The following is long because I want to make sure I approach the subject carefully. It is indeed a soft criticism upon statements given by a man I believe to be an Apostle of God, so I can understand if the very idea can be seen as offensive to some. I apologize for that offense, but I believe the criticism is valid.
I am a little hesitant to share specifics with why I was disappointed with a particular talk from General Conference. Over the next six months, many LDS (myself included) will study from the transcripts as published in next month’s “Ensign”; it’s expected that each talk can provide spiritual comfort and counsel. I don’t want my personal opinion about a particular talk to somehow be seen as invalidating or belittling another person’s enjoyment of the same discourse; my expectations are different and my concerns are different. I don’t think that anyone in Church leadership is somehow dishonest, hypocritical, or evil. I believe that they are all honest women and men who say the things they say because they believe in the doctrines of the LDS Church. However, a leadership position in the Church doesn’t somehow disqualify someone from making a poor choice of words, or even from endorsing a particular point of view that may later be seen as uninspired (much of the pre-1978 folklore would qualify for this; much of it was publicly taught as truth and is now seen as nothing more than misguided opinion). As someone listening to my leaders, I can only argue from a position that I believe in, and if that doesn’t match up completely with what I hear, then I need to look carefully at both what I believe and what was said. Sometimes my beliefs change, and other times I reject the wild fruits in someone’s message and only prize the good fruits. I’ve never found a talk given by a Church leader that didn’t have something in it that was worthy of study and implementation, but I’ve found a few that had some ideas that I had to leave behind because my beliefs simply could not agree with some of what was said.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a small movement compared to many Protestant Christian denominations. Its relative youth compared to the other three Abrahamic religions tends to mean it is easily mocked for its particular historical and faith claims which have occurred within the past two centuries; in spite of this the Church has grown considerably during that time (not nearly as much as the Pentecostal movement, for instance, but for a tightly organized movement, it is an impressive growth). If it is to continue to be a force for good it must continue to grow; however, while the Church currently claims nearly 14 million members it is a guessing game as to how many of those are active in their practice, let alone how many have achieved the highest levels of activity expected for the general membership by attending the Temple or being ordained in the Priesthood. The answer is certainly much lower than the pure membership numbers. From other statistical sources, such as Gallup or Pew, we know that women form a clear majority of active Church membership. As such, it might be expected that Church leadership would speak out more on issues relating to what is expected of all human beings, not just men, within the Church, with perhaps an occasional focus on women’s issues and their strength (by virtue of their numbers at the very least). Such an emphasis was occasionally seen and heard during some of the past weekend, but it is interesting to me how that emphasis was expressed, especially in comparing and contrasting the first two discourses delivered.
President Boyd K. Packer spoke at length about how the Power of the Priesthood is not yet being expressed among the Priesthood holders of the Church. However, (without a transcript to compare against) he didn’t directly define the Power of the Priesthood, as opposed to the Authority of the Priesthood which I’ve continually read from Church sources to mean “the authority to act in God’s name” or, in other words, the authority to perform efficacious rituals and ordinances. In the Church, women have not, as yet, been given such authority apart from their limited authority to perform some of the Temple rituals. However, it appeared to me that the general gist of the “Power” being described was not simply the miraculous ability to enjoy gifts from God such as healing (a power that is equally available to women through the prayer of faith, as expressed by Elder Dallin H. Oaks during his Priesthood Session remarks, and as attested by much of Latter-day Saint Church history where administration and blessings on the sick by women are commonplace), but was also power in the sense of authority and responsibility in relation to other human beings. I love that the Church has a structure that allows for people, both female and male, to hold positions of authority not because they have any particular skill for such positions but rather because the initial “calling” to that position was supposed to be the result of revelatory impressions. I accept that it can on rare occasion be useful to have an individual who has a sort of “final say” regarding difficult decisions, but I also believe that the most successful and most efficient individuals in the positions never use that “final say” (many others, of course, fall victim to the temptation to use it often which usually in my experience quickly devolves to what Joseph Smith referred to as “unrighteous dominion”). The best decisions are mutual decisions where all involved are respected equally. This seems to be how the highest councils of the LDS Church usually are run.
Thus, to me, statements like “The priesthood does not have the strength that it should have and will not have until the power of the priesthood is firmly fixed in the families as it should be” are troubling to me. What “power” of the priesthood is to be expressed within a family? The first answer that comes to mind is the ability of the father to directly request blessings and miracles of God for his family, to perform rituals involving members of his family like baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, or to pass on this authority to his sons. That’s always a nice thing, in my mind, for a father to offer because at our present point in history, he is the only one with the authority to do so in the home. To me, while the authority is divine, it’s no different than if the mother of the home had a bank account of her own with large amounts of funds that she could give to members of her family, including her husband, whenever it was requested (and that, for some unknown reason she was not allow to jointly co-own and operate with her husband). If done in a spirit of generosity and love, without the mother feeling somehow important or entitled due to her ownership of such an account, the sharing of such funds as gifts could help the family to grow together. Of course, if she were concerned about keeping an egalitarian relationship between herself and her husband or children she might not want to make too much use of her bank account. In a similar fashion, I know of many men, myself included, who don’t actually enjoy giving blessings or other priesthood rituals in the home too often because it can be difficult to preserve the particular level of equality that the spousal partnership has currently achieved. However, since such gifts and rituals can be used to strengthen family relationships when done with the right spirit, I would agree that men in the Church, myself included, need to do more of them for the families to which we belong.
However, this idea of the father stepping up in regards to what he has to offer to the family does not seem to be simply what President Packer has in mind. Later statements about how it is a father’s right and duty to preside in the home are certainly much more than an offering of generosity and love. “The priesthood does not have the strength that it should have and will not have until the power of the priesthood is firmly fixed in the families as it should be.” Again, what does this phrase “power of the priesthood” mean? From a note made during the talk (there is no transcript yet, so this may be flavored by thoughts I was having while watching) “The father presides at the table, in family prayer, and in general instruction to the family. When he is present, he is presiding.” It seems to me that President Packer is calling on men to lead and run their families in all settings , even informal things Family Home Evening and other events.
He shared a story where a young man had requested to be ordained to a higher level of the priesthood by an individual that was not his father. We as an audience were given no context for that decision, and were even told later that the young man’s brothers had also previously requested to not have their father involved in their ordinations. The moral of the story was clear, however: it didn’t matter why the father’s sons did not want him involved, he deserved to be involved because he was the father. He had the right because he had contributed his Y chromosomes to their genetic makeup (my words, obviously). It was later related that the forced ordination by the father had indeed resulted in a better relationship between father and son; it can’t be denied, this was a touching end to the story, but for all we know it could have ended just as easily that the young man felt that his reasons for not choosing his father were seen as pointless and, upon feeling that his input was completely ignored, descended into apathy in regards to his place within the Church. In the end, the decision was not forced because of love. The moral of the story was all about respect for authority, and respect for maleness specifically. It wasn’t even about respect for the priesthood, since the story implied that the father should be involved in the ordination even if he didn’t have the authority to be involved (it was jokingly implied that, in such a case, he would be given such authority on the spot as a sort of “military commission”).
And what is the responsibility of women in regards to Pres. Packer’s plea for men to step it up in using the “power” of the priesthood in the home? “Unless we enlist the attention of the mothers and daughters and sisters, who have influence on their husbands, fathers, sons and brothers, we cannot progress. The priesthood will lose great power if the sisters are neglected.” Personally, I think that the female members of my own family have far more to give to our family than “attention” and “influence”. Certainly, Heidi can (and does) request blessings using the priesthood in her home, but that is not all that she can do in terms of creating a home that can be shielded from harm. “You [Fathers] have the power of the priesthood directly from the Lord to protect your home. There will be times when all that stands as a shield between your family and the adversary’s mischief will be that power.” I cannot agree with this prediction; the shield is that we, as parents (plural, not gendered), can raise our children to be moral agents that can choose, as we can choose individually and unitedly, to resist immorality and “mischief”. If the use of priesthood in the home can be a bonding agent to help increase trust, love, and respect among all of us, so much the better. But it is only one ingredient among many for a strong home and family. The better ingredients have been what is available to all families, both within and without the LDS Church: love, respect, and kindness.
In total, President Packer’s call for men to step up in employing their authority in both the Church and the home, was severely limiting for members of the Church who do not have the priesthood. Which, if you’ll recall again, is the vast majority of Church members. It was a call for the minority to assert their authority and a call for the majority to assist and aid them in doing so. I felt that the entire talk was a missed opportunity to not simply empower those few men within the Church who have the priesthood, but instead call for all members of the Church to step it up in striving to obtain miracles and blessings from God. While the priesthood is authority that is currently limited to men, a call to live up to the power available to us as children of God is a call that anyone can answer.
All of this is why I appreciated so much the next talk by President Julie Beck, personally applying it somewhat as a corollary to the previous talk. My issue with President Packer’s talk came from my trying to apply generally the principles he was discussing to members of the Church as a whole; much of what he said simply cannot apply to the majority of church members. However, all of what President Beck spoke about is applicable to all members of the Church. She spoke of women in the church increasing faith, strengthening families, and providing relief. And she spoke of the power that can help women in accomplishing these goals: personal revelation. In discussing this, she was appealing to the personal and individual communication available to all individuals. To President Beck, the divine power available to women (and men, I would add) is a power that comes to them directly from God. Women are not dependent upon men to provide them with power: they have it by virtue of their personal relationship with God and their ability to listen to the revelatory promptings of God’s Spirit. Women don’t need men to tell them when they are doing well; she proclaimed that women should be women, not babies to be petted and corrected all the time. “We know we are successful if we live so that we qualify for, receive, and know how to follow the Spirit”.
President Beck was also exhorting the women of the Church to step it up: “In my visits with the sisters, I have felt that there has never been a greater need for increased faith and personal righteousness. There has never been a greater need for strong families and homes. There has never been more that could be done to help others who are in need… When Relief Society functions in an inspired way, it lifts women up and out of a troubled world and into a way of living that prepares them for the blessings of eternal life… Through Relief Society, sisters can receive answers to their questions and be blessed by the combined spiritual power of all the sisters.” Now, I’m not sure what was meant by “through Relief Society” in that statement, but the combined efforts of many people can be a powerful force indeed. In calling upon the sisters to do better, she told them that “We are doing well when we increase faith and personal righteousness, strengthen families and homes, and seek out and help others who are in need.” There was little from her remarks that was not equally applicable to any member of the Church, or, indeed, any member of another faith entirely. Her talk was not limiting at all, even though it was addressed only to the women of the Church. It was empowering and ennobling counsel that applied to everyone who was listening.
Indeed, these two points of view were present throughout the Conference to varying degrees. At times the exhortations to rely upon divine power was limited to those of the Priesthood, while at other times the same exhortation was given to everyone. Since the majority of Church membership is composed of individuals without Priesthood authority, I felt it was far better to speak to the Church as a whole. Especially since the Priesthood have their own semi-private session of General Conference (semi because I can’t imagine that anyone would ask a sister in attendance to leave). Why give a talk addressed to the Priesthood to the general membership in the first place? Especially one that seemed to be about so much more than wives requesting that their husbands offer and be involved in more blessings and ordinances to members of the family? I don’t have much of an answer.
TL;DR;
President Packer’s talk, while not saying anything negative in particular, was limiting in its aspect, target audience, and application. It was empowering to the few. President Beck’s talk, while also not a paragon of egalitarian thought, was unlimited in aspect, audience, and application. It was empowering to all.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 5th, 2010 at 2:05 pm by NoCoolName_Tom and is filed under Doctrine, History, Mormon, Personal, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
My Dear Tom,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of President Packer’s talk, and to a more limited degree to your assessment of President Beck’s talk. I think that it is perfectly acceptable to think and consider what our leaders say, and I also think that is just as acceptable to engage in dialogue in the other direction. You, appropriately, made some observations based on your perspective and understanding. Below I offer something of a defense of President Packer, based on my own perspective and understanding. I think we are friends enough to allow the other his opinion, but I felt inspired by your notes to address a few points.
First, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never made, in any dispensation, any claims toward egalitarianism, nor do I think they ought to. Neither do I believe that every talk needs to have some kind of universal appeal across the entire Church (nor even do necessarily the scriptures require that kind of universal applicability). Talks and sermons are given to address specific needs at specific times. This is the whole point of continuing revelation. Unlike our Protestant friends we in the Church of Jesus Christ do not find it necessary to establish a sort of universal hermeneutic of applicability to inspired statements, although we are free to “liken” any such statments to ourselves, as Nephi of old. Thora brought up the regular talks on Pornography, which are, hopefully limited in target audience and application.
Additionally, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will continue to do good in this world whether it continues to grow or not or whether its leaders, under the direction of revelation from Jesus Christ, choose to address those issues which “one would expect” they ought to address. I find it helpful to remember the warning of Isaiah that God’s thoughts and ways are not the same as our thoughts and ways. The good which the Church does is not dependent on growth, except insofar as it continues in its primary work, which is helping the children of God find salvation through Jesus Christ.
As for your specific concerns, I believe that Brother Packer accurately represented a number of important facts in relation to the Priesthood. The first is the priesthood does in fact confer with it a certain authority. This is made apparent by Doctrine and Covenants 107:8, 18-20; 84:21 and even 121:37. Of course, Priesthood functions differently in the family and in the home, as made clear by Elder Oaks talk on “Priesthood Authority in the Family and in the Church,” given in October Conference, 2005. Brother Oaks addressed many of the same issues that Brother Packer does, including presiding. President Packer’s statement (as quoted by you): “The father presides at the table, in family prayer, and in general instruction to the family. When he is present, he is presiding,” does represent some call to unrighteous dominion, but is instead a statement of fact.
Presiding does not confer some sort of special control over circumstances–it merely makes the presider responsible. An example of this may be seen from presiding in a Church meeting. When a member of a Stake Presidency visits a ward’s Sacrament Meeting, he presides over that meeting. He does not run the meeting, he does not change the program, in fact usually all he does is sit on the stand–yet he is still presiding. His office means that in Church functions: “When he is present, he is presiding.” Because of the virtue of his office he is unable to not preside. He cannot tell the Bishop, it is okay, you preside today, any more than the Bishop can say that to the Elder’s Quorum President. In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, we read: “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.” Thus, President Packer’s observation that the father is to preside is merely restating what was already well established by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. There are difficult circumstances, as in the case of single parent families, but the ability of the mother to preside in absence of the father should not be construed to imply that fathers do not preside, any more than the ability of a Bishop’s First Counselor to preside in the Bishop’s absence be construed to mean that the Bishop does not preside. It is important, I think, to remember that presiding authority does not necessarily equal unrigteous dominion, or else Doctrine and Covenants 121 would be unnecessary. I do believe, from my readings in the scriptures and modern revelation, that fathers do preside in the home. I do not believe that this gives some sort of undue power over my wife–whom you have met, and who is a fiercely independent woman. Yet we both agree that the roles of men and women described in the Family Proclamation derive from divine design.
Addressing another of your points, the scriptures are, I believe amply clear that in the ideal world Priesthood office and authority do in fact descend lineally from father to son, “else the whole earth be utterly wasted.” Your problem with President Packer’s illustration is not logically sound–you counter his story with a hypothetical “for all we know it could have ended just as easily that the young man felt that his reasons for not choosing his father were seen as pointless and, upon feeling that his input was completely ignored, descended into apathy in regards to his place within the Church.” This is not what happened, and so creates a negative situation, where there was none. You believe, as I do, that as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, Brother Packer has access to the inspiration of the Spirit of the Lord. I would like to suggest, just as hypothetically, that President Packer would not have been led to do as he had done if the young man’s reaction would have been as you suggest. Further, I disagree with the moral drawn from it. I do believe that “the decision was forced from love” and as the actual story (and not our theoreticals) bears out, President Packer’s action in fact led to an increased measure of love and understanding between the father and the son, suggesting to me that his action was in fact the correct action under the circumstances. Besides, is there anything wrong with respect for authority, merely because it is authority? One of my favourite quotes from Professor Tolkien addresses this point: “Tipping your hat the squire may be bad for the squire, but it is good for you.”
In sum, while President Packer’s talk may have been “limiting in its aspect, target audience, and application” as part of its target audience, I found myself edified and more dedicated to fulfilling my responsibilities, including offering an increased measure of love and support to my lovely wife and children. Remembering that I do not believe that individual talks need to address the needs of the entire membership of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I found President Packer’s talk informative and inspiring, as I did also with Sister Beck’s, although I was, in fact, outside of its stated intended audience. It may have, therefore, been more universally applicable, but I see that as a virtue in that talk, not a defect in Brother Packer’s.
I appreciate your thoughts and comments on this years Conference, Tom. As you say, there was a lot of great stuff for us to think about and apply to our lives.
I hope you and your family are well. I remain,
Your Loving Friend,
Avram R. Shannon
Avram,
I’m honored to be your friend, so no worries there, and I’m honored that you took the time to respond to my thoughts. I really do value your opinion highly.
One benefit from expressing my critique has been to have all of my friends responding as to what they personally took away from the talk. My criticisms are against the talk that I heard; it appears that few people heard the same talk that I did, which is a good thing, I think we’ll admit (and indicates that perhaps I needed to listen closer). And I certainly should have focused more on what I personally took away from the talk (it’s a bitter opinion that is based only on negatives): I need to do better in my responsibilities. There are indeed responsibilities that I have that are mine alone; whether or not that solitude is “correct” or “eternal” or not is irrelevant to the fact that here and now there are responsibilities that I hold as a father, husband, and member of the Church that need to be lived up to. I have many disagreements with the Church’s current patriarchal structure, but I also understand that our life on earth prevents our full view of God’s plan. “For now we are seeing through a mirror in obscurance, but then face to face; now I know by a part, but then I will know fully even as I was fully known.” (I’m still not comfortable cleaning up my translations; I know that sounded ugly.) It’s true that I could be plain wrong, and I need to always keep that in mind. I know that for some the ability to equally respect people is perfectly compatible with a patriarchal and gender-organized structure, but for myself that compatibility is difficult and I hope that someday we’ll move beyond it if only for my own mental benefit.
I know that the body of Christ is composed of different members, each important in their own right and each differing from the others, but I’m not sure that requires a structure as we have it today (or especially as it used to be a half-century ago). I’m not saying that our current structure is unscriptural or unsupported; I just believe that there are better options and I personally see the Church culture moving slowly in that direction. At times I get upset that it doesn’t seem to move faster, but that’s probably for the benefit of all of the members (myself included). Still, the Church is a big tent, large enough to hold all of us.
Thanks for your honest thoughts and observations on it all. I need to be more charitable in all that I say. It’s true that I’ve disagreed with many of President Packer’s strong opinions and positions before and that has probably flavored how I approach his sermon this year; that’s certainly not a good thing and I need to work on how to love him more as one of my Priesthood leaders. I suppose it’s not expected that everyone is supposed to get along but in the Zion society that we’re all striving for we need to love each other. I’m not there yet, but I’m working on it.
Our family is doing well. Hope things are going okay for you guys. I heard that your daughter broke her foot recently: I hope she is recovering nicely. We’ll keep you in our prayers. It’s great to hear from you; I know you’re busy so it means a lot to me that you’d take the time to share. Hope being a prof is fun; I envy your position, except I’d never be able to do it. I’m still a baby when it comes to my Greek–never mind Coptic, Hebrew, and all the rest that you know. I wish I had access to those as-primary-as-possible (is there a word for that?) sources, but I should be content that I am a computer programmer (O that I were a classicist!). I guess the grass is always greener, eh? Still, life is good over here and my family is doing well. Echo is an amazing little person (strange how I knew that would happen but still never really expected it) and we have a lot of fun.
Well, I’ve typed a lot, so it’s time to stop my ramblings. Take care Avram. Thanks.