Joseph Smith and Priesthood for women.

[MarginOfError]

MOE and Suzie, I agree that the rhetoric has softened. Arguably, the Church's needs aren't as exigent at present, so we can afford to be more generous. But again: the theology, the scripture, and the temple liturgy are what they are.

And I would respectfully suggest that the down-playing of these obligations are a major reason for the current glut of snot-nosed little boys who think they "deserve" entry to the temple to be sealed to some gullible sweet young thing, even though missionary service - indeed, any kind of sacrifice for the Church - just "wasn't for me".

(Toldja I was extraordinarily hard-nosed. )

Suzie, I'm not convinced President Hinckley meant that those be listed in order of priority. If it is, then what of Brigham Young and Heber Kimball (and countless other nameless missionaries), who left their wives on their sickbeds to go serve as missionaries in Britain? What of George Albert Smith, who married his wife and left to the Southern States Mission within a couple of weeks? What of David O. McKay, who - about to start a new job, and just beginning a courtship with the woman who was to become his wife - was spontaneously called on a mission, threw the written mission call on the table with an exclamation of "Isn't that hell?!" - and went anyways?

Would the men of this Church today tolerate the kind of requests that were made in the first decades of the Church's existence? Would we do a latter-day equivalent of Zion's Camp, or the Mormon Battallion, if circumstances were sufficiently exigent? Would they put up with a request to up and relocate their families? Would they stick with the Church even after the leadership engaged in a set of business decisions that reset everyone's net worth back to zero?

I don't think they would, on the whole. And I think that's a tragedy.

It's wonderful that we are currently at a point, as a Church, where we don't currently need to extract the kinds of service that we used to from our priesthood holders. But on the other hand: by ignoring the obligations that do indeed run with the oath and covenant of the priesthood, and assuming that this time of plenty and ease will continue in perpetuity, I think we're crippling ourselves for the coming day when openly being a Mormon is not nearly so easy as it is now.

/rant

I chuckled when I read this. Isn't this really the same argument as

"early Church leaders were okay with women giving blessings, so we should be okay with it now"

[Backroads]

He's 6 months old. PM me.

Making him 9 months when my daughter is born...

He's already the most elligible little bachelor, isn't he?

[Just_A_Guy]

I chuckled when I read this. Isn't this really the same argument as

"early Church leaders were okay with women giving blessings, so we should be okay with it now"

I'm afraid I'll need you to talk me through the logic on that one, MOE. But I would note, in passing, that I personally don't have a problem with women giving blessings in the family sphere. I think I've mentioned that before on LDS.net - I think it would be both theologically acceptable and generally awesome to pronounce a blessing on one of my kids with Just_A_Girl's participation. The reason we don't do it (yes, we've discussed it) is that she's more theologically conservative than I am.

Although, playing devil's (conservative's?) advocate for a moment: there is a difference in that the general authorities have suggested, since the 1940s, that it is generally preferable for laying-on-of-hands to be performed by priesthood holders. While there have been generic suggestions for "balance" from our leaders - very persuasive ones - I am not yet aware of a general authority who has suggested that it is generally preferable for priesthood holders to decline requests for assistance in building the Church on the basis of family concerns.

[MarginOfError]

Well, as the argument for the feminist goes, "In the earlier days of the Church, it wasn't a problem for women to give blessings. The way we do it now is different from how it was done in the early days and we would be a better Church if we went back to the old ways."

The argument you are posing is, "In the earlier days of the Church, members made much larger and greater sacrifices than we do now. The way we protect men from spending too much time away from their families is different than in the early days and we would be a better Church if we went back to the old ways."

All I can say is that in the past ten years of leadership trainings I have attended, I have never once been taught that a priesthood holder should routinely put his Church obligations ahead of his family obligations. The closest I've ever been told to what you're suggesting is that there will be periods of time that we neglect our family responsibilities for the Church and times that we neglect our Church responsibilities for our families.

I think it's also important to note that the rhetoric around guarding the family as an institution has increased dramatically since the days of the early Church. Quite simply, society, culture, church government, and church administration have all changed in the 180 years of the Church's existence. There wasn't always an expectation that every young man would serve a mission. Missionary service wasn't always so widely available to young women. The timing of missionary service wasn't always such that it was convenient with traditional schedules for higher education*. The fact that we are in a position that we don't have to make the same sacrifices for the establishment of Zion doesn't have to be interpreted as a decrease of our faith. It can just as easily be interpreted as a adaptation to the blessings the Lord has given us as a society and people.

* Remember, one of the big motivators of changing the age of eligibility for missionary service was so that young men wouldn't be put in a position of choosing between missionary service and their education (this is a bigger deal in some other countries). And it was celebrated by Church leaders that it would now be easier for young men to have both opportunities. I didn't see them lamenting a 'loss of sacrifice.'

[Suzie]

Suzie, I'm not convinced President Hinckley meant that those be listed in order of priority.

I think he did.

http://www.oscardevaux.com/HC%20Training%20Materials/a%20Rejoicing%20in%20the%20Privilege%20to%20Serve.pdf

It has been always my understanding that the priorities just as President Hinckley addressed in that talk. I truly never heard the notion that church responsibilities overrides family. It has always been taught to find a balance between family responsibilities and Church responsibilities, prioritizing the family always.

A couple of quotes to illustrate the point:

Occasionally we find some who become so energetic in their Church service that their lives become unbalanced. They start believing that the programs they administer are more important than the people they serve.

As a result of their focusing too much time and energy on their Church service, [eternal family relationships can deteriorate. Employment performance can suffer. This is not healthy, spiritually or otherwise. While there may be times when our Church callings require more intense effort and unusual focus, we need to strive to keep things in proper balance. We should never allow our service to replace the attention needed by other important priorities in our lives.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/o-be-wise?lang=eng

I think President Gordon B. Hinckley, our prophet today, gave us the key to balance our responsibilities in an earlier worldwide leadership training meeting, held on June 21, 2003. In that broadcast he stated:

“First, it is imperative that you not neglect your families. Nothing you have is more precious. Your wives and your children are deserving of the attention of their husbands and fathers. When all is said and done, it is this family relationship which we will take with us into the life beyond. To paraphrase the words of scripture, ‘What shall it profit a man though he serve the Church faithfully and lose his own family?’ (see Mark 8:36).”

How we use our time and keep our lives in balance is fundamental to how we will perform our family duties and our Church service. Discipline yourself to follow the prophet’s counsel on how you prioritize the use of your time:

Your eternal companion

Begin by discussing with your eternal companion how much time you need together to strengthen your marriage, to demonstrate the love you have for each other. That is your first priority.

The Church is to help individuals and families come unto Christ and obtain eternal life. Eternal life is God’s greatest gift to His children, and it is obtained only through a family relationship.

Your Children

Second, consider the spiritual needs of your children. How much time is necessary to be certain you are being close to them? It is your responsibility as fathers and mothers to provide adequate time to teach them, for the most important instruction children will ever receive should come from their parents.

Providing for Your Family

Our third priority is to provide for our family units. Again from the proclamation on the family:

“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.”

Church Service

Fourth in our priority is our commitment to the time we spend in Church activities. Active Latter-day Saint families value their Church time and make choices in their family life to make room for it. (my note: Not the other way around).

Leaders need to be especially sensitive to different family situations when they extend calls and create expectations. Families with young children where both parents have demanding calls that take them out of the home are the most likely to feel that Church activities interfere with their family life. Church leaders can help by acknowledging and validating members’ efforts to balance Church service with their family responsibilities.

Again, we caution you not to burden your membership with more than one Church calling, plus home teaching and visiting teaching. Discipline yourself to stick to the basic priorities, and you will be surprised how the inspiration of the Lord will direct you as you carry on your responsibilities to be a servant in His kingdom.

The ultimate focus of the restored Church is to facilitate and bring about opportunities for us to assist the Lord in His work to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. We do this primarily by strengthening families. In an age of moral decline, political uncertainty, international unrest, and economic instability, our focus on strengthening and stabilizing families must be enhanced and magnified. The very purpose of the Church is to assist families in obtaining salvation and exaltation in the eternal kingdom of heaven.

Elder L. Tom Perry

I think Elder L. Tom Perry's talk validates President Hinckley's statement in that order of priorities.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Suzie

[estradling75]

I am curious on why we feel we can only do one or the other.... Priesthood holders are under a dual obligation to both their families and to the world... I think that is pretty clear. While the Book of Mormon talk about the great things Alma and the various Nephi's plus all the other did while out in the field... It also talks about them returning home. The scriptures call it 'resting from their labors' but I think we can be pretty sure they just changed focus to their families for awhile.

While it is quite possible it might be necessary stop the worldly focused assignments to focus on our families... (The D&C has scriptures were Joseph Smith and the other early leaders were told to do exactly that) If we find ourselves constantly needing to turn things down because our families need us... Then perhaps we should ponder the idea that we are failing to teach and prepare our families properly.

[estradling75]

I am curious on why we feel we can only do one or the other.... Priesthood holders are under a dual obligation to both their families and to the world... I think that is pretty clear. While the Book of Mormon talk about the great things Alma and the various Nephi's plus all the other did while out in the field... It also talks about them returning home. The scriptures call it 'resting from their labors' but I think we can be pretty sure they just changed focus to their families for awhile.

While it is quite possible it might be necessary stop the worldly focused assignments to focus on our families... (The D&C has scriptures were Joseph Smith and the other early leaders were told to do exactly that) If we find ourselves constantly needing to turn things down because our families need us... Then perhaps we should ponder the idea that we are failing to teach and prepare our families properly.

[Smeagums]

I was involved with the priesthood on Saturday. My husband gave me a blessing. It was very nice. Yes, I sure do like having access to the priesthood.

Women can also lay their hands upon their husbands' heads.

[skippy740]

All I can say is that the closest that I know of for women holding the priesthood is in the temple for selected ordinances - and I believe it's for initiatories (washings & annointings) for women. Men don't perform these for women in the temple.

Anything other than that, is speculation, in my opinion.

I must admit that I don't understand why women would seek to have the priesthood as well. Let's think about it: Women that hold the priesthood... do they need a husband? (Aside from eternal families.)

What would quorums be like? Men would lose their identity within the church, and their desire to be useful. Particularly today where women are simply more organized and driven than men seem to be. If the women are going to take care of everything, what duties are men to do? They'll probably change their religion to the "Church of the NFL" because they will feel that they aren't needed.

The Relief Society would end. The balance of duties in marital relationships would become more muddled than it already seems to be in our society today. There will be less dependency upon each other within the marriage.

In my opinion, when one understands the doctrines of the church, and appreciates the "checks and balances" that are created in relationships and in church administration... the doctrine is already perfect. All we have to do is learn it, love it, live it and sustain it.

[skippy740]

All I can say is that the closest that I know of for women holding the priesthood is in the temple for selected ordinances - and I believe it's for initiatories (washings & annointings) for women. Men don't perform these for women in the temple.

Anything other than that, is speculation, in my opinion.

I must admit that I don't understand why women would seek to have the priesthood as well. Let's think about it: Women that hold the priesthood... do they need a husband? (Aside from eternal families.)

What would quorums be like? Men would lose their identity within the church, and their desire to be useful. Particularly today where women are simply more organized and driven than men seem to be. If the women are going to take care of everything, what duties are men to do? They'll probably change their religion to the "Church of the NFL" because they will feel that they aren't needed.

The Relief Society would end. The balance of duties in marital relationships would become more muddled than it already seems to be in our society today. There will be less dependency upon each other within the marriage.

In my opinion, when one understands the doctrines of the church, and appreciates the "checks and balances" that are created in relationships and in church administration... the doctrine is already perfect. All we have to do is learn it, love it, live it and sustain it.

[Maureen]

...I must admit that I don't understand why women would seek to have the priesthood as well. Let's think about it: Women that hold the priesthood... do they need a husband? (Aside from eternal families.)...

Aside from eternal families, what's the reason why men marry?

M.

[skippy740]

In the context of my question, women marry men for eternal families, to have the priesthood in their homes and, of course, love.

Men marry women because they love them, and desire eternal families.

With a stronger growing feminist movement (which seems to have the goal of excluding men so women can do everything), it makes men feel inferior because... well, let's face it - women do almost everything better than men.

So why should men try if women can do everything?

I think that's why the Lord put the balance of responsibilities between both partners - to ensure that both have a role and can be valued for what they bring to the marriage.

[skippy740]

In the context of my question, women marry men for eternal families, to have the priesthood in their homes and, of course, love.

Men marry women because they love them, and desire eternal families.

With a stronger growing feminist movement (which seems to have the goal of excluding men so women can do everything), it makes men feel inferior because... well, let's face it - women do almost everything better than men.

So why should men try if women can do everything?

I think that's why the Lord put the balance of responsibilities between both partners - to ensure that both have a role and can be valued for what they bring to the marriage.

[Vort]

I don't agree with the sentiment that "women do almost everything better than men". I am fond of skippy, so I intend no personal criticism, but I think this particular idea is a pernicious falsehood that has been brought about because we live in a feminist-inspired, man-hating society where men are neutered and then eunuchs are mocked.

At their best, men are awesome -- literally. That should never be forgotten. We should be teaching our sons to aspire to that, and our daughters to recognize and cultivate that belief in their husbands and their own sons.

Jesus Christ was a man. So is the Father. Disparaging men is disparaging him in whose image men were created.

[Guest]

Okay, here's to the feminists:

You are all fighting to be EXACTLY equal to Men. Men hold the priesthood, so you feel that it is downright unfair if you can't hold it too. Men can wear pants, it is downright unfair if you can't too. Etc. etc.

Basically, you are fighting so you can be completely replaceable by Men. And Men can be replaceable by women.

So... the feminist movement is fighting the same fight as the Gay/Lesbian Marriage movement. You are both fighting for the world to believe that Wives and Mothers are replaceable by Men and that Husbands and Fathers are replaceable by Women. Therefore, gender has zero impact on the makeup of a family/society.

[annewandering]

So if feminists want to become men or eliminate men what do you call those of us that think women can do anything they have the talent for and should not be banned from any endeavor because they are female? Us women who were told from the time we were little that we could not do that because we were girls. We realize we are not fathers but dont want to be. We are happy to be women but we are not happy to be marginalized or demeaned. We want to be paid the exact same as a man would be for the same job even if it has a different name reserved for women. We want the exact same chance of advancement even if we are not the father in a family. So who are we?

I am a feminist. There is no other name for it. Not that I know of anyway.

Edited December 21, 2012 by annewandering

[Guest]

So if feminists want to become men or eliminate men what do you call those of us that think women can do anything they have the talent for and should not be banned from any endeavor because they are female? Us women who were told from the time we were little that we could not do that because we were girls. We realize we are not fathers but dont want to be. We are happy to be women but we are not happy to be marginalized or demeaned. We want to be paid the exact same as a man would be for the same job even if it has a different name reserved for women. We want the exact same chance of advancement even if we are not the father in a family. So who are we?

I am a feminist. There is no other name for it. Not that I know of anyway.

You're not a feminist. Not according to this thread's use of the word.

By the way, you don't have to be female to feel the same things you feel on this quoted post. Not in today's society. You can replace female with another "subgroup" and still have the same gripe.

And a lot of the things you mentioned are from another era of America. Yeah, it still happens in the Middle East and in some parts of Asia. But, it's all but gone the opposite way in America. Now, it's the men that have to fight to get respect and consideration around here. Men are animals. Men are rapists. Men are good for nothing but football. You hear that more than women being marginalized and demeaned. And talking about football and boxing, etc. Yeah, woman whine and gripe about being marginalized and demeaned but they put themselves in skimpy outfits cheering on the sidelines and hold round numbers. And they call it - Choice. I guess they choose to be marginalized and demeaned. And equal pay for women is another one of those perceived inequalities. I've worked 30 years and I've never experienced a time where I and any one of the women I know are paid less than their male counterparts except for when I decided to negotiate a lower pay rate in exchange for additional paid personal time off. Sure, it happens that a woman would get paid less than a man in a particular job. Just like it happens that a man would get paid less than a woman for a particular job. You can scour every single business in America and you will not see a single one of them having a different pay scale for women than for men. But that's beside the point.

We are not talking about marginalizing women. We're talking about feminists who work towards complete equality - the kind of equality where nothing less than women ordained as priests is the only acceptable equal position.

[annewandering]

We, meaning the people on this thread, have a unique meaning for the word feminist? Yes, I think you all do. If I am wrong and I am speaking of a different era then why do women still get paid something like 75% of what men in the same jobs get? In some ways things have changed but not nearly enough. Being feminist does not mean men do not have issues that need to be resolved as well. We all have work to do on giving us all credit for being human and having equal chances in this world.

[Just_A_Guy]

MOE and Suzie, I wanted to thank you for your responses. All heck broke loose at work today (Client got arrested on new, unexpected Charge B while we were in court on Charge A, and local police refused to disclose what the new charges were or allow me to be present while they were questioning the defendant--good times!) and I can't adequately respond to your great insights at present, but will try to do so in the next couple of days.

[annewandering]

Those were in no way Josephs Smiths Statement - they were minutes of a meeting kept by someone.

Ok thats an interesting point. So we need to know how accurate the secretary was but I do not have the facilities for determining that. basically we are stuck trying to sort it with what we do have.

[annewandering]

I like the checks and balances idea Skippy has. Not only does priesthood form a sort of checks and balances in the family it gives the man a tangible reason to balance his spiritual life with his job.

[Guest]

Women can also lay their hands upon their husbands' heads.

Theoretically I could sit in the oval office, but that doesn't actually give me any of the rights or responsibilities of the POTUS.

[annewandering]

I lay my hands on my husbands head often. And I pray often but never gave anyone a blessing yet. (Cool hands help headaches)

[SanctitasDeo]

We, meaning the people on this thread, have a unique meaning for the word feminist? Yes, I think you all do. If I am wrong and I am speaking of a different era then why do women still get paid something like 75% of what men in the same jobs get? In some ways things have changed but not nearly enough. Being feminist does not mean men do not have issues that need to be resolved as well. We all have work to do on giving us all credit for being human and having equal chances in this world.

I am not sure that women are paid only 75% anymore. I could be wrong, but my impression is that the problem has mostly been corrected. See: Wage gap myth exposed — by feminists - Society and Culture - AEI

I like the checks and balances idea Skippy has. Not only does priesthood form a sort of checks and balances in the family it gives the man a tangible reason to balance his spiritual life with his job.

I do have some suspicion that this is a practical reason for the current setup of the church. Maybe men would be motivated anyway. I think I would. It would definitely change the way the administration of the Sacrament would have worked in my ward growing up, though.

Theoretically I could sit in the oval office, but that doesn't actually give me any of the rights or responsibilities of the POTUS.

Eowyn, this made me think of a thought I had a few weeks ago.

It seems to me that there are only two main functions of the Priesthood that women do not have access to: Administration of ordinances (aside from certain temple ordinances) and leadership functions that remain part of the priesthood. The rest of the functions are things that women have access to through faith. Reading the lists of spiritual gifts in Corinthians and Doctrine and Covenants and Moroni, it does not seem that the priesthood is needed for access to those gifts. And yes, healing is one of them. While they may not give healing blessing through the Priesthood, the gift of healing is not closed.

The oath and covenant of the priesthood is another interesting thing to examine. It contains great promises, but they are promises that show up in the temple. Women are not actually barred from any of the Abrahamic promises that often get paired with the priesthood. They receive everything that men will receive, as far as I can tell.

So the scope of women's rights and responsibilities as opposed to that of priesthood holders is only constrained in a few areas. The problem is that those areas cover a lot of practical ground in the church (leadership roles), whereas we don't talk much about spiritual gifts, and we stay away from any discussion of them that might seem to impose or take away from the priesthood, even though exercise of those gifts is heaven-ordained.

Does that make sense? This is the first time I've written that down.

[annewandering]

That link compares women who are college graduates with men who have equal time etc on the job. That rather limits the width of the studies.