I have often pondered how it's going to work when women get the priesthood.
For example, how would a bishopric operate? What about a man calling another man's wife to be first counselor? That seems problematic.
I think the Relief Society presidency will someday be elevated to the stand, and they will be the female priesthood leaders of the ward. I think women will confess to women, and men will confess to men. Would discipline situations be enforced more arbitrarily because of this? I think it's hardly possible to be more arbitrary than things already are.
I still can't figure out how a bishop or bishop-ette would handle couples counseling. Could a couple choose a favorite priesthood leader (male or female) for counseling? Maybe they would just refer couples to professional counseling more often. I'm all for that.
I shared my thoughts with a Mormon friend of mine the other day. He replied:
"Don't tell me women don't have the priesthood already!!! They perform ordinances in the temple!"
Hmmmmm.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
Blog Archive
Favorite Blogs
10 comments:
I envision the co-bishop. Husband and wife function together as bishop, and ward members choose which one to talk to.
Then who's going to take care of the kids when they're both busy?
I guess they could have non-overlapping schedules. Or they could choose empty nesters.
I have often pondered how it's going to work when women get the priesthood.
Do you really think it's a given that women will get the priesthood?
Sometimes I think it’s just a matter of time and other times I think it will never happen. If it does happen, I see occurring sort like the way blacks got the priesthood. The Church will be so far behind the curve in terms of what is culturally acceptable that it will either have to act or suffer a great deal of scorn. It will resist until it is too painful and then it will make the change.
Heck yeah women are going to get the priesthood--in 200 years!
But seriously, I think it'll happen within the next 30 years.
D&C 132 will be removed or amended first.
On women and the priesthood - Do you think it will happen within 30 years because that's how long the Church can hold out or do you think that's when God will tell the brethren to make the change? Or both?
On section 132 - that seems like an even more unlikely event to me. I think the Church can effectively ignore 132 it so chooses, but to remove it - I just can imagine it.
You must see some malleability in the Church that I don't
I don't really differentiate between the Church holding out and God telling the brethren to make a change. I just think it's inevitable.
President Kimball was a very close relative of mine, and I have never had the impression that his revelation on blacks was something magical from heaven. It was just long overdue change of a policy that had its roots in racism. I don't think it's a coincidence that Delbert Stapley was near death when the revelation finally went forward. (See Stapley letter to George Romney for a glimpse into a racist apostle's mind. That man literally believed that God would strike down any man who supported civil rights even outside the Church.)
As far as D&C 132...here are my thoughts: God destroying Emma if she wouldn't allow Joseph to have as many virgins as God gave him? I guarantee that will not survive 5 more years in our scriptures. Maybe not even 6 months, in light of the FLDS publicity.
Keep in mind, the D&C contained a denial of polygamy for years (even when it was being practiced in secret). The D&C was then amended with removal of the denial of polygamy. If they can amend it to add polygamy, why not amend it to remove polygamy?
Why do you think it is long overdue? Is polygamy inherently wrong irrespective of time and place? I am willing to accept that a change may come. But for practical and doctrinal reasons (and inertia too) I think it will not be anytime soon. Do think it was wrong when Joseph Smith practiced polygamy? Or is just wrong now?
I do think it was wrong that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. I also think it was wrong that he married a 14 y.o. girl, which was way too young even in the 19th century.
I'm not sure whether polygamy is always wrong, but I do think it is usually wrong. It does seem to arise naturally in many different cultures across the world. I can't see how it could be in the interests of a woman to be in a polygamous relationship.
My great-grandparents were polygamists. My grandma (who grew up in a polygamous household) thought it was awful. Many women didn't want to be in polygamous marriages, but they thought they needed to live polygamy in order to receive exaltation. There is no doubt that polygamy was often abusive in 19th century Mormonism. That's why I think the Church should apologize.
Do you think that Joseph's practice of polygamy shows he was a fallen prophet or does it just mean he was human and he made a mistake or is it something else?
I say human and he made a mistake.
Post a Comment