- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Does anyone know of an argument for why men give Priesthood ordinations and women don’t, that goes beyond, “That’s just the way the Lord wants it”? I am trying to think of a reason WHY the Lord would want it that way. (Background: My son will turn 12 in six months and he thinks that he would like to be a deacon. We so recently reactivated after several years of inactivity that I don’t think he is aware that often dads ordain their sons, and my hubby is kind of feeling like he isn’t going to be in a place, testimony-wise, to do that…so we may need to call in a grandpa from out of state. It all has me thinking… My hubby is one who would like to see authority be more egalitarian in the Church, and might be more inclined to believe in the construct of Priesthood authority if it were given to women, also, or maybe if we at least knew why it isn’t given to women.)
Thanks for any thoughts!!
Sent from my ONE E1005 using Tapatalk
Sexist men won the ancient battle to run the ecclesiastical show, and their successors assumed it was God’s will. Totally logical and, I think, true.
*cough* patriarchy *cough* I’ve heard no good reason for it. All the reasons are lame “the men need the responsibility because they are weaker than the women”. “It’s a matter of order”. And then all the appeals to tradition and God’s will. None of them satisfy in my view. If you want to hear a lot of reasons, look on an orthodox Mormon discussion forum and you’ll get all kinds of rationalizations and reasons.
Back a long time ago, our premordial ancestors broke away from asexual reproduction, as a result of evolutionary pressures. This allowed for certain members of the species to devote most of their resources into growing progeny (females), while the other members could focus more heavily on spreading their genes (males). This was advantagous, as it allowed the genes of the best males to get passed on multiple times, while the males with less advantagous traits had their genes removed from the pool. This also lead to the development of sexual dimporphism, where the females developed traits superior for raising offspring, and males developed traits for getting the females to mate with them. With a number of exceptions, this led most females to become picky mating partners, and most males to become very competitve with one another. If there was something a male could do, which would set them apart from the rest, and increase their chances of producing offspring who could in turn survive, and reproduce, it was in their best interest to do so. A billion years passed (give or take), and a special sentient species popped up called “humans”. They were unusually self aware. They developed communication, which they used to share knowledge, to ask for things they need, to work in teams to accomplish an objective, and sometimes to lie and decieve.
The earliest evidence of religion comes from around 70,000BC, down in Botswana. The locals had learned from hard experience that the snake was a mighty creature, who could kill even when inflicting the tiniest of wounds. They were in awe of things they did not understand, and believed snakes held magical killing powers. And then, one day while exploring, they came across a large rock, that looked like a snake. In order to appease the snake, they began offering sacrifices of food, in hopes that the “mother stone snake god” would spare them. Since the men did the hunting, and were no doubt pressured by the women to hunt all the more to appease the snake god, the men were the first to offer up religious sacrifice.
They also invented a hirarcy, often dominated (but not always) by a sole male; the strongest, smartest, fastest, most cunning male, who had his pick of the ladies. Women, on the other hand, did not need to develop the traits of strength and cunning to the extent the males did. It is better for the offspring if they developed more nurturing qualities. As long as their limited offspring could survive and thrive, fathered by the best males, they were successful. For the males, however, could always produce more and more offspring.
Thus, men took off in their competitive natures, creating organizations and hirarchies which would ensure maximum reproduction. They also came up with a wide variety of religions, which were largely based on the unknown/mysterious forces which goveren their lives. There was a god for this, and a god for that; and all the gods gave authority to a select few males, which gave them a right to boss everyone else around. Then, one day a man (possibly Abraham), recieved the revelation that instead of many gods, there was only one God, and he was the ultimate father figure; someone who would watch over you, and take care of you, and reprimand you when you were bad, but always had your best interests at heart. And as the ultimate father figure, he put fathers in charge.
And there you have the combination of sexual dimorphim and early civilization which has led to most religions being run by a male-exclusive priesthood authority. Of course, short answer is, God told the male-exclusive priesthood authority it was so. I’m not sure how reliable of a source they generally are, but maybe the LDS Church is the only one with the true authority from the one true God. If so, “because God declared it” should be reason enough.
SilentDawning wrote:
“the men need the responsibility because they are weaker than the women”.
That is a sexist notion, and I resent the men and women who perpetuate it.
A fairly compelling argument is that this is how Jesus organized things. He called 12 all male disciples. He also preached exclusively to the Jews as the time was not yet right for the gospel to go to the gentiles. Later after the death of Jesus, Peter received a revelation that the gospel was to go to the gentiles.
Fast forward 2000ish years. GBH says on Larry King Live that it would take a revelation from God to the president of the church to grant priesthood ordination to women.
Unfortunately, God does not seem to send revelations when we are not asking for them and the top church authorities seem very motivated to maintain the status quo.
Disclaimer: I’m not saying I agree with this one or that it’s particularly logical, it’s just a better apologetic than most I’ve heard on the subject. Some time ago I had a BP that was also an institute teacher. He was of the opinion that the PH was reserved for males because it helped them transition into adulthood. His reasoning: there are physical signs of girls becoming women; namely menstruation and breasts. When these things happen society starts to view the girl as a woman and the girl starts to feel like she’s becoming a woman.
Meanwhile boys during this same age don’t really have markers to signal to the world and themselves that they are becoming men. Take for instance many missionaries I see in the field these days. Logically I know they must be at least 18 years old but some of them really do look like 14 year olds. The offices of deacon, teacher, priest, and even elder serve as these tangible things to mark transition periods for boys becoming men. Things that help society and the boy mark their progression towards manhood.
Of course men can grow beards, I don’t know where that fits into his equation, but that was his reasoning.
It’s just another apologetic that starts with the conclusion, only men can have the priesthood, and attempts to find the reasons. I’m not saying much when I say this but it’s the easiest for me to swallow of the many apologetics on the subject.
Nibbler, I do agree that having a role and responsibility in the community tend to make the YM better grounded than they usually are. I believe that this and missionary service helps to transition them into adulthood. I also believe that priesthood responsibilities might make men into better husbands and fathers than they otherwise would be. Those are benefits of the current method of moving YM up in priesthood offices as they pass certain age milestones.
Not exactly a justification though…
hawkgrrrl wrote:*cough* patriarchy *cough*
Hawkgrrrl. You are always so verbose. You used 2 more words than I would have used. Ocam’s Razor pushes me to to my opinion.You guys are the best…as always. I love the responses. Thanks so much. Ok, so the most reasonable explanation for a male-exclusive Priesthood is the evolution/culture-based one Ray, hawkgrrrl, and dande48 point out.
😆 Yes. For sure. It explains why Priesthood has beentraditionallya male thing. But I guess I need to figure out what good, if any, comes from maintaining that tradition. Roy wrote:
A fairly compelling argument is that this is how Jesus organized things. He called 12 all male disciples.He also preached exclusively to the Jews as the time was not yet right for the gospel to go to the gentiles. Later after the death of Jesus, Peter received a revelation that the gospel was to go to the gentiles.
That’s true. Jesus didn’t give the Priesthood to women (that we know of). I sure wish we knew
why, as well as why He didn’t preach to the Gentiles. Would the men have a hard time being Apostles, for some reason, if there were also women Apostles? Was Jesus’ society just too patriarchal for that kind of church structure to work well? I think OUR society may have had a hard time pulling that off in centuries past, but certainly, now, I think we could pull it off (women bishops, etc.) and be okay. I could be wrong. nibbler wrote:
Some time ago I had a BP that was also an institute teacher. He was of the opinion that the PH was reserved for males because it helped them transition into adulthood.
Thanks. This is the kind of explanation I was hoping to find. I’d not thought of this one. The only problem I see with it is that we’re allowing our young men to do things that our young women cannot do, even
afterthose young women reach the biological milestones that correspond to the Priesthood ranking system. (For example, girls still do not pass the Sacrament when they begin wearing a bra.) And once men and women are all well into adulthood, and are obviouslyadults by all outward appearances, we still do not give women the Priesthood, or take it away from the men (it having filled its purpose at that point). Roy wrote:
Nibbler, I do agree that having a role and responsibility in the community tend to make the YM better grounded than they usually are. I believe that this and missionary service helps to transition them into adulthood. I also believe that priesthood responsibilities might make men into better husbands and fathers than they otherwise would be.
I agree that all these are definite benefits of giving the Priesthood to young men. I wonder if, by giving the Priesthood to females, we would make these benefits less prevalent for males. Would Priesthood be less likely to help men stay grounded, transition to adulthood, and become better husbands and fathers if women were given the Priesthood, too? I don’t know the answer to this.
SilentDawning wrote:
If you want to hear a lot of reasons, look on an orthodox Mormon discussion forum and you’ll get all kinds of rationalizations and reasons.
Ok, maybe I should try and find those. I just assume they only have the standard ones (“men are weaker,” “it’s the Lord’s will,” and “something about Order”).
The short answer is that there really isn’t one. The closest I can get is that men and women are different, therefore priesthood for men and babies for women, but I don’t find that particularly satisfying. As mentioned, GBH said it would take a revelation to change things, much like that other can of worms with blacks and the priesthood. Now, I was talking to my friend the other day about that issue. He did a really in-depth dive study on it for one of his religion classes, and it turns out it’s not that simple. It would be incomplete to say that a revelation led to the practice, but it would also be incomplete to say that it was due to racist leadership. He had a very compelling argument explaining how it was both to some extent. Without going too much into detail (because I will butcher it), he essentially said that racism of society at large combined with Brigham Young’s own racism led to a pragmatic revelation from God to bar blacks from the priesthood and it took until 1978 to reverse that because of the racism within the Q12. I suppose it shows that God works through imperfect people, and much like with the law of Moses, He will adapt to their traditions and weaknesses. Heavenly Father is a personal God, and he is often quite pragmatic and not quite as absolute as the orthodox crowd tends to make him out to be. I suspect God will, to some extent, hold certain past leaders responsible for the ban, but I’m not the judge here. I just don’t think He exactly condones that kind of ideology, even though he sort of works around it.
I don’t know how much I agree with his analysis, but it’s more satisfying than most answers I’ve had, so it’s at least worth something.
I think it’s something similar to that when it comes to women and the priesthood. Revelation works from existing “ammunition” within one’s culture, laws, tradition, etc… In the grand view of history, women have been considered more like property than people for the vast majority of it, with egalitarianism being relatively new at just under a hundred years old. I do not agree with that worldview, however, it informed the start of every dispensation of the gospel. Perhaps it never occurred to Joseph Smith to ordain women, as informed by the fact that they could not vote in the US at that time. [speculation]Jesus probably thought about it, but he only barely survived a three year ministry as it was. By modern standards, the ancient world was sexist and misogynistic and if he had called some women to be his apostles, the sexist Jews would have crucified him a lot sooner. So Jesus did the pragmatic thing and rocked the boat only enough to make his point and teach what he needed to teach.[/speculation] Jesus was a champion of women in a world that treated women only slightly better than dirt (perhaps an exaggeration, but let’s be real: that’s what it looks like through a modern lens). In every instance I can think of where Jesus interacted with women, he treated them with the utmost dignity and respect. This is significant.
It would not surprise me if women are given the priesthood at some point. It would also not surprise me if it never happened. We do not know why God does the things he does when he does them. We do not know how much of it is in response to shifting attitudes and which policies come from God and which ones come from our human leaders. It may be an eternal principle that women do not have the priesthood. It may not. It’s impossible for me to say.
If I had to guess when women will get the priesthood (assuming they do), I would say it will be about 5-10 years after men’s liberation (if and when that happens). Even though women can choose to ‘reject’ their traditional role, men don’t quite have that same luxury. There is still a lot of pressure on men to be providers. Men who pursue less lucrative careers (or more nurturing ones) are looked down upon, much like career women were in the past. Stay-at-home dads are often perceived as losers or similar, even in cases where it works better for the family. I don’t think that masculinity is defined by one’s ability to provide, much like how femininity isn’t defined by the ability to have babies. I would like to see more men teaching elementary school, for instance; it would do well for boys to have more male role models at that time in their lives.
I guess I got a little rambly and off on a tangent.
tl;dr: There isn’t one. We don’t know why. It may be the product of tradition. It may not be permanent.
If there was a revelation that began the ban, we would know about it. We don’t, so there wasn’t. It really is as the essay describes – an assumption by a racist leader put in place to avoid having to seal inter-racial couples where one spouse was black. It simply was unthinkable to BY and the general membership at that time, so nobody thought to seek revelation. There are some better apologetic answers than others regarding the sex-based restriction, but I don’t think they are any more valid than the justifications for the race-based ban. Elder Holland said the justifications were “spectacularly wrong” and that the LEAST we can do is not perpetuate them. I think it also is the least we can do for the sex-based ban – not perpetuate speculative justifications that, in the end, will turn out to be just as wrong.
I actually like that the leadership now isn’t making justifications. They simply are saying it will take a revelation, since they don’t see it in our scriptural canon. That is a good first step, since it finally opens the door for it to change at some point.
I agree with everything Ray said. Old Timer wrote:
I actually like that the leadership now isn’t making justifications. They simply are saying it will take a revelation, since they don’t see it in our scriptural canon. That is a good first step, since it finally opens the door for it to change at some point.
That is my feeling as well. If GBH knew that it would never change he had an opportunity to say so. Instead, he said that it would take a revelation. I assume that GBH had witnessed enough changes over the years to know better than to say “never.”
Ultimately, the church has to stay relevant to people’s lives. We may criticize changes in other churches as evidence of apostasy but we hail them in our own as signs of continuing revelation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.