Women’s Role In Mormonism

[Anonymous]

This past Friday, I read an article titled “No: I’m Not Satisfied with Women’s Role in Judaism” by Chana Weisberg. As I read the article, I found myself changing the word “Judaism” to “Mormonism.” I believe that much of what Ms. Weisberg wrote would resonate with LDS women.

After reading the article, I returned to reading the book “The Sisterhood: Inside the Lives of Mormon Women” by Dorothy Allred Solomon. I read what follows on pages 167-168:

Quote:

“Remember that LDS women once had the authority to publish their own newspaper, develop their own lessons, design their own service projects, and officiate in their own organizations. They elected their own leaders, made their own money and executed their own budget. They conducted washing and anointing, and practiced ‘laying on of hands’ for the purpose of healing, prophesying and blessing. Gradually these points of authority were stripped away as the established church became more and more conservative.

“In those days, the voices of LDS women were heard by people throughout the church and throughout the nation. Today, all organizations and all people in the LDS church operate under priesthood direction and women don’t speak officially without specific permission. …

“… As long as people down the chain of hierarchy are doing what Jesus would do, it works. But people being people, not everyone offers the trust and respect to women that Jesus did. And women can be just as undermining to their sisters as men.”

Today I read a blog post at the website LDS Women of God about the Relief Society Magazine. I remember seeing copies of the magazine in the Meetinghouse Library at the ward we attended in Queens, New York. I also remember that the Relief Society once had its own manual. When I was an active member back in NY, I was called by the Bishop to be Social Relations instructor. That calling was totally unexpected and I firmly believe the Bishop was inspired. I gave my all to that calling as did the instructors of the lessons on “Homemaking, Spiritual Living, and the favorite-Art and Architecture, later called Cultural Refinement.” I was saddened when the Relief Society manual was done away with.

After reading about the role of women in the early days of the Church, and remembering what Relief Society meetings were like when I was an active member, I thought I would ask this question (this is directed specifically to women, but I would be interested in comments from men as well since they can opine on how their wives feel):

“Are you satisfied with women’s role in Mormonism?”

My answer would be “No” because I feel women in the Church appear to have lost their autonomy, especially if it Is true that “…women don’t speak officially without specific permission?” I’m still pondering the last statement and what the word “officially” means.

I look forward to your comments.

ETA: Moderators — I apologize. If this post is offensive, then by all means remove it.

[Anonymous]

Kalola said…..“Are you satisfied with women’s role in Mormonism?”

My answer would be “No” because I feel women in the Church appear to have lost their autonomy, especially if it Is true that “…women don’t speak officially without specific permission?” I’m still pondering the last statement and what the word “officially” means.

I look forward to your comments.

Kalola, everything you said applys to men as well. The church is a house of order and everyone has someone above them that gives us all inspired direction. I don’t believe it’s a them against us kind of thing. The church has evolved and it’s changed for everyone, and for the better for both men and women. Perfection is a long way off, I think looking for ways to make things work for ourselves is better than making up an issue that may be only an issue in someone’s mind.

[Anonymous]

With regards to the whole speaking officially without permission thing…..I don’t think there is any difference between the women and the men on this point. Everyone who sets out to speak officially in GC or on assignment or within the realm of their stewardship is directed or commissioned by the presiding authority. Seventies are sent out on assignment and everyone, even the 12 are specifically asked to speak or pray in GC. So…..I don’t see this happen. Even in the wards, everyone who speaks in SM are called of the bishop. No one appoints themselves……goodness! Can you imagine? lol.

Am I satisfied with women’s role in Mormonism?

Well, what do you mean? If you are talking about how Jesus set things and how God sees and uses women, then I am very satisfied. If you are referring to not having the priesthood or never having the opportunity to lead a ward or stake, then I can’t deny that I haven’t wondered about things on occasion. But I have submitted myself to trying to understand how God set up the roles with regards to keeping watch on the church….and then keeping watchful shepherds on the home. The home being the more important of the two. And in this way I am very satisfied because I know God has some wise purpose.

Now, do I think the church or the people in the church are sometimes sexist? You bet. And I think it is understandable why. Many of these attitudes are culturally embedded and even the admonitions and example of the Savior still hasn’t completely uprooted them. And I have seen how these lesser attitudes have effected how woman are viewed, spoken to, and treated inside the church. But I think the head of the church is always trying to direct the ship to a higher standard by helping men ….AND women see things in proper balance. And frankly I see a generation of dads and husbands that is much more equitable than in generations past. Gosh….I think my H changed more diapers that I did which is quite different than his father who never once performed that duty.

I was once at a fireside with Elder Richard G. Scott as the speaker. It was a fun fireside because he let his hair down a bit and just talked to us as people and then passed around the mic for us to ask and answer questions. One of his questions to the group was “Who makes the final decision in marriage — man or wife?” A few brave souls stood to answer that it fell to the man because he was the priesthood authority in the home. Elder Scott gently said “wrong!” and then corrected this perception by teaching that men and women are equal in the home and that decisions should be negotiated together. There is no hierarchy in marriage as there is in the church where a final presiding decision is needed in order for quorums and organizations to run.

The only time I am not satisfied is when I see these ancient attitudes of men over women happen now. It makes me sad to know that sometimes the good ole boys club is still breathing but I do think this trend is greatly deminishing. And I don’t think women receiving the priesthood is the proper hallmark to look for as to the health of the church on this matter.

[Anonymous]

Jeriboy, you wrote:

Quote:

Perfection is a long way off, I think looking for ways to make things work for ourselves is better than making up an issue that may be only an issue in someone’s mind.

Can you expound on your comment? I’m trying to understand what you meant by “making up an issue.”

Poppyseed ~ I posted what I did because it appears the role of women in the early Church is different than it is today. Just an observation based on what I read. The intent of my post was to share what I read, not to advocate women receiving the priesthood.

[Anonymous]

Kalola said….Jeriboy, you wrote:

Perfection is a long way off, I think looking for ways to make things work for ourselves is better than making up an issue that may be only an issue in someone’s mind.

Can you expound on your comment? I’m trying to understand what you meant by “making up an issue.”

Hope this helps…my expression simply meant that what you seemed to be saying was so far removed from my way of thinking, that it appeared you were seeing an issue were none, from my point of view, exists.

I am aware however that the whole world see’s things differently, the mold was broken with each of us. You have every right to have an issue concerning women and the church, past. present and future.

[Anonymous]

I agree with most of this post, and wanted to point out two things:

Kalola wrote:

They conducted washing and anointing, and practiced ‘laying on of hands’ for the purpose of healing, prophesying and blessing. Gradually these points of authority were stripped away as the established church became more and more conservative.

This is true, and if you read the history of how this occurred, you find that once Zina and the other Relief Society sisters who had known Joseph, who would speak in tongues on a regular basis, has passed away, the rest of the sisters gradually began to doubt whether they should be speaking in tongues, whether they should be giving blessings, and so forth.

So they would inquire of the brethren. At first the brethren said to carry on as the sisters had been, but as the sisters continued to question, the brethren eventually changed the counsel to “If you don’t feel comfortable, then perhaps you should not continue to do it”. In a matter of only 10 or 20 years, it all stopped— and the brethren did not insist upon it.

This comment is only in regard to giving blessings, and not magazines, fund-raising, food storage, etc.

As for the women giving up autonomy in lesson manuals, magazines, and so forth. I see this as a sad thing but sympathize with the leadership of the Church, who were trying to simplify everything for the needs of a growing, internationalizing, Church. I wish a better solution had been found. I don’t know all the exact situation and don’t feel justified in saying there was a better way. I wish there were, though.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Kalola wrote:

Poppyseed ~ I posted what I did because it appears the role of women in the early Church is different than it is today. Just an observation based on what I read. The intent of my post was to share what I read, not to advocate women receiving the priesthood.

Oh I am sorry. I didn’t think you were. It just seemed to me as my thoughts were forming that all of these ordinances such as “giving blessings” are priesthood ordinances. I guess my brain just went there. Sorry if I made it sound like you were advocating something. That wasn’t my intent. Forgive my rambling brain.

And with regards to what HiJolly said, I have lots of questions regarding this. Was it only the women who had access to the priesthood thru their husbands that did these things? Or single women too? Is there any official teachings about these practices of the women or anything that gave the women “permission” (i use that word lightly) to start the practice in the first place? Cause it seems pretty clear that today women are taught to defer to the men on at least ordinace thing. But having said all that, some of this still exists inside the temple, so there must be something to it. Is this a case where the church lost some of its early luster? And with regards to the tongues thing, doesn’t it seem like the men dropped this right along with the women? I mean, we talk about that gift of the spirit in a very watered down version today, it seems.

[Anonymous]

Here is a wonderful book about the history of women in the gospel. Sisters in Spirit

Personally, I never felt any issue with my role as a TBM. Just being honest. I couldn’t understand the issue and just towed the party line. I am a very obedient person by nature, so this is no real shock.

After reading more about the history of women in our church I felt sad that we had lost the gifts of the spirit. I am seeking to cultivate them in my own personal life and do not seek authority within the church. I exercise my faith in Christ as the source of these gifts just as any believer can. I am sad that the ritual washing/anointing for childbirth has been lost.

Joseph Smith did not have any problem with women giving blessings. He actually set them apart (the word ordained is used) to bless the sick. When Brigham Young sent one of his wives on a mission he sent her with consecrated oil.

It was expressed that women who were endowed should be doing the blessings and washing/anointing preparatory to childbirth. And some women were especially gifted to heal.

Blessings used to be given on afflicted body parts so it was very natural that it would be done by the same gender. At the time women were told that they needed to call on the elders for blessings it was changed to head anointing only.

There are stories in the book I linked of women giving blessings to children in conjunction with their husbands (a parent’s blessing).

HiJolly, thanks for adding to my perspective of how/why this gift was lost.

[Anonymous]

Poppyseed wrote:

And with regards to what HiJolly said, I have lots of questions regarding this. Was it only the women who had access to the priesthood thru their husbands that did these things? Or single women too? Is there any official teachings about these practices of the women or anything that gave the women “permission” (i use that word lightly) to start the practice in the first place? Cause it seems pretty clear that today women are taught to defer to the men on at least ordinace thing. But having said all that, some of this still exists inside the temple, so there must be something to it. Is this a case where the church lost some of its early luster? And with regards to the tongues thing, doesn’t it seem like the men dropped this right along with the women? I mean, we talk about that gift of the spirit in a very watered down version today, it seems.

I agree with Just Me on this. Single women gave blessings in their own right. I think originally Joseph Smith intended the RS to continue ordaining Sisters within that organization, but of course that did not happen. The faith of those early RS sisters was amazing!

Losing early luster? Yes, I think so. Joseph could only go so far, against the cultural and spiritual weaknesses of the Saints. He really tried, though. The men stopped speaking in tongues long before the Sisters did. I don’t know why — Brother Brigham was the first to begin the practice in the Church, if I recall correctly.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

I think this is a very valid question, and personally, I would say that the concept of patriarchy leaves me cold, and yes, there are some sexist men (and even worse, women – Julie *cough* Beck *cough cough*) in the church. The PoF hints at sexism. I don’t think God is a sexist, though, and women were very important to the church in Jesus’ time. So I see this as one of the “philosophies of men” things. There are obviously inherent physical differences between men and women, but those differences should not be used to limit choices or to force people into prescribed molds or to subordinate them. I see patriarchy going hand in hand with the love of hierarchy. Both are organizational thinking, but that doesn’t make them spiritual concepts.

[Anonymous]

ok. So now my brain is starting to twist and turn again as some of my assumptions are being challenged.

HiJolly wrote:

I agree with Just Me on this. Single women gave blessings in their own right. I think originally Joseph Smith intended the RS to continue ordaining Sisters within that organization, but of course that did not happen. The faith of those early RS sisters was amazing!

Losing early luster? Yes, I think so. Joseph could only go so far, against the cultural and spiritual weaknesses of the Saints. He really tried, though. The men stopped speaking in tongues long before the Sisters did. I don’t know why — Brother Brigham was the first to begin the practice in the Church, if I recall correctly.

HiJolly

Ordaining women? As in ordaining them “in” the priesthood or “through” the priesthood? I am confused by this. Isn’t this how it was suppose to go? Or were women just “special” and didn’t need it? I was familiar with a few stories where women used the power of their husbands to bless or heal but they were extraordinary or desperate circumstances. Not common practice like you are describing. I do, however, see what you are describing with regards to the lack of faith with the early Saints. I guess I am bothered by that. If this was the orginal intent of JS (and the Lord) then have we lost the chance to hold those responsibilities now? Or is it as Justme was saying in that we have to seek after the gifts of the spirit on the “down low” outside of church?

I think my mind is bending doctrinally because doesn’t a person need to be ordained to an office of the priesthood in order to perform a priesthood blessing? That is the general assumption….even though there are current exceptions. And frankly I have been spiritually functioning in my life on the idea that it would be wrong for me to seek the blessings of the spirit in this way. I am thinking now that I have been successfully conditioned to close my eyes to the possibilities or intensions of God with regards to me. I can’t picture myself giving a blessing. I would feel I was doing something wrong or prideful. I guess if it were desperate, I don’t even think I would administer anything. Only offer the most pleading of prayers.

And the loss of the spiritual gifts…if I can accurately call it that….is a deep concern I have as I have asked for healing blessings on many occasions and felt no particular spiritual power involved and the blessing filled with trite/samey counsel. I wonder, as you describe the faith of the earliest of modern saints that we have lost something big……like losing the permission to exercise faith in this way. Truthfully, if I were to speak in tongues, I would probably think I had been possessed! Yet, I would read the scriptures as the Lord makes it clear that these gifts are real. Why aren’t we like those early times? If the priesthood will never be lost from the earth again, then what is going on here? Perhaps our cultural routines really has diffused our faith. I certainly haven’t been taught to exercise my faith this way, yet I have been in countless classes where the gifts of the spirit had been discussed. I assumed that maybe some women were given the “gift” of healing. I know of some LDS spiritual healers around my neighborhood. I actually visited one who tries to “listen” to your body/spirit’s energy and then do things to heal the problems. I felt weird about it at first….but went anyway. I left feeling like I had left sure ground, but not feeling “bad” about what had happened. Just left answerless.

I feel disgruntled.

And one other practice that has always bothered me was how mission presidents were called but not their wives. Like they don’t have any role but supporting their husbands, yet I see that they could really do a lot of good if they were empowered to do so. I do sometimes feel in the church like I have a lot to give, but must defer to the men to give it. But I have been taught that this is how God wants it and I have assumed that to be true. Now I am wondering if the protestants have it “more” right than we ……..with regards to tongues. But then I can’t think that either. Why aren’t they called together like any other couple missionary? Both with authority to act and teach and perform responsibilities. Are MP wives only there to fix meals and iron the MP’s suits?

[Anonymous]

Poppyseed, it is okay to feel a little topsy turvey finding out about things you didn’t know before. You might enjoy reading Sisters in Spirit, but it might also frustrate you more. I felt a sense of loss and liberated all at the same time.

Just to be clear. I never do anything “by the power of XXX priesthood” like men do. The early women saints did not, either, from what I have read. It is done by the power of Jesus Christ. I do believe that all power is priesthood. Priesthood power and priesthood authority are two seperate things. Faith and love access these powers. Authority is used to run the church and officiate ordinances. Women do not have any authority through the modern church. We access it directly from Christ as faithful believers.

Praying over your loved ones in faith is really no different than an official PH blessing. I just try to have the Spirit guide my actions and words. My hands usually rest on different body parts (these are my children). I’ve never used oil, but don’t think it would be wrong.

D&C 35:9 And whoso shall ask it in my name in faith, they shall cast out devils; they shall heal the sick; they shall cause the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak, and the lame to walk.

Here is the scripture that we usually misunderstand. If you look closely it says not to require miracles unless we are commanded—EXCEPT we can always call for healings, casting out devils, etc. Those are always allowed and actually are supposed to follow believers.

D&C 24:13 Require not miracles, except I shall command you, except casting out devils, healing the sick, and against poisonous serpents, and against deadly poisons;

D&C 84:64 Therefore, as I said unto mine apostles I say unto you again, that every soul who believeth on your words, and is baptized by water for the remission of sins, shall receive the Holy Ghost.

65 And these signs shall follow them that believe—

66 In my name they shall do many wonderful works;

67 In my name they shall cast out devils;

68 In my name they shall heal the sick;

69 In my name they shall open the eyes of the blind, and unstop the ears of the deaf;

70 And the tongue of the dumb shall speak;

71 And if any man shall administer poison unto them it shall not hurt them;

72 And the poison of a serpent shall not have power to harm them.

73 But a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not boast themselves of these things, neither speak them before the world; for these things are given unto you for your profit and for salvation.

I totally don’t recommend drinking poinson! I hope this was at least a little helpful in pointing out the difference between healing by faith in Jesus name and healing by the priesthood….They really use the same power (Christ) but differ in authority.

Oh, another thing. In Emma Smith’s scripture D&C 25 it says she will be ordained. Apologists argue that they meant “set apart” when they said “ordained.” That is fine, but I think it is significant. The duties look similar to that of a teacher, IMHO. She was ordained president of the Relief Society.

D&C 25:7 And thou shalt be ordained under his hand to expound scriptures, and to exhort the church, according as it shall be given thee by my Spirit.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Priesthood power and priesthood authority are two seperate things.

Yeah. I think this is what my brain was missing. That helps. Thank you. That moves me a step forward.

[Anonymous]

Poppyseed wrote:

ok. So now my brain is starting to twist and turn again as some of my assumptions are being challenged.

I sympathize. I should add, that this is my interpretation of some early church history, member journals, etc. I don’t *know* that the sisters of the RS would have their own priesthood, but it ‘feels right’ to me. So I lean that way, not by knowledge but by inclination.

Priesthood is a puzzle to me. I am working on it. It is not as clear as most members of the Church would suppose, IMO. I think there are nuances of understanding and truth that the HG is gently introducing me to— but the process is far from complete.

Here are a couple of questions to ponder:

In the temple, Lucifer has an apron, symbolic of ‘his’ P____ and P_________. After he is rebuked by the Father, does he retain the apron?

Also in the temple, there is one item of clothing that is not white. Why do we put it on? What does *that* apron symbolize?

As we pass through the veil, we make a statement (or is it a prayer?) that is the only time in all of the Church system, and it seems to be us, blessing ourselves. Isn’t that unique? Nowhere else, ever, do we bless ourselves. And who is stated should receive P____ in the P________? Our sons? Nope. It’s bigger than that, I think.

Now, I don’t want to cross the line (and may have already) but I think it’s very important to consider not the literal words, but the symbolic ideas behind these things. I am pondering and trying to learn, myself. Priesthood. Power. What are they *really*? I am looking forward to knowing, someday.

Poppyseed wrote:

If the priesthood will never be lost from the earth again, then what is going on here? Perhaps our cultural routines really has diffused our faith.

I agree, but I don’t think it is irreversible, at least for the individual.

Poppyseed wrote:

I certainly haven’t been taught to exercise my faith this way, yet I have been in countless classes where the gifts of the spirit had been discussed. I assumed that maybe some women were given the “gift” of healing.

We are, according to scripture, to seek out the best gifts. Our desire makes a difference, and the more we know about these things, the more accurately (and hopefully appropriately) we can focus our desire.

Poppyseed wrote:

I know of some LDS spiritual healers around my neighborhood. I actually visited one who tries to “listen” to your body/spirit’s energy and then do things to heal the problems. I felt weird about it at first….but went anyway. I left feeling like I had left sure ground, but not feeling “bad” about what had happened. Just left answerless.

Yes. I have studied Reiki and other ‘energy medicine’ modalities. I have the book Vibrational Medicine, which, if you read the introduction will give you pause. It did me. Time to ponder ‘why’ it gives us pause. We are taught to be very cautious of the source of spiritual things. It is wise counsel, but is not meant to frighten off the true seeker – just to prepare them to deal with issues that are not easy, nor simple. You may want to visit a Yahoo group LDS-Reiki and ask some questions. It is not THE priesthood as we understand it, in the Church.

Poppyseed wrote:

I feel disgruntled.

Rawrrr!! (I hear you roar!)

Poppyseed wrote:

And one other practice that has always bothered me was how mission presidents were called but not their wives. Like they don’t have any role but supporting their husbands, yet I see that they could really do a lot of good if they were empowered to do so.

Poppyseed (Pops?) — they are empowered. I know it. But they have to *believe* they are empowered, before it can be so. It is internal, and only mariginally institutional. Do you need it to be institutional? If so, then you are focusing on the external when you should look to the internal. External faith never moved a mountain.

Poppyseed wrote:

I do sometimes feel in the church like I have a lot to give, but must defer to the men to give it. But I have been taught that this is how God wants it and I have assumed that to be true. Now I am wondering if the protestants have it “more” right than we ……..with regards to tongues. But then I can’t think that either. Why aren’t they called together like any other couple missionary? Both with authority to act and teach and perform responsibilities. Are MP wives only there to fix meals and iron the MP’s suits?

No, Pops. They both truly have that authority – I saw it in my mission President and his wife. The power was there, and was used. She somehow used it, however that happened. I would hope all mission ‘mom’s’ could do that.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Wow. Thanks for the validation and further insights, HiJolly.

And I love Pops! That works!

[Author]

Posts