interesting take on women and priesthood - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

BlueK · 02-05-2008, 04:59 PM

At least I thought this was an interesting take. A good friend of mine, female, who is otherwise a little on the liberal side made an interesting observation to me recently about women and the priesthood. Her view is that women do so much of the service and work in the church anyway, that if they got the priesthood they'd eventually be doing everything. I can't say I really disagree. I think the feminist movement has now helped make men lazy as much as it's helped women progress. Everyone should have equal opportunity to accomplish things in society, but that doesn't mean some gender specific responsibilities within the church or family are always all bad.

myboynoah · 02-05-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

At least I thought this was an interesting take. A good friend of mine, female, who is otherwise a little on the liberal side made an interesting observation to me recently about women and the priesthood. Her view is that women do so much of the service and work in the church anyway, that if they got the priesthood they'd eventually be doing everything. I can't say I really disagree. I think the feminist movement has now helped make men lazy as much as it's helped women progress. Everyone should have equal opportunity to accomplish things in society, but that doesn't mean some gender specific responsibilities within the church or family are always all bad.

That said, I suspect they would like to see structural changes that give women greater input into decisionmaking at every level of church leadership. Attendance at ward welfare and ward council meetings doesn't seem sufficient. I had one Bishop that asked the RS President to attend all PEC meetings. That would be a wonderful first step.

BYU71 · 02-05-2008, 06:57 PM

Your posts just made me think of something. If the women had the Priesthood, they wouldn't really feel the need for the men to be active.

Sunday would be mainly women at church.

SoCalCoug · 02-05-2008, 07:00 PM

I am by no means a Bible scholar. However, I have read a few things (can't remember what they were, or I'd cite them) indicating that in the very early Church (i.e., within 100 years after Jesus' crucifixion), there were female disciples in positions of authority - in other words, they may have held the priesthood.

If this is true, would knowledge of it have any effect on LDS members' views of women and the priesthood?

If this is true, why is it not the case now?

BlueK · 02-05-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I am by no means a Bible scholar. However, I have read a few things (can't remember what they were, or I'd cite them) indicating that in the very early Church (i.e., within 100 years after Jesus' crucifixion), there were female disciples in positions of authority - in other words, they may have held the priesthood.

If this is true, would knowledge of it have any effect on LDS members' views of women and the priesthood?

If this is true, why is it not the case now?

I don't know, but I've read similar things. I have no idea what impact it should have on the church today.

BlueK · 02-05-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

Your posts just made me think of something. If the women had the Priesthood, they wouldn't really feel the need for the men to be active.

Sunday would be mainly women at church.

I think that's true. The priesthood does help men stay involved and serving. I think men often need a little help in those areas when it comes to church.

jay santos · 02-05-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

I think that's true. The priesthood does help men stay involved and serving. I think men often need a little help in those areas when it comes to church.

My gut feeling is that this an overstated idea. Women and men tend to value different things and will take different paths to accomplish a task. But this notion that men are slobs who need the priesthood or would fall into inactivity and that women would come in and clean everything up and do it right if they had the chance is demeaning to both sexes.

K-dog · 02-05-2008, 07:35 PM

I'm with Jay.

MikeWaters · 02-05-2008, 07:40 PM

I think eliminating 60% of your membership from leadership decisions is usually not a good thing for an organization.

BYU71 · 02-05-2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

My gut feeling is that this an overstated idea. Women and men tend to value different things and will take different paths to accomplish a task. But this notion that men are slobs who need the priesthood or would fall into inactivity and that women would come in and clean everything up and do it right if they had the chance is demeaning to both sexes.

I don't think I said anything about men being slobs. I know a lot of men who don't attend church as regular as say women do, but that doesn't make them slobs.

I think you have your head in the sand if you think men are as inclined to attend church and church functions as readily as women do. I have seen many single "inactive" guy become active again after marriage.

Go to any singles ward. My guess, it is only a guess, the women outnumber the men even though they need the men to perform the functions.

02-05-2008, 04:59 PM	#1
BlueK Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 2,368	interesting take on women and priesthood At least I thought this was an interesting take. A good friend of mine, female, who is otherwise a little on the liberal side made an interesting observation to me recently about women and the priesthood. Her view is that women do so much of the service and work in the church anyway, that if they got the priesthood they'd eventually be doing everything. I can't say I really disagree. I think the feminist movement has now helped make men lazy as much as it's helped women progress. Everyone should have equal opportunity to accomplish things in society, but that doesn't mean some gender specific responsibilities within the church or family are always all bad.

02-05-2008, 07:00 PM	#4
SoCalCoug Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 3,059	I am by no means a Bible scholar. However, I have read a few things (can't remember what they were, or I'd cite them) indicating that in the very early Church (i.e., within 100 years after Jesus' crucifixion), there were female disciples in positions of authority - in other words, they may have held the priesthood. If this is true, would knowledge of it have any effect on LDS members' views of women and the priesthood? If this is true, why is it not the case now? __________________ Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug

02-05-2008, 07:35 PM	#8
K-dog Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 699	I'm with Jay. __________________ He's down by the creek, walkin' on water. K-dog P.S. Grrrrrrrrr

02-05-2008, 06:57 PM	#3
BYU71 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,084	Your posts just made me think of something. If the women had the Priesthood, they wouldn't really feel the need for the men to be active. Sunday would be mainly women at church.

02-05-2008, 07:40 PM	#9
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I think eliminating 60% of your membership from leadership decisions is usually not a good thing for an organization.