My wife and the priesthood


interalia
 Share

Recommended Posts

"Whadda you care?"

What, exactly is wrong, with a male only priesthood?

A female can never be the president of the church regardless of her spirituality or any other earthly or spiritual trait because of her sex.
So, that's not an answer, that's a statement of how things currently are. It's also a prediction of how things will be in the future, which may be right or wrong. But again, (speaking to your wife) whadda you care?

it feels unfair that a righteous woman can never be called to such.

So, you care because "it feels unfair"? Tell me, life is so chock full of unfair stuff, why pick this one? You believe in God even though the world is full of children getting molested and innocent people starving to death and whatnot, but 'no chicks in the leather chairs' somehow is a problem worth flying into a rage over? Perhaps she could put into words why the former is not an issue but the latter is.

she resents the principled take that a female cannot, even if she desired it, hold the priesthood or any priesthood offices.

Again, not an answer - a statement of fact. We already know she resents the issue. What my question asks is "whadda you care"? WHY does she resent the issue?

Again, all the core answers seem to be along the lines of "Because I know better than God". Well, ok - but at least see the issue for what it is, instead of the cop-out of "I feel it's unjust, therefore it is."

she feel so strongly about it it's going to take a lot of humility on her part - humility and truly blind faith, something neither of us are good at (the blind faith part).

There you go. Feelings get in the way. They can be so powerful, it's like they're an end in themselves. "I feel, therefore [x] is wrong."

Blind faith? Not sure what that means. Faith doesn't need to work in a vaccuum. It's a simple equasion:

* Do you believe in God?

(If no, then don't sweat being a Mormon. If "I don't know", then resolve the question.)

if Yes,

* Do you believe in the LDS conception of God as perfectly just, perfectly merciful, the perfect loving parent who wants the best for us?

(If no, then don't sweat being a Mormon. If "I don't know", then resolve the question.)

if Yes,

* Do you have a testimony of the reality of the restoration - that the LDS church is led by Christ through a first presidency and quorum of 12 apostles?

(If no, then don't sweat being a Mormon. If "I don't know", then resolve the question.)

if Yes,

* Rein in your emotions and deal with them, when they conflict with God's teachings. Just because you want something doesn't make it good - just ask earthly parents about the stuff their children ask for.

To thine own self be true. If you don't know thine own self, perhaps it's time to break out that mirror I was talking about.

LM

Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, you care because "it feels unfair"? Tell me, life is so chock full of unfair stuff, why pick this one? You believe in God even though the world is full of children getting molested and innocent people starving to death and whatnot, but 'no chicks in the leather chairs' somehow is a problem worth flying into a rage over? Perhaps she could put into words why the former is not an issue but the latter is.

That's an entirely unfair assumption and conclusion to draw. Can she only care about one unfairness in life? Is she limited in what is allowed to bother her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never taken issue with not holding the priesthood. I feel as many other women do, Men have their roles in the church and we have ours. I think the role of women is just as important and that it all comes together in building the kingdom of God.

That being said, I can understand why other women have issues with it. I have issues with other areas of the church that other women are not bothered by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it mildly fascinating that some here are so quick to dismiss the concern and not even attempt to address it. I might be more fascinated with it if it weren't dismissed with such hostility.

So, perhaps we should start by clarifying what feminist thought is. In the early years of feminisim, the ideology was that men and women should be equal in all ways. In a sense, you could say that the goal of early feminism was to establish equivalence.

In contemporary society, we tend to see the early feminists as militant and having a chip on their shoulder. They tended to compare any form of discrimination with violence, a notion that hasn't carried over to contemporary feminism.

Contemporary feminism, on the other hand, seeks equality mostly in terms of opportunity. In other words, women and men should have equal access to health care, compensation, employment, education, vocation, and hobby should they desire any of these things. Differences in opportunity between the sexes, according to contemporary feminism, should be determined by biology and not by social convention. In a nutshell, the only restriction on a woman's aspirations should be biological.

Now, try for a minute to think from this perspective and imagine that you are introduced to the Church and are told that only men hold the priesthood. Naturally, your first question is, "why aren't women able to hold the priesthood?"

I think it's pretty rude to throw up a wall and tell a person to get off their feminist soap box for asking this question. This is a perfectly valid question, and for feminists, it strikes to the very core of their values and current belief system. Some of the responses in this thread, and particularly the hostile responses, essentially say, "your belief system is screwed up and you should simply adopt mine." Such an approach fails to be sensitive to the needs of people converting to the gospel, fails to build on common ground, and fails to teach any kind of useful principle about church and/or priesthood government.

The issue can be even more frustrating when you look at the history of the Church and find that women did hold the priesthood and did exercise it openly and regularly. So what's the reason for the change?

The best (and perhaps the only) answer amounts to "Because God said so." Is it really hard to admit that this is an extremely unsatisfying answer? Please understand that I agree that it really boils down to us needing to put ourselves to the side and trust in God. But could we at least acknowledge that learning to do so can be more than a little challenging? Is it really necessary to alienate those who are growing their testimonies by categorically rejecting their frame of mine? Wouldn't it be better to build a bridge from where they are to where the Lord wants them to be? (Notice, I didn't say from where they are to where we are)

As for the "whaddya care?" and "you know better than God" comments--what a bunch of self righteous garbage. Some people care because they've spent years interpreting the world through a set of values and it might take more than a couple of days to redefine those values. And it's perfectly valid to question the status quo and acknowledge that we don't know better than God. I find all of the explanations for why women don't hold the priesthood entirely unsatisfying. I don't get it, I don't understand it, and I openly admit it. And I will defend the Lord's policies to my dying breath because I know that He knows better than I do. But asking questions and seeking answers is the best way I know to develop an understanding of God's will and mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an entirely unfair assumption and conclusion to draw. Can she only care about one unfairness in life? Is she limited in what is allowed to bother her?

Normally loudmouth has some excellent points and I really appreciate his insight, but you are correct wingnut, that statement was not consistent with the data I provided and seemed more like an emotional retort than a reasoned attempt to get someone who isn't a member of the church to understand why they should be.

Still I would like to attempt to answer his question.

To put it simply, the idea of a person not being able to have something a person can have, like an authority position, based upon sex seems in our limited earthly perspective to be unfair. The idea that God endorses such unfairness seems inconsistent. This of course doesn't make her question God, but rather the entity (church) that enforces the gender-based separation that purports that it is God's will.

That is the hard pill for her to swallow. She wants to believe the church is true and that God is at the head of it calling the shots, but she cannot rationalize belief in a God that would do something she considers so arbitrarily unfair. Sure it can be stated there are plenty of other unfair things in the world (people starving, dying, horrid birth defects, etc.), but in each of those cases man is not enforcing that inequality under God's direction. But in this case with the gender based separation, this is a perceived unfairness that is being enforced by man.

Is there anything else the church enforces that might be considered unfair to the world? There are a few, but most of those she can understand to some extent, but this one she cannot at all.

I hope that better explains what her problem is with it (and mine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately I don't know and take it as a matter of faith. Her best bet is to pray for understanding, honestly some things like MOE says I accept because I know the Church is true. Without that basic understanding underpinning everything there are things I'd have a hard time with. Once you trust God (not saying your wife doesn't) and then trust that the Church is his directed organization then it is easier to trust its policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue can be even more frustrating when you look at the history of the Church and find that women did hold the priesthood and did exercise it openly and regularly. So what's the reason for the change?

IIRC - sort of. Women were able to give blessings via the laying on of hands (which is now frowned on), the Relief Society (and other "auxiliaries") once operated with far more autonomy than it now does, and members of the Anointed Quorum were openly called "priestesses" (now we don't even know who's in the Anointed Quorum, such as it is). But I have seen nothing indicating that any woman was ever ordained to a particular office in the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthoods, or served as what we would now call a General Authority.

I don't want to downplay the changing role of women in the LDS Church; but I suspect that most non-Mormons (including, I daresay, Interalia's wife) are far more bothered by the arbitrary exclusion of women from the leading councils of the Church, than they are by the fact that Mormon women aren't openly performing the same kind of rituals they once performed. And that exclusion originated, AFAIK, with Joseph Smith.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normally loudmouth has some excellent points and I really appreciate his insight, but you are correct wingnut, that statement was not consistent with the data I provided and seemed more like an emotional retort than a reasoned attempt to get someone who isn't a member of the church to understand why they should be.

Still I would like to attempt to answer his question.

To put it simply, the idea of a person not being able to have something a person can have, like an authority position, based upon sex seems in our limited earthly perspective to be unfair. The idea that God endorses such unfairness seems inconsistent. This of course doesn't make her question God, but rather the entity (church) that enforces the gender-based separation that purports that it is God's will.

That is the hard pill for her to swallow. She wants to believe the church is true and that God is at the head of it calling the shots, but she cannot rationalize belief in a God that would do something she considers so arbitrarily unfair. Sure it can be stated there are plenty of other unfair things in the world (people starving, dying, horrid birth defects, etc.), but in each of those cases man is not enforcing that inequality under God's direction. But in this case with the gender based separation, this is a perceived unfairness that is being enforced by man.

Is there anything else the church enforces that might be considered unfair to the world? There are a few, but most of those she can understand to some extent, but this one she cannot at all.

I hope that better explains what her problem is with it (and mine).

To tack something onto this statement, a lot of times, it's the seemingly arbitrary nature of this issue that gets people. We ask, "why don't women hold the priesthood" because we believe that there must be some way to explain away the arbitrary-ness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC - sort of. Women were able to give blessings via the laying on of hands (which is now frowned on), the Relief Society (and other "auxiliaries") once operated with far more autonomy than it now does, and members of the Anointed Quorum were openly called "priestesses" (now we don't even know who's in the Anointed Quorum, such as it is). But I have seen nothing indicating that any woman was ever ordained to a particular office in the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthoods, or served as what we would now call a General Authority.

I don't want to downplay the changing role of women in the LDS Church; but I suspect that most non-Mormons (including, I daresay, Interalia's wife) are far more bothered by the arbitrary exclusion of women from the leading councils of the Church, than they are by the fact that Mormon women aren't openly performing the same kind of rituals they once performed. And that exclusion originated, AFAIK, with Joseph Smith.

I'm actually very familiar with the nuances you speak of, and find them fascinating. Some of the more subtle details escape me, but it's interesting to note, in the history of women and priesthood, which order of the priesthood was conferred upon them and that they never were ordained to priesthood offices nor given administrative responsibilities or authorities. They did, however, sit in council with priesthood leaders*.

One of the interesting parts of the history of priesthood with women is that when the Church started removing some of the authority from the Relief Society, the leaders of that organization begged and pleaded that it not be done. But when the prophet made the change, they performed their duties as they were asked. Their disappointment was coupled with exceptional loyalty. Anyway, just interesting history stuff.

* I've begun to think that the Church would benefit greatly if relief society presidents started attending bishopric meetings. At least I'm pretty sure my ward would be a lot better if we got input from our RS president more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually very familiar with the nuances you speak of . . .

Much more than I, very probably. ;)

Some of the more subtle details escape me, but it's interesting to note, in the history of women and priesthood, which order of the priesthood was conferred upon them and that they never were ordained to priesthood offices nor given administrative responsibilities or authorities.

Could you clarify here? Are you talking about the anointed quorum, or something else entirely?

They did, however, sit in council with priesthood leaders*.

. . . .

* I've begun to think that the Church would benefit greatly if relief society presidents started attending bishopric meetings. At least I'm pretty sure my ward would be a lot better if we got input from our RS president more often.

I'll defer to your experience here, though I wonder if that wasn't the kernel underlying the whole idea of ward councils--though my very limited experience is that sometimes so many people are present at ward council, each jockeying to get in their say, that not very much tends to actually get done or resolved upon in those meetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My advice to the OP is maybe suggest your wife receive a blessing on the matter, with patience there are understanding to be had about why we need male and female in certain roles for eternity to work. New understandings about her role in the priesthood will happen as she studies and attends the temple. A lot of things seem very stark when you are learning there is a huge amount to being LDS and it goes as deep and as wide as you are capable of taking your understanding. It is not a male thing, the priesthood is the Lords, anyone can call on His Priesthood at any time, and whilst men hold the priesthood it is for everyone. I personally suspect its so you don't get husband and wives in too many conflicting callings, so that families work better together

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much more than I, very probably. ;)

Could you clarify here? Are you talking about the anointed quorum, or something else entirely?

I'd have to look it all up again and I didn't bother to take notes the first time I read through everything. But I wasn't talking about the Anointed Quorum specifically, as that isn't an order of the Priesthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it simply, the idea of a person not being able to have something a person can have, like an authority position, based upon sex seems in our limited earthly perspective to be unfair. The idea that God endorses such unfairness seems inconsistent.

Well, yes, it makes sense, but I'd still like an answer to my question.

God put us on an earth where evil can get rewarded. Good can be bullied and trodden on. Innocent people are raped and murdered and whatnot. Warlords here and there around the planet sell 9 yr old girls into lifetimes of prostitution and slavery. Our mortal probation seems to have the risk of horrible unfairness built into it - and many people experience this horrible unfairness first hand.

Taking LDS belief out of the picture for a minute, I really would like to know how someone can reconcile a belief in a just God with all that meaningless serious unfairness, but stumbles with unfairness based on gender.

I mean, if she's worked up into a "blind fury" (your words) over male based priesthood, is she apoplectic to the point of athiesm or despair when she sees the evils the world has to offer?

It seems inconsistent. I've learned and grown when I accept and deal with my own inconsistencies. I'm hoping facing hers might help her learn and grow as well.

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yes, it makes sense, but I'd still like an answer to my question.

God put us on an earth where evil can get rewarded. Good can be bullied and trodden on. Innocent people are raped and murdered and whatnot. Warlords here and there around the planet sell 9 yr old girls into lifetimes of prostitution and slavery. Our mortal probation seems to have the risk of horrible unfairness built into it - and many people experience this horrible unfairness first hand.

Taking LDS belief out of the picture for a minute, I really would like to know how someone can reconcile a belief in a just God with all that meaningless serious unfairness, but stumbles with unfairness based on gender.

I mean, if she's worked up into a "blind fury" (your words) over male based priesthood, is she apoplectic to the point of athiesm or despair when she sees the evils the world has to offer?

It seems inconsistent. I've learned and grown when I accept and deal with my own inconsistencies. I'm hoping facing hers might help her learn and grow as well.

LM

I already addressed the world's inherent unfairness in my other post. The world's unfairness doesn't have a human at the head of it directing who gets a fair or unfair shake in this life based upon God's will. I assume God does all that on His own without using a human representative. Of course it is ludicrous to assume a human or prophet even could dictate when tragic events happen in the lives of the world's inhabitants.

What makes this other unfairness (the gender based unfairness) so hard to understand or accept is that it occurs at the seat of God's government on this earth as dictated by a man who represents God's will on earth.

My wife is incredibly non-religious and has professed strict agnosticism for as long as I've known her. Only recently has she really begun to come around and this due to the constant exposure to church doctrines and seeing the blessings that come from gospel living. So she can accept my explanation that bad things happen to people as part of the fallen nature of this world and are an essential part of this mortal probation. However the idea of a church headed up by a male who claims to speak for God and won't on principle allow a certain group of people to hold authority positions is too suspicious for her.

So can you better see her point? I cannot explain it any better than that. Ultimately God can allow unfair things to happen in some cosmic way, but when he authorizes his servants to enforce that unfairness, it makes the whole plan seems suspect to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that I've never heard of a man wishing he could be Relief Society president. ;)

There was a time I remember when it seemed every priesthood leader I knew would do his hardest to get out of priesthood and into Relief Society on a Sunday. Remember one YSA convention, when instead of attending priesthood a couple of Bishops, a General Authority and a Stake President just had to attend RS. I think Priesthood has improved since lol but in past 18 years heard far more LDS men want to join RS than LDS women want to hold the Priesthood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world's unfairness doesn't have a human at the head of it directing who gets a fair or unfair shake in this life based upon God's will.

Right - it has God at the head of it, placing humans in situations where they get a fair or unfair shake in this life based upon God's will.

What makes this other unfairness (the gender based unfairness) so hard to understand or accept is that it occurs at the seat of God's government on this earth as dictated by a man who represents God's will on earth.

Well, this earth and everything that happens in it, occurs because He set it in motion.

So she can accept my explanation that bad things happen to people as part of the fallen nature of this world and are an essential part of this mortal probation. However the idea of a church headed up by a male who claims to speak for God and won't on principle allow a certain group of people to hold authority positions is too suspicious for her.

I guess I can see where she is coming from. I'm still not sure if you see where I'm coming from.

Case 1 - evils in the world: God is in charge of a planet where 'unfair' things happen (unfair from the perspective of His children, be it an accurate or inaccurate perspective).

Case 2 - male-only priesthood: God is in charge of a planet where 'unfair' things happen (unfair from the perspective of His children, be it an accurate or inaccurate perspective).

I see your/her explanation of why y'all think the two cases are different, but are you sure you're right?

Again, it comes down to "It's unfair because I think it's unfair". I see the tenuous nature of your wife's budding faith. Loudmouths like me should probably be kept far from her right now. But regardless of how directly/bluntly/harshly I'm wording it, am I not right?

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interalia, I do not really know the answer as to how the inability to be empowered with the rights and responsibilities of the the Priesthood can be presented so as to make her feel better. I suspect coming to grips with it needs to be handled with some internal process of subjugation or suppression. Women tend to reject their limited roles of the past, so this is a bit of an uphill struggle for them to come to terms with and be content.

Best of luck.

------

BTW, interestingly the Community of Christ came from the same initial background as the LDS Church, but now they even have women Apostles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an incredibly difficult issue for myself, and for many Mormon women (Check out feministmormonhousewives.org). I don't feel like there is any truly acceptable answer to the question "Why don't women have the priesthood?" Maybe you could ask some of the women you admire most in your ward about not having the priesthood- if they feel removed from the decision making of the church, or denied responsibility or blessings. For me, it's like a lot of things in the church- it may not make intellectual sense, but if it works, that's all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share