Feminist Mormons Ask Lds Leader To Clarify Comment

[semlogo]

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

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.

Not at all. You suggested that people who disagree with church leadership should leave. Somehow this is preferable with attempting to dialog. I disagree.

Airing grievances and discussing viewpoints are not mutually exclusive.

Edited February 1, 2013 by semlogo

[semlogo]

I

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.

This is more of that "gentle contempt" I was talking about earlier.

"Why should women want equality? Our jobs are so hard!"

We really need to work on our tone. This sort of rhetoric doesn't help.

Edited February 1, 2013 by semlogo

[semlogo]

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.

If you don't have an in with a general authority, a public campaign is the only means you have of reaching them.

[bluebell]

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.

I'm not talking about what you are opposed to or not opposed to, i'm talking about your response to semlogo when they said:

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.

And you responded:

One can always vote with your feet. And then went on to say that if a woman wanted the priesthood, you did not understand why they didn't just leave and start their own church.

I then replied that:

1) semlogo was not just speaking about women who want the priesthood, but they are also talking about women who just want the policy about who prays in church meetings to be more equal in regards to gender so it would be a mistake to try and make the issue about wanting priesthood alone and

2) there really isn't anything confusing about a person wanting to stay in a church which has policies they disagree with, but which matches their belief system.

The purpose of my reply to you was to explain why it made sense (and thus should not be confusing) for a woman to want policies to change and also not want to leave the church.

ie.you said you didn't understand that position, and i was trying to explain it.

As to the idea that it never occurred to the GAs that women might want to be treated equally with men in regards to the right to publically pray to their Father in Heaven in general conference, that's a scary thought!

[CV75]

If you don't have an in with a general authority, a public campaign is the only means you have of reaching them.

You need to get the point that general authorities have an "in" with everyday people without relying on a public campaign to inform them about what is important. They have access to others as well as others having access to them. That is what life is all about. They are not cloistered. Do you think they never heard of this/these issues before? Do you need an "in"? What is your issue that they haven't heard before?

In other words, it really isn't about you reaching them. It is about people (including them) living a real life, and the Lord will bless all involved.

Edited February 1, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

And because they do deal with people with common human concerns and conditions, it seems to me that Church leaders should be given allowance to drop conversations that in their judgment seem unproductive or irrelevant, and to allow the dropped party to figure things out. Clearly priorities have to be made to focus the exercise of keys and as to where their energy will be placed, and we can't expect the Church leaders' priorities to always match our own.

So if you think you need an “in”, maybe this will help: "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)

I think this tells us that if we need an “in,” that we 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 an answer, to some extent, a mandate from God and He will bless us in our righteous efforts.

And we may not always “succeed” in the way we would likfe, 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.”

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Any effort to use mass media to bring public pressure to bear on the leaders of the Church is by nature less than congenial. As Smac rightly pointed, it is appropriate in civil government and politics; it is not appropriate in the Church of Jesus Christ.

But I pledged to calmoriah that I would disengage from this thread; please don't try to draw me back into it.

[semlogo]

Any effort to use mass media to bring public pressure to bear on the leaders of the Church is by nature less than congenial.

I can't see how, but if they really feel that way about it, perhaps they could provide a forum for feedback from the saints. Currently none exists.

This is the 21st century, we can expect more and more of this in the future.

As Smac rightly pointed, it is appropriate in civil government and politics; it is not appropriate in the Church of Jesus Christ.

But I pledged to calmoriah that I would disengage from this thread; please don't try to draw me back into it.

Why?

Edited February 1, 2013 by semlogo

[semlogo]

You need to get the point that general authorities have an "in" with everyday people without relying on a public campaign to inform them about what is important. They have access to others as well as others having access to them. That is what life is all about. They are not cloistered. Do you think they never heard of this/these issues before? Do you need an "in"? What is your issue that they haven't heard before?

In other words, it really isn't about you reaching them. It is about people (including them) living a real life, and the Lord will bless all involved.

This doesn't seem to address any of my points or the topic at hand. Forgive me if I've missed your point.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can't see how, but if they really feel that way about it, perhaps they could provide a forum for feedback from the saints. Currently none exists.

This is the 21st century, we can expect more and more of this in the future.

Why?

I've made my point.

And I told you, I'm done here.

Rail away.

[mfbukowski]

And because they do deal with people with common human concerns and conditions, it seems to me that Church leaders should be given allowance to drop conversations that in their judgment seem unproductive or irrelevant, and to allow the dropped party to figure things out. Clearly priorities have to be made to focus the exercise of keys and as to where their energy will be placed, and we can't expect the Church leaders' priorities to always match our own.

Exactly.

And now little-old-me will follow their example.

[mfbukowski]

I've made my point.

And I told you, I'm done here.

Rail away.

Maybe it's time for all of us!

[mfbukowski]

Interesting how this all mirrors typical discussions between husbands and wives in traditional marriages.

The men just shut up.

[CV75]

This doesn't seem to address any of my points or the topic at hand. Forgive me if I've missed your point.

Your point was: "If you don't have an in with a general authority, a public campaign is the only means you have of reaching them," as if this is the only way to resolve an ecclesiastical issue: 1) it's your issue; 2) you need an "in" for them to know about it; and 3) sometimes that "in" is a public campaign.

One of two overarching but false points you made by saying this is that you are powerless without a public campaign. The other is that the general authorities have no other way to know your concerns. I addressed these in two subsequent posts. 1) The issue has to be general; 2) they can know about it through other relationships ("ins") than one with you, including representative groups; 3) a public campaigns that lacks the merits cited in post #206 will not call their attention or action.

[CV75]

And I told you, I'm done here.

And now little-old-me will follow their example.

Maybe it's time for all of us!

Aw, come on! We're just getting started!

[semlogo]

I've made my point.

And I told you, I'm done here.

Rail away.

Who's railing? Just sharing my perspective.

[semlogo]

Interesting how this all mirrors typical discussions between husbands and wives in traditional marriages.

The men just shut up.

What are you implying, sir?

[semlogo]

Your point was: "If you don't have an in with a general authority, a public campaign is the only means you have of reaching them," as if this is the only way to resolve an ecclesiastical issue: 1) it's your issue; 2) you need an "in" for them to know about it; and 3) sometimes that "in" is a public campaign.

One of two overarching but false points you made by saying this is that you are powerless without a public campaign. The other is that the general authorities have no other way to know your concerns. I addressed these in two subsequent posts. 1) The issue has to be general; 2) they can know about it through other relationships ("ins") than one with you, including representative groups; 3) a public campaigns that lacks the merits cited in post #206 will not call their attention or action.

But the women of the church ARE powerless without a public campaign. What other means do they have to get their voices heard? And how are GAs supposed to know the concerns of everyone in the church unless we tell them? They're not mind readers.

Currently there are no representative groups for women to share the concerns of women in the church with general leadership. As some have pointed out already, this isn't a democracy and women have no representatives.

[Buckeye]

Interesting how this all mirrors typical discussions between husbands and wives in traditional marriages.

The men just shut up.

Um ... Sister Buckeye would have to disagree.

[CV75]

But the women of the church ARE powerless without a public campaign. What other means do they have to get their voices heard?

Do you mean you actually read what I wrote in #206 as not applying to women? There is a dynamic to temporal and spiritual power, and you seem to need some edification in both! The power is already within you if you would only access it.

And how are GAs supposed to know the concerns of everyone in the church unless we tell them? They're not mind readers.

Are you saying that if they had a Cerebro, problem solved?

The common concerns of everyone, and the ultimate in each individual’s concerns (which are overcoming the Fall through immortality, eternal life and exaltation) are addressed through the keys they exercise.

Currently there are no representative groups for women to share the concerns of women in the church with general leadership. As some have pointed out already, this isn't a democracy and women have no representatives.

There needn’t be any representative groups for any subset of Church membership one might imagine there to be; there are no subsets as the Church is one single representative group of individuals representing Christ, and it is also His representation of Himself. The quorums and auxiliaries of the Church are far more far-reaching than representing their respective members. They are vehicles for Christ-like development and service.

There's also the other point I made about how GAs get valid input and the limit to which this can rightfully be pushed.

[Alvino]

The point is that the church's position is not the same as the world's position...

and that they are not the same does not mean they are inconsistent with one another; that was my point. juliann was pointing out an inconsistency and you don't need to think the church's position is the same than that of the world.

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.

Mormons don't exist apart from society, mf. About work, that was just an example to show that one could believe in all that you mentioned (gold plates, continuing revelation) and not be inconsistent with everything else you might currently do (i.e. not give 10% to your employing company). The problem is that there is an inconsistency that you are not addressing.

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

I find it extremely fascinating that you treat society as separate from the church as if not realizing you guys are as part of society as anyone else.

Anyways, if you weren't, of course the church is concerned with what society at large thinks. It is increasingly using more PR moves to change public perception and it can't ignore it when 'society' wants to change legal definitions. It can't also ignore it when it is going to preach to that society.

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".

Unfortunately, mf, "The Church says so" won't suffice when understanding is needed. Once again, you are not addressing juliann's points.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Alvino

[mfbukowski]

Unfortunately, mf, "The Church says so" won't suffice when understanding is needed. Once again, you are not addressing juliann's points.

I don't think she needs you to save her, gallant though your effort may be.

If you can show me succinctly where I erred- in your opinion- since she can speak up if she wants to- let me know.

You seem to be very good at distorting what I actually say. In fact- just give me quotes and let the assembled multitudes of millions of onlookers judge if I answered them or not.

[mfbukowski]

I find it extremely fascinating that you treat society as separate from the church as if not realizing you guys are as part of society as anyone else.

I really don't know where you get this stuff.

Do you understand the difference between the way things SHOULD be and the way they are? Do you understand ethical statements at all?

We SHOULD be IN the world and lifting it.

We SHOULD NOT be OF the world or absorbed into it.

Of course we are part of society. That is our mission. But we SHOULD TRY to not be "OF" that society. Get it now?

Edited February 1, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Alvino]

I really don't know where you get this stuff.

Do you understand the difference between the way things SHOULD be and the way they are? Do you understand ethical statements at all?

We SHOULD be IN the world and lifting it.

We SHOULD NOT be OF the world or absorbed into it.

Of course we are part of society. That is our mission. But we SHOULD TRY to not be "OF" that society. Get it now?

I was about to write that you might have had a point since you said 'society at large' though you guys are part of a big chunk of society today (at least in the U.S.). ...But then you write this.

In your exchange with me you said the Church was not concerned with what society at large thinks, not that it should not be. If the Church recognizes that women and men have different roles then that doesn't seem to be very prescriptive either. Now you start bringing up the should and should not.

[Alvino]

I don't think she needs you to save her, gallant though your effort may be.

If you can show me succinctly where I erred- in your opinion- since she can speak up if she wants to- let me know.

You seem to be very good at distorting what I actually say. In fact- just give me quotes and let the assembled multitudes of millions of onlookers judge if I answered them or not.

OK.

juliann said the following:

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.

mf answered thusly:

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.

Your response, mf, does not answer the issue raised. You mentioned continuing revelation or gold plates. It is rather easy to see how belief in continuing revelation and gold plates is consistent with everything else we normally do at work, and "society at large". There is also no inconsistency in paying the church 10% of your income for religious purposes and not paying 10% of your income to your employers for religious purposes (you might have to pay 10% of your pay for other reasons, who knows why). Now, there does seem to be an inconsistency between how women are refused to participate in certain positions in the church and in "society at large". What justifies such difference? That is what you should be talking about if you want to address juliann's issue. You obviously think it is but you haven't explained why. All you have said in relation to that is that the church simply does things different than 'the world', something that is CLEARLY, mf, a non-answer.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Alvino