I’m personally in favor of women’s ordination. But I can see why people have reservations about it. It’s a pretty radical change to make, and would involve all kinds of logistical complications. Most LDS women actually don’t want the priesthood, and are happy with what they can contribute in the current system. There’s also the question of whether women should be seeking priesthood from men in the first place, as opposed to having their own line of priestesshood. I still come down on the side of ordaining women, but I can see it as a complicated question.
I have a much more difficult time when it comes to temple liturgy that subordinates women. Honestly, I just don’t get it. Why not change it? What would be the harm? I know we’ve had endless debates about whether it can be reinterpreted in more egalitarian ways. But what if it were simply straightforwardly egalitarian in the first place? What would be lost if women got to be directly connected to God: hearkening to God, and priestesses unto God? What if the sealing ritual were reciprocal?
I’m asking these as serious questions. I simply don’t see any benefit in holding on to this stuff. The ceremony has been altered numerous times in the past, so it’s not as if we have no precedent for change. And in its current form, it’s really hard for me to believe that it’s worth the amount of spiritual havoc it’s wreaking in too many women’s lives. Maybe I’m overlooking something obvious. But I don’t see what makes it worth keeping.
But while I do have strong feelings about this, I’d be especially interested in thoughts from people who wouldn’t want it changed. I promise not to bite your head off if you chime in.
Notes: this isn’t a debate about female ordination, and be careful in discussing the temple ceremony
- 27 November 2013