The "Ordain Women" Website

[DonBradley]

I'm not sure whether this has already been brought up, but there's a website that's been put advocating the ordination of women.

Mission:

Many fundamental tenets of Mormonism support gender equality: God is male and female, father and mother, and all of their children can progress to be like them someday. We are a group of Mormon women and men committed to making our faith a place where we can all live up to our full divine potential, and we believe that the only way women will be able to have genuine equality and live up to this potential is by having the priesthood. Last year the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed its commitment to equality: “The Book of Mormon states, ‘black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God’ (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.” Ordain Women embraces the sentiment expressed in this statement by our Church leaders and we call on them to ordain us.

Based on the principle of strategic non-violent action, Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormon women to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

Personally, I don't like the site organizers' description of their project of "calling on" church leaders to ordain women through "strategic non-violent action." This sounds like secular pressure-group strategy misapplied to the Church.

However, some of the profiles (such as that by my friend Hannah Wheelwright) are nicely done. I have no problem with anyone expressing their view on this or any other subject.

Others' thoughts?

Don

[MorningStar]

In short, it irritates me.

[MorningStar]

This is one I don't understand. This sister seems to think that if she had the priesthood, she would be able to feel the Spirit better. We are all given the same gift of the Holy Ghost.

[DonBradley]

I guess what I think is that protesting the Church is the wrong approach, regardless of what one believes. But I think it's healthy for people to express their thoughts. While the "mission statement" makes the project sound confrontational, I'm really not seeing that in the individual profiles. These are just sincere expressions of people's thoughts.

Take away the site's "protest" framing and I think it would be just fine.

Don

[Storm Rider]

I am not very enthusiastic about these types of things; generally I find myself doing an eye roll and moving on. I guess I just have to remember that each of us has to deal with life and this is their choice. It is not something I would do or ever think of doing. It seems like some parts of society feel compelled to agitate, to protest, or to have a cause. I am motivated to find peace in my life and I shun those things that I sense do not bring any degree of peace to me. If I wanted to fight over every thing that is denied me in this life I would never have time to do anything positive. My life would be focused only on those things I was denied rather than counting the blessings for all that I have. These are diametrically opposed perspectives of how to live life and those with these perspectives will act differently in almost all situations because of their focus. I hope that I am able to choose peace each day I live.

[Glenn101]

I am one who would not mind if women were to be ordained to the priesthood, because, if it were to happen, it would be the will and mind of the Lord. There has come down from the leadership no instructions to cease and desist wishing for and talking about such things. I think that maybe if the ladies would use the their communications facilities and technology to unite themselves in fasting and prayer to the Lord, those efforts just might be rewarded. I really think that is the proper way for such issues to be addressed.

Glenn

[why me]

I think that a site like the one linked forgets a very important point. The church is run on revelation and not by lobbyists or pressure groups. If the church caved in because of this group, we can safely say that the church is not true since it follows the dictates of women and men,.

[why me]

One other point. It is not ordain women but rather ordain girls. It must start with the girls also, unless they are calling for the exclusion of girls.

[CASteinman]

I believe the Website was started, chiefly by legalists. Scribes, lawyers, etc. and the main protagonist -- I suspect -- is a man who from what I can tell, openly disavows the Book of Mormon and the Prophet Joseph Smith. I think he goes to Church but is not really a believer.

If you notice, the area where you "meet" the people is full of lawyers who work in 2 or 3 cities: San Diego and Washington DC being dominant.

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

ooops... this post is an error.

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[Buzzard]

They have the right to dissent, but I would like to ask these nice sisters-and a few brothers-a question. Some denominations restrict their "priesthood" to men only, others ordain both. Can you name me one who ordains both that is growing? Correlation is not always causation, but there are some interesting circumstances that arise. I'd probably be in trouble if I said more than that....

[BlueDreams]

I believe the Website was started, chiefly by legalists. Scribes, lawyers, etc. and the main protagonist -- I suspect -- is a man who from what I can tell, openly disavows the Book of Mormon and the Prophet Joseph Smith. I think he goes to Church but is not really a believer.

Belief and evidence are two different things. Your belief holds little water when there is litterally no evidence for it. I'm about halfway through the profiles and have been skimming through their mission statements, etc. And though I disagree with them, I see nothing that would describe these women as you have. Even their FAQ goes against your claim that it's a man as their main protaganist:

Who are we?: Ordain Women’s organizers are Mormon women....

Men have a more periphery role on the site.

If you notice, the area where you "meet" the people is full of lawyers who work in 2 or 3 cities: San Diego and Washington DC being dominant.

And the people I've read about include an aspiring doctor, a writer, a professor of art history, people working for non-profit service orgs, stay-at-home moms, etc. Many of them are very educated (grad/doctorate level education). I haven't seen many that were from san diego, a number that moved to DC, a good number from washington state, a number from UT.....basically the places with large concentrations of LDS in the first place.

Honestly your claims/beliefs come off more as unnecessary demonization than anything concrete.

With luv,

BD

[CASteinman]

Belief and evidence are two different things. Your belief holds little water when there is litterally no evidence for it.

Is there "litterally" no evidence for it? How would you know? Do you suppose because you have not seen it, it does not exist?

Your belief that there is no evidence -- "holds little water".

And though I disagree with them, I see nothing that would describe these women as you have.

I'm confused. How did I describe "these women" such that it is contrary to what they have posted?

Honestly your claims/beliefs come off more as unnecessary demonization than anything concrete.

I'm fine with that. I normally love your posts and am a big fan of yours but this time you are out of character and your characterization of my 'claims/beliefs' are more 'unnecessary demonization than anything concrete'.

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is one I don't understand. This sister seems to think that if she had the priesthood, she would be able to feel the Spirit better. We are all given the same gift of the Holy Ghost.

The feminist movement poisoned her. As you said (but differently) having the priesthood would not let you feel the spirit more ore better.

[smac97]

In the previous thread last month about a publicity campaign directed against the Church by some Church members, I opined:

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.

...

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

.

...

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

.

Looks like I called this one.

Also, the website contains an express criticism of the Proclamation on the Family. See here: "This lack of female authority does not stop at the church doors. The Church’s Proclamation on the Family declares that men preside over their wives and families, thus preserving an antiquated and unequal model in both the domestic and ecclesiastical realms."

The FAQ also includes what appears to be a falsehood:

Why engage in public actions?

One of the strengths of Mormonism is the belief that the heavens are yet open. As we obtain more light and knowledge, we expect Church policies to reflect that increased wisdom. We believe Church members play a part in this process.

Because Mormon women lack institutional authority and access to those leaders who have the ability to receive revelation on behalf of the Church, public advocacy is one of the few options open to those of us who actively seek ordination

.

Here's my position: I am open to the idea of women being ordained to the priesthood. However, I strongly object to public campaigns against the Church by its members.

I believe that the LDS Church is what it claims to be (the Kingdom of God on the earth, presided over by prophets and apostles), and that there is a mechanism in place for church members to air grievances or request changes.

I think that agitation for change, directed publicly against Church by Church members, even where the criticism or request for change is legitimate and/or presented in good faith, is inappropriate.

I haven't a hostile bone in my body toward ladyfolk. But I also don't think that women are entitled to publicly agitate against the Church, regardless of the good intentions behind that agitation, just because they 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.

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 because 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.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 20, 2013 by smac97

[wenglund]

Yesterday it was pantsuits. Today it is the priesthood. I wonder what male-envy protest the female interlopers have in store for tomorrow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[smac97]

Here's a prediction I made on March 1 (in response to the "Breastfeeding in Church" and "Wearing Pants to Church" campaigns):

I predict that these self-appointed guardians of LDS women, and other self-appointed "leaders" of subcategories of "groups" within the Church, are going to continue to agitate. Publicly. Against the Church. They will use news media, blogs, online petitions, form letter campaigns, etc. They have started with innocuous, "how can anybody be against

that

"-type issues (such as women praying in General Conference, or reasonably and sensitively accommodating nursing mothers in Church settings). But such groups (not necessarily the specific group referenced in the Trib article, but groups utilizing the tactics it has adopted) will then get more aggressive, both in their objectives and in the means by which they pursue those objectives. And that aggression will be directed against the LDS Church, both generally and against its local and general leadership, and then against its doctrines. These trends will culminate in some of these self-appointed activists

within

the Church aligning themselves with groups and individuals

outside

of

and

hostile to

the Church. These aligned factions will utilize the above-referenced news and social media tools to apply public pressure against the Church for changes not only in innocuous matters, but in more substantive matters of Church governance, policy, and even doctrine. The members of these groups who are nominal members will exploit that status to further these efforts (like Grant Palmer did to bolster the claims in and notoriety of his book). Some individual Church members involved in these efforts will adopt an in-your-face attitude, and that will lead to discipline by local leaders. These individuals will then become cause célèbres (comparisons to the "September Six" will be inevitable), and they will then exploit that status to garner further attention and to foment further agitation against the Church. Critics and enemies of the Church will, of course, be delighted with this turn of events.

I wonder how much of this prediction will prove to be accurate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CASteinman]

I wonder how much of this prediction will prove to be accurate.

Interesting. You got it so far. But while the prediction is interesting to me your wording was more interesting.

[smac97]

Interesting. You got it so far. But while the prediction is interesting to me your wording was more interesting.

What's interesting about my wording?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CASteinman]

What's interesting about my wording?

I found the characterization: "self-appointed guardians of LDS women" to be a vivid description that has a capacity for depth of exploration into the history, methods and motives of such people.

I also found your description of the stratagems used to be likely -- as this is the pattern of such forces in times past.

[Wanderer7]

This whole issue scares me because it creates a no win situation for the church. Either feminists around the world get riled up over the refusal to give women the priesthood or the church appears to be led by the whims of its people. I honestly don't care who holds the priesthood, by why don't these members think about the effects of their actions on the church as a whole? And what about the investigator who is taught that we are led by a prophet and then sees the example of members who are acting in a way inconsistent with such a belief? I know one such person who lost interest in the church because of the let women pray movement. Is so-called equality worth the price of a soul?

[Freedom]

If the church is true, their efforts will have no success. If they feel their efforts will succeed then the church is not true. Perhaps they are testing to see if the church is truly guided by revelation. Do these same people protest the Savior for not ordaining women to his inner circle and for refusing to preach the gospel to non-jews?

[BlueDreams]

Is there "litterally" no evidence for it? How would you know? Do you suppose because you have not seen it, it does not exist?

I'm reading their answers and th profiles of the people. I disagree with a number of their conclusions. But I could not make the conclusions you have mentioned. But if you have some evidence please do share how you've reached your conclusions.

Your belief that there is no evidence -- "holds little water".

Show me how it doesn't. I've given at least some of my evidence as to why your claims appeared holey. I have not seen any for yours.

I'm confused. How did I describe "these women" such that it is contrary to what they have posted?

I already showed a number. But to recap:

- There is no indication that their site is run by a male. There is evidence from their FAQ that it is quite the opposite....likewise there is no indication that this non-evident man has the characteristics that you mentioned.

- the women are not "full of lawyers" who work in 2-3 cities. I listed off the careers mentions from the first 5-6 women on the profiles

- You have not indicated exactly (or at least some example) as to how you came to the view that these people as legalists. Such a claim deserves a CFR

I'm fine with that. I normally love your posts and am a big fan of yours but this time you are out of character and your characterization of my 'claims/beliefs' are more 'unnecessary demonization than anything concrete'.

Thank you for the complement. I assure you that this is not out of character for me. IMHO I know me pretty well

With luv,

BD

Edited March 20, 2013 by BlueDreams

[CASteinman]

if you have some evidence please do share how you've reached your conclusions.

I am thinking about how to go about this. There is a certain way that I do not want to go about talking about individuals, by name, who are not here on this board to give account of themselves. It smacks of something unholy for me to do that. So I am torn. I hope you appreciate my concern in this regard.

And I have not completed my research yet anyway.

:

- There is no indication that their site is run by a male.

Actually there is. The Registration for the web domain is in the name of a man. This may not be entirely convincing to you, because it is fraudulent information in the Registration. But the fact that the registration contains fraudulent information should not lead you to entirely trust the things that they say. The technical contact is also a man. That is not fraudulent information but it may be entirely irrelevant also.

Thank you for the complement. I assure you that this is not out of character for me. IMHO I know me pretty well

I expect you do know yourself pretty well. However, until now, I have always seen your posts as having a sort of beauty to them in the spirit of their wording and thoughts. I almost never saw the spirit of contention.

This looked different to me.

If I am wrong in my preconceived notions, I still would rather stick with them and read your future posts as coming from someone like that.

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[Damien the Leper]

Is there "litterally" no evidence for it? How would you know? Do you suppose because you have not seen it, it does not exist?

Your belief that there is no evidence -- "holds little water".

CASteinman, this response is merely a "nuh uh" argument. You'll have to expand more in order to refute BDs points. Simply turning the questions on her isn't a valid argument.