DiscussMormonism.com

It's always entertaining to me to hear the church's reasoning why women don't need the Priesthood. I have heard different combinations of the following excuses below:

- Women are more spiritually intune than men, so men need the Priesthood to experience spiritual things.
- Women are better at serving their fellow man than men. The Priesthood gives men the opportunity to serve.
- Women enjoy the power to create life. Men can't do that, so the Priesthood gives them some power.
- Women naturally have stronger faith than men. Men need the Priesthood to give them faith.

Hmmmm. So... If women are more spiritually intune, better servants, more faithful, and etc., Doesn't it make sense that they should be in charge? Why would you take a segment that apparently has the better faith based qualities and give them second class citizen status? Its sounds confusing to me.

Imagine if this same scenerio were to play out in business. Picture a board meeting at any Fortune 500 company:

Chairman: We need to hire a new CEO. Let's conduct our search at 2 year community colleges.

Board Member: Sir, may I recommend Harvard instead? They have a stellar MBA program, or better yet, let's find someone who has proven success as a CEO, and hire that person.

Chairman: That sounds good on paper, but a Harvard MBA, or CEO already has better qualities. A freshly graduated community college student isn't as capable in business, so we need to give him more power, and make him a "C" level exec to give him the opportunity that comes natural to the Harvard grad.

Board Member: I see; that makes sense. We have a few inconsequential admin positions. Should we hire the Harvard grads for those?

Chairman: You read my mind.

Racer wrote:It's always entertaining to me to hear the church's reasoning why women don't need the Priesthood. I have heard different combinations of the following excuses below:

- Women are more spiritually intune than men, so men need the Priesthood to experience spiritual things.
- Women are better at serving their fellow man than men. The Priesthood gives men the opportunity to serve.
- Women enjoy the power to create life. Men can't do that, so the Priesthood gives them some power.
- Women naturally have stronger faith than men. Men need the Priesthood to give them faith.

I recall one Elders Quorum meeting where the points above, and others, were brought up and discussed. The discussion was followed up with amazement that LDS women actually BELIEVED that they didn't want or need the priesthood. That was followed up by further amazement that the women actually believed the BS excuses. That was then followed up by loud laughter.

Women don't need the Priesthood because they're not in charge...

Racer wrote:It's always entertaining to me to hear the church's reasoning why women don't need the Priesthood. I have heard different combinations of the following excuses below:

- Women are more spiritually intune than men, so men need the Priesthood to experience spiritual things.
- Women are better at serving their fellow man than men. The Priesthood gives men the opportunity to serve.
- Women enjoy the power to create life. Men can't do that, so the Priesthood gives them some power.
- Women naturally have stronger faith than men. Men need the Priesthood to give them faith.

Hmmmm. So... If women are more spiritually intune, better servants, more faithful, and etc., Doesn't it make sense that they should be in charge? Why would you take a segment that apparently has the better faith based qualities and give them second class citizen status? Its sounds confusing to me.

Imagine if this same scenerio were to play out in business. Picture a board meeting at any Fortune 500 company:

Chairman: We need to hire a new CEO. Let's conduct our search at 2 year community colleges.

Board Member: Sir, may I recommend Harvard instead? They have a stellar MBA program, or better yet, let's find someone who has proven success as a CEO, and hire that person.

Chairman: That sounds good on paper, but a Harvard MBA, or CEO already has better qualities. A freshly graduated community college student isn't as capable in business, so we need to give him more power, and make him a "C" level exec to give him the opportunity that comes natural to the Harvard grad.

Board Member: I see; that makes sense. We have a few inconsequential admin positions. Should we hire the Harvard grads for those?

Chairman: You read my mind.

You must be a Witch. Burn you at the Stake

Racer wrote:It's always entertaining to me to hear the church's reasoning why women don't need the Priesthood. I have heard different combinations of the following excuses below:

- Women are more spiritually intune than men, so men need the Priesthood to experience spiritual things.
- Women are better at serving their fellow man than men. The Priesthood gives men the opportunity to serve.
- Women enjoy the power to create life. Men can't do that, so the Priesthood gives them some power.
- Women naturally have stronger faith than men. Men need the Priesthood to give them faith.

Hmmmm. So... If women are more spiritually intune, better servants, more faithful, and etc., Doesn't it make sense that they should be in charge? Why would you take a segment that apparently has the better faith based qualities and give them second class citizen status? Its sounds confusing to me.

Imagine if this same scenerio were to play out in business. Picture a board meeting at any Fortune 500 company:

Chairman: We need to hire a new CEO. Let's conduct our search at 2 year community colleges.

Board Member: Sir, may I recommend Harvard instead? They have a stellar MBA program, or better yet, let's find someone who has proven success as a CEO, and hire that person.

Chairman: That sounds good on paper, but a Harvard MBA, or CEO already has better qualities. A freshly graduated community college student isn't as capable in business, so we need to give him more power, and make him a "C" level exec to give him the opportunity that comes natural to the Harvard grad.

Board Member: I see; that makes sense. We have a few inconsequential admin positions. Should we hire the Harvard grads for those?

Chairman: You read my mind.

Three problems....

1. You didn't actually address each point as well as others to why they don't make sense.

2. Your "analogy" only works if every priesthood holder was being made a leader in the Church. They aren't. Primarily only the best and brightest are made the leaders, i.e. the "businessmen", the "A" students. Thus your analogy fails completely.

3. Are you actually saying being a mother of all living, raising a righteous seed, the power, blessing and stuggle of childbirth and raising children, home, etc. DOES NOT help a woman be great, have power, be better, etc.???

Because that is what you're saying if the Priesthood doesn't actually do a dang thing for men, and doesn't do anything to help men be better.

Oh, and there is a 4th reason your example fails. Women ARE in fact leaders in the Church, with responsibility and power, and they work hand in hand as leaders and otherwise with the Priesthood leaders. Priesthood leaders simply have different responsibilities and calling. Same thing with men and women period. Mormonism is not the Catholic Church that there is some unnatural inequality.

There is no "inequality" because men cannot have children. Your logic fails completely in every way.

Man, I just cringe that I was as stupid as you people when I once believed the same leaving, mocking and degrading the Church.

Primarily only the best and brightest are made the leaders

So, you are admitting that you will never be a leader in the church, eh?

Women hold the priesthood. LDS Church policy just hasn't caught up to the truth of the matter.

ldsfaqs wrote:1. You didn't actually address each point as well as others to why they don't make sense.

What? The whole post explained why they don't add up. Just read the reasons that Priesthood holders use to explain why women can't hold the P-hood. they are laughable. Pure logic shows that they are lame attempts to pacify women by telling them they are better, so they don't need the extra oomph. "You are better, so that's why we chose the weaker, to give them a chance to experience what comes natural to you." I don't know what's worse; the lame excuses by the men or the women that buy the excuses.

ldsfaqs wrote:2. Your "analogy" only works if every priesthood holder was being made a leader in the Church. They aren't. Primarily only the best and brightest are made the leaders, i.e. the "businessmen", the "A" students. Thus your analogy fails completely.

Not really. I suppose it does if you are looking at it from a purely GA standpoint, and we know a women will NEVER become a GA. Essentially every Priesthood holder is a leader and calls the shots from top down. Even in the home. The boys club trickles down into every facet of leadership in the church. In the temple women are admonished that the men are holding the reigns and they are to submit to their husbands. Don't get me started on the best and brightest. Kirtland bank, 90% of what spewed out of McConkies' mouth, buying into Hoffmans' forgeries, and etc. History shows that the best and brightest weren't always the ones in the lead. The EQ President in my Ward went to jail for a very long time last year for doing the dirty deeds with his teen daughter's friend. I challenge your best and brightest claim.

ldsfaqs wrote:3. Are you actually saying being a mother of all living, raising a righteous seed, the power, blessing and stuggle of childbirth and raising children, home, etc. DOES NOT help a woman be great, have power, be better, etc.???

No. I did not denigrate women for the ability to bear children. The church does. The church does so by insinuating that's all women are good for and that should be good enough. They don't need to do anything else but have kids and raise them. I call BS on that mentality.

ldsfaqs wrote:Because that is what you're saying if the Priesthood doesn't actually do a dang thing for men, and doesn't do anything to help men be better.

I think the Priesthood is a made up fake thing. I don't think it does a dang thing to help anyone. However, those who hold this fake power are able to have the final say in the governing and direction of the church. Again, the excuse that men are too spiritually stupid to get by without having this power to help them experience what women already understand to quell some women's desire for equality in the church is laughable.

ldsfaqs wrote:Oh, and there is a 4th reason your example fails. Women ARE in fact leaders in the Church, with responsibility and power, and they work hand in hand as leaders and otherwise with the Priesthood leaders. Priesthood leaders simply have different responsibilities and calling. Same thing with men and women period. Mormonism is not the Catholic Church that there is some unnatural inequality.

I disagree. Sure women are appointed to some leadership roles in the church, but again the men control it. Last time I checked it was the men who decided what women were to be the leaders. Who calls the General Relief Society and Primary Presidents? Men. On the Ward level its the Bishop. Women get to choose their own counselors. I have been in enough PEC meetings in different wards and I can assure you the women can't make an independent decision for their orgs without running it up the flagpole with the Priesthood first.

ldsfaqs wrote:There is no "inequality" because men cannot have children. Your logic fails completely in every way.

Can a single mom, or a women with a non-member husband administer to her sick kids? No. She has to pick up the phone and hope a man is available to stop by to do the job. By the way. I recognize that men can't have children and that there is a difference between the 2 sexes, but I will disagree with you if you are saying women are incapable of leading organizations and making decisions at the highest levels which the LDS currently does.

ldsfaqs wrote:Man, I just cringe that I was as stupid as you people when I once believed the same leaving, mocking and degrading the Church.

I don't quite understand this statement as I don't know your background. Are you saying you at one time left the church, and returned? If so, I cringe at your stupidity for returning to an organization that is an obvious sham.

Racer wrote:

ldsfaqs wrote:Man, I just cringe that I was as stupid as you people when I once believed the same leaving, mocking and degrading the Church.

I don't quite understand this statement as I don't know your background. Are you saying you at one time left the church, and returned? If so, I cringe at your stupidity for returning to an organization that is an obvious sham.

I was wondering about this as well. I'd love to hear the full story.

It's like someone saying I used to disagree with creationist notion that God poofed everything into existence 6000 years old, but then I studied science and became a fundamentalist evangelical.