Feminist Mormons Ask Lds Leader To Clarify Comment

[smac97]

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,

And look what happened in 1978.

Some things can change. Some can't. The point, however, is that a letter to President Kimball is markedly different from a public campaign of agitation.

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.

I guess we'll have to disagree about that. I do not believe that public agitation is an appropriate means of airing complaints to the leadership of the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smacc

[smac97]

You and your wife can talk to each other any time any place so I don't see the correlation.

The correlation is that I don't air my family's dirty laundry in public. That's not to say that we don't have dirty laundry, or that it doesn't need to get cleaned. We just don't do all of that in public.

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.

Fair enough.

Saying to speak to church leaders who can make institutional change isn't an option and everyone knows that.

With respect, I disagree.

It is not a credible position.

Categorically discounting the established means for members to air grievances is not, in my view, a credible position either.

So where does that leave us?

We are told to not even write to SLC and those who do are likely to find it back in the SP's hands.

I wasn't speaking of writing to SLC.

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.

I question that.

In fact, the reason All Enlisted gave for doing what they did is there were virtually no results from years of activity.

I question that, too.

But even if that's true, resorting to inappropriate tactics doesn't legitimize those tactics.

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,

That's not a given.

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.

I doubt the situation is as dire as you claim.

I am also reminded of William Wilberforce. He fought the good fight, and he fought it within the system. It took a while, but it worked.

Thank you,

-Smac

[semlogo]

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

Mostly what I saw was tone deafness.

[Fly Fisherman]

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.

Oh. My. Gosh.

[semlogo]

The correlation is that I don't air my family's dirty laundry in public. That's not to say that we don't have dirty laundry, or that it doesn't need to get cleaned. We just don't do all of that in public.

What dirty laundry do you think has been aired here?

[semlogo]

Categorically discounting the established means for members to air grievances is not, in my view, a credible position either.

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

[Biz]

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

Good thing this is a policy issue...

[smac97]

What dirty laundry do you think has been aired here?

Women agitating to pray in general conference. Women agitating for certain callings.

-Smac

[smac97]

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

Yes. And?

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

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.

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.

I resent the sexism of this statement.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Call me sexist if you like but I think that men and women differ in talents and objectives and I always will. I think it is clearly scientifically provable. That doesn't mean one sex is better than the other- but ignoring the differences is just folly.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Yes. And?

-Smac

The proper method is to talk to local leaders? And then they will feed it up the food chain? I attended a stake primary function conducted by a member of the stake presidency. In the meeting, one of the primary presidents raised a concern about the disparity in the cub scout vs activity day girls (difference in funding emphasis etc). The member of the stake presidency kindly told her that the boys needed the extra funding because of inherent differences in the sexes. He wasn't rude, but was very dismissive and I am certain that he would not be feeding that up the chain. What should be her next step if she strongly disagrees?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Call me sexist if you like but I think that men and women differ in talents and objectives and I always will. I think it is clearly scientifically provable. That doesn't mean one sex is better than the other- but ignoring the differences is just folly.

By and large this may be true but it seems to be a spectrum and hard to apply at an individual level.

[bluebell]

Yes. And?

-Smac

I think they mean that there is no way for women to air grievances on world-wide church practices (such as who prays in general conference), so being upset that someone doesn't follow established means for grievances might not be fair, if those established means don't exist.

[Calm]

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

Manipulation....yes, that is a wonderful way to act in a relationship where the presented ideal is to be of one mind, one heart, one flesh.

[Calm]

Oh. My. Gosh.

Do you need a hug, my dear?

[juliann]

Women agitating to pray in general conference. Women agitating for certain callings.

-Smac

Smac can't you see what is happening with this line of attack? You have just said these things aren't bad. But to further an opinion that the women are doing something bad, it must then be called dirty laundry. And it just keeps going from bad to worse. What could be a simple response of "I see their point" or something similar that doesn't start endless debate, it becomes an investigation into how much access average women (or men) have to church leaders. It isn't much, as just pointed out, and it depends on somebody else moving it up the chain and so on. That then requires you to explain what happens after that. So we go from what will now become the way of things no matter how much finger wagging anyone does....to an examination of a completely different area that does not make the church look particularly women friendly. It is not the requests that are the problem...it is how membership responds to them.

[juliann]

Do you need a hug, my dear?

I think I need a barf bag, to be honest.

[Scott Lloyd]

The proper method is to talk to local leaders? And then they will feed it up the food chain? I attended a stake primary function conducted by a member of the stake presidency. In the meeting, one of the primary presidents raised a concern about the disparity in the cub scout vs activity day girls (difference in funding emphasis etc). The member of the stake presidency kindly told her that the boys needed the extra funding because of inherent differences in the sexes. He wasn't rude, but was very dismissive and I am certain that he would not be feeding that up the chain. What should be her next step if she strongly disagrees?

Area presidency.

Edited to add:

Wait, was this a meeting where the stake president was not in attendance? Then I should think he would be the next person to approach.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Categorically discounting the established means for members to air grievances is not, in my view, a credible position either.

Could you itemize the "established means" please.

[Jude2]

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.

I've decided I'm content at being a good follower

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Area presidency.

Edited to add:

Wait, was this a meeting where the stake president was not in attendance? Then I should think he would be the next person to approach.

That's fine. But once/if the stake president says this is just how things are done in the church that's it right? I mean the area president is a general authority and ""Members of the Church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters."

Or do you feel that this issue is okay since it's not strictly a doctrinal or personal matter?

[Scott Lloyd]

That's fine. But once/if the stake president says this is just how things are done in the church that's it right? I mean the area president is a general authority and ""Members of the Church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters."

Or do you feel that this issue is okay since it's not strictly a doctrinal or personal matter?

My sense is that policy was put in place because too many people were/are inclined to try to circumvent local priesthood channels on matters that are best dealt with on a local level. It doesn't take much imagination to conceive of how overwhelming -- nay, impossible -- it would be for the Brethren to try to deal with all the concerns that would flow into them if everybody elected to go straight to them without consulting the bishop or stake president first.

If a member has tried that and feels that she/he has been stonewalled, I should think it appropriate to try to approach someone on a higher level -- but in an orderly, dignified, patient and humble manner, not trying to exert public or political pressure.

Pertaining to your quote, "discouraged" does not mean "absolutely forbidden."

Edited February 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Jude2]

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.

“and they shall be one flesh”

There is no need for two ordinations!

[Calm]

If a member has tried that and feels that she/he has been stonewalled, I should think it appropriate to try to approach someone on a higher level -- but in an orderly, dignified and humble manner, not trying to exert public or political pressure.

And how do you know this hasn't been done repeatedly in the past?

[juliann]

Call me sexist if you like but I think that men and women differ in talents and objectives and I always will. I think it is clearly scientifically provable. That doesn't mean one sex is better than the other- but ignoring the differences is just folly.

Here is another way to try to get people to discuss what is, whether we like or approve of that is or not. I've been asking it for years and have not had one person answer it so I know it must be an effective analogy.

Would you urge your daughter to make a living at any company that was set up like the church? That is a yes or a no question. No hedging allowed. The point of that question is to demonstrate that the gendered distinctions in the church are not considered to be acceptable in any other setting. That leaves us the burden of explaining why this a good thing in the church. But no one would even try to say it is a good thing in any other organization....and that setting is where all the people we want to convert are. It would be called discriminatory if a woman was told she could never be the manager over anything but secretaries or apply for over half of the jobs.

If we can't start with that cold hard fact we will never be able to defend the church anymore than we can create understanding for polygamy if we simply deny there was polygamy. People just think we are even more strange.