Follow us @WheatnTweet!
Why women want the priesthood — a poll
By: Stephen MarshEveryone speculates, but at Wheat and Tares we are asking our readers for answers. I have a poll, it goes over the following options, but the real goal is to hear what you think. The options (tightened up to fit in the poll tool that we have) are:
- I don’t want the priesthood silly — my husband told me so. That is, I’m the mythical woman who does not have any wants or desires of my own, only what men give me.
- Of course I want the priesthood — do I have to have a reason? That is, it is something that is good and praiseworthy, and like anything else that fits the thirteenth article of faith, I seek after it. Did Abraham need a reason to seek the blessing of the priesthood?
- I want equal power and influence, so I need equal priesthood. That is, the priesthood is about power and influence and I want more of it.
- I do not feel as if I am asked to serve enough, I need the priesthood in order to serve more. That is the option for those who are not so much interested in power and authority as they are interested in more options and chances to serve others.
- I want the priesthood so that I feel included. I’m the right social class and have the right professional background, but without the priesthood I’m stuck like all the men who are the wrong social class and won’t progress in the leadership. Yes, that is an entire post in itself, but I did not think anyone would be interested in it (if someone is, let me know in the comments and I’ll be glad to address it).
- I feel disconnected from the Church and my family and the priesthood would help me feel more connected. That is the reason Priesthood was extended to young men, to socialize them and make them a part of the community. Priesthood is one thing that can help people feel more connected.
- With thanks to Newly Housewife, “I’m tired with how priesthood holders and children frequently try to ‘one up’ me–claiming I can make babies AND bless them would beat it into their skulls that I am not to be ‘one upped’ or otherwise subjected to attempts to exercise power and influence by virtue of the priesthood.” That is, if we talk equal partnerships, and we can talk them all day and into the night until we are blue in the face, but it is just not going to happen without the priesthood. Nothing else will solve this issue, one that has been with us since Brigham Young tried to point out that women could vote, be lawyers or doctors or accountants or shop keepers just as well as men, and should be educated just like men.
So, here is the poll, in shorter form:
Loading ...The genesis of this poll is that I got thinking about what Hawkgrrrl had to say earlier and so I thought I’d just ask our readers what they felt and why.
For reference, this was a relevant comment from Hawkgrrrl:
While we’re speculating on priesthood, I think a sociological argument can be made that priesthood service ties men to families and makes them feel needed in ways that they otherwise might not. In Spain, most men would spend their evenings in the bar with other men leaving the women at home to raise the kids, but when they joined the church, they became more family-centric and spent time serving others and supporting their families because it was their priesthood duty. Women already had a family-centric existence in that culture. If women also had the priesthood, it would reduce their reliance on men for those things. A role separation model may be more effective at creating family bonds (creating mutual reliance and respect for each other), improving the way men treat their families and others, and provide more support to children on the whole across large groups of people. Obviously, that’s more of an 80/20 principle – suitable to 80% of society, but not others.
In this sociological model, both motherhood and priesthood are duties and service provided to others, not gifts God gives to an individuall. But E. Oaks didn’t say that. It’s my own slightly more palatable spin on what he said.
And, of course, Hawkgrrrl’s classic post analyzing the Mormon.org FAQ section on Women and the Priesthood.
 | |
| Artist | Tintoretto |
|---|---|
Obviously her reflections took more than just a simple line on a poll. I expect that your reflections and real reasons, for or against wanting the priesthood will take more than a simple line. My thoughts would be influenced by foot-washing and by J. Stapley’s addendum on female healing at By Common Consent, but I want your thoughts, not mine.
So, if you are a woman, tell me why you do or do not want the priesthood and why. I want honest, both pro and con (you can do silly as well, my poll had that as an option, but I’m hoping for more).
Thank you.
What about women, who want women to have the priesthood not for individual reasons, but for because it will make the church better. They want to be treated as equals. They want to be able to confess to another women not divulge intimate details of sins to some creepy guy who doesn’t relate to them.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
8
None of the above? There are many reasons, but none of mine fit into the seemingly petty ones in this list. At least one of my pettier ones would be “I’d like to be able to make decisions in my calling without having to clear it with a man first.”
I think the “I’d like to be able to serve better” one is close to home, but minus the “I’m not asked to serve enough”. I’m asked to make casseroles plenty. It’s not about what I’m asked to do. It’s about wanting to be able to see an opportunity to serve in a meaningful way, and take it.
A HUGE one for me would be “I want my daughters to feel that their decisions and contributions can stand on their own, without a male backing.”
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
7
I’m obviously a man, but think women should have the priesthood. The comments we often hear about “women have babies, men have the priesthood” is pandering and self-serving to the men.
For man centuries, white men ruled the world and looked for ways to justify that. Our current practices are vestiges of that, and it takes a long time to change things. There are many people in the church today who were alive when apostles taught things like:
This was not an eternal doctrine – but merely an attempt by a church leader to justify societal practices banning certain classes from authority using eternal principles. But ultimately, it was wrong.
I see the issue with women and the priesthood as being the same.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
11
And as to WHY women should have the priesthood – I think we are missing out on A LOT in this church. Despite all the talks about “separate but equal” with regards to women, and pedestals, and whatever, women have a lesser role. Women have to have a man approve their activities. Women are limited to token appearances in General Conference talks, and essentially never pray there. Issues regarding women in the church are ultimately decided upon by a man. Women have to talk to a man about chastity issues and other personal things. It’s just how it it.
What would be wrong with a woman having the priesthood? What would be wrong with someone’s spirituality and ability being the deciding factor in what leadership positions they could serve in, as opposed to their gender? What would be wrong with a female bishop or stake president or apostle?
Some might say that it will never happen – that it is an eternal principle that only men have the priesthood – but prophets and apostles said the same things about blacks – and they were wrong.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
10
I don’t the Priesthood as an issue of power or influence, but as different roles for Men and Women. My parents played the classical roles outlined in the Church’s official proclamation and my Mother had a far more significant influence on my life than my Father. With influence comes power. The power to influence kids is the power to shape the world. I would argue my Mother had a lot more power than my Father who held the priesthood.
The Priesthood is more of an expression of Love than it is an act of power. From my perspective, I think things are the way that they should be and thus there is no need to change.
Controversial! What do you think?
9
I’ve seen Ardis Parshall post this on several different venues when the issue of women and the priesthood comes up, so I’ll post this here…hope she doesn’t take offense:
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
21
I think that both women and men have the very same ability to receive inspiration and use the power of God. This is such an old and tired discourse to me. It’s just leftover from old social and cultural vestiges. Is there really even a question about this…?
And yes, I think it would be really intersting to read a post on social class/career status effecting how men climb the leadership ladder in the Church.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
11
These answers are exactly what I hoped for — explanations that go beyond my shallow start to covering how people really feel. Thanks!
Like this comment?
2
I meant to comment on Hawkgrrl’s comment, but never got to it previously. I remember someone at Sunstone making the claim that priesthood helps men become better fathers, and I agree to some degree it does. However, another panelist said that men should be good fathers anyway, and men shouldn’t use priesthood as a crutch. I think men do shirk their responsibility (myself included) in parenting. But why must men give all blessings? Why can’t women give blessings if they feel they are needed, especially if a man is not around. Giving blessings is a wonderful gift, and I see no reason why a good worthy woman couldn’t do that as well, especially when they used to be able to do it even without the priesthood.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
9
Your lead-in is the perfect example of how the Bloggernacle polices its boundaries, as Bruce has articulated over at Millennial Star. It fairly cleanly shouts, “Any woman who does not want the priesthood fits in this little condescending box.” Conservative women need not apply here. I’m not sure that was your intent, but it’s interesting how subconscious our preferences for dialogue can be.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
12
I think that denying women the priesthood is limiting God. Clearly there were female prophets, as evidenced in the scriptures, in times of old. We believe that prophets must hold the priesthood therefore if we are denying women the priesthood we are denying God the ability to call women as prophets of the church. I think that there are some amazing women with incredible spiritual gifts that could do an amazing amount of good if the men would let go of a little bit of power and get out of the way.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
8
What I don’t understand is if women receive the priesthood through marriage–a common belief my friends tell me–why can’t callings be couple oriented? You want this guy to be the bishop? Ok, he’ll deal with the dudes and his wife will deal with females, anything that deals with joint couples will require both. Otherwise they can switch off however they please. Same goes with music chorister, primary teacher, and nursery leader.
For those who are not married, married to a non-member, or married to a practicing but not temple record holding member (hopefully find a calling that can be held without a recommend) they buddy up with friends or whoever is available.
But in regards to the post: Condescending voices drive me crazy. Usually with old dudes the little voice in my head says: I know I’m 20-40 years younger than you, but you don’t act all supreme around my husband so quit it.
Like this comment?
3
See, the thing is, Bonnie, it isn’t necessarily people saying that all women must have a priesthood office as much as it is that women should have the opportunity to have one, if she so desires it.
At the moment, a woman who is an excellent organizer and administrator is automatically shut out from sharing her talents within the administrative structure of the church, which is a real shame.
Personally, I like the way the CoC assigns priesthood offices (as I understand it) – as actual callings rather than obligatory and automatic assignment.
Like this comment?
3
Prometheus, I have no quibble with your point. My comment was directed at the clear example of boundary establishment and the condescension of the 1st line of the OP. Marginalizing those who don’t happen to agree is dirty debate. I didn’t enter into a discussion about the priesthood and women at all, which isn’t a big deal since the OP was directed at a subset of the population: those who want women to have the same priesthood as men. It’s okay to exclude people like me who want a priestesshood that is different; I was merely commenting on the irony of a blog so quickly proving Bruce’s point.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
“the mythical woman” — i.e. no real woman has that as a reason.
I guess the alternative is a poll on why women do not want the priesthood. I was only exploring the one side, and pointing out that the dismissive to the alternative position only applied to people who do not really exist.
Sorry that wasn’t clearer.
Like this comment?
2
#7 The social class/career status is a very tricky issue. I would think someone who worked two low paying jobs, and thus 60+ hours a week, would have a nearly impossible time fulfilling the time demands of bishop/stake president. I also think someone unemployed/underemployed would be in financial stress and again not adequately able to fill those positions. (Who does the Stake President go to if he can’t pay his rent?)
But I also think that someone who is undergoing a family crisis (death, illness, troubled teen, etc) would not be able to adequately fulfill the calling of bishop/stake president. Then again, I always think family obligations come first.
Like this comment?
2
I should note that there is a huge difference between “I want the Priesthood to avoid the negatives/avoid the effects of unrighteousness dominion in my life” (which is what I see the one type of position being) and the “I want to exercise authority and dominion (or at least have a shot at it)” position.
They sound very different but lead to very different places.
The same is true of those who say “if men are do weak that they need a unique priesthood to cause them to engage, then pfftc on them” vs “I feel so infantilized and need something like the priesthood.”.
Huge differences.
Like this comment?
0
I agree with Jenn and Mike S.
We hear a lot of rhetoric designed to make women sound like the stronger, more spiritual ones, but then we put only men in positions to judge how spiritual and worthy they are. This makes no sense.
Also, as long as women have to seek out the approval of a male in order to do their jobs, even when they are presidents of an auxiliary, they are not equal.
The Church has done a good job of making women think they don’t want the Priesthood, but I think that will only last so much longer. There has been no “clamoring” for it in the past, but I think in the future, it will be a natural part of the evolution of the Church for some changes to be made. The 1950s gender roles will seem more and more archaic, and less and less inspired.
Like this comment?
2
Lets be careful trashing the 1950′s. America was on a huge economic climb, our government was fiscally responsible, gangs and violent crime were not major problems, society functioned much better than it does now and the USA was the envy of the world. It seems like we have digressed as a society.
Like this comment?
3
Will, the only folks that enjoyed the 1950s were middle class white men.
Like this comment?
3
Ultimately, I think those who believe they will lose out if PH extends to women actually miscalculate the benefits to themselves. When women are only passengers, not drivers, guess who the backseat drivers are going to be? I won’t go into all the other great points above. In a way, though, I’m with Bonnie. I’m not looking for more work.
Like this comment?
3
I voted for the “equal power and influence” option. It’s not really about power for me, though. It’s about an opportunity for an equal voice. I don’t have a problem with the priesthood, but I do have a problem with the fact that it’s not all about service (like we claim it is) but about administration and decision-making. I hate that I can never be included in that process for no other reason than that I am a woman. My voice will never be as important, no matter how many kind-hearted men “consider my ideas.” They are the ones who make the decisions and they are able to be in that position because they are men.
I have always felt that the Young Women’s program might not be such an embarrassment if the people actually making the decisions had gone through it. Our leadership is sorely limited by their perspectives and we suffer because of it. I highly doubt a woman would approve any rhetoric that compared a woman dressed a certain way to “walking pornography.” The kind of shaming that happens from statements like that is inexcusable, but happens again and again because the people making the decisions have never been shamed in that way.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
8
#19: Wll,
“Btwn FYs 1950 nd 2009 nclsv, 84% f r cmltv ntnl dbt (rghly $9.2 trlln t f $11 trlln f dbt) hs bn crtd ndr Rpblcn Prsdnts. Rgn / Bsh / Bsh btwn thm r rspnsbl fr nrly 80% ($8.75 trlln)! Rpblcn Prsdnts hv:
•mr thn dbld th dbt (Bsh 127%)
[Where are the vowels?]•trpld th dbt (Nxn/Frd 194%)
•qntpld th dbt (Rgn/Bsh 479%).
Like this comment?
1
Bb,
Gt yr fcts strght nd lts nt frgt th rsn fr th hg dbts — nttlmnts whch ccnt fr vr 60 prcnt f r ttl nnl ncm. nttlmnts mplmntd xclsvly by th lft.
[Where are the vowels?]Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Bb,
bm hs pt mr n r ntns crdt crd thn LL f th prsdnts frm Grg Wshngtn thrgh Bll Clntn CMBND.
[Where are the vowels?]Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
Will and Bob, stay on topic.
Like this comment?
4
NH – I understand where you’re coming from (20), and certainly the 50s were a horribly restrictive time for some people, but there were a great many women who felt safe and content during that time. I’m not justifying a culture that is essentially a boat going only one place that limits the passengers, but for those passengers who were going that way, it was a very happy thing. We have been wise to enlarge the manifest and invite more passengers and more people can be joyful, but I fear that’s something we’ve largely lost – the joy of the journey. How many people do you know who are truly secure and joyful? There were a few of them in the 50s.
Like this comment?
2
I had another thought on this last night. I have a female friend who was ritualistically abused by men. She has extreme PTSD and anxiety when in the presence of men. This while she would benefit from a priesthood blessing, she cannot feel safe in the presence of one man let alone two. Why would God not allow her the opportunity to receive a blessing from someone whom she was not afraid of?
Like this comment?
4
I have had some bad experiences along the lines of LovelyLauren’s suggestion of the norm, but for the most part I’ve been valued and included as an equal and seldom had to get permission when I presided. When I sat in council it was to tell them what we were doing, to share insights from my perspective on ward concerns, and to get insights from others when I needed them. I’ve seen the inner workings of bishoprics and I can verify that they have just as few things they can do on their own as we do, because they are held accountable as well. The prophet is the only person who isn’t asking permission in the church, and by the time you get to that place, you’re in the habit of seeking counsel from those around you. It hasn’t been my experience that the church is men running amok.
My personal view is that we lose something if we try to institutionalize everything for everyone. The dynamic nature of the church is provided by women, to be frank, because they are free to do many things of their own free will and choice. You see that so-and-so is struggling because she’s ill and her house needs painted? Talk to a leader who might know more about plans, and then organize a group to do it.
To use a body analogy, we need structure (bones) and life (breath). We need elements that are static and elements that are free-flowing to give life to our form. If we institutionalize the contributions of women, we deprive them of their power to go where needed.
In a perfect church, deacons have specific responsibilities, as do teachers, priests, elders, and high priests. Women are extraordinarily free to do WHATEVER THEY WANT. I don’t want to give that up. I have a lot more power and opportunity to serve when I use my mind and the spirit to see the areas of greatest need and apply to them, like an immune system response.
I get that I’m one opinion, and I’m not arguing that everyone should adopt it (though I know a LOT of women who feel this way). It isn’t because we’re ignorant or backward that we don’t want the priesthood.
Now. Is there greater power that could be offered to women? You bet. Are there changes in YW and RS that could bring about a motivated female church? You bet. Is there training and grooming in a priestesshood that would empower women to do mighty works? You bet. I hope that’s what Julie Beck was talking about when she said that the RS “is in its ascendancy.”
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
7
Bonnie, I don’t know how you can possibly claim that women “can do whatever they want” when they can’t even bless their own child in a chapel.
Like this comment?
5
Giving women the priesthood won’t solve every problem — many of them will still feel undervalued and underutilised. Many men who hold the priesthood feel they could do more and offer more than they are asked. I hold the priesthood, but I’ve never been in a position to approve a woman’s decision (or a man’s decision, for that matter) and I’ve never been in a position to fully capitalize on my many and wonderful talents :-).
I believe that every man and every woman can do great things of their own free will and choice. How beautiful it is!
Like this comment?
2
I was employing a certain hyperbole, LL. I don’t mean to be snarky, but one also doesn’t shout amens in Sacrament meeting. I didn’t mean to imply unrestricted license. Nobody has that.
You gave birth to your child. A father’s blessing is an intimate parallel providing him an opportunity to endow that child with gifts and futures just as you have. Historically mothers named children and fathers sealed that name. It’s about partnership. I don’t understand why women want to take that opportunity away from their husbands, but I suppose that’s a threadjack. Partnership isn’t about equality; it’s about unity.
In my perfect world, that unity is given a great deal more play, with complementary roles of men and women wholly unified in power and service (nobody asked me about my perfect world, but, you know, it’s the internet…) Nobody has to agree, which is one wonderful aspect of debate. But hopefully we can begin to see why one of us would say something incomprehensible and the other would want to do something incomprehensible. Different sides of the elephant we’re seeing.
Like this comment?
5
As a child of the fifties (born April 1959), though my experience was obviously limited, looking back at relics of that era, I agree with Will that we (USA) have regressed terribly. Yes, the “improvements” then would be equality for minorities, a less condescending attitude towards women, BUT…we all “equally” share in the collective misery of a nation that has lost a sense of itself in a deluge of self-indulgence and irresponsibility.
For me, since the Priesthood is of our Lord Jesus Christ, I accede always to Him as to whom it shall be conferred. I agree with Hawkgrrl that why would women want to increase their workload? Leave the gluttony for punishment to us dumb brutes.
Like this comment?
2
Not sure why anyone would think the 50s were so much better. It wasn’t just women who were locked into unbending and invariable gender roles. Men were not allowed to cry, be nurturing, enjoy caring for children, cook, decorate or anything else that was associated with women.
I really am at a loss as to why people would want to demand such inflexibility rather than simply allowing people to do what they are best at and be who they are.
Go back further and further, and one loses all sense of individuals as people were simply caricatures of roles. Feudal lords and peasants, men and women, master and slave. There was not even a possibility of becoming anything more than the role that one was born into.
I find it all so appalling.
Admittedly, we have our own set of social disorders, but we have eliminated a whole lot already, we just need to stay the course and continue eliminating them. The last thing we need to do is to regress back to the kind of caste system that existed in the early 20th century.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
7
My answer would be “none of the above.” Apparently, I’m in the minority as I cannot ever remember a time in my life when I have desired to hold the priesthood. My husband does not tell me this; in fact, I doubt it’s ever been a real topic of discussion since I have no problem with his priesthood authority.
I do not feel disconnected from the church. There was a time that I felt disconnected from the church(though not from the gospel) but it had nothing to do with the priesthood and everything to do with finding my own place in life and recognizing that being different doesn’t mean not being a part of God’s kingdom. I do not feel diminished in any way because I do not hold the priesthood. I do not always agree with my priesthood leaders nor accept their counsel without question–and they definitely know it. I do not believe I am hampered in serving in any way and I do not feel any lack of power or influence.
Am I missing out on something because *I* didn’t give my children a name and a blessing in Sacrament meeting or baptize them? No. I was there. I was very much a part of each event. Why would I want to take the opportunity to serve away from someone else? I have an abundance of opportunities and have been blessed to serve in a myriad of ways.
Like this comment?
4
It’s about partnership. I don’t understand why women want to take that opportunity away from their husbands, but I suppose that’s a threadjack. Partnership isn’t about equality; it’s about unity.
Which is an entire post in itself.
Like this comment?
4
I know, Stephen. After yours went up I considered writing that post.
Like this comment?
1
“I don’t understand why women want to take that opportunity away from their husbands”.
I don’t see what about women having the priesthood would take anything AWAY from my husband. Is my husband any less of a parent, because we BOTH get to be parents (I suppose that’s a whole separate post, since mormons seem stuck ont he idea that moms can parent in a way men can’t)? Would a bishop be any less of a bishop if the relief society president could give callings without the help of the brethren? Would a SINGLE mother be taking away anyone’s opportunities if she were to give her children blessings when ill?
Yes, partnership is not about equality. I’m not looking for equality. I’m looking for a system that makes more sense, that does not put burdens where there do not need to be burdens.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Would a SINGLE mother be taking away anyone’s opportunities if she were to give her children blessings when ill?
That is something we need clarified again is the ability of women to intercede for the sick.
That is a different issue aside from tossing men out of ritual blessings. Though it can touch on that issue as well (as obvious from prior comments), it need not and should not be comingled to the extent women believe they cannot act.
But, again, an entirely additional post.
Like this comment?
0
Stephen, I think (as I’ve written) that the gift of healing is not limited to priesthood authority, and other gifts fit that bill as well. I think the transition to limiting these blessings to “the elders” is difficult to track with clarity, though certainly we have some great research on it. I think there is reason to believe that we could move back to healing blessings as a church, though those sorts of things take time to trickle down or trickle up or whatever direction one thinks things “trickle.” If we are to have an empowered church, many women need to awaken to their potentials as well, instead of ceding all things to priesthood leaders. I just don’t think we need the priesthood you have to do that.
Like this comment?
2
I think we’re confusing both men and women having the priesthood with women having the priesthood and then taking it away from men.
If/When (your preference) women are given the priesthood it does not mean they will take over every single calling that used to be held by men. It just means they’ll coexist.
Rather than having women automatically removed from the ballot for presidential callings, they’ll be included. You may or may not have a female bishop, that’s up for inspiration to decide. Fathers will still give baby blessings, it just gives mothers the opportunity too if the couple desires it.
Like this comment?
4
Jenn, I didn’t see your comment. I did not mean to dismiss it. I agree that there is great room for growth. I’m not a fan of the “if we gave women the priesthood the men would all go fishing” argument. Just as there are problems with the intriguing “couple callings” idea (who the heck is taking care of the kids if you have the two highest stress/time callings in the church in one household?), there are issues with removing the communication structure of a ward by having RS have a free rein that the HP quorum, for example, doesn’t. A bishop, one man, is accountable to the SP (I know, HP are supposed to be but it doesn’t work out that way in real life.) I can see so much empowerment of women coming through strengthening RS and expanding the freedom to use spiritual gifts that doesn’t require female ordination.
Like this comment?
1
NH – I confess that I don’t understand the weight of the bishop role in eternity. Bishops are never released, and like patriarchs just go on emeritus status without an assignment. There is something eternally significant in that calling that I don’t know enough to define.
As for other callings, I see no reason SS presidents and clerks couldn’t be women, on any level in the church. I still think there’s balance in women giving birth and men giving name blessings. I think a GREAT many functions of a bishop could and should be delegated to RSP. Those changes would bring phenomenal balance to the church and not require female ordination, which I think detracts from whatever this priestesshood is. I’m really eager to know how that will evolve in the next decade.
Like this comment?
1
To Bonnie (response line by line) :
“Jenn, I didn’t see your comment. I did not mean to dismiss it. ”
>>No worries:)
“I agree that there is great room for growth. I’m not a fan of the “if we gave women the priesthood the men would all go fishing” argument. Just as there are problems with the intriguing “couple callings” idea (who the heck is taking care of the kids if you have the two highest stress/time callings in the church in one household?), ”
>>Rather than the current model: “the husband is at church all day on sunday in meetings, or sitting on the podium during sacrament while the wife tries to keep their 5 children in line by herself”. Face it, callings pretty much already ARE couple callings. Why not give the women the credit and resources to do their half, or even switch off/share loads? OR why have the women always be on the “home with the children” half? Might do the men some good to have some time with their kids (this, from a working mom with a stay-at-home-dad husband- we love our roles). And I know many men who would happily have more kid time and give their wives a chance to use their glorious educations and faculties to help the church in ways only men currently can.
“there are issues with removing the communication structure of a ward by having RS have a free rein that the HP quorum, for example, doesn’t. A bishop, one man, is accountable to the SP (I know, HP are supposed to be but it doesn’t work out that way in real life.) ”
>>I’m not saying remove communication. The hierarchy would still be in place, but women wouldn’t be relegated to the bottom rungs. I’m saying return to an earlier model- the Relief Society in the beginning WAS more autonomous. Under Joseph Smith, the Relief Society was to be the EQUIVALENT of the Elder’s Quorum- (but then, he also said he would make it a society of “priestesses”). Just as the EQ president may get advice/communication from the RS without needing their permission on everything, the women could function in their capacities (which would NOT be limited to RS/primary/YW). They’d work in coordination, like the men of the church still do, rather than subordination, like the current system.
“I can see so much empowerment of women coming through strengthening RS and expanding the freedom to use spiritual gifts that doesn’t require female ordination.”
>>Agreed. I don’t care so much about ordination. I think we are cheating ourselves out of a lot of great talent and contribution the women could give if they weren’t so pigeonholed into one acceptable role.
Like this comment?
3
Re: men sitting on the stand. I can see the purpose of putting a presidency together to watch a congregation. As a SRSP member, I encouraged ward presidencies to sit in front and watch the sisters during the lesson, that the spirit would manifest things to them as they prayed to know how they could help them and what things were bothering them. Three sets of eyes are better than one and presidents are not intended to stand alone. Luckily, there are only three families in a ward that this affects. I just can’t see how they could shift the responsibility tag-team style.
Re: a more autonomous RS – we agree. Ward RSP could be counseling with more women, freeing the bishop to work with the youth. I bristle a bit about rungs because there are only three positions in the ward that are “rungs” and they’re a presidency that I don’t see how you can break up. All other positions are on the same level. In my ward, the RS/YW/Primary DO function in largely autonomous manner, certainly every bit as much as the EQ/HP/YM do. I haven’t even experienced subordination except in a small branch in Kansas that I lived in (and it’s now been disbanded.)
Re: ordination. Wahoo! We talk long enough and we find that we agree, once we’ve defined terms and intents. I think we’re largely on the same page.
Like this comment?
1
Hmm, my comment on the High Priests Quorum got lost somehow.
The HP Quorum meets twice a year, after the stake priesthood meeting and does absolutely nothing, has no authority or autonomy.
HP Groups have a good deal less autonomy than Relief Society. They provide home teachers, get assignments for cleaning the chapel and setting up or taking down chairs, have a lesson to teach once a week. If you are lucky, they might do something social once in a while.
As a result, the HP “in practice” (to refer to #42) aren’t much accountable because they don’t have much to account for, or many decisions they make.
As to #43, sorry your troll is still with us. There is absolutely nothing about that post that deserves anything but a like.
Like this comment?
1
I just think it’d be nice to have the ability to give someone a blessing when needed, like any future children I might have.
Like this comment?
1
T – if you feel you have the gift of healing, apply to the Lord with real intent about how to develop and employ that gift. I wrote about that recently.
Like this comment?
1
I am totally none of the above.
I wouldn’t have the least problem if women were to receive the priesthood. I have served in Primary and public affairs where men reported to me, so that would not feel strange (and there were no problems with men taking my authority seriously). I can see a lot of advantages to women having the priesthood in areas where there simply are no men available. And seeing how women serve in the temple, it is not that much of a stretch to think of them performing other ordinances. If the church changed that policy, I would embrace it.
But I also see the great things that come forth from having men be the ones to serve their families in that way, as happens now. The involvement of men in religion is a serious concern in other faiths. I had a friend in grad school who was a Baptist minister who first pointed this out to me, how engaged LDS men are in family and church. They are setting up men’s ministries but it is kind of contrived. And in one Quaker meeting I know, the leadership has been all women for some years, and they are extremely frustrated that the men won’t do their share. So I see the strength that comes with a complementary partnership, and I do not dismiss those concerns as easily as some.
Also, so many of these conversations wave away the work that women currently do as if it doesn’t matter, as if the priesthood work is all that counts. This male-normative attitude is as sexist as anything. The church has issues, but they absolutely do respect the work and contributions of women in nurturing and quiet service. So any plan for giving women the priesthood needs to reassign those vital tasks that women have been doing.
I enjoy the power that I experience as a Primary teacher to shape the next generation. Every Primary manual that I have used so far, when they teach the creation, they talk about heavenly parents, not just heavenly father. And they consistently teach that priesthood is to be used only for service, never for personal gain. I love that these young men are getting these pro-woman lessons pounded into them.
But I am sure my reality has been shaped by my reality that I have always been respected and supported by priesthood leadership in my callings, and never experienced some of the negative put-downs that some women do, so I appreciate that this colors my perspective.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
Women tend to support very very liberal causes which the LDS church does not support. Is this possibly a reason that women are not ordained?
Example. Unitarian Universalists clergy are primarily women and this church supports witchcraft, gay marriage, abortion and the LDS church does not.
Like this comment?
0
Henry, you MUST be a troll. Or being sarcastic. I can only hope.
Let’s see, the Ku Klux Klan has primarily been led by men. So is extremist islam. As a matter of fact, pretty much every unrighteous war ever has been led by men. King Noah was a man. And Queen Esther was a woman.
If women in the church are righteous enough to lead the relief society, to lead the primary, to rear our children and instill in them good values, then let’s not make the assumption that women, if given influence, would become abortionist witches.
PS, who are these women who tend to support very very liberal causes? They certainly aren’t hanging out in my relief society…
Like this comment?
2
Also, so many of these conversations wave away the work that women currently do as if it doesn’t matter, as if the priesthood work is all that counts. This male-normative attitude is as sexist as anything.
Nicely said.
Like this comment?
2
It’s not that the work we currently do doesn’t matter, it’s that we are restricted by one role. Men can parent. My husband is a darn good stay-at-home, nurturing parent. I’m glad he had the option to switch roles. I can become the breadwinner, but I can’t become the priesthood holder. Why not let people choose the role, or portions of the roles, that suit them and their family dynamic?
Like this comment?
0
Jenn:
Apparently you don’t read FMH and even this blog. Women to be extremely supportive of liberal causes. Just my opinion.
Like this comment?
1
Ha, as a very liberal mormon woman, I know that liberal women exist. The problem isn’t that, it’s the generalization: SOME women are liberal. Some MEN are liberal. I’d venture to say the vast majority of women in the church are still conservative- overwhelmingly so. Just because some women are slightly more likely to be liberal does not negate the decision making capabilities of the whole gender.
Like this comment?
0
I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.
Like this comment?
0
Here’s a change that wouldn’t take much doing. Make the RS president second in command in the ward in decision making. Baby steps, but it’s a start. Smart bishops already do this. When people see the sky isn’t falling, they’ll learn to listen more to women and not just talk around us.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
Bonnie – #32
You say “I don’t understand why women want to take that opportunity away from their husbands.”
Why would husband’s want to take that opportunity from their wives? Why does the Church take away that opportunity for the couple to decide – IN UNITY – with eachother…? Additionally, how in the world does a baby blessing, with a circle of men, and not even the mother of the child, have anything to do with the unity of the couple or the unity of the family? It does not.
I love how #34 says “I really am at a loss as to why people would want to demand such inflexibility rather than simply allowing people to do what they are best at and be who they are.” I think this is so true! One individual woman may not “want” the priesthood, and somemen have who have the priesthood may not exercise it very well because they aren’t very happy with some of the responsibilities – why are we not just letting individuals be individuals and play to their strengths and then capitalizing on that as an organization…?
Do I think parenting is important? Yes. Do I think leadership is important? Yes. Do I think that either one of those roles require you to be a certain gender? No. I think that’s been well proven in society at large. Once again, the Church needs to let go of old social and cultural vestiges and move forward.
Like this comment?
1
Some good questions.
Like this comment?
0
BTW, on blessings by women, see:
http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/06/07/addenda-female-healing-lorenzo-snow/
Like this comment?
0
Henry, women are NOT automatically “liberal”. They can be just as converted to the Gospel as we testosterone-challenged (hopefully).
Again, it seems, like a similar thread about the erstwhile PH ban on black members, to debate what is the LORD’s business. If He wants women to hold the Priesthood, He’ll make His will known. Somehow I think that the Captain of the Lord of Hosts can get his message across to a gaggle of old men in Salt Lake City.
In the meantime, as the HawkChick inferred, there is no reason that a woman’s inability to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood prevents her talents from being of use. AFAIC, the ability to lead and teach is not unique to one gender. “Smart” PH leaders are quick to recongize this. I’ve seen attitudes change in some 33 years of membership. Back then, rarely did I see a father dandle his infant in Priesthood. Now, it’s all but expected (hey, give the poor chick one hour out of 168 off, fercryinoutloud!) that father’s bring their babies with them. Even the few opportunities that this Grandpa gets to mind his grandkids in Church are appreciated.
Like this comment?
1
imo, it is more likely that women will get the Priestesshood, complimentary to the Priesthood, at some point in the future. This may not mean that they will be able to bless their babies as the men currently do. There may even be ordinances that cannot be done by the Priesthood, but can only be done by the Priestesshood.
We emphasize gender roles while learning that there aren’t as many as we have previously supposed. Maybe Priestesshood is one of thsoe roles we are missing.
Like this comment?
0
#62:Frank Pellett,
The idea of a “Priestesshood”, doesn’t sound right to me. It sounds like second prize, and I don’t think that’s what women are looking for(?)
Like this comment?
0
Hell no- I don’t want the priesthood.
I don’t want to be an Executive Secretary, I don’t want to be a Bishop, I don’t want my husband to be anything more than a Primary Teacher.
I swear every week I come up with a new reason why I’m glad I don’t have the priesthood. Maybe I’m selfish because I want to keep Sundays for my family. But why on earth would I want more responsibility or accountability than I already have?
Maybe it’s because I have no problem questioning authority, (or blatantly ignoring it when I knew it to be wrong) so I’ve never felt like those with the priesthood had any sort of power or authority over me.
Like this comment?
1
#62 – “Priestesshood”? You might have something there. After all, what are the sisters consecrated to be in the temple ceremony?
I’d say that most sisters have little concern about whether they hold the Priesthood or not. It seems that there’s always a small knot of “professional” (sometimes the pay is the inflation of their respective egos) agitators and malcontents. To them, I say, accept that the Lord knows what He’s doing with his Church and act accordingly. Else take a hike, the negativity and contention is annoying.
Like this comment?
0
#64 – forgot to commend you and give you the same “counsel” that Col. George Taylor gave to the Ape youth, Lucius…”keep fanning the flames of discontent”.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting Sundays for your family. Methinks the three-hour block is enough. To spend all day “working” for the Lord, and not enjoying the company of the family, is antithetical to the concept of an eternal family. But how many decent men are caught up in the atmosphere of LDS “Corporatism”, and, in the desire to serve, bust their respective hineys on the so-called Lord’s “Day of Rest”, and their wives go from being career widows to being bishopric widows. They likely envy the “heathen” women whose husbands make them “football” widows, at least they get Tuesday through Friday, and February to July, away from the pigskin.
It’s not that your husband has “more” responsibility or authority, he holds the Priesthood because he stands in for the Savior. It’s a terrible thing if a man shirks his duty to teach his family the Gospel. All too often, we “dudes” prove ourselves to fall far short of the example that the Savior set. If anything, having the discipline and personal accountability that the Priesthood brings to our lives keeps we testosterone-challenged in line and amounting to something useful. Look at all the situations where the woman takes the lead for spiritual matters in the family, NOT because she wants it that way or she’s some ‘feminazi’, but because her husband shows no interest. So, in essence, methinks that it’s a “guy thing” so the men in the Church participate. I hand it to the sisters that they don’t seem to need this type of construct.
Like this comment?
0