to me as an aspect of worship because that's not what speaks to me.

That led me to wonder--rhetorically--how do we find unity when our wants, desires, and perspectives can be so different, even sometimes opposing of each other?  I have no idea.

 

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

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).

 

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?*

Calm did a good job on answering the other questions.  I just wanted to add here. I know of very few women who want to be ordained with what men have in the way they have it.  We have been told that women have power and authority etc. but somehow that is supposed to magically happen perhaps when you are 18, perhaps when you go to the temple etc, but there is no ordination for all these women and there are no responsibilities or blessing specifically with it that women have been told about other than for callings, but having a calling is not the same thing as being ordained to the priesthood.  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.  

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

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

 

 

I get it that it was a joke for you and you were trying keep things lighter, but know that for many it may be making a wound because women are told so often that they shouldn't be so prideful as to aspire to holding the priesthood or having callings like a bishop when usually what they are really asking for is often misunderstood.

[JAHS]

40 minutes ago, Rain said:

Calm did a good job on answering the other questions.  I just wanted to add here. I know of very few women who want to be ordained with what men have in the way they have it.  We have been told that women have power and authority etc. but somehow that is supposed to magically happen perhaps when you are 18, perhaps when you go to the temple etc, but there is no ordination for all these women and there are no responsibilities or blessing specifically with it that women have been told about other than for callings, but having a calling is not the same thing as being ordained to the priesthood.  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.  

Maybe it is something women will have to wait for. We are told in the temple we will someday become Kings and Queens and Priests and Priestesses, which implies that some sort of added power and authority will be given to women; more than they have now.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, JAHS said:

We are told in the temple we will someday become Kings and Queens and Priests and Priestesses, which implies that some sort of added power and authority will be given to women; more than they have now.

This is why I have always believe we will receive something similar, but not identical.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I read the article and it was an interesting read.  What jumped out at me the most was how little I could connect with the experiences of that sister and what move her and what she wanted to hear from church and what touched her soul.  That isn't a judgement against any of what she said, just my personal observation.

I cannot relate to finding peace or God in the kinds of worship services that she was so excited about.  I cannot relate to her struggle to desire a religion where women can be in charge.  That doesn't mean anything in particular but I found the realization intriguing.  I don't think it's wrong for her to be excited or want those things, but to be honest some of it sounded just awful to me as an aspect of worship because that's not what speaks to me.

That led me to wonder--rhetorically--how do we find unity when our wants, desires, and perspectives can be so different, even sometimes opposing of each other?  I have no idea.

 

Maybe I'm a lot too far gone from the church than I thought. I understand how you'd feel that way, I never felt good anywhere but the LDS church even during my crisis of faith. I tried a couple of churches, but it didn't do anything for me. But I appreciate that you read it. I get the podcast's emails and that was sent to me today and I opened and read it. And the whole thing didn't resonate, but some really did. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Calm did a good job on answering the other questions.  I just wanted to add here. I know of very few women who want to be ordained with what men have in the way they have it.  We have been told that women have power and authority etc. but somehow that is supposed to magically happen perhaps when you are 18, perhaps when you go to the temple etc, but there is no ordination for all these women and there are no responsibilities or blessing specifically with it that women have been told about other than for callings, but having a calling is not the same thing as being ordained to the priesthood.  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 get it that it was a joke for you and you were trying keep things lighter, but know that for many it may be making a wound because women are told so often that they shouldn't be so prideful as to aspire to holding the priesthood or having callings like a bishop when usually what they are really asking for is often misunderstood.

Spiritual Treasures

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/36nelson?lang=eng

[MustardSeed]

46 minutes ago, JAHS said:

which implies that some sort of added power and authority will be given to women; more than they have now.

Can we even imagine the discomfort such changes will bring for those who are uncomfortable with even the changes already made? 

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe I'm a lot too far gone from the church than I thought. I understand how you'd feel that way, I never felt good anywhere but the LDS church even during my crisis of faith. I tried a couple of churches, but it didn't do anything for me. But I appreciate that you read it. I get the podcast's emails and that was sent to me today and I opened and read it. And the whole thing didn't resonate, but some really did. 

Sorry if I was confusing. I’ve felt joy and peace in other religious services before.

[2BizE]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Maybe it is something women will have to wait for. We are told in the temple we will someday become Kings and Queens and Priests and Priestesses, which implies that some sort of added power and authority will be given to women; more than they have now.

This is for those who receive their second anointing. Generally reserved for elite members today. I believe this practice was done less secretly up until the 1930s-ish where those who received their second anointing were published in the Deseret News. That practice went underground per se and is not spoken about much today.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Maybe it is something women will have to wait for.

"Maybe."  Can you see how hard it might be for some women to wait for a "maybe"? Some women hurt and struggle so much and the best that can be said is maybe in the next life she will get it?   

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

We are told in the temple we will someday become Kings and Queens and Priests and Priestesses, which implies that some sort of added power and authority will be given to women; more than they have now.

I don't see how that is implied.  We are told "There is no other religious organization in the world, that I know of, that has so broadly given power and authority to women"  and "How I yearn for you to understand that the restoration of the priesthood is just as relevant to you as a woman as it is to any man. Because the Melchizedek Priesthood has been restored, both covenant-keeping women and men have access to “all the spiritual blessings of the church”.  As if there is some kind of equal footing with men now.  What makes you think the next life will be any different when women are called Queens and Priestesses?  Added power doesn't mean equal.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Spiritual Treasures

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/36nelson?lang=eng

"You won’t find this process spelled out in any manual. The Holy Ghost will be your personal tutor as you seek to understand what the Lord would have you know and do. This process is neither quick nor easy, but it is spiritually invigorating. "

Ahh.  So men can be told and tutored in many manuals and conference talks and in the scriptures etc. and they can use the Spirit as they read and listen to these resources and be spiritually invigorated, but women can only use inspiration from the Spirit. The same inspiration that members are told must agree with what priesthood leaders have said (or will say when women tell of those inspirations). And strangely women can have lessons about all of these things that are about the men in lessons, conference etc - they just can't get it about themselves.

[PortalToParis]

I don't give Heber C. Kimball's words any weight, but this is what he had to say on it as one of the twelve:

“...ladies, in your family capacity. You have not any priesthood, only in connection with your husbands. You suppose that you receive the priesthood when you receive you endowments; but the priesthood is on your husbands.”

- Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Volume 5 pages 27-34

 

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sorry if I was confusing. I’ve felt joy and peace in other religious services before.

I'm debating on going to my ward for Easter services. My husband is on a golf trip and I'm alone. So hopefully I'll do something on Easter Sunday, rather than sit in my robe and be on my laptop.

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

"You won’t find this process spelled out in any manual. The Holy Ghost will be your personal tutor as you seek to understand what the Lord would have you know and do. This process is neither quick nor easy, but it is spiritually invigorating. "

Ahh.  So men can be told and tutored in many manuals and conference talks and in the scriptures etc. and they can use the Spirit as they read and listen to these resources and be spiritually invigorated, but women can only use inspiration from the Spirit. The same inspiration that members are told must agree with what priesthood leaders have said (or will say when women tell of those inspirations). And strangely women can have lessons about all of these things that are about the men in lessons, conference etc - they just can't get it about themselves.

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.

Edited March 29, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[manol]

31 minutes 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.

Interesting concept! 

In your view, are there any official teachings or practices of the church today that support this? 

Can you get into specifics about "the Priesthood powers associated with women [which are] of such sublime magnificence"? 

Can you give examples of these hints President Nelson has been dropping? 

Do you think the church is RIGHT not to openly teach any of this, not to let the sisters manifest who they really are, forbidding even women giving blessings except under rare circumstances? 

Or do you think the church has room for improvement, even a great deal of room for improvement, in this area?

If what you describe was the actual doctrine and practice of the church today, there is an excellent chance I would still be a member. 

Edited March 29, 2024 by manol