I woke up this morning around 5am to the whimpering of my sick, congested baby. Poor thing. She had awaken me from a dream in the which I had just become the assistant to the assistant of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland. (Probably a side effect of listening to too many BYU devotionals by Elder Holland on my way to and from work, haha.) The other assistant and I were helping Elder Holland organize some sort of activity for different groups of Relief Society sisters. My ward had come to the activity, but because they didn’t have the money to pay for the activity, they left almost immediately after arriving.
As I fed my baby, my mind jumped from scene to scene of my dream, trying to grasp the fading details. Then I started thinking about Ordain Women and the priesthood, something I often think about lately. All of the sudden, my mind was flooded with questions. They are sincere questions, and humbly ask for sincere answers.
On my previous blog, one sweet sister from the OW group commented, “I am happy to answer any questions you have about this movement.” So here are my questions. Again, they are sincere questions, and anyone who has an answer or an opinion on them, please comment.
So at 5am this morning, I started to envision a world where women were ordained to the priesthood. And I started to think about how hard that would be for some women. What about those women who do not desire the priesthood right now? When those women who do want the priesthood become ordained, we will then have a jarring distinction between two groups of women--those who have the priesthood and those who do not.
I thought about my dream and the faithful sisters from my ward’s Relief Society who had to leave the activity because they did not have money to pay, while the other sisters there were allowed to stay and participate. What will happen to those sisters who do not receive the priesthood?
For men, the priesthood is something that all worthy male members not only aspire to have, but are required to have in order to receive exaltation. According to the Church Handbook,
“The ordinances of baptism, confirmation, Melchizedek Priesthood ordination (for men), the temple endowment, and temple sealing are required for exaltation for all accountable persons. These are called the saving ordinances. As part of each saving ordinance, the recipient makes covenants with God.”
It is so important that in the temple when a man does proxy ordinances for his dead, he also is ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood on their behalf.
Would women now be required to do the same? What about those women who do not wish to have the priesthood? A man, in order to enter the Holy Temple, must be a worthy Melchizedek priesthood holder. Currently a woman does not have that requirement. But if some women are ordained to the priesthood, shouldn’t all sisters also be receive that blessing? Wouldn’t it be discriminatory to not offer that blessing to all her deceased sisters? But if a sister doesn’t hold the priesthood, she would be unable to receive the ordination on behalf of her kindred dead. Will sisters who do not hold the priesthood be banned from entering the temple because they are not able to perform all the ordinances?
What about where we go on Sunday? Would those sisters who hold the Priesthood attend priesthood meeting in the third hour with the rest of the priesthood holders, leaving the priesthoodless sisters in Relief Society? Or would they be organized into their own female quorums? What about the young women? Would women, then, receive the priesthood at age 12? Would it be a choice, or a commandment?
What about missionaries? Currently, all worthy, priesthood holding males are compelled to serve a mission, while sisters merely respond to an invitation. President Monson stated in the October General Conference of 2010,
“I repeat what prophets have long taught—that every worthy, able young man should prepare to serve a mission. Missionary service is a priesthood duty—an obligation the Lord expects of us who have been given so very much.”
Would that change? Would now, every worthy, priesthood holding sister have that same obligation? (I served a mission, it was one of the most wonderful things I’ve ever done; however, I know plenty of sisters who have sincerely prayed about missions and felt that it is not for them. Also, I know many worthy men who did not serve missions, I am in no way trying to saying that serving a mission is required for exaltation, I am merely quoting the prophet on this one.)
I’m assuming then that there would be women bishops, stakes presidents, mission presidents, apostles, maybe even a woman prophet, correct? I’ve heard that being a bishop is hard enough. But then as a woman bishop, you would not only have the responsibility of taking care and nurturing your children, but bearing on your shoulders the weight of the ward. Attending countless meetings and conducting countless interviews. You would come home completely depleted of energy (especially if you were already a full-time working mother!) You would still have time for your kids, just as male bishops do now. But I find the entire idea a little overwhelming, personally. But then, I probably wouldn’t be called as bishop.
Would we change the wording of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” in order to reflect this change? Would fathers preside over the family or mothers? Or both? Would the nurturer be the one who had more time, perhaps a less time consuming calling? (i.e. The husband of a woman bishop would now be the primary nurturer?)
Who will bless the babies and baptize the children in your family: the mother or the father? Or would they take turns? (Again, I understand that not all fathers bless their children or baptize them. Due to the fact that my father-in-law is in a wheelchair, my husband and his brother were baptized by their uncle. However, I know that my husband anxiously awaits the day that he will be able to baptize our daughter.)
I’m sorry if some of these questions seem unimportant or trivial. I’m sure that many concern Church culture rather than Church doctrine. I am simply trying to imagine this world where women hold the priesthood in the Church. I’m trying to sort through arbitrary gender roles assigned by culture and those “essential characteristics” that we’ve had since premortality.
I’m sure I had more questions. I tried to write them all down this morning, but now, 7 hours later, I cannot recall them all. I sincerely await any answers you can provide.
References:
Handbook 2: Administering the Church (http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng&query=ordination+in+temple)
“As We Meet Together Again,” President Thomas S. Monson, October 2010.
“The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this thoughtful post! I've also been reading the comments on your original letter to the sisters of OW, and I really appreciate how thoughtful you've been in considering and discussing this. I'm a cautious supporter of Ordain Women--I'm incredibly happy that the group exists, as I think it's generating important questions about some of the inequalities that currently exist in church structure. I would love to see women have the opportunity to be ordained to the priesthood, but also have a lot of questions about how this would work out logistically, doctrinally, etc. I imagine a church in which positions of priesthood leadership--bishop, stake president, etc.--are open to women. I think it's important for us to have female voices in our leadership structures. In this world, I imagine men involved in the nurture of children and care of the home as much as women are, on average: so that both the home and the external institutions of the church are egalitarian spaces. I also think men and women should be held to the same requirements for salvation, which could mean holding and righteously exercising the priesthood, though I think I'd prefer it be voluntary for everyone, regardless of gender. I imagine baby blessings with both men and women in the circle--perhaps a mother and father would write the blessing together, or, as you suggest, switch off blessing children. Baptism is perhaps more difficult an ordinance to administer together, but I'd be happy to see our culture change so that fathers did not baptize by default--the decision could be made by each family, based on their individual needs. I'd be happy to see the language of the Proclamation revised to reflect more egalitarian family leadership--that is, fathers and mothers presiding together in the home.
I think that one of the most important things about the OW movement is that it raises exactly the questions you are asking here. I've struggled a lot with the gender inequality I perceive in the church, and there are various ways of thinking about it. This article (http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-to-do-the-business-of-the-church-a-cooperative-paradigm) talks about concerns we can address without talking about the priesthood, and I love the nuanced approach and thoughtful suggestions. However, the more I think about this, the more I come back to ordination as an important part of the conversation, and I'm happy to see it entering our discourse more often and visibly.
I really admire how you are so thoughtfully and respectfully asking these questions. I haven't joined OW, but I am definitely open to the idea that Heavenly Father could reveal that women will hold the priesthood on this earth and act on it outside of the temple. I have no perfect answers, but the one thought that kept coming into my mind while reading was, "What about the men who don't want to hold the Priestood? The expectations/standards aren't changed for them." I believe if Heavenly Father revealed a change in the priesthood for women, it would be a new standard for everyone, just like it's a standard for all men. It wouldn't be a "you can have it if you feel like it or you can keep everything just as it is." For me personally, I love envisioning standing beside my husband to bless a child for the first time or before school or having him turn to me for a blessing in a time of need. We wouldn't be in competition - we would be companions, just as we are now. Would everything change? I'm not certain. But I sincerely believe that if we believe in continuous revelation, then God inviting women to hold the priesthood in a different capacity shouldn't scare us, as long as we believe it comes from Him. Perhaps changes will be incremental first (as cultural changes would need to follow spiritual changes) and we'd see a change in administrative and leadership roles before announcing that all would hold the priesthood. I am not certain. I just can't imagine how more people holding the Priesthood and acting in God's name could be anything but wonderful and a great blessing to families and the church. Would it be a huge cultural shift? Yes. Is that okay? Yes. Have we had major cultural shifts before? Yes. Would children suddenly be neglected if their mothers served in new ways in the church? I doubt it. Would it hurt a man to take on greater responsibility for his family while his wife served as, say Bishop? I think the opposite is true. The restored gospel of Jesus Christ always remains the same, but I believe there is room for growth and change that doesn't diminish or take away from the gospel. If men and women both held the priesthood, we'd still have sacred roles as mothers and fathers. We would just serve and worship together in a new - perhaps enhanced - way.
ReplyDeleteHannah, I agree that you were very thoughtful in your approach to this. I am an erratic person on the other hand and fly off the handle very easily. I have a few thoughts to share as I read through your post. I agree 100% that if the Lord intended or intends to give women the priesthood, it will be on His terms and NOT ours. It is not right to be demanding of our Lord like that. As for inequality in the church, sure we are not 'equal' in some aspects, but in the ways that matter we are. We absolutely are. To say that we arent makes me wonder what experiences these women went through to feel like they arent equal. Another thought I had was, there is no possible way that men and women can be equal. We werent created to be. If we were, men would be able to have children. I am 100% ok with not having the priesthood, that is what my husband, father, neighbors, bishop, etc are for. If I had the Priesthood, and if my husband could have children, what would we need each other for? There would be no point in a marriage or a community. We'd be able to do everything for ourselves. There are so many factors in this the no one could fully comprehend, let alone a group of individuals. I am content, no- MORE than content as my role as a mother, wife and a daughter of God. I will go where he wants me to go. I will do what he wants me to do.
ReplyDeleteI too appreciate your sincerity and willingness to hear and learn from the perspectives of others. I agree with commenters above that it is difficult to lay out the logistics of how women receiving the priesthood would work, as it has not happened yet. However, I think it is a good exercise for us to expand our vision and imagine how this would afford us and our church new ways of serving those around us.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I can think of few things more beautiful than a wonderful husband/wife relationship being enhanced by each of them having the ability to bless the other in a time of need. For two people who know each other so well and are intimate in every other way, I cannot see how this would in any way lessen our need for each other. On the contrary, I think it would strengthen and enhance the bonds and mutual interdependence that a husband and wife have for each other. There have been times I have ached to be able to bless my husband and comfort him with the words of God as he has done for me. I can only imagine this bringing us closer.
Also, I will echo the comments above by saying that I feel a woman is completely capable of being a church leader at any level without compromising her family - as much as any man is, anyway. When a man becomes bishop, stake president, etc., no one asks, "but who will take care of his children?" It is assumed that his wife will do so, because she is by his side, supporting him, picking up where he sometimes has to leave off. Again, I think it could only benefit relationships (husband/wife and parents/children) for this kind of interdependence and unquestioning support to be the norm.
Next I would like to respond to Lauren in the comment above when she says that women saying they feel unequal makes her " wonder what experiences these women went through to feel like they arent equal...I am 100% ok with not having the priesthood, that is what my husband, father, neighbors, bishop, etc are for." Lauren, I am truly glad for you that you have had experiences that have never caused you to feel unequal in the kingdom of God. I am also happy that you have had access to the priesthood through your husband, father, neighbors, etc. But there are many, many women who have not had these advantages. Women who are not married, women who are the only members in their families and have no father, brothers, husband, through whom to access the Priesthood. Women who live in rural areas or remote parts of the world without a high Mormon population who have no neighbors who can minister to them in their time of need. Women who have been abused by Priesthood-holding church leaders and have had no recourse for justice because these leaders are often unquestioned and there is no official channel to address problems and concerns. Women who have come close to giving their lives to birth their children and then are not even allowed to hold them while they are blessed, or to act as an official witness to their baptism or sealing.
Women are not asking to participate in these things because they are prideful and unfaithful. Women want to more fully participate in church service and ritual because they love the Lord, love the Gospel, and love their families and neighbors. They want to be able to have more meaningful experiences within their religious communities and do more good in the world.
There is a long history in our church of average members seeing a need, acting, and then having their ideas adopted by the church as a whole. The scriptures are full of such examples. In contrast, I can't think of many instances where revelation was received in a vacuum, where people sat around waiting for the Lord to tell them what to do. We are to ask for further light and knowledge, and be anxiously engaged in a good cause.
"I’m sorry if some of these questions seem unimportant or trivial."
ReplyDeleteWhat's sort of funny about this is I think that a lot of women who are part of OW or who support it are accustomed to having our questions and concerns about how we currently do things in the church called "unimportant and trivial". Your questions are not unimportant OR trivial. They're things we all think and talk about a lot. Several people above have articulated answers better than I could. I don't think anyone claims to have ALL the answers, but those are some good ones.
Really I just wanted to chime in and thank you for your sincere, searching heart and for reaching out to understand others. It's so refreshing. Thank you.
The fact that you are asking sincere questions makes me really happy! Thank you. I think the question about the missions is interesting. I wonder if, instead of making it a priesthood duty for the women as well, it might be more suitable to instead do the reverse, and begin to encourage both boys and girls to serve only as they feel inspired, and make it a matter of individual prayer and meditation, rather than requirement. I actually know quite a few men who went because of social pressure, only to come back early because of depression or anxiety, or feeling as if they must have sinned because they really disliked their missions. There are many different types of people in God's kingdom, and I wonder if it might be beneficial to expand even further the way in which both sexes can serve. What about adding shorter service missions for 19 year olds? Adding more options and encouraging everyone to make their choice a matter of prayer might actually really improve the quality of missionaries' efforts, as they are able to participate more in selecting ways to serve that fit their personalities and strengths.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of mother-father baby blessings and baptisms sounds absolutely beautiful. What better expression of their unity, as a family and as a couple?
I think you make a very important point about possible rifts occurring between women who welcome receiving the priesthood, and those who do not. I hadn't thought of it. I do not see that as a reason not to give women the priesthood, but as something that would need to be contemplated seriously by all involved, and especially by church leaders. The thing about your dream is, this is already happening to many women. I have felt that way pretty much as long as I can remember, even since before my baptism--that I kept showing up for church activities, and then having to leave because I couldn't pay. I have never fit in. I've never wanted the things that church women are supposed to want, dressed how they dressed, acted how they acted, had the right hobbies or the right friends or the right testimony. The divisions you describe in your dream already exist. A quick look around the Ordain Women page shows that. Some accuse those with questions of causing disunity, but the thing is, the rifts are already there, whether we talk about them or not. And if we don't talk, they'll just keep growing, even if they stay hidden. And people like me will keep leaving early because they can't pay. But I would never want to go about things in a way that ended up making some people feel the same way I've felt. Surely there must be an approach that would heal us all.
Regarding the Proclamation: it was never actually canonized. According to the guidelines I've discovered through study, it is not considered scripture or doctrine in the same way as the Articles of Faith or the Word of Wisdom. But even if you don't have the same ideas as I do about that sort of thing, we have a living church. We have had new scripture before, we have had previous edicts rescinded (think polygamy, blacks being excluded from the priesthood and temple worship, and many other things people used to consider doctrine, that, with time, were shown to be less accurate than people originally thought).
(continued in next comment for text limit reasons)
Your question on what to do for dead sisters is extremely practical. I don't know the answer, but it seems to me that this and many of the other practical questions you brought up could be worked out with a little effort. It might help people to understand that church rituals, church policy, and even things once considered doctrine have changed before. The temple rituals have changed multiple times. Garments have been changed over and over, Since Heber J. Grant discovered the actual pattern was never given as a revelation from God and shortened the sleeves and legs so that they would be easier for the women to wear. It's a dangerous thing to get stuck in the idea that things in the church have always been the way they are now, or that the way they are now must be exactly right. For example, the way the Word of Wisdom has been followed has changed dramatically several times since it was received.
ReplyDeleteI believe God gives as we ask, and as we are ready to receive. Even Joseph Smith said that some revelations are of God, some are of man, and some are of the Devil. He said this after his own revelation that a group of church leaders should travel to Canada, where they would find money for the church, never came true. They came back empty-handed. I believe God is incredibly merciful and understanding, and accepts the best efforts of everyone, from little nobodies like me to Thomas S. Monson himself. We all must have the agency to make mistakes. We must all gain the mercy required to accept the imperfections of others. And we all need to remember that everything, even the church, is a work in progress. "We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God." If things change, it's not an indication of previous weakness of the church or its leaders. It is an indication of our strength.
It's really refreshing to hear someone asking sincere questions and not just attacking OW! These are definitely questions I've had, too. Certainly if women started to receive the priesthood, there'd be a huge overhaul of the hierarchal structure in Church leadership. I have no idea how that would work out. But hopefully as female ordination would come from revelation from the Lord, He would help guide us through all the other messy parts that would be tough to figure out.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your loving post. It was really great to see, and really brought my spirits up after so many people attacking OW and Mormon feminism on Facebook!
I love your questions. It's obvious you've put a lot of thought into them. I appreciate you taking the time ask and learn rather than jump to conclusions and judge. I can't answer all your questions but I will do my best to give you my feelings.
ReplyDeleteWomen who do not want the Priesthood. Like any big changes, I imagine it would take some time for women (and the church) to adapt. Many women have expressed that they don't want the priesthood and that it is strictly for men. We have said that if the Prophet receives revelation on this, whether it says yes or no,we will accept it. I hope that these women (and all members) would be willing to do the same. As well as accept any woman who does want to be ordained. My other hope is that it would eventually become the norm. That at the age of 12, like boys, girls would be ordained with the Aaronic Priesthood.
I don't think the temple would change so drastically so quickly. Since there would be a period of transition and adaptation, I would hope that the temple wouldn't all of a sudden bar so many women from performing the ordinances. Again, I think that once it became the norm that woman receive the priesthood, then you could have the requirement of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
I for one would love to always have combined meetings. I never liked having to be in separate classes. What I was taught in YW and RS are some of the things that have made me feel like I was unequal. So if it happens, I'm for it! However, I believe that the Relief Society was established for a good purpose and Joseph Smith always intended for the women for hold the priesthood. So I wouldn't be surprised if they still had separate classes. The best option I could see is that you could choose. Women welcomed into Elder's Quorum and men into Relief Society.
I personally don't like that men are expected to serve missions while women are given options. I'd like to see everyone given the choice. Women have very legitimate reasons for not going on a mission and I don't understand why those do not also apply to men. I don't think it would hurt missionary work very much. You would know that the men who are going really want to be there and there would be fewer men coming home early. I know this isn't a popular opinion and I've never heard other women part of the OW movement advocate for this. These are strictly my feelings on the subject.
I don't see a woman becoming a bishop as any different from a man becoming a bishop. When her husband is called, the wife is expected to step up and support him. I think the same should be expected of the men. Most bishops have full-time careers and still find (some)time to spend with their family. Women are just as strong and given the chance would do just as well. Women are expected to be at home and take care of the children and support her husband in his calling. Given the chance, I believe men would do just as well as that.
If you have more questions about what exactly women are asking and what the events are about I encourage you to go to the website if you haven't already: ordainwomen.org.
These are my own feelings on the questions you've asked. I hope these and the excellent comments above help.
I didn't always support the movement either. But upon more research I realized these women are truly acting in good faith and are inspired by the spirit. I knew I had to be apart of it. I've been studying the Relief Society minutes in the Joseph Smith Papers and it has really increased my testimony of this movement. Here is the link: http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=1
Even if you just want to learn more about the Church's history, I suggest reading them. They're amazing. Thanks for being awesome.
My friend told me that she agrees with my complaints about inequality in the church, but she can't even begin to think about women getting the priesthood. When I asked why, she said she is so overwhelmed with all her family and church responsibilities, she can't imagine any more. My solution? Fathers more involved in parenting and mothers more involved in administrating. I know a lot of women accountants who would make fabulous ward clerks. I know a lot of women who are school administrators who would make excellent Sunday school presidents. I know a lot of women who are confident and kind leaders who would make awesome bishops. While they are tackling these responsibilities, their husbands could certainly step up to nurture. Men and women are better when we share responsibilities and foster our own natural gifts. I listened to Gloria Steinem speak at a university once and she shared many thought-provoking studies about how the best governments, businesses and families are the ones in which men and women lead together. Any organization that only has one gender representative in its leadership won't be as successful as the one that has both male and female leaders. It breaks my heart that women aren't leaders in this church. In a limited way, yes, but only at the invitation and permission of the real male leaders. We would all be better if women could lead more and men could nurture more.
ReplyDeleteI love that you have opened your heart to trying to understand your sisters. This is, by far, the most genuine blog post I think I have ever read. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteIt is so nice to see people willing to engage in dialogue about this important issue. Here are some thoughts I have:
ReplyDeleteCurrently, all adult men are invited to attend Elders Quorum meetings, regardless of whether they have yet been ordained, and I imagine we would exercise the same degree of inclusion in a post-female ordination church. They are many ways we could organize. Since men and women already have the same curricula on all but one Sunday of the month anyway, I like the idea of having all adults (ordained or not) meeting together most Sundays and maintaining one Sunday of the month to divide into a woman's class and a men's class, to discuss mens' and womens' issues. But many other approaches would work as well.
With regards to the Proclamation, yes I hope it would change! Sister Cheiko Okasaki, who was serving in the General Relief Society Presidency at the time the Proclamation was written, expressed dismay that it was written and published without Relief Society input. She said that had she been consulted, she would have recommended changes! I would love to see a second edition of the proclamation issued that included insights form both male and female leaders. (You can read about Sister Okasaki's experience here: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf)
One thing I like about the idea of ordaining women is that it would bring many new people intothe priesthood roles and I think it would actually lighten the load on young families. There are so many worthy women who no longer have children in the home. Maybe some of them could serve in some of the more time-intensive priesthood callings, and we wouldn't need to pull so many young fathers away from their families.
I also wonder if it would be necessary to insist that all worthy young men serve missions if we offered women equal support and encouragement to go. (We have been inconsistent in our support of sister missionaries. When I was on my mission, Pres. Hinckley gave a talk that discouraged sisters from going, and the number of sisters in our mission was drastically reduced.) Perhaps both men and women could be encouraged to serve a mission if they felt it was the right thing for them to do. Some worthy young men may feel called to stay and help out at home, or to serve in the military or the peach corps, and maybe they should have as much flexibility to make these choices as women do.
With regards to baby blessings and baptisms, I think individual couples could make those decisions. I think giving a baby blessing has been a special bonding experience for my husband, so I would want him to voice the blessing. But I would definitely want to stand in the circle beside him! At a baptism, perhaps I could baptize the child and my husband confirm him, or vice versa.