Now that I’ve finished my transcript of Part 1 and Part 2 of Alternative Approaches to Ordain Women on Mormon Stories, I thought I’d give a recap of my reactions to them.
Thanks OW!
I was struck that all 4 panelists (Fiona, Margaret, Neylan, Maxine) all appreciated Ordain Women for raising consciousness of the issue. Maxine Hanks even went so far to say
what I love about Ordain Women is #1 they use the ‘o’ word. They’re acclimating us to the word ordain. That’s the right word. I love they’re doing that.
Yet all four panelists don’t like the tactics that Ordain Women is using, feeling it is divisive. Well, this “thanks” seems hollow to me. Ordain Women is successful BECAUSE of the tactics. No other group has been able to raise the consciousness. I find this statement of thanks yet questioning tactics as strange. They like the benefits of OW, but don’t want to be associated with the divisiveness. With the LDS leaders’ pace of glacial change, I guess they’re fine that the status of changing women’s status won’t happen in their lifetimes.
No problem!
There was an interesting exchange where John Dehlin asked all 4 panelists if women’s issues in the church were a big problem. Only Maxine Hanks said “Yes, there is a problem.” I found this particular exchange interesting.
John, “Ok, I’ll ask the question this way. Are there serious problems in the church related to girls and women and priesthood power in your perspective? Fiona, you’re saying no, you don’t see it.”
Fiona, “No, I’m not saying that. I think there are, but there are always serious problems with one aspect of our church or another. Right now the focus seems to be on women. How serious those problems are, I’m not entirely sure. I think it would depend on the group of women you’re asking.”
John, “Ok, ok. But you don’t see some great disparity in the treatment or perceived value of girls and women in the church.”
Fiona, “Nothing that cannot be overcome, let me put it that way.”
John chuckles, “Oh you’re so diplomatic.”
I don’t quite understand why the group felt the need to minimize the problem.
Changing the Subject
Fiona Givens started off the podcast stating that there is a difference between priesthood power and priesthood authority. She feels that priesthood power is more important than priesthood authority. Surprisingly, all four women agreed that non-LDS also have priesthood power. This sounds to me like a thoroughly protestant idea of priesthood. It also seems to deflect from the issue that women have no representation in LDS leadership. If anyone has priesthood power, then are LDS priesthood claims at all unique?
Male Hegemony
Fiona wrote a “response” several months before my post about her defending male hegemony (I didn’t know you can pre-emptively respond to a post that wasn’t written), and she says she isn’t for either male hegemony or female hegemony, but in this podcast, she does say that converts in Africa are attracted to the church, and missionary work there would suffer if male hegemony was abolished immediately. Her son calls this a Trojan Horse approach. I still view this as extremely problematic. Now that I have quoted the entire podcast (and referred you to her “response”) I still maintain that I haven’t misquoted or misrepresented Fiona. I still disagree with her that male hegemony is a wise course of action at this time.
Semantics
Maxine Hanks claims this is a problem is semantics. She stated that the Relief Society has similar structure to priesthood organizations. I found her argument interesting.
When you look at the church, men and women are in mirrored positions from top to bottom of the church. We have a Relief Society presidency and First Presidency. We have Relief Society board of twelve and a Council of Twelve apostles. On the stake level we have the same organization, we have a Relief Society presidency and a stake presidency. We have a Relief Society board and a high council, and on a ward level we have a bishopric and a Relief Society presidency. There’s a Relief Society board on the ward level, and then a bishop’s council. They have mirror image ministerial callings and authority but we aren’t—the policy isn’t fully reflecting that in the ways that they counsel together, make decisions together, which is really improving. Elder Ballard’s talk about counseling with our councils really set that vision of bringing back the fullness of the equality of the council the men and women of the leaders meeting together and counseling together as equals. I really see that unfolding, and particularly as a result of his talk.
The problem that I see is not that women do not have access to priesthood and that they have not been ordained. Women were ordained in a number of ways in early Mormonism, and those ordinations, those accesses, those avenues of authority still exist and they have been practiced all this time, through the gifts of the spirit your membership and confirmation, through the Relief Society, which is a women’s order or quorum, through the temple endowment, and through the missionary calling. Those are four avenues through which women were ordained.
The word ordain was used in the first 20 years of the church, even after they came west to Utah. They used the word ordain. Brigham Young ordained Eliza Barnes Pratt in 1850 to serve a mission and gave her a bottle of consecrated oil to perform blessings with the oil. The word ordain was used, but they also set apart and those two words were interchangeable, and they meant the same thing. We don’t use the word ordain any more. We call it ‘setting apart.’ But I had a spiritual experience when I was set apart to my mission that I was somehow being ordained. I knew it spiritually.
So our problem is not structural, it’s not theological. The problem is not that women have not been ordained, and that’s I think a confusing factor that enters in whenever women are calling for ordination and sending this message that Mormon women have never been ordained, and they need to be ordained, and we’re completely shut out of priesthood. We’ve never had priesthood. You know it miscommunicates something that really the church itself is trying to message. It makes it harder for the church to message women’s authority and women’s ministry.
Look at the church website. Look at Visiting Teaching page. It’s all about ministry. How do you minister as what is women’s ministry? The point is it’s a semantics problem. It’s a language problem, and it’s a policy issue. So we do have a problem in that there’s a conflict or a kind of a disconnect between the authority and the ordination that’s there, implicit in the structure, and the way we talk about it. Our language doesn’t fully express or articulate or acknowledge women’s ordination and women’s authority in Mormonism and their equality. So it’s a language, it’s a semantics problem, and it’s a policy. It’s a policy problem.
Could it really be so simple that we put the Relief Society presidency on the stand with the bishopric, and have them take turns conducting Sacrament Meeting? Is the General Relief Society President on par with the First Presidency? Should women be ordained to the Relief Society (because there currently is no laying on of hands to become a member of Relief Society)? Do you think of the Relief Society as a priesthood quorum?
Wheat & Tares 
“Is the General Relief Society President on par with the First Presidency?”
Sadly not. And that seems to go right back to the beginning. Eliza R Snow said male leaders have to have the last word in case we women get something wrong. Aargh! And that prevails with the priesthood oversight, and final speaker in the General RS/YW and now General Women’s meeting. Whether that is more tradition, or still absolute belief I know not. We have thankfully in many places moved on from disallowing female final speakers in a sacrament meeting.
“Should women be ordained to the Relief Society (because there currently is no laying on of hands to become a member of Relief Society)?”
Interesting idea. I gather it used to be that women were not automatically members, but joined and paid fees for that, which sounds more like a secular club or organisation. Would RS members be more likely viewed as a ‘kingdom of priests’?
“Do you think of the Relief Society as a priesthood quorum?”
No.
“Could it really be so simple that we put the Relief Society presidency on the stand with the bishopric, and have them take turns conducting Sacrament Meeting?”
Dream on!
I’m beginning to think of Relief Society as priesthood quorum and I think they should be given back their original calling and name sake. On the local level it could be as simple as putting the Relief Society presidency on the stand with the bishopric, and have them take turns conducting except women would still be one down because everyone knows they lack the priesthood! At the general level we have a similar problem but the real difference is at the President of the Church and prophet level where church, God and the church’s business investments intersect. Until a woman has the potential to reach this calling all LDS women will continue to be seen and treated (by some) to be less than men.
” Ordain Women is successful BECAUSE of the tactics. No other group has been able to raise the consciousness. I find this statement of thanks yet questioning tactics as strange. They like the benefits of OW, but don’t want to be associated with the divisiveness.”
I particularly like your analysis here, MH. I think it’s spot on. I suspect the long-term effects of OW will be beneficial for all feminists, even if many find it too extreme to be associated with.
Yes, Otterson’s letter wants me to send OW a thank you note! Somehow I’ve become more palatable in comparison. Apparently the movement needs us all, even if we all make mistakes along the way.
So . . . in regard to the Relief Society quorum. I feel this is more toward the direction the Church will move. The structure is there, it’s just undeveloped. Of course that way there’s no culpability – “sisters had the priesthood the whole time, you see? they just didn’t know it!”
The OW women are pioneers, and pioneers get shot at. Someday there will be a monument.
On a somewhat related note, we got the traditional summer request in PH opening exercises yesterday for men to attend Girls Camp. I asked why that was needed, and our bishopric counselor actually froze up for a second in puzzlement. “Well, I suppose, just to be there,” he said. I raised an eyebrow. “Well, I mean, it’s kind of fun, and last year they had us hauling firewood and stuff.”
Oh, I see. I didn’t push it. Line-upon-line. But I have a dream that someday, my daughters or granddaughters will attend a priesthood-free Girls Camp, and they’ll haul their own firewood just like the Boy Scouts do. They’ll be judged not on the configuration of their chromosomes, but on the content of their character.
I’m not extremely sympathetic to OW, but I am intrigued to see where all of this ultimately ends up.
Whenever I listen to these women talk about their ideas, I get equal parts inspired and frustrated. They construct a beautiful vision of what women’s place in the church could be, and they tend to talk about it in the present tense, as if all that needs to happen is that women just start acting like they are already ordained to female priesthood power. I feel all warm and fuzzy for about thirty seconds before I realize that their visions are every bit as far fetched and fantastical and OW’s vision. The General Relief Society Presidency as equal to the First Presidency? Women “ordained” with priesthood power to perform their callings? Women giving healing blessings without sanction? Women running their organization autonomously and of their own power ministering to the poor and sick? Pshaw. It’s a captivating dream, but pretending like it’s just around the corner and that there aren’t any problems that won’t soon be overcome ignores the pain that some Mormon women are experiencing in the present, as well as the stunted spiritual, ministerial, and personal development of many, many more Mormon women.
NI #6 – “In addition to Young Women leaders, an adequate number of adult priesthood leaders must be available at all times during young women overnight activities to provide support and protection. At such activities, priesthood leaders must stay in facilities separate from the young women.” Young Women Camp Manual, p. 90. I know of a brother who said in Alaska, he and some other priesthood holders had to guard the camp with guns because of the potential of bear attacks. I’m not sure why having two priesthood brothers available for safety and protection, along with whatever physical help they can provide, is such a bad thing. My wife, who’s been attending girls camp as cook (some 20 years straight) and as a young women leader appreciates priesthood brothers who come and help out. Not everyone is able to hold girls camp in a place where nothing bad happens.
New Iconoclast beat me to the punch. My home teachers came yesterday (yes the 1st day of the month!) and one of them (about 70 yrs old) said he was attending girls camp because “the priesthood” needed to be there. Now IDIAT, if there are bears there, I have no problem that men with guns are there to protect participants from bears. But this is a “Security” responsibility, not a “priesthood” responsibility. Besides, if the Relief Society and Young Women’s “orders” are really priesthood quorums as Maxine suggests above, then they already have “priesthood quorums” at girl’s camp without men. (And heck, if there is a woman with a gun to shoot bears to protect me, I’m fine with that too.)
I find Maxine’s logic intriguing, but I think nobody thinks of YW or RS as a priesthood quorum. I also don’t think that anyone ever considered Emma Smith as on par with Joseph in terms of authority within the church, so I find the argument not compelling.
Joseph Smith said the Quorum of 70 were equal to the Apostles, who were equal with the General High Council, who were equal with the Council of Fifty, who were equal with the First Presidency. Now Brigham Young obviously saw the folly of so many equal groups, and (wisely) demoted them all underneath the First Presidency (and abolished the General High Council and Council of Fifty), but I don’t think that Emma was ever equal in authority to these other ecclesiastical groups.
I like Maxine’s idea, and it may be the easiest way for the church to come out of this if they don’t want to turn sisters into elders and high priests, but I don’t see the Relief Society conducting sacrament meeting any time soon, or see the General RS Pres being elevated to the status of the First Presidency or the General RS Board equal in authority to the Apostles.
IDIAT; why is it assumed that the girls and female leaders are incapable of “guarding” the camp? Do bears die better if they are shot by priesthood holders? Surely in an environment such as Alaska, there are plenty of women ready and able to defend the camp against 4 legged invaders. It seems that the camp has missed a tremendous opportunity to teach wilderness survival skills, self-reliance, safe handling of firearms and a myriad other important life skills. And, more broadly, this just illustrates the incredibly frustrating assumption that women are incapable of doing “hard” things. Or, perhaps worse, that women shouldn’t be expected to do “hard” things. Nonsense. Let us haul our own firewood and shoot the damn bears. I promise we can handle it.
Nonsense. Let us haul our own firewood and shoot the damn bears. I promise we can handle it.
Amen to that, sister. There is no priesthood ordinance relating to the proper operation of a firearm, nor a Scripturally-mandated method of hauling firewood passed on from the Temple of Solomon.
It’s not “a bad thing.” It’s just condescending and unnecessary, and the specification of “priesthood holders,” as MH points out, as if the priesthood protects you from bears or gives you a +3 on your wood-carrying roll, is irrelevant to the function performed.
What I find so intriguing about these discussion is the failure to really call it what it is.
Not a call for Priesthood Power, we all have that,
Not a call for Spiritual Power, we all can obtain that and use the spiritual gifts we are given,
Not a call for influential power, many have the ability to achieve this to those around us and our families
Not a call for charity, the pure love of Christ, we all can strive for this.
Not a call to serve, because we can all do that
Not a call to teach, because we can all do that.
Not a call to take care of the poor, the fatherless, the widows, etc, because we an all do that.
So what is it?
It is pure and simple, a power grab not unlike you would see in a large corporation.
I wonder when we have the opportunity to stand and account for our time on earth, if the Savior would ask each of us, “So, what was the highest position you achieved in the Church?” As opposed to “How did you minister to the least of my children?”
I seem to recall a talk given by President Uchtdorf, entitled “Lift Where You Stand” that has stuck out in mind when I hear abut this stuff.
Jeff, Why have the men already grabbed all the power? Why won’t the men share power?
I find these sisters are deluding themselves. After bro O’s letter it should be obvious that anyone who believes woman should be treated equally by the church, who believe heavenly father and mother are equal in power and authority, should be joining OW, because they are the ones creating a move in that direction!
When they can’t be dismissed as small they will have to be listened to. They already are but the momentum will increase.
Why won’t the men share power?
If the men truly didn’t “share the power” as you’ve stated, the women would not be allowed to do anything in the Church ala Paul’s epistle. Now if you think the Savior’s ministerial admonitions as i stated above do not apply equally to the women than the men, then say so.
Jeff, There is no sharing of power for laying on of hands, or serving as an apostle. So I do not think these 2 items in particular are shared equally by men and women. Do you disagree?
Why don’t the apostles call a female apostle? Why can’t women bless the sick by laying on of hands? Why do men grab all the power for these 2 items specifically?
Why don’t the apostles call a female apostle?
Did Jesus?
“Why can’t women bless the sick by laying on of hands?’
Who said they can’t? Where is it written?
Jeff, poor reasoning.
If an apostle is a special witness of Jesus, he appeared to apostle Mary Magdalene first. Maybe she was the one to replace Judas. Additionally, only Levites held the priesthood in Jesus day. Now we allow gentiles and blacks. So using Jesus as an example doesn’t hold water.
I guess you don’t remember my post on Mormon Women Giving Blessings.
“Maybe she was the one to replace Judas”
MH, poor reasoning. No proof. It is more likely that she was the wife of Jesus and it would make perfect sense for Him to appear to her first. Your speculation has no validity whatsoever.
“On 29 July 1946 Elder Joseph Fielding Smith of the Quorum of the Twelve wrote to Belle S. Spafford, the Relief Society General President,”
Again ,so where is it written in the scriptures, the handbooks and over the pulpit in General Conference? those are the authoritative sources for the whole church. And while that might “far better” if possible, what if it is not possible?
Jeff, how many lds blessings have you seen where a woman laid hands on the sick? I’d be shocked to hear if it was more than zero.
MH,
How many questions are you going to ask before having a discussion?
As many as it takes for you to quit making outrageous claims. What discussion are you looking for?
For you to insinuate that lds women arent prohibited From laying hands on the sick is an outrageous claim and you know it. And that is why you refused to answer.
I made my point. Stop making ridiculous statements you cant defend.
Is it a power grab to want to have women talked to instead of at? Is it a power grab to want our lesson manuals to be written from a female perspective rather than solely from a male perspective when talking about women, modesty, sexuality, and what it is like to be a woman? Is it a power grab to want women to help define families, not just be presented with a complete Proclamation on the Family signed by only men without any input from the female leadership? Is it a power grab to believe that committees with 50% women will have a more balanced perspective than ones that are 100% male? Is it a power grab to want being taken seriously to be a normal expectation and not a happy accident?
I love that I’m power hungry – not because I *personally* want to serve in any of those positions (I don’t), I would just like my gender to not be excluded from the voice of the organization by mere fact of their gender. Anyone for “Teachings of Eliza R. Snow” next year?
If we had female ga’s they would be demanding gay marriage Kimberly from FMH openly advocates setting up your altar and praying to the mother goddess. In fact, one person in relief society changed the proclamation on the family to be more gender neutral and read it aloud I’m class Women are way too liberal and this is why I believe this disqualifies them from lds ecclesiastical leadership
Winifred, are you serious? I can only hope you’re a troll, taking one woman from the millions in the church and making the overreaching argument that all women are too liberal and pro-gay marriage. There are plenty of liberal men (who support gay marriage) and plenty of conservative women (who are anti-gay marriage and pro-Proclamation on the Family) in the church. I know this will be a shock, but there have even been Democrat GAs!
Hawk,
“Is it a power grab to want to have women talked to instead of at?….”
The answer is no, that is not a power grab. And you yourself have said the Church is trying to be better about all those things as it should be.
The issue in my mind is really local and needs to be solved at the local level. Other than the leadership itself, who all have to be accountable to someone higher up, the women, with very little exception are subjected to the same level of oversight as the men.
We all need to try to become better people first, not aspire to have power and dominion over one another.
“For you to insinuate that lds women aren’t prohibited From laying hands on the sick is an outrageous claim and you know it.”
I asked you a simple question: “Where does it say that?”
While women do not have the so-called authority of the Priesthood, What prohibits them from laying on hands and giving a blessing to a sick child. If they have been told by the Spirit that they possess the gift of healing, who would deny them the right to exercise that gift?
Jeff, why is joseoh fielding smiths letter, 60 years of tradition, and your lack of seeing a single woman lay hands on the sick insufficient evidence?
I asked you first.
Jeff, you are being unbelievably obstinate. Readers, please pull if out of the Bishop’s handbook so I can officially bury Jeff’s stubbornness. I don’t have access, but I’m sure it is in there. After all, we can’t have men without temple recommends in the circle any more, but for some dumb ass reason Jeff seems to think having a woman there is a-ok. So Jeff, since you seem to think there is nothing wrong with women laying hands on the sick, please tell me how many times your wife has done that? I asked you first and I got crickets last time.
Back on the power grab Jeff. I know this has been a theme of yours for a while and you act like women have such nefarious motives for actually wanting some power, while the brethren are completely righteous in their own 184 years of power grab. I wouldn’t use the crass term of power grab, but since you did, why in the hell shouldn’t women want more power when it has been denied them for so long? On what basis is this power grab by women evil, where the men’s power grab is righteous? Why do you put down women’s desire for more leadership as a so-called power grab?
Ok Jeff, straight off LDS.org
See https://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b/priesthood-and-church-government/lesson-5-performing-priesthood-ordinances?lang=eng
Here’s another one:
Jeff: “The answer is no, that is not a power grab. And you yourself have said the Church is trying to be better about all those things as it should be.” Trying to be better about it? Yes. Able to be better about it without actually having women in meetings where decisions are made? No. I don’t deny that some local leaders suck. However, my personal experience with local leaders has been significantly better than my experience reading lds.org, the Ensign, church manuals, and many of the talks at General Conference. I realize Bro. Otterson’s letter called for more patience with local leaders, but from where I’m sitting, they are the saving grace.
Actually, I like the idea of priesthood leaders hauling firewood at Girls Camp. Let the YW see a priesthood holder performing actual service, not just serving as a figurehead.
Joni, that may be the only saving grace of having the men present to “guard and protect” those poor helpless sistren at Girls Camp.
MH,
“After all, we can’t have men without temple recommends in the circle any more, but for some dumb ass reason Jeff seems to think having a woman there is a-ok.”
Never said anything of the kind. Never said anything about women performing Priesthood ordinances.
“since you seem to think there is nothing wrong with women laying hands on the sick, please tell me how many times your wife has done that?”
To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware that she has. When it has been necessary, I’ve been there. I traveled a lot in my job in the past, so I don’t know really if she needed to or not. As if that is supposed to prove anything.
I specifically stated I see nothing stopping women from laying on hands for healing the sick. Ironically, I am taking a significantly liberal view of it, while you are arguing the most conservative view.
“I know this has been a theme of yours for a while and you act like women have such nefarious motives for actually wanting some power, while the brethren are completely righteous in their own 184 years of power grab….”
Again, you are using words I have not used, nor would I. I’ve not said anyone is bad nor righteous. I’ve found that the Church has become quite corporate and the leaders, by and large are lawyers and former business executives. And it shows in the way the church is being run today.
As a result, female Church members, who are very accomplished in their own right, feel they should be able to transfer the progress they’ve made in the business and academic world to the Church. And it does not quite transfer in that way. And just like men who are used to be in power positions in business act somewhat the same in the Church world, the women of a like mind think they should be able to do the same thing. They are just quite frustrated because the system in Church does not accommodate their need for power and control.
Funny, when the men act that way, it’s called Male Patriarchy, And it is unacceptable. What’s it called when women act that way?
In my view, equality begins with humility, not demands. And that, is gender-neutral.
Hawk,
You can see part of my reply to MH, but seriously,
“Able to be better about it without actually having women in meetings where decisions are made? No. ”
Like where? What meetings do you think the women do not attend that they should?
MH – if you frequent the fMh and Exponent websites, you will read of many women who lay their hands on their fellow sisters and children and give blessings. Maybe those are the sisters to whom Jeff Spector is referring. I’ve run across old quotes where women spoke in tongues, interpreted tongues, etc. The bottom line is that in the somewhat early days of the church, members were much more charismatic than we are today. However, the gifts of the spirit (which would include healing) are still available to all.
IDIAT,
I can assure you that MH is fully aware of the history of women’s activities in the early days of the Church.
What he is doing is trying to paint me into a corner where laying of hands by sisters is not permitted, an egregious sin and would get a women excommunicated if it was found out she did it, whether using Priesthood authority which she does not have, or not.
I will not go there.
IDIAT, Jeff is right–read the link “Mormon Women Giving Blessings” above. I’m well aware of the early practices, and I’m also well aware that these practices are no longer orthodox. Jeff has boxed himself in a corner and he knows it. I’ll leave him there. We all do know that if Jeff was asked to give a priesthood blessing and took his wife, and the leaders knew about it, Jeff and his wife would both be in trouble. I’m sure there are plenty of “liberal” women at FMH that are willing to break rules, but Jeff isn’t one to rock the boat on things like that, and we all know that. That’s why I find his arguments without any substance. He knows the church stand, and for him to argue a “liberal” interpretation doesn’t mesh with his beliefs and everyone knows that. That’s why he is in the corner–he put himself there, and I boxed him in because I know he’d never practice what he is arguing here. For him to ask “when” and “where is it written” and then astonishingly refuse to acknowledge that I told him exactly when and where it is written is pretty darn silly.
Now, I’d like to attack this silly argument about a woman’s power grab. Jeff, why do you object to this power grab by women? Why is it that they shouldn’t participate in laying on of hands, or priesthood ordinations, or blessing the sacrament specifically? Why is that power grab “bad”? And if it is not bad, what were you trying to insinuate back in comment 13 “It is pure and simple, a power grab not unlike you would see in a large corporation.”
MH,
Here is where you keep going off the rails:
“We all do know that if Jeff was asked to give a priesthood blessing and took his wife….,”
I’ve taken my wife plenty of times. She does not participate in a Priesthood ordinance for the obvious reason. As a matter of fact, I ordained my son a Priest last Sunday and guess what, she was there. And so was the Bishop. Nothing bad happened.
“but Jeff isn’t one to rock the boat on things like that, and we all know that.”
That’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard…. You would really not know that. But I do have a beard…..
“He knows the church stand, and for him to argue a “liberal” interpretation doesn’t mesh with his beliefs and everyone knows that. ”
No wait, this one might be the funniest. I am a liberal in many ways, apparently more than you realize.
“For him to ask “when” and “where is it written” and then astonishingly refuse to acknowledge that I told him exactly when and where it is written is pretty darn silly.’
I just wish you would read the comment entirely and react to what was actually on the page.
JUST AS A REMINDER—- I NEVER SAID THE WOMEN SHOULD OR COULD PERFORM AN ORDINANCE UNDER PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY THEY DO NOT POSSESS.
“Now, I’d like to attack this silly argument about a woman’s power grab. Jeff, why do you object to this power grab by women?”
Then attack my argument, don’t just ask more questions. I’ve already answered them multiple times.
Jeff, your power grab argument is stupid. I am asking questions so I can bury you with it. My guess is you don’t want your hat handed to you again, so you refuse to answer any more questions. Stop with the power grab rhetoric. It is ridiculous.
Women have every right to grab power deprived of them. Men have grabbed all the power. It is time for men and women seeking equality to grab the power back. There is nothing wrong with women having power. I dare you to disagree.
MH – is this back and forth with Jeff an example of the ‘real conversation’ you mentioned on the other post? Is this really how you would interact with fellow members in your ward? I surely hope not.
Jeff: “What meetings do you think the women do not attend that they should?” Women are not in PEC meetings. In some wards, bishops leave all decision making for PEC and just hand down decisions in ward council. This is an example. In some stakes, when GAs were visiting, local stake leaders were told “priesthood ONLY” at leadership meetings with the visiting authorities. That’s another meeting women should attend unless we are now saying women are not leaders. And obviously, women are not part of our highest decision-making bodies, the meetings of the Q15 and of their respective committees in most cases.
“Women are not in PEC meetings.”
Our Relief Society President is at every PEC meeting. This has been the case for at least the 10 or 15 years when I have attended those meetings myself. That scans three Stakes, two different wards and about 4 bishops. Might be an outlier, I don’t know.
I do admit that there is a Stake Conference Priesthood Leadership Session, with or without a GA. but we’ve also had visiting RS, YW and Primary General leaders who also met primarily with their female counterparts. Though typically some male leaders are there.
“is this back and forth with Jeff an example of the ‘real conversation’ you mentioned on the other post? ‘
I’m afraid this is pretty typical. I usually limit myself on this back and forth with him to once or twice a year now.
MH,
“I am asking questions so I can bury you with it.”
I figured that.
“My guess is you don’t want your hat handed to you again, so you refuse to answer any more questions.”
No, I’d like to engage on one thought and discussion at a time instead of playing “gotcha” with you.
If you think my argument is stupid, explain why in the context of how the Church is organized today, with its revealed Doctrine and practice. Try not to slip into the secular world to try to explain how you think things should be. Let’s discuss what it is, not what is not.
IDIAT,
Jeff and I have a long history. We’re not normally this adversarial; I wouldn’t normally play gotcha with a stranger, but to be honest, he has gone after me recently, so this is a little game of turnabout. I usually let a lot of stuff pass with Jeff, but I will say I am tired of his “power grab” defense that he has used multiple times on multiple posts, and decided not to let it pass this time. Funny that he won’t defend it now.
“If you think my argument is stupid, explain why in the context of how the Church is organized today, with its revealed Doctrine and practice. Try not to slip into the secular world to try to explain how you think things should be. Let’s discuss what it is, not what is not.”
Sorry Jeff, Brigham Young once said there is no such thing as separating temporal from spiritual. So to try to separate the secular world from the spiritual world is a non-starter. I’ve stated multiple times that EVERY time we receive revelation, it is because someone agitated for it. Emma agitated for the Word of Wisdom. The mission calls in the D&C were agitated for. Joseph agitated to know about polygamy. Woodruff agitated to get rid of polygamy. Spencer agitated about blacks and the priesthood. There isn’t a single revelation that wasn’t agitated for. In fact, Kimball said that God won’t reveal anything to us unless we are reaching for one.
The story of Zelophehad’s daughters is another example. According to the Mosaic law, only men were supposed to receive inheritance. The daughters agitated with Moses for a change, and what happened? Moses got a revelation that the daughters got the inheritance. The OW movement isn’t much different, except that our current brethren are a lot less accessible than Moses was. Joseph was more accessible to not only Emma, but anyone that came. Our brethren sound suspiciously like 2 Nephi 29:3, 6: “a Bible, D&C, BoM! We don’t need any more D&C revelations….Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a D&C, BoM, and we need no more revelation.”
So there you have it. I explained it using scriptures. I don’t view secular methods as different from the temporal. Now you tell me why you chose the secular term “power grab”, and why that term is a good or bad term when discussing OW. And I’d love to hear your corporate power grab using the revealed word. I’d also love to hear why you think women shouldn’t perform priesthood ordinances. But my guess is that you going to keep ignoring me, even though I answer your requests and questions.
And not to break into Angela’s question, but Ward Council is different than PEC. RS and Primary presidencies have attended Ward Council for a long time as Jeff noted, but they don’t normally attend PEC. I know some people get them confused, but I don’t think RS and Primary attend PEC.
And Jeff, I love how you cut up my quotes to take them out of context in comment 43. I thought you were better at not proof-texting, but it appears you like to take things out of context when it suits your purposes.
Jeff has a beard? That’s it; I’m joining the Reorganites.
Lighten up, folks; we have a heterodox faith (BRM notwithstanding). Men and women of good will can disagree about stuff without acrimony. A little snarkiness, maybe . . . 🙂
MH,
Here is what you and I can probably agree on.
First, Brigham Young said a lot of things.
I will agree that most revelation is given in answer to questions that are asked. I certainly know on a personal level this to be true. And the D&C is also full of those examples. Some of which you cited. We’ve seen the use of the term “wrestle” in conjunction with petitioning the Lord.
I would not characterize all questions as “agitation.” We have also seen situations where so-called agitation went awry such as with Martin Harris and 116 pages. So demanding a revelation can have its downside as well. The Lord may very well give it to you, but …
The story of the Daughters is a bit more complex than you have stated. They asked for their share of the inheritance BECAUSE there was no male heir. After appealing through the MALE chain of command, Moses took the issue to the Lord and was told the Daughters has a right to the inheritance.
But there was concern among the tribal fathers that the inheritance would be lost if the Daughters married outside of the tribe of Manasseh. Moses told the daughters they could marry anyone they wished but only inside the tribe, which they did. So, the story both shows obedience to Priesthood Authority as well as the rights of females to inherit when no male heir is present.
I am concerned that the Church is being run in a corporate way and that our leaders come more from the ranks of business, high level academia and the professions. Where are the teachers, plumbers, farmers, Costco and Walmart workers, etc? Are they not just as worthy to lead?
It is in that vein that I speak of power grab. I understand you don’t like it, but it is what I have seen in my 35 years in a large corporation. And I think I see that happening in the Church as well. And now that progress has been made for women in business and academia, and more women aspire to higher levels of authority and rank within those places, some desire the same for positions in the Church, which by secular standards is a very backward-appearing organization with its male-only leadership and Priesthood structure. Certainly not like more progressive religious organizations
We are making some progress in the inclusion of women in the local councils of the Church. More is required such that those in auxiliary leadership positions believe their voice is just as valid and heard as any of the males. It has been my own experience that they add much to the discussions in those meetings and we simply could not function as a Ward or at the Stake level without them. And, I think that is recognized in SLC at the general level as well.
The changes being made are just not fast enough nor board enough for some people. I think that is always the case.
I just happen to not agree with OW tactics. but I do think the dialogue needs to be pushed.
And finally, I am not sure how I have “gone after you.” that sounds like its personal, which is not the case on my side.
MH,
“but Ward Council is different than PEC. RS and Primary presidencies have attended Ward Council for a long time as Jeff noted, but they don’t normally attend PEC. I know some people get them confused, but I don’t think RS and Primary attend PEC”
This is where I get the impression you may not be reading exactly what I wrote. Let me quote myself here”
— Our Relief Society President is at every PEC meeting. This has been the case for at least the 10 or 15 years when I have attended those meetings myself. That scans three Stakes, two different wards and about 4 bishops. Might be an outlier, I don’t know. —
For the record–I have given blessings–not by the power of the Mel Pr. but “by the power and authority of my Faith in Christ.” (If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you may move a mountain.) And I have sometimes added “by the power and authority of the love I have for you.” I have seen miracles. I have been present when other women have given blessings. I have seen miracles and instantaneous healings. I have seen these with priesthood blessings also, but they are certainly not limited to men with the Mel Pr. giving them.
Nothing in the Bible says you have to have Priesthood Authority to lay on hands or work miracles.
Jeff,
I appreciate the conciliatory reply, especially in light of my aggression. A soft answer does turn away wrath. You’ve been pretty snarky on a lot of posts, especially those dealing with racism, sexism, of which there have been several, as well as anything to do with what you derisively call “political correctness.” The two that come to mind are my Redskins post, and my sexism/racism post. I decided I was tired of it, and I definitely pounced on you when you gave me the opportunity. You weren’t nice, so I was giving back a little of the love. I’m not a fan of your “power grab” term, which I am sure you are well aware of now. As you know, I see nothing wrong with women obtaining power denied them, so I felt the power grab comment as very unfair and dismissive (which is why I pounced.)
On the other issue, I did read your reply, and I did say “I know some people get them confused, but I don’t think RS and Primary attend PEC.” I wonder if you might be getting those confused. If not, then I’d say your stakes are outliers.
MH,
Several thoughts.
Firstly, I am very much against political correctness. IMO, it is phony. Whether someone is playing the game of “who’s more righteous” or “who’s more progressive.” All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, so no one is immune from making mistakes or saying things that might be inappropriate.
I am by nature a progressive and so I very much lean toward those kinds of things. And sometimes, people have to be forced into it like with racial integration. But, at other times, it is forced upon them unrighteously and I don’t care for that.
So, I am not hot on the idea of proof-texting passages out of scriptures, especially vague ones as proof against long held doctrines, belief and practice. There are, of course, exceptions to almost every rule, but sometimes there is not.
So, something like speculating that Mary was an Apostle and that is why she saw Jesus first is far-fetched and has absolutely no proof or support behind it.
But, OTOH, we all do that from time to time. Heck, baptism for the dead hinges on one vague scripture in the NT until Joseph inquires about it.
Finally, I am not confused about the RS President attending PEC. As it states in the handbook:
“As needed, the bishop may invite the Relief Society president to attend some ward PEC meetings to discuss confidential welfare matters and to coordinate home teaching and visiting teaching assignments.”
My experience goes back to the mid 90’s. We discuss most welfare matters in PEC and she is there.
“As needed” means some bishops will include the RS president and some won’t. I’m glad to hear your bishops are progressive on that.
We can agree to disagree on the issues of Mary Magdalene and political correctness. Having said that, your explanation that she was the wife of Jesus is just as speculative and has no basis in scripture either. She could have been the wife of Jesus; I’m not discounting that either. I won’t re-argue the Redskins case, just explaining that you jumped on me, so I’m jumping on you. It’s water under the bridge now. You be careful about female power grab, and I’ll be more careful about political correctness. We don’t have to agree with each other.
“We don’t have to agree with each other”
I agree.
Jeff: “Firstly, I am very much against political correctness. IMO, it is phony. Whether someone is playing the game of “who’s more righteous” or “who’s more progressive.” All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, so no one is immune from making mistakes or saying things that might be inappropriate.” Sounds like a post in embryo!
And, boys, I can turn this blog around right now if you can’t get along! 😉
“And, boys, I can turn this blog around right now if you can’t get along! ;)”
Love this!
MH,
“We can agree to disagree on the issues of Mary Magdalene and political correctness. Having said that, your explanation that she was the wife of Jesus is just as speculative and has no basis in scripture either.”
Yeah, I realize that, but the “Jesus is married” speculation plays closer to the outer limits LDS speculation then “Mary as Apostle” ever did.
Jeff, it depends on what crowds of LDS speculation you belong to. Angela, I’m glad we were able to work this out before you turned the blog around. That would have been a sight to see for sure!
I was talking about the Orson Pratt crowd.