Today’s post is a guest post from Anna Maria Junus, who originally posted this thought experiment via Facebook.
Just thinking:
Imagine a classroom where the ratio of boys and girls is fairly even. Maybe one more girl than boy. Now it has been decided that there will be a class president, vice-president, treasurer, and other leadership positions.
However, the only ones allowed to have these positions are boys. These positions allow the boys to make all the decisions. They can choose to ask the girls for their opinions, but they don’t have to.
Any money raised by the class for special activities, will be handled by the boys and all the activities are chosen by the boys. The girls are told they are equal to the boys but they have special roles. They can take care of the class pets.
They can clean the erasers.
They can hand out papers for the teacher.
These are special roles that only the girls can do.
However, the boys decide which girls do these roles. See, it’s totally fair since they both have their own jobs. Different, but equal.
How is that like the Church, how is it different? Why? Tell us what you think.
Wheat & Tares 
I saw this on Facebook and was a part of the conversation. There were some great comments that I hope end up migrating over here.
My thought was that some girls think the most important thing is not to take care of the pets but to become more like the absent teacher(s). It’s really frustrating, once a year they have a “Girls Day” where all they talk about is how taking care of pets and their other jobs are the MOST important things in the class. When you ask about the absent teachers the boys only tell you about the male one, we heard there is a female teacher but the boys were put in charge of teaching us all when they left and we only hear about the male one for some reason.
My immediate thought is, “Why are any of those positions necessary at all?”
I honestly don’t see the purpose of people seeking to rule over other people. It’s a very destructive tendency. Perhaps I am alone in thinking this way. Most times I see this discussion about male-dominated leadership in the church, the majority of responses are geared towards how unfair the distribution of power is and how there should be more girls/women in the leadership positions. To be honest, I am surprised women still put up with a power hierarchy at all. The solution to me is to simply do away with the hierarchy. Refuse to recognize it. Treat it as illegitimate. Decentralize. And remove from myself/yourself the desire to wield power and authority over others.
Sorry don’t get it. One can go back and forth with different analogies that make the point the author wishes and others can point to similar analogies where the exact opposite applies.
So what? People are not equivalent, things can never be equal, life is not fair and stuff happens.
Not only Sorry doesn’t get it. This analogy is not about equivalency. Life is not fair and stuff happens so we build shelter, become farmers, invent machines. We also learn to love and respect each other.
Because God is the teacher and that’s the way He has set it up in His eternal wisdom.
PZ: I agree to a point, this is why I don’t like pushing hierarchal labels for women; because it’s ridiculous with the men. If I can say Brother Joseph, Brother Thomas, and Brother Dieter; life would be better. But there does have to be some decisions being made by a community, and if women and men are truly different and decisions are being made that affect them; yes, please lets have more women have more voice and visibility.
Jeff: yes, we know you position loud and clear. The thing is the Savior taught in analogies because they helped us to see things in a way we had never thought about before. You can opt out of analogies.
Wreddy/Orso: Since I believe leaders can be fallible and there be more revelation coming (the one constant of our religion is change) we have to be willing to be open that there are improved, more Zion-like ways of associating and organizing with each other. Unless you think we’re totally got this Zion, higher-law thing down (we don’t). We have to keep trying to be better. And we have lots of different definitions of what “being better” means. So it’s a conversation.
If it was a private school (as that term is used in the the United States) wholly owned by the headmaster, and if everyone understood the rules before enrolling, and if everyone loved and trusted the headmaster knowing that his ways were different than our ways, and if the headmaster completely paid the price and invited students to enroll willingly, and if the headmaster promised wonderful blessings for those who completed the curriculum, and (did I say it already?) everyone loved and trusted the headmaster, well, I think I would be okay with it. After all, enrollment is optional. I would want to count every blessing and to give thanks for every gift, being happy in my own relationship with the headmaster and begrudging none their own relationships.
What’s the point of having prophets if you only follow them when their words line up with your own ideas of how the Church should be run? The prophets and apostles are unanimous that (1) gender is not just a social construct, but is part of our eternal identity, (2) only men are ordained to priesthood offices and (3) God hasn’t seen fit to reveal why.
As logical as the argument is, I’m frustrated that I can’t find any doctrinal evidence for justifying that women *must* belong in the highest leadership roles. Women and men as equal in worth to God, yes (hence, in support of modification of boy & girl programs to be more equal in funding and administration). Until we get some radical new revelation on our “missing” female teacher (conspicuously absent both from the classroom and from the stated ultimate governing body), there is no indication that participating in the highest levels of church leadership (Q12, First Pres) is a place where women are doctrinally supposed to be. Is there evidence indicating that the previous Zion communities (Enoch, Melchizedek, Nephites & Lamanites after Christ) weren’t patriarchal? We have the most information in the last one, but the 12 male disciples in leadership and the phrase “married, and given in marriage” (4 Ne 1:11) sure sound patriarchal to me. Men and women enter godhood together and co-create their dominions (according to words of latter-day leaders). The concept of men and women co-governing, however, isn’t as obvious as the phrases “kings and queens” and “gods and goddesses” would seem to suggest.
It’s always so comforting to know that if it’s disheartening and defeating to be treated like a second class member of the church in this mortal life that we can always count on it continuing in the eternities.
I don’t like being slashed with Orso, not that I have anything against Orso, other than being slashed (it hurts) and my position in this matter clearly differs from Orso’s.
My belief is that God (HF & HM) placed us in a world of evolution and we’ve been and are now affected by it, adversely. Men, it appears, have throughout time (and I hope not eternity too) taken advantage of women, temporally and spiritually. After all, men are generally bigger and tougher and more powerful. Now I believe it’s time for us to evolve to a better place. I see it happening in parts of the secular world and in our spiritual realm too.
When above, I wrote “Not only Sorry doesn’t get it” I wasn’t talking about me not getting it; I was talking about the poster who posted that, Jeff Spector.
Mary Ann and Orso…. You can’t find scriptural reference because history has always treated women as property initially, then second class citizens that couldn’t vote and now as intellectual equals. So that’s not a good place to look for guidance or doctrine. Brigham Young refused blacks the priesthood and 150 years of black people were kept from eternal covenants and temple blessings… in the recent essay the church has unequivocally stated that was wrong and not doctrinal. So, again, looking to LDS history for doctrine isn’t the soundest place to hang your hat. When are we as a Mormon people going to have the unpleasant discussion regarding when is a prophet a false prophet and when is a prophet a fallen prophet? Christ warned explicitly about false prophets. JS made false prophecies. … married married women and BY was a racist and a bigot. They also both did good things. So what disqualifies a prophet? Orso, hanging your hat on a fallible human being is a scary thing to do. As the heaven’s gate people, Warren Jeffs people, etc. You have to think rationally first then add in faith. Put faith first and your just rationalizing everything. IMO obviously.
Jeff,
Which totally justifies excluding all women from the structural governance of the church they belong to, how?
No one is claiming that life is fair or that men and women are interchangable. They are saying that in the institutions we build we can strive to make them have equal voice and equal opportunity so that we can leverage the unique experiences and perspectives of women and men to help build our community and become more Christlike.
I think we are all tired of “stop whining the world isn’t fair” and “men and women are not the same”. The logic is completely circular when applied to questions of structural inequality. You can just as easily say (as was said) – the world isn’t fair and clearly whites and blacks are exactly the same ergo slavery is fine or blacks don’t need to vote or blacks just don’t get the priesthood but we love them all the same! Regardless your answer is proving NOT good enough for many women in the church. One day we will care enough institutionally or be forced to recognize that. In the mean time enjoy the collatoral damage.
Randy, you are yourself a fallible human being, as am I. Trusting in the collective wisdom of 15 prophets and apostles who I believe to be called of God isn’t any less rational than relying on one’s own fallible logic. The fact that you put the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in the same boat as Warren Jeffs and Heaven’s Gate makes me question your claim to be a part of “we” the Mormon people in any meaningful sense.
Rah, God’s definition of equality isn’t the same as the world’s. Alma 1:26 is instructive: “And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.”
Scriptures are pretty clear about women speaking in church. How come that is not enforced? Because the church would never survive the politics of that stance. Bottom line is as long as the church has cover politically with the Catholics not allowing female priests there is unlikely to be any changes. You really can’t justify the way women get treated with scriptures. This feels so much more like tradition than doctrine.
In this classroom if it had been that way for 50 years then there would be tacit approval of boys in charge and the girls feeding the pets. If it was a new policy then no one would even begin to consider it.
“…thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every [wo]man according to [her/]his strength”
Yep, Orso, I think that’s what OW is doing. Maybe we should expand our understanding of God?
Wreddy: sorry for misunderstanding your whole comment earlier!
I almost think we could add girls feeding everyone lunch at school; then it would match up with the line: “You have THE most important job! You are central to the school working! We couldn’t survive without you! Girls in this class are INCREDIBLE!!”
I’m trying to remember some other funny or good insights…..one was, “we can’t let girls help make decisions in class, then all the boys would drop out!!”
“The thing is the Savior taught in analogies because they helped us to see things in a way we had never thought about before. ”
Sorry, but I do not equivalence the Savior’s teaching to these kinds of things. No comparison, whatsoever.
“Which totally justifies excluding all women from the structural governance of the church they belong to, how?”
They are not.
you’re right Jeff, using symbolism to get people to understand things in a different way is only applicable when it matches your beliefs.
Did Jesus use analogies? yes
is this an analogy? yes
heaven forbid we acknowledge that imperfect analogies can sometimes be useful
“heaven forbid we acknowledge that imperfect analogies can sometimes be useful”
When analogies are used to teach, they can be useful. When used as a rhetorical device to promote a specific POV, they are not.
Like the two things — to teach and to promote — are mutually exclusive? And, by the way, what makes Jeff Spector the authority worthy of the proclamations — “No comparison whatsoever.” and “They are not.” — without providing any rationality whatsoever?
“what makes Jeff Spector the authority worthy of the proclamations — “No comparison whatsoever.” and “They are not.””
Gees, I guess you hadn’t heard…..
No one provided any rationality whatsoever proving that the church is like a classroom…
I’m not willing, as Randy B suggested, to give up on the leadership of this church, and I certainly will continue to find joy in the scriptures. The scriptures record women who were able to be respected for their intelligence and leadership skills in societies much more misogynistic than ours, and their stories were preserved for future generations by overwhelmingly male record keepers. I don’t think that women anciently were any less intelligent than women today (even though women today are allowed more opportunities to develop those talents), and if they were able to help form Zion communities within patriarchal limits, then I don’t think it’s somehow impossible for us today.
Contrary to Alice, I don’t feel like I’m a second-class citizen in this church (much as both misogynists and feminists would like me to feel), nor do I believe that a plan of happiness that I agreed to in the premortal world would allow for me to be a permanent second-class citizen in the eternities. What I *am* admitting is that I may not see all the angles that God sees, so I can accept a possibility that where I logically see inequality in governance God may have a different interpretation. If I am given priesthood authority in temples in order to prepare for my role in the next life, then I am confident I will be exercising that priesthood power in the next life. I wish I had a better understanding of how I will be exercising that power, as the customary priesthood roles I am familiar with do not seem to apply to our one example of female deity.
Wow I’m impressed by the overall lack of understanding. The analogy doesn’t compare the church to a classroom (place of study and instruction); it compares the hierarchy created in the classroom with that of the church.
It is like the old Sesame Street game, ” which of these things is not like the others?” or the SAT verbal questions comparing “A is to B like C is to which of these……?”
No one provided any rationality whatsoever proving that the church hierarchy is like a classroom hierarchy.
#27 Are you kidding?! The church hierarchy is *exactly* as described.
“When analogies are used to teach, they can be useful. When used as a rhetorical device to promote a specific POV, they are not.” All teaching promotes a specific POV.
You can’t wake a person who is pretending to sleep.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on not understanding it.
Most of the girls would convince themselves that their roles were absolutely important and vital, and that only THE GIRLS could effectively clean the erasers, or that they were the most nurturing and therefore best able to feed the pets. They would say things like ‘if we didn’t clean the erasers and hand out the papers, nobody would have erasers and papers to use.’ They might even say things like ‘if we didn’t feed the class pets, these pets wouldn’t live to give pleasure to all of society and produce future pets that everyone could derive joy from.’
There might be one or two girls who would realize there really was no logical reason why they couldn’t lead the group, or run the numbers, or take roll and notes… But because those girls were the minority, rather than the majority, and because those girls made the girls who WERE happy with their roles feel uncomfortable, and like they should want or feel differently, rather than realizing we all have different talents, the few who realized they should be able to do anything would be looked down upon, and demoralized.
There might be a few boys who actually wanted to feed the class pets, clean erasers, or hand out papers. But they’d be made to feel like they weren’t fulfilling their roles if they didn’t fill the ones they were ‘supposed to’. The other boys, the ones who like the power, the leadership, the control, well, they’d be pretty darn happy to see those girls fall hook, line, and sinker for the propaganda they fed them to get the girls to believe cleaning erasers and handing out papers were special tasks that only they could do.
So, it’s a lot like the church. How it’s not like the church – you didn’t say God was running the show in the classroom.
ji, the church should be like a classroom. We are all disciples (students), learning from the Master, Our Saviour.
… and then there was the day that some of the boys went down to the school office, got on the PA system, and announced to the whole school, not just their class, but the whole school, that the girls in their class hold “the complement of the Classroom powers”, and not to worry about it. They then suggested that if the topic of girls and the classroom powers ever comes up to read a certain book report one of the boys wrote, it has all kinds of answers. Well, all kinds of answers except what this “complement of the Classroom powers” actually is, oh, and what it is called.
A tweet posted today from the church's twitter account (@LDSchurch) reads:
If we are going to twitter about it, we should least give it a name or ask the Lord what it should be called, other than the “complement of the Priesthood powers”. Saying it like that is a mouthful, and it is awkward and somewhat thoughtless (if not a little tone deaf). Come to think of it, in the OP the boys positions had names (class president, vice-president, treasurer, and other leadership positions) and the girls only had job descriptions, so maybe it is just life imitating art, or something like that.
I’m probably the last one to realize this, but apparently Enoch’s Zion did have women as more active participants in the “kingdom of priests” according to Joseph Smith: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/03/a-kingdom-of-priests/.
anonymous (no. 32) — I agree — perhaps my no. 7 will be helpful in the comparison…
Some of the things Anna Maria Junus posted in the comments of the facebook thread that really hit home to me: (I didn’t see these above, so I hope I’m not repeating.)
“Yes they (the girls) do (get to bake and look pretty and stuff)! And, they are also encouraged to have their very own club. But the boys decide who the president of the club will be. And they have to tell the boys everything they plan on doing in case they choose to do something the boys don’t want them to.”
“Because with authority comes great responsibility and the boys have to make sure the girls don’t do anything wrong.”
“And discipline is totally fair too. They get to have a court. When a boy does something bad, like hit a girl really hard, then he has to face court. Only the boys of course get to be jurors and judges since the girls don’t need that kind of responsibility. When the boy faces his jurors and judges, he gets to have some of them be on his side and help him. They get to defend him. And then the boys decide if he gets a punishment. Now if a girl does something really really really bad, like complain about the way things are and suggest that the girls can be leaders too, she has to go to court just like the boy does. But she doesn’t need a defense, because all she has to do is say she’s sorry and promise to never ever do it again. If she doesn’t do that, then it’s only fair that the boys punish her.”
“Oh, the boys can reward girls for being good. And the girls can join together against other girls who are being bad like complaining about the way things are. If the girls are fighting with each other, than those naughty complainy girls don’t get any extras.”
“You know, cleaning that hamster cage is really important even if the girl doesn’t like doing it.”
“And they get to decorate too. Except, the time when the class project was constructing a model building. The boys designed it and made all the decisions about how it was going to look inside and out.”
Those comments really fleshed out the analogy, I thought. (Re-posted with permission.)
Hawk,
“All teaching promotes a specific POV.”
Well, let’s take it a step further, everything promotes a POV, but who’s point of view should we be looking to? God’s or some random person’s?
It’s totally fair because the girls do more than half the teaching in their study groups. The boys tell them what to study and how to study it, but it’s okay because the boys already know what the girls need to learn.
Jeff: Or God’s as interpreted by some random person? As human beings, now we see through a glass darkly. Nobody’s able to perfectly articulate God’s perspective.
to be fair, it’s not “God’s as interpreted by some random person’s”
It’s God’s as interpreted by someone that y’all have chosen to sustain as prophet, seer, and revelator. Even if they too see through a glass darkly.
The tension is how can one sustain said prophet, seer, and revelator while still believing they see through a glass darkly.
Hawk,
” Nobody’s able to perfectly articulate God’s perspective.’
But some are more trustworthy than others. When all is said and done, we only accept the things we are willing to accept. We usually never accept that which we disagree with..
Andrew,
“Even if they too see through a glass darkly.”
A little too easy a throwaway expression to dismiss the advice and counsel we receive from our leaders. It would be my hope their glass is a bit less dark than the rest of us.
Jeff,
I’m all with you on the dismissal stuff. I’m just saying that ultimately, for LDS folks, the point is not to believe that the leaders’ glass is a bit less dark than the rest of us. Rather, it’s loyalty and sustenance to those leaders regardless of how dark their glass is.
If you start seriously talking about whether the leaders’ glass is less dark than the rest of ours (or not), that path leads either to leader worship or apostasy.
No, you have to hold to the rod regardless of how dark the leaders’ glass is.
Andrew,
“No, you have to hold to the rod regardless of how dark the leaders’ glass is.”
In my world, holding to the rod has nothing to do with with what a leader says or writes.
I just hope that holding to the rod never inadvertently puts you at odds with any leaders, although as a guy, you’ll probably fare better in such an event.
“although as a guy, you’ll probably fare better in such an event.”
Frankly, I don’t see how it could. My specific allegiances puts them down the list a ways,….. And I’m certainly not sure what being a guy has to do with it.
I have to say that I completely disagree with this statement:
“I’m just saying that ultimately, for LDS folks, the point is not to believe that the leaders’ glass is a bit less dark than the rest of us. Rather, it’s loyalty and sustenance to those leaders regardless of how dark their glass is.”
No. God gave us brains, and the ability to judge, and my loyalty is not to any mortal man. My loyalty is to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, facilitated through the Holy Ghost. I will take the words of the prophets(s) under advisement as extremely likely to come from God, but their glass is specifically keyed to filter for the whole world generally, not me individually,
As a confirmed member of the LDS Church, I have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost, and I will deny the prophet(s) a thousand times over before I deny the Holy Ghost.