2 New Essays – Woman and Priesthood & Heavenly Mother

These 2 hit me hard. I can’t even fully explain the reasoning behind my pain. I only know that it is still hurting. I’ve read various plus and minus thoughts, none of them salve the sore right now.

I didn’t even know we were getting any more essays, when I went to read them I figured no big deal, but something went crack inside. It hurts. Walking death is the best answer right now.

My closest answer came in dream form last night and the remnants of that moment are with me too. In my dream my name was spelled wrong (this wasn’t a long dream), but I looked at the spelling on the paper. Aside from the spelling anyone would pronounce my name correctly if they read it. I would answer if they called it. But it wasn’t my name. And last night it hurt. It wasn’t me or mine. It was a variation, an almost, a sort of. When I woke up I felt sick.

IRL – I’ve often seen my name spelled various ways, it’s never been a big deal. I get it, I know who I am, and if you call the wrong spelling you still mean me. My dream was not a reflection of a real life incident. Somewhere in the last 24 hours something deeply personal, that I had no awareness of, was taken from me or substituted or down graded. I still don’t know what it is. I can only assume I will be writing a lot here trying to figure it out.

The only thing I know today is that I hurt and there is no healing for the pain.

and shoulders on which to cry

Love you, friend.

Here’s a post from rationalfaiths:

http://rationalfaiths.com/response-to-joseph-smiths-teachings-about-priesthood-temple-and-women/

Certainly “Joseph Smith’s Teaching about Priesthood, Temple, and Women” is riddled with historical gaps and interpretations of facts that align with the status quo, but one has to put it in context with this new genre of essay, it provides a solid starting place to familiarize the wider church population with issues regarding women that have long been known to LDS scholars and more recently known to those who have been seeking to reconcile the church and feminism. That said, the essay is misnamed. Very little space is actually given to Joseph Smith’s teachings themselves and more is given to modern-day interpretations of 19th century ritual practice. The name implies that the essay will end controversy around what Joseph taught about the priesthood, the temple, and women, when in fact the essay is entirely about women; however, I find it telling that the essay deals with the three most prominent historical arguments used by those seeking female priesthood: ordination of women in the early church, women healing and blessing, and co-gendered temple worship. (The fourth argument is of course the existence of Mother in Heaven, which was given an essay of its own released concurrent with this one).

There are many reasons for the decline (as the essay names it) of women’s participation in blessings and healings, just as there are many reasons for the loss of women’s understanding of their participation in the priesthood. The essay makes it appear that this decline was natural—more of a progression towards the natural order of things (“call for the elders”). Again, I find this simplification problematic. Certainly a gospel topics essay is not the place for a fully developed academic treatment of women healing and blessing; however, the essay presents a clean and easy explanation for women’s retreat rather than an acknowledgement of fifty years of struggle between the male and female leaders of the church as the women tried to keep the rights and privileges they believed Joseph had bestowed upon them.

It has been less than a day since the church posted “Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women,” and the reactions have ranged from heralding it to condemning it. I find myself somewhere in the middle. At times the essay smacks of an attempt to contain the best historical arguments used by those agitating for female ordination, other times it loses its way from being about Joseph’s teaching and instead rests its assumptions and conclusions firmly in the teachings of more modern prophets. I recognize I am not the ideal audience; the points and illustrations the essay presents are not new to me. Over the last fifteen years the church has released all of this information and more, and those who have been interested in the topic have had resources such as Jill Derr’s Women of Covenant: A History of the Relief Society, a study supported and endorsed by the highest church leadership—yet the general membership will not have read through its hundreds of pages. Instead, this essay offers a good starting point to understand the rich history of women in the LDS church.

Emmeline B Wells, the fifth president of the Relief Society and the president who oversaw the time period when the great bulk of women’s healing and blessing rituals were taken away, wrote that “History may not have preserved it all, there may be no tangible record of what has been gained, but sometime we shall know that nothing has been irretrievably lost.” This essay provides newly legitimized space for me and others to continue our research into early Mormon women (without the threat of local leadership disapproving). The essay de-stigmatizes these topics and grants permission for all of us—and for the general membership at large—to engage in discussions that were all but absent in most LDS congregations. To me, all these are very good things.

Mother in Heaven

Again nothing ground breaking but that’s not surprising. I think the essay was just meant to put everything we know in one place, not to communicate a new revelation.

They did include a section on why we don’t pray to heavenly mother but I thought they could have included a section about why the subject of heavenly mother seems to be taboo in the church. I realize this essay actually helps alleviate the issue but we’re still far from openly discussing the subject as a culture.

Someone at BCC says, “It’s time,” time to change the YW theme to, “We are daughters of Heavenly Parents who love us, and we love them….”

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/10/25/its-time/#comments

If the church doesn’t change it, what does that say? I don’t know. I’m not saying storm the castle.

But part of me comes alive when I picture the recitation of it, and I want to say, You go, girls! Do the things we couldn’t.

Without wanting in any way to bolster the Essay on Women & Priesthood as enlightened or new, let me point out a handful of things that I think are positive about it:

– The article admits obliquely that some of our culture comes from the times in which the Church was organized. “As in most other Christian denominations during this era, Latter-day Saint men alone held priesthood offices, served formal proselytizing missions, and performed ordinances like baptism and blessing the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.” While I don’t see the Church a-changin’ as far as who can be ordained any time soon, I think even just understanding that some of our doctrines and policies have been affected by the environment is a very important element of what has come out of many of these essays.

– The article asserts that the LDS Church was actually pretty progressive regarding women in the Church compared to the norm in that day. I believe that to be accurate. Of course, 1840’s progressiveness is 2010’s repressiveness. But I think it’s always good to remember that the Church had a history of progressiveness and that positive things came out of that that we still admire today. For example, as I always say, the Church should be at the FOREFRONT of championing acceptance of Gay people and Same-sex Marriage; extending the Gospel to all who would be enlightened by it. That style of progressiveness is a lot more true to the JS-era Church. Getting into our LDS dialog the concept that pushing the social envelope was a major driver of the early Church is a good thing, IMO. (I caveat all this by addressing the obvious elephant in the room – for all the progress and promise, polygamy was 10 giant steps backwards).

– The publicizing of the sisters performing laying on of hands for the healing of the sick is a wonderful spark. It can prompt the kind of dialog that will, IMO, someday in the distant future lead to the ordination of women.

– I appreciated the article saying that women continued to perform healing blessings well into the 20th century and that “the current” Handbook of Instructions says that this is the purview of the priesthood. The reason why I love this is that it basically says that this healing by women was initiated to be so by JS and was common and accepted in the days of JS, BY, JT and continued into the times of WW, LS and JFS. Acknowledging that fact allows that there is a possibility that the policy could be reset to what it once was. AND… that talking about it can’t possibly be out-of-bounds.

– The article sets a sort of precedent that there is a separation of priesthood and authority. Women, without the priesthood, operate with authority given to them, the article says. These statements lay the groundwork for examining what positions in the Church actually require the priesthood vs being authorized by the priesthood. Does the Ward Clerk have to have the priesthood? I say, no. Sunday School President? No. If a man is called to be the Primary President, does he perform his responsibilities by virtue of the priesthood he holds or by authority given to him aside from any priesthood office? The article, though it doesn’t make such a statement, clearly believes the latter. I have long hoped for a day when the priesthood and hierarchy would be separated. This is a big step in that direction, IMO.

– Finally, the article is not declarative about only giving the priesthood to men. It says that’s the way it was in the day of JS and that’s how it is “today”. But if a change were made, let’s say in the next GC, that extended priesthood ordination to women, there is absolutely nothing in this article that would have to be explained. The article never says it is God’s Plan that only men are ordained. In fact, the article is tantalizingly close to saying that all-male priesthood is a policy born out of 19th century social norms, rather than a doctrine. I know that for many, being that close without saying it is cause for tremendous frustration. For my part, I love that the Church is playing that close to the electric fence that has been switched off… just a little nudge in the right direction and we may discover that we can go beyond this over-grazed pasture into a new field where the grass is greener.

OON, how do you see temple gender issues fitting into priesthood ones? In my mind I’ve had them “first” to be dealt with and foundational. But maybe it won’t go like that. What do you think?

Well, I think it’s impossible to tease apart any of the gender issues in the Church from any of the other gender issues. They are all intertwined. I believe that women will someday be ordained to the priesthood in the LDS Church, but I expect it will be after my lifetime. If I had to guess, here is the order of how I see things unfolding between now and then:

– Church renames Priesthood Session the “General Men’s Session”, alternates between General Women’s Session for which is held on Saturday Evening of GC weekend (probably 8-10 years away).

– Redefinition of callings in the local units so that anyone, priesthood or not, can hold a variety of callings, and let the Bishop oversee it all and the Aaronic Priesthood handle the sacrament. Women as ward clerks, men as primary presidents. Not-yet-defined callings, like Ward Manager or Sacrament Meeting Planner, to be assigned to either gender. Very few and specific instances where priesthood is invoked (We are probably 10 years away).

– Church separates from BSA, forms twin youth program where boys and girls have essentially the same program separated into respective groups, and cooperating once a month within the same program (10-15 years).

– Women given the green light to perform healing blessings in the name of The Lord, but without the priesthood (15 years).

– Replacing Stake High Council with Stake Leadership Committee, made up of men and women (15-20 years).

– Church de-genders the temple ordinances, de-emphasises the literal interpretations of the endowment (15-20 years).

– Female Mission Presidents (20 years).

– Church disavows polygamy, de-canonizes D&C 132, creates new section to cover eternal marriage, performs temple sealings for widows and widowers alike, with no restrictions (40 years).

– Church rebrands the Aaronic Priesthood as “the Priesthood” and the Melchizedek Priesthood as “the High Priesthood” and ordains women to “the Priesthood” for sacraments, baptisms, Bishoprics (50-60 years).

– Ordination of women to all Priesthood and High Priesthood offices (75 years).

I guess I see the church constantly trying to find that balance between coming across as being mainstream and being a peculiar people.

Many times I hear the position against same sex marriage being justified by a retelling of the plan of salvation. We are so caught up in our interpretation of the plan of salvation centering around procreating the next generation of deity that we crowd out homosexual people in the process. The line has become “they are obviously wrong because how does that even fit in the plan?” When we’re in that deep I don’t see how we can distance ourselves from a heavenly mother.

Some of us here like Star Wars, right? Sorry, this one is from the prequels:

Obi-Wan: It ought to be here, but it isn’t. Gravity is pulling all the stars in the area towards this spot. There should be a star here, or at least a record of a destroyed star or something that would cause the gravitational anomaly, but there’s just nothing.

Yoda: Most interesting. Gravity’s silhouette remains, but the star and all the planets, disappeared they have. How can this be? Younglings, in your mind, what is the first thing you see? An answer? A thought? Anyone?

Youngling: Master? Because someone erased it from the archive memory?

Heavenly mother is our missing planet. Is someone going to erase it from memory?

There was also a push to distinguish the church as being all about families, eternal families. I think eternal families really resonates with people, at least more than the “till death do us part” alternative. Families need mothers.

What about the teaching that God himself was once a mortal man that eventually progressed to Godhood? This was publically taught by JS and yet is currently downplayed by the church. GBH said about this, “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.” Is this statement from GBH not just as applicable to the idea of a Mother in Heaven? Why does the idea of a humble beginning for God get downplayed while the teaching of a Mother in Heaven get’s trumpeted as “a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints”?

Part of me wonders whether this was downplayed because we truly don’t know very much or if it was downplayed out of fear of public perception. If the larger Christian world was ready for a heavenly mother would the narrative be, “of course, we’ve taught her since the beginning!”

Finally, What about the idea that HF is married to multiple Mothers in Heaven?

Was it Voltaire that said, “If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.” I suspect that’s the answer to most questions about god. :angel:

For these reasons I wonder, “As a church is there wisdom in pushing or emphasizing a Mother in Heaven? Is it not just opening a can of worms?”

So many cans have been opened already. What’s one more?

Someone at BCC says, “It’s time,” time to change the YW theme to, “We are daughters of Heavenly Parents who love us, and we love them….”

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/10/25/its-time/#comments

If the church doesn’t change it, what does that say? I don’t know. I’m not saying storm the castle.

But part of me comes alive when I picture the recitation of it, and I want to say, You go, girls! Do the things we couldn’t.

My wife who was just released as our ward’s young women’s president wrote a letter to Sis. Oscarson, general YW president, asking this change be made and got back a nice letter saying they would discuss it and you know, I think they will.

One of the commenters at BCC said that the YW in her ward have already been saying it this way. 😯 She could be mistaken. I’m not advocating chaos, but maybe there’s just going to be a certain amount of it.

There’s some “quiet chaos” already when I attend the temple. (I don’t do it to create a scene – and it doesn’t – but just so I can be there at all with integrity.) There is a place where I don’t say, “Yes.”