Feminist Mormons Ask Lds Leader To Clarify Comment

[juliann]

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?

I try to keep tabs on what is going on and I don't think I have ever heard a woman say she wants to be bishop in the sense that you mean it. Their point is that there needs to be more female involvement. A more appropriate conclusion is that they want to be more involved and yes, we do hear people say that and it is considered a good thing. So there needs to be more caution in how we say things so that it does not end up as a declaration that it is ok when men ask to do more but not women.

The only way to deal with open criticism like this, when it is based on a very visible structural inequality, is to simply acknowledge the complaint and find some way to be charitable. Otherwise, all we do is prove that women are indeed denigrated and dismissed in the Mormon church. That should actually be a DUH moment. And that is why this will continue to be public so I don't understand all the hand wringing over what they "should" do as if they are naughty five year olds. What difference does it make?? What they are doing is the point.

[Buckeye]

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!"

How do you distinguish primary children who sing "I hope they call me on a mission"? Or a new member father who says "I want to be ordained a Priest so I can baptize my kids"? Perhaps there is a difference between a general aspiration for service vs. seeking a specific office. I see no problem with anyone - male or female - aspiring to the priesthood. Abraham did.

[Jude2]

Here’s the problem;

Robertson said. “That was really like a stake in the heart for a lot of people because here’s their advocate saying, in essence, ‘don’t ask for anything else, don’t lobby for more,’

Sister Dalton is not anyone’s advocated she is the Lord’s servant.

Feminist have authority all mixed up, they look at from a worldly view of power instead of the humble view of a servant.

[Biz]

These women simply want the opportunity to pray in general conference, this is crazy! No prophet or church leader has prohibited it (in modern times) so what in the world is wrong with asking for the opportunity? Now, I can see them asking Sister Dalton to clarify her comments because maybe Sister Dalton knows something they don't as in, "a valid and explained reason why women can't pray in general conference." At a minimum these sister deserve to have an answer or an explanation as to why they are excluded from praying. Furthermore, unless expressly prohibited by God, women should be able to pray in general conference.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Biz

[smac97]

Smac, I hope you can see the irony of your using a public forum such as this board to protest against these women's public protest.

I don't see the irony. I am not using this forum to agitate for change within the LDS Church. That is what I found objectionable. I am not engaging in that conduct.

I have not sent a letter or taken any affirmative action for these members' petition. But I also will not criticize them unless I can provide a better way to address their real concerns. I cannot. I'd reallly like to hear if anyone else has better ideas.

A person who would like to voice a concern can talk to their bishop, then stake president, and so on. That's the process.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

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.

Everyone knows darn well there is no way to set up a "dialogue" with church leaders on this. Have you not noticed that the only way to counter these ladies is to harp about what they should do and criticize them instead of what they are saying? But not one person can come up with a realistic alternative as they say they should do something different. What you are really demanding is that the church set up a way for rank and file people to approach them so that doesn't put you much higher ground. That is an incredibly weak position to be in when criticizing the now commonplace and accepted use of media to get people's attention that won't talk to you otherwise.

I am not so naive to think that all of this is being done with pure intent. But sheesh....why fall right into the trap by doing exactly what they are implying....women are treated respectfully by Mormons?

[smac97]

Tao, Smac repeatedly says he does not take issue with the requests themselves - be they pants or prayer. What he takes issue with is the manner in which the members are seeking to be heard - public petitions rather than ____blank____________ (he doesn't specify).

The irony is that Smac chose to air this grievance in this public forum rather than go directly to these petitioners and tell them he thinks they are in error. If Smac really believed what he preaches, he would email the petitioners, not start a public blog post.

Not so. I have no particular relationship with these folks, nor are they similarly situated with the LDS Church.

My position is that the LDS Church is what it claims to be (the Kingdom of God on the earth, presided over by prophets and apostles), and that there is a mechanism in place for church members to air grievances or request changes.

Nothing I have done is inconsistent with this position.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Biz]

I don't see the irony. I am not using this forum to agitate for change within the LDS Church. That is what I found objectionable. I am not engaging in that conduct.

-Smac

Is it that big of a deal, simply asking for women to pray in general conference? I don't see any change necessary here, there is nothing to change, women are not disallowed or prohibited from praying in public meetings of the Church.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Biz

[cinepro]

The problem isn't Sister Dalton's fault. The problem is the habit Church leaders have in general of trying to address specific problems using vague and allusive language, on the assumption that everyone will know what they're talking about without them having to actually say it.

Usually, such statements are understood by those familiar with the problem, and the rest are just mildly confused. In this case, Sister Dalton's ham-fisted attempt to only circumspectly take on the presumptive protesters backfired since her attempt to be vague led her to instead say something entirely different than what she meant.

Any public speaker with even a modicum of self awareness would have recognized how poorly worded that statement was in addressing such a sensitive issue, and would have reworded it to be clearer and more specific.

I suspect Sister Dalton is now a public speaker with a modicum of self awareness.

Edited January 31, 2013 by cinepro

[ksfisher]

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

Assistant clerks, and I'm especially thinking of the financial clerk, do spend a lot of time each Sunday working one on one with a member of the bishopric. Perhaps it would be most prudent to leave the clerks as male and not risk any problems in that direction.

[Jude2]

These women simply want the opportunity to pray in general conference, this is crazy! No prophet or church leader has prohibited it (in modern times) so what in the world is wrong with asking for the opportunity? Now, I can see them asking Sister Dalton to clarify her comments because maybe Sister Dalton knows something they don't as in, "a valid and explained reason why women can't pray in general conference." At a minimum these sister deserve to have an answer or an explanation as to why they are excluded from praying. Furthermore, unless expressly prohibited by God, women should be able to pray in general conference.

It’s a lot more than that!

[Buckeye]

Assistant clerks, and I'm especially thinking of the financial clerk, do spend a lot of time each Sunday working one on one with a member of the bishopric. Perhaps it would be most prudent to leave the clerks as male and not risk any problems in that direction.

Our bishop spends a lot of time with the RS President. Heck, some of their PPIs last 30 minutes to an hour. Probably best to have the RS President be a male so as not to risk any problems.

[Biz]

It’s a lot more than that!

Please explain.

[Jude2]

Exactly!

Who would want to sit in disciplinary councils anyway?

Oh Amen!

[mfbukowski]

I try to keep tabs on what is going on and I don't think I have ever heard a woman say she wants to be bishop in the sense that you mean it. Their point is that there needs to be more female involvement.

I understand and I guess I was just exaggerating a bit to stir the pot.

But honestly if I was a woman I cannot figure out WHY I would WANT to be "more involved". Honestly!

Most people want to avoid responsibility and church callings perceived to be high-responsibility callings.

I mean seriously, who would want to spend 10-20 hours per week dealing with church business, after work, when people could be doing anything else with their time? It is a tremendous sacrifice and huge responsibility- you are dealing with people's salvation here.

My point is that I think the only reason anyone would actually WANT such a thing is precisely because some want to prove that they CAN do it.

Of course women could do every single job in the church, and probably do it better than men. Women tend to be more compassionate, better at detailed work, better at dealing with people, etc etc.

Do female primary teachers want to be primary presidents? Do relief society teachers want to be sunday school presidents- really? Do they want to be relief society presidents? If you are a Young Women's president in the ward, do you want to be a YW president of the stake?

I chose those examples just to show my point- who WANTS "more involvement"?

I think only those who have not experienced it would even think about it. I would personally love to attend my 3 hour block meetings, be taught and edified, and go home. Instead, I seldom see my family on Sunday, I end up driving all over the stake and attending meetings. I do it because the Lord wants me to, and I have a testimony that he wants that.

I do it for Him and because I have a testimony. But do I want "more involvement"? I have a hard time imagining what it would be like to even want that.

[mfbukowski]

Assistant clerks, and I'm especially thinking of the financial clerk, do spend a lot of time each Sunday working one on one with a member of the bishopric. Perhaps it would be most prudent to leave the clerks as male and not risk any problems in that direction.

You are right- another issue totally! And those offices are awfully small, with two people looking at the same computer screen checking the inputs.

[Biz]

I understand and I guess I was just exaggerating a bit to stir the pot.

But honestly if I was a woman I cannot figure out WHY I would WANT to be "more involved". Honestly!

Most people want to avoid responsibility and church callings perceived to be high-responsibility callings.

I mean seriously, who would want to spend 10-20 hours per week dealing with church business, after work, when people could be doing anything else with their time? It is a tremendous sacrifice and huge responsibility- you are dealing with people's salvation here.

My point is that I think the only reason anyone would actually WANT such a thing is precisely because some want to prove that they CAN do it.

Of course women could do every single job in the church, and probably do it better than men. Women tend to be more compassionate, better at detailed work, better at dealing with people, etc etc.

Do female primary teachers want to be primary presidents? Do relief society teachers want to be sunday school presidents- really? Do they want to be relief society presidents? If you are a Young Women's president in the ward, do you want to be a YW president of the stake?

I chose those examples just to show my point- who WANTS "more involvement"?

I think only those who have not experienced it would even think about it. I would personally love to attend my 3 hour block meetings, be taught and edified, and go home. Instead, I seldom see my family on Sunday, I end up driving all over the stake and attending meetings. I do it because the Lord wants me to, and I have a testimony that he wants that.

I do it for Him and because I have a testimony. But do I want "more involvement"? I have a hard time imagining what it would be like to even want that.

Well clearly some women in the Church would like more involvement so unless expressly prohibited why not allow them to become more involved?

[CV75]

I see no problem with anyone - male or female - aspiring to the priesthood. Abraham did.

There are some differences in how they aspire to priesthood.

Abraham: “…I [Abraham] sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers. It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me. I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.”

Substituting for the feminine we would get:

“…I [Abra] sought for the blessings of the mothers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a mother of many nations, a princess of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priestess, holding the right belonging to the mothers. It was conferred upon me from the mothers; it came down from the mothers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first woman, who is Eve, or first mother, through the mothers unto me. I sought for mine appointment unto the Priestess-hood according to the appointment of God unto the mothers concerning the seed.”

I think there are some doctrinal inconsistencies in the above substitution as it relates to priesthood office. Before I list a few, according to latter-day revelation (D&C 131:2), men obtain these blessings only by ordination to priesthood office followed by priesthood sealing under higher authority into the order (“[meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage])”. Women obtain these blessings only by priesthood sealing under proper authority into the order.

Assuming the most exalted blessings of the fathers and the mothers are ultimately identical (continuation of the seeds):

1) How are women ordained to administer the blessings of the mothers, if not by the new and everlasting covenant of marriage?

2) How are women likewise to become mothers of many nations? And can they, in the event a single nation is the offspring of a single woman? Abraham accomplished it through multiple wives.

3) Queens (not princesses) and Priestesses are addressed through temple ordinance, without ordination to the office of “High Priestess” in mortality, the right being contained within the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

4) What priesthood rights are conferred from mothers to daughters, aside from being born in the covenant, which conference is a shared priesthood rights with their husband? But Abraham is talking about office as well as priesthood order. And both marriage partners confer the rights of birth in the covenant to sons as well as daughters.

5) Eve was not the firstborn, and neither was she a twin to the firstborn, Adam.

6) It seems the only priesthood appointment God has for women is through the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, the vehicle through they become Queens and Priestesses.

[Buckeye]

CV75 - you're assuming the conclusion; namely that men have a right to the priesthood and women do not. Do you at least agree that men can righteously seek after the priesthood?

[Ahab]

I like this part:

You will understand your roles and your responsibilities and thus will see no need to lobby for rights."

Interesting how some women these days don't seem to understand their roles and responsibilities, and how they will still go on lobbying for their rights. If they understood their roles and responsibilites they would understand they already have all the rights that go along with their roles and responsibilities as women, with no need to lobby for them.

Why do they need someone else to explain to them what should already be so blatantly obvious to them?

[Jude2]

Please explain.

Last time I expressed my thoughts on feminism I got banned but I’ll try.

I had a long conversation with a Mormon feminist on another website and her basic argument was this.

Joseph Smith’s original intent was to make the Relief Society a priesthood organization for women but the mean old nasty male church leaders (and she used those very words) stole the priesthood from women and made us all slaves to our husbands.

She had quote after quote but as I took the time to look them up I found that each time they were taken out of context and twisted to fit her agenda. Basically the hardcore feminist have swallowed the progressive political agenda and they are “community organizers” with the intent to divide the Church. Wave comes on all sweet and nice but they can be very devious. They are using these silly issues like wearing pants to mask their real intent. It's one little step after another.

[CV75]

Everyone knows darn well there is no way to set up a "dialogue" with church leaders on this. Have you not noticed that the only way to counter these ladies is to harp about what they should do and criticize them instead of what they are saying?

i don't want to counter "these ladies." Call me naive, but I think that the group that represents them (and the men that agree with "these ladies") could open up a dialogue (or could have). Note my original criticism about the group. For all it has going for it, it should take a new tack if it isn't too late. Ths might allow some doctrinal discussion of some of the Abrahamic types of things Buckeye alluded to and which I responded to.

[smac97]

I try to keep tabs on what is going on and I don't think I have ever heard a woman say she wants to be bishop in the sense that you mean it. Their point is that there needs to be more female involvement. A more appropriate conclusion is that they want to be more involved and yes, we do hear people say that and it is considered a good thing. So there needs to be more caution in how we say things so that it does not end up as a declaration that it is ok when men ask to do more but not women.

The only way to deal with open criticism like this, when it is based on a very visible structural inequality, is to simply acknowledge the complaint and find some way to be charitable. Otherwise, all we do is prove that women are indeed denigrated and dismissed in the Mormon church. That should actually be a DUH moment. And that is why this will continue to be public so I don't understand all the hand wringing over what they "should" do as if they are naughty five year olds. What difference does it make?? What they are doing is the point.

Two thoughts:

First, I think the means by which we express dissatisfaction with church governance matter. Some means are kosher, others are not.

Second, I think that agitation for change, directed publicly against Church by Church members, even where the criticism or request for change is legitimate and/or presented in good faith, is inappropriate.

Thanks,

-Spencer Macdonald

[CV75]

CV75 - you're assuming the conclusion; namely that men have a right to the priesthood and women do not. Do you at least agree that men can righteously seek after the priesthood?

Men do have a right to the priesthood in a way that women do not. Likewise, women have a right to the priesthood in a way that men do not. It appears you didn't get the point about the difference between office and order. Men can righteously seek after priesthood office as a way to seek and attain and the hihest priesthood order. Likewise, women can righteously seek after the highest priesthood order. To seek after these things in righteousness, it is clear by the outlined path to exaltation that men have to live on earth with an ordained priesthood office, and women have to live on earth without one.

Edited January 31, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

Is it that big of a deal, simply asking for women to pray in general conference?

No, but there may be a well-founded doctrinal reason for the curent practice, which was presented in another thread (I believe on this precise topic).

Edited January 31, 2013 by CV75