Feminist Mormons Ask Lds Leader To Clarify Comment

[smac97]

These women simply want the opportunity to pray in general conference,

And I think that's a legitimate request. A categorical exclusion of this type should be questioned. It's the manner of questioning (public campaigns against the Church) that I find problematic.

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?

Again, it's about how the request is made, not the request itself.

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.

Agreed. What they don't deserve, however, is accolades for publicly agitating against their own church, particularly where there are appropriate alternative means of reaching that objective.

If I have a disagreement with my wife, I doubt anyone would pat me on the back for going on Facebook, expressing my displeasure at what she has done, and publicly announcing that I want her to alter her behavior to suit my preferences. Even if my wife's conduct was wrong and my request for altered behavior was valid, the way I have gone about presenting that request is simply out of bounds.

Public agitation is fine for secular government, but not for the Kingdom of God.

Furthermore, unless expressly prohibited by God, women should be able to pray in general conference.

I'm not sure I agree with that first part, but I agree with the sentiment of the latter part.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

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.

You've encapsulated my position well.

-Smac

[juliann]

I like this part:

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?

Oh. My. Gosh.

[Biz]

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.

Thanks for replying, I don't doubt a segment of the group would go that far.

However, this is a wonderful opportunity for women to be able to do more in the Church. There is nothing wrong or prohibited by women praying in General Conference. Therefore, they should be able pray. If for some reason God does not want women to pray he can manifest his desire for them to be prohibited from praying at General Conference. If the leaders already know and are privy to this information it's proper for them to explain. I see this as a perfect time for them or Sister Dalton to explain what she meant by her statement and or explain why God has prohibited women from praying in general conference. If not we should be looking forward to a woman saying an opening prayer or closing prayer in general conference.

[juliann]

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.

Kind of what happens when men jump in and twist the gospel around to fit their cultural agendas. But we don't go accusing all men because not all men do that.

[Ahab]

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.

And what they are doing at this point is a lot of complaining. Complain, complain, complain. Sheesh. Women can be charitable too, ya know. Things are the way they are, as far as the structure of the Church goes, because that is the way our Lord has set it up. Women have their roles and responsibilities, and men have theirs. They are equal but different.

Maybe all women need is a hug from their men to help to reassure them that we do in fact appreciate them and ALL that they do for us, and help us to do. Without them, we men couldn't do half of the things we do now. Is it that women just don't realize how much their men need them and all they can do to help them?

The role and responsibilities of women is what makes women so awesome. Nobody else can be a woman but women!

... and yah, i know, there are some guys who try to dress up and act like women but they just don't fit the bill as a real woman does.

[Biz]

And I think that's a legitimate request. A categorical exclusion of this type should be questioned. It's the manner of questioning (public campaigns against the Church) that I find problematic.

Again, it's about how the request is made, not the request itself.

Agreed. What they don't deserve, however, is accolades for publicly agitating against their own church, particularly where there are appropriate alternative means of reaching that objective.

If I have a disagreement with my wife, I doubt anyone would pat me on the back for going on Facebook, expressing my displeasure at what she has done, and publicly announcing that I want her to alter her behavior to suit my preferences. Even if my wife's conduct was wrong and my request for altered behavior was valid, the way I have gone about presenting that request is simply out of bounds.

Public agitation is fine for secular government, but not for the Kingdom of God.

I'm not sure I agree with that first part, but I agree with the sentiment of the latter part.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for your response, Smac.

In reality, doing as you suggest is more or less dead in the water. African members wrote consistently to President Kimball, If they had access to modern technology back then I see them doing the exact same thing today. They did what they had to do to get the necessary attention. I have followed this campaign for weeks, there has been nothing I have seen that is offensive or overly intrusive to the way the Church operates.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Biz

[smac97]

Everyone knows darn well there is no way to set up a "dialogue" with church leaders on this.

I respectfully disagree.

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 am paying attention to what they are saying. I have even voiced support for the general sentiments of what they are saying. I just disagree with how they are saying it.

But not one person can come up with a realistic alternative as they say they should do something different.

My understanding is that there is a mechanism in place for individual church members to voice concerns or lodge complaints about church governance. I am not sure if this mechanism has been utilized.

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'm not sure that the Church "won't talk" to these women.

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?

I think women are treated respectfully by Mormons.

-Smac

[ksfisher]

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.

I'm guessing that they don't have a PPI every Sunday though, do they.

[smac97]

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

It is the means by which the request (demand?) has been presented, not the request itself, that I find problematic.

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.

And yet nobody can seem to remember the last time a woman prayed in general conference. That's not happenstance. That's a policy. And it's a policy that I think merits attention and discussion.

I just question the legitimacy and propriety of church members publicly agitating for this discussion rather than going through established means of addressing such concerns.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

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.

I had the same thought. I am a counselor in a bishopric, and I could tithing every other week. I think the policy of having men as clerks is largely a practical matter, rather than a mandate involving the priesthood.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

And I think that's a legitimate request. A categorical exclusion of this type should be questioned. It's the manner of questioning (public campaigns against the Church) that I find problematic.

Again, it's about how the request is made, not the request itself.

Agreed. What they don't deserve, however, is accolades for publicly agitating against their own church, particularly where there are appropriate alternative means of reaching that objective.

If I have a disagreement with my wife, I doubt anyone would pat me on the back for going on Facebook, expressing my displeasure at what she has done, and publicly announcing that I want her to alter her behavior to suit my preferences. Even if my wife's conduct was wrong and my request for altered behavior was valid, the way I have gone about presenting that request is simply out of bounds.

Public agitation is fine for secular government, but not for the Kingdom of God.

You and your wife can talk to each other any time any place so I don't see the correlation. You can state that it isn't appropriate to agitate against the church, ) which implies that they all think they are against the church which they don't) but there is no where to go once your opinion is stated other than to restate it.

Saying to speak to church leaders who can make institutional change isn't an option and everyone knows that. It is not a credible position.We are told to not even write to SLC and those who do are likely to find it back in the SP's hands. We can work on a local level and hope it goes upstream, but feminists have been "agitating" for many, many years so it cannot be said this works. In fact, the reason All Enlisted gave for doing what they did is there were virtually no results from years of activity.

To take any discussion seriously, it has to start with observable facts whether we like them or not. So given that women have no access to SLC, what other thing should they have done? I have read thousands of posts all over the web by now and not one person has come up with a real alternative, they just want to tell them they are bad and wrong. Which like I said, proves their point. It is a win-win situation for them.

[juliann]

And what they are doing at this point is a lot of complaining. Complain, complain, complain. Sheesh. Women can be charitable too, ya know. Things are the way they are, as far as the structure of the Church goes, because that is the way our Lord has set it up. Women have their roles and responsibilities, and men have theirs. They are equal but different.

Maybe all women need is a hug from their men to help to reassure them that we do in fact appreciate them and ALL that they do for us, and help us to do. Without them, we men couldn't do half of the things we do now. Is it that women just don't realize how much their men need them and all they can do to help them?

The role and responsibilities of women is what makes women so awesome. Nobody else can be a woman but women!

... and yah, i know, there are some guys who try to dress up and act like women but they just don't fit the bill as a real woman does.

Oh. My. Gosh.

[smac97]

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!

In all candor, I think some of this agitation involving church callings is a matter of pride and vanity.

Some of these women are pushing for change because they want the calling, and the perceived "status" that goes with it.

I think that is inappropriate.

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.

That is an improper motivation. It stems from pride.

If a man were to come to this board and say "I publicly declare my plan to aspire to be a bishop. I want this calling. I want to prove that I can do it.", this person would not be praised. He would be corrected.

Aspiring to a church calling is just not right, whether it's a man or a woman doing it.

Of course women could do every single job in the church, and probably do it better than men.

I resent the sexism of this statement.

Women tend to be more compassionate, better at detailed work, better at dealing with people, etc etc.

Perhaps. And perhaps men tend to be more logical, reasoned, intelligent, etc. etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[semlogo]

I just question the legitimacy and propriety of church members publicly agitating for this discussion rather than going through established means of addressing such concerns.

Thanks,

-Smac

From the church handbook:

"Members of the Church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters."

Edited January 31, 2013 by semlogo

[Biz]

And yet nobody can seem to remember the last time a woman prayed in general conference. That's not happenstance. That's a policy. And it's a policy that I think merits attention and discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, fair enough, I agree with you that your disagreements as to method is a merited disagreement.

My last view or thought is the policy business. I guess I have a different view regarding policy.

1) it's a bad policy if it's a real policy,

2) If it's a real policy it is and should be easily changeable,

3) If it's a real policy that will not be changed at this point in time it would prudent of the Church to go ahead and explain all the why's of the policy, and why God has chosen to prohibited women praying in General Conference.

The Church is really making this harder than it needs to be...

Edited January 31, 2013 by Biz

[semlogo]

And what they are doing at this point is a lot of complaining. Complain, complain, complain. Sheesh. Women can be charitable too, ya know. Things are the way they are, as far as the structure of the Church goes, because that is the way our Lord has set it up. Women have their roles and responsibilities, and men have theirs. They are equal but different.

Maybe all women need is a hug from their men to help to reassure them that we do in fact appreciate them and ALL that they do for us, and help us to do. Without them, we men couldn't do half of the things we do now. Is it that women just don't realize how much their men need them and all they can do to help them?

The role and responsibilities of women is what makes women so awesome. Nobody else can be a woman but women!

... and yah, i know, there are some guys who try to dress up and act like women but they just don't fit the bill as a real woman does.

I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound this way, but this comes off as quite condescending toward women.

[Ahab]

To take any discussion seriously, it has to start with observable facts whether we like them or not. So given that women have no access to SLC, what other thing should they have done?

They do have access to SLC. They are in SLC. Heck, then even have husbands who are in various "key" positions within the Church. Sheesh, juliann. You don't seem to be paying attention to the observable facts that are going on all over the place.

Is it that you don't realize that most men in key positions have women right there with them as equals? Each sex has their own roles and responsibilies, but when combined together as one they are both equal in their own spheres of influence and in their own roles responsibilies.

Nothing needs to be done to fix the structure of the Church goes because it all works perfectly together as it is now. If people would just stop complaining and see how to work within the system, instead of working against it or trying to change it, they would get a lot more good out of it.

I have read thousands of posts all over the web by now and not one person has come up with a real alternative, they just want to tell them they are bad and wrong. Which like I said, proves their point. It is a win-win situation for them.

You can't stop someone who wants to complain, even when there's nothing wrong with what they are complaining about. Murmurers, I call them. They just need to stop murmuring and show some appreciation for all God does for them and all of us together.

[juliann]

I can see both sides of this. I have been influenced by both sides. I see the feminists in the position of the apologist, actually. (And yes, everyone is an apologist but for purposes of easy identification...) They have to deal with the situation as it is. They have to address and acknowlege the problems. My frustration comes when the apologists do nothing but sermonize, tell women they are unrighteous if they don't do as they are told, talk about women as if they are children or a dog that has been bred for certain behaviors, and refuse to even acknowledge that by definition a patriarchal organization is unequal. It is like trying to defend polygamy when the apologist insists JS never had plural wives. It almost becomes an "is anybody home??" situation.

[Ahab]

Oh. My. Gosh.

Time to wake up and smell the roses.

[Ahab]

I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound this way, but this comes off as quite condescending toward women.

Sounds like another complaint to me. How about looking a little deeper at my message to look for the good in it.

[DavidB]

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.

Did Sister Dalton mean that women in India shouldn't lobby for greater rights to not be sexually assault? Did she mean that females in Pakistan shouldnt lobby for the right to an education?

[Ahab]

I can see both sides of this. I have been influenced by both sides. I see the feminists in the position of the apologist, actually. (And yes, everyone is an apologist but for purposes of easy identification...) They have to deal with the situation as it is. They have to address and acknowlege the problems. My frustration comes when the apologists do nothing but sermonize, tell women they are unrighteous if they don't do as they are told, talk about women as if they are children or a dog that has been bred for certain behaviors, and refuse to even acknowledge that by definition a patriarchal organization is unequal. It is like trying to defend polygamy when the apologist insists JS never had plural wives. It almost becomes an "is anybody home??" situation.

You seem to have trouble seeing how men and women are both equal but with different roles and responsibilities. Do you see it that way in your own family, as well, between you and your spouse, or do you think it only comes into play when thinking about multiple families getting together to join the Church? Can you not see how all men and women are equal but with different roles and responsibilies?

If you're just going to go on and on saying and thinking men and women are unequal, regardless of anyone trying to reason with you on this to try to help you see things a little bit better, then there's nothing I can do to help you. But we are equal, even you and I, right now, whether or not you can see it.

[juliann]

Did Sister Dalton mean that women in India shouldn't lobby for greater rights to not be sexually assault? Did she mean that females in Pakistan shouldnt lobby for the right to an education?

We don't take speakers at their intent, we have to take them at their word. That is the problem with what how and what she said.

[Ahab]

Time for a line from one of my favorite so-called chick flicks.

Men may be the head of the family, but women are the necks and can get that head to turn in any way that they want.

Sometimes the trick is to get the man to think he's the one who came up with the idea.