During his address at the Priesthood session of the recent General Conference President Uchtdorf asked the questions “What can I learn from Alma? … How am I like Amulek?” The first he directed to “all past, current and future leaders in the church of Jesus Christ”.
I understand the sentiments he expressed here:
“For whatever reason we as leaders are reluctant to find and ask our Amuleks [for help]. Perhaps we think that we can work better by ourselves. Or we are reluctant to inconvenience others. Or we assume that others would not want to participate.”
I’ve been there. I’ve been the RS counsellor responsible for teaching, who didn’t have any teachers and taught the lessons myself. Perhaps I should have had teachers called and nurtured them. I was young. Back then, nearly 20 years ago, I didn’t feel capable of the necessary people management that would have been involved. I needed to feel I had some control. Age and experience helped. I did a better job of caring for and nurturing my teachers when I served on the primary presidency a few years ago. Much to my surprise I found I enjoyed it. My people skills had improved in the interim.
President Uchtdorf continued:
“Too often we hesitate to invite people to use their God-given talents and engage in a great work of salvation.”
An interesting choice of words in a church where our callings, outside of perhaps those involving music, often seem to bear no relation to the talents we possess, and where our very gendered organisational structure considerably restricts our talent pool, and the talents we can use.
“Think of the Saviour. Did he begin to establish His church all alone? No. His message was not stand back, I’ll handle this. Rather it was come follow me. He inspired, invited, instructed and then trusted His followers to do the things which ye have seen me do. This way Jesus Christ built up not only His church, but also His servants.”
I especially appreciated the emphasis on trusting. I’ve been in a calling where the levels of micromanagement signalled an unjustified absence of trust. Where I wondered why I’d ever been asked to do it, if they wouldn’t trust me enough to just let me do the job. I found it a wholly demoralising and disheartening experience, not one that built me.
It is in this next section that it becomes clearer that President Uchtdorf is addressing those who hold Priesthood office. This is the Priesthood session after all:
“In whatever position you currently serve, whether you are a Deacons Quorum president, a Stake President or an Area President, to be successful you must find your Amuleks. It may be someone who’s unassuming or even invisible within your congregations. It may be someone who seems unwilling or unable to serve. Your Amuleks may be young or old, men or women, inexperienced, tired, or not active in the church. But what may not been seen at first sight is that they are hoping to hear from you the words the Lord needs you, I need you. Deep down many want to serve their God. They want to be an instrument in His hands, They want to thrust in their sickle and strive with their might to prepare the earth for the return of our Saviour. They want to build His church, but they are reluctant to begin. Often they wait to be asked.” [emphasis mine]
This is where my heart hurt. Yes he acknowledged that their Amuleks may be women, but that’s pretty much as far as it went. I couldn’t help but think of the women of Ordain Women, who yet again organised an action signalling their willingness to serve, but who were yet again ignored. Women who deep down want to serve their God, want to be an instrument in His hands, want to build His church. Women who after long years have tired of waiting to be asked, many of whom who have left as a result. If only our leadership could bring themselves to regard women as their equals they may well be “surprised to discover a valiant servant [or two or three or many, many more] of the Lord who would otherwise have remained hidden”.
Addressing the Amuleks of his second question President Uchtdorf said:
“The Lord sees in you what he saw in Amulek: the potential of a valiant servant with an important work to do and a testimony to share. There’s service that no-one else can give in quite the same way. The Lord has trusted you with His holy priesthood which holds the divine potential to bless and lift others. Listen with your heart and follow the promptings of the spirit.”
When will we hear these words will addressed to women?
Discuss.
NB. Quotes are taken from my own transcript. Official transcript unavailable at the time of writing.
Wheat & Tares 
Umm, we won’t. If it requires the holy priesthood to truly lift and bless others, then women, as usual, are relegated to secondary status. They can “support” the priesthood holder in the home (if there is one) but that’s about it. I don’t for a moment believe that President Uchtdorf believes that women aren’t capable of lifting and blessing others, but I think here he’s expressing a fairly well-established Mormon idea: That everyone can bless the lives of others, but someone who wields priesthood power as such can bless the lives of others in ways that a non-priesthood holder can’t. Staggeringly, most mainstream Mormons don’t see this for the discriminatory and marginalizing belief that it is. This kind of thinking just comes with the territory in a church as narrowly and intensely patriarchal as this one. I reckon mainstream, high-up leaders might actually have an open, public conversation about women and the priesthood sometime in the next 50 – 100 years, but it ain’t happening soon.
The stalwart LDS does not long for the glories of this world but instead concentrates on getting herself and her family safely throught mortality and onto exaltation.
Stalwart LDS woman
How does the priesthood have anything to do with the glories of THIS world? It’s the power to heal, organize the church, etc., but it’s real power lies in performing ordinances with eternal consequences. Wouldn’t having the priesthood, which is so powerful/vital to men, help women also get themselves and their families safely through mortality? So the church isn’t depriving women of a worldly power, but an eternal one (except for inside the temple). That just makes it worse, IMHO.
The key phrase from Uchtdorf, “There’s service that no-one else can give in quite the same way.” As of right now, the church holds that men and women have unique contributions based on gender. Individual talents don’t matter in that calculation.
Mary Ann,
One question I’ve always had is whether “unique” also has a kind of “separate but equal” (or unequal, depending on one’s view of restricting the priesthood to men) implication behind it. What’s your take on the language used to describe men’s and women’s contributions?
Brother Sky, I like your observations.
“If it requires the holy priesthood to truly lift and bless others, then women, as usual, are relegated to secondary status. They can “support” the priesthood holder in the home (if there is one) but that’s about it. I don’t for a moment believe that President Uchtdorf believes that women aren’t capable of lifting and blessing others, but I think here he’s expressing a fairly well-established Mormon idea: That everyone can bless the lives of others, but someone who wields priesthood power as such can bless the lives of others in ways that a non-priesthood holder can’t.”
Yes. This is how it gets painted to the men. Not how it gets painted when it’s women who are being addressed. Is Priesthood important and necessary or isn’t it? And if it it can bless lives in ways they can’t be blessed without it, why are women excluded? There’s always this playing it up to the men and playing it down to the women.
“Wouldn’t having the priesthood, which is so powerful/vital to men, help women also get themselves and their families safely through mortality?”
Exactly.
Ronkonkoma, a) I know and have known many stalwart LDS women. Not all of them are or have been married and have families. The most stalwart I have known are/ have been single sisters serving tirelessly into their old age. You are painting an incredibly narrow and restrictive picture. b) Many women with children are concerned about this and other issues precisely because they are worried about what it means for both their sons and daughters to be raised in such a restrictive patriarchal religious culture when the world outside left the 1950s in the 1950s. Our children look and see equality in action in the workplace, in their schools and in their universities. They are not buying the 1950s paradigm, and they are leaving. We have to examine these questions and ask whether this attrition is really necessary.
Mary Ann,
“As of right now, the church holds that men and women have unique contributions based on gender. Individual talents don’t matter in that calculation.”
And yet as I quoted earlier in the post Uchtdorf also stated: “Too often we hesitate to invite people to use their God-given talents and engage in a great work of salvation.” Many women have expressed their frustration at their inability to best use their God-given talents within a church setting precisely because those talents are not the talents the church typically expects to find in women. If he’s suggesting leaders should be inviting members to use their God-given talents then leaders need to listen to members and believe us when we tell them what those talents are. Instead they are setting an example of ignoring those trying to do that. I find that unconscionable.
My wife has difficulty reconciling her childhood LDS family with it’s toxic effects with the current governing of the church. When she was old enough to confront her mother about the tolerance of physical abuse perpetrated by my wife’s father to she and her siblings, he mother’s response was that there was something wrong with her father’s mentality so he wouldn’t be held accountable for his actions in the next life. With that warped view of patriarchal respect, she was never fond of FHE, ‘Families Are Forever’, the honoring of the patriarch in the home, and even Mother’s Day and the concept of Heavenly Mother. Fortunately she remained faithful to her testimony of the BOM, cherished counsel from the modern prophets, from bishops and certain female ‘Amuleks’ in her life. She has tried very hard to co-parent our children in a way that they will see the beauty of a gospel family in a light that she never saw. Recently she accepted a calling after a period of reflection following a life tragedy and the emotional need to turn down callings for a time. Nevertheless, even though she rejects visiting teaching and receiving visiting teachers was not engaged in a calling, by choice, she has supported other women and children in church and in our community without ‘waiting to be asked’. I believe HF is pleased with her service and she has been able to reach out to sisters in a way that traditional churchy reaches may not have been as effective. I would like for her to attend the General Women’s meeting and take our daughters to that, but it has not happened. She doesn’t find women’s conference talks enjoyable.
I enjoyed listening to President Uchtdorf’s talk with my son, who was attending his first Priesthood Session and we enjoyed talking about this talk on the way home. Though my wife would be an excellent priesthood holder, she has no interest in that or does not feel a foundational culture to move into a position to ‘agitate’ for it. It’s ok. Her contemporary female Amulek’s with whom she does share a bond in official or unofficial priesthood service understand that things in the church in relationship to women and the priesthood are not perfect, but there is still an abundance of rewarding work to do. The uncertainty of what change would look like is not something they feel confident in gambling with and the outlook on the pace related to change is not something they feel is worth negotiating change-related strategies in their lives. I support her in where she is at–the way she cherished the counsel from the modern prophets pulled me to think in a more similar mode of thought when we got together and I was happier with companionship and traditions for it. Now she is at a point in life where she is more comfortable expressing her lifelong church-family conflicts and how reconciling those sometimes means standing up for a different path. She can provide service that no one else can give in quite the same way.
Hedgehog, I know for the most part Uchtdorf seemed to be talking individual stuff, but you can’t extend that past the gender barriers the church has set up at this time. My grandma served as executive secretary to my grandpa (stake president) in the 1950s-1960s. She was trained at a business college for that type of work and she was *highly* skilled. But… at this time it would be inappropriate for her to use her skills in any official capacity. Members are always happy when people are able to incorporate individual talents into their callings, but talents don’t magically qualify someone to cross those gender barriers. My husband absolutely loves teaching in Primary because he enjoys working with kids (that’s why he’s in pediatrics). He’s allowed to be a teacher, pianist, or even chorister, but he’s not allowed to serve in the Primary Presidency. Not because he’s incapable, but because that has a current gender requirement. I’m not saying I agree with the system, but as long as the church considers men’s roles and women’s roles to be in separate spheres, there will be some lines that they will not cross. Figuring out if there is a doctrinal reason for it (or if it’s based on culture) is the key to getting it changed, but I don’t see much movement in that realm.
Brother Sky – The church divides up men and women’s roles in the church along the same lines as they do in the family. For compassionate service, women’s roles would be service in the domestic sphere (dinners, babysitting, funerals, weddings, bridal/baby showers, housecleaning, sewing, playgroups). All of these could be classified as “nurturing”/homemaking responsibilities. Men’s roles would be technical service (I’ve yet to see a female technology specialist), heavy lifting stuff (yard work, moves), and handyman stuff. All of these are skills you tend to see in employment outside the home, matching the “provider” role. In all those cases someone of the opposite gender might be skilled, but I think they’d rarely be utilized. And, of course, the more experience you have from participating in those gendered activities over the years, the more skilled you get.
For church, men do church administrative roles, serving as “heads” of organizations, just as they do in families. The only cases where women serve administrative roles is over other women (RS, YW) or in childcare (Primary, which also oversees Nursery). Visiting teaching is woman to woman (visiting teachers represent the RS). Home teaching is man to family (home teachers represent the ward). This follows the pattern where women only have jurisdiction over themselves, while men have jurisdiction over the entire group (men serve as group “heads”).
I know many men and women who are quite comfortable and skilled in these gendered roles. For those who may have skills typically pertaining to the other sphere (men in nurturing capacities, women in administrative and provider roles), they will be limited in how they use those talents. The church bases things on the stereotypic rule rather than the exception.
Mary Ann,
Someone who studies the handbook diligently recently pointed out to me that the handbook does not specify the gender of the counselors in the Primary Presidency. For the YW presidency and RS presidency, the handbook states that names of sisters are recommended to the bishop for counselors. In the handbook on Primary it says that the Ward Primary Presidency consists of a ‘president and two counselors’. “She” pronouns are only used in relationship to the president and the secretary. Probably not a significant thing, as the gender of all members of a primary presidency are presumed and I have never seen anything in practice to suggest differently.
The handbook does state that all members of the Sunday School presidency be priesthood holders–Melchizedek Priesthood preferred, where possible. Secretary should specifically be a ‘brother’. There is a ward in our stake, I was told, that has a sister as a Sunday School secretary to this day.
Hedge,
” I couldn’t help but think of the women of Ordain Women, who yet again organised an action signalling their willingness to serve, but who were yet again ignored. Women who deep down want to serve their God, want to be an instrument in His hands, want to build His church.”
Service comes in all shapes and sizes and is not relegated exclusively to those who hold the Priesthood. Service is available to everyone. In fact, the most valuable service usually offered does not involve the Priesthood at all. So I am not sure what you are driving at when you say these women “signalling their willingness to serve, but who were yet ignored.”
Just as I cannot barge into the Stake President’s office and demand to be made the Bishop of my Ward, how is it that these women think they can demand the Priesthood as if that was the only true means
to give service?
I seem to recall another talk given by President Uchtdorf in General Conference entitled “Lift where You Stand.” Perhaps that allies as well in this case.
anon for this,
Your wife sounds like an amazing person. I agree that there are many ways in which can serve, and I’m glad your wife has been able to find ways to do that outside the hierarchical structures of the church. I’m glad you enjoyed President Uchtdorf’s talk. It was after all addressed to you not to me. Personally I have concerns about the structures of governance, and it is one reason why I do not have an Ordain Women profile. Nevertheless I do feel for those women who do, who are asking to be heard.
Mary Ann, I know how it works, and I believe we have to get beyond those gender barriers. I grew up hearing over and over at church that because I’m a girl/woman specific things were my gifts and talents. Except that they weren’t and aren’t. For a long time I felt that meant there was something wrong me. It was extremely painful. So I am very sensitive when it comes to the talent issue. That things have only got worse since the 1960s is disheartening. It has to change for the better.
Rigel, those differences in the handbook are intriguing.
Jeff, I think you are missing my point. Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don’t disagree that service comes in all shapes and sizes. However it is a fact that some forms of service are limited to those holding priesthood office. As I said in the OP this places limits on the talent pool and the way in which members are able to use their talents in service. Sure, no-one gets to petition for a particular calling. There have been talks in this general conference that seem to be to be a slight softening on that stance, suggesting that we can in fact volunteer where we see a need, which I found an interesting departure from the usual view that to do so would be treading on the toes of others, including President Uchtdorf in this talk with his suggestions that too many people (Amuleks) were waiting to be asked (“They want to build His church, but they are reluctant to begin. Often they wait to be asked.”). My understanding is that the women of Ordain Women were asking to be heard with this particular action. The point about the umbrellas was precisely that the current system leaves people out in the rain, metaphorically speaking in terms of coverage.
President Uchtdorf was speaking to leaders specifically about reaching out to the Amuleks, inviting them to use their God-given talents in the service of the kingdom. Yet it seems to be that the top leadership is not modelling this in their responses or lack thereof to the women of Ordain Women. Women who no longer are waiting to be asked but are saying we are ready. They could at the very least sit down and talk to them. Waiting to be asked is a bad thing, but then when you do otherwise you’re a pariah? Very ironic. That’s what it looks like to me.
“That everyone can bless the lives of others, but someone who wields priesthood power as such can bless the lives of others in ways that a non-priesthood holder can’t.”
Somehow, I have a difficult time thinking of God listening to a mother’s earnest blessing /prayer for her child and having Him respond with, “No Healing for YOU. You lack authority and a penis”.
And .. “Wielding the Priesthood Power” .. um .. its not a sword or a light-saber. It’s time to quit speaking as if it is.
AmateurParent “Somehow, I have a difficult time thinking of God listening to a mother’s earnest blessing /prayer for her child and having Him respond with, “No Healing for YOU. You lack authority and a penis.”
That’s one of the discussions isn’t it. what is the difference between a prayer of faith and a priesthood blessing, and if there isn’t one, why are we asking for a priesthood blessing? There’s one school of thought that has narrowed priesthood as being necessary for the saving ordinances and nothing else. But there are far more roles restricted only to those holding priesthood office in the current church organisation.
Oh and I’ve seen and been on the receiving end of priesthood holders wielding their authority. Not pretty. Though that was Brother Sky’s description.
Ronkonkoma, gratuitously offensive comments will be deleted.
“The point about the umbrellas was precisely that the current system leaves people out in the rain, metaphorically speaking in terms of coverage.”
Umbrella metaphorism is an interesting choice. It can be viewed as allowing insensitive or overreaching admonishments to roll off, like rain drops that never touch you. It can also be viewed as deflecting the dew distilling from heaven and keeping ground dry where it creates difficulty for the seed of faith taking root. Which view is taken depends on how you view the precipitation.
Hedgehog: I have put too much time into thinking about priesthood blessings and power. Unfortunately, the statistics tell us that people do not heal better or faster after receiving a blessing. I truly wish there was a statistical difference. There is not.
At this point, I see a formal blessing as a way to activate the ward community. Because 2 priesthood holders are needed, usually a call is made for assistance to give a blessing. This puts the community on notice that there is a need in that home for emotional/spiritual/physical/compassionate support.
I see blessings as a way to formally acknowledge a need for support from those outside the home. As men are the power structure within the organization, it would make sense that blessings have been required to be given by men.
And God? I don’t think He cares so much about gender and authority. I think he probably just likes being asked — even if his answer is no.
Rigel, funnily enough the umbrella metaphor was one used in church materials for the primary children, intended to show how one person can hold the umbrella but cover others. As was pointed out in this post over on Rational Faiths, that analogy really really didn’t work as intended.
AmateurParent, you have much more positive take on it that I do. I tend to feel on the one hand that the power priesthood hierarchy has over the men of the church to be an unwarranted interference in the function of family…
Hedgehog, I grew up in with a misogynistic father. His legacy lives on in my brothers’ attitudes about women. They see their attitudes as in alignment with priesthood authority.
My father was not raised in the church. I’m not sure if his attitudes were caused by the church or by the societal norms from the culture and time of his upbringing. The conservative stances of the LDS church may have merely perpetuated the beliefs of that previous generation in a more intact form.
While unable to change them, I was able to make sure I didn’t have to deal with that in my own home as a married adult. I purposely looked for someone who would break that cycle. I found him.
Amateur Parent “I purposely looked for someone who would break that cycle. I found him.”
I’m so glad.
I was lucky with my father, also a convert, I think. And my 5 brothers are mostly okay, though a couple of them have absorbed to varying degrees church teachings throughout the 80s on gender roles, which it pains me to see.
My husband is a convert. It’s not gender, but a deference to hierarchy which is a cultural thing for him, and which I find difficult, especially when pushes its way into family. My father was not nearly so deferential, and it did take me by surprise in my husband.
My own run-ins with priesthood authority have been experiences with local leaders.