If God loves his daughters as much as his sons… LDS Daily

That’s a perfectly valid conclusion for a person to reach for themselves but its validity can’t be extended to cover all women. What of the women that haven’t had that same fortune? What of the women that do feel inferior? “Well… I don’t have a problem with it” doesn’t serve as a very good catalyst to receive revelation nor is it of much comfort.

Right, we also live in a community that strongly suggests for a woman to want the priesthood is to desire to usurp that which is not rightfully hers. For a woman to say that she personally doesn’t want the priesthood reaffirms her place within that community. However, an interesting thing happens if a man similarly says that they do not want the priesthood. There are then, suddenly, all sorts of assumptions about what must be wrong and deficient with this man.

Gospel Q&A: If God loves his daughters as much as He loves his sons why can’t women hold the priesthood?

https://www.ldsdaily.com/personal-lds-blog/gospel-qa-if-god-loves-his-daughters-as-much-as-his-sons-why-cant-women-hold-the-priesthood/

I guess apologists gonna defend and justify. Even so, I was disappointed that there was not even a hint that this could change by revelation in the future

Reason #1

Men and women have different roles

We don’t know why the Lord organized things so that men are holders of the priesthood and cannot create life while women create life and cannot hold the priesthood. But we do know that “men and women have different but equally valued roles. Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without a man, so a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman. … In the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by husband and wife” (President M. Russell Ballard).

It is not really the same thing. Men (by virtue of holding the priesthood) can hold visible positions of power, respect, and authority within the organization and within the community. It is phrased as though you can either have one or the other (uterus or priesthood) when there is no clear connection between the two at all.

Reason # 2

Women will receive some sort of power and authority as queens and priestesses in the CK

Reason # 3

Priesthood exists not to benefit the holder but those around the holder.

I suppose we could make this argument about any profession. The teacher doesn’t teach themselves, the doctor doesn’t heal themselves, the lawyer doesn’t act as their own defense (at least they don’t if they are smart). Should that help us to feel better if we were prohibited from working in those professions?

Reason # 4

Prophets and Apostles aren’t sexist?

So, are the apostles and prophets sexist?

In 1935, the First Presidency stated, “The true spirit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gives to woman the highest place of honor in human life” (James R. Clark comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75, 6:5).

This makes me wonder if the blog author knows much about sexism – particularly benevolent sexism. I guarantee you that the First Presidency in 1935 was sexist by today’s standards. I suspect that if a modern LDS woman were to go back to the 1930’s and had to live according to what the 1935 First Presidency felt was an appropriate lifestyle for women – that particular time-traveling woman would very keenly feel the constraints of the sexism prevalent in that era.

Are apostles and prophets sexist? If we believe that apostles and prophets are products of their environments (and we do) then the answer is yes. Apostles and prophets are sexist in differing degrees just as with other groups of humans. Becoming an apostle or prophet certainly doesn’t stop a person from being sexist.

Reason # 5

Not only do men and women have different roles but priesthood would prove distracting from women’s far more important focus.

President Boyd K. Packer didn’t see the bestowal of a priesthood office as being a limitation on women, but rather as an expression of the greater role that women hold as primary nurturers and caretakers in the home.

“The limitation of priesthood responsibilities to men is a tribute to the incomparable place of women in the plan of salvation. The prophet who said that ‘no success [in any field of endeavor] can compensate for failure in the home’ (David O. McKay) did not exempt callings in the Church.”

No priesthood calling is more important than the work that goes on within the walls of our own homes.

What does it say about a policy when all the explanations for it seem really sexist?

I have pondered things about the priesthood. I am inclined to think or imagine that in the quantity of higher intelligence and spirituality in the society of Heaven that it is likely there are more women than men. I ponder such based upon my own experiences that the influences of women in my life – especially that of my wife. When we married, I thought myself quite superior to my wife. We met in college, she being a cheerleader and I being in the top of my class of mathematics and physics – I thought myself smarter. I have discovered quite the opposite. Her understanding of things important (outside of science which is not as important as I initially thought) to be far superior.

And so, my opinion about men and the priesthood has come more from her than from my own thinking. Many time she has suggested to me that I need the priesthood much more than her. That I need to learn to focus more on the needs of others and that having the priesthood helps me do that. Even being in positions of leadership in the church I have learned that the sisters of the Relief Society are much better at seeing needs of others that are the men.

I have come to speculate that in the great councils in the heaven of our pre-existence that the decision of men being required to hold the priesthood in mortality was primarily supported by the superior efforts of the more righteous women than that of the men. That the quality of women of our day and time in morality has absolutely nothing to do with them not receiving the priesthood. That it is not women but rather the needs of men that has created our current circumstance concerning men and the priesthood. (And that such is, by definition, somewhat sexists – just not as many advertise it).

I agree that there tend to be some differences between men and women. Some of those differences may come from nature and others may come from nurture. But saying that these differences can explain the priesthood only being available to men doesn’t seem to make sense.

Are we saying that the most spiritual, compassionate, and righteous man among us is less than the least spiritual, compassionate, and righteous woman among us? If not then perhaps the least among the women might benefit from the priesthood “boost” and perhaps the best among the men might not need the priesthood. (unless we are arguing that women are like children that die before the age of 8 and need not to be tested really – only to receive a mortal body in order to inherit the celestial kingdom)

Another thought… are we just saying that men need the priesthood or that men need women to NOT have the priesthood? IOW, does the specialness of having the priesthood go away if women can also have it? If so, would the specialness increase if only certain men could attain it?

In my opinion, trying to defend the current disparity feels like trying to defend the priesthood restriction against blacks before it was repealed. Many members, church leaders, and even individuals sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators came up with reasons for the necessity of the priesthood restriction and we now know that they were the ideas and justifications of men.

I have come to speculate that in the great councils in the heaven of our pre-existence that the decision of men being required to hold the priesthood in mortality was primarily supported by the superior efforts of the more righteous women than that of the men. That the quality of women of our day and time in morality has absolutely nothing to do with them not receiving the priesthood. That it is not women but rather the needs of men that has created our current circumstance concerning men and the priesthood. (And that such is, by definition, somewhat sexists – just not as many advertise it).

So is this a static (non-changing) or a dynamic (change-able) need that men have for having the power, privileges, and authority to act in the name of God that come embedded in having the priesthood?

[Yes, I am aware to a certain extent, it is a “depending on whom you ask” and a “generational” thing.]

I have not found the priesthood to be power, privilege and authority kind of thing. My experience is that divine things have more to do with love, kindness and compassion. Power privilege and authority seems to me to be more malevolent – especially towards the idea of agency. The example of Jesus (whom the priesthood was initially named) seemed to be more about suffering and sacrifice for the benefit of others. Even in birth – women suffer and sacrifice much more than men. Thus I speculate that priesthood is an attempt to balance things – a little but it appears, not enough.

Focusing on logic:

If women are more spiritual, as a general rule, than men, why wouldn’t they be the ones to have the Priesthood and lead the Church? Wouldn’t that result naturally in better spiritual insight and fewer things that need to be corrected by ongoing revelation and increased light and understanding? Wouldn’t it decrease the pain and suffering caused by leaders who are less spiritual?

That is strictly a rhetorical question, not meant for extensive discussion. I use it simply to illustrate that logic means “whatever makes sense to the person considering the question“. It has been logical throughout history, even from a religious perspective, to kill people – including genocide. Marital rape, cleansing a woman who has been raped by having her marry her rapist, slavery, child sacrifice, child labor, torture, conversion therapy, kicking kids out of the house for their sexual orientation, disowning family members who change religion, and much more was and is done in the name of logic and faith.

I don’t have a definitive answer to the central question of the post, but I do know that “pure logic” doesn’t exist and isn’t the one true answer. I am completely fine with each person applying their own logic construct, with an understanding that it allows for terrible things to be done as a result – but I also understand clearly that each construct is not pure logic. That standard exists only as an unrealistic ideal for humans.

I apologize that in my previous post I got off track. As Old-Timer and nibbler have pointed out – I do not have access to many things. Therefore, I can only speculate on what is given. I am very interested in the thinking of others posting. I personally have a hard time with the idea that G-d or righteous men worthy of the kingdom in these last days and restoration of all things have gone off the rails to keep the priesthood from women.

How are you defining “priesthood”?

Generally, it has 2 branches in conversation:

– Women were authorized/could give blessings in specific instances up until around 1890.

– Women have been giving blessings/prayers unofficially throughout history calling on that same authority.

– Women are explicitly re-authorized to run different parts of different programs through callings.

– A lot of “priesthood appeals to authority” are designed to provide boundaries, to make the up/down structure leadership structure clear, and to ensure that women are not part of the upper leadership structures of the church and family.

NOTE: COVID restrictions caused a huge problem with passing the sacrament. The choice came down to “calling women who were the heads of their households to bless and pass the sacrament” or “maintaining the focus on male priesthood holders blessing and passing the sacrament”. The purity of keeping the sacrament ordinance confined to male priesthood holders came at the expense of people – of women and children not being able to receive the sacrament who wanted/needed it.

I agree with you that “God and righteous men (defined as worthy of the kingdom in these last days and restoration of all things) have[n’t] gone off the rails to keep the priesthood from women”. I just think that it happened as a natural byproduct of the way that humans organize communities that has done a lot of harm to other men, women, and children – and may have been the best way for humans to organize throughout history.

I also think that it becomes a form a linguistical shell game. God didn’t say anything about it, and the ones in charge aren’t likely to hear soft voices about it.