Partnership Is More Important than Rigid Roles

“The Church has nothing to fear from the strength of women. On the contrary, it desperately needs women--and men, too--who are not trapped in dysfunctional roles that involve playing out scripts that don’t really work. Partnership is a mutually supportive relationship that recognizes and honors both the differences and similarities between men and women, that draws deeply on the strengths of both, that focuses on working toward mutually decided goals, and that celebrates the contributions of both in the home, in the community, and in the church and kingdom of God. Help both men and women to work for partnership and to move away from the limitations of rigid roles.” 

- Chieko Okazaki, "Boundaries", p. 16

"How to See a Woman": A Great Blog Post from a Protestant Pastor

The Deseret News reprinted a blog post back in September 2013 from an Indiana pastor at Christ's Community Church (Nate Pyle) entitled, "How to see a woman: A conversation between a father and son". I love the post, but I also love that the Deseret News reprinted it.  (From sad experience, I never read the comments on newspaper articles, especially with Utah newspapers.  There are too many extremists on both ends of any discussion.) 

I recommend the article highly - and I am excerpting a couple of quotes just to show the general tone and view expressed in it:

"I know why you did. I get it. But we have to talk about it because how you look at a woman matters."

"It is a woman’s responsibility to dress herself in the morning. It is your responsibility to look at her like a human being regardless of what she is wearing. You will feel the temptation to blame her for your wandering eyes because of what she is wearing — or not wearing. But don’t. Don’t play the victim."

"There are two views regarding a woman’s dress code that you will be pressured to buy into. One view will say that women need to dress to get the attention of men. The other view will say women need to dress to protect men from themselves. Son, you are better than both of these."

Two Hilarious Jokes about Men & Women

The first "cup" in hockey was used in 1874. The first helmet was used in 1974.

This means it only took 100 years for men to realize that their brains are important, too. 

          ________________________________________________

If a woman is upset, hold her and tell her how beautiful she is.

If she starts to growl, retreat to a safe distance and throw chocolate at her.

Girls as "Guardians of Virtue": We Need to Eliminate That Phrase and Mentality from Our Vocabulary and Culture

I have heard the following concept expressed multiple times over the decades I have been involved in the Church, and I can't express forcefully enough how much I loathe it - and how badly I wish we could remove it completely from our discourse:

Girls should be guardians of virtue for boys.  

This is something about which I feel passionately, largely because I have two sons and four daughters - and I believe deeply that such a concept is insidious and dangerous, both for girls and for boys.  It is wrong on multiple levels, but I want to highlight in this post three reasons I abhor it so strongly:

1) It completely misrepresents virtue and what it is meant to and can be. 

Virtue is not another word for chastity.  Virtue, in its archaic form, meant " an effective, active, or inherent power or force; the quality or practice of moral excellence or righteousness" (from dictionary.com) It actually derives from the Old French word for "maleness" and is found in words that begin with "vir" - like "virility".  Thus, "a virtuous woman" is not always a virgin; she is a strong, effective, active, powerful, moral, righteous woman.  A virgin simply is one manifestation of a virtuous woman, and not being a virgin does not negate virtue.  For example, rape does not diminish or rob a woman of her virtue, and equating virginity with virtue distorts virtue and causes emotional damage to further complicate an already traumatic event. 

Proverbs 31:10 ("Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.") is quoted often with regard to the worth of a virtuous woman, but the next 20 verses generally are ignored - and those verses explain what verse 10 means. I highly recommend reading them.  Due solely to length concerns, I will not include the entire passage, but I will summarize them and what they say about a virtuous woman - bolding the things that might surprise some people and setting the description in quotes to stress the highlighting.  (I also want to stress that I believe a virtuous woman doesn't have to do everything in the following list - that these things are examples of what a virtuous woman does.) 

A virtuous woman is trustworthy, treats her husband (if married) well, works with her hands, rises early, feeds her household, purchases land, plants food, becomes physically strong, serves the poor, makes clothing and other materials, sells merchandise, is strong (again) and honorable, speaks wisely and kindly, is active, is praised, fears the Lord, is blessed.  

A virtuous woman is a strong, active, independent, honored person - not a virgin who simply must guard her virginity for the benefit of men.  Women no longer are considered the property of men, and we need to eliminate any hint of that former structure from our vocabulary, even if we generally are unaware of the connotations.  We need to educate our girls and boys about this ancient foundation and teach them to let go of the "guardian of virtue for men" idea once and for all. 

2) Virtue is not "guarded"; it is "exercised"and "developed" and "strengthened".  

That is important, and being merely a guardian of virginity robs girls of developing into the strong, active, independent, honored women they are meant to be.  

3) Both virtue and chastity should be the responsibility of the individuals who possess them.  

Boys and girls together, mutually, should protect their own chastity and exercise / develop / strengthen their own virtue (and help others do the same) - so that, ultimately, virtuous women can marry virtuous men and raise virtuous children to become virtuous adults, in a never-ending cycle of eternal virtue and progression.  Telling girls to guard virtue for boys does more than rob those girls; it also robs those boys in a very real and powerful way. 

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Commandments - Measurable or Subjective; and, Changing Our Discourse about Modesty

While putting the finishing touches on my Sunday School lesson prep tonight, I realized that it has been a few weeks since I've posted a summary here. We had Stake Conference; my wife taught the following week; we had General Conference last week; I forgot to post the summary from the last time I taught the class. Here is a VERY abbreviated summary of that last lesson:

With the topic being "commandments", we talked about the difference between commandments that are fairly objective and easily measured and those that are more subjective and impossible to measure consistently or universally. Since the students had mentioned the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity in the first week's lesson, we focused on those commandments again - and added modesty as another discussion point.

First, I asked the students to list the things that are part of the Word of Wisdom. All of the first answers they gave were the things from which we abstain, with the things that are encouraged coming after the forbidden things. We talked about how easy it is to define and quantify the prohibitions in the Word of Wisdom - how they are easily enforced - and how that contributes to them being the focal point of most discussions about it. We talked about how impossible it would be (or how bad it would be) if local leaders had to try to enforce the more ambiguous aspects of meat, fruit, vegetable and grain consumption, for example.

We then talked about the Law of Chastity and how there are some things that clearly are forbidden for everyone, while there are other aspects that are more open to individual interpretation - and how local leaders often view and enforce the more subjective aspects differently, especially with respect to teenagers.

We spent most of our time talking about the principle of modesty and what it means in its fullest, purest sense - moderation, in all things. We talked about how we focus almost completely on how we dress when we talk about modesty- and how we focus inordinately on how women dress. Every student, male and female, understood that distinction and thought it was wrong without any need for convincing from me - and their conservative / liberal orientation didn't make any difference in that regard. We talked about how there is almost no way to "measure" modesty of dress universally and have a definition that everyone will accept and upon which they will agree. (As a simple example, I had the shortest and the tallest students stand and asked how long a modest skirt would be that both of them could wear. That caused some serious laughs, but we talked about how even anatomy-focused measurements [like covering the knee] are arbitrary standards that are culturally-based.) We talked about modesty in language - and in house size - and in car purchase - and in cost of clothing - and in any other way that deals with moderation as a principle.

I finished the lesson with a direct statement to all of them. I told them flat-out that we need to quit blaming women (of any age) for the thoughts of men (of any age). I told them that I believe in the principle of modesty, but that I do NOT believe in it as a way for one group to control the thoughts of another group. I told them that if a man lusts after a woman he is not justified in blaming the woman for it, no matter what she wears or how she acts. I told them the way we often talk in the Church seems to blame the women and/or put the responsibility on them to keep the men's thoughts in line - and that such statements are wrong, and the students need to help put a stop to it in their own spheres of influence.

Two of the young women in the group thanked me specifically after the class for that part of the lesson.

Men, Sex & Modesty

Men, Sex and Modesty - Jaccob (By Common Consent)

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Our New Framing of the Priesthood - Elder Oaks: Part 3

This lesson covered the next seven paragraphs in Elder Oaks' talk.  (To read the summaries of the first two lessons about his talk, read here and here.)

We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

We talked about this as being a rephrasing of what we had discussed in the first week's lesson - that everyone who acts under the direction of the presiding Priesthood keys does so with the authority and power of God - the classic definition of the Priesthood. We talked about how traditionally young men serving missions has been considered a Priesthood duty but young women have been told they can serve missions or not, whatever they want, without any pressure to do so - since "preaching the Gospel" has been considered a Priesthood duty. We talked about how the lowering of the minimum age for young women goes hand-in-hand with seeing women as working with Priesthood authority and power, as well. Therefore, serving a mission is a good example for Elder Oaks to use when talking about how we need to start seeing Priesthood authority and power differently than in the past.

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities. That is a principle needed in society at large. The famous Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is quoted as saying, “It is time … to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.” Latter-day Saints surely recognize that qualifying for exaltation is not a matter of asserting rights but a matter of fulfilling responsibilities

.

This could have been tricky, but I focused on the concept that Elder Oaks already had said that everyone can exercise Priesthood authority and power, so, with that foundation (not talking about Priesthood offices and the performance of ordinances but only exercising Priesthood authority), it really is more important to talk about what is done with that authority (one's responsibilities) than focusing on a right we all have anyway. I mentioned explicitly that this paragraph has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights. We also talked about how different Mormon theology is with regard to responsibilities relative to exaltation than Protestant theology relative to the right to salvation merely by confessing the name of Jesus.

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood. But, as various Church leaders have emphasized, men are not “the priesthood.” Men hold the priesthood, with a sacred duty to use it for the blessing of all of the children of God.

I repeated from last week's lesson that the leadership sees a historical pattern of a male-only Priesthood office structure, but, as we discussed in a previous lesson about the sacrament, "the priesthood" is not the men who hold offices and preform ordinances outside the temple. We then talked again about how easy it is to slip into the vocabulary of our formative years, like even Elder Oaks did when he said "men hold the priesthood" - after he had made it clear throughout the talk that what he had to mean is that men are ordained to offices in the priesthood and administer ordinances outside the temple. I emphasized that most people will continue to use the term "hold the priesthood" when what they mean, usually without realizing it, is "be ordained to offices in the priesthood and administer ordinances outside the temple".

Prior to reading the next few paragraphs, I emphasized that Elder Oaks now was starting to talk about a new topic - and that he was NOT repeating the oft-stated idea that priesthood is the male counterpart to motherhood. That is easy to misunderstand with a quick reading only, but that former comparison makes no sense in light of the entire talk. I also told them explicitly that the next paragraphs contain good examples of cultural assumptions that are hard to release, even in a talk as paradigm-altering as this one.

The greatest power God has given to His sons cannot be exercised without the companionship of one of His daughters, because only to His daughters has God given the power “to be a creator of bodies … so that God’s design and the Great Plan might meet fruition.” Those are the words of President J. Reuben Clark.

It makes no sense to read "the greatest power God has given to His sons" as being the Priesthood, since men can exercise the Priesthood without the companionship of women - and, according to Elder Oaks in this talk, women can exercise the Priesthood, as well. The ONLY logical meaning of that "greatest power" is the ability to have kids - or "procreation" in Mormon-speak. I simply added that this is kind of a "Duh!" statement and that Pres. Clark, whom I really respected and admired, was wrong in a way - since a woman is NOT "a creator of bodies" all by herself. I grinned and said that a man has to be involved, as well - that they both are creators of bodies.

He continued: “This is the place of our wives and of our mothers in the Eternal Plan. They are not bearers of the Priesthood; they are not charged with carrying out the duties and functions of the Priesthood; nor are they laden with its responsibilities; they are builders and organizers under its power, and partakers of its blessings, possessing the complement of the Priesthood powers and possessing a function as divinely called, as eternally important in its place as the Priesthood itself.”

I pointed out that, all by themselves, these sentences make little sense when compared with the rest of Elder Oaks' talk - that the rest of this talk up to this point actually changes many of the assumptions in Pres. Clark's words. Either Elder Oaks was using the quote because it was quoted often over the years or he is talking about something else. The next sentence shows he is talking about something else.

In those inspired words, President Clark was speaking of the family.

Thus, Elder Oaks used Pres. Clark's quote not to discuss Priesthood authority and power but to discuss family and marriage structure and responsibility.

As stated in the family proclamation, the father presides in the family and he and the mother have separate responsibilities, but they are “obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

I simply mentioned how frustrating it is for me to hear members cite the Proclamation to insist that men and women have to adhere to the traditional roles described as "primary responsibilities" in the Proclamation - since the part about helping each other as equal partners says it applies to "these responsibilities" inclusively and then goes on to talk about how each couple needs to make adaptations that work for them. Given this wording, just like the distinction between rights and responsibilities in exercising the authority and power of the Priesthood, it's not about who does what (rights) but simply that everything that is supposed to happen actually happens (responsibilities). Thus, I know stay-at-home dads who are married to full-time working moms - which now is said to be completely fine if decided mutually by those spouses.

I also mentioned that "preside" now means something very different than it did when I was their age, as emphasized in the next thing Elder Oaks quoted.

Some years before the family proclamation, President Spencer W. Kimball gave this inspired explanation: “When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner.”

I pointed out that this quote was a pre-cursor to the Proclamation and that it fundamentally changes the way we ought to talk about marriage. We talked about "full partnerships" by discussing joint checking accounts - that my wife and I each don't have access to half of our money but that each of us has access to all of it. It's not 50/50; it's 100/100. Likewise, a full marriage partnership means each spouse has equal access to everything done in the marriage - that there isn't one who is the final decision maker or ultimately the boss. Too many older members, especially, still see it that way, but it's not consistent with Pres. Kimball's quote or this talk.

In the eyes of God, whether in the Church or in the family, women and men are equal, with different responsibilities.

We ended the lesson by talking more about what it means to be equal but have different responsibilities - and that how the determination of how those responsibilities are divided among men and women is up to spouses in the family and "key holders" in the Church - and that changes to how responsibilities in the Church currently are allocated is up to the leadership, subject to revelation that may change the current division of responsibilities and the composition of the leadership.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Our New Framing of the Priesthood - Elder Oaks: Part 2

Priesthood and Priesthood Keys: Elder Oaks' General Conference talk - Part 2

We had three students in class today who weren't in attendance last week, so I took about ten minutes for a quick review of last week's lesson (the first six paragraphs of Elder Oaks' talk). It was good for the others to hear it again. (If anyone wants to review that lesson before reading this one, it is the post from last Saturday.)

Today, we covered the next six paragraphs. Like I did with last week's summary, I am going to quote the parts we discussed and provide a summary of the discussions:

Ultimately, all keys of the priesthood are held by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose priesthood it is. He is the one who determines what keys are delegated to mortals and how those keys will be used. We are accustomed to thinking that all keys of the priesthood were conferred on Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple, but the scripture states that all that was conferred there were “the keys of this dispensation” (D&C 110:16). At general conference many years ago, President Spencer W. Kimball reminded us that there are other priesthood keys that have not been given to man on the earth, including the keys of creation and resurrection.

We talked about what this means about possible changes in the future - that it is another reminder that the way we do things currently is not necessarily unchangeable, eternal doctrine - and that we have to be open to radical changes if they occur.

The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures - matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.

We discussed the difference between "administration" and "the priesthood". We defined "administer" as "oversee; supervise; direct". We discussed what that means in terms of the sacrament. We talked about why it is incorrect to say, "The sacrament will be administered and passed by the Priesthood." First, I simply pointed out that the Priesthood is different than the people who do things with Priesthood authority and power - as has been stated numerous times by apostles recently.  I asked who administers the sacrament and who passes it. Their first responses were the Priests, Teachers and Deacons, so we dug further into what happens with that ordinance.

The Bishop (or Branch President or presiding key holder), as the presiding Priest, administers the sacrament, as do the Priests. The other offices in the Aaronic Priesthood (the Deacons and the Teachers) have been authorized to "help" the Bishop and the Priests - not actually to administer but to assist in an official way - and every single person in the congregation passes the sacrament among themselves.  (As pointed out by a commenter on this post, D&C 20:58 explicitly says that Teachers and Deacons are NOT authorized to administer the sacrament.)  This means that "administer" and "prepare and pass" MUST be different things, while "bless" (pronounce the prayer) is part of the administration.  Administering (including blessing) is a responsibility specific to a Priesthood office (Priest), while the others are assignments made by the presiding Priest to help / assist - NOT to administer. 

We talked about how the exact method or pattern of distributing the sacrament is different from congregation to congregation, based on the size and demographics of the congregation. We mentioned various ways the sacrament could be "passed" - from a tiny unit where everyone goes up to the sacrament table and takes it directly from the person who blesses it (with nobody "passing" it) to a larger branch in another part of the world where there are dozens of members but only one man who is ordained to an office in the priesthood and the women (young and old) pass the sacrament throughout the congregation completely on their own - including practical applications that look much like what we see regularly with AP young men. [I know of situations where that happens in some countries.] We talked about the fact that HOW it happens is determined by the person who holds the keys to "direct, control and govern" it - and how nearly every aspect about it is "cultural", when it comes right down to it, since nearly every aspect can change depending on the unique congregational situations. (Outside of the prayer wording and the current restriction on who can voice the prayer [since voicing the prayer is part of the administering], there might be nothing else that couldn't be adapted by a Bishop, Branch President or Area Authority.)

We re-read the last sentence in that paragraph, and I simply pointed out that, as far as we know, women have not been ordained to offices in the priesthood at any point in our scriptural history - so our current leadership does not see that as a matter of practice or policy. Rather, they see it as a "pattern". Therefore, just as was the case prior to OD2 and the lifting of the race-based ban, they don't feel "authorized" to change it without direct revelation from God. I told the students that I hope such a revelation will be received at some point, but I understand why it can't change without revelation to the church leadership. I told them that, lacking such revelation, we need to work on everything else laid out in this talk - that, maybe, this is a case of learning and changing line-upon-line and precept-upon-precept.

I come now to the subject of priesthood authority. I begin with the three principles just discussed: (1) priesthood is the power of God delegated to man to act for the salvation of the human family, (2) priesthood authority is governed by priesthood holders who hold priesthood keys, and (3) since the scriptures state that “all other authorities [and] offices in the church are appendages to this [Melchizedek] priesthood” (D&C 107:5), all that is done under the direction of those priesthood keys is done with priesthood authority.

I pointed out that Elder Oaks' use of "man" in the first point MUST mean the generic "mankind" or "humanity", given everything he had said up to that point in the talk. We talked about how often we fall back on the language with which we are familiar, even when we are teaching new understandings. I told them that we can accept that and be charitable, or we can get upset and take offense - but that we ought not "make a (person) an offender for a word" and not focus on one word and let it negate everything else the person has said.

We talked about what "appendages" means: "a subordinate part attached to something; an auxiliary part; addition". I pointed out that Elder Oaks said that "ALL authorities and offices in the church" are auxiliary to the priesthood itself - which means that even the "office" of apostle is an appendage, governed by keys just like any other calling or office. We talked about the concept that Paul taught about all parts of the body being necessary and no more important than any other body part - that "appendages" are of equal importance when, as Elder Oaks said in the first paragraph of the talk, there is no "up and down" in the Church structure. We talked about the idea that, if ALL is subordinate to the priesthood itself and ALL is done with priesthood authority (and priesthood power), then appendages are complementary - especially when at the same organizational level within the Church. Thus, the Young Men quorums are the male equivalent of the Young Women classes (as complementary appendages), and the Relief Society is the female equivalent of the MP quorums. All of them are, based on Elder Oaks' reframing, "priesthood" groups - meaning they can act with priesthood authority and exercise priesthood power. He addresses this further in the following paragraph.

We also talked about what Priesthood "offices" means. I asked them what the word "office" means outside a discussion of the Priesthood. We agreed that offices are rooms (or spaces) where people do certain things that are assigned to them or that are their responsibilities. That basic definition works for Priesthood offices, as well - figurative locations that are "unlocked" (by keys) to allow people to do certain things therein. Using the AP offices, the Deacons are given access to one room where certain things are authorized to be done - and Teachers are given access to that room and one more, where other things are authorized to be done - and Priests are given access to those rooms and one more - etc. The "office" is nothing more than the authorization to do specific things - to be allowed into that room of the overall Priesthood house, per se.

How does this apply to women? In an address to the Relief Society, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said this: “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.”

I pointed out that, linguistically, President Smith had modified the first phrase ("While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood') to clarify what he meant ("it has not been conferred upon them [through ordination to an office])" - and how that is an important distinction, since it supports the concept that women DO have priesthood authority and can exercise priesthood power. He then said that women can do things that are "binding" AND "necessary for salvation" - that are just as "binding" as what men who have been ordained to offices in the Priesthood do. We talked about how the priesthood itself is the same no matter who uses it, which also means the admonitions in D&C 121 about unrighteous dominion apply equally to men and women. We talked about how "binding" and "sealing" mean, in practical terms, the exact same thing - and how women perform "sealing" ordinances in the temple, just like men. Again, the only restrictions in place right now are ordinance-specific - meaning men are authorized to do some things women currently can't do.

In that notable address, President Smith said again and again that women have been given authority. To the women he said, “You can speak with authority, because the Lord has placed authority upon you.”

We talked about how women have authority within themselves - that Priesthood keys don't let women use a man's priesthood but rather allow women to use the priesthood authority and power that the Lord has placed upon them (particularly in the temple, when they are endowed). Thus, the young women in the class don't use the Bishop's authority and power in their callings; they use their own.

He also said that the Relief Society “[has] been given power and authority to do a great many things. The work which they do is done by divine authority.” And, of course, the Church work done by women or men, whether in the temple or in the wards or branches, is done under the direction of those who hold priesthood keys. Thus, speaking of the Relief Society, President Smith explained, “[The Lord] has given to them this great organization where they have authority to serve under the directions of the bishops of the wards … , looking after the interest of our people both spiritually and temporally.”

Thus, it is truly said that Relief Society is not just a class for women but something they belong to—a divinely established appendage to the priesthood.

We finished with me explaining a "soapbox" issue - a pet peeve - of mine. I told them that I hope as they perform their callings in leadership positions, they never let their organizations be just classes and social clubs - that they treat them like Priesthood groups who have responsibilities to serve and bless people - that they never defer to others to tell them what to do but rather embrace their own authority and power to make decisions and receive personal revelation. I mentioned specifically Relief Society and Young Women, but I told the young men what I was saying applied to them, as well. I stressed that the adults in the youth organizations are not supposed to be the "leaders" or "decision makers" - that those roles are supposed to belong to the youth presidencies. I begged the young women to remember that when they move into Relief Society - that they are supposed to run that organization and report to the Bishop, not ask for permission in everything they do, and, particularly, not let it become just a class and a social club. I told them that there is tremendous potential for life-changing service in the Relief Society and that they need to lead the necessary change to make it what it can be.

I ended with the concept of new wine and old bottles, and I told them that a lot of members my age and older simply can't understand and accept the changes outlined in Elder Oaks' talk very easily, if at all - that the youth are the new bottles that can handle the new wine without bursting and that I hope they step up and help lead the older folks to where we need to go.

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.  

Understanding Some Women's Frustrations in the LDS Church

A friend of mine shared the following story with me recently, and I want to pass it on just to see if it has the same impact on others as it did on me:

I have to admit that I have never really understood the angst and pain that many LDS woman talk about. It's just never been an issue for me, though I like to think myself to be progressive and sympathetic . . . Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how one sees the whole picture, that has changed a bit in the last 24 hours. I've evolved - maybe I can understand the issue better. 

This may seem like the silliest, most obvious thing in the world, but I lost some sleep last night. Here is what happened.

Deep down I do appreciate and love the church, and yesterday as I was talking to my wife about church and some options/callings we might do to keep our branch functional in order to keep it going to so our kids will have that resource to help get them through their teenage years --- I made the comment to her that I was getting bitter and frustrated because I WANT to serve and I'm WILLING to help out the Branch in my calling, yet, according to the Church Handbook of Instructions, my days are numbered. There are some callings that require an active temple recommend, and I'm struggling right now to renew mine.

Anyway, so I tell my wife how frustrated I am that because of church policy my calling options are limited and I'm not going to be able to contribute to the LDS church like I want to and need to.

Her response:

"Well, now you know how I've been feeling the last 20 years."

I'm not making any kind of statement in this post about any particular callings, and I certainly am not advocating that women be given the ability to administer Priesthood ordinances, but I really believe there are lots of things women could do in the Church from which they have been excluded historically.  We took a HUGE step, in my opinion, in 2010 when Ward / Branch Council took the place of PEC as the top council in wards and branches, but I believe there still is more that can be done - without changing doctrine or theology in any way whatsoever.

Who Gave Birth to God's Spirit Children?

The following is a question I received from someone who is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My answer follows: 

Question: Who gave birth to God's spirit children, and if it wasn’t God, the Father, where did the women come from?

Answer: "Gave birth to" is something we don't say with regard to spirit children, since it is not taught that way in any of our scriptures. In my decades as a Mormon, I have never once heard it phrased that way; rather, we speak of spirit children being "created". We have no idea whatsoever how we were created as spirit children, again since that is not explained to us in any detail, at all.

"Created" does not necessarily mean anything remotely related to "giving birth" - and there is no official doctrine of sexual relationships (in the way that they occur here in mortality) in heaven - either prior to the creation of this world or after the resurrection. Unfortunately, that is a common misapplication - among some members (including prior leaders) and nearly all critics, but it is not doctrine. There is no doctrine whatsoever on the process of spiritual creation. This is one case where the proper answer, in my mind, is, "We don't know."

Having said that, I will speculate here.  (*grin*)

Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." We aren't told what that means or how God created male and female in "His" image. Given the totality of the imagery and the familial terminology that is used throughout the Bible to describe our relationships (before our birth, during mortality and after death), we speak of a Heavenly Mother - but there is no obvious, canonized scriptural, unmistakable basis for that belief. (For example, the hymn, "Oh, My Father", includes the following statement: "Truth is reason; truth eternal tells me I've a mother there.")

Personally, I believe that women are created in the image of God, the Mother (my own phrasing and not a title I've heard used in the LDS Church - ever), mostly because of what the Bible says about marriage and our intended end as "one" - as well as statements by our prophets and apostles. Frankly, I believe it is the only way to stay within the Biblical concept of heavenly family and validate women as women - to believe that sex / gender identity has eternal meaning and that women are not simply bastardized, sub-standard men (as has been implied or stated blatantly in many statements by Christian leaders throughout history and as is the natural interpretation of many when the only reference to God is in masculine form). However, I personally do not believe that Heavenly Mother "gave birth" to spirit children, and I personally do not believe that the creation of spirit children involves anything like pregnancy and gestation - in ANY way, shape or form as we know it here on earth. 


So, in summary, my own response is that I believe nobody "gave birth to God's spirit children" - that our Heavenly Parents created us in some way, but that it was not in the way children are created here on earth.

My Favorite Quotes from the World-Wide Training on the New Church Handbook of Instructions

The following are taken from my notes and are the best recreations I am able to make - since I can't record exact quotes when I take notes:

The women in the council were engaged in the conversation. We haven't always encouraged that as we should. (Elder Holland)

International areas don't have models for how to run the Church. The CHI generally is the only "model" they have. (Elder Gonzales)

My fondest wish is that we could remove the word "meeting" from our vocabulary - as in, "We are going to a meeting." I wish we could view them as "revelatory experiences" - and that won't happen unless we strive to make them such experiences and quit viewing them just as meetings.  (Elder Bednar)

There is great power in group synergy - when WE decide we will act together. Women are just as important as men in everything we do. (Elder Ballard)

We have to decide what counts. The Savior didn't count statistics and numbers. What counted to him was caring, love, service, ministering, blessing, etc. We need to make a new beginning in the Church and count as He counts."  (Pres. Julie Beck)

The following are from Elder Packer's closing remarks - and reminded me of why I sustain him as a prophet, seer, revelator and apostle: 

This CHI is meant to provide "simplification and flexibility". "Let me underline that."

Pres. Clark once said that too much regimentation can remove revelation. We are in danger of that happening in the Church.

ALL meetings should be conducted by the Spirit. It is time for our young men and young women to prophecy and for our old men and women to dream dreams.

There is a danger of establishing the Church and not the Gospel. Planting the Gospel in our hearts MUST accompany having the Church in our lives. Busy-ness can't replace testimony.

Families are not tools to staff the Church; the Church is a tool to serve families. Don't over-burden families!

Gender Roles As Mortal Compromise

Any woman who has been through the temple and remains true to the covenants she accepts therein is clothed in the priesthood throughout the rest of her life.

Also, that happens prior to what we commonly term "the endowment". Thus, only those who "accept and receive the Priesthood" can be endowed with the understanding and power of God. Phrased a bit differently, it would be accurate to say that all those who accept and receive the Priesthood in this manner can be endowed thusly.

The Church in the fullness of its own ideal world is not sexist.

The relationship between Adam and Eve prior to the Fall is one of complete equality; the difference after the Fall is a compromise adapted to the lone and dreary world. The woman was given the primary responsibility to oversee the fulfillment of the first commandment in a way that would bring glory to God (nurturing the children they would bear); the man was given the primary responsibility to make sure that could happen (protecting and providing for his wife and children).

The temple recognizes the mortal compromise in what it asks of women (what is required of them to live in the lone and dreary world and multiply), but it is critical to realize that it is phrased in exactly that way - asking those who are equal up to that point (and in the temple) to accept a "role" when they "enter" (and return to) the lone and dreary world - when they leave their "symbolic immortality" and return to their everyday "mortality". The promise is that such a compromise will not last forever - that once they leave mortality the original relationship will be restored and they will live together as Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses - united equally as one.

Traditional Roles for Mothers and Fathers

This is going to sound strange, perhaps, but women now are facing as a group what men should have been facing for centuries, but too often haven't - how to properly balance occupation within the overall circumstances of life that include family. For many years, especially with industrialization, men (unfortunately) have had the ability to neglect wife and kids - by claiming that their wives would raise them while he provided for them.

When everyone worked on a farm, this arbitrary separation often didn't occur, and it still doesn't occur in situations of real poverty. "Traditional roles" aren’t traditional; they are fairly new to the history of the world for the "common" couple. They appear historically in times and circles of wealth, when two incomes are not necessary to sustain life and relative comfort.

I sustain and honor stay-at-home-mothers, but I also understand it's a relatively modern luxury that used to be reserved for only the truly upper class. It is difficult in so many ways specifically because it is not "natural"; it is something that must be accepted and learned and acquired - and it is absolutely critical, in my opinion, to accept and honor the flexibility articulated in the Family Proclamation that allows for adaptation in personal circumstances.