Many discussions about women and the priesthood get muddled because they don’t pay attention to the fact that “priesthood” involves multiple doctrines and practices, with different rationales, functions, and histories. \u00a0I thought it might be helpful if I separated the strands of priesthood and thought about them separately.\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In the home.<\/strong>\u00a0 Priesthood is frequently mentioned in discussions of husband-wife relationships. \u00a0What is perhaps most interesting about this strand is how radically the “priesthood role” has been redefined in recent years. \u00a0See this post<\/a> for an excellent example of this, but note that it isn’t just about two Ensign articles, but a much more broad-based shift. \u00a0And this shift means that women have gained significant ground, from “follower” to “co-equal” in their relationship to the priesthood in the home. \u00a0What is still a little confusing about “priesthood in the home” is that, presumably, a father without the priesthood should be doing exactly the same things (“provide, preside, protect”), so is there any sense in which we are using “priesthood” in the home as anything other than a synonym for “fatherhood”? \u00a0And, if the husband and wife are supposed to be co-equal leaders of the home, what does it mean to say that the father presides and\/or provides spiritual leadership? \u00a0I don’t feel that I have ever heard a good explanation of this, and without this explanation of what “co-equal but one of you presides” means, we are open to accusations of “chicken patriarchy” or for using Orwellian double-speak. \u00a0(My thinking on this is the “co-equal but he presides” line is the bridge between the old paradigm [presiding] and the new paradigm [co-equals], used so we can pretend that the doctrine isn’t changing.)<\/p>\n (Tangent: \u00a0One defense of complementarianism [=the idea that men and women have different but equal roles] in the home is that it is necessary to foster the kind of interdependence that makes marriages strong. \u00a0But I think we can sustain robust interdependence by focusing instead on the unique bundle of strengths and weaknesses that each partner brings to the table, even if those traits and talents don’t follow stereotypical gender lines. \u00a0In fact, we need to do this ASAP if we want to convince anyone that marriage matters in a world where women don’t need protection from mastodons\u00a0and can fund their own 401Ks.)<\/p>\n Ordinances. \u00a0<\/strong>Holding the priesthood is seen as a necessity to perform ordinances (with perhaps a carve-out for the temple; I’d like to delve into this more, but this isn’t the place and I’ll ruthlessly moderate comments on this point). \u00a0In this arena, women’s roles have become more circumscribed over time, as this article<\/a> shows.<\/p>\n Church leadership.<\/strong> \u00a0Virtually all church leadership roles are restricted to priesthood holders. \u00a0The history here is complicated: \u00a0on the one hand, I think correlation has caused women to have less say, since they no longer are independent in their operation of the auxiliaries (in terms of budget, curriculum, program, etc.) but, on the other hand, there is a huge emphasis recently on women being active participants on, for example, ward councils, which means that women have more of a voice. \u00a0It is as if we have traded hard-but-limited-to-the-auxiliaries-power for soft-power-in-a-larger-sphere.<\/p>\n As a synonym for “men.” \u00a0<\/strong>This one is verboten<\/a>\u00a0(see the first paragraph under III), but it happens all the time anyway. \u00a0I would think that disliking this practice is not only a feminist issue, but one that would offend traditionalists by its assumption that “priesthood” isn’t anything special, but just, you know, a bunch of males.<\/p>\n As a focal point for male identity and\/or shaper of “masculinity.” \u00a0<\/strong>This arena is, I think, hard to talk about because it is so subjective and mushy. \u00a0But there is no doubt that the priesthood actually performs this function in the church today. \u00a0This is a tough one; every feminist worth her salt wants men socialized into a manhood that avoids the worst excesses of modern culture’s take on masculinity, but no one seems too excited about the idea that this only works because men get something women don’t. \u00a0One idea that I have been chewing on: \u00a0I have heard it argued that the practice of polygamy–even though not everyone did it and even though it was several generations ago–created a Mormon culture of strong, independent women because they had to function without a husband around most of the time. \u00a0If you buy that argument, you might also think that we could dispense with male-only priesthood and still enjoy the benefits of male identity that it constructed in LDS culture.<\/p>\n Misc.<\/strong> I wasn’t quite sure where to place these strands:<\/p>\n (1) There are some callings that require the priesthood, but don’t seem like they would need to. \u00a0I’m thinking of clerks and Sunday School presidencies.<\/p>\n (2) \u00a0A whole grab bag of policies: \u00a0Restricting full-time CES employees. \u00a0Handling disciplinary councils differently. \u00a0The requirement that a man attend all activities of the RS. \u00a0Not calling mothers of young children as temple workers. \u00a0The tradition of having men speak last in sacrament meetings. \u00a0See here<\/a> for a long list.<\/p>\n (3)\u00a0Missionary service. \u00a0So this one is obviously in flux at the moment. \u00a0I’ll be interested to see what happens. \u00a0I think that despite the (a) “required” (men) versus “welcome” (women) rhetoric, (b) 18 versus 19 age requirement, and (c) 24 months versus 18 months length of service, we’re going to see slightly more sisters than elders serving. \u00a0I suspect this will have a huge effect as these RMs age into church leadership positions. \u00a0I have noticed when I teach Gospel Doctrine that men have a lot more to say–more experiences to share, more knowledge of the scriptures, more familiarity with how the church works. I think this disparity shapes how we think about “the priesthood.” \u00a0But I don’t expect that disparity to exist 20 years from now.<\/p>\n —–<\/p>\n In thinking about these separate strands, a few things became apparent to me.<\/p>\n (1) It helped me articulate why the “priesthood : men :: motherhood : women” thing doesn’t work for me. \u00a0(By the way, if you dig in the archives, you can probably find some posts where I defended this idea. \u00a0I think I have changed my mind.) \u00a0You may possibly be able to sell me on the analogy if we are talking about the “in the home” sphere only (but even then, you’d seem to be just using “priesthood” as a synonym for “fatherhood,” so what did it really accomplish?), but it seems odd to suggest that the analogy would have anything to say about, for example, ordinances. \u00a0So if I ask, “why shouldn’t a sister missionary be able to baptize her own investigators?” and you answer, “because she’ll be a mother someday,” that’s pretty unsatisfying. \u00a0Similarly, on the “church leadership” front, if I ask you, “why can’t a never-married 53-year-old woman be the Sunday School President?” and you answer, “Because she’ll be a mother in the next life,” well, I hope you can see how hollow that sounds.<\/p>\n (2) I wonder if changes in some but not all of these areas would be “enough” for feminists (a group that includes me)? \u00a0And, would a “separate but equal” thingie be adequate? \u00a0For example, if the YW were tasked with managing sacrament meeting music, handing out programs, visiting teaching with their moms, and providing a spiritual thought when the YM take the sacrament to a shut-in, would that work? \u00a0What if the RS President had her own office (physical) and could extend callings without going through the bishop–would that be “enough”? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of that approach?<\/p>\n