Feminist Mormons Ask Lds Leader To Clarify Comment

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, that's the whole point. These sisters are children of God and deserve the same respect any other person If it is wrong for them to publicly criticize church leaders, it is equally wrong for us to publicly criticize them. Mote and beam. Do unto others. All that good stuff.

I don't see disrespect here; I do see disagreement. Do you equate disagreement with disrespect? If that's the case, then Sister Dalton has been the victim of disrespect many times over in recent days.

If it is wrong for them to publicly criticize church leaders, it is equally wrong for us to publicly criticize them. Mote and beam. Do unto others. All that good stuff.

Unless otherwise specified, statements by Church leaders are, for the most part, in-house. That is, they are directed toward adherents to the faith. By going public with a campaign for change or a call for action, one takes it into a public arena and ought to expect public commentary and even criticism. Respectful criticism, but criticism nonetheless.

But I thought we were going to agree to disagree on this.

[thesometimesaint]

We are not judging the sisters, some may be disagreeing (judging) their actions. Judging righteously is something we are commanded to do.

The problem comes in when we act when we merely think we're being righteous in our judgement.

[TAO]

For the membership, it represents the Lord. For the Lord, it represents the membership. Church leadership cannot adequately serve the people if it is not listening to the Lord. Likewise, leadership cannot adequately serve the Lord if it is not listening to the people.

Naturally. But whom deserves more respect, the Lord, or the people? I think the Lord deserves a bit more respect. I can count on the lord to respect his people, and relate that to the leadership. On the other hand, I cannot trust the people to always respect the Lord. Thus, I prefer to be a bit more cautioius, and hesitant in criticizing church leadership. That isn't to say it shouldn't be done, but one should have caveats with certain degrees of it.

Edited January 31, 2013 by TAO

[Scott Lloyd]

You pulled a 180 in just 22 words. Impressive. Are you judging or not? Whichever way you choose, allow others to do the same.

I think go_utes is endeavoring to differentiate between unrighteous judgment, which is forbidden, and righteous judgment, which is not.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Naturally. But whom deserves more respect, the Lord, or the people? I think the Lord deserves a bit more respect. I can count on the lord to respect his people. Thus, one should be a bit more cautioius, and hesitant in criticiziing church leadership. That isn't to say it shouldn't be done, but one should have caveats with certain degress of it.

I couldn't disagree more. All of us are children of God. We all deserve the same level of respect. That doesn't mean we lower our respect for the Lord or church leadership, but that we need to elevate it for our common brothers and sisters. I recall something about the "greatest of all" being the lowest of all.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Buckeye

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem comes in when we act when we merely think we're being righteous in our judgement.

Yes, there's the rub.

But righteous judgment is something that is essential, even though it might be unfairly criticized as unrighteous.

[Buckeye]

I think go_utes is endeavoring to differentiate between unrighteous judgment, which is forbidden, and unrighteous judgment, which is not.

Umm .. typo?

[Scott Lloyd]

But I think Smac's was serious in asking our opinion as to these sisters.

I think he was focusing on their behavior. An important distinction.

[TAO]

I couldn't disagree more. All of use are children of God. We all deserve the same level of respect.

But doesn't the Lord deserve more respect than any of us? And doesn't he work with his servants. So I think... shouldn't one be modest about what brings to his servants, and thus, to him? Not to respect the man, but the Lord who he represents?

I'm not saying that what the sister's said is bad, but should we not be careful about what we request of the Lord, else we make a Martin Haris esque mistake?

That doesn't mean we lower our respect for the Lord or church leadership, but that we need to elevate it for our common brothers and sisters. I recall something about the "greatest of all" being the lowest of all.

The greatest of all is the humble, who do not take advantage of other's weakness. I have a long way to go to that state indeed =/.

Edited January 31, 2013 by TAO

[Buckeye]

Yes, there's the rub.

But righteous judgment is something that is essential, even though it might be unfairly criticized as unrighteous.

Yes, and "righteous judgment" just means that it's me doing the judging. "Unrighteous judgment" means you're doing it. Would you really be ok with these petitioners if they publically affirmed "we think our judgments are right"?

[go_utes01]

I think go_utes is endeavoring to differentiate between unrighteous judgment, which is forbidden, and righteous judgment, which is not.

That's right. I do not believe we are authorized to judge individuals, but we are commanded to righteously judge individuals' actions. Does that make sense? And, what I have seen in this thread is some disagreement about actions, not judgement of individuals.

[Scott Lloyd]

Umm .. typo?

I think the error was up less than a minute before I noticed it myself and corrected it.

But I see I'm not quick enough for you!

[Scott Lloyd]

That's right. I do not believe we are authorized to judge individuals, but we are commanded to righteously judge individuals' actions. Does that make sense? And, what I have seen in this thread is some disagreement about actions, not judgement of individuals.

To use a frequent expression of volgadon's, quoted for truth!

[Buckeye]

The greatest of all is the humble, who do not take advantage of other's weakness. I have a long way to go to that state indeed =/.

So why have a discussion about these petitioner's weakness? And yes, I fully understand that I'm being hypocritical in "judging your judging". My point is simply that we're doing the same thing we criticize them for.

[TAO]

So why have a discussion about these petitioner's weakness? And yes, I fully understand that I'm being hypocritical in "judging your judging". My point is simply that we're doing the same thing we criticize them for.

Indeed. You'll have to ask Smac about that.

[go_utes01]

Yes, and "righteous judgment" just means that it's me doing the judging. "Unrighteous judgment" means you're doing it. Would you really be ok with these petitioners if they publically affirmed "we think our judgments are right"?

I disagree with your personal definition of righteousness, but you are free to hold it.

[Buckeye]

That's right. I do not believe we are authorized to judge individuals, but we are commanded to righteously judge individuals' actions. Does that make sense? And, what I have seen in this thread is some disagreement about actions, not judgement of individuals.

That makes complete sense. So why don't we be charitable and assume these petitioners are merely righteously judging a church action (only males pray) and not unrighteously judging any church person. After all, their petitions are "Let women pray" or "Let women wear pants" not "Hey Thomas, we think you're a bad guy".

[TAO]

Buckeye, it wouldn't be charitable to the church leaders to assume such. To be charitable to both, one must simply say they both have good intentions. That's the most we can say, I think.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, and "righteous judgment" just means that it's me doing the judging. "Unrighteous judgment" means you're doing it. Would you really be ok with these petitioners if they publically affirmed "we think our judgments are right"?

As I've expressed elsewhere on this board more than once in recent days, I believe that bringing concerns to the attention of Church leaders is a time-honored and reasonable practice in the Church. I don't believe it is appropriate for Church members to mount public protests or media-orchestrated, political-type pressure campaigns and bring them to bear on Church leaders.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So why have a discussion about these petitioner's weakness?

I guess I missed the part where Smac or someone else was commenting on their weakness. I thought the discussion was about their behavior.

[Buckeye]

Buckeye, it wouldn't be charitable to the church leaders to assume such. To be charitable to both, one must simply say they both have good intentions. That's the most we can say, I think.

Bingo!

[mfbukowski]

9. Another point being raised in this discussion is that the Church should "[a]llow women access to all callings that do not require the Priesthood, such as ward clerk and Sunday School President, and allow women to have oversight of a ward’s finances."

While I agree with the general proposition that whether women can be in non-priesthood-requiring callings merits further attention and discussion, I am not sure that A) public demands for such a discussion are appropriate, and B) that there is an objective means of determining which callings must be filled by a priesthood holder.

Exactly!

The Ward Clerk has access to all the confidential information in the ward and is required to attend both the bishopric and Priesthood Executive Committee meetings, and take notes at disciplinary councils. Seems pretty clearly a priesthood function to me.

Assistant clerks however are another issue. I see no problem with women helping out

I really have no problem with any of it either way, but indeed if a woman wants to attend PEC and Bishopric where all the ward secrets are discussed openly usually and sit in on disciplinary councils, I actually have no problem with it. I personally would have loved to AVOID such duties, but if someone really wants them, that's their issue.

That seems to me to be another issue unmentioned here. Doesn't all this qualify as "aspiring to leadership"?

What if a man got up in testimony meeting and said "I sure hope I can be Bishop (Ward Clerk, etc.) some day!"

We had a new convert do that once and he was ostracized (unfairly) for doing so. He did it in innocence, expressing enthusiasm in taking on callings, but it was taken to be "aspiring to be Bishop" which is a no-no, I suppose because it is seen as "campaigning" to be Bishop and thereby undermining the process of inspiration by which leadership is called.

Who would want to sit in disciplinary councils anyway?

[TAO]

I guess I missed the part where Smac or someone else was commenting on their weakness. I thought the discussion was about their behavior.

Behavior is weakness persay. Weakness is any imperfections you have. Discussing imperfections is bad, but one has to be hesitant about critique. Ask the Lord about what is the right amount.

[go_utes01]

That makes complete sense. So why don't we be charitable and assume these petitioners are merely righteously judging a church action (only males pray) and not unrighteously judging any church person. After all, their petitions are "Let women pray" or "Let women wear pants" not "Hey Thomas, we think you're a bad guy".

That is fine. I don't think anybody has questioned their sincerity or motivation (at least I haven't). Do I need to explain again that people are disagreeing about the appropriateness of their tactics? Nobody has said they are evil women who will burn or are trying to bring down the Church - we are just questioning their decision to mount public protests.

Edited January 31, 2013 by go_utes01

[CV75]

That makes complete sense. So why don't we be charitable and assume these petitioners are merely righteously judging a church action (only males pray) and not unrighteously judging any church person. After all, their petitions are "Let women pray" or "Let women wear pants" not "Hey Thomas, we think you're a bad guy".

If I were to criticize the petitioning group, it would be accusing Sister Dalton of conveying one meaning (gender rights lobbying) under the guise of seeking clarification of her statements about lobbying for coveted ecclesiastical “rights” within the Church. Considering such a well-informed group, I’m not sure why it wouldn’t give her the benefit of a doubt and then ask for clarification, and develop an agenda through dialogue with Church leaders, and keep points of disagreement within the Church setting. It seems they that do think that Thomas is a bad guy.