Feminist Mormons Ask Lds Leader To Clarify Comment

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I don't.

But if I was concerned about a matter, and I learned that the Brethren had been approached about it repeatedly, had considered it, and had chosen not to act or to make any changes, I might be inclined to think that maybe it wasn't consistent with the mind of the Lord at the moment to alter the status quo, and I would do some soul-searching to determine whether it was I who was out of tune, not the Church.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

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.

I have read countless accounts of letters being written, etc. over the years without a response of any kind on more than one blog. I have also seen where they have organized letter writing. That only leaves they are lying but I don't think that will get anyone anywhere. I also saw one of the women's blogs very excitedly announce that they were going to speak with Julie Beck after the dust up over her Mother's Know talk. They asked for questions people would like answered. There were many responses. I kept checking back for many months...to dead silence. I can only surmise there was no meeting.

So like I said, unless you are going to call an awful lot of people liars, the acceptable channels have been tried...over and over.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have read countless accounts of letters being written, etc. over the years without a response of any kind on more than one blog. I have also seen where they have organized letter writing. That only leaves they are lying but I don't think that will get anyone anywhere. I also saw one of the women's blogs very excitedly announce that they were going to speak with Julie Beck after the dust up over her Mother's Know talk. They asked for questions people would like answered. There were many responses. I kept checking back for many months...to dead silence. I can only surmise there was no meeting.

So like I said, unless you are going to call an awful lot of people liars, the acceptable channels have been tried...over and over.

I don't know enough about the matter to dispute what you say.

But it seems to me that the activist/political-pressure-group route puts one in an adversarial position toward the Lord's anointed. I don't think that's a good answer either.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I don't.

But if I was concerned about a matter, and I learned that the Brethren had been approached about it repeatedly, had considered it, and had chosen not to act or to make any changes, I might be inclined to think that maybe it wasn't consistent with the mind of the Lord at the moment to alter the status quo, and I would do some soul-searching to determine whether it was I who was out of step, not the Church.

And yet from the story we've heard about how the blacks received the Priesthood, members did repeated approach the Brethren over the decades about it and such repetition along with recognizing that those who were accepting the gospel and being baptized would have the desire to receive further blessings through temple attendance is why the Prophet went to the Lord and finally received an okay.

Often I hear people's reasoning that the delay was due to the Church members not being ready for the acceptance yet....so maybe it was the knowledge that there were many members who desired a change because they desired the same blessings and opportunities made available to the rest of the Church that got the general Church membership to change their hearts and be ready to accept the change when it happened.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, and "righteous judgment" just means that it's me doing the judging. "Unrighteous judgment" means you're doing it.

What a cynical way to view it.

[Scott Lloyd]

And yet from the story we've heard about how the blacks received the Priesthood, members did repeated approach the Brethren over the decades about it and such repetition along with recognizing that those who were accepting the gospel and being baptized would have the desire to receive further blessings through temple attendance is why the Prophet went to the Lord and finally received an okay.

But I don't think their approach was to make demands, mount political pressure groups or organize mass media campaigns.

There were those who were doing that sort of thing (I'm a child of the '60s, so my memory is only too clear about that) but I don't believe it was they who made the difference in the prophet approaching the Lord in prayer and eventually receiving the revelation.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

I don't know enough about the matter to dispute what you say.

But it seems to me that the activist/political-pressure-group route puts one in an adversarial position toward the Lord's anointed. I don't think that's a good answer either.

That is certainly true with some of these folks....and I think some who want to harm the church hide behind a pious veneer. What made the difference for me was forcing myself to lurk on the feminist blogs for years.... until I began to understand. When you do that you get to know the regulars to some extent. I came in with the impression they were all apostates. I was astonished to see that a good many were more involved in the church than I was and even as they spoke of their hurt, they also spoke of their love of the gospel. I repented of my judgment. That is why I no longer like seeing irresponsible talk about some indistinguishable group called feminists as if all women are the same. I still don't know exactly where I stand on the big things (the little things just need to be changed) and I tend to vascillate periodically as I continue to watch. I just know that we only open up another problem area if we continue to insist that they do it the "right" way when that way doesn't really exist.... and there are years of posts to prove it.

[Calm]

Since public condemnation of our fellow Saints seems to indicate to me a dissatisfaction with the Church, perhaps the best way for those who are concerned about these kinds of member organizations to respond is to ask our local leaders for their suggestion and if this doesn't work, appeal to the Area Authorities.

I don't think it will make make difference to speak out publicly here or elsewhere about them save to stir up contention among the Saints so why not follow our leaders' advice and put the burden of dealing with this issue on them?

[Scott Lloyd]

Since public condemnation of our fellow Saints seems to indicate to me a dissatisfaction with the Church, perhaps the best way for those who are concerned about these kinds of member organizations to respond is to ask our local leaders for their suggestion and if this doesn't work, appeal to the Area Authorities.

I don't think it will make make difference to speak out publicly here or elsewhere about them save to stir up contention among the Saints so why not follow our leaders' advice and put the burden of dealing with this issue on them?

Wise words.

And motivation enough for me to disengage from this thread.

[teddyaware]

Here: http://fox13now.com/...larify-comment/

A few thoughts:

1. The article does not specify the context of Sister Dalton's comments. The Trib article (here) advises that Sister Dalton was speaking at a BYU devotional on January 15 when she made the remark quoted above.

2. The Trib article provides a bit more of the quote: "Young women, you will be the ones who will provide the example of virtuous womanhood and motherhood. You will continue to be virtuous, lovely, praiseworthy and of good report. You will also be the ones to provide an example of family life in a time when families are under attack, being redefined and disintegrating. You will understand your roles and your responsibilities and thus will see no need to lobby for rights."

3. The Trib article further states:

4. I am not sure there is a "discrepancy," which the Trib presupposes to exist. Later on on the Trib article, it states: "It is unclear whether Dalton was referring to women’s rights in general, such as equal pay for equal work, or whether she was reacting to recent campaigns in which Mormon women wore pants to church and members urged LDS leaders to let women offer prayers during the faith’s semiannual General Conferences."

I suspect that Sister Dalton's remarks related to the latter issue (the "Pants Protest" thing). Public protests against the Church by members of the Church are, I think, not appropriate. I do not think members should publicly "lobby for rights" regarding matters of Church governance, at least not through publicity campaigns such as this one. The whole point of a public protest, after all, is to impose social pressure. While that is fine for secular forms of governance, I do not think it is appropriate within the Church. There are mechanisms in place which allow individual members to make their voices heard.

The wearing-pants-to-church thing was a bit silly. I do not know of any doctrinal prohibition against women praying in General Conference, nor would I have any problem with such a thing. I do, however, take issue with church members publicly demanding this of the Brethren.

5. I think some of the efforts on this point have been appropriate. For example, this form letter to be sent to the Brethren includes this statement: "In the history of the Church, faithful members have presented ideas and concerns to Church leaders and asked them to pray about it. Without these faithful members taking their concerns to their leaders, the Relief Society, the Primary program, the Welfare system, Seminary programs, Family Home Evening and the Word of Wisdom wouldn't be in place. Similar to our faithful ancestors, we are here with a real, heartfelt concern, and we pray that our church leaders will consider our plea."

I think this is a valid point.

6. However, the "Let Women Pray Campaign" is a bit problematic. The term "campaign" itself is adversarial. Press releases for this Campaign, such as this one, sent to and published by the Associated Press and other media outlets, seem to be out of bounds.

7. Scott Gordon of FAIR is quoted in the above press release as follows:

I agree with that sentiment broadly. I just question the means utilized to question policies and practices.

8. The group which is publicly pushing for women to pray in general conference also started the wear-pants-to-church thing. See here. I think this group is starting with innocuous "cultural" issues within Mormonism (such as women praying in General Conference, which appears to lack a doctrinal foundation and instead is a longstanding tradition that probably deserves reconsideration), but that might end up agitating for doctrinal changes.

This quote, for example:

Leading "the whole congregation" is a priesthood function, but it appears to be on the list of prospective changes in mind.

I wonder if this group would be more successful if it clearly established the parameters of its objectives, as I suspect some of the resistance to it is based on the concern that this is the beginning of a "campaign" that will culminate in demands for doctrinal changes.

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.

10. The link in the preceding point wants the Church to give to "women stewardship over women's sexuality." What does that mean?

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

It was the Lord Jesus Christ who testified "my kingdom is not of this world." Even so, despite what the Saviour taught, there seem to be some who live their lives to entangled in the cares and vanities of a fallen world. These appear to spend too much time and effort worrying about what the 'consequenses' might be if the Lord's Church doesn't learn to change its teachings and policies so as to conform with the pride-inspired notions of a spiritually unenlightened world. The philosophies and precepts that stem from the workings of the carnal mind are invariably built upon shifting mounds of sand and will not endure the purifying fires that will usher in the eternities. Paul warned of such entanglements when he said:

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: (Colossians 2)

Rather than applying pressure in an attempt to change the Lord's Church, so as to try to bring it into a state of harmony with the doctrines of a world that will pass away into oblivion, would in not be much wiser to turn our focus inward, so that we might change and reform ourselves to conform with the mind, heart and will of the Lord? There is more than enough work to do to overcome, by means of God's grace, the greatest enemy of all -- even that great inward enemy known as our own fallen and carnal nature. Before trying to change the Church, let's change ourselves first. Then we might see things clearly enough to know what course of action, if any, needs to be taken. The Saviour said it best:

42 ... how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye. (Luke 6)

,

Edited February 1, 2013 by teddyaware

[smac97]

Smac can't you see what is happening with this line of attack? You have just said these things aren't bad.

Praying in conference = not bad.

Aspiring to church callings = not good.

Publicly agitating for either prayers in conference or aspiring to church callings = not good.

But to further an opinion that the women are doing something bad, it must then be called dirty laundry.

The "dirty laundry" is the dispute about women praying in general conference. I actually think that's a fine idea, and that it deserves discussion and attention. I just don't think public agitation is the way to go about that.

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.

I do not think I have been unfriendly to women. I like the idea of women praying in general conference. I just dislike people using public agitation against the Church to get their way. And that has nothing to do with gender.

I think it's unfortunate that my disagreement with these women is being construed by you as hostility toward women. I haven't a hostile bone in my body toward ladyfolk. But I also don't think you and yours are entitled to publicly agitate against the Church, regardless of the good intentions behind that agitation, just because you are women. That's a bit of special pleading that I just can't accept.

There are all sorts of things all sorts of people would like to change about the Church. Some of these proposals are made in good faith, some aren't. Some would result in positive changes, some would not. Some would have unforeseen benefits, and some would have unforeseen drawbacks. Nevertheless, as soon as we start to treat the Church of Jesus Christ as some sort of sectarian government which has been voted into power by us, or as some sort of social club with policies that can be changed by sheer weight of popular opinion, as soon as we start engaging in behaviors that are specifically designed to foment public opinion against the Church, we have demeaned the Church.

We are not supposed to fragment ourselves into special interest groups, and then make public demonstrations designed to foist the views of our preferred group on the LDS Church by obtaining a judgment in the court of public opinion. That just ain't cool.

Priesthood holders are told that "no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." If a group of men in the Church banded together and mounted a publicity campaign designed to bring the weight of public opinion down on the Brethren as pertaining to some particular grievance, I don't think we'd see an outpouring of support for this endeavor. So I'm not about to treat the folks described in this thread any differently just 'cuz they are women. I don't think that women should be afforded some sort of special privilege to publicly agitate against the Church just because of their gender. They may be right in their request, but I think they are wrong in the way they have made that request.

Again, William Wilberforce worked on a much more important issue, for a far longer period of time, within the system. I don't think the same can be said in this case.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

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

Wow. So much for principled disagreement, then. Your way or the highway, is it?

I'm surprised at the vitriol.

-Smac

[Calm]

Wise words.

And motivation enough for me to disengage from this thread.

[Calm]

Wow. So much for principled disagreement, then. Your way or the highway, is it?

You don't think there were some significant problems with the way Ahab presented women and their roles? That what women really needed was only some physical reassurance (through hugs)? I find the idea that women trick their husbands into doing what they want rather reprehensible myself....and if that is not what Ahab meant, I apologize for misreading him, but that is the way I interpreted his one comment. Edited February 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

But it seems to me that the activist/political-pressure-group route puts one in an adversarial position toward the Lord's anointed. I don't think that's a good answer either.

I am with you, Scott. I feel such a group can too easily be misused by media, can too easily cause people to slip into an "us-them" way of thinking, etc.

However, when asked the question what should they be doing instead now that they haven't already tried for years that will be effective in meeting their needs and righteous desires...I draw a blank. So I am left drawing the conclusion that my only possible response to the situation is to have respect and sympathy for everyone involved and to hold my tongue in condemning either those asking for help or those they are asking it from and instead I need to work on understanding.

[smac97]

Would you urge your daughter to make a living at any company that was set up like the church?

And perhaps here is the problem: Comparing the Church to a business is, in my view, a very poor analogy. They are too different in structure, too different in reltional dynamics, too different in purpose, too different all together.

Again, we are speaking of The Church of Jesus Christ. Not a business. Not a social club. Not a sectarian government. It is a radically different type of organization.

Does that mean that church members have no voice? Certainly not. But does it mean that church members should treat the Church as what it claims to be, not as a social club, business, etc.

That is a yes or a no question. No hedging allowed.

Sorry, I can't answer your loaded question. I'm too busy beating my wife.

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.

So what? Country clubs don't require 10% of one's increase as membership dues. Businesses don't require its employees to abstain from booze, smokes and coffee.

I am quite willing to concede that some "gendered distinctions" in the Church are a matter of tradition/culture/policy, rather than doctrine. I am also willing to concede that some of these distinctions can and should be modified or abandoned. But I am not willing to utilize the court of public opinion to leverage the Church into making those changes. We cannot use the standard of "any other setting" as the lodestar to guide the Church of Jesus Christ. That lodestar would take us away from revealed doctrines and into a place where we are governed by what outsiders think of us. And since we will never please all of those outsiders, we'll be tossed to and fro whilst trying to please this group or that one.

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.

And it would be called "discriminatory" if a woman was told she cannot hold the priesthood.

Oh, wait. Women are told that in the Church. Ergo, the worldly perception of "discrimination" must be avoided. Ergo, the LDS Church must give priesthood to women. Not because God has commanded it, but because "any other setting" demands it.

That seems to be where this line of reasoning takes us.

Public opinion is a lousy lodestar. It doesn't show you the right way, just the popular way.

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.

Again, I'm quite open to the concept of women praying in general conference. I think it's a fine idea. I just really don't like the means by which church members are attempting to address this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

I do not think I have been unfriendly to women. I like the idea of women praying in general conference. I just dislike people using public agitation against the Church to get their way.

But you are merely saying that over and over. I see no attempt to understand or to develop a way in which to deal with the underlying problem. So I am puzzled why you see the need to repeat the same thing. How about moving on to my question about encouraging your daughter to make a career in a company that restricted her from high level positions?

I think it's unfortunate that my disagreement with these women is being construed by you as hostility toward women. I haven't a hostile bone in my body toward ladyfolk. But I also don't think you and yours are entitled to publicly agitate against the Church, regardless of the good intentions behind that agitation, just because you are women. That's a bit of special pleading that I just can't accept.

I don't appreciate being included in All Enlisted. I have had nothing to do with this at all. Like I said, I watch. That has enabled me to become more empathetic. Perhaps you would be also if you had to face the restrictions before the women's movement changed things.

There are all sorts of things all sorts of people would like to change about the Church. Some of these proposals are made in good faith, some aren't. Some would result in positive changes, some would not. Some would have unforeseen benefits, and some would have unforeseen drawbacks.

And yet you put all of these women into the most negative category you can create.

Nevertheless, as soon as we start to treat the Church of Jesus Christ as some sort of sectarian government which has been voted into power by us, or as some sort of social club with policies that can be changed by sheer weight of popular opinion, as soon as we start engaging in behaviors that are specifically designed to foment public opinion against the Church, we have demeaned the Church.

That is only correct if you have accurately or at least fairly described what their intent. Again, this is likely true on some levels. But there are also a lot of women who only seek to have more involvement in their church and who sincerely think the church would be more Christlike if women were not restricted to the extent that they are.

We are not supposed to fragment ourselves into special interest groups, and then make public demonstrations designed to foist the views of our preferred group on the LDS Church by obtaining a judgment in the court of public opinion. That just ain't cool.

It may not be cool but it certainly works. Even you had to admit they should pray. I don't think it is about the court of public opinion. I think it is the court of Mormons who will now wonder why women are restricted from prayers. What is unsaid is that this worked where nothing else has. It remains to be seen if that is good or bad until consequences unfold. You can't just proclaim it is bad because you think it is bad.

Priesthood holders are told that "no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned."

Yet how often do we hear the priesthood itself used as the only reason women can't participate.

[smac97]

You don't think there were some significant problems with the way Ahab presented women and their roles? That what women really needed was only some physical reassurance (through hugs)? I find the idea that women trick their husbands into doing what they want rather reprehensible myself....and if that is not what Ahab meant, I apologize for misreading him, but that is the way I interpreted his one comment.

Oh. I didn't know she was responding to one person, and I haven't read Ahab's post.

Juliann, I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

Oh. I didn't know she was responding to one person, and I haven't read Ahab's post.

Juliann, I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

No problem. (Ahab telling a widow she just needs "a hug from her man" is rarely an effective rebuttal.) I can see this is only going to get heated so I am withdrawing. I respect you too much to argue with you,.

[smac97]

I had a long post but I just deleted it after I saw your post. I'm out too.

Love ya!

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2013 by smac97

[Calm]

Comparing the Church to a business is, in my view, a very poor analogy. They are too different in structure, too different in reltional dynamics, too different in purpose, too different all together.

I would just like to make a point that Juliann (and she can correct me if I am wrong) was not trying to present the Church as a business or saying that the leadership is wrong to not have the same standards, etc. She is talking about perception issues...how people will perceive the Church (rightly or wrongly...and as you say probably mostly wrongly) when they compare it to other organizations among other things (and there is no saying that this is the right way to do it) and how they will compare the reactions to that kind of structure outside of the Church with those inside.

[go_utes01]

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

This is not the established method that he is talking about. It has been explained many times already in this thread that members should bring their grievances to local leaders and work within the system provided.

[Calm]

This is not the established method that he is talking about. It has been explained many times already in this thread that members should bring their grievances to local leaders and work within the system provided.

And if the local leaders refuse to engage them about it or it appears that nothing is being done? I have been in one situation where a local leader blew off my concerns over an activity that was not only against church rules but was a huge safety issue. My knowledge of the Stake President at the time response would most likely have been 'it's your bishop's call'. Edited February 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[go_utes01]

And if the local leaders refuse to engage them about it or it appears that nothing is being done? I have been in one situation where a local leader blew off my concerns over an activity that was not only against church rules but was a huge safety issue. My knowledge of the Stake President at the time response would most likely have been 'it's your bishop's call'.

Your perspective is that the leader "blew you off," maybe from his perspective it was different. Maybe he considered your point and believed it was a call for the bishop to make or maybe he thought you were incorrect. Is it possible that we are not always correct in the things we think should be done in the Lord's Church?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Your perspective is that the leader "blew you off," maybe from his perspective it was different. Maybe he considered your point and believed it was a call for the bishop to make or maybe he thought you were incorrect. Is it possible that we are not always correct in the things we think should be done in the Lord's Church?

I'd say it's possible (not likely given calmoriah's description). Here's the thing though. We're talking about having women pray in conference. Taking this up with your local leaders is going to be a non-starter. The same with the primary president in my stake taking up the whole cub-scout vs activity day things. These are issues that are decided at the general level and local leaders feel they need to tow the line or that it is out of their hands. There is no approved venue to feed this up the chain. Even if you call your area presidency it is very unlikely that they will respond. How do we know that they have given it prayerful thought and didn't shake it off (their were many eyerolls going around the room when this primary president spoke up)? We spend a lot of time in the church talking about how men and women have inherent differences. If that is truly the case then I can understand the frustration of a woman not feeling understood when these types of decisions are all controlled by men - men who while inspired have different life experiences than any woman. I don't think a public campaign is the right way to do this, but neither do I condemn those that follow this route. I can certainly understand the frustration of feeling like your concern is not understood and not being taken seriously.

Look at how many people on this board have accused these women of seeking callings (and hence sinning). I have never seen a mormon feminist express such feelings. I think the much more likely case is that they want someone like them, someone who has experienced life from their perspective to be in a calling like this. I don't believe that they want to be a bishop, but I believe some of them think having women bishops would add value to the church. A huge difference in my humble opinion.

Again, I think the public campaign is counter productive as it is human nature to be defensive when you feel attacked from the outside, but I can certainly understand some of the frustration these women feel.

Edited February 1, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding