Attaining, Accessing, Using Priesthood Power
THIS TALK was given by David Clare at the last BYU Women' Conference. Interesting topic for an address given to women, right? Well, he sort of expands upon Elder Oaks' recent GC statement that actually, women DO have priesthood power and authority.
I think it is so interesting how leaders are now talking about the ways that women do have access to the priesthood. Elder Ballard's recent quote, "When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is by definition priesthood power," and Elder Oaks talk are some remarkable examples.
What I don't understand is how the argument that men are supposed to preside over women by divine mandate then holds up. I thought the argument used to go like this, "Men preside in their homes and in the church because they are priesthood holders." But now we're saying that women have the priesthood too... sorta. So it must be something else... keys! Men hold priesthood keys. That's their role. That must be why they preside. Except that you don't need to hold keys to be a husband or father. So why do men preside in the home?
It also clearly can't be priesthood because the Family Proclamation is to the whole world, not just the church, and it says in there that fathers are supposed to preside. It doesn't say that only fathers that hold the priesthood have the right to preside. So it must just be about sex. Men have the right to preside over the homes by virtue of their gender and that is divinely inspired.
And that's where I call BS.
The more we start talking about how women actually sorta do hold the priesthood already too, (which I believe wholeheartedly, by the way) the reason as to why men preside over women in and out of the church becomes very clear and it IS NOT because they hold the priesthood, clearly. It is because that is their God-given role as men.
Sorry, not buying it.
I can get behind the idea that men and women both hold the priesthood but have different roles/offices within the power of God. I cannot get behind the idea that God's role for men is to lead/preside and God's role for women is to help/contribute/follow men's leadership.
I think it is so interesting how leaders are now talking about the ways that women do have access to the priesthood. Elder Ballard's recent quote, "When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is by definition priesthood power," and Elder Oaks talk are some remarkable examples.
What I don't understand is how the argument that men are supposed to preside over women by divine mandate then holds up. I thought the argument used to go like this, "Men preside in their homes and in the church because they are priesthood holders." But now we're saying that women have the priesthood too... sorta. So it must be something else... keys! Men hold priesthood keys. That's their role. That must be why they preside. Except that you don't need to hold keys to be a husband or father. So why do men preside in the home?
It also clearly can't be priesthood because the Family Proclamation is to the whole world, not just the church, and it says in there that fathers are supposed to preside. It doesn't say that only fathers that hold the priesthood have the right to preside. So it must just be about sex. Men have the right to preside over the homes by virtue of their gender and that is divinely inspired.
And that's where I call BS.
The more we start talking about how women actually sorta do hold the priesthood already too, (which I believe wholeheartedly, by the way) the reason as to why men preside over women in and out of the church becomes very clear and it IS NOT because they hold the priesthood, clearly. It is because that is their God-given role as men.
Sorry, not buying it.
I can get behind the idea that men and women both hold the priesthood but have different roles/offices within the power of God. I cannot get behind the idea that God's role for men is to lead/preside and God's role for women is to help/contribute/follow men's leadership.
I think it's time to quote a prophet: "An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be." -Joseph F. Smith, April 1972
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure the entire first presidency and twelve apostles were in full support of the Family Proclamation. So, for whatever reason, the church is where the Lord wants it to be right now since the Proclamation has never been withdrawn. Quite to the contrary, it is often quoted. I have no idea what new things we will learn in the life to come, or how the Kingdom will be organized there, but I do know that the prophets are who they say they are. And I take issue with calling anything they stand unified behind bullshit.
"It is significant to note the wording [in the Family Proclamation] 'preside … in love and righteousness.' The Apostle Paul taught this same concept, although in different words, to the husbands and fathers of his day. 'For the husband is the head of the wife,” he wrote, “even as Christ is the head of the church' (Eph. 5:23). Then this servant of the Lord admonished, 'Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it' (Eph. 5:25).
Husbands are to give themselves totally to the welfare of the family. The presiding position does not entail the right to dictate or to 'exercise unrighteous dominion' (D&C 121:39)." https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/06/questions-and-answers/questions-and-answers?lang=eng&query=preside
To me, this changes the meaning of the word preside when thought about in this way. To preside is to devote fully, or to give entirely of oneself to a cause or person. That is what Christ did for his church, that is what bishops spend hours doing, and it is what a husband should do as well.
I don't feel any less loved by the Lord even though I hold as many keys as you do. Zero. I am "presided over" by all the same men as you (besides your husband). Are my promised blessings any less simply because there are those above me devoted to helping me? If you resent being presided over, you're gonna have a bad time. We are all presided over by Jesus. And we will be for eternity. To preside is to serve, not to rule, dominate, and subjugate.
My point is, don't take issue with doctrine because of semantics. Take issue with semantics.
Amen!
DeleteI take issue with semantics and sexist teachings. Words mean things. Semantics matter. They have real world consequences.
ReplyDeletePreside also means to be in a position of authority over someone else. I don't think most people would understand husbands presiding as entirely devoting himself to his wife. If that is what they meant, then I think they should rephrase it.
As far as Paul goes, feel free to read my post previous to this. I don't believe your interpretation of Paul's words is correct.
As far as the Proclamation goes, although most members would say otherwise, it has never been canonized and is not technically doctrine. Furthermore as Elder Uchtdorf reminded us recently, leaders of the church can and do make mistakes and they have. I believe we won't be able to see entirely just how colored by imperfect, fallen philosophies of men our understanding of God and the gospel is until we're out of this world. But I do believe that any time we try to set up sexism as God's will, we're making our way away from a God of perfect love and justice, just like we did for racism historically.
And just FYI, my husband doesn't preside over me. We preside over our family together as equals. :)
ReplyDeleteAbigayle is very lucky. Privileged, even. When I was a child, my parents had a very equal relationship in the home. I assumed that was how all LDS homes were, because it was my experience. Unfortunately, however, the difference between equal partnership and dominion only takes a few words. You might have the blessing to only live a life of equals, forever, and that would be awesome. However, until it's taught consistency and continually, it won't be a continual and consistent experience for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAs the sole blog administrator, I'm hereby declaring that if you sound preachy, condescending and otherwise male-privileged or self-righteous your comments may or may not be deleted. Depending on my mood. :) Thanks for your input, but if your comments don't contribute to a broader conversation of improving the gender dynamic in the church then it isn't welcome or appropriate here, as that is the point of my blog.
ReplyDeleteAh the feminist trump card. Well played. Good luck with contributing to the conversation by silencing things you disagree with.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to hear your thoughts as long as they abide by the comment policy. :)
DeleteThat policy being:
DeleteAs the sole blog administrator, I hereby declare that if you reference scripture, are mildly sarcastic or are otherwise male, your comments may or may not be deleted. Depending on what I ate for breakfast. :) Thanks for your input, but if your comments don't agree with my own about the gender dynamic in the church then it isn't welcome or appropriate here, as that is point of my blog.
Please don't waste your time and mine by trying to "explain" doctrine to me because I already know all the doctrine and have deduced the perfect interpretation thereof. Thanks.
Noted.
Dj, how am I supposed to react to comments like this? You're clearly just trying to be sarcastic, rude and mocking. Do you feel like this contributes to anything positive whatsoever? Your extremely long response that I deleted came across as very condescending and preachy, which is why I deleted it. You clearly weren't open to that feedback. If you aren't open to being called out for man-splaining then find another blog to comment on. If you want to have productive conversation, just try to be aware of how you're words are coming across to others.
DeleteWith my previous comment, which I know was rude, I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of deleting comments on a blog which is trying to create a conversation. I am never open intolerance masked as feedback. If I'm wrong, explain why. I am always open to real feedback. That is why I continued to follow your blog. I liked getting a different perspective. But if I try to explain my perspective, albeit roughly, and I am silenced I don't see the point in following along anymore. When you go from explaining your position and discussing it to not even being able to listen to anything else, I'm out.
DeleteOne last thing, why in the world would feminists (who oh so vehemently despise gendered nouns) coin and use a gendered term of their own? How hypocritical. Yes, I am offended at the term man-splaining. Not only for its aesthetics but for its intended use as a pejorative.
Sorry, any argument that begins with the Family Proclamation (or wording of the proclamation) being anything but inspired doctrine seems pretty out there to me. Sounds like you're trying to rewrite the doctrine to your personal opinion.
ReplyDeleteYou're certainly welcome to your opinion. We're supposed to get personal revelation about the prophets words. I don't believe the idea that men should preside over women comes from God, regardless of how you want to interpret the word preside. Patriarchy is a philosophy of man in a fallen world.
Delete