Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Not Good Enough to Bless Him

My brother-in-law's wedding, the wedding I've kind of been timing my life by, was last weekend. We flew out Thursday to find that everyone in my husband's family was sick with the flu or phenomena or something. Literally, everyone was coughing and throwing up and the whole bit. So on Friday we spent the whole day setting up for the wedding reception, and were planning on going to the sealing, luncheon, ring ceremony and reception the next day. But K woke up at 11:30 on Friday night barely able to breathe. I spent the rest of the night awake on the couch to make sure he was okay.

The next morning it was pretty clear that we weren't going to make it to the wedding. K was barely able to stand, and looked ready to die. So we told his mom that he didn't feel up to it. She asked if he wanted a blessing, and he said yes. His older brother and grandfather gave him a blessing and I stood off to the side and watched.

This made me really angry. As his wife I can stay up all night with him, I can stay home with him and get him what he needs, I can worry about him, I can take him to the doctor, get him to take his pills, I can do everything but call on the power of God to help him. I'm not good enough to do that. I can take care of him physically, but I'm not allowed to invoke the name and power of God to heal him. As a wife, that made me really mad. He's my husband; he's the most important person in my life and I would do anything for him. But as a woman the church does not allow me to. They deny me the ability to bless my husband. I have to stand aside and watch while men do it.

I don't deny that his brother and grandfather had a right to bless him. They are his family and love him. If he had wanted them to do it instead of me, he has that right. I don't want to deny anyone the right to bless those they love. But I am denied that because of my gender. I'm good enough to do everything else expect use the power of God to bless. It felt so wrong to me to be excluded from that not by the choice of the person being blessed but by the rules of an institution that chooses to deny half the population the ability to access the power of God to bless the lives of others.

Many insist that women are not second class citizens in the church. This is an instance where I felt very much second-class. The only reason I could not bless my husband was because of my gender. My relationship with him, my worthiness, my connection with God were all overshadowed by the fact that I have different sexual organs then my brother-in-law. I am excluded based on my gender, which is the definition of a second-class citizen.

12 comments:

  1. Did you pray for him? That in my mind is just as powerful and how I have blessed my children and called on Gods power to heal them in the past.

    On another note, it sad for me to see how you have accepted me with open arms on other forums as a fellow liberal feminist in the Church (with a funny nickname) , but when you assumed I was a self righteous right-winger all you had for me was disgust and hatred. I would hope that would never happen if we were to meet in real life.

    Jen Rathdrum

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your words expressed disgust and hatred for Taylor, especially your comments about "I would suggest that perhaps your biggest difficulty is insisting on doing what YOU want instead of what Heavenly Father wants you to do. We do not have that luxury in this world. Yes, you may have to sacrifice some to follow the path he has set for you, but it will work out for the best in the end. These are hard words to hear, but the root of your problem is not society or the Church, it is selfishness. You want to only do what you want to do. Selfishness has never gotten anyone anywhere. If you are not willing to sacrifice, life is going to be miserable for you." Calling her out on her relationship with God is not okay, and it made me angry. I could have reacted more politely, but I would call anyone out on judging others relationships with God, no matter who they are. I would hope you would not judge her or anyone else as harshly in real life as you did on her blog. She is responsible for her path, not you. So yes, I got angry because I felt you were telling her that her understanding of God is wrong. You can take a different path without hers being wrong. So I apologize for reacting in anger and hope you can see why I was angry.

      And yes, I did pray for my husband. It was exclusion from the ritual that upset me. There is assumed power in that ritual that is denied to women.

      Delete
  2. I think the "money question" about blessings is this: if a woman's prayer is just as good as a priesthood blessing, why do we feel the need to do blessings if a woman has already prayed? If it really is just as good, why bother getting out the oil? It's redundant. The answer is that ultimately, we think the priesthood blessing really is one step up. A prayer isn't "enough". And that's the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. First, great post DefyGravity. I second TopHat. I think that's a great observation, one I've noticed myself. Take a father's blessing and a mother's prayer for a sick child--the former has a lot more emphasis place upon it in the Church, usually. Although we may give lip service to the latter (if this wasn't the case, as TopHat suggested, a blessing would indeed be redundant). I think this idea can be tied back to the proscribed role of a Priesthood holder in the home.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with both of you. If my prayer counted for as much, or anyone's prayer counted as much, why are priesthood blessings used? Why not have a family prayer instead? Priesthood blessings are used in more extreme cases of health problems, and I've always felt that blessings are used for an added punch of power, when prayer isn't enough. But as women we're excluded from that extra bit, when prayers aren't enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the idea of family prayer with all touching the person. Wow- that would be amazing. In our ward conference this past Sunday. The Stake President said- "we often say that the Priesthood is the right to act in God's name- but I think it is the ability to serve" Then he went on to say some rather gender specific stuff that had nothing to do with his statement.

      I also have to go to Priesthood Preview since I am a member of the Primary Presidency. And year after year I sit there and see no reason that not all children turning 12 are there. They is no power that I see in one gender being able to access God's power.

      I stubble with how to change the ritual in our home without making my kids outcasts at church. I know when to keep my mouth shut, but they don't really get that yet.

      Delete
  5. >>I'm good enough to do everything else expect use the power of God to bless.<<

    Where are you getting this? What makes you think it is a matter of being "good enough" or not good enough?

    I don't think there's any justification for this idea in Church doctrine. I know of nothing in the Church teachings even suggesting women don't hold the priesthood because they're not good enough. The answer is we don't know why only men hold it. But just because we don't know the reason(s) doesn't mean we can insert our own speculative reasons and then take offense or injury based on our own speculation. To me the suggestion that women don't hold the priesthood because they're not good enough is similar to those who speculate that women don't hold the priesthood because they have motherhood. The truth is both of these ideas are speculative. We don't know so it's probably better in my opinion to acknowledge our lack of knowledge and move on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm saying that's how I felt at the time. You're right, there is no good reason for why women don't hold the priesthood. I can't come up with a single good reason for God to deny women the priesthood. Since there is no decent reason, it is possible to feel as though women just don't count. That is how I feel about it, and if you look at it, often people are excluded from power because they are considered less important. Look at how blacks and women have been treated in the past. So it is a logical conclusion to draw based on history.

      As a man you likely have never experienced what it feels like to be excluded like this, so your opinion about letting it go doesn't mean much. What you are doing is called gaslighting, which means dismissing someone's feelings without giving them any kind of consideration. Look it up (here's a place to start http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/2011/09/12/a-message-to-women-from-a-man-you-are-not-%E2%80%9Ccrazy%E2%80%9D/). You are being dismissive of my experience because you do not share it, which is not an okay thing to do. You choose to dismiss my opinion and experience, so I feel very okay about ignoring your opinion. I don't care what you think about how I should feel.

      Delete
  6. First, I never said there is no good reason for why women don't hold the priesthood. I said we don't know the reason(s). At the very least you should accurately represent opposing view points.

    Second, you are obviously quite angry because you feel that your view point is dismissed by someone who disagrees. Then you summarily dismiss my view point because you disagree. Extending to others the courtesy you're looking for would probably go a long way to encouraging productive discussion.

    Finally, you never addressed my point, which is that your assertion that women don't hold the priesthood because they're not good enough is baseless. Unless you have some type of authority supporting it - in which case I'd be interested to see it - I think it would be more productive to acknowledge that we don't know the reasons for the status quo and focus on what we do know. If what you meant was that you personally don't feel good enough to hold the priesthood, that is a different point. But it is doctrinally unsupported to assert that women as a whole do not hold the priesthood because they are not good enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The authority in the church ignores women. Of course they aren't going to say that women don't count; that would come back to bite them in an insane way and they know it. But they don't include women's voices in manuals. They don't have women in leadership positions that don't have to answer to men. Women don't pray in General Conference; they don't speak in Priesthood session, though men do speak at the RS session. Women leadership positions are called auxiliary, which means extra. So yes, the church implies in many ways that women are inferior.

      Gordon Hinckley said that woman are happy and don't want the priesthood; that shows a lack of understanding of women in the church. But this seems to be the mentality that leaders hold, so waiting for them to say something about this is useless. They've decided how women feel and surround themselves with women who feel that way and therefore don't feel the need to question status quo.

      Your opinion was that the church hasn't given a reason for women not holding the priesthood. That is not in dispute and I didn't disagree. But you also said people should let it go. You can let it go, but that doesn't mean I have to. Yes, I'm angry, and that is why I created this blog. So I will say how I feel, and will not be dismissed for how I feel on my own blog. It's ironic that you were rude first, then get on my case about it.

      Delete
    2. So, to clarify, I didn't dismiss your view. I dismissed your opinion/advice on how people should react. You can think what you want, and I'd be interested to hear how you explain women's position in the church. I never said that anyone had to feel the way I do, yet you said that people should just move on. You can say that you've chosen to move on, which makes no sense because you aren't upset about it in the first place. So saying that people should move on is telling people like me to just get over it. That is what I object to. I object to being told how I should feel and how I should react. That is the part I chose to dismiss, because it is something you don't have a say in.

      Delete
  7. Amen. DefyGravity. There is certainly a systemic devaluing of women's voices in the church (likely unintentional). Were this not so, we would see women praying in Conference, we would see a lot more women speaking in Conference, we would return to an more autonomous RS, we would see quotes women in manuals, we would see women in positions that do not require the priesthood (as you suggested above). I really could live without the Priesthood if the Church actually demonstrated that they value women, their contributions, talents, voices, and leadership more than just saying that they do. Actions speak louder than words.

    It saddened me that Pres. Hinckley (and other church leaders) did not (and do not) recognize the pain many women in the church are in. I really loved Pres. Hinckley growing up, I think he was a good man. I'd like to believe that he and current Church leaders wouldn't dismiss my feelings, DefyGravity's feelings or the feelings of countless women (and men) that find refuge in the bloggernacle.

    And Ryan, I'm glad we were able to have what I thought was a nice discussion on my blog, but I do believe DefyGravity's feelings are valid and well founded. It would really be nice to "get over" my issues about the Church, but there is so much pain and hurt that exists. I can't speak for DefyGravity, but I use my blog and presence on the bloggernacle to work through my pain and hurt to better analyze my feelings and discern what the reality actually is. If you don't mind me saying, DefyGravity--I get the sense that that's what you might be doing here, too.

    ReplyDelete