I've been debating for a while as to whether or not I want to write about what I'm going to say today. Those who know me well know that I avoid confrontation like the plague. So, it is with caution and great care that I address the subject of a group of women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are protesting to receive the priesthood. With headlines and news reports popping up about the "inequality" among men and women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I feel like I have a duty to speak up! As a female member of the Church, I must stand up and say that I've been a member my entire life and I have never felt belittled or undervalued because I, as a woman, could not receive the priesthood.
If we take things back to the very beginning of this earth, we can see the critical and pivotal role that women have always played in the Lord's plan. When God created Adam, He knew that Adam needed a "help meet," as He puts it in the scriptures. And so, He created Eve. The role that Eve played in God's plan is magnificent, and in my opinion, often under-appreciated.
Eve knew that unless they partook of the forbidden fruit, there was no way that they could keep the commandment that God had given them to multiply and replenish the earth. Eve had the courage to partake of the fruit, in spite of God's command not to do so, for the sake of the greater good. This courageous act was only one part of the marvelous role that Eve played in the Lord's plan of salvation. Heavenly Father's spirit children finally had a gateway into this life so that they could receive a body and learn what they needed to so they could return to God's presence and become like Him.
Thus, Eve started out on another grand task that Heavenly Father had given her: to provide physical bodies for His children and then to nurture and teach them. According to the accounts we have in the Bible, Adam received the priesthood and Eve did not. But do you think that Eve felt upset or undervalued? This is just my personal opinion, but I cannot imagine that she would! For she had her own great responsibilities and roles before her, and that was the focus of her time and effort.
The definition of equality has been morphed, making people feel like everything has to be exactly the same for every single person in order for equality to exist. I'll be blunt - I think this is completely wrong. I am a firm believer that there is such a thing as separate yet equal responsibilities. As women, we may not hold the priesthood, but the brethren have made it clear that we are on equal footing with our husbands as leaders in our homes.
The responsibility to give birth to, raise, love, teach, and nurture children is no small task. Women do not hold the priesthood, but they are still carrying out the grand part of God's plan that started with Eve and has continued with every generation of women who have lived on this earth.
Additionally, as women, we are given just as many opportunities to serve in the Church as the men are. We cannot serve in the offices that require us to hold the priesthood keys, such as Bishop or Stake President. But men cannot serve in the Relief Society, or in Primary or Young Women's presidencies. Is this another instance of inequality? No. Rather, it is an appropriate division and delegation of responsibility.
I am grateful to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a world where respect for a woman and her roles is on a slippery slope, I feel proud to be a part of an organization that praises and appreciates the importance of womanhood and motherhood. I know that God's plan values all of His children equally - men and women alike. As we work together and fulfill our separate but equal responsibilities, we can help bring to pass God's plan: "...to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39)
For those interested, this is a link to a talk given by Dallin H. Oaks in the April General Conference. I thought it addressed the issue perfectly. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng#watch=video
Lindsay, I occasionally read your blog because It's fun to keep up on my cousins. You have a darling little girl. Even though I disagree with much of what you have said here, I thought I'd start this comment by saying that I also do not feel the need for an official priesthood. I do however know many women who want the priesthood extended. They are women very devoted to Mormonism and I respect them deeply. They are very thoughtful women who have looked into the history of our LDS church and Christianity and have found room there for further expansion of the priesthood. I will say that there is historical precedence for an ever expanding priesthood--meaning the priesthood door of inclusion has always swung open and doesn't have a lasting history of closing. As time passes, more and more people are included in the official structure of the priesthood so I see that it is a possibility that someday women will also be included. Anyway, I do want to commend you on the spirit of your post. You simply stated your opinion and reasons for your opinion without belittling the women involved in the OW movement. It is easier to hear when one doesn't criticize. I appreciate that. I also encourage you, if ever given the opportunity, to respectfully engage with a women on the other side of the issue. You might be surprised and find occasion to build bridges of love and understanding between people of differing opinions. As Christ taught in Mathew 22:37-40 the way to discern truth of every law and prophet is to examine the first two EQUAL Commandments of Love. To love God is to love all his Children. I'm thankful that your opinion seems unattached to a spirit of judgement and condemnation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize how many grammatical errors I had in my post and it was just too embarrassing to let slide. I was thinking of this subject during general conference and had some thoughts about it. By a woman's nature, she is unified with God in a common purpose of service. Even if we speak strictly scientifically, a woman's body is made to sacrifice for the sake of another (her child), and her nature (scientifically determined by hormones and instinct, though we know that that is by divine design) is made to serve (for the better of her child). A man does not naturally have this unity with God, we are not made to serve. Though men are not the sole holders of the priesthood (as we learn in the temple about the New and Everlasting Covenant), the added responsibilities we are given in the priesthood help to bring us to an equal level with woman and unify us in purpose with God. A woman can choose to reject her natural purpose (which I would say are the same as responsibilities since God made her a certain way for a reason), just as a man can choose to reject his responsibilities. I enjoyed your post, thanks!
ReplyDeletePS-please don't look for grammatical errors in this one, it's the best I can do, ha!