Sparing Women the Demands of the Priesthood

[_Jason Bourne]

Relief Society presidents are gems and serve in very critical and sensitive ways. They are the first assistance in almost all welfare issues and in my experience at least were the feet on the ground in many crisis situations where food, fuel, employment, budgeting and other such things were needed. Also, a good bishop will rely on the Relief Society president as much as he does an counselor in his bishopric. Of course she is as busy in many cased as most other men leaders in the church such as EQ presidents, etc. We also have YW presidents who serve many many hours.

However, the bishop has a unique spot in the the most sensitive things tend to come to him first. I can say that my experience was similar to Dan Peterson's. I had many difficult situations, calls late at night, going to hospitals for half the night, a jail, etc. I have gone to a home when an adult child attempted suicide then later did so again successfully and sat with the parents late into the evening. I could go on but much is to sensitive. Sure it depends on the ward but many bishops have similar experiences. Dan's is not all that unique.

And by the way, I would have no problem seeing women hold the priesthood.

[_Ray A]

I think there is a myth in the church that having the priesthood means that men have much more of a burden in terms of church service then women do. DCP’s response certainly seems to convey that idea.

When you look at what women do in the Church, often unrewarded (from a public eye view) and unrecognised, they are the real "workhorses" of any ward. Primary, Young Women, Relief Society, are all run by women, including various other callings. With all the work that bishops do, they do get some "glory" (which could also be described as vainglory, such presiding over the whole ward, sitting on the stand, and receiving "adulation" that no Relief Society president ever gets, etc.). There is a form of compensation in this, and some bishops enjoy it. People openly recognise you and respect your authority, and it also draws some respect in the wider community. If somene says he's a bishop in his church even a non-member takes notice, but if a woman says she's a Relief Society president it will attract curious stares and questions.

Speaking personally, if it were not for the women in my ward when I served as a bishop, it would literally have fallen apart. I had marvellous Relief Society presidents, and one was the mother of seven young children. While I had to prod the men all the time, she ran Relief Society like clockwork (I never had to worry about it), as did all of the young women and primary presidents, while attending to their family responsibilities (and I am certain in most cases doing the majority of the housework, even if they were working mothers). Visiting teaching was always done, but getting home teaching done was like flogging a dead horse.

A bishop may well be overburdened, but he's an exception. He's not as a general rule the symbol of what all PH do, far from it. The only person possibly more overburdened is the stake president, but even he doesn't have to deal directly with rank and file member problems, nor the midnight vigils and visits, which can be very emotionally draining. At the lay level, those two positions are probably as tough as it gets. On the whole, in my opinion, women work much harder and more diligently at all other levels. They are the quiet achievers, and too often the unrecognised quiet achievers.

[_harmony]

Until you veil your face, bow your head, and say "yes", you have no idea what it's like to be an LDS woman, Nehor. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

Until you've held the Priesthood and experienced it's demands you have no idea what it's like to be an LDS man so shut up until you do.

See how lame that argument is. Until there's a man speaking in the Vagina Monologues I refuse to listen to them as they're sexist.

Veil your face, Nehor. It is a manmade symbol of your unworthiness to stand on your own. Until you're required to do that, you have nothing to say, because nothing you say can justify that kind of blanket condemnation.

[_beastie]

Nehor -

I want to be clear on your position before replying. Is it your position that men do more work in the church than women do?

by the way, the OP used the word "cool" to describe priesthood activities. Since, in my experience, women work as hard in the church as men do, the "cool" thing she was probably referring to were sacred ordinances - the one thing women cannot do in the church. I think it would be pretty cool to be able to bless your baby or baptize your child as a believer.

[_beastie]

The problem with that reply, as in the above, is that it seeks to pretend the uniquely rewarding aspects of it do not exist.

Well said.

[_truth dancer]

The true order of things as taught in the LDS temple:

Men follow Christ, women follow their husbands. (At least women covenant to "follow" and not "obey" as they did before the latest changes in the ceremony).

Until this is changed women will continually be considered subordinate and inferior.

The priesthood is not about how many hours a particular calling requires; it is about POWER, the very power of God.

~td~

[_Daniel Peterson]

And finally, on a personal note, it's humorous to me that DCP's description of the arduous nature of his religious position is really close to what I do professionally. I mean, there's nothing on that list I haven't done as part of my job on a fairly routine basis. I think he's telling me my job sucks. :P

No, not at all.

But, obviously, this is all on top of my job, and done for free. It's a second job -- half to full time.

[_Morrissey]

DCP’s responded to this sentence in the OP

I have to believe that women don't get to do some of the cool things men can do just because we don't have the priesthood.

His response:

Speaking personally, I would happily allow women to do some of the cool things that I get to do because I hold the priesthood. Ten hours each week spent counseling with the guilt ridden and the emotionally troubled and the suicidal and the unemployed, for example. Early morning leadership meetings. Wednesday nights gone, from 6:30 until usually around midnight. Sundays simply gone. Several other evenings gone. Saturdays often gone (only three hours today, though!). Calls at work. Calls between 2 AM and 4 AM from people who've just overdosed on pain medications or cut themselves or are in jail.

It's an enviable lifestyle, no doubt, and the paycheck is handsome. But I'd be willing to let somebody else have a go at it who really, really craves it.

Actually, I think that there are any number of women who would be happy to serve in the way Dan describes. There certain is no shortage of men who aspire to be Bishop, for a variety of reasons (e.g., power, status, opportunity to serve, personal growth, etc.). Are women that much different in this regard? Can anyone think of any reason why a woman could not do anything that Dan describes?

I strongly suspect that despite all the travails he experiences as Bishop (and as he describes, I'll bet there are many), that in the end, Dan finds substantial fulfillment in it. I'd go further to guess that if he could go back and do it again, knowing everything he knows now (and aside from a felt obligation to serve due to 'called of God' and all of that), Dan would still do it. Am I guessing correctly Dan?

On what reasonable basis should women be denied the same opportunity to serve?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I sit here soberly pondering the sacrifices Dr. Peterson makes on a regular basis; I must admit feeling a certain amount of pity for him. To have to consort with youngsters offering up incessant pabulum must be its own unique cross to bear. He has my condolences.

That being said, I do believe women may be better suited for such pastoral rigors. Where a man like Dr. Peterson may feel like his time is better used on other projects, or drinking a caffeine free cola on a Hawaiin beach whilst posting on this forum, many a woman, I’m sure, would be more than happy to feel socially engaged with young people of all persuasions and varying degrees of emotional stability. What’s shocking is the Mormon power structure’s reluctance to give up that particular point of the priesthood and cede it over to the feminine. Women, in all likelihood, could do no worse than Mormon males in the role of ward counselor, Bishop, or what have you. As an added bonus, sexual abuse would most likely disappear if women were to be in positions of trust and confidence.

[_Some Schmo]

Women, in all likelihood, could do no worse than Mormon males in the role of ward counselor, Bishop, or what have you. As an added bonus, sexual abuse would most likely disappear if women were to be in positions of trust and confidence.

You know, they'd probably be a lot better.

For instance, I know I'd be way more willing to tell a woman I masturbate than a man... course, that might be because if a man asks, I'm thinking, "You already know the answer, dumbass. What man doesn't choke the chicken at least occasionally? Who are you trying to kid, asking such a stupid question?"