- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Fair warning, mild spoilers. Lots of names to the uninitiated too. I just wanted to mention a parallel between something that happened in the story and an issue facing the modern church. Aang, Katara, and Sokka visit the Northern Water Tribe to help defend it from an attack from the Fire Nation. When they arrive Katara and Sokka (people from the Southern Water Tribe) marvel at the progress the Northern Water Tribe has made. Their tour guide tells them that all of their success is the result of them following the philosophy of water bending. Water is not rigid, it adapts to its surroundings; they as a people follow this example and adapt.
Katara is trying to hone her water bending skills for the coming war and approaches Master Pakku for instruction. Pakku is their best water bender and serves as their de facto military commander. Pakku sends Katara to another master to train. Long story short, Katara discovers that the women water benders are relegated to the role of healers and only men are allowed to train in combat.
Katara, a woman, finds this unacceptable and challenges Pakku to a duel for the privilege of being trained in combat. Katara loses but puts up a decent fight. While she is disappointed in her loss, she earns some respect for having defended herself so well against Pakku.
Towards the end of the series, the Fire Nation attacks. Pakku has a change of heart and tells Katara that she reminded him of something that he had forgotten. That the success of the Northern Water Tribe is owed to following the philosophy of water bending. Do not be rigid, adapt. Pakku had become blind to ways in which his culture was failing to adapt and Katara was the spark that helped him recognize that.
The parallels were on the nose. Women holding offices in the priesthood being the most obvious. There are many other examples.
The church owes its success to not being rigid, in adapting (expecting revelations) yet I feel we have several blind spots that result from being overly dogmatic. We often look more to revelations received in the past for answers to issues that face us now and issues that will face us in the future. That’s more of an appeal to tradition than a reliance on continued revelation.
nibbler wrote:
Towards the end of the series, the Fire Nation attacks. Pakku has a change of heart and tells Katara that she reminded him of something that he had forgotten. That the success of the Northern Water Tribe is owed to following the philosophy of water bending. Do not be rigid, adapt. Pakku had become blind to ways in which his culture was failing to adapt and Katara was the spark that helped him recognize that.The parallels were on the nose.
Women holding offices in the priesthood being the most obvious. There are many other examples.
The bigger problem is linking “Gender” to “Priesthood” and “Priesthood” to “Institutional Authority”.
– If you determine how much respect (or not respect) to give someone based on their gender as the first parameter – that matters. That contributes greatly to our domestic abuse situations actually. Gottman (a marriage expert group) cites “Contempt (aka lack of respect)” as one of the key indicators for divorce rates.
– Women have been “settling” for “soft influence” on “institutional authority figures [husbands, sons, etc.] for a long time. It’s only been the last 150 years ish that women were able to vote for themselves (instead of swaying the men in their lives who could vote).
– To be fair, the cultural linking in the secular world of “gender” to “institutional authority” is real and is a wildcard. However, in the secular world – women can be leaders and can manage companies, whereas in the LDS world – some small groups of women are listened to sometimes, and there has to be at least 1 male figure to rubberstamp what women want to do. Women don’t have the option of starting their own organization in the church world (the R.S. was already founded and has male oversight) and there are limited options for women’s voices to be heard (the press and the stake president decision-making pretty much).
– I think a lot of church leading is to present something that is “aspirational” as “revelation/commandment-level”. We are taught gender roles (and our level of institutional authority) as “commandments (or close to it)” in the Family Proclamation. It isn’t clear whether the “aspiration” is “build strong families that don’t abuse substances or each other (to do so means providing/presiding [aka decision-making]/nurturing)” and/or “build strong families using this template of providing/presiding/nurturing with specific domains”.
NOTE: There is a buttload of trauma, shame, and missed opportunities when that statement leads with, “because of your biological gender (or how we want to perceive you), your role/focus is this..”
nibbler wrote:
The church owes its success to not being rigid, in adapting (expecting revelations) yet I feel we have several blind spots that result from being overly dogmatic. We often look more to revelations received in the past for answers to issues that face us now and issues that will face us in the future. That’s more of an appeal to tradition than a reliance on continued revelation.
The church owes its success to the balance between the “transformational leaders” such as Joseph Smith and the “Administration leaders” such as Brigham Young. Joseph Smith was allowed to create/receive revelation because he had Emma Smith running the home front (there are probably others such as Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery). Brigham Young got the groups of people across the plains and established a network of colonies that generated enough of a population and culture that survived down to the present day (to a degree).
I think that part of the organizational administration correlation process was a shift to “tradition” and “defining revelation” as a way to stabilize organizational authority. I don’t think that giving women the priesthood will solve the problem of defining “organizational authority ability” by gender for the LDS church.
AmyJ wrote:
The church owes its success to the balance between the “transformational leaders” such as Joseph Smith and the “Administration leaders” such as Brigham Young. Joseph Smith was allowed to create/receive revelation because he had Emma Smith running the home front (there are probably others such as Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery). Brigham Young got the groups of people across the plains and established a network of colonies that generated enough of a population and culture that survived down to the present day (to a degree).
Just to make a point here, Joseph governed through councils. Those high councils referenced in the D&C were not like our modern high councils, they were the “governing” bodies of the church in their respective locations. Likewise, the Q12 was a council but didn’t evolve into a council that governed the whole church until later. How this all worked allowed Joseph to do his thing while still keeping the church together although it was split geographically. And o f course those councils were male run. Emma did indeed have her leading role at home and in the community, and at its inception (and for years thereafter) the RS was not “overseen” by men – they did indeed act independently and did things such as priesthood blessings (and that was allowed!).
I do not intend to derail, I have also been watching the show, and I am seeing the parallels mentioned by Nibbler. There is indeed flexibility in the church and recent changes under the Nelson administration have demonstrated that. The hardline leaders seem to like to reference “doctrine” as the reason things like women and the priesthood and gay marriage can’t change. I think similar arguments were made regarding Blacks and the priesthood – there were those on the Q12 (even in 1978) who said that would never change because of doctrine, yet it did change. Polygamy may be another example. However, it appears the rigidity of doctrine can change, particularly when there is enough worldly and secular pressure.
DarkJedi wrote:
However, it appears the rigidity of doctrine can change, particularly when there is enough worldly and secular pressure.
Tying it back into the show, one wonders whether Pakku would have ever experienced a change in heart if not for the demands the battle with Fire Nation placed on him. They needed warriors, which made changing a win-win proposition for Pakku. No war? Would he have ever changed?
It reminds me of an interview GBH had with David Ransom, and Australian reporter.
Quote:
DR: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that? GBH: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. There own ???. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organisation of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied. DR: They all say that? GBH: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that. DR: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that? GBH: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes. DR: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ? GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen. DR: So you’d have to get a revelation? GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife. GBH: Are you happy? (to his wife…) Mrs. H: Very happy! (laughs)
Then we hear talks like the one Ahmad S. Corbitt gave during a recent general conference about not advocating for change.
Teach people to never steady the Ark under any circumstances then convince yourself that the Ark isn’t about to topple over because if it were, people would be trying to steady it.
Maybe GBH was referring more to agitation that originates from external sources, not internal ones. Internal agitations tend to earn scorn from orthodoxy.
Church doctrines have changed in the past. They’ll continue to change going into the future.
I remember a conversation with a good natured female member where she said that she personally does not want the priesthood. I realized that saying this was congruent and reaffirming of her gender. I cannot say, “I personally do not want priesthood” without seeming like a lazy and defective shirker as though I had said, “I personally do not want to work outside the home.” I do think there is this difference of desire/agitation between the two case studies of blacks and the priesthood and women and the priesthood. I think that it would be acceptable for black men before 1978 to want to hold the priesthood and for black couples and families to want to become sealed in the temple. It would be acceptable for them to ask in faith for an exception to be made or ask how long they might need to wait.
I don’t think that there is the same level of acceptance for a woman that would desire to hold the priesthood today. Even if she was asking in patience and faith for what tasks she might do that do not require the priesthood (pass the sacrament or collect fast offerings? What about witnessing baptisms or being in the Sunday School presidency?) or asking how long she might need to wait (could she receive it in the millennium? how about the next life?) I think that she would be seen as a malcontent agitator and troublemaker.
This also reminds me of a brief comment from Brother Wilcox’s foot in mouth dismissal of racism talk that he gave a few years ago. In the same talk he referred to how other churches are essentially “playing church” without the actual authority from God to effectuate saving ordinances. He compared this to his children playing church and mimicking what they see on Sunday
Quote:He approved of these adorable pretend sacrament meetings, though he admits he “got a little nervous” when his daughter started trying to bless the sacrament.
Why would this make him nervous? This is probably a throwaway line and we shouldn’t read too much into it. However, I think the concern is that perhaps his daughter might find that she likes pretend blessing the sacrament so much that someday she might want to do it for real.
Roy wrote:
I do think there is this difference of desire/agitation between the two case studies of blacks and the priesthood and women and the priesthood. I think that it would be acceptable for black men before 1978 to want to hold the priesthood and for black couples and families to want to become sealed in the temple. It would be acceptable for them to ask in faith for an exception to be made or ask how long they might need to wait.I don’t think that there is the same level of acceptance for a woman that would desire to hold the priesthood today. Even if she was asking in patience and faith for what tasks she might do that do not require the priesthood (pass the sacrament or collect fast offerings? What about witnessing baptisms or being in the Sunday School presidency?) or asking how long she might need to wait (could she receive it in the millennium? how about the next life?) I think that she would be seen as a malcontent agitator and troublemaker.
I agree with this.
There is a massive cultural issue (with a lot of facets) as the “doctrine” put out by the leadership, the “cultural functional process/expectations” & “functional organizational/community authority” in the church community (usually branch/ward), and family administration tied to “the order and organization of the priesthood”.
The disconnect of the “more righteous (read patient/long-suffering) woman” being the example for (but not the leader of) a man is mind-boggling to me.
- I think that the “patient/long-suffering” part is in part the socialization to “be presided over” and the socialization to “practice social skills and learn effective communication tactics” from a younger age.
- While I suspect that individual testosterone levels play a part in “how aggressive/interested in leading others” an individual can be – it doesn’t and cannot give communities a “clean pass” on just “assigning giving a care” to women as an entire gender.
- Women “lead at home because they have the greatest stake in how “at home” goes and what it looks like ALL the time because they are “under the influence of estrogen” for a good 20 years or so. After menopause, there is a shift in how they lead and protect their children & descendants.
CAVEATS:
– I only have a female’s lived experience with female hormones.
– I am not great at reading non-verbal communication, so I am horrible at the non-verbal “nurturing” (knowing what to say, what a person needs, etc.) I have a bias towards explicit, authorized, blunt communication styles. I “diagnose” non-verbal communications, and I have always been a really smart person who comes up with ideas and facilitates communication (so a leader).
– I know that there are aspects of the transfer of power between men that I don’t understand. There are implications and connections that I don’t see or understand.
CONCLUSIONS:
There is a tendency for men to think/talk in “hierarchy” and women to think/talk “in network” that transferred over into our respective “gender performances” and expectations.
Right now, there is the “patriarchy” – the male-dominated hierarchy that codifies “the rules” (in theory – in practice, women use their behind-the-scenes-skills and tactics to get a lot done) that is being challenged by the youth (who don’t hold positions in the hierarchy), worldly culture (which is de-coupling gender from administration power), birth control (pregnancy and child-caring are game changers), economic theory (“critical race” being an example of the information coming to light about the impact of choices such as “red-lining” made biased against non-white populations), and those who walk away because the “rules” marginalized and/or traumatized them in some way or another that is intolerable to them personally – so they don’t tolerate it.
I think I will have been dead for hundreds of years before humanity has evolved enough to fundamentally change that thinking/talking disconnect.
Roy wrote:
I remember a conversation with a good natured female member where she said that she personally does not want the priesthood. I realized that saying this was congruent and reaffirming of her gender. I cannot say, “I personally do not want priesthood” without seeming like a lazy and defective shirker as though I had said, “I personally do not want to work outside the home.”My wife has told me in the past that she wouldn’t want the priesthood, specifically because she wouldn’t want the responsibilities associated with it. With as many things that get labeled “priesthood duties” in this church, I’m surprised I don’t hear that sentiment more often. The societal pressure for missions alone should be enough to scare a lot of women off of wanting the priesthood.
Roy wrote:I don’t think that there is the same level of acceptance for a woman that would desire to hold the priesthood today. Even if she was asking in patience and faith for what tasks she might do that do not require the priesthood (pass the sacrament or collect fast offerings? What about witnessing baptisms or being in the Sunday School presidency?) or asking how long she might need to wait (could she receive it in the millennium? how about the next life?) I think that she would be seen as a malcontent agitator and troublemaker.
I’d be surprised if we didn’t see women being allowed to do more and more little things around the church as time goes on. The justification used for women being allowed to witness baptisms and sealings now is that they’re doing it under someone else’s priesthood authority. Quite a bit else could be justified using that same loophole they’ve created.
We now are saying endowed women have Priesthood power, just not administrative Priesthood authority, so I can see more evolution in the future framed sincerely within continuing revelation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.