Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Women and "The Priesthood"

Recently, Kayla Lemmon blogged about the upcoming General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. Specifically, she mentioned a petition that would be going down outside of the Conference Center in Salt Lake City. This won't be your usual anti-LDS or anti-Christian protest, no. This comes from members of the church themselves. They are a feminist group and have decided that the church needs to stop discriminating against females and, in the name of equality, ordain them to priesthood offices within the church.

Kayla defended the church. She defended the gospel. She got a lot of support and a lot of criticism for what she said.

I am also in support of the church and the gospel regarding this event. I won't be participating in this petition, either.

But do not doubt me when I say that I know exactly how these people feel and why they're petitioning.

I know because I was on that train for a few years. I hadn't reached the point that I would have considered a petition to the General Authorities, but I was on it. I served a mission in a place where many members were new to the church and genuinely believed that "Female missionaries aren't real missionaries because they don't hold the priesthood." They learned that little phrase from some of the male missionaries that I served with. You'd better believe I was frustrated. Upon returning, I worked in the Provo temple for 2.5 years. Being in the temple for at least 5 hours/week left me questioning a lot, but I could never find answers; everyone that I asked didn't know, either.

I started to get angry. I wasn't going to leave the church, but it's hard when you have questions that you can't find the answers to because everyone you ask just says "well, that's just the way it is."

I've never accepted that as an appropriate answer. To me, that's always been a cop-out.

I was still angry. But deep down, I knew it wasn't the church's fault. This priesthood issue isn't something like women wearing pants to church or praying in a general session of conference. The priesthood is a doctrinal concern, and doctrine is part of the gospel as opposed to policy, procedure, or tradition. So, I kept looking. I prayed. I fasted. After many years of doing so, I found what I believe to be the main problem and I found the answers I sought. Here's what I learned:

There's this idea that has seemed to become unofficial doctrine among many members (I was once included in this group). It is this:
Men are the priesthood and therefore, women have been shortchanged.
(
picture: the-exponent.com)

This is not true.

But honestly, I can't blame people for thinking the church is discriminating. I mean, if you grew up in the church, you're probably familiar with at least one of the following:



In addition, I heard a story from a friend about an unfortunate conversation she overheard. A male who was struggling through an ended engagement was talking casually to his bishop. He was expressing his sadness and in doing so, stated that he still loved her and that he wanted to be able to bless her with his priesthood, but knew that it wasn't going to be his responsibility anymore...

...Excuse me? His priesthood?

No wonder there's a big problem with understanding what the priesthood is and now it really works.
Source
God's power is just that: His power. It comes from Him and Him alone. It is realized by and through the faith and worthiness of those who seek access to it, be it from a blessing or from covenant-keeping. It is not--and I add, can not be--owned or embodied in males. This defies all reason. The young man who said that he wanted to bless a girl with his priesthood was confused when it comes to that. It's not his priesthood, it's His. The blessings that the power of God can offer to a woman are not conditional upon having a man in her life.

Just for fun, go back up to the bullet points in the scroll. Every time you see the word priesthood, replace it in your head with power of God. Does some of it sound a bit silly? Good.

Even so, I've heard a few arguments for female ordination.


But it's not just things within church itself. Many women feel that in order to be equal to their husbands in the home, they need to be ordained like he is.

I can't blame them for their thought process on this one because that's all we see in church: a very distinct and organized line of authority. Very few people have explained that priesthood authority in church and priesthood authority at home don't work the same way.

MormonNewsroom.org
The family unit is created through temple covenants that the husband and wife participate in as equals. That makes the husband a patriarch and equally, the wife becomes matriarch of their family unit. The husband is not free to pull rank on his wife because he has no rank to pull. The two titles are on equal footing; neither can exist without the other nor is one on a higher pedestal than the other.

For more detailed information on that, click here.



In the end...
Can a man put his hands on his own head and give himself a blessing? No.
Can a man administer any ordinance without his presiding leader's permission? No.
If perchance he does, will the ordinance be valid just because he's a priesthood holder? No.
Are female temple workers ordained to priesthood offices? No.
Does a woman need a man to go to the temple with her so that she can make her individual saving covenants? No.
Can a worthy husband make an executive decision for his wife and family that his wife disagrees with? No.

The church has always been on the equality bandwagon. Utah was one of the first states in which women were allowed to vote; the church is all for equal employment and housing; the church supported the civil rights movement (some members may not have, but the church did).

But like some other sensitive issues in the world today, I can promise that the church will not budge on female priesthood ordination. Why? Because it goes against doctrine (not policy) that has been in place since the dawn of time and because women do not need a priesthood office to be blessed by the power of God, serve the Lord, be equal to the men, and be exalted.


36 comments:

  1. i think that we have talked about this a few times but you hit it on the head sarah.... i have thought a lot abou the issue. i started with a bad taste in my mouth for these women that want "equality" but that ended in me realizing that was part of the problem. I have concluded the same things you have through prayer and study so... you know... the power of two witnesses... blah blah blah. Furthermore, we should help people understand like are here instead of allowing that "bad taste" to turn into something more like hate, anger, or even protest.
    good post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Jon! Yeah, when anger starts to take over, that's never a good sign. It's much better to search and turn to the Lord in prayer so that peace can bring one to His truth.

      Delete
  2. Quality. If the man does not exercise righteous dominion then the priesthood he holds is nothing. The DOCTRINE does not teach inequality but rather the CULTURE does. Fantastic stuff here. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, that how I feel as well. I think that a few generations ago, people referred to men as the priesthood, but they all knew that it was just for convenience. I think that the problems started happening when the term was used with the younger generations, but not explained.

      Delete
  3. Thank you for your post! Especially this part: "But like some other sensitive issues in the world today, I can promise that the church will not budge on female priesthood ordination. Why? Because it goes against doctrine (not policy) that has been in place since the dawn of time and because women do not need a priesthood office to be blessed by the power of God, serve the Lord, be equal to the men, and be exalted."

    ReplyDelete
  4. First of all, the Ordain Women event is NOT a protest. Stop calling it that, because it's an inaccurate description of what it actually is. The event is women *asking* if they can watch the priesthood session. There will be no signs, no yelling, no protesting, nada. They will quietly be in the standby line.

    Secondly, "But do not doubt me when I say that I know exactly how these people feel and why they're protesting." Sorry, but I do doubt (very strongly) that you know how every participant feels. You only know how *you* felt when you got home from your mission. You cannot project your feelings onto others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry you misunderstood where I was coming from when I shared my personal story on the matter. My point was not to make a blanket statement and say that my story was how everyone must feel. It was simply to show that I have had feelings of that nature, as opposed to someone who's never thought about it but is addressing the topic anyway.

      Delete
    2. Women can watch and enjoy the priesthood session afterwards on the internet, just like the men can watch and enjoy the relief society session afterwards on the internet. It would be kind of silly for a bunch of men to wait in line to watch the relief society session live, I think.

      Delete
  5. I haven't joined Ordain Women, but I will say that I think that their efforts are being unfairly categorized as "a protest." These women aren't picketing, they aren't causing a scene, but they are respectfully standing in line to ask for admittance. They're interested in being heard by God's representatives. Many say, "Why don't they just write a letter? Why don't they do this behind closed doors?" The LDS Church is enormous and a few women petitioning behind closed doors individually can not really hold the same weight or have the same impact as members uniting in their petition. Also, it's not as if members can just knock on the prophet's door and sit down and have a chat about this issue. If they want to be heard, they need to bring their collective voices forward. I actually think that the issue is not whether "the church" or the priesthood holders leading it "will budge." I think the question is when God will provide further revelation regarding the priesthood and/or additional knowledge in regards to women's roles in his church. I honestly can not fathom how the idea of women holding the Priesthood detracts from the gospel in any way, diminishes gender roles, or bring anything negative to our spiritual experience. There is no satisfying answer to the "why" of men holding the priesthood, in my opinion, so there is so much more to be revealed. I think this causes some members to defend the priesthood against "attacks" unnecessarily. I don't understand all of the "whys," but my testimony in the fundamentals of the gospel has helped me to accept that more will be revealed. I think this issue has some real parallels to African American males petitioning to hold the Priesthood. This required petitioning God and asking his servants to pose the question. They did and God felt it was the right to provide further revelation. If these sisters feel compelled to petition in the same way, I don't see this as a "protest," but a beautiful testimony to their love of the gospel and faith in revelation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I respect your comments and I like that you used to word "petition." If you're okay with it, I'd like to use that word in this post instead of protest because you're right: they're not protesting. That was just the only word I could think of.

      However, I will say that there has been plenty of revelation regarding this topic. The problem is that most aren't satisfied with it and want something more...or different than what has already been revealed.

      When it comes to the petition of African American males, that was not an issue in the same way that women ordination is. In Bible times and other points in history, Black males held the priesthood. Just like other groups of people in scripture history, that opportunity was taken for a time and was to be restored when the Lord saw fit. Never in any scripture since the creation has a woman been ordained, which is why I firmly believe that it will not change now.

      Delete
    2. Romans 16:7 has a woman, Junias, named by Paul as a renowned apostle. Also in the same chapter he recommends Pheobe, a deacon (translated as servant in this case by the King James translators) of the church to the Saints in Rome. There are indeed some examples of female priesthood leaders in the ancient Christian movement if you know where to look.

      Delete
    3. But there were women who had been ordained. There were prophetesses and priestesses. Jesus had female apostles. And though it's not in the Bible or BOM, we know from the Joseph Smith Papers that Emma Smith and many other women were ordained. Emma was the first woman in the latter-days to be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Woman have held the priesthood longer that they haven't.

      Delete
    4. You say, "Never in any scripture since the creation has a woman been ordained...." This is completely false. The Bible names several prophetesses (sounds to me like the equivalent of a prophet, aka has the priesthood power) such as Deborah (who is also named as a judge of Israel), Anna, Huldah, and Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14). In addition, Joseph Smith ordained women with the priesthood when he organized the relief society "after the manner of the priesthood." The minutes say he "ordained" the presidency (http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book). So, I see no reason for this practice to not be restored similarly.

      Delete
    5. Actually, a prophetess is not an ordained priesthood holder, as stated here:

      "A woman who has received a testimony of Jesus and enjoys the spirit of revelation. A prophetess does not hold the priesthood or its keys. Though only a few women in the scriptures are called prophetesses, many prophesied, such as Rebekah, Hannah, Elisabeth, and Mary."

      http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophetess?lang=eng

      We need to be careful how we interpret meaning from the Bible, as much of the original Hebrew wording has been replaced with words that work, but meant something different than they do today.

      Delete
    6. Right on the mark Sarah. Yah, there were prophetesses in the bible, just as we have female temple workers today. Every wonder why a man does not work in female initiatories? Women do, and they obviously do not need to be ordained to do so, although the act they are carrying out in every way is using the priesthood.

      Delete
    7. Exactly. Being a temple worker is more like a calling than anything else, except that you can ask to be one; you don't have to wait to be called. When I went into the temple president's office, I was interviewed and set apart as a worker. During my setting apart, I was authorized to administer the ordinances necessary within the scope of that calling. I was never ordained to a priesthood office, but I did have to have authorization from the temple president, just like all the male temple workers did/do.

      Delete
    8. I agree with the comments about the women of the bible and whether or not they held the priesthood. I would like to add a few more comments on this. Consider this: read through the Old Testament and the Book Of Mormon prior to Christ's visitation to the New World. While the Mosaic Law was in place, how many men held the Melchizedek Priesthood at any given time? (I'll give you a hint - it was the High Priest, of which there was only one at any given time.) Compare that to how many hold the MP now. Do not compare our apples to their oranges. In the country of Israel, only one person held the MP, and it was not a woman. Ever. In the Chosen Land, only one person held the MP, and it was not a woman. Ever. The MP was used by one man to enter into the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple, or into the other temples built by the Nephites. Often times, that same man was also the prophet of the land, but there are many instances where a person was a prophet only because the Lord called them to preach a particular thing (think Lehi, Samuel, Jonah, etc.) Not all prophets held the MP, not all prophets led the church. All prophets testified of what they read in the book which was shown to them (think Lehi, Isaiah, many other prophets of whose calling we have a record in the scriptures), or they were eaten by a whale.

      Secondly, in reading the Joseph Smith Papers, cited by "Anonymous" above, on September 12, 2013, at 2:04 am, I fail to find the exact language suggesting that JS gave Emma and her counselors the priesthood. Read it again, perhaps after some sleep, and see if you can't see that perhaps, and more likely, a member of the Quorum of the 12 ordained, or set apart the three women to their new callings or offices. Which means that what happened is exactly what happens today: women are called, and are set apart for that calling.

      In other churches, in order to officiate and preside you need the "priesthood." In our Church, only men need the priesthood to officiate and preside, while women never have needed that priesthood. You see, "priesthood" is synonymous in other churches with "leadership." That is not the case in our church. Nearly half the ward, stake and general auxiliaries are run by women. Entirely. Without any say by men. RS, YW, Primary. We hear the general authorities from these auxiliaries speak in general conferences; we read their messages in the Ensign and other magazines; we see their influence throughout the world.

      Now, point to one place in the scriptures where that happens?

      As discussed very powerfully by Sarah above, however, is that this doesn't really mean anything. The Priesthood is God's power and authority. It is not a man's. Nor is it the Church's, even. If women want the priesthood, for whatever reason (be it those expressed here, or otherwise), they will not get it by protesting, petitioning, asking, or even by lining up at General Conference. They will get it the same way men did/do - from Heavenly Father. Joseph Smith received it from those whom Jesus Christ had given it. JS received it when he asked the question about it in prayer. If the 15 apostles we have on the earth have asked about it, and you do not have it, then I think you have your answer. I am just willing to bet, after all the years and controversy over this issue, that the Church Leaders have asked, and have received the answer.

      Delete
  6. i usually think posts about these kinds of topics get dicey, but i thought you did it very respectfully. thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you for this. I want to add that as women we get to read and learn what all was taught in the Priesthood session or in Elder's Quorum. The church has never hid what the Priesthood are taught. I feel it is well, silly, to think that we can't watch it. Of course we can if we are patient for our chance to view. On another note thank you for clearing this up. I feel sad that many women don't understand that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome, Donelle. On a humorous note, I've heard many men say that they wish they had an official EQ room to meet in and comfy chairs, too. :)

      I've actually talked with a few guys about the "priesthood session isn't televised" matter. While this is most definitely not the case for many, some of my male friends are convinced that if it were televised, there are men out there who would forget to watch it because they wouldn't have to make special plans to go. The fact that they have to go somewhere to watch it live pushes them to make the effort to do so.

      Delete
  8. I very much appreciate your thoughts on unrighteous dominion - many of the problems being faced currently are because, frankly, a lot of my fellow brothers in the church act like complete and utter morons and attempt to exert unrighteous dominion.

    One quick question: in a recent response, you wrote "Never in any scripture since the creation has a woman been ordained." Are you sure about this? What about Deborah and Huldah in the Old Testament? They acted in the same prophetic leadership role as Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the rest of the O.T. prophets; is it possible that they were ordained as well? (And no, there's no mention of even any male prophets in the O.T. being specifically ordained the way we understand them to be, we rely on modern revelation for that.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, a prophetess is not an ordained priesthood holder, as stated here:

      "A woman who has received a testimony of Jesus and enjoys the spirit of revelation. A prophetess does not hold the priesthood or its keys. Though only a few women in the scriptures are called prophetesses, many prophesied, such as Rebekah, Hannah, Elisabeth, and Mary."

      http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophetess?lang=eng

      You're right: there aren't many records of prophetic ordination as we know it today, but we have record of many, if not all, speaking to God face to face, receiving revelation for the people as a whole, prophesying of the coming of Christ, and in those times, performing miracles as a sign of their callings. A good example of this is when Moses passed his staff to Joshua: Joshua used it as a symbol to the house of Israel to show that the mantle of prophet has indeed been passed to him.

      In the O.T., prophets could not be ordained as we know it today because Christ had not come to earth to organize a quorum of twelve apostles through which the calling could be passed down. Thus, by necessity, the way ordination worked for an O.T. prophet had to be different.

      Delete
  9. I really appreciated that your post was respectful and that you tried to empathize with the women and men of OW. I also appreciate that you've retracted on your use of the word "protest." It is very refreshing to see a blogger be so dang nice to OW. But I take issue with some of your arguments. In some of your pictures, you basically say "well not all men are called to leadership callings either" and "not all men have leadership authority." While that is true, that isn't a type of discrimination. All men have the potential to be in those callings one day. Women don't have that. All men are able to have their own auxiliary that is run by a person of their gender, whereas both YW and RS are under the umbrella of authority of men (RS used to be a separate entity when it was first formed, with women having the last say). All men are able to see a person of their gender in a leadership position. This is actually very important, because men are more adequately represented in leadership meetings and because men have a male role model they can look up to. Females can also look up to many wonderful women in their ward/stake, but what they're learning from them as that they can only have so much leadership authority before they hit a glass ceiling. Maybe this is why you have so many cocky young priesthood holders, like in your examples, but you don't see immature young women going around bragging about their uterus powers.
    Again, thanks for the way you handled your disagreement with this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely understand where you're coming from on this one. That exact thing bugged me to no end for a long time. But then I realized that a requirement for males in the "higher up" places in leadership is that they have to be married. If they get divorced, they are released. In addition, she has to state to the person extending the calling that she will support him in order for the calling to be officially extended. I've known a few families in which a leader wanted to extend a calling to the husband, but was unable to do so because his wife stated that she would not support it. His ability to hold any of those callings depends very much on her. This should imply that he knows all to well how important a woman's voice is in the decisions that he may need to make. I know it doesn't always turn out that way in counsel meetings, but for many, it does.

      Cool side note: No matter the calling for a woman (even on the general level), she does not have to be married to be able to accept.

      I know that what I just said doesn't help everyone when it comes to that, but it helped me. :)

      Delete
  10. This is one of the most respectful posts regarding OW that I've seen yet (and I've read a lot of them because I'm part of OW). I really appreciate your tone, your thoughts and your conviction.

    For me, I chose to get involved with OW when I realized that it actually was *not* doctrinal to withhold female ordination. That many women in the scriptures were prophetesses, deaconesses, and apostles. When I learned that Mary Magdalene had received the priesthood. When I learned that Emma had also received the priesthood (and while some will suggest she didn't, contemporaries such as Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon confirm that she did). When I realized that my female ancestors were encouraged to lay hands upon the heads of their brothers, sisters, and children in blessing and anointing them with oil. When I realized that I have been endowed with the priesthood just as my sisters of old but that simply is not recognized anymore (and hasn't really since 1940) to exercise outside of the temple. This is when I got involved with Ordain Women. I realized that this was actually where the doctrine pointed and that *tradition* was what had changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Amy. Coming from someone involved in OW, I really appreciate your words. My goal is never to offend anyone, just to discuss. I'm glad it came across to you in the way I intended it.

      But also, I do feel that you should be aware that prophetesses were not ordained to the priesthood, as stated here:

      A prophetess is "A woman who has received a testimony of Jesus and enjoys the spirit of revelation. A prophetess does not hold the priesthood or its keys. Though only a few women in the scriptures are called prophetesses, many prophesied, such as Rebekah, Hannah, Elisabeth, and Mary."

      http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophetess?lang=eng

      While I have not done my research yet for deaconesses, my guess is that I'll probably find something around the same thing. Many times, we read a word in the scriptures and interpret it the way we understand it in our language, when it meant something different in the time that it was written.

      Delete
    2. Sarah, Have you had a chance to look over this? The research we're now finding is incredibly eye-opening about Jesus's teachings of and involvement with women in the organization of the early church. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/women.html

      This is one of the things that fuels my testimony of Joseph Smith. In his day, the idea that women should be involved in the governing body of the Church, that they should be so prominent, that they be ordained to the priesthood, that they would become part of a "kingdom of priests as in Enoch's day, as in Paul's day" was radical! It's one of the great testaments of a true restoration. This information wasn't known in Joseph Smith's day, but it's being uncovered now.

      What makes me sad is that our rhetoric around women and their exercising of the priesthood as individuals fell out of our discourse. I think this (along with the teaching of a Heavenly Mother--which is now being talked about in MANY faith circles outside of our own) is one of the greatest signs of a restoration and further light and knowledge. However, I think we largely stopped talking about and practicing these things in order to appear more "normal" to the rest of the Christian world. Now it really will look like the Church is acquiescing to social pressure when it actually has been part of our teachings since the early beginnings of the Church.

      Delete
    3. Also, this just released today. Beautiful. It made me burst in to tears. The thought having one of my dear sisters in the Gospel lay her hands upon my head and anoint it with oil in a time of need? Can you imagine the bond we could share as women? It's inspiring to me.

      http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2013/09/a-spotlight-of-lds-female-healers/#comment-1241319

      Delete
    4. "What makes me sad is that our rhetoric around women and their exercising of the priesthood as individuals fell out of our discourse. I think this (along with the teaching of a Heavenly Mother--which is now being talked about in MANY faith circles outside of our own) is one of the greatest signs of a restoration and further light and knowledge. However, I think we largely stopped talking about and practicing these things in order to appear more "normal" to the rest of the Christian world. Now it really will look like the Church is acquiescing to social pressure when it actually has been part of our teachings since the early beginnings of the Church."

      If I may, when I read this statement, all I can hear is that something in your reasoning is telling you to disbelieve the leaders of the church. Because, if your premise was, the Church is true, and it is led by inspired leaders who are the voice piece of the Lord, then you would not be able to conclude that the current leaders have tried to quiet something in order to look more appealing to the rest of the Christian World. The conclusions you stated above sound more like, "There is a conspiracy inside the church leadership, encouraged by all, even the women general authorities, to hide all mention of women holding the priesthood." Perhaps this is a misstatement of your beliefs, but that is how it sounds.

      At the very least, it shows a lack of faith in the current leadership to hear the voice of the Lord on the matter. I would consider such a conspiracy to be unworthy church leadership, wouldn't you? And if the church was inundated with such leadership, wouldn't the Lord do something about it? Why would he keep calling men and women into leadership positions, only to have them not listen to him and actively seek to hide what he wants?

      The other way to believe, is to have faith that the men and women who lead this church are called of God, listen to his voice, and listen to yours as well. You may question, ask, petition, protest, etc. But, once the leadership has answered the question, then find comfort in that.

      Delete
    5. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865586996/LDS-Church-responds-to-priesthood-meeting-request-by-activists.html. Here is where we see the actual beliefs of these women. They asked, they petitioned, and the Church responded. And what do the women do? They answer by saying, "we're still going to go stand in line."

      I find it hard to believe or accept that these women have put God first in their lives and have accepted as the leaders of God's church these 15 apostles. I'm not saying they are heretics, apostate, or that they deserve any punishment. I am saying that I cannot believe that the basis for their "movement" is based entirely on faith. Especially when contrasted with the statement by Ruth Todd, the spokeswoman who wrote the response to the petition.

      Delete
  11. Good post, especially for those confusing discriminating members with The Gospel itself. I'm going to challenge your "equality bandwagon" quote though. The Church has not always been on the equality bandwagon and did not support the U.S. Civil Rights movement. Missionaries were told not to teach Black families within the U.S. because the men were not granted the priesthood anyway. Also missions in certain Black countries could have been opened with the permission of the countries; yet they were not (until after 1978 and beyond). Also, Black slaves were brought by White pioneers to Utah as "Zion" was being built. President Benson frequently spoke out against the Civil Rights movement and Elder Mc Conkie published some pretty hasty opinions in his book "Mormon Doctrine". Of course not ALL of it was doctrine but when you are a General Authority and you name a book, "Mormon Doctrine" people will believe whatever you write in it. He later (after ALL men; including Blacks were no longer being held back from holding the Priesthood) said that he was acting on, "limited light at the time but now he has a fuller light and was wrong." The book has of course been revised to include more light and less darkness/opinion. Even today, I would say the Gospel promotes equality but the Church itself still has a long way to go.
    http://mormonliberals.org/ezra-taft-benson-and-politics/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, perhaps I should have clarified in my post: When I refer to the church, I am not referring to individual members or even groups of members. I am referring to the organization as instituted by the Lord.

      I definitely agree that President Benson had a thing with speaking about politics. However, because he was a prophet, I know that if the Lord had told him to open certain countries for the preaching of the gospel, he would have regardless of the "Blacks and the priesthood" issue. The only reason they weren't opened was because the Lord had not approved it. His reasons are His. Maybe it did have something to do with racism among members, but since the Lord is not a respecter of persons, I'm not going to question His mind on the matter. He knew what was best back then and he knows now as well.

      However, at least in the south there were White LDS congregations and Black LDS congregations before the priesthood revelation was announced. Some have even chosen to stay segregated to this day. Their reasons are theirs, but it is their choice to do so.

      Also of interesting note: Joseph Smith himself had black slaves. However, when he learned that this was not acceptable to the Lord, he stopped immediately. The first prophet of the restoration was already showing the other members by example that we are all equal.

      Delete
  12. Thank you for this. I have never felt discriminated against as a woman, especially in the church. I love a quote from Elder Ballard from this last conference: "In our Heavenly Father’s great priesthood-endowed plan, men have the unique responsibility to administer the priesthood, but they are not the priesthood. Men and women have different but equally valued roles. Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without a man, so a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman. In other words, in the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by husband and wife." (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/this-is-my-work-and-glory?lang=eng)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you for your thoughts! I have never questioned or had a hard time with women not having the priesthood, not out of blind faith, but because I have gained a testimony. I feel sorry for those who feel they are less because they do not at this time have the opportunity to hold priesthood powers. We all should understand that the church is not government. No matter how many wish things to change, it will not happen until the Lord instructs.

    ReplyDelete

I welcome fun, civil, and respectful discussion. See "The Blog and House Rules" for what that means to me.