Recent instagram post about the authority of women in the church

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

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 is not exercising 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.

I never got “set apart” for being an Achievement Day leader, so while I accepted the calling and stood up in front of the branch, technically I was “going rogue” by not having the literal transfer of power ritual that would have given me “the keys” to teach that age group. It didn’t remain high on anyone in authority’s radar to chase me down to insist that that ritual be completed (and I intimidate people).

I “called myself” to be the nursery leader when my youngest was that age for about a year or so (no official calling from leadership, raising of hands, etc.). It was a weird situation where we had a change in the Primary presidency at the same time – and their chaos lasted several months before they realized I wasn’t called as Primary teacher (but had the training under my belt). They eventually got around to telling the branch president, and eventually that group started making noises about calling me. Then the Primary presidency was released, and the cycle started again.

I was half hoping for a lightning bolt or something useful and measurable from God about the situation. The most concrete conclusion I got from the situation is that “the most important calling” is “the call I issue to myself in the situation”.

I “uncalled myself” one Sunday and one of the opinionated traditional sisters of the branch got offended at me for “not doing my calling” and “not doing my part to support the branch” [that’s what the body language indicated as she sniffed specifically with pointed eye gestures at my direction while being the nursery leader that day in the hall]. NOTE: I took her censure as a misunderstanding because she was in no position to know the details of the situation while making standard assumptions. She assumed I was a bona fide Primary teacher instead of a person who cared enough about the kids and the moms of the kids to show up to babysit for an hour or two.

NOTE 2: It was hilarious whenever a member of the Primary Presidency realized what I was doing (to the degree of “Oh, Amy is in Primary again – wait, Amy isn’t called as a Primary teacher – it’s legal – she has the “completed the training checkbox”). Their sheepish confusion that I was “always between getting called and properly authorized” followed by the “she doesn’t haven’t to be here and I am grateful from a staffing perspective” was fun to watch.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

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.

I think the deciding factor here is “where is the line between family authority” and “church authority”.

The party line will always be “church authority trumps family authority” but when the rubber hits the road, “the family” has to live with the consequences of those choices made by family members to a far greater degree then the church organization does.

[Anonymous]

About “Un-calling”…

I am trying my darndest to get “released” from being the “nurturing subject matter expert” in my household.

a) I do not consider myself qualified as “touchy-feely” enough [and probably never was].

b) I am far better at properly presiding and providing.

c) I no longer have a ton of estrogen to make me “give a loving care” about a lot of things – and I am honest about it right now.

d) I have centered my source of my identity in my values and thoughts – not in the roles I play for a long time, and that has only escalated over the last few years.

e) Technically, our household needs “everyone to be their nurturing subject matter expert” so that everyone can advocate for themselves and we can build our environment with the accommodations we need as individuals instead of trying to put it all on me as the “adult female”.

Reactions from Spouse, Therapist, and Mother:

[NOTE: I am smart enough to not commit social suicide by letting my unconventional thought process and desire hang out all over the place.]

a) Disconnect – Evidently because I “sacrifice for my kids” and “run IEP meetings (instead of being ran by them)” and “thoughtfully mentor the kids into becoming their best selves who can take care of themselves” – that’s “nurturing”.

– I counter that’s “Concerned Parenting” as a gender-neutral “what one does”. They do not agree.

– I counter that “that’s my narcissism being confused as altruism” because what they cannot handle will be reported to me by someone to deal with. And I have a long memory of the “preferred ways most people deal with teaching kids” does not work for my kids – so I am doing a public service by mentoring them while the problem is a potential problem instead of waiting for someone else to teach them.

b) “Re-defining Nurturing” (and stopping talking about it:) )

– My husband and I have a loose “agree to disagree” pact about my ability to “nurture”. He thinks I am lying to myself about it being a survival method.

– My mom defines “nurturing” as “fighting for someone else”.

e) I have in a “presiding way” adopted K.C. Davis’s “chores are care tasks” framework. In our household, we have “care tasks” and “community care tasks” that people do. Going to a social event is a “community care task” just like taking out the trash. Showering, completing homework, and diving down a useful informational rabbit hole are “care tasks”. NOTE: This is “presiding” and “providing” a “nurturing” framework so that we can avoid enacting garden-variety trauma on each other and engaging in pointless power struggles & trying to control each other. I “preside over” the conversation in that I have the executive functioning to ask about priorities and nudge people into seeing what would be useful to our family community.

NOTE: We are 6 months into this, and I am being validated by the increase in “LovingKindess” terminology and “what needs attention/care” questioning. My teenager showers with 1 fewer protestation once I point out that “future self might be grateful to have a clean body and feel more comfortable then present self – it’s worth the experiment if nothing else”. My husband included a line of “Accommodation is the name of the game in our family – what might be useful to you for us to have on hand…”?

NOTE 2: I have values for “accommodation” and “equality” and “security”. We have a family value of “functionality”. The absolute truth is that “I set up environments to keep myself secure and mentor in line with my values” not to “look good” or “because of a social role”. I care deeply about the environment I put myself in, the commitments I commit myself to, and I believe that supporting people and treating them well in what they need usually brings peace to my environment, creates interdependent commitments, and creates security for myself.

CONCLUSION: If you want to upend someone’s reality, tell them you are explicitly rejecting a gender-based social expectation (while technically showing up to do what you have always done for different reasons).

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

CONCLUSION: If you want to upend someone’s reality, tell them you are explicitly rejecting a gender-based social expectation (while technically showing up to do what you have always done for different reasons).

Yes, gender based social expectation goes far beyond what pronouns are used and our church is far behind the curve on that topic.

[Anonymous]

While on a different subject, the church recently posted another message on instagram that is receiving a lot of push back in the form of members and exmembers giving testimonials.

https://www.instagram.com/thechurchnews/p/C5O7iI1RQVJ/?img_index=1” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.instagram.com/thechurchnews/p/C5O7iI1RQVJ/?img_index=1

Quote:

From his first general conference as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in April 2018 to his most recent message more than five years later, President @russellmnelson has taught Church members worldwide about “one of the greatest gifts of God to His children” — the ability to receive revelation through the Holy Ghost.

In his October 2023 talk “Think Celestial,” President Nelson said: “There is no end to the adversary’s deceptions. Please be prepared. Never take counsel from those who do not believe. Seek guidance from voices you can trust — from prophets, seers and revelators and from the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, who ‘will show unto you all things what ye should do’” (2 Nephi 32:5).

In the 12 general conferences President Nelson has spoken in as President of the Church, he has repeatedly taught about personal revelation, explaining why it is essential for spiritual survival and how to increase one’s spiritual capacity to receive it.

Read more about President Nelson’s teachings at TheChurchNews.com, found at link in bio.

Sample responses:

Quote:

I see you doubled down and the one aspect of this talk that was most hurtful to mixed faith marriage/families. As I read through these comments I am taken back to the out in my stomach last conference when I heard this. As someone who had just come across history in the gospel essays that deeply concerned me, I felt so marginalized and talked down to in the moment. And since leaving the continued common rhetoric as this keeps showing up in conference talks, speeches and messages. The deafness of the leadership is astounding at this point.

Quote:

This post continues harmful rhetoric that divides families. Exactly what counsel is he referring to? Can we trust someone’s legal opinion? Medical opinion? At what point does the counsel become untrustworthy? At what point does surrounding yourself only by people who think and feel the exact same way you do become an echo chamber that does not allow for growth and refinement of concepts and ideas? Please do better.

It’s fascinating to me to see it play out. We often talk in our little corner of the internet about how messages during conference hurt us and others that we love but here in the last few weeks there has been more publicly visible push back to some of the messaging that members find hurtful and what’s more is that the official church social media accounts aren’t scrubbing or censoring the testimonials.

I truly hope that this is the beginning of church leaders listening to the members.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

It’s fascinating to me to see it play out. We often talk in our little corner of the internet about how messages during conference hurt us and others that we love but here in the last few weeks there has been more publicly visible push back to some of the messaging that members find hurtful and what’s more is that the official church social media accounts aren’t scrubbing or censoring the testimonials.

I truly hope that this is the beginning of church leaders listening to the members.

Old Timer posted before about the church organization “changing direction as deliberately as it can to retain the active members [and stay relevant]”. That was the gist of it – I am too lazy right now to look it up exactly. I think that the observation is accurate.

I think that the church and members of the church are in a “Purity vs LovingKindess” battle, and as long as they mistake tradition & cultural artifacts as “inspiration” and “doctrine” in an authoritative stance – that battle will turn away the traumatized (in most cases literal emotional trauma) and almost traumatized and/or people who feel that “LovingKindess” is more relevant on many levels will set up boundaries in their participation and walk away from the church organization and traditions.

I don’t envy the church leaders – their job is to maintain the organization’s party line as a “Bastion of Purity” (complete with many sacred temples) in a world where people question that level of authority and allegiance (Pew has a ton of research about this across all religions) and also the “truth/accuracy claims” associated with being that pure an organization while maintaining the organization and community’s relevance in the lives of the members. They also don’t see the issue this way, and when they do (referencing “The 2 Great Commandments”), it still comes out “Purity first”.

I personally don’t see the church organization giving up that title of “the purest of religious organizations” or the level of authority it claims it has. I just don’t see them being able to “share power” fast enough and meaningful enough as an organization. It looks to me like a case that most of the changes (cosmetic or not) may be “too little too late” – but I could be wrong.

But it would take massive conversations about “transferring power” and “sharing power” that aren’t about how powerful the church is or how powerful the men are and probably ordaining women (to gain that level of respect and organizational cultural authority). Solid mentors would come from the trauma care from the domestic violence and mental health fields – because those fields deal extensively with the topic of “organizational power” in families that informs organizational culture in the organization itself.

[Author]

Posts