No, Women Do Not Have Access to all of the Blessings of the Priesthood

. . . and Other Arguments that Just. Don’t. Work.
A thread was recently wrapped up over at By Common Consent, A very short post about Elder Cook’s talk by Kristine. I felt there was a lot of good discussion taking place on this thread without my help, so I chose to keep my participation to a minimum. I only commented twice in the 222-comment thread, and then only one of those comments was really substantive. However, the second to last comment on the thread was a reply to me, and the thread was closed before I could further respond, so I’m using this post to gather my thoughts on some of the issues raised by this commentator and offer some replies.
At comment #74, Jack (no relation) said:
Why anyone would actively seek the responsibilities of the priesthood is beyond me. For most men it can be a millstone around the neck at times — a grand opportunity to learn something about grinding one’s personal interests to powder.
Now the blessings of the priesthood is a different matter — those things that Abraham sought. Women may receive them in full force in this life, according to their faith.
Here Jack touches on two common lines of argument for women and the priesthood issues, the first being the idea that the priesthood is an awful burden that no one should want in the first place. Apparently we’re to understand that women should be grateful that they’re saved from all of that spiritual heavy lifting. Or in other words: “Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they’re so frightfully clever. I’m really awfully glad I’m a Beta, because I don’t work so hard.” [1]
The problem with this is twofold: (1) It implies that priesthood tasks and responsibilities are harder and more time-consuming than non-priesthood tasks and responsibilities. I’ve known some very hard-working women in the LDS church who would take issue with that. (2) That a role or task includes detriments does not mean said role or task precludes very real benefits that make it worth it in spite of the detriments.
LDS leaders speak very highly of the priesthood. As Me pointed out on the thread (#80), President Thomas S. Monson just said this past Conference:
The gift of the priesthood is priceless. It carries with it, the authority to act as God’s servants, to administer to the sick and to bless our families and bless others as well. Its authority can reach beyond the veil of death, on into the eternities. There is nothing else to compare with it in all this world.
With that description, who wouldn’t want the priesthood?
The second idea Jack touched on in his initial comment was the assertion that women can have all of the blessings of the priesthood even though they don’t hold the priesthood.
Okay then. I challenge someone to find me an LDS woman who has experienced the blessing of baptizing her child. I’ll wait.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Or in other words, women cannot receive all of the blessings of the priesthood, because they cannot receive the blessings that stem from participation in the priesthood.
I made a comment on the thread to the effect that my own “Mr. Jack” (i. e. my husband) knew better than to “spout platitudes” about women having all of the blessings of the priesthood. Jack later replied (#221):
Well, platitudinal or not — that’s not the way I said it.
I’m not sure I understand the complaint here. “Women can have all of the blessings of the priesthood” was the gist of Jack’s initial comment on the thread.
But even so, you should probably shy away from the Sermon on the Mount — too many icky platitudes — you know, like loving each other and all that.
I don’t consider the Sermon on the Mount to be platitudinous. But even if some would, that’s only because it has been around for nearly two thousand years. It certainly wasn’t considered platitudinous in the first century when it started circulating.
But on a more serious note: You don’t believe women will receive a fullness of the priesthood? When it’s promised to them in plain English (or whathaveyou) — as plain as word can be? Or do you not understand what a Priestess is?
It’s far from clear that the LDS church teaches this. The temple liturgy promises LDS women that they will be priestesses to their husbands, in contrast to the men, who are priests unto God. I think this distinction is significant. For all I know, “priestess” in the temple simply means “Mrs. Priest.”
In any case, I was under the impression that this speaks of a future promise of “priestess”-hood, not a current one. The church very plainly teaches that women do not hold the priesthood in the here and now, which is the issue.
I would think that inheriting the universe (all that there is) ought to assuage the feminist concern for equality.
I’m not sure how promises of equality in the next life would assuage feminist concerns with inequality in this life. And again, it’s far from clear that women are going to be equals with their husbands in the next life. I would say that the temple liturgy teaches just the opposite.
As Raymond implied earlier, nobody gets out of this mess without following some leader — like it or not.
Yes, everyone in the LDS hierarchy is ultimately someone else’s subordinate. This doesn’t change the fact that some parties are more subordinate than others. On top of this, men at least get to be the “presiding authority” in their own homes—even if the Prophet is present. Women don’t even get that much.
And some of those leaders do happen to be women — believe it or not. I’ve worked in the primary for the last six or seven years and, believe me, those women in the presidency have authority over me. They have the right and power to receive revelation on my behalf as I serve in their organization. And if I were to ignore their inspired counsel then I might as well be ignoring God.
I’m aware that there are a small number of roles in the LDS church wherein women can exercise leadership over adult men. It’s unclear to me how the existence of these callings is supposed to make up for the vast numbers of opportunities completely unavailable to capable women.

Comments

No, Women Do Not Have Access to all of the Blessings of the Priesthood — 53 Comments

  1. You are so very right. I personally am one of those who wouldn’t want the priesthood, my life is hard enough thank you very much, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of women with the energy, drive, and talent to be excellent administrators in the church. And there are plenty of men who don’t have those things and are forced into positions they don’t have the abilities for.
    I shouldn’t admit this, but I’m wondering if my own views of Mormon women’s capabilities are colored by growing up in the church. I sometimes attend a UU church now with a woman minister, and she’s brilliant. I am so impressed by her. And I sit there and listen to her and try to imagine a woman as the bishop of my ward… and I can’t. I mean, there are lots of really sharp women in my ward, but I can’t see them overseeing all the things that this minister does. I don’t know why that is.
  2. Or in other words, women cannot receive all of the blessings of the priesthood, because they cannot receive the blessings that stem from participation in the priesthood.
    Amen, girl. Nothing annoys me more than men or women who insist that women are receiving all of the blessings of the priesthood. In fact, this very contention is what started me blogging.
  4. The non-Jack Jack wants it both ways.
    He wants the priesthood to be something and nothing. Here’s the math:
    Man = Bleh
    Man + Priesthood = Awesomeness
    Women (sans priesthood) = Awesomeness
    Therefore, Woman = Man + Priesthood
    (and therefore, Woman > Man)
    But wait! since women “don’t need the priesthood” in order to enjoy the priesthood; i.e., attain Awesomeness:
    Woman + Priesthood = Woman
    Therefore, Priesthood = 0
    The other possibility is that women actually could benefit from the priesthood, but then they would be Super-Awesome and that would leave men behind (remember, Woman > Man). The priesthood, then, is just a way of evening things out.
    Which means that women would only want it because they’re greedy.
    ;)
  5. Okay, so there’s actually another possibility, where Woman > Man and the priesthood is only “something” when it’s applied to Man; e.g., if Man had only one leg but Woman had two, then adding a leg to Man would be a big deal to him whereas Woman isn’t really going to get much out of having a third leg.
    And truth be told, I think there is actually something to this way of looking at it.
  6. I’m sorry, not to rag on my own gender, but I have had too many run-ins with crazy females lately to buy into this women-have-a-leg-up argument. Just because they’re more sophisticated in their meangirling doesn’t make them >.
  7. #1 philomytha ~ Thanks for sharing your honest thoughts on this. In actuality, I also have a difficult time imagining women presiding in the LDS church, but I think that mostly has to do with my cynicism. Lately I’ve just been feeling more and more pessimistic about the chances of seeing significant change in my lifetime.
    #2 BiV ~ Good to see you again! Thanks for linking to your old blog post on this.
    Most of the “standard” answers to “women & the priesthood” questions annoy me to varying degrees, but the “blessings” response especially irks me, and I’m not completely sure why that is. Maybe because it’s so obviously false, and yet people just keep saying it and saying it. It’s like listening to people prattle on about how polygamy was only practiced to care for needy widows when even the most basic reading of Mormon polygamy history shows that isn’t the case.
    #4 & #5 BFF ~ Okay, so there’s actually another possibility, where Woman > Man and the priesthood is only “something” when it’s applied to Man; e.g., if Man had only one leg but Woman had two, then adding a leg to Man would be a big deal to him whereas Woman isn’t really going to get much out of having a third leg.
    Isn’t this kind of a variation on “Women are more spiritual than men, so men need the priesthood just to keep up” ?
  8. BFF: “Isn’t this kind of a variation on “Women are more spiritual than men…?” Maybe. It all depends on what we (meaning, whoever is making the argument) says the “leg” is: women are more _____ than men. Usually the fill-in-the-blank is, as you say, “spiritual,” but you could fill it in with anything.
    An example of one answer that I think has some merit: “social/religious.” I remember seeing a study (I think from Pew) showing that women are more religious—church-going—than men, but that in the LDS Church it’s about equal. Does the priesthood offer something to men that entices them to stay active in church? Maybe.
    That doesn’t mean that the way priesthood is organized now is the best way or only good way, but I think it is an interesting and important point to consider before changing the priesthood. And of course it’s all speaking in generalities and not about individuals. Etc. etc. But I’m a scientist, so I don’t care about the individual. :D
  9. I like that you’re using equations to discuss this, BrianJ. It makes me smile. One time I tried to use calculus to explain to a girlfriend of mine what I thought about our relationship. It got me soundly mocked, but man, was I ever proud of myself.
  10. I think the Church of Jesus Christ, as a whole, has created the greatest group of men on the earth at this time. While great and wonderful women seem to be found in just about any place on the planet, it’s not so for the men.
    Most men are, by nature, a little more lazy, selfish, and indulging than women. While on my mission in South America, I saw a great dearth of “good” men. LDS churches there were comprised with about 75% women. Their husbands usually wanted no part of the institution, but would rather spend a Sunday boozing around a futbol game with their buddies, or partaking in some other wholesome recreation activity.
    I think as primary holders of the Priesthood, the LDS Church has created a more responsible, righteous generation of men than can be seen outside the religion. I speak in general terms, obviously, because there are bad apples in every barrel, but the overall differences are pretty striking.
    Should women share equally in the full responsibilities of the Priesthood? That’s another question to be asked. But, as for right now, I’ve witnessed the Priesthood doing a lot of good in turning “natural” boys into better, more responsible, and more righteous husbands and fathers. In turn, better men make the lives of women and children they associate with more content as well.
    We may not have reached the perfect state of equality, but I am convinced that what we “do” have at the current time is something very good, a step above the rest of the world, and something to be applauded.
  11. On the other hand, one could argue that having any social structure that places great emphasis on morality, responsibility and leadership is a handy tool for creating good men. There are plenty of Boy Scouts outside the LDS church who grow up to be good men. So is it the priesthood per se, or the fact that you’re creating a culture?
    Also, if we’re going to reference Latin America, I think you have to account for the concept ofmachismo culture.
  12. Whitney:
    I would certainly agree with that. There are plenty of great organizations that do the same to men as the LDS Church. However, I think the breadth and depth of the Church’s organization is much larger.
    They go from little-league soccer, to cub scouts, to boy scouts, to Aaronic Priesthood, to Melchizedek Priesthood, to missions, to marriage responsibility, to child-rearing, to Quorum presidencies, to Bishopric callings, to Stake callings, to High Priest callings, and so forth.
    From childhood through adulthood, men are immersed in this positive “culture”. It’s a complete lifetime of responsibility, training and “correcting” that is really incomparable in an other organization at such a broad and consistent scope.
    And yes, the culture of machismo is very strong in Latin-America, but I still believe great, responsible men are in far less abundance than within the Church’s congregation.
    I attended an Adobe Web Developer conference a few years ago in Chicago that brought several thousand young men (avg age between 20-40) to the event from all parts of the country. When the free, catered alcohol was brought out each evening, it was quite amazing to witness how quick the vast majority could become completely drunk. After that, the surrounding bars and taverns quickly became filled, and it wasn’t until around 3-4 AM did I hear many of them stumbling into the hotel after their long night with their friends.
    Perhaps, they were simply enjoying a couple nights away from home, but the nonchalant way in which they carried out their activities made me feel like this was a lifestyle, not a rare event. I wonder how their wives and children (if they have any) feel when their husbands come home plastered at 4 AM?
    I can’t speak for the entire world, but in my experience I’ve seen a wide chasm between the standards of Presthood-holding, LDS men and men not of our faith.
  13. I don’t know why you’d assume that “the vast majority” of guys hitting the town on a work trip are hard-partying drunks in the home arena.
    But more importantly, just because men don’t fit into the Word of Wisdom definition of morality doesn’t mean they aren’t good, moral men.
  14. I don’t know why you’d assume that “the vast majority” of guys hitting the town on a work trip are hard-partying drunks in the home arena.
    But more importantly, just because men don’t fit into the Word of Wisdom definition of morality doesn’t mean they aren’t good, moral men.
    SO SAY WE ALL.
    Look what you’ve done here, CF:
    1. Invent a moral rule that nobody else agrees with.
    2. Have a church teach this moral rule.
    3. When only your church produces people that adhere to this moral rule, talk about how much more moral your church is.
    What you’re actually saying is “the Mormon church produces more men who adhere to the behavior codes of the Mormon church.”
    Duh.
  15. Also, you didn’t really answer my question. The question is not whether the LDS church has a gigantic infrastructure for raising its young men, but whether the men turn out so good because of Priesthood Power, or because that’s what you’d expect in an environment focused on character building.
  16. I really can’t prove whether or not the Priesthood, itself, is responsible for the kind of men in the Church.
    I personally believe that the Priesthood is the Power of God and it can work many great miracles in a person’s life. I also personally believe that the Priesthood and Revelatory guidance in the Church is responsible for the good men it produces.
    However, I don’t think anyone can physically convince another person to believe it’s the Priesthood. But I do know that the “fruit” being produced from the LDS organization is the best I’ve witnessed on the planet. Whether you believe that God was a part of that, or a big rich organization with dictatorial programs was responsible, is beside the point.
  17. #14
    To the contrary, I think there are quite a lot of people that agree with the moral code the Church has produced. Many of these morals are also, by no means, exclusive to the rest of the world.
    Abstaining from alchohol, tobacco, harmful drugs, and eating meat sparingly, for example has been proven scientifically to give many health benefits. Fasting each month also provides many benefits.
    Most people believe that abstaining from sex before marriage is the best course, and holding family meetings, as well as eating together as a family is good for the family unit. These are things that are gratuitously taught in the Church.
    About a month ago, when Brandon Davies was removed from the BYU basketball team for admitting to having premarital sex, he, the school, and the Church received a mostly positive response. Especially when they knew it would impact their chances at a deep Tournament run.
    People admired the young men on the BYU team because they were a cut above the “usual”. People rooted for them because they adhered to higher standards and yet they played very well on top of it.
    I was astonished at the amount of positive media the players, team and school received for their integrity.
  18. I didn’t mean to turn this into a discussion of the universal application of the Word of Wisdom, but I do think you’re projecting a lot of your own world view onto other cultures, CF. For example, many people around the world eat meat sparingly because it is very expensive. And I don’t know why useful lessons in healthfulness automatically equate with morality. Exercise is beneficial, but it doesn’t make you a better person.
    Regardless, you’re still dodging the question. Is it the spiritual power of the priesthood that’s bestowing special awesomeness on Mormon men unattainable to men outside the LDS church, or are you conflating that with a social structure designed to create men adhering to a certain moral code?
  19. #8 BFF ~ Any chance you can find the study that you saw? I haven’t seen it, and I know that male-female ratios in the LDS church are actually somewhat more skewed than most other Christian religions in America. That doesn’t mean the LDS church is attracting less men than other religions—maybe it’s just attracting more women—and male-female membership ratios aren’t necessarily a measure for male-female spirituality within the religion, but they’re a start.
    Gender ratio comparisons for denominational groups can be found here.
    #10 CF ~ My experience with men within and without the LDS church has been entirely different from yours. There’s no way I can say in good faith that LDS men are generally better men than non-LDS men. I especially have not seen a great difference in quality between LDS men and men from other conservative religious traditions. If anything, I’ve found that men from traditions that ordain women are more thoughtful and sensitive, less condescending, and better at empathizing with the needs of women. I fully acknowledge that these observations are subject to my own biases, but they are what they are.
    So I just don’t have any tangible evidence that restricting women from priesthood produces better men.
  20. #18
    “Exercise is beneficial, but it doesn’t make you a better person.”
    Sure it does. I define a better “person” to include his physical, mental and spiritual well-being.
    “Is it the spiritual power of the priesthood that’s bestowing special awesomeness on Mormon men unattainable to men outside the LDS church, or are you conflating that with a social structure designed to create men adhering to a certain moral code?”
    This is a very personal and subjective question. Are you asking how “I” would answer it?
    Like I answered above, *I* believe it’s because of the Priesthood and the general God-inspired organization of the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe that men and women, through the Priesthood and Holy Ghost, were inspired to put forth programs and institutions within the Church to help make people better.
    The programs themselves are pretty universally accepted as “good” programs. Whether or not you believe it was God-inspired, or just someone’s idea is not really important I don’t think.
    And, yes, I believe that a person could obtain the exact same “awesomeness”, as you call it, by doing the same things a faithful Latter Day Saint does. IE – Going to church weekly, abstaining from harmful food/drugs, and doing good in their home. They don’t need the exact same “spiritual” organization to do it, but I haven’t really seen many that actually -DO- follow these same precepts and hold such a large congregation.
  21. “Exercise is beneficial, but it doesn’t make you a better person.”
    Sure it does. I define a better “person” to include his physical, mental and spiritual well-being.
    But you’re talking about morality. now you’re shifting the goalpost.
  22. Morality is defined as “the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;” or “conforming to the rules of right conduct”
    Choosing to exercise and eat right is absolutely a moral decision. If I believe that exercise is doing the “right thing”, then I have exercised a moral principle.
  23. While I’m not married to the idea that woman > man… I think that what BrianJ is saying has merit.
    My understanding of church history is that in the early days, women regularly did things like give blessings to the sick… and did it so well that most people went to the womenfolk for their blessings instead of to the men (who had the Priesthood). As such, they were told to maybe not do that anymore…
    Now, Jack, in your church, who would baptize your daughter, were she to be baptized? Would it be you?
    Because if not, if it’s your minister or someone within the church hierarchy, how is that any different? In either case, you’re not able to get the blessings of baptizing your child… So is that really something that you want or that is important to you?
    I realize that isn’t your point–your point is that men in the LDS church get to participate in activities that women don’t as a direct result of having the Priesthood. But still, most people in most faiths don’t get to baptize their own children (in my understanding, anyway).
    And do you have the same problem with the Old Testament stories? In Leviticus, it’s pretty clear that men get treated differently than women, and are eligible for the priesthood, etc., and that women aren’t. Do you believe that that was according to God’s commandments then? Was it a problem then? (I’m not challenging or being snarky here, I’m genuinely curious.)
  24. Oh well that’s great. So what does Utah’s obesity rate say about morality in the motherland?
    If you want to argue that priesthood power facilitated the megastructure of the Mormon church, that’s fine. I still think you’re projecting your experience and world view onto an awfully broad array of cultures. Doing so overstates how “typical” your experience really is and whether you’re really in a position to be commenting on the state of moral men around the globe.
  25. Katy, to your point I can say that in my church, it’s just a matter of being ordained, which is something anyone can choose to pursue. I’m not stopped from officiating Communion just because I’m female. (In fact, I can still hold the elements, even though I’m not ordained.)
  26. But my point is whether or not baptizing your child is something that a typical Christian wishes to pursue.
    If not, then the problem is really just for Mormon women who would want to baptize their children and cannot. Which is a smaller subset than ‘all people wish to baptize their children and can, except Mormon women, who cannot.’
    And then, if either parent could, who gets to choose which one does?
  27. CF–I have been to many week-long work conferences, and yes, partying was definitely a celebrated part of it. (By both men and women, I might add. There were more men partying… but only because there were more men.) No, it doesn’t mean that all of those people are going home and staying out til 4 in the morning every night. It means that they had a week long tediously boring work trip, and were able to relax and connect with colleagues in ways that they do not normally associate, thus strengthening the collegial bonds and giving positive memories. This then increases your loyalty to the company.
    If this was something that happened regularly, the people in question would not be good employees, and the companies wouldn’t sponsor the happy hours, because it would lead to bad behavior.
    Also, the number of obese and overweight people (which Whitney mentioned) is not lower within the church. In fact, in Utah, the rate of prescription anti-depressants are some of the highest in the country.
    And, in my experience, Mormons don’t eat less meat than others. But I have met some Mormons who are likely to get offended at vegetarians (because God said eating meat was okay), after all.
  29. And by rejecting the rites of Dionysus, CF, you risk your sanity and your immortal soul:
    Inside each one of us is a dark side, a shadow to the Jungians, a part of us that needs to break free from our bonds, break all the rules, go crazy, be wild, be drunk, and in short, to transgress the boundaries of civilization. That part of us can be tamed and channeled, but never destroyed and never completely suppressed.
    Dionysus calls to that part of us—he is the living embodiment of that dark, beautiful and terrible shard of the human soul. When we give in to it, we are his. But Dionysus is not a jealous god! It is enough that we, like the Thebans, go out to meet him and join in the revel every now and then. Our shadows need to be expressed but they can be expressed deliberately, channeled into appropriate and healthy pursuits.
    We don’t need to let our shadows devour us: that would be the end of civilization and the end of virtue, and that’s not, as a general statement, what Dionysus wants from us at all. He certainly does not demand it. But we have to give our shadows a place in our lives. We have to entertain Dionysus in order to stay healthy and balanced. Because when we suppress our shadows, war against our shadows, pretend they are not there—when we imprison Dionysus and threaten those who do give him the honor he deserves—we do so futilely and at our own peril.
    Dionysus is a god; he will not be imprisoned. He will not be defeated. The god of breaking bonds will never be bound. And if we, like Pentheus, refuse to admit Dionysus into our lives, the results will be catastrophic. Dionysus will have his way with us one way or another. The choice is ours: either we give honor to Dionysus on our own terms, or he compels us to give honor to him. And he is a god who knows no limits. Dionysus does not use safe words or designated drivers.
    When we suppress our shadows they gnaw at us from the inside, and they tear us apart just as Dionysus tore the king’s palace apart. Healthy appetites become unhealthy obsessions. When we do not engage with our shadows, our shadows make ever-greater demands from us; our psyches fester in ever-deeper darkness. And eventually, we lose. Eventually, because we refuse to bend to Dionysus, we are broken by him. The results are ugly, and they leave a wake of victims. Pentheus ended up dismembered and decapitated by his mother; the psychosexual implications are not accidental.
    So we party. We dance. We f**k. We drink. We fight. We let our hair down and have a good time when good times are called for because we have to. Its built in to who we are. If we think we can suppress those urges all the time and conquer that part of us completely we are fooling ourselves, and the script for our destruction has already been written, centuries ago.
  30. #23 katyjane ~ I never said anything in the post about this being important to me personally. I used baptism as a very clear-cut example of something the average Mormon woman is deprived of which she would otherwise have access to.
    To answer your question though, as with most Protestant denominations, baptism in my denomination is performed by ordained and certified ministers. Since I am neither ordained nor certified at this time, currently I would be ineligible to perform a baptism.
    (Note: Baptism in Mormonism can only be performed by “ordained ministers” as well. Mormons just happen to ordain everyone who is 12 years old and has a Y chromosome.)
    However, I have considered the possibility of pursuing bi-vocational certification and have talked with North Park Theological Seminary about completing an MDiv there once I’m done with TEDS, and bi-vocational certification would enable me to perform baptisms. Access to sacerdotal ministry for women is there, which is what I care about.
    Also, laywomen in the Covenant can participate in other aspects of sacerdotal ministry, such as serving communion. Mormon women cannot.
    And do you have the same problem with the Old Testament stories? In Leviticus, it’s pretty clear that men get treated differently than women, and are eligible for the priesthood, etc., and that women aren’t. Do you believe that that was according to God’s commandments then? Was it a problem then?
    The answer to both of your questions is “yes.” I think the patriarchal Old Testament system complete with the Levitical priesthood was essentially from God, and I think it was a problem.
    My feelings on the transition from the Old Covenant of Moses and the New Covenant of Christ are really quite complex. Do you want me to elaborate further? It would be a long comment. Maybe I would do it as a blog post over at Προστάτις.
  31. I would be interested in the full comment. I’m reading the OT right now, and have been wondering for awhile how the Evangelicals reconcile some of the stuff that goes on. I know the Mormon answers… but no others.
    Why do you think God would be okay in the OT times with the obvious inequalities?
  32. And if I might add, assisting in the service of Communion made me surprisingly giddy. Like, I’m not known as a big church person, but it really was the high point of my week. What an honor to share that with people and serve my God in such a tangible way.
  33. My feelings on the transition from the Old Covenant of Moses and the New Covenant of Christ are really quite complex. Do you want me to elaborate further? It would be a long comment. Maybe I would do it as a blog post over at Προστάτις.
    Sounds like a perfect topic for Προστάτις.
  34. Whitney–having taken Communion at non-Mormon churches, I can totally see how it would make you feel giddy afterwards. I felt a little giddy taking it at our church in Maryland. It felt like a part of the community, as well as all of the symbolism about Christ.
    I don’t feel like it’s the same in the LDS church, so maybe it’s something that all Mormons miss out on… not just women. The Sacrament in Mormon church feels different. Not bad, just different. It probably doesn’t make sense, but it just has an overall different feeling.
  35. To be fair…using Welch’s grape juice gives Methodists a clear edge in the all-important taste department.
  36. I’m always amazed that so many Mormons are so quick to throw Jesus under the bus when you critique Mormon specific practices. I’m referring to this comment:
    But even so, you should probably shy away from the Sermon on the Mount — too many icky platitudes — you know, like loving each other and all that.
    Did they not get the memo that Mormons are Christians now?
  37. Ummmm….I’m pretty sure there was a strong note of sarcasm in that excerpt….to highlight Commenter Jack’s belief that Ms. Jack’s critique of his premise as platitudinous could be equally applied to the Sermon on the Mount.
    Ms. Jack?
  38. I assumed that Commenter Jack was using the word “platitudes” to refer to commonly-used phrases; a better word would have been axioms or adages.
  39. Ummmm….I’m pretty sure there was a strong note of sarcasm in that excerpt….to highlight Commenter Jack’s belief that Ms. Jack’s critique of his premise as platitudinous could be equally applied to the Sermon on the Mount.
    Whitney,
    I realize that, and I agree with that. This is one of those things where you have to have some experience with how many Mormons defend their faith.
    For example, a common response to a question like, “Why did Joseph Smith get so many things wrong with the Book of Abraham?” is “Well, the prophets in the Bible got a lot wrong too.” The question is usually being asked by an evangelical to get that response, Mormons simply don’t give the same response to a secular humanist. And the difference is telling. To a secular humanist the answer will involve some apologetic as to why that is the case. The response to the evangelical is counterattack, i.e. if you attack (by implication) what I hold sacred, then I will return the favor. Lost in the whole exchange is that since Mormons are Christians, it’s not just counterattack, but a self inflicted wound as well.
    But, I haven’t looked at BCC in ages, nor do I have much desire to, so I readily concede that my ignorance may be showing here.
  40. #6 Whitney-
    I’m involved with an organization made up of and led by women, and oh my gosh, you’re absolutely right about the sophisticated meangirling. It’s all “let me be nasty with very polite phrasing so I can be shocked and blame you when you’re offended by it”. I was talking to a friend about how awful it is and she said “I know this isn’t a politically correct thing to say, but I think it’s what happens when you have an organization that’s all women.” She had been active in a different organization that was entirely women and said it was exactly the same. It’s like high school all over again.
  41. BFF: Sorry for the delay; been away for a week. I can’t think of the study—so take my comments above as very speculative. If I remember it right (and you should take that as a big “if”, since I can’t produce the paper), it looked at active members, not just those who self-identify with a particular group.
  42. #41 philomytha,
    I don’t know if you meant it this way, but it kind of comes across as though you’re saying that women are worse than men because of the meangirling.
    Can’t we drop the gender judgments and admit that people just kind of suck sometimes, whether they’re men or women?
    Been in plenty of organizations run by dudes that weren’t any more pleasant to work in.
  43. I think she was responding to my comment (#6), where I mentioned “meangirling.” And I didn’t bring it up to show that women are worse, but only to point out that I tend to reject arguments asserting that the goodness inherent to women puts them above needing something like the priesthood (to the extent it’s supposed to facilitate a better relationship with God and one’s community).
  44. I think of myself as a feminist. I am a happy Latter-day Saint who loves the idea that the priesthood is based on service to God. I actually love the idea that my husband couldn’t place his own hands on his head to give himself a blessing, but he could place those hands on my head or the head of our child and we can receive the blessing of having the priesthood active in our home. I love the idea that there is only one person who my daughter has to “choose” to baptize her (what an awful choice that would be for an 8 year old to have to choose between her mother and her father). I love that I have chosen this life. This ability to choose is what I believe to be the root of all feminism. Being able to choose this life, and be truly happy with it, makes me strong and wise. I need the priesthood in my life, but I don’t need it conferred upon me to have it.
  45. Yep, you just need a male with the priesthood who exercises his own choice in using it for your benefit.
  46. Stephanie ~ With all due respect, don’t you think this statement:
    I love that I have chosen this life. This ability to choose is what I believe to be the root of all feminism.
    Contradicts this statement?
    I love the idea that there is only one person who my daughter has to “choose” to baptize her (what an awful choice that would be for an 8 year old to have to choose between her mother and her father).
    Besides, why would the 8 year-old be the one making this choice? What’s so bad about a mother and father lovingly deciding between themselves which of them will baptize which children, which will assist and witness the baptism, both of them participating in the laying on of hands ordinance, etc.?
    And what about the children of single mothers or mothers married to non-member parents? What if they don’t have any close male relatives? What’s going to be a more special memory for them, being baptized by some guy at the ward who probably isn’t going to be a part of their lives a decade later, or being baptized by their mother?
    If you’re satisfied with the system, great, but I don’t see how anyone could posit that it’s really the best thing for everyone. It clearly isn’t.
  47. Jack, if you and Paul were to choose which one of you would baptize your daughter… who do you think would wind up doing it?
    And Stephanie never said that it was the best thing for everyone. She just said that she was happy with it, and felt that it wasn’t incompatible with being a feminist.
    For me, I was always glad I didn’t have the priesthood, because I didn’t even like giving public prayers. I can’t imagine how awful, for me, it would be to have to give someone a blessing, or anything like that. The only people I’m comfortable praying in front of are my kids and sometimes Kullervo. For me, it’s too private and too personal. When they would ask me to give the opening or closing prayer in meetings, I would always decline. (I realize that’s completely personal and not related to gender at all, but the fact that I couldn’t have the priesthood did make it easier for me.)
  48. KatyJane ~ I don’t know how my life would have been different had I been LDS. Paul served a mission where he never had the opportunity to baptize anyone, so he’s never done it before. Maybe I would have already served a mission where I did get to baptize people in this women-holding-the-priesthood alternate universe. If that were the case, I wouldn’t mind letting him baptize our first child, and then I could baptize our second child.
    Assuming we had both never baptized anyone? I think we would just take turns, and it doesn’t matter a great deal who goes first. I’d be willing to let him do the first one. The non-baptizing person would still get to participate in witnessing and confirmation every time, so they would still be participating in ritual.
    I’m aware that Stephanie didn’t say “this is the best thing for everyone.” But if that wasn’t her implication, then what exactly is the point of comments like hers? What does it matter that one woman, because of her individual circumstances, is happy with the system, when that woman could just as easily be accommodated by another system that works well for everyone?
    I completely agree with Stephanie that feminism is about choice—which is why I’m surprised that any self-professed feminist could express satisfaction with a system that does so much to take away women’s choices.
  49. Sorry I’m so late to the party…
    … but I like Jack’s inclusion of witnessing to baptisms that, I don’t know, irritates (?) me. It seems like a slap in the face that even when all we do is sit back and watch, we aren’t even allowed to *officially* sit back and watch.
  50. Hey, just seeing this. It relates to a thought I had yesterday. On Sunday, we sang a sacrament hymn that had this line, “In humility, our Savior, Grant thy Spirit here, we pray,
    As we bless the bread and water In thy name this holy day.”
    Intestingly enough, the only people singing that hymns were the ones not breaking and uttering the words of the prayer to “bless” the bread. So either the hymn is just an exageration, or there is something about the actions of a faithful follower of Christ, male or female, whose actions literally bless the bread and water.
    I like to think both are true. Those 2 young men pronounce a blessing upon the bread in representation of the savior, and the actions of those who faithfully partake of it are blessing it unto themselves. In that sense, I think the comparison and symbolism could be drawn to blessing of children or baptisms, or any other ordinances. It’s our actions that make the blessing efficacious so in that sense we are all literally blessing (the bread, etc.).
    I don’t suggest that this replaces the act of standing in the water to perform the outward ordinance, but I do suggest it’s perhaps more important as the outward ordinances without the inward spiritual ones are of little use.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity