Nearly two years ago, the LDS Church began publishing what has become a series of thirteen essays, prepared by scholars and approved by the highest church leaders, to officially address some of the more difficult issues of LDS history, doctrine, and practice. The last two (for now, at any rate, with no immediate plans for more) were released this weekend, and apparently took the most work, since it’s been over a year since the eleventh essay was released.
It’s now definitively okay to talk about God the Mother in Church. I guess we don’t actually know enough to say very much, but there’s no taboo on the subject either, and there is now a definitive (if short) statement endorsed by the First Presidency and the Twelve, not just a bit of poetry that made it into the hymnal, or occasional mention of “heavenly parents.” I’m hopeful that the doctrine can develop further since it is now actually getting some attention.
One thing I appreciate is that although unsavory speculation about God the Father being polygamously connected to multiple Mother-gods is not specifically refuted, it is also not raised, and is generally inconsistent with the way the idea is presented – note language like “our Mother” or “we have a Mother.” If it said “each of us has a Mother,” it would allow room for multiple Mothers, but “we have a Mother” does not. Similarly, “Just as we have a Father” implies a one-to-one correspondence, not many-to-one.
The insistence that we don’t worship or pray to the Mother is unsurprising, but it’s still odd to me. What eternal God, worthy to be a full partner of God the Father, does not deserve our thanks and praise? The Son was worshiped in the Book of Mormon, when He appeared to the Nephites. (3 Nephi 11:17). For that matter, we conflate the Father and the Son so regularly, we hardly know which is which. If we identify Jehovah as the premortal Jesus, is David worshiping the Father or the Son when he prays “Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father”? (1 Chronicles 29:10). Yes, we pray to the Father because that’s what Jesus said to do. But considering that Jesus is never recorded as even mentioning a divine Mother, we’re already pretty far afield – would it be too blasphemous for our worship of the One God, that includes the Father and the Son, to extend to the Mother too?
Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women
This essay begins with an LDS understanding of priesthood inherited from other Christians in the 1830s, when only men could be priests in most Christian denominations. Our understanding grew from there, and the essay emphasizes what women can currently do, but makes it clear that “[a]s in the earliest days of the Church, [only] men are ordained to priesthood offices.” These statements remind me of the “Race and the Priesthood” essay: neither one explicitly says that church policy was caused by nineteenth century sexism or racism, but both are careful to situate the discussion in that context. Also, in the race and priesthood essay, several justifications that had been advanced for withholding priesthood ordination and temple blessings from black people were explicitly disavowed, so that there really could be no other explanation than the context of racist American culture for the former ban. Similarly in this essay (but without an explicit disavowal), no justification other than “as in the earliest days” is given for withholding formal priesthood ordination from women.
(A few clarifications: First, being a black Mormon still isn’t easy, even if you’re ordained. I want to be clear that I don’t view LDS racism as solved, or the racial priesthood/temple ban as too closely parallel to the current situation of LDS women. I’m just noticing that the Church’s approach to explaining both situations is similar in some ways. Second, when it comes to the lack of justification in this essay, there is at least a footnote to Elder Oaks saying that the Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to priesthood offices, and that LDS presiding authorities are not free to alter divine decrees. Oaks may well believe that if the Church is directed by God, then “that’s how we’ve always done it” is equivalent to “the Lord has directed” – I don’t if that’s how Oaks thinks, but I can’t help noticing that he omitted any footnote of his own that might point to some recorded revelation to show what “the Lord has directed.” Failing to support a key proposition really doesn’t seem like Oaks’ careful, lawyerly style. Anyways, even when we treat “the Lord has directed” as distinct from “as in the earliest days of the church,” the second is the reason that’s emphasized, and the first is buried in a footnote. Also, neither is really a justification in the sense of explaining why the distinction is just, or why God may want it that way.)
The lack of justification for not ordaining women is a good thing, in a way. I was very worried that I would see something about motherhood being equivalent to priesthood, or about men needing priesthood to be more spiritual, like women, or some such thing. I’m very glad that Church leaders have chosen not to endorse such problematic, sexist justifications. There are still plenty of teachings in the LDS Church about complementary gender roles that seem to squeeze me and others into a box that doesn’t quite fit (that’s a post for another day), but if Church leaders aren’t using any particular gender roles as justification for not ordaining women, maybe Church members can stop doing that, too.
I’m glad to see an emphasis on how women exercise priesthood authority to carry out the Relief Society’s charge to relieve the poor and save souls. With the Relief Society established in preparation for the temple, I’m also glad to see the “endowment of power” conferred on women and men in the temple, and the “order of the priesthood” connected with marriage in the temple, described as bestowals of priesthood power.
Additionally, the history of women blessing the sick is also now definitively okay to talk about at church. However, the current insistence that “only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may administer to the sick or afflicted” provides a stark contrast between the idea of expansively conferred or delegated priesthood authority and the hard limits that still exist on formal priesthood ordination.
Currently, as the essay clarifies, women in the LDS Church can preach and pray in Church meetings, be full-time proselytizing missionaries, officiate in the temple, participate in priesthood councils, teach in Church universities and educational programs, lead organizations of women, girls, and children, and minister to families and the Church in many important and significant ways. However, women cannot baptize, bless the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, bless the sick (anymore), or perform any other function that requires formal priesthood ordination. It’s greatly to the credit of Joseph Smith as a visionary that in the 1830s and 1840s, he established a “kingdom of priests” that grew to include women in so many ways.
By contrast, the modern LDS Church looks pretty non-visionary for continuing to insist on a hard line separating women from particular priestly functions. The lack of justification for the distinction is good in that it doesn’t perpetuate particularly sexist teachings, but continuing an old, sexist practice without a good reason isn’t great either. Maybe the absence of a good reason could prompt us to reconsider some things, but the Church seems particularly unwilling to even consider some things, recently.
The authors of the article might accuse me of being distracted by formal offices. Apparently, I risk misunderstanding or overlooking the priesthood authority that LDS women do exercise, or mistakenly equating priesthood with religious office and the people who hold it. Well, I do appreciate the expansive notion of priesthood – not quite as broad, theoretically, as a “priesthood of all believers,” but close in practice, since any practicing Mormon will have many opportunities to minister in ways that we now understand as involving priesthood authority. However, the word “priesthood” is also still used throughout the English-speaking world to refer to the condition or state of being a priest, or to a body of priests, and it’s silly to pretend that the word doesn’t mean those things too – it’s what the “-hood” suffix means, after all. So, if I’m concerned that women are barred from “priesthood,” in the narrower sense, it’s not a very good answer to explain all the ways that women exercise priesthood power in the broader sense and then insist that I misunderstand the word.
Are the Heavens Gendered?
Both essays seem to double down on a gendered eternity. The LDS church teaches that it is God’s plan for men and women to be exalted together as partners, to become more like the divine Mother and Father in whose image they are created. Single people don’t fit into that mold very well, since vague assurances that God will sort it all out when you’re dead aren’t actually much of a theology (or even very comforting). Not to mention that if the highest heaven only admits people who fit into matched up “man” and “woman” cubbyholes, that means that if you prefer a partner of the same sex, or don’t identify as either a man or a woman, then you either don’t belong there, or you do belong there, but with a big chunk of your personality erased. Neither of those options sound like heaven to me.
Honestly, I’m not sure to what extent I believe in the divine Father and Mother as distinct beings, or in a gendered heaven. I certainly believe that heaven does not have an exclusively masculine King without a Queen. However, if, as Joseph Smith taught, some spirits are more intelligent than others, and God is the most intelligent of all (Abraham 3:19), then there should be nothing about masculinity or femininity that the most intelligent spirit does not comprehend. If there is a distinct divine Mother, I don’t want to erase her, but it seems just about as likely to me that there’s a God the Parent that we have failed to understand the feminine aspects of.
A Final Note on Reinterpretation
As I was reading and checking the footnotes, I noticed one more interesting thing: the footnotes seem to take some liberties in re-interpreting scripture. Scripture about an endowment of power associated with the first LDS temple in Kirtland, Ohio, is read to apply to the second LDS temple, in Nauvoo, Illinois, which had significantly different rites. Scripture that describes the temple covenant of marriage as an “order of priesthood” entered into by a man (and described in another footnote as a “patriarchal” order) is read as describing both spouses entering together into an order of the priesthood. Of course, I do understand that what began in Ohio might continue or improve in Illinois, and that we often read scripture to refer to both genders when only one is mentioned. I’m also aware that reinterpreting scripture to mean something new goes back at least as far as the New Testament. It’s just interesting to see, so clearly, that we’re still doing it.
This may not seem like a typical Keepa post, but I liked it and wanted to share it. I like your analytical take, Mike — from noting what is not in the Mother in Heaven essay, but might have been expected to be there, down to your final observation drawn from the footnotes. You give alternate possibilities on a point or two where you have said something I probably would not have said. Most of all, you approached the essays as if you really wanted to understand what they said and how they worked, rather than with a view to list the ways in which they fell short of your personal preferences.
Thanks for letting me post this.
Good post. I enjoyed it.
Thanks, Ardis. I appreciate your thoughtful response, and the opportunity to share these thoughts here at Keepa.
Thank you, Mike. I skimmed the essays and have noted the reactions in the media and social media and bloggernacle but have had so much going on that I haven’t sat down to read them carefully and think through the implications of what is being said, and how it is being said, so I appreciate you sharing this.
I was happy to see Jonathan and Kris’s papers getting some good coverage in the footnotes, and hopefully, along with these essays, the stories they tell in their papers will help restore a sense of the power and complexity of the Restoration.
Thanks so much for this. A breath of fresh air.
Thank you, Mike. This is the sort of faithful and critical analysis I was waiting for.
Amy, I was glad to see those papers cited too. The “power and complexity of the Restoration” is one of my favorite things about Joseph Smith and Church history, but it’s often hard for me to get a sense of it during Sunday meetings. Part of that is no doubt my fault — my attention wanders easily — but I’m sure part of it is that, by focusing on the center of the Restoration, we miss its size and contours. I share your hope that telling the right stories will help restore that sense of power and complexity.
What a great and thoughtful essay. Thank you for sharing it.
I really enjoyed reading your analysis. Thanks Mike!
I am still at a loss for what to conclude about these essays. They are either too vague or too contrary to Truth for me to confirm them.
Thank you for this write up.
I understand the need for ph authority for performing saving ordinances. What I don’t understand is the role of delegated authority for serving in a calling, doing good,etc. What is the difference between me helping someone in distress in my calling and a nonmember doing the same thing? Why is ph authority important in performing any good work?
Sally, from one point of view, there is no difference: If you take a meal to someone in need, they are fed every bit as much by your doing that as a good neighbor as they would be by your doing that in fulfillment of a calling given to you under priesthood authority.
Viewed from another angle, though, a formal call from the Lord carries obligations and blessings that don’t necessarily come with volunteering: I volunteer to show my faith, sustain my leaders, exhibit loyalty to the Church, and whatever other purposes you might think I have in doing Keepa. If some gospel-centered post does some good, that’s wonderful. But even if the words are precisely identical, there is a difference between a post at Keepa and a lesson in my Sunday School class. Here I’m a volunteer, sometimes doing my best and hopefully sometimes guided by the Spirit. But in that classroom, I’m acting with an authority I don’t have as a blogger. I have particular obligations there to teach what the Lord commissioned me to teach. I have been set apart for that calling and can expect God to keep his side of the blessing given me in that setting apart. I can expect to be sustained by ward leaders and class members as long as I act wisely in that calling; here, I have only your good will and the power of the moderating button to substitute for that sustaining. From the outside, it might look like what I teach in the classroom under that delegated authority is the same as what I might write in a blog post, but there is a difference. That difference — the right to speak for God within the limits of my calling, and the right to his support in that role — isn’t really a factor in blogging or anything else I take upon myself under my own volition. Those rights and obligations carry a literal power with them.
I would have preferred to see the mother(s) in heaven notion remain in the realm of folklore, as part of the rich tapestry of Mormon thought, rather than being moved into the realm of doctrine and that by an anonymous newsroom essay. There is still no revelation, no scripture — just supposition and extrapolation. I echo ErinAnn’s no. 10 above. I dread hearing others teach me about heavenly mothers in sacrament meeting.
I am compelled to point out that the Gospel Topics essays are most emphatically NOT “newsroom essays.” Public Affairs did not write them, and had little to no input, and until the last few examples Public Affairs was not consulted or even informed of the timing of their release. They were presented to Public Affairs as done deals, not as something to produce, refine, or even release.
To dismiss them as the Mormon equivalent of a political candidate’s press release is a disservice to everyone involved.
Ardis,
It appears you know more about this matter than others who can only read the website. Well, even with the benefit of the insight you shared, it is still an anonymous essay, and there is still no revelation or scripture, only supposition and extrapolation. But now, the heavenly mother(s) notion is doctrine. But then, your comment couldn’t have been addressed to me, because I didn’t “dismiss them as the Mormon equivalent of a political candidate’s press release is a disservice to everyone involved.”
Well, okay then.
Great questions Ardis. I confess I have no idea what we even mean by worship. It seems like a horribly vague and ambiguous term. I’d love to know the reasons for these.
The problem of conflating persons seems pretty problematic, especially in the OT. It seems the scriptures want to make a distinction but sometimes the distinction isn’t clear. Why they only want the Father prayed to isn’t clear to me. Although perhaps to keep other divine beings from being the object of worship? (I don’t mean Mother in Heaven but figures like Moroni, Elijah or Moses) Again, I’d love to know what’s going on behind all this.
I was surprised and happy that the history of blessing the sick without the priesthood was discussed. That may suggest a change of policy in the future.
I’m not sure what masculine or feminine means in heaven given that our pre-mortal gender wasn’t tied to biology (let alone all the hormones and instincts tied to it). Presumably our resurrected bodies while being similar to our mortal bodies will have a very different “feel” as well. Again lots left to be revealed.
Regarding the Kirkland and Nauvoo endowments. There’s certainly a difference but there seems overlap. However the appearance of Elijah to give the sealing power happened in Kirkland and appears the same keys that enable the ceremonies in Nauvoo. The washings and anointings were done in Kirkland as well as the washing of feet. The endowment of power is almost certainly referring to these keys of Elijah and not the endowment as we use the term.
Clark, when it comes to divine persons in the OT, the biggest thing seems to be this: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” As far as I can tell (really, what do I know about ancient Israel), there was supposed to be only one God of Israel, with no notion of persons in the Hebrew Bible. I strongly suspect that any attempt to distinguish between the Father and the Son in the OT is imposing a distinction that was not intended by the people who wrote it. There does seem to be some notion of the King of Israel as a son of the LORD (e.g., Psalm 2), but (speaking of reinterpretation being as old as the New Testament) I doubt it was understood at the time to mean that king would be God the Son, with all that Christians now understand it to mean.
In that context, of course Jesus says to pray to the Father — who else could there possibly be to pray to? I view it as an extension of the strict monotheism of the OT — but we understand the One God in different terms now.
I was not expecting to be bothered, but you know what bothered me the most? This line: “and lead organizations that minister to families, other women, young women, and children….”
Because they don’t. It’s a lie. Women don’t lead any of those organizations. Men lead them, and the men delegate to women to do much of the work.
I’m fine with being told the priesthood isn’t for me. I understand that. But I really am tired of being lied to. Don’t share the candy, but don’t try to convince me that okra is candy.
This, along with a few other similar assertions in this essay, actually made me re-struggle with something that I’ve otherwise more or less let go. And I don’t want to struggle with it. I want to accept that in some ways, I may be “second class” and move on to focus on serving however I am allowed to serve.
Maybe it’s because I don’t fit the stay-at-home wife/mom mold, but the Relief Society doesn’t really feel like it has much to do with me. It never really has, actually. I struggle even to do my VT, which is the only opportunity to be involved I have. My place in eternity is a heartache better left shelved. But I wish it could be resolved. I truly do.
Wow, SilverRain. I can’t say that I saw what you describe when I was RS president, but I appreciate that there may be changes since then.
Since I am also involved with community groups, I can kinda compare the level of leadership in RS versus those groups.
As an RS president I did not have to check with the bishop before I sent in compassionate aid to sisters in need (meals and driving to appointments and such). To submit a food order, I did have to submit one of the pre-signed forms that he had given me.
I did not have to check with the bishop about our first Sunday lessons or our monthly activities. I did have to get annual approval for the budget, but so did the Elders Quorum.
I guess I am not seeing what you are talking about. Would like to hear more if you have time.
Mike, how that verse is read depends upon how you view source criticism. A common (one might say ubiquitous among the academic crowd) is that there are four main traditions in compiling the Bible. Most arise after the exile and each is pushing their own political and theological aims. I think in the big picture it’s pretty persuasive even if in the details on particular verses it tends to be a tad too speculative at times.
General consensus is that pre-exilic Israel was much more akin to its Canaanite neighbors in terms of pantheon and so forth. (I think the usual view is that as Israel moves towards strict monotheism it adopts angelology from the move to Babylon and a pluralism of named angels becomes its focus instead of a pantheon)
There’s also some big pre-exile moves as well. In particular the whole Deutoronomist tradition is going strong around the time of King Josiah which leads to a lot of reforms and (but this is more speculative) changes in how god and angels are viewed.
There’s lots of scriptures used to support this but it’s probably too afield from the type of history Ardis is after here. I’ve always found it interesting relative to the warnings about the text of the Bible in Nephi. Apologists have often seen these Josiah reforms as an important context for the early parts of the Book of Mormon.
Typically scholars see the older forms of Jewish views of God as God is their god and their only god but doesn’t say anything about all the other deities including deities of other nations. i.e. as opposed to what develops later it doesn’t say these gods aren’t real.
Point is that there doesn’t appear to be just one view of God. It evolves over time. I’d argue the same thing happens with Mormonism. Especially during the rapid theological developments in the Church from 1830 – 1855. Even the last century there’s been a fair bit of evolution. (Say over how the term Jehovah should be viewed)
Naismith, I suspect she means they aren’t independent to the degree they were in the 19th century. EQ isn’t either but unlike RS, EQ presents itself as part of the priesthood. Thus it’s explicitly under a man, the bishop and to an other degree an other man, the SP. RS is too but it wasn’t always organized that way. It used to be much more of a parallel structure to the priesthood hierarchy, although obviously ultimately under the apostles in various ways.
I do think various people struggle with both RS, EQ and presumably HP groups. I think this is much more due to the demographics of particular wards and how much we feel like we “click” with them. I rather like my ward, but I’d be the first to admit I don’t “click” with most of them for various reasons. I don’t think I’d say I have friends at church although there’s lots of people I’m friendly with. I tend to see those social things as somewhat independent of the more formal structure of the church. (I also think they tend to affect participation more)
Clark, if it’s not too far afield, I’d love to hear more about those 4 main traditions — could you point me to somewhere I could read more? (I’m aware of JEDP, but thought that they were Torah sources only, and that 3 of them were pre-exile, so I assume you are referring to a different set of post-exilic traditions.)
That the view of God evolves over time is the point I was trying to make too, but you said it better, I think. Whether the LORD was viewed at various times as part of an Israelite pantheon, or as the one God of Israel, with other gods for other nations, or as the only God, I just meant to say that what made it into the OT doesn’t seem to suggest that the LORD was understood in terms of God the Father or God the Son.
That distinction seems to have evolved with Christianity, and mostly after the resurrection, at that. Peter may declare Jesus to be the Messiah, the son of the living God, but none of the disciples seem to expect the messianic son of God to be fully divine — at least, they seem to think he needed to be defended with swords, and the resurrection seems to come as an awfully big surprise.
I absolutely agree that a similar evolution happens within Mormonism. That’s exactly why I’m skeptical about using Jesus’ instruction to pray to the Father, given to people who barely understood about the Son (and who definitely weren’t around for the Mormon evolution of thought about God the Mother), as the basis for insisting that worship and prayer isn’t to be directed to God the Mother.
SilverRain, the thing I noticed most about that line was what was absent from the list of “organizations that minister to families, other women, young women, and children.” I’ll admit it seems fair to me to say that women do lead those organizations. At least, for example, the YW emphasis on virtue seems to have come from Elaine Dalton as President of that organization, not from some man higher up the ladder. Still, I also get (I hope), that however much women do lead those organizations, just as men lead in the Sunday School or YM, that sort of leadership is fundamentally different from the kind of leadership that requires priesthood ordination or keys, to the point that saying “all this is really priesthood too” feels like okra candy. I’m glad we’re coming to understand that the first form of leadership involves delegated authority from God, not just from men, but it’s still not really the same as the second.
What struck me most about that phrase, though, is how closely it seems to cabin women’s influence to traditional spheres of family, other women, and children. What about ministering to men (outside the family sphere)? If we’re looking at leadership in Church auxiliaries, what would be wrong with a woman leading the Sunday School organization? It’s a strange place to draw a line, especially without a good explanation (although, once again, I’m glad that a bad explanation was not advanced.)
I don’t give a hang if I click with anyone at RS. I am there for eternal salvation, not a social club.
I don’t have friends at church, either. Which may be one reason we get called into leadership, that we tend to be more neutral.
But I have to admit that I have been teaching Primary for 5 years and do not know what goes on at the Sunday meetings nowadays either.
An RS president does minister to men, because of the welfare responsibilities. In Handbook 2, Sec 9.6.1 it says
“The bishop normally assigns the Relief Society president to visit members who need welfare assistance so she can evaluate their needs and suggest ways to respond to them. If there is not a woman in a home she visits, she takes one of her counselors, the Relief Society secretary, or the compassionate service coordinator with her….”
So clearly she is even to visit men in womanless homes.
Yeah, I started to say something in my list of what the Church doesn’t allow women to do, in the original article, about ministering to men, but there are lots of things like the RS president’s welfare responsibilities, or ward music, or activities, where leaders are or may be women, and where those leaders minister to people including men outside of families. But none of that is reflected in the phrase “organizations that minister to families, other women, young women, and children” That’s the phrase that’s strange, for omitting any mention of ministry to men outside of families. Why leave those forms of ministry out of the essays? And still, why can’t women lead organizations like the Sunday School? It’s still an odd line to draw, even if women minister to men in some ways.
Someday, when we all die and presumably go to heaven, Naismith’s ward will be there. In the meantime, I mourn with those who experience less than adequate versions of church organizations and programs, which are legion. And it’s true that sometimes the inadequacy is institutional, which is why we finally have these essays. They are an important first step in addressing some of the things which cause suffering to folks like Silver Rain. And me too, I guess. But they are only a beginning, and as such, I agree with others who think the vagueness of them can work in our favor. I even can see benefits to their anonymity, preventing us from overly scrutinizing the author(s) to the neglect of the content. Until we have a bona fide revelation like that generous endowment that came to us in the earliest days of the church, I will make what I can of these careful, scholarly and thoughtful essays. Thanks Ardis, for bringing this essay to my attention. Well done, Mike R, and commenters for boosting my education.
I’ve got a problem with We’ve always done it this way and God hasn’t corrected it, so that’s what God has directed. That’s not revelation. That’s the absence of revelation. That’s about as unMormon as it comes. That’s the thinking that got us into the predicament that required the restoration in the first place.
For something as allegedly central as not ordaining women, the Doctrine and Covenants is remarkably silent. The revelations tell us that twelve deacons form a quorum, but forgets to mention that all twelve of them are supposed to be male. When Joseph and Oliver received the priesthood on May 15, 1829, what stopped them from ordaining women on May 16? Did John the Baptist say something that we haven’t heard about? If John said something that hasn’t been revealed, in what sense could it possibly be a “revelation”?
I’m confident that the Lord is directing his church. But the premise that everything we do is God’s will, is a rejection of revelation and the ninth Article of Faith. We don’t have a specific revelation restricting priesthood ordination to men. To say “that’s how we’ve always done it” is an appeal to tradition, which is not a form of revelation; it’s the opposite of revelation.
Mike, great analysis of what is said and not said in these essays. That is more than I had accomplished. I have done a single reading of them, and took away that there are really two main points here. First, that Mother in Heaven is a real doctrine, and no longer just a hopeful line in a poem. Second, that our understanding of “priesthood” is evolving, and with it an understanding of exercising priesthood authority. It has long been evident to me that particularly in the temple, women have exercised priesthood authority, and while we still have gender specific priesthood offices, priesthood authority is a different animal, and the non-gendered aspect of that is now, again, officially doctrine.
Strangely enough, it took a three year turn as a high councilor to understand that concept of priesthood authority vs priesthood office. While holding a priesthood office was apparently a prerequisite to serving on the HC, being set apart for that calling was no different that for a calling as Sunday School teacher or primary worker. No authority is granted in either case, but as directed by my stake president, I then exercised his PH authority as president of the Melchizedek Priesthood in our stake, to perform specific assignments. It was never my PH authority.
As such, I now look forward to the day soon when women in the church can serve as Sunday School presidents, ward clerks, or ward mission leaders. Or maybe even high councilors? All of these exercise PH authority, but have no specific office or ordination assigned to them. I think our understanding is evolving in that direction, just as our understanding of Deity is evolving.
Naismith, it is like the senior and junior dynamic when serving a mission. In a healthy, functioning relationship, you don’t feel the difference. But when the relationship isn’t healthy, it quickly becomes apparent who actually leads.
You get a good bishop who knows how to delegate, it feels like you lead. But if not, it is quite apparent that the Relief Society is an appendage of the bishopric. The ministry they do is by assignment from the bishop. I’m not claiming to “suffer” from that….Just pointing out it is the reality.
Mike, yes. Restricting women from overt stewardship over men has a cost. Even Naismith’s quote from the Handbook makes it clear it is the bishop, not the Relief Society, with authority.
Whatever gain we get is obviously worth it to the Lord. But there is a price attached. There are realms in which women should, scripturally and historically, have authority. But we don’t teach them, nor discuss them…at least not in terms of authority. We women are definitely useful in the kingdom, but there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between being a woman of God and being a man of God. Everyone can see that. The only question is what that difference means.
MDearest, I would be willing to listen to the specifics of things that cause suffering for anyone. I do not claim that our ward is better than any other; we followed the handbook. Any other ward can and should as well. And maybe my ward might be just as painful for some, but I don’t see it because I am (1) off teaching primary and (2) not looking for acceptance/clicking.
SilverRain, thanks for the explanation. Of course it is a problem when folks of any gender or calling attempt to wield power inappropriately. But it is not like the church is officially encouraging that kind of twisted behavior. According to the handbook, the RS president should have a great deal of autonomy to minister within her sphere. What bishop has time to run every organization?
Every organization has some kind of authority flow. Of the community organizations with which I have been involved, some presidents actually can’t do much without approval of a board. Some presidents can only operate within parameters defined by the state or national organization of which they are part. So having an authority flow of some kind does not seem unreasonable to me in perspective.
I am assuming that should our church ordain women tomorrow that the final authority for the ward would remain with the bishop, it’s just that now the bishop might be female instead? So how would that change anything? Considering some of the @!#^! women who have been my workplace supervisor, I don’t see how that would change at all.
And there were lots of times that the RS and a priesthood quorum or group would discover a need, collaborate with one another to deal with it, and only report to the bishop when the problem was solved. It’s not like the underlings, male or female, were waiting for the bishop to tell us what to do before we would act.
Other than the bishop, which men in the ward have “overt stewardship”? I guess I am not seeing the difference.
And if we only recognize as valuable the kinds of stewardship that men have had, is that not male-normative and demeaning to women’s contributions?
I do have sympathy for any who are suffering under the status quo.
Reading some of the comments here (particularly SilverRain’s and the discussion stemming from that), it strikes me anew how much one’s lived experience as a member of the church depends on where one lives. I mean, i’ve observed it in locations across North American in the degree of acceptance (or not) my wife has received as rather emphatically not fitting into the stay-at-home-mom role, and Mike R’s “it’s now definitively okay to talk about God the Mother in church” made me think about how quickly i’d be called into my bishop’s and/or stake president’s office for a little chat if i talked about Mother in Heaven in a sacrament meeting speech.
I actually go back and forth on whether i think this is, on balance, a good thing or a bad thing—yes, it means that some people end up getting the short end of the stick based simply on the accident of where they live, but it also means there’s some room for local experimentation that may spread if it turns out to be positive.
I’ve lived in dozens of wards across the U.S. and Europe. I have seen the revelation of women overridden by male authority multiple times in multiple circumstances. I’m saying there is a cost to that. Again, I’m not discussing my suffering, nor pitching to ordain women, for which I do not angle.
Suffering is caused by wickedness, not by structure. I understand the need for structure. All I’m saying is that the organizations are not, by any rational understanding, run by women. If they were, the Relief Society would still have the keys turned over to them by the Prophet Joseph Smith. They would report up a female line of authority, and callings for Relief Society President would be made as they originally were. If they were, people would naturally value the input of women, rather than seeing that value as a bone to throw to us, as a special effort to make.
Again, I’m not saying they should go back to what they were. I don’t know enough to make that judgment. All I’m saying is that to claim the organization is run by women is deceptive. To claim the Relief Society is what Joseph Smith organized is not true, and hasn’t been since they were rendered an auxiliary on par with Primary and Young Women’s.
We are categorically and permanently “auxiliary” to the real work: the priesthood. That message is too clear to paint over it with a reworking of rhetoric. Ultimately, to me, it doesn’t matter. My testimony is and always has been in spite of the structure of the Church. I would prefer they simply admit it, then try to finesse interpretation. Men are the senior companions and mission leaders of life. So be it.
All of the Auxiliaries — Primary, YWMIA, YMMIA, Sunday School, (Religion Class, when it existed), and Relief Society were equally autonomous — they raised their own funds, designed their own curricula, expanded their own General Boards as needed, and were affected in exactly the same way when correlation brought them under the priesthood umbrella. There is no sense in which the Relief Society lost more or was affected more grievously than any other. The only significant difference is adult nostalgia: Women can look back and say “This has changed.” Children cannot.
Good point, Ardis. Though I’d say the difference is that children never ran their own organizations, so the shift in power was fundamentally different.
But in either interpretation of that correlation, children of both genders are members of auxiliaries to the priesthood. Grown women are members of an auxiliary. Grown men are members of the actual priesthood. There is a cost to that. Remarketing the priesthood power vs. authority rhetoric doesn’t help. In my mind, it only makes it worse than simply acknowledging that there is a difference.
I haven’t read all the comments, but addressing SilverRain’s last remark: yes, there is a difference, but that’s not a bad thing. Equality is not synonymous with being identical. Where I live, as in most places in the Church, female Latter-day Saints are in the majority. However here in the UK there are far fewer men to fill priesthood callings, and by pure probability they are not always up to the job. Nonetheless, the Church has survived, going through peaks and troughs because despite the organisational difficulties and the perceived inequality (which I must say doesn’t really find expression here – women tend to be too busy getting on with things) it is the Church of Christ and continuing revelation means change will come in the Lord’s time, not based on our demands or ideas of what is right or wrong. That is society’s way and not God’s.
I was late to read this but wonderful, excellent work. My hope is that the precise points/questions you raise are the points that get attention ASAP.