Female Apostle

[Katya]

did you seriously call us "the blacks"?

...k

Hahahahaha!

Sorry, but that was really funny.

i like to add a little levity to conversations i can't contribute to.

We like you for it.

[NerdGirl]

Yes we do!

[Queen Alice]

In addition, thank you for the warm welcome, Marduk. And thank you so, so much NerdGirl!!!

[Katya]

If you think that every single leader at every level of the church is always perfectly in tune with the Spirit and always does everything exactly as he should, then it may not be a big problem that women aren't equally involved in the decision-making process. If, on the other hand, the Church is run by people who are doing their best but aren't perfect, then it makes a big difference that over half of the population isn't equally represented.

Heh, I know all too well that we as humans are very fallible. But in that respect, where does gender come into play? Couldn't you then say that 99% of the unit is not being represented?

By instance, yes, but not by class.

[Tao]

If you think that every single leader at every level of the church is always perfectly in tune with the Spirit and always does everything exactly as he should, then it may not be a big problem that women aren't equally involved in the decision-making process. If, on the other hand, the Church is run by people who are doing their best but aren't perfect, then it makes a big difference that over half of the population isn't equally represented.

Heh, I know all too well that we as humans are very fallible. But in that respect, where does gender come into play? Couldn't you then say that 99% of the unit is not being represented?

By instance, yes, but not by class.

Not by class lines readily recognized. I'm a single male, so barring a miracle will never be in a position of 'leadership'. Shall I join a picket against 1Tim 3:2?

heh, I'm not trying to be difficult. I just find the desire incomprehensible.

[wired]

Not by class lines readily recognized. I'm a single male, so barring a miracle will never be in a position of 'leadership'. Shall I join a picket against 1Tim 3:2?

Ward Clerk, Executive Secretary, Elder's Quorum President, and possibly Sunday School President (I'm not sure if the new Church manual has a thumbs-up or down on singles for that position)

[Katya]

Couldn't you then say that 99% of the unit is not being represented?

By instance, yes, but not by class.

Not by class lines readily recognized. I'm a single male, so barring a miracle will never be in a position of 'leadership'.

I actually think that's a issue, as well, although I've known single men who served in the bishopric. (Has that policy changed?) And when it comes to areas where women do lead, the Church is more open to letting single women hold those positions, which I find interesting.

heh, I'm not trying to be difficult. I just find the desire incomprehensible.

From the perspective of opportunity, I don't want to be an engineer, either. But I think it's important for women to have that option. From the perspective of representation, I admire those who try to do the best they can to represent the needs of people who are different from them. But it's no substitution for representation of a group by someone who has firsthand experience as a member of that group.

[Dragon Lady]

Yellow is reading a book called The Hidden Christ by James L. Farrell (author of The Peacegiver). It basically goes through stories in the Old Testament and shows how all of these different stories are symbolic of Christ. It's a great book (from what he's said; I haven't read it yet) that shows how Christ is found throughout the Old Testament, which many people don't believe or see. One thing that he stresses is that everything points to Christ. A paraphrased quote, "All things testify of Christ. If you think something in your life doesn't, think again."

Yellow and I were discussing this thread today and he brought that point up. Another paraphrased quote, this time from Yellow, "Maybe someday women will hold the Priesthood. But right now they don't. Is it possible that the current situation regarding the Priesthood is specifically meant to teach us something about Christ or the Atonement?" It was an interesting thought and I am intrigued by it. I thought it might add another dimension to this discussion. What do you guys think?

[Foreman]

I don't think assertions that there's plenty for women to do outside of the Priesthood are correct, because I agree with Katya's statement that it's like limiting the majors women can pursue but saying that a woman shouldn't worry about not being able to major in math because there are 100 other majors. Wanting to major in math is not wrong. Those assertions fit in with what I don't think is right--aiming to justify what's currently believed with any evidence that might support it instead of aiming to find the truth of the matter, even if it isn't the accepted belief. Please don't take this comparison too far, as it is far from perfect and was the most accessible I could think of quickly: It's like living in the 15th century and coming up with all the reasons why the earth is probably flat, and even the reasons why it should be flat and why it's good that it's flat. No matter how many lovely reasons you come up with that in a perfect situation the world would be flat, even though you can talk until you're blue in the face why it makes sense that God created the earth to be flat, it will never, ever change the fact that the earth is round.

Now, whether the earth is round or not (figuratively speaking) may not be knowable to us now, perhaps because we are limited by our current technology which won't allow us to sail a ship completely around the world. But that doesn't mean we stop discussing it and recognizing that it's very possible the earth just could be round.

I really have no opinion on the matter at hand, but I just wanted to point out that the whole "Columbus thought the world was round, but nobody else did" thing is totally bunk history. Ignorant people existed (and still do! http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ ) but anyone with a modicum of education has known the earth is round since long ago. the Greeks theorized it in 600 BC and were certain by the 3rd century BC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth ). There are a lot of simple proofs (the way ships disappear over the horizon, the fact that the shadow of a lunar eclipse is always circular, etc.). Anyway, it has no real bearing on this conversation, but I feel a lot of elementary school teachers did us a great disservice.
Edit to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

In any case, I think men in the church find this to be a difficult matter to debate because no matter the points brought up (and you've done a fine job with it), we eventually have to shrug and say, "well, it's not up to us." It feels like the pressure is on us to make the change for the whole church, when it's not something we actually have sway over. Just throwin' it out there.

[Tao]

Ward Clerk, Executive Secretary, Elder's Quorum President, and possibly Sunday School President (I'm not sure if the new Church manual has a thumbs-up or down on singles for that position)

I may be misunderstanding, but I don't believe those were the positions that were under discussion as positions of leadership that women want but can not have. Though this coupled with Katya's post does bring up the question of where exactly leadership is seated. Are we really just talking about Bishop/Stake President/Seventy? and if not, what callings are ok for there to be a gender disparity?

Not by class lines readily recognized. I'm a single male, so barring a miracle will never be in a position of 'leadership'.

I actually think that's a issue, as well, although I've known single men who served in the bishopric. (Has that policy changed?) And when it comes to areas where women do lead, the Church is more open to letting single women hold those positions, which I find interesting.

While still somewhat surprised, I guess that your taking issue with this policy fits in the bigger picture well enough. Though it applies to me directly, I still don't understand the desire and am ok with saying that it simply boils down to our differing world-views.

@DL: I'm reminded of the question I believe you answered on what if Christ had been female. In the end, we have to say that there's just an awful lot we don't know at the moment.

@Foreman: heh, yeah. And ask any sea captain what they think of the idea that ships hugged the shoreline to prevent falling off the edge of the earth.

[Dragon Lady]

@DL: I'm reminded of the question I believe you answered on what if Christ had been female. In the end, we have to say that there's just an awful lot we don't know at the moment.

I… have no recollection of that. Then again, I often find questions I answered that I didn't remember at all. I have a horrible memory, turns out. So I did some searching (hooray for the Board search actually being useful now!) Did you mean this one?

[Queen Alice]

I don't think assertions that there's plenty for women to do outside of the Priesthood are correct, because I agree with Katya's statement that it's like limiting the majors women can pursue but saying that a woman shouldn't worry about not being able to major in math because there are 100 other majors. Wanting to major in math is not wrong. Those assertions fit in with what I don't think is right--aiming to justify what's currently believed with any evidence that might support it instead of aiming to find the truth of the matter, even if it isn't the accepted belief. Please don't take this comparison too far, as it is far from perfect and was the most accessible I could think of quickly: It's like living in the 15th century and coming up with all the reasons why the earth is probably flat, and even the reasons why it should be flat and why it's good that it's flat. No matter how many lovely reasons you come up with that in a perfect situation the world would be flat, even though you can talk until you're blue in the face why it makes sense that God created the earth to be flat, it will never, ever change the fact that the earth is round.

Now, whether the earth is round or not (figuratively speaking) may not be knowable to us now, perhaps because we are limited by our current technology which won't allow us to sail a ship completely around the world. But that doesn't mean we stop discussing it and recognizing that it's very possible the earth just could be round.

I really have no opinion on the matter at hand, but I just wanted to point out that the whole "Columbus thought the world was round, but nobody else did" thing is totally bunk history. Ignorant people existed (and still do! http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ ) but anyone with a modicum of education has known the earth is round since long ago. the Greeks theorized it in 600 BC and were certain by the 3rd century BC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth ). There are a lot of simple proofs (the way ships disappear over the horizon, the fact that the shadow of a lunar eclipse is always circular, etc.). Anyway, it has no real bearing on this conversation, but I feel a lot of elementary school teachers did us a great disservice.
Edit to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Thank you, thank you Foreman! Ugh, I hate believing and endorsing myths and urban legends. Thanks for the insight. Well, my analogy wasn't perfect, but I hope people understand. I am not saying that the Church is this narrow-minded or would make someone recant the thought that women could have the Priesthood, but maybe a better analogy would be Copernicus and a heliocentric galaxy? Realizing, of course, that the antagonism between the Roman Catholic Church and Copernicus could also have been exaggerated. Just any situation where the minority thinks differently than the majority and they happen to be right.

[Tao]

So, question for you: with the rate of successful ectopic pregnancies increasing, there have been questions as to whether a man could conceivably (sorry bad pun) carry a child to term. We know that some men can nurse their children, but this is taking things to the next level. With this technology and knowledge, do you think that we should change the church's stance on gay marriage?

[Queen Alice]

[My answer] was also the only [answer] to recognize the possibility of a change in who is ordained to the priesthood in the future. I feel like the other writers and Mr. Gibson actually just proved my point that people's knee-jerk reaction is just to deny that things in the church could change and to quickly come up with all of the reasons why the change couldn't happen (instead of thinking of reasons why it could).

I feel like you may not have read my answer very carefully, if you think that. In quoting President Hinckley, I quite clearly addressed the possibility of women being ordained to the priesthood in the future, and neither he nor I said it couldn't happen. However, as he also said, it's profitless to speculate about such change since no revelation about it has been given. (I feel like speculative doctrine in general is pretty profitless, actually, but the quote I included in my answer doesn't directly say that.)

I'm really sorry—I see now that you did mention the possibility of women some day having the priesthood. Thank you for that. I do apologize.

[Laser Jock]

I'm really sorry—I see now that you did mention the possibility of women some day having the priesthood. Thank you for that. I do apologize.

Oh, no worries at all. I was actually totally satisfied with your response before:

Laser Jock, I do appreciate that you recognize the possibility of a change in Church policy. What I was trying to say is that in the end, that same idea is just dismissed as something that's useless to talk about. I feel there's useless speculation (where is Kolob?) and then there is sincere speculation, which I would more appropriately name "pondering." I like that we are all having this discussion. It is not fruitless in the least. I just wish that more often statements about women and the Priesthood would end with "it's likely that it will happen someday, or if it doesn't, we at least know it's a possibility" instead of "well, never mind, this isn't important, let's just ignore this."