Today's controversial topic of discussion...

It’s General Conference time again, and I’ll be doing my Conference report over the weekend, same as last time. (Of course, that was right at the beginning of this blog’s history, so most people probably missed it…if so, you can see the reports from each day here and here…)

For a pre-Conference topic of discussion, though—let’s focus on the apostleship for a second. During this conference, the Church will (presumably) be calling new apostles to take the place of the departed Elders Maxwell and Haight. More than a few Church members—including some in the LDS blogosphere—have suggested that the Church ‘should’—if not right now, then at a later date—call a female apostle to the Quorum of the Twelve. This is directly related to the idea that women ‘should’ have the priesthood, of course, but let’s focus on the apostleship question for now.

Let’s suppose for today’s hypothetical discussion that one of the new apostles called tomorrow is a woman—for example, let’s say…current General Relief Society President Bonnie D. Parkin.

What are the benefits of calling Sister Parkin to the apostleship, versus a boring and traditional male candidate? Does she benefit herself from the calling? Do the female members of the Church benefit from having a female apostle? Does the Church membership as a whole benefit? If so, in what way?

Being an apostle is a demanding position…although so is being the General Relief Society President, and I have no doubt that Sister Parkin could handle the responsibilities of either. Whether she could is not the question, though—but why she should... In what ways, if any, would Sister Parkin or any other woman be better in the role of apostle than any of the presumably many male candidates that could also equally handle the responsibilities? Are there specific church issues that need ‘a woman’s touch’ to be resolved adequately—something that no male apostle would be capable of doing? If you say that women should be ‘in the loop’, so to speak, for decision-making in the Church, doesn’t that imply that the decisions made by the male apostles are/would be flawed in some way without having female input? Would having one or more female apostles change any of the policy decisions made by the Church today? If no, then what difference does it make if women are involved or not? If yes, then doesn’t that mean there’s something inherently wrong with the current leaders’ ability to lead according to the Lord’s will (a whole other issue entirely…)?

I’m no expert on the specific day-to-day apostolic responsibilities (travel, speaking assignments, etc…), but the basic purpose of an apostle is to testify of Jesus Christ. Yet, in no way does one need the priesthood to testify of Christ—Sister Parkin does it every day already. Would her talks on gospel principles be somehow substantively different with her having “Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” in front of her name, rather than ‘just’ “General Relief Society President”? Are there women who would pay attention to a talk given by Apostle Parkin, but would ignore the same message given by a male apostle? Are there men who would listen more carefully to a talk given by a woman with ‘apostle’ in her title, but who would tune out any message by a woman speaker without it? If yes, doesn’t that speak of a more personal problem with those individuals rather than an inherent flaw in the Church organization?

Would having a female apostle benefit the women of the Church by providing a positive role model for them? If so, what’s keeping Sister Parkin from being a positive role model for them now? (Also, what’s the problem with women having male role models in terms of spirituality? Isn’t that what Christ is to all of us?)

Would having a female apostle give young women hope that they can ‘aspire’ to be an apostle themselves when they grow up (like having a female US president)? (Question: should one ‘aspire’ to be an apostle? Would someone who aspires to the apostleship be more or less suitable to be an apostle than someone who does not? Discuss…) This is different than aspiring to be ‘Christ-like’, of course, which is open to everyone…

I am not arguing that a woman should not be an apostle (or as an extension that women should not hold the priesthood) because that implies that not having female priesthood holders is somehow better than having them (I can think of no such reason…) However, by the same token, saying a woman should be an apostle or that women should have the priesthood implies that that situation would be better in some substantive way for the members of the Church, and I can think of no such reason here either.

I honestly don’t care if women receive the priesthood in the future and/or there’s a female apostle someday—let things come how they may. My wife would be a fine and worthy priesthood holder if the opportunity arose—but in no way does she need the priesthood to fulfill any part of the plan of salvation, or to testify of Christ, or to teach our children, or to serve others in her calling as ward RS president. This whole ‘women-and-the-priesthood’ thing seems sometimes to be less about bringing actual benefits to women Church-wide, and more about an inherent distrust of male leaders—the attitude that in no way can a male Church leader handle anything related to women adequately--only a female leader can do it ‘right’. This is no different (and wrong) than a black, Hispanic, or Asian member refusing to listen to a Church leader because he’s white (or a young person not listening to a Church leader because he’s over 90 years old)--thus ‘doesn’t understand’ or is ‘out of touch with my issues’. It doesn’t matter to me if the apostle speaking to me during General Conference happens to be black, Hispanic, Asian…or female—and it should be the same the other way around, too. The Lord calls whom He will call and ‘whether by His voice or the voice of His servants it is the same”…