Did you have a point?

I think the conversation will be more productive if you assume that what I mean is what I’ve actually said, rather than trying to argue with “assumptions/conclusions/assertions” which you “sense” I might be making.

“To General Authorities, Regional Representatives, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, Bishops, and Branch Presidents in the United States

“Dear Brethren:

“With the nation facing the prospect of continuing debate on the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, we take this opportunity again to bring to your attention our position on this important question.

“The history of the Church clearly demonstrates the long-standing concern of its leaders that women, as daughters of God, should have without discrimination every political, economic, and educational opportunity. Where there now exist deficiencies concerning these matters, they can and should be corrected by specific legislation. Additionally, because of their unique capacities and responsibilities as wives and mothers, women should be the beneficiaries of such special laws as will safeguard their welfare and the interests of children and families.

“While the enactment or rejection of the Equal Rights Amendment must be accomplished by recognized political processes, we are convinced that because of its predictable results the matter is basically a moral rather than a political issue; and because of our serious concern over these moral implications, we have spoken against ratification, and without equivocation do so again. We are convinced, after careful study, after consultation with various Constitutional authorities, and after much prayerful consideration, that if the proposed amendment were to be ratified, there would follow over the years a train of interpretations and implementations that would demean women rather than ennoble them, and that also would threaten the stability of the family which is a creation of God.

“Because of our serious concern, we urge our people to join actively with other citizens who share our concerns and who are engaged in working to reject this measure on the basis of its threat to the moral climate of the future.”

Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney

I get the sense that you (and others, but since you brought it up) are also making assumptions about what that means, e.g., that the theory behind it is “problematic” and thus that change should happen. It’s the assumptions/conclusions/assertions to which I refer when I talk about different perspectives.

In my experience there’s an underlying message always associated w/ these kinds of discussions that since women don’t have institutional authority “over men,” something is “wrong” and “needs to be changed” (e.g., comment like the above where you said “However, if there’s a disjunction between what God intends for women and the way they are currently treated in the church, it’s worth asking whether the church ought to change.”)

Friends, I wonder if it is possible to simply acknowledge that in our church as it is currently administered, a structural inequality exists. Period. No need to explain or guess at the reasons. Is that beyond our ability to do?

I’m all for recognizing that there is a difference in the way men and women are involved in the church structure. (I strongly prefer “difference” over “inequality” because of how I feel about the bigger picture and I think the word inequality is waaaay too charged and biased out the chute.) But if we are going to say, “I don’t know why” (which I think is a legitimate answer) then I think we also have to be also willing to not somehow send a message to our children that it’s also a mistake or is so awful (again, why I choose ‘difference’ over ‘inequality.’ That can undermine or confuse just as much as guessing at reasons can, imo. Either way, none of us have the authority or revelatory position to explain it all — OR to explain it away.

It only recently occurred to me, I’m further embarrassed to admit, after enduring years of PEC and other priesthood leadership meetings how much time, effort and energy is spent trying to move prospective Elders to regular Elders while only a fraction, if that, of that same time, effort and energy is spent on less active women. In fact, I don’t ever recall discussing in any of the priesthood leadership meetings how to bring back less active women except the ones married to prospective elders. Perhaps the RS is doing for the less active sisters what the priesthood is not. I sure hope so because we priesthood holders are blithely ignoring a vast group of members of the church and channeling a lot of the Church’s most valuable resource-time-to the less active priesthood holders.

290+ comments say “Yes!”

A million years ago I was in an institute class where the teacher asked some question along the lines of why women don’t have the priesthood, and he wanted the opinion of every woman in the room. One by one they all gave some answer along the lines of “women don’t need it,” “I don’t want it anyway, it’s too much responsibility,” “I trust my (future) husband to use his priesthood righteously,” whatever. When it was my turn I said, “I don’t understand why women don’t have the priesthood or why we have the patriarchal order, and it doesn’t make sense to me, but I’ve accepted that it’s one of those things I don’t have the answer to and probably never will in this life.” (Period.)

Let me tell you, that was not a popular answer, especially not with the teacher, who really wanted me to understand how it all worked and why it all was the way it was. God bless him, he was a very good teacher and a fine person, but he couldn’t accept that all of these explanations were inadequate. Mormons don’t like not having all the answers. We pride ourselves on how much sense our religion makes to us. We are uncomfortable with genuine mysteries, in my observation. But most people are. Mysteries are frustrating.

Not at all.

I didn’t mean to propose faults or solutions. I think that the root causes of sexism in the church are manifold, and so the solutions must also be. I do think that we all tend to live below our privileges – and that whether or not a more robust exercise of those gifts by “second class citizens” would do anything in regard to inequality, it would certainly make more pleasurable the life of the citizen and enrich the common life of the church.
best ~

I don’t know.

What do we say to a 12 year old girl who sees her male peers ordained and wonders why? Do we acknowledge the question, say that we don’t know, and leave it at that, or do we make up a bunch of phony, gagworthy stuff and tell her that she really doesn’t need the priesthood anyway because she is so special?