There have been a lot of unforced errors lately regarding women in the church. Let’s review a quick list:
- Ordering women off the stand in stakes in CA where the women who lead organizations had been invited to sit on the stand with the other leaders.
- A group of women were planning to boycott church on March 17th as a protest against the clear message from the church that women are not “real” leaders like the men are to illustrate what church is like when no women are there. Which sounds peachy keen and all, but as I recall, I was one of FOUR women in my ward on pants day who wore pants. The rest didn’t get the memo. If a tree falls in the forest, women are still not going to be treated as equals.
- Sis. Dennis (a person 99% of church members could not name, unlike male church leaders) then claimed in a women’s meeting that, according to her knowledge (quite a caveat), women in the church are more empowered than in any other church. When this was quoted by the church on Instagram, over 12K comments ensued, many of them from LDS women essentially saying “Are you kidding me?” and pointing out the obvious fact that other faiths ordain women to the priesthood and the next prophet of the Community of Christ, which was literally founded by the same religious movement/leader/scriptures, is a woman. When the comments suddenly *poof* disappeared, the church PR department claimed it was a glitch at Meta. When the NYT did an article on this outpouring of feedback and the “glitch,” Meta was asked about it and said there was no glitch, not that Meta’s word is unimpeachable, but neither is the church’s when it comes to their long, consistent history of squelching dissent. The comments were restored, and the church responded that those who are tasked with these issues (issues = women) will be reviewing them, which is what I thought. If they cared about women’s issues, they wouldn’t need to read this Instagram thread.
- Immediately after all [waves hand wildly] that, Kevin Hamilton, a seventy, told a stake conference in California that the temple recommend questions will be updated to reflect the requirement that garments be worn daily, not left up to the members’ interpretation, and mentioned that this was done mostly as a response to concern about the increased laxity among younger women in the church, only around 50% of whom choose to wear the garment on a daily basis (according to an excellent article in the SLTrib). When I first heard that so few young, endowed women were wearing garments, I thought it was finally a win for the church, especially since it was one area where the church was at least giving lip service to people making their own choices. Forcing women to wear them when they cause so many known mental and physical health problems for women is ultimately a loser.
Why is the church so bad when it comes to women’s issues? The answer to this one is obvious: because women don’t really have any institutional power in the church. Women’s opinions are mostly not sought, and even when they are, they are filtered through a male lens and can be vetoed by church leaders, all of whom are male. Even Sis. Dennis referred to herself separately from what she called “church leaders” in talking about who would be reviewing these comments. She’s claiming LDS women are somehow the most empowered, yet acknowledging that although she’s one of the top 5 ranking women in the church, she’s not even really a church leader. So, she may believe women are empowered more than in other churches, but nobody who’s given it much thought is buying it. It’s certainly not the experience of women in the church that they are treated as equals or given the same level of input or consideration. Women are mostly treated like a different species. We love our cats, but they aren’t paying the bills or setting the rules. They are there for snuggles and cuddles.
This isn’t just as simple as that, though. It’s also a conservative vs. progressive issue. There were many comments from women on that Instagram thread who were defending the status quo and claiming (ridiculously) that they 1) felt plenty empowered and 2) didn’t want power anyway, and 3) the women who were feminists were power-seeking and ungodly. Never mind the contradictions in those positions (you have power, you don’t want power, wanting power is bad, but you have it, but you don’t want more of it), the fact of the matter is that the only reason “power” is being discussed is because it’s how decisions are made, and men have barred women from it in the church.
Which brings us to the third reason the church is so bad at women; it’s because it’s too focused on bolstering men. You could ordain women, but you know they would have to then upgrade the men to Platinum status or something just so they didn’t have to actually share their self-appointed power with women. Misogynists do not like to be compared to women, called women, or lumped in with women. Women are icky. Women are lesser. Women have cooties. Real men protect (and control and dominate) women. No, the real issue is only solved if you unordain men. One of the key things I learned on my mission that I pointed out in my mission memoir is that power corrupts. As soon as someone got “promoted” into the mission leadership structure, that person was nearly always morally compromised. Instead of trying to do what was right, they suddenly had another motive that creeped in: pleasing the mission president and avoiding getting demoted. This resulted in all sorts of bad behaviors, as you can imagine. Additionally, they suddenly got an inflated sense of their own importance; they started to believe their ideas were inspired, that they could boss people around, and that they were the most important voice in the room. As they say, they started getting high on their own supply. Hierarchy erodes spirituality; it doesn’t increase it.
After the Instagram debacle, I got in a brief Twitter discussion with someone who said that priesthood power was fake anyway. I countered that it was definitely real: it’s the power to see who is important to the church. But that’s the problem with it, too, and it’s a problem Jesus talked about all the time in the New Testament. Sometimes I wonder if anyone at church has even read the New Testament because our theology sure doesn’t seem like it. Jesus’ real pet peeve was the self-importance of the Jewish leaders and their subsequent bad behaviors. It’s one reason many scholars don’t see him as having established a church (aside from the fact that in the New Testament at least . . . he did not establish a church. That came after him with Paul. Jesus was still a Jew at the time of his death). So, in my own experience at least, just as a rich man has a hard time being a good person, so does one with institutional power, aka priesthood authority. Instead of ordaining women, we should unordain men and reinstitute common consent for policies. But, that’s never going to happen because people in power, whatever the institution, do not give it up voluntarily.
So, what’s next? Well, here’s my prediction. The church will continue with this regressive backlash. Regarding the garments question, young women are done with that. Sorry, Kevin Hamilton and those doing TR interviews, but you’ve lost that argument. You had a chance to listen when women literally came in with scientific evidence of how garment design both exacerbates and causes women’s health problems, and instead, the person in charge (a man, what a surprise) was dismissive and grossed out that a woman (Afton Parker, who was also interviewed here) would talk to him about “periods and gore” (his actual words) so that feedback went nowhere. This is who they’ve put in charge of women’s underwear. Someone who thinks women’s bodies are both mysterious and disgusting.
So, young women who don’t wear their garments will either: 1) skip out on the temple altogether, 2) fudge their answers, or 3) quit the church. If a handful of women do start wearing them daily (maybe those who are getting socially shamed over it), it won’t take long for the resentment to build up to the point that they are back to the first three choices I listed. If they think young women are going to just do what they are told and suffer through all the problems their fore-mothers did, they are gravely mistaken, and I’m saying this as a fore-mother. 70% of LDS women my age are (according to the article I linked) wearing them daily, but even that number is only going to go down. There is really not enough research out there on perimenopausal and older women, but garments also cause plenty of health problems for women in that age group, even if those women may be more compliant in general. Keep talking down to women, and you’ll see who really has power over women’s choices.
Ironically, it’s the lack of power that I think makes women more likely to attend and enjoy church than men. Because they are barred from meaningful participation in leadership and decision-making, women can theoretically just hang out and be friends with each other at church. There’s no jockeying for position. There’s no power to be had. (The exception is, of course, those who consider themselves either the unpaid orthodoxy police, or who seek to gain status through their husbands). But the problem with that is that those who do make the decisions are making decisions that aren’t good for women or other non-power-holding groups (e.g. children, victims of abuse, queer people, racial minorities). Power, like capitalism, is single-minded in ensuring its own survival, even at the expense of everyone else.
I’ll quote from the recent State of the Union: Church leaders “have no clue about the power of women in America.” They seem to still be living in a world where women require financial support from a husband and are grateful for male protection and limited rights, who don’t recognize it when they are being gaslit and patronized, who accept the crumbs offered. They don’t realize that women in their 20s and 30s have never lived in that world. Even women my age (mid-50s) have not lived in that world. We have been treated as equals much more outside the church than inside it.
As with the overthrow of communism in the Velvet Revolution, power is an agreement between people that can be laughed out of power. Just as SCOTUS doesn’t have a military to enforce its edicts, all it takes to defeat bad ideas is to ignore them. Women may not have a vote at church, but they still have the one vote that counts: showing up at all.
- Do you think women will ever be taken seriously by church leaders?
- Why do you think more women than men are active in the church?
- What do you think will result from this crackdown on garment wearing and the pushback on women in general?
- Do you see priesthood authority (hierarchy) as a corrupting influence? If so, how would you design around it?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I notice that in the week or two since Sister Dennis’ talk, church media including the Deseret News have published a pile of pieces promoting the view that women are totally loving how they’re treated by the church and the church is great for women. You’re probably just infected with a distorted worldly view from spending too much time on social media.
Yes, women in their 20s and 30s (or even 50s) may not have lived in that world…but when the current FP was 30 years old, it was 1954-1963…those perspectives are pretty well-established at that point. Just like most other aspects of LDS culture, change–if it comes–will be at a glacial pace given the age of the leadership, their remarkable longevity, and the fact that most of the lower levels of leadership are selected at least in part because their ideology is within the Overton window of the current leadership.
I had a bishop who would not give a temple recommend to anyone who drank anything with caffeine or watched R-rated movies. Result? Well, aside from the fact that he got released when my mother drove across country to Church HQ to complain (this was in 1981; she actually got to speak to a 70), people simply figured out how to answer his questions without going astray of his (non-doctrinal) perspective. I think that women will probably end up doing the same if/when (OK, when) the TR questions change with regard to garments because let’s face it–“fudging” an answer or answering with your own perspective/interpretation is totally fine because at the end of the day (or the end of mortality), it is ultimately between you and God…who I think will be far more understanding and forgiving than most bishops/SPs.
And while this is a little bit off-topic, I have never understood the people who completely unload all of their questions or give far-reaching responses or who admit to “violating” some non-existent or vague standard to ecclesiastical authorities when it is not required. My wife and I joke that when she goes in for a TR interview, we have to schedule an hour because she just goes on…and on…and on with her answers (she loves to talk, but she is also a little insecure about answering the questions perfectly). Garments are symbolic of a commitment. If one is keeping that commitment, then the outward expression of that is between you and God. The problem arises when the outward expression becomes the most important component–which it does all-too-frequently in the Mormon context.
I will be interested to see if the concern over garments makes its way into one (or more) of the talks next weekend–that’s when it will be clear that this is a Church-wide emphasis rather than simply a random GA hammering away on one of their pet peeves.
hawkgrrrl asks what appears to be contradictory questions:
The LDS church, as with most Christian denominations, realizes more active membership from females than from males. Women, more so then men, have a greater preference for organized religion and organized religion seems to be better equipped to attract women than men. By the numbers, organized Christianity seems to be biased towards taking women more seriously than men, or at least biased in meeting the needs of women more than the needs of men.
I think it is important in discussions of the LDS church, its governance and the composition of its active membership to first consider the question of why does the church retain more women than men? The follow-up question is why does the LDS church struggle with retention of both men and women? And the third question might be is there a solution to improve retention of members in the LDS church?
I see an LDS leadership that is desperate to be taken seriously by the membership and especially so by women. However, the patriarchal order of the church will always be a stumbling block for some women and I am not sure how this can be reconciled. As a general rule I see a larger issue. It is that the system of governance of the church is broken. You can realize this if you ponder the question: Where does the institutional power of the church reside?
Bishops and Stake Presidents have authority. But it is area authorities who hold sway. What is the accountability of the area authorities? It is to the corporate office – area authorities have no accountability to the members but they have authority to override local leadership. This is a broken system. How can the church claim it is run by “common consent” when local leaders can be overridden by superiors who are unaccountable to the local congregation? Where is the consent? Where is the hard work of the superiors getting to know the “commoners”. Reflect that it is a beloved tradition of LDS lore that a superior Priesthood officer can fly into a community and “by the spirit” know who should be called to lead the people. How does that process of familiarity work when the superior flies in to “fix” the local leadership and set the community straight?
I have a 20-something kid who flat out refuses to get endowed because the thought of wearing garments gross her out. To keep from being pressured, she doesn’t pay her tithing so that she’s not eligible. It all really bothers my spouse, but I’m proud of her for engaging with the church on her own terms. It also all comes back to her never in her life experiencing sexism anywhere other than church and finding the church system awful. My gut says that long term she will leave, but we shall see.
On your question about authority as a corrupting influence, I would say that yes it is, and that this corrupting influence was anticipated in D&C 121. I sometimes think D&C 121 is one of the most prophetic things Joseph Smith ever wrote, and that Joseph’s behavior when he introduced polygamy is an example of how he himself succumbed to that corrupting influence. Holding power of any kind is a difficult thing that requires a great deal of humility. Without naming names, I’ll just say that in my observation some top church leaders seem to understand this more than others. Church leaders need accountability, and some notion of accountability to God alone is really not enough. That presupposes some kind of perfection in the ability to discern God’s will that I don’t believe exists. There really needs to be some direct accountability to the people being presided over. Unfortunately, under present day interpretations of common consent, there’s not really much of that.
Quentin, great comment. Jesus, in the New Testament, was dedicated to the individual person, not to creating change from the top down, by using institutional power to pass policy, but being with, listening to, and creating change from the bottom up, inside out, downside up, and backside forwards. Boyd K Packers famous talk “The mantle is far, far greater than the intellect” explicitly states that the Q15 “Face God”, not the people. I don’t understand how we preach Jesus but do things unapologetically the opposite of him.
A, to continue the off topic, I think I get why people ask a lot of questions in temple recommend interviews. Our bishops are supposed to be pastors, after all. It’s nice to talk frankly about our beliefs and struggles. The problem is that bishops tend to fill the role of judge instead of the role of resource. So when you or I want to really talk about something, we’re unlikely to turn to the bishop because we don’t want (or need) to feel judged. As many have pointed out here, a bishop would be more helpful if his assignment was pastoral care instead of gatekeeping.
To tie it into the topic, many women tend to have a more pastoral approach than many men. I think bringing women into church leadership (over women AND men) would lead to less authoritarianism and more actual care, which would lead to a better experience and probably more retention.
I will not attempt to speak for women in the Church. I’ll simply share a personal experience: I have three daughters in their 20s. All of them left the Church as soon as they left for college. That’s not because they were brought up by rebellious / progressive parents. We raised them the way active TBMs raise their kids (Sunday meetings 50 times a year, seminary, YW Program, etc.). But they could never relate to the women in the Church.
One of my daughters was her senior class president at school. Two of them were soccer team captains. All three refused to consider BYU and attended other colleges. They were taught by us that they can do whatever they want. But not at Church. They see the Church as holding them back even though they have always outperformed their male friends in sports, at work, at graduate school.
They have never taken the dive into Church history the way I have. They know very little about things like ever-evolving doctrine and contradictions. But they know about polygamy. They know that Nelson and Oaks are sealed to two women. And they don’t see any way they would be part of an organization that treats them as second class citizens.
I think that men having power in the church is overstated. Some men have power, but most men (like all women) have none. They might hold the priesthood, but no power or authority comes with that. Most men will never be in a bishopric or stake position. The elders quorum president, and the EQ as a group, have no power. If one disagrees, please name me one key that the EQP can turn, or one thing the EQP can do that the RSP cannot. He makes no decision that requires the priesthood or keys. In fact, he doesn’t even use his own priesthood, as our relatively new teaching is that the bishop (not the EQP) is responsible for the work of salvation in the ward (this used to be the work of the Melchizedek priesthood bodies), so EQPs are like RSPs in that they both function under the bishop’s keys. Imagine an EQ functioning as a quorum, where all members provide input as to where the quorum should go, with the president sitting primus inter pares and will all members, youngest to eldest, poorest to richest, being heard equally on what to do.
There is another reason that I see that women stay active more than men, and it also has to do with not having the priesthood. Expectations. The boys are raised to be leaders. All of them are raised to be leaders, then only 1/100 of the actually get do be the leader. Look at the men’s comments on the feminist discussions. They are very quick to point out that most men never get any power either, and they are feeling that lack of power. The failure to live up to the expectations they were raised on gives men a sense of personal failure, like they personally have disappointed God. and church no longer feels good like it did when they were teens given all the attention because they were the church’s future leaders.
The girls on the other hand are given very little adult attention and there are no expectations of greatness from “just girls.” The only thing that is expected is that they marry and make babies. They learn to rely on each other for friendship, unlike the boys who are treated as buddies by the most important man in the ward, the bishop who is directly over the YM. The rest of the ward is secondary on his priority list, with the YM being given this special status. Girls are nothing, so they expect nothing in return. So, they don’t feel like failures when they grow up to do exactly what was expected of them with getting married and having children. Single women do end up feeling like they failed, which is why more single women leave. women who marry nonmembers also feel and are treated as if they somehow failed, so a lot of them leave too. But the majority of women just continue to rely on other women for friendship, and don’t bother to try to advance to leadership, and are content to be nothing because they never expected otherwise and were not pampered like the YM were and treated special.
I solved the power problem by going inactive. I have my Mormon connection through good online discussions and nobody tells me I am unworthy for not wearing icky underwear night and day.
I honestly think the problem will not be solved until the church starts losing 75% of women.
If I spent as much time as Elder Hamilton does thinking about women’s underwear, my wife would slap me upside the head.
Six months ago we had a 70 come to our stake conference. As near as I could tell, they had him flown in straight from 1993. Thankfully, I was not invited to the leadership session where he devoted substantial time to garments. A member of the stake presidency then spent another 15 minutes on the topic during the adult session. It is difficult to know when 70s and stake presidencies are picking topics for themselves, and when they are passing along topics that are coming from above them, but it is my experience that when there are multiple instances, it is not a coincidence. I was already not very excited at the prospect of GC . . .
Georgis: EQPs can call and release men in their organization. RSPs have a member of the bishopric come into RS to do that for them. EQPs are called by and regularly meet with the SP. RSPs are called by bishops. Members of the HC are assigned to EQs, there is no similar relationship between the stake and RSs. These differences may not constitute “using priesthood keys”, but they are differences, and a portion of the “power” that individuals hold in any group is perceived power that may be based on interaction and social connection. Furthermore, EQPs can also have other sources of power and authority (whether “official” or cultural) in ways that RSPs cannot. A former EQP of mine was a former bishop, stake president and is currently a sealer. He was not shy about bringing these things up. None of these may have had an official impact in his calling as EQP, but it absolutely added to his power and influence in the ward.
We tend to use all of these terms (power, influence, keys, priesthood, etc.) in different ways and in different circumstances. Sometimes they are all similar, sometimes they are very distinct. As a man who is baptized, confirmed, ordained (twice), washed, anointed, endowed and sealed, I don’t need the bishop and his priesthood keys for much. He can keep me from having a temple recommend, and he can initiate disciplinary proceedings against me. (He can try and keep me from the sacrament, but there are many other wards I could go to.) On the other hand, there is a great deal of influence he can wield against me to push me out of the ward. He can keep me from holding a calling, praying in church, speaking in church, etc. He can see that I don’t have ministering brothers. He can tell people to stay away from me. He can similarly act against each member of my family. These are all instances of power that he holds by virtue of his social status as bishop that don’t really have anything to do with priesthood keys. [To be clear, I have a great bishop, this is all hypothetical, and I’ll be disappointed when he is released.]
There is talk about “presiding” and “priesthood authority” roughly equal between non-leadership men and women at church. I think the bigger problem is “presiding” and “priesthood authority” at home.
I was taught that because my husband “held the priesthood” he essentially had the edge for “inspiration” due to being a mostly obedient priesthood holder. That has been a huge problem for me personally because when we came to a standoff and we choose his decision, it wasn’t the more inspired decision.
The problem is that in the household “presiding (authority and chains of command)” meets “nurturing” (networking and “group harmony”). The statements about showing love and humility and D&C 121 are useful and stick a band aid on the trauma induced when “presiding” meets “nurturing” at home.
Any person who thinks he or she holds the edge on inspiration over any other person has no idea of the multitude and variety of gifts God has bestowed on his children.
“Any person who thinks he or she holds the edge on inspiration over any other person has no idea of the multitude and variety of gifts God has bestowed on his children.” – Old Man
Agreed. And 30 something me thought it was ok to marginalize myself and my gifts because I thought someone else had the “inspirational edge” (and that was a comfortable feature, not a bug of the system). I thought that “staying in my nurturing lane” was the appropriate decision (even then I questioned that I had a “nurturing lane” to stay in while presiding and providing).
it’s interesting how clueless that Sister Dennis and the church’s male leadership seem in not anticipating the overwhelmingly critical response.
It suggests they might be largely insulated from the day to day conflicts and intellectual discourse surrounding these issues. The matter reminds me of David Archuleta’s conversation with a nameless apostle:
I would comment further but something seems to have changed in the formatting tools for this site and I’m not gonna spend another 20 minutes figuring out how to make everything pretty. Already tried. Already failed.
E: Agreed that there is a real problem (probably a growing one, as the feminists continue to leave the church) with women who smack down their sisters in defense of the patriarchy. Woman on woman policing is a staple of conservatism and patriarchy (which as a Venn diagram appear to be a nearly perfect circle). It’s actually funny, but that’s a big part of the only way women can exercise “power” in the church: policing other women and defending the patriarchy. That’s something they are deputized to do. No woman in the church has ever been told to stop policing the behavior of other women, not if they did it in “defense” of the church (even though that defense is driving women out). And it’s the one way women can feel a sense of control and authority at church, so it’s a natural byproduct of not having any real say in how things are run. If you can’t be the teacher, be the teacher’s pet. If you can’t be in charge, tattle to the one who is in charge. That’s how “borrowed” priesthood power really works.
I have a little hope, though, in that even among the RSPs I’ve known, some of whom were (IMO) kind of awful people, being the police force isn’t really fun for very many people. It’s certainly not a way to make friends or be liked. I can think of at least two women who were absolutely as orthodox as they come who just balked at the idea of judging other women and treating them like wayward children to be corrected. They were humble enough that it was not appealing.
Unfortunately, it’s much easier to come after people on social media, so I would hope that most women see that for what it is and ignore the majority of it. I have a relative who is not endowed, purposely, because she has zero willingness to wear garments in her hot humid summers and her husband is not LDS, but she will absolutely come out to defend the church and attack other women, tearing down their experience and claiming that there must be something wrong with them because where she is everything is great and fine. She’s conservative, and basically that’s the gist of it. She defends the status quo from her position of privilege. She would probably change her stance if she could see how this makes her look, but she doesn’t seem to have that level of insight.
Anna: I think you are really onto something about the role of expectations. Women have no expectations in the church. They are told from birth that they can’t aspire to anything, so church isn’t that for them. It’s a different kind of thing. For men, though, it’s definitely not the same. It’s a hierarchy, and they are either winning or losing at it. But even that is an illusion because even if you are bishop or stake president you really aren’t given any autonomous decision-making. The problem the church is going to run into is that the more they try to control people, the less willing people will be to play the game, and at some point they will discover on the internet that there are a lot of issues with the church where the church hasn’t been honest, and that’s the gift shop before the exit. As to the garments question, I know full well from my own survey of it over ten years ago that less than 5% of women actually like wearing them. I’d also guess that the percent of members who like the temple is not a majority either (I’d guess 20-30%?) although I’ve never surveyed it or seen a survey result. And I think those who do enjoy it just haven’t discovered Massage Envy.
Ultimately, in a volunteer organization, if they don’t give you power, you have to learn that you just keep the power you have and do what you want. They can marginalize you, but is that really so bad? To become an adult, you eventually have to live life on your own terms.
“I have just as much authority as the Pope; I just have fewer people who believe it.” – George Carlin
Okay I lied.
I feel I need to explain further my reasoning behind the quote. In essence, whereas other sources of social authority are more incentivized to keep apace with new arguments and evidence for social practices, an institution such as an established (well funded) religious hierarchy is less responsive because, as mentioned by another, accountability for the most part is top down rather than bottom up.
While this may seem mostly to the church’s advantage, it also suggests an unresponsiveness more prone to fantastic blunders. What woman want to be some closeted guy’s beard? And what woman- and self-respecting man would wish that for another. The apostle’s argument is out of line with his church’s own updated policies on the matter (prob because they still question the reformulated knowledge claims such handbook updates were based on).
I have no doubt the church will survive as a financial institution in the next 50 years, but as they’ve learned through failed public policy campaigns: money alone cannot buy legitimacy.
Women in the church now have public and private identities beyond church and family. I’m skeptical the church can continue to persuade women to compartmentalize themselves in church as they once did.
“There is no other religious organization in the world, that I know of, that has so broadly given power and authority to women. There are religions that ordain some women to positions such as priests and pastors, but very few relative to the number of women in their congregations receive that authority that their church gives them. By contrast, all women, 18 years and older, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who choose a covenant relationship with God in the house of the Lord are endowed with priesthood power directly from God. . . . . My dear sisters, you belong to a Church which offers all its women priesthood power and authority from God!”
There are some underlying assumptions in this quote that need to be addressed which highlight the church’s hypocrisy in its treatment of women.
Sister Dennis takes great pains to elevate the LDS church above others. Other churches only ordain a few women vs the LDS church gives all women power and authority. For a moment, set aside the false comparison of a lay clergy model vs paid clergy model. Regardless of that, why is it better that all women have access to power and authority vs a few? Why is egalitarian access to priesthood more righteous than exclusionary access to priesthood?
If Sister Dennis or other church leaders were to be asked this, I’d imagine they would say something like. “Christ loves everyone and invites all to come unto Him. He shares his power and authority with all worthy endowed members to help them return to Him on the covenant path.”
But members don’t need power and authority to make and keep covenants. The Holy Ghost and Christ’s atonement are what aid each member in living as a disciple.
The church’s hypocrisy is staggering. For years they have indoctrinated women into thinking they don’t have priesthood power or authority, but that’s ok because they have access to the blessings of the priesthood via male church members. For years the church has said equality isn’t sameness. The church has lashed out at feminists who rightly argue that you can’t have equality without egalitarian policies.
Now magically the LDS church is so much better than other churches because they give priesthood power and authority to all endowed members. All of the sudden an egalitarian policy is being touted as righteous and a sign of women’s value and equality with men.
I would love for leadership to have to answer the following question: why is egalitarian access to priesthood power and authority righteous while egalitarian access to priesthood ordination is evil?
The problem is church leaders have zero obligation to reveal or produce coherent doctrine founded on Christ’s teaching. If they don’t want to do something, like treat women as human beings, they can wave their hands and say God says so. They are never challenged on how their doctrine and policies cannot be reconciled with foundational gospel truths. The church constantly produces bad fruit for women and then blames women for starving.
My nomination for the next First Presidency
Jennifer Finlayson-Fife
Julie Hanks
Hawkgrrl
Not sure what order…
When will women be taken seriously by Church leaders? I believe this will only happen when women themselves are (some of) the Church leaders. In other words, I do not believe that the problem with women feeling disenfranchised in the Church will be ever be completely “fixed” until women are equal with men. I shouldn’t have to define “equal” here, but the Church (and its apologists) tends to twist the meaning of this word so much in the context of women, I guess I have to. When I say women need to be “equal” in the Church, I mean that they need to have the “exact same” opportunities in the Church as men. For example, women would have to be able to be ordained to the priesthood starting at 11 years old, be eligible to hold all of the callings from prophet, apostle, mission president, on down to Sunday School president and ward clerk, serve 2 year missions at the age of 18, give priesthood blessings, etc.
Until women are treated as “equals” which, yes, to me, means “the same” as men in the Church, at least some portion of them are going to feel “less than” men, and rightfully so. Outside of the Church, women are treated the same as men in business, school, literally everywhere. I’m a bit older, but I’ve worked with some women leaders and engineers in my career that have totally kicked butt. Why wouldn’t women make kick butt Church leaders/priesthood holders as well? I see no satisfactory answer to this question whatsoever.
Only men are mentioned holding the priesthood in the scriptures? This is not entirely true, but even more, the scriptures were written by men in patriarchical societies (including, or maybe especially, American society in the early 1800s), and scripture doesn’t give any divine reasoning on why women should be treated any differently than men in the Church (the Family Proclamation is not scripture and, in my opinion, is quickly on its way to the garbage pile of historical Church documents that the Church wished never existed).
Women have always been intended to be mothers and nurturers while men are made to be the leaders and breadwinners? Where does God say this (again, the Family Proclamation is uninspired garbage to me, so please don’t reference that awful document)? This just seems like “following the false traditions of our fathers (and mothers)”. There are many great women leaders today, and my understanding is that women are fast becoming superior breadwinners to men in modern society.
Women don’t want to hold the priesthood or be a Church leader? Well, I’m a man, and while I know (and, without an exception, strongly dislike) a number of men who crave Church leadership positions, I have never had any desire to be a priesthood leader, either. In fact, after graduating from college, one of the pros of taking a job in Utah (which I admittedly didn’t give that much weight to, but it wasn’t 0% weight, either) was that I was very unlikely to be asked to serve in a time consuming Church calling as an adult, but if I took a job in “the mission field”, where options were sparse, I would almost certainly be stuck spending countless hours in bishoprics at some point. On the contrary, I know of some women who, unlike me, would love to have the opportunity to serve in Church leadership positions.
Women should hold the priesthood, but a different type of priesthood than the men? I suppose maybe this could be made to work, but why? I truly believe women could do just as well at what men are doing in the Church right now, anyway. If there is a masculine and feminine priesthood, there are inevitably going to be men who want to be able to do things the women can do and vice versa, and instead of disenfranchised women, we’d now have disenfranchised men as well.
We can mollify women by making all the changes possible to empower women in the Church right up to the point of requiring them to be ordained? This would help some, but as women become more empowered in this way, I think that their calls for full ordination and sameness with men in the Church, will just become more amplified. To be clear, I think that women demanding ordination is a good thing, but those who feel that they can mollify women by doing everything possible for them short of ordination are likely to see the exact opposite effect in my opinion.
Literally every explanation for why women shouldn’t be treated the same as men in the Church just ends up sounding like nonsense to me. Honestly, these explanations sound an awful lot like the explanations for why blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood before 1978. Those explanations were “doctrine” before 1978 and later become policies that could be changed after 1978. Today, they are completely disavowed. I think that the explanations against women being the same as men in the Church are eventually going to follow the same path as the explanations for blacks not holding the priesthood or entering the temple.
When will women be made the same as men in the Church? Just like with blacks and the priesthood/temple (and the vast majority of other changes for the better in the Church), the “revelation” will come when the Q15 feels enough negative pressure/publicity from both within and without the Church. How close are we getting to that today? I have no idea, but hopefully the recent backlash from posting Sis. Dennis’ quote on the Church’s Instagram account–and particularly coverage by the NY Times–will up the pressure a bit more.
Toad,
And for their powerful and heard RS presidency I nominate Cynthia, Susan, and Valerie
Anette Dennis knew exactly what she was doing in saying women in the church have power and authority. And in this age of Trump and Trumpism it doesn’t surprise me. The idea is to say something obviously disingenuous and egregious that will cause immediate outraged responses from critics and opponents. The go into silence and talk about how you’re being victimized by the critics. The ol’ jab and retreat.
If I have so much power and authority, please explain why I can’t hold my babies when they are being blessed. Stop the gaslighting.
Dear charity,
I’d say that the ability of women to gestate, birth, and nurse a baby is far more powerful and miraculous than the makeshift little womb that men form when they name and bless a baby.
And yet, having my child dangled 4 feet or so up in the air between arms that aren’t mine did cause my heart to have concerns of what could happen. The most graceful way to accommodate the situation is to have the mother stabilize holding the baby during the blessing.
Though I suppose that we could have the men pull up chairs and sit in a circle with the baby and a pillow underneath to catch the child (should the need arise). This would require a culture change – both with an official letter that gets ignored and leadership trainings until this becomes the new tradition.
Another way is to have a meeting 5 minutes before to review how the baby is going to be held and stabilized. This would also require a culture change – both with an official letter that gets ignored and leadership trainings until this becomes the new tradition.
These changes could potentially be insulting to the men who have done this a gazillion times (and haven’t dropped the baby), so we deal with the mother’s heart (and sometimes grandmas and other observers too) in her/their throat experience as the default, as the offered accommodation. After all, this must be easy, after the marathon of “gestating, birthing, and continuing to nurse the baby”.
The argument of, “You birthed a baby! What else could you want!” is about as patronizing, condescending, and self-centered as you could get. I get it, though, the patriarchy of the Church, especially the temple and everything related to it, is a master class in both creating and reinforcing ‘benevolent’ sexism.
Jack,
Fatherhood is equivalent to motherhood, not the priesthood. The priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name. Becoming a mother is a biological thing that can happen to tiny girls too young to consent. Many women cannot ever become pregnant. Many mothers and fathers adopt and are no less parents. Many women have babies but do not raise them.
Saying that the priesthood (available to all worthy men who want it) is equivalent to motherhood (a biological thing that happens to some women and doesn’t for others even if they want it), is nonsensical.
Every time they try to make the priesthood and motherhood equivalent at church I want to throw up. It just isn’t convincing.
Jack,
I have been a true blue mormon all my life. I only recently came to understand that I do not agree with the idea that women cannot have the priesthood. Still, even as a teenager I felt ill when at church they would try to equate motherhood and the priesthood, just because it is a failure of precise meaning. What is the good of words if we just pretend they are equivalent or synonymous when they aren’t?
Nonmember women and girls all over the world give birth every day. How can this be equivalent to the privilege a worthy covenant keeping man holds to represent God’s authority to others through priesthood office and ordinances? It just isn’t. And it’s offensive to women (well me at least) to keep saying this.
I expect the church will continue to choose to withhold authority in the church from women. But they could at least stop repeating this transparent false equivalence.
Matriarchy and patriarchy are equivalent–and the West cares for neither.
And as per the OP–it is temple ordinances that bring men and women closest to the eternal order where patriarchy and matriarchy rule together.
And as for Sister Dennis’ quote–I can understand how some folks might feel that it could have been worded better. But however that may be, the fact remains that she’s correct–at least in the sense that every woman who receives her endowment receives the keys to unlock the knowledge of God. As I have said on other occasions–there are prophetesses in the church.
Astoundingly, demonstrably, false.
Again, demonstrably false. The OP says nothing of the kind. The temple never mentions matriarchy.
Your understanding of history, of words, of the temple, are lacking greatly. That, or you’re lying. I’ll give you benefit of the doubt. But, believe it or not, it’s possible to love someone and still hurt them profoundly. It’s possible to have a wife and daughters and be a victim of abuse still hurt women. Believe it or not, your comments here are hurting women.
It’s a nice coincidence that this post comes almost exactly 40 years (April 5, 1984) since the then RLDS World Conference approved D&C Section 156, which among other things extended priesthood to women. That section was primarily about priesthood ministry and the function of a yet-to-be-built Temple in Indepwndence, Missouri. And, yes, the designated prophet-president (to be voted on next year at World Conference) is a woman. But what I believe may be even more important for Community of Christ is the expanded understanding over time that priesthood is not just about power/authority. Even more important is viewing priesthood ordination as a calling to servant ministry, according to the specific office, the individual’s gifts & abilities, and the circumstances in which he/she/they are called to represent Christ.
What Brian said, Jack. Please just stop talking. Right now. Stop.
So far everyone here has referred to the LDS church as an actual church. It’s not. It’s a corporation sole and has been for a century, after HJG incorporated it. So far its business model has amassed $250 billion in assets, and I’m sure the very insulated octo and nono genarians in charge see no reason to change what has previously been successful. Every decision they make it with the eye to the almighty dollar, even the rash of inexplicable temple building where the membership decline is demonstrable. The only reason they care about being a church and having members is to maintain tax exempt status, and you don’t need many of those. Mormons , give yourselves an 11% raise and actually have a weekend off for the first time in your life. Because despite the increasing fast membership decline all I’ve seen in the decade since I left are minor cosmetic changes and a lot of rebranding the same ineffective programs.
From your previous comments, I have a feeling where you are going with this is that women getting pregnant, giving birth, staying home and nurturning their children, and being subject to their husbands and male Church leaders is what you mean by “matriarchy” in the Church. Furthermore, you are saying that this “matriarchy” is equivalent to the current Church patriarchy, where men have all the power. You seem to believe that women should be overjoyed at the gift of matriachy that God has given them, stop complaining, and keep their mouths shut about inequality in the Church, which you don’t believe exists. If you can’t see the inequality here, you are blind.
The OP didn’t really go into temple ordinances at all other than to describe women’s issues with wearing temple garments every day and how Kevin Hamilton wants the Church to start policing women’s (and men’s) underwear even more that it is now. I think a lot of Church members will agree that temple ordinances are important. I also think that *a lot* fewer Church members agree that wearing garments 24/7 brings them “closest to the eternal order”. The garment has drastically changed over the years, and it wasn’t always the case that Church leaders demanded that members wear them daily. The Church ought to back off on the 24/7 requirement and/or provide a way to remember temple ordinances that works with modern clothing (remembering that there is zero historical evidence that garments were ever intended to enforce modesty standards).
The Church recognizes absolutely zero “prophetesses” in the Church today. I don’t know how many priesthood lessons I’ve been in where the instructor gets a wily grin on his face and tries to baffle the EQ by asking the men to list off all the offices of the priesthood. One of the ones he’s always counting on people to forget is the priesthood office of “prophet”. How many women have held this priesthood office in the Church? How many times have you heard a question discussed in Church, where someone raises their hand and says, “Well, you know, this is what our beloved prophetess, seeress, and revelatoress, President Linda K. Powers, said about this issue…”, and then expecting this quotation of the prophetess to end the debate right then and there? How many times have you sung the hymn “We Thank Thee O God, for a Prophetess” in sacrament meeting? Sure, priesthood leaders grudgingly acknowledge that women can sometimes receive inspiration from the Holy Ghost as all men can do, as long as whatever they receive doesn’t conflict with what any priesthood leader is teaching. If that’s what constitutes a “prophetess”, then any member of the Church, male or female, can hang up a shingle claiming to be a prophet/prophetess.
Think of a single believing mother whose child gets badly hurt. Believing in God’s ability to heal and comfort through blessings she desperately wants divine intervention. However she can’t have a male come give a priesthood blessing because she lives remotely from other members. So she gives the child a blessing herself. Is she wrong in so doing? Would God not validate her blessing of the child? Would God insist that the blessing be through a priesthood-holding male in order to justify intervention?
It would seem that there are a lot of women in the church in this sort of situation. I have never heard any leader talk about how it’s OK for women to give child blessings. In fact it seems taboo for members to speak of it. And I’m to believe that women in the church have all this power and authority?
Our bishop came into our RS specifically to state that women CANNOT give blessings. Maybe a decade ago. If I am remembering correctly he either read the handbook to us, or quoted a GA. Possibly both.
What about the women whose husbands feel unable to give blessings for any variety of reasons? (I could provide a long list here from personal experience but I won’t).
And why silence us and shame us into never giving blessings? Latter day saint women gave blessings regularly throughout the church until about 1910. No prophet ever said it was wrong or took away that power at any point. However they just started saying it was better to call the Elders than to call the Sisters. And we women capitulated.
Years ago when my baby kept throwing up in the middle of the night and my husband didn’t feel up to blessing him, I went ahead and blessed him. It worked in my opinion. Shortly after I felt inspired to take him to the emergency room where the nurse told me not to let him nurse more than three swallows every 10 minutes. I followed her directions, he stopped throwing up, we went home.
I haven’t been that brave since that night 24 years ago. But I often think of the satisfaction of laying my hands on my children’s heads (with support, without feeling like a rebel) and allowing the love of God to wash over us and through us through the touch of my hands…
Before you say it, my prayers with arms folded are not quite the same.
Jack’s comments are such ridiculous, thoughtless tropes I don’t see the point in engaging them. I definitely did not claim anything about the temple illustrating how patriarchy & matriarchy work together. Nobody is suggesting matriarchy as a superior system here either (what is this, the Barbie movie?). Jack’s the only one bringing that up. Jack seems to refer to the separation of sexes as “matriarchy” when looking at the women’s side, even if they have no institutional power. Nope, that’s still patriarchy.
I’ll write in defense of Jack. Jack comes here as a fully believing member among a group of alternative believers and even non-believing cultural Mormons, such as myself. We live in an age of increasingly compartmentalized interaction where we don’t often get to engage different views. Everything is an echo chamber now. This blog allows and even encourages Mormons of different belief belief levels to come on here and interact. It is a rare place. I don’t agree with Jack’s views, but his views do represent a common way of thinking in the LDS church. Jack comes here to challenge us. And in that way I appreciate him.
In my family, in the generation before me, there are quite a few women who are orthodox LDS and consider themselves, privately and occasionally more publicly, to be prophetesses. These are women who are well educated, accomplished, very intelligent, and very strong willed. In all cases, they would generally be considered to be the pants-wearers in their marriages and families.
I believe that if these women had been given legitimate opportunities for meaningful church leadership (IE: decision making), in partnership with other male and female leaders, rather than the pretend leadership opportunities that are given to women in the church today, they could have been a very powerful force in both the church and their families. Instead, their influence has frankly caused considerable pain and generational trauma among my generation and in to those beyond. Their (often false or at least misinterpreted) revelations, and more importantly their efforts at controlling others to conform to their revealed beliefs, have left deep scars on our family and on their communities.
I have some sense that the actions and attitudes of these women are, at least in part, a reaction to the previous generation(s), in which the men severely abused their own power in terrible ways. They have also been overlooked for even the pretend leadership opportunities the church does offer for women today, largely, I believe, because the all-male leaders are intimidated by and afraid of powerful women. This was also the generation of women that experienced perhaps the most shaming around working outside the home. Patriarchy is the source of this problem, though of course we do each carry responsibility for our own actions.
I believe that if they had been given meaningful leadership opportunities, they may have been able to make a more positive use of their legitimate gifts, talents, education, and leadership abilities. Within the structure of an organized priesthood or other organization, they may have been mentored by other leaders, both women and men, and given opportunities to practice a more humble and less harmful approach to spiritual leadership.
Despite these problems, the following generation of women in my family (my generation) are an absolutely astounding group of people. More intelligent and educated than their male counterparts, breadwinners, highly accomplished personally and professionally, pillars of their communities, and with strong families.
For my part, I have taken to heart the idea that persuasion should only be undertaken with patience, love, and kindness, and I’m perhaps more cautious than I should be to recognize something that I identify as spiritual knowledge or revelation unless I can confirm somehow in the real world.
“Why do you think more women than men are active in the church?”
For what it’s worth, I believe (though I have no source for my belief) that this is changing. I think the internet age created a wave of mostly males who left over truth claims. I have observed that this next wave of doubling down on the way we marginalize the marginalized is leading to more women leaving than men, whether it’s because women are part of that marginalized group, or because women who are mothers are choosing family over dogma, or whether females generally care more about the least of these. To wit, when the dust settles on this latest garment-gate fiasco, I believe more people will simply say no thanks to playing stupid games, and most likely it will be females leading the charge.
Also these days it’s really tough to tell what being active actually means. It used to mean attending church meetings with a certain frequency. Yet we constantly hear stories from all genders that people often attend to support others, even if they really could care less about the community. So I’m not sure the sacrament headcount tells us what we think it does.
Chadwick: I used to wonder how many other PIMOs there were in the congregation (although many of them revealed themselves to me over time), but now, based on what people are saying online, I bet that I was undercounting by a LOT. I’m also surprised at how many current missionaries and current BYU students are just biding their time so they can leave.
I am late to this conversation, but will contribute some thoughts anyway.
My mother was a professional and a TBM. She worked in banking for three decades and somehow managed to also do the work of a full-time homemaker. She served in almost every leadership calling a woman can: ward primary president, ward young women’s president, ward relief society president, stake primary president, stake relief society president. As a rule, she rarely said anything negative about anyone. But I remember clearly her criticizing male priesthood leaders through which she reported. On one occasion after a stake high councilman blocked plans she and the stake relief society had for a stake women’s activity, “He is absolutely the dumbest person alive. I will have to get this approved through the stake president.” She was often frustrated by the fact her male stake priesthood leaders couldn’t keep up with her. Often her attitude was that the men just needed to get out of the way of the good the women were doing.
I have to believe that if she were alive today she would have been slack-jawed by Sister Dennis’ remarks. I am not sure how my mom would have advocated for women’s power in the church. Again, she was TMB so I am sure it would be complicated. But I am also sure she would have thought Sister Dennis’ remarks were crazy.
I haven’t yet read all of the comments, because I was distracted that all of the first commenters were men. Fewer than 30% of comments so far are by women and most of them are multiple comments from the same women, including the OP author. Feels very much like man-splaining to me.
I agree with Georgis that very few men actually have power in the church either. But they do have privilege, respect and status. I’m fine with not having power and, as a single woman of a certain age, being officially irrelevant. As such, I feel that I am answerable to God, not to some underling “authority.”
How can this be addressed or remedied? IMHO teach lessons specifically about respecting every individual as a beloved child of God, irrespective of sex, race, age, nationality, religious affiliation, church activity, or any other identifier one might choose. And repeat these lessons/attitudes at least twice a month from age 18-months to forever. I’m a member of the “it matters more what you do than what you profess to believe” church, and I hope it shows.
charlene: Fair point, but I like to think they are just responding, like students, to me hawksplaining it to them.
Nancy,
Your point made me think about something relevant to this post, specifically when you said: “Every decision they make it with the eye to the almighty dollar”
It made me think. Could it be, that the issue at hand here—the church leadership’s complete and utter disregard for women—actually provides a counter example to the profit-first motive of the church?
The fact they refuse to budge on something as simple as having women leaders sit in the stands or make sensible underwear kinda leads be to believe that they’re actually sincere (albeit clearly misguided) about believing in patriarchy.
I think that if it was the case that the Q15 and other upper echelons of the church leadership were shrewd, self-aware scammers, they would’ve already let women in the leadership doors and re-orient their underwear business. If the almighty dollar was their top priority, then alienating more than half of your tithe payers would be an extremely bad move.
In the larger economic milieu of the US, we’ve seen this shift pay out, the so called “woke-capitalism”. Corporations and such who actually do worship the almighty dollar have their fingers to the wind and see the societal shift towards towards greater inclusivity and make efforts to at least appear like they’re cooperating with it. To do otherwise risks losing customers and market share.
What we have here is a clear example of the church not doing that. Which leads me to believe that the almighty dollar isn’t their first priority. They’re willing to drive a large proportion of women out of the church because they sincerely believe (wrongly, IMO) that God wants men to be charge in women.
Brad D,
Thanks for the kind words.
Angela C et al,
The eternal order that is revealed in the temple is what will ultimately answer most of the questions posed in the OP. It is when that order is more fully established–in a millennial day most likely–that patriarchy and matriarchy will rule together. In a time when the earth will be cleansed–from the worst forms of iniquity at least–the external strictures of governance will fall away allowing room for a full flowering of priesthood governance. And that governance will be conducted by priests and priestesses–working hand in hand as patriarch and matriarch–who have received the fulness of the priesthood.
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some orientation on the part of the church in that direction as we make our way across the broad threshold of the Millennium. In fact, I believe that we’re already seeing a foreshadowing of it in certain callings.
Re: Prophetesses in the Church: I’m not speaking of presidency. I’m speaking of the spirit of prophecy. Those who go through the temple–both men and women alike–receive special keys to unlock the knowledge of God.
Jack,
It’s a beautiful vision of equality you lay out (excepting continuing to exclude women from being prophet). I have some questions for you:
If the plan is for us to be equal in the end, why isn’t the church building Zion today? Why is it necessary to dominate women administratively at all if that isn’t in the final plans?
Additionally I want to point out a thorough examination of the scriptures reveals many women who have held priesthood office in the early church. For instance in 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34 King Josiah goes to the prophetess Huldah for advice about some old scriptures he finds. She responded with “Thus saith the Lord…” and tells him to change a bunch of things in his kingdom and he does. I found it very interesting that when we studied the Old Testament the lesson managed to praise Josiah up and down at length without ever mentioning Huldah’s name. Clearly the church doesn’t want to emphasize Huldah’s power and authority. (Please read those chapters.)
Of course there are many other women who hold the priesthood in the Bible but the church just ignores them institutionally. Deborah who was prophetess, judge and general, Junia of note among the apostles, Phoebe the deaconess, and of course Mary Magdalene, the apostle to the apostles.
Powerful and authoritative women (Emma, Eliza Snow, etc.) with the priesthood ordained by President Taylor (read josephsmithpapers.org) led the Relief Society in the 1800s as a separate organization, giving blessings, ordinances for pregnant women in a special room in the temple, and raising and managing the church’s alms for the poor into the early 1900s when Joseph F. Smith began the process of correlation and bringing the RS under male priesthood authority. This process wasn’t complete until the 1960s when RS presidents gave up their budgets to their bishops.
So in reviewing history I don’t see us working towards equality, at least not in a steady arc. Women had much more parity with male priesthood holders in the 1800s, or apparently even in Old Testament times. I think the church today has been influenced by more modern historical movements supporting keeping women in the home and the men in charge. This enhances the prestige of men while equality dilutes the specialness of the priesthood. But having prestige isn’t what following Christ is about.
I don’t believe Christ will just show up and correct everything. The millennium will come when we first build Zion in the church. That cannot happen until the male leaders acknowledge and support full equality of women in the authority and administration of the church as well as the home. To be clear, that includes the prophet.
lws329:
Amen. Specifically to your final thought…
As I perceive the meaning of the metaphor of the church as the bride and the Savior as the bridegroom, the Second Coming is contingent on there being a people and a place prepared to meet our returning Lord. If this be the case, the presence of Zion in the hearts and minds of people throughout the world (and not just in a specific church) sets the stage, not the wickedness of the world nor the disarray of the church.
I realize this may be a contrarian view, but it causes me to look inward and realize that God isn’t going to swoop in to solve mine or the world’s problems. No, that depends on us. And if that be so, then this world and its people are our stewardship to care for with whatever means lie within our reach. I can imagine the Savior saying, in the spirit of Matthew 25: did I not give you sufficient resource to care for the earth, the poor and the needy?
So, why wait? Why not restore to women the scope and privileges to minister and administer they had in ancient times as well as in the early years of the LDS church?
Jack,
No, it doesn’t answer most of the questions in the OP. Mostly importantly, what you write is not what is revealed in the temple (not matriarchy in any temple ceremony, sorry; plenty of patriarchy). I understand that you want it to be so that your argument makes sense, but you are grossly mistaken (that again, is my generous take on the matter). Look, I’m all for discussion, but for discussion which is based on reality, not ‘alternative facts’ and made up history. And especially not when those falsities perpetuate harm; and especially to already marginalized groups.
In short, you’ve answer nothing and have only further contributed harm. I’m asking sincerely: what would make you actually care enough to stop misrepresenting the temple and the church’s teachings? What you describing has no basis in actual practice or teachings of the church. I mean, it’s all online now. It’s long passed the time when members could pretend something happens in the temple that doesn’t.
Iws329,
I think we have to consider the likelihood of the church being a different animal in Zion. Of course, all of the same powers and gifts will be available–but my guess is that where all people “know the lord” the authority of the priesthood will flow through families rather than church systems. I could be wrong on that score–but it seems to me that Zion would be patterned after an heavenly order. And so what we’ll see–IMO–is a movement in that direction as Zion becomes more fully established.
Dear Brian,
There is so much I’d like to say about the ordinances of the temple–but you know that I can’t. I will say this much though: even if we consider the sealing ordinance alone–that should be enough to get us thinking about the heavenly gifts and powers that men and women will have as and matriarchs and patriarchs in the Kingdom. They literally inherit all that there is–together.
***
This must be my final comment–as I’ve already gone over my limit.
Cool, got it, Jack. Thanks for the explanation. So women inherit everything. Like everything, everything? or just Patriarchy everything? Like, do they inherit the right and privilege (not to say anything of the relationship building that occurs) of being prayed to? Of being worshipped as a member of the Godhead? Of exercising full priesthood authority to create worlds, to preside over their husbands, etc.? I mean, they get it all, right? Or only the stuff that fits in a patriarchy order: like . . . . well, perhaps it would be easier to just say that motherhood covers it; because that’s all the church (and you) offers right now, women
What I am writing, (which, to be clear) is your position. It’s hurtful to women. You can say it shouldn’t hurt them, but that doesn’t change anything. You can say they just don’t get the enlightened views that you have and that the Church has provided, but that doesn’t change anything. Your views are hurtful, incomplete, and gaslighting.
@Brad D re writing in defense of Jack.
Yes echo chambers aren’t great. That being said, every member I have met in my life was complex. None of them agree with and defend the church’s status quo on every topic. Whether it’s vaccines or the way the church spends (or doesn’t spend) money or cultural items that aren’t timely quashed or hoping for better answers for the marginalized or being frustrated at the lack of support in fulfilling callings or preferring the church not criticize other faith traditions, etc. I’ve never seen Jack show empathy for any of these things. He comes here, supports the institution every time, says a bunch of words, riles up the commenters, and eventually bows out when people tell him to stop.
I’m not saying Jack can’t comment. It’s not my blog. I’m just saying he’s not at all representing the believing members in my life. So I personally do not find his comments helpful in ensuring that I’m being open to diversity. YMMV.
One thing we need to remember is that Jack/bagsofsand (he’s been around the bloggernacle for a while) has freely admitted he’s not here for conversation or to learn from these discussions.
He’s told us he’s here to provide a faithful voice for those who might be struggling and looking for answers, so they’re not led astray by the nuanced and those who have left.
I find it amusing because the bloggernacle is a shadow of its past self. This is no longer the typical place to go for those grappling with questions. I see far more activity in Facebook groups, Reddit, on Instagram, Substack, and aaaaaaall the podcasts.
The ironic thing is, speaking the party line isn’t actually helping. I just listened to Jared Halverson’s address at the Restore conference a few months ago. Jared is deep in the faithful camp, so he’s not for everybody, but he’s emphatic that Jack’s method harms far more than it hurts. Not responding with empathy or acknowledgment that there are VALID REASONS that people struggle is a primary reason why the church is bleeding members.
Church history is far more complicated than is taught. We’ve got problems with racism, sexism, homophobia, and greed. But I firmly believe the main driver for the exodus is the lack of humility in members and leaders to even admit these are issues.
sorry, that should have read “harms far more than it helps”
Golden Glue: “The fact they refuse to budge on something as simple as having women leaders sit in the stands or make sensible underwear kinda leads be to believe that they’re actually sincere (albeit clearly misguided) about believing in patriarchy.” Oh, I’m sure they do. The church embraces the word “patriarchal” all over the place, and there’s no doubt that the Q15 have been told what special boys they are since birth. That’s how patriarchy works. Of course it inevitably leads to arrogance and a lack of empathy to be told your whole life that you’re better than others just by dint of your biological sex.
Do women really want to “inherit the right and privilege … of being prayed to? Of being worshipped as a member of the Godhead? Of exercising full priesthood authority to create worlds, to preside over their husbands, etc.?” I am a man and I don’t seek those things. I think that sometimes we look beyond the mark. I hope only to be a joint heir with Christ to all that the Father has. I don’t fully know what that means, but I am not seeking power, worship, adulation, and praise. Didn’t the mother of James and John wonder the same about her sons’ position in heaven, and Jesus said that she didn’t know what she asked? The ten other apostles were angered at the question, and Jesus told them “whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” I do not walk around with delusions in my mind of me ruling over people, spouses, worlds, etc. I am more concerned about today, about serving, being kind, helping others, and doing good. If someone asks me what our state is in the next life and what it means to inherit the celestial kingdom, I can only say that it is to be a joint heir with Christ, and how wonderful that will be. I will not attempt to put a lot of meat on those bones, because I don’t know.
What happens to the women who hate their husbands or who view them with utter contempt? and to the men who hate their wives? I don’t know, but I can’t think that these unions will endure into the eternities. I also don’t see women being given as ninth or nineteenth wives to some old dotard with a long beard. There are many, many men who have died in mankind’s wars at the height of their virility and handsomeness, and who died without marriage. This I believe: “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” I try to love God and my fellow people, and he will handle the rest. I absolutely do not think that women will be second-class citizens in heaven. I think that men who obsess about being prayed to, or being worshipped, or presiding over spouses delude themselves, and they need to heed Jesus’ counsel about not worrying about position in heaven.
@Georgis
As they say: “Sus.”
Georgis: Honestly, I don’t personally care what will happen in the eternities, but I know that in the here and now, women are not treated as equals in the church. I’m not looking to be worshipped or prayed to, but if you tell men non-stop from birth to death that they are the boss of women, this is what you get. The theology used to justify that unequal view of women would just be something else if it weren’t what it is. (Obviously polygamy isn’t helping and is about the most unequal arrangement for women that is imaginable). To quote RBG (who was in turn, quoting Sarah Moore Grimke): “All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” **I don’t take the theology very seriously because it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out. But putting men in charge of all decision-making, that’s something that I can see happening right now in reality.
“But putting men in charge of all decision-making, that’s something that I can see happening right now in reality.”
I think it goes far beyond “putting them in charge” and actually becomes an uncomfortable judgement call of “support wife” vs “support what God said (and sometimes it’s church culture/church doctrine/church practices)” – similar to the choice that Adam had to make. I don’t know what training men get to provide information on how to make that decision (if any), or if anyone tells them that sometimes – it is that type and that level of decision. While women are sometimes in the same situation, the men seem to hold themselves extra accountable in this area as “presiders in the family” and are held socially accountable differently. I suspect (with no direct evidence either way) that some men drift away from the church community in part because they take their family leadership position so seriously (as co-presiders/co-facilitators and co-creators if nothing else) that they cannot stay and be held more accountable by the church organization/community.
Charlene brought up a good point. The saints would all be better off with more egalitarianism. In Masonry (an influential group to early mormonism), egalitarianism was a key principle. FDR, as president, served under the lodge master who was the White House Gardner. What a beautiful reminder to keep people humble and to balance the temptations of power.
We have tenants of egalitarianism in our faith, but just as many, if not more tenants of Aristotelian hierarchy and the “talented 10th”, the “chosens”, the “144k”, and priestly rule.
. And sadly- at some point in the past we took a nose dove into leader worship and likely will never recover. Leaders this, leaders that. Red velvet chairs, suits and middle initials.
Women don’t stand a chance, but then neither does the rest of the rank and file. The battle for mutual respect, shared governance, common consent, and egalitarianism was lost or resigned a long time ago.
You’re telling me that if I wear uncomfortable, ugly underwear day and night, I will be considered worthy to repeatedly relive what were arguably the most sexist and devastating hours of my life, all with the goal being on the ground floor of my abusive ex-husband’s heavenly harem?
Call me crazy, but I’mma choose my yoga pants and trying to be kind to people.
And, there it is….reference #1 to garments, a mere 45 minutes into the first session by none other than Anette Dennis. She is nominally focusing on symbolism and covenants, but she definitely emphasized “constantly” wearing them as a symbol of our devotion to Christ.
Also, she reiterates the new (as of late March 2024) policy allowing 18 year-olds to go to the temple without a mission call or imminent marriage.
I put the over/under on additional talks referencing garments at 1.5.
I certainly DON’T want to be a bishop or an SP. What I do want is a voice that is heard and respected, a vote that actually counts, to be appreciated for my intellect and talents and to know that I’m much more important than being a baby machine now and in the eternities. How would Mormon men feel if the tables were turned and they were only appreciated when they were able to impregnate a woman. In horse racing circles that’s called “putting them out to stud”. I don’t want to be only useful in the eternal scheme of things as a celestial brood mare!
Patriarchy oozes from every decision that “the leaders” make with regard to women. Why? Could it be that they are afraid of women’s intelligence and their many gifts? Are they afraid that women would make better leaders because they tend to be more collaborative in the decision making process and because they tend to (but not always) be better listeners and show more compassion and empathy? Are they afraid that women would quickly dismantle the Priesthood leadership hierarchy that Joseph Smith created which gave and gives power into the hands of men connected through family, business, wealth and secret societies and create a more loving and egalitarian group of believers? Are they afraid that women would get rid of “the covenant path” and its growing list of rules that are basic forms of virtue signaling and replace them with worship only of our Heavenly Parents and Jesus? Are they afraid that the light would be finally shown upon church history that’s been hidden away, the wrong decisions that have been made because of hubris, unrighteous dominion, folk beliefs, incorrect doctrines (Blood Atonement, Blacks and the Priesthood, Adam God, people choose to be LGBTQ+, etc) AND that the church would not only apologize but do everything possible to make restitution to everyone who has been harmed and/or not taken seriously when reporting all kinds of abuse? Are they afraid that women would use the obscene amount of money squirreled away “for a rainy day/Jesus’s coming” and use it bless the lives of the poor, homeless, disabled, mentally ill, etc instead? Are they afraid that women would overthrow the missionary program and send out members of all ages to do meaningful service for everyone all over the world? Are they afraid that women would allow and encourage freedom of thought, freedom of expressing those thoughts, and of holding all leaders accountable to their congregations and the entire church? Are they afraid that women would do away with excommunication, disfellowshipping, shunning, name calling and so forth? Are they afraid that women would do away with titles and worshipful treatment of the leaders, callings for life, and all perks that leaders currently hold? Are they afraid that women would do away with all forms of spiritual abuse, openly denouncing it to the church and the world, apologize for it and help those who have been wounded by this horrific abuse to get the necessary treatment so that these people can finally heal and move on with their lives? I could go on and on but won’t. You get the picture.
The church is losing members at an alarming rate and yet the leaders never look at their own behaviors, policies and practices. They continue to blame Satan and “lazy learners who want to sin” when it’s their own behavior and decisions that are pushing so many members away. If they want any kind of church left in the future some serious soul searching and repentance on their part is desperately needed NOW.
Whether any individual woman wants to be a bishop, stake president, apostle, etc. is less relevant than the possibility that they can.
The rest @A Poor Wayfaring Stranger you hit right on the head.
@A–What is your over/under for referencing RMN in a single talk. In fact, the Garment talk went into great length about what RMN taught, with an admonishment to be sure and read his footnotes!
Well, DHO apparently has thoughts on the garment issue as well…
As for an over/under on RMN references, that depends on how we define a reference. Just quoting him is probably 4.5/talk. Quoting him and adding a phrase like “covenant path” or “think celestial” jumps it up to about 8.5/talk. But we will have to remove Rasband’s talk from consideration–his would skew the averages upward significantly.
Unanimous opinion among my family: Kearon’s talk was excellent.
What I heard from the other room during Oaks talk, “blah blah covenant, blah blah covenant blah covenant blah blah blah covenant blah blah covenant blah covenant”. I mean, my husband was listening on his cell phone and it was kind of muffled and it was just really bizarre how the only word coming through was “covenant” repeated every sentence or twice in a sentence. But Oaks was saying it a bit louder and putting emphasis on it, and it really sounded crazy that that one word kept coming through and no other words were even recognizable in his monotone voice. It started bugging me, and then I started to pick up a few other words, mingled in such as “garments” and “temple”.
I think we are becoming the Church of the Covenant of Covenant keeping. I will be glad when they find a new word.
It was refreshing – on so many levels – to hear Dieter Uchtdorf in Saturday evening session. He gave an entire major address w/o ONCE mentioning ‘The Covenant Path’ – oh, I love that man.
[[[Where do you believe Christians celebrate blood libel and other pogroms in our traditional Easter celebrations? ]]][[[You say that our history is revisionist in part because doesn’t demand that we “confront our war-crimes”,]]][[[Do you demand reparations?]]][[[ Do you demand that we constantly apologize for things that we in the modern age never did?]]]
Post Shoah wherein Hitler’s Nazis based most of their policies upon Xtian hate Jewish persecution, Luther said gather the Jews into the synagogues and burn them inside. Just for example. The 3 Century ghetto Catholic war crimes a 2nd witness to the influence of the Xtian abomination: “by their fruits you shall known them”. Post WWII the Xtian religion a dead religion. But prior to WWII, the Catholic church stole a Jewish child whose Xtian maid “baptized” that Jewish baby and the Italian courts refused to return that child back to his Jewish parents!
Easter viewed from the falsely imprisoned ghetto Jewish populations has nothing to do with candy and sweets but poverty and starvation!
[[[You say that our history is revisionist in part because doesn’t demand that we “confront our war-crimes”,]]] Talk utterly cheap. Has Spain or any European country guilty of Xtian war-crimes made war reparations to the Jewish people as has post Nazi Germany. NO. not England, France Spain Portugal etc etc etc.
[[[Do you demand reparations?]]] Most definitely. The Poop Pope ordered together with the king of France the burning of all the Talmudic manuscripts (some 200 years before the invention of the printing press.), these Talmudic hand written manuscripts – their destruction (duplicated by the Nazi book burnings), compare to if Jews burned down the Louve museum in Paris!
That Catholics attempt to declare Poop Pius XII a “saint” after that Poop turned over all the Jews of Rome to the Nazi gas chambers and assisted fleeing Nazis to escape justice by reaching South American sanctuary! Most definitely yes Israeli such as myself feel that the European barbarians must pay reparations for damages inflicted to make at least an attempt at restitution of damages those Goyim barbarians inflicted upon the Jewish people.
There can not exist justice for these crimes against humanity without War-Crimes reparations, just as paid post War Germany War-Crimes reparations. Jews do not and Israelis will not accept: Gee I am so sorry from the descendants from these vile barbarians. Based upon the premise: The apple does not fall far from the tree. Or “beware of false prophets, by their fruits you shall know them”.
Yes Centuries have past but until the European sub-human barbarians (apes share a 98.7% genetic genome match with humans) make some judicially ruled war-reparation compensation for 2000+ years of hate inspired damages inflicted upon Jewish stateless refugee populations, no peace can exist between Israelis who now rule our own country and Europeans sub-human barbarian apes.
A very bitter harsh perhaps hateful response to your question but 2000+ years of despicable arrogant vile criminal behaviour has produced fruits that Israelis hate European Xtians. Would sooner piss against a strong headwind and hope the piss wouldn’t cover my legs and feet that trust a Xtian European barbarian. Just that simple.
[[[ Do you demand that we constantly apologize for things that we in the modern age never did?]]] Christ-Killers! The song says it all: “Its to late to apologize … to late etc”
Xtian rhetoric of love = bull shit. Pie in the sky nonsense. We Israelis do not believe this avoda zarah religious rhetoric nonsense spouted by Xtian barbarians who behave like apes. Not just to the Jews. The slaughter of Africans to native American Indians to peoples in the Pacific to Xtian “White Man’s Burden” an abomination that surpasses all the avoda zarah idolatry in the Hebrew T’NaCH. Xtianity worship other Gods. Just that simple.
Your imaginary man Harry Potter/JeZeus he did not know how to keep shabbat. The mitzva of Torah common law requires making a הבדלה/distinction between “work” on Shabbat as opposed to the work week. Work on Shabbat called מלאכה. Work on the work week called עבודה. JeZeus did not know this most fundamental and basic of distinctions. The Apostle Paul did not know the most basic and fundamental distinctions which separates Jewish common law from Roman statute law.
Such basic 1 + 1 = 2 basic fundamentals the New Testament does not know. The absurd mistranslation of brit (בראשית-ברית אש) as covenant – as false – as the sin of the Golden Calf, where the Xtian bible falsely translates the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment as “lord” and the Muslim koran worships this same Golden calf through its equally false mistranslation of “Allah”. Holy Spirit (רוח הקודש) refers not to some absurd Nicene Creed theology of the Trinity – but to the fact that the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment (the greatest commandment upon which hang all other Torah commandments {the gospel error of love as the greatest commandment just wrong} learns that Jews who accept keeping the Torah commandments, (a lot more than 10) that we agree to keep these commandments לשמה.
The Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment: Holy Spirit and NOT a word translation. The sin of the Golden Calf — translating this “Holy Spirit” to other words!!!! The Xtian bible and Muslim koran both worship other Gods; the 2nd Sinai commandment.
Another example of the New Testament avoda zarah (mistranslated as “idolatry”), JeZeus did not know how to daven mistranslated to pray. A day and night 1 + 1 = 2 distinction between “prayers” – saying Tehillem/Psalms from tefillah – blessings(ברכות) JeZeus’s Lord’s prayer failed to make this day and night distinction. In effect he called day/night and night/day. Isaiah cursed false prophets who did this exact error.
Torah wisdom always strives to discern “what’s the distinction?”. The blessing said over a cup of wine at the beginning and end of shabbat serves as a fundamental example of the 1 + 1 = 2 fundamental basics requirement which requires the wisdom which has the understanding which can separate and discern like from like. For example: the t’rumah dedicated to the Cohen/priest from the chol/common grains that the people can eat after giving the tithe to the Levi and the poor. All Torah commandments (and their exist thousands of Torah commandments not just 613, they require making this type of wisdom discernment of understanding.
JeZeus/Harry Potter did not teach his disciples how to daven according to the kabbalah learned from over 247 T’NaCH prophets! (This opinion expressed by the Yerushalmi Talmud codified in about the same year approximate as the Nicene creed of 325 CE). The New Testament knows nothing of the Oral Torah as taught by Rabbi Akiva the most respected rabbi who inherited the mantle of authority from the Perushim/pharisees. The Pharisees lead the Hannukah revolt against the Syrian Greek empire some 100 years before the New Testament gospel myth birth of the imaginary fictional character of JeZeus.
The Gospels pit JeZeus against the Perushim/Pharisees. Its words compare to the blood libel slanders Xtians made against captive Jews imprisoned in ghettos. Wherein Xtian falsely, with intent, accused Jews of murdering Xtian children and using their blood to make matza bread on Pesach (about the time of Easter resurrection nonsense mythology). The ensuing annual pogroms where goyim Xtians murdered Jewish communities or made mass expulsions of Jews from across Europe, these crimes – their stink still singes the nostrils of the Jewish people to this very day.
The term “burning nose” a Torah Hebrew description of the Anger of HaShem when Israel worshipped avoda zarah in the Wilderness in the days of Moshe and Aaron.
Question #1. Understood by grasping the chaos and anarchy that prevailed in the times leading up to two major Jewish revolts that resulted in 50% or more of the entire Jewish population of Judea slaughtered by the Romans. The Shoah by comparison witness the destruction of 75% of all European Jewry in less than 3 years. Did you know this fact?
Jews, like myself, understand that the Apostle Paul operated as an Agent Provocateur. Paul infiltrated the Xtian abomination avoda zarah faith on the road to Damascus. He undermined the influence of this group among the Jewish people, close to the borders of Judea (ie Syria) by preaching that circumcision no longer a Torah commandment. Next this “spy” travelled to Rome and promoted within a polytheistic civilization based upon the Ancient Greek mythology of the Gods of Mount Olympus (the story of Zeus fathering Hercules compares to Mary giving birth through “virgin” birth [a gross perversion of the Hebrew language of “young woman”]).
In Rome Paul as a Jewish spy sent to promote unrest and revolt in Rome prior to the outbreak of the Jewish Revolt. The story of the Maccabees (some 100 years before the gospel stories) Yechuda Maccabee attempted and succeeded (You do not argue with success!) by promoting Civil War in Damascus Syria against the king of the Greek Syrian empire.
Paul preached to Romans worship the Son of God, the king of the Jews! Now this entirely displeased and threatened Ceasar b/c he declared that he himself lived as the Son of God! Getting Romans to swear allegiance to the King of the Jews directly threaten Roman hegemony over Judea!
During the Maccabee revolt Yechuda Maccabee and his brothers communicated with Rome directly! So the Romans, well aware of the propaganda tactics employed by Yechuda Maccabee to throw off and thereby weaken the Greek Syrian empire which the Romans very much wanted to conquer!
The gospel Roman counterfeit written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. The Romans knew that chaos and anarchy bitterly divided waring Jewish factions who fought a Civil War among themselves.
The new testament Roman gospel forgery validates that multiple factions fought with one another in Judea. But does not play up or emphasize the fact that Civil War prevailed among warring Jewish factions as much as the desire to throw off the hated Roman rule of Judea. Just listen to the play of Jesus Christ Super-star for an example of how Goyim Xtian read their New Testament which makes a revisionist history of the Jewish Civil Wars.
The Roman gospels counterfeit duplicates the Jewish attempt to promote Civil War in Rome through the spy Agent Provocateur known as “the Apostle Paul”.
Question #2. I do not have access to Conservative/Historical Judaism writers that i did when I lived in Tulsa Oklahoma and was a member of that community. I made aliyah to Israel in 1991. But I remember while in Tulsa reading a Conservative historian account, the authors name I do not remember of the top of my head. But that person wrote: “There’s not enough physical evidence to write a descent obituary for JeZeus”.
I live in Israel and study primarily T’NaCH Talmud and Midrashic sources. I have not read Conservative Judaism comments since i lived in Tulsa Oklahoma since making aliyah to Israel in 1991.
Please examine this Google source in English. Since coming to Israel i have focused upon studying the sealed Primary Sources of Jewish faith in the original language.
The distinction between traditional Jewish scholarship on the Torah and Conservative/Historical Jewish scholarship on the Torah boils down to a fine point of distinction. Traditional Torah scholars argue that the T’NaCH, Talmud, and Midrashim made by the Gaonim scholars (600 to 950CE) teach that the T’NaCH prophets command mussar NOT history.
Late 19th Century to present Conservative/Historical Judaism argues that the T’NaCH prophets lived as historical events from ancient times past. Tradition Judaism argues that Torah defines the term “prophesy” as persons, both male and female, who command mussar which applies straight across the board to all generations of Jews living. The study of this prophetic mussar defines the scholarship of the Aggadah of the Talmud and the Midrashim of the Gaonim scholars.
My rav taught me that just as the Gemarah common law learns the intent of the language of the Mishnah through common law precedents; post Talmudic scholars should learn the Talmud as common law precedents to interpret the intent of the language of the Siddur. The Siddur, a codification of tohor time-oriented commandments, like and similar to how the Shulkan Aruch codifies the religious halacha for Jews to keep and obey to this very day.
Imagine that! The purpose of the entire Talmud, 20 volumes of common law, written with the intent to grasp the prophetic mussar of the T’NaCH prophets and link this prophetic mussar not only to understanding the intent within the heart of keeping ritual halachic mitzvot but more importantly to understand the mitzva of how to daven the standing tefillah known as the Shemone Esrei!!!!!!!!!!
I cannot emphasize how revolutionary this comprehension of the purpose of Talmudic learning, who all the tens of thousands of rabbinic halachot serve as judicial precedents to interpret the “k’vanna” of the Shemone Esrei standing tefillah sworn before a Sefer Torah by the Jewish people throughout the generations. I remind you that I mentioned above that the Yerushalmi Talmud teaches that over 247 prophets occupied their energies writing the Shemone Esrei standing Tefillah.
Prayer a bad mistranslation of Tefillah. The latter swears a Torah oath. The former praise God. The two as different from one another as day and night 1 + 1 = 2. JeZeus, the Roman counterfeit did not know how to daven the tefillah kabbalah taught by the prophets of Israel.
His Our Father who art in Heaven totally missed the oath sworn by Avram at the brit cut between the pieces (a brit requires that both parties swear a Torah oath which requires שם ומלכות) {kingship/מלכות a false translation for the attributes revealed to Moshe at Horev after the sin of the Golden Calf! Tefillah dedicates a defined tohor Oral Torah Horev attribute/middah Holy to HaShem by swearing a Torah oath. Prayer, as expressed to saying Tehillem/Psalms does not swear a Torah oath לשמה which dedicates holy to HaShem a defined Tohor spirit Oral Torah attribute!}
So HaShem swore a Torah oath to Avram that his future born seed (Avram childless at the time he cut this oath brit with HaShem) that his O’lam Ha’Bah (future born seed, currently living in the ‘World to Come’) would suffer oppression in a foreign land ie Egypt, that HaShem would bring them from that slaver unto the oath sworn land inheritance of Canaan. What oath did Avram swear to HaShem? Ooops
A oath alliance requires that both parties to the alliance swear a oath! The oath of Avram: that if HaShem would give him future born children who would number as the stars of the sky and sand upon the seashore, that the Spirit Name of HaShem (Avraham only knew the Name El Shaddai, the revelation of the 1st Sinai revelation of the Name, he did not know! None the less Avram swore that this Spirit Name would live within the hearts of his future born chosen firstborn Cohen seed! Hence Tefillah a matter of the Heart and NOT “God who art in Heaven” as the counterfeit JeZeus falsely taught his talmidim/disciples. That’s check-mate.
mosckeer,
Can you please explain how killing 10,000 palistinian children, and a similar number of women, is going to make Israel safer, or more secure?
It appears to me that the excessive retaliation is alienating people who previously supported Israel. 1200 Israelis were killed by hamas, does that justify 30,000?
Unless Israel stops killing palestinians immediately, I expect many countries to recognise a palistinian state, and the UN to move in and remove Israel from the state of Palestine, and create a 2 state solution. Israel keeps talking about a war. Can you have a war with people whose land you already occupy, and whose lives you control?
How would you feel about that?
Women typically subscribe to group think and can typically be found on the left side of the political spectrum. They typically support evil things like abortion, witchcraft, and goddess worship