- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was wondering today if anyone else is noticing a shift in the way priesthood is talked about in relation to men and women? I feel like the way it used to be talked about, even 3-4 years ago felt like women have 20% priesthood power and men have 100%. Today, though, there was a lesson where they were trying to say that everyone who has been through the temple has the power of the priesthood, but only men are called to authority positions with that priesthood (which I have heard before). They were trying to say priesthood power and priesthood authority were different. It felt like they were trying to say women had 90% priesthood and men had 100%, which I found unusual. There were comments like “have women ever received a revelation about their children? If that’s not priesthood power, I don’t know what is”, and “it’s incorrect to say that a home with a single mom or with a father who doesn’t have the priesthood, is a home without the priesthood. Any member who has been through the temple and lives worthily, male or female, has the priesthood.” There was also a story the EQ pres told about his mother basically giving him a blessing when he was a child when there were no men around, and how he feels it healed him. This was taught by the RS president and EQ press as far as I can tell, both are 100% believers, especially the RS president. Anyways, it made me wonder if this is a dialogue shift that is happening church-wide or if it is uncommon? It would make sense if there was a shift happening where the lines are being blurred between priesthood power and priesthood authority, and that may eventually lead to women being able to give blessings again like they did in church history, and maybe potentially get the priesthood someday. I know they are generally trying to make men and women more equal in the temple ceremony. Has anyone else noticed a shift like this, or was this lesson an anomaly? Forgot to add too, that they were also saying how the priesthood is the power of God given to people, and saying how there are a lot of things that fit in that definition. Which is cool, but it really did make me wonder what the priesthood is exactly if they’re blurring the lines that much. I already don’t believe in the priesthood, but having them talk about it that way made it even less clear what the priesthood is, when it’s already a bit foggy haha
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I think it’s a doctrinal paradigm shift caused by feminist culture. Culture shapes religion, by providing a new lense to view it from. It’s a slow process. But no one would dare say today that women are subordinante to men; so they need to redefine what the prophets of old have said, in order to align their religion with their beliefs. Afterall, their religion has always been right; they were just viewing it wrong. Dallin Oaks threw that idea out a couple of GC sessions ago. Some vaguely implied thing about any woman who has been to the temple has the priesthood. Not much clarity beyond that. We didn’t get back the power to give laying on of hands blessings or Relief Society fully run by women as it was before correlation sucked it in. I think it was Oaks attempt to assuage the conversation started by Ordain Women and others. Kind of “You’ve always had it.”
I think Dande is correct, too. It’s going to get framed that way to make it palatable and valid.
I think that’s how the ‘change’ will happen.
There is definitely a shift in the way this is being described. However, I find it not only very unsatisfying, but more than a little frustrating as well. To me, it falls along the lines of saying “hate the sin, love the sinner”. It’s meant to soften a position, but all it does is makes the Church look like it’s trying to hide behind words, what it does in actions. There will be absolutely no equality in priesthood unless and until a woman can serve as a Bishop and Stake President.
Elder Oaks’ talk was in the 2014 General Conference Priesthood Session, ironically. (April, I think) He said all endowed members receive the Priesthood power, which is quite obvious and explicit in the endowment. I believe much of the change recently with regard to evening out the wording in the temple for men and women is leading to future changes with regard to the Priesthood, but I have no idea when ordination will happen. I don’t own that particular crystal ball.
On Own Now wrote:There is definitely a shift in the way this is being described. However, I find it not only very unsatisfying, but more than a little frustrating as well. To me, it falls along the lines of saying “hate the sin, love the sinner”. It’s meant to soften a position, but all it does is makes the Church look like it’s trying to hide behind words, what it does in actions.
There will be absolutely no equality in priesthood unless and until a woman can serve as a Bishop and Stake President.
I agree. They are definitely trying to make it sound like we’re equal when we aren’t. I forgot! That was another phrase they kept saying during the lesson “men and women are equal, but they have different responsibilties in the priesthood”. It honestly reminded me of “separate but equal” [emoji849]
On another note, it frustrates me too because even though their old stance of ‘women don’t have the priesthood, and men do, and the priesthood can do ______’ made women not feel equal, at least it was more clear what the priesthood was and the abilities it gave. I feel like by blurring the lines of what counts as the priesthood will make people realise that it isn’t (imo) real. As they were talking about women receiving revelation for their children being a priesthood thing, I immediately thought about how women who haven’t been through the temple can receive revelations regarding their children, and women and men in other religions receive revelation about their children, so it makes it seem like anything influenced by God is using the priesthood which would take away their authority if they blur that too much. I feel similarly with them blurring the lines on what kind of revelation a prophet receives compared to regular members and how they are the same as regular members. It’s all fluff talk to lower our expectations of prophets, but if they lower the bar too much, they’ll lose that authority of being a voice for God above any other voice for God. In a way, maybe I’m being too picky since I don’t like the hard-liner view either, I think it’s just frustrating seeing them trying to make things seem nicer, but I think it eats at that view I had as a kid of how clearly the church was true because they had the priesthood and the prophet spoke to God personally, and is pretty close to perfect. When they take those away, they’re taking away their specialness that the child in me wanted to be real. Which maybe sounds immature, but I think there still a child-like part in everyone. I think mine still wants the church to be true, but when they do things like this, it makes that part of me cringe, because it feels like it’s obvious that it’s made up (imo). When I was a kid, I thought the church didn’t follow the ways of the world, and while in a way, I’m glad they are because the world is moving in positive directions, it points to the idea that the church is slowly following the world rather than being an example to the world.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Here’s what I keep coming back to. “What does holding the priesthood and administering the church programs give men (in general) that they really need?”
I think a big need is for the men to feel that they are not being potentially displaced by women (who are perceived as being “better” at church service – what they really mean is the emotional labor of running an aspect of the church). When we can get to the point where general male strengths/desires of protecting others and hierarchies are not diminished by adding sisters, that will be a great day. The days leading up to that are already great in a lot of ways:)
“How does giving women the priesthood (in general) or priesthood administration keys impact other women, men, and male leadership?”
In the book, “She Preached the Word” about women and church leadership (among other things), the authors noted that there was an uptake in young women accepting leadership roles outside of the church, and that young men grew more comfortable with working with women (in the workplace as well as other places).
I feel that women are becoming more comfortable with running organizations outside the home. I also feel that women who stay in the home are becoming more comfortable and accepting of those women who run organizations outside the home. While we are not there, the battles of the “mommy wars” are becoming swallowed up in the inclusive “we-trust-you-as-sisters-to-do-what-is-best-for-your-family” conversations.
What needs to happen is for it to become more universally acknowledged that the “emotional load” of running a church will be strategically lessened by having women exercising priesthood authority in ways they do not currently AND that the culture shifts so that the concurrent emotional loads of running the family and running the church are balanced between partners. The traditional system of having the women handle the emotional load of the home and the cultural-emotional load of church service (funeral potatoes anyone?) is not easy to change. Humans (in at least 1st world countries) are still figuring out how to have conversations about what the emotional load is and how it should be assigned across roles (or at all).
Always Thinking wrote:
They are definitely trying to make it sound like we’re equal when we aren’t.
We would need to have an conversation about “equal” – does it mean “equal access” or “equal treatment” or “equal needs”?
Our theology teaches that sisters have “equal access” to the blessings of the priesthood.When our theology got correlated, equal explicit access to leadership opportunities got sidelined. The R.S. magazine was subsumed into the “Ensign”, and women lost cultural and financial autonomy over the R.S. organization. Our theology teaches a paradox about equal treatment. It teaches that men and women are judged equally at the judgement bar. It holds that there are common standards for both men and women to uphold (such as modesty, integrity, sanctity, honesty, etc) BUT the way those are portrayed culturally has some tweaks. An obvious one is that we do not teach our young men exactly the same lessons on modesty that we teach our young women. Our theology does not teach that men and women have equal needs. There is an inherent balance in the needs of the women (and by extension the needs of the children) and the needs of men by the church. I value R.S. because it identifies some of those needs. BUT, I wonder how many cultural props are just props designed to sate perceived needs. Does “preside” really mean to supervise, and is a man’s ability to “preside” threatened by having a female Sunday School President?
Always Thinking wrote:
On another note, it frustrates me too because even though their old stance of ‘women don’t have the priesthood, and men do, and the priesthood can do ______’ made women not feel equal, at least it was more clear what the priesthood was and the abilities it gave. I feel like by blurring the lines of what counts as the priesthood will make people realise that it isn’t (imo) real.
Yes, the spheres of male and female roles were theoretically more clearly spelled out because the producing of children was so mother-centric and there were things men could not do about it producing children. For a very long time, what mattered most was producing children and stocking resources.
Yes, as having the “Priesthood” is redefined, what was previously seen will not exist or be “real”. And people will leave because of that. But people will leave if nothing changes either.
Always Thinking wrote:
As they were talking about women receiving revelation for their children being a priesthood thing, I immediately thought about how women who haven’t been through the temple can receive revelations regarding their children, and women and men in other religions receive revelation about their children, so it makes it seem like anything influenced by God is using the priesthood which would take away their authority if they blur that too much. I feel similarly with them blurring the lines on what kind of revelation a prophet receives compared to regular members and how they are the same as regular members. It’s all fluff talk to lower our expectations of prophets, but if they lower the bar too much, they’ll lose that authority of being a voice for God above any other voice for God. In a way, maybe I’m being too picky since I don’t like the hard-liner view either, I think it’s just frustrating seeing them trying to make things seem nicer, but I think it eats at that view I had as a kid of how clearly the church was true because they had the priesthood and the prophet spoke to God personally, and is pretty close to perfect. When they take those away, they’re taking away their specialness that the child in me wanted to be real. Which maybe sounds immature, but I think there still a child-like part in everyone. I think mine still wants the church to be true, but when they do things like this, it makes that part of me cringe, because it feels like it’s obvious that it’s made up (imo). When I was a kid, I thought the church didn’t follow the ways of the world, and while in a way, I’m glad they are because the world is moving in positive directions, it points to the idea that the church is slowly following the world rather than being an example to the world.Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
One thing to note: There are interloping spheres going on here. There is the “Church” which is the tenets and doctrines and big picture (usually coming from Salt Lake and/or historical precedent) – this keeps the lights running and every congregation on the same page (ish) doctrinally speaking. Then there is actual church history – which is not a whitewashed version designed to promote faith (though it can sometimes) and it includes various cultural elements such as women used to give blessings, men go on missions, etc.). Then there is “church” which is the church around you (usually the ward/branch). Last, I am going to put in “family” for lack of a better word – it determines whether you grew up in the church or not, family church traditions, whom your connections are, and how you (and your family) may feel about divorce and other messy personal items.
The “Church” is responsible for teaching in all 3 of the other spheres. We are responsible for how we handle those teachings and what we do about it.
Ultimately, for every church activity engagement, I had to realize that the buck stops with me. If it was worth it to me on its own merit, then it was worth my time, energy, and resources. At the end of the day, the skin in the game is mine – so I took back a greater say in how I play the game
😆 Always Thinking wrote:
Which is cool, but it really did make me wonder what the priesthood is exactly if they’re blurring the lines that much. I already don’t believe in the priesthood, but having them talk about it that way made it even less clear what the priesthood is, when it’s already a bit foggy haha
This reminds me of the doctrinal distinction between the Gift of the HG, the HG visiting a non-member but not remaining with that individual permanently, and the Light of Christ.
We teach that the Light of Christ is throughout everything and everyone. This provides the spark of life, the human conscience, and is the communication network through which the HG operates.
We teach that the HG can visit or send messages to nonmembers (for example to convince them that the BoM is from God) but if they fail to head the prompting the spirit will pull back and wait for another opportunity to testify.
We teach that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to the “continual guidance and inspiration”, “continuing assurance”, and “constant companionship” of the Holy Ghost? Yet in practice what does the Gift of the HG look like?
Church members and even leaders are told to study it out in their mind, make their best decision, and in absence of a any divine direction to move forward and that God will ratify their best attempts. Sometimes they will feel a pleasant feeling that what they made the right decision and sometimes they do not. Other than serving as a tool for confirmation bias, what then is the difference between the actual experience of having the Light of Christ, inspiration of the HG, or the Gift of the HG when all is said and done.
Always Thinking wrote:
Today, though, there was a lesson where they were trying to say that everyone who has been through the temple has the power of the priesthood, but only men are called to authority positions with that priesthood (which I have heard before).
If priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God and only men are actually allowed to make authoritative actions, what does holding the priesthood for women then look like. “I could do that if I wanted to but I don’t so I won’t!”
😆 Maybe there could be specific offices and tasks for a feminine version of the priesthood that included blessing young mothers before childbirth.
I am fascinated by the case of Lucy Mack Smith.
Lucy was sustained as “Mother in Zion” by the church under BY. Until the end of her days she would lay hands upon visitors and pronounce “blessings” upon them. I believe that she saw herself as a sort of church matriarch similar in function to the role of church patriarch that her husband had held while alive.
Finally, there is no doctrinal reason to require any priesthood to pass the sacrament. Women, young women, and even non members could perform this task commonly assigned to deacons without any change to our doctrine.
Roy wrote:
Finally, there is no doctrinal reason to require any priesthood to pass the sacrament. Women, young women, and even non members could perform this task commonly assigned to deacons without any change to our doctrine.
In rereading my own post, I have this relevant thought. Doctrinally no power is required to pass the sacrament, but through culture and policy we as an organization reserve this privilege exclusively for male members that have received the “priesthood”. Therefore it could be said the women have the “power” to pass the sacrament (since no power is required) but lack the authority (since any woman attempting to pass the sacrament as the deacons do would probably be physically stopped from doing so). Is it just that easy to create, define, and delegate power and authority from God? Are we the star-bellied sneetches?Roy wrote:
Roy wrote:
Finally, there is no doctrinal reason to require any priesthood to pass the sacrament. Women, young women, and even non members could perform this task commonly assigned to deacons without any change to our doctrine.
In rereading my own post, I have this relevant thought. Doctrinally, no power is required to pass the sacrament, but through culture and policy we as an organization reserve this privilege exclusively for male members that have received the “priesthood”. Therefore it could be said the women have the “power” to pass the sacrament (since no power is required) but lack the authority (since any woman attempting to pass the sacrament as the deacons do would probably be physically stopped from doing so). Is it just that easy to create, define, and delegate power and authority from God?
Well yes. Since the priesthood authority (and potentially the priesthood power innately depending on how you look at it) comes from God through the church organization, it is a church organization and administration function. What it would take is an explicit statement (and convincing proof) that the administration change was from God. Some general direction on what that would look like in dealing with the fallout would be helpful.
The reason for the current dialog that women do have priesthood authority (not to give, but to receive) and that the only distinction is in the office, appears on the surface to be for the purpose of placating women and to convince members that we are all equal. It’s a step in the right direction, but I think it falls well short, as I’ve said. However, there is another possible intent of the message: to lay the groundwork for the eventual and inevitable ordination of women. Taking the case of the Ban, it was always the teaching of the Church that the priesthood would ‘someday’ be given to black people. So, when it happened, it seemed like the culmination of something rather than a reversal. Of course, there were still many who were opposed, but they were few in number compared to those who embraced the change as the long-awaited day.
Whether the current ‘brethren’ intend for this to be the case or no, this new messaging about women does help provide a way ahead that will someday be leveraged as “just like we always said…”.
In fact, I think the Church should look at all the doctrinal changes that COULD need to occur in a distant future (SSM in the Temple, endowment changes to take out all the remaining weird stuff (special clothing, secret tokens), non-members attending Temple sealings, WoW reboot, repudiating polygamy) and start to introduce dialog that could be used at a future time to show that this is something “we always said”. This would provide a future ‘out’ if a future generation does activate those changes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.