As a child, I dreamed of growing up to play for the Utah Jazz. But, you know, by the time I got to high school, that flame had been all-but-extinguished and I had to re-assess my life and set some much more realistic goals, like getting a college degree and working in a call center for the rest of eternity. So far, so good. I've been thinking lately, though, (which is something that we college graduates are prone to do) and I think I want to play in the WNBA. I'm not quite good enough to play with the big boys in the NBA, but I'm pretty sure I could hang with the women's league. Starting today, I'm going to be training five times a week. Running sprints, bench pressing, fundamental drills. I'll do it all. Because I want to play in the WNBA!
Wait, what?? The WNBA is for who? Women? Women only? Why?? If I'm good enough to play with them, why can't I play? Because I'm a man? Sexists! Judgmental pigs! I want to play women's basketball! This is really unfair to me as a man. They're not treating me equally with women and I'm disgusted. I'm an American man and this is 2013. I have rights! I demand equality in all things! Let me play women's basketball!
Now, of course, a man demanding to play in a women's basketball league would be ludicrous. They would never allow me to play in the WNBA - solely based on the fact that I'm not the right gender. However, a
very vocal minority of women continue to demand that they have equality with men in all things. For instance, take Title IX in college sports, where men, in some cases, give up entire sports in order to make sure women have exactly the same number of programs. Consider Danica Patrick, Billy Jean King, and other women who have broken the gender barrier to compete with men. One could argue that women actually have
more opportunities than men, as far as sports are concerned. You'd never see a man making headlines for breaking into women's tennis, or, in my case, the WNBA. Why? Well... because men just shouldn't be able to play with women. Because they're men. ...Right??
The fact of the matter, no matter how politically-correct you're attempting to be, is that
men and women are different! Physically, we're different. Emotionally, we're different. We're different in many, many ways -
and that's ok! Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone were exactly the same in every single way? One great example of the importance of being unique is the Dr. Seuss classic, "The Sneetches," which you can read
here. For those unfamiliar with the story or just too lazy to click on the link and read it for themselves, there are two types of Sneetches: those that have stars on their bellies and those that do not. For a great long while, the Sneetches without stars feel bad about themselves and perhaps even discriminated against because they do not look like their star-bellied counterparts. They go to great lengths to obtain stars on their bellies so that they can enjoy the same privileges as their birth-marked brethren, but, in the end, they realize that it's ok to be different. Having a star on your belly does not make you any better or worse than anyone else. They were all inherently equal, no matter their looks.
There is a
very small,
very vocal movement among women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints known as "Ordain Women" that has persisted for some time now in seeking gender equality for men and women in the Church. Specifically, they believe that women should be ordained to the priesthood, something normally only available to worthy male members.
According to their website, their mission is as follows: "
to create a space for Mormon women to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood." I do not purport to knowing everything about this liberal movement, nor do I claim to know everything about the doctrine of the LDS Church, but I would like to stand up for my own conservative beliefs in regards to this controversial issue.
I attended the University of Utah in Salt Lake City from 2009 - 2011. I studied communications and broadcast journalism. I had a great time learning about how to be a radio DJ and a journalist. But, I found my experience there at the U to be a very liberal, anti-Mormon one, which is odd, considering that Salt Lake City is home of the headquarters of the Church. I think it may have been for that very reason that non-members and estranged members of the Church felt the need to lash out verbally from time to time. One particular experience I had found me in one of my more controversial classes: Comm and Gender. The purpose of the class was to investigate the differences between men and women in communication and media. One day, a female member of my class explained that she was a former member of the LDS Church, that she had previously been married in a Mormon temple (and later divorced), and that she had strong feelings that the LDS Church was sexist and harbored deep-rooted anti-female doctrines. I almost fell off my chair.
What a preposterous thing to say! As an endowed member of the Mormon Church, believe me when I say that any woman who has been through the temple ceremony and still believes that men and women are unequal in the sight of God (and the LDS Church) and has no role in the priesthood must not have been paying attention at all. In terms of women wanting the blessings of the priesthood, the proponents of Ordain Women fail to realize that
all of the blessings associated with the priesthood and in accordance to God's commandments are available to men and women equally, regardless of gender,
insomuch as they are faithful and obedient to the covenants they make. (see 4 Nephi 1:3)
Supporters of the Ordain Women movement believe that women deserve greater leadership roles in the Church. The prophet (or president) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always been a man. The modern-day Twelve Apostles are all men. Every member of the extended leadership of the Church, known as the Quorums of the Seventy, are all men. Bishops, local leaders of congregations, are all men. Their counselors in the local wards are always men. Young men are given additional responsibilities in the Church starting at age 12, based on their worthiness. These are facts.
The feminist movement in question is campaigning for the leadership I have previously mentioned to allow women to participate, as well. What they fail to mention is that there are several organizations already in place inside the Church that are exclusively for women! The
Relief Society, established in 1842, is the oldest and largest women's organization in the world. Mormon women, ages 18 and older, are given membership in the organization, regardless of worthiness. According to Mormon.org, the purpose of the Relief Society is "to build faith and personal righteousness, strengthen families and homes, and help those in need." Each local branch of this organization has a presidency, composed of females, and the Church has a general Relief Society presidency, again, headed by women.
No man has ever been granted leadership, let alone membership, in this organization because, well, it's for
women! I am not aware of any sort of protest led by men in opposition to the Church's strict female-only policy. Additionally, the
Primary, a Church-based organization to teach children about Jesus and the gospel at an early age, is led locally and generally by women.
As men in the church, we believe that "the priesthood is the power and authority of God."
LDS.org continues, "Through [the priesthood], [God] accomplishes His work and glory, which is 'to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man' (Moses 1:39). Jesus Christ permits worthy male members of the Church to hold His priesthood. When they are ordained to the priesthood, they can be authorized to do the Lord’s work, such as preach the gospel, perform priesthood ordinances, and minister, as called, in the kingdom of God on earth." Being part of this priesthood is a lot of hard work. We cannot use the priesthood to bless ourselves.
The purpose of the priesthood is only to bless others. Misuse of this power, often referred to as "
unrighteous dominion" (
Doctrine and Covenants 121:39) is a punishable offense in the Church and results in the revocation of that man's authority (
D&C 121:36-37) and excommunication from the Church, when applicable.
I hold a leadership position in the local Elders Quorum, a men's organization that exists in every LDS congregation. As members of the Elders Quorum, one of our main responsibilities is to home teach (or visit on a monthly basis) every member, male or female, in the congregation. This is a lot of work. Women in the Relief Society also participate in a similar monthly activity called visiting teaching, which expects them, in companionships of two, to visit each female member of the congregation. Somewhat sarcastically, I would gladly swap my obligation to home teach every member of the ward, male and female, with any woman that is demanding to have the same responsibilities as men. Based on logic alone, men are required to do twice as much work as women, as far as monthly visits to members of the ward is concerned. That's not me being chauvinistic. That's a statistical fact. Maintaining my momentary sense of sarcasm, if these women would like to do twice as much work in order to receive identical benefits, heck, I'm all for that. More work for them, less work for me, and
we all get the exact same blessings in the end. Fantastic. (*wink*)
Next weekend is General Conference weekend for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every six months, the Church holds a semi-annual gathering where the general leadership, including the prophet and the Twelve Apostles, address the Saints in a globally-televised event. Each General Conference consists of five meetings: a morning and an afternoon session on both Saturday and Sunday and another meeting on Saturday night for the general priesthood body. As should be absolutely evident at this point, the priesthood session on Saturday night is for men only. Why is it only for men? Because only men have the priesthood. Obviously. The ladies from Ordain Women are planning a gathering next Saturday night, in which they will stand outside the Salt Lake City Conference Center in hopes of being allowed to enter the all-men session.
From Ordain Women's own website: "We will stand as a group of women, [sic] and male allies in the standby line in order to gain admittance to the Priesthood Session of the 183rd Semiannual General Conference of the Church. If we are admitted, we will celebrate this historical achievement by attending the Priesthood Session together.After [sic] we leave Priesthood session, we will reconvene at City Creek Park to speak to the public, including representatives of the media, about our experiences either attending Priesthood Session
or being barred from attending. At this meeting, Ordain Women will make a public statement continuing our
unequivocal call for complete equality and the ordination of Mormon women." (Emphasis added.)
[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be broadcasting the General Priesthood session at 6:00 PM (Mountain Time in the U.S.) on October 5 on BYUTV and will stream the session via the Internet for the world to see. It will be free for anyone of any gender and any religion to watch. For more information about how to tune in (or if you're a woman who's mainly just interested in learning the deep dark secrets that will be shared about how to become a better deacon, teacher, or priest), please visit
this link.]
An "unequivocal call"? Are these women challenging the prophet that they, themselves, allegedly support? And, if they believe that the Mormon prophet, Thomas S. Monson, is truly called by God to lead and guide His people on the earth today, wouldn't that mean that they are, in actuality, challenging God? Not a smart idea, historically speaking. In
2 Samuel 6:2-7, a man named Uzzah was smitten down dead because he tried to steady the Ark of the Covenant. Perhaps that's a bit of an extreme example, but, if you truly believe that God calls apostles and prophets in this day and age, you must also believe that the organization of the Church, whether set forth by His own voice or by the voice of His servants, is the same (see
D&C 1:37-38).
“I
respect and value the church and myself too much to be silent on this question," said one supporter of the Ordain Women movement. "The ordination of women would put us all on equal spiritual footing with our brethren,
and nothing less will suffice.” (Emphasis added.) And nothing less will suffice, she says. You can't respect and value the Church one one hand and then say "nothing else will suffice" on the other. It just doesn't work like that!
I don't know about you, but this sounds an awful lot like a
protest. I've seen people on Facebook saying that this doesn't count as a "protest," per se, because they're not picketing and carrying signs. Dictionary.com defines a "protest" as "an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid." Objections? Yes. Disapproval? Yes. Dissent? Yes. This is a protest against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as presently constituted.
When members of the Church are interviewed as part of the process of obtaining a recommend that allows them to enter into the temple, they are asked a series of questions. One of those questions is as follows: "Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?" If they are being truthful, any member of the Church that is part of the Ordain Women movement -
or any individuals that sympathize with their beliefs - should answer "Yes" to this question. Answering in the affirmative would disqualify them from the opportunity to enter the temple. This is not me being a jerk. This is not me being judgmental. That's a cold, hard fact.
Anyone,
male or female, who affiliates with or sympathizes with a group whose teachings or practices are contrary to those of the Church do not qualify to have a temple recommend. Put quite simply, if you disagree with the prophet, modern revelation, the organization and/or leadership model of the Church, or any combination of those or a plethora of other things, then this probably isn't the Church for you.
To many, the previous paragraph may come off as being rude, judgmental, or overly-harsh, but it's not.
You can choose to be offended if you wish, but that's the truth!... and sometimes
the truth hurts. (
See 1 Nephi 16:2.) For instance, if I got into Harvard for my academic excellence, but then flunked a couple of my classes, you bet your sweet bippy they'd kick me out of school -
and how judgmental of them! I want the equal right to attend Harvard like everybody else; I just think it's ok to skip classes and forget about my homework every once in a while. It's not fair that they'd kick me out of school for not complying with those two little stipulations. I agree with everything else, but I just don't want to do my homework! Like any other organization, there are rules in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - and if you don't comply with the rules, you can't pass go and you can't collect $200. Simple, isn't it?
Choosing to be offended - and sometimes even
going out of our way to find something to be offended by - seems to be a popular thing to do these days. Six months ago, just before the last General Conference, there was another big feminist movement trying to get all Mormon women to wear pants to church on one particular Sunday. No offense, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Search the scriptures and tell me - is it stated anywhere in the entire canon of LDS doctrine, whether ancient or post-Restoration, that women cannot wear pants to church? I'm really scratching my head here, but I'm pretty positive that it's not. Traditionally, women don't wear pants to church, but that's not strictly a Mormon thing, nor do I believe that the wearing of pants has ever really been discouraged in the LDS Church. (Plus, I don't know who began the tradition of women wearing dresses on the Sabbath, but I bet you she wasn't Mormon!) If you want to wear pants to church, go ahead and wear pants to church. Choosing to be offended by allegedly not being allowed to wear pants on Sunday is silly because nobody says you're not allowed to do so in the first place! (Now, if men started a movement to try to get all the elders to wear skirts to Sacrament Meeting, I can see why people would be a little disturbed, but who cares whether a woman wears a dress or pants? I certainly don't!)
Mormon feminists chalked one up on the scoreboard back in April when
a woman was allowed to pray in one of the sessions of General Conference, but... was that ever really a big deal? Women pray in church every single Sunday in local congregations! There's no doctrine saying "Thou shalt not allow a woman to pray in General Conference," so I was unaware that some women had chosen to be offended by this. These are just silly things to be upset about, in my opinion. If you choose to be offended by these minute little things, go ahead and do it, I guess, but there are much more important things happening during General Conference that wondering who will be assigned to say the prayers.
Here's a little known fact about General Conference: There is a General Relief Society session that takes place one week before "Conference Weekend." They hold it in the Conference Center and talk about, I'm assuming, how to become a better wife, mother, sister, and daughter. They probably talk about how much Jesus loves us and they probably throw in a few cute little messages about keeping the commandments. Now, this may come as a shocker to you, but, believe it or not, I, a worthy male member of the Church, have never been invited to attend the General Relief Society broadcast downtown. There has never been a man that was allowed to pray during the Relief Society session and there won't ever be, but you don't hear any men whining about it, do you? You don't see me lining up downtown and demanding to be let in or see me starting a petition to get President Monson to change his mind about men's role in the Relief Society organization, do you? No! Of course not. I'm totally fine with not going to any Relief Society meetings because A) I have enough meetings as it is and B) it's for
WOMEN!! I understand that and I'm totally fine with it.
In the beginning, when God created the earth, he created man and woman. He created Adam first and Eve second. I'm sure there is some symbolism embedded in the order of the Creation, but I don't wish to delve into it at this time. I'm sure some feminists might argue that God should have created man and woman at the exact same time, but the fact of the matter is that
somebody had to come first. In this case, man was created probably just
minutes before woman, but what if it was the other way around? What if Eve was created first? Would men be all up in arms about it? I'm not sure, but I really don't think it should make that much of a difference. In
Genesis 1:26-27, God created man and woman, male and female created He them. Why didn't he create everyone in some weird kind of neutral gender? Why did he specifically created two completely different genders in the first place when he could just as easily have given everyone the priesthood and delegated completely equal responsibilities? I believe that he created two different genders not in order to make one superior to the other but so that we could both fulfill very different roles.
1 Corinthians chapter 12 compares Christ's Church to the human body. I believe that the supporters of Ordain Women could learn a great deal from this chapter. Observe:
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
Every one of God's children is equal to him in his eyes, for
He is no respecter of persons (see Acts 10:34). Though we are all equal in His eyes and none of us receives any special privilege based solely on gender alone, God has created us all differently so that we can perform certain functions as human beings, as citizens, as family members, and as members of the Church. Are all apostles? Are all prophets?
Do all hold the priesthood? No! No, we do not! What good would the body do us if every part were an eye? Where would be the hearing? What good would it do us to have four arms, but no legs? How would we get around? And what good would it do us if we all held the priesthood?
Women are important in the eyes of God and they can perform tasks that only females could! Men are not given the ability to bear children and are not given many of the responsibilities in the home that women are given because, quite simply,
women are better-suited for those roles than are the men! Conversely, men are given other responsibilities, such as being a provider (physically, financially, etc.) and being the head of household and priesthood bearer in the home so that the burdens of our life on earth are equally-yoked.
Men are not superior to women in the eyes of God, nor in their standing in the Church.
I wish that this vocal minority that is having such a difficult time accepting their God-given roles as members of the Church would recognize this very important part of life. They are loved and valued by their Heavenly Father and are not being withheld from priesthood leadership because they are inferior, but because they have other responsibilities that are theirs and theirs alone. They play such an important part in the establishment of Zion and,
if they were to abandon or diminish those vital roles, Zion would not prosper as it should! Though they may not hold priesthood-based offices in the Church, they are still recipients of priesthood blessings through the valiant service of their husbands, sons, brothers, and neighbors. I cannot overstate the importance of this truth: Men cannot use the priesthood solely for their own benefit.
The priesthood, though officiated and held by worthy, male members of the Church, blesses EVERYONE, regardless of gender.
My plea to those who may be confused by modern revelation or find themselves with conflicting opinions is that they prayerfully ask their Heavenly Father to strengthen their trust in Him. I know from personal experience that
we may come to know the truth of all things by the power of the Holy Ghost (see Moroni 10:3-5). God's ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts (see
Isaiah 55:9) and it is, at times, difficult to understand why things are the way that they are. Many times we may think that we know better than a local leader or, apparently, we may sometimes even call the prophet into question. But as we
lean not unto our own understanding (see Proverbs 3:5-6) and prayerfully seek the Lord in prayer,
he will give us the wisdom and knowledge that we seek, according to His holy will, because he is our Heavenly Father and he wants us to be happy (see James 1:5). As we
seek to develop and demonstrate faith in Him (see Mosiah 4:9), even in the most trying, confusing times of our lives, we will find that dependence on God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost is the one and only way to
true and lasting happiness in this life (see Mosiah 2:41).
In closing, I take full responsibility for the words and thoughts expressed in this blog. I completely stand behind my beliefs and the statements I have made, and I hope that, just as those with liberal beliefs which may be contrary to mine would hope that I would be tolerant of their viewpoints, that you will be tolerant of mine. If you have any feedback or questions, feel free to leave them in the comments section below, but I ask that you
please be courteous and polite to me and others, regardless of our genders or beliefs, as you do so. There is never any harm in a little civilized discussion. Thank you.
--
To view an article by the Deseret News about the Ordain Women movement and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' official response, click
here.
To learn more about what Mormons actually do believe, click
here.
[Originally posted by Aaron Christensen on Examiner.com]
