Feminist Mormons Ask Lds Leader To Clarify Comment

[go_utes01]

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 prayful thought? 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 completely 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 they 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, but I can certainly understand some of the frustration these women feel.

Frustration does not justify starting a public campaign designed (or at least effectively) making the Church look bad as leverage for a result one believes is correct.

[Calm]

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?

If he had spent more than two seconds thinking about it and has said something different than "don't worry about it, I am sure that ***** has it all under control" and then driving off without waiting for a response, I may have considered such as I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

It was a very black and white safety issue that violated not only church rules, but Scouts Canada rules where so many leaders are required with so many boys (over twice as many boys to a leader as required)...and the difference was not even close. Add to that the dangerous location, the lack of communication and proper equipment and bad weather (they were going to build snow caves)...I think it is a safe bet I wasn't overreacting. The leader had some free time, IIRC, and decided to throw together a last minute trip.

(I knew the kids well having been their cub scout leader a year or so before...on my own when they couldn't get a helper for quite sometime so it was not just a principle I was worried about; a couple of the large group had ADD issues as well as on occasion being very stupid...my son still laughs at one of the kids bringing ramen noodles for a week long camp with extensive hiking etc. as his only food, the other boys were kind enough to share with him but that made all of them get hungry, you needed an extra leader just to keep an eye on the kids that had issues.)

Edited February 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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.

Well stated.

[Calm]

Frustration does not justify starting a public campaign designed (or at least effectively) making the Church look bad as leverage for a result one believes is correct.

Agreed. So what to do when leadership does not respond productively in what one feels is a necessary way, including even informing those concerned that they've thought about and maybe even prayed about even if they came up with a different answer.

[Calm]

Your perspective is that the leader "blew you off," maybe from his perspective it was different.

And even if I was wrong, are you suggesting that there has never been a leader who blew off serious and righteous concerns of someone else? If there has been, then it is probably a wise thing to figure out a productive way in which to remedy the situation (and no, I don't think doing public media driven events is a wise way to go about it).

And the fact is there are many active, believing women and men who don't believe there is a productive way to address issues due to their having used the current situation with no effective result in their view.

Edited February 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

And even if I was wrong, are you suggesting that there has never been a leader who blew off serious and righteous concerns of someone else? If there has been, then it is probably a wise thing to figure out a productive way in which to remedy the situation (and no, I don't think doing public media driven events is a wise way to go about it).

And the fact is there are many active, believing women and men who don't believe there is a productive way to address issues due to their having used the current situation with no effective result in their view.

They must have to just suffer in silence.

[Calm]

They must have to just suffer in silence.

Many have over the decades...but I hear a lot of talk of how they are willing to suffer in silence for themselves, but not for their children's sake.

I guess it was that way for me as well, I wouldn't have cared about the safety rule breaking issue for myself, but we were talking about my young son and his friends who I had seen grow up for the past five years or so at the time...I wanted to protect them to the best of my ability and the best of the Church's...in fact, I just wanted to protect them to the minimum of the Church's standard.

This is why I think it may be important to have a visible response in place or at least something that visibly demonstrates even just an awareness of attention. Trust about concern after years of no responses being given can be much harder to come by and when the stakes are high (the souls and happy lives of one's children), just having trust may not be enough in the end.

Edited February 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Hamba Tuhan]

So what to do when leadership does not respond productively in what one feels is a necessary way[?]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you wrote above, you didn't actually take your concern to your stake president. You just predicted that he would 'blow you off'. That's not a fair assessment to have made, and you should have spoken to him. Then, if he genuinely ignored your concerns, you should have contacted the area president. Did you do that? If not, I'm a bit perplexed that you feel that there's no 'productive way' to handle these kinds of issues.

[slamarwi]

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.

Interestingly, I have written directly to Salt Lake and had a response - likely my Stake resident was sent a reply as well, but that helped reinforce my point . Secondly, the mail gets delivered and certainly the message received. Of course, we aren't always going to get the answer we want or possibly even an answer. But if you believe the prophet really is the prophet, he is likely getting the message anyway.

[why me]

On a previous Mormon Feminist thread I stated that a radical fringe of feminists will begin to agitate for change in the lds church through the media and the social media. And I was right. The purpose is not to forward more respect for women per se but rather to get media attention on the church to force a secular change in policy. I have been involved in the past with much agitation on behalf of groups that I believed in and back in my day, the agitation was different but the pressure was the same. And of course, a main component for such agitation is to silence the side that is being attacked or to censor that side in never making such statements again. And this is the case with the sister who made the comments. The focus is not on freedom of speech but on the freedom of what one can say but shouldn't.

Edited February 1, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Lets look at her statement:

Elaine Dalton, LDS Church Young Women General President, said in part, “You will also be the ones who provide the example of family life in a time when families are under attack, being redefined and disintegrating. You will understand your rights and your responsibilities, and thus see no need to lobby for rights.”

Basically, she is correct. The family is in sharp decline and it is under attack. In fact, family life is rather poor these days not just in America but throughout the world. And the traditional family is in crisis from many fronts, mainly through work, pressure, stress, anxiety, lack of free time etc. So, what she is telling some women to do is to concentrate on preserving the family in our society since societies foundational strengths rests on the family. Now what lds member can disagree with that?

And of course, she has a right to her opinion. Why attempt to silence her? One way to sow discord in an organization is to create fractures in that organization. Paul warned his own christian community about this. By going public, fractures will begin to occur. And so will discord.

And judging by the comments section under the broadcast, the discord is now beginning and so will the fractures. Soon, there will be organizations monitoring what GAs say in general and asking them to clarify what they have said. No more reason to pray about it...just ask for clarifications.

Edited February 1, 2013 by why me

[slamarwi]

I really thought the "suffering in silence" comment above was hilarious. Seriously? Suffering because someone isn't praying in conference? We must have a very skewed view of suffering. It seems that suffering might actually occur if you were called on to pray in conference.

For the most part this discussion feels like we're attempting to turn the church into some type of democratic institution and lobby for all the changes WE want. Fortunately (or not) it has never been run by the voice of the people, and is not likely to occur in the future.

We need to relax, pray for personal guidance, and allow the Lord and his prophet to guide us. We can stump all we want for homosexual temple marriage, women prophets and perfect men, but it's not going to happen.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I am not sure what the point is here. Are we saying that we should pattern the church after the world? Because that is what you are saying.

The world does not believe in continuing revelation or gold plates either and I would not work for nor would I ask my daughter to work for a company which based its corporate culture on me giving back 10% of my pay to the company either.

I mean I could go on with the points here, but clearly the analogy breaks down. The church is not the world nor should our standards be the world's standards.

[why me]

For the most part this discussion feels like we're attempting to turn the church into some type of democratic institution and lobby for all the changes WE want. Fortunately (or not) it has never been run by the voice of the people, and is not likely to occur in the future.

We need to relax, pray for personal guidance, and allow the Lord and his prophet to guide us. We can stump all we want for homosexual temple marriage, women prophets and perfect men, but it's not going to happen.

And this is what happened in many liberal oriented churches. They became democratic institutions implementing change when the majority of members have called for it. No prayer is necessary.

[why me]

I mean I could go on with the points here, but clearly the analogy breaks down. The church is not the world nor should our standards be the world's standards.

And this where it does all break down. On the a different thread I asked just what is mormon feminism? Now I remember the good ol' days when feministmormonhousewives was made up of good members of the church making comments about many things but not challenging the direction of the lds church through the media. But now this is changing. The media is used as a tool to either silence church authorities from making statements that Wave or other feminist fringes may have an issue with or from making any statements that aren't secular popular.

But the bottom line is simple: to put pressure on the church through secular means and to create divisions.

Edited February 1, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you wrote above, you didn't actually take your concern to your stake president. You just predicted that he would 'blow you off'. That's not a fair assessment to have made, and you should have spoken to him. Then, if he genuinely ignored your concerns, you should have contacted the area president. Did you do that? If not, I'm a bit perplexed that you feel that there's no 'productive way' to handle these kinds of issues.

I don't believe he would have blown me off like the bishop had, but based on other interactions I believe he would have referred me back to the bishop as the one to handle it. There was a productive way I could have handled it for sure even if the SP had reacted the way I predicted (and I am not including him in my displeasure because I never gave him a chance)...I could have gone to Scouts Canada...my problem was I was too shy and timid at that stage of my life to 'fight the status quo', no one I talked to about it among the men did anything but respond in a "it turned out okay, why make a fuss?" including my husband so quickly decided to let it drop but keep my eye out in the future for possible violations and since the kids moved up to other leaders shortly after that, none appeared..at least that I knew of.

I don't mean to use my experience as an example of the system not working, just as a concrete example of a local leader blowing someone off.

Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I really thought the "suffering in silence" comment above was hilarious. Seriously? Suffering because someone isn't praying in conference? We must have a very skewed view of suffering. It seems that suffering might actually occur if you were called on to pray in conference.

For the most part this discussion feels like we're attempting to turn the church into some type of democratic institution and lobby for all the changes WE want. Fortunately (or not) it has never been run by the voice of the people, and is not likely to occur in the future.

We need to relax, pray for personal guidance, and allow the Lord and his prophet to guide us. We can stump all we want for homosexual temple marriage, women prophets and perfect men, but it's not going to happen.

I highly doubt that is what Tacenda means when she said "suffer in silence" (I think it was Tacenda who said it first). I wasn't thinking of it when I responded to her.

The praying in conference issue is not about praying in conference, it is about having a more visible presence for women in the Church and they focused on an easily changed and very visible minor issue for their purposed, one that likely would be just another small step toward the final goal whatever that might be for the participants.

"Suffering in silence" is more likely an occupation of women who are worried about their sealings, their relationships to their husband and children being impacted by doctrine and attitudes as well as concerns about their family's own experiences with the Church being more negative than they believe they need be or perhaps they fear it has to be that negative or at least not that positive enough for their children to stay commited to the faith.

[Calm]

For the most part this discussion feels like we're attempting to turn the church into some type of democratic institution and lobby for all the changes WE want.

Then you are missing the point.

[why me]

Fifty-six minutes into John Dehlin's podcast in the first part, states that the GAs do not cave in to pressure from the outside. He was referring to his research on why people leave the church. The GA said that the brethern do not react well to outside pressure because they are afraid of being seen as caving in to the world. So, he asked to wait on publishing the material until he talked to the rest of the brethern. I have to wonder if the Radical fringe of Mormon feminism understand this. Going to the media does not work and it will not work.

[Alvino]

Lets look at her statement:

Elaine Dalton, LDS Church Young Women General President, said in part, “You will also be the ones who provide the example of family life in a time when families are under attack, being redefined and disintegrating. You will understand your rights and your responsibilities, and thus see no need to lobby for rights.”

Basically, she is correct. The family is in sharp decline and it is under attack. In fact, family life is rather poor these days not just in America but throughout the world. And the traditional family is in crisis from many fronts, mainly through work, pressure, stress, anxiety, lack of free time etc. So, what she is telling some women to do is to concentrate on preserving the family in our society since societies foundational strengths rests on the family. Now what lds member can disagree with that?

By mentioning the redefining of marriage we can get an idea into what she has in mind there. That you either don't see or don't address that part of her statement is weird.

And of course, she has a right to her opinion. Why attempt to silence her? One way to sow discord in an organization is to create fractures in that organization. Paul warned his own christian community about this. By going public, fractures will begin to occur. And so will discord.

"Silence her" is obviously not what people requesting clarification want. Don't kill rationality by attributing such malevolent intents to your opponents.

No more reason to pray about it...just ask for clarifications.

Or, better, both!

Edited February 1, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

For the most part this discussion feels like we're attempting to turn the church into some type of democratic institution and lobby for all the changes WE want. Fortunately (or not) it has never been run by the voice of the people, and is not likely to occur in the future.

OK. Would you agree to open dialogue (that is, public broadcasting) with the general authorities into the role of women in the Church? I propose that some of the twelve have a discussion with other LDS members who disagree with them regarding the role of women. No democracy needed, just open dialogue and direct exchange of ideas.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

I am not sure what the point is here. Are we saying that we should pattern the church after the world? Because that is what you are saying.

The world does not believe in continuing revelation or gold plates either and I would not work for nor would I ask my daughter to work for a company which based its corporate culture on me giving back 10% of my pay to the company either.

I mean I could go on with the points here, but clearly the analogy breaks down. The church is not the world nor should our standards be the world's standards.

Contrary to the example of revelation and gold plates, the treatment of women might be inconsistent between that of one setting and the other - there is nothing inconsistent between believing in continuing revelation with regards to the spiritual and golden plates, and going to work or voting or whatnot. juliann is pointing out an inconsistency and double standard that screams in need of explanation or change, mf.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Alvino

[Tacenda]

Fifty-six minutes into John Dehlin's podcast in the first part, states that the GAs do not cave in to pressure from the outside. He was referring to his research on why people leave the church. The GA said that the brethern do not react well to outside pressure because they are afraid of being seen as caving in to the world. So, he asked to wait on publishing the material until he talked to the rest of the brethern. I have to wonder if the Radical fringe of Mormon feminism understand this. Going to the media does not work and it will not work.

Will a woman praying in this coming conference or the one after, change your mind WhyMe?

[Jude2]

I am not sure what the point is here. Are we saying that we should pattern the church after the world? Because that is what you are saying.

The world does not believe in continuing revelation or gold plates either and I would not work for nor would I ask my daughter to work for a company which based its corporate culture on me giving back 10% of my pay to the company either.

I mean I could go on with the points here, but clearly the analogy breaks down. The church is not the world nor should our standards be the world's standards.

If I’m wrong in posting the following here the powers that be may remove this, I’m not sure were the line is drawn concerning repost from other sites;

I’m having a conversation with wave on facebook this is how it has gone;

I said; “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.”

Wave wrote back to me;

“Nancy, the use of the term advocate in her comments was similar to the scriptural reference that Christ is our advocate with God. The leaders of the church are called to serve the membership of the church and it is by common consent that the Church is governed (D&C 28:13). Another way to view the role of the YW president as a representative of women. She speaks on our behalf to the prophet and represents the paradigm of a successful woman within in the church. Using those criteria, Robertson's statement is entirely erudite”

My reply was; No you have it all wrong, I knew you did, I knew you miss understood the whole concept of common consent.

In other worldly churches founded by men like the Baptist Southern Convention or the Episcopal Church each congregation sends their elected representative to make a case for their points of view. They argue and take votes, eventually they split up.

In the Lord’s Kingdom he calls through his Prophets agents to represent his point of view or to be his advocate to us. When you raise your hand to give common consent you are saying I will follow this chosen spokesperson of the Lord.

As an example Ulisses Soares born in São Paulo, Brazil has been called to be a counselor in the Africa Southeast Area. He represents the Lord to the people in that area, they did not elect him to be their advocate to church headquarters.

Sister Dalton is not our elected advocate to the Prophet she is the Prophet’s representative to us.

One more point; Satan was called to be the opposition, the resister (see Zech 3) he took it so far he finally openly rebelled and lost it all.

As mediator between us and Elohim Christ is not going to argue with him. He’s going to say ‘yes this person bowed his/her will to yours and so is ready to enter into your presences’ (or not).

[CV75]

“and they shall be one flesh”

There is no need for two ordinations!

Precisely--thanks for cutting to the chase!