NOM

Thoughts on this article?

https://medium.com/@mikielizahansen/the ... dd969bd0ce

It'll happen someday and they'll use this to justify the change, completely ignoring the rules they set in the interim

There is also no doctrinal reason not to give women the priesthood. All the reasons “women can’t hold priesthood” basically go back to tradition. Even the Catholic reason makes women into a different species with nothing in common with men. Women can’t hold priesthood because Jesus was a man and therefore a woman can’t act in his name because she is a WOman. But we can take his name upon us just fine. We just can’t “act in his name.” Pray tell, what is the difference between taking his name and acting in his name that is so important that it excludes women. When a woman marries, traditionally, she takes her husband’s name . . . um, so she can act in his name when he is not there or is incapacitated. One is necessary for the other, and if men can do both, why can’t women?

And traditions like that got started when being female meant that going through pregnancy and nursing could tie you to the baby in such a way that careers outside home were difficult to do with a child in tow for the two to three years a mother nursed. But now, women don’t nurse that long, and nursing isn’t the only way to keep a baby alive. Women are working outside of the home almost as much as men are. So, why insist on traditions based on things that no longer exist? Because of prejudice.

There is no doctrinal reason women cannot hold the priesthood as well as pass the sacrament. My understanding is that in some wards girls are passing the sacrament to women in the Mothers rooms and other areas.
I think girls will be allowed to pass the sacrament in the next 5 years.

Hell, boys can't even pass the sacrament in my ward if they aren't wearing a white shirt. I wonder if the shirt is more of a barrier than the gender. Maybe girls in white shirts and ties will soon be able to pass the sacrament. But wait a minute, that smacks of blurring the black and white line between genders, which is even worse. Maybe male dogs in white doggie shirts and ties will get the privilege first. Then chimps, and THEN females.

I've never been able to figure out why we think anyone needs the priesthood at all to pass the sacrament. In fact, my children (boys and girls of all ages) have passed the sacrament tray down the row to the next person for many years. I don't know what the difference is between passing the tray down a row, and passing the tray from row to row.

Of course they can. Girls are perfectly capable of doing so.

It is just the misogyny of their priesthood "leaders" that won't permit them to.

-lst

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:29 pm

Hell, boys can't even pass the sacrament in my ward if they aren't wearing a white shirt. I wonder if the shirt is more of a barrier than the gender.

I have seen it back when I did go that some boy would intentionally wear a colored shirt so that they had an excuse to not have to pass. That way they could spend the meeting doing something lightly less mind numbing like being on display, not able to talk to friends or play with whatever electronic device was their usual church pass time.

lostinmiddlemormonism wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:04 am

Of course they can. Girls are perfectly capable of doing so.

It is just the misogyny of their priesthood "leaders" that won't permit them to.

-lst

I was going to say the same thing. I no longer believe that the sacrament is necessary, but there isn't even any doctrinal reason preventing this if I did believe. It was an item on my shelf as I raised my daughter.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:22 am

I have seen it back when I did go that some boy would intentionally wear a colored shirt so that they had an excuse to not have to pass. That way they could spend the meeting doing something lightly less mind numbing like being on display, not able to talk to friends or play with whatever electronic device was their usual church pass time.

I was in a ward where the bishop punished boys for masturbation by not allowing them to pass the sacrament (in other words, for being honest!). Some boys would wear colored shirts in an attempt to deflect the shame a little bit. That was not as bad as masturbation in the bishop's eyes, but still bad enough to put the Wonder Bread and tap water in danger of pollution just by touching the tray handle (question to self: are left-handed boys less of a problem, since they hold the tray with their right hand?).

The way I see it, this was just the bishop's own form of masturbation. I would be very worried about how invasive and damaging a guy like that might be to girls to make sure they met his standard of worthiness.

lostinmiddlemormonism wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:04 am

Of course they can. Girls are perfectly capable of doing so.

It is just the misogyny of their priesthood "leaders" that won't permit them to.

-lst

I'm glad someone typed out-loud what I was thinking.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:26 am

...
(question to self: are left-handed boys less of a problem, since they hold the tray with their right hand?).
...

And... What kind of problem are ambidextrous boys?

I imagine a plain and precious part was lost from the Gospel of John that clearly records Jesus telling his disciples at the last supper to only use their right hands. That's why we needed the "Restoration."