I knew that (I have some good friends that are Mormon, and one in particular that left the church to join the RLDS now known as Community of Christ, and who told me a lot about the LDS church.) If anything, that makes it seem even more “discriminatory” - any man can be a priest, but no woman can.
Thanks dangermom and JustThinkin’. I don’t know that much about the LDS and most of what I do know, I’ve learned on the SDMB. I was especially interested in what you, dangermom, had to say in general and read everything you wrote. I was just especially interested in specific conversations you might have had or been a part of where a woman said "Dang, I’d like to be a priest (under the male-only structure I now understand from JustThinkin’)and how you (or someone else), who doesn’t believe it’s necessary, responded.
Thanks again for your response. I was just curious.
I think that race is different from sex. As JustThinkin said, the priesthood is part of every worthy Mormon guy’s life. I’m not sure exactly how it worked before '78, but there are a lot of callings that a man can’t hold unless he’s got the priesthood. Most importantly, black people were not allowed to do temple ordinances, which are priesthood functions. They couldn’t receive endowments or get sealed. This was true for black women too. Now, it’s important to note that such a restriction never meant that black people were forever doomed never to enter the Celestial Kingdom in heaven; but they would have to wait. And that’s a pretty big deal. I also don’t know if black men were allowed to go on missions (since you’re supposed to be an elder), or what. But they couldn’t hold leadership positions; there were no black bishops, for example, as there are now.
The priesthood has been restricted throughout history to certain groups; from an LDS perspective, limiting the priesthood to Levites was a bit similar, and Gentiles weren’t allowed to even join the Primitive Church until Peter received a revelation. So I don’t know what that means or anything, but being able to hold the priesthood isn’t always a question of simple worthiness, and it hasn’t always been available to everyone, and that doesn’t spell eternal disaster. Who knows why, though.
My not holding the priesthood doesn’t have the same problems. Though obviously I can’t be an apostle, either.
Unfit? It’s not about being unfit at all. There’s nothing wrong with women that makes them unworthy (nor was there anything wrong with black people, although some did try to define it that way, thinking that there must be some reason). I said above that women and men are equal, but have different things to do. Like a lock and key; which part is more important? Does the setup work without one of them? Is the key less worthy because it’s not holding the door closed?
Interesting question. I do, of course, frequently pray for the welfare of friends. But the leadership asking for something for the entire Church and a friend making the same request are two different things; it’s a question of stewardship. I’d feel uncomfortable with such a request; I’d be inclined to change the wording.
(BTW, Arnold, a small question: it’s my understanding that not putting someone’s name in bold is considered to be a sign of disrespect on this board. Is there some reason that you don’t put my name in bold, or do you just not do that? Just asking for clarification.)
I’m tempted to say “I only put men’s names in bold” (that’s a joke!) but the truth of the matter is I never put usernames in bold. I never heard that it was a sign of disrespect.
I understand from your post that leadership positions in the LDS church are reserved for men, but men and women are considered equal. So what are the things in the LDS church that women are allowed to do, but are forbidden to men?
Belay my last.
[smartass]Have babies.[/smartass]
Your question really cuts to the point, I think. IMO, that belief in “equal but different roles” is a social construct and doesn’t reflect real life. But then, I’ve been out of the church for 20-some-odd years, so what do I know. I suppose it’s like all faith – if it’s true for you, then it’s true.
FWIW - There are leadership positions specific to women, for example Relief Society (women’s org within the church) and Primary presidencies. As far as I know, men aren’t forbidden to hold those positions, but they never do.
As opposed to the LDS church itself?
I don’t have a dog in this debate, mind you. I’m just saying that it’s fallacious to dismiss a source on the grounds that it’s biased. Using that logic, one cannot accept any defense that the LDS church (or any organization) offers on its behalf – after all, they’re presumably not objective when it comes to their own beliefs!
That’s why I said I wanted to bring a little balance in by linking to the LDS sources. If you’re going to have an anti, you ought to have a pro as well.
CARM and the Tanners earn money by producing anti-LDS literature, most of it hilariously inaccurate. Someone with a financial interest in making the LDS Church look as bad as possible isn’t my idea of a good source. I don’t think folks who paint quarters red and call the Pope the anti-Christ are good sources either.
I don’t mind people who disagree, or scholars who make careful comparisons, but people who only want to convince me that someone is Satan isn’t worth listening to IMO.
I don’t have time to write more at present but will be back after I get things going around here.
I’m back! I started this hours ago but haven’t been able to stay at it. We’ve had a difficult day here at the danger-household, so I think I’ll have to make it short.
Yep, that does indeed cut to the point. People argue about this a lot, actually, and it’s probably the thing I find hardest to articulate (said that above). The short answer is “motherhood” but that doesn’t necessarily help a lot. We have some rather different ideas about motherhood, I suppose. I used to think it was all angel-in-the-house nonsense but I changed my mind.
There’s a sort of folk meme these days that women are naturally more spiritual than men, and that they kind of need the priesthood to give them something to live up to and on a par with women, who are already inclined to get going and do everything. I don’t know how much I agree with that. A lot of people dislike it extremely, as inverse sexism and insulting to everyone. OTOH, I’ve seen plenty of cases where it was pretty true. Especially in countries where men aren’t generally expected to do much besides drink and their wives end up doing everything, it does give them a standard to live by–but it happens all the time in the US too. So maybe it’s all a cultural construct that women are more likely to be interested in religion, maybe churches are more “feminine” and welcoming to women–even in patriarchical churches that people consider oppressive and sexist to women, like mine?
I dunno. Still thinking it all through, I guess. I’ll let you know my concrete thoughts on this subject when I’m 80 and have made up my mind. 
Least helpful post ever!
I’m not sure I understand the “motherhood” answer. Obviously men cannot get pregnant (and women can’t impregnate someone else) - so church rules don’t really apply here. A church rule saying “only women should be allowed to give birth” or “only men should be allowed to impregnate a women” would be pointless. By “motherhood”, do you mean raising children? The mormon church’s doctrine says that it’s forbidden for a single man (e.g. a widower) to raise children on his own?
Your second paragraph about spirituality seems to be saying that the church doctrine might be based on the fact that only men are allowed to be priests because, by nature, they are less spiritual than women, so they need the priesthood to develop their spirituality, whereas women come by it naturally. Like you, I’m not so sure I agree with that, but OK. Then aren’t there things that don’t come naturally to women, that the church should be having them do, and telling men “you are not allowed to hold this position because it comes to you naturally so you don’t need to practice it?”
Thanks again for giving us the believer’s point of view.
I want to second this because you’re not only informative, you’re sincere. I think the spirituality shines from you, and although we believe different details about this or that, we share the essence of faith. Question: would the “womanhood” issue have anything to do with nurturing? It has been my experience that women, especially mothers (with the obvious nutjob exceptions), are far superior at nurturing than men.
I think it’s a pretty good analogy; the key is unfit for holding a door closed. A lock is unfit for opening another lock. Both are needed in order to actually lock a door, but they both have different roles to play in that. I suppose a rephrased question might be, what is it about women which means that while they are able be involved in the church generally, they are not for the particular roles of priesthood?
No, there are single dads in Mormondom. By “motherhood” we mean a lot of things. Bearing children is only a part of that, but we do see it as a pretty amazing gift. We can abuse that gift, but we can also take part in creating and nurturing another person. (No, that doesn’t mean that women suffering infertility are cursed.) Part of is the nurturing and just the overall stuff that goes along with teaching and raising other people. As far as Mormons are concerned, there is nothing more important than the work you do in your family. There is a famous saying, “No success can compensate for failure in the home.” If you’re neglecting your own family in order to go out and do amazing things, you have not succeeded. If you can do both, that’s great, but there’s no question which one is more important.
Well, I said it was a folk meme, not doctrine. There’s no scripture that says that men need some help and women don’t.
We are all asked, all the time, to do new and difficult things. In the MPSIMS thread on President Hinckley’s death, there was some explanation of how the Church’s structure works. We all get callings–jobs in the local congregation, and those jobs change every few years. I’ve taught teenage girls and small children, run a stake library and women’s classes. Part of the deal is that you will get jobs you don’t know how to do and aren’t any good at, and you will learn how–which is frequently rather terrifying, let me tell you! (Oh, and then there’s the practice in public speaking, when you’re expected to stand up in church and deliver a talk on a doctrinal subject. We don’t have pastors who give sermons.) We’re kind of a DIY church.
Men may have the priesthood, and that is for service. It’s not for personal power–you can’t bless yourself or baptize yourself. It’s for other people. (The scriptures say that when a man starts looking for power, his priesthood goes.*) Women also work for other people all the time, in myriad ways. My personal opinion is that it’s set up so that we have to depend on one another and work together to get things done. But I don’t know how to put it any better than that; it’s very difficult for me to explain. Sorry.
*“That [priesthood] may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” Doctrine and Covenants 121:37