Gaia

GAIA: Hi There, Strawberry -- (yum, i love Strawberries! *g*) Several points: 1. Neither would I wish to be a man, nor would most other women i've ever known. There is a vast difference between having and exercising the Priesthood, and "wanting to be a man". 2. But (unless i misunderstood you, which is entirely possible!) you seem to have avoided an important question: You said "your plate is full, you don't need to also carry the PH." What about men whose "plate(s) are full" -- Should they also forego PH ? And if not, WHY not? 3. But besides all that, there is a perhaps even more basic, essential and personally relevant question: Scriptures and Latter-day revelation say those who are Exalted, will one day be "Queens and Priestesses" -- See for example Revelation 1:6, 5:10, D&C 76:56, and the following modern LDS quotes: "That higher state, promised in the eternal marriage covenant, is called becoming kings and queens, priests and priestesses unto the most high God. (As Women of Faith: Talks Selected from the BYU Women's Conferences [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1989], 117.) Nyman and Tate: "The Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God is from eternity to eternity, from everlasting to everlasting, meaning from one existence to the next. It was in operation in the first estate, it blesses lives and seals souls to eternal life in mortality, and it will continue into the world of spirits and beyond, on into the kingdoms of glory wherein dwell kings and queens, priests and priestesses." (Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., Alma, the Testimony of the Word [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1992], 70.) Sister Chieko Okazaki: "Esther was a queen, but all of us have the potential of being kings and queens, priests and priestesses, gods and goddesses. Like Esther we are called to live with faith and with service. We, too, whatever our circumstances, must meet those circumstances as queens and kings who are called and challenged to be here in this hour." (Chieko N. Okazaki, Aloha! [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1995], 126.) Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith: "The main purpose for our mortal existence is that we might obtain tabernacles of flesh and bones for our spirits that we might advance after the resurrection to the fulness of the blessings which the Lord has promised to those who are faithful. They have been promised that they shall become sons and daughters of God, joint heirs with Jesus Christ, and if they have been true to the commandments and covenants the Lord has given us, to be kings and priests and queens and priestesses, possessing the fulness of the blessings of the celestial kingdom." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 4: 61.) RS President Eliza R Snow Smith: "Inasmuch as we continue faithful, we shall be those that will be crowned in the presence of God and the lamb. You, my sisters, if you are faithful, will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God. These are your callings. We have only to discharge our duties." (Eliza R. Snow and the Woman Question by Jill C. Mulvay Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 16 (1975-1976), Number 2 - Winter 1976 264.) "Judging from such indications as the floor plan of the Nauvoo Temple fn and public statements made about its ordinances, one can conclude that this temple offered a model for understanding eternal human existence that taught and embraced, among other things, the following elements: ... a promise that all righteous men and women may become kings and priests, queens and priestesses, to rule eternally and become like God." (Doctrine and the Temple in Nauvoo by Larry C. Porter and Milton V. Backman, Jr. Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 32 (1992), Num. 1 and 2 - Winter and Spring 1992 45.) "We are priestesses and queens, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory"; (Chieko N. Okazaki, Disciples [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1998], 23.) "...But, the central purpose of the holy endowment as it relates to the temple program is to build a patriarchal family, and to give those who have been anointed to become kings and priests, and queens and priestesses, the higher ordinances of the priesthood through which they can become patriarchs and matriarchs, or fathers and mothers, spiritually." (Hyrum L. Andrus, The Divine Patriarchal Order [1972], 13.) -End quotes. So, If this is the ultimate design of the Gospel (and it certainly seems to be) -- Does your lack of desire for priesthood now, mean that you would not wish to be Exalted, nor have the responsibilities that go with it, which include being a "Queen and Priestess"? Sincerely -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hello Snow -- Let's be a bit more specific: First: Yes, it is certainly "opposite" what CURRENT church leaders say. However, their position is OPPOSITE the teachings of the Head of the Dispensation, (who GAVE WOMEN PRIESTHOOD) and those who were taught about Priesthood by him. You have not addressed that and seem to have ignored all the evidence (quotes and references) presented on it (Please see the two links i provided previously). If you had read any of that material, you would know that MANY "authoritative source in the Church" disagree with you. Please actually read the material. Blessings -- Gaia GAIA: Hm, that might be one way of interpreting his statement, but with all due respect, there may be others. For example, he may have been referring to the difference in power and authority, self-determination, or a number of other things.... It's too bad he can't clarify what HE meant. ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi again, Six -- First, you seem to be making an assumption about the membership of those with such concerns in general, and perhaps, me in particular. FYI, I was baptized on EAster Sunday a number of years ago and sealed in the Temple. My membership has never been revoked. Secondly, we each do (and have a right to) choose the issues with which we will occupy ourselves and our time and energies, based upon a wide variety of things including our interests, energy, and other circumstances. I'm not sure you have any more right than anybody else, to tell someone what they should and should not be concerned about, anymore than anybody has a right to make such decisions for YOU :) . Why do some people choose to criticize the LDS Church? Well, i think there are lots of reasons, some more "legitimate" than others. For example, some people feel that the LDS Church makes claims above and beyond those of other churches, and should therefore be held to a higher standard (and closer scrutiny) than those other churches -- and i am not sure they're entirely wrong about that. LDS is one of the few if any churches which claims to be "the one right true and only Church of God", led by a Living Prophet and modern revelation. Therefore they feel that its problems and flaws are more serious and problematical, and more dangerous. If you heard that someone was going around claiming to be a prophet and displaying some convincing evidence, yet at the same time, some troubling flaws, wouldn't you be concerned? Perhaps you'd even feel some responsibility to "expose" the flaws, and protect those who might be influenced by the errors..... I'm just saying here that there are reasons why people criticize, and not all those reasons are bogus, irrational, or easily dismissed. I think in order to answer them in any sort of meaningful, intelligent and helpful way, we need to understand them. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hello Sixpacktr -- The point is that a PROPHET -- ie Joseph Smith -- ALREADY GAVE women Priesthood -- and that has never been offically rescinded in any subsequent revelation. For more on that, please see the discusson (includng quotes and references) by Alphaba and myself, here: http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9832 (Post # 1) http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...=9832&st=45 (Post #56) GAIA: Perhaps that's your feeling, to which you're certainly entitled; but many people believe differently, as they are entitled. Haven't you ever heard the very well known quotes: "Ask not for whom the bell tols, it tolls for thee"? Or "No (wo)man is free, while one (wo)man is a slave?" Or "No (wo)man is an island" ? They all mean pretty much the same thing: What affects one person, affects us all. And many people beleive it and subscribe to it, so when they feel one person (or a few people) are being disrespected, it is a threat to the dignity of all people, and they believe that they have a responsibility to respond -- There is a famous poem that expresses this idea very well: "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." (Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...) Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Sorry, but with all due respect, your point isn't just unpopular -- it's illogical: a.) ALL women are not backstabbers; All women are not deficient in humility, discipline or respect. b.) (Some) Men do have Priesthood, and they are not all perfect or even "ready"; they do not all "work together" or have humility, discipline or respect (for themselves or others). c.) God didn't wait until all men were "ready", to give some men the Priesthood. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hmm -- Sorta like, "If God wanted us all to be kind and compassionate to each other, and spiritually minded, we would all be kind and compassionate to each other, and spiritually minded" ????

What evidence do you have, CK, that God said anything you are suggesting? GAIA: Good point, Jason. There are a lot of pronouncements made about the "nature" and "duties" of men and women -- but they're from mortal men, not God. If anything, God seems to have "spoken" through the vast and varied diversity of arrangements that humans have devised in various cultures, to express "masculinity" and "femininity". As i noted previously, in some cultures, masculine and feminine are defined one way; in another culture, they are defined almost the opposite. Sex role stereotypes are notoriously diverse throughout different cultures and eras. And again, regarding Priesthood: there certainly is evidence from LDS history and doctrine that God has already GIVEN women Priesthood. After all, scripture refers to women as "Queens and Priestesses", women FUNCTION as Priestesses in the Temples and in the Holy Order, and wear the "robes of the Holy Priesthood", in addition to the historical details that have already been cited in this thread. It seems to be more a matter of recognizing and acknowledging what is already a matter of record -- and humans are notoriously stubborn about doing that, especially when the evidence goes against their basic assumptions and beliefs. *rueful grin* ~Gaia

GAIA: Hello Checkerboy. I'm afraid that if this discussion has any "pro-feminist slant", that's my fault and not Elphaba's. She was very careful and emphatic to limit her focus and the discussion -- I'm the one who broadened it considerably. I would think that if you have any argument, it is with me. I am not an atheist, although i certainly think any thoughtful, intelligent atheist would have worthwhile things to contribute to any discussion, just like anyone else.... In fact, in reading my Bible i notice that Jesus reserved his most scathing condemnations NOT for sinnners, NOT for unbeleivers, NOT even for Pagans -- in fact, it seems he complimented one Pagan for his faith (Matthew 8:8-13) and used another as an example of righteous behavior (See Luke 10 and please note: Samaritans were Hebrews who had incorporated Pagan practices into their religion and were therefore considered so "uncelan" that a good Jew, passing through the area, was obliged to go several days out of his way just to avoid stepping upon Samaritan land). NO, he reserved his most vehement condemnations for those who prided themselves on having the "right" doctrine, the "right" Priesthood, the "right" answers, and who condemned, looked down upon, and even tried to silence or punish everyone else -- See for example, Matthew 15, 16, 22, 23. I HAVE been through the Temple; in fact for several years i lived within five minutes of it and went every week, if not more. Furthermore, i have studyed LDS history and doctrine rather intently for my entire adult life -- including the Archives of the Church Historian's Office. If you have any doubts about the validity of my information, please do check out the many (LDS) quotes and references i inclulded in my work. Now, since you were kind enough to "enlighten" where you thoght there was error, allow me to return the favor: It is so easy to demonize people who think differently from ourselves, or to accept unfortunately negative and erroneous gossip -- So Here's how the dictionary actually defines "Feminism": 8 results for: feminism –noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women. 3. feminine character. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1890–95; < F féminisme; see feminine, -ism] —Related forms fem·i·nist, noun, adjective fem·i·nis·tic, adjective Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source fem·i·nism (fěm'ə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. The movement organized around this belief. (Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. WordNet - Cite This Source feminism noun 1. a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women 2. the movement aimed at equal rights for women [syn: feminist movement] WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source ˈfeminism noun The doctrine — and the political movement based on it — that women should have the same economic, social, and political rights as men. (See under “Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology.”) The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source feminism A movement for granting women political, social, and economic equality with men. (See women's movement.) The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source ~End quoted material from Dictionary. * * * * It is difficult to understand how anyone could demonize a movement that merely advocat[es] and works toward the social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Certainly *some* feminists have gone a bit overboard and advocated thigns with which other feminists ar uncomfortable and would disagree, and that's unfortunate. But as even LDS often say when someone reports a bad experience with a Bishop or ther LDS member -- one "bad apple" does not necessarily ruin and should not cause us to condemn an entire group of people. -- But then, as LDS Apostle Franklin D Richards noted: "Every now and then we hear men speak tauntingly of the sisters and lightly of their public duties, instead of suporting and encouraging them....There are also some who look with jealousy upon the moves of the sisters as though they might come to possess some of the gifts, and are afraid they [LDS women] will get away with some of the blessings of the gospel which only men ought to possess." Because of this "envy and jealousy," Apostle Richards said some LDS men "don't like to accord to [the sisters] anything that will raise them up and make thier talents to shine forth as the daughters of Eve and Sarah." ("LDS Women's Exponent" 7 (1 NOv 1878): 86.) Fortunately, the good, honorable LDS men who root out any such "envy and jealousy" within themselves and truly support their sisters, far outweigh those who still suffer with such immaturities. I suppose you could decide to pick up your marbles and go somewhere where you won't be challenged by ideas, but it seems to me that sort of behavior pretty much negates a good part of our reason for having a Mortal Probationary Period.... I sincerely hope you will prayerfully consider my thoughts, and reconsider your own. AT any rate, and whatever your decision i the matter -- Blessings to you -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi CK -- Please go back and read the 23rd-25th paragraph(s) in the "Nightmare Plan of Salvation" post (#67) -- the section that begins, If you ever mention the idea again, the "big guns" are brought out" -- -- giving special attention to the section on "Service" Thanks -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Partly becuase "passing the sacrament" has little to do with what we're talking about, and is certainly not the only PH responsibility. Why do some people insist on reducing this topic to positions and ordinances? Is that what Priesthood is to you? GAIA: I didn't get the impression that Penlady was "using" that story to "disprove" anything, let alone anything asbout GA's and church practice. I got the impression she was merely contributing an interesting experience for our consideration and the benefit of the discussion. GAIA: I've heard similar thoughts from other men in such discussions. I'm not sure that it's "all about" any single thing; each of us has different 'takes' on the topic, different perspectives, different thoughts and responses ..... However (and with all due respect) == I cannot help but wonder whether, if the shoe was on the other foot -- if such discussions migh be easier to "get". And in fact, I have written an article designed to help (some) LDS men "get it" -- Or at least, "get" what *some* women are trying to express in such discussions. I wrote it some time ago, to try to explain how it feels for *some* of us, in the Church. I don't intend for it to be insulting or offensive, or any such thing at all; just to be a very vivid, eye-opening experience in seeing from another perspective. That is NOT necessarily to condemn anyone else's perspective or experience -- only to help understand another one a bit better. I ask all who read it to do so prayerfully, asking Heavenly Father to help you understand what i am trying to communicate -- I titled this, "a Nightmare Plan of Salvation" -- Imagine for a moment that somehow, the entire situation in the Church is completely reversed. It is *women* who lead the ecclesiastical program of the Church, and women Priestesses make decisions about what is important and what isn't.... And we decided (with Inspiration from Heavenly Mother) that since you men have to go out and make a living in the world, you just don't have enough time and energy to also appropriately handle all the responsibilities of a male priesthood. It's revealed to the Prophetess of the Church that it's just not "an important part of the program" right now. So we (or rather, Heavenly Mother Goddess) *forbids* you from using male priesthood (of course, the term is not capitalized, the way *real* Priestesshood is). You are discouraged from using the Gifts of the Spirit, and "advised" to "call for the Priestesshood" if any such spiritual ordinances or blessings are needed. You attend General Conference with your children, (but your wife has special "Priestesshood Sessions" to which you are pointedly NOT invited) where you are taught (by FEMALE General Authorities) to "obey your Wife, and sustain her Priestesshood" and obey Heavenly Mother. If "Heavenly father" is mentioned at all, it's in sentimental but vague terms designed to keep Him definitely in the background. You don't need Him, after all -- your exemplar is Y'Shua Christa, our Lady and Savioress, Who came to lead us all back to Heavenly Mother, our Goddess and "the only Goddess with whom we have to do." The term "god" becomes a strange, foriegn one that even sounds weird -- and faintly hints at paganism. You stay home with the kids a lot, in order to support your wife's Priestesshood responsibilities, and you're often counseled (in the men's auxiliary) how important and "exalted" is your calling in that regard -- as a "helpmeet" and support for your wife, the Priestesshood holder. After all, you're often reminded in church talks, you men -- represented by Adam -- were the ones who resisted and had to be encouraged by Great Mother Eve to enter fully into Heavenly Mother's glorious Plan of Salvation. When your wife is absent, of course, your eleven year old daughter is encouraged to assume "Priestesshood responsbility" for the entire household, and you support her in that. Your sons are all raised from infancy to honor, sustain and especially *obey* the Priestesshood, especially in their sisters and mother. They never even *hear* that there is anything called "priesthood" -- in fact, if by chance somebody does happen to mention the idea, they are taught to grow offended and defensive -- "I don't NEED any male priesthood, my Mom has the REAL Priestesshood, and when i get married, my Wife will have it...and besides -- heheh -- who would *want* all that responsibility?" The (all female) General Authorities like to say that men "hold the Priesthood when they hold their wives"....hehehheh. All the church manuals, lessons and scriptures are rewritten ("Preistesshood Correlation", yknow) to excise any references to male priesthood. You are of course forbidden to discuss it in the "men's auxiliary" program -- -- And besides, you're too busy there learning how to become a more appealing husband, and create a comfortable, pleasing home "retreat" for your Priestesshood wife when she returns home from her very important and demanding Priestesshood responsibilities. You look on in pride when your Preistesshood wife (together with other Priestesshood women) blesses and names, then baptizes and confirms, each of your children in turn..... Together, you teach your girl children to prepare to serve an honorable Mission; and you teach your boys to work toward being worthy of the greatest honor and opportunity, one of the greatest moments of their lives -- being sealed in the Temple to an honorable, active, Returned Missionary Priestesshood holder. You notice how people begin confusing the term "women" with "Priestesshood", like "We're waiting for the Priestesshood to arrive, before we start the meeting," and "We're so grateful to the men for supporting the Priestesshood pancake breakfast." It vaguely reminds you of announcements like, "Everyone is invited to the Ward Dinner -- and bring your husbands, too." But you can't quite figure out why. In Sunday school lessons, you learn about the history of the world and the absolutely crucial role that Priestesshood has played in Heavenly Mother's great Plan.... -- You come to admire all the great Preistesses down through history, and you resolve to work to become more like them; And of course, in your male auxiliary meetings, you're encouraged to work hard on overcoming those troublesome male weaknesses like assertiveness, selfishness, pridefulness, acquisitiveness (leads to greed), arrogance, independence, etc; And begin developing an appreciation for and facility with important spiritual principles like "interdependence", "egalitarianism," mutual support and sensitivity; And you work hard on developing qualities more like those great priestesses -- wisdom, compassion, kindness, empathy, sensitivity, patience, humility, meekness, obedience, and modesty. When somebody makes a joke in Sunday School about how dense poor old Adam was in the garden, and how men have never quite "woken up" from that "deep sleep" put on them, you feel a vague discomfort but remind yourself that it's just a joke and you shouldn't be so easily offended. And, as one dear brother comments thoughtfully, men *have* been denied Priestesshood, so maybe there *is* something about them that is lacking..... When you go to the Temple, you notice that you also wear (a version of) the "Robes of the Holy Preistesshood" -- but nobody can explain to you why, unless you also have some kind of male priesthood??? And you consider how there *are* men who perform ordinances in the Temple... but how can they do that, unless they have some sort of -- male priesthood??? -- And come to think of it, you (vaguely) remember how once upon a time, people *used* to talk about something called men's "priesthood" -- but where has it gone? -- But If you raise any of those questions to someone who should know -- like the Temple Presidentess, for example, -- she smiles indulgently, pats you on the arm, and says: "Oh, dear brother, you're such a *sweet*, noble spirit, aren't you -- always worrying about such things.... You don't want to go grey -- or bald! -- before your time, do you? Heheh... Some day we'll have all the answers ...but right now what's important is for you to go home, be a good husband and support your wife's Holy Priestesshood." If you ever mention the idea again, the "big guns" are brought out -- -- You're accused of not appreciating your important, exalted role in the Queendom of the Goddess as your wife's very important support; -- Of misunderstanding Priestesshood entirely; Of "coveting" it and its authority and power. You're asked why you want to be a Bishopess, or pass the sacrament, anyway.... You're asked what your problem is with the natural order that the Lady established, or with power and authority -- Perhaps you've had some unfortunate experiences with some particular holder of the Priestesshood that has made you angry, hostile and bitter, and misunderstand Priestesshood entirely. After all, you know, Priestesshood is really about *service*, not getting things for yourself -- and obviously you're not even worthy of it when you so misunderstand it. And finally, you're reminded that questioning the leaders or the policies of the Church, sowing questions and discord, is after all, the Way of Satan -- (that personification and manifestation of ultimate Male pride, arrogance, greed, independence, and assertiveness). Even discussing the very idea of male priesthood could get you hauled into the Bishopess's office -- After all, there's the "Strengthening the Members" committee that is on guard against such dangerous, heretical ideas. So you keep your head down, rid it entirely of such questions, and focus -- as you're told -- on being a good, obedient, loving, supportive, attractive husband who can make your wife happy and proud; and making your household the lovely, well-ordered, well-run, pleasing, econonomical and comfortable home and haven that it should be, for your wife and children, who so depend upon you. You even take up knitting, crocheting, canning and quilting to keep yourself appropriately, righteously busy -- men's idle thoughts and hands are so dangerous, yknow. You are taught to look forward and work diligently for that glorious day when your Priestesshood wife will call you forth into the Resurrection of the Just, and lead you through the "veil" -- -- Which could be, as some great scriptorian High Priestesses speculated to you once, when you were allowed to remain in one of the women's private "Gospel Doctrine" discussions -- -- The symbolic "hymen" over the "Holy of Holies" which represents the Great Mother Goddess Herself -- -- Into the Presence of Christa and Heavenly Mother, where you (together with all your wife's other husbands, of course) will go on to create and build up Her Kingdom -- -- And you will finally get to be a real Priest -- unto her. Ah, it's a glorious life, a glorious Gospel, a glorious Plan of Salvation, isn't it. ~End.

GAIA: It is interesting to note that Jews almost never use the term; it's almost always used by (conservative) Christians.

GAIA: HI there, Crimson -- Regarding nurturing: I think most people would agree that children need nurturing from BOTH Mothers AND Fathers. And actually, men are no less innately suited to nurture than women; they have simply been less acculturated/ trained to learn HOW to nurture. For example, there are cultures in which the males do the nurturing and the females go off to do the hunting. In fact, there are cultures in which males have the responsibility to nurse the babies while "Mom" is away. Since the mammary glands are primarily activated through stimulation, men can train their breasts to give milk. So biologically, men are no less equipped to be nurturers; it's our culture which has assigned them a different sex-role stereotype. And re: Shoulder pads and high heels - They have nothing to do with "looking like a man"; in fact, they have to do with giving women a MORE (not less) hour-glass shape. For most women, shoulder pads help create or emphasize a more "hourglass" shape, with the upper torso and lower torso (bust and hips) comprising the larger parts of the hourglass, and the waist comprising the "cinched'in" part. The high heels actually affect women's posture: They thrust the hips and rear end outward, and emphasize the muscles of the calf --- aagin, emphasizing the FEMININE shape that is preferred by our culture. It has nothing to do with making women more masculine -- in fact, just the opposite. And again: What's "wrong" with it is when it becomes rigidly PROSCRIPTIVE -- a demand for how people "should" be, and when people are punished in various way for deviating from that norm, rather than descriptive of the way (*some*) people are. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hello -- I'd like to (respectfully) suggest a potential problem that can develop with this view -- It can become PROSCRIPTIVE rather than DESCRIPTIVE. By that i mean, that often, we take the idea that "the sexes do sometimes in some ways complement each other" to mean that "the sexes SHOULD complement each other"-- And then, we devise sex role stereotypes that ENSURE that the sexes will be complementary, rather than allowing people to express their individuality. So sometimes, we INSIST that -- for example -- a man "should" be independent, and a woman "should" be dependent; a man "should" be authoritative, and a woman should not be -- or should accept the man's authority. There was a study done several years ago, which had a group of "helping professionals" -- people like counselors, ministers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, social workers, police, etc -- make three lists: he first was to be a list of qualities of a healthy, sucessful human being. The second was to be a list of the qualities of a "normal" man. The third was to be a list of the qualities of a "normal" woman. What do you suppose were the results of this test? The qualities of a healthy, sucessful human being included such things as: - independent - logical - rational - authoritative - assertive - forceful - brave - adventurous - clever - confident - self-assured - risk-taker - fearless - emphatic The qualities of a normal, healthy man included: - - independent - logical - rational - authoritative - assertive - forceful - self-assured - brave - adventurous - confident - risk-taker - fearless - emphatic The qualities of a normal, healthy WOMAN included: - dependent - emotional - intuitive - tactful - modest, - sensitive, - cautious - careful - shy - NOw notice: The qualities of a HEALTHY adult and a healthy, normal man were virtually the same; and they were the OPPOSITE of the qualities considered "normal" for women -- Thus, women in our culture have to make a damnable choice: Either they have to develop the qualities considered UNHEATHY and ABNORMAL for a human being to be acceptable as a female; OR they have to buck the prevailing stereotypes of a "normal female" by developing the qualities considered healthy for human beings! -- And the final irony is that these attitudes were not those of an uneducated or irrelevant group of people; these were well-educated EXPERTS in helping professions that are generally the ones we look to for help and guidance in our lives! I think: a) We need to examine just how healthy and appropriate our stereotypes and expectations are, and whether they really serve or damage us; B) We need to be very careful that our ideas of "the way things are" don't become PROSCRIPTIVE, burdensome, or damaging -- c) And we need to remember that human beings are widely diverse, independent, and individualistic -- and that is generally a good thing! Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hello -- This is a great question! I'd like to just mention, if i may -- that there is a very different perspective -- although i should hasten to add that it is NOT in any way an "LDS Perspective". But there are some (of many different faiths) who feel that Mary is an unfortunate example of the way that women are often silenced and shoved into the background, by patriarchal religion -- made into little more than accessories to/for men's lives. For some, Mary is a mute and disempowered, frail and bloodless impersonator of the Great Goddess -- whom many see as the original Parent and Deity of the Human race. What benefits and insights might we have, for example, if Mary's story had been deemed important enough to record and pass down, by the men who made those decisions? We can only wonder. For more on this, please see (for example): - "Beyond God the FAther" by Mary Daly - "Religion and Sexism" by Rosemary Radford Ruether - "The Great Mother" by Monica Sjoo and Barbara Mor - "When God Was A Woman" by Melin Stone - "The Politics of Women's Spirituality" by Charlene Spretnak, ed. - "WomanSpirit Rising" by Carol Christ and Charlene Spretnak, ed. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: I'd like to just clarify that the rest of that quote indicates the point he was making is that the "spirit" or essential intelligence of human beings is eternal, like God's, and therefore uncreated -- "You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, "Don't the Bible say he created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize--the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos--chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed: they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end. .... We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. [Referred to the old Bible.] How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says, "God made man out of the earth, and put into him Adam's spirit, and so became a living body." The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth. I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they co-equal with our Father in heaven. King Follet Discourse, by Joseph Smith. Blessings -- ~Gaia

Hello Everyone -- I'm new here, so i hope it's ok to share my own thoughts and research on this topic. Here is a very interesting quote from Edward Tullidges "Women of MOrmondom" -- admittedly no scripture, but it does show the attitudes of earlier (the book was published in ) LDS: "...This gospel of a new dispensation came to America by the administration of angels. But let it not be thought that Joseph Smith alone saw angels. Multitudes received angelic administrations in the early days of the Church; thousands spoke in tongues and prophesied; and visions, dreams and miracles were daily manifestations among the disciples. The sisters were quite as familiar with angelic visitors as the apostles. They were in fact the best "mediums" of this spiritual work. They were the "cloud of witnesses." Their Pentecosts of spiritual gifts were of frequent occurrence.The sisters were also apostolic in a priestly sense. They partook of the priesthood equally with the men . They too "held the keys of the administration of angels." Who can doubt it, when faith is the greatest of all keys to unlock the gates of heaven? But "the Church" herself acknowledged woman's key. There was no Mormon St. Peter in this new dispensation to arrogate supremacy over woman, on his solitary pontifical throne. The "Order of Celestial Marriage," not of celestial celibacy, was about to be revealed to the Church. Woman also soon became high priestess and prophetess . She was this officially . The constitution of the Church acknowledged her divine mission to administer for the regeneration of the race. The genius of a patriarchal priesthood naturally made her the apostolic help-meet for man. If you saw her not in the pulpit teaching the congregation, yet was she to be found in the temple, administering for the living and the dead! Even in the holy of holies she was met. As a high priestess she blessed with the laying on of hands! As a prophetess she oracled in holy places! As an endowment giver she was a Mason, of the Hebraic order, whose Grand Master is the God of Israel and whose anointer is the Holy Ghost. She held the keys of the administration of angels and of the working of miracles and of the "sealings" pertaining to "the heavens and the earth." Never before was woman so much as she is in this Mormon dispensation!" (Edward Tullidge, "women of Mormondom", 22) I wanted to thank Elphaba for the information posted; here is some more: Joseph and Emma Smith became the first couple to receive the Second Anointing (by which they made their Calling and Election Sure and thus received the Second Comforter) or "fullness of the priesthood." By this ceremony they were each "anointed & ordained to the highest & holiest order of the priesthood." PLEASE NOTE: "EACH anointed and ordained", NOT just the husband. ("Meetings of the Anointed Quorum- Journalizings," 28 Sept 1843, also slightly different entry in Joseph Smith diary, 28 Sept 1843, in Faulring, "An American Prophet's Record" p 412. In The HIstory of the Church (HC), the ordinance by which Hyrum and Mary Fielding Smith received their Second Anointing is recorded as "My brother Hyrum and his wife were blessed, ORDAINED AND ANOINTED." PLEASE NOTE: "and his wife were blessed, ORDAINED AND ANOINTED." (Wilford Woodruff, "Historian's Private Journal," 26 Feb 1867, LDS archives; LDS MIllennial Star 22 (7 April 1860): 214; HC 6:46.) When Brigham Young's own wife received the endowment on 1 Nov 1843, he wrote, "Mary A Young ADMITTED TO THE HIEST ORDER OF THE PRIESTHOOD" [sic] [emphasis added] PLEASE NOTE: It does NOT say that her husband was admitted, it says that SHE "was admitted". She did not receive the Second Anointing with him until three weeks later. (Brigham Young Diary 29 Oct, 1 Nov 1843, copies in Donald R Moorman papers, ARchives, Weber State University; "Meetings of anointed Quorum - Journalizings," 29 Oct 1843; Faulring, "An American Prophet's Record," 444; Ehat, "Joseph Smith's Introduction of the Temple Ordinances," 103.) The popular but erroneous idea that women receive priesthood only through their husbands (in temple marriage or the Second Anointing -- both of which a husband and wife must receive together) -- was NOT the view expressed by the Anointed Quorum's original members, who learned about the endowment directly from Juseph Smith: Brigham Young's 1843 diary associated the endowment of women with their receiving priesthood. For example: ON 29 Oct 1843, he noted that Thirza Cahoon, Lois Cutler, and Phebe Woodworth were "taken into the ORDER OF THE PRIESTHOOD." That was the day those three women individually received their endowments. They did NOT join with their husbands to receive the Second Anointing until 12 and 15 Nov 1843, respectively. On 3 Feb 1844, William Clayton's diary noted that Jane Bicknell Young was also endowed and received "into the Quorum of the Priesthood." (William Clayton diary, 3 Feb 1844, 7 Dec. 1845; in Smith, "An Intimate Chronicle," 125, 193; "Meetings of the anointed quorum" JOseph Smith diary, 3 Feb 1844, in Faulring, "an American Prophet's Record," 444; Ehat, "Hoseph Smith's INtroduction of Temple Ordinances," 103; Buerger, "The Fulness of the Priesthood," 23.) Joseph Smith's uncle John Smith, a special member of the First Presidency since 1837, member of the Anointed Quorum since 28 Sep 1843, having received four months of special instruction from the Prophet about the Holy Order of the Priesthood during the frequent meetings of the Anointed Quorum -- (Deseret News 1991-1992, "Church Almanac" 46; HC 6:173; Faulring, "An American Prophet's Record" 416; "Meetings of the anointed Quorum," 28 Sept 1843; Ehat, "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances," 102); -- Subsequently pronounced a patriarchal blessing on Maria Turnbow which specificed that it was THROUGH THE ENDOWMENT CEREMONY THAT WOMEN RECEIVE THE PRIESTHOOD: "Thou shalt have an Endowment in the Lord's house [and] be clothed with the Power of the Holy Priesthood..... (John Smith patriarchal blesing to Maria Louisa Turnbow, 7 Nov 1845, in William S Harwell, "The Matriarchal Priesthood and Emma's Right to Succession as Prsiding HIgh Priestess and Queen" 7.) In fact after his ordination as patriarch to the church in 1849, John Smith also described an *ancient* dimension of this female birthright to priesthood: In his blessing to Caroline Cottam in Mar 1853, he referred to the "Priesthood which Abraham sealed upon his daughters." He also blessed Elizabeth Bean in May 1853: "I seal upon you all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the PRIESTHOOD THAT WAS SEALED UPON THE DAUGHTERS OF JOSEPH in the land of Egypt..." He made a similar statement in a blessing to another LDS woman in Nov 1853. (John Smith patriarchal blessing to Caroline Cottam, 26 Mar 1853, LDS archives; JOhn Smith blessing to Elizabeth Bean, 1 May 1853, Goerge Washington Bean journal, Book 1, 79-80, Archives, Lee Library, BYU, and his blessing to Sophia Pollard, 9 Nov 1853; all are quoted in Irene May Bates, "Transformation of Charisma in the Mormon church , Ph.D. diss., UCLA 1991, 281-82.) ON WOMEN & PRIESTHOOD IN BIBLICAL TIMES: It might be instructive to remember that "The genuine Pauline letters apply missionary titles and such characterizations as: "co-worker" -- Prisca "diakonos" -- Phoebe "apostle" -- Junia -- To women. Paul uses the same Greek verb "kopian" ("to labor" or "to toil") not only to charaacterize his own evangelizing and teaching, but also that of women. In Romans 16:6, 12, he commends Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis for having "labored hard" in the Lord. Paul also affirms that women worked with him on an equal basis. Philippians 4:2-3 explicitly states that Euodia and Syntyche have "contended" side by side with him. He considers the authority of both women in the community at Phillippi great... Phoebe (Romans 16) is the only person in the Pauline literature to receive an official letter of recommendation and is given three substantive titles: sister, diakonos, and prostatis. whenever Paul uses the title "diakonos" to refer to himself or another male leader, exegetes translate it "minister" "missionary" or "servant". In the case of Phoebe, they usually translate it "deaconess". However, Pheobe's "office" in the church of Cenchreae is not limited by prescribed gender roles. she is not a deaconness of the women only, but a minister of the whole church." (Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, "In Memory of Her" 169-170) * * * Years later, Bathsheba W Bigler Smith (plural wife of Joseph Smith, and sister to Zina DH Young, second General President of the Relief Society) testified publically: "I have always been pleased that i had my endowments when the Prophet lived...he gave us everything, every order of the priesthood....he said he had given the sisters instructions that they could administer to the sick and he wanted to make us, as the women in Paul's day, 'a Kingdom of priestesses.'" (Bathsheba Smith Statement, 9 June 1905, Pioneer Stake Relief Society minutes, LDS archives, quoted in part by Derr, Cannon, and Beecher, "Women of Covenant," 53-54; Ehat, "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances," 103.) In Feb 1844 stake patriarch John Smith told Louisa C Jackson that she had a *right* to priesthood from her birth: "thou art of the blood of Abraham through the loins of Manasseh & ," (John Smith patriarchal blessing to Louisa C Jackson, 6 Feb 1844, RLDS archives). Louisa's blessing showed that any Mormon woman had a *birthright* to priesthood which depended upon NO man . SO, WHAT HAPPENED? So if this is the history, WHAT HAPPENED, Why don't we hear more of women's "Priestesshood"??? First, By the end of the early 1880's, death had taken all the General Authorities who had specifically been taught on the nature of Priesthood by the Head of the Dispensation -- Joseph Smith; and those who had themselves taught that the endowment conferred priesthood upon women. Second, By 1888, Mormon misogyny was linked with denials of women's authority,which resulted in a public comment by Apostle Franklin D Richards: "Every now and then we hear men speak tauntingly of the sisters and lightly of their public duties, instead of suporting and encouraging them....There are also some who look with jealousy upon the moves of the sisters as though they might come to possess some of the gifts, and are afraid they [LDS women] will get away with some of the blessings of the gospel which only men ought to possess." Because of this "envy and jealousy," Apostle Richards said some LDS men "don't like to accord to [the sisters] anything that will raise them up and make thier talents to shine forth as the daughters of Eve and Sarah." ("LDS Women's Exponent" 7 (1 NOv 1878): 86.) Elder Richards is the only General Authority to publically acknowledge that jealousy and fear are the basis for the oppositon of some LDS men against the spiritual authority of women. However, that such fear exists is proven by the dire (and sometimes even bizarre) consequences some LDS men and authorities have predicted might occur if men were denied the "superiority" this unique role gives them: In a well-publicized statement, fear of women hit a new low when a then-current LDS General Authority (Hartman Rector, Jr) predicted that if the female portion of humankind were to receive the Priesthood, then: "...The male would be so far below the female in power and influence that there would be little or no purpose for his existence [--] in fact, he would probably be eaten by the female as is the case with the black widow Spider." (Hartman Rector Jr, President of the First Quorum of the Seventy, to Mrs. Teddie Wood, 29 August, 1978, photocopy in "Utah Women's Issues, 1970s-80s", Western Americana, J Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah; quoted in Sonia Johnson, "From Housewife to Heretic", and in Robert Gottlieb and Peter Wiley, "America's Saints: The Rise of Mormon Power" 212.) As late as April 1896 Apostle Richards reaffirmed the independent source of women's authority to perform healing ordinances: this senior Apostle and Church Historian instructed LDS women that they have "the right" to say these words in administering to the sick: "In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy anointing which i have received." Until 1900 the First Presidency also authorized women to use the word "sealed" in this ordinance. (Franklin D Richards diary 3 Apr 1896, LDS archives; JOurnal History of the Church 7 Mar 1900, 1 Microforms, Marriot Libary, UofU; Clark, "Messages of the First Prsidency" 4:314-17; "Deseret News" 8 Apr 1901, and response in Louisa L Green Richards to Lorenzo Snow, 9 Apr 1901, LDS archives.) It is also likely that some of the women, themselves, were responsible for the diminishment of their power and authority - -by constantly ASKING the men if it was *alright* for them to use their power. And finally, In 1946, then-Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith wrote the letter to the Relief Society Presidency, which ended the era during which women freely exercised the Gifts of the Spririt, including Healing --- to which they'd always had access and which Joseph Smith had vigorously approved. Instead, he said that women should "send for the elders of the Chruch to come and administer to the sick and afflicted." (Joseph Fielding Smith Letter to Belle Spafford, Marriane C Sharpe and Gertrude R Garff, 29 July 1946, in Clark, _Messages of the First Prsidency_ 4:314; also Derr, Cannon, Beecher, _Women of Covenant_ 220-221. Many LDS men may not realize what this meant for LDS women. I wonder how they would feel if suddenly an official "Declaration" were delivered from the Office of the First Presidency to all Priesthood Meetings, declaring that LDS men must no longer exercise their Priesthood, but rather, "send for the Priestesses of the Kingdom...." ON PRIESTHOOD and "AUTHORITY" : "Authority" means both power and permission. In the first sense authority is the priesthood power of God. Through the Temple endowment, both men and women receive God's authority or POWER of the Priesthood. Men also receive priesthood power through ordination to specific office. The second sense of authority is the *permission* of the church. Niether males nor females can exercise their priesthood without persmission of the church. However, both males and females have received such permisson from the church in various ways: For LDS males, conferral of power and the permission to exercise priesthood in the church come in stages. There are two ways in which the LDS church gives formal authority for males to exercise the pristhood they receive by ordination and the endowment: First, through the ordinance of being "set apart" -- as a missionary, temple ordinance worker, or church presiding officer, such as stake president or auxiliary president. Second, church leaders give verbal "authority" for males to use their priesthood for specific occasions or ordinances such as administering the sacrament, baptism, confirmation, and administering to the sick. But For LDS women the priesthood does NOT come in stages of ordination, but in the temple endowment -- and the endowment gives today exactly what it gave in Joseph Smith's time. HIstorically, women also have received church authority to exercise their priest(ess)hood power in behalf of others: they receive the ordinance of being set apart as missionaries, temple ordinance workers, and presiding officers such as auxiliary presidents. And as already discussed, LDS leaders have given verbal and written authority for LDS women to perform ordinances including blessings and healings. Church POLICY revoked that permission in 1946 but could reinstate it at any time. IN today's church, a woman who has received the temple endowment has more priesthood POWER than a boy who holds the office of priest. However, the priest has more PERMISSION to exercise his priesthood than does the endowed woman to exercise hers. Priesthood power has always been independent of the offices of the LDS church. LDS women already have God's priesthood of spiritual POWER. Without asking permission, they may draw on the POWER of the 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 specifically *church* settings. Without ordination to priesthood OFFICES, each endowed > woman already has the opportunity to fulfill in her life Joseph Smith's promise: "I now turn the key to you in the name of God." (D MIchael Quinn, "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843", in _Women And Authority_ edited by Maxine Hanks.) RESOURCES: For more on any of this, i recommend the following sources: - _Women and Authority_ by Maxine Hanks, ed. - _In Her Name_ by Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza; - "Women in the Early Christian Movement," in Carol P Christ and Judith Plaskow, ed. _WomanSpirit Rising_, - _Strangers in Paradox_ by Toscano and Toscano For more on FEMALE PRIESTHOOD IN BIBLICAL TIMES, please see the following: - Antony Hutchinson, "Women and Ordination: Introduction to the Biblical Context," in _Dialogue: A JOurnal of MOrmon Thought_ 14 (Winter 1981): 58-74; - Melodie Moench Charles, "SCriptural Precendents for Priesthood," _Dialogue: A JOurnal of Mormon Thought_ 18 (Autumn 1985): 18-20; - Savina J. Teubal, _Sarah the Priestess_ and _Ancient sisterhood_ - Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, "Women in the Early Christian Movement," in Carol P Christ and Judith Plaskow, ed. _WomanSpirit Rising_, 84-92; - Toscano and Toscano _Strangers in Paradox_, 167-78. NOTE: Please be aware that these are not all written by LDS writers, nor are they necessarily considered official LDS doctrine. PS -- If anyone wants to discuss this more but in private, please feel free to email me [email protected] -- Blessings to All -- ~Gaia