Ordain Women

[bobtheenchantedone]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/76752/

I've never felt at a disadvantage hearing men speak vs. having women speak in conference. On the contrary, it's like I'm getting to hear my dad speak a dozen times over. And when the women speak, especially after this past Relief Society Meeting and General Conference, it reminds of my mother.

And here we have a perfect example of being so culturally steeped in something, of something being so normal in society that even when it is pointed out to us we don't see it. Tally, how can you see nothing unequal in hearing "your dad" speak over and over and over, while "your mother" is heard only occasionally and mostly in the RS meeting? How do you not see that the is the exact inequality we are talking about? How is it normal that you'll hear "your dad" in the RS meeting, but that your brother/father/husband/son/ won't hear "your mother" in the Priesthood session?

How is men overshadowing women so incredibly entrenched in our culture that even when the specific topic of gender equality is being explored, the fact that men speak much more then women is not a red flag?

I'd also like to point out that for most women in the movement, equality does not begin and end with ordination. That would be a huge sign of progress, but by itself would not fix everything and we acknowledge much can be done before ordination happens as well - there's a whole list of changes that could take place even without new wording in the handbook, much less a revelation to change the underlying structure of the Church. And considering historical precedent of the priesthood continually expanding to those previously denied it, mentions of female prophets, priests, and apostles in the Bible, and some things said by Joseph Smith about the Relief Society, I don't see why female ordination is so far beyond the realm of believability for most people. (Sad side fact: more men in the Church look kindly on the idea of female ordination than women do. How is that a thing?)

There's a lot more that I'd love to talk about, but for now I'll leave you with one final point.

I don't think it's wrong to ask. I just don't believe it's necessary.

ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and unto him that knocketh, it shall be opened.

I appreciate that you spent a lot of time thinking about your answer, Tally, and that you tried to see it from other points of view. I hope you won't be offended that I've chosen to respond here instead of in email. I simply wanted to respond publicly as you posted publicly.

[mic0]

Good points, bob. Additionally, has the fact of some historical LDS women having the priesthood been forgotten? I feel like no one mentions that anymore (of course, I don't read much on this issue anymore, either). There *is* historical precedent; it *isn't* an unchanging truth that men only should have it in the LDS church. {See, for instance, this well-sourced chapter.}

[bobtheenchantedone]

Oh yeah! That too. I typed about JS first and forgot that part.

[Tally M.]

I can see where you're coming from. I did read some other stuff about Joseph Smith and the possibility of a historical precedent of women holding the priesthood; that's one position that I neglected to mention in my discussion, though it is something that I had read about and considered.

I am not neglecting the fact that it would be good to hear from more female speakers. However, I don't think that's something that should be solved with the ordination of women. I realize that the ordination of women could potentially equalize this, but my position still stands that I don't believe it's the way to go.

The reason that I feel asking is unnecessary is mostly because I believe that the ordination of women is not needed in the church. I certainly don't begrudge other people the right to ask and seek their own answers.

I also realize that nothing I say will change anyone's position on the matter, especially on this forum. As I was writing my answer, I was fully and completely aware of the repercussions of posting such an answer, once again, especially on this forum. However, I wanted to be sure that I had found my own position after much thoughtful and prayerful research.

[thatonemom]

Ooh, was this the controversial question?

I loved this part of Stego Lily's answer:

Whether or not women should be ordained to the Priesthood is completely in God's hands, but it's something that we as a Church should absolutely be asking about.

Sometimes I think we Mormons forget our (non-pioneer) past, and how the Church wouldn't even exist if some nobody hadn't thought it was important (and ok) to ask God directly. A lot of the religious people of Joseph Smith's time didn't think it was his place, and that the heavens were closed, and that religions were all set the way they were. I'm not saying I think women will or won't one day be ordained, but I say ask away.

[mic0]

I also realize that nothing I say will change anyone's position on the matter, especially on this forum. As I was writing my answer, I was fully and completely aware of the repercussions of posting such an answer, once again, especially on this forum. However, I wanted to be sure that I had found my own position after much thoughtful and prayerful research.

To be fair, most people everywhere are convinced of their beliefs and hard-pressed to change them (absolutely myself included). This forum has people on both sides of the issue, and probably none of us are very likely to change our views. It is great that you have done your research and come to your own conclusion, that means you are willing to consider issues from more than one angle.

[Whistler]

{See, for instance, this well-sourced chapter.}

wow

[Tally M.]

Ooh, was this the controversial question?

Yep.

[mic0]

{See, for instance, this well-sourced chapter.}

wow

So wow! BYU Studies has a review that talks about Quinn's book; I found the relevant portion near the end. It is a little more conservative.

[Tally M.]

{See, for instance, this well-sourced chapter.}

The concluding paragraph is definitely something I agree with:

Mormon women already have God’s priesthood of spiritual power. Without asking permission they may draw on the power of the Melchizedek priesthood that is theirs by birthright and by divine endowment. However, it is necessary for endowed women to receive permission of the church to use their priesthood in church settings to administer the sacrament, baptize, confirm, or administer temple ordinances. Without ordination to priesthood offices, each endowed LDS woman already has the opportunity to fulfill in her life the prophet’s promise: “I now turn the key to you in the name of God.”

While I'm not entirely sure of the meaning of the third sentence, I still believe that the historical position is one that supports the fact that women don't need to be ordained to priesthood offices.

[thatonemom]

I still believe that the historical position is one that supports the fact that women don't need to be ordained to priesthood offices.

I wonder about this, mostly based on my background. From a logistics perspective, it would have been much easier if women could have officiated in priesthood offices and responsibilities where I grew up. It was an area where very few people are LDS. A lot of my ward was made up of single moms and their kids, who were as active as possible. Church buildings were far away, and not every single mom can afford a car. (Plus it was Chicago. Public transportation is the way to go) Members didn't live very close to each other, either.

That dynamic made a lot of things hard. Single women are supposed to have high priests for home teachers. But there weren't very many high priests. And they didn't live anywhere near my family. Some people refused to go to my neighborhood. So we usually had no home teachers at all. I can count on one hand the number of priesthood blessings I got in my first 17 years of life, because it just wasn't feasible. It's too bad my mom couldn't just give me a parent's blessing.

Then there was the whole ward creation issue. You need a certain number of priesthood holders to form a ward. They were really hard to come by. And once the bare minimum was hit they'd make a ward, which was usually full of single moms (or women married to men who weren't LDS) and their kids. And not all the priesthood holders on the books actually came to church. It's a good thing we usually had 20+ missionaries in the ward (Elders, again, because it was Chicago), because they were usually the ones taking care of the sacrament. I know some of the missionaries also had callings in the ward. While the single moms just kind of hung out because the women's callings were pretty taken care of.

It made me wonder, why not make use of who you have in your ward? (Incidentally, the ward I was in the last couple years of high school was disbanded last week because of not enough members)

[Violet]

Good points, bob. Additionally, has the fact of some historical LDS women having the priesthood been forgotten? I feel like no one mentions that anymore (of course, I don't read much on this issue anymore, either). There *is* historical precedent; it *isn't* an unchanging truth that men only should have it in the LDS church. {See, for instance, this well-sourced chapter.}

I highly recommend this book for anything feminist-y and church related. To anyone at BYU (or just with HBLL access) who prefers physical books to reading online, there are a couple copies that are pretty freuquently circulated. The copy I borrowed may have set off security every time I walked through the sensors (daily, because I worked there), but it was worth having the security guards get to know me personally.

I especially recommend The Grammar of Inequity (Chapter 9), while Sister Missionaries and Authority (14) was straight up eye-opening (did you know mission calls had different language in them for elders and sisters? I didn't).

The entirety of this book is a great read if you have the chance (and it's all there in that link—so you have the content there).

[Portia]

As a non-believing, non-practicing, but cultural Mormon, I see two compelling arguments for lifting the ban.

One is on principle. Women have many things to offer that have nothing to do with their ovaries. Because women are people. Since the Priesthood is conceptualized as being an agent, this appeals to my sense of fairness.

The second reason is that Mormon women are already taking the Priesthood into their own hands, and frankly, it freaks me out. My brother live-texted this seance-cum-healing of my dad's wife, and it was just incredibly unsettling. She's obsessed with essential oils, and Jesus, black holes, astrology and every other false prophecy thing you can imagine, with the social context of the temple, is mixed in her mind. She ain't the only one.

I think women like her are more of a threat to orthodoxy than I am.

I think the Mormon Priesthood is no more "real" than Hogwarts, but it'd be unfair to exclude young "witches" ... And they might turn to dark magic if you do.

[bobtheenchantedone]

But the priesthood is completely necessary, Tally, because without it women will never be allowed to hold more leadership positions and this will continue to be a church dominated by men and therefore inherently unequal. Not to mention the problems we run into such as the ones thatonemom details, which I have to admit really gives me hope because there were some similar circumstances that drove asking for the revelation on blacks and the priesthood.

I really like your comment, thatonemom. It reminds me of the most recent conference when one of the women, obviously in response to the Ordain Women movement, gave a talk about how priesthood holders bless the lives of women - including stories about several women who had no worthy priesthood holders in their lives being visited by priesthood holders to perform one-time blessings and comfort and whatnot. I'm sure she meant it to be inspiring and soothing, but I burst into tears instead. Here were faithful, hardworking women who were forced to sit and wait until a priesthood holder could get around to visiting them, instead of being able to use the power themselves to bless their lives and the children. How is that supposed to be anything but tragic?

[Portia]

But the priesthood is completely necessary, Tally, because without it women will never be allowed to hold more leadership positions and this will continue to be a church dominated by men and therefore inherently unequal. Not to mention the problems we run into such as the ones thatonemom details, which I have to admit really gives me hope because there were some similar circumstances that drove asking for the revelation on blacks and the priesthood.

I really like your comment, thatonemom. It reminds me of the most recent conference when one of the women, obviously in response to the Ordain Women movement, gave a talk about how priesthood holders bless the lives of women - including stories about several women who had no worthy priesthood holders in their lives being visited by priesthood holders to perform one-time blessings and comfort and whatnot. I'm sure she meant it to be inspiring and soothing, but I burst into tears instead. Here were faithful, hardworking women who were forced to sit and wait until a priesthood holder could get around to visiting them, instead of being able to use the power themselves to bless their lives and the children. How is that supposed to be anything but tragic?

This talk, plus Elders Andersen and Christoffersen (characters from Frozen?) were a large part, though ny no means the only, of why I have not returned since. Just too much cognitive dissonance. Maybe that's their goal, weed egalitarians out. & I wasn't particularly involved with the "movement," but it was still like a slap in the face. A big change in tone from Caussé and Uchtdorf that same session.

[Tally M.]

I'm just going to leave this here.

[Yellow]

I have thoughts and speculations. They may not be correct, but this is how I resolve my cognitive dissonance right now, so I figured I'd share. I'm approaching this from the believing perspective: I'm assuming that the current situation is not simply based on the prejudice of male church leaders, but rather based on revelation from God.

As far as I can tell, there is no doctrinal reason that women should not hold the priesthood. I do not believe that women don't hold the priesthood because the can't. However, I could believe that church leaders have prayed about this, and have received instruction it is not God's will for this change to be made at this time.

Why would that happen? Certainly, there are many people lives who would be greatly enriched if women could hold the priesthood. Single mothers, etc. These have been mentioned above. There would certainly be good things to come of ordaining women to the Priesthood. My question, then, is this: If good things would come of ordaining women, why might God instruct church leaders that this change should not be made?

One thing that isn't discussed as much is that there may be bad things to come of this change as well. Perhaps those negative outcomes might outweigh the good ones, at least if the change were made now. I don't know what those negative outcomes might be, but I can speculate.

It has been noted in previous General Conference talks as well as in non-religious publications that there is somewhat of a crisis of character among men at the present time. There seems to be a prevailing attitude of laziness and entitlement among men in our present culture; many men tend to do the minimum work required and no more. (Elder Christofferson talked quite a lot about this issue in the Oct 2012 priesthood session. The TL;DR version: "Hey guys, stop being lazy. Women are actively pursuing their education, are bearing most of the spiritual burden of raising children, and in general are doing way more work than you guys. Good for them, but you guys need to help too.")

Could it be the case that by limiting priesthood callings to men only, we give men an additional reason to avoid being lazy? Could it be that if women were able to fill those callings, we would end up with even more spiritually lazy men who would figure that someone else would take care of the hard work? Could extending priesthood ordination to women result in a net decline in church attendance and growth?

I don't know. Maybe not. There's certainly a lot of stereotyping in the above speculation. Stereotypes are very rarely accurate for individual people—we can all point to examples of men who are extremely active. But on the large scale, how many men participate in church service in part because it's a role that only they can fill, or because it makes them feel more especially needed. Perhaps, the ordination of women is a sacrifice made at the present time for the good of the church as a whole. Maybe the cultural behavior of men in the church needs to be changed first, and then women could be ordained without these same downsides.

I don't know. Perhaps this is all wrong. Certainly, I'm making speculations that some will find offensive and sexist. I recognize that there are flaws in the above idea, that there are good counterarguments to many of these points, and that I haven't considered everything. I might be wrong about a lot of things. But we know that God generally will give his people as much light and truth as they are ready to handle. (See the Law of Moses, numerous scriptural references to "line upon line, precept upon precept", the entire progressive structure of covenant making in the church, etc.) Whenever we are given greater light and truth, we are also placed under increased responsibility. I have no problem with those women who are asking church leaders to consider and seek revelation regarding ordination for women; that seems entirely appropriate to me. But I am also willing to consider that even if God is willing to grant that desire, he may also choose to say "Not yet. Now is not the right time; making this change right now would hinder the work as a whole. You have righteous desires, but this cannot yet be." We as a church may not be prepared to accept the light and responsibility that this change would bring.

Or maybe I'm wrong. It's a thought, anyway.

[Marduk]

Yellow, it is an interesting thought, and one I've had myself. However, if that narrative has truth to it, I think there is an obligation for church leaders to reveal that the dialogue has taken place, and that that is the instruction that has been received. Genuine harm is happening because of their silence, and they ought to speak on the subject, instead of just relegating it to the church PR team.

That is, assuming they have asked. It seems more likely to me (as president Hinckley once said) that there is an assumption that this is some hostile minority, and that the leaders don't ask because "there isn't agitation for it."

[thatonemom]

I, too, prefer to hear my doctrine from prophets. We have them. They have regular opportunities to speak to us. I think it would go a long way to hear one of the First Presidency address the issue. No matter the answer there would be some people who would be unhappy with it. But I'm not sure why there's this side step of having a PR lady address it, when it's an issue of official doctrine and policy.

I don't have any answers, here. All I can speak is from my own experience (in previous comments) mixed with my current feelings that I have no interest in having priesthood responsibilities myself. I already have two callings. They wear me out. I couldn't handle more. And I have no interest in trading them for some other time consuming calling. If I could get away with never having a calling, I'd be all for it!

But, at the same time, I know a lot of single adult women in the Church who basically have no place, since women are set up as wives and mothers and that's it. They aren't either, so who are they to the Church? How do they know they matter and belong in the structure and culture of the Church? Having a meaningful responsibility could help. It's the same with my single mom. Telling people like her, "You fit in & receive the blessings of the gospel as long as you get married, or your (ex) husband converts" doesn't work. We need to make the blessings and opportunities and sense of belonging in the Church available to everyone, everywhere, regardless of their family circumstances.

So I can see how giving women the priesthood could be a possible solution. In the same way that having spouses convert (like the one woman's Conference talk seemed to hope for) could also work. I guess the faithful unmarried women are just out of luck. (not really) But I'm confident those aren't the only two options and I would love to hear our prophets come out and talk about ways to address these very real problems.

[blpsara]

I will be honest. I don't know where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, I believe if and when the time comes that God wants to ordain women, He will reveal it through the prophet.

On the other hand...I am one of those single adult women who basically has no place in the church. I don't have someone in my home who could give me a priesthood blessing when I stand in need of one. I frequently feel inadequate at church. If I didn't have the calling I have (which I basically had to ask for), I would struggle to go to church every week. I often sit in Sacrament meeting and tune people out, because I have no desire to hear about how your marriage is a result of your righteousness. (Yes, I am well aware I am oversimplifying here, and that people don't mean to make me feel the opposite (that I'm not married because I'm not righteous), but it is how I feel.)

Suffice it to say that I think there are many needs of many people that are not being met.