By Spunky
On October 5th, there are a group of Mormon women who will go to the Priesthood Session of General Conference and request entry. The action is meant to draw attention to the inequality of a male-only presiding priesthood, and draw attention to the concept of female ordination. I live too geographically far away to attend, but I support these women. In my small and distant way, I have been advertising my pro-female-ordination position on Facebook by including pro-ordination posts. Like many of the women involved in OW, I have received some unsupportive, even unkind comments. But now and again, I get a message from someone who is well and truly concerned about my eternal destination, and sends a sweet and concerned message.
Below is my response to one of the kindest messages of non-support I have received. When I wrote it, I felt like my life had been in preparation for seeking ordination.
********
Dear Sister V,
Thank you so much for your beautiful and precious words. I do appreciate them and am very grateful that you took the time to write to me. I love you and am so very grateful that you care enough to address this with me. This is a testament to me that you do love me, and for this, I am sincerely grateful. Please know that twenty years ago, I was of similar mind to you. But you and I have very different lives. That is one of the blessings of the gospel; it is applicable and pertinent to all of us, no matter how different we are. Like you, I do not wish to enter into a debate. That would only cause hurt feelings, and that would crush me as I love you and respect you so very, very much. I also know your message was coming from a place of love and that I felt that love. My message is seeking empathy, to which you may agree or not.
I was born without a uterus. It is an unusual condition, but nonetheless, and as you have now comprehended, I can’t have children naturally. It is impossible. As a young woman, I sat through chastity meetings telling me that sex was only for the purpose of having babies; in this, I was confused. Even if I was having sex, I could not have babies- was I meant only to be Isabelle, the harlot as described in Alma 39:3 since it was presumed I would be sexual- but it was impossible to have a baby? It occurred to me that if sex was only for having babies, and women are “only” meant to be mothers- that my spiritual value was only in my physical body. This is something I have no real mortal control over. Why were the Deacons, Teachers and Priests taught they had spiritual power through Priesthood, yet I was only valued for my body?
This confused and frustrated me. I could not bring myself to pray for someone — another woman – to break the law of chastity so I could adopt. I was left as being less valued that my Mormon peers-male and female, and I did not understand why.
I was 30 by the time I married. Before then, I sabotaged dates with fabulous returned missionaries, because I could not bring myself to admit to them that my body had no value in a Mormon context because I could not have children. For the very few I shared this with, one was a celibate, gay returned missionary who wanted to be a father, so was happy to be in a sexless marriage with me. The few others wanted to “bless” me better–something done by stake presidents and bishops before then–to no avail. My self-worth plummeted, because my spiritual value was labelled only in motherhood, achievable only in my physical, mortal body. I saw a church image with a paraplegic male missionary in a wheelchair. His mortal body was disabled, but he still did his priesthood duty. It was crushing for me to know I had no value because my body could not perform what I had been taught it was foreordained to do spiritually.
I finally married a fabulous man, who loves me for my spirit and my body. Unlike many of the returned missionary men I dated before him, he did not marry me for my baby-making abilities. Because of legal challenges with international adoption and other personal issues, we chose to go the route of gestational surrogacy. In my life, I have been blessed to have half a dozen Mormon, female friends offer to be surrogates for me. We finally made plans with one beloved friend, and began the surrogacy process. The thing is, although she offered to carry a baby for me, we had to go through the First Presidency to gain permission to do this, rather than risk excommunication because of the anti-surrogacy policy in the church handbook.
Why did we have to do this? We were both temple recommend holders, and felt spiritually inspired to engage on this path. I can think of only examples of men who committed murder for needing First Presidency approval to receive the priesthood. Is my infertility akin to murder in the church? Seems so. None of the women I knew had any issue with surrogacy, even though they may have understood they could never be a surrogate. In this, I began to wonder: if a woman were to write the church handbook, might some of these policies be enlightened, changed, freed–so my infertility and my friend offering to help would not be forced to go through the same process of approval as a murderer who sought baptism and priesthood.
Mid-process, I had IVF complications. I had to go through IVF 4 times to get the embryos from me and my husband. I cried, kneeling and praying over so many toilets in the hospital bathroom stalls begging to be a mother. What man, with a temple recommend and a dozen people fasting for him, cries like this just for the ability to use the priesthood? The priesthood/motherhood comparison well and truly died for me then. It is unequal, and makes no sense. I am sorry, but your argument in this is worthless to me.
In this same period, my husband took a rural job that paid well so we could pay for surrogacy and numerous IVFs. We found ourselves in a rural town where we travelled an hour each way to meet at a branch for a basic sacrament meeting. It was here that I learned that we could go weeks at a time without the sacrament if no men attended church due to distance and/or shift work. One week, just after Elder Perry’s talk about women wearing thongs as being a sign of disrespect at church, I found myself staring at a man at the front of the chapel, wearing shorts and thongs, as all the women surrounding him were in full church dress. He was blessing the sacrament and partaking of it before me, symbolic of his masculine place of being God accepting the atonement. The cigarette scent on his fingertips permeated the sacramental bread. Why was he more worthy to bless the sacrament than any of the temple-recommend holding women in our company, when he himself did not have a temple recommend? Why was I judged in conference by my shoes, when he could wear what he wanted because we women sought the sacrament? This again, made no sense to me.
I also felt very inspired, nay, commanded, at this time to start doing temple work for some of my deceased family. In this, I arranged to drive 22 hours to a temple. Aware of the importance of planning to do family work, and the distance and cost associated with attending the temple for this, I called a month ahead, and ensured there would be “priesthood” there to support the work. The “priesthood” had my phone number, but I received no calls. On the day I went to do the work, the “priesthood” just didn’t show. Not a single one! As I sat crying in the baptistry, I was surrounded by women. In praying for forgiveness for not doing the work I was commanded to do (redeem the dead- one of the purposes of the church), it occurred to me that I had done nothing wrong. At this time, I felt it was revealed to me that the answer was in women receiving priesthood keys so we could witness, officiate and ordain, in order to fulfill the purpose of redeeming the dead. In counting the women at the baptistry who were cleaning, doing paperwork and organizing, I came to understand that if we had priesthood keys, enough people were there that we could have been proxy to, performed, witnessed, and recorded baptisms that day. But we were without men, so the work did not go forth.
I understand that you have always had men around you to do the work of the priesthood. And you did not have to question your personal worthiness as your mortal body is in line with your spiritual assignment to mother and nurture. I also anticipate that you would tell me that I can nurture without being a mother, just like a man without the priesthood must be the present “authority” for priesthood-holding missionaries to teach his wife.
And yet. Consider my next door neighbours, whom I invited the missionaries to teach, but they refused because her husband did shift work, and my husband travels for work, so she was unable to see baptism and eventually gave up, because of logistics with missionaries needing other males around. It is yet another witness that the work ceases because women do not have priesthood or priesthood authority.Even though I am not a man, and am not a mother, I still seek to serve in a better capacity. I believe that my life was intended to be one who brings about understanding for the need of female ordination in the church. If nothing else, I’d like conference talks — including the ones at the Relief Society General Meetings that you mention- to reflect better what I know: that I am a daughter of God, and He loves me, and that I am worthy to serve Him in redeeming the dead and bringing about the immortal life of men and women through baptism in Christ’s church, regardless of my physical body.
I do not expect to change your mind on this topic. But I do hope you will gain some understanding of my position, of my desire to serve, of my commitment to the church and my devotion to God, Christ and the gospel. My only purpose is to serve, just as you and your husband.
Thank you for your message, your love and your concern.
Much love, appreciation and respect,
S
Thank you. This was very powerful to me.
What a beautiful post! I agree with you whole heartedly.
Thank you for sharing. I’m sorry that you’ve gone through so much pain but your story is very powerful. I hope lots of people (including the First Presidency) are able to read it and ponder it carefully, because I’m sure that there are other women out there who share your perspective.
This is exactly the kind of personal story that the First Presidency needs to hear. Please, please, please pass it on to them, ideally in a formal written letter through postal mail. I could send it, but it’s not my story. They deserve to hear it directly from the person whose story it is. In fact, send a copy to the Relief Society presidency as well. Maybe, just maybe, they are the more important audience for this message.
I agree that this is a powerful, important story that should be shared with the leaders of the Church. Thank you for being so open. It really touched my heart.
Wow! This is a wonderful, powerful, heart-rending post! Thanks so much for writing it.
Regarding the surrogacy policy in the Handbook, I think you’re spot on. This is one of many policies that is filtered through men’s minds who aren’t able (or willing?) to imagine women’s experiences. If the Handbook were written by women and men together, I suspect it would have fewer of these obviously sexist blunder policies.
Dearest Spunky, I will never tire of hearing of your story: your heartache is my heartache, and your strength strengthens me. You have an amazing clarity about these issues. Thank you for sharing these parts of your life with us. Sending love through the ether, where it crosses oceans much faster.
Beautiful and powerful. Thank you for writing. I have not had the same experiences as you, and I have always been “surrounded by men” with the priesthood, but I also feel the call to ordination. Thank you for being so brave in writing this.
Please send this to the First Presidency and Gen RS Pres. This is so powerful and so wonderfully written.
Your pain, but also your faith shine though. Thank you for sharing.
Amazing post. I wish more people could read it, including church leadership.
However, from my understanding letters like this get returned to sender with a reply from a secretary. Has anyone else sent a letter and received a legitimate response from a church leader?
I’m curious if you sent a similar letter for church leadership?
No, Jessawhy, I did not. I knew through experience that my letter would be sent to the stake president for him to address. That is how the surrogacy “approval” was received; the letter was sent by the stake president to the First Presidency. Interestingly, the First Presidency responded that it was the bishops who knew us best, and should make the call. (The bishop said he was fine with it, but wanted to check to see if the Stake president had an issue with it. Stake president didn’t know what to do, so went to the First Presidency, who, in the end, supported the bishop.)
It did not previously occur to me to write this from an ordination standpoint to the First Presidency.
I am also interested if anyone has received a response letter from the First Presidency?
Yes. I have received personalized responses from members of the GA. I am a bit of a busy body and insist on telling them how I feel. Squeaky wheels, my dear.
I’ll throw some more gas on this warm fire :)
I know it’s rare, but what about the intersex, transgender and other women who were incorrectly identified as male who received the priesthood?
It looks like the church has already ordained women….now it’s time to let the rest of the women in on it :)
http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-brianne/
Wow.
Like, WOW.
I wasn’t sure about the Ordain Women movement, but I think you just totally changed my mind. Thank you for teaching me to have more compassion.
I want to say this gently, because I am very moved by your story, but I’m kind of amazed that after all your experience with the Church, you could still believe that “it is applicable and pertinent to all of us, no matter how different we are.” There is nothing wrong with you. There is something wrong with the doctrine and those problems go far beyond the non-ordination of women. Those same meetings and lessons you sat through, think how heartbreaking they also were for transgender folk, who know that gender is considered eternal while they sit there in a body they cannot reconcile with the gender identity they know to be theirs in a church that tells them that physical body will always be the same sex to which it was born. For gay or lesbian members who love, with exactly the same feelings and fervency, those with whom their sexual relationship can never be about conceiving children and who are basically being asked to live without love or sex in order to seek an eternity wherein the only hope for happiness is that something utterly fundamental to their sense of self might be reversed by God. Imagine how those hours feel to women who have no desire to raise children, but feel that this must make them bad people, because evidence God sees this as the purpose for which they were born women. If they can physically bear children, holding the priesthood will not excuse them from this ‘duty’. You simply can’t say, ‘I don’t want children’ in the LDS church without leaders and fellow members alike telling you that you have misunderstood the purpose of life and need to repent.
I spent a long time in the Church oblivious to this. I am a straight, cisgendered female and I grew up in a time where almost no-one came out as gay or trans and every girl or women I knew professed to want children. I believed that being gay was a choice and I didn’t have enough experience with the diversity of human realities to change my paradigm. I thought the gospel applied to everyone and could bring anyone happiness if they just lived by its teachings. I was wrong. This ‘gospel’ does not have the power to make everyone happy. In fact, it doesn’t even make happy many of the people who fit exactly into the prescribed mold. But it definitely can’t make happy those who can’t fit that mold. It simply cannot fulfil those promises. But instead of realising this, people instead blame the individual. You are told that you need to want to fit that mold and that if you don’t, or you don’t want to, you are just not trying hard enough, praying enough, reading your scriptures enough, serving enough. So many people blaming themselves because they just can’t see, or can’t admit, that the Church simply isn’t true. Instead they try to find or fake happiness in the midst of their heartache.
Obviously I respect your right to believe as you choose, but I just don’t believe any more that anyone should have to suffer the kinds of feelings you’ve described, and while I acknowledge your argument for the ordination of women and think it sound, I also think that seeking the priesthood in a church that hold no genuine authority is like trying to fix a bad cake by swapping the icing. I sincerely hope, if you remain in the church, that you get the priesthood you seek. But I hope more that one day you will fully understand that you never deserved to feel like a square peg unable to fit into an arbitrarily round hole. Nothing surprised me more, after I resigned my membership in the LDS church, than how many women (and some men) then felt able to be open with me about how unhappy they were in the church under those expectations. Many have since either stopped attending or left. We are all happier for it, and feel that we are living more authentic, purpose-driven lives.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Debbie.
I do fully understand that I never should have been made to feel that way. To be clear, I wanted to be a mother, so I have fought hard for it. This choice was mine. It was clear in my Patriarchal Blessing that I had a choice in this matter. That choice for me, had nothing to do with church culture. It was the church’s culturalism that I was intended to be a physical mother, the judgement therein, the frustration at feeling powerless as a matter of policy and the isolation of infertility that crafted my position on the policy of male-only priesthood.
I appreciate that you chose to leave the church, but that is not my calling.
Thank you again for your sensitive comment.
,
I am of the mind that like me, others used the “in the next life” excuse as a reason to not be unhappy about my desire to have a family.
oops! sent that a little prematurely. I meant to write in the body:
I am of the mind that like me, others WERE PITCHED the “in the next life” excuse as a reason to not be unhappy about my desire to have a family. But imagine someone has just been hit by a car, and is scared, bleeding, in pain, and realises they have just had a limb severed off. I would never rush over and say, “In the next life, you won’t bleed, have pain and will have a new arm. So quit your crying and help me unload my groceries!” Yet that is how very insensitive it feels whenever someone told me the “in the next life” line. I find that I hear quite a few childless women say “in the next life” as well… but I don’t know that we believe it. I think we say it as a matter of thinking that if we say it enough in our heads, our hearts will believe it. My heart never bent that way. I think few hearts do.
Thank you for sharing your invaluable perspective with Sister V and with all of us, my friend.
Sorry for the late reply college reports and working takes up a lot of time. Interesting blog. There are so many things in there that are misconceptions and other issues which I will address.
Adopting a child and raising it in the true church. The sins of the Parents are not the sins of the child. The child is innocent. She is thinking of this wrong. . . She could raise that child to be strong in the church and go on to have a family in the church and those generations on. Also those that have that challenge of infertility will have the chance later on in the Millennium. I am currently preparing for a mission and eventually plan to come back and get married. These days infertility seems to be on the rise, and if this ends up happening with me or my future wife I plan to adopt. It sucks that one of the most powerful things women can do sometimes isn’t possible, and I wish life was fair for all I really do.
“sex was only for having babies, and women are “only” meant to be mothers- that my spiritual value was only in my physical body.” This is incorrect, and people keep messing this up. Sex isn’t bad. Its AWESOME, and it is for BONDING man and wife IN MARRIAGE. The issue is where sex is done OUTSIDE of marriage, between those of the same sex, and other unholy things. I talked about this in church during my testimony. I talked with my LDS friend that had stayed a virgin till he was married in the temple and I asked him how was sex? He said it was AWESOME, and that he was glad he kept sex SACRED. I asked my non-member friends the same question they said “Meh, its sex.” and “Sex is okay.” I rather have AWESOME versus their answers. I also pointed out that sex is ORDAINED of God only between a man and woman who are MARRIED. Which means if you are married for all eternity you can have sex for all eternity. It is said that in the Millennium we will continue to have children. I very much doubt that we would just touch fingers and boom baby appears out of thin air. There is a book called: And They Were Not Ashamed: Strengthening Marriage Through Sexual Fulfillment by Laura M. Brotherson. This lady points out the issue I said above that since people wrongly teach that all sex is wrong when they should’ve taught that the issue is when sex outside of marriage, between same gender, and other things.
Now you probably meant for this part for your reply. I see that my examples of Priesthood in women with having children and those children born in covenant does little in this situation. However, it doesn’t discredit what I said. I’ve thought about this, because it could happen to me. The truth is that I want a companion that I can get eternal marriage with, and it is because of that her and I can become Gods. The reason the church pushes motherhood is because if women stopped having children then all our other sisters and brothers wouldn’t get bodies. The world teaches that the world is over populated and that is a lie that we learn from Elder Nelson’s ces devotional. Creating life is one of the greatest powers women have, but again this is overstated like the sex thing. Heavenly Father knows these issues exist and you won’t be any less blessed or worthy than the others. There is a very nice older couple in my parent’s ward. They couldn’t have children and didn’t end up adopting. They will still get to the Celestial Kingdom and reach to top most part of that Kingdom, because they’ve been married for eternity. Man and woman are bound together for time and eternity. Neither is the man without the woman or the woman without the man. Neither are able to become Gods without the other, and not having children isn’t going to affect that. What about the couple that has a family and all are sealed, but the children leave the church? That sealing may no longer be valid for the children, but that doesn’t affect the parent’s salvation. I also know that there are still single members, and I know this personally. I’m in a singles ward and some of my friends have just gone to the 31+ singles wards. There is a risk of this happening to me, but at the same time there are so many factors in this. I’ve heard people in the singles wards talk about the ONE. They are looking for the PERFECT ONE. Sad thing is all humans are imperfect, and they should listen to the Prophets that said there is no such thing as the ONE. The ONE is a fantasy in movies and books. This is real life, and I’ve tried to explain that to them. A good woman and a good man can make it, but we will also have a chance in the Millennium to get married if we didn’t have a chance during this life. However, I could imagine sitting in our interview with God saying he never sent us anyone and him replying “I’ve sent you two hundred and eighty-six possible spouses to you, and you rejected them all.” I know there are hundreds of other issues and I’m guilty of some of the same things. However, I plan when I get back from a mission to do everything I can to get married. I’m not going to stay in home like some and expect some good women to come find me like some of the people in my singles ward do. Sometimes I think we need arranged marriages to come back in style for some of the people in my singles ward. I mean a few of them seem unable to commit or choose anyone, and it’s almost as if they just want it to happen with little effort on their part.
I know there are probably other ways women use the Priesthood they get naturally as women, and with what they are endowed with even if they can’t have children. I beginning to think the issue is a lack of knowledge of what women actually have. I mean all women probably have the small portion of the Priesthood needed to create a human vessel for a Divine child of God, and the Born in the Covenant that I just learned about aren’t widely realized. Also it isn’t widely known that women get the Priesthood in the temple, but thanks to Elder Ballard’s talk that has been confirmed. I know in the Ensign Apirl 2013 pg 7. It says: “The strength, power, and blessings of temple covenants [sustained] the Latter-day Saints during their journey [west], when they [suffered cold, heat, hunger, poverty, sickness, accidents, and death.” To me this says power and we know from Elder Ballard’s talk that power that is endowed is Priesthood power. The pioneers used this power every day on their journey. Therefore, I believe that once a woman is endowed she uses and relies on the Priesthood gifted to her every day. You can use this power without having children. You can use it outside the temple, but in a different way besides blessings that men can do.
“The thing is, although she offered to carry a baby for me, we had to go through the First Presidency to gain permission to do this, rather than risk excommunication because of the anti-surrogacy policy in the church handbook.” Well never ever encountered this before, but interesting. I wonder if it is because of Born In Covenant? Maybe the child would be sealed to the mother who gave birth and they would have to break that sealing and re-seal the child to the correct parents? Maybe it is because of the risks involved like the surrogate mother not wanting to give the child up or being stuck with the child and the parents no longer wanting it, etc. . .?
That story about that guy passing the sacrament shouldn’t ever have happened! The bishop may not be doing his job or something because that shouldn’t ever have happened! Now in Argentina the women there have been wearing pants there for years. We are supposed to wear the BEST we have to the church, and for those women in Argentina that was pants. So again that guy should’ve been asked to go home and change into the best clothes he had. MOST IMPORTANTLY IF HE IS UNWORTHY TO DO THAT THE BISHOP SHOULD’VE STOPPED HIM! Sigh. I’ll have to look up that talk, but generally thongs are not nice or best shoes a woman would have. If we were to go in front of god would we go in our most worn down clothes we have or the best we have? Obviously it would be the best we have. We’re supposed to dress up in the best clothes we have for church. In some countries women may only have thong shoes and that is the best they have.
Only Prophets can receive revelation for the church, and maybe that was an inspired moment or something. Those Priesthood holders should’ve been there and they weren’t so they will be accountable to God for that. To be honest this makes me angry that some guys don’t do their duty and responsibility, and this is what I pointed out before that this would most likely become more common place as it becomes a women’s responsibility. Also she should’ve called a few more times rather than a month in advance. I make plans and people forget all the time. I tell my mom about something and a few days later she has been so busy she forgot. I would’ve called a week before I planned to leave and the day I planned to leave to confirm that they REMEMBERED TO BE THERE. People are imperfect and have bad memory again if this was a perfect world then yeah that one call would’ve been enough.
The reason why they couldn’t is because another man has to be there to prevent any false accusations or true accusations. If the elder missionaries had done something to her and that would’ve been horrible. However, they should’ve tried to find anyone else. Again I wasn’t there, but obviously more should’ve been done with that.
That letter/blog just made me want to slap the people in her life that caused her so much pain. I wish we didn’t have to wait for the Millennium so these things don’t happen.
I think you did a good job of addressing her specific examples of how things have hurt her, but you failed to adequately address her overall point.
When asked why women don’t get the priesthood keys, people often say that women get to bear children so it’s not unfair or unequal. She is giving a disputation of that rhetoric by showing examples of where it is wrong. Sure, the argument of men=priesthood keys, women=child bearing isn’t necessarily the real reasoning behind the lack of female ordination, but it is the one most often given and it hurts people like her.
We can come up with doctrinal excuses for this all day or claim that people did this to her and not the institution of the church, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter. When we consider that the central precepts of the gospel are “love God” and “love your neighbor as yourself”, the culture of the church is failing many women. There may be well-intentioned reasons for these things, but these are equally irrelevant. “By their fruits ye shall know them” comes to mind, as does the cliched phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
When somebody is being harmed by things, their concerns should be addressed with care and empathy rather than dismissiveness.
I meant to voice my thoughts on the points, and provide hope and help with some of the points. Share my knowledge and have her and others share their knowledge.
I just learned/discovered (Co-Creators with God Priesthood is how God creates having children uses portion of Priesthood?) by myself the concept mentioned in my lower post. So I was providing background posts to show where I was coming from. I also said it wasn’t required for salvation, and the promise of being able to do it in the Millennium as hope inducing. I’ve learned from OrdainWomen this: [First, the doctrinal idea that women are already endowed. In the temple women are set apart to become queens and priestesses. This, as well as other blessings, have led many to argue that women are already given the priesthood. If this is true – and I believe it is accepted by most LDS people – then women have been promised the same authority as men in the future, but women are not given the same opportunity to practice and prepare through ordination in this life, as men are. That is problematic for a people that believe in eternal progression and this mortal life as a training ground. Women are being denied the chance to fully prepare.
Second is the disconnect women experience with the whole motherhood=priesthood argument. Fatherhood is the natural complement to motherhood and to say otherwise devalues the role of fathers in families. Also, women are being told that our value is great because of our ability to mother and nurture. But that limits us to fully achieving our potential ONLY through another person – a man. Women always face an intermediary to God and Jesus Christ – a man.
In the end, it is not that we do not get the enjoyment of using the priesthood, but that if we truly believe in a plan of salvation that includes preparation in this life for duties and responsibilities in the next, then women are not being allowed to prepare. The priesthood is the cornerstone of the gospel and women are being given a foundation without that cornerstone.]
And if/when God says women can use the Priesthood then HURRAY! Seriously my issue is that I see consequences to the action and mentioned them in the question and answer thread in the Ordain Women: October Priesthood Session Action page. Like how in the Re-organized church now called the Community of Christ where they allowed the women the Priesthood. There were several issues at hand, but this was the last major straw that caused many to leave the church, and Priesthood Ordination rates to drop instead of increase drastically like it should’ve. That church is very similar to ours, but the decline in Priesthood Ordination rates shouldn’t have happened. I mean if on average there are 10,000 men given the Melchizedek a year. When they allowed women and say there were a 600,000 women who were qualified for it then there should’ve been an explosion of Priesthood Ordination per year! like 120,000 were given it that year and continued until all who could get had it. However, there was a decline that means men and women didn’t really care for the change. The men in that church probably thought “The women can do deal with that responsibility and duty, and I don’t have to.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Christ#Criticism
The world is still very backwards on women’s rights and equality. We are a worldwide church, and in some areas this change could destroy the growth the church has in that area. Block the church access in other areas, and other things. The United States of America is one of the foremost leaders in women rights and equality, but still we aren’t near perfect yet.
I believe that if/when the positive outweighs the bad then God will make the change. Like Bruce R. McConkie’s “All Are Alike unto God” http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570 When talking about the blacks getting the Priesthood “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”
I just don’t see this happening any time soon, and women having the Priesthood Keys isn’t required for their salvation else all the women in ages past are out of luck. :(
I don’t see this happening because the Apostles are still being told so: http://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-ballard-speaks-about-the-role-of-women-at-education-week?lang=eng and https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/ces-devotionals/2013/08?lang=eng
“In the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by a husband and wife.
“Why are men ordained to the priesthood offices and not women?” he asked, later explaining, “When all is said and done, the Lord has not revealed why He has organized His Church as He has.”
It is when thinking about the things not fully understood that individuals have to rely on faith, Elder Ballard said.
“Do we believe that this is the Lord’s Church? Do we believe that He has organized it according to His purposes and wisdom? Do we believe that His wisdom far exceeds ours? Do we believe that He has organized His Church in a manner that would be the greatest possible blessing to all of His children, both His sons and daughters?””
I really think they will talk about this during this coming conference so follow the Apostle’s suggestion: “If you have a question about the position of the church on . . . [any] important issue, prayerfully ponder it, then heed the prophetic messages at this forthcoming October general conference of the church,” he said. “Those inspired addresses, plus inspiration from the Holy Ghost, will bring a fuller understanding to your mind.”
If the leaders of the Church who are under God’s direction are currently being told that in God’s wisdom things are okay for right now then we must trust in God. I’m excited to see what is said about this issue in this coming conference! I’m okay with the women getting the Priesthood Keys, but only if it doesn’t cause more harm than good! God in his divine wisdom will know when/if that is or if we have to wait till the Millennium.
Yes it wasn’t my intention to come across as you’ve and others have said. Misunderstandings happen, and maybe I should’ve explained how I view this as a discussion of sharing of thoughts to expand knowledge and understanding.
Holy crap, Michael. TL;DR.
These responses by Michael B. illustrate the problems of gender roles in the church so well. Spunky has shared with as a lifetime of thoughtful, prayerful study and gospel experience. Michael B. openly admits that he never before even thought about many of the issues she raises until today. He also points out that he is too young to have any life experience remotely comparable to what Spunky has experienced. Yet, as a male priesthood holder, he feels qualified to lecture Spunky and reinterpret her life story. Where does his impudence come from?
Michael B. has been taught his whole life that because he is a male priesthood holder, it is his right to preside over women. Even women who have more life experience. Even women who have more gospel study. Michael B. is male and Spunky is female, so he it is his privilege to lead, even if he has no idea what he is doing. A lifetime of learning all gospel knowledge from a male perspective has taught Michael B. that female perspectives are not even relevant.
Michael B. is a cautionary tale. This is why extending the priesthood to women is so vital to the future of the church.
“Yet, as a male priesthood holder, he feels qualified to lecture Spunky and reinterpret her life story. Where does his impudence come from?”
I should’ve explained how I view this as a discussion of sharing of thoughts to expand knowledge and understanding. I was starting a discussion you know, and you presume too much. You know nothing of me, but a few of my many thoughts. Instead of increasing knowledge and understanding by sharing yours with me you ridicule, name call, and bully.
Do something positive and productive Exponent instead of negative.
Okay so I posted here since it was brought up in the facebook ordain women event q and a where I’ve been expressing my concerns and views. They posted the link to this blog. However, some of the things I wrote require the Previous posts I did so here they are:
http://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-ballard-speaks-about-the-role-of-women-at-education-week?lang=eng
“4. When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is by definition priesthood power.
“While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children,” he said.
Blessings of the priesthood are not limited to men alone; they are available to all who have entered the waters of baptism and subsequently received their endowment in a temple. “The endowment is literally a gift of power. All who enter the house of the Lord officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood. This applies to men and women alike,” he said.”
Today I learned about BIC or Born In Covenant. Now people outside the church when they convert they have to be sealed as a family. Now what happens to children born after that Priesthood ordinance is preformed? Well they are covered in the Born in the Covenant. It is a Priesthood ordinance that seals families together, and it requires a PHYSICAL BODY. So any future children aren’t included in that sealing until they get a body, HOWEVER, when a family gets a new child they don’t immediately rush to take it to the temple. Maybe because Women’s Priesthood seals the child to the family!!!! Women’s Priesthood does the BIC not a man.
“3. Men and women are equal in God’s eyes and in the eyes of the Church, but equal does not mean that they are the same. Although responsibilities and divine gifts of men and women differ in their nature, they do not differ in their importance or influence.
“Men and women have different gifts, different strengths, different points of view and inclinations,” Elder Ballard said. “That is one of the fundamental reasons why we need each other. It takes a man and a woman to create a family, and it takes men and women to carry out the work of the Lord in the Church.””
The BIC is different than what men can do, but it is one that women can only do. Also Elder Nelson
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/ces-devotionals/2013/08?lang=eng
18:41 Men are fore-ordain to have the Priesthood Keys and Authority. (IMO this means it is by Divine order that Men get the Priesthood keys while women get the Priesthood to create life and BIC.)
Ladies were chosen to bare and care for god’s children; Women are co-creators with God. (In my opinion God created everything with the Priesthood and so maybe all women have a bit of the Priesthood that creates?) Each of us were commissioned by God to build up the church.
24mins
Satan’s side God’s side. Satan wants unhappiness for men, and God wants happiness for his children. (So like I’ve said before that maybe the consequences would cause more unhappiness then happiness that God hasn’t directed his servants to give women the Priesthood KEYS.)
36:14
Will you choose to follow the Lord or the philosophies of men?
Over population is a lie. At 5th world congress of families. A scholar said if each man women and child were allotted a quarter of an acre of land all 6.8 billion people would fit in brazil leaving 20% of that country still available. The Married Mother has a far more reaching impact on the economy. Read Family the Proclamation to the World. They are truths 39min.
40min “If you have a question about the position of the church on . . . [any] important issue, prayerfully ponder it, then heed the prophetic messages at this forthcoming October general conference of the church,” he said. “Those inspired addresses, plus inspiration from the Holy Ghost, will bring a fuller understanding to your mind.” (I think they will touch on women’s roles among other things.)
46:40
In whom will you put your trust? Put trust in God. Be worthy of Endowment and sealing ordinances. Remember your loftiest goal is eternal life and the temple is essential. Section 86.
http://www.deseretnews.com/…
Motherhood=Fatherhood (Raising children)
Creating Life/Born in Covenant= Women’s Priesthood = Men’s Priesthood
Equal doesn’t mean same.
(There may be more things that women do, but idk at the moment.)
In essence two Apostles have touched on this. Both are linked. I guess we have to wait till General Conference before members realize it is by divine design, wisdom, and God’s wanting happiness for his children that men have Priesthood Keys and women have their Priesthood.
Maybe the phrasing of keys isn’t just random. Maybe women have the Priesthood Locks? Men have Priesthood Keys. lol idk *shrugs*
Amy’s post: “…Also, I’m not saying the biological and the spiritual cannot merge, but to suggest woman’s spiritual calling is one that is wholly biological is lacking mostly because ALL female mammals gestate, birth, and breastfeed but LDS homo sapiens are the only ones that hold the priesthood as a *spiritual* responsibility. It seems that we differentiate for men but not for women.”
Post 2
“ALL female mammals gestate, birth, and breastfeed but LDS homo sapiens are the only ones that hold the priesthood as a *spiritual* responsibility. It seems that we differentiate for men but not for women.” See my above post. Also the creation of a human vessel that can hold a DIVINE DAUGHTER OR SON OF GOD is NO small thing. Its like comparing a tricycle to the space shuttle. Our bodies are created in the image of GOD, and after the resurrection they will be glorified eternal bodies permanently bound with our spirits. Sure the tricycle (animal) has metal as well as the space shuttle (human), but they are vastly different. I mean sure we may have some things in common with biology, but only a human body can hold a divine spirit. Unless you are Hindu or Buddhist where you believe our complex divine souls can fit in a bee or ant… Which the Church says is incorrect.
Didn’t it take God’s power to create Man? Yet you are doing the same thing… Are you taking for granted what you can do even though it took God’s power to do it?
Interesting thought is that God did create the first man and woman, but it also took his power to put the soul into them. So what if that is another aspect of the creative power (Priesthood) that women have to help put a soul into the child they are creating inside them?
Born In the Covenant. BIC like I said in the above post is only possible if somehow women having children Seals that child to their family. Sealing Ordinances require a physical body or proxy body. Yet I wasn’t required to go to the Temple to get sealed to my parents, because I was Born In the Covenant. BIC an extension of the Endowment Priesthood women receive.
“It seems that we differentiate for men but not for women.” Only LDS women can do the BIC, and probably other things too. I find it disheartening to hear women say that the power they have is minor and not special even though like Elder Nelson said “Co-Creators with God.” Men are asked to honor and respect their Priesthood power.
K so this came before the above I posted in response to your blog. I meant that post as hope and pointing out some issues that seem to infect more society. Like Sex is a sin when it is actually good and ordained of god between a man and a woman who are married. They just say it is a sin which is totally incorrect.
On Adoption there is a story from one of my Institute teachers. She had met her future husband, and they dated. However she wanted to go to a University for a few years and didn’t want to get married at the time. After that school she married him and they tried for 2ish years. They decided to adopt. The children they ended up adopting were actually meant to be hers and her husband’s if they had gotten married earlier. This was revealed to her by the Holy Ghost. Your blog never says if IVF actually worked or what, and maybe adopting may be like my teacher’s situation where you get children you wanted, but through adoption.
I think your attitude here is exactly the kind of thing that bugs women who want to be ordained.
You’re in college and are preparing for your mission, haven’t been married yet and don’t have much life experience. Despite this, you come on here like you’re some sort of authority on the matter. You’re the young priesthood holder coming on here to set these errant women astray. Whichever priesthood keys you hold (Melchizedek, Aaronic, I don’t know if you’re an Elder yet), you treat them like you stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night.
To be honest, you’re not much different than the guy who shows up to bless/pass sacrament in sandals smelling of cigarette smoke. You wield your pretended authority like some kid who found his dad’s pistol in the sock drawer. Sure, you probably dress sharp for church and obey the word of wisdom, but your insensitivity to women is equally bad.
Do you honestly think you’ve got the right to come around here and tell women who are much older and more life experienced than you how to think? (hint: you might want to rethink this sort of attitude; it will not serve you well in your future marriage)
Michael B.,
I am well familiar with all of the talks and references you cite. I have all church talks of motherhood seared into my ears and scalded in my minds. It is only through devotion to Christ, rather than belief of these cruel and crude ideologies that I am healed. Do not take me for a fool. I have decades of experience, study and prayer over you on this subject.
To be clear, your response is simply too exhaustive and simplistic to combat in detail, so I will only address a few primary points.
As for your assumption about adoption, I am not worried about the adopted child. I am concerned about the birth mother. To seek to adopt is to seek someone else to break the law of chastity. I know the sin is not on the child. I simply am not comfortable, as you seem to be, in praying for someone else to break the law of chastity for my benefit. I find it abhorrent that you find praying for another to make such a grievous sin, and such emotional turmoil of giving away a child as so readily acceptable in your mind.
It has only been very recently that the church backed away from the “pro-creation, not recreation” ideology that was openly touted through the latter part of the 20th century regarding sex. Rest assured, I know sex well. You do not.
Regarding surrogacy, your response here is especially infantile. Please do not make more of a fool of yourself by addressing this topic ever again anywhere.
In short, your comment is exhaustive, arrogant and ignorant. I truly feel sorry for the people who will be forced to interact with you on your mission, and hope you will develop humility, empathy before too long to spare them of your rhetoric. In this, I especially hope that you will develop a testimony of Christ, because right now, all you appear to have is a testimony of church policy.
Spunky, First of all, my apologies that Michael brought our back and forth discussion from OW over to your beautiful, touching, and transcendent blog post. This isn’t the place. I simply posted this as a reply to many of the inane arguments regarding church policy constructed by men concerning women. I truly am sorry the insensitivity was brought to this place.
Now, back to your post itself. It’s stunning. There is such beauty and transcendence that you have touched on here. Wherever someone stands on the ordination of women in the LDS Church, I honestly do not know how someone can read your account, your experience, and your inspiration without suggesting that *something* has to change–our rhetoric surrounding the role of women is, in my mind, of the greatest importance. We simply can not allow ourselves to continue in harmful, hurtful and frankly *non-doctrinal* explanations of women’s roles. Peace and God’s love be with you, my Sister. You are loved and I am beyond grateful that you are using your experience to seek for change and better understanding for all of God’s daughters.
Thank you, Amy! No worries about the facebook discussion. I am pleased that the topic is being discussed.
Thank you for your kind and generous words.
Honestly I was voicing my opinion and thoughts on the points you said in the letter. I’m of a logical mind and use what I’ve learned to help others. However, apparently my purpose to help and give my thoughts on things to bring some hope. I wish to understand your point of view, and while also giving mine. I know I am young and I’m asking for your thoughts in response to mine.
This wanting to learn, discuss this subject, and other things makes those here call names and assume things they have no way in knowing. I had expected a calm friendly discussion, but received “infantile”, “arrogant and ignorant”, “I truly feel sorry for the people who will be forced to interact with you on your mission, and hope you will develop humility, empathy before too long to spare them of your rhetoric.”, “you treat them like you stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night.”, etc… etc… etc…
Really I didn’t expect name calling and all this assumptions on how apparently I’m the most horrible person in the world. I have a testimony of Christ and I honor my Priesthood. Yes I’m less experienced which is why I want to understand from you more experienced people your thoughts on this. Yet I’m met with immature name calling and bullying. Really?
“Do not take me for a fool.” To be honest from your post I didn’t know what you actually know or didn’t know. I presented my thoughts and opinions on the blog/letter, and wanted to know your view on them. Instead I find out you say that I’m too young and not worth your time. Why not instead educate me?
A few of your replies explained more:
Adoption: This explains a little more. I take from your reply there are no children in your surrounding areas needing to be adopted? I meant if it has already happen adopt the child. If there isn’t any children or infants in your area then no I would not advocate praying for someone to sin, but if the sin is already done then it is done. Well the emotional turmoil will happen if someone else adopts the child instead of you, and so it would happen anyways. With that it would be better to raise the child/infant in the Church than not.
Well I was still raised more of the pro-creation not re-creation thing, but I’m in my twenties. If they were even more than what they are now that way then wow. >.< Well yeah you would know more that is a given. I just wanted to make sure you weren't suffering from Good LDS Boy/Girl syndrome. My way of helping, but apparently you already know that so sorry I'm informing you of what you already know.
Surrogacy: I was actually hoping you would give more information on it, and was essentially brainstorming out why it would be. Saying thoughts in hopes of getting more clarification on it. Did you ever get it to work?
@Jenn:
If I have knowledge they don't have then I like to share it. If they already know then they already know. If they know more about a subject then they can share their knowledge with me. You apparently aren't one to share knowledge just name call and bully. Congratulations on doing nothing productive in your response. You could've taken the high rode and shared your knowledge, but you didn't. I don't remember doing any name calling or bullying in my responses. The older generations are supposed to teach the younger generations else the younger generations do as they please and don't become wise. I believe you also are thinking that I'm doing something other than having a calm, knowledgeable discussion.
I would like to continue this discussion without the name calling and bullying.
Michael B.,
You are not being called names. Your responses have been given descriptors. I used the term “infantile” while you have called yourself “young.” I called you “ignorant,” and you have declared that “To be honest from your post I didn’t know what you actually know or didn’t know.” These terms I have used are synonyms for what you have called yourself, therefore, I see, and intend no of offense.
I also called you “arrogant.” Your responses are nearly 1200 words longer than the original post. If you did not intend to lecture or offer a rebuttal, what else can a 2000+ word, then another 1000+ word “comment” mean but arrogance?
You did not write your responses with questions, nor did you originally state that you seek discussion. You stated “I meant to voice my thoughts on the points, and provide hope and help with some of the points.” This is not the definition of discussion, nor did anything you wrote offer any degree of hope or help.
You accuse those responding to your onslaught of words “bullies.” I googled a definition for bully. The first definition to come up was “A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing.” To be clear, your insensitive responses are CRUEL. The 3000+ words you use to express your insensitivity make it OVERBEARING. There is a bully here, but neither I nor April are that.
I do not understand what points you seek to be educated or discuss, if you do want to really discuss anything at all. This blog is not an appropriate place to details the exhaustive information having to do with adoption or surrogacy, it is not an adoption or surrogacy blog. You can look that up on your own time.
If you really have something to offer on the discussion of ordination, then please do so.
“If you did not intend to lecture or offer a rebuttal, what else can a 2000+ word, then another 1000+ word “comment” mean but arrogance?” This is just how my brain operates. I’ve found people get very very confused if I don’t use enough words to explain everything. Like how you said some stuff but left out a lot of the background information or other information that was related to that. The lack of info given causes confusion and misunderstandings. I posted in hope of finding out more. I developed this habit also, because of having to write many page reports explaining every little thing/point in college. The comments were from a discussion post on facebook, and therefore I forgot to preface them differently here since they were a copy paste from that discussion post.
“I meant to voice my thoughts on the points, and provide hope and help with some of the points. Share my knowledge and have her and others share their knowledge.” Yeah the second sentence explains more.
Infantile: Of or relating to infants or infancy. Looking up expounded definitions it says childish, I’m an adult male. More looking up shows lack of maturity. So I figured you were using the first definition in that sentence and maybe second. Third definition lack of maturity is applicable since I am young adult.
“To be clear, your insensitive responses are CRUEL. The 3000+ words you use to express your insensitivity make it OVERBEARING. There is a bully here, but neither I nor April are that.” I explained how I am above, and since it was a copy paste from a discussion post I can see now how it would come across as insensitive.
Well I did research on surrogacy and the Church basically from what I got it is considered a minor form of adultery. This probably explains why meeting with the church leaders was required. Impregnating another person outside the marriage union more or less.
Well this experience has been informative and interesting. Apparently I need to moderate my words (decrease word count), and make sure that if I go from a discussion page to a blog that I explain and do it with more tact/sensitivity. I’m sorry that you took everything as cruel, and for not explaining enough (though this would’ve increased the word count more).
Sorry and Apologies,
Michael B.
Once again, tl;dr all of it, but I will point out that wrapping cruel statements and arrogance in many words doesn’t lessen its impact. Somebody summing up your points and describing how they were taken doesn’t equate to name-calling.
We could have just as easily called you a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious person born out of wedlock, a belligerent young fart, a worthless steaming pile of cow dung, figuratively speaking….but we chose to not go that route ;)
You apology is accepted, thank you for rendering it.
I hope that you will reconsider this in regard to your position on female ordination. It seems to me that you were so distracted with content of my life that you missed the point of motherhood/priesthood/worthiness connection to seeking female orientation that would better serve in doing temple and missionary work.
Best of luck to you.
Michael B.,
You are not being called names. Your responses have been given descriptors. I used the term “infantile” while you have called yourself “young.” I called you “ignorant,” and you have declared that “To be honest from your post I didn’t know what you actually know or didn’t know.” These terms I have used are synonyms for what you have called yourself, therefore, I see, and intend no of offense.
I also called you “arrogant.” Your responses are nearly 1200 words longer than the original post. If you did not intend to lecture or offer a rebuttal, what else can a 2000+ word, then another 1000+ word “comment” mean but arrogance?
You did not write your responses with questions, nor did you originally state that you seek discussion. You stated “I meant to voice my thoughts on the points, and provide hope and help with some of the points.” This is not the definition of discussion, nor did anything you wrote offer any degree of hope or help.
You accuse those responding to your onslaught of words “bullies.” I googled a definition for bully. The first definition to come up was “A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing.” To be clear, your insensitive responses are CRUEL. The 3000+ words you use to express your insensitivity make it OVERBEARING. There is a bully here, but neither I nor April are that.
I do not understand what points you seek to be educated or discuss, if you do want to really discuss anything at all. This blog is not an appropriate place to details the exhaustive information having to do with adoption or surrogacy, it is not an adoption or surrogacy blog. You can look that up on your own time.
If you really have something to offer on the discussion of ordination, then please do so.
Okay I found an article from Elder Ballard, this talk was given at education week, less than a month ago. I was there when he gave it. He actually asks and responds to the question, “Why are men ordained to priesthood offices and women are not?” Also, there is a part in their that very specfically says women’s role in the priesthood in the endowment.
I hope you know that I do believe your story is important, and I still think the brethren should hear it. I know God is mindful of you and your prayers, and that no trial in our lives is ever wasted. It happens to us for a reason, though I do not in any way wish to minimize your trials. I do not claim to understand what you have gone through, and I express my deepest sympathies to you for all the hurt you have felt regarding this issue. And you do deserve and answer to this query, and I know that God knows you deserve and answer to it as well. I do believe that he has the deepest desire to answer your prayers and that he loves you. I don’t think you should ever give up trying to get an answer on this. But I hope you will be at peace, if the answer to women not having the priesthood offices at this time is no.
I know the whole idea of having an “eternal perspective” about this seems to be a slap in the face. I totally understand that, I have felt that many times in my life too. But, alas God seems to ask that of us and asked that of his servant Joseph Smith in his moments of was feeling abandoned by God in D & C 121 and 122.
Overall, I hope you know that God has a plan for you, and will not neglect to answer your prayers. He loves you perfectly, and in a way I will never be able to comprehend. And he believes in you, and is proud of you for being an advocate. Hang in there. Hugs!
Also, I have to tell you this thread is being discussed by one of my friends on facebook. And I have to quote a response to this article that I just loved, and found to be so appropriate. “And the sacrament thing- I know of someone who is the sweetest soul you will meet. He was struggling with some things and not dressed as appropriately for the sacrament. There were people upset about this and the bishop talked to this young man who is no longer attending church. He is such a wonderful person and full of light and was needing love and acceptance at that time- there should be rejoicing he is at church wanting to draw closer to Christ and as an individual becomes closer, their dress will improve automatically with the knowledge that they are performing sacred ordinances. Why are we so set on judging others instead of just loving them? The sacrament is still perfect for each individual. Now, this is all said in a spirit of myself wanting to improve and not claiming to have this perfect love. It was just an experience I wanted to share because it gave me greater understanding about a person, where if I hadn’t known him personally I might have judged and deemed him unworthy myself. Who am I to judge that? My job is to love. And do my part. “
Caitlin,
Thank you for your kind response. I agree with those in your facebook discussion group that there are different layers to the argument of the man’s worthiness. That is a part of my point– that women are held to a higher standard– even in dress by being told what is acceptable footwear. I cannot recall of a men’s meeting directing footwear. I confess that the timing of the talk and that incident was coincidentally close, but I felt I suppose in my mind, I liken it to the story of the 10 virgins, about being prepared and looking forward to the day of the bridegroom. I am conflicted in thinking about it and the Atonement; I know we do not need to be perfect to bless and pass the sacrament, and this is the purpose of the sacrament. It just seemed disproportioned that his worthiness in breaking and blessing the sacrament outshone any of the females there by virtue of his earthly body (being male).
Michael B made a silly comment earlier about having the bishop give this man a ‘talking-to.” But. This was in a tiny branch. And this guy was the ONLY guy there on that Sunday. I said in the post and I add, distance, shift work and apathy made it common for there to be few or no men on Sunday. On the flip side, one Sunday there were no women, so there was no Relief Society. As I didn’t feel like sitting in a corner by myself, and I was not allowed to go to the male-only Priesthood lesson, I went home early.
Thank you for your kindness. My testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ is firm. As I did not see fit to leave the church given all that I have been through personally, I also will not leave if ordination is not immediately granted.
“In this same period, my husband took a rural job that paid well so we could pay for surrogacy and numerous IVFs. We found ourselves in a rural town where we travelled an hour each way to meet at a branch for a basic sacrament meeting. It was here that I learned that we could go weeks at a time without the sacrament if no men attended church due to distance and/or shift work. One week, just after Elder Perry’s talk about women wearing thongs as being a sign of disrespect at church, I found myself staring at a man at the front of the chapel, wearing shorts and thongs, as all the women surrounding him were in full church dress. He was blessing the sacrament and partaking of it before me, symbolic of his masculine place of being God accepting the atonement. The cigarette scent on his fingertips permeated the sacramental bread. Why was he more worthy to bless the sacrament than any of the temple-recommend holding women in our company, when he himself did not have a temple recommend? Why was I judged in conference by my shoes, when he could wear what he wanted because we women sought the sacrament? This again, made no sense to me.”
“Michael B made a silly comment earlier about having the bishop give this man a ‘talking-to.” But. This was in a tiny branch. And this guy was the ONLY guy there on that Sunday. I said in the post and I add, distance, shift work and apathy made it common for there to be few or no men on Sunday. On the flip side, one Sunday there were no women, so there was no Relief Society. As I didn’t feel like sitting in a corner by myself, and I was not allowed to go to the male-only Priesthood lesson, I went home early.”
This explains it. Yeah in it says no men, but not “few”. I also thought since the shift work there was either all men there or none there. I stand corrected on that and now I understand. Well I’ve come to the conclusion that I’ve been spoiled/sheltered since I’ve always been in big wards. The comment may appear silly, but with the lack of information I made a comment based on what I could understand from it. I’ve never encountered only having one man in the whole church before. Hence this has already expanded my understanding or enlightened me. I discuss and throw out ideas and opinions based on my knowledge and understanding. If/when I’m incorrect on something I expect to hear the other person’s ideas/opinions, but I should’ve put this in my original posts or made it more obvious. I was also agreeing with you about his lack of worthiness, but what to do when he is the only one there? Again the Bishop working with him to get them worthy and to choose to dress in their best before God. I don’t know that guy’s situation and the Bishop would most likely know the best course of action. From the outside this is my opinion and thoughts on it. Only one guy though… Get more people converted? Have the local missionaries there to do it? Others asked to come from neighboring branches or wards… Interesting problem, and simplest solution if God announced that women can do it. See my reply to Jenn from my first post for more in-depth of my views on women getting the Priesthood.
I’ve had women come to Priesthood class and stay for the lesson before in my home ward. I just figured they wanted to know what was being taught for the men. We didn’t kick them out though so this has again enlightened me that women being kicked out does happen.
Although I disagree on the subject of women being ordained to the priesthood I have loved your blog post.
THIS makes me ponder much more than anything else I have read on the subject.
I have not read the comments you got so I hope I am not saying again what has been said previously but here is my view and my questions:
Do you think it is really a priesthood issue or do you think it is a cultural issue?
See, in France I have never felt less than men because I did not hold the priesthood. Never ever :) and I don’t know of anyone who has felt this way here.
YET I feel a shift as too many women in the church in France want to copy Utah culture and this scares me. What I mean is that I see perfectly balanced and healthy women (or so it seems) not caring for what a woman has to say unless she is married. It does not even have to be to a member of the church but basically you don’t have a voice if you don’t fall into one of these categories: too old to be of any interest for men or married, of course even if non-members are tolerated your point of view has more value if your husband holds the priesthood.
I am not the only one who has noticed it.
The saddest part is that, from what I have witnessed ,this does not come from the brothers but from the sisters themselves.
So do you think it is really a doctrinal issue or do you think it is a cultural issue?
Gwennaëlle,
I am surprised by your comment about France being so egalitarian since French women in part, only obtained the vote in 1945, significantly later than many westernised countries. And yet, I am not. I think Americanisation (cultural) has influenced the culture of the church– probably heavily since the 1980’s when the building programs became a general church (international) thing, rather than locally sourced. With Salt Lake as a benefactor, I suspect some of the local blood, sweat and testimony dissipated into American Mormon culture. From that perspective, I do believe it is cultural, just as limiting priesthood against women seems more policy-driven to me.
With that, I think the culture of institutional oppression of women has lead women, in some situations, to compete for personal value. I know I have been treated as if I am stupid if I dared comment in a lesson on parenting. I was also spoken down to when I was single as though I knew nothing of “real” relationships. I think this is an effect of putting weight on women in disproportionate ways, i.e married women “share priesthood with their husbands, ergo they have more “authority,” and women are “meant” to be mothers, so those who are mothers have “authority” over childless women. I think this is a social disease brought on by male-only priesthood and I believe Mormon women helping Mormon women could be better achieved if we were given the choice of obtaining priesthood.
What do you think?
Spunky,
Let me start off by saying that I sympathize with your position. I also want to say though that while I know that it sounds like a half-hearted response things will get better and everything will work out in the end, whether in this life or the one to come.
Based on what I have seen so far I wish to get the comments about how could I know how hard something is for you or what it feels like, and to be honest I can’t. We are all different, our experiences from the moment we are born shape is. Even going through the same event wouldn’t cause the same result for individuals. I do though feel like I know where you are coming from to some degree.
When I was about 13 I was diagnosed with cancer and lost the ability to ever have the chance to become a biological father. A second bout with cancer when I was 19 took my left leg. The whole time receiving blessings that I would make a recovery and that this was all a part of gods plan, and because of medical issues and therapy I wasn’t able to serve a mission. I spent the next few years dealing with rejection because I hadn’t served and even a coue that ended when they found out I was incapable of fathering children. I tried doing geneogy work and while I could trace my family fine nonmembers in my family asked me not to do the temple work, and I followed their wishes.
We came to earth knowing that it wouldn’t be easy or fair, millions of our sisters and brothers came never knowing of God or that things would work out. That is by far one of our greatest blessings, the knowledge that as bad as things get, or as deep into despair we go, this is not all their is. Things will work out, things will get better, and God never forgets us or stops loving.
Anonymous Brother,
You are a beautiful soul. Thank you. Yes, the fall of Adam is cruel, but like you, I also know the blessings that have come from trials.
Thanks and love to you.
I disagree with the argument of women being ordained to the priesthood, I have a lot of thoughts on the subject, but I don’t feel that this is the time or place to address them. Although I do recognize your feelings, and find no fault in expressing your thoughts.
I can’t pretend to understand your feelings on this subject, I’m no nowhere close to having had your experiences with infertility. My heart goes out to you in your struggles.
However, there is just thing that I would like to clarify an the topic of missionaries. I served a full time proselyting mission for the church in Chile. I loved it with all my heart, and I saw SO often the lack of strong priesthood leaders. This subject I understand very well, and learned a lot from this experience. The Lord taught me many things that I consider to be very sacred. On the subject of your neighbor not being able to be taught due to lack of male ‘authority’. I believe your understanding of why a man had to be there is wrong, at least my understanding of what it means make me think that your understanding is incorrect. I am a woman, and as a female missionary, we were not allowed to teach men without a female present. This is for the protection of the missionaries, and also for the church. Unfortunately we live in an era of lies and deceit, and people giving into the lust of the flesh. Basically, that male ‘authority’ (or female in my case) is meant to be a chaperone. I the case that allegations are made, there was another person who is NOT a representative (officially) of the church that can be a witness to the actions during the lesson. So, had there been sister missionaries in your area, they would have been able to teach your neighbor without problem. Maybe a phone call to the mission home could help remedy the problem?
Again, I hope you take my words as words of kindness, no meanness is intended. And I do wish you the very best in your endeavors to find peace with your faith and frustrations.
Thanks for your comment, Cassidy. I understand that it is for the protection of the missionaries to have another present, and I appreciate your testimony of this.
But why wasn’t I enough? I could have sat through the discussions with her. We are both married women probably 2 decades each older than the missionaries, she even had an adult son! Really– what was an active, temple-recommend holding woman and her non-member, arthritic friend going to do? The excuse was that they could not teach her with me because it is “protecting the priesthood.” Um. How does her non-member husband protect priesthood better than me? Or at all? Ergo, if I have priesthood keys (because I am endowed), then the missionary work could go forth. With priesthood keys, I am “enough.” That is all I seek: to serve.
I think you should reconsider your stance on ordination, if only because of the witness and testimony that you have from your mission.
There is another instance for which a person needs approval from the First Presidency. That is for someone who has been a part of a polygamist church to be baptized into the LDS church. This situation is right up there with murderers receiving the priesthood, but there are reasons for such policies put in place. We, as faithful members of the church should trust our priesthood leaders and those policies put in place.
Janie,
I have not trouble with “trusting” priesthood leaders. I think women should be “priesthood leaders.” The two ideologies are not competing.
Why don’t you trust the existing priesthood leaders when they say that women can’t hold the priesthood then? I think that’s Janie’s point.
Because this is not the consensus of all priesthood leaders (myself included, as I have and use priesthood in the temple) and as you would know from http://ordainwomen.org/.
Beautiful letter, filled with love, empathy and charity. Truly Heavenly Mother had a hand in its appearance. It’s so refreshing when a post that touches such a tender topic allows itself such a dispassionately divine voice. I hope I can learn to hold on to that voice when my own passions rise. Only calm, unruffled arguments filled with the pure love of our divine relations can “endure to the end.”
I as unaware of any anti-surrogacy policy in the church handbook? would anyone be able to post a reference?
It is in the CHI1, which is not for general public information. I believe it has been scanned and posted online previously, so you can google that if you desire. It is in the section regarding adoption. To be clear the CHI2 (available on lds.org) has a small statement on adoption, but readily directs all other items to be managed by the bishop– bishop who would have access to the CHI1.
I just read a lovely article. I read it just before I read spunky’s letter, and it was such a wonderful example of how to put loving everyone despite everything that might try and stop you, that I thought we could all find it inspiring.
“…I realized that there was one thing that united every one of us: the desire for happiness.
Some hoped to find happiness by seizing it from others. Some hoped to find it by wresting it from life through hard work and the accumulation of a useless pile of possessions. Others thought to find it by gathering happiness comfortably around them. Others thought to find it, and indeed had found it to some degree, by sharing it with others. But all of them had, basically, the same goal in life: to be happy.
Indeed, how could things be otherwise? All of us are products of God’s bliss. How could anyone not want-each according to his own understanding-to reclaim that bliss?
And this fact, I realized, gave me a reason to love everyone on earth.
…We are united by the simple fact that all of us want the same thing. The sad thing only is that most people don’t yet know that is what they want.
We should try to expand our egos, and not merely to obliterate them. This we can accomplish by trying to feel ourselves in others. We should identify with their griefs-not to the extent of grieving with them, however. We can help them best if we sympathetically share with them our happiness.”
-Swami Kriyananda, http://www.anandaclaritymagazine.com/2013/06/kriyananda-yogananda-soul-joy/
I just wanted to add my experience that on my mission, we were specifically told that we needed a husband’s permission to teach his wife and kids because he is the head of the family and that is his right. It had nothing to do with chaperones or protecting anyone.
What about neither ‘male nor female’. I consult with my husband, but I don’t need to ask his permission. He trusts my judgment whether its how to flavor a dish or how to lead worship, just as I trust him in so many areas. .
I also feel like I have to add that it seems to me like Michael B was a treated a little harshly in this thread. He admitted that he was very young, and he’s clearly quite loquacious, but it’s hard to blame the kid who’s clearly trying to wrestle with these questions. I just wanted to state that I for one never felt at all that he seemed to be lecturing to us women because he had the authority of the priesthood with which to enlighten us. I’m sure he’s learned the value of brevity and will think again before he attempts to (over)simplify someone else’s life experience, but Im encouraged that a person so young would spend his time thinking and studying this topic at all. I mean, do you know many 18-21 year old young men? I’d like to congratulate Michael for apparently not being a porn addict or a total moron, let alone pondering these doctrines with a surprisingly open kind for someone of his life experience. I wish more missionaries considered these questions before they left. Heck, I wish my husband would consider them! It’s a great starting point and if he continues his journey as humbly and honestly as he’s taken these reprimands, then I think he will end up a very wise and considerate priesthood leader. He’s a lot more open minded and willing to listen then most of the men in my family. Furthermore, I don’t believe the cause of the women in the church will be furthered by biting the head off of any man who deigns to share an opinion that you may have heard before, no matter how inconsiderately it may be done.
Truth! Grateful you shared that sister. If we had more men like Michael maybe the church would be a happier place for us all. He seems to be very open and willing to accept sincere criticism without retribution (a trait I am trying to develop.)
amen. thank you for your vulnerability and sharing your tender story. i haven’t been following the female ordination conversation very closely – but i absolutely agree that men and women should be creating the handbooks and church policy TOGETHER. right now i’m in the middle of a temple sealing cancellation disaster that’s injuring my relationship with the church. my new husband and i are being encouraged to apply for a sealing clearance (different from a cancellation – a clearance allows him to be sealed to two people). the official position on this? slc won’t grant a cancellation because it’s the desire of the brethren that my husband’s ex-wife (who has not remarried in the 4-ish years they’ve been divorced) can “enjoy the blessings of a temple sealing” too. what? if she were applying for the sealing revocation, it would be a cancellation, because women can’t be sealed to more than one spouse but men can (there were no children from this short union, ps). i know this is entirely off-topic from the good points you brought up but it does highlight a certain sexism in church policy. we should be asking these questions – it’s part of being a good citizen, good member. that’s how things change and that’s what keeps members authentic and happy. from what i’ve seen of the “mormon and unhappy” crowd, they are ashamed of their doubts and questions and keep quiet – and then turn poisoned and bitter. the BYU/coke anecdote is one great example of how policy gets made in a huge church like ours and why we have to keep asking the obvious questions. you may have seen this little news release during the last presidential election – that byu would be adding coke and caffeinated drinks to the campus. coke and pepsi were not offered for years and those of us that went to BYU thought it was because the church classified sodas as contrary to the word of wisdom – an issue debated for years among the uber orthodox. but you just know that decision about coke machines on campus was made by a low-level bureaucrat on campus who was trying a little too hard to impress the higher-ups and look – his decision then added fuel to an erroneous belief and then spread it all over the country. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54797595-78/church-drinks-caffeine-lds.html.csp. my point: ask the questions! i’m so glad you are! it IS super uncomfortable, but only for people who care about judgers and what faith is SUPPOSED to look like in our church. i need to get up to speed on the conversation but just know your beautiful post opened one set of eyes today. good luck and god bless!
Spunky – I just found this. I’m speechless. My heart is broken after reading this – broken in so many ways that I’m not sure I can even articulate them. . . broken for you-as a young woman, for women, for the church. This is so important. Thank you for sharing this part of your story. I will sit with this for a long, long time. God bless you.
Yikes. No problem with female priesthood ordination, if God wills it, I’m all in, but maybe a little less venom toward the young man. He truly seemed to be just trying to express his thoughts (though wordy) but I didn’t catch any maliciousness in him. On the other hand several women reacted in a way that makes me think of D&C 23-24 “Now, I speak unto you concerning your families-if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.”
Maybe he was plenty young and inexperienced. What a great time to mold him! What a great time to show him the real beauty of women! I have seen much of that as the women here were responding to each other but is it a coincidence that the man got attacked? We’re better than that.
Interesting and emotionally raw post, Spunky. My wife and I do not have children, and through the process of consulting with fertility specialists, found out that while there’s a variation in fertility rates, humans (compared with other species) aren’t particularly fertile, though this was not your case, as your condition is congenital. We never had children, and through prayer and fasting, we felt that adoption was not the path for us to take, and our bishop shared a particularly insightful corroboration of that. Since then, I have passed through that same position (being a bishop), and I came to understand the particular insights and responsibilities of that position. That the Spirit was present during so many counseling sessions with members was an overwhelming impression. That being said, a couple of things came to mind as I read your post.
As a common foundation for what I have to say, I will refer to Holland’s talk “Saints, Symbols, and Sacraments”, Elder Ballard’s recent address mentioned here, Sis. Burton’s address at the 2013 Women’s Conference on Priesthood. In on-line discussions, particularly where feelings run high, as in this one, entry into the discourse has a certain peril associated with it. One risk is that by being a male and posting, I will automatically be lumped with other males who have posted, particularly if they have been disliked or have been offensive. Having admitted that I have been a bishop, I can easily envision any number of presumptive attacks upon me because of that, tarring me with various (negative) attributes, without substance, because of someone else’s bad example or other reasons.
Topic: You are only valued for your body. I’m surprised that you’ve allowed this assumption to persist in your life, since both teachings and examples in the church are to the contrary, with various members of the RS General Presidency being single women, among other things. If I had heard a YW leader teaching this, because I was ultimately responsible for what was taught and transpired in the ward, my eyebrows certainly would have raised. President Kimball in the 70s spoke to this topic, that we are born into this world subject to the errors of the flesh, which is why there’s congenital deformities, genetic disease, various illnesses of associated with heredity (inherited tendencies), and mental and emotional conditions that hearken to biochemical bases. I’m not sure how this important message failed to get delivered to you, but souls are what are ultimately valuable to the Lord. In the YW values, I don’t see the term “Motherhood”.
Topic: You wondered why surrogacy questions are referred to the Office of the First Presidency, comparing your situation to murderers seeking admission to the church, and then post a question and your own response to it, “Is my infertility akin to murder in the church? Seems so”. I believe that’s an erroneous conclusion, and refer you to Elder Hollands insightful talk I mentioned earlier. He explains why such topics do have the focus of the leaders, and of the Lord. Latching on to an erroneous concept and then using it as a whip on yourself or others doesn’t seem reasonable.
Topic: Your comparison of motherhood (going through the IVF prep) and holding the priesthood escapes me. You state, “What man, with a temple recommend and a dozen people fasting for him, cries like this just for the ability to use the priesthood? The priesthood/motherhood comparison well and truly died for me then. It is unequal, and makes no sense.” This, unfortunately, is a false dichotomy. I would agree about the motherhood/priesthood comparison being not apt, but I’m curious how you latched onto it and gave it such importance that it would and could be so emotionally disruptive in your life. As far as inequalities, there are lots of unanswered questions. Focusing on the unanswerable is not productive.
Topic: smoky guys blessing the sacrament in branches — if the fellow had the priesthood, the ordinance is valid. Yes, it is distasteful to consider, but when I’ve been in branches that were meeting above bars, and the room reeked of stale beer and cigarette smoke from downstairs, the choices I had were to be distracted from the ordinance by being upset at the conditions of the sacrament (and thereby promptly lose the Spirit), or I could focus on the ordinance, which was about having and maintaining the Spirit with me.
Some points you make: “He was blessing the sacrament and partaking of it before me, symbolic of his masculine place of being God accepting the atonement.” This is rather presumptive (how do you know that it was so — what he was motivations were?), but even if it is accurate, there was just this past Sunday Lesson 18 in the Lorenzo Snow teachings, which should make some things clearer to you and anyone else reading. It is clear to so many priesthood holders that it’s not about them. This is attempted to be taught, over, and over and over again. Does it not make it through? Yes. Do leaders stop trying to teach it? No.
Another point: “Why was he more worthy to bless the sacrament than any of the temple-recommend holding women in our company, when he himself did not have a temple recommend?” This is a false premise argument, and you’re mixing things up. There’s worthiness, and there’s assignment. It’s not the role of women to bless the sacrament. If you know the individual was not worthy, then it’s upon the bishop or branch president. These are not pleasant things to consider. Alternatively, as a man, I’ve observed women mistreating and being emotionally abusive to their offspring. I could ask, “Why she was more worthy to have those children than I was?”, and you might see the inaccurate parallel.
Another point: “Why was I judged in conference by my shoes, when he could wear what he wanted because we women sought the sacrament?” Who judges you by your shoes? What kind of ward do you live in that judges folks by what they wear? While I’m sure that there’s such judgement in some congregations, judging by clothing and appearances has some peril associated with it, peril to the one judging. If this is the pattern you were taught growing up, I’m surprised you persisted in it in the face of what’s been taught over the years in the scriptures and General Conference (including General YW and RS conferences). Most mature (in the Gospel) members I know understand how to look beyond the surface, and see the individual.
Topic: following a prompting to go to the temple to do work for an ancestor, only to have the visit frustrated by lack of temple workers. Again, the response of the member is telling. Is it the thing to take offense (and lose the Spirit), or to take time to reflect and simply enjoy being in the temple. Being busy in the temple is one thing, but having quiet time there is also quite valuable. As far as the Lord’s consideration, this has been covered in the D&C, when members were asked to do something, but were prevented by events and circumstances beyond their control. As far as the folks who were supposed to be there at the temple, but didn’t show, without any other information as to the circumstance, it’s hard to presume any motive on the part of the those missing in action. It could have been for any number of reasons. Was it because of family emergencies? Did information fail to be transmitted? Did someone decide to follow Jonah and walk away from the assignment? These are all separate from you, but as upsetting a situation as you describe it being, it’s also an opportunity. In regard to the temple, I’ve had to receive instruction by the Spirit that it is not a place to take offense, or make judgements, and that was not a pleasant experience, but it was a necessary one for me to learn. One thing I’ve learned by difficult experience is that following Christ will lead to challenges of all kinds. That you felt prompted to have an answer about having women perform the tasks — I wonder if you had missed the lesson of D&C 28, and what Joseph Smith learned in that inquiry.
Topic: October 5th, seeking entry to the General Priesthood session: This event is by ticket only, and is always full, so which priesthood holders would have to give up their seats so that some women could attend? The new Elders Quorum president from Nigeria? The deacons and teachers from Mexico, from France, from Chile? The bishop with his young men, who travelled far to get there? The contents of the meeting are not secret, since they’re posted and viewable on the internet, and available at most every stake center in the US and Canada. What makes these protestors so important that they want to disrupt the spirit of a sacred meeting?
Are you misunderstanding the purpose of life on Earth as taught and understood in the restored Gospel? I observe a persistent anger in your posting — “this is not fair”. Without commenting on the fairness or lack of it in your life as you have related it here, fairness is not always experienced in all aspects of our lives, and we knew that before we came here. Rather than seek peace in your life, you seem to want to feed that anger (from what I read here), and take offense. There’s plenty in the church and in life to take offense at, and the topic of taking offense has been addressed many, many times in classrooms and from addresses by leaders of both genders. I have to say that when I was bishop, there were times that as part of my calling I had been directed by the Spirit to deliver messages, and sometimes the message were not happy ones, and sometimes they were not well-received. Nonetheless, I learned a great deal by following that prompting, about people, the Gospel, sin, and humility. At the same time, it was also my duty to discern among spiritual gifts. This was also an interesting experience when I had to exercise myself in it. Some folks took correction well, some didn’t. Based on my experiences, I have to say that seeking to counsel the prophet on doctrinal issues is not something to be done lightly, especially when it’s contrary to what’s been covered, especially as recently as the Women’s Conference this past year (Sis. Burton’s talk and Elder Ballard’s talk). When you state that priesthood authority should be among women, it seems (and I hope I’m wrong) you desire to just passively, but actively misunderstand what was taught both by words and example by Sis. Burton, whose is a remarkably articulate and knowledgeable leader (not to diminish any of the previous General RS presidents or counselors).
Throughout your narrative, I see you hanging on to erroneous concepts (aside from the priesthood issue) that have been corrected over the years, or that are quite plainly covered in the scriptures. I find this curious, but it’s certainly your choice to do so. The ability to learn is one of the priceless gifts of life here on Earth. It’s not always easy, but while we were told that before we came here, it’s also a given that we would have had no idea how difficult it would be. Of course our Heavenly Parents knew that.
Your life is your own, to choose to do what you wish, to act as you wish, etc. My best to you in your journey.
I don’t think your reply merits the emotional response the young man’s response did. You attempted to be kind while addressing the issues instead of just pretending to know it all and talking down.
However, I don’t think you give full weight to the importance of perception. While you adequately show that many of the assumptions she carried were false per official church stances and doctrines, the fact that her and others perceive these things the way they do is a problem that should be addressed. “Look here in this book/talk, and see that your perception was off” isn’t going to cut it.
We have to admit that the culture of the church members has many doctrines of men stuck in it that don’t belong.
Jenn, I appreciate your measured response. You bring up a good point, that of perception. I agree that perceptions can be a real problem, which is one of the very important reasons that leaders (and the Lord, we’d have to imagine) emphasize personal scriptural and doctrinal scholarship, as well as instruction by the Spirit. I’ve visited congregations where there had very obviously off ideas had crept in, and weren’t being corrected by the leaders. This issue was also present in the very early church (viz. all the letters to the churches in Greece and Asia Minor). I was very pleasantly surprised to feel real sanity in what I was taught when I attended my student ward at the U, versus what had been taught at times in my ward in the mission field. Some of the “kids” in leadership positions were children of apostles and other notables (one of Dr. Eyring’s son was there), and they were so normal I was just overjoyed, because of the difficulties I’d had growing up and being exposed to what I was in church.
If reference to talk by recent speakers isn’t going to cut it, how do you suggest correcting misperceptions? As a bishop, it was difficult, but important to, because people’s lives are affected (by the misperceptions). Bad examples are especially hurtful, and there were times all I could do was commiserate with an individual (who’d been wronged), tell them I understood, and encourage them to forgive and move forward, and find the good that really is out there. More than anything (well, there are many things that surface in memory from my tenure as bishop, but I’ll let this one be most important at the moment, because it might well be), one of the things I remember from my tenure as bishop was the sense of the compassion of the Savior, and of his concern. While the individual might not be able to feel the Savior’s compassion at that particular moment, the spiritual prompting was to tell them, and encourage them, and hope the encouragement helped. The Savior knows we don’t all feel his love at all times, and that’s where we as individual members come into importance, in being kind to others, and being encouraging in during periods of trial and growth. This recognition might also be why bishop (and other leaders) will generally point to the sacrament as being the most important event on the Sabbath. Why? Listen to the ordinance. I could not state with certainty how members in general think about the sacrament, but when I’m asked, I share that emphasis.
When folks make reference to the handbooks of the church, it’s not that there’s this giant conspiracy to hide things from the general membership, but also to make things clear to leaders. There’s also a particular … heaviness … associated with some topics, and the strength and knowledge to deal with them come with the calling in the leadership, and without that mantle, reading them may not go over easily. We (as members) also have to remember that there really is an enemy to us out there, and we are pieces on the board of that game, but also pieces with the free will to associate and align ourselves with the sides that are presented to us. We must choose, and choose wisely. Our enemy will use whatever tools, arguments, and incidents he can to re-align us. That’s one reason why there needs to be correction when errors occur. One leader wisely counseled that leaders (of either gender) never give more correction than they have balm to heal (as I remember it). Very compassionate and caring counsel. Of course, there are some leaders (both genders) that aren’t so. What do we do? Take a deep breath. We might shed tears, many tears, and then gird ourselves up and return to service, and work up the strength to forgive. Why? Well, for one, the Savior asked us (commanded us) to. Why? Because something profound and foundational occurs when we do. He did, and we follow him.
So, to repeat, how to correct misperceptions? What would you suggest? The statements of these leaders are not something that should be dismissed lightly. I would agree that there are insertions or doctrines of men, but with the statements of the General Relief Society President, and Elder Ballard, I don’t think the gender roles as they are associated with priesthood authority is one. I totally agree with Sis. Burton that there’s a profound difference between priesthood authority, and priesthood power, and priesthood power is accessible to both genders, based on personal diligence and preparation and willingness to comply with whatever requirements were given. Priesthood authority can open a door, but priesthood power allows all (who develop it) to be forgiven of sins, and have Eternal life. Does that help?
I think you hit the idea head on. As a bishop, you would try to address the misconceptions when they arose in some fashion. I think the church as a whole has responsibility to do the same.
Throwing a couple of talks at a problem isn’t enough, though. They need to take a more proactive role on these things. Announcements from the pulpit/first pres letters can help. Changes to the lesson books, web resources, leadership training, magazine articles…all of these things are good venues for inspiring cultural change within the church.
I think the homosexuality issue is a good example. The official position was once that having homosexual tendencies was bad and like the rest of the world, people were tortured in attempts at “reparative therapy”, including at BYU. More recently, the church is admitting that people are born this way and no longer claims they should be put through such therapies nor do they say that gays should get married if they aren’t attracted to the opposite sex (see mormonsandgays.org).
Unfortunately, many people haven’t got the memo. I know many members who are stuck on the “it’s a choice” thing and are rabidly and hatefully anti-gay, thinking that theirs is the official church position. All of them who I’ve talked to are unaware of resources like mormonsandgays.org.
The church needs to take more responsibility for perceptions. If an advertiser was so unsuccessful at working perceptions, they’d be fired.
Jenn, see below. I didn’t click the “Reply” button, so my reply shows in the main trunk of comments.
Yes, definitely a reception problem. But, if there is a reception issue, we can’t toss all responsibility on the recipient. The sender needs to use feedback to determine if a message was received as intended.
Jenn, be assured that through both the priesthood lines (bishops-stake presidents-local area 70s) and the auxiliary lines (YW, Primary, RS), the leadership in SL is pretty aware of what’s getting through, and not getting through, what’s working and what’s not working. While some leaders might be milquetoast about piping up, most will speak quite frankly about what’s working and not working in the wards and stakes. (One Primary president said to me, upon accepting the call, “I’m afraid I’m not a ‘yes-man'” (her words). My answer was, “Good! I don’t need a yes-man — tell me like it is and don’t pull any punches.” [A brilliant woman, and humble spiritual leader, she.]) Hence the talks we receive at conference. Wouldn’t you think that if the Lord were concerned about us, the topics covered in conference and elsewhere would address both the timely topics, and the timeless? They are. How much plainer can it be said? In the Gospels, there are some times when the puzzlement of the locals about Jesus is recorded, “Who are you?”. Compare the difference between those blinded by the false doctrines and interpolations of men in Palestine (recorded in the Bible/Gospels) and those attentively waiting in the New World (BofM).
Problems of reception are continuously being evaluated by leaders. The unfortunate thing is the static that is being generated that interferes. The individual doing that is not our friend.
What happens when the message is actively rejected? What to do?
Jenn, thanks.
(addressing misconceptions)
I think we both know the church does spend a great deal of time and effort disseminating information. Is what you’re talking about a dissemination/distribution problem, or a reception problem?
Really? Really?? This remark gives me pause. These aren’t just any talks (like a talk to institute students at a junior college in Podunk by a valedictorian), but ones addressed by no less than the General Relief Society President, Sis. Burton, and an apostle, Elder Ballard at the Women’s Conference. This apostle also wrote the recent book on councils in the church, the principles of which have been incorporated into the general handbooks of instruction (handbook 2 — on the Web for any to see, especially leaders). I’m not sure what you mean by that statement. If important information is in talks, and you think they’re not important, or not important enough to matter, I’m kind of at a loss. What am I not understanding?
We know that not everyone listens, and even some leaders have that problem — they won’t read the leadership handbooks, but do it “the way it way it’s been done before”, which, unfortunately, doesn’t cut it, and leads to unhappy messages at times from apostles or seventies. So, what to do with people who: a) won’t listen and b) won’t read?
When papers are written, generally there are references, so folks can follow through the footnotes to the source material. This is done all the time in scholarly journals, and these have been showing up in the Ensign lately, too, though maybe not in as scholarly a fashion. The references are there for a purpose, not to keep the ink vendor in business. In a similar fashion, when I gave references for these talks, I did them for the same purpose — to provide reference and background, but you just refer to them as “throwing a bunch of talks at the problem”. So I’m puzzled. Can you help me out?
Life is so diverse. Wear thongs and be happy!