Feminist Mormons Ask Lds Leader To Clarify Comment

[CV75]

It is interesting that my attempt at dialogue with others just seemed to drop off into nowhere on page 4.

It seems to me that Church leaders should be given the same allowance to drop conversations that seem unproductive or irrelevant to allow the dropped party to figure things out. There's nothing wrong with living with some ambiguity. Clearly priorities have to be made in where the energy will be placed under particular circumstance of "dialogue", and we can't expect the Church leaders' priorities to always match our own.

[CV75]

Just saw this on another thread: "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." (D&C 130:20-21)

So I think one approach for this group is to prayerfully define the desired blessing, fast and pray about what law(s) must be obeyed to obtain it, and then be led by the Spirit to go from there. The need to obtain, to some extent, a mandate from God.

And let the chips fall where they may, per D&C 124:49-50 (“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.”)

[rpn]

The organized "opposition" or "challenge" is what is the problem.

[semlogo]

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.

Local leaders have no authority to speak for general authorities on changing church-wide policy.

[semlogo]

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

-Smac

Yes. But where is the dirty laundry you were talking about?

Or do you think women wanting to contribute more to the gospel is "dirty"? Please clarify.

[semlogo]

Yes. And?

-Smac

You claimed that there are "established means for members to air grievances " While that may be true for members who wish to complain about, say, unsafe conditions in the local ward building, it is not true for issues of church-wide policy.

[semlogo]

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.

In what way? It's only adversarial if they use hostile language, which they have not.

[semlogo]

Aspiring to church callings = not good.

"I hope they call me on a mission..."

Not good?

[semlogo]

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.

Ahab's attitude, as well as the attitude of some others in this thread, display an odd sort of gentle contempt for women. The idea seems to be that sexism is acceptable as long as men display affection and appreciation for women at the same time. They seek to ameliorate the sexism by trying to counter balance it with affection. But it only manages to come off as condescending. A sort of, "there there, dear, don't worry your pretty little head about it" for the 21st century.

[semlogo]

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.

Yes. The church should be held to a higher standard than a mere business. You seem to be holding it to a lower standard.

[semlogo]

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.

I don't think saving face is more important than giving women a voice in the church.

[semlogo]

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.

The part in the temple recommend about your relationship with your family came about because women lobbied for it to happen. The church may not be a democracy, but it's not a dictatorship either.

[MorningStar]

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.

No, no, no. I prefer a little pat on the head to hugs and once in a while, "You're so adorable when you have feelings!"

[mfbukowski]

... 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. ...

I am deliberately cutting your post to emphasize the essence of your point, and the fact of the matter is that I never said anything about that.

Your point is irrelevant to what I said. I said nothing about continuing revelation or the plates or going to work.

The point is that the church's position is not the same as the world's position- the reality is that the church does in fact believe that there are differences between men and women in roles.

If one has an issue with that, one has an issue with the church's position. One can uphold that position, or not. It has nothing to do with whether or not women "should" work, what kind of work they want to do, or if they should be regarded by society at large as essentially the "same" as men.

The church is not concerned with what society at large thinks- it is concerned with voicing its own opinion on these matters.

Either one believes that there should be gender roles or there should not. What those roles are and how far to push the issue is another matter. We now see women in front-line infantry positions in the military. I have no issue with women doing that if they want to- good for them! But that is not the issue!

Individual women should not be restricted from anything they want to do in worldly pursuits based on their sex, and I am not saying that.

But that statement is not contradicted by the statement "The church recognizes that men and women have different needs, desires and callings before God and in his church".

What that has to do with continuing revelation and golden plates, I haven't a clue.

[Fly Fisherman]

The part in the temple recommend about your relationship with your family came about because women lobbied for it to happen. The church may not be a democracy, but it's not a dictatorship either.

How did the women lobby for it? When did this happen? I am interested in the details of this, if you have them.

[mfbukowski]

You claimed that there are "established means for members to air grievances " While that may be true for members who wish to complain about, say, unsafe conditions in the local ward building, it is not true for issues of church-wide policy.

One can always vote with your feet.

I left Catholicism because I did not believe in its principles. I did not write the pope and protest and want him to see it my way. If you don't believe what a church teaches, there are hundreds if not thousands of options, including starting your own church.

If I were a woman who wanted the priesthood, I would declare myself a priest and start my own church. If the church does not have authority, then why stay? Ordain yourself by your own biblical authority as Protestants do, and start your own! Honestly, that is exactly what I would do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood_%28doctrine%29

The universal priesthood or the priesthood of all believers is a Christian doctrine believed by various Protestant denominations to be derived from several passages of the New Testament. The exact meaning varies from denomination to denomination, but generally entails a doctrinal responsibility or right to preach and expound the Christian faith, and this is appointed to every member of the church. It first came to the public eye when Martin Luther and his followers wrote, preached, and sang about a priesthood of all believers.

This is precisely what Protestant ministers do when they decide to found a church- if you don't like our Priesthood authority, start your own!

I honestly am having trouble understanding the whole premise here. It seems some want to say and have one foot out the door at the same time. Why is that? It's like the "middle way" people!

If I didn't believe, I would be out the door and doing my own thing. I just don't get it.

[Walden]

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.

I think the church does enough in it's own right to make itself look bad; it doesn't need the help of members who may disagree with their policy to make them look bad. To blame it on those who campaign against this "bad" is ridiculous, and is akin to blaming political activists for fighting against an unjust government, when it is the governemnt that is wrong, not the activists.

[semlogo]

One can always vote with your feet.

I left Catholicism because I did not believe in its principles. I did not write the pope and protest and want him to see it my way. If you don't believe what a church teaches, there are hundreds if not thousands of options, including starting your own church.

So if anyone disagrees with a church policy, they should leave the church? Seems like an extreme response to me. Reasonable adults can discuss their viewpoints with each other.

Thousands of people are voting with their feet (not the women in question, though). I was not under the impression that this was supposed to be a good thing.

Edited February 1, 2013 by semlogo

[semlogo]

How did the women lobby for it? When did this happen? I am interested in the details of this, if you have them.

My wife heard this related by Chieko Okazaki. I don't know the details, but apparently these were women with access to general authorities, so they could get their attention without resorting to public campaigns.

Sorry, I wish I had more than that.

[bluebell]

One can always vote with your feet.

I left Catholicism because I did not believe in its principles. I did not write the pope and protest and want him to see it my way. If you don't believe what a church teaches, there are hundreds if not thousands of options, including starting your own church.

If I were a woman who wanted the priesthood, I would declare myself a priest and start my own church. If the church does not have authority, then why stay? Ordain yourself by your own biblical authority as Protestants do, and start your own! Honestly, that is exactly what I would do.

http://en.wikipedia....hood_(doctrine)

This is precisely what Protestant ministers do when they decide to found a church- if you don't like our Priesthood authority, start your own!

I honestly am having trouble understanding the whole premise here. It seems some want to say and have one foot out the door at the same time. Why is that? It's like the "middle way" people!

If I didn't believe, I would be out the door and doing my own thing. I just don't get it.

It would be a mistake to confuse the women who want policies changed with those who want the priesthood. And given that, is it really so confusing that women who want policies changed wouldn't want to leave the church and start their own?

[mfbukowski]

So if anyone disagrees with a church policy, they should leave the church? Seems like an extreme response to me. Reasonable adults can discuss their viewpoints with each other.

You are clearly equivocating. This is what you actually said, to which I responded:

You claimed that there are "established means for members to air grievances " While that may be true for members who wish to complain about, say, unsafe conditions in the local ward building, it is not true for issues of church-wide policy.

You were not talking about "reasonable adults discussing their viewpoints" you were talking about "established means for members to air grievances".

I am not interested in playing games. If you want a discussion, fine, then respond without equivocating.

[mfbukowski]

It would be a mistake to confuse the women who want policies changed with those who want the priesthood. And given that, is it really so confusing that women who want policies changed wouldn't want to leave the church and start their own?

I am really having trouble seeing the difference. Maybe it's because of my background- I have changed my belief structure many times in my life and find it no big deal. I was an atheist communist hippie and now I am a conservative Mormon businessman.

When I change a belief, I change a belief and my life changes. I don't wring my hands over making a decision. If I want to change I change. I stopped smoking, gave up all kinds of things which were not good for me, lost a ton of weight and got healthier.

I have trouble seeing why others don't.

Edited February 1, 2013 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

I am really having trouble seeing the difference. Maybe it's because of my background- I have changed my belief structure many times in my life and find it no big deal. I was an atheist communist hippie and now I am a conservative Mormon businessman.

When I change a belief, I change a belief and my life changes. I don't wring my hands over making a decision. If I want to change I change. I stopped smoking, gave up all kinds of things which were not good for me, lost a ton of weight and got healthier.

I have trouble seeing why others don't.

It's very possible to believe that the church has policies which are not condoned of God, while also believing that the church is God's true church on the earth and the only one with the authority to lead one to salvation.

So wanting women to be able to pray in a church meeting does not mean changing beliefs in the least. And if beliefs haven't changed, then why leave the church which espouses those beliefs?

I'm having trouble seeing why this confuses you.

[mfbukowski]

It's very possible to believe that the church has policies which are not condoned of God, while also believing that the church is God's true church on the earth and the only one with the authority to lead one to salvation.

So wanting women to be able to pray in a church meeting does not mean changing beliefs in the least. And if beliefs haven't changed, then why leave the church which espouses those beliefs?

I'm having trouble seeing why this confuses you.

I don't recall saying I was opposed to women praying in church, and I never said that. I am not opposed to it, I am for it. I am sure it will happen next conference.

But this is not what I was opposed to. I was opposed to the idea that the church should change its belief that there are gender roles in the church. I honestly think it probably didn't ever occur to the brethren that women cared who gave the prayers. I suppose I am just dense in these matters. I will have to ask my wife, my three daughters, my daughter-in-law and granddaughter. They all know I am an old grumpus.

[CV75]

My wife heard this related by Chieko Okazaki. I don't know the details, but apparently these were women with access to general authorities, so they could get their attention without resorting to public campaigns.

Sorry, I wish I had more than that.

And it is just as much so that general authorities have access and give attention to valid, authentic and inspired seekers of truth so as not to rely on or resort to uninspired public campaigns.