I notice that we don't talk about religion as much these days as we used to, which is probably for the best. I don't know if that's a deliberate policy change, or just cultural drift. But I have always appreciated the diverse, well-informed opinions I've found on Hatrack.
So I thought I'd see if anyone had heard of the excommunication of Mormon Feminist Kate Kelly, or the pending disciplinary hearings for Mormon podcaster John Dehlin.
What sort of information has reached Hatrack? Any strong opinions one way or the other, or does anyone care too much?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I care quite a bit and have posted elsewhere about it. I will try to repost when I am off my phone and have had more time to think about it.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Can't wait to hear it. If I missed it from somewhere else, feel free to just post a link.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I don't think there has been any discussion on here or Ornery about the subject. Honestly, this doesn't seem like the best forum to talk about it either. There is too much ground to make up for those not familiar with the practice. Most of the discussion would be spent bringing people up to speed on the nuances of what excommunication (for Mormons) is and isn't. I'd be surprised if it got past that.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Back in the day, enough people here were Mormon, or familiar enough with Mormonism (presumably due to familiarity with Orson Scott Card) that topics like this were frequently discussed. I guess it's changed since last I paid attention.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I think there are a lot less Mormons than there used to be, and it seems like with the exception of BlackBlade, most aren't super active (like me, I don't post all that much, just lurk for the most part). I could be wrong in my observations though. The fact that the Mormonism doesn't come up as a topic as often anymore means that you can't always tell what someone's religious affiliations are.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: I don't think there has been any discussion on here or Ornery about the subject. Honestly, this doesn't seem like the best forum to talk about it either. There is too much ground to make up for those not familiar with the practice. Most of the discussion would be spent bringing people up to speed on the nuances of what excommunication (for Mormons) is and isn't. I'd be surprised if it got past that.
Probably true but I would actually be interested in such a discussion since the only Mormon I know personally is no longer a Mormon and is in fact violently opposed to Mormonism so not exactly an unbiased opinion. Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I wonder if there's such thing as an unbiased opinion on this sort of thing. I like to think I come close, but that's me judging myself, so it's not exactly an unbiased opinion.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't think so. There could be an unbiased presentation of facts, perhaps.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
It's hit every major news source in the last couple weeks. So I guess you could find an unbiased presentation of facts out there somewhere. Or a presentation biased in any direction you care to consider.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Let me rephrase. Perhaps a pro-Mormon opinion to balance out the heavily anti-Mormon opinion I already have access to.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I think Kate Kelly's case is fairly straightforward.
She started a political movement that is opposed to church doctrine. This is against the laws of the church because it leads members against official teachings. It is an action that certainly merits excommunication.
Excommunication is a private matter. Upon receiving her documents, she immediately criticized the church but proclaimed her love for the gospel. Well, the gospel that she purports to love holds a male-only priesthood as one of its primary tenets. By publicly disclosing all this and by being so public in support of this movement, she doesn't show an active belief in the gospel.
Look -- the Mormon church doctrine believes a family unit is sacrosanct and each member holds a place in the family. The man's place is to hold the priesthood and administer over the family. The women's role is to co-administer the priesthood with her husband, administer to welfare of the family and community, to bear children, and to provide perspective that only a woman can provide. From a doctrinal perspective, a woman holding the priesthood makes as much sense as a man bearing children.
So, yes, she's free to her beliefs. But she can't start a movement opposed to church doctrine without some change to her church standing. If she is really a faithful member, she MUST believe that the doctrine is directly from God. So, it's no stretch of logic to claim that she is directly petitioning God himself to change a fundamental tenant of his plan for humanity.
But it isn't a big deal. She can still go to church. Good members won't shun her. And if she is repentant and stops grandstanding for attention, they'll readmit her in a year.
I see three possible outcomes: - She has received real revelation. Over time the church will change. She'll be forgiven for any of her actions. - She will realize that she has been rallying for the wrong reasons, repent, and go through the process of being readmitted. Again, it won't be long before she's forgiven. - She has been misled or isn't a real believer in the church. She will keep pushing for her position and become angry with the church, leaving eventually.
[ June 25, 2014, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Herblay ]
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
John ... has said a whole lot of stuff. The problem is that he's struggled with his faith so publicly. And that he's said a lot of things that could be interpreted as setting members down the wrong path.
Excommunication might be a good thing for him. If he's repentant and it affirms his faith. It could be bad for the converse reason.
I think for a lot of people struggling with their faith, it would be a bad move, most likely based on a lack of understanding by local leadership. They'd come to the opinion that the church as a whole is opposed to personal crises of faith. When the reality is more that John's (very human) local leaders do not understand the nature of John's struggle.
The church needs people with more progressive views. Even though a lot of members forget it, one of the central tenets of the LDS faith is promoting the ability of other people to exercise free agency. Gay marriage SHOULD be considered a part of this agency. Therefore, the LDS church should be some of the biggest advocates of the state allowing some form of marriage.
But, like other social issues, the church wants to promote social conservatism. So its stance isn't exactly surprising.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry about the delayed response. Will post hopefully tomorrow after I get some things done in Futian.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: So, it's no stretch of logic to claim that she is directly petitioning God himself to change a fundamental tenant of his plan for humanity.
But hasn't this happened before, with blacks? I guess the easy response is to say that the whole no blacks in the priesthood wasn't "fundamental," but wouldn't the more likely truth be "____ is fundamental, until it isn't"?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Church spokesperson Ally Isom said in her Radiowest interview that there is no doctrine stating that women can't hold the priesthood. So I guess we need to clarify how we're defining "fundamental" here to begin with.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
No. Blacks and the priesthood wasn't doctrine. It was based on a racist statement by Brigham Young and followed by the church until it was questioned.
I would say that the position on blacks is more akin to their position on gays. They are denying people access to part of the gospel based on who they are. Only time will tell if the church's position shifts on this.
But the position on women and the priesthood isn't like this. Almost anyone who understands the doctrine will tell you it isn't discriminatory. It's part of the fundamental design of the family, central to the LDS faith. Even the most progressive members will generally agree that it is impossible for members of Ordain Women to truly hold their beliefs regarding ordination AND a belief in the Mormon doctrine.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Church spokesperson Ally Isom said in her Radiowest interview that there is no doctrine stating that women can't hold the priesthood. So I guess we need to clarify how we're defining "fundamental" here to begin with.
Yes, she said that, and she was quickly (and quietly) replaced by Jessica Moody.
Most - I would be tempted to say nearly all - the denominations that now ordain women struggled with the decision to do so. Very often these struggles were (some still are) divisive and included people who were asked to leave the denomination. This is how change happens. And it does happen.
Since I am not Mormon, I don't know how that shifts with your Church, but I wanted to add some perspective on churches in general.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I see your link as a statement that women do not hold the priesthood. But can you find a definitive doctrine stating that women can not hold the priesthood?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Again, just skimming, but it appears that every sentence with "women" and "priesthood" has verbs in past or present tense.
Anyway, what is that, the Relief Society manual? How often are those updated? Can everything that's printed in a manual be relied upon as official, unchanging doctrine?
Not trying to be an ass (I'll let you judge how well I'm succeeding), but I would like to nail down an unchangeable doctrine before I worry about its eternal implications.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I can only say to read it again. I think by skimming, you've missed most of the important sentiments.
The LDS faith centers on the belief that everyone (pretty much) is saved by grace. Just reaching heaven is pretty much default because of Christ's atonement. But there's more to it than that. We are God's children. We can literally inherit his kingdom and receive exaltation, we can become like our father, and receive godhood.
What is required to truly follow the Lord's plan of salvation? You have to make promises, covenants, with the Lord. You have to follow certain laws and learn a number of lessons to become more like the savior.
But you ALSO have to marry in the temple. The power of godhood requires the gifts of both a man and a woman. The Lord has his female counterpart, and man needs his. A man in a marriage acts on Earth with the priesthood, serving as a proxy for Christ. And the woman serves as administrator and mother over the family. But she can't be a proxy for Christ. And the man can't have babies.
The fundamental doctrine IS that man and woman are both required to make up a godhead. The priesthood is just the name for the man's portion of the proxy. The woman has hers, but it is more inherent rather than granted (by the church).
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Almost anyone who understands the doctrine will tell you it isn't discriminatory. It's part of the fundamental design of the family, central to the LDS faith.
The policy being discriminatory and it being central to the faith are not contradictory statements.
Religion changes. What was doctrine yesterday could be passed off as nothing tomorrow. Heck, there are elements of the Catholic hierarchy that will sometimes speak about ordaining women, and that outfit is way, way older than yours.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Let me explain how I've come to understand it. I'll probably use some terminology you might not be familiar with. If so, please ask and I'll try to explain. Priesthood in the church is primarily a division of primary responsibilities. Women hold the priesthood through their husbands, and in situations where a priesthood holder cannot be found to perform one of the responsibilities assigned to men, women have authority to fulfill those responsibilities. But those situations are *extremely* rare.
I'll tell you a quick story. One of the best memories I have is when my mother and I were visiting my grandparents and I started developing a cold of some sort. My grandfather was excommunicated in the 70s (I think...details are shaky and mom's...well, she's dead now so I can't clear up the details with her), so there were no men that could give me a blessing of healing (which is one of the responsibilities of the priesthood). My mother explained the responsibilities of the priesthood and told me that since there were no men around who were ordained, that she could give me a blessing as a mother. She did so, and I woke up the next day feeling completely better. Now, you can take from that story what you want, and I have my own beliefs regarding it, but to me it is particularly special.
The division of men and women in the church is *not* about men being "better" or more worthy than women. It is entirely about helping men and women grow spiritually and emotionally by assigning responsibilities that provide opportunities to encourage growth. We believe that the purpose of life is to learn and prepare for what is to come in the next life. There are some intricacies to that which I don't feel competent enough to explain here, but essentially there is a need for men and women in the church to learn to function as one. The division of responsibilities in the church encourages that.
Katie Kelly's actions show that she doesn't really understand the role of the priesthood in the church. And that's due in great part to the fact that no one probably attempted to help her understand that. One of the greatest problems of how the church does things is that the people who teach aren't always the people who really know what they are teaching. But that has purpose as well. Normally, that's just fine. The church actively encourages people to study and learn things in a way they can understand. Sometimes that leads to people falling off the rails, as it were, and following paths of logic (if this is true, then that must be true type logic) that cause them to believe things that are not correct. It's perfectly fine for that to happen. We can't know everything. It's when people start to actively teach others those incorrect beliefs that you start going down the road to apostasy, and that's what happened in this situation.
Excommunication in the church is not punitive. It exists as a way for people to examine their actions, motives, and beliefs. It is typically only done in situations where people have gone very far astray from church teachings and then act to bring other people to their way of thinking, or have broken the covenants they make in the temple. It is, primarily, an opportunity for them to start again if they so choose. Not everyone who is excommunicated chooses to start again. Many choose to become angry, bitter, and hateful towards the church. But usually the people who choose to make a fresh start out of it and return to full fellowship in the church end up doing so with a stronger belief in the gospel and look back on it as an important part of their lives.
At any rate, that's all my opinion and beliefs on the subject. It may actually be that I am mistaken in some things I've said. Most of what I believe has been the result of a lot of time spent thinking about it, and from my own personal experiences. I have no documentation or verifiable facts to back me up. This is all just how I've come to view and understand the doctrines of the church, and I am not, by any means, an authority.
quote: The church needs people with more progressive views. Even though a lot of members forget it, one of the central tenets of the LDS faith is promoting the ability of other people to exercise free agency. Gay marriage SHOULD be considered a part of this agency. Therefore, the LDS church should be some of the biggest advocates of the state allowing some form of marriage.
The Church has never opposed Civil Unions or attempts to extend legal rights to gay couples. The primary focus of the church's opposition has been to ensure that the legal definition of the term "Marriage" defines a union between a man and woman. This is because there is sufficient legal precedent already to allow gay rights activists to attempt to force religious groups to recognize those same sex marriages or face removal of tax exemptions. The efforts of the church to help those in need would be greatly impeded by that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Look, there are doctrinal explanations for why it's not sexism, sure. But unless you sign up and believe, they really don't hold up to any kind of scrutiny, and wouldn't in any other institution one was not already invested in believing in.
You said it yourself-the wife 'co-administers' the priesthood, which is again by your words a sort of proxy for Christ. How credible is it to claim that, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this is not the most important role that is irrevocably out of reach of women? A woman can choose (or be biologically unable) not to have children, and she will need to have a man serve as her proxy for Christ within the church infrastructure. A man can choose (or be biologically unable) not to have children, and still be in and of himself a proxy for Christ. It's my understanding that in the case of a choice not to have children, both of these people are engaging in a significant mistake in religious terms, but that's a different discussion.
Ultimately what it boils down to is that the doctrinal defense for why a male-only priesthood isn't objectionably sexist is because it is, supposedly, part of the fundamental nature of the universe. Not unlike males not being able to carry and birth children. Well, that's all well and good though as an argument to outsiders it serves pretty poorly. Granted believers aren't under an obligation to justify themselves, but something that is less easily put aside is this: almost the entire power structure of the Mormon church, historically and in the present, is invested in men. There isn't any of this 'co-administration' stuff in the practice of the day to day running of things. We don't tend to use the word 'partner' to describe someone whose role is entirely ambiguous and may be set aside on any given issue without their consent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I can only say to read it again. I think by skimming, you've missed most of the important sentiments.
But you ALSO have to marry in the temple. The power of godhood requires the gifts of both a man and a woman. The Lord has his female counterpart, and man needs his. A man in a marriage acts on Earth with the priesthood, serving as a proxy for Christ. And the woman serves as administrator and mother over the family. But she can't be a proxy for Christ. And the man can't have babies.
The fundamental doctrine IS that man and woman are both required to make up a godhead. The priesthood is just the name for the man's portion of the proxy. The woman has hers, but it is more inherent rather than granted (by the church).
Boy, being a Mormon single woman or one who can't have children must really suck.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... almost the entire power structure of the Mormon church, historically and in the present, is invested in men.
A valid question that I'd be curious about. Are the current rules against female Mormon priests or does it go up the entire hierarchy? When was the last female prophet (or whatever the equivalent of a Catholic pope is)?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Last female prophet... Deborah, right?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I can only say to read it again. I think by skimming, you've missed most of the important sentiments.
But you ALSO have to marry in the temple. The power of godhood requires the gifts of both a man and a woman. The Lord has his female counterpart, and man needs his. A man in a marriage acts on Earth with the priesthood, serving as a proxy for Christ. And the woman serves as administrator and mother over the family. But she can't be a proxy for Christ. And the man can't have babies.
The fundamental doctrine IS that man and woman are both required to make up a godhead. The priesthood is just the name for the man's portion of the proxy. The woman has hers, but it is more inherent rather than granted (by the church).
Boy, being a Mormon single woman or one who can't have children must really suck.
See, this is why we don't discuss Mormon doctrine here anymore. The unnecessary snark and sarcasm.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Last female prophet... Deborah, right?
I guess I should have specified "uniquely Mormon" prophet.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: but something that is less easily put aside is this: almost the entire power structure of the Mormon church, historically and in the present, is invested in men. There isn't any of this 'co-administration' stuff in the practice of the day to day running of things.]
That's not actually true. The "Power structure," as you put it, includes many many female leaders. The relief society presidency of each ward, stake, and the church as a whole are all women. The church education system is primarily managed and staffed by both men and women. But I imagine these auxiliary positions don't actually meet your definition of being part of the "Power structure," so there really isn't a way to sway your opinion on that, and you're welcome to have that opinion. But I'd appreciate it if you would not attempt to force your opinions on me and my religion.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Last female prophet... Deborah, right?
I guess I should have specified "uniquely Mormon" prophet.
Officially ordained as prophet? There hasn't been one. But the position of Prophet is essentially one as a figurehead. Numerous women throughout the history of the church have received revelation that have resulted in additions to church doctrine. In particular, Emma Smith (Joseph Smith's first wife) was primarily responsible for influencing Joseph to introduce the Word of Wisdom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Had Kate Kelly merely married Monson, none of this would have needed to happen.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was being being neither snarky nor sarcastic. I was being critical. Every compensation for not being a "proxy for Christ" has to do with having babies. She only has access to the proxy of Christ through a husband. The only place where she has administration authority is over her family. If she doesn't have children, what is there for her?
Believe me, Catholics are not much better but we are improving.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Excommunication in these cases isn’t happening suddenly. These people have likely had numerous discussions with their local church leaders already. They’ve long known where their continued actions would lead as far as their standing in the church. IMO, only the issue that the individual is espousing and the apparently retaliatory action by the church really get talked about in the news. That hardly represents what’s really going on, however. The individual is probably not facing disciplinary action because of the issue they’ve brought up—e.g. giving women the priesthood—but because of the way they’ve chosen to publicize the issue and draw other people into the cause they’ve created around it, and how they’ve persisted despite warnings about where their actions would lead. They’ve probably been invited multiple times to settle their questions privately rather than publicly. Again, it’s not the fact that they have questions and doubts that’s the problem—it’s how they choose to press them for a resolution they consider satisfactory.
Being excommunicated means (in part) that you no longer represent the church as a member in good standing. Especially in cases that get publicity, it’s for the church’s good as well as the individual’s. The church parts ways with the individual, and if that individual continues the activities they’ve been doing, they do it without the implicit church backing that members enjoy.
The concept may sound harsh, but believe it or not, the church regards a disciplinary action like excommunication to be a necessary and valuable part of the repentance process and isn’t just throwing the people out into the cold. Excommunication isn’t done lightly, of course. But it is done with the goal to help the individual eventually return to full membership. Having sat on several disciplinary councils now (all for possible reinstatement of the individual to full membership so far, none to originate disciplinary action) I feel like I’ve seen the benefit of excommunication pretty clearly. These are people who wanted to come back, of course—many don’t. But they’ve been able to make many beneficial changes in their lives, with close contact and support of their bishops and continued association with fellow church members. This process has been a great blessing to them, rather than the disgrace and shunning that it’s often perceived to be.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Had Kate Kelly merely married Monson, none of this would have needed to happen.
See above regarding snark and sarcasm. Tom, I would just like you to know that you are probably one of the least pleasant people I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with. I understand that you don't care, but I thought you should know that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not necessarily that I don't care. It's that I don't mind. Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was being being neither snarky nor sarcastic. I was being critical. Every compensation for not being a "proxy for Christ" has to do with having babies. She only has access to the proxy of Christ through a husband. The only place where she has administration authority is over her family. If she doesn't have children, what is there for her?
Believe me, Catholics are not much better but we are improving.
You were being critical by utilizing sarcasm and snark. You could have simply stated it the way you just did, but you chose to be snarky by saying "Boy, it must suck to be a single Mormon woman".
That being said, it does suck to be a single Mormon woman who can't have kids. My sister dealt with it for about 15 years before getting married. Her inability to have kids was tortuous for her and going to church and looking around at all the kids depressed her endlessly. She stopped going to church because of it. But being a single woman in the church doesn't limit you from being able to serve other people. Many leadership positions in the church are filled by single women who have never been married. One of the most respected women leaders in the church is Sheri Dew. She's in her 60s, been a member her whole life, and has never been married. She was a member of the general relief society presidency. She's also probably the most recognized female in the church today. Being single or childless doesn't limit a woman's ability to serve the people around them.
But it also sucks to be a single Mormon man. Particularly when people are constantly saying stuff like, "Women who die having never been married will have the opportunity in the next life, but men who never get married won't."
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's not necessarily that I don't care. It's that I don't mind.
Great. But for the future, please refrain from responding to my posts, if you would. I'd rather not interact with you anymore. Doing so just makes me angry.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Boris, I am not sure we define snark or sarcasm the same way. Had I said, "Gee, it must be great to be a childless Mormon woman", that would be snark and sarcasm. I was merely emphatic and said basically what you did later.
Both our Churches have a problem with seeing women as worthy as ourselves beyond our ability to bear and raise other people.
Do you see the problem with "most recognized female in the church"? We don't get to make the big decisions; we get to the equivalent of handing out soup and blankets. "Women's work".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that "it must suck to be a childless Mormon woman" in that context is snarky but not sarcastic.
quote:Do you see the problem with "most recognized female in the church"?
Especially once you think about it for a second and realize how relatively unrecognized that is. I would argue that more non-Mormons have heard of Emma Smith, in fact.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I didn't see kmb's comment all that snarky, maybe a little but she can and has dished a lot worse.
I would also add that we (The Mormon Church) have a lot of work to do both culturally and structurally. Despite the recent excommunication events, there is progress being made. It's not fast enough for a lot of people, but progress is being made and we're getting better none the less.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do you see the problem with "most recognized female in the church"? We don't get to make the big decisions; we get to the equivalent of handing out soup and blankets. "Women's work".
You say that like it's not worth doing at all. I think that's a problem with perception. How is it not important to take care of people? Isn't that one of the *most* important parts of Christianity?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was being being neither snarky nor sarcastic. I was being critical. Every compensation for not being a "proxy for Christ" has to do with having babies. She only has access to the proxy of Christ through a husband. The only place where she has administration authority is over her family. If she doesn't have children, what is there for her?
Believe me, Catholics are not much better but we are improving.
Not sure I would substitute "priesthood" for "proxy of Christ," but that's not really my objection here. Motherhood isn't just the consolation prize women get because they can't hold the priesthood; neither is the priesthood what men get to have because they can't be mothers.
The priesthood is the authority God gives to us to act in his name. It's not and shouldn't be considered the domain of men only. The whole purpose of men holding it is so it can readily bless the lives of everyone. Men who equate holding the priesthood to having administrative and political power inside the church organization are misunderstanding it the same way that women do who want the priesthood so they can be in charge.
The church is organized at the ward level to extend the benefits of the priesthood to everyone regardless of their status. While the pattern might be for every home to have a mother and father in it, obviously there are single mothers and single women without children without a priesthood holder in the home. That doesn't mean those women don't have access to the priesthood. Through the home teaching program especially, but also through ward leaders and association with ward members, they can and should have all the blessings of the priesthood they desire in their homes and lives.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do you see the problem with "most recognized female in the church"? We don't get to make the big decisions; we get to the equivalent of handing out soup and blankets. "Women's work".
You say that like it's not worth doing at all. I think that's a problem with perception. How is it not important to take care of people? Isn't that one of the *most* important parts of Christianity?
Yes, I'd say the whole point in having the priesthood, as well has having the church, boils down to blessing the lives of individuals. Really, if our focus is anywhere else, we're doing it wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do you see the problem with "most recognized female in the church"? We don't get to make the big decisions; we get to the equivalent of handing out soup and blankets. "Women's work".
You say that like it's not worth doing at all. I think that's a problem with perception. How is it not important to take care of people? Isn't that one of the *most* important parts of Christianity?
I am not saying that at all. It is great and a noble calling for someone male or female who is called to that. I am saying that it sucks to have your options for service limited to that. And, coming from a man, sounds a bit like my boss sounds when she proclaims once a year on staff appreciation day that the secretaries are the most important people in the School.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was being being neither snarky nor sarcastic. I was being critical. Every compensation for not being a "proxy for Christ" has to do with having babies. She only has access to the proxy of Christ through a husband. The only place where she has administration authority is over her family. If she doesn't have children, what is there for her?
Believe me, Catholics are not much better but we are improving.
I believe your statement is born out of a misunderstanding of the doctrine.
Here's a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith:
quote:Furthermore, there are thousands of young men as well as young women, who have passed to the world of spirits without the opportunity of these blessings. Many of them have laid down their lives in battle; many have died in their early youth; and many have died in their childhood. The Lord will not forget a single one of them. All the blessings belonging to exaltation will be given them, for this is the course of justice and mercy. So with those who live in the stakes of Zion and in the shadows of our temples; if they are deprived of blessings in this life these blessings will be given to them during the millennium” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 2, p.38).
Those that do not have the opportunity to marry in this life will be given the opportunity to do so later.
There are often people, male and female, that simply never find that right person to marry. How just would God be to punish those people?
Kate Kelly was excommunicated because she not only did not understand the purpose of the priesthood, but because she tried to sway others to her beliefs. The fact that she made the church disciplinary action letters public when they are meant to be private indicates to me that she was simply begging for attention.
The church let her carry on for quite a long time, and it was only when she started to try and organize and became much more outspoken with her criticism that the church stepped in. She is free to express her beliefs however she sees fit, but the church also has a right to excommunicate someone for trying to teach it's members contrary to it's teachings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not just at all which is kind of my point. Also, you are assuming that there is a "right person" to find. I don't think that is necessarily true.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do you see the problem with "most recognized female in the church"? We don't get to make the big decisions; we get to the equivalent of handing out soup and blankets. "Women's work".
You say that like it's not worth doing at all. I think that's a problem with perception. How is it not important to take care of people? Isn't that one of the *most* important parts of Christianity?
I am not saying that at all. It is great and a noble calling for someone male or female who is called to that. I am saying that it sucks to have your options for service limited to that. And, coming from a man, sounds a bit like my boss sounds when she proclaims once a year on staff appreciation day that the secretaries are the most important people in the School.
That's what most people in the church are called to do, essentially. If you are willing to accept church callings then you will likely serve in a wide variety of positions through the years. All of them involve soup and blankets to some extent. The bishop might be released one week and called as a teacher in the nursery the next week. There are callings with more prominence than others, certainly, but none of any more intrinsic importance than another. You can be just as ineffective as Relief Society president as Sunbeams teacher if you don't choose to apply yourself in your position--or you can work wonders in both.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not just at all which is kind of my point. Also, you are assuming that there is a "right person" to find. I don't think that is necessarily true.
How am I assuming anything? I provided one example. True, some people may just not find the right person, but there are other reasons as well. Some people die in child birth. Some die in wars before they have the opportunity. Some people suffer from all sorts of mental problems and retardation that often prevent them from forming lasting, loving relationships.
Those people will have the opportunity to marry later.
The matter becomes grey when a man or woman never marries because they "just don't want to" or "It's just a piece of paper" or "I don't need no man/woman." Should they be given the opportunity again? Should they be doomed to something lesser because of their attitude? That isn't for me to judge, and I believe God will sort it all out.
But those that genuinely did not have the opportunity? I think it follows the same rule as children that die before they are baptized. God will take care of them.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do you see the problem with "most recognized female in the church"? We don't get to make the big decisions; we get to the equivalent of handing out soup and blankets. "Women's work".
You say that like it's not worth doing at all. I think that's a problem with perception. How is it not important to take care of people? Isn't that one of the *most* important parts of Christianity?
I am not saying that at all. It is great and a noble calling for someone male or female who is called to that. I am saying that it sucks to have your options for service limited to that. And, coming from a man, sounds a bit like my boss sounds when she proclaims once a year on staff appreciation day that the secretaries are the most important people in the School.
"coming from a man" That's pretty sexist in itself, you know? It seems like you're completely dismissing my point of view because I'm a man.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do you see the problem with "most recognized female in the church"? We don't get to make the big decisions; we get to the equivalent of handing out soup and blankets. "Women's work".
I would say that this argument, in itself, is the same as Kate's. And it is doctrinally unsound.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Men who equate holding the priesthood to having administrative and political power inside the church organization are misunderstanding it the same way that women do who want the priesthood so they can be in charge.
But don't men hold preeminent administrative and political power inside the church organization?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do you see the problem with "most recognized female in the church"? We don't get to make the big decisions; we get to the equivalent of handing out soup and blankets. "Women's work".
I would say that this argument, in itself, is the same as Kate's. And it is doctrinally unsound.
Well it would be as I made it.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I work in engineering.
Let's say a manager holds a meeting. She sends out the invites, lays out an agenda, and so forth. Engineers show up and brainstorm a design. Certain people push the direction of the meeting. People with expertise shape an action plan and contribute additional details based on their abilities.
Is this an example where the manager holds all the power? Or are they merely acting to preside over the meeting, because someone has to? Sure, they can move things along and serve other functions to avoid disagreement and groupthink, but so can any member of the group.
I feel like this is pretty much the same way the church leadership works, or the way a priesthood holder presides over a family. Women have their own organization and leadership, but to argue that they don't have administrative or political power is simply incorrect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: but something that is less easily put aside is this: almost the entire power structure of the Mormon church, historically and in the present, is invested in men. There isn't any of this 'co-administration' stuff in the practice of the day to day running of things.]
That's not actually true. The "Power structure," as you put it, includes many many female leaders. The relief society presidency of each ward, stake, and the church as a whole are all women. The church education system is primarily managed and staffed by both men and women. But I imagine these auxiliary positions don't actually meet your definition of being part of the "Power structure," so there really isn't a way to sway your opinion on that, and you're welcome to have that opinion. But I'd appreciate it if you would not attempt to force your opinions on me and my religion.
Boris,
I'm familiar with some of the day to day stuff. But I stand by my point. Who are the only people who may be a 'president', for example? We can discuss all we like the many ways (and I do mean this sincerely) that women play a vital role in the day to day affairs of your church. But even when you speak in defense of your position, your language underlines the weakness of your position. 'Auxiliary'.
Let me further clarify. My point was never that women play no role in any aspects of church leadership-rather that that role, when it is played, is irrevocably according to doctrine going to be a secondary or at best subordinate role when it is more active. Presidents don't have unlimited power, but you don't invest a person with that title when they answer to someone else. An auxiliary can play a vital role, but by definition it is not a leadership role.
As for forcing my opinions on you and your religion. Boris, this is going to sound confrontational and aggressive and there's not much I'm interested in doing about that. But I mean it with all sincerity when I say that I am going to give you the respect, whether you like it or not, of not treating you as though a straightforward statement of my opinion is equivalent to 'forcing' my opinions on you and your religion. It simply isn't, no more than your counter-arguments are forcing your opinions on me and my heathenishness.
This is America, and goodness knows we screw up and act wickedly all the time, but at least we can all get on board with the idea that hearing an opinion you don't like is not in any way a matter of force.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do you see the problem with "most recognized female in the church"? We don't get to make the big decisions; we get to the equivalent of handing out soup and blankets. "Women's work".
You say that like it's not worth doing at all. I think that's a problem with perception. How is it not important to take care of people? Isn't that one of the *most* important parts of Christianity?
I am not saying that at all. It is great and a noble calling for someone male or female who is called to that. I am saying that it sucks to have your options for service limited to that. And, coming from a man, sounds a bit like my boss sounds when she proclaims once a year on staff appreciation day that the secretaries are the most important people in the School.
"coming from a man" That's pretty sexist in itself, you know? It seems like you're completely dismissing my point of view because I'm a man.
I sort of am. But it isn't so much sexist as noting the power difference in what you are saying. My boss may extoll the importance of secretaries but she isn't going to trade places with one. So, sure, I am going to be skeptical about the opinion from a person with authority who is defending that authority by talking about how great those without authority have it.
Herblay, who ends up making the final decision? Who decides who is invited to the meeting? Who decides what the meeting is about? Who decides who gets to speak? In other words, who decides?
I can't even begin to express how personally obnoxious I find Geraine's attitude toward those who are single by choice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do you see the problem with "most recognized female in the church"? We don't get to make the big decisions; we get to the equivalent of handing out soup and blankets. "Women's work".
You say that like it's not worth doing at all. I think that's a problem with perception. How is it not important to take care of people? Isn't that one of the *most* important parts of Christianity?
If this role is of such pivotal importance, why is it so uniquely feminine? Are men actually less important and powerful within the church, that they have less access to this vitally important role?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Men who equate holding the priesthood to having administrative and political power inside the church organization are misunderstanding it the same way that women do who want the priesthood so they can be in charge.
But don't men hold preeminent administrative and political power inside the church organization?
Political power? The church doesn't really have internal politics like most organizations do. People who aspire to obtain some position in the church are usually looked down on. We don't hold elections. Obtaining political influence is generally useless in the church. You get chosen to fill a specific role, and then you choose the people who assist you in filling that role (if applicable to the role). There's really very little political gamesmanship in the church's overall operation. Granted, my view is somewhat limited to what I've seen, but I haven't seen anything that one would be able to label as political. There are social cliques and gossip mills, sure, but those usually have little to no bearing on the actual operation of the church.
As far as administration goes, it depends on what you mean by administration. Women take part in teaching and giving "sermons" (we don't call them that), just like men. There is very little in the general administration of the church that women don't play a part in, either officially or unofficially. A man isn't placed in a position of authority in the church hierarchy without approval from his wife (if he has one, and generally men aren't called to positions of authority like bishop, stake president, or general authority unless they are married). If a man's wife says that she doesn't want him to be a bishop, he won't be a bishop. That doesn't happen often, but that's how it works.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Afr,
quote:The priesthood is the authority God gives to us to act in his name. It's not and shouldn't be considered the domain of men only. The whole purpose of men holding it is so it can readily bless the lives of everyone. Men who equate holding the priesthood to having administrative and political power inside the church organization are misunderstanding it the same way that women do who want the priesthood so they can be in charge.
It may remain out of reach for me, but I am having a very hard time imagining how what appears to be a straightforward contradiction can be reconciled. If only men can have the priesthood, and priesthood is the authority given to human beings by God to act in His name, then how can it be said that direct authority to act in the name of God isn't the domain of men, when it is anyone's domain at all?
quote:The church is organized at the ward level to extend the benefits of the priesthood to everyone regardless of their status. While the pattern might be for every home to have a mother and father in it, obviously there are single mothers and single women without children without a priesthood holder in the home. That doesn't mean those women don't have access to the priesthood. Through the home teaching program especially, but also through ward leaders and association with ward members, they can and should have all the blessings of the priesthood they desire in their homes and lives.
Granted, but isn't it still true that men are necessary to access these blessings? There are in your faith if I'm not mistaken vitally important things which to be done require the priesthood, yes? A woman simply cannot, ever, do those things herself. A man may be able to do so someday, if he isn't already.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The church doesn't really have internal politics like most organizations do.
I think any close observation of the LDS church would show that this is not the case. It is very political.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I'd like to keep going here, but I've found myself spending 4 hours on Hatrack this morning and I do have a job, so I have to leave the discussion. I apologize if I have left some things unaddressed. I appreciate the discussion, but I don't get paid to talk on here. This is pretty much why I'm so on and off here. FYI Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Herblay,
quote:Is this an example where the manager holds all the power? Or are they merely acting to preside over the meeting, because someone has to? Sure, they can move things along and serve other functions to avoid disagreement and groupthink, but so can any member of the group.
I feel like this is pretty much the same way the church leadership works, or the way a priesthood holder presides over a family. Women have their own organization and leadership, but to argue that they don't have administrative or political power is simply incorrect.
That women have no power at all and all power is invested solely in men is not actually an argument anyone is making. Even in the most dictatorial, tyrannical power structures, power is never invested solely in a single group or person. An Egyptian Pharoah, literally a god on Earth, did not have unlimited power. That becomes impossible when you're trying to deal with thousands or more people.
No, the argument is that men have most of the power, by far, and that this is unassailable by doctrine. Men are the administrators, period. Men are the ones who are granted the ability to act in God's name, period. Men have the priesthood and are the presidents of stakes and the prophets and fill the quorum, period.
--------
Boris,
quote:Political power? The church doesn't really have internal politics like most organizations do. People who aspire to obtain some position in the church are usually looked down on. We don't hold elections. Obtaining political influence is generally useless in the church. You get chosen to fill a specific role, and then you choose the people who assist you in filling that role (if applicable to the role). There's really very little political gamesmanship in the church's overall operation. Granted, my view is somewhat limited to what I've seen, but I haven't seen anything that one would be able to label as political. There are social cliques and gossip mills, sure, but those usually have little to no bearing on the actual operation of the church.
I think you'll simply have to accept that stating 'our organization doesn't really do politics is basically never going to be credible to any outsider. It's an institution filled with human beings, whether God exists and has inspired it or not. Politics are simply unavoidable.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The church doesn't really have internal politics like most organizations do.
I think any close observation of the LDS church would show that this is not the case. It is very political.
I don't think you could actually closely observe the LDS church without being a member, Tom, so pardon me if I completely dismiss your opinion.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No, the argument is that men have most of the power, by far, and that this is unassailable by doctrine. Men are the administrators, period. Men are the ones who are granted the ability to act in God's name, period. Men have the priesthood and are the presidents of stakes and the prophets and fill the quorum, period.
You can make this argument. Heck, it's good for discussion. I'd politely disagree, but I'm not sure if you'd believe me.
I've had managers that felt this way. Regardless what their engineers say, they get to make the decisions, right? How long do they keep their positions? In the church, we believe that the Lord will remove administrators who abuse their power.
Yes, some families work when the man has sole control of the family. But I would argue that these families are dysfunctional. Organizations have to organize. A healthy organization has contributions from all parties. A healthy marriage is a partnership. But somebody has to lead.
Any good team has an appointed leader. The church appoints men as leaders. Maybe this is out of tradition. Maybe it is ordained by God. But our doctrine states that it is organized this way for a reason.
If our families, if our church, are healthy, we'll succeed. Most members would strongly assert that women have equal, or almost equal, influence in nearly all church functions. An outsider or someone disillusioned might disagree, but I would argue that they don't have the whole truth.
The Ordain Women argument is not as simple as it sounds. Should women be able to hold top-level administrative positions? Yes, and they do. Is there some room for growth and change, some room for progression? I would THINK that there is. And this is where the group is good, to make us evaluate the way we look at things, at ourselves.
Should women actually hold the priesthood, the "manager" job if you will? The LDS church believes that its doctrine is the actual will of God, and that there is a formation of the family that holds eternal significance to our very inheritance. So what, you ask?
Maybe the answer is indious. From a logical perspective, to question the nature of priesthood and gender roles is to question god's essential plan of salvation. You can't do this and believe in doctrine at the same time. It's literally a fallacy.
So, are they wrong? No, there's probably progressive work that needs to be done. It's my opinion that the whole banner of women ordination is just a rallying cry to draw attention to gender roles in general. Ordaining women makes no sense within the context of the argument, but it DOES bring attention to arguments that DO have merit.
I guess the only way to understand is to have faith that the church truly is led by Jesus and that the prophets won't lead us too far astray. It happens, time to time, because humans are fallible and mortal. But it is our belief that no matter how imperfect, it is the most perfect form of religion.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I wanted to respond to this claim from page 1:
"The Church has never opposed Civil Unions or attempts to extend legal rights to gay couples."
quote: The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
This statement was released just before the passage of Utah's Amendment 3 which not only defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but also contained this provision:
quote:2. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
This is clearly a ban on civil unions and legal rights for gay couples, and the church's support for this amendment was not ambiguous.
They later softened their stance and supported some legal protections for gay individuals in a Salt Lake City ordinance, but I'm unaware of any instance in which the church has offered support for a law that establishes or protects rights for gay couples.
------------
For those who are taking the view that Kate Kelly's excommunication was deserved, I'm wondering what you make of President Hinckley's remarks to the effect that female ordination was theoretically possible, but that there was no agitation for it?
quote:RB: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?
GBH: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. There own ???. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organisation of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied.
RB: They all say that?
GBH: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.
RB: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?
GBH: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.
RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?
GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.
RB: So you’d have to get a revelation?
GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.
If I try to put myself in Kate Kelly's shoes, I think I'd see an invitation implied there, to raise my hand and say "No, I'm not happy." And to agitate - to encourage other women who feel the same to raise their hands.
Now, the message is - "Don't bring attention to the fact that many of you are unhappy. Don't agitate, we won't have any agitation. If you're not happy, that's fine, work on that, but don't group together to talk about why and how that might change."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The church doesn't really have internal politics like most organizations do.
I think any close observation of the LDS church would show that this is not the case. It is very political.
I don't think you could actually closely observe the LDS church without being a member, Tom, so pardon me if I completely dismiss your opinion.
Boris, please be sure to bear that in mind when you make an observation about any other group of people on Earth, particularly a religion.
---------
Herblay,
quote:You can make this argument. Heck, it's good for discussion. I'd politely disagree, but I'm not sure if you'd believe me.
I would certainly believe you meant it. I'm not being patronizing, as in, "Oh, I'm sure you believe it," but rather stating my belief that you're speaking in good faith. Anyway, I was being emphatic in one area that I think you may be interpreting to bleed over into others.
When I said that men fill the quorum, the prophet, the presidencies, period, I didn't mean that this was an open and shut slam dunk argument in my favor-though I do think it's really quite rock solid. I simply meant that on this particular point, there cannot be any argument. Only men can be a Prophet, can be priesthood holders, can be presidents and members of the Quorum.
Since this point cannot be argued, the question remains: how much power within the church do these offices and callings hold? I would argue that by their very titles and job descriptions, the answer would be 'a very great deal', but if you want to disagree I'm happy to listen.
quote:I've had managers that felt this way. Regardless what their engineers say, they get to make the decisions, right? How long do they keep their positions? In the church, we believe that the Lord will remove administrators who abuse their power.
Well, those managers were right. They had the power. What they didn't have was the ability, themselves, to ensure a project would work-though they surely had the ability to run it straight into the ground. I mean, you said it yourself, they're making the decisions. What they aren't is unchallenged masters of their entire domains and everyone and everything in it. But there is one manager, and a bunch of engineers. The engineers do the work, and the manager decides how it is done, by whom, in what order, so on and so forth. I think if this were any other topic, one which you weren't so invested in, you would quickly acknowledge what is pretty obvious: that the manager is in charge, and has more power than the engineers. This doesn't change even if the engineers are necessary and even more important than the manager.
As for removing bad leaders, well that moves into another topic entirely. Suffice to say that the timeline for when those bad leaders will be removed-or their decisions-seems to me to be pretty problematic to say the least.
quote:Yes, some families work when the man has sole control of the family. But I would argue that these families are dysfunctional. Organizations have to organize. A healthy organization has contributions from all parties. A healthy marriage is a partnership. But somebody has to lead.
In fact you're assuming what you have to prove here. In a partnership between two adult human beings, I don't accept as given that one of the two must be a leader. On a particular issue? Sure, that makes sense. One partner might know a lot more about gardening than the other, and then the next month one partner may know a lot more about fishing or cars or cooking or painting. But to designate one person as the leader overall is a different question, and again stating that someone has to lead undercuts your claim that the leader doesn't have more power than those who are led.
quote:The Ordain Women argument is not as simple as it sounds. Should women be able to hold top-level administrative positions? Yes, and they do. Is there some room for growth and change, some room for progression? I would THINK that there is. And this is where the group is good, to make us evaluate the way we look at things, at ourselves.
Well, no, they don't. We've already spoken about prophets, presidents, and members of the Quorum. We would not say of another group in a different instutition that they had 'top positions' if the topmost positions were forever barred to them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Maybe the answer is indious. From a logical perspective, to question the nature of priesthood and gender roles is to question god's essential plan of salvation. You can't do this and believe in doctrine at the same time. It's literally a fallacy.
I think this is a way of asserting that heterodoxy will not be tolerated, but there's been no demonstration that it can not be tolerated. There have been enough missteps and later-to-be-disavowed claims from the pulpit in the Church's past to make it a virtual certainty* that something that is currently held to be true by the orthodoxy is going to later be questioned and rejected as a misunderstanding.
Even if you don't see that as likely, there's pretty much NO justification for calling it impossible, considering all the changes in the past.
The gendered priesthood is here being called fundamental and impossible to disbelieve in if you believe in the rest of the doctrine. But the church president himself said it could change via revelation, so I don't understand why.
*(Except, maybe, that the church has grown incredibly more conservative in the past 100 years, and new revelations seem to be limited to things like infrastructure development, so maybe they've closed the canon after all...)
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Men who equate holding the priesthood to having administrative and political power inside the church organization are misunderstanding it the same way that women do who want the priesthood so they can be in charge.
But don't men hold preeminent administrative and political power inside the church organization?
They do. Not all men all at once, but yes, the key leadership positions in the church are held by men: bishop, stake president, and general authorities including the presidency of the church and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Women do hold prominent positions at the general church level and at the local level, and have enormous influence throughout, but the way the church is organized means administrative responsibilities and spiritual/ministering responsibilities are often concentrated into one position.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Political power? The church doesn't really have internal politics like most organizations do.
: raises eyebrow :
I am incredibly skeptical of this claim.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:Political power? The church doesn't really have internal politics like most organizations do. People who aspire to obtain some position in the church are usually looked down on. We don't hold elections. Obtaining political influence is generally useless in the church. You get chosen to fill a specific role, and then you choose the people who assist you in filling that role (if applicable to the role). There's really very little political gamesmanship in the church's overall operation. Granted, my view is somewhat limited to what I've seen, but I haven't seen anything that one would be able to label as political. There are social cliques and gossip mills, sure, but those usually have little to no bearing on the actual operation of the church.
You say the church doesn't do internal politics and then you describe how the politics work. Just because there isn't any of the trappings of open political activity, it doesn't mean there isn't politics. For example: Cardinals who to aspire to be Pope are frowned upon, but there is still politics in choosing a Pope.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The church doesn't really have internal politics like most organizations do.
I think any close observation of the LDS church would show that this is not the case. It is very political.
I don't think you could actually closely observe the LDS church without being a member, Tom, so pardon me if I completely dismiss your opinion.
Boris, please be sure to bear that in mind when you make an observation about any other group of people on Earth, particularly a religion.
Or women. (That was a little snarky. But on point.)
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Afr,
quote:The priesthood is the authority God gives to us to act in his name. It's not and shouldn't be considered the domain of men only. The whole purpose of men holding it is so it can readily bless the lives of everyone. Men who equate holding the priesthood to having administrative and political power inside the church organization are misunderstanding it the same way that women do who want the priesthood so they can be in charge.
It may remain out of reach for me, but I am having a very hard time imagining how what appears to be a straightforward contradiction can be reconciled. If only men can have the priesthood, and priesthood is the authority given to human beings by God to act in His name, then how can it be said that direct authority to act in the name of God isn't the domain of men, when it is anyone's domain at all?
quote:The church is organized at the ward level to extend the benefits of the priesthood to everyone regardless of their status. While the pattern might be for every home to have a mother and father in it, obviously there are single mothers and single women without children without a priesthood holder in the home. That doesn't mean those women don't have access to the priesthood. Through the home teaching program especially, but also through ward leaders and association with ward members, they can and should have all the blessings of the priesthood they desire in their homes and lives.
Granted, but isn't it still true that men are necessary to access these blessings? There are in your faith if I'm not mistaken vitally important things which to be done require the priesthood, yes? A woman simply cannot, ever, do those things herself. A man may be able to do so someday, if he isn't already.
Well, answering your first question, at one point the priesthood was only held by the sons of Aaron. What the priesthood was used for then, as it is now, was to perform ordinances (rituals done to signify covenants being made between man and God) and to enable the people to receive specific blessings as desired. At many other points the priesthood was (in LDS belief) completely absent from the earth.
The priesthood is never the domain of men; it’s the power God gives to men to use only as God intends and never for a man’s own gain. I’m going to quote some LDS scripture at you now. This has been quoted many times on this board and is used closely within the church as a guideline for holding the priesthood:
Doctrine & Covenants 121: 34-40
34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? 35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson— 36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. 37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. 38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God. 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. 40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
First, it’s not anyone’s power but God’s, to be used on the behalf of everyone, not just a select few, and certainly not just for the one who holds the priesthood or the one in some prominent church position. As soon as anyone starts using it that way, it’s gone, and he’s left on his own.
In response to your second question. No, a woman wouldn’t be able to perform an ordinance or blessing that must be done through priesthood authority. A man who holds the priesthood has to do that. But two things: a man can’t perform an ordinance or blessing on himself, and women act with the authority of the priesthood as well as men. A man as well as a woman needs another priesthood holder present to receive a priesthood blessing, for example, and even a man who holds the priesthood can’t do certain things without authorization from priesthood leaders. In most cases, women have the same access to every benefit of the priesthood as men do.
Women in the church act all the time with priesthood authority. That authority is delegated to them in their callings and responsibilities both in the church and in the home. Men, even if they hold the priesthood themselves, function under no greater authority.
Here’s a quote from one of the Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, from the recent general conference.
“We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.”
Here’s the link to his entire talk, because it explains everything you’re asking about a lot better than I can. This is actually very germaine to this entire thread.
For those who are taking the view that Kate Kelly's excommunication was deserved, I'm wondering what you make of President Hinckley's remarks to the effect that female ordination was theoretically possible, but that there was no agitation for it?
[QUOTE]RB: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?
GBH: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. There own ???. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organisation of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied.
RB: They all say that?
GBH: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.
RB: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?
GBH: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.
RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?
GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.
RB: So you’d have to get a revelation?
GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.
My first reaction to every time he said, "our women are happy" was to replace the word "women" with the word "darkie". Of course, it is not at all that extreme and I am sure that Mr. Hinckley is a lovely person, but honestly, the tone of it conjures a plantation owner with his thumbs in his suspenders talking about how there is no emancipation talk on his plantation!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In related news, Cliven Bundy presumably continues to hold a priesthood.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Gordon B. Hinckley was very much an optimist, which definitely colors the tone of his remarks. I find it impossible, personally, to imagine him as a suspender-thumbing plantation owner, but YMMV. He was also the president of the church and as such could actually speak about the church as a whole. I'm sure he was very well aware of what was going on in the church at that time, and so could make the statement that there was no major agitation for women to receive the priesthood at that time.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In related news, Cliven Bundy presumably continues to hold a priesthood.
hail hydra
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And Father Roy Bourgeois has been excommunicated and laicized. We all have work to do.
[ June 25, 2014, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
If you're a believer, God's will isn't subject to the democracy of the people. Period.
Kate was asked to desist by local leadership. She was spearheading a public organization that sought to change (what the church believes to be) God's will. If she had deceased, she would have been treated differently.
People can mock the beliefs of others if they want. <shrug> It really is an internal church matter. But she could have found a better way to promote change. Some of the stuff she has done has been more than disrespectful.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm sure if she had died she wouldn't have been excommunicated. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not mocking. I am criticizing both of our Churches.
God's will is not subject to democracy but out understanding of God's will is certainly imperfect. Agitating for change is how we improve our understanding.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: If you're a believer, God's will isn't subject to the democracy of the people. Period.
Kate was asked to desist by local leadership. She was spearheading a public organization that sought to change (what the church believes to be) God's will. If she had deceased, she would have been treated differently.
People can mock the beliefs of others if they want. <shrug> It really is an internal church matter. But she could have found a better way to promote change. Some of the stuff she has done has been more than disrespectful.
The "Period" here has no utility unless it extends to "and the church leaders know God's will. Period."
There is precedent for dissenters in the church recognizing the need for change before the leaders get there, so it's problematic to assume that a dissenter is arguing against God's will. When God willed the church to change its racist priesthood restrictions, were the dissenters calling for this change arguing against God's will? Do you really believe that God's will was for the policy to last exactly as long as it lasted, and that timing wasn't influenced by anyone in the ranks pointing out a problem?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The church doesn't really have internal politics like most organizations do.
I think any close observation of the LDS church would show that this is not the case. It is very political.
I don't think you could actually closely observe the LDS church without being a member, Tom, so pardon me if I completely dismiss your opinion.
Boris, please be sure to bear that in mind when you make an observation about any other group of people on Earth, particularly a religion.
Or women. (That was a little snarky. But on point.)
Came back because I knew this was going to happen. I will absolutely refrain from suggesting that because I have "closely observed" another religion or race or gender that I have greater knowledge of the inner workings of that religion/race/gender than someone who belongs to that religion/race/gender. Do you see why I said that, now? I probably should have been more clear, but I needed to get back to work.
Unrelated, but is it a bad sign that i had to type this right handed because my left hand won't stop shaking?
ETA: I should clarify my statement about politics in the church. The important part of my statement was the word "like." By which I mean "Similar to" or "the same as". There is politics in the church, but it is very different from any other organization that I am aware of. We don't do things democratically. When someone is called to an office, either everyone accepts that calling, or the people who state that they don't approve of it are asked why (in private) and if their reasoning is sufficient that the person called is not worthy to fulfill the demands of that calling (due to some reason known only by the opposing individual) then the calling is rescinded. This rarely happens, and "I don't like them very much" is not sufficient reason to rescind a calling.
As for whether the priesthood determines who has power or authority in the church, I'll just defer to Joseph Smith:
quote: We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood , only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
The priesthood does not determine a person's level of power or political influence. If a person uses a priesthood office to claim such, they are abusing their position, and it is something the church *does* struggle with. But no, having the priesthood, at the very least, shouldn't determine someone's value in the church. That people often think it does is one of the major problems with the social aspect of the church.
quote: Do you really believe that God's will was for the policy to last exactly as long as it lasted, and that timing wasn't influenced by anyone in the ranks pointing out a problem?
Do you have any evidence that it was? I mean, I believe that the prophet and apostles are responsible for and have the ability to receive direct revelation from God on matters that affect the church as a whole. If I believe that then I should logically believe that the timing of that revelation was according to God's will. Also, members recognizing a need for change before the leaders make the change can happen, but they aren't really supposed to engage in a media blitz attacking the leaders of the church for not changing things. And also, there is significantly *more* precedent for the leaders of the church changing things well before the members recognize the need for such changes (See also: Polygamy, Word of Wisdom, moving to Utah, and a pretty long list of things).
Sorry for the additional edits. My hand just stopped shaking, so I can type now. (Seriously only started shaking when I tried to type with it. So annoying.)
[ June 25, 2014, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Some pretty simple questions:
1. What are all the positions within the Mormon church that you cannot hold without being a man?
2. From the leader of the church downward, what is the absolute highest position of authority a woman can hold in the Mormon church?
3. Given the answers to #1 and #2, what is the Mormon church's answer to the charge that it is a fundamentally sexist organization? I'm sure it exists, I'm just curious about how they would possibly try to spin an answer to that one.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't think the church would deny that it's sexist in the strict sense that it definitely believes in and practices discrimination on the basis of sex; it's just that they believe their patterns for doing so reflect a divine order.
quote:I don't think the church would deny that it's sexist
I will guarantee you it will deny the concept wholeheartedly. Said Divine order somehow makes it ... not sexist somehow.
This has borne true when it's come to church PR, always, even holding the most obviously male supremacist ideas and policies (see: 'men are the head of the household and it is a woman's place to obey him'), they have reliably in all circumstances denied that the organization is sexist or male supremacist even when it is, in all reasonable readings, sexist and male supremacist.
I'm just interested in what particular ways the Mormon church in particular spins its own excuse.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Some pretty simple questions:
1. What are all the positions within the Mormon church that you cannot hold without being a man?
2. From the leader of the church downward, what is the absolute highest position of authority a woman can hold in the Mormon church?
3. Given the answers to #1 and #2, what is the Mormon church's answer to the charge that it is a fundamentally sexist organization? I'm sure it exists, I'm just curious about how they would possibly try to spin an answer to that one.
1. The Prophet's Wife 2. The Prophet's Wife 3. Have you considered that God might not be as concerned about how men and women being assigned different roles and responsibilities might appear as you are? You know, assuming he exists. Which is where the issue lies.
If you do not belief that God exists, for what reason should I be asked to justify the practices of an organization that is grounded in the belief that there is a God? And for what reason should I ignore the leaders of that organization, which I do belong to, in deference to you? Why, exactly, do you act as though the church should be trying to win your approval?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Political power? The church doesn't really have internal politics like most organizations do.
: raises eyebrow :
I am incredibly skeptical of this claim.
I think what Boris is saying is not that the LDS church has no internal politics whatsoever. But that it is almost impossible to put it on the same pedestal as say an investment bank.
The men who lead the church were *generally* at one time asked to be bishops, then stake presidents, and then members of the seventy.
But almost nobody in the church aspires to be a bishop and work their way up. If you said, "I want to be a general authority in the church" most people would frown and say that's not a very good goal, and that you should aspire to be whatever God calls you to be. The leaders of the church are reverenced by virtue of their offices not because they setup cults of personality. If say Boyd K Packer just up and left the church (he's next in line to be prophet) people would be shocked, but I'd be very surprised of more than a handful of members left the church as well.
To be a leader in the church is to spend increasingly more of your time in the service of others. That sort of lifestyle drastically cuts down on the sorts of people who would aspire to that.
But of course politics still happen, because people are people. My grandfather was carefully managed out of BYU by a general authority because this particular leader didn't like the things my grandfather was saying. But I would be very surprised if you could find many instances of somebody in church leadership say a bishop writing letters about the Stake President trying to get him released so he could fill that position. Honestly.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I don't think the church would deny that it's sexist
I will guarantee you it will deny the concept wholeheartedly. Said Divine order somehow makes it ... not sexist somehow.
This has borne true when it's come to church PR, always, even holding the most obviously male supremacist ideas and policies (see: 'men are the head of the household and it is a woman's place to obey him'), they have reliably in all circumstances denied that the organization is sexist or male supremacist even when it is, in all reasonable readings, sexist and male supremacist.
I'm just interested in what particular ways the Mormon church in particular spins its own excuse.
They'd probably demur at the term, yes, but my point is that they openly discriminate on the basis of sex, and as to the spin, the two documents I mentioned are pretty much how they address the topic.
The official church websites seem to completely lack any official response to the question of "is the church sexist". I'm relatively certain that if it came up at a press conference or in some other confrontation, the answer would be to repeat the talking points I mentioned, not to provide a simple yes or no answer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: If you do not belief that God exists, for what reason should I be asked to justify the practices of an organization that is grounded in the belief that there is a God?
Can you think of some answers to this question for yourself? I assure you, they're rather easy to come by, even if I'm curious how you would answer that question.
As for the questions I posed, I think you possibly only answered one of them, #2. You completely did not answer 1 and 3. What powers does the Prophet's wife have within the structure of the Mormon church? Does the Mormon church rank the wife of the prophet as the #2 most powerful person within the Mormon church's heirarchy? If no, what other positions are more powerful than her?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:But of course politics still happen, because people are people. My grandfather was carefully managed out of BYU by a general authority because this particular leader didn't like the things my grandfather was saying. But I would be very surprised if you could find many instances of somebody in church leadership say a bishop writing letters about the Stake President trying to get him released so he could fill that position. Honestly.
Hmm, but in office politics you don't write letters to the VP trying to get your director fired so you can fill that position. You might write the letter, but you couch it differently. I'm certain that there are lots of examples of going over a mid-level leader's head with concerns in the LDS church.
I'm certain there are ladder climbers. They are smart enough not to be openly ambitious about it.
But aside from that specific kind of ladder climbing, there are things like the timing of the 1978 revelation on the priesthood - there was some political maneuvering involved in that. There are efforts to protect or polish the public image of the leaders. Etc.
What Boris was trying to express, frankly, was reverence for the unique humility of the church leaders.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
How quickly would church doctrine change if all women decided they no longer wished to be in it as it is and refused to marry Mormon men? I suspect a revelation would come quite quickly then.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: If you do not belief that God exists, for what reason should I be asked to justify the practices of an organization that is grounded in the belief that there is a God? And for what reason should I ignore the leaders of that organization, which I do belong to, in deference to you? Why, exactly, do you act as though the church should be trying to win your approval?
Thesame reason any organization,religious or otherwise, has for justifying objectionable practices. Muslims don't get pass because they believe something is God's will. I don't expect Catholics should either. No one is demanding that you stop listening to your leaders merely suggesting that you listen critically. If that. Some of us are just expressing opinions.
[ June 25, 2014, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't think you could actually closely observe the LDS church without being a member, Tom, so pardon me if I completely dismiss your opinion.
I'm skipping everything else to address this - I've never been a member, but I've lived in Utah for 20+ years and am married to a member. I've spent the bulk of my adult life in and around the church. I have *worked for the church* in the Riverton office building, complete with enjoying a prayer at the beginning of each daily standup meetings on a team of engineers (yes, really) that make small-talk throughout the day about their favorite prophets and scriptures (yes, really).
Of course there is politics. Lots of politics. Any organization with a hierarchy of responsibilities and opportunities to gain and share esteem has politics and the church has it in spades. It's actually a little *worse* in this environment because you don't just have "work politics" stuff as an employee of the church, but you get something very similar down the ward/stake level, where people gain status through church callings in a structure that resembles a corporate one - except that in actual corporations you'll occasionally get a female manager with significant authority. It's office politics with your neighbors as coworkers.
[ June 25, 2014, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: How quickly would church doctrine change if all women decided they no longer wished to be in it as it is and refused to marry Mormon men? I suspect a revelation would come quite quickly then.
It likely would come along fairly quickly. I'd have to go digging for sources, but I recall the issue of polygamy was discussed by the then-prophet as being a situation that meant choosing between honoring a commandment and having the church be eliminated and then - surprise - new revelation. Similarly the revelation about blacks occurred soon after it was no longer socially acceptable for blacks to be discriminated against.
A previous prophet has already said that God could give the priesthood to women so anyone who now claims that a male-only priesthood is an eternal principle (and somehow more eternal than polygamy was) has some explaining to do.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: If you do not belief that God exists, for what reason should I be asked to justify the practices of an organization that is grounded in the belief that there is a God?
Can you think of some answers to this question for yourself? I assure you, they're rather easy to come by, even if I'm curious how you would answer that question.
As for the questions I posed, I think you possibly only answered one of them, #2. You completely did not answer 1 and 3. What powers does the Prophet's wife have within the structure of the Mormon church? Does the Mormon church rank the wife of the prophet as the #2 most powerful person within the Mormon church's heirarchy? If no, what other positions are more powerful than her?
The church doesn't view people as being *powerful* in respect to what they do in the church. Let's just start with that (perhaps if you'd actually read through all of my previous comments you would have noticed where I said that). And you know what? The prophet's wife had more say in him being prophet than the prophet himself. If she had said no when he was called to be an apostle, he never would have been an apostle, even if he wanted to. So she's not actually number 2. She's number 1, right next to the prophet. That's how it actually works in the church. Not everyone in the church realizes that, and almost no one outside of the church does.
As to my question to you about why you think the church should have your approval, you're gonna have to answer it for me. Because frankly, I don't ever give a crap about the beliefs of other religions. I rarely comment on discussions focused on other religions, because 1. I don't belong to those religions and don't presume to know enough about their beliefs to comment. 2. I don't think those religions are true, so my opinion about their practices is pretty biased anyway.
As to politics. You cannot advance in the church the way you advance in work, political office, or any other thing people outside the church are familiar with. A person doesn't have to be a bishop to be a stake president, nor do they have to be a stake president to be an area authority. If a stake president dies, moves away, or otherwise is no longer able to continue being Stake president, there is no one who is "next in line" to become the Stake President. His counselors take over his responsibilities for a period if he dies, but all other situations result in someone else being called to the position and there is absolutely nothing that a person can do to guarantee that they will be the next stake president. The church's leadership hierarchy is not something you can aspire and politic your way up.
As an example, my father is probably one of if not the most popular and well known men in the Stake where I grew up. He's been a bishop three times, was on the stake high council for a couple years, and was a councilor in the stake presidency for 4 or 5 years. He was released as bishop in January and called to be an adviser to the deacons (he teaches the priesthood class for the two 12-13 year old boys in his ward). He's happy as he can be with that.
Also, MattP, I can see how working in a paid administrative position in the church is political. But you were *hired* to fill that position and paid to do it. That's the part of the church that is political, because that actually is a work environment where accomplishments result in raises and stuff. And there are men and women in all kinds of positions at church headquarters. Having the priesthood doesn't enter into someone's ability to advance there. So, not exactly the best example of politics in the church.
And things can get political in wards and stakes, sure. But when they do, it's usually a sign that the leadership in that area isn't doing its job properly.
quote: Similarly the revelation about blacks occurred soon after it was no longer socially acceptable for blacks to be discriminated against
Yep...14 years after the civil rights act was signed sure counts as "soon."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If she had said no when he was called to be an apostle, he never would have been an apostle, even if he wanted to. So she's not actually number 2. She's number 1, right next to the prophet.
I would argue that the ability to prevent someone from holding high office does not in fact mean that you have as much power as the person in high office.
quote:there is absolutely nothing that a person can do to guarantee that they will be the next stake president
Have you never actually observed the culture of which you are a part? Let's make this less personal for you, to hopefully help with perspective: do you believe that there are no politics involved in the administration of the Catholic church?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The church doesn't view people as being *powerful* in respect to what they do in the church. Let's just start with that (perhaps if you'd actually read through all of my previous comments you would have noticed where I said that). And you know what? The prophet's wife had more say in him being prophet than the prophet himself. If she had said no when he was called to be an apostle, he never would have been an apostle, even if he wanted to. So she's not actually number 2. She's number 1, right next to the prophet. That's how it actually works in the church. Not everyone in the church realizes that, and almost no one outside of the church does.
So you are going to go on record saying that the wife of the prophet is exactly as powerful and important to the church as the leader of the church himself? That she is of equal clerical, fiscal, ritual, and decision-making authority in the Church of the Latter Day Saints?
quote:As to my question to you about why you think the church should have your approval, you're gonna have to answer it for me. Because frankly, I don't ever give a crap about the beliefs of other religions.
That's irrelevant to the question. No other religion has to come into play. You honestly can't, even if you could sit down and think about it, come up with any reason, no matter how hypothetical, figure out a reason, any reason at all, why a person who happens not to believe that a God exists would want someone to justify actions that a religious organization takes, no matter whether the justification is that it's God's will? Would you confirm that this is, actually not something you CAN conceive of?
quote:The church's leadership hierarchy is not something you can aspire and politic your way up.
I would bet any and all money I have that this is not true, because it seems like a completely impossible bet to lose. Given the universals of all hierarchical human power models and structures, it's impossible to expect that it is perfectly proof and immune from politicking your way up the chain. You yourself even acknowledge this, by recognizing the existence of such politics in some wards and stakes. Are you so positive it ends in those regional areas, completely, without a hint of politics higher up the chain? Either way, you've just acknowledged a regional fast-track in local areas and, by extension, conclusive evidence that the system is not immune to politics, not proof from people aspirationally fast-tracking themselves.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: 2. The Prophet's Wife
Really? Really? When was the last time the prophet's wife received revelation for the Church, or issues a statement to be read over the pulpit in all the wards of the Church, or spoke in conference, or, frankly, did anything besides simply being married to the prophet?
The real highest position that a woman can attain in the Church is the general Relief Society president. And if you think that position has a lot of authority, I suggest you read this.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If she had said no when he was called to be an apostle, he never would have been an apostle, even if he wanted to. So she's not actually number 2. She's number 1, right next to the prophet.
I would argue that the ability to prevent someone from holding high office does not in fact mean that you have as much power as the person in high office.
quote:there is absolutely nothing that a person can do to guarantee that they will be the next stake president
Have you never actually observed the culture of which you are a part? Let's make this less personal for you, to hopefully help with perspective: do you believe that there are no politics involved in the administration of the Catholic church?
Have you considered that what you have observed isn't a complete view of the church, Tom? Have you considered that you might be wrong in the interpretation of your observations?
Moreover, did you not notice that I tried to clarify that I wasn't saying the church doesn't have politics *at all*, but that the politics in the church are very very different from what you may be familiar with? How about you go back and read *the entirety of what I have written so far*. Politics in the church doesn't lead to advancement in the church. In fact, there isn't really a way to "advance" in the church. The leadership is hierarchical, but one's position in that hierarchy is not determined by what positions you've held before. Nor is any position considered to be more functionally "important" than any other.
The person who writes up the Ward Bulletin every Sunday is just as necessary as the Bishop. All the positions of the church involve work that has to be done by someone. The men are tasked with fulfilling specific leadership roles because those roles are particularly time consuming, and since the church views motherhood to be more important than any position in the church, men are tasked with fulfilling those roles.
And since someone mentioned it, I would *absolutely* trade places with any woman in the church if I could. Do you realize just how much of a pain in the butt most Priesthood leadership positions are? The roles of every one of the leadership positions exclusive to men are, for the most part, the really annoying and tedious aspects of organizational administration. Bishops primarily get to listen to people complain about other members. They get to do such lofty things as...figure out who is going to speak in sacrament meeting. And they get to spend almost all of their free time in meetings. And one of the really fun things you get to do as a priesthood holder in the church? Help people move. Every...Single...Saturday. (I am grateful that my health now forbids me from helping people move large objects).
Regarding politics in the Catholic Church...I have no knowledge whatsoever of how the Catholic church operates beyond what I've seen on TV or learned in history classes. I am not in a position to comment on politics there, nor do I feel the need to do so. I'm not Catholic. It doesn't concern me.
Are there people who view callings in the LDS church as determinants of social standing? Sure there are. But those people are completely missing the point and have a lot to learn about the priesthood.
And now I've officially spent almost 8 hours typing stuff on Hatrack today. Because I obsess too much over this crap. So I'm going to stop now. Really.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Politics in the church doesn't lead to advancement in the church.
Which is, of course, why the Prophet is always chosen from among men who've never held any positions in church leadership, typically men of average income and widely varied geographical backgrounds.
Like I said, how do you feel about how the Pope is chosen? Is that political? (Do you know how the Pope is chosen? If not, let me know.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Without the idea that there can be no useful comment about people or groups outside of your own religion, Boris, I would be interested in what you had to say about Jon Boy's link.
---------
I do sympathize with the position those currently defending the Mormon church against charges of sexism have to take. It is an enormous handicap in any sort of dispute, and frankly if we put the question up to someone completely foreign to both sides and asked if women had as much power or even nearly as much power within the Mormon church as men do, I think we all can admit that the answer would be obvious and wouldn't take long to hear either.
God, Jesus, almost all figures in the Old and New Testament of any significance at all, the first Prophet in the latter days, all of the succeeding Prophets, every member that has ever been in all of the Quorums, all of these have been male. Not only have they all been men, but up until very recently the very thought that this might be a question worth considering never even occurred to anyone-or at least not to anyone who felt secure in asking. There have been some legitimate arguments striving to address this reality, but from my perspective they have all been dubious at best.
The two best arguments suggested have been along the lines of 'someone has to lead, but this does not mean they have the most power' and 'women have roles than men cannot ever fill either, and these are just as important and powerful'. If someone feels this is an unfair restatement, I'd be happy to hear how. The trouble with the first is that if we were looking at any other institution, anything we weren't already invested in, 'who has the most power' is almost invariably answered with 'the leader'. When it's not the leader, we have special phrases like 'power behind the throne' and such. The trouble with the second is that it is essentially unprovable, but insofar as it can be demonstrated, this power women have has very little bearing on how the church is run on Earth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And since someone mentioned it, I would *absolutely* trade places with any woman in the church if I could. Do you realize just how much of a pain in the butt most Priesthood leadership positions are? The roles of every one of the leadership positions exclusive to men are, for the most part, the really annoying and tedious aspects of organizational administration. Bishops primarily get to listen to people complain about other members. They get to do such lofty things as...figure out who is going to speak in sacrament meeting. And they get to spend almost all of their free time in meetings. And one of the really fun things you get to do as a priesthood holder in the church? Help people move. Every...Single...Saturday. (I am grateful that my health now forbids me from helping people move large objects).
You've just listed some of the ground-level tasks of leadership, and described how they don't factor for female roles in the church.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So you are going to go on record saying that the wife of the prophet is exactly as powerful and important to the church as the leader of the church himself? That she is of equal clerical, fiscal, ritual, and decision-making authority in the Church of the Latter Day Saints?
What, exactly, do you think the Prophet does, Sam? I will tell you that he does not make unilateral decisions. The things the prophet does are not the same as the leaders of other large religious organizations. He does not fill the same role as the Pope. Nor does he have anything resembling what you would consider "power." He is a speaker. He works with the other apostles to make decisions. The way he acts, works, and thinks is very heavily influenced by the relationship he has with his wife. I haven't ever sat in on a conversation that the current prophet has had with his wife, but very very much of the early development of the church was a result of Emma Smith's influence.
quote:That's irrelevant to the question. No other religion has to come into play. You honestly can't, even if you could sit down and think about it, come up with any reason, no matter how hypothetical, figure out a reason, any reason at all, why a person who happens not to believe that a God exists would want someone to justify actions that a religious organization takes, no matter whether the justification is that it's God's will? Would you confirm that this is, actually not something you CAN conceive of?
Well, yeah. I can come up with reasons. Like you're a narcissist who thinks his beliefs and opinions are more important and correct than any other and if everyone believed like you do the world would be a better place. This, of course, makes you no better at all than the religious zealots you hate so much. But I choose not to just assume the worst of people. Except with Tom, cause he keeps proving the worst things I can think about him aren't quite bad enough.
quote:The church's leadership hierarchy is not something you can aspire and politic your way up.
I would bet any and all money I have that this is not true, because it seems like a completely impossible bet to lose. Given the universals of all hierarchical human power models and structures, it's impossible to expect that it is perfectly proof and immune from politicking your way up the chain. You yourself even acknowledge this, by recognizing the existence of such politics in some wards and stakes.[/QUOTE]
I recognize that people who aspire to become leaders in the church occasionally do, but it isn't common for those people to go much higher than bishop. Why? Because the people who decide who is going to be a Stake President generally have very little interaction with the people at the stake level, and no amount of politicking can help you get a position when the person who makes decisions on who fills that position has never even met you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And since someone mentioned it, I would *absolutely* trade places with any woman in the church if I could. Do you realize just how much of a pain in the butt most Priesthood leadership positions are? The roles of every one of the leadership positions exclusive to men are, for the most part, the really annoying and tedious aspects of organizational administration. Bishops primarily get to listen to people complain about other members. They get to do such lofty things as...figure out who is going to speak in sacrament meeting. And they get to spend almost all of their free time in meetings. And one of the really fun things you get to do as a priesthood holder in the church? Help people move. Every...Single...Saturday. (I am grateful that my health now forbids me from helping people move large objects).
This makes a case for overt sexism of LDS policy better than any outsider could ever make. It essentially boils down to "Boy, being allowed to be in a position of leadership on account of my being a man sure is tedious sometimes, so I envy women who don't get the choice to hold those positions of leadership because we forbid them to have these positions."
This is paternalistic to the extreme. As in, it is hard to conceive a more straightforwardly textbook case involving gender.
Of course, given some of the things that Boris' statements apply categorically to the LDS (such as the wife of the prophet being an equally powerful head of the Mormon church) would be almost certainly vigorously and openly disagreed with by the church itself. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What, exactly, do you think the Prophet does, Sam? I will tell you that he does not make unilateral decisions. The things the prophet does are not the same as the leaders of other large religious organizations. He does not fill the same role as the Pope. Nor does he have anything resembling what you would consider "power." He is a speaker. He works with the other apostles to make decisions. The way he acts, works, and thinks is very heavily influenced by the relationship he has with his wife. I haven't ever sat in on a conversation that the current prophet has had with his wife, but very very much of the early development of the church was a result of Emma Smith's influence.
So what is your answer to my question?
quote:Well, yeah. I can come up with reasons. Like you're a narcissist who thinks his beliefs and opinions are more important and correct than any other and if everyone believed like you do the world would be a better place. This, of course, makes you no better at all than the religious zealots you hate so much. But I choose not to just assume the worst of people. Except with Tom, cause he keeps proving the worst things I can think about him aren't quite bad enough.
That's not exactly square with what I'm talking about. Here's a pretty straightforward example: Let's say you have a religious organization which specifically prohibits blacks from being ordained or holding the priesthood, but whites are allowed to. It is established policy. The church leaders of the time insist that this is Godly policy, the rules of God.
Let's say you have a black person, who happens to be an atheist. He could be (very rightly) concerned about a large sociopolitical entity that has a significant amount of social influence and political influence that is, essentially, completely racist and treats blacks as inferior. Let's say this particular black atheist approaches the issue with concern (that I would consider very rightful concern) — and someone who is part of the church (within the privileged race allowed the Priesthood, natch) responds to him with the same boilerplate standard, "you don't even believe in God. For what reason do I have to justify our organization's policies to you?"
This person would want a church to justify discriminatory policies. This is, or should be, an idea that needs no explanation. If it couldn't, this impacts a number of things. Least of all the issue of how persuasive (or actively not persuasive) the church's message that it is the one true church and that he should join it and that they have a true understanding of our kind and loving God. More important to that, there's just the issue of plain dag-nasty discrimination. "Yeah, well you don't even believe in God, and God says this" doesn't go very far.
A church that can't justify itself to the populace at large is not long for the world scale. For instance, if the Mormon church hadn't actively done something to provide a justification for its policies (in large part by changing them) it would be but a whisper of a thing now.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Politics in the church doesn't lead to advancement in the church.
Which is, of course, why the Prophet is always chosen from among men who've never held any positions in church leadership, typically men of average income and widely varied geographical backgrounds.
Yay sarcasm!
And oh look, one of the apostles is from Germany! The last prophet made an average wage his whole life! Oh yeah! It's almost impossible to go your entire life as a member of the church without holding a position of leadership if you're a man! So absolutely the prophet will be chosen from all of the zero men who haven't held a leadership position in the church before! Hurray! (am I doing this sarcastic douchebag thing right?)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The last prophet made an average wage his whole life!
Which prophet in specific are you speaking of?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:And since someone mentioned it, I would *absolutely* trade places with any woman in the church if I could. Do you realize just how much of a pain in the butt most Priesthood leadership positions are? The roles of every one of the leadership positions exclusive to men are, for the most part, the really annoying and tedious aspects of organizational administration. Bishops primarily get to listen to people complain about other members. They get to do such lofty things as...figure out who is going to speak in sacrament meeting. And they get to spend almost all of their free time in meetings. And one of the really fun things you get to do as a priesthood holder in the church? Help people move. Every...Single...Saturday. (I am grateful that my health now forbids me from helping people move large objects).
This makes a case for overt sexism of LDS policy better than any outsider could ever make. It essentially boils down to "Boy, being allowed to be in a position of leadership on account of my being a man sure is tedious sometimes, so I envy women who don't get the choice to hold those positions of leadership because we forbid them to have these positions."
This is paternalistic to the extreme. As in, it is hard to conceive a more straightforwardly textbook case involving gender.
Of course, given some of the things that Boris' statements apply categorically to the LDS (such as the wife of the prophet being an equally powerful head of the Mormon church) would be almost certainly vigorously and openly disagreed with by the church itself.
Oh gosh! You got me! I'm a mysogynist! I better go shoot myself now! Wait, is there a some altar of feminism I can pray at to absolve myself of my paternalistic tendencies? Oh wait, maybe I should go get my privilege jacket and take my appropriate place in the "I have a penis so I should just shut up" line. (Not sure I'm doing this right. That's how you're supposed to make a point, right?)
Is it really so hard for you to accept the possibility that maybe women make better mothers than men, and that being a mother is a lot more important than anything anyone does in the church? That maybe the church just wants women to use the talents they have developed as a result of nature or social upbringing to care for the future of the human race? That because men cannot physically be a mother and have the same kind of bond with their children that a mother develops during and immediately after pregnancy it is better for them to focus on the more menial parts of church leadership? Oh wait, no, some college professor said that women should be able to do what they want. That's obviously the way things should be. Let's just make sure all the women in the world are more focused on their careers while the men do the same and that way all the kids can be raised by televisions and iPads!
And with that explosion of sarcasm, rant, and pent up frustration, I'm out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Boris, you are falling into your repeated personal trap of getting angry and jumping hypocritically from lambasting others for perceived rudeness and disrespect, and then being actively the rudest, angriest and most disrespectful person in the conversation.
I invite you to take another opportunity to deal with me on the level. So far, with the help of some others, I've figured out the actual answers to two of my questions (which you got fairly wrong, by the way). I had to do this through an issue where, if I'm asking you a question, I don't quite really get an answer from you.
So, here's where we're at.
As expected, women can't have leadership roles in the church, even if they want to. Even if they have no interest in rearing children (and it should be noted that specifically prohibiting specific life options and the opportunity to engage in leadership roles in order to try to force women into accepting a position of motherhood is quite well and above the standard for blatant and insidious sexism).
1. Only males are ordained to the lay priesthood and have ritual and administrative authority in the Church.
2. Women are excluded from almost all positions of clerical, fiscal, ritual, and decision-making authority.
3. The real highest position that a woman can attain in the Church is the general Relief Society president. (thank you jon)
so that brings us back to the last point. How does the LDS church, according to you, justify these policies as non-sexist? How is this okay?
quote:That because men cannot physically be a mother and have the same kind of bond with their children that a mother develops during and immediately after pregnancy it is better for them to focus on the more menial parts of church leadership?
We have a number of conclusive studies that show that this is a complete biologically deterministic fiction. Men are just as capable rearers of children as women; there's no special measurable quality of female nurturing that makes them the requisite better stay-at-home childrearer. If this is the basis by which it is decreed that the church must forbid the priesthood from women (to keep them raising babies like they ought), it is an extremely flimsy basis indeed. It is also disturbingly familiar to previous racial pretexts about why whites were to have and keep positions of power, but that's mostly an aside. It also necessarily requires the assertion that men are better leaders, which is also profoundly sexist. So — the sexist nature of what you are describing the church as is set up, so we have to come down to justifications.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The real highest position that a woman can attain in the Church is the general Relief Society president. (thank you jon)
It's worth noting that even the woman in this position only has authority over other women.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boris, you know for all of your complaining about the sarcasm, snark, and disrespect of others, no one else said anything directly or indirectly nearly as disrespectful and rude as 'douchebag'.
People are allowed to challenge your beliefs. Whether you adhere to this iteration of 'I'm out, or not talking to you!' or not, not only would you be better off if you realized that, but nobody here or anywhere owes you the sort of respect you appear to demand. That of the unquestioning acceptance and refrain from posing any difficult questions you don't want to hear, ever.
If you don't like what someone has to say, well then that's fine! I don't like things people say all the time. I'm not a victim of their unwelcome ideas, though, and neither are you. This snark-policing you (claim to be) do is really just a way of trying to take control of the conversation, and keep out unwelcome ideas whether you realize it or not.
You don't have any sort of right at all not to hear an unwelcome idea, and people who express them to or around you aren't victimizing you in the least. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:And since someone mentioned it, I would *absolutely* trade places with any woman in the church if I could. Do you realize just how much of a pain in the butt most Priesthood leadership positions are? The roles of every one of the leadership positions exclusive to men are, for the most part, the really annoying and tedious aspects of organizational administration.
This makes a case for overt sexism of LDS policy better than any outsider could ever make. It essentially boils down to "Boy, being allowed to be in a position of leadership on account of my being a man sure is tedious sometimes, so I envy women who don't get the choice to hold those positions of leadership because we forbid them to have these positions."
Well, yeah. No one really says stuff like that it's really tough being a white person in charge and that it's actually better to be a coloured person because being in leadership is so tedious and such a burden. It's just this strange context in which it's even remotely acceptable to say about women somehow.
Or if someone from Denmark asked you what was the highest office that a woman had reached in the US government and you were all like, "the President's wife." I bet that would get you a double-take.
Or if I said that my local member of parliament said that he got into government not because he wanted power, but because he really wanted to serve the people and *I believed him.*
Well.
You'd be trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think an important distinction needs to be made that hasn't been.
Women in the church exercise the priesthood, full stop. Not through their husbands, not in rare circumstances. Literally there are women exercising the priesthood during all hours of the day in the temple.
I think Elder Oaks made this point very clear during the most recent general conference,
quote:Priesthood keys direct women as well as men, and priesthood ordinances and priesthood authority pertain to women as well as men.
quote:We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.
Unfortunately as Elder Oaks notes members of the church often don't understand the distinction, and so often inaccurately state that women cannot hold the priesthood. What the members of Ordain Women want is for women to be granted priesthood keys that will enable them to perform additional ordinances (such as baptizing, laying on of hands) as well as well as the keys that allow individuals to govern the church.
But the idea that men have and dispense the power of God, and women must go through that conduit is not a correct one.
Going a bit beyond established doctrine and into opinion-ville, I think women used to have more latitude for exercising priesthood authority and keys in the days of Joseph Smith. There are several instances of women administering to the sick and laying on hands and the sick recovering. In one of these instances Joseph Smith explicitly stated that if it was working, then God must be behind it. Much like the apostles coming to Jesus to complain that a man who was not of their faith was casting out devils. Jesus' response was basically identical.
Early women in the church (I can't find the essay that details this) also practiced an ordinance whereby women soon to have babies were blessed by anointing with oil by other sisters and prayed for that the labor would go well and that the woman would be blessed in motherhood.
The Relief Society was originally an independent organization, run entirely by women. It was later that it was pulled in as an appendage to the priesthood.
It appears that when Brigham Young hauled the saints to Utah, in his efforts to consolidate our doctrine and hold the church together, women's roles in the church were greatly diminished. But at the same time, in Joseph Smith's day doctrine was so, so, so, so unestablished and unorganized. This lead to mass apostasy because people did not have the same understanding. But one of the benefits was that people were open minded. Today in the church we still struggle to fully grasp how it is the church in all its fluidity could be true in Smith's day, and in its' more rigid state today also be true.
We'll figure it out.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Is it possible that people like Ms. Kelly are at least part of how you will figure it out? I know that the work of people like Fr. Roy are how we figure it out.
(For those of you who are unfamiliar with Fr. Roy Bourgeois, he is a wonderful priest who has spent his whole life working for peace and justice. He is the founder of SOA Watch. He has recently been excommunicated and laicized because he has will not recant his belief and public statements that support the ordination of women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bourgeois )
My interest in this topic is not to bash your religion, Boris. It is because it so closely parallels the struggles of my own Church.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Even since the days of Brigham Young there has been what has been called "Priesthood Creep." There are a number of callings that women used to hold that have now been brought in under the umbrella of Priesthood only callings (i.e. some Secretarial callings. Though none of them were high leadership callings). These things happened as late as the 60's and 70's if my history is correct. As to why? Well I only have theories that I just made up and I don't think I'd be willing to share them here.
I think there is a large and growing number of people in the church that are adopting a view similar to kmb's view on the Catholic church. Something along the lines of, "Yes, there are some problems in the church structure that hurt people even if I (man or women) am not one of those people and we need to make efforts to fix it."
The top leadership has also been clear that they are having many discussions with women in leadership roles to figure out what to change and how to improve. So while at the moment they don't seem to be moving on the Priesthood issue they are moving to improve what they can up to that point. I guess what I'm saying is that while I appreciate Boris going to bat and taking the time to defend the LDS church, I think that a little introspection and acceptance that there is work to do can go a long way.
As for Kate Kelly. If you ask one of her supporters, she got excommunicated because she simply asked questions. If you ask someone on the other side, it's because she organized a public and political activist group to attempt to mock and pressure the LDS church to do what she wanted to do. Other's is because she openly disobeyed counsel from the leadership at all levels (from her local leadership to the top of the church).
I'm personally not really sure what to think of it and I'm not willing to go to bat either way. If anyone is interested I think these two blogs would have a range of posts on the subject that might be helpful. They both average moderate liberal leaning (at least on the spectrum of the church) but they also have a wide range between each individual blogger.
The blogs are about all sorts of things, not just the Ordain Women and feminism so you'll have to pick and choose.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Also, in the church there's a fine line to walk between making changes through revelation and making changes as a result of cultural pressure. The tough part about separating the two is that it is pretty clear in our history and scripture that most revelations aren't initiated by God. They are initiated by the prophet going to God and asking. He seems to be pretty content to let us figure things out until someone decides "Hey we need to fix/change this."
That is where you get things like Ordain Women saying we want you to ask. Although it has been made clear that activism and open recruitment to your cause is not the way the church wants you to go about asking. As to what the alternative way is aside from bringing questions to your local leaders? I don't know. But anyways, there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting and believing women should have the priesthood.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Is it possible that people like Ms. Kelly are at least part of how you will figure it out?
Personally, I think so. Or at least she'll pull the spectrum of cultural views in the direction we need to figure it out, even if the end result isn't exactly what she's gunning for.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Other's is because she openly disobeyed counsel from the leadership at all levels (from her local leadership to the top of the church).
Tangent, but I find this use of the word "counsel" weird. I only hear it in Mormon and conservative evangelical circles. "Counsel" is advice. It's something you listen to, consider, maybe follow, but not obey or disobey.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Other's is because she openly disobeyed counsel from the leadership at all levels (from her local leadership to the top of the church).
Tangent, but I find this use of the word "counsel" weird. I only hear it in Mormon and conservative evangelical circles. "Counsel" is advice. It's something you listen to, consider, maybe follow, but not obey or disobey.
Your operational definition is different from they way it is used in Mormon and conservative circles. This happens all the time. In fact, a lot of the debates on this forum is because people are using different operational definitions and aren't realizing it or they are debating what the "true" definition should be. Appeals to the dictionary don't usually work to sway anyone either.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Other's is because she openly disobeyed counsel from the leadership at all levels (from her local leadership to the top of the church).
Tangent, but I find this use of the word "counsel" weird. I only hear it in Mormon and conservative evangelical circles. "Counsel" is advice. It's something you listen to, consider, maybe follow, but not obey or disobey.
Your operational definition is different from they way it is used in Mormon and conservative circles. This happens all the time. In fact, a lot of the debates on this forum is because people are using different operational definitions and aren't realizing it or they are debating what the "true" definition should be. Appeals to the dictionary don't usually work to sway anyone either.
I find this is often true with the word "religion." I've brought it up in a few different threads, but the discussion never gets anywhere.
Counsel isn't some official term in the church, so there's no set meaning, although it's fairly well understood what's meant by it. When you receive counsel from a church leader, he or she is basically relating what would be the proper actions to take from a church standpoint, although there is also the concept of "counsel together," which would mean more of a prayerful and thoughtful discussion on a given topic of importance, with the expectation that in doing so, you will have some inspiration helping you find the right solution.
If you skew negative toward the LDS church then this term will always sound ominous; however, I'd say it's a pretty benign concept for most church members.
[ June 26, 2014, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Unless you disobey orders/counsel like Ms. Kelly it seems.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Or if you change what I just said into "orders." I'm curious what you think the conversations Ms. Kelly had with her local church leaders went like.
Counsel in this sense would be like, "Here's what's likely to happen if you do this," with an explanation of church policy and probably an urging not to do certain things. She was still free to do what she wanted, but through the course of meetings with her bishop and/or stake president she would have been fully aware of the consequences regarding her church standing.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
According to Kelly she's had very no communication from her local leaders until the disciplinary stuff started, despite her proactively keeping those leaders updated about her OW activities on multiple occasions. Is there now a specific assertion to the contrary?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
If she hasn't, then either she wasn't agreeing to meet with them at their request or they didn't handle it very well. Or both. I would think with a situation like this, normally there would be multiple interviews before any official action was taken. A disciplinary council isn't held lightly.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: According to Kelly she's had very no communication from her local leaders until the disciplinary stuff started, despite her proactively keeping those leaders updated about her OW activities on multiple occasions. Is there now a specific assertion to the contrary?
Kelly's version of the meetings they had and what was said differs from the bishop's account in her excommunication letter. So believe what you will.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Or if you change what I just said into "orders." I'm curious what you think the conversations Ms. Kelly had with her local church leaders went like.
Counsel in this sense would be like, "Here's what's likely to happen if you do this," with an explanation of church policy and probably an urging not to do certain things.
And how does one "obey" or "disobey" that? That's what I mean by the word usage being odd. If it's not a command how can it be disobeyed?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
That's my point. It's not so much about obeying or disobeying, as it is about accepting or rejecting the counsel given to you. These aren't orders. I was objecting to Mucus' use of the word.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Women in the church exercise the priesthood, full stop. Not through their husbands, not in rare circumstances. Literally there are women exercising the priesthood during all hours of the day in the temple.
So they exercise the priesthood (in very specific, gender-limited ways) but they are not allowed to be part of the priesthood, and are not allowed into any leadership roles within the church.
What does the distinction that they exercise the priesthood add to the issue of the gender power divide in church teachings?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: That's my point. It's not so much about obeying or disobeying, as it is about accepting or rejecting the counsel given to you. These aren't orders. I was objecting to Mucus' use of the word.
So do you also object to stilesbn's use (or the people he was referencing, anyway)? Or to put that another way, what's your take on the idea that Kelly was excommunicated because she "disobeyed counsel" from church leaders? (On the meaning of the statement , I mean, not your judgement on her actions.)
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Women in the church exercise the priesthood, full stop. Not through their husbands, not in rare circumstances. Literally there are women exercising the priesthood during all hours of the day in the temple.
So they exercise the priesthood (in very specific, gender-limited ways) but they are not allowed to be part of the priesthood, and are not allowed into any leadership roles within the church.
What does the distinction that they exercise the priesthood add to the issue of the gender power divide in church teachings?
I included the quote by Dallin H. Oaks on the last page, and BB posted it above. It's worth reading. Women carry out their responsibilities in the church with the same priesthood authority that men do. They are as much a part of the priesthood as men.
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: That's my point. It's not so much about obeying or disobeying, as it is about accepting or rejecting the counsel given to you. These aren't orders. I was objecting to Mucus' use of the word.
So do you also object to stilesbn's use (or the people he was referencing, anyway)? Or to put that another way, what's your take on the idea that Kelly was excommunicated because she "disobeyed counsel" from church leaders? (On the meaning of the statement , I mean, not your judgement on her actions.)
I wouldn't have put it that way. I don't see it that way. I would object to the concept of obeying and disobeying as if orders were being thrown around.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Counsel in this sense would be like, "Here's what's likely to happen if you do this," with an explanation of church policy and probably an urging not to do certain things. She was still free to do what she wanted, but through the course of meetings with her bishop and/or stake president she would have been fully aware of the consequences regarding her church standing.
I realize it's an entrenched definition at this point, but I think the stumbling block for most uses of the words 'order' and 'counsel' for people without that definition would be something like this: you can counsel someone to do or not do something if there will be good or bad things likely to happen to them. If, however, it is you who will be doing those good or bad things (this is completely separate from questions of merit and fairness), well then how is it really 'counsel' and instead not simply an order or an ultimatum?
Even in the military, sure you have the option of disobeying an order. Likewise in prison. If the corrections officer 'counsels' you to keep your cell in a certain way, then I suppose if he wanted to feel like an especially progressive sort of guard he might call that counsel. Everyone he works with, the inmate included, would call it an order.
quote:That's my point. It's not so much about obeying or disobeying, as it is about accepting or rejecting the counsel given to you. These aren't orders. I was objecting to Mucus' use of the word.
For further clarification: if we use this definition of what an order is-when someone has the option to accept or reject it-then no orders are ever orders either. A soldier might disobey an order to stand in the face of an attack, and be summarily shot for it. He has the option to accept the order, or not, though the consequences are much more drastic* and immediate. A child may choose to disobey an order from their parents, and be grounded for a week.
If I were to use the same rubric you appear to be using to describe other behaviors, afr, I don't think you would hesitate to call those behaviors 'orders' and would raise an eyebrow if I were to call them 'counseling'. I think I'm applying the same standards right here in this post, and I would be surprised if you didn't dispute that orders in the military aren't actually 'counseling'.
*Although, if the religion is true, the consequences are potentially much more dire in the case of excommunication.
Now, all of that aside, none of this means that a group is bound not to give orders to avoid a show of force. Quite the contrary. But when there is force being used-spiritual and political force in this case-well, call it what it is. If the transgression is serious enough to warrant the use of force, then the case for doing so ought to be clear anyway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I included the quote by Dallin H. Oaks on the last page, and BB posted it above. It's worth reading. Women carry out their responsibilities in the church with the same priesthood authority that men do. They are as much a part of the priesthood as men.
Well, they aren't called priests or priestesses.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:So they exercise the priesthood (in very specific, gender-limited ways) but they are not allowed to be part of the priesthood, and are not allowed into any leadership roles within the church.
Most importantly, men in the CJCLDS have arrogated the unilateral authority to dictate God's judgments for His community.
She was excommunicated from her religious community by an all-male panel of "judges," who claim that male mouths are the only mouths with the authority to dictate God's judgments for His religion.
I tend to think that the blasphemous arrogance of the pretense that one person can speak to God's will for another person is the real problem, but the mormon authorities have certainly institutionalized sexism as a part of their blasphemy.
In any case, they may be sexist, but fortunately, they are also fairly forgiving. If she'll show true remorse for her lack of obedience to the men who claim to render God's judgments, and will shut her mouth about her real beliefs, they'll let her back into the full fellowship of her religious community...
[ June 26, 2014, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
No, women don't formally hold the priesthood and therefore are not ordained to offices in the priesthood, one of which is priest. Actually, "Priestess" does show up in some specific parts of church teachings and is a somewhat familiar concept.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I'm not sure what there is to argue about this counsel-order debate. It is what it is. I suspect it became that way because using the word "order" is harsh and Mormons don't want to be hard. So DKW says it is weird, the best I can do is shrug and say "yep". You have a good point, but changing cultural inertia isn't going to happen. If you think about it though, word definitions change all the time. The only difference here is that is changing in a cultural bubble that is somewhat separated from the rest of the world. Of course it is going to seem weird to someone looking in.
With that said, no one actually knows the reasons why Kate Kelly was ultimately excommunicated. That's not a matter of public record. We just have our best guesses based on what Kate Kelly has said, timeline, and generic church statements (which all come with the caveat that the church PR dept doesn't know the specifics of local disciplinary actions).
Personally I think that her disobeying orders/counsel wasn't the ultimate reason, perhaps it played a part the same way her not showing up to the hearing played a part, but it wasn't the reason. I mentioned it earlier because I have seen people say that was one of the reasons.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:With that said, no one actually knows the reasons why Kate Kelly was ultimately excommunicated. That's not a matter of public record.
Actually it is public. The letter explaining the excommunication was published (immediately). Are you following the news on this?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Counsel in this sense would be like, "Here's what's likely to happen if you do this," with an explanation of church policy and probably an urging not to do certain things. She was still free to do what she wanted, but through the course of meetings with her bishop and/or stake president she would have been fully aware of the consequences regarding her church standing.
I realize it's an entrenched definition at this point, but I think the stumbling block for most uses of the words 'order' and 'counsel' for people without that definition would be something like this: you can counsel someone to do or not do something if there will be good or bad things likely to happen to them. If, however, it is you who will be doing those good or bad things (this is completely separate from questions of merit and fairness), well then how is it really 'counsel' and instead not simply an order or an ultimatum?
Even in the military, sure you have the option of disobeying an order. Likewise in prison. If the corrections officer 'counsels' you to keep your cell in a certain way, then I suppose if he wanted to feel like an especially progressive sort of guard he might call that counsel. Everyone he works with, the inmate included, would call it an order.
quote:That's my point. It's not so much about obeying or disobeying, as it is about accepting or rejecting the counsel given to you. These aren't orders. I was objecting to Mucus' use of the word.
For further clarification: if we use this definition of what an order is-when someone has the option to accept or reject it-then no orders are ever orders either. A soldier might disobey an order to stand in the face of an attack, and be summarily shot for it. He has the option to accept the order, or not, though the consequences are much more drastic* and immediate. A child may choose to disobey an order from their parents, and be grounded for a week.
If I were to use the same rubric you appear to be using to describe other behaviors, afr, I don't think you would hesitate to call those behaviors 'orders' and would raise an eyebrow if I were to call them 'counseling'. I think I'm applying the same standards right here in this post, and I would be surprised if you didn't dispute that orders in the military aren't actually 'counseling'.
*Although, if the religion is true, the consequences are potentially much more dire in the case of excommunication.
Now, all of that aside, none of this means that a group is bound not to give orders to avoid a show of force. Quite the contrary. But when there is force being used-spiritual and political force in this case-well, call it what it is. If the transgression is serious enough to warrant the use of force, then the case for doing so ought to be clear anyway.
Well, whatever. I think you're trying to stuff what I just said into what you want it to mean. These aren't prison guards and they aren't military commanders. It's not a prison, nor it is the military. Members are not sworn to take orders, nor are they forced to do so. If you are approaching a cliff, the signs warning you that there is a cliff ahead are not necessarily giving you orders. Yet if you choose to ignore the signs' warnings, you will have to deal with the consequences.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:With that said, no one actually knows the reasons why Kate Kelly was ultimately excommunicated. That's not a matter of public record.
Actually it is public. The letter explaining the excommunication was published (immediately). Are you following the news on this?
I am and I read the letter, I didn't get the impression that it gave a concrete reason in the letter. I'll read it again more closely and perhaps update my statement.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The letter explaining the excommunication was published (immediately). Are you following the news on this?
stilesbn referenced the content of the letter just a few posts earlier, so presumably the answer is "yes".
EDIT: Beat me to it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think a distinction needs to be made between natural consequences and willful consequences. If someone steps off a cliff, it is a natural consequence that they will fall -- but if someone points a gun at you and says "if you come any closer, I'll shoot" -- being shot is not a natural consequence of coming closer to that person. The individual has established a criteria for his own action, and chooses to hold to those criteria; the decision to shoot you is not an automatic consequence of your behavior.
That said, I don't have a dog in this hunt; I think she met all the criteria for excommunication, but think less of the church for having those criteria.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well, the bishop and stake president (i.e. church leaders) involved aren't making up the rules and conditions, i.e. holding the gun and creating an ultimatum. In a sense they are warning you that you're getting a little too close to breaking rules the church may have in place or commandments that church members adhere to, depending on the nature of your actions. In a sense, they are pointing to the cliff and telling you you'd better change course.
I tried to explain why the church has the policy of excommunication in place. It's not a shunning. It's there to protect both the church and the individual, but the way it is handled has nothing to do with casting that individual away. Quite the opposite--after a member is excommunicated the efforts of the leaders and others involved are bent toward helping them work their way back toward full fellowship. Excommunication is considered part of the repentance process when the transgression is grave enough. It's not the end of the line.
ETA: That said, I don't have an opinion either way about the Kelly case. I feel like I'm still on the fence about her actions. I don't feel like I could offer a worthwhile opinion on whether she met the criteria for excommunication or not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I included the quote by Dallin H. Oaks on the last page, and BB posted it above. It's worth reading. Women carry out their responsibilities in the church with the same priesthood authority that men do. They are as much a part of the priesthood as men.
Ok. I read the related material. I'm especially curious about your statement that women are as much a part of the priesthood as men.
I cannot, not in any sense, conceive of how the truth of that statement can be justified along with the knowledge that women are not allowed the priesthood and cannot have any positions of authority within the church. That is not 'as much a part of the priesthood as men," that's a subservient and inferior auxiliary to the priesthood.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:It's not a shunning.
Sure it is.
quote:Excommunication is considered part of the repentance process when the transgression is grave enough.
Excommunication isn't part of the repentance process.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nelson Elis:
quote:It's not a shunning.
Sure it is.
quote:Excommunication is considered part of the repentance process when the transgression is grave enough.
Excommunication isn't part of the repentance process.
Make sure to squeal those tires when you're driving away. It makes drive by's more dramatic.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah I am having trouble, additionally, with if it is going to be suggested that the excommunication process isn't a shunning (insert the list of all the things that excommunication voids you and forbids you from attending/participating in). The view that it is not, or that this woman was not subject to disciplinary orders, seems to be coming out as fairly myopic, especially since she appears to be releasing or announcing stuff that indicates that a large part of her 'counsel' was, very straightforwardly, instructions. Orders.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I included the quote by Dallin H. Oaks on the last page, and BB posted it above. It's worth reading. Women carry out their responsibilities in the church with the same priesthood authority that men do. They are as much a part of the priesthood as men.
Ok. I read the related material. I'm especially curious about your statement that women are as much a part of the priesthood as men.
I cannot, not in any sense, conceive of how the truth of that statement can be justified along with the knowledge that women are not allowed the priesthood and cannot have any positions of authority within the church. That is not 'as much a part of the priesthood as men," that's a subservient and inferior auxiliary to the priesthood.
Looking at the whole thing from Sam's perspective I would have to side with Sam. The Priesthood seems to have two parts. One part to act in the name of God, and one part to administrate in the name of God (I'm throwing a whole lot of nuance and other stuff out the window with that statement, but it's a simplification, that's what happens right?). Women have access to the former, but not the latter. To an outsider, the former doesn't really matter. All that matters is who is the leader.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
What matters is who has the power to make administrative decisions for the community.
And this matters to insiders, so it's clear--especially if one of the administrative powers is that of making insiders into outsiders...
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:With that said, no one actually knows the reasons why Kate Kelly was ultimately excommunicated. That's not a matter of public record.
Actually it is public. The letter explaining the excommunication was published (immediately). Are you following the news on this?
I am and I read the letter, I didn't get the impression that it gave a concrete reason in the letter. I'll read it again more closely and perhaps update my statement.
OK I read the letter again. There are two parts that seem to deal with reasons. In paragraph 5
quote:In order to be reconsidered for readmission to the Church, you will need to demonstrate over a period of time that you have stopped teachings and actions that undermine the Church, its leaders, and the doctrine of the Priesthood. You must be truthful in your communications with others regarding matters that involve your priesthood leaders, including the administration of Church discipline, and you must stop trying to gain a following for yourself or your cause and taking actions that could lead others away from the Church.
And then again in paragraph 11 (I counted each bullet as a paragraph)
quote:The difficulty, Sister Kelly, is not that you say you have questions or even that you believe that women should receive the priesthood. The problem is that you have persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others. You are entitled to your views, but you are not entitled to promote them and proselyte others to them while remaining in full fellowship in the Church. This is the basic point that President Wheatley has sought repeatedly to explain to you, but to no avail. You have also heard from President Lee and me on this. Your disregard of our advice and counsel left us no alternative but to convene last evening's council.
The last sentence is where the buzz word "counsel" shows up. The timeline of bullet points also has some stuff in there, but at this point instead of copying the whole letter I'll just refer you to it here. Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nelson Elis: And this matters to insiders, so it's clear--especially if one of the administrative powers is that of making insiders into outsiders...
I never said it didn't matter to insiders. I said it was all that matters to outsiders. The implication being that insiders also care about more than just that.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I included the quote by Dallin H. Oaks on the last page, and BB posted it above. It's worth reading. Women carry out their responsibilities in the church with the same priesthood authority that men do. They are as much a part of the priesthood as men.
Ok. I read the related material. I'm especially curious about your statement that women are as much a part of the priesthood as men.
I cannot, not in any sense, conceive of how the truth of that statement can be justified along with the knowledge that women are not allowed the priesthood and cannot have any positions of authority within the church. That is not 'as much a part of the priesthood as men," that's a subservient and inferior auxiliary to the priesthood.
Well, I'm glad you read the talk. I thought it did a pretty good job of explaining the purpose of the priesthood and why the church is organized the way it is--to give every member access to the various benefits of the priesthood. Men aren't in charge of it any more than women are. Think of the men who hold the priesthood like waiters at the table where all the members of the church are sitting. They've got pitchers of water and are ready to fill the glass of whoever needs water. They carry the water so that anyone who needs it can have it. That's all.
ETA: Or heck, a real life example. Priesthood holders distribute the sacrament to all church members each week during Sacrament Meeting. They literally carry the water to each member so that all can take the sacrament. That illustrates the priesthood perfectly, IMO.
Women don't hold the priesthood. But they benefit from it as much as the men do. They also act with its authority as much as men do. They are as vital to its effectiveness as men are. They have equal voices in the ward council, which is where the rubber meets the road.
It seems like all that matters from the outside is that there are men in the church's key leadership positions, and men also hold the priesthood. So that must mean the priesthood is essentially the ticket to administrative power in the church and that's all it's really worth. This keeps getting thrown back and so it's about the only thing we're discussing.
Should women have equal influence and consideration when it comes to the administrative side of the church? Very much yes. I don't think they do yet, in some areas not even close. I do see that beginning to happen at the ward level, which is very good. Institutionally, there's still quite a bit of rigidity that needs to ease, but at the ward level things can be much more fluid. I'm not just saying things need to change. I'm actively working to help these changes happen in my own realm of responsibility.
[ June 26, 2014, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:I never said it didn't matter to insiders. I said it was all that matters to outsiders. The implication being that insiders also care about more than just that.
And I didn't suggest you said it didn't matter to insiders.
I will note, however, that the power to make administrative decisions for the community is not the only thing that matters to outsiders.
After all, Kelly is now an "outsider," specifically because of her conviction that females should be permitted to participate further in the actual administration of the rites of the priesthood.
Maybe it's ironic that she's probably an outsider largely because women don't possess the power to administrate the "right" to be an insider, but in any case, she's definitely an outsider who does care about the administration of the rites as much as the administration of what is right for the community...
[ June 27, 2014, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Crap! The "trojan horse" exception!
*Explodes in a puff of logic*
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nelson Elis: And I didn't suggest you said it didn't matter to insiders.
Sorry, since your post directly followed my post it seemed to be in response to it.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
It was.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
OK, then sorry for reading an implication where an implication wasn't intended.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Women don't hold the priesthood. But they benefit from it as much as the men do. They also act with its authority as much as men do. They are as vital to its effectiveness as men are. They have equal voices in the ward council, which is where the rubber meets the road.
They have equal voices in the ward council? Does the ward council have a vote where both women and men vote in it and this vote has binding authority, or is another group (the one with actual authority) listening to the ward council and deciding what advice to take in making actual leadership decisions?
And if women 'act with its authority as much as men do' how come they cannot have a position of leadership within the church? This would be one of the many things required in order for that statement to be true. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
addt:
quote:It seems like all that matters from the outside is that there are men in the church's key leadership positions, and men also hold the priesthood. So that must mean the priesthood is essentially the ticket to administrative power in the church and that's all it's really worth. This keeps getting thrown back and so it's about the only thing we're discussing.
That goes back to a variant of a question I already asked. In this case, I will ask it this way: What positions of leadership in the church are you not allowed to hold unless you hold the priesthood? What is the highest position of leadership in the church you can hold without the priesthood?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Men aren't in charge of it any more than women are. Think of the men who hold the priesthood like waiters at the table where all the members of the church are sitting. They've got pitchers of water and are ready to fill the glass of whoever needs water. They carry the water so that anyone who needs it can have it. That's all.
ETA: Or heck, a real life example. Priesthood holders distribute the sacrament to all church members each week during Sacrament Meeting. They literally carry the water to each member so that all can take the sacrament. That illustrates the priesthood perfectly, IMO.
I am not sure that you hear how this may be coming across. It isn't a convincing example if you are trying to mitigate the idea that men are in charge. In fact, it illustrates even further that men are in control. Waiters are in control of the water pitchers. Sure, if they make bad decisions, they may have to face consequences - from other waiters - but if the person sitting at the table wants water, she has no control except to go to another restaurant. There is no "that's all" about it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The ward council is the heads of each organization in the ward (Primary, Elders Quorum, Relief Society, etc.) and the bishopric, or the bishop and his two counselors. This council meets together multiple times a month to basically hash out everything the ward is doing or needs to do on behalf of the ward members. There aren't any formal votes involved in this council, but it's where every organization can take their needs and issues and make decisions together. The bishop is the head of this council and it's up to him to make the final call when needed, but he does well to listen carefully to the entire council in all cases.
The keys of the priesthood, or the authority to act in certain capacities, is delegated to members of the ward council by the bishop by virtue of their responsibilities or through specific assignments. As they carry out their responsibilities and assignments they are acting with the authority of the priesthood. As they delegate some of those responsibilities to their own counselors and others in their organizations, those people are also acting with the authority of the priesthood.
Women have positions of leadership in the church. What made you think they didn't?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
afr, you're using definitions of words like "authority" that are really very nonstandard. :/
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: What positions of leadership in the church are you not allowed to hold unless you hold the priesthood?
There are a lot, most notably Bishop, Stake President, Quorum of the Seventy, Apostle, Prophet. There are a lot of callings only women can hold. Mostly over women's organizations in the church, or primary (children). Line for line there isn't an exact equivalence at each level (though a lot do match up) and men come out on top.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: What is the highest position of leadership in the church you can hold without the priesthood?
General Relief Society President I would guess.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: addt:
quote:It seems like all that matters from the outside is that there are men in the church's key leadership positions, and men also hold the priesthood. So that must mean the priesthood is essentially the ticket to administrative power in the church and that's all it's really worth. This keeps getting thrown back and so it's about the only thing we're discussing.
That goes back to a variant of a question I already asked. In this case, I will ask it this way: What positions of leadership in the church are you not allowed to hold unless you hold the priesthood? What is the highest position of leadership in the church you can hold without the priesthood?
That's a good question. You mean, man or woman, what's that position? I honestly don't know for sure. If you're active and in good standing in the church as a man, you almost certainly hold the priesthood. There are priesthood-specific positions, and various others where you must hold a certain office of the priesthood. But there are many others where what priesthood you hold isn't important.
What's the highest position that a woman, who doesn't hold the priesthood, can hold in the church? Already answered above: General Relief Society President, if you consider there to be a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd between Relief Society, Young Women's, and Primary organizations.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: afr, you're using definitions of words like "authority" that are really very nonstandard. :/
I'm trying to use it like Elder Oaks used it in his talk. What's your take on it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: The ward council is the heads of each organization in the ward (Primary, Elders Quorum, Relief Society, etc.) and the bishopric, or the bishop and his two counselors. This council meets together multiple times a month to basically hash out everything the ward is doing or needs to do on behalf of the ward members. There aren't any formal votes involved in this council, but it's where every organization can take their needs and issues and make decisions together. The bishop is the head of this council and it's up to him to make the final call when needed, but he does well to listen carefully to the entire council in all cases.
Ok.
So as part of your argument to assert women 'act with equal authority' as men, and that 'men aren't in charge of it any more than women are' in the Mormon church, you are listing as an example a function that women can attend, where a man holds the ultimate authority and can make the final decision on everything and this position the man holds is a position you literally can't have if you are a woman.
This question, and its variants, are probably getting tiresome, but how on earth do you think this represents what you think it does? It merely demonstrates sexism and male superiority, structurally, in the functions of the church. When you said that men and women "have equal voices" in the ward council, what you were saying is plainly and unambiguously false. Do you recognize this?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: What is the highest position of leadership in the church you can hold without the priesthood?
General Relief Society President I would guess.
Is the General Relief Society strictly part of the church or is it an auxiliary of the church? Does the president of the General Relief Society preside primarily or exclusively over women?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Women don't hold the priesthood. But they benefit from it as much as the men do. They also act with its authority as much as men do.
Perhaps you mean "as often as men", meaning that whenever they carry out their assigned roles in the church they are acting with its authority.
But by normal definitions of authority, people who get to make the decisions have more authority than people who don't get to make the decisions. Those who preside have more authority than those who don't preside. Those who bless/ordain/set apart have more authority than those who aren't able to do those things. Those who are able to issue a proclamation on the family without consulting anyone of the opposite gender have more authority than those who were not consulted and would not be able to do the same thing.
When you say that women act with the authority of the priesthood as much as men do, it would imply that none of the things in my previous paragraph are how the church works.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Men aren't in charge of it any more than women are. Think of the men who hold the priesthood like waiters at the table where all the members of the church are sitting. They've got pitchers of water and are ready to fill the glass of whoever needs water. They carry the water so that anyone who needs it can have it. That's all.
ETA: Or heck, a real life example. Priesthood holders distribute the sacrament to all church members each week during Sacrament Meeting. They literally carry the water to each member so that all can take the sacrament. That illustrates the priesthood perfectly, IMO.
I am not sure that you hear how this may be coming across. It isn't a convincing example if you are trying to mitigate the idea that men are in charge. In fact, it illustrates even further that men are in control. Waiters are in control of the water pitchers. Sure, if they make bad decisions, they may have to face consequences - from other waiters - but if the person sitting at the table wants water, she has no control except to go to another restaurant. There is no "that's all" about it.
Well then, it wasn't a good metaphor. All I'm saying is that the blessings of the priesthood are meant to be available to all, and that holders of the priesthood are supposed to make it available to all. Not exercise their own power in deciding for themselves who has access to it and who doesn't. I don't know if this is an equivalent example, but when you walk into a confessional, isn't it the priest's duty to hear your confession--not dismiss you out of hand if he doesn't feel like hearing it?
Whew, starting to get too many balls in the air here. Going to have to start backing out.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The authority is either there or it isn't. You may have authority to act in more areas, but that doesn't mean you have a greater or lesser helping of authority in any one area. You either have it or you don't.
The ward relief society president has the authority to preside over and act in many different ways on behalf of the members of her organization. She receives that authority by delegation from the bishop, who has the authority to preside over all organizations in the ward. The sunday school president has authority to preside over his/her organization in the same manner, and so on. That authority is priesthood authority, because, as Elder Oaks said, there is no other authority.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Is the General Relief Society strictly part of the church or is it an auxiliary of the church? Does the president of the General Relief Society preside primarily or exclusively over women?
I'm not sure I understand the first question. We call it an auxiliary, meaning that it is not a priesthood organization and that it has responsibility for a certain area. Other auxiliaries are Sunday school, the primary program (for kids from eighteen months to 11), the young women (girls from 12 to 18), and young men (boys from 12 to 18). Auxiliaries are strictly part of the Church and aren't some sort of separate but affiliated organization.
The Relief Society presides primarily and exclusively over women, though it answers to the bishopric at the ward level, and the general Relief Society board and presidency answer to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency at the Church level.
Here are a couple of helpful links from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: auxiliary organizations Relief Society Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:The authority is either there or it isn't. You may have authority to act in more areas, but that doesn't mean you have a greater or lesser helping of authority in any one area.
Umm, yeah it does.
You can claim that all authority is priesthood authority, and that women therefore have priesthood authority in some areas, but in other areas, the amount of authority they have is none--which is less than the greater amount of authority that men have in such areas.
You can't claim it's a straight binary distinction of authority vs no authority--that all authority is something singular which you either have or you don't--in the same breath as you claim that the authority is broken up into different areas. Or rather, perhaps you have the authority to author whatever you choose to say, but that doesn't mean that you can make such a claim with a great amount of the authority of logic.
[ June 26, 2014, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ... however, I'd say it's a pretty benign concept for most church members.
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: It is what it is. I suspect it became that way because using the word "order" is harsh and Mormons don't want to be hard. So DKW says it is weird, the best I can do is shrug and say "yep".
I would have thought the latter as well. It's a pretty obvious euphemism and it would be benign for most church members, because presumably most church members don't have a problem following council.
It reminds me of mainlanders who have a whole vocabulary of euphemisms. The police don't question you, they invite you for tea. Officials aren't sacked, they go on vacation therapy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok. I am taking notes and diving through any and all associated educational material. Literal notes! What is wrong with me. Anyway. Here's to hoping I'm still getting this straight.
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: The authority is either there or it isn't. You may have authority to act in more areas, but that doesn't mean you have a greater or lesser helping of authority in any one area. You either have it or you don't.
Ok. Is this like saying that the authority is a binary? So, if I am a Mormon mailroom boy and my mailroom authority is "1," and the literal president of the church comes by and says he wants to use the mailroom, I can refuse him and say he does not outrank me in this affair, since the maximum level of authority he can have is also 1?
Related to the question tangentially, is there any authority the president does not have? Anything in which he can be overridden? How often has this ever happened? What could it happen for? What priesthood authorities that the president has is he forced to share with countless other people with a 1 authority in those areas?
quote:That authority is priesthood authority, because, as Elder Oaks said, there is no other authority.
So, relevant adjusted expectation of what you are describing: there is no other authority, and women cannot have that authority. They can exercise what functions of that authority they are permitted to by the men who hold that authority, and there are plenty of functions (including the highest and most presiding functions) of that authority they will never be allowed to have because they are not men.
For those who intend to make an argument pertaining to any or all of these things:
1. this is not fundamentally sexist 2. this is not fundamentally male supremacist 3. this is 'equal' distribution of authority between men and women 4. women act with 'equal authority' as men in the church 5. men are not categorically in charge of the women in the church
how. How do you do it? What is the honest rationale?
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:is there any authority the president does not have?
He doesn't have the authority to birth children.
The key to deciphering the doublespeak here is the idea that exclusively males (including God the Father, and Jesus) hold the keys to salvation. Heavenly Mother doesn't have a role in administering salvation--it's only males who claim to hold the keys to God's kingdom. Why would women follow in Heavenly Father's footsteps, when they should clearly be following Heavenly Mother's quieter, more mysterious footsteps? The idea of the divinely appointed responsibility of females in this mortal existence is pretty easily summed up: be good wives and mothers. The sense in which they have "power of God" responsibility, is principally that of making and raising children.
Heavenly Mother doesn't actually even have a speaking role in the cosmic drama of our mortal probation, but worthy mortal priesthood holders take care of the needs of their wives, so they put the worthiest of their mortal wives in charge of a Society for coordinating Baking and Needlework for Needy Neighbors, and let women speak at meetings.
(They get to make babies, and they get to "visit teach" one another! Shouldn't that be enough for them?)
The Judges who hold the power to judge whether others are worthy of God's salvific rites, as well as the power to effectuate those salvific rituals, are exclusively men.
[ June 26, 2014, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
For the record, the reason I left the LDS church was due to its standing on women--among other issues. I understand that the church's position is that the gender roles are divine roles. To disagree with the roles is, from what I heard, tantamount to disagreeing with doctrine. If I disagreed with doctrine, then I needed to decide whether it meant I was a true believer or not.
I came to the conclusion that it meant I wasn't a true believer. Since then, I've fallen pretty far from the religion wagon into the boonies of atheism, but it isn't out of hate for the church.
Here's something that confuses me though, to this day. Why is agitating a bad thing?
As someone who was dissatisfied with doctrine, it felt like I had two choices: Recognize I don't believe in doctrine and leave or question my faith until I receive answers that would lead me to affirm doctrine as it stands. But if I feel like I received answers that go contrary to established doctrine, why can't I agitate on them?
Why is it so bad for Kate Kelly to publicly question the church's positioning and agitate it for change? I grant that you can't force divine revelation, but if her movement demonstrates that there is dissatisfaction or even just a gross misunderstanding, it should be taken as evidence that even without divine revelation, there is a demand for explanation.
She got her explanation and wasn't satisfied by it. But that, in my mind, doesn't mean she should stop agitating. Even through these past four pages, I have seen different interpretations of doctrine from active members. Are there internal politics? What is the highest position of authority within the Church a woman can reach? What are the ordinances a woman can perform?
I appreciated that (On Page 3) BlackBlade readily admits that you're all just trying to figure it out.
I disagree with the decision to excommunicate Kate, but I no longer have a horse in that race. But if I did still have a horse in the race, I'd take her complaints as evidence of another thing that needs to be figured out and that as the movement possibly gained traction as a sign that figuring it out should be given higher priority.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:Why is agitating a bad thing?
Because, in spite of rhetoric about asking hard questions and seeking truth, if hard questions are allowed to be openly disseminated among insiders, the truth will out, and the spell will break.
This type of social hypnosis requires very carefully scripted messaging within the in-group. People don't get and keep testimonies of the veracity of a social script if an open search for truth is permitted. Testimonies are social phenomena, which depend upon the consistency of the in-group message: "We all know this is true, we all know this is true, we all know this is true."
If someone's message of question and doubt breaks the rhythm of the memetic chant, the whole belief structure of the community can easily collapse. (It is as fragile as it is incredible, after all--it's only tenable when supported by the single-mindedness of the entire group.)
You have to quickly identify and remove individuals from the social message affirmation in-group as soon as any seeds of their doubts start to disseminate through the in-group, or the efficacy of the social message can be severely compromised.
You have to excommunicate them--to remove them from the insider community, and re-brand them as apostate--both to eliminate their voice from the social message affirmation in-group, and to reinforce the value of sticking to the script for remaining members of the in-group, who witness the personal devastation which is a natural consequence of being banished from the fellowship of one's community.
There is a reason that "denying the spirit" is a sin worse than murder...
[ June 26, 2014, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam:
quote:Ok. Is this like saying that the authority is a binary? So, if I am a Mormon mailroom boy and my mailroom authority is "1," and the literal president of the church comes by and says he wants to use the mailroom, I can refuse him and say he does not outrank me in this affair, since the maximum level of authority he can have is also 1?
Related to the question tangentially, is there any authority the president does not have? Anything in which he can be overridden? How often has this ever happened? What could it happen for? What priesthood authorities that the president has is he forced to share with countless other people with a 1 authority in those areas?
I am not AFR but in answer to your first question, I would say no. The President of the Church possess all the keys of the administration of the church, however they are not all active. For example at present nobody has the keys to resurrection. God would have to give him that key were he to be tasked with doing it. In the mailroom example I don't think the mailroom guy could say no to the prophet because every single key rolls up to the prophet who can give an take away all of them.
Having said that, I can't imagine the prophet could march into a temple and say he was going to help with washing and anointing sisters conducting ordinances there. Regardless of him having the keys to do so. I have to think about that one actually.
The prophet cannot be overridden exactly. The prophet and his two counselors form a presidency. The quorum of the 12 apostles *combined* have authority equal to those three men. The combined quorum of the seventy also has authority equal to the 12 apostles equal to the first presidency. No other body exists beneath that with that authority. There has not been a time where the prophet was countermanded by that relationship to my knowledge.
As to your second question. It has been posited by scholars that women possess the keys to bring spirits into mortality. They are the gate keepers of those coming in from heaven. That is their sacred responsibility and ordinance. Men possess the keys pertaining to ordinances dealing with preparing of a person to leave it. Baptism, laying on of hands, administering the church. They are the gate keepers of those leaving to return to heaven.
I'm not sure I fully buy into that, but the duality appeals to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: Yes, groups like OW even if individuals misstep (not that I am saying that definitely happened here) are part of us figuring it out.
[ June 27, 2014, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Me too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That seems to present a notably vertical heirarchy of power, rather than the 'binary' keys of power idea AFR appeared to have been asserting. The binary if it existed doesn't even seem to matter when it is men and men alone who hold authority on who gets to have the keys, and who has the keys revoked, as we can probably observe from all-male councils literally excommunicating a woman who has called for equality that would allow her and other women of the church to serve on those councils.
There is no intent on my end to belabor points and it may seem like I am reasking the same questions or variations on the same questions over and over again but each variation of the same question produces a variation of a "separate but equal" idea for women which becomes slightly differently but still obviously at odds with the reality of women being not at all equal in the church, and I am re-asking these questions again because I genuinely want to know what the church teaches its members to excuse, explain, or doublethink away the sexism.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:I genuinely want to know what the church teaches its members to excuse, explain, or doublethink away the sexism.
That females have a more sacred duty than men can hold: to be mothers. This is said to be a more sacred calling than that to which even the prophet can aspire.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That seems to present a notably vertical heirarchy of power, rather than the 'binary' keys of power idea AFR appeared to have been asserting. The binary if it existed doesn't even seem to matter when it is men and men alone who hold authority on who gets to have the keys, and who has the keys revoked, as we can probably observe from all-male councils literally excommunicating a woman who has called for equality that would allow her and other women of the church to serve on those councils.
There is no intent on my end to belabor points and it may seem like I am reasking the same questions or variations on the same questions over and over again but each variation of the same question produces a variation of a "separate but equal" idea for women which becomes slightly differently but still obviously at odds with the reality of women being not at all equal in the church, and I am re-asking these questions again because I genuinely want to know what the church teaches its members to excuse, explain, or doublethink away the sexism.
Well that touches on two problems I think,
1: I agree there is sexism in the church. Like, I think it's hard to not see it. Some people here might believe there is no substantial sexism in the LDS church, but that's not my position.
2: Let's say the humans as an organization need two things done. Like, literally nothing else need be considered. And those two things are,
A: People need to born so as to get bodies.
B: People need to learn about, and receive saving ordinances so as to prep them for death.
These two things are unavoidable.
Up until now, women are covering part A, and men are covering part B. At present men cannot do A at all save contributing input (DNA). Women do not do B save contributing input (opinion). And administering one or two of the ordinances.
Let's say the men simply say, "Women can also do everything we do." Assuming men will never have any ability to do Part A, aren't we then making women more necessary than men? Men still play an indispensable role, but in terms of the totality of what needs to be done being done. Men do less than women.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
An equitable division of labor: Women are responsible for making babies, and men are responsible for making judgments and decisions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nelson Elis: An equitable division of labor: Women are responsible for making babies, and men are responsible for making judgments and decisions.
You rewording it that way doesn't actually progress the conversation. Let's assume I actually want some of the same things you do.
I'm all for women being able to make more judgements and decisions. I don't think they do get to make enough of them. But I also don't find it intrinsically sexist if the sexes have separate roles to play and cannot fully replicate each other's responsibilities.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So, I'm not sure how analogous it is to the Mormon use of the term, but in the military we also have a unique definition of the word "counsel" and it is distinct from orders, though this probably sounds strange.
An order is fairly straightforward - it can either be a standing (i.e, written) order that more or less defines policy. (See this for example) Or it can be an on the spot, "do this now" order. Contrary to common belief, only officers are authorized to give orders. NCOs can give directives, and can enforce orders, but they cannot give orders. So, for example, you cannot be legally charged for disobeying a directive from your NCO. (like you could from an officer) However, if in the process of disobeying that directive you violated or failed to follow an order (from an officer), then they can fry you.
I realize that sounds rather strange and convoluted, but it actually is fairly important for maintaining an effective chain of command, and keeping checks and balances, as well as enforcing uniformity.
That being said, counselings. I actually counseled 4 new Marines in my section today. I gave them what is called an initial counseling.
In the military, a counseling is a structured event. I basically sat down with them one on one, advised them of the orders that pertain to their day to day conduct in the section, and then explained to them the expectations I have for them while they work for me. We then discussed what they wanted to achieve in the next month, and together we came up with some future goals to be reviewed at the next counseling. This was all written down, signed, and filed.
Next month, if they succeed in meeting or surpassing the goals set for them, then their counseling will note this, and it will help justify higher proficiency and conduct marks. If they fail to meet those goals, it will also be noted, and result in lower proficiency and conduct marks. If their behavior is drastically out of line with what I set out or they start violating more minor orders, I will probably write them a negative counseling, where I put their inappropriate behavior into writing, then sit down with them 1 on 1 and work out a strategy for correcting this behavior.
This has two purposes - A, it lets the Marine know he isn't meeting standards and gives him a clear, concise means of changing that and B, helps establish a trend. If I write 2 or 3 negative counselings on a Marine, I can take that to our commanding officer and he can decide to take disciplinary action, demote the Marine, dock his pay, or even discharge him. (though the latter would require a board's approval) If I write 2 or 3 positive or meritorious counselings (i.e, a Marine does such an exceptional job I decide to put it into writing and commend him personally), I can take that to our commanding officer and request he be officially rewarded, or meritoriously promoted, or given a higher billet.
So counseling, while not orders, can be viewed perhaps as "professional advice, but enforced." Because it relates less to "do this, don't do this" and more to "this is the way I recommend you go about doing this" and "these are some things to strive to achieve while doing your duties." Unlike orders, you can't clearly say "yes, you followed the order" or "no, you did not follow the order", instead you have to establish a pattern of "how effectively did you follow the counsel you were given?" and "is this counsel applicable and beneficial to you, or do we need to establish a different way to go about performing your duties?"
I would say the main difference is, unlike advice counseling (in this definition) is not something that is optional, and entirely up to you to follow or ignore. If you choose to ignore counseling in the military, you will likely find yourself receiving lower proficiency marks, and possibly even facing disciplinary action. It's different from an order, though, in that you are not legally obligated to obey counselings, and if the counsel was bad and you can find a more effective way to complete your tasks, you will probably be commended rather than chastised for doing so. (it depends on how you go about doing it, and the leader in question. If I counsel my Marines to approach a problem in a certain way, but they innovate and choose to solve it in a more effective way, I'll reward them for their ingenuity)
All this goes to say, I can sympathize with the Mormons for having a somewhat unusual definition of the word. I've had to explain it to non-military people many times, and it's really difficult to do unless you've actually experienced it.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Nelson Elis: An equitable division of labor: Women are responsible for making babies, and men are responsible for making judgments and decisions.
You rewording it that way doesn't actually progress the conversation.
Sure it does.
It takes the abstractions of the separate scopes of authority possessed by the respective genders, and reifies the ideas in a way which allows us to comprehend the balance of the respective responsibility sets in more concrete terms.
quote:But I also don't find it intrinsically sexist if the sexes have separate roles to play and cannot fully replicate each other's responsibilities.
Well, as far as I've seen, you haven't actually provided any reason for believing that females can't replicate priesthood functions (like judging the worthiness of an individual to participate in God's salvific sacraments).
You simply appear to insinuate that it wouldn't be right for females to assume the authority to make binding judgments, and perform binding rituals--with the sole reasoning appearing to be that it would detract from the balance of powers possessed by the sexes if women were given the authority of judgment and binding efficacy, in addition to the authority of gestation and parturition.
At any rate, if you'd like to argue that women cannot fully replicate priesthood functions such as judgment, I'd be willing to hear you out...
[ June 27, 2014, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:At any rate, if you'd like to argue that women cannot fully replicate priesthood functions such as judgment, I'd be willing to hear you out...
You are going wrong here. I have absolutely no doubt that women possess all the capabilities necessary to be leaders. It's not a question of whether women are capable of being leaders. We have examples of female prophets leading God's people in the scriptures. The reason I am not a leader in my church isn't that I don't think I'm capable. Though that might figure into it, it's that I have not been asked to do so.
I have no expectation that I'll ever be asked to serve as a leader in the church in any capacity. I'm an instructor at church.
God up until now has not instructed our church to ordain women to priesthood offices. I can only speculate as to why. You're free to chew up my musings, I'm not married to them.
[ June 27, 2014, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nelson, it sounds like this is a very personal issue for you. I am sorry.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
BB:
quote:You are going wrong here.
Aye, perpetually wayward, I. At least, so I hear...
quote:I have absolutely no doubt that women possess all the capabilities necessary to be leaders.
Women do inhabit leadership roles in the church.
The role they haven't been given is that of making binding judgments, and performing binding rituals, with God's authority.
In any case, my response was to this:
quote:I also don't find it intrinsically sexist if the sexes have separate roles to play and cannot fully replicate each other's responsibilities.
I understand that you would personally like to see women possess the authority to make more judgments and decisions. And I believe I understand the responsibilities of the separate roles to which the sexes are relegated within the church. And I understand your perception of how it's not intrinsically sexist for men not to be given responsibility for birthing children, since it's a responsibility which men are intrinsically incapable of performing.
What I don't understand is how and why you perceive women as (potentially) not being able to fully replicate the responsibilities (like making judgments with God's authority) which men within the church monopolize.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nelson, just a heads up as you may not have much experience with BB. Sometimes his posts give the impression that he is defending things that he really isn't. He just does his darnedest to see things from other points of view. He may or may not think that women are (potentially) not able to fully replicate responsibilities that men currently have but I can't tell that from what he wrote.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
Kate:
quote:Nelson, it sounds like this is a very personal issue for you.
Does it? I don't actually feel very personally invested the ordination of women within the CJCLDS.
I'm invested in my natal culture, and I take personally the impact of the manipulative abuses of power perpetrated by the hierarchy of authority that dominates my culture, I suppose.
But I don't even have personal experience with the excommunicative process--though I'll admit to strongly abhorring the arrogance and destructiveness I perceive within the practice from a distance...
Perhaps it's simply my preternaturally ornery disposition that presents a profile permeated with a preponderance of personal pique. Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:He may or may not think that women are (potentially) not able to fully replicate responsibilities that men currently have but I can't tell that from what he wrote.
Oh, I noticed the "if" in his statement. It's why my responses were couched in the terms of a conditional mood, themselves:
quote:if you'd like to argue that women cannot fully replicate priesthood functions such as judgment
quote:I don't understand is how and why you perceive women as (potentially) not being able to fully replicate the responsibilities
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Women can and would do an excellent job in the leadership positions men now occupy. I personally think they’d do it much, much better. I would gladly serve with and under the direction of women priesthood leaders. I have already served under the direction of women leaders in the church and would welcome the many more opportunities I’d have to do so.
If, say, at the next general conference President Monson announced that women can now hold the priesthood (or however such an earth-shattering announcement like that would be handled), the church would eventually go on much the same as it has before. At first there would be an enormous, probably chaotic rush to get women ordained, because among many other things they’d now need to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood to enter the temple, same as men, as well as to serve missions. There would be the longer wave of women being called to positions only held by men before, such as bishop and stake president. There would be the really long wave of threads on Hatrack criticizing male to female ratios in leadership positions, because that is an eternal principle. And after a while, things would settle down and the church would go on as it has, because the organization of the church works regardless of who’s filling the leadership positions and who holds the priesthood, and the priesthood hasn’t changed.*
* That’s completely off the top of my head and based on 5 minutes of pure speculation. In no way am I suggesting that that’s going to happen soon or at all. I’m not about to doggedly defend its finer points and I’ll even abandon it if needed, without taking offense.
I also think there is plenty of sexism in the church and that we’re a long way from truly being equal in terms of men’s and women’s influence and considerations. However, I don’t think we’re already fubared because of it, nor do I think this is a hopeless cause. My perspective on the purpose and organization of the priesthood has me differing with many views here on how the church should change. I’m not ignoring what a few posters here are saying is right in front of my nose; at the same time, I feel like I’ve explained my own bit thoroughly enough.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
Well said, afr.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nelson Elis: Kate:
quote:Nelson, it sounds like this is a very personal issue for you.
Does it? I don't actually feel very personally invested the ordination of women within the CJCLDS.
I'm invested in my natal culture, and I take personally the impact of the manipulative abuses of power perpetrated by the hierarchy of authority that dominates my culture, I suppose.
That strikes me as personal enough. I am glad that it isn't painfully personal.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nelson Elis: Well said, afr.
Why thank you. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I also think there is plenty of sexism in the church and that we’re a long way from truly being equal in terms of men’s and women’s influence and considerations. However, I don’t think we’re already fubared because of it, nor do I think this is a hopeless cause.
I would think that the LDS actually represents one of the remarkably less intransigent cases, because of how differently it approaches change, doubt in and reflection on its own policy, and the potential for revelatory adjustment of its stated instruction from God.
To wit, the LDS has established mechanisms for change that most if not all other major conservative faiths in the world simply lack; for most other churches it's "this is how it is, and shall always be, because these are eternal truths of God" while the LDS seems more like "this is our present understanding and instruction, but as the nature of things on earth changes, so too does God's instruction and revelation to us"
So with other churches you have them more or less valiantly asserting eternal truths of God that, doctrinally, can not and will not change ... (then they consequently have to handwave and BS away some convoluted explanation about why it did, you know, end up, you know, totally changing) - Whereas the LDS appears to have in-built mechanisms for much less awkward transitions.
Ultimately I highly doubt that the LDS church will not eventually grant women the priesthood. My guess is that a barometer of that potential change lies in how future church leaders address the church's frankly bizarre and patriarchal rules on the requirements for modesty it enforces on women. If the church's teachings and culture on female modesty start changing dramatically in the next decade or so, I would probably assume the ordaining of women to be not that far away.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Samprimary, I don't think that you are taking into account that many denomination have already taken the decision to ordain women. Clearly they have some mechanism for change. And all of them have ways to change even if their own hierarchy denies it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Which modesty rules are you talking about?
The modesty rules for endowed (meaning having received certain rites in the temple) men and women are essentially the same, with exceptions for swimming and such. As the rules relate to the shape of the temple garments worn under other clothing, they are somewhat unique, and they rule out things like bare shoulders - so I'd understand "bizarre" here - but they aren't very much patriarchal rules.
There's also a wider culture that the LDS church is part of that holds that adolescent girls should wear modest clothing [which whatever] and are responsible for helping the poor boys/men avoid dirty thoughts and impure impulses [which arrggh rage]. But this is not at all unique to the LDS church, so I am not sure if it's what you are referring to.
If the former, no, it's going to change slowly if at all and won't be a predictor for the other thing.
If the latter, maybe, I think if that changed it would probably be due to reasons that you'd think would bode well for female ordination. However, it might not be as consequent as you think; there have been some rather categorical statements lately from the highest church leaders on the topic of female ordination. Even if they come around on how damaging and wrongheaded certain aspects of modesty culture can be, the remedy for that would simply amount to ceasing certain harmful preaching. The other change would be somewhat revolutionary and involve new teachings that are directly opposed to the previous teachings, which is a much higher bar even if a lot of the cultural inertia peters out.
But we do have the example of the civil rights movement preceding the church's change on blacks and the priesthood by only a couple of decades, so, maybe. They do hedge their bets - even stuff like ProcFam isn't entered into the canon, however much it's relied on otherwise.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm interested in the modesty requirements you're referring to. True, church members tend to dress more modestly than current norms, but it's not like LDS women are walking around in ankle-length dresses anymore. Is it about the way LDS women dress, or something else?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the Mormon church is, as is typical of any large socially conservative and heavily patriarchal organization, struggling with the objectification of women that is almost requisitely created when men-only leadership creates and polices policy enforcing modesty on women (with or without pretending that there is any equivalence in how they police male modesty, which there never is)
and when i say it is struggling with it, that's much more charitable than it sounds like on the surface. The church is struggling with it in the sense that it is trying to recognize and address the issues inherent in its own modesty enforcement policies. Even back in 1988 a then president of BYU was criticizing how he saw women saddled with the responsibility to control men's lust for them, thus it was their modesty that was ever more and more policed and men's advances that were policed less and less.
The end result is an, as I see it, atypical movement towards gender-neutral guidelines for modesty, at least as described in the rules as written for the Mormon church.
You see much less credible and minimal dialogue on enforced modesty in other conservative churches, even if to modern society, Mormonism's rules on dress and modesty (for women especially) has the appearances of being more archaic and weird in its restrictions and the level to which young people (girls especially) are instructed and policed on it, versus the norm.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:the Mormon church is, as is typical of any large socially conservative and heavily patriarchal organization, struggling with the objectification of women that is almost requisitely created when men-only leadership creates and polices policy enforcing modesty on women (with or without pretending that there is any equivalence in how they police male modesty, which there never is)
Well, scifibum mentioned the temple garments, which kind of enforce modesty on their own because they are supposed to be fully covered by clothing. Both men and women (who have been through the temple ceremonies) wear those. If anything, the modesty requirement they impose is greater for men--the shoulders on the men's garment tops are much longer than the women's.
Church-owned schools like BYU have a dress code, but it's no more stringent for women than men. If anything is bizarre about it, it's BYU's policy against long hair and beards for men. You can't have a beard unless you have a skin condition that doesn't permit you to shave. Then you have a "beard card."
Other than that, while the church definitely does favor modest dress, I'm at a loss about all the policies and policing going on that enforces modesty in women, much less anything that the patriarchal patriarchy running the church has imposed on women but not on men.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Modesty policing is directed mostly at girls, even though there's no large difference in the standards that would be prescribed for boys and girls were they to be explicitly codified - it's not like you'd have people saying booty shorts are alright for boys and not for girls - it's that people are primarily worried about and paying attention to immodesty in girls.
It's both a side effect and symptom of the sexual objectification of girls and women.
It's really toxic when 1) (intentionally or not) the message is conveyed that boys can not control their reactions to immodest dress, AND 2) thoughts and impulses are equated to actions. This is a recipe for disaster for both genders. It teaches girls to internalize blame in situations and for things that are not her fault, and simultaneously teaches boys that it might be her fault too.
Even though this is not the explicit or intended message, it is implicit and very problematic, and IMO arises mostly from the combination of the two factors, when one or the other by itself would be much less damaging.
Solution: never teach girls or boys that their state of dress is responsible for whether someone else is staying pure. Current success of implementation: pretty good for boys, dismal for girls.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Other than that, while the church definitely does favor modest dress, I'm at a loss about all the policies and policing going on that enforces modesty in women, much less anything that the patriarchal patriarchy running the church has imposed on women but not on men.
Basically (and unsurprisingly because it is always, guaranteed, 100%, universally the case in all circumstances where men are in charge of policing the dress, body image, 'protection of chastity,' and modesty of women) there is no equivalency between the policing of male modesty and the policing of women modesty. Ever. The second "I could bet everything on it because there's literally no way I could lose the bet" bet I could make would be over whether or not there's anything even remotely resembling equal body policing and modesty policing in the LDS for boys and girls, because this has never been true in the history of any church culture or regulation. Ever.
quote:What I don't understand is how and why you perceive women as (potentially) not being able to fully replicate the responsibilities (like making judgments with God's authority) which men within the church monopolize.
This is what I keep saying. You're wrong about what I think. As I said before I believe women are fully able to be leaders in the same way men are. What they have not been is asked to do so. Whether that is a function of members of the church not wanting to ask or contemplate that, or some other reason I cannot say.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
afr,
quote:Well, whatever. I think you're trying to stuff what I just said into what you want it to mean. These aren't prison guards and they aren't military commanders. It's not a prison, nor it is the military. Members are not sworn to take orders, nor are they forced to do so. If you are approaching a cliff, the signs warning you that there is a cliff ahead are not necessarily giving you orders. Yet if you choose to ignore the signs' warnings, you will have to deal with the consequences.
I admit this peeved me enough that I stepped away from the conversation for awhile. I feel your response was unnecessarily dismissive and flippant, but on further thought it seemed likely it was due to a misunderstanding.
To clarify, my point was not that counsel is akin to military orders, or to liken the Mormon church to prison. It was simply to highlight the usual definitions of the word 'order' versus a word such as 'counsel', and to point out that many of your reasons for why counseling shouldn't be considered an order would apply equally well to things everyone considers orders without question, such as orders in the military.
---------
Jon Boy,
quote:The Relief Society presides primarily and exclusively over women, though it answers to the bishopric at the ward level, and the general Relief Society board and presidency answer to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency at the Church level.
Not that you were suggesting otherwise, but if one of the groups that is showcased as a prime example of the equal power of women in the church is itself answerable to male-only groups like bishops, the Quorum, and the First Presidency...well, I don't really see how to square that circle.
-----------
I think it's to the church's credit that the very mechanisms it has in place for change over time, particularly the notion that understanding of the will of God is imperfect, invite a kind of criticism and challenging skepticism, from without and as Kelly shows from within, to itself. While I remain personally very, very leery of ideas such as 'endangering the faith of others'-seriously allergic, really-the Church's willingness and even insistence to admit that it has the right path but not the perfect understanding is a big plus for me.
But perhaps perversely, this means it sometimes gets graded on a harsher curve than others. With a religion as conservative or more so that didn't admit to some uncertainty right up front, external frustration would be there but for me at least there would be a part of me realizing, "How can 'this is God's will be challenged?'" But with Mormons, that question is different. With the admission of some uncertainty, the question is almost, "How can this interpretation of God's will NOT be challenged?"
I think what this can sometimes result in is a higher frustration, even anger and hostility, when what seems to be obvious problems aren't addressed. It's perverse because in the long run, Mormonism has a significantly better mechanism for addressing such problems than many other similar religions.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Jon Boy,
quote:The Relief Society presides primarily and exclusively over women, though it answers to the bishopric at the ward level, and the general Relief Society board and presidency answer to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency at the Church level.
Not that you were suggesting otherwise, but if one of the groups that is showcased as a prime example of the equal power of women in the church is itself answerable to male-only groups like bishops, the Quorum, and the First Presidency...well, I don't really see how to square that circle.
Yeah. I'm not going to argue that women have just as much priesthood authority or that there's no inequality or sexism in the Church. Whether or not it's fundamentally right or wrong and what should be done about it are questions that I don't feel qualified to answer.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:
quote:What I don't understand is how and why you perceive women as (potentially) not being able to fully replicate the responsibilities (like making judgments with God's authority) which men within the church monopolize.
This is what I keep saying. You're wrong about what I think.
Well, in my defense, I did preface my statement with "I don't understand," which is sort of in the same ballpark as admitting to being wrong about what you think, right?
What you said was:
quote:I also don't find it intrinsically sexist if the sexes have separate roles to play and cannot fully replicate each other's responsibilities.
The context of the statement outlines the contemporary reality that the given role/responsibility of women in "God's revealed plan" is about making babies, and the role/responsibility of men is about making binding judgments and decisions, and performing salvific ritual actions.
As I mentioned, I do understand your "cannot fully replicate the other's responsibility" comment in the sense of men being unable to fully replicate the female responsibility--which the context suggests is "baby-making." I don't see it as sexist to imply that men may not be able to perform the role of having babies. What I don't understand is is how your comment makes sense in terms of the inability of the female to replicate the male responsibility--which the context suggests is judgment-making/ritual performance.
From my perspective, the implication that females may not be able to replicate the male responsibility of holding the authority to make judgments and perform ritual actions IS sexist, in a pretty definitive way.
I'm not trying to assert what you personally think, BlackBlade. I'm admitting that I don't understand what your statement could reasonably mean...
[ June 28, 2014, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
OK. That makes sense.
Because leading and performing rituals to Mormons requires that God give authorization, or else those things mean absolutely nothing.
If the way things are setup is sexist, well then that's up to God to explain why things are setup as they are. For me personally, it does not bother me that I will never know what it's like to conceive and bear children. Just as it does not bother me that I may never hold a leadership position in my church. I will admit that laying hands on the sick and healing them, passing the sacrament, and confirming somebody a member of the church are all beautiful experiences.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:For me personally, it does not bother me that I will never know what it's like to conceive and bear children.
How forbearing of you!
I've reconciled myself to the deprivation of such a divine experience, as well.
In a similar vein, I'm not all too bothered that I didn't get to perform the atonement ritual, either.
But there is a qualitative distinction between the blessed duty to perform such transcendent functions, and the priesthood duty to come to binding judgments in God's name, BB.
Surely some categorical distinction should come to mind...
quote:If the way things are setup is sexist, well then that's up to God to explain why things are setup as they are.
Or the men who claim God set it up in such a way...
[ June 28, 2014, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I've reconciled myself to the deprivation of such a divine experience, as well.
You jest, but having children has been an incredibly transformative experience for me and my wife. My sister who has reproductive issues is moving heaven and earth to try and bear children.
quote:But there is a qualitative distinction between the blessed duty to perform such transcendent functions, and the priesthood duty to come to binding judgments in God's name.
Men do not hold a monopoly on passing judgements. Women can certainly declare things in God's name, and those things are binding. The key ingredient is not whether the gender of the spokesperson is male, it's whether God was indeed speaking through that individual.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Women can certainly declare things in God's name, and those things are binding. The key ingredient is not whether the gender of the spokesperson is male, it's whether God was indeed speaking through that individual.
So if a mormon woman said, with utter conviction, that God is speaking through her with the instruction to educate the faithful that women should hold the priesthood, what would the church's response be?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It's not a theologically unsound concept to me. I imagine the church's response would be mixed. I would listen and pray over the matter.
There are many instances of the church going astray and God sending someone to bear witness of the truth. I don't think the leaders are remotely that out of touch with God however.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's not a theologically unsound concept to me. I imagine the church's response would be mixed.
Well, not that it couldn't be mixed in the future, but I think this Ordain Women lady is sort of presently the face of that, if as I've been told she is claiming to speak for what God has helped her know is the true state of affairs the church should attend to.
That, and when I asked a couple other groups of people I know who are fully or largely mormon, about if someone were to say this while within the church, in each case I got: Elder Ballard, "Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God’s true prophets"
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
There is a concept of stewardship in the LDS church that is tightly bound to the concept of revelation. Generally speaking, people are only entitled to revelation pertaining to their stewardship. For a LDS woman that would be her family and her callings (church assignments). Most people I know would say that she is not entitled to revelation for the entire church. Only the prophet and his immediate advisors may receive such revelation as their stewardship includes the entire membership of the church.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:You jest
It's more that my tongue gets caught in my cheek from time to time.
quote:Men do not hold a monopoly on passing judgements.
No, but certain men claim to hold a monopoly on passing binding judgments upon others in the name of God.
quote:Women can certainly declare things in God's name, and those things are binding.
Can they declare their judgments as the binding will of God?
Can they declare judgment on their fellow saints, and revoke the right to salvific sacraments? Can they kick a fellow soul out of God's kingdom for disobeying their counsel?
quote:The key ingredient is not whether the gender of the spokesperson is male, it's whether God was indeed speaking through that individual.
I'm not certain what we're cooking, but I would suppose that the key ingredient in any kind of fare is whether one is recognized as having the authority to speak for God, in a way that is recognized to be binding for other individuals.
And you do realize how fatuous platitudes like "what matters is whether God is speaking through an individual" sound, when the example at hand is a woman claiming that God is speaking through her, and church authorities revoked her access to the sacraments of salvation, and kicked her out of her religious community for saying what she believes, with the explicit reasoning being NOT that what she was saying doesn't actually come from God, but that what she was saying resulted in other members believing her, and that it was causing such members to experience doubt that the patriarchy has the exclusive right to speak to God's will?
From where I'm sitting, it seems clear that what really matters is preserving the exclusivity of the right to speak for God that the boy's club of mormon authority has arrogated for itself.
[ June 29, 2014, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not loving having my words called "fatuous platitudes". Just as you probably would not appreciate my dismissing your words as ingrate malcontentment.
Perhaps you are better versed than me in Sister Kelly's position, but I don't recall her saying that she has had a revelation from God in the sense that she has written out or spoken it to a group of people. Rather she feels that ordaining women to the priesthood is consistent with scripture and that she personally feels through the spirit it's God's will.
quote:a woman claiming that God is speaking through her, and church authorities revoked her access to the sacraments of salvation, and kicked her out of her religious community for saying what she believes, with the explicit reasoning being NOT that what she was saying doesn't actually come from God, but that what she was saying resulted in other members believing her, and that it was causing such members to experience doubt that the patriarchy has the exclusive right to speak to God's will?
Until we sort out the "Speaking for God" assertion, I'm not sure it's useful to follow the rest of this statement.
quote:From where I'm sitting, it seems clear that what really matters is preserving the exclusivity of the right to speak for God that the boy's club of mormon authority has arrogated for itself.
I disagree. I think it's more likely the leaders of the church feel that the decision not to ordain women is a function of God's will, not that they personally have any ethical qualms with women being ordained to the priesthood, or fear women having authority.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:From where I'm sitting, it seems clear that what really matters is preserving the exclusivity of the right to speak for God that the boy's club of mormon authority has arrogated for itself.
it is never this simple nor would that be how they consciously understand their motivation. so that's not what would matter to them at all.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:I'm not loving having my words called "fatuous platitudes"
I apologize for offending. I have a personality disorder where I sometimes say things I think regardless of how it might make others feel.
I can see how such language can offend, and ask your pardon, since it has. My intent was to give a sense of why my tongue is sometimes wrung so wry in my responses to you.
quote:as you probably would not appreciate my dismissing your words as ingrate malcontentment.
Hmm. People have dismissed my words as worse before. I can usually appreciate where they're coming from, even if it generally means that there is a great gulf between our respective modes of understanding.
I suppose my reaction would probably depend on the context. For instance, if you asked me if I realized how ungrateful my malcontentment sounded, my level of appreciation for the characterization would probably depend on whether I could see that I was being ungratefully malcontent, and whether I could appreciate how cheery gratitude would be a more appropriate disposition, in context.
Since you bring it up, is there a contextual reason that my disposition toward mormon authority should more appropriately be one of gratitude, rather that malcontentment?
quote:Perhaps you are better versed than me in Sister Kelly's position, but I don't recall her saying that she has had a revelation from God in the sense that she has written out or spoken it to a group of people.
I don't recall saying that she was claiming to be a formal revelator, either. What I meant with the phrase "God is speaking through her" is that I understand that she has claimed that she believes that the spirit of God has inspired her actions.
I don't think that a formal revelation incident of some specific kind is requisite in order to characterize her claims the way I did.
In any case, if the issue were really about whether or not her actions and advocacy were indeed inspired by God, she wouldn't have gotten told in her excommunication letter that her allegedly inspired beliefs were not the problem.
The letter makes it very clear that the central issue in the excommunication decision isn't about whether her actions were legitimately inspired by God.
quote:
quote:From where I'm sitting, it seems clear that what really matters is preserving the exclusivity of the right to speak for God that the boy's club of mormon authority has arrogated for itself.
I disagree. I think it's more likely the leaders of the church feel that the decision not to ordain women is a function of God's will, not that they personally have any ethical qualms with women being ordained to the priesthood, or fear women having authority.
I didn't suggest that church authorities were gynophobic. I implied that their priority is the preservation of the tenability of their own exclusive claim to divine authority.
[ June 30, 2014, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:it is never this simple nor would that be how they consciously understand their motivation. so that's not what would matter to them at all.
I couldn't speak to what they consciously understand their motivations to be. And the way I worded my statement may have been misleading: I wasn't trying to imply that the core intent is to exclude women--I meant that the priority is about preserving the integrity of their exclusive claim to speak for God, as opposed to determining whether God is indeed behind the message at hand.
And I'm not idly speculating--the letter of excommunication makes it pretty clear what the priority of the authorities in the case actually is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Nelson: Apology accepted. I will try to keep your disorder in mind when we discuss things so that I afford you more patience.
quote:Since you bring it up, is there a contextual reason that my disposition toward mormon authority should more appropriately be one of gratitude, rather that malcontentment?
I wouldn't presume to tell you how your disposition towards Mormon general authorities ought to be. Having no clue what your life experiences have been as they pertain to that.
It's not really useful for me (I think) to tell you how you ought to feel about opinions anyway. What matters to me is understanding where you are coming from, and communicating my own place to you.
quote:I don't recall saying that she was claiming to be a formal revelator, either. What I meant with the phrase "God is speaking through her" is that I understand that she has claimed that she believes that the spirit of God has inspired her actions.
Well saying you feel inspired is a different kettle of fish from a formal revelation is it not? I routinely hear people say that they are inspired to say things that after hearing, my own sense of inspiration says, "NOPE!" That was a huge struggle of mine when the leadership of the church started presenting Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution, and Prop 8 to California's. It's still something I reflect on and wrestle with daily.
If Sis. Kelly has a unique revelation that sidesteps the established revelatory channel we all sustain as members of the church, that can only happen if the leadership of the church has totally fallen into apostasy (a serious claim to be sure).
But that's the interesting thing about being excommunicated. If she is right in what she is doing, the Stake President and Bishop's decision won't matter at all in a spiritual sense. People who should not have been excommunicated have been before. It is only if they are right that she need reconsider what she is doing. Whether she is right or the general authorities is a subject I am presently undertaking in my own meditations. I hope to get an answer.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh, snap. I seem to have passed 14,000 posts without realizing it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:afr,
quote: Well, whatever. I think you're trying to stuff what I just said into what you want it to mean. These aren't prison guards and they aren't military commanders. It's not a prison, nor it is the military. Members are not sworn to take orders, nor are they forced to do so. If you are approaching a cliff, the signs warning you that there is a cliff ahead are not necessarily giving you orders. Yet if you choose to ignore the signs' warnings, you will have to deal with the consequences. I admit this peeved me enough that I stepped away from the conversation for awhile. I feel your response was unnecessarily dismissive and flippant, but on further thought it seemed likely it was due to a misunderstanding.
To clarify, my point was not that counsel is akin to military orders, or to liken the Mormon church to prison. It was simply to highlight the usual definitions of the word 'order' versus a word such as 'counsel', and to point out that many of your reasons for why counseling shouldn't be considered an order would apply equally well to things everyone considers orders without question, such as orders in the military.
I apologize for my tone there. It was at the point where I was starting to feel the dog pile coming. I try to keep that tone out of my posts here (although I have often been the recipient of it myself) but I was starting to feel pretty frustrated right then. I guess I still bristle at the implication that what's going on in such a conversation between a bishop and a ward member, say, is comparable to a prisoner being given the "choice" between obedience or death. Orders without question is definitely not a good description of such an exchange. Honestly, I couldn't care less if the right word is "counsel" or something else. Whatever word would best describe it, it's not a place where members are being given orders, even implied--because the purpose of the exchange is not ultimately coercion or force.
You've never been anything but respectful to me, Rakeesh, while always giving me plenty to think about. So again, I apologize for being short with you.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:Well saying you feel inspired is a different kettle of fish from a formal revelation is it not?
Yup.
Specifically, it seems like the fish in the latter kettle are probably red herrings.
I wasn't the one that brought up "revelation." I asked if women could come to binding judgments in God's name, you responded by suggesting that what really matters isn't gender, it's whether God is speaking through the person.
I tried to spin your response (which seemed like a bit of a non sequitur to me) back to the topic, but we seem to be on different tracks...
Rather than continuing to hash through the tangent, I'll simply note that my initial question was rhetorical: as I understand it, in the LDS view of authority, women don't have the power to make binding judgments in God's name.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's not a theologically unsound concept to me. I imagine the church's response would be mixed. I would listen and pray over the matter.
There are many instances of the church going astray and God sending someone to bear witness of the truth. I don't think the leaders are remotely that out of touch with God however.
Saying the Church's response would be mixed is very generous, I think. Latter-day revelation has been pretty clear on the matter: revelation comes through the proper channels.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
related conclusion to process within religious orthodoxy
No apologies necessary. Naturally you're more invested in this subject than I am, and you are on the receiving end of more criticism in this context.
quote:I apologize for my tone there. It was at the point where I was starting to feel the dog pile coming. I try to keep that tone out of my posts here (although I have often been the recipient of it myself) but I was starting to feel pretty frustrated right then. I guess I still bristle at the implication that what's going on in such a conversation between a bishop and a ward member, say, is comparable to a prisoner being given the "choice" between obedience or death. Orders without question is definitely not a good description of such an exchange. Honestly, I couldn't care less if the right word is "counsel" or something else. Whatever word would best describe it, it's not a place where members are being given orders, even implied--because the purpose of the exchange is not ultimately coercion or force.
The comparison is not valid, I think, because both are equally coercive or immoral. After all, obviously a bishop or other church official won't have the authority to bludgeon or pepper spray or torture (excuse me, 'solitary confinement') a wayward member of their church. The comparison is valid because there is, well, an element of coercion in both. Not nearly the same, of course, but I chose such incendiary examples because they were incendiary, to illustrate that coercion is not a black and white thing. There's degrees.
For example, on the far end of non-coercion, I might send a blind email to someone attempting to persuade them to, say, vote for a given candidate. Let's take it further-I send such an email to a New Zealand citizen. Setting aside the weirdness of this, no coercion at all there. It's all persuasion. On the end of maximum coercion, you might have a military officer at some points and places in history with a pistol aimed at the back of advancing infantry in front of him, threatening them with summary execution if they don't continue to advance. Setting aside the needs of war and such, this is just about maximum coercion-a specific demand backed by a serious and immediate threat of violence.
Then there are examples of counseling such as Dogbreath mentioned. His example is especially useful, I think, since it's in a military context that is adjacent to much stronger and less persuasion-oriented examples of coercion. In the sort of counseling he mentioned, the threat is not immediate, not guaranteed, and not really one of violence or incarceration, but there is an understood threat there as well-an understanding of coercion: 'if you don't do these things or take steps towards doing so, there will be consequences'. It doesn't matter whether or not the person counseling is entirely in the moral, ethical, and military right and the one being counseled couldn't be more wrong. There is still a threat (or a promise, if you like) of a negative consequence if one doesn't make some changes. The way you have described counseling in a church context sounds not very dissimilar to what Dogbreath described. Less structured, less rigid, more ambiguous-but both the bishop and the one being counseled certainly understand that they're there because there's a problem, and if this problem isn't resolved, there will be negative consequences beyond simply the bishop's disapproval.
Incidentally coercion does not need to be completely free of a carrot to still be coercive. In all the examples mentioned here, there are incentives as well as disincentives. Sometimes those incenvitives are marginal to say the least, even simply a difference in degree of punishment, but they're there.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Going a step further, one could argue any advice given when one person holds some authority over someone else - whether pastor/churchmember, teacher/student, boss/employee, officer/soldier, psychiatrist/patient, doctor/patient, etc. - can be seen as coercion. Which is why fraternization is actually a crime you can go to jail for in the military, and you can loose your license, or get fired, or sued in almost any of the other context. Or in a case I discussed a while back, get charged with rape. (The rather disturbing pastor who convinced a girl he was "counseling" that Jesus wanted her to sleep with him)
This is because, whether spoken, implied, or even intended, there's always a very real psychological force carried by comments in those situations. "He hits on me and it makes me uncomfortable, but I don't want to say anything because I could loose my promotion." "I don't really want to go to her party this weekend, but if I say no, maybe she'll pass me over or fire me", "I don't really like the way he touches my arm and looks at me, but he might give me an F on my paper if I don't smile back." These reasons and more are why I try to stay somewhat distant and professional at work, because I don't want my Marines to feel like they have to be my buddy to earn my approval.
So if I have the ability to excommunicate you, i.e, I can choose to cut you off from your church, your community, and your way of life, any friendly advice I give you, even the most innocuous, seemingly inert thing, will hold far more weight than, say, an intense counseling session from a peer.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
(And note in the above examples, in every single one of them the coercion could be entirely unintentional. I.e, your Sergeant might simply feel embarrassed and apologize if you ask him to stop flirting with you, your boss might be secretly relieved you turned down her invitation, and react perfectly normally, your teacher may simply be a touchy feeley person, and may thank you for letting him know so he doesn't make anyone else uncomfortable. The point is that they're all still inappropriate because the implied threat is still present, and the threatened person doesn't know if the gun is loaded, so to speak)
(1000 posts!!!!! And it only took me 5 1/2 years )
[ July 15, 2014, 06:12 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Less structured, less rigid, more ambiguous-but both the bishop and the one being counseled certainly understand that they're there because there's a problem, and if this problem isn't resolved, there will be negative consequences beyond simply the bishop's disapproval.
I saw similarities with Dogbreath's military counseling example as well. If you call this coercion, even if it's on the light end of the coercion scale, then it's a terminology thing we've been disagreeing on. I see coercion as someone in a position of authority using whatever leverage they have to force a person in their charge to do something against their will. That's different, IMO, than even what you've described in what I quoted above--what I assume you're calling coercion on the light end of the scale.
You said the hypothetical conversation might be as follows: "if you don't do these things or take steps towards doing so, there will be consequences," and that that conversation carries an understanding of coercion. I don't see that situation as coercive or necessarily leading to some coercive situation. A member of the military is being told by her commander that something she is doing is in violation of some military code or rules. She is being given the opportunity--the choice--to correct her behavior and avoid the consequences written into said rules for when they are broken. Will it be the commander who would have to carry out the prescribed punishment? Possibly. Does that mean the commander is coercing her to act a certain way? IMO, no. The commander isn't using any more leverage with this soldier than what the soldier agreed to abide by when she joined the military.
If the commander took it further and told the soldier, "Listen, if you don't act a certain way, I'm going to make your life hell, and I know just where to squeeze," then that would be a form of coercion. But that is not automatically implied in the session where the soldier is being informed of impending consequences of misbehavior.
I feel that any organization that runs on specific sets of rules and that has prescribed methods of action for certain situations (i.e. almost any organization with a definite mission and central structure) has to handle cases like this in an orderly manner or fall apart because they're doing nothing to maintain their integrity. Any HR generalist is going to have the same kind of conversation with an employee who's crossed the line--they're not being coercive any more than a bishop having that conversation with a member who has crossed the line. In both cases, the member knows full well what the rules are and has agreed to be subject to them in order to be a member in good standing of the organization. You really can't maintain an organization's integrity without members who follow its rules.
I do resent the implication that any such situation (pastor/churchmember, teacher/student, boss/employee, officer/soldier, psychiatrist/patient, doctor/patient, commander/subordinate, etc.) is coercion. It could easily be used for coercion. But that doesn't automatically make it coercion. I am strongly opposed to such abuse of any such relationship, just to make that clear, and I definitely see a line between a normal leader/member relationship and a coercive one.
quote:So if I have the ability to excommunicate you, i.e, I can choose to cut you off from your church, your community, and your way of life, any friendly advice I give you, even the most innocuous, seemingly inert thing, will hold far more weight than, say, an intense counseling session from a peer.
That's a big oversimplification and not super accurate. A member will usually meet with their bishop first, the leader of their local congregation, or ward. The bishop really is going to do his level best to help that person make the changes he needs to make to continue in full fellowship in the church. You're right, it's a weighty matter, and nothing's really innocuous in such a series of conversations. However, and I want to make this clear if I haven't before--we're not talking about the bishop's caprices here, as you've implied, but the choices the member has made on his own.
If what the member has already done is a grave enough violation of church rules and policy, or if over time the member fails to correct his course of actions as the bishop has prescribed, the bishop will refer the member to the stake president, who has the authority to determine what action from the church's standpoint will be taken regarding the member. The stake president will likely interview the member to a considerable extent, possibly with the bishop present as the member's advocate, so that he can make the most informed decision possible.
This is how such matters are handled. I don't see why you wouldn't expect the church, like any organization, to have mechanisms in place to deal with the breaking of its rules and policies. If you are approaching this from the standpoint of the beliefs and commandments from the divine that the church adheres to as being empty and worthless when it comes to deciding some cases of church membership, then I guess it doesn't matter what I say here. But those are well known, agreed to, and taught regularly by church members and are necessary for continued good standing in the church. Church members in the situation of possible excommunication are there because the actions they've chosen to take are in grave violation of some church policy well known to them, not because some leader wants to hold their life in his hands.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I was actually arguing your side somewhat - since any conversation between a subordinate and an authority figure (or even more basically, between anyone who has power over someone else, in any way) is, at least somewhat, coercive, it's something of a moot point. It does put a huge amount of responsibility on the authority figure to be careful with how s/he counsels and advises someone, since it can and will be taken much differently than advice or counsel from a peer. I feel like a lot of workplace drama is caused by bosses who don't actively take this into account.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You're absolutely right--the perception of such situations from the outside often turns them into something with sinister overtones, and it's easy to assume the worst possible motives. And the authority figure does have to tread carefully to avoid crossing lines or having counsel taken in the wrong way.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:I do resent the implication that any such situation (pastor/churchmember, teacher/student, boss/employee, officer/soldier, psychiatrist/patient, doctor/patient, commander/subordinate, etc.) is coercion.
According to the dictionary, coercion is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
If "counsel" effectively boils down to telling an individual to modify their behavior, in a way which is involuntary, at the threat of excommunication, then it is definitively "coercion," regardless of how much we may resent the lexical law of the Logos.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)