My speculations on how it would come about were here and here on the Toscano thread. In a nutshell: It seems to me a revelation in some fashion by, of, or from Heavenly Mother would supply the needed mythos or narrative or whatever, in the same way the First Vision narratives helped Joseph in the wake of the Kirtland apostasy and (I gather by osmosis) to consolidate notions of authority around the turn of the century. But since big revelation only comes when sought, and is not likely on anyone’s radar screens, such an event could only result from considerable internal or external pressure putting it on the radar screen of a prophet who’s sufficiently open.

I understand what you’re saying, though, and I agree with you–but I still don’t think that’s an adequate description of what emerges. From the Proclamation, perhaps, but not from the temple. (And again, this is not to reject the temple or its teachings–in fact, the possibility that there is indeed a hierarchy of the genders must be a live possibility for the believer.) (Also, I appreciate and fully understand–and share!–the impulse to interpret the endowment as you do.) I’ll take your raincheck on that celestial discussion! (Although I’m hoping that then it won’t be necessary.)

It’s sort of too bad that we can’t discuss these things more openly; there’s nobody in my ward who would ever want to talk about this with me.

We may have to consign further discussion to a future life or some celestial room somewhere.

But I’ve never bought the idea that motherhood equals equality. While I don’t long for, or even want the priesthood, or even other women to have it, I’m equal, even superior, arrogantly so, because I just am. But I don’t know why. And I don’t know why that bothers men more than women.

As for the temple: I love the temple, I am richly fed the liminal experience it offers, I’m thrilled by its ancient roots, I attend whenever I can (still not often enough). But I simply must strongly disagree that the priesthood order described therein “organizes horizontally rather than the vertical space in feminism critiques of male power.” It’s wonderful that women and men are both there, and the ways in which the genders interact is highly significant. But it is not horizontal.

I agree on the need for what you call a “female priesthood myth,” if there is ever to be a female priesthood: my point is that we don’t have such a thing within the Restoration tradition. I also share your distaste for option (2)–which, apart from its blandness, would be very, very costly in social terms. (Incidentally, I’ve always imagined that if there were a female priesthood, it would operate in separate quorums, thus allowing for a continued gender-identification which I think is important and desirable. Not that I’m advocating this (my standard disclaimer.))

For me that category is the “order of the priesthood,” a category that includes both men and women, and is deeply implicated in our temple ceremonies. Men and women both have place in the order of the priesthood. They occupy a different space within the order. The order organizes horizontally rather than the vertical space in feminism critiques of male power.

Rosalynde: “Finally, we may need to consider the possibility that occasionally our own theology does not provide the mythic resources necessary for forward movement.”

Do you find any cosmic signficicance in the correlation of priesthood and Relief Society manuals beginning with the Brigham Young manual? I think the change may show there are mythic resources available for “mobilizing women’s capacities in productive ways,” as you say. The manual change may be read as a knock against women–as another instance where women’s own voice is removed or marginalized. In another sense, though, the change empowers women, allowing them access to priesthood, drawing them further into the priesthood order, putting them squarely in position to teach their priesthood-bearing husbands as they study the lessons together—in short, to influence priesthood. I don’t want to read too far into this, but I think the mythos is more flexible than we might imagine, starting with the temple as the seedbed of possibility.

No need to threadjack; we’ve already got a thread or two dedicated to that topic.

;)

Do you really mean that? What about the rest of the sentence: “…ways to theorize women’s access to the power of God…”?

Ros, my sentiments exactly.

As you know, I am fully in agreement on the importance of the discursive and cultural cognates to social structure (what you call “mythos”– a good word). Precisely as you argue, proposed changes in one realm must take into account the consequent changes in the other, if the initiative is to be successful and sustained. And organic drift in one realm drags along the other, as well. Like you, I’m inclined to think that the debates on the matter of female priesthood to this point have been flawed in the ways you suggest. Furthermore, I’m consistently inspired by your calls to look first to our own historical, cultural and theological heritage for the resources we need to think about the problems that face us: keep saying it, I love hearing it every time.

You’re also right, of course, that sexual intercourse and motherhood are deeply unsatisfying–or at least unavoidably partial–ways to theorize women’s access to the power of God, particularly if you’re trying to work from a “separate but equal” model, as you seem to be doing. But that’s not the point here.

Where I think you’re a little bit wrong is in the malleability of mythos. Any student of English dynastic history can tell you how history, myth, genealogy and narrative can be reformulated to accommodate even violent and abrupt structural change—and those accommodations can be made very successfully. Your discussion of the ideological work of priesthood lineage in constructing Mormon masculinity is spot on—or it was. But under the increasing political pressures on gender in the last decades, masculinity has become a much weaker and more poorly-defined category, since women’s roles have taken so much of the heat. (This is unfortunate, and feminism—and anti-feminism—must take some of the blame for this.) And under the same pressures, our understanding of the meaning and transmission of priesthood offices been greatly diminished: virtually any discussion of priesthood and gender, no matter its perspective, must downplay the functions and benefits of priesthood office in order to accommodate a gender segregation (as you do very gracefully in this post).

The result is that we are already beginning to loosen the connection between maleness and priesthood office and its attendant benefits: in a GD class several weeks ago, we discussed the D&C 50 passages on preaching and receiving by the Spirit in a completely gender-blind way—with no acknowledgement that the section was addressed to ordained elders, and that the “preaching” referred to was a specific benefit of ordination.

Finally, we may need to consider the possibility that occasionally our own theology does not provide the mythic resources necessary for forward movement. While Mormon history produces inspiring instances and examples that can be exploited (in a good way) for mobilizing women’s capacities in productive ways, our theology frankly does not—or at least I haven’t seen it: Mother in Heaven is problematic for a number reasons, and highly unlikely to become any better defined theologically; restoration scripture is manifestly unhelpful on the point, as is the temple endowment. Don’t get me wrong: I reverence and sustain these doctrines and practices, but I just don’t see how they provide the kinds of mythic resources Nate is calling for us to develop. Sometimes it might be necessary for revelation to start from scratch.