Silly girls. Revelation is for boys!

I don’t mind that men hold the priesthood. I just went through a whole tirade on a private level and I get it. I don’t want the priesthood. I get it. I get why men have it. I’ve been going to church long enough to understand the reasoning behind it all.

Here’s my problem:

What I mind is that it is the end-all-be-all. Worthy members receive revelation. Worthy members receive revelation over our own stewardship. While counsel and discussion should be made, that person who has stewardship should have the final say. If those above that person feel the one with their “final say” is off their rocker, than there should be a process by which to deal with it. Period.

My problem lies in the idea that men have clearer revelation than their women do, in the idea that God speaks more truth to his sons than He does the girls. The girls are either misguided or just getting partial truth. Silly, silly girls.

We can talk about it all we want, but in the end it’s his decision. And we do emphasize that guy being worthy in his position – there’s no room for unrighteous dominion – but Father Knows Best. He’s got that really awesome Y chromosome and all. Should I have picked one up? Naaaaaah. I like being a girl despite all the crap.

I don’t want to be a guy. I don’t want the priesthood. I don’t want to be bishop, I don’t want any of that. But if as Relief Society President (which I’m not) I truly feel that my Relief Society needs to go in a certain direction and my bishop comes and puts on the breaks despite my very strong revelation, than what? I am to defer to him and just let whatever happens to happen.

Why? Because he’s the man. We can say “because he’s the priesthood holder” but the real, fundamental thing is because he’s the guy. We can be equal in spiritual strength and knowledge, but according to church structure, I am inferior to my priesthood (male) leaders.

We are left back to an earlier question: If I pray with real intent and get an answer contrary to that of my leaders, what then? The Church would say my answer is wrong. If we are one in purpose, after all, than we should be getting the same answer from the Lord.

But it does not work that way all the time. You cannot dismiss me so easily. Call it pride, call it a gateway to the road to apostasy, whatever. I was told when I joined that I should know everything for myself and go according to that. I’m taught that through the years…until I think differently from my leaders. Until I think differently from my husband. I’m certain my leaders would absolutely counsel us to talk about it, pray about it, etc. The fact is that doctrinally and what is taught in the temple is that I am to defer to him if he decides differently than what I think. Period.

This is not a strictly LDS issue, either. Like I mentioned before, it happens in other churches. It’s not even a matter of Pauline politics. It is in the scriptures; it is canonized. It is doctrine. We teach and practice a doctrinal patriarchy. I’m beyond talking about in-house ward matters here like who is bishop and who is not. This is more fundamental than that.

I don’t want the priesthood. I understand that there are priesthood holders who have to go through other priesthood holders to get permission, too. I’m not necessarily pissed about the priesthood. (annoyed at my repetition yet? it's only because I've learned some have selective "hearing" and I want to make myself clear despite the stereotypes about women who speak like this)

Here's the crux of it all: I just want to have the right as much access to God as my bishop or even my husband. I want the right to unique revelation that may go against what the Church teaches because I am unique and only God knows me and my situation nearly well enough. I want to still be in good standing if this happens.

But we don’t teach that. It’s too hairy, it’s too itchy, and it leaves far too much wiggle room. It goes against the whole “one in purpose” thing. We are to teach the doctrine and leave the exceptions up to the individual…except for in larger matters where the Church has authority and have taken an official stand. They know better despite it all – even though history proves they did not always know better despite it all.

We are not to criticize our leaders, even if it is justified.

And as a person who, doctrinally, biblically (as taught), has less authority than all but my own children, I have to sit back and let it all happen because I wouldn’t want to create confusion or contention. And I don’t.

It goes back to Adam. Eve, justified or not, took the fruit and was punished for it. Adam just did what he had to do, damn that woman. He initially told the serpent no, but since his wife went, he had to follow since he was commanded to always be with her. If she goes to hell, he should follow.
That is the inference. Hell, the men today joke about this. The girls complain, and the guys just placate them. Give them the 9 o’clock church instead of the 8:30, what does it matter. It’ll keep the girls happy, and as everyone knows: if mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.

Ha. ha.

This original act of disobedience slash obedience also suggests that Adam recognized Eve’s greater insight. She saw what he could not, despite the fact that God forbade it. She was able to look past that. But by initially being more obedient to God, he is now given greater access to God. No matter what she thinks now, though we teach she was right, she has to listen to Adam who would have counseled her to reject the fruit. Apparently she’s only allowed to be right in that one thing. Lucky for her she wasn’t taught beforehand to listen to her husband. Lucky for her she didn’t even ask. She didn’t have to. No covenants had been made yet.

Ahhhh, innocence.

Though Eve did what had to be done, she was punished anyway – and not just by exile from Eden, either. Now she has to follow Adam because he was apparently more righteous in refusing the serpent’s temptation. The idea that he knew better is inferred and is passed down to every man since. Since Adam knew better, all men know better. Eve just did what had to be done.

Is anyone else following?

That’s all. I don’t care about having the priesthood. I love my man, I love him being the man – he is absolutely everything I am not. I love taking care of him and our children – but he takes care of me and our kids, too. We complement each other rather nicely. Nothing we decide is ever because “I said so” – we talk about it until a conclusion is made between the two of us. Our lives are not separate, they are one and, to him, I’ve just as much right and access to God as he does.

And that’s how it should be anywhere.

Oh HELL no.

I know I've been on a kick lately, and perhaps it's welcome because Prop 8 = *groan* right now, but...I'm on a kick. It might not be a very attractive kick, as I seem to be throwing a tantrum about a lot of things, but that's kinda what this blog is for. It's not meant to be purely political. It's a place to vent because there aren't many safe places to vent about these things.

First of all, I don't necessarily consider myself a "feminist." I have feminist ideals, but I wouldn't go so far as to call myself one yet.

But this really pisses me off. I had no idea until just now. I just finished reading a post on Feminist Mormon Housewives called Am I a bad priesthood holder, or am I a bad husband?

Apparently it's modus operandi for a member of the bishopric or stake presidency to ask for the husband's permission before he can call his wife to any position?

I had no idea. Even when I was just called to the Relief Society teaching board (or whatever it is), I knew the bishopric member spoke with my husband about it, but I figured that was mostly because I was taking a much needed nap when he called.

I had no idea this happened so often. I just spoke with Eric about it, and he said "Yep, it's an authority thing. It's like informing the bishop of something first before informing the rest of the ward."

"But I'm not your child."

"I know."

"We're supposed to be equals."

"I know."

"How do you feel about this? Really?"

He shrugged. "I grew up with it. I really never thought about it before. But you're right."

I mean, what the hell, girls? Does this bother anyone else?

I had no idea. When Eric was called to be the Elder's Quorum Secretary to a rather active Elder's Quorum a few years ago, I about had a coronary and worked for weeks to get him to say no-no-no! Eric felt strongly that he should accept whatever calling comes his way, but I wouldn't relent. Again, he worked nights full time and went to school taking a full load of upper-level mathematics courses. He would sleep maybe 6 hours on Saturday, leave for work, come home at 6:30, be in bed by 6:45, and then wake up at 8:00 to get ready for church.

And they wanted him to be what? It wasn't so much the secretary thing as much as it was the meetings that would occur before church and at other random times.

It wasn't that I didn't have faith in Eric, I just knew he and the rest of us were wrecks to begin with and this calling was ridiculous. He wanted to try, though, so he did. I think he lasted a few months. I don't remember exactly what brought him to his senses, but one night the EQ president called and said "Hey, we're having a meeting right now." Eric told him he couldn't do it anymore.

It was a revelation to him. Sometimes you just can't.

But you know what? I was never asked how I felt. Nobody ever said, "So, Lisa, I want to call your husband to a rather demanding calling." It's not that I even want that. Eric doesn't need me giving permission anymore than I need him giving me permission. If it's a demanding calling, I would expect either of us to say "I want to talk with Eric/Lisa first."

I only knew Eric would be getting the EQ calling because the old secretary had just been released, and the president was picking at me for information, asking about Eric's schedule, etc.

This whole thing also reminds me, and forgive me if I've mentioned this before, a Sunday School lesson where the teacher recounted a story of a stake president calling a husband and wife in. After extending the calling of bishop to the husband, the SP turned to the wife and said, "So, can you support him in his calling? What do you think?"

"I think it sucks," she said.

She was told to basically get over it.

And people wonder why some women hate their standing in the Church. They point at the Relief Society, what a wonderful institution it is, that it is run by women...

...who have to answer to the men.

You know, that part doesn't even bother me so much. Fine. I get that we have a pyramid type organization where we all have someone to answer to. Fine. I get that the priesthood hold the big authority positions such as bishop, stake president, prophet, etc. I've never wanted the priesthood. While it is a wedge issue for some, it's never been one for me.

Just don't condescend to me.

I'm so effing tired of being condescended to. Ask my husband for permission? Screw off! I'm a big girl. If I feel I need to "counsel" with Eric about it, I'll do just that. My husband is not my father.

Again, I don't mind some of this role playing stuff. I like that he's stronger than me, taller than me, and I've always liked that he had the Priesthood, but when you start relegating me to a position akin to our children, that's when I've gotta get pissed off.

Did anyone else know about this? I'm under the impression that some members don't.


(And, by the way, I won't be posting tomorrow, so Happy Thanksgiving. Hope y'all have a really awesome, laid back, stuffed kind of day. I hope to be back by Friday)