1. Women are more likely to notice gender issues that affect women, but that doesn’t automatically make every woman (or even the majority of women) right on gender issues. Gender issues, like all issues, depend on logic and ethics. One’s gender does not automatically make one more logical or more ethical on gender issues.
2. Would these women want the priesthood if they had grown up in a world where women already had it? My guess would be yes. Their opinion may be greatly influenced by the world they grew up in.
3. I’d also say to these women the same thing I say to anti-gay marriage crusaders: If you don’t want one, don’t get one. If a woman doesn’t want the priesthood, she shouldn’t be required to have it, but she also shouldn’t stop other women from having it if they want.]]>
Matt Bowman’s book sheds some light on women giving blessings. Guys, read this book, I love it. What I’m gleaning (sorry, Matt, if I got you all wrong) is that much of our practices simply develop according to the mind-set of certain leaders, ie progressives, dogmatics, etc.—-rather than actual revelation (which is my total conclusion about race and the church).
As I get older, I more and more feel uncomfortable when we are mean to each other on the blog. gernacle :). I think because we are mostly strong willed people who (in my case, anyway) are sort of “outside” in our wards, we’re more sensitive to disagreement. And because we’re smart (in my case, anyway), and good with words, we eviscerate each other. Rob Taber came to our blog and taught me a lot about disagreeing agreeably. Well, that’s off the subject.
CJ, I am infamous in my stake (perhaps the world) for griping, griping again, and again about the stupidity of whoever took a general authority’s request that a priesthood holder give the opening prayer in a regional meeting and ran with it. The result is that wards all over the church adopted an “it’s in the handbook” policy of only allowing men to open the meetings.
And you know, if it were the opposite, I’d bellyache, too. Because it’s a dumb policy.
I’m confusing myself now. Well, my work here is done.]]>
Not as a gotcha – just really really interested in your reaction.]]>
And I don’t think that in the church, the tail wags the dog. I am not going to stand up on a tower and proclaim that our prophets need to take up that issue.
If you feel that you have the necessary credentials to counsel the prophets, by all means take you case to them.
Thanks for clarifying your comments, although they do not anywhere come close to accurately diagnosing my mindset nor do they offer an accurate appraisal of my comments.
But I will leave it there because I have drifted far off the op of the blog and this thread.
The facts I’m referring to are those that we have been discussing. The facts that I have quoted from the experiences of the prophets. In the face of that you still want to say that the prophet is the dog and the entire church is the tail? Is that really what you are trying to say?
People who discuss their beliefs and their needs and desires for the church they love are not “counselling the prophet” Glenn, and they don’t need credentials to do that. They just need the light of Christ. People speaking from their heart are never a threat to the church, nor to anyone of good conscience anywhere.
You want to believe that God will take care of everything and that all we need to do is sit down and shut up and go along for the ride. History shows, however, that changes don’t happen unless we ask for them. They may not happen even then, but at least we can say we tried. There’s no harm in trying for something that might be better.]]>