What I will be focusing on today, in my favorite Sunday dress


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

One example that I was just made aware of by personal experience a few months ago: Primary, YW, and RS leaders have to submit names to the Bishop of who they would like to have called as advisers and teachers, and wait for him to extend the calling etc. Priesthood auxiliary leaders don't. My husband was extended his calling as EQ teacher by the EQ President (ETA: and his name wasn't even put before the ward to be sustained). When I was in the YW presidency we had to wait weeks (and one time a few months) for the Bishop to have the time to get around to extending a calling to someone we wanted to bring on as an adviser.

It really effects the efficiency of the women's auxiliaries when we have to wait (and wait) for the Bishop to find time to approve names and extend callings among all the other many many things he has on his plate to do.

For correction, every individual in the ward must be approved by the Bishop, unless it is a Stake Calling, then the Stake President must approve the name.

The EQP cannot just call anybody he wants, he must pass every person through the Bishop. This is partly due to the fact that every member, even leaders, do not know what conversations are happening behind the Bishop's door.

This isn't an inequality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For correction, every individual in the ward must be approved by the Bishop, unless it is a Stake Calling, then the Stake President must approve the name.

The EQP cannot just call anybody he wants, he must pass every person through the Bishop. This is partly due to the fact that every member, even leaders, do not know what conversations are happening behind the Bishop's door.

This isn't an inequality.

But it can feel like it when, like I mentioned, you end up waiting weeks and weeks for the Bishop to carry out his end of things and extend the calling, while the EQ pres. can get a quick clearance from the Bishop and move forward with things right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it can feel like it when, like I mentioned, you end up waiting weeks and weeks for the Bishop to carry out his end of things and extend the calling, while the EQ pres. can get a quick clearance from the Bishop and move forward with things right away.

I understand this waiting period intimately. As an EQP, I had to wait, sometimes, 2 months before I could get a person to fill the positions of teacher.

This is also why I am saying the waiting period happens on both ends, even for auxiliaries whose head are men.

This happens in every ward, this is also why as a member of the Bishopric in our ward, I try to attend every Presidency meeting with Primary and Young Womens. This has been helpful, because they provide me with the names and that week I speak with the Bishop and other counselor to get these names as fast as possible, because it is difficult when callings aren't fulfilled.

I am suggesting, this wait happens for every auxiliary.

EDIT: Also, I will apologize if my remarks are coming off to strong, they are not meant to, however, I openly admit I am not the most efficient writer thus I may come off wrong at times.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To supplement what Anddenex said: the president of the Melchizedek priesthood is the stake president, so the high priests group and elders quorum theoretically enjoy some measure of nominal autonomy from the ward authorities. That's why you don't sustain the HP group leader or EQ presidency during the general session of ward conference - the officers are announced for informational purposes, but not sustained.

Of course, it would be foolish to shut the bishop out of the process, because he'll know the worthiness state and availability of prospective officers. But when I was called to serve as a counselor in an EQ presidency, the call was formally extended to me by a stake high councilman, not a bishopric member.

And this isn't a terribly egalitarian statement, but maybe needs to be said nonetheless: under our theology, the priesthood quorums - right on down to the deacons' quorum - are not "auxiliaries". They are, at least in theory, governing bodies of the Church. That doesn't mean the bishop should run roughshod over the organizations that technically are truly auxiliaries while giving undue deference to the twelve-year-old boys; but I think we lose something when we lose sight of what the Aaronic Priesthood was created to be and what its prerogatives are. The Young Men's program is an auxiliary. The Aaronic Priesthood is not.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand this waiting period intimately. As an EQP, I had to wait, sometimes, 2 months before I could get a person to fill the positions of teacher.

This is also why I am saying the waiting period happens on both ends, even for auxiliaries whose head are men.

This happens in every ward, this is also why as a member of the Bishopric in our ward, I try to attend every Presidency meeting with Primary and Young Womens. This has been helpful, because they provide me with the names and that week I speak with the Bishop and other counselor to get these names as fast as possible, because it is difficult when callings aren't fulfilled.

I am suggesting, this wait happens for every auxiliary.

EDIT: Also, I will apologize if my remarks are coming off to strong, they are not meant to, however, I openly admit I am not the most efficient writer thus I may come off wrong at times.

But for Priesthood auxiliaries the wait only happens when people turn down callings, for us it happens when people turn down callings AND when the Bishopric gets swamped or isn't as on-the-ball as they should be in helping us carry out our work. And it can be very frustrating when both happen at the same time and a calling goes unfilled much longer than it ought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For correction, every individual in the ward must be approved by the Bishop, unless it is a Stake Calling, then the Stake President must approve the name.

The EQP cannot just call anybody he wants, he must pass every person through the Bishop. This is partly due to the fact that every member, even leaders, do not know what conversations are happening behind the Bishop's door.

This isn't an inequality.

That's how it's supposed to happen, and if it did happen that way, there would be less inequality. But it doesn't always happen that way. When my husband was clerk in our ward, the EQP was issuing callings left and right. There was one guy in our ward who had about 4 callings at once, because none of them went through the bishop's office first.

But it can feel like it when, like I mentioned, you end up waiting weeks and weeks for the Bishop to carry out his end of things and extend the calling, while the EQ pres. can get a quick clearance from the Bishop and move forward with things right away.

It took me four months to get a camp director called two years ago. Part of that, though, was that my bishopric had a problem of only doing things on Sundays -- no phone calls, emails, meetings, or mid-week discussions about callings or any ward business. But I think that everyone can agree that four months is pretty ridiculous, especially for a calling that is time-specific and time-sensitive to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be terrific. Many sisters choose to have their babies blessed at home which I think would probably give them the opportunity to stand in or hold their babies.

For those interested a bit in LDS history:

In the early days of the Church, both fathers andmothers joined in blessing their children. It is recorded that Wilford Woodruff and his first wife Phoebe gave a blessing to their son Wilford Jr. when he was already a Priest and "dedicated him to the Lord". George Goddard and wife also gave a similar blessing to their teenage son (and his record is quite clear when he wrote "his mother AND myself...".

It was also common in the early days to have the babies blessed when they turned 8 days old, following the Israelite tradition.

Wilford Woodruff gave one of these blessings to his son Joseph in 1845 with his wife Phoebe holding the baby in her arms. (The complete blessing andordination to the Priesthood of the baby is on Woodruff's journal). Unfortunately, the baby died a year later.

A mother can already hold a baby while it is being blessed, even as the Church stands now. The interesting aspect about Church history is that it is history.

As the church Handbook stands now only worthy priesthood holders may stand in the circle. Joseph Fielding Smith once said that if there were no other priesthood holders present, a wife may stand in the blessing with her husband and lay her hands on her head. She, however doesn't act with as one holding the priesthood, but acts as one having faith in the priesthood.

I think this is wonderful, however, if our late Stake President is right I understand the Brethren are even speaking about this and how it may not be appropriate.

The problem with this Church history, and not following the brethren is that there are women who take this too far and begin blessing their children on behalf of their husbands priesthood. No husband has a priesthood, we have the Lord's priesthood and if we do not act in the precepts he has given then our priesthood doesn't avail us anything.

The Church has also changed to the point that biological fathers are not allowed to be apart of their baby's blessing, unless they are worthy Melchizedek holders. In 1936, a father could stand in the circle, not officiate, if he held the Aaronic priesthood. Some Bishop's used to allow father's who didn't hold the priesthood join in the circle.

As we believe in a living Church, living revelation, this is no longer the case. History is wonderful, but when history is no longer supported by the Brethren, which we believe is revelation coming from God -- which then is also supported by Heavenly Mother -- we change and follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's how it's supposed to happen, and if it did happen that way, there would be less inequality. But it doesn't always happen that way. When my husband was clerk in our ward, the EQP was issuing callings left and right. There was one guy in our ward who had about 4 callings at once, because none of them went through the bishop's office first.

If it doesn't happen then the Bishop is accountable before The Lord over his stewardship. The inequality then is created by members, not the Lord's gospel.

If the EQP read the Church Handbook he would have never extended a call without approval by the Bishop.

This is partly why one of the World Wide Leadership Trainings, for both men and women, emphasized the importance of reading the handbook, which answers most of our questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mother can already hold a baby while it is being blessed, even as the Church stands now. The interesting aspect about Church history is that it is history.

As the church Handbook stands now only worthy priesthood holders may stand in the circle. Joseph Fielding Smith once said that if there were no other priesthood holders present, a wife may stand in the blessing with her husband and lay her hands on her head. She, however doesn't act with as one holding the priesthood, but acts as one having faith in the priesthood.

There are many many women who have specifically requested to hold their baby while it is blessed, and have been turned down. If this is specifically allowed, I don't think a lot of bishops are actually aware of it.

I think this is wonderful, however, if our late Stake President is right I understand the Brethren are even speaking about this and how it may not be appropriate.

The problem with this Church history, and not following the brethren is that there are women who take this too far and begin blessing their children on behalf of their husbands priesthood. No husband has a priesthood, we have the Lord's priesthood and if we do not act in the precepts he has given then our priesthood doesn't avail us anything.

Agree 100%.

The Church has also changed to the point that biological fathers are not allowed to be apart of their baby's blessing, unless they are worthy Melchizedek holders. In 1936, a father could stand in the circle, not officiate, if he held the Aaronic priesthood. Some Bishop's used to allow father's who didn't hold the priesthood join in the circle.

Not entirely accurate:

A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice. (CHI 20.1.2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But for Priesthood auxiliaries the wait only happens when people turn down callings, for us it happens when people turn down callings AND when the Bishopric gets swamped or isn't as on-the-ball as they should be in helping us carry out our work. And it can be very frustrating when both happen at the same time and a calling goes unfilled much longer than it ought.

I am sorry you feel this is so. My wait, at times for 2 months, was not due to people rejecting a calling, it was actually due to the Bishop telling me "No, you cannot have them."

If the Bishopric gets swamped then all auxiliaries have to wait for the Bishop. Yes, I agree it is very frustrating when you receive revelation, the Bishop says "No", and then you are back to the drawing board for another person. And then when you ask about this person, the Bishop again says No, and that another auxiliary: Primary -- already spoke for them and have been accepted.

Yes, it is frustrating, and this happens to all auxiliaries, at least any ward who are following the handbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it doesn't happen then the Bishop is accountable before The Lord over his stewardship. The inequality then is created by members, not the Lord's gospel.

If the EQP read the Church Handbook he would have never extended a call without approval by the Bishop.

This is partly why one of the World Wide Leadership Trainings, for both men and women, emphasized the importance of reading the handbook, which answers most of our questions.

Preachin' to the choir here. :) I love the training broadcasts. I feel more uplifted by them than I do from Conference itself. I'm sad that I don't get to participate in them anymore. I've never seen my ward's EQP at one of the trainings, though.

I know there are some militant Mormon Feminists (or Feminist Mormons...I don't know what the "proper" term is) who believe that the Gospel and doctrine themselves are flawed. I suspect that's not the majority, though. I'd hazard a guess that I think most Feminist Mormon women would be satisfied with cultural and policy changes, and widespread education on them. For example, if it is allowed that moms may hold their infants during the blessing, then bishoprics need to know that!

Unfortunately, I see the Feminist Mormon movement going the same way many Mormons have seen the gay agenda go: first they say one thing, then demand another. I agree with Soulsearcher's explanation from last week about it being an evolution of ideals, rather than hypocrisy, but that's a societal issue, not a doctrinal one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely accurate:

A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice. (CHI 20.1.2)

Yes, actually I was entirely accurate.

A father needs to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood to participate in a baby blessing and he needs to be worthy. I never said he needed to be a temple worthy member.

I said he must be a worthy Melchizedek priesthood holder. We have worthy Melchizedek priesthood holders who are not as yet fully temple worthy, and they are allowed to bless their children.

If a biological father doesn't hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, then he cannot participate at all. Whereas, in 1936 an Aaronic Priesthood holder could stand in the circle but not officiate.

There is nothing in the handbook quote you mentioned which negates anything I shared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, actually I was entirely accurate.

A father needs to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood to participate in a baby blessing and he needs to be worthy. I never said he needed to be a temple worthy member.

I said he must be a worthy Melchizedek priesthood holder. We have worthy Melchizedek priesthood holders who are not as yet fully temple worthy, and they are allowed to bless their children.

If a biological father doesn't hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, then he cannot participate at all. Whereas, in 1936 an Aaronic Priesthood holder could stand in the circle but not officiate.

There is nothing in the handbook quote you mentioned which negates anything I shared.

Sorry...I missed the part where you said "worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder." It's late for me (you know my time zone), and I just read "worthy," and assumed you meant basically "in completely good standing." I wasn't sure if I was interpreting correctly, which is why I said, "not entirely accurate." My mistake, though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't they still usually designated an AP holder to stand in and hold the microphone?

That is a great question JAG. I have never seen this, and in our ward one of the Bishopric members holds the microphone.

I assume the reason why this is so, is because only Melchizedek Priesthood holders can be in the circle.

The only thing I know, is that the handbook now mentions only worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holders are able to stand in the circle now. It is interesting how it has changed.

Please note, also, when it comes to worthiness our Area Authorities ask us to ask this question, "Is the father worthy enough?"

Worthy enough is subject to the Bishop and Stake President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't they still usually designated an AP holder to stand in and hold the microphone?

In all the baby blessings I've seen..the young man usually stands outside the circle and holds the microphone close to the one giving the blessing. So he's not actually IN the circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a great question JAG. I have never seen this, and in our ward one of the Bishopric members holds the microphone.

I assume the reason why this is so, is because only Melchizedek Priesthood holders can be in the circle.

The only thing I know, is that the handbook now mentions only worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holders are able to stand in the circle now. It is interesting how it has changed.

Please note, also, when it comes to worthiness our Area Authorities ask us to ask this question, "Is the father worthy enough?"

Worthy enough is subject to the Bishop and Stake President.

I think I've always seen the mic held by an Aaronic Priesthood bearer, usually a deacon. I interpret "standing in the circle" as hands-on-the-baby-arms-on-the-shoulders-participating, not as physically leaning into the circle. Even without that interpretation, I usually see the deacon stand on the steps and lean his arm in over the tops of the shoulders, which I can only imagine is awkward and uncomfortable, but technically, he's outside the circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To supplement what Anddenex said: the president of the Melchizedek priesthood is the stake president, so the high priests group and elders quorum theoretically enjoy some measure of nominal autonomy from the ward authorities. That's why you don't sustain the HP group leader or EQ presidency during the general session of ward conference - the officers are announced for informational purposes, but not sustained.

Of course, it would be foolish to shut the bishop out of the process, because he'll know the worthiness state and availability of prospective officers. But when I was called to serve as a counselor in an EQ presidency, the call was formally extended to me by a stake high councilman, not a bishopric member.

And this isn't a terribly egalitarian statement, but maybe needs to be said nonetheless: under our theology, the priesthood quorums - right on down to the deacons' quorum - are not "auxiliaries". They are, at least in theory, governing bodies of the Church. That doesn't mean the bishop should run roughshod over the organizations that technically are truly auxiliaries while giving undue deference to the twelve-year-old boys; but I think we lose something when we lose sight of what the Aaronic Priesthood was created to be and what its prerogatives are. The Young Men's program is an auxiliary. The Aaronic Priesthood is not.

Thank you for the clarification. Also, to add to the clarification, the recommendation of EQP counselors are recommended by the EQP who has consulted with the Bishop, then the Stake President and high council confirms or accepts the recommendation and then the call is extended by usually by a High Council member.

Thank you again, for clarifying this, it is a good clarification which I need to remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification. Also, to add to the clarification, the recommendation of EQP counselors are recommended by the EQP who has consulted with the Bishop, then the Stake President and high council confirms or accepts the recommendation and then the call is extended by usually by a High Council member.

Thank you again, for clarifying this, it is a good clarification which I need to remember.

It's also worth noting that, while an EQ president calls his own quorum instructors, those callings are vetted by the bishop before being extended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One example that I was just made aware of by personal experience a few months ago: Primary, YW, and RS leaders have to submit names to the Bishop of who they would like to have called as advisers and teachers, and wait for him to extend the calling etc. Priesthood auxiliary leaders don't. My husband was extended his calling as EQ teacher by the EQ President (ETA: and his name wasn't even put before the ward to be sustained). When I was in the YW presidency we had to wait weeks (and one time a few months) for the Bishop to have the time to get around to extending a calling to someone we wanted to bring on as an adviser.

It really effects the efficiency of the women's auxiliaries when we have to wait (and wait) for the Bishop to find time to approve names and extend callings among all the other many many things he has on his plate to do.

Sunday School and Young Men's go through the same submit-and-wait process. And while the EQP may have called your husband as an instructor, chances are he ran it by the bishop first. The reason his name wasn't put before the ward for sustaining is because they did it (or should have done it) before the Elders Quorum in Priesthood Meeting. The sustaining vote need only take place by those who are members of the quorum. BTW, the EQP gets his authority through the Stake President, not the bishop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunday School and Young Men's go through the same submit-and-wait process. And while the EQP may have called your husband as an instructor, chances are he ran it by the bishop first. The reason his name wasn't put before the ward for sustaining is because they did it (or should have done it) before the Elders Quorum in Priesthood Meeting. The sustaining vote need only take place by those who are members of the quorum. BTW, the EQP gets his authority through the Stake President, not the bishop.

What isn't clear to me, though, is why the Relief Society president can't present names of teachers to the Relief Society for sustaining (as is done in the Elders Quorum). It's an artificial and highly arbitrary distinction and one I'd be happy to get rid of.

I'd also be thrilled if the Relief Society president were authorized to set apart women to callings in the Relief Society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all the baby blessings I've seen..the young man usually stands outside the circle and holds the microphone close to the one giving the blessing. So he's not actually IN the circle.

Unless you were in my ward while I was the clerk. I handed out wireless microphones to the men blessing children to avoid the awkwardness and discomfort for the person holding the microphone. Since my release, sadly, those microphones haven't gotten nearly as much use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my update on the whole thing:

I wore a purple shirt. It was the first time in 12 years I didn't wear a white shirt to church. (Strangely, for many years, I've chosen to wear white shirts specifically to not ruffle feathers). I went out and bought a new purple shirt specifically for this occasion. I daresay, with my purple shirt and pinstripe suit, I looked sharp. I volunteered to drive the kids of another family to church because the parents weren't feeling well.

I arrived at church with two families in tow, took my seat, and opened my scriptures to review my lesson material. Yup, I was going to teach a sunday school lesson wearing a purple shirt....to the youth!

I had only read a couple of verses when the deacon's quorum president approached me and asked me to help pass the sacrament. So I got up, took my seat at the front, and prepared to pass the sacrament. The young man who sat next to me was wearing a tuxedo, and he looked fantastic!

The water was blessed that day by a new convert who has difficulty reading. He made a couple of errors in his first two attempts. I had the pleasure of watching the bishop stand up, walk over to the table, and kneel down with this brother to coach him and encourage him with the prayer. The brother then proceeded to say the most mangled version of the sacramental prayer I've ever heard, to which my bishop smiled, nodded his head, and we passed the water.

I missed the rest of sacrament because I was pacing the halls with my one year old. But up until that point, it was the most spiritually uplifting sacrament meeting I'd been to in months. Maybe even years.

I taught my lesson during sunday school to one of the greatest groups of boys you'll ever meet. I felt the spirit as we all testified to each other and taught each other truths of the gospel.

While pacing the halls with my one year old (again) during priesthood, I ran into a counselor from the stake presidency and spoke with him for a few minutes. For the record, he was wearing a purple tie.

So, in the end, I wore a purple shirt because I believe that there are gender inequality issues in the church that need to be addressed. I was openly and actively making my statement that elements in our culture are broken. And I was doing it during our regular worship services. Amazingly, I felt the spirit stronger than I have at those meetings in quite some time. And I feel good and uplifted by what I did.

That may seem odd to many of you here, and I can appreciate that. I was hesitant to participate at first because of the very issue of a protest in our sacred meetings. But when I saw the disgusting displays of anger and hate and malice over this issue, I decided I couldn't stand back and watch it. While I don't agree with everything All Enlisted may set out to do, I'm willing to listen to them. I'm willing to hear them out. And I'm willing to share ideas and thoughts with them.

I believe strongly that people who have doubts, concerns, or misgivings with church doctrine, policy, or culture need to be accepted, embraced, and listened to. (that's a lot of lists of 3's) I think that we make ourselves stronger by hearing them out with patience and civility; even and especially if their initial language is combative.

It has been my sad experience that there is a great deal of gender bias against women in the church still. I have left too many leadership meeting frustrated and sometimes angry over the way that male leaders talked about the women in the church; and these were among men who are considered well respected, highly spiritual, and ideal leaders. I wore purple on Sunday because something needs to change and I want that discussion to be had. And I'm not afraid to use may influence and my standing in the church to encourage that discussion to happen.

There have been moments in this thread that I've been saddened by the tone, and moments that I've been pleased at what I'm reading. I think the discussion is starting to happen. In that sense, "wear pant to church day" was a success. And I'm proud that I was a part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mother can already hold a baby while it is being blessed, even as the Church stands now.

This is one of the issues. These practices are not consistent in all wards, hence my mention of Phoebe holding her baby in arms.

As the church Handbook stands now only worthy priesthood holders may stand in the circle. Joseph Fielding Smith once said that if there were no other priesthood holders present, a wife may stand in the blessing with her husband and lay her hands on her head. She, however doesn't act with as one holding the priesthood, but acts as one having faith in the priesthood.

The sisters at that time were fully aware of this, as a matter of fact they never performed a blessing by the power of any "priesthood". It was clear to them where the Priesthood was coming from. I believe this is one of the reasons, sisters laying hands upon the sick just became part of Church history.

The problem with this Church history, and not following the brethren is that there are women who take this too far and begin blessing their children on behalf of their husbands priesthood. No husband has a priesthood, we have the Lord's priesthood and if we do not act in the precepts he has given then our priesthood doesn't avail us anything.

I really don't think there is a problem with Church history. I think is very interesting to learn how things were done in the early days compared to our present day. My mention of the examples given were just purely informative because I thought maybe an LDS history fan like myself may be interested in reading that bit of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of interesting comments from Jacob's blog post over ByCommonConsent:

The maleness of pants on a woman in a sacred space might be seen as symbolic of this. Here’s where it might actually matter that was pants and not something else that was potentially visually disruptive in some way. Pants, after all, though not formally prohibited at church, are formally prohibited for women in temples (my thanks to Brad Kramer for pointing this out) and we’ve seen a lot in the discourse on this issue revealing the conflation of sacred spaces in temples and chapels (where the sacrament is passed), a conflation that has made these sacred spaces nearly interchangeable (I think this is extremely problematic–a temple is simply not a chapel on so many levels– but it was there in the discourse). But this leads me to wonder if the ultimate source of fear and insecurity centered on the principal male space in Mormonism, which is priesthood–if women start wearing pants to church as a deliberate (perceived) political protest of some kind, this could be viewed by some as a direct line to and encroachment on that male-dominated space. Wearing pants to church as a social or political statement (so-perceived) actually then makes the statement (so-perceived) that your next target in male-only space is precisely the space itself, structured by the priesthood, and therefore the defining experience of what it means to be a man in Mormonism. Consequently, men’s identities within a Mormon context were, for the most outspoken and virulent, potentially threatened....

....I think, in fact, a case could be made that the most effective opposition to gender equality in the church, whether you think it mostly exists or mostly doesn’t exist (and in this case cultural equality specifically) are not men alone, but other women, women protecting and preserving so -called male space (the current structure of men alone holding the priesthood and women having access to priesthood only through men) from other women because of the social and spiritual advantages that such protection incurs on the protectors by virtue, especially, of their status as their wives or potential wives. For example, a married LDS woman (assuming a temple sealing) is endowed (no pun intended) with a distinctive and weighty social status compared to a single LDS woman. Other than marriage being the highest universal ideal in LDS culture and practice, your chances of being directly connected to decisions of power and administration (wives of members of the bishopric, stake presidency, mission presidency, etc) and the social status that those incur (whether trivially or not) only exists for married women. The same holds true, with some exceptions, for being able to participate in local leadership. A married woman also has easier access to temple ordinances (non-married women usually need to be called as missionaries or otherwise receive special permission to be endowed). This applies to men too, of course, but because missions and priesthood administration and practice are exercised solely by males, the act alone of being connected to a wife does not carry the same significance. In other words, female space and the female experience are structured by male space in fundamental ways, ways that are not precisely structurally mirrored the other way around. This is just the nature of Patriarchy. Thus, the preservation of the status quo, even for single LDS women who nevertheless hope to become married to a holder of the priesthood is a serious matter, and attempting to transform, even just in perception, any aspect of that male space, has serious ramifications for both men and women and their concomitant identities.

Whole post: How to Silence a(n LDS) Woman: You’re Doing It Wrong By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share