Comments on: Ordination Envy

By: Zelophehad’s Daughters | Pieces of My Feminist History (Part 4)

Zelophehad’s Daughters | Pieces of My Feminist History (Part 4) — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:59:44 +0000

[...] and a variety of personal experiences. (For some of my earlier thoughts on these subjects, see here, here, and [...]

By: mb

mb — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 03:08:57 +0000

April,
I know of two very sweet ladies who live in a small city 12 hours away from the nearest branch of the church. Church happens for them every Sunday with just the two of them. The sacrament happens rarely for them, but church happens each week.

So, no, church wouldn’t have to be canceled if 40 women gathered, though the form would be different, and, like in stake and general conferences, the sacrament would not be passed to the congregation.

“Where two or three are gathered together in my name…” is a gender neutral verity in our faith.

Think outside the box.

By: April

April — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:36:15 +0000

I only got to comment 29… I’m going to read the rest, and please forgive me if I repeat.

Something that put’s a big exclamation point on the fact that inequality does exist in the LDS church to me is the fact that if there were 40 men that showed up for church on a Sunday and no women, church would still be able to run. However, if the roles were reversed and there were 40 women that showed up for church on a Sunday and no men, they would be in a bind… because church wouldn’t be able to happen… it would have to be canceled…

By: Starfoxy

Starfoxy — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:14:45 +0000

I would go for a lightning strike proposal. The lightning can strike the PH holder and move through them to the person they are administering to, or the lightning can strike the person directly (thereby bypassing the secretly unworthy). The thing that attracts the lightning would be the faith of either participant. Finally it is ultimately up to God whether the lightning strikes at all.

By: J. Nelson-Seawright

J. Nelson-Seawright — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:44:43 +0000

Lynnette, the channeling proposal is a nice one. I worry about how it holds up relative to the point about how ordinances performed by secretly unworthy priesthood holders are regarded as fully valid in Mormonism, though. It may be that this tradition is fully compatible with the view of priesthood holders as channels for divine power, but there are at least some issues to be worked through. In particular, Mormon scripture is clear to the point that people with hidden sins repulse the power associated with priesthood, and thus couldn’t very well serve as conduits; yet, the ordinations, baptisms, confirmations, baby blessings, and so forth that they do evidently stick, even so. Possibly the story should be that priesthood holders are an optional conduit? I.e., the power connected with the blessing or ordinance will go through exactly the same, whether directly from God to the recipient or via the priesthood holder, such that the experience of being a conduit is only relevant to the priesthood holder and not the recipient of ordinance or blessing? I agree that any such account reveals the fundamental lunacy of the claim that it doesn’t matter who holds the priesthood if the blessings and ordinances are available to all.

ECS, good point — I wonder how much of this is Mormon celebrity-worship, and how much belief that these exceptional people (unlike most others) do somehow enhance or deserve credit for the blessing? It’s plausible to me that it’s both. But, anyway, for most rank-and-file priesthood holders, the glory goes to God, etc…

By: ECS

ECS — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:50:55 +0000

This appears not to be what most Mormons think — for at least two reasons. First, when a blessing goes along with healing, comfort, etc., standard Mormon practice is to give the credit, and most of the thanks, to God, not the priesthood holder. Second, when ordinances are performed by unworthy priesthood holders, we nonetheless regard the ordinances as valid, suggesting that the operative force isn’t in the priesthood holder.

Very interesting point, JNS. I generally agree, with exception of course for blessings performed by General Authorities or other prominent men renown for their piety/effectiveness. If someone is given a blessing by a GA – or even a bishop – the receiver of the blessing typically name drops the giver of the blessing during the conversation.

By: z

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:29:12 +0000

Ok… so the idea is that the same blessing or whatever would be in some way different depending on the man through whom it passed? In what way(s) would it be different? Anything substantive? Anything within the conscious control of the mediator? I think that’s a very interesting idea, but potentially a huge can of worms.

It’s so disappointing to me that these things aren’t better fleshed out by the actual Church itself. I can’t figure out why that is, chicken patriarchy I guess.

By: Lynnette

Lynnette — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:17:12 +0000

I’m thinking along the lines of the difference between praying for God to grant a blessing, and giving a blessing–in the former, your role is solely that of the petitioner, while in the latter, you actually play some role in mediating the blessing (even though it still ultimately comes from God).

By: z

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:11:11 +0000

So what would be the different “way”s of participating?

By: Lynnette

Lynnette — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:43:41 +0000

Okay, here’s another thought. What if the meaning of priesthood isn’t that of an independent power or a kind of extra bonus–since I think you’ve pointed out problems with both of those models–but rather that holding the priesthood means that you have the opportunity to participate in divine action in a particular way? Not that the priesthood-holders are the source of the power, but they’re involved in channeling it, so to speak. And while non-priesthood holders can petition God and potentially get the same results, they can’t be involved in the process in the same way.

(I’m thinking that this question is possibly just a specific instance of the more general problem of how grace interacts with freedom; what does it mean for humans to meaningfully participate in a process that is divinely initiated and carried out?)

One interesting implication of this model would be that it suggests that one of the major blessings of the priesthood lies in that very opportunity to participate–calling into question the commonly expressed sentiment that it doesn’t matter who actually holds the priesthood, since everyone gets the blessings equally.