Priesthood ≠ A Functioning Uterus
The generally accepted cultural consensus of the church, at least in my experience, seems to be that women get to bear children, which is why they don't get the priesthood. Or, in other words, the Priesthood is the male equivalent to motherhood.
My question then, if that is true, is why did the Father of us all, who with all of His incredible roles, power, knowledge and authority has asked for us to address Him as Father, seem to feel that fatherhood by itself was not equal to motherhood, and feel that men needed a little something extra to make it even?
I don't think that's how it works. I don't believe that the only godly power that women have been asked to exercise in this life is bearing children. Don't get me wrong, that is an incredible, spiritual power. But it is one that, if we solely focus on its physical nature, may also be exercised by prostitutes. Nor do I believe that the only source of godly power in a sealed couple is the Priesthood held by the man. My belief is that fatherhood without the Priesthood is not fatherhood after the manner of our Father and likewise, motherhood, without her own godly power is also not motherhood after the manner of our Mother.
So focusing on the spiritual roles of men and the physical roles of women can sometimes skew our perceptions until we believe that men are the only ones with a spiritual role and women's role is only physical, which I believe is inaccurate and a very unfortunate misconception. Because it makes women like me feel like, what is the point of my inherent spiritual nature and all of my instincts and gifts and my personal relationship with God and the revelation I receive if once I'm married it's all supposed to be shoved under a bushel so the family can sit in silent wonder of my husband's priesthood? As if, in a family, the sole source of spirituality is through the man.
Not so. James E. Faust said that "every father is to his family a patriarch and every mother a matriarch as coequals." Elder Russell M. Nelson taught that, "Eve served in matriarchal partnership with the patriarchal priesthood." And he stated that "the complete contribution of one partner to the other is essential to exaltation."
So my question is, why don't we spend more time in church talking about the contribution of the wife that is "essential to exaltation?" Because I don't think he's just talking about having babies here.
Do you know how many lessons about the Priesthood I've had in my life? At least one a year, but I would guess more like two or three, every year, my entire life in Young Womens and Relief Society. How many lessons in Priesthood do they give on the spiritual contribution of women that is essential to a family's exaltation? Any men reading this ever had one?
My question then, if that is true, is why did the Father of us all, who with all of His incredible roles, power, knowledge and authority has asked for us to address Him as Father, seem to feel that fatherhood by itself was not equal to motherhood, and feel that men needed a little something extra to make it even?
I don't think that's how it works. I don't believe that the only godly power that women have been asked to exercise in this life is bearing children. Don't get me wrong, that is an incredible, spiritual power. But it is one that, if we solely focus on its physical nature, may also be exercised by prostitutes. Nor do I believe that the only source of godly power in a sealed couple is the Priesthood held by the man. My belief is that fatherhood without the Priesthood is not fatherhood after the manner of our Father and likewise, motherhood, without her own godly power is also not motherhood after the manner of our Mother.
So focusing on the spiritual roles of men and the physical roles of women can sometimes skew our perceptions until we believe that men are the only ones with a spiritual role and women's role is only physical, which I believe is inaccurate and a very unfortunate misconception. Because it makes women like me feel like, what is the point of my inherent spiritual nature and all of my instincts and gifts and my personal relationship with God and the revelation I receive if once I'm married it's all supposed to be shoved under a bushel so the family can sit in silent wonder of my husband's priesthood? As if, in a family, the sole source of spirituality is through the man.
Not so. James E. Faust said that "every father is to his family a patriarch and every mother a matriarch as coequals." Elder Russell M. Nelson taught that, "Eve served in matriarchal partnership with the patriarchal priesthood." And he stated that "the complete contribution of one partner to the other is essential to exaltation."
So my question is, why don't we spend more time in church talking about the contribution of the wife that is "essential to exaltation?" Because I don't think he's just talking about having babies here.
Do you know how many lessons about the Priesthood I've had in my life? At least one a year, but I would guess more like two or three, every year, my entire life in Young Womens and Relief Society. How many lessons in Priesthood do they give on the spiritual contribution of women that is essential to a family's exaltation? Any men reading this ever had one?
Hey! My friends and I had basically this exact same conversation the other day. Along the lines of the prostitute thing, having children is not based upon worthiness. Even if you are a very good, righteous woman, you may still not have the chance to bear children in this life; if you are a very good, righteous man, you will undoubtedly get the chance to hold the priesthood (at least today).
ReplyDeleteI'm excited to read what else you post on here.
Saw this link on facebook, and I very much appreciate this post! It is very much in line with what I've thought on the subject (in fact, I potentially over-shared on my own blog: http://teamhedengren.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-i-believe-women-should-hold_28.html)
ReplyDeleteI'm always so pleased to find others out there who are thinking about these things - and in the same way that I am. It encourages me to not think I'm crazy, and more than that, to think that we have a chance to change others' thinking.
This post made me sad. I feel like you are completely ignoring and separating the spiritual role of being a mother from the physical aspect of creating life. Being a mother is so much more than physically bearing a child. Every aspect of every single day as a mother is spiritual if you are doing it right. As a mother you realize that you have to be in tune with the spirit every second in order to raise the offspring of Heavenly Father in the way that He would have you raise them. Not only do you have to be in tune spiritually but the eternal doctrinal teachings in your children's lives do not come from a sermon as you put it, from their father during FHE. The true teaching and learning come through those small interactions that happen hundreds of times throughout each day. Every single conversation I have with my kids, even when I am punishing them, is a chance for me to teach them an eternal principle of the gospel. Motherhood is not in any way the same as giving birth which as you said any woman, even a prostitute can do. Just as a man who holds the priesthood cannot take that responsibility lightly and has to nourish that each and every day to truly be in possession of that power so does a mother have to be striving each moment of every day to be worthy of the sacred responsibility of rearing the next generation of the Army of God. You have completely missed the point if you believe anyone is claiming that the physical act of giving birth is equal to holding and exercising the priesthood. What I would say to so many women in the church who feel that way is, why don't you experience it yourself first and then form opinions about it. Being a mother is the most humbling and refining fire you will ever pass through if you are doing it with the desire to become more like God, and yes, I mean plural God. Oh and for the record the Elders quorum has plenty of lessons on being equal spiritual partners with their wives, being good husbands and becoming more like their wives spiritually. Just listen to a priesthood session of conference. They are constantly praising the spiritual worthiness of women and commanding the men to be more like them.
ReplyDeleteRachel, Icompletely agree that motherhood is (should be) intensely spiritual and perfecting. My point was that in my experience we dont talk enough about that spiritual side and the many inherent spiritual gifts of women and how important they are to a family. Sorry if that was unclear.
ReplyDeleteAnd my point is that maybe you don't hear that because you are not in that stage of life yet. It is easy to tune things out that you don't think are applicable to your life and frankly I think you have done that for a long time. You have told me that you tune out all the "raising children" lessons. In those lessons if you listen are those same empowering messages that you think are missing in our lessons.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I dont think a woman has to be a mother in order to exercise those spiritual gifts. And I wish those gifts were more valued and their worth was better understood in the church.
ReplyDeleteJust be careful not to project your opinions of what is and isn't taught in the church onto the entire church. I am in YW teaching the Laurels about their inherent worth as a daughter of God every single week. There are lesson after lesson about their role in this church and in the kingdom of God. Just because you don't feel like those lessons are being taught or that those truths are being understood doesn't make it true for the church as a whole.
ReplyDeleteRach I think youre entirely missing the point of what I was trying to say. Maybe I wasnt clear. My point was that we talk,about the apiritual gifts of motherhood as if that is the ONLY spiritual power that women can ever have and that just isnt the case. It may the most important spiritual rolr, but its not the only contribution a woman can make and I think a lot of LDS women feel like thats pretty much all theyre asked to contribute. Im not saying that is doctrinally true. Its not. Im talking about the culture and attitudes that many people have and think are doctrinal. Im so glad that you havent experienced that but many people have.
DeleteSorry about the typos. Im on my phone. :)
ReplyDeleteI'm excited about your blog Abigayle! Glad you decided to start one :) I just read this and was discussing it with Mike and he said that while its true that there aren't necessarily 'set' lessons from the manual on women's roles/contributions as there are on the priesthood, that they are often taught about how essential women are to the plan as their equals, that we need each other to make it, that women are teachers, not just of their children, but teachers of mankind as they have inherent spiritual qualities/gifts of caring for people, nurturing, etc. He admitted that different EQs may choose to have lessons focus on what you're specifically talking about on the 1st or 4th sunday lessons when the manual isn't used, but he doesn't recall having a lesson completely dedicated to that as we have lessons on the priesthood. We also had this part of the family proclamation come to mind where it highlights the nurturing of children as the primary responsibility as compared to giving birth to them: "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteRachel, (Curtis - lots of Rachels on here today) thanks for your comment. I appreciate hearing Mike's experience. It is similar to what Matt has told me. I guess my fear is that young women in the church feel like they only asked to nurture their own children,rather than serving, teaching and blessing the lives of all members throughout their whole life. Basically the idea that you dont need the priesthood to.be called to serve as a Christian. I think the lowered missionary age for sisters will help with that.
DeleteI've talked about this (exhaustively) with Dan over the years, and have found the same things that Rachel and you mentioned about how EQ lessons teach about women -- not to mention the many Conference talks where this is addressed to both halves of 'the great gender divide.'
DeleteWhat concerns me with how women are addressed in these church lessons is what I call putting women on a pedestal. The problems with this are many, many, and many. It debases men, puts women in a an unrealistic position where she is expected to be infallible. It's a position that masquerades as an empowering place to be. But... it's not. (Hence the call to arms/feminism and the reason women decided to get out of the domestic sphere by voting, lobbying for jobs, and not equal pay). The pedestal is a pseudo-power, a make-believe power. It makes women feel high and loved and appreciated, but it doesn't make her earn it. The only reason she is up there is because she has a woman's sexual organs.
And *that* is the problem I see. That men and women are given characteristics and lifelong jobs based on their sexual organs. Why? Why? Because there is no such thing as a gender binary -- talk to any LGBTQ person, and you will start to see the complications of a polarized gender worldview. Are you familiar with the nature vs. nurture argument? It's the struggle to understand what about a person is their inherent nature, and what is the result of what they see, hear, experience, feel as they grow up. Example: girls being obsessed with pink is nurture -- it was taught to them through a myriad of ways as they grew older. That's a very basic example, but the nature vs. nurture idea gets extremely difficult to separate -- what part of us is nature, which is nurtured?
And that is where the self-fulfilling prophecy comes in. I first heard about this as I was earning my B.A. degree -- it was a study done with elementary school teachers and their students. Teachers were told by the researchers that [this half] of their students were tested and found to be extremely gifted; the [other half] where said to be below-average students. Across the board, end-of-that-school-year's testing showed that the first group of students tested WAY higher on their scores than the second group. Why is this a big deal? Because the researchers had lied; they had given the teachers a random grouping of students, mixing both at-risk, average, and gifted. But somehow, at the end of the year, this mix of students had jumped significantly ahead of the other group. And so, the birth of the self-fulfilling prophecy: teachers seeing (average) students as "gifted," treating them as if they were "gifted," and thereby MAKING them "gifted." (And the same argument goes for the "below-average" grouping.)
DeleteApply this argument to the church and what do you find? Loving, caring, teary-eyed women who love kids, cooking, pampering. Men who are strong, leader-material, decision-making, stalwart.
Apply this to outside the church (and really, out of christianity in general, since it is based on a patriarchal system) and what do you get? Why, you have a whole spectrum of gender!! Women who run Ironmans and get high-stress jobs in urban law firms, men who do the stay-at-home-dad route and find fulfillment in this life.
If someone isn't shown the cookie-cutter mold that they are supposed to fit into (aka: that church's genderized self-fulfilling prophecy), then they find their own path and their own happiness.
So there. Chew on the projected gender binary, nature vs. nurture, and the harsh reality of the self-fulfilling prophecy in the next "Women are so spiritual/nurturing/kind" lesson, think on it, and then come and talk to me because that would be awesome.
I was going to close up, but I can't yet. I have something else to say. Church puts women on this pedestal of spiritual gifts and characteristics while SIMULTANEOUSLY treating men as if they are sexual brutes whose greatest struggle is with their own sexual desires (porn porn porn lessons and warnings everywhere. Women covering their shoulders so as to not tempt the men by being "walking pornography"). And let me say it again: SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. Treat men like they can't control their sexuality, and what happens? Well, let's look: Utah's pornography hits are higher than most parts of the country. And stats revealing that a woman is more likely to get raped in UTAH than in New York City or Las Vegas.
ah, well I just saw the other comments and I guess the nurturing aspect of things has already been addressed by you two.
ReplyDelete