A Mentality Shift at Church: Female Leaders Should Not Have to Interrupt Male Leaders

In the November 2010 CHI worldwide training, Pres. Julie Beck interrupted Elder Holland and Elder Bednar at one point to make a particular point – and neither of them batted an eye or seemed surprised in any way. It appeared that they were used to being interrupted by her – or, to be more precise, it appeared that they were used to a free flowing conversation in which she was not seen as “interrupting” them.  That is an important distinction, and it is badly misunderstood by many, in my experience. 

Generally speaking, I believe the global male leadership listens to and values their female counterparts MUCH more than too many local male leaders do (and that they truly see each other as "counterparts") – and I also believe the male global leadership sees the female global AND local leadership as truly “in charge” within their callings more than too many of the local male leaders do.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: "P"riesthood and "p"riesthood - Power, Authority and Keys

Last Sunday was the first lesson about the Priesthood and Priesthood Keys.  I used the lesson to go into detail about what the Priesthood is and isn't and the difference between the Priesthood, the priesthood, power, authority and keys.  It was titled, "Priesthood and priesthood" - and I wrote each term above on the chalkboard, with definitions or descriptions under each one added as the lesson progressed. 

1) We started by reading from D&C Section 121.  I mentioned that we nearly always read the first part (Joseph's plea to the Lord) as completely separate from the last part (how to use the Priesthood) but that they are the beginning and end of the same section and, I believe, important to understand together.  I had them read verses 1-6, and I described what was happening in Joseph's life - that he was in the Liberty Jail for months under extreme duress as he heard about all the terrible things that were happening to his people.  I told them that I view this as the moment he finally "broke".  We read the verses and translated them into wording teenagers might use.

"Where are you, God?  Where are you hiding? How long will you watch and listen to your people suffer without helping them?  God, come out of hiding.  Let you anger and fury loose and wipe out our enemies!  If you remember us, we will praise you forever." 

Their translation of God's response was:

"My son, chill out.  Be at peace." 

God then went on to teach Joseph why the request had been an attempt to have God use the Priesthood unrighteously (the use of compulsion through the authority of the Priesthood - verses 36-37) - and he told Joseph how to use it righteously (verses 41-44). 

2) We read from the Bible Dictionary, in which "Priesthood" is not included, but "Priests" is.  It says that OT priests acted as mediators between God and the people - that they were able to "draw nigh to God" but the people weren't.  I pointed out that this structure was the same as the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages - and that it extended to the people being illiterate and not being able to read the Bible for themselves, relying totally on the Priests to tell them what it said and meant.  That changed dramatically with the Gutenberg Bible and the people being able to read and interpret on their own - and the subsequent rejection of the "Priesthood" being embodied in men and, instead, the "priesthood (of believers)" not requiring mediators between God and the people. 

I asked the students which model we have in the LDS Church, and they recognized that we have both "The Priesthood" and "the priesthood" - since we accept communication from God to church leaders but also personal revelation.  I told them that this structure is more complicated and can be messier than only having one of the models, but that I see it as an aspect of the "Restoration of ALL Things".  This means that the LDS Church has designated Priests, but it also allows everyone, male and female, to be priests.  (I will get into Priests and Priestesses and how this plays out in the temple in a later lesson.) 

2) I asked the students to define "Priesthood".  One of them said it is "the power of God" - so I wrote that on the board.  Another one said it is "the authority to act in the name of God" - so I wrote that also.  I then added that it is "an obligation to serve" and wrote that on the board, telling them I would talk about that later. 

3) Given those definitions and what we had discussed up to that point, I asked them what the difference is between "Priesthood" and "priesthood".  That stumped them, so I added "to perform ordinances" under Priesthood and "to hear and share God's word and do his work" under priesthood.  I called Priesthood the "administrative, formal" Priesthood and priesthood the "informal" priesthood. 

We talked about how every person ever born has the light of Christ and can receive revelation from the Holy Ghost - how every baptized member has committed to take the Lord's name upon them and renews that commitment each Sunday through the sacrament - how every temple endowed member makes covenants and receives promises relative to the priesthood (more detail in a future lesson), etc.  I mentioned that men are the only ones in the Church right now who can administer Priesthood ordinances outside the temple, but every member can speak and act in God's name and, therefore, every member (men, women and children) has that type of priesthood. 

4) We defined "authority" as "permission or right, given by someone to someone else".  Thus, young men in the Aaronic Priesthood have differing things they are authorized to do.  They have the same general authority, but they are authorized to do different things. 

5) We defined "power" as strength or ability, and we talked about how someone can have authority but no power - either due to general unworthiness or, going back to D&;C 121, by trying to compel someone to do what they say "by virtue of the priesthood" (lower case, interestingly).  I used them as examples, looking at one of the young women and mentioning that if she received personal revelation and tried to compel me to follow it, she would be using her priesthood authority unrighteously and, thus, would lose her priesthood power. 

6) I asked them what the purpose of Priesthood ordinances is.  That got some blank looks at first, so I asked them whom the "target" of the ordinances is - the people performing them or the people receiving them.  They got that distinction as we used baptism, the sacrament and healing blessings as examples.  I asked about vicarious temple ordinances - and I pointed out that those ordinances are a bit different in that we can receive the blessings of humility and having our hearts turn to our ancestors - that I don't see temple ordinances in quite the same way as non-temple ordinances, since I see just as much benefit to the "performer" as for the "recipient".

Thus, each and every one of them, male and female, regardless of the type of P/priesthood they hold, only can magnify that divinely representative power and authority righteously by serving others in the way that D&C 121:41-44 describe.  The performance of ordinances, notwithstanding, and the way those responsibilities have been assigned differently over time, in the way they are required to exercise what they have been given there is no difference between them; they all progress individually in exactly the same way.  

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Prophecy and Revelation - Instutional and Individual

We talked first about what an institution is: an officially recognized, formal organization granted a high degree of legitimacy and power within a society.  We talked about the practical difference between an institution and an organization from a societal standpoint - an organization being anything that is organized (including our individual bodies, from purely a scientific perspective) but an institution being a larger organization of social importance.  Institutions tend to be universities, churches, governments, prisons, hospitals, etc.  Someone mentioned the family, so we talked about marriage and family being institutions only when we give them extra importance and "honor" them in the same way as the other institutions we mentioned. 

We then talked briefly about what an individual is, and I focused primarily on the fact that individuals exist almost always within the larger scope of society - that an individual is a part of multiple organizations and institutions. 

I gave them a very general summary of the issue of authority and institutional revelation relative to Catholicism and Protestantism, stating clearly that it was a bit stereotypical in its simplicity.  I emphasized the Catholic emphasis on institutional revelation to all through the Pope (whom I labeled the "Presiding Cardinal" to make a comparison to our structure) and the Protestant emphasis on the priesthood of believers and the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to all. 

I told them that Mormonism is a composite of Catholicism and Protestantism in regard to revelation.  We looked again at the Bible Dictionary description of revelation, emphasizing that we believe in BOTH institutional revelation for all (including for the Church as a whole, presiding over by the President of the Church) AND individual, personal revelation to each member.  I wrote "Prophet" and "prophet" on the board and talked about the significance of the capitalization within Mormonism: "Prophet" being the presiding prophet among the Twelve Apostles and "prophet" being anyone who speaks the word of God under the influence of the Holy Ghost. (I also pointed out how, in those terms, Lehi was a prophet without being "The Prophet".)  We talked about a High Priest Group Leader and his responsibility concerning revelation - that he communicates revelation (and other stuff) as a representative of the Stake President (the presiding High Priest in the area), receives revelation for his local group (but not the individuals in the group), his family (with his wife, as an equal partner and participant) and himself. 

When we talked about the HPGL and his responsibility to receive revelation for his own family, I emphasized that he had no more authority or responsibility for that kind of revelation than his wife - that, ideally, they two act as one and receive revelation jointly, honoring each other in that process.  We read directly from the Proclamation to the World, and I emphasized that each sentence about primary responsibilities would read very differently if either was the only relative sentence.  I read the sentence about each parent being "obligated" to help in "these" sacred responsibilities as "equal partners" and the open-ended, non-restrictive "other circumstances" that require "individual adaptation".  We talked about how lots of members think the only righteous model for providing a living is a father working outside the home and a stay-at-home mother but that the Proclamation leaves it entirely up to each couple to make the decision about how they will provide and nurture.  It was interesting to see that they all understood that without any difficulty (even the ones with parents in the traditional model) - and it reinforced my belief that this generation will change the Church naturally and radically.   

We focused the last ten minutes on the inherent tension between institutional and individual revelation.  I used Nephi and his beheading of Laban as an extreme example - and I worded it that way, as an extreme.  I asked them if Nephi followed immediately and gladly what he perceived to be revelation from the Lord to kill Laban.  After their responses, I asked them why Nephi struggled to accept it - and how he came to accept it.  I pointed out that Nephi eventually had acted in the way that he believed was consistent with what God was asking him to do - and that, whether or not I would have done what Nephi did, the point is that Nephi had to own his decision and act according to the dictates of his own conscience. 

I shared the example of when I lived in Missouri and had to commute 40 minutes each way to church, while starting over again in my new career and being quite poor.  We attended church almost every Sunday and youth activities most Wednesdays - but we attended almost no other church activities.  It was a choice my wife and I had to make, even though other members might have decided differently and might have judged or criticized us for it - claiming we weren't faithful enough.  I told them explicitly that I have said "no" to some requests from leaders and spoken up in some meetings and privately when I felt like something that was being said was too incorrect and/or damaging to remain silent.

I told them that I almost could guarantee that each and every one of them would face something, at some point, in their lives when the direction they get from a leader ("institutional revelation" in at least someone's eyes) would conflict with their own personal beliefs ("individual revelation" in their own mind) - and that, in the end, even if hopefully it never rose to the level of Nephi's situation in any way, they also would have to decide between the dictates of their own consciences and the organizational / institutional rules.  I told them that, as my default, I accept institutional rules - but that, ultimately, I honor personal revelation whenever the conflict is such that I feel I must do so in order to look God in the eye and say:

"I did my best to do what I believed you wanted me to do and any revelation I believe I received from you."

Sometimes We Ask Too Many Questions

Sometimes we simply ask WAY too many questions.

What I mean by that is that sometimes we ask questions of leaders - and they feel like they have to provide an answer - and that answer isn't something we like or want to hear - and we could have avoided the whole situation if we simply hadn't asked the question in the first place and just gone ahead and done what we believed was right.

Let me give an example from the world-wide Church Handbook of Instructions training from November 2010.

Pres. Beck talked about a RS President who was standing outside a home, pacing back and forth, concerned that she hadn't heard back yet from the Bishop about what she could do to help the sister and family in the home. She had left a message for him asking him what she could do.

Pres. Beck related that her advice to this sister was, to the best of my recollection: 

You have authority in your position as a President. Do what you feel impressed to do - and then go to the Bishop and tell him what you did.

I know that the culture of the Church in the past hasn't supported that advice in many cases, but it was said more than once in the training that organizational presidencies in the Church need to be empowered to seek and act on their own inspiration for their own stewardships - that they need to "ask less" and "do more". It also was said that the Bishop (and everyone else) needs to realize that the Bishop will not receive all the revelation for the ward - that all who have official responsibilities within the ward may receive revelation for their organizations (and families, in the case of parents) and provide honest, open, candid input in any councils in which they participate. Again, a statement that, in some important ways, we need to ask less and do more.

Again, sometimes we ask too many questions.

"Sustain and Support" vs. "Obey"

If I am convinced God does not want me to do something, especially if I have received a personal answer of some kind, I won’t do it – no matter what mortal tells me to do it. I still will “sustain and support” my church leaders in their callings, even if I can’t do exactly what I’m asked or counseled to do, but that wording does not say “obey regardless”.

D&C 121 is crystal clear about demanding obedience simply because of one’s position of authority, “as they suppose” – and I’ve never believed we will be blessed for knowingly doing wrong. I just can’t accept that we will be blessed for sinning, and since “sin” generally is defined partially as “knowing right and doing wrong” – I don’t buy the argument that we should obey any leader unquestioningly if they tell us to do something we believe to be wrong.

Having said that, I’ve thought and prayed about counsel I’ve been given with which I disagreed, and I’ve changed my mind as a result more than once. I also have accepted and followed counsel I believed to be poor counsel but not morally wrong in many instances when I have offered my own counsel and the leader reached a different conclusion. That’s just life in a community / organization of any kind.

I don’t believe in reflexive dismissal, and I agree totally with Elder Oaks’ characterization in his talk during General Conference last year in which he said that reflexive disregard for commandments and counsel due to a feeling that one is an exception to rules does not originate from God. At the very least, I would say such disregard is born of pride.

Understanding and Combatting Unrighteous Dominion

When discussing unrighteous dominion, I believe the key verse is D&C 121:39. This verse is fascinating, and it often gets overlooked in order to focus on the other verses.

D&C 121:39 says:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

Let me highlight a few phrases and explore their implications for us today.

We have learned by sad experience

This was written toward the end of the D&C, after multiple examples of people who had exercised unrighteous dominion within the Church - and even been chastised in the records that formed the D&C. This wasn’t theoretical or focused on “outsiders” and “Gentiles”. It included “saints” and leaders. It even included Joseph Smith, especially when it is viewed as the culmination of the section that starts with Joseph begging God to wipe out all those who had been persecuting the Saints. That aspect is ignored almost completely in most discussions about unrighteous dominion, but I believe it is critical in order to understand what this verse really says.  Hence . . .

it is the nature and disposition of almost all men . . . immediately begin

The Lord couldn’t be clearer in using the words “almost ALL” and “immediately begin”. The temptation and tendency to exercise unrighteous dominion is nearly omnipresent within humanity and manifests itself immediately when authority is given or assumed.

get a little authority, as they suppose

There is a natural supposition about what “getting authority” means that lies at the heart of this issue - a misunderstanding of what it means to have godly authority and to what that authority is directed. The whole passage makes it clear that the authority is not directed toward control, but control is the central focus of authority for “the natural (wo)man”. Authority is supposed to mean something different in the Church (within the Gospel’s good news) than it does in the natural world. Almost all men, however, don’t make that distinction; therefore, they abuse Priesthood authority and lose the power that can be gained by becoming “unnatural” in this regard.

That fundamental misunderstanding is the heart of this issue - misunderstanding the principle that Priesthood authority only applies to performing ordinances and preaching the Gospel (according to Article of Faith #5) - not controlling others. (and, I would add, that this tendency exists in "almost all" women, as well - that "men" is used in D&C 121 due to the focus on formal offices within the Priesthood, but that the principle applies to almost all men and women - that this tendency can be seen in many, many ways and not just within the Church)

I believe the problem is that in order to avoid this natural tendency, the principle (the antidote) needs to be taught in the formative years before boys and girls become men and women - when they can learn to make the distinction and internalize the ideal. Much of the failing we see in this regard in the Church is because the sins of the fathers and mothers are visited upon the heads of the children - in this case, by passing on the tendency toward unrighteous dominion to their children.

The only antidote of which I am aware to the natural tendency toward unrighteous dominion is a relentless teaching of the principle of Priesthood as servant leadership within the Church, equally-partnered co-presiding in the home and “authority” as relating only to what is stated in the 5th Article of Faith. All of that is grounded in charity, so I also would suggest a steady dose of the Sermon on the Mount (especially the Beatitudes), 1 Corinthians 13 and D&C 121. If a young man or woman “gets it” when s/he studies those passages, especially, s/he can blunt the natural tendency to gravitate toward unrighteous dominion. It’s not quick, and it’s not easy, but it can and does work - and it’s critical. 

God Will Honor Sincere Attempts to Follow Him, Regardless of Religion or Denomination

I believe God recognizes and rewards EVERY sincere, good action undertaken by EVERY one of His children - regardless of whether or not those actions carry any eternal efficacy in and of themselves as ordinances. 

If a Christian priest / pastor / minister acts according to her best understanding and attempts to glorify God through her actions, I believe strongly that God recognizes and will reward her for it. That is, after all, the heart of our proxy work for the dead - especially for those who were “valiant” in following the light they were given.

 In other words, while we believe it is necessary to perform a proxy baptism for someone who has been baptized without what we see as binding Priesthood authority, that does not mean we are invalidating the faith of the person who was baptized - or the faith of the person who performed the baptism. Just because I believe a particular creed is an abomination does not mean that I believe a sincere attempt to follow Jesus and express one’s faith through baptism is an abomination - even if I simultaneously accept the need to perform a proxy baptism. Not even remotely do I believe that there is no power and faith imbued in actions outside the Restored Priesthood.

I honor faith and sincerity - wherever it is found, and I believe with all my heart that God does, as well.

Evil-Speaking Historical Analysis

In the Bible, Jude has a fascinating passage concerning those who "speak evil of dignities" and "speak evil of those things which they know not". (Jude 1:8-10) When you couple these descriptions with the general counsel of Jesus to "Judge not, that ye be not judged," I think it is apparent that the worst thing about "evil-speaking history" or criticism of religious leaders is that generally it is undertaken and compiled in a spirit of belittling rather than understanding.

All of us are fallen and come short of the glory of God, so it isn't necessary to focus or dwell on the proof of that fact - particularly if all it accomplishes is to dull our appreciation for the wonderful things some have done. Does knowing Winston Churchill was a rude drunk make any difference in the grand scheme of things? Perhaps so, if it is used to point out his greatness despite his weakness and encourage greatness from us despite our weakness, but if it is used purely to denigrate him, of what use is it?

The Sermon on the Mount is One Eternal Round

My resolution for this month is to "seek for and do the will of the Father" - taken from Matthew 7:21-23, which says:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Two points only for now about what this passage means, then more throughout the month about my actual efforts to incorporate this message.

1) This passage is perhaps the best example in all of our recorded scriptures of a simple refutation of the concept of "confess his name and be saved". That concept lies at the heart of why many reject Mormonism as not being Christian (the erroneous idea that we believe we can work our way into heaven), and it is diametrically opposed to this passage.

This passage reads as if it was directly responding to that idea - the idea that all one needs to do is confess that Jesus is the Christ (or, in reality, that Jesus is the Christ in one particular, generally accepted codification). This even goes so far as to say that confessing his name AND doing "wonderful works" in that name is not enough. That ties in well with my posts from last month about the need to produce "fruit of the vine" rather than our own works - that it's not doing what we think we should do that is important, but that it's doing what HE wants us to do that is important.

2) This passage also is the ultimate definition of "taking the Lord's name in vain". This describes those people who claim to be representing the Lord but not doing what His Father wants them to do. "Vain" means "arrogantly and/or without effect". Therefore, those who use His name in order to justify their actions when those actions are not what God wants them to do are guilty of both definitions above - arrogance and ineffectiveness.

Using the Lord's name without effect (like the non-thinking, reflexive, blasphemous usage that is SO common even among those who profess to be Christian) is bad enough. Doing so to justify improper actions is even worse.

The important point to make is that NOBODY is immune from this temptation or tendency - except for those who follow the admonition earlier in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:33-37) to "swear not at all, but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." In that context, nothing should be done "in thy name" except for sacred ordinances that require such attribution (e.g., "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." [Matthew 28:19]) and prophetic statements that truly do express His will ("Thus saith the Lord.").

My understanding of the multiple statements in the Sermon on the Mount regarding claiming to speak and act for the Lord makes me very wary of doing so outside the parameters set in the these passages. I believe that it is important to be careful to give credit where credit is due and avoid arrogance, but also not to begin to claim reflexively to represent Him in all we do - thus embracing the opposite manifestation of the arrogance that occurs when we fail to credit him.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3)

Truly, it is fascinating that the final message of the Sermon on the Mount is the same as the first message of the Sermon on the Mount.

Commenting in Church

As much as everyone might laugh when I say this, I struggle with the urge to comment too much in church. (I know; I made up for it with my blogging.) I think the reason I struggle in church is two-fold:

1) There really is an incredibly wide range of understanding and maturity in any adult class at church. It is so hard to say something that everyone will understand and no one will misunderstand - and I don’t want to cause serious misunderstanding and/or offense. While that is true to a degree with blogging, there is a self-selection process that tends to weed out most of those who can’t handle dissenting opinions. Therefore, it’s much harder to surprise someone with something they have never considered previously and risk hurting their testimony.

2) Given my current calling and education, I am seen as one of the “experts” in our ward (and even more so in the tiny branch we attended recently). Therefore, when someone asks a question that results in silence, the teacher tends to ask me - which makes me hesitant to comment at other times. I still comment, but it makes me hesitate.

I also use the "importantly incorrect and/or dangerous doctrine rule". (When something is said that is so incorrect that it is dangerous, it needs to be corrected as quickly as possible.) If I think a comment fits that classification, I will comment every time - as gently as I can, but directly - and usually waiting to see if anyone else jumps in to comment first.

Finally, the truly ironic thing about my situation is that my callings give me an aura of “conservatism” or “authority” - even though many of my views would be challenged by some as “liberal” if it weren’t for my callings. I think that is sad, but I understand why it is so.

Restoration Challenges to the Reformation

When I teach the apostasy and restoration aspects of the Melchizedek Priesthood prep class, I focus on some of the foundation Gospel principles of the restoration that were direct refutations of the current religious beliefs that dominated the Protestant Reformation.

The most fundamental example of a challenge to the very foundation of the Reformation was Joseph’s insistence that, although Catholicism had screwed it up over the years, divine authority actually was meant to reside with mankind. Protestant reformers knew that they did not have “divine authority” (and said so explicitly), and they recognized clearly that the Catholic Church had lost that authority. Their only “logical” conclusion, given the lack of divine authority vested in men, was to shift such authority to “the Word of God” - since they knew they couldn’t claim it for themselves. That “Word of God” was the Bible - all that they had that everyone agreed represented His words to man - and that investiture almost required that inerrancy become the standard, since any errors would destroy all sense of God’s authority existing at all on the earth. Finally, if the authority of God was invested in the Word of God, the only authority available to man was through a deeper and fuller understanding of that Word - which opened the door for Divinity Schools and Masters of Theology degrees - and their lay counterpart, the individual preacher who could quote the Word in a charismatic and inspiring way.

Joseph Smith shook the very foundation of their claims to divine authority - not just by claiming to have been called as a prophet, thus restoring divine authority to man, but also by introducing an additional source of God’s word (The Book of Mormon), thus removing the exclusivity of the Bible. In essence, he said, “Well, you did the best you could with what you had, but the old system you rejected is back in place with new materials - so accept a system your very foundation rejected or run along and play your human games.”

Many members have a basic understanding of this conflict, but I think not nearly enough really understand why the conflict produces such intense and vitriolic reactions. Given what Joseph taught, and what it means about the very core creeds of Protestantism, the reaction doesn’t surprise me one bit - then or now.