Perception and women in the gospel of Jesus Christ

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 13, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    @Bill in Nebraska

    I have some doctrinal concerns with some of what you said. If every woman holds the priesthood equally with her husband, what of those not married? There are plenty of single sisters. I held the Melchizedek Priesthood independant of being married or not. If she equally holds the Priesthood with me, can she join me in ordaining my son a deacon? Can she baptize my daugter?

    Wives may be equally share in the BLESSINGS with their husbands in holding the Priesthood, but they do not hold the Priesthood. We teach that the authority of the Priesthoid is given through an ordinance by the Laying on of Hands, and women do not go through that ordinance.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    July 12, 2012 10:24 p.m.

    Lagomorph: Actually the spiritual and othe has very real relevance. IF you care to look at the Priesthood of God as it was held in the Old Testament and the New Testament you will find not one woman who ever held the Priesthood. There may have been prophetess be they didn't hold the Priesthood. Equality is not always man's law only. The Mechizedek Priesthood's true name, "the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God". It was shortened to Mechizedek Priesthood out of reverence to Jesus Christ and called after a very righteous holder of the Priesthood.

    Every woman in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints holds the priesthood with their husband on an equal basis. Though everything in the LDS Church is done under the authority of the Priesthood as many have already stated. The talk in the last General Conference Julie Beck who was release during the Conference as General Relief Society President spells out how the priesthood blesses the lives of the women of the Relief Society. Maybe you should read that. Then you really see how the sisters actually feel about the priesthood.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2012 6:29 p.m.

    Utes Fan: "Church felt that the ERA was too vague..."

    How ambiguous is "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."? Maybe the ratification timeline was the confusing part.

    It seems pretty clear to me. As I said in my OP, "So much for considering women fully equal, at least in the eyes of the law." If you oppose the plain statement of the ERA, you are opposing the equality of women in the eyes of the [civil, secular] law. Spiritual equality or inequality allocated by sex has no relevance.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2012 1:32 p.m.

    Bill in Nebraska,

    "Further, Emma later in life mentioned that if anything could be changed it would be her, not Joseph. She knew Joseph did exactly as the Lord directed pertaining to polgamy though it didn't set with her."

    That's a great point that is neglected all too often. I would also like to add something to it. Just because Emma didn't like something HARDLY would say that Joseph Smith's perception of her didn't elevate her or her life as a human being. Emma's remarks about Joseph after he died prove the exact opposite. She loved Joseph, spoke MORE than highly of him, and knew he was God's prophet until the day she died.

    How often do we have perfect days where us and those we love interact without any disagreement or confrontation? I'd like to see such a planet, cause it aint on Earth. Sure, Emma didn't exactly say "Yay for polygamy", but Joseph's perception, treatment, and love for her is great and there is no reasonable doubt that can be cast on it. Such a criticism can only be accomplished by not knowing or ignoring the facts.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    July 11, 2012 12:25 p.m.

    WI Member: I'm not sure where you got your information pertaining to Eliza R Snow and Emma Smith. Fact is that Emma knew all about the prophesy of Polgamy and that Joseph was doing it. Fact is that she knew he had been married and sealed to Eliza Snow and that in the beginning welcomed her into her home. There is the story that later though that Emma knocked Eliza down the stairs of the home.

    Joseph didn't marry Eliza behind her back but with her blessing at first. That did change and thus Joseph to keep Emma from becoming frazzeled didn't inform her of some of the others.

    Further, Emma later in life mentioned that if anything could be changed it would be her, not Joseph. She knew Joseph did exactly as the Lord directed pertaining to polgamy though it didn't set with her. In her dying words she called out to Joseph and let him know she was coming. No doubt she is with him today.

    You words are misleading and contradictory to the facts.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 11, 2012 11:42 a.m.

    RE: The incorrect idea in Christian history that wives should be dependent began with the false premise ? that the Fall of Adam and Eve was a tragic mistake and that Eve was the primary culprit ?
    1 Timothy 2:11-15, Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith(in Jesus) and love and holiness with propriety.
    Paul speaks of the godly women finding fulfillment in her role as a wife and mother at home, and refers to godly women being saved spiritually through the most significant birth of all the incarnation of Christ(John 1:14). The gospel(good news).

  • WI_Member Appleton, WI
    July 11, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    I find it ironic that the author quotes Joseph Smith about husbands respecting and cleaving to their wives, and none other. The next paragraph is about Eliza R. Snow, plural wife of Joseph. Emma'a feelings were not respected when it came to polygamy. It must have been very difficult to learn that Joseph had married her best friend and Relief Society counselor, Eliza R. Snow, behind her back.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2012 11:12 p.m.

    "By the the 1970s, Utah killed the Equal Rights Amendment. So much for considering women fully equal, at least in the eyes of the law."

    The LDS Church had no such reasons for opposing the ERA. The Church felt that the ERA was too vague and that it might jeopardize the Church's position on the differences between men and women. Meaning, the Church was simply trying to protect its religious freedom, which is frequently at the root of whatever political issue the LDS Church has an opinion on. Please note that the Church's position on differences between the genders does not imply inequality, although critics often spin it to appear that way.

  • Canyontreker TAYLORSVILLE, UT
    July 10, 2012 1:42 p.m.

    Cowboy Dude "Woman do more in the LDS Priesthood which they have than many male ministers can do in other churches."

    I agree with you that in reality that LDS women are equal in the most important missions of the LDS church even with some privileges such as redeeming the dead, missionary work, and perfecting the Saints. It is mostly at the local level.

    However, the article is about perception. For those looking from the outside and for young women and young men in the Church, the perception is that the Church is led only by male General Authorities, Bishops, and Stake Presidents. There are still many traditions in the Church that emphasize this patriarchal leadership. On the other hand, some of those traditions are finally going away too.

  • hc1951 Bend, OR
    July 10, 2012 1:16 p.m.

    Good comments; Lagomorph: my personal reaction to the Equal Rights Amendment was I was "darned if a group of overpaid, overweight men (recall the gender make-up of government at the time) would tell ME what it meant to be a woman". I come from a long line of strong, independent-minded woman who I know struggled at times with societal restrictions, but who ultimately proved that strength, like virtue, cannot be legislated; it must be earned on an individual basis.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2012 12:58 p.m.

    Article: "Marriage was perceived as hierarchical with women inferior and subservient to men. If a woman earned a wage, it was legally her husband’s. Some physical violence against women was legal...."

    This is the "traditional marriage" that so many want to preserve?

    Razzle2: "...the LDS Church was considered liberal for that time"

    Pendulums swing and the rest of the country caught up. By the the 1970s, Utah killed the Equal Rights Amendment. So much for considering women fully equal, at least in the eyes of the law.

    The author's lede about the role of perception vs. reality makes the selection of the art to accompany the piece interesting. No one will ever really know, but the archeological and genetic evidence points against Eve being a blow-dried Breck Girl. Would the perception of Eve and the interpretation of her place in the faith be different (among Americans, anyway), if she were portrayed as African, say a !Kung or Maasai?

  • Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UT
    July 10, 2012 12:44 p.m.

    It is a "cop out" to say women must "hold" the Priesthood to be equal.

    Woman do more in the LDS Priesthood which they have than many male ministers can do in other churches.

    Not only do women give public prayers, testimonies, and discourses; they are "set-apart" by the "laying on of hands" to work under the direction of the Priesthood. With this Priesthood they have the authority for leadership in many church positions and even lead the male teachers in the Primary organization.

    In this century; Temple Presidents and Mission Presidents are usually called as couples only.

    But, most powerful is the fact that women of the LDS Church do not need to be even "set-apart" in the Priesthood to perform sacred priesthood ordinances in the LDS Temple to redeem those that have passed on.

  • Fern RL LAYTON, UT
    July 10, 2012 12:32 p.m.

    In the entire 64 years of my life so far, I have been taught to believe that women are not exactly "equal" to men, but superior to them. I was also taught the value of keeping this a secret from the men so they wouldn't feel bad, but lately it seems it isn't so much a secret anymore. I was taught that men need the priesthood where women do not, and that if women were given the priesthood, they would be unfairly burdened by it. I was taught that the Lord especially loves and favors women. See Jacob 2:7.

    It is true that in at least one instance in the Bible there is an indication that woman is equal to man: Genesis 2:18, which says: "...It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." To me, that is an archaic way of saying that woman is a helper, "meet" or equal to him and appropriate for him.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    July 10, 2012 12:32 p.m.

    Since the article is predominately about the 19th century & early 20th century, it should be noted that the LDS Church was considered liberal for that time. Women gave discourses, taught seminary, gave public prayers, and sat in leadership councils.

  • Mary S Lethbridge, Alberta
    July 10, 2012 10:50 a.m.

    So what if women don't suffer in childbearing? I really don't think that scripture is well understood or translated. To say that we have to suffer in birth just perpetuates the notion that women need to be 'punished'. It's work, hard work, but it doesn't mean we have to suffer and if we did, things such as visualisation, hypnobirthing wouldn't work. In some cultures, pain & childbirth are not even considered related. Women can and have given birth without any pain whatsoever. I don't believe Heavenly Father means it the way it was translated, but the long history of women being treated as less than men (and I am sorry, it sill happens and even in the church). Patting me on the head and telling me I am just naturally more spiritual and that's why I don't have the priesthood doesn't put me on an equal footing. I am not saying I want the priesthood. But platitudes don't create equality.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    July 10, 2012 8:05 a.m.

    To be the truth that women have equal status with men then women will need to receive the priesthood equal to men.