I had an interesting conversation this weekend. A met a man who had served as mission president in Mongolia. I didn’t know much about Mongolia, and thought it was part of China. At one time it was, I guess, but the Soviets took over after World War 2, and forced the country to use the Cyrillic alphabet when writing Chinese, which was quite a difficult transition. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, Mongolia declared independence from the Soviet Union, and is still an independent country today.
Corruption is still a big problem. Many of the old communists are still the leaders. While we complain about the corruption in the U.S. government, the fact is that the government works quite well compared to Mongolia. Things have become so bad that the stake president there asked church members to pray and ask God to bring back Communism–at least they could afford food and housing under the old Soviet empire! (Of course, the LDS Church wasn’t fond of that message.)
There is only a single stake in the whole country. He told me that there are enough people to form a second stake, but there aren’t enough priesthood holders to accommodate a second stake. I asked him if women were ordained, would that solve the priesthood problem, and he said it absolutely would. He said that the women there were the lifeblood of the stake. He also mentioned that sister missionaries there were responsible for 3/4 of baptisms, and these new converts were more likely to maintain active status.
Isn’t is a shame that the church policy restricting priesthood prevents a second stake from being formed in Mongolia?
Wheat & Tares 
Because increasing the number of stakes is what it’s all about. Perhaps we could tell kids that they would have to be baptized before they could play basketball with the missionaries. There’s another way to increase numbers, if numbers are all you’re after. But perhaps you have another agenda.
Our church isnt all about the numbers. Yes we use numbers and statistics heavily to measure, like home teaching reports, but we leave softening of the peoples hearts to the lord on his timetable.
No, it’s not a shame because it isn’t church policy restricting priesthood ordination of women.
My sister served in Mongolia. She said it’s not just the church. The culture suffers from rampant alcoholism and absentee fathers. Mongolians love to sing, and all their songs are either about their love for Mongolia, or their love for their mothers. Women already rule domestically and men suffer from a lack of cultural responsibility. Giving women the priesthood would further marginalize men from the domestic and religious sphere in Mongolia.
The point of having two stakes isn’t to increase the numbers. It isn’t so the Church can say, “Look we have two stakes!” It is the make gospel living more accessible to the people of Mongolia. How do we expect people to keep active temple recommends when they have to travel 300 miles to get to their stake president for an interview when they can’t even afford food? How do you assign home and visiting teaching in a ward where the boundaries span hundreds of miles?
Also this argument, “Giving women the priesthood would further marginalize men from the domestic and religious sphere in Mongolia” is nonsense. We only do this with the man/woman dichotomy. Where in the church do we make sure that all the most responsible men are serving as “hymnbook passerouter” and then give all the irresponsible men the positions of Bishop and Stake President? We don’t. It’s a ridiculous argument.
Thank you EBK, you beat me with your response. I was going to say exactly the same thing. My post didn’t mention numbers at all, so that is a complete straw man. The gospel would be much more accessible with distances in the stake on average cut in half.
Far too many people forget that the early Christian church was largely female, and many church functions were performed by women, as I mentioned in my post about Women with Priesthood in Ancient Christianity The church functioned just fine with women running things, so if the men aren’t cutting it, there’s no reason to stop the work from progressing by ignoring the contributions of women. Most early christian church meetings were held in women’s homes with women presiding in these “house churches.” Furthermore, Constantine’s mother Helena joined the Christian church before he did and had a big influence on him. She was the first christian pilgrim to search for artifacts in Israel.
IDIAT, do you still blame the priesthood restriction on blacks as “God’s will” between the 1850s and 1978?
Because church administration is closely tied to priesthood, you end up with an underutilization of resources. In areas where the women outnumber the men, you must select your administrative leadership from a smaller percentage of the overall adult leadership. You may have 20 active, faithful adults in a ward, but you’ll have to choose a bishop out of the 5 that are men. Whatever benefits there might be to gender separation of responsibilities seem to be offset by the organizational losses from limiting the pool of available church administrators. Not to mention the callings that get left unfilled.
And it works the other way too. There are no doubt many men who would be excellent Primary Presidents, but the organization will never benefit from their talents in that area.
“Isn’t is a shame that the church policy restricting priesthood prevents a second stake from being formed in Mongolia?”
I find it more of a shame there aren’t more converts. I find it more a shame that a country three times the size of Texas has only one Stake. I find it more a shame they have a hard time getting food they need.
You’re wanting to provide everyone with microwaves when most don’t even have electricity. Way to make them part of your first world problems.
#8 – Being old ENOUGH (but still Middle-aged, I profess) to remember “The Democratic People’s Republic of Mongolia”, I should find it remarkable that the Church has a presence at all, let alone a discussion of formation of additional stakes therein.
I would say that the rampant alcoholism is not unlike what was experienced also in the erstwhile Soviet Union…the leaders knew it was a great hindrance, but unfortunately it was (1) ingrained in the culture, with Communist leaders like Stalin, Krushchev, and Brezhnev known to toss back a few, and (2) the sales of alcoholic beverages raised too much revenue to even consider a significant campaign against alcoholism, let alone Prohibition. In WWII both the Germans and the Japanese found that leaving a stash of booze in the wake of the advancing Communists (including the Mongolian ‘Peoples Army’, who ditched their T-34 tanks when they broke down and continued on horseback) was far more effective than artillery fire!
The country may indeed be huge (it goes far enough that on its western tip there’s only about a thirty-mile separation between it and Kazakhstan, Borat’s ‘native’ country) but it’s sparsely populated (about the same as Utah itself, though LDS composition is obviously different). There’s a lot that fascinates about it, being more than the home land of Temujin (aka Genghis Kahn) and having the Gobi Desert of dinosaur fossil fame.
So yes, there may be some difficulties in forming another stake in Mongolia at this time. As long as the Church organization is meeting the local members’ needs, regardless of whatever local ‘flava’ it hath. As for having the women essentially step in the roles that the Lord has ordained the responsibility of men, while they might indeed do quite well (their abilities are NOT at issue), it’s simply not how the Lord wants it. Men are destined to be more than overgrown children, even in far-away lands with different cultural values. Having women assume that responsibility, in spite of what administrative or shepherding abilities they may have in considerable quality, will not help that situation of social dysfunction. Be patient, all, the Lord knows what He’s doing.
#6 – Yes, I do believe that the restriction of black males to not have the PH WAS (note: past tense) the will of the Lord, for how could it be His Church and go utterly contrary to His will? What I don’t believe in are some of the lame excuses (e.g., less ‘valiant’, or ‘curse’ stemming from Ham, etc.), instead of simply admitting ‘We don’t know, save the Lord commanded it so…”. At times the attainment of knowledge starts with admitting you’re ignorant.
Douglas, go back and read the church’s essay on Race and the Priesthood. The church never blames the ban on God, but rather “highly contentious racial culture in which whites were afforded great privilege.” They noted the U.S. had “widespread ideas about racial inferiority.”
Within the church (1)”The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions,” and (2) “another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer.” Then the church clearly refuses to blame this ban on God.
Despite refusing to pin racial prejudice on God, they did note that “Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy.”
Any justifications to blame racial prejudice on God for the priesthood ban are specifically denied by church leaders, so you should all quit trying to blame God for racial prejudice regarding the black ban. I can’t help but wonder that it will probably take 35 years later for the church to say that sexism of the 2000’s was the cause of priesthood restriction to women, not God.
Incroyable! (Ces toutes par quattre ans des lycees en francais).
Heretic, I can no more figure your reasoning out than you’ve come up with an imaginative way to insist that you’re a faithful Latter-Day-Saint and yet deny the process of current revelation.
I had read this article before but read it again to see what could possibly be wrong with my assertion that the denial of the PH itself (and NOT racism or racist attitudes) was the ‘will’ of God, since either He is directing the affairs of His Church, or He is powerless to do so (then we’re saying that either God has forsaken His Church or He’s ceased to be who He is), or, the Church’s claim of Divine origin is bunk.
You seem to equate the ban itself with racial prejudice. It might seen a tenuous dichotomy, but considering what I’d now see as laughably ‘quaint’ racial attitudes among even very spiritual men (President Tanner’s ‘letting’ blacks drive Cadillacs if they could afford same ca. 1954), it’s not a stretch of logic. Ergo, it’s perfectly consistent to claim to have to had to wait for a revelation to confirm black males with the PH, personal attitudes in favor or not towards black people notwithstanding, and not be ‘racist’.
It still comes down to the same problem: The Lord knows what He’s doing and never feels a need to explain Himself. We at minimum make utter fools of ourselves when (1) we presume to know better than He (D&C 122:8) and (2) we attempt to explain for our Savior or His prophets when neither have felt the need to do so for themselves. Hence the ‘lame’ explanations for the erstwhile PH ban which thankfully in that article the Church disavowed.
When driving a nuclear boat, there are four ways of doing things: (1) IAW Tech Orders (2) the “Navy” way (3) the Skipper’s way and (4) according to “God”. By your first fortnight under way, you ought to have learned that (1) and (2) were nice in school but not always practiced, and (3) and (4) are for all practical purposes the same. Considering how intricate those boats are, and how few incidents have actually occurred, I’ll go with obeying the Skipper as if he were God. (Note: according to the enlisted, the Skipper THINKS he’s God, but the Chief of the Boat, who is REALLY ‘God’, prefers not to disillusion him).
For similar reasons I will trust current revelation for what’s far more important, mine soul and those of my family and all brothers and sisters. Too bad I wasn’t in the Church during all the blacks and PH hoo-hah, it went ‘poof’ shortly before I signed up. Real experience and feelings count more than mere pontificating. Sorry I didn’t time it well.
It baffles and saddens me that revelation is not fervently sought to release the ban on female ordination so that the work of the Lord could be hastened, relieve extreme burdens in areas such as Mongolia and Africa, and allow the women of the church to grow in ways only priesthood experience can provide. I have no problem that so many believe it unthinkable to ordain women. But I cannot understand not considering that the unthinkable may be just what is needed and what the Savior desires. We have several generations of members pondering that a male only priesthood is of God. Are we not at crossroads where we must now consider there is more to be revealed?
Why wasn’t everything revealed in Joseph Smith’s day? Why did Joseph pen the 9th article of faith that “we believe God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God”. What are these great and important things? Perhaps they are things like lifting the priesthood/temple ban for black men because it was the Lord’s way and will all along, but He patiently waited for old prejudices and paradigms to shift under the weight of necessity in countries like Brazil. Perhaps it is patiently waiting for us to let go of old prejudices and paradigms regarding the female priesthood ban that must shift under the weight of necessity in countries like Mongolia.
Some will respond with the appropriate question asking how I could even know that the Brethren aren’t earnestly seeking revelation on this matter. My response is that their talks and actions vehemently defend women knowing their divine role of motherhood, counseling not to speak beyond the mark, and never speaking of seeking such revelation but the Lord remains silent. I believe a few of the Brethren seem open to the possibility while others are strongly closed to it.
But most of all, I’m beyond sad that so many feel that if women were ordained it would hurt the men—that holding women back, and holding the work of the Lord back because it MAY hurt others seems very counterproductive. Polygamy severely hurt women but it went forward boldly. Patriarchy severely hurts women, but it has ruled for millenia. When it hurts women, who cares?—they’ll adapt and abide. But if it hurts men (maybe) oh my goodness gracious, don’t even think of going there!
Well I have so much more faith in men than that!
I liked the post, Mormon Heretic, and I find it very ridiculous and rude that many commenters acted like you were just hoping to up the numbers of the church. I think it was pretty obvious that MH wished women could receive the priesthood so they could USE IT to bless the people of the area, in addition to having more people able to perform in leadership positions. It seems those against women receiving the priesthood are more concerned with retaining power than actually using the priesthood to HELP OTHERS!
The arguments against giving women the priesthood all pale in comparison to the POSITIVES that would occur if women were given the priesthood. Shameful.
And Nate, to say that this would further marginalize men? If men do as little as you claim in Mongolia, that strengthens the argument for women receiving the priesthood. So bc the men don’t do anything, continue to restrict the women? That’s a terrible idea. The men need to step, but that is no reason for the women to be held back.
Dexter,
I think that you are missing two key points that are arguments against just giving women the priesthood.
1) Is it God’s will? If it is clearly against His will, that is a big negative.
2) Recent history of other churches which have gone to female ordination. Without exception, all large church organizations that have female ordination are declining in numbers. Not the best way to fulfill the mission of the church.
El Oso,
I’m not missing the points. I’m saying that I don’t like the way commenters seemed to be accusing Mormon Heretic of wanting to increase the numbers of the church when that’s not what he/she was doing. The Priesthood is about a lot more than increasing numbers. Further, I was saying that the claim that Mongolian men are marginalized is not a good reason to refuse women the priesthood in Mongolia.
Now, in regards to God’s will, well, I can’t speak to that, so I will use my ability to reason. And so, if you believe the priesthood blesses lives, and women are eager to use it to bless lives in Mongolia, I don’t see why members are against it, or God, for that matter.
Regarding recent history of other churches, if the LDS church is true, as you presumably believe, isn’t that enough to set it apart from these churches that are suffering from declining numbers? Why would what happens to false churches be a worry of yours for the LDS church?
Frank, you’re making arguments that have nothing whatever to do with the post. MH didn’t say he doesn’t lament the fact that there aren’t more converts, and he certainly didn’t pit women leadership vs. more converts. That’s a lovely false dichotomy. The post makes it pretty clear that they already have the numbers to justify additional church units, lacking only the requisite priesthood leadership. I think you’d agree that having additional units would increase the church’s presence geographically, which would allow the gospel to reach more potential converts. In fact, I don’t think I’m speaking out of school in assuming that one of the reasons MH and others disagree with the church’s policy on women in the priesthood is BECAUSE they think it’s a shame that there aren’t more converts. But by all means, please carry on with your cleverly disguised Freudian rant about the evil subversives advocating female priesthood.
El Oso, re: point 2), The mormon church isn’t exactly setting the world on fire with its membership numbers, either.
“1) Is it God’s will? If it is clearly against His will, that is a big negative.”
el oso,
All it takes is a revelation stating, “I, the Lord God, do not want women to receive the priesthood.” But there is no such revelation, and in fact, women have performed priesthood functions for centuries, so my money is on that God (1) hasn’t specifically fobidden women to hold the priesthood, and (2) there is evidence that God has actually allowed it in the centuries after the apostles deaths. So claiming that this is God’s will doesn’t seem to be supported unless we have a revelation saying so. Kate Kelly and others asked the prophet to pray for guidance. Pres Monson could have easily gone to God and God could have said “No priesthood for women.” Case closed. God would have spoken on the issue once and for all. But instead of asking God, they excommunicated her. Nice move, and further evidence of unrighteous dominion, rather than seeking God’s will.
2) as for your spurious claim “all large church organizations that have female ordination are declining in numbers”, well look again. This article shows that ALL churches are declining in numbers and it has very little to do with female ordination. The latest General Social Survey shows that 7.5 million Americans have left religion since 2012. It’s affecting all Christians, not just the egalitarian ones, and it could very well be that these 7.5 million Americans are fed up with patriarchy and are abandoning religion altogether.
By the way Dexter, I’m a “he.”
#18 – The Prophet would NOT inquire of ANYTHING of the Lord at mine, yours , or the erstwhile Sis. Kelly’s request. You seem to forget that several times in the D&C the Lord specifically gives the admonishment, “seek not to counsel your God”.
Rockies GMA hit the issue dead-on. It’s a matter of what the LORD wants, as conveyed via His servant, the Prophet. That’s why we follow the Prophet. Else, we could be just like the ‘others’, wetting our fingers and sticking them up in the air to gauge the winds, or forming focus groups, or floating trial balloons, or other MARKETING ploys. I can argue in FAVOR in so many ways for women to become PH holders the same as men, but only one is needed for the status quo: Sez, the Lord, that’s how we’re rollin’!
If and when ability of women to hold the PH changes (I wouldn’t count on it, but as I’m also NOT the Prophet, I never say ‘never’), it’ll be for HIS reasons and in HIS due time, and not before! I also believe that the “Eternal Mrs.” DOES weigh in on the issue, but elaboration is a thread-jack.
Douglas brought up that women will receive the PH on the Lord’s time.
What does that mean?
Let’s look at the blacks receiving the priesthood. There seem to be two schools of thought: 1) 1978 was the Lord’s time on this issue, or 2) 1978 was when the brethren properly brought the question to the Lord.
Which is it?
If 1 is true, then members should stand pat and not rock the boat.
If 2 is true, perhaps members pushing for women to receive the PH will lead to the brethren bringing the question properly to the Lord.
I’ve heard plenty of conference talks from the brethren suggesting that either 1 or 2 could be true, and thus, members are justified in trying to rock the boat for change. I certainly wouldn’t judge a member in 1975 who pushed for blacks to be able to receive the priesthood, even though at the time that was contrary to what the prophets were doing.
#21 (Dexter) – you missed the key word: “IF”.
Choice (1) is obvious, b/c that’s when it happened. As for (2), even reading the OD#2, who can say FOR HOW LONG the Brethren were ‘imploring of the Lord’ re: PH for black males? In fact, though no details are given, the implication from OD#2 is that this issue had been prayerfully considered for quite some time. I see no reason for anyone to give a Chronology of precisely when the First Presidency (even prior to Kimball’s tenure) and or the Quorum of the Twelve first broached the subject. To say it had been going on for, say, twenty years prior, would NOT be unreasonable, as many of the then-FP (Kimball, Tanner, Romney) and the Twelve were either Apostles or Assistants to the Twelve as of 1958. But I have no more info to postulate that than you do to declare that ONLY by 1978 did it finally occur to the Brethren that change was in order.
The only difference between us is that you believe that the Lord actually listens to malcontents. Mine is that they either annoy Him greatly or at best mildly amuse.
“Eternal Mrs.” Yeah…nicknames for Heavenly Mother really don’t go over that well.
Perhaps in the Mongolian culture women having the priesthood wouldn’t cause a dramatic upheaval, but in more patriarchal cultures it would definitely cause problems. I don’t know if the reason for the delay in ending the priesthood ban was #1 or #2 on Dexter’s schools of thought, but being a worldwide church we are having to maneuver a wide range of cultures. Women’s ordination is difficult for some people in our culture to accept, yet we take for granted the idea that men and women are inherently equal in God’s eyes. I see potential for trouble forcing cultures to accept women’s ordination before they accept women as worthy of basic human rights.
To clarify, I think we have a lot of work to do shifting paradigms and better understanding God’s plan for women before we have the maturity necessary to handle women’s ordination. I definitely welcome further revelation on the issue.
Mary Ann,
I think giving women the priesthood would be a wonderful example to cultures like that, and the church should not fear how man will react.
I wish the church had been LEADING THE WAY in the civil rights movement, instead of lagging behind. Imagine, how logical it would be, and a something to be proud of as an organization, if the LDS church had granted blacks the priesthood BEFORE society made such a strong push, instead of a decade later. Many would be much more inclined to believe that the church is led by revelation if it led the way on these issues, instead of lagging behind.
“Perhaps in the Mongolian culture women having the priesthood wouldn’t cause a dramatic upheaval, but in more patriarchal cultures it would definitely cause problems.”
I know that Fiona Givens has cited this as a reason why patriarchy is acceptable for now, but it sounds to me like a justification that it’s ok to mistreat women in egalitarian societies because the mistreatment in 3rd world patriarchal societies is worse. In the end, we end up with the worst common denominator, and instead of lifting 3rd world cultures, the 3rd world cultures are actually lowering the standards of egalitarian societies. This sounds suspiciously like what Pres. Obama said that it is ok to “lead from behind.” If you don’t like it when Obama says it, leading from behind isn’t ok in this situation either.
If you’d like to read Fiona and my interactions on this topic, check out this post. Fiona was so upset with me that she quit engaging on the topic, but her son said her approach was a sort of “trojan horse” approach. I don’t think this is a godly approach. I will quote myself as to why such an approach is a problem.
#26 – ???? Pres. McKay appeasing the apartheid regime by not sending missionaries to Nigeria in the 1950’s and 1960’s? Please cite reference, this is one of the oddest assertions I’ve seen from you, Heretic, and you’ve previously come up with some doozies! It would seem that when the black male PH ban was extant (before June ’78) that the Church would’ve seen formal missionary efforts in black African areas as pointless (never mind that the work was going gangbusters in Brazil and I doubt if Pele had wanted to be baptized he’d have been turned away). Never mind that supposedly the Nigerian ‘would-be’ members seemed to manage quite well on their own!
The former members you’ve mentioned have paid the price of APOSTASY
(Moderator I’d be grateful if you’d just append this to previous submittal…darned arthritis impedes typing skills)
APOSTASY, not what you deem ‘equality’. Too many, yourself and me (yes, I have this failing as well, in all honesty) tend to counsel our God by presuming that we know better than His servants. Look, if the Lord thought so highly of either of our talents, He’d call each of us, now would’t He?
Douglas, I confess to having little patience with you. You make up history, and show your ignorance. I’d really rather not talk to you because you don’t let your ignorance of history stop you from shooting your mouth off.
If you want a reference, go read Greg Prince’s biography on “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism.” There are 2 issues here: Nigeria and South Africa. Prince details that Nigerians asked for missionaries, but McKay didn’t want to send them because he recognized the problem that blacks couldn’t run congregations. While the First Presidency were thinking about it (1) the Nigerian government learned of the racist policy regarding priesthood and denied visas to the newly called missionaries. (2) A civil war soon broke out anyway, making it an easy decision to avoid Nigeria altogether.
In South Africa, however, missionaries have taught white people for over a century. Missionaries had been authorized in South Africa because minority whites could lead congregations and instructed to avoid teaching blacks. If a white South African male could not trace his genealogy to Europe, then he wasn’t eligible for the priesthood, causing a huge leadership crisis in South Africa. When confronted over this vexing problem, McKay told the mission president in the 1950s that if a person looked white and thought he had no black ancestry, he could obtain priesthood. The genealogy requirement was much too onerous, and certainly stopped the spread of the gospel to blacks in all of Africa, not just South Africa.
If you don’t want to read Prince’s 300 page book, I have a “short” 60 page summary of this and other historical tidbits in my post Was Priesthood Ban Inspired? While you’re at it, just click on the topic “Priesthood ban” to see everything I’ve written on the topic. You’ll learn a lot of other things, like the fact that in 1969, Harold B Lee torpedoed a previously unanimous vote among the Q12 to overturn the ban administratively. Apparently there was a chance to overturn the ban a decade earlier, but Lee’s racism won the day.
I have a hard time calling people apostates (like Sterling McMurrin) in the 1950s-60s who were more prophetic than Harold B. Lee and saw that God didn’t want the ban. But you do like to shoot your mouth off without knowing what you’re talking about, so that’s not a surprise.
I forgot to mention that keeping missionaries out of nigeria did appease the apartheid leaders in south africa. South african leaders didnt want to support a church that taught black africans. Mckay knew this, and knew a mission in nigeria might antagonize the tenuous relationship the lds church had with white south africans.
Douglas,
If you don’t think the church acts to avoid societal pressure, and that things only happen when God wants them to, then why does the church always FOLLOW society?
American society frowned on oral sex. The church said oral sex was wrong even in marriage. Society loosened up. Later, the church loosened up and stopped teaching that oral sex was wrong in marriage.
Women’s right: society demanded rights for women, the church slowly followed.
Blacks: Society demanded equal rights, the church slowly followed.
Views on evolution: Society becomes more and more accepting, the church becomes more and more accepting.
Gays: Society becomes more accepting of gays, the church becomes more accepting of gays.
Garments: Garments went to ankles and wrists. Leaders taught that garments are NOT to be altered. Members alter them anyway, or stop wearing them. Brethren change the rules to knees and elbows. And on and on we go.
You are telling me that these are all coincidences? That God always reveals to the prophets to just do what society did 10 years ago? WHO NEEDS REVELATION FOR THAT? JUST WAIT TEN YEARS.
What’s much more logical is that the brethren, swayed by society around them, realize they need to adjust or be left completely behind by society. At that point, they bring these questions to God and, for the believers, God confirms what they figured out and a change occurs, and for non-believers, the brethren simply think God confirmed the change. Either way, THE BRETHREN AND THE CHURCH CERTAINLY DO MAKE CHANGES DUE TO PRESSURE FROM OUTSIDE THE CHURCH (SOCIETY) AND PRESSURE WITHIN THE CHURCH (MEMBERS).
And I would like to give props to MH for his detailed and accurate posts. Very enlightening, thank you MH.
What I do know is that it’s incredibly important for people in ALL cultures to grasp the importance of viewing women as human beings. My husband served his mission in West Africa. Women’s ordination would have stopped the spread of Mormonism. Right now people are being taught from our church that polygamy is inappropriate, that abuse of wives and children is inappropriate, that women have inherent value, are worthy of educating and are capable of leadership positions. NONE of that would be happening if we insisted on pushing women’s ordination.
In the Bible we have monarchy, slavery, polygamy, and a whole host of other less than ideal practices. God apparently didn’t like it, but he allowed it, why? Shouldn’t he have held up is people as a light to the world? Why didn’t he insist on women as political, religious, and military leaders? The example of Deborah proves that they were more than capable.
Is it possible that in a Zion society change really should instigate in the hearts and minds of individuals as they listen to the Light of Christ, the universal force for good given to all humans? The church can lead in some ways, but change cannot be mandated. Humans resist force. Longlasting change comes from gentle persuasion. You may refer to it as a trojan horse method, but I think it’s more about allowing humans to learn line upon line.
I disagree that women’s ordination would stop the spread of the church. And I disagree with appealing to the bible as some source of how to properly try and move forward as a society.
The only way the ban was “God’s will” is if God wants us to attract racists. Other branches of Mormonism never banned blacks from the PH. What was the difference? They weren’t led by BY. But I can buy the idea that when >50% of the country is racist, racist policies prevent you from turning off all those converts. Likewise with sexism I suppose. If you want to baptize sexists, by all means, be sexist.
The problem is trying to deal with it when society is on the right side of the issue finally, and you have to turn a large organization on a dime. Not so easy, particularly in a gerontocracy.
I struggle mightily with the idea that society gets on the right side of an issue BEFORE the church that claims to be led by Jesus Christ. How do you deal with that? It just baffles me. If the church was on the right side of these issues before society, instead of after, it would be easier to sell it as being divine.
Yes, apparently God likes racists and sexists more than the Kate Kellys, Lavinia Andersons, and Margaret Toscanos.
Douglas, regarding your #18 comment that the prophet will never inquire of the Lord at the request of Kate Kelly or anyone baffles me. What do you base this on? A great deal of the D&C revelations came forth because someone requested that Joseph inquire of the Lord.
Further, the church does surveys to determine changes in the temple, temple garments, women’s issues, youth issues, missionary work, etc. If the prophet has no concern for what members think and feel, why bother with surveys to determine which changes to inquire of the Lord? Asking the Savior’s will on a current matter of concern to many members of the church is not “seeking to council the Lord.” It’s inquiring……or in the words of Christ, Himself, it is “asking, seeking, and knocking.” It is “asking of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given them.”
Not seeking revelation is, in the words of Pres. Uchtdorf, “living far, far beneath our privileges.”
Dexter: “I struggle mightily with the idea that society gets on the right side of an issue BEFORE the church that claims to be led by Jesus Christ.” How else do you explain 1978 as the year in which the PH ban was lifted when Civil Rights happened over a decade before? There is a difference between Jesus and his followers. Let’s not assume the two are always in lock step.
All due respect, Hawk, we’re not talking about his followers. We’re talking about his hand picked disciples, who have claimed to speak with him and to reveal his will as given directly to them. If they’re not really sure how, when or why he wants things to work, perhaps they should stop acting so cocksure about it and just admit they’re basically in the same boat as everyone else. I wouldn’t hold my breath, though.
Hawk: You seem to be saying that the fact that the church took ten years (at least) to get on the right side of the civil rights issue is evidence that the church is led by revelation? I disagree. The church’s snail’s pace doesn’t make it any less obvious, in fact, it makes it even worse.
**************The church’s snail’s pace doesn’t make it any less obvious that the church follows society. And it would be better if it weren’t so slow to follow.
#37 – I should think you’d understand the keys are motive(s) and or HUMILITY. The Lord will not perpetually refuse those that honestly require. Ask yourself if erstwhile Sis Kelly met this criteria. IMO, she and her husband, who likewise has left the flock, most certainly did not.
#40,41 – I would object to your postulation that YOU can decide for anyone, including the Church (hierarchy) as to what is the “right” position on ANYTHING, including “civil rights”. I can likewise find fault with what I politely term ‘quaint’ racial attitudes expressed 50-60 years ago by men who otherwise had well demonstrated themselves to be humble and loving servants of the Lord, but it’s the height of arrogance, presumptuousness, and self-righteous to judge their character and their hearts. Many felt then, and still do, that the cause of “civil rights” was doing serious injury to similar rights (including to be left alone and/or to choose one’s company freely) merely because certain groups (e.g., white Christian males) were no longer politically favored. Others may, like myself, perceive that the rights to privacy and to full enjoyment of ones property trump anyone else’s ‘feelings’ or perceived ‘opportunities’.
Dexter, you’re misreading Hawk. She agrees with you and was speaking to the Orthodox. Sometimes the Lord’s anointed don’t always have the best revelation, despite their claims otherwise.
The Restoration of the church didn’t come until over 300 years after Martin Luther instigated the Reformation. People already figured out something was wrong with the Catholic church, they began looking for new voices of leadership, examining the Bible to find God’s truth. Why did God wait so long to give them the revelation they were seeking?
It took over 400 years in the Book of Mormon before Nephites figured out that monarchy really wasn’t the best method of government, in spite of having OT records. Why didn’t God clue them in earlier? Clearly he must have had no regard for the people who suffered under the rule of King Noah, right? He could have nipped all that in the bud centuries earlier. It’s not like God even ordered the change. Mosiah had all the makings of a succession crisis on his hands which forced him to think deeply about how best to avert disaster. Mosiah’s hand was forced, so clearly the switch to elected leadership couldn’t have been inspired, right?
God’s light and truth is being poured out on his children, ALL his children, in this dispensation. Joseph Smith recognized that truth can come from many sources. This church does NOT have a monopoly on God’s truth, though it has authority to administer ordinances and see to the management of spreading the gospel in an organized, effective way.
If you think that God hasn’t worked with racists and bigots in the past then you clearly have a different set of scriptures than me.
#29,30 – Heretic, Your link to a seven-year-old blog, though interesting of itself (and I’d deserve mine own likewise ‘floggin’ for failure to thank) gave absolutely NO discussion whatsoever of Pres. McKay ‘appeasing’ the South African Apartheid regime. Rather, he essentially shelved a ‘policy’ about proving one’s ‘whiteness’ back to European ancestors and based it, again in a rather unscientific fashion, on appearance and gut feeling. Of course, since Pres. McKay was considering the Negro thing to be a policy rather than doctrine, it does beg the question of WHY he didn’t likewise exercise executive privilege and just lift the ban altogether! But wherein was the LDS President appeasing the then Apartheid regime of South Africa? Frankly, it seems that the LDS Church in that country was way too insignificant to warrant its attention.
My impression of the late David O McKay is that his approach to Church administration took the pragmatic tack, though the scientist or amateur historian in me rolls my eyes.
Again, you’ve inserted your own assessment of what were the motives w/o references. The Church wasn’t pursuing black converts anywhere, not just Nigeria or South Africa, due to the attitude that since the males couldn’t be ‘full-fledged’ members (due to handicap of not holding the PH). Whether it was frustration or just a condescending notion that it wasn’t “their” time, or, in the case of some, outright racism (unlike you, I don’t presume to know motives w/o ample material).
All I know for myself is that I joined just after the PH ban was lifted, and the attitude I saw among fellow Saints was relief and joy.
Clearly god works with racists and bigots, but that doesnt mean we should continue with unchristlike behavior, especially when we know better.
Like I said Doug, go read Prince’s book. It’s in there. You can also try to listen to his several hour long Mormon Stories interview at http://mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-podcast-004-gregory-prince-david-o-mckay-and-the-blackspriesthood-issue/ or http://mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-podcast-002-gregory-prince-and-david-o-mckay-and-the-rise-of-modern-mormonism/ from which I did only a partial transcription.
“The Church wasn’t pursuing black converts anywhere, not just Nigeria or South Africa, due to the attitude that since the males couldn’t be ‘full-fledged’ members (due to handicap of not holding the PH). Whether it was frustration or just a condescending notion that it wasn’t “their” time, or, in the case of some, outright racism (unlike you, I don’t presume to know motives w/o ample material).”
All of the reasons you’ve listed here are based on racism. They were denied priesthood because they were black. That’s racism, PERIOD. It doesn’t matter if the motives were godly or not. Even if they were denied for “godly” reasons, they were denied based on race, so it’s racism, plain and simple. It is not a pejorative when I use it, it is a simple fact. Now you may attach a pejorative (and many people do), but no matter what the reason was to justify the ban, the ban was based on the race of black men. That’s racism, whether you like the term or not. I”m really not trying to be mean when I say it (and you may still think I am), but I promise I use the term racism in a definitive way, not a pejorative way.
If I only admit men over 80 to a club, that’s ageism. If I have a “ladies night” and refuse men, that’s sexism. I may have valid reasons to do these things, but no matter the reason, it is ageism or sexism. Now I know that these terms carry emotional baggage. When we charge kids less for a meal, economists call that price discrimination. The public generally agrees with the policy, so there is no outrage about price discrimination in this case. But we all hate paying extra money for a seat on an airplane because one person booked it 6 weeks early, and another 1 day early. It’s still price discrimination. We can attach good/bad to it, but it is what it is.
I’m using the term racism in the same way.
Douglas,
I thought we all agreed that denying the priesthood solely based on race was wrong? Do you disagree?
MH, thanks for clarifying, sorry, Hawk, if I misunderstood.
#47,48 – We would agree that it (was) wrong IF it was an act of man. If the Church was being led by divine inspiration, and said inspiration dictated proscribing the PH based on race, then in spite of egalitarian sentiments, it’s how the Church had to proceed. Or does the story of Abraham (nearly) sacrificing Issac mean anything? The saying “Mine ways are not your ways” has been well-demonstrated.
Heretic, I realize that you’re trying to assert the role of racism in the erstwhile PH ban w/o denying the role of prophetic guidance in the matter, but you’re doing a lousy job. I will read Prince and see what I ferret out, esp. anything pertain to the Church in South Africa. I do know SA members and RMs having served there and other than being discouraged from seeking black (and coloured, and IDK the reasons the Apartheid regime made the distinction, even distinguishing a group known as “Cape Coloureds” as yet another group) and never heard of any interference from the authorities nor sympathies. If anything, as so many Afrikaners were Dutch Reformerm (Calvinist), they would take issue with the LDS faith on mere religious grounds.
MH, the rub is that the leadership doesn’t see denying the priesthood to women as unchristlike behavor, just as they did not view the priesthod ban (pre-1978) as unchristlike behavior. You are making an assumption that all members of the leadership feel the same frustration as you. I don’t think that’s accurate. Whether the sexist behavior is approved of God or only being tolerated for the time being will be proved by what happens over time.
Based on my husband’s experience in Africa, he feels women’s ordination would have been a major impediment in that heavily patriarchal culture. I have no idea why women’s ordination hasn’t happened yet, but I appreciate that we can still make a major positive difference worldwide in the lives of God’s daughters in spite of the restrictions of patriarchal thinking. The priesthood ban was finally lifted after many hearts and minds had been changed to welcome it. I don’t see us at that same point with women’s ordination yet.
#50 – the Lord, via his servants, has restricted the PH based on gender. IF and when He feels that said restriction is no longer necessary, I will support that.
The key, as always, is to know the will of the Lord and DO it.
Mary Ann,
Your comments seem to follow your belief that the priesthood ban was God’s will and the blacks receiving the priesthood in 1978 was God’s will and that women not having the priesthood up to now is God’s will. That’s certainly one opinion. And we all understand that view.
But many active members believe that blacks never should have been precluded from receiving the priesthood – that the ban was a mistake by leaders – not God’s will. Similarly, many belief women not receiving the priesthood is simply a mistake of men, not God’s orders. Under that belief, there certainly is room to persuade, argue, maybe even challenge the brethren to encourage a change.
You stated: “The priesthood ban was finally lifted after many hearts and minds had been changed to welcome it.” Are you saying that God waited to lift the ban until the people were ready for it? If so, the idea that racism will exist until people are prepared to not be racist bothers me. Why can’t God just tell the prophets to do the right thing whether or not people are ready? I thought God fears no man?
Dexter, God doesn’t fear man, but people are stupid. Sometimes it feels like God waits until people realize they’ve been acting foolishly before God confirms that yes, in fact, we are idiots. When the Brother of Jared didn’t pray for several years and then went to God in prayer, God made a point to chew him out for not coming to him earlier. God could have spoken to the Brother of Jared anytime during those 4 years, clued him in earlier that he wasn’t aligned with God’s will, yet he waited.
I think human cultures have a lot of elements that God dislikes, but like with the prodigal son God usually sits and waits until we realize our error. The Light of Christ is continually enticing us to do good, we just need to pay better attention.
If you take a look at Nate’s infertility post a few weeks back, you’d see that my viewpoint is more along the lines of God rarely intervening to change the course of man. There are a great many injustices in this world, and I do not believe that God finds any delight in us enduring pain and persecution because of those. I think many, including racism and sexism, are consequences of our fallen nature and part of our work in this life is to deal with and ideally overcome those to the best of our abilities. I do not feel that the priesthood ban was God’s will any more than it is God’s will that a child is born with a debilitating genetic defect, yet we must deal with the sucky consequences in both situations. Could God choose to intervene in either case? Of course, but it would be unwise to put money on it. Just as God has inspired technology and medical intervention to overcome biological consequences of the fall, he has inspired men and women to improve political and social circumstances to counteract the many incorrect cultural viewpoints resulting from fallen societies. Church leaders have the right to revelation concerning the overcoming of spiritual effects from the fall, but it’s possible they need to learn how to overcome the cultural and biological baggage with the rest of us. This would align more closely with your option #2.
Mary Ann,
Thanks for taking the time to flesh out your views. It’s not that I think God fears man. It’s that the church says God fears no man and makes decisions and changes that, to these eyes, appear to be out of fear of man.
On God intervening…tell us you will never intervene, or intervene more, but this intervene at super random super rare occasions thing, doesn’t impress me much. I’m amazed at patience and long suffering people have on this issue.
“…the Soviets took over after World War 2, and forced the country to use the Cyrillic alphabet when writing Chinese, which was quite a difficult transition.”
Actually, Mongolians have their own language; it’s called Mongolian (go figure). It is indeed written in Cyrillic, but also in a Mongolian alphabet (again, go figure). It is not written in Chinese characters, and is not related to Chinese.
“Isn’t is a shame that the church policy restricting priesthood prevents a second stake from being formed in Mongolia?”
Stakes exist only within Church policy, therefore your question is incoherent.
I have to admit, though, that arbitrary, uninspired changes in doctrine and policy could dramatically increase the number of stakes. Renaming “wards” as “stakes” would increase the number of stakes by over sevenfold. Giving each member of the Church their own, personal stake would increase the number of stakes to over 15 million, an increase of nearly 5000 times.
Likewise, Church growth could be vastly increased by arbitrarily defining everyone in the world as a member of the Church. Including the decreased, fictional people, the unborn, statistical abstractions, and non-humans would increase the numbers even more!
Just because the Church doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean it’s wrong. You may find, if you look hard enough, that even you are capable of making mistakes.
Poor form, Jonathan.
Re Dexter:
“Poor form, Jonathan.”
How so?
Re “Mormon Heretic”:
“Isn’t is a shame that the church policy restricting priesthood prevents a second stake from being formed in Mongolia?”
I think it would be a shame for the Church to abandon its principles, particularly to placate protesters rudely demanding adoption of a secular ideology.
I would rejoice if God revealed that women were to be ordained to the Priesthood, but I refuse to demand that the Church make uninspired changes to doctrine.
I think it is a shame that church leaders are so uninspired that they can’t get any inspiration unless accompanied by protests.
Re MH:
Does all inspiration agree with you? Otherwise, how do you know they’re not inspired?
I don’t feel women should be ordained to the priesthood for the already mentioned reason above. When God sees fit, He’ll do it. And maybe he’ll never see fit. One thing I have noticed is that, in the temple, both genders wear the priesthood garments and both genders are responsible to know the signs and tokens concerning them. The sisters perform a number priesthood ordinances that, apparently, none of the brethren will ever be allowed to do. Why do I get the feeling I know why? Oh, well, that’s deep doctrine. I don’t talk deep doctrine.
This all tells me that in the eternities sisters will not only hold the priesthood, but they will use it and the last things they would ever do with it is share it with their husbands, which, years ago, was said the husbands would do with their wives, concerning their priesthood, like you would throw a dog a bone to pacify it. For if their husbands didn’t already have the priesthood, they wouldn’t even BE there.
Sisters. Get an eternal perspective on things. Don’t worry about stakes that won’t get formed and the like. God will take care of those things. In the D&C we are told that obedience to the commandments is our work in this life and when it comes to that, I think you’ve got it cinched and are leaving the other gender in the dust.
OK, this doesn’t take care of a lot of the griefs and frustrations, but who said I knew all the answers?
Jonathan
You blatantly mischaracterized MH’s post. It’s easy to criticize someone’s arguments when you change them for your purposes, and then criticize them. It’s lame and weak.
If people didn’t protest, the church wouldn’t do the right thing. They abandoned polygamy when the government was ready to storm the gates. Give me a break.
MH:”I think it is a shame that church leaders are so uninspired that they can’t get any inspiration unless accompanied by protests.”
You know so much! You have had so much experience in gospel discussions. Somewhere inside you there must be a better statement than the one you give above. Find it. Give it.
Rich, is your father by any chance named Jared?
Re Dexter:
“You blatantly mischaracterized MH’s post.”
How so?
This is how I read it: MH declares that LDS Prophets and Apostles are uninspired, except to rubber-stamp the revelations coming from enlightened protesters.
If the Prophet disagrees with MH, it seems, then the Prophet can’t possibly be inspired. If that’s not his argument, he is welcome to correct me. In the mean time, I politely reject the doctrine of MH-infallibility.
Jonathan, you’re a moron if you think that’s what I said. Go misread another blog.