Thanks for this! I'm going to bookmark it and share as needed. ;)
Here's what I remember getting from that Oaks talk.
1. The priesthood is a power accessible by all
2. The utilization of it in an official way is not accessible by women.
So it helped me learn that I can act with the priesthood all on my own. I don't need to find a man to give an official blessing, I can say my own prayer and even lay on my hands if I wish because. Maybe this is heretical but I do not care. I don't believe an official "priesthood blessing" by a male makes it more potent of a prayer than if it came from me. That is empowering and an important differentiation to make, I think, in one's personal spiritual development, separate from the organization.
But it is little consolation when it comes to carrying out church functions and serving in leadership positions and making decisions. So the Church itself falls short in backing up Oaks' claim. More needs to be done.
Let's keep doing research and get a wider pool-- LGBTQ+ persons, single people, non-white people, childless people, neurologically diverse people, and get first person POVs of what their church experience is like.
I will be honest, when I saw the title I was wondering where this article was going but I am glad I listened as I felt like it opened my eyes to help me see where people are coming from. I felt like it was an exploratory article, not judgmental or critical. I am grateful for the insights that I gained by hearing it, I am thinking about men’s and women’s roles in a new way today:)
Thank you for speaking out about this important topic. I am a faithful, devout primary president who cares deeply about this topic. I also remember my feelings from that talk by President Oaks. The pain I felt was due in part to the feeling that there was some sort of doublespeak going on, where I can “have” the power but can’t “hold” it- could benefit from it, but only access it through men (which clarified nothing because that’s what we’ve already been told our whole lives.)
Another aspect that caused me pain was that it seemed to imply that the ball was actually in my court the whole time, and some lack of intelligence or spirituality on my part made me completely miss it. As if to say, “you had the power the whole time while you’ve held callings that were under priesthood authority (held by the men above you). What other power would it be (you silly female)?” I began to wonder if it was all a misunderstanding and the fault was mine the whole time.
The talk was a nice thought, and I’m sure well-intentioned. But I don’t think there’s any way to talk your way out of or around this one. Women are not stupid. We know the reality we live, and we can taste the humble pills we subsist upon daily as we strive faithfully in this church.
Similarly to how I tried to find what I was missing in that talk, I have been trying to find what I’m missing from Emily Belle Freeman’s recent conference talk. Since it came across as a revolutionary call to women, I’m not giving up on finding the deeper meaning. However so far the only call to women I’ve gotten from it is that 1. Emma Smith had it better than us in the respect she got as she was called to “exhort the church”. (Of course, this could’ve just meant she was the gospel doctrine teacher at that early stage.) And 2. We should focus all our energy on consoling our husbands with soothing words in the spirit of meekness. So…not exactly earth shattering to me so far. But I’m still searching it, though I feel I’m just grasping at straws.
The truth is, we literally need men like you to stand up for us, because we have zero influence in the rooms where real decisions happen. I just learned recently that the women in the church with the highest callings no longer meet with the prophet or first presidency regularly, and that this is a recent change. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/04/30/why-lds-churchs-top-womens-leaders/.
So thank you for putting your comfort, apathy, and self interest aside to help fully half of the members of the church. On second thought, since patriarchy doesn’t really serve men and half of the church’s human resources have been bound and silenced, you are helping all of the church. After all, the Lord can’t just set His heavenly culture into our laps. We have to go to Him and ask if this is right. And by “we,” I mean men. Because if men aren’t asking, and they are the only ones who could change anything, we will all continue to suffer.
There is no way this was written by a man. As a Catholic convert to the Church, this makes me want to return to Catholicism. The best thing that could happen to Utah is more Mexican immigration to perhaps bring forth people that understand masculinity.
There is no such thing as the "leadership session" of stake conference.
There are exactly two sessions, a general session, and a Saturday evening session for all stake members 18 and older (which means no children, no youth, and no nonmembers, something else a lot of people get wrong).
In addition, a stake priesthood leadership meeting is held, and those who attend are listed in section 29.3.3 of the Handbook.
In this case, the stake president appears to have used his discretion to invite ward Sunday School presidencies and counselors to the stake Sunday School president (who is a member of the high council and invited anyway), but he is following the instructions of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as explained in section 29.3.1 of the Handbook.
It's the use of the term "leadership session" that is wrong. Otherwise, all of this is correct.
(Yes, when there is a visiting authority, the stake priesthood leadership meeting might be replaced by something else, but that does not appear to be the case here.)
Christian to Christian, carrying your cross is the hardest difficulty and it requires no persuasive power. The yoke is easy but the way is narrow. We're not called to pay attention to anything else and I'm entirely unimpressed by the difficulty of anything except being a saint, whether it's easy or not. You can't fix anything except by becoming a saint. We're called to be reconciled to God for our transgressions to God - we're not called to be reconciled to sex, orientation or whichever groups for our supposed transgressions to them.
The church is for reconciliation to God through Christ as it is the body of Christ. If you try to reinterpret the church as a transgressor of sexes or orientations etc then you're introducing idols into the church. Certainly what you're saying has explanatory power. Your perspective has value but how much value does it have in a Christian context? If you showed this while taking out Christian institutional references will anyone become saved? Do you think the church should be interpreted as a "patriarchy" (where men rule the church because of some video game analogy where they "level up" quicker)? Converse of that, what if the church became matriarchal? Will anyone become saved by that? Should the church become matriarchal, "egalitarian"?
Gal 3:28, we already have a way beyond disparate social relations. We can't just throw it out for some secular whimsical interpretation about sex relations that most ppl do not follow. Jesus is the only one way, truth and life. If one disagrees with that, not saying you do, then said one is not interpreting from a Christian perspective but from an idol.
Hi Shawn. I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not clear on how you practically apply it. When you say "we already have a way beyond disparate social relations" I assume you are referencing the verse you listed and that we are all one in Christ, referring to Paul's letter to the Galatians. But Christ's gospel is not theoretical. It is practical and I don't understand what you mean from a practical application standpoint. So considering that I don't know you at all, how would you describe to me, a stranger how you practically apply what you just said to day to day life and people around you? And how do you apply that in your worship and service to others? I just want to understand more clearly. I'm genuinely not looking for an argument. Thanks!
I want to give a better answer than a broad one but sanctification is transformative by aligning ourselves with God's will. When we forgive people, which is sorta the first step, or being able to get to forgiveness, we place situations in our terms/God's terms. Once it's placed in God's terms we're able to minister to ppl in terms that helps lift the offender up. Lifting the offender up, and forgiving them, requires us to look past our idols we hold.
I wrote articles on my substack that covers these in full but they don't add any more than the Bible. If that's too broad give me a point to settle in on. I write very practically about theology even where it's theoretical it's dealing with contemporary issues.
You seem to have it all figured out. That must be so nice. Or maybe it’s not, I guess I don’t know, maybe that’s the actual hard setting. You don’t sound like part of the problem at all.
Can we make this required reading for all male leadership?
Thanks for this! I'm going to bookmark it and share as needed. ;)
Here's what I remember getting from that Oaks talk.
1. The priesthood is a power accessible by all
2. The utilization of it in an official way is not accessible by women.
So it helped me learn that I can act with the priesthood all on my own. I don't need to find a man to give an official blessing, I can say my own prayer and even lay on my hands if I wish because. Maybe this is heretical but I do not care. I don't believe an official "priesthood blessing" by a male makes it more potent of a prayer than if it came from me. That is empowering and an important differentiation to make, I think, in one's personal spiritual development, separate from the organization.
But it is little consolation when it comes to carrying out church functions and serving in leadership positions and making decisions. So the Church itself falls short in backing up Oaks' claim. More needs to be done.
Sherri Dew once said that when men and women are both at the table, the organization functions better. See the interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF18ifyNdQ4
Here's an interview of Neylan McBaine and Bethany Brady Spalding titled, "What's the Future of Women at Church?" that is worth listening to.
https://faithmatters.org/whats-the-future-of-women-at-church-a-conversation-with-neylan-mcbaine-and-bethany-brady-spalding/
Let's keep doing research and get a wider pool-- LGBTQ+ persons, single people, non-white people, childless people, neurologically diverse people, and get first person POVs of what their church experience is like.
Thx again.
I will be honest, when I saw the title I was wondering where this article was going but I am glad I listened as I felt like it opened my eyes to help me see where people are coming from. I felt like it was an exploratory article, not judgmental or critical. I am grateful for the insights that I gained by hearing it, I am thinking about men’s and women’s roles in a new way today:)
I was hoping you were working on writing something and this didn’t disappoint! I know it wasn’t written for me (I’m a woman), but thank you! 🙏🏻 👏🏻
Thank you for this!
Thank you for speaking out about this important topic. I am a faithful, devout primary president who cares deeply about this topic. I also remember my feelings from that talk by President Oaks. The pain I felt was due in part to the feeling that there was some sort of doublespeak going on, where I can “have” the power but can’t “hold” it- could benefit from it, but only access it through men (which clarified nothing because that’s what we’ve already been told our whole lives.)
Another aspect that caused me pain was that it seemed to imply that the ball was actually in my court the whole time, and some lack of intelligence or spirituality on my part made me completely miss it. As if to say, “you had the power the whole time while you’ve held callings that were under priesthood authority (held by the men above you). What other power would it be (you silly female)?” I began to wonder if it was all a misunderstanding and the fault was mine the whole time.
The talk was a nice thought, and I’m sure well-intentioned. But I don’t think there’s any way to talk your way out of or around this one. Women are not stupid. We know the reality we live, and we can taste the humble pills we subsist upon daily as we strive faithfully in this church.
Similarly to how I tried to find what I was missing in that talk, I have been trying to find what I’m missing from Emily Belle Freeman’s recent conference talk. Since it came across as a revolutionary call to women, I’m not giving up on finding the deeper meaning. However so far the only call to women I’ve gotten from it is that 1. Emma Smith had it better than us in the respect she got as she was called to “exhort the church”. (Of course, this could’ve just meant she was the gospel doctrine teacher at that early stage.) And 2. We should focus all our energy on consoling our husbands with soothing words in the spirit of meekness. So…not exactly earth shattering to me so far. But I’m still searching it, though I feel I’m just grasping at straws.
The truth is, we literally need men like you to stand up for us, because we have zero influence in the rooms where real decisions happen. I just learned recently that the women in the church with the highest callings no longer meet with the prophet or first presidency regularly, and that this is a recent change. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/04/30/why-lds-churchs-top-womens-leaders/.
So thank you for putting your comfort, apathy, and self interest aside to help fully half of the members of the church. On second thought, since patriarchy doesn’t really serve men and half of the church’s human resources have been bound and silenced, you are helping all of the church. After all, the Lord can’t just set His heavenly culture into our laps. We have to go to Him and ask if this is right. And by “we,” I mean men. Because if men aren’t asking, and they are the only ones who could change anything, we will all continue to suffer.
There is no way this was written by a man. As a Catholic convert to the Church, this makes me want to return to Catholicism. The best thing that could happen to Utah is more Mexican immigration to perhaps bring forth people that understand masculinity.
There is no such thing as the "leadership session" of stake conference.
There are exactly two sessions, a general session, and a Saturday evening session for all stake members 18 and older (which means no children, no youth, and no nonmembers, something else a lot of people get wrong).
In addition, a stake priesthood leadership meeting is held, and those who attend are listed in section 29.3.3 of the Handbook.
In this case, the stake president appears to have used his discretion to invite ward Sunday School presidencies and counselors to the stake Sunday School president (who is a member of the high council and invited anyway), but he is following the instructions of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as explained in section 29.3.1 of the Handbook.
It's the use of the term "leadership session" that is wrong. Otherwise, all of this is correct.
(Yes, when there is a visiting authority, the stake priesthood leadership meeting might be replaced by something else, but that does not appear to be the case here.)
Christian to Christian, carrying your cross is the hardest difficulty and it requires no persuasive power. The yoke is easy but the way is narrow. We're not called to pay attention to anything else and I'm entirely unimpressed by the difficulty of anything except being a saint, whether it's easy or not. You can't fix anything except by becoming a saint. We're called to be reconciled to God for our transgressions to God - we're not called to be reconciled to sex, orientation or whichever groups for our supposed transgressions to them.
The church is for reconciliation to God through Christ as it is the body of Christ. If you try to reinterpret the church as a transgressor of sexes or orientations etc then you're introducing idols into the church. Certainly what you're saying has explanatory power. Your perspective has value but how much value does it have in a Christian context? If you showed this while taking out Christian institutional references will anyone become saved? Do you think the church should be interpreted as a "patriarchy" (where men rule the church because of some video game analogy where they "level up" quicker)? Converse of that, what if the church became matriarchal? Will anyone become saved by that? Should the church become matriarchal, "egalitarian"?
Gal 3:28, we already have a way beyond disparate social relations. We can't just throw it out for some secular whimsical interpretation about sex relations that most ppl do not follow. Jesus is the only one way, truth and life. If one disagrees with that, not saying you do, then said one is not interpreting from a Christian perspective but from an idol.
Hi Shawn. I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not clear on how you practically apply it. When you say "we already have a way beyond disparate social relations" I assume you are referencing the verse you listed and that we are all one in Christ, referring to Paul's letter to the Galatians. But Christ's gospel is not theoretical. It is practical and I don't understand what you mean from a practical application standpoint. So considering that I don't know you at all, how would you describe to me, a stranger how you practically apply what you just said to day to day life and people around you? And how do you apply that in your worship and service to others? I just want to understand more clearly. I'm genuinely not looking for an argument. Thanks!
I want to give a better answer than a broad one but sanctification is transformative by aligning ourselves with God's will. When we forgive people, which is sorta the first step, or being able to get to forgiveness, we place situations in our terms/God's terms. Once it's placed in God's terms we're able to minister to ppl in terms that helps lift the offender up. Lifting the offender up, and forgiving them, requires us to look past our idols we hold.
I wrote articles on my substack that covers these in full but they don't add any more than the Bible. If that's too broad give me a point to settle in on. I write very practically about theology even where it's theoretical it's dealing with contemporary issues.
You seem to have it all figured out. That must be so nice. Or maybe it’s not, I guess I don’t know, maybe that’s the actual hard setting. You don’t sound like part of the problem at all.
Well sorry you feel this way or I'm happy for you. Thanks for your thoughts. Read the Bible.