- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
https://www.instagram.com/churchofjesuschrist/p/C4oZ-otMOVL/?img_index=1 ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.instagram.com/churchofjesuschrist/p/C4oZ-otMOVL/?img_index=1 A recent post by “churchofjesuschrist” (official church account) on instagram has blown up.
Quote:“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. And as we serve in whatever calling or assignment, including ministering assignments, we are given priesthood authority to carry out those responsibilities. My dear sisters, you belong to a Church which offers all its women priesthood power and authority from God!.” —Sister @j_anettedennis
The post received a lot of pushback. Sister Anette Dennis does qualify the statement with “that I know of” but it’s hard to get around the “no other religious organization in the world” comment. I really wish the organizational church would move away from that kind of hyperbole.
I don’t have an instagram account, so I can only see one or two responses to the post every time I refresh the page, but it’s my understanding that there’s considerable pushback, many of them call the claim gaslighting.
I’m glad that there’s pushback and I’m glad that the church has decided to leave the comments up instead of taking them down (so far). Maybe they think that removing the comments might make the situation blow up even worse. The church account added the following to the post:
Quote:The Church’s social media team acknowledges the numerous comments that have emerged in response to this post. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Your comments will be shared with Church leaders who follow these issues. We, like you, strive to follow the example of Jesus Christ in our interactions, including conversations online.
A few things stand out to me.
They thank people for sharing their experiences and there’s no indication that the shared experiences will be taken down. That’s pretty big.
- This comes from the church’s social media team, not a church entity with authority. It remains to be seen how groups with authority will respond.
- The comment about sharing with church leaders is a little nebulous. It could mean sharing stories of people’s pain with the prophet in hopes that it will spur change. It could mean sharing comments with people’s stake presidents so they can be disciplined. In their mind, what is the issue they’re referring to? Women being second class citizens or open insubordination?
- That last bit about following Christ’s example feels passive aggressive to me.
Back to the original instagram post… Sister Dennis does qualify her statement with “that I know of” but then the defense is that she must not get out very much. The Community of Christ designated Stassi Cramm to become their 9th prophet (that decision has to be ratified during their World Conference in 2025). You don’t have to go any farther than one of our cousins.
She also qualifies her statement with “broadly,” meaning other organizations like the CoC might call a woman as a prophet but that’s just one person.
The very first time I attended a CoC meeting, it just so happened to align with their once per month blessing of the sacrament. They use the same prayer over the sacrament that we do and when I went, a woman gave the prayer. It was one of the most powerful and moving experiences I’ve had in recent years. Women can exercise the priesthood in the CoC. Again, you don’t have to go any farther than one of our cousins.
To be blunt, the original post on instagram reminds me of the kinds of things I see in the world of politics. Make hyperbolic statements with lots and lots of bravado in what feels like an effort to warp people’s perception of reality. It comes across as propaganda. People that have responded to the post don’t shy away from calling it gaslighting.
Revisiting the second part of the initial post:
Quote:“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. And as we serve in whatever calling or assignment, including ministering assignments, we are given priesthood authority to carry out those responsibilities. My dear sisters, you belong to a Church which offers all its women priesthood power and authority from God!.”
She seems to be saying that women that have been endowed in the temple have the priesthood and they exercise it when they carry out church assignments. I don’t see decision making power in that process. Women don’t make church assignments, they’re carrying them out. Even the ministering companions/family assignments that the relief society presidency makes must be signed off by the bishop.
Not to derail, but as a male I could say the same. I have been officially ordained to an office of the priesthood and I don’t get any decision making power at church whatsoever. All I can do is accept or reject an assignment that’s been given to me. Of course the very large difference is that I have some small chance of being called to a position that does have some decision making power whereas all women in the church have a 0% chance. The person making all the assignments in church is always male.
I’m now hearing reports that comments are being deleted from the post. Deleting posts from people that are making themselves venerable and who are desperate to be heard is not the right thing to do. It only proves people’s point.
Here’s one comment that came up after a refresh:
Quote:What is happening?? So many articulate, thoughtful responses to this post by beautiful, faithful women, deleted in the blink of an eye. Why would you tell us thank you and give us false hope that someone was listening and actually cared, just to delete thousands of voices come morning? I don’t understand, and it breaks my heart. We can do better than this. This will also likely get deleted.
💔 Edit:
Some have reported that instagram is experiencing more widespread issues with comments not being visible. If true, that’s terrible timing for the church.
I also don’t have Instagram (or any other social media) but this post was pointed out to me by a relative with essentially the same assessment as your Nibbler (before posts were deleted). I believe the quote came from the Relief Society broadcast this past weekend, and I had seen the quote prior to the Instagram being shared. I had a similar gut reaction to others. Really? Living in a small community I am familiar with how our local Protestant churches work and know many of the people involved. Women play major administrative roles on these boards, often as chairs. And what about Stassi Cramm, prophet-president designate (awaiting confirmation) of the Community of Christ? President of the church (and prophet) doesn’t have the same power and authority as your average Utah housewife? Some of this is of course the insular nature of the church, especially in Utah. Members in general have little interest in how other churches work, but other churches generally seem to know how others work (but admittedly probably not how the LDS church works). Not knowing how another church you have no interest in works is understandable, why bother if you’re not interested? On the other hand, if you’re going to make a statement to a large audience, you ought to know what you’re talking about. “…that I know of…” only demonstrates a degree of ignorance. Mormons are gonna Mormon, and failure to recognize the good in other churches is part of that unfortunate mindset.
I copied the quote into the recent power vs. authority thread. The good news is that this yet another example of a quote by church leaders saying that women have priesthood power (by virtue of the temple) and authority (by virtue of delegated assignments from those holding priesthood keys). I am hopeful that this will precede and lay the groundwork for women actually doing stuff with this power and authority (outside the one example of doing the initiatory blessings in the temple). Quote:“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. And as we serve in whatever calling or assignment, including ministering assignments, we are given priesthood authority to carry out those responsibilities. My dear sisters, you belong to a Church which offers all its women priesthood power and authority from God!.” —Sister @j_anettedennis
There are two parts to this quote that are fairly neatly divided into paragraphs. I do not think the second part is problematic. As I said before, I am hopeful that it is an early precedent for more cool stuff to come. The problem then is with the first part of the quote. When the speaker says that no other church does this I think what she is trying to say is that we have a lay ministry and a very participatory church model where everyone is expected to serve and contribute. Now that we are saying that women in our church have priesthood power and authority then it could be argued that a larger percentage of female membership has power and authority in our church than the percentage of female membership to hold power and authority in many other churches.
I think the real problem is that this would be comparing apples and oranges. Currently, the priesthood power and authority that we “give” to women seems pretty meaningless. It’s just words or rhetoric that don’t seem to change anything about how women would operate in the church and in the home without “priesthood power and authority.”
Therefore, to say that we are #1 at giving power and authority to women does seem to be manipulative and gaslighting.
Roy wrote:
I think the real problem is that this would be comparing apples and oranges. Currently, the priesthood power and authority that we “give” to women seems pretty meaningless. It’s just words or rhetoric that don’t seem to change anything about how women would operate in the church and in the home without “priesthood power and authority.”Therefore, to say that we are #1 at giving power and authority to women does seem to be manipulative and gaslighting.
The church had an opportunity to “authorize” women to perform functions of the Aaronic Priesthood to bless the sacrament for themselves and other family members. Rather then let these women have that authorization (and potentially continue those practices post-COVID), the purity of “male priesthood holders blessing the sacrament” was preserved.
I guess they figure that “giving women an inch” of administrative authority “and they will take a mile” is a valid stance. I would just prefer that it not come down to a gender-based “zero sum game” in the first place.
Roy wrote:
Now that we are saying that women in our church have priesthood power and authority then it could be argued that a larger percentage of female membership has power and authority in our church than the percentage of female membership to hold power and authority in many other churches.
A less charitable interpretation of the second paragraph…
Women exercise the priesthood when they fulfil church assignments. Our members are asked to do things (be participatory) more than your average church. Ipso facto, women exercise the priesthood more than any other organization/church in the world.
But there’s this undertone, women exercise the priesthood when they do what a priesthood leader tells them to do… and that leader can’t be a woman.
If we’re going to dumb down exercising the priesthood to any time a member does what a leader asks them to do, we need to change the conversation to allowing women to hold the
keysof the priesthood. Be decision makers. Have actual autonomy. nibbler wrote:
Roy wrote:
Now that we are saying that women in our church have priesthood power and authority then it could be argued that a larger percentage of female membership has power and authority in our church than the percentage of female membership to hold power and authority in many other churches.
A less charitable interpretation of the second paragraph…
Women exercise the priesthood when they fulfil church assignments. Our members are asked to do things (be participatory) more than your average church. Ipso facto, women exercise the priesthood more than any other organization/church in the world.
But there’s this undertone, women exercise the priesthood when they do what a priesthood leader tells them to do… and that leader can’t be a woman.
If we’re going to dumb down exercising the priesthood to any time a member does what a leader asks them to do, we need to change the conversation to allowing women to hold the
keysof the priesthood. Be decision makers. Have actual autonomy.
NOTE: Women have limited autonomy in the home where they are the “nurturing subject matter experts” and “know” what the family members need (except when the father disagrees and “presides” over the standoff). Based on that track record, the “actual autonomy of women” poses a threat to male administrative leadership, male identity, and marginalizes what the priesthood is perceived as.
nibbler wrote:
Some have reported that instagram is experiencing more widespread issues with comments not being visible. If true, that’s terrible timing for the church.
I’m now hearing reports that the comments are back. It did appear to be an ill-timed technical glitch, not an effort to suppress voices. Ouch on the timing of it all.
nibbler wrote:
Women exercise the priesthood when they fulfil church assignments. Our members are asked to do things (be participatory) more than your average church. Ipso facto, women exercise the priesthood more than any other organization/church in the world.But there’s this undertone, women exercise the priesthood when they do what a priesthood leader tells them to do… and that leader can’t be a woman.
If we’re going to dumb down exercising the priesthood to any time a member does what a leader asks them to do, we need to change the conversation to allowing women to hold the
keysof the priesthood. Be decision makers. Have actual autonomy.
Your last paragraph is key (see what I did there?). From the church administration (and ministry) point of view we all only act under the keys of specific priesthood holders, men included. Unless you are a key holder (quorum president with limited keys, bishop, stake president, or certain GAs) you are acting under somebody else’s keys and under their direction. Male or female makes no difference in that respect, except as you point out only males can hold the keys.
As an aside, Joseph seemed to use the term (and some others like ordain) more freely, and on more than one occasion did speak of keys and women and ordination and women.
nibbler wrote:
If we’re going to dumb down exercising the priesthood to any time a member does what a leader asks them to do
That’s frustrating for me too. Especially when women are limited in the things that they can be asked to do to non-priesthood functions (things like teaching a Sunday School class that most of us wouldn’t have thought uses priesthood power or authority).AmyJ wrote:
The church had an opportunity to “authorize” women to perform functions of the Aaronic Priesthood to bless the sacrament for themselves and other family members. Rather then let these women have that authorization (and potentially continue those practices post-COVID), the purity of “male priesthood holders blessing the sacrament” was preserved.
Question: If a bishop asked a woman to bless the sacrament (maybe due to a shortage of available men) could that woman perform that task with delegated priesthood authority?::Tangent:: Passing the sacrament is something that did not historically require the priesthood but was converted to a priesthood function when it became the standard to ordain boys as young as 12 to the Aaronic priesthood and we needed something visible and important to do with that priesthood power. The church handbook does state that only priesthood holders can pass but I would argue that this is policy and not doctrine.
DarkJedi wrote:
Unless you are a key holder (quorum president with limited keys, bishop, stake president, or certain GAs) you are acting under somebody else’s keys and under their direction. Male or female makes no difference in that respect, except as you point out only males can hold the keys.
Except that there are many callings and responsibilities that we have cordoned off as priesthood only. Also there are a number of what we call non-essential ordinances that men can do without any calling, assignment, or direction from key holders. Administer blessings of comfort or healing or dedicate homes.
::Tangent:: I just discovered that to dedicate a grave, a MP holder must be authorized the the priesthood holder conducting the service. I did not know this and I have dedicated 2 graves. Once was for my stillborn daughter and the other was as the only son of my dad. I guess I can understand why the church might not want someone getting up and using the grave dedication as an opportunity to go apostate – however, the idea of needing approval feels distasteful to me. Also “If the family prefers, a person (preferably a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood) may offer a graveside prayer rather than a dedicatory prayer.” to reiterate and bring it back to the topic of this post, women in our church have more priesthood power and authority than in other churches but they should not give a public graveside prayer at the request of the grieving family. This would be one of the first things that I would vote to change if I were on a committee. Day 1, I would raise my hand and say “Can we delete everything between the parentheses in that sentence?”
Quote:“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. And as we serve in whatever calling or assignment, including ministering assignments, we are given priesthood authority to carry out those responsibilities. My dear sisters, you belong to a Church which offers all its women priesthood power and authority from God!.”
Here’s a thought experiment with a made up situation with made up names…
Susan from ward A has received the endowment in the temple.
Mary in ward B has not received the endowment in the temple.
Both Susan and Mary are called to be the gospel doctrine teacher in their respective wards.
Taking the quote above, Susan is exercising the authority of the priesthood that has been extended to her in order to carry out her responsibilities as a gospel doctrine teacher. Mary is
notexercising any authority of the priesthood. Mary hasn’t been endowed with priesthood power directly from god in the temple. When Mary teaches the gospel doctrine class, she does so without the authority of the priesthood. Does that make sense? Isn’t that exactly what we’re claiming with the apologetic about women gaining access to the authority of the priesthood by virtue of being endowed in the temple?
Roy wrote:
Question: If a bishop asked a woman to bless the sacrament (maybe due to a shortage of available men) could that woman perform that task with delegated priesthood authority?
I like where you’re going with that but unfortunately it’s an easy question to answer. People have to be ordained to the office of priest in the AP to bless the sacrament. We don’t ordain women to any office in the priesthood. If women do have the priesthood, they’re kept in a perpetual state of limbo by never being ordained to an office in the priesthood.
Roy wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
Unless you are a key holder (quorum president with limited keys, bishop, stake president, or certain GAs) you are acting under somebody else’s keys and under their direction. Male or female makes no difference in that respect, except as you point out only males can hold the keys.
Except that there are many callings and responsibilities that we have cordoned off as priesthood only. Also there are a number of what we call non-essential ordinances that men can do without any calling, assignment, or direction from key holders. Administer blessings of comfort or healing or dedicate homes.
I understand what you’re saying here and don’t disagree – only men can hold certain callings (including things like Sunday School president) because they hold the priesthood. BUT even stake presidents and bishops (and temple and mission presidents) actually work under the keys of the apostles/prophet. I guess I’m not sure what you are considering non-essential ordinances. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is considered mostly non-essential (although an argument could be made otherwise) but it is always supposed to be administered under the directions and keys of the bishop. As an aside I asked about the case of a branch president once and the answer was he oversees the administration of the sacrament (and most other things he does) under the stake president’s keys, similar to a bishop’s counselor in the bishop’s absence. MP holders can give priesthood blessings on their own without but I don’t think the church considers those ordinances.
nibbler wrote:
Taking the quote above, Susan is exercising the authority of the priesthood that has been extended to her in order to carry out her responsibilities as a gospel doctrine teacher. Mary isnotexercising any authority of the priesthood. Mary hasn’t been endowed with priesthood power directly from god in the temple. When Mary teaches the gospel doctrine class, she does so without the authority of the priesthood. Does that make sense? Isn’t that exactly what we’re claiming with the apologetic about women gaining access to the authority of the priesthood by virtue of being endowed in the temple?
That’s where that whole keys thing comes into play. Neither Susan nor Mary are exercising their own priesthood, they are both exercising the priesthood under the direction/keys of their bishops. teachers in general are one of the few odd callings that either men or women can do, and priesthood status really has no bearing. But we could use a similar example with something like SS president. John is endowed and SS president in his ward, while Pete is not endowed but is SS president in his ward. While both John and Pete are ordained to priesthood offices, and only a priesthood holder can be SS president, they have no keys but act under the keys of their bishops.
Roy wrote:
AmyJ wrote:
The church had an opportunity to “authorize” women to perform functions of the Aaronic Priesthood to bless the sacrament for themselves and other family members. Rather then let these women have that authorization (and potentially continue those practices post-COVID), the purity of “male priesthood holders blessing the sacrament” was preserved.
Question: If a bishop asked a woman to bless the sacrament (maybe due to a shortage of available men) could that woman perform that task with delegated priesthood authority?He could if he wants to be disciplined.
Roy wrote:::Tangent:: Passing the sacrament is something that did not historically require the priesthood but was converted to a priesthood function when it became the standard to ordain boys as young as 12 to the Aaronic priesthood and we needed something visible and important to do with that priesthood power. The church handbook does state that only priesthood holders can pass but I would argue that this is policy and not doctrine.
Agreed, and the church has demonstrated that they’re willing to change policy in the past. This one is harder to change because it’s hard to find a way to save face.
Roy wrote:::Tangent:: I just discovered that to dedicate a grave, a MP holder must be authorized the the priesthood holder conducting the service. I did not know this and I have dedicated 2 graves. Once was for my stillborn daughter and the other was as the only son of my dad. I guess I can understand why the church might not want someone getting up and using the grave dedication as an opportunity to go apostate – however, the idea of needing approval feels distasteful to me. Also “If the family prefers, a person (preferably a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood) may offer a graveside prayer rather than a dedicatory prayer.” to reiterate and bring it back to the topic of this post, women in our church have more priesthood power and authority than in other churches but they should not give a public graveside prayer at the request of the grieving family. This would be one of the first things that I would vote to change if I were on a committee. Day 1, I would raise my hand and say “Can we delete everything between the parentheses in that sentence?”
I had done this once before discovering there was supposed to be permission. I don’t really understand why that’s the case for this particular thing. I don’t believe it’s actually considered and ordinance and don’t understand how keys are involved. I don’t feel bad or feel any guilt for what I did (It was my grandmother’s grave). I don’t see any difference in a grave dedication and a graveside prayer. This also seems to be policy more than doctrine, and this one would be easier to save face with.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.