On the way home from the Cinci signing we were discussing why things were done in religions if in reality they were just symbolic, or I guess more specifically, why things needed to be done if they were just symbols. Being an idiot I of course mumbled something that meant nothing and then we arrived at M^2’s house and the topic was forgotten. Well now I want to explain to the best of my (rather limited) abilities why these things are done.
Really, by far the biggest one is baptism. You have to be baptized to enter into the highest degree of glory (remember, these are all Mormon views, everyone else feel free to give a different explanation ), and baptism is just a symbol in terms of action. I added in terms of action because I want to specify that the action itself, the putting under the water and bringing out again is just symbolic. The idea (as you probably know/can guess) is that you are reborn spiritually, and your sins are “washed away”. Well it certainly isn’t the water that takes away your sins, nor the fact that you’re wearing white; so why is it important that this be done at all?
To explain this I’m going to use one of the more common analogies for Baptism: that of a contract. Baptism is entering into a contract between you and the Lord, saying that you will follow His commandments to the best of your abilities (essentially) and that He will atone for the sin that you have committed. A pretty good deal really, but that has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
So when you are put under water it’s like taking a pen and signing this contact. You will now obey His commandments to the best of your ability, and should you not do this, it voids the contract. This is what’s at the heart of the ritual of baptism.
Now of course in a true contractual agreement at least two people need to sign the document. And since God’s hands are normally otherwise occupied, He has appointed others to sign for him; namely the priesthood. Priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name, which is precisely what is being done at a baptism. When a properly Ordained Priest says those words and then puts someone under the water, he is in essence signing God’s side of the contract. From that point forward your slack will be picked up so long as you do your best.
Of course none of this explains why the contract must be signed, or at least why it must be signed in such a specific fashion; right now all that I’ve done is set the stage. The obvious question at this point (at least to me) is that this is all well and good, but why can’t you just sit at home and promise God you’ll follow in His commandments?
Well the answer is that of course you can, and it’s a pretty good promise to make; but what exactly does it mean? It means you’ve agreed to follow a specific set of rules, that’s all. Someone living in Poland can promise to themselves to follow all the rules that the US government has set out, but does that make them American? Obviously it doesn’t, since of course the US hasn’t promised anything in return, nor is this person residing in America or given any sort of allegiance to America. And when the time comes when they must choose who to follow, will their memory of the time that they sat on their couch and promised to follow US law be a sufficient force to drive them to act on America’s behalf?
Baptism gives people a specific and powerful memory, as well as the promise back from someone who can act in the name of the Lord. Until that point you’ve only agreed to follow a set of specific rules about daily conduct.
There are a few other things like this in the Church, but this explanation pretty much covers those as well as I can do it. The other types of symbols are those that are not necessary for salvation but simply act as reminders. Things like taking sacrament for instance. Mormons do not believe that the bread passed and the water drunk is actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ (in the blessing before the sacrament is passed, the phrase “in the remembrance of” is used). So once again, what’s the point if you’re just eating bread?
Well it is as simple as it sounds, it’s to remind people of those things that they’ve promised and been promised. It’s so that the congregation will walk out of the meeting house and remember that they are supposed to be following in Christ’s footsteps, which means a lot more than just calling yourself a Christian.
So there it is, late night Hobbes’s attempt to answer the questions. Late night Hobbes does tend to do better than early morning Hobbes but he’s still pretty out of it. Anyways, he hoped it made some sort of sense; at least enough for someone to understand what he was trying to say.
Happy thanksgiving from Cousin Hobbes!
Hobbes
[ November 28, 2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Hobbes -- that was very cool. Good job, and I'm proud of you.
By the way, how did I miss your baptism?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I had it in the cave under the Purdue Institute, next to the Nuclear missles. Woops, wasn't supposed to mention those.
[EDIT: You can pretend that you just weren't invited because I was afriad I'd offend you with the rather outlandish cooking style I used when frying up the babies.]
Hobbes
[ November 28, 2003, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Oh well. At least they didn't launch during the dunking.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That's cause I was given the keys!
Hobbes Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Interesting, Hobbes. I'm not even of the same faith and I'd agree with about 3/4 of it. Good show.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*cough* Well which 1/4th didn't you agree with?
Hobbes Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Hobbes, since you had such a thoughtful insight into the baptism issue, I have a question for you. How long do you think its going to take for the rest of the major US religions to politically evolve to allow women roles of leadership such as priests, bishops, presidents, etc.? A famous religious historial, Robert Noll, once said the ability of a religious group to thrive in America depends on their ability to attract women.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hmm, it seems that many, if not most have. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons ) has not, nor do I think it will. I don't feel I have the right (nor the knowledge) to respond for other beliefs but Mormons hold that gender is very important, and definitly different. It's part of the role of men to preform Priesthood functions, much like women get to give birth (not everone women does it just as not everyman has the priesthood, but that's part of the role that each person plays in their life). If you want to know how women feel about not getting the Priesthood, I'm not exactly the right person to ask.
[EDIT: Probably the wrong phrase with "get to give birth" sorry to all those women who've already taken off their shoes to throw at me. ]
Hobbes
[ November 28, 2003, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Yes, I definately agree with you about the mormon church. They will be probably among the last to grant women equal treatment in power structures, much as they were the last to do it with black males in the late 80s. I do disagree with you about "special roles," however. You see, positions within the church are just as power-based as governmental positions. Also, women giving birth is belivable since its obvious from their biology, but I don't see how it is naturally derived that men are suited for power roles, that seems fairly artificial to me. I guess its just that when I look at my wife whom I adore so much, I could not imagine subscribing to an entire belief system that taught that the woman I admired and loved so much was inferior to me because I had a "more" special role then her. I remember a religious friend of mine once telling me that the women's "special" role is not necessarily inferior, just "different." Only, that difference seems to equate to subserviant in the eyes of most religions. I guess the reason I asked the question is because when you think about it, by your anaylsis of the Baptism issue, men are literally holding the keys to the concept of heaven and the idea of positive religious interaction.
[ November 28, 2003, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
quote: Interesting, Hobbes. I'm not even of the same faith and I'd agree with about 3/4 of it. Good show.
Me too. Thanks Hobbes.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Woman do hold positions of leadership but they do not hold the Priesthood. I don't know any women who want that responsibility! I don't feel subservient to any men nor do I feel I have been cheated. My dh says that the Priesthood is given to the men as a balancer because otherwise they wouldn't have a chance against the women! The Priesthood is used as service for others. It is not used for personal gain. There is not a single Priesthood ordinance that someone can do for themselves. In reality the essence of the gospel, as taught in our church, boils down to the family. Strengthening the family and the relationship between husband and wife, and helping that family return and live with God again is what it is all about. The rest of it is administration. The Priesthood does not give the men power over their wives or other women, it does not make women subservient. Now some men will try to make it seem like it does. But then they are acting unrighteously, selfishly, not in keeping with the covenants they have made.
I hope this cleared things up a little instead of making it worse.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I will save the women in the priesthood issue for someone else, or for later, because it will take a lot longer to address, but I wanted to add something for the symbolism analogy.
When I give somebody a present, it's a symbol of the friendship and affection I hold for them. The present itself, the physical thing, is fairly meaningless. For instance, once someone won my heart by bringing me little things he found that he thought I would be interested in, nearly every day for about a year. A rock that was anomalously light, once. A pretty piece of glass he'd found or a bird feather. One time he found a perfect tiny dessicated frog. We wondered if we added water would the thing come back to life and hop away. Sometimes it was something he found online that he thought I might be interested in. In no case was the thing itself of any value monetarily or of any use in terms of there being anything I could do with it. But they carried this message that he thought about me all the time, that when he saw something interesting he would think, "Oh, I bet Anne Kate would like to see that."
So gifts convey this intangible thing, and that is their only real value. When you buy someone a birthday or Christmas present, you are conveying something intangible to them in tangible form. But this message really can't be conveyed without some tangible vehicle with which to convey it.
When you ask someone to marry you, you might offer them a diamond ring as a token of the permanance and high value with which you view the relationship. The diamond ring says this in a way that the same question with no tangible accompaniment can quite match.
A corporation is actually made of the spirit of what it means to work there. The building and so on is not it, because you could move somewhere else and still have the same company. Any given person isn't it because they could quit and go elswhere. Yet there is no corporation without some sort of building, and some workers, etc.
One more example: a symphony is not ink on paper, or recordings, or the fleeting vibrations in the air during a performance. Beethoven's Ninth would still exist if we destroyed all these things. It's an idea, a pattern or configuration, a spiritual, intangible thing. Yet without ink and paper, without scores and recordings and performances it can't ever have existed.
In many ways a tangible solid thing acts as the conveyance of a spiritual idea or presence, and the spirit is NOT the thing, it's much MORE than the thing, it's the ESSENCE of why the thing even exists, and so it might seem to be the only part that really matters, yet it can't exist without that physical substrate, that hardware platform, so to speak, which supports it.
Religious ordinances or sacraments or whatever you want to call them are like this too. It's a very humble ordinary concept with which we are all very familiar. There might be a baby whose parents are so poor it is born in a barn. That baby also might be God.
[ November 28, 2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Brain, First I wanted to mention that it was 1978 when Blacks got the priesthood, I understand this wasn't fundamental to your point or anything, but just to make sure it was gotten right.
You do seem to think that the Priesthood is about power, and I suppose that it can be used that way. But it's not supposed to, someone who gets power from having the priesthood is not a worthy priesthood holder. As has been mentioned, the priesthood is about service, not about having power over those who don't have the authority that you do.
quote:They will be probably among the last to grant women equal treatment in power structures
I actually don't think that the Mormon Church will ever give the priesthood to women. And the reason why is that it isn't a power structure. It's an organization of service e. I know, you probably think I'm being naive, after all the priesthood (as well as other positions that can only be held by men as a result) certainly can be used for power. And I have no doubt that this is done, but that doesn’t make the positions themselves positions of power.
If I hand you a scythe it is not a tool designed to give you power. When you use it correctly you are providing for those that depend on you for food. It can certainly be used incorrectly for power over others; it’s something you have that not everyone else has and it can be used directly for you. But then it’s no longer a scythe, it’s a weapon, it’s a tool for power and you are no longer fit to hold it.
Your instance on the idea of the priesthood as a way to get power proves (at least to me) you know the rules but don’t understand the idea behind them, which seems to me like pretty good evidence for the whole point of powerful symbols to remind you of the why of the rules.
Hobbes Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
HOBBES!
I gave you that key on the PROMISE that you wouldn't say anything.
Now we have to go ahead and start our righteous war before word spreads and we loose the element of suprise.
Thanks. Thanks a lot.
California bites it first.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Sorry Scott, do I still get to keep them?
Maybe I just needed a more powerful symbol to remind me of my promise.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Though you know I always have been curious about what a Mormon Jihad would be like. What happens if someone asks for Jello-salad? We’d be helpless!
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: California bites it first.
Scott, didn't we discuss this? Stop threatening my state, 'k?
I've already got a cold. Nuclear annihilation would really ruin my day.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, I got just the right symbol for you, Hobbes-y old boy:
Book of Revelations-- that's me on the white horse with the sword flying out of my mouth.
Clear?
No, you may not have the keys to the Cave of Eternal Fires and Destruction (Purdue) back. Maybe after you've eaten your firstborn we'll trust you again.
Rivka:
I'd run, if I were you.
[ November 28, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ohh man! Does my firstborn have to be male then?
Hobbes Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I suppose its easy to say its not about power unless people are abusing the system, but if they key tenet of a religion is that man is by nature sinful and abusive of power(tree of evil and good knowledge) then why would you go out of your way to create institutionalized inequality? As for order, stability, etc., I think the imbalance between men and women over not just the Priesthood, but other issues will create more disorder over time than order. The feminist movement is just one way this is proven empirically.
But for those who said women hold positions of leadership, I couldn't help but notice you didn't list any. What positions of leadership do these women hold? And what is more ultimate in a power based relationship than the ability to indirectly absolve someone of their sins as baptism does?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
In most cases, female members of the church direct activities that females participate in.
The same goes for male members of the church.
There is only one exception (that I know of) where a member of the opposite sex has direct authority over another-- and that is in the Sunday School/Primary program.
Our primary president (a woman) is 'over' a number of priesthood holding males, for example; similarly, the Sunday School president leads a number of women who teach classes.
Strictly speaking, Mormon clergy cannot refuse baptism if you are living (or say you are living) the gospel.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Activities for other women do not count. Often times those activities will have a man overseeing the female overseers. I remember a quote from Finney about this that "women's groups would be directionless and sinful if not for the steadying hand of a clergyman to monitor them." LDS is still an offshoot of evangelical protestantism.
The male bishops do control the temple recommend completely with their discretion right? Hard to get the "undeniable" baptism if you can't get inside the temple. I guess they do it at churches too but I have heard different rules about that from different mormons.
[ November 28, 2003, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Activities for other women do not count.
quote:LDS is still an offshoot of evangelical protestantism.
I don't really accept either of those statments as true so it's kind of hard to argue. Whta makes you say this?
quote:The male bishops do control the temple recommend completely with their discretion right? Hard to get the "undeniable" baptism if you can't get inside the temple. I guess they do it at churches too but I have heard different rules about that from different mormons.
To get a Temple recomend you have to answer a series of questions, if your answers (yes/no) coincide with the moral authority to enter the Temple you can enter the Temple.
Hobbes Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Often times those activities will have a man overseeing the female overseers.
Show me the man who can enter Enrichment night and even THINK about giving advice, much less DIRECTION, and I'll show you a corpse shortly thereafter.
The Priesthood does not supervise women's activities, for the most part. There's no need to.
quote:The male bishops do control the temple recommend completely with their discretion right? Hard to get the "undeniable" baptism if you can't get inside the temple.
Not quite. Again, there is a series of questions-- and if you answer correctly, you get the recommend.
What do you mean by undeniable baptism, Brian?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hobbes, here's a question: why is God unable to sign a contract with someone if they're on a couch in Poland?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Tom D., I don't think its so much God is "unable" as He is unwilling. We believe that God is a God of order, and having someone do something physical creates part of that order. I believe that God wants people to DO something about their faith, or its hollow. Kind of like the argument of if people don't vote are they really American, or in a way rejecting Democracy?
Posted by Lucifer Morningstar (Member # 3274) on :
I will begin where Tom begins, why does God need a representative? If I pray, must I type that prayer up and hand it to a clergyman to pass on to God? Is this like Catholicism where I must confess to a priest in order for my sins to be forgiven?
I will come back to this as the concept of representative salvation has other applications in this thread, but my thoughts are not organized as such. After all, the topic at hand is symbolic gestures, no? And this is the first question you raise, why is a representative needed?
You say that it is to create a strong memory, but I don't see why I am assumed to have such a weak memory or to make promises so lightly.
Your analogy with citizenship and responsibility to the country makes me think of loyalty to the mob more than a chosen aligance. Isn't that where salvation starts? I choose to obey God? Or I choose not to obey God later?
I'm going to skip down to my questions on aka's post now, because they are the same as the questions I would ask of the rest of the sacraments and I don't really feel the need to be that repetitive.
aka, with reference to the guestures of your friend: Does God need us to give him constant aknowledgment in order to win Him over? If your friend didn't give you something every day, would he care any less for you? Do the people who don't give you gifts every day not care or do you not know that they care without constant reminders?
Moreso, if you came to expect a gift each day, and he came to expect to give you one each day, would that pattern of behavior actually continue to be meaningful or simply echo the meaning it once had?
And to your corporation analogy, is that how God works? He isn't there if there isn't someone working for him? (yes that's just me being arguementative, but what do you expect?)
I see baptisms and weddings as a way of telling the rest of the world that you have entered into an agreement. As such, they are independent of the agreement you are making and unnecessary unless you desire the public acknowledgment. Other sacraments, while they serve as a reminder, sure, become meaningless when they are routine.
Now, women in the priesthood. Hobbes, you said it yourself,
quote:When you use it correctly you are providing for those that depend on you for food.
and as soon as you create a provider/dependent relationship, you create a power structure. Once you have an inherent power structure, you are simply hoping it isn't abused. Now back to that whole representation thing. You also said that
quote:Priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name
which means that either women aren't allowed to act in God's name or aren't capable of doing so. Which is it?
--LM
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I will begin where Tom begins, why does God need a representative? If I pray, must I type that prayer up and hand it to a clergyman to pass on to God? Is this like Catholicism where I must confess to a priest in order for my sins to be forgiven?
Nope, it's a straight line between you and your Lord. Think of it this way, you're making a deal between yourself and someone else, it's one you're not to sure about when you start off. You don't think he really has all that he says he has to give you nor tha ability to do so. So you get on the phone and start talking and there he can answer all your questions and appease your fears just fine. But when it comes to sign the contract, well you something that important you'll want more than just a phone conversation.
I have to go soon so I'm afraid I'm going to skip over some of your questions, if no one adresses them by the time I get back I will.
quote:and as soon as you create a provider/dependent relationship, you create a power structure. Once you have an inherent power structure, you are simply hoping it isn't abused.
It's like my metephorical sickle. Once you give it to someone they can choose not to use it for the reasons you gave it to them. They can scare people with it, or just be lazy and never use it. If it's used for what it's meant to be used for then it isn't an implement of power, it's a method of bringing home things that people need. Only abused is it actually a source of power. And you're right, you just have to hope that it isn't abused, but while no one is perfect, most priesthood holders do take their responsibilty seriously and uphold their end of the bargin pretty well. Besides which, if their abuse becomes flagrent, the Priesthood can be taken away.
quote:which means that either women aren't allowed to act in God's name or aren't capable of doing so. Which is it?
OK, so I like this sickle metephor too much. You're handing them out to a town and you look at the twon and discover that not everyone needs a sickle to harvest all their crops. So you don't need to give everyone a sickle (and that's always better since the more you give out, the higher chance one will be abused). So who do you give them to? Well the problem is that you'll give them out now, but in the future other people will have to be making the choices as to who to give them to, so you have devlope a solid, repeatible pattern so that there's no confusion as to who the best people to give them to are.
Well Orginally if you're not you but God you could just pick the all out best people based on your perfect knowledge of them, but good luck finding people who will be able to do that themselves. So you choose a group of people, the ones you think would be best at wielding this particular tool. The women seem to lack some of the physical strength of the men, but more importantly, they are often unable to work for months at a time due to pregnancy. What if this happens when the crops need to be harvested? Giving it to the men gives the best odds and is about the right number of people, and is a very easy pattern to follow in the future.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What attributes of women, precisely, prevent them from hearing or properly repeating the words of God?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Why are women more likely to vote Democrat? Women and men are different. The fact that so few women have chimed in on this question so far proves it. I'm a woman, but I play chess, like cars, and know more of the rules of football than my husband. I'm also a Latter Day Saint, which feels stuck up to call myself, but that's the standard we are supposed to strive for.
quote: if they key tenet of a religion is that man is by nature sinful and abusive of power(tree of evil and good knowledge) then why would you go out of your way to create institutionalized inequality
"Man" is by nature sinful
Okay, seriously. LDS are not Manicheans (body bad, spirit good). In the Book of Mormon it says "The natural man is an enemy to God" but a natural man is not an organism, it is a spirit ignorant of the truth.
We are not at war with our bodies. We need physical bodies in order to progress from the spirit state we lived in before birth. "Why baptism" may as well be "Why marriage" or in my view, "Why birth".
LDS can claim our priesthood is different from all others because no one on the local level is paid, though many render more than a full time job's worth of service. This is also possible because of the number of servers in the ward.
quote:Activities for other women do not count
How is this view less sexist than saying women can't have authority? .
There is only one man in a congregation (ward) who outranks the highest woman in a ward. Getting back to the voluntary service model, the highest demands of time would take a woman from her family too much. Does this mean men are less impotant to the functioning of the family? Yes.
Authority denotes "alone". By a narrow reading, no one in the church does this. All are dependent on God. Authority is a translation of "priesthood" but it is a translation, and imperfect.
My husband (who admittedly has as many female stereotypical traits as I have male) never wants to rise in the church structure.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:What attributes of women, precisely, prevent them from hearing or properly repeating the words of God?
Men who doen't wish to hear them. Men don't even listen to the other men most the time, and will hardly ever listen to a women. However, we do believe prophetesses exist (like the woman "Saints" was based on).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Men don't even listen to the other men most the time, and will hardly ever listen to a women."
I find this suspiciously like the "our fellow Mormons aren't ready to accept black priests" argument; I think you sell people short with this one.
Does your argument against female priests really amount to "men are sexist pigs?"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We're ALL supposed to be prophets and priests, priestesses and prophetesses.
A woman can receive revelation for her calling and for those who she has responsability for as easily as a man. In some cases (as I noted above), this includes callings in which men are directed by her.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Pooka you took what I said out of context. When I asked what roles of leadership women had someone responded with organizing activities for other women. That does not count, as true empirical leadership positions happen to be the male-held positions that dominate males and females in the church. I feel that that is very sexist and wrong.
The only response to this is that all men do are just some logistical tasks and hopefully the system won't be abused. However, if the primary tenet of the mormon religion (like all christian sects) is that man is inherently flawed and will abuse power structures, then why create such incredibly flawed structures to begin with? Its a given that they will fail, and the feminist movement is proof of it. Insitutionalized oppression of women is a problem worldwide. The worst, though, are all the women who seem to think that this is not only ok, but actually good. These women are conditioned into knowing what they want and what is good through men telling them. They call this "gender roles," I call that what it is: domination and mass, sexist brainwashing institutionalized in seemingly-benign beliefs. Some of the female responses on this thread have shocked me. They really believe in the artificial brightlines that the religion provides. They believe that it is OK that they do not wield the ultimate worldly power and they seem to have the false notion that wordly power is a burden. That is a common myth that those in power find it useful to propagate.
Scott, that's nice in theory, but can you show one instance of real female power and leadership within the mormon church? Or most christian religions for this matter? The 7th Day Adventists are all that come to mind, and they are hardly a large demographic.
I guess it all comes down to what you are willing to swallow on faith alone. However, doesn't it seem incredibly strange that the christian god bothers to explain some things, while not others. The controversial other things that are not explained are explained away as "too complex" for us to understand. If god is willing to talk in great detail about his creation of the world and other things, why doesn't he shed a little light on what makes men so suited to dominate women? The only difference I can see between men and women are reproductively-related physiological ones. So having babies in some way taints your ability to hear god's word? Religions answer to this point with things like "their concern is the family foremost." Um, just because women have babies does not mean it takes up all their life nor even most of it to do so.
[ November 29, 2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Cheiko Okazaki.
Her sermons were treasured both by the sisters she served over and the men who listened to her.
Very rarely has the church had such a dynamic and powerful leader whose voice spoke to everyone-- the educated, the uneducated, the rich, the poor, the sinners and the righteous.
Sheri Dew.
She brought a verve to the Relief Society by her spunk, her candor, and . . . well, because she was single. She was an anchor for many of the women in the church who had less than ideal marital situations.
I've had the (depending on how you look at it) fortune of serving paralell to a number of Relief Society presidents, as the Elder's Quorum President in our ward. Without exception NONE of the women in that calling are shrinking violets. You simply cannot afford to be, or else the Sisters will push you around. The sisters lead their own program, they coordinate and command ON THEIR OWN.
I'd list their names for you, but you wouldn't have the foggiest idea who I was talking about.
If the women don't get to count leadership over other women, does that mean that men don't get to count leadership over other men?
With the exception of interviewing (which Hobbes and I've covered) there are very few realms where one sex has 'authority' over another.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:real female power and leadership within the mormon church?
A couple of weeks back, our Bishop had put the names of some newlyweds on the 'callings' board. These are mostly folks who, when they are at church, can be called upon to teach classes.
Our Relief Society president had some concerns about this couple's capacity to teach. She addressed the ward council, and the names were removed from the board.
That is a display of leadership within the context of the Mormon church. We are told that true power, the power of God, can only be held by those people (male and female) who do not seek to coerce, but persuade. No leader leads simply by virtue of the Priesthood, but by patience, diplomacy, and respect.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Brian, you are still interpreting priesthood as authority and power, when it is just as much service and obligation. When it comes to service and obligation, I don't think most women contain this to the point in their life when they spend 18 hours a day feeding kids and then cleaning up the inevitable results. Women take pride in outserving men.
The attitude I don't like is the one that women are actually more saintly and righteous and spiritual than men. Maybe the rest of them are. A lot of feminist snobbery comes from a similar attitude, that women are more caring, sensitive and nurturing.
I also don't deny that women are more the victims of violence and oppression in our society. And yet in a survival situation like the Donner party, they survived more due to physiology, the willingness to embrace the necessary, and perhaps some to chivalry.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Pooka, feminism is not snobbery, nor does mainstream feminism incorporate snobbery. Perhaps you had some bad experiences with extremists, but extremists are not representative of the whole. That is just as unfair as claiming that mormons support polygamy, which the main church does not do. Most feminists do not believe that women are inherently more caring than men. That is a male-held stereotype projected upon women, and actually one of the main things feminists protest! I have never read such an inaccurate rendering of their positions. You are more than right about the violence, and I could easily go into how the mere theme of women being beneath men in religion will inevitable lead to abuse in all areas, but I am solely dealing with power relationships.
Scott, in those examples were there any men over those women? I am not saying for it to be equal then women have to dominate men, that would be hypocritical. What I am saying is that the overall male domination throughout mormon history proves that there is a glass ceiling to prevent women from ever reaching the male-held top. A truly balanced system would have at some point had some executive figures from both sexes, the absence of that combined with theological direction for female submission is proof positive about the power relationships. You may equivocate the priesthood to whatever you wish, but it is still the males holding the keys of heaven. All you can do is rely upon the hope that the system will never be abused. Its ironic, salvation is the most important thing in the mormon faith, yet they assign it a position from which fallable administrators will surely make mistakes with it. Is someone's hypothetical salvation really worth that risk?
[ November 29, 2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:A truly balanced system would have at some point had some executive figures from both sexes
General Relief Society Presidency. General Young Women's Presidency. General Primary Presidency. They are all women. They all make policy for members of the church.
In the case of the Primary Presidency, they make policy for male and female teachers.
Like all church auxilliaries, these presidencies are responsible to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. Who are all men.
Brian, you misunderstand a great deal of Mormon doctrine. The potential for abuse in Mormonism is high-- but we do not believe that God intended us to live in a mortal existence free of trial, pain, sorrow, or difficulty. God gives us leadership positions to help us grow and to learn to serve others. So while the danger may be great, so is the opportunity for progress.
What exactly do you mean by salvation? What is your understanding of it?
And you never answered my question about what you meant when you mentioned the 'undeniable' baptism.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Someone mentioned earlier that a male priest would never deny a baptism to anyone "appropriately deserving." I find problems with that assumption.
Ok, so hypo-god did not intend for us to live perfectly, but we should take steps to mitigate pain and strife as much as possible. Sure, power structures will be abused but as St. Agustine said, christians should attempt to minimize the abuse of these structures through carefuly creating their organizations. Why should we allow any extra discord and inequality if it could easily be fixed?
Your examples of leadership are flawed, as there are still some male positions over those ones. As I said, women do not need to dominate the church, but even one instance where ultimate executive power was even somewhat at least shared with women instead of denied to them would be better than the current system.
Salvation is obviously referring to having your soul saved from damnation, and growing closer to hypo-god, etc.
Also, could you please explain all the parts of mormon doctrine I don't understand. You seemed to make a very vague statement about how I do not understand a whole lot of it, but then do not list any doctrine that I am remiss on, let alone enough dotrcine to constitute claiming that I do not understand "a great deal of Mormon doctrine."
[ November 29, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Brian: So, basically, you won't be satisfied until there's a female prophet, correct?
:shrug:
You seem to make the mistake of assuming that leadership position = more worthy/more saved/ more in tune with God. This is not so, as I pointed out-- we are given callings to serve and to learn. The Apostles are not necessarily the most Christlike members of the Church, in other words-- they are called by God because God knows He can use them there better than he could use anyone else.
In addition, you imply that because women do not have access to the highest positions in the Mormon church, they are second-class citizens in the religion. This is where you again make a mistake (and I believe that it has been explained to you several times): The Prophet of the church is not 'higher' than the newest member. There are no ranks in this Army of God.
quote:even one instance where ultimate executive power was even somewhat at least shared with women instead of denied to them would be better than the current system.
Is that like Supreme Executive Power? The kind that's derived from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony?
If you want to get REALLY technical, the most sacred position that any person can be "called" to in the religion of Mormonism is that of spouse.
quote:Salvation is obviously referring to having your soul saved from damnation, and growing closer to hypo-god, etc.
I wasn't sure. Mormons have two terms-- put simply, salvation, which means being baptised, and exaltation, which means being married in the temple.
So, man cannot get the gold without a woman at his side, and vice versa.
It is quite true that there are no Mormon women among the Apostles and First Presidency. I don't think this makes for a disgruntled bunch of females in our church. Because women hold a great many offices in the local wards, they are given autonmomy and a voice in their theological lives, and in the lives of the theological community. As has been explained to you, the women's organization fares pretty well without the interference of the priesthood.
quote:Someone mentioned earlier that a male priest would never deny a baptism to anyone "appropriately deserving." I find problems with that assumption.
:snort: Well, I guess 'never' is a very long word. In the case of a baptismal interview, 'deserving' is measured in terms of how you answer a series of yes-no questions. And the questions are not administered by local leaders, but by missionaries.
quote:You seemed to make a very vague statement about how I do not understand a whole lot of it, but then do not list any doctrine that I am remiss on, let alone enough dotrcine to constitute claiming that I do not understand "a great deal of Mormon doctrine."
You didn't seem to understand the purposes of callings in the church.
You didn't seem to understand the Mormon definition of salvation.
You didn't seem to understand the role gender plays in callings, or in leadership in the church.
You didn't seem to understand the Mormon view on leadership.
You didn't seem to understand the Mormon view on service.
You appeared to make assumptions based on general knowlege of church structure, i.e., No woman apostles means that women in the Mormon church are being repressed. (Help, help, I'm being repressed!)
If there females were denied the capacity to be local leaders of the church, I could see your point. However, I've coordinated too many activities with the Activity Chair, the Primary Presidency, the Relief Society Presidency, and the freakin' Young Single Adult representative to give it any weight at all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"There are no ranks in this Army of God."
In all fairness, Scott, this does not seem to be the case in theory OR practice. Is it not the case that only the Prophet is authorized to provide a calling for the entire church, for example?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
(dogpiles Brian) don't forget, if we disagree with Brian, the womens is brainwashed.
Your reference to St. Augustine also indicates an unfamiliarity with what Mormons consider important. Everything between the death of St. Peter and the First Vision of Joseph Smith is as Valid to us as the Koran or the I'Ching. That is, it is the doings of "the natural man" and where it is true and beautiful we embrace it. But we don't venerate it.
Also, you keep insisting that we think all people are basically bad. I already gave you the quote on that and the explanation, but you don't seem to understand. What are your qualifications with respect to mormonism?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I wouldn't go so far as the "no ranks" thing. Apostle is pretty much a lifelong calling, though my great grandfather did resign and eventually was excommunicated. "The Prophet" is the title we use for the most senior apostle and president of the church, but all Apostles are prophets, seers and revelators. There are 15 apostles most of the time- the quorum of 12 and the 3 that form the first presidency. They have separate responsibilities. All callings below that are changed out and the man who previously "ruled" over all the churches of Europe could conceivably be called to be a children's teacher under the authority of a woman.
I've never heard of an unmarried bishop. We take the "the man is not without the woman in the Lord" very seriously.
[ November 29, 2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom-- different responsabilities. The point being that being a Relief Society president (a woman) does not make you any less or more worthy, desired, capable, or important to the community than being a nursery leader.
You are correct in that the Prophet is the only one that is authorized to receive revelation for the church as a whole. But the way the church is set up, you can't exactly go out into life planning on being the Prophet. There is no gradation of authority, as pooka points out, no Amway-step-ladder to climb.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
quote: *cough* Well which 1/4th didn't you agree with?
You really want to know? I've been antsy about talking about my church since I offended Lissande, but here goes.
(I would've answered sooner, but I had a really ugly pair of shifts at work due to Thanksgiving.)
Pretty much the only big thing that's different is the bit about priesthood. (Though we do use grape juice.) There is an old saying I heard, "It wouldn't matter if you were baptized by the devil himself, though I doubt he would oblige you." That's as close as I can recall--it's been years since I had a look at that issue of the World Evangelist. In all the churches of Christ I know anything about, anyone at all can baptize. Not too long ago, in my local congregation a guy baptized his girlfriend and a father his daughter. In practice, an elder usually does it, but that's just tradition (and for record-keeping's sake). The only priesthood we have is the "priesthood of believers", but even that's not required, though it's extremely unusual for baptisms to be done by someone outside the church. God having given the command, I suppose his approval of any properly-motivated baptism is assumed.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maccabeus- most Latter day Saints are baptized by a family member, but it is always a man. All men can have the priesthood. Do women baptize in your church? (I really don't know, I'm not being sassy)
Brian, do you want to tell us what the two priesthoods are and the six classes within them?
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
It's unusual for women to baptize, but it does happen from time to time. It's never happened when I was there to observe, though.
Although women are not allowed to hold office in the "formal" sense (in most places, so far, to the best of my knowledge), when men are absent for some reason they are allowed to take on the same roles. In practice, if not in name, there have sometimes been female "preachers" and female "elders" over congregations consisting solely of women and children--usually, I would imagine, in time of war. Baptism is not even considered the prerogative of the leadership, though.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:Insitutionalized oppression of women is a problem worldwide.
It definitely is. And the western brand of feminism with a focus on equality in *all* things, male bashing, and reproductive rights hasn't resonated with many women from traditional cultures who are more worried about providing for children, creating community, and having strong but non-abusive male presences in the family [nuclear or extended or neighborhood or congregation]. The Mormon concept of priesthood and its attendant responsibilities and the worthiness required to hold it is a powerful force in many non-U.S. and western-European countries where 'traditional' models of male behavior are dominant [the women should serve the man, the man has a right to knock around the women in his household, the man should control all the earnings and spend them on his needs, etc.].
Many Mormon women [not all -- there are those who take the standard American feminist view and there are those who could be a little more 'feminisit'] are surprised by the idea that they are somehow oppressed or missing out -- especially since traditionally they have seen themselves as champions for women's rights. The radicalizing of the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s when the LDS Church became the target for accusations like Brian's above created a rift that both the feminist movement and religious/family oriented-feminists have not yet recovered from. And, of course, modern radical feminists have discovered that they need to incoroporate more of this religious/family view of feminism in their platforms and rhetoric if they are going to reach out to third world women esp. Muslim and Catholic women -- not to mention people of color in the United States [esp. parts of the African American and Hispanic communities].
------ Also: Simply put, as our current prophet Gordon B. Hinckley has said, we don't know exactly why God has set things up this way with men holding the priesthood and women as the gender who is able to bear children. We can speculate as to reasons why this is so -- and some of the speculations seem very reasonable to me. But God hasn't given a definitive answer on this (as with many things). However, we know that the system we have is ordained of God and that when it is used correctly, it's what's best for our community at this time in our history.
----
quote:nor does mainstream feminism incorporate snobbery.
Of course, what groups, texts and tenets constitute mainstream feminism is something that is highly contested in my experience. I would say, however, that as I mention above, even the less radical feminisms have not approached traditional religious communities with much of an open mind. I can totally understand why. I even agree that terrible things were done in the name of 'patriarchy' or whatever you want to call it. I myself have problems with many of the dominant power structures in western society and how they approach things. But as inconceivable as it may seem, sometimes 'traditional' power structures and institutions can work and function well [if not perfectly] for both men and women and, most important of all, children.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I should add:
I completely understand why the only men have the priesthood thing appears the way it does to those looking from the outside. It seems like a repetition of the worst patterns of western civ. And if I was looking from the outside, I'm sure I would have the same opinion.
But I have seen how things function. And I've witnessed how priesthood leaders are guided by the spirit, and I know it's how the Church is supposed to operate. I recognize that means nothing in an academic discussion. But if it was simply a matter of academics, I wouldn't be doing what I'm trying to do.
Also: I don't think that I could accept the whole way in which the church as an institution was set up without all the other things that are part of it -- the additional scripture, the doctrine of eternal families and eternal progression, the workings of the Holy Ghost, the covenants, and most importantly, the temple. In other words, as a hierarchical principle I distrust it in the hands of others. Hypocritical? You bet. But if I wasn't a hypocrite, I wouldn't be the Mormon I am. I'd probably be a nice liberal but not radical, academic-oriented, somewhat postmodern, agnostic.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You know, I've always wondered: how can I be postmodern?
Isn't it difficult to be post- anything, when that anything is still occuring?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
See, now, Scott, that is what some would say the whole problem with post-modernism is -- that it's just another form of modernism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"There is no gradation of authority, as pooka points out, no Amway-step-ladder to climb."
Scott, is it not the case that the Prophet -- and the Apostles -- are generally individuals who are very active in church leadership before they are called? People who have, in fact, climbed a certain Amway stepladder? I'm unaware of any anointed Prophets who were, two years or so prior, Catholic hot dog vendors in Queens. (Of course, I'm no expert in LDS history; there might well be such a case.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, can you really be an agnostic Mormon? Isn't one of the very tenets of Mormonism the claim that anyone who sincerely asks God to reveal Himself will get an answer? By this logic, why would you be a Mormon if you HAVEN'T felt the presence of God -- and if you HAVE felt the presence of God, why would you be an agnostic?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think the key point is that God set the system up. You can reject that if you want, but to a believing Mormon that is all that matters.
Why don't women hold the Priesthood? Because its not part of the doctrines and practices of the LDS Church for them to have it. All other reasons are secondary arguments.
Well, what is the theological reasoning of why women can't have the priesthood? In theory, there is really no reason women couldn't have the priesthood, besides scripture precedence of them not having it and some of the sayings of the Apostle Paul (who said that women shouldn't preside in meetings, that is even harsher than current Mormon practices). There is nowhere in any Mormon scripture that says "women can't hold the priesthood" in big bold letters.
However, at this point Scriptural precedence and some of Paul's sayings are all that needs to be said on the subject of why women don't hold the Priesthood. Why? Because God has not given a revelation to the current prophet, or any prophet in the Scriptures, to the effect that women can hold the priesthood. It doesn't matter how much political pressure or good reasoning goes into arguing why women can /should have the priesthood. Until God through the Prophet says otherwise, the possibility of giving it to women is moot. I would never say never, but I would hardly say someday.
The real question isn't why can't women hold the priesthood in the LDS Church? It is will there ever be a day when an LDS prophet claim to receive revelations granting the priesthood to women? That has to happen no matter how good the arguments are for or against granting women the Priesthood.
Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
Interesting discussion. I am going to add my two cents on an issue that I have thought about quite a lot over the years, that of where women stand in the Mormon church. In doing so I am trying to explain the relevant LDS doctrines; I hope I do all right.
Sheri Dew gave a brilliant talk a couple of years ago--I think it was General Conference, October 2001--on motherhood. She said,
quote: Our influence comes from a divine endowment that has been in place from the beginning. In the premortal world, when our Father described our role, I wonder if we didn’t stand in wide-eyed wonder that He would bless us with a sacred trust so central to His plan and that He would endow us with gifts so vital to the loving and leading of His children. I wonder if we shouted for joy at least in part because of the ennobling stature He gave us in His kingdom. The world won’t tell you that, but the Spirit will.
I think a lot of the problems I have had in the past with power structures, and the way I perceive them, are based on my very limited earth-only view. But the better I understand my own doctrine, the better I feel about it. In Mormon theology, we lived before we were born as spirits, and we will live again after we die. We have two key passages to make in our eternal existence: the transition from the spirit world to this earthly one, and then the transition to the next life, where we will be judged based on our performance here.
It is the responsibility of mothers to provide spirits with bodies, thus facilitating the first tradition. It is the responsibility of priesthood-holding fathers to help us, once here on earth, to return worthily to the next life, through the necessary priesthood ordinances such as baptism.
This is why we are taught that "women are mothers and men hold the priesthood." Motherhood isn't some crust we were thrown when we whined about not having something noble to do. It's exactly equal with priesthood: it makes possible the passage from one life to the next, just as the organization of the priesthood does.
That's all I have to say, except that understanding this (based on a wonderful unpublished manuscript on the role of LDS women by BYU political science professor Valerie Hudson)was a huge epiphany for me, and I hope I explained it clearly.
--Emily
--P.S.--Anne Kate, I had my baby three months ago--Norah Linnette, after my mom and my husband's grandmother--and she's gorgeous, plus she slept through the night at six weeks, so I couldn't ask for anything more. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:are generally individuals who are very active in church leadership before they are called? People who have, in fact, climbed a certain Amway stepladder?
That is partly a good point. It is far more likely a person will be called who has gained some experience in leadership positions. However, the "ladders" that have been climbed vary from Apostle to Apostle. Some have had more callings than others. In fact, some were called when they actually went "down a ladder" from previous positions. They are no different than any member who is active in church leadership.
quote:I'm unaware of any anointed Prophets who were, two years or so prior, Catholic hot dog vendors in Queens. (Of course, I'm no expert in LDS history; there might well be such a case.)
Obviously you are not an expert. Prophets and Apostles come from all kinds of backgrounds. Some were teachers, farmers, bankers, doctors, lawyers, and any number of backgrounds. Religiously some have been Bishops, Stake Presidents, and even Sunday School Teachers at the time they were called. Concievably a previously Catholic hot dog vendor operator in Queens could be called to such a high position. I will agree its unlikely, but hardly impossible.
[ November 29, 2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Has there ever been a Bishop who was not previously a Stake President?
Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
Here's what the church itself has to say on the topic of the priesthood:
quote: The priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name. The same priesthood authority that existed in the original Church established by Jesus Christ exists in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today. The Church is directed and led through this authority. All male members of the Church who are prepared receive the priesthood in order to help lead the Church and serve Heavenly Father’s children. A man with the priesthood might serve in some of the following ways:
Leading congregations of the Church Performing the ordinances of the Church, such as baptism Blessing those who are sick God expects those who hold this sacred priesthood authority to follow the example of Jesus Christ and serve with love, gentleness, and kindness.
and on women and the priesthood:
quote: Women are not ordained to the priesthood in the Church; however, whether on a churchwide or local level, there are many opportunities for women to lead and serve in the Church. The Church has several organizations that are directed by women. Those leaders regularly sit in council with priesthood leaders. The Relief Society is a worldwide women’s organization more than four million strong. The president of the Relief Society is Bonnie D. Parkin, with Kathleen H. Hughes and Anne C. Pingree serving as her counselors.
The Young Women organization serves young women 12 to 18 years of age. The Young Women general president is Susan W. Tanner, and her counselors are Julie P. Beck and Elaine S. Dalton.
The Primary organization exists to teach children 18 months to age 12. Coleen K. Menlove is the president of the Primary, and Sydney S. Reynolds and Gayle M. Clegg are her counselors.
Each of these organizations also operates on a local level, where women are responsible for the supervision of teachers and committee members, as well as meeting the needs of Church members who fall under their stewardship.
Women also serve as teachers, missionaries, chapel librarians, music directors, temple workers, and activities committee chairpersons, among other positions. Opportunities for service are almost endless, and, working together, the women and men of the Church can truly answer the call of the Savior, who asked His disciples to feed His sheep (John 21:16–17).
and on prophets:
quote: A prophet is a man called by God to be His special witness on the earth. A prophet speaks for God, with divine power and authority. He: Communicates God’s will to all people. Is a special witness for Jesus Christ, testifying of His divinity. Teaches the gospel and interprets the word of God. Calls the unrighteous to repentance. Receives revelations and directions from the Lord. May see into the future in order to warn the world of coming events. You can read the words of God’s ancient prophets in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon. God has not left us alone in our day. There is a living prophet on the earth today who communicates God’s will and stands as His special witness.
quote: The Lord calls special witnesses, or prophets, to tell the world about Him. You can find the testimonies of prophets in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and in the Book of Mormon.
In modern times, Joseph Smith was called as a prophet of God. Like Moses and other biblical prophets, Joseph Smith saw God and His Son, Jesus Christ, and was called to testify of Them and to preach the gospel.
There are also special witnesses of Jesus Christ on the earth today, testifying of Him and of His gospel.
Through the testimonies of these special witnesses, you can better understand the divinity of Jesus Christ and His gospel. You can receive direction about how Heavenly Father wants you to live, how to be happy, and how to return to live with Him.
Scott, to answer your point: I don't care about whether the church might or might not make women out to be inferior with relation to divinity or deserving things, the issue is one of sheer control. Whether or not it is a burden, right privilege, whatever you want to call it, men hold ultimate control over women. Yes, this could only be fixed by a woman president, but since that position is elected anyway it doesn't seem so divinely inspired. Also, I don't see how my definition of salvation is incorrect, even to the mormon usage. You seem to narrowing terms down to ridiculously small aspects. Salvation is more to even the LDS than you attributed it. What is my authority? My experience is. I could sit here and make up titles and phony positions of "academic" or "theological" authority I might have had, but that's not the point. What I liked about hatrack when I first came here was that noone gave a hoot n holler about your credentials. You are judged by what you say.
Pooka, your points about the men needing women are moot, since its the same way: women need men. Since that attribute is equaled out we move onto the next closest thing: power relationships inside marriage. There clearly the male holds ultimate authority, given that divorce is extremely difficult and socially discouraged in the LDS community.
Also, I am not saying that all religious women are brainwashed, merely the ones who believe that it is theologically established that males should hold the final say in the world. There is not one shred of evidence in all of any theology to prove this proposition true.
[ November 30, 2003, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: . . . we move onto the next closest thing: power relationships inside marriage. There clearly the male holds ultimate authority, given that divorce is extremely difficult and socially discouraged in the LDS community.
How does that follow?
quote: Also, I am not saying that all religious women are brainwashed, merely the ones who believe that it is theologically established that males should hold the final say in the world.
You keep taking people's words and twisting them to say that, but it's not what anyone here seems to me to be saying at all. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Brian, the prophet (or senior apostle) is not elected. The only way to become the prophet is for every apostle senior to you to be taken to the Lord (or die, as is commonly said.) Men are selected to become apostles by the existing apostles. While a different system could be (as we believe it) revealed, this is the one that seems to preclude ambition. Sure there could be a conspiracy etc. etc. but I think it's a good system. The women's organization is parallel to the priesthood. Sorry for my pugnacity.
There was a trend of BYU presidents being called into the apostleship. I don't know if they will keep that up or not.
Tom- all the apostles have a long track record of church service, but they are a tiny proportion of the potential "candidates".
Bishops are under Stake Presidents. But I think it would be possible to become one and not the other.
And no, I'm not "surprised" (as one of my fellow Saints put it) that patriarchalism is seen by many as the same as abuse. I grew up with that problem. But I don't see the way of the world giving us better solutions. I tried that briefly as well, and didn't find it any more comfortable. But maybe it's just me.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Selected has the word elected in it. Similar process. Until there is proof of god, doesn't it seem pretty political to get in among that elite group?
"Sure there could be a conspiracy etc. etc. but I think it's a good system. "
Again you are relying on the system not to be abused. Perhaps that hope is good enough for earth-based institutions, but institutions guiding the eternal fate of souls shouldn't be so prone to possible error should they?
No, patriarchy is never better than the possible equality offered by other parts of worldly views. This is because patriarchy will continue to bolster things, which even though you might claim should be unrelated, will be by their defenders: lower wages for women, more abuse for women, etc. One can try to mitigate these away and argue alternative causalities, but the fact is that many of these problems would not be present if theology didn't attempt to theologically-rationalize chauvenism(patriarchy).
And for those who continue to repeat that "it's just the way it is because doctrine says thus," that doesn't really work in the modern world. The metaphysical has always somewhat been a marketplace, and even though you may be able to secure a group's involvement in a religion through coercion or conversion of their families/male counterparts, that focus group will over time seek to know what they are being offered and question its worth.
As to theological reasoning of motherhood equaling priesthood that is not a logical argument. You are making it sound like it's only the men who need women, no, the theology requires women needing men too. So that part of the equation is equaled. What inequality are we left with? Overall control/presidency.
[ November 30, 2003, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
quote:The metaphysical has always somewhat been a marketplace, and even though you may be able to secure a group's involvement in a religion through coercion or conversion of their families/male counterparts, that focus group will over time seek to know what they are being offered and question its worth.
So, Brian, basically LDS theology is wrong because it will make people leave? C'mon. I don't agree with them on every point, but I know as well as anyone here that popularity <> truth.
If some women want to belong to churches or other groups in which they aren't allowed positions of power, that's their choice. There's no need to disparage them as being brainwashed.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom- There have been many (if not MOST) Bishops who have not been Stake Presidents first.
I think the problem is one of a misunderstanding of terminology: Stake Presidents have responsability over many wards; Bishops have responsability over a single ward.
And yes, there are stake presidents who have not been bishops first. There is a former stake president in our stake that now teaches a teenage Sunday School class. I became Elders Quorum President from being a substitute Sunday School teacher.
In perhaps the greatest example of non-gradation, one of the apostles, Henry B. Eyring, became an apostle after being a Stake President. (Stake Presidents are advised by area authorities, who are advised by the Seventies, who have a Presidency, and who are in turn advised by the Quorum of the Apostles. Um. . . I think that's how it works-- I may be mistaken about the Area Authorities though.)
quote:I'm unaware of any anointed Prophets who were, two years or so prior, Catholic hot dog vendors in Queens.
The first prophet of the modern church was a 14 year old son of an itinerant farmer.
quote:Is it not the case that the Prophet -- and the Apostles -- are generally individuals who are very active in church leadership before they are called?
Yes-- for obvious reasons. But being active in chuch callings does not equal a desire or ability to 'rise through the ranks,' as it were. As I've pointed out.
quote:the issue is one of sheer control. Whether or not it is a burden, right privilege, whatever you want to call it, men hold ultimate control over women.
This will come as a surprise to many of the women I work with in our ward. Would you please let them know? It will make our ward meetings SO much shorter, because we won't have to even bother with the dames, which constitute about 1/2 - 3/4 of the leadership in our ward.
What exactly do you mean by ULTIMATE CONTROL? You've referred several times to how priesthood holders can keep women from the Mormon idea of salvation, but haven't really elaborated. How exactly am I (as a priesthood holder) to stop the women in our ward from continuing to bother me in the Afterlife?
I'd REALLY like to know.
(I swear, if I get one more call to help Sister Mockle move her piano, I'm gonna die.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: many of these problems would not be present if theology didn't attempt to theologically-rationalize chauvenism(patriarchy).
Brian- I think physical dimorphism may also have a tiny bit to do with it. Also that men like to argue and win, whereas most women value harmony more.
Anyway, I'll submit to your superior male intellect. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Women value harmony more? I just don't see that as being true at all.
Edit: Not to say that MEN value it more, either. But a common mistake is to link passive-aggressiveness with a desire for harmony.
Pooka, what makes you take this particular stand?
[ November 30, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
* under breath about people who edit posts and make me look nuts*
Yes, women do value harmony more. *smiles ever-so-sweetly*
[ November 30, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sorry-- I edited the post because while I've heard that (I posted that majority of people who file for divorce are women), I don't have the information on hand, and I don't feel like looking it up right now.
Valuing harmony isn't a gender-standard trait, IMO.
But what kind of harmony are we talking about? Are you saying that women would rather get along than be thought of as having the right or correct opinion?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So yes, it is fairly* clear that women file for divorce more often than men do.
I would argue (harmoniously, of course ) that this is actually to ACHIEVE harmony. I am not at all in favor of divorce. But in most cases, by the time someone files papers, it is not meant as a disruptive act. It is a get-me-out-of-this-I/my kids-can't-take-it-anymore! act of desperation.
*I qualify this only because the links seem to draw primarily on a single book based on a single study.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:Out of interest, can you really be an agnostic Mormon? Isn't one of the very tenets of Mormonism the claim that anyone who sincerely asks God to reveal Himself will get an answer? By this logic, why would you be a Mormon if you HAVEN'T felt the presence of God -- and if you HAVE felt the presence of God, why would you be an agnostic?
I'm sorry. My tortured syntax seems to have confused things. I'm not an agnostic. What I was trying to say is that *if* I hadn't had the spiritual experiences that I have had, that's probably what I would be [taking into consideration my temperment, personality and natural proclivities].
EDIT: UBB code
[ November 30, 2003, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Scott- have you been to ornery.org? Is it a good place to cruise for chicks?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I dunno, dame.
But while you're there, doll, pick me up a sandwich.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
:thwaps Scott:
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*bops Scott over the head*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Notice, please, that pooka and I did that in harmony.
Unplanned, at that. *high-fives pooka*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I have ULTIMATE CONTROL over you, pooka.
If you don't fix me a sandwich, you'll never see even the dark side of heaven. I'll deny your undeniable baptism, I will, and see if I won't.
Now, go on. There are plenty of tomatoes in the fridge. I like them sliced thick, please, and only one leaf of lettuce. And don't be stingy with the ham. And I like wheat bread, lightly toasted.
Well? Go, go go. I'm hungry!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Okay, there was once something here that rivka found funny.
I however, felt bad posting it, and every time I looked at it, I'd cringe.
So I'm removing it.
Because I can.
[ November 30, 2003, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
O_o
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:No, patriarchy is never better than the possible equality offered by other parts of worldly views. This is because patriarchy will continue to bolster things, which even though you might claim should be unrelated, will be by their defenders: lower wages for women, more abuse for women, etc. One can try to mitigate these away and argue alternative causalities, but the fact is that many of these problems would not be present if theology didn't attempt to theologically-rationalize chauvenism(patriarchy).
And for those who continue to repeat that "it's just the way it is because doctrine says thus," that doesn't really work in the modern world. The metaphysical has always somewhat been a marketplace, and even though you may be able to secure a group's involvement in a religion through coercion or conversion of their families/male counterparts, that focus group will over time seek to know what they are being offered and question its worth.
A few things:
1. So do you claim that it's utterly impossible for the Mormon version of patriarchy to have at least some positive differences from the 'traditional western partriarchy'? Do you see how the conflation of Mormonism with other patriarchies is just as problematic as Mormons stereotyping all feminists as radical ones instead of realizing that there are feminisms?
2. I don't quite buy the whole "the fact is" argument. Or rather, I should say that I don't think theology is solely at fault for the abuses that have been perpetuated in the name of patriarchy [and again I don't deny the problems -- only the idea that there's only one solution for everyone]. It seems to me that a more fundamental problem is the devilish idea of trying to exercise power over another, of destroying free agency through fear, violence, and deprivation of the basic means of living. This is a trend, a meme, that Mormonism is trying to stand against -- although we may not always do so in the same way that others think it should be done. In fact, my major problem with modern LDS culture is that it should be a little more anti-consumerist and corporate abuse and greed than it is [although not anti-free market, rule of law, and property rights].
3. The bottom line for me is this: since we already live in a world where men have been dominant and have controlled many aspects of women's lives [and again -- this isn't quite as clearcut as *some* feminists make it out to be -- the more we learn of women's history, the more it becomes apparent that women found ways to disrupt or circumvent abuse and the power structures -- which is not to say that that's good -- obviously they shouldn't have had to engage in such tactics], what is the best way to go about changing social structures? Militiant feminism didn't really work. The whole trying to make men more sensitive movement had some success among the middle class, but also wasn't without it's own problems. The more I see the Mormon experiment in operation, the more I think that it does have the capacity to change the hearts of men so that they treat women better. I'm not saying that I can then say that this should be a universal -- I find some aspects to whole promisekeepers movement troubling, for instance [that hypocrisy coming into play again], although I think as a movement it has slowed down quite a bit.
4. I may be wrong, but aren't the denominations who have been the most progressive in ordaining women also the movements who are experiencing diminishing memberships? Now, when it comes right down to it, this troubles me, because I think I'd rather have more liberal Lutherans and Methodists and Unitarians around me than Evangelical Christians [which reflects my own biases -- and ones that I don't think most Mormons share], but my point is that the more secular, feminist, liberal theology of the U.S. and Western Europe doesn't have a whole lot of traction at the moment.
5. In regards to coercion and the marketplace, or whatever, just like many other religious denominations, Mormonism's problem, actually is that more women convert [or stay in the faith if they were born into it] than men. In almost all cases that I know of where both the husband and the wife convert -- they either do it together as a couple, or the wife is converted first and her husband joins later. I'm not sure exactly what your trying to portray here, but again, trying to lay your model of thinking onto Mormonism maybe doesn't lead to all the analogues that you think it does. [Which is again, not to say that there aren't problems with the Mormon model at times and that I don't wish that we as a community could progress farther faster in this area.]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: "Man" is by nature sinful
This I had a problem with. That statement is true, but you also have to consider where the word "woman" came from. Well, it was originally two words: "womb man". Now say that five times fast. You were saying woman on the last one weren't you?
Getting to the point....
If in fact women are womb men, then aren't they also by nature sinful? Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Now say that five times fast. You were saying woman on the last one weren't you?
No, I was saying 'that.'
Did I mess something up?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I hope dkw is doing ok. I'm sure the holidays are busy for her since she has to supervise two separate congregations. I would be very interested to here her comments on the "declining membership" but though.
For all you LDSers out there. While I may not agree, you are being quite coherent and I suspect Brian M has just been predestinated to not understand what you are saying.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Predestinated.
Predestinated.
That word just kind of . . . ROLLS off the tongue, don't it.
Kind of like the word, 'sandwich.' Say it with me: sandwich.
[ November 30, 2003, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Scott: Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
quote:They believe that it is OK that they do not wield the ultimate worldly power
And what is the ultimate worldly power? Wouldn't the ultimate worldly power be to create life?
I think the main problem here is one of perspective. Brian can't concieve of a view other than a worldly view of power and so can't understand why we believe as we do, other than to say we are brainwashed. Most LDS members strive to be less like the world, not more like it. Power is not something to be sought after and wielded over another in our religion. I'm sure there are times that the Prophet and Apostles weary of the burden they have. It is a burden to lead and lead righteously.
No where in our religion does it say that the man has the ultimate authority over the woman. In fact we are taught that the husband and wife are equal in a marriage, that they should work together and that decisions should be arrived at jointly.
Anyway, this discussion seems to have morphed into an argument that can never be settled.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I don't believe this issue is one of perspective since the males within the mormon church obviously acknowledge the positions they hold exclusively have the worth they do. You can say I'm twisting words, you can say I am using the wrong mindset, but those objections are tautological to prove your points. You say that power is the wrong way to think about it, but then you go on about the ability to give life as being the ultimate power. I can refute that argument completely by simply pointing out that you are dependant upon men to give life and much as they are on you.
So, even though you argue giving birth is unique to women and is equal to or better than men's power, in reality you are co-dependant for that upon male genetic contribution. So lets look to things that are exclusive and related to power. You say we shouldn't look to power. Why not? The church does all the time with telling wives to yeild to their husbands in matters of authority. So since the church decided to enter that arena its fair game. After all governance of man is the most important aspect of this world to non-believers, and still very important to believers also.
There can be no significant objection or dissent to your views if "the proper mindset," as you call it, would be used. I find that logically deplorable. I guess that's a whole other argument: that faith should not be evalauted by those terms anyway. I guess its all a matter of who gets to you first as a child, rationalists or theists. Because it seems one closes the door to the other. Some of you accuse feminists of being close minded but in reality they are opening their minds to avenues that have been traditionally denied to women. Instead there are attempts to comfort and curtail women from exploring their potential by assigning them great worth to traditional roles they are progressively seeking to escape.
[ November 30, 2003, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:I guess its all a matter of who gets to you first as a child, rationalists or theists.
Tautology, teleology, false dualisms. It's all good. Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
But more to point:
quote:Some of you accuse feminists of being close minded but in reality they are opening their minds to avenues that have been traditionally denied to women.
Yes, they are. Some of them are also closing avenues. And, again, you speak of "in reality' as if there was one reality. My beef is not with the feminist project [although there are, of course, some platforms pieces that I don't agree with], but rather with those feminists who engage in false dichotomies, and who deny the experiences and desires of religious women.
quote:The church does all the time with telling wives to yeild to their husbands in matters of authority.
Which church are we talking about here? [See Wendybird's post above].
You make a good point partially here:
quote: Instead there are attempts to comfort and curtail women from exploring their potential by assigning them great worth to traditional roles they are progressively seeking to escape.
First, I think many Mormon women would say that they are choosing to embrace the roles -- that they seen what has happened to a generation of women who have embraced the workforce and nontraditional lifestyles, and while they want to be educated and to find value outside the home, they also want to be in the home, and they are frustrated that our current economic climate forces both men and women to drive themselves into the ground trying to provide for a family -- even when the family is willing to make sacrifices of material comforts.
However, I would agree that sometimes Mormon men place too much empahsis on roles. That's something I've talked with my priesthood class about -- about not defining our spouses by what they do, their daily tasks. Just as it isn't good for us to define ourselves and our values by what we do [work, school, etc.]. I do think that Mormons could do better at valuing motherhood while at the same time realizing that involvement in education, the community, politics, service, and, yes, even the workplace is valuable and doesn't necessarily detract from being a mother.
Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
I would like to mention this first off. I mean no offense to anyone. If offence is taken, let me assure you now that I am truly sorry.
BrianM. From your posts, I can't believe you've had any serious experience with the mormon religion. From what I've experienced, I'd have to say that the mormon 'Power Structure' is more a stabilizing structure to insure doctrines are all taught the same everywhere. The mormon 'power structure' is specifically designed to keep any one person or group of people from wielding unrightious dominion branching off into apostasy.
Your argument about woman and man's co-dependancy to bring children into this world is also unfounded. Am I not right in saying that according to the mormon religion, heaven is reached only by married couples? That makes entrance into the next life dependant on both the man and the woman. Every effort I know of that the mormon church puts forth is a cooperative effort equally shared between men and women.
I could say more, but I'll just say this: You are certainly free to have your own opinions, but it is only reasonable to have informed opinions. At least consider that some of these people know what they're talking about when they tell you about their own religion.
Once again, there was no offense intended in anything I have just written. I only wish to encourage you to not try to pass opinion off as fact.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Once again, your tidbits on what you think my experience is means nothing since that is something this board avoids: lording unprovable authority over others. If people on this thread keep taking pot-shots and what they think my experience is or is not then I will have to assume it's because they can't competantly answer the brightline issue.
My point about the co-dependancy of child birth was a response to someone claiming having children was something exclusive to women, empowering them. I know that if a woman tried to make her child birthing experience exclusive by being a single parent within the church it would be frowned upon, not upheld as something empowering her.
Telling someone to embrace a traditional role that obviously benefits the established male gender without showing a clear brightline on why women shouldn't choose other life-paths besides sheer "that's the way god says it is" is pretty unfounded. Men are given much more leeway in their own lives.
[ November 30, 2003, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
BrianM said:
quote: Telling someone to embrace a traditional role that obviously benefits the established male gender without showing a clear brightline on why women shouldn't choose other life-paths besides sheer "that's the way god says it is" is pretty unfounded. Men are given much more leeway in their own lives.
Which ignores that Scott already said:
quote: First, I think many Mormon women would say that they are choosing to embrace the roles -- that they seen what has happened to a generation of women who have embraced the workforce and nontraditional lifestyles, and while they want to be educated and to find value outside the home, they also want to be in the home, and they are frustrated that our current economic climate forces both men and women to drive themselves into the ground trying to provide for a family -- even when the family is willing to make sacrifices of material comforts.
Maybe AJ was right.
[ November 30, 2003, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I don't see how it ignores that at all. You see, merely finding reasons to rationalize a current, suggested choice does not make up for the under-evalutations of alternatives. Merely getting a college education and a few other things do not count if one is really trying hard to to evaluate other paths. I am not saying they should be forced to, I am saying they shouldn't be discouraged from it.
[ November 30, 2003, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
As far as I can tell, Brian, the only thing that would convince you that women in so-called "patriarchal" religions are not oppressed is for the religions to change.
The fact is, in most cases, the women are fully aware of the non-traditional alternatives. They have chosen to integrate them, or not, based on an educated appraisal.
Your continued insistence upon seeing such women as "brainwashed" (or under-educated) is, quite frankly, very insulting.
[ November 30, 2003, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Rivka, what is insulting is your taking my words out of context and the use of those degrading eye-rolling smileys. I said that women are only "brainwashed" when they think it is a good thing that men decide what is ultimately good and right for them. Take that as you may, but please, stop with the ad-hominem.
[ November 30, 2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
BrianM. It doesn’t matter who or where you are, if you want people to take you seriously, you must establish some credibility. I’m not talking about a university degree or things of that nature, but believability.
You can’t tell the mormons on this board that because the men of their faith hold the priesthood and not the women, mormon women are somehow oppressed. That is an inference based on patterns in human history. In this case, it simply isn’t true.
It is true that this board avoids ‘lording unprovable authority over others,’ but I can’t accept an opinion that is not backed up by facts (a virtue this board does approve of).
Edited to add:
Since I have nothing to add to this thread besides what I've already done in my posts above, I am exiting this conversation. I will be willing to answer any objections to what I have said, but in a different place. I sincerely apologise if any opinions I have stated have caused you anger, but I don't take back any of the facts relevant to the topic at hand.
[ November 30, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Law Maker ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
If you expect me to gain credibility by accepting the differing opinions of others as facts with which to discuss things based upon, then that is a ridiculous expectation
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I apologize that you found the " "s degrading. I will remove them. They were meant to be an expression of my frustration, not an insult.
I don't believe that my responses were ad-hominem, but I am sorry you felt I was attacking you.
Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
Hobbes, I really liked your post.
Bebe
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Rivka I believe this is the smiley you are looking for.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, at the time, I wasn't quite that frustrated.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
quote:If you expect me to gain credibility by accepting the differing opinions of others as facts with which to discuss things based upon, then that is a ridiculous expectation
No, what we expect is that you respect that we believe these things not because we are brainwashed or that we are being dominated by our men, but because we have studied things out and have come to these conclusions on our own based on our own intelligence and free agency. You just can't seem to accept the fact that we think for ourselves and still desire to follow these beliefs. We are trying to tell you how this issue is really looked at within our culture. These are the "facts" of our culture.
Anyway, thats enough from me. Hobbes-- your original post was a beautiful explanation and I really enjoyed reading it and pondering on it. Thank you for taking the time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dang, what a thread to miss!
First, congratulations Hobbes! When did it happen?
I'd love to post a long post here, but I'm at work and need to, uh, be working. I'll just stick in my two cents.
1. Bless you, Emily Milner. I love what she said - primarily, the more I learn about the doctrine that the Lord has set up, the better I feel I about everything. Any... injustices and crappiness I experience is shown more and more, the more I learn about the gospel, to NOT be sanctioned by the Lord. The Lord has set up the perfect system, and it is implemented imperfectly. That's where the crappiness and unrighteous dominion comes in - but that is NOT the fault of the Lord or of the gospel. Also, the more a man honors his priesthood and takes it seriously, with all the attendant requirements, the better he is. It's fair. I have no problem with the way the Lord has set up the system.
However...
2. I have a huge problem with the way it is often implemented. I don't know if my experience has been unique, but I've had some truly awful experiences with arrogant, sexist, uncaring men who used the priesthood as a weapon, including my older brother and a boyfriend who informed me, when I DIDN'T get a "good idea" answer to the prayer of if we should get married, that I simply wasn't spiritual enough to get the right answer and I should listen to him and do it anyway, because he was the one with the priesthood. He then went on to mention that if I DIDN'T marry him, I would prove myself to be filled with moral failings and moreover, since I was already 22, he was my last chance.
He was full of crap.
I'm pretty sure there's a special place in hell for guys like that.
The worst part is that he really did try to be good. I mean, that's one of the main things that I liked about him - how important the gospel was to him. I have a lot more experience now, so I know just how unrighteous what he was saying was, but at the time I was struggling between what I thought was what my church was saying, and what I simply knew had to be true. I mean, I hardly have a such a poor opinion of the Lord that he would actually support what this guy said.
-------------
I also agree with Zal - if it weren't for spiritual experiences I have had, the Book of Mormon and other scriptures, and the occasional arms-of-comfort-wrapped-around-me prayers, I'd probably fall into the gently-agnostic crowd at Hatrack.
-------------
I wouldn't say that the issue doesn't bother many LDS women. I have talked to MANY that had questions and concerns - more when I was younger. It usually isn't talked about in public meetings because it isn't appropriate - it'd be like having a "So the pope - fraud or not?" speech for the sermon in a Catholic church. The conversations do happen, though, and like any aspect of doctrine or faith, there are lots of questions that may or may not be answered when it's convenient for the questioner.
When I was younger, I saw the authority aspect of the priesthood much more often that the service aspect. I've gained enough experience now to witness the service aspect, and to appreciate the hand of the Lord in such service. I've seen average men turned into great ones because of their humility and their willingness to go and do whatever the Lord required.
Speculation: I think for a long time, this was a serious enough issue for me that it kept me from even wanting to get married.
Look at it this way: The priesthood worked when used as the Lord commanded, but seemed to break down everyone when used by mere mortals - especially young ones. On the other hand, marrying a non-member was not an option. *sigh* So, great, all a guy has to do is measure up to the Lord. Yeah, that's not hard.
It's not the same now. I'm older, and I feel a great deal more confident and a great deal less ... vulnerable. Also, I've had my questions answered. If you want to know how, I'll happily e-mail you.
------
What was the point of this? Oh yeah - is it an issue in the church? Well, yes sometimes, but not in the way the world sees it. The occasional abuses and misuses of the priesthood would not be fixed by giving it to everyone, but instead by the men living up to the spirit and requirements of it. If you read the Priesthood sessions of General Conference, and if you read what the general authorities write, the exhortations are truly to that end.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:The worst part is that he really did try to be good.
I'm sorry you had the experiences you did, kat. Sadly, I don't think that they are uncommon.
What angers me about such attitudes [esp. the whole "I know better because I'm more in tune" routine] is that we seem to have too many men who willfully ignore what's being preached and instead are stuck in some idealized 50s view of how gender relations work [it's, I think, a problem that a large portion of current Mormon culture has -- this 50s thing]. I think the good thing that feminism has wrought is that most of the Mormon young women I know won't stand for that crap.
Also:
quote:I wouldn't say that the issue doesn't bother many LDS women. I have talked to MANY that had questions and concerns - more when I was younger.
I minimized this point more than I should have in my previous posts. This is true to my experience as well. What's amazing to me is that I know so many intelligent, strong women who have made the same journey kat has.
And more Mormon men should be bothered by this issue and have these questions and concerns. I don't think that you can truly understand the priesthood without taking some questioning as to why the seeming disparity and what that *truly* means for how we should approach gender relations in this mortal life.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Zal, I'd go out on a limb and say that "stuck in the 50s" thing is symptomatic of the larger population. It's a baby-boomer thing.
As for memberships, there HAS been a general decline in the mainstream-to-liberal Christian denominations.
Howeve, there are many criticisms of some of the more evangelical denominations and their counting of church members (here in the US anyway). Many churches will not remove a member who has moved away, even if they have joined a church in the same denomination... Often they will be counted twice. I read this in some article online, but I can't seem to find it now.
This isn't the case at every evangelical church, of course.
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
One thing about the orderliness of LDS is that each person only has one set of records. That way if polygamists want to meld into our midst they do at least have to commit deliberate fraud to do it.
Edit: another fact about lds is our divorce rate is same as surrounding culture. While there is social pressure against it, there is also low tolerance of abusiveness, and support for the needy. Also, I think people's expectations can be too high sometimes in (American) LDS culture. Which goes along with the 50's thing.
[ December 01, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
One of the things I find interesting about the membership loss in what used to be called “mainline Protestantism” is that in the last few years membership is down nationwide, but church attendance is up. This suggests a couple of possibilities. One is that people who are active and attend regularly aren’t formally joining. I’ve seen some of this in the congregations I serve. Another possibility is that the membership loss is among people who weren’t particularly active/regular attenders. There is, it seems to me, less of a societal expectation of church membership than there used to be, so indifferent Christians / agnostics who in former years would have been church members no longer are.
As far as whether membership loss/growth can be correlated to whether or not the denomination ordains women, I’ve never seen any studies. Most of what I’ve seen traces “mainline” denominations vs. evangelical and non-denominational churches, and subsets of both of those groups don’t and do ordain women.
In the end though, it really doesn’t matter. I’m a United Methodist pastor because I was called to it by God. (Dragged into it kicking and screaming might be more accurate.) Churches make their policy decisions based on their understanding of God’s will, not based on whether it will increase or decrease their popularity.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Don't sweat it, guys. I know from experience that there are worse ways for a church to be stuck in the '50s.
As for record-keeping boondoggles, someday I'll have to tell you the story of how record corrections turned into a loss of half a million members and a churchwide panic. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: there are worse ways for a church to be stuck in the '50s
Such as fashion and music? j/k
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Don't sweat it, guys. I know from experience that there are worse ways for a church to be stuck in the '50s.
*confused* So, you're saying this is no big deal? That it shouldn't be an issue, because it could be worse, and this isn't that bad?
...
You're a guy, right?
-----
It is NOT the church that is stuck in the 50s, it is some idiots contained within. There is such a huge, huge difference.
[ December 01, 2003, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Pooka> Like having an atmosphere reminiscent of the McCarthy trials.
Katharina> Er. Sorry. I didn't mean it that way. And yes, I'm a guy.
I was referring mostly to Zal's contention that "being stuck in the fifties" was a problem with a large (unspecified) part of Mormon culture. As for a 50's attitude toward gender roles, that's serious, a problem for us as well, and I have no idea what can be done about it.
A few years back, btw, I wrote a paper suggesting that most or all of the passages used to keep women out of leadership positions were being misinterpreted. The professor pointed out that I had relied too heavily on a "scholar" of questionable value; more to the point, almost the entire female population of my honors class opined that they couldn't see why a woman would want to preach or be an elder or deacon. I was floored.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, sorry Macc - misinterpret.
I'm not surprised the women said that. You learn very quickly what are understandable audiences and what aren't. I know that for some guys, anything other than the "oh, I'd never want any of that nasty responsibility" stance - even if it is just wondering how/why it works that way - is suspect.
Not that they didn't mean what they said - I just mean even if they had thought differently, I doubt they'd say anything.
[ December 01, 2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
There was one girl who did agree with the stance in my paper--ironically, I think she was the one from eastern Kentucky.
You have to understand, Harding was about the most "liberal" church environment I had ever been in at the time. I vastly overestimated what I could get away with saying, especially in my honors classes, which nearly always included evangelicals and others outside our church, and were centers of freewheeling discussion on many philosophical topics. (I had loads of fun...wish I could find so many people like that together again.)
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:(I had loads of fun...wish I could find so many people like that together again.)
Ahem. May I humbly point out that you do have us. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I do have y'all, Zalmoxis. It's not real-time or face to face, though.
Also, I keep tripping myself up. Where I come from, it's normal to enter a discussion with things like "the Scripture plainly teaches" or "God's Word says" followed by some doctrinal bone of contention. At Harding, I learned some less controversial ways, only to have them shot down by Lissande the moment I used them here. I still don't know how to safely talk about common beliefs in a church without a formal doctrinal statement without sounding like I think I'm an authority or sounding like a troll.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:This I had a problem with. That statement is true, but you also have to consider where the word "woman" came from. Well, it was originally two words: "womb man".
I thought I'd already corrected you of this cute little folk etymology, Nick. "Woman" comes from "wifeman." If you want a further explanation, I'll be glad to provide it. But it is not from "wombman."
[ December 01, 2003, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Scott, is it not the case that the Prophet -- and the Apostles -- are generally individuals who are very active in church leadership before they are called? People who have, in fact, climbed a certain Amway stepladder? I'm unaware of any anointed Prophets who were, two years or so prior, Catholic hot dog vendors in Queens. (Of course, I'm no expert in LDS history; there might well be such a case.)
I've skimmed a lot of this thread, so I don't know if there was a good answer for this, but I'll provide my own opinion anyway. Yes, God could call anybody worthy to be the prophet. But I think that He puts people in smaller leadership rolls beforehand so that they'll be properly prepared to be prophet (say that five times fast). Maybe Gordon B. Hinckley wouldn't have been ready to lead the Church if he hadn't had all those other leadership positions beforehand. It's sort of like being the president of the U.S., actually. We could elect any qualifying citizen to be president, but we end up electing people who have risen through the political ranks until they're a governor or senator or congressman. By then, they've (hopefully) proven that they could be a good leader.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
So what your really saying, JB, is that Aaron Eckhart could be the next prophet?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Thanks, Zal. I was hoping someone would catch on to the real message of my post.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Glad to be of service. A former actor is my boss in temporal things, so I figure it's only a matter of time before the same is true of the spiritual part of my life.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Great post Hobbes, but I would like to add something, from the perspective of someone who recently taught an LDS Gospel Doctrine lesson on ordinances.
Although the ceremony associated with the ordinance of baptism is symbolic, Baptism is not a symbol (at least not from the LDS perspective). Baptism is a priesthood ordinance. It is embued with the power of God. When undertaken it faith, it has real power to change us. When you are baptised, a miracle has been worked on you. You are literally a newly born person. You may not see the full effects of the miracle instantly, but the miracle is real. The symbols involved in baptism, and all the other priesthood ordinances, are there to help us understand the miracle and to build our faith so that we may receive the fullness of the miracle. The miracle is worked through the God's power, through the priesthood and through faith. Those are not symbols -- they are real.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I thought I'd already corrected you of this cute little folk etymology, Nick. "Woman" comes from "wifeman." If you want a further explanation, I'll be glad to provide it. But it is not from "wombman."
Maybe it's just me, but wombman sounds like some new superhero.
Is it a plane? Is it a bird? No, its WOMBMAN!
(edited for excess question marks)
[ December 01, 2003, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
That's possibly the freakiest superhero name I've ever heard. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And I do not want to know what super powers he has! >_<
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
The scourge of.... no, I'll just stop right there.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), and baptism is just a symbol in terms of action. I added in terms of action because I want to specify that the action itself, the putting under the water and bringing out again is just symbolic. The idea (as you probably know/can guess) is that you are reborn spiritually, and your sins are “washed away”. Well it certainly isn’t the water that takes away your sins, nor the fact that you’re wearing white; so why is it important that this be done at all?![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Stop threatening my state, 'k?![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How does that follow?![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You keep taking people's words and twisting them to say that, but it's not what anyone here seems to me to be saying at all. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
under breath about people who edit posts and make me look nuts*![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)