Here's a very interesting article on women and the Priesthood. It's from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29513427
This is, of course, about the Anglican Church Priesthood, and not the LDS Church. The Anglican Church is definitely more progressive than the LDS Church, but then, with its history and adherents, perhaps it can afford to be.
It's interesting to consider questions of "doctrine" and "culture". In the case of the Anglican Church, where they believe in a closed canon, the authority stems from the ability to trace a direct line of ordinations back to Peter (the Henry VIII thing can be best described as a minor correction that resulted in a schism). Authority also seems to stem from an interpretation of the scriptures that is at once closed (God has spoken, and His word is definitive and exhaustive) and inflexible.
Or is it?
Seeking to find solutions to modern problems through ancient texts can be difficult at best. Further, due to the way books were handled in the first century CE, there is always the potential for interpretation. Additionally, transcription and interpretation of texts seems to further cast shadows of doubt on what God really means. It can be a baffling exercise to try to parse out what the will of God is from a single reading, and each word takes on significance and import. This has resulted in the various and sundry schisms that have taken place over the centuries - some stemming from doctrinal concerns (the mode of baptism, for example), and others from cultural questions (is Rome the focus of Christian worship, or is it Byzantium? Or does it even matter?)
The LDS faith, on the other hand, is based in an open canon. It is unique among major Christian religions. Not only do we accept the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and other modern-day prophecy as scripture, we accept the will of God as given through a (always the singular) living prophet - also referred to as "President". In fact, we believe that the word of the living prophet speaks to us in a way that can supersede earlier revelation. An article of faith for LDS members surrounds the idea that God has, does, and will continue to reveal things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Examples of this include President Woodruff's Manifesto on the practice of polygamy, and President Kimball's official declaration on worthy male members of the Church being able to hold the Priesthood. This is significant, because it represents a departure in a cultural way from what was an accepted norm.
So, does this mean that God does not want women ordained to the Priesthood? For the moment, the answer appears to be yes. Why this is the case has not been fully expounded - whether this is a tenant of a doctrinal nature, or perhaps just a cultural thing. Either way, it doesn't appear to be changing any time soon.
What does this mean for women in the Church? For many (most?), it seems like not a big deal. For others, it is an incredibly important thing, because having a male-oriented/dominated organization makes them feel disenfranchised. While it is clear that God loves His children equally, the opportunities for leadership and service vary, and it is unclear why biological differences matter in this regard. The truth is, I just don't know.
There are many things about my faith that I've had to come to terms with, to make my peace with. Aberrations in the Church's history, character flaws of early (and present) church figures, and cultural practices that I find disturbing (at best). One cannot be a part of an organization such as this without acknowledging some of the blemishes. And yet, these blemishes do not deter from the overall whole - the fabric of the Church is sound, and we are led by (mostly) men who are just and true, and who are doing their level best. The weaknesses of men I can understand, because I am subject to these same weaknesses. The Church and doctrines I adore are true and soul-satisfying. The rest is just the rest, and I can be patient. God knows that He's been miraculously patient with me.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29513427
This is, of course, about the Anglican Church Priesthood, and not the LDS Church. The Anglican Church is definitely more progressive than the LDS Church, but then, with its history and adherents, perhaps it can afford to be.
It's interesting to consider questions of "doctrine" and "culture". In the case of the Anglican Church, where they believe in a closed canon, the authority stems from the ability to trace a direct line of ordinations back to Peter (the Henry VIII thing can be best described as a minor correction that resulted in a schism). Authority also seems to stem from an interpretation of the scriptures that is at once closed (God has spoken, and His word is definitive and exhaustive) and inflexible.
Or is it?
Seeking to find solutions to modern problems through ancient texts can be difficult at best. Further, due to the way books were handled in the first century CE, there is always the potential for interpretation. Additionally, transcription and interpretation of texts seems to further cast shadows of doubt on what God really means. It can be a baffling exercise to try to parse out what the will of God is from a single reading, and each word takes on significance and import. This has resulted in the various and sundry schisms that have taken place over the centuries - some stemming from doctrinal concerns (the mode of baptism, for example), and others from cultural questions (is Rome the focus of Christian worship, or is it Byzantium? Or does it even matter?)
The LDS faith, on the other hand, is based in an open canon. It is unique among major Christian religions. Not only do we accept the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and other modern-day prophecy as scripture, we accept the will of God as given through a (always the singular) living prophet - also referred to as "President". In fact, we believe that the word of the living prophet speaks to us in a way that can supersede earlier revelation. An article of faith for LDS members surrounds the idea that God has, does, and will continue to reveal things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Examples of this include President Woodruff's Manifesto on the practice of polygamy, and President Kimball's official declaration on worthy male members of the Church being able to hold the Priesthood. This is significant, because it represents a departure in a cultural way from what was an accepted norm.
So, does this mean that God does not want women ordained to the Priesthood? For the moment, the answer appears to be yes. Why this is the case has not been fully expounded - whether this is a tenant of a doctrinal nature, or perhaps just a cultural thing. Either way, it doesn't appear to be changing any time soon.
What does this mean for women in the Church? For many (most?), it seems like not a big deal. For others, it is an incredibly important thing, because having a male-oriented/dominated organization makes them feel disenfranchised. While it is clear that God loves His children equally, the opportunities for leadership and service vary, and it is unclear why biological differences matter in this regard. The truth is, I just don't know.
There are many things about my faith that I've had to come to terms with, to make my peace with. Aberrations in the Church's history, character flaws of early (and present) church figures, and cultural practices that I find disturbing (at best). One cannot be a part of an organization such as this without acknowledging some of the blemishes. And yet, these blemishes do not deter from the overall whole - the fabric of the Church is sound, and we are led by (mostly) men who are just and true, and who are doing their level best. The weaknesses of men I can understand, because I am subject to these same weaknesses. The Church and doctrines I adore are true and soul-satisfying. The rest is just the rest, and I can be patient. God knows that He's been miraculously patient with me.
Comments
This was a beautiful post, thank you for writing it.