The "Ordain Women" Website

[why me]

So you believe that the Church leadership's action involved the Manifesto and removal of polygyny was wrong?

Different situation. If a state, which has an army marching toward that organization and pressure is being put on that organization to change and it comes from state power, it may be different than a pressure group.

[Calm]

An interesting analogy. So the women pushing for the priesthood are engaging in conduct morally equivalent to what the federal government did to the Church in the late 19th century. That's not exactly the best pattern to follow, I think.

-Smac

I would not say that they are automatically morally equivalent (at least not the majority of them, I suppose there are some that might be willing to go to the extreme of destroying the Church to get what they want). Simply because it is a precedent of change, doesn't mean that it is identical.

However, I do believe those that are agitating for change without following the Spirit on how to go about seeking change in the Church are risking their spiritual well being by doing so as does anyone who demands something from the Lord rather than asking in faith while being willing to sacrifice their desire to the Lord's Will.

[Calm]

And the world would see it that way too.

So we are to disregard a revelation from the Lord because of the way the world sees it?

[rpn]

My take is that those who are posting, and those who feel that way, do not have firm testimony that this is the Church of Jesus Christ, who doesn't let listening leaders mess it up. If they did, they would likely scrupulously avoid public denunciation of the leaders; they would not for a minute believe that He thinks of women less than men because of priesthood; AND they would spend their time in prayer that leaders would listen and members and leaders would come to hear what He was saying, if it was His will to ordain women to the priesthood. Failure to act like one believes this is HIS church is a fundamental flaw in the protests.

[rongo]

Nothing that the Ordain Women and other activists groups have done come close to the below:

There is a lot more background than just the excerpts included along with OD1. This was such a big change, with certain apostasy the result at worst and significant concerns at best, that there was more to it than even the supplemental OD1 excerpts convey. This is from a couple of slides from the stake/community fireside I did a few years ago ("Can Mormon Prophets Stand up to Scrutiny?"). These don't do the full references justice, but I had to distill and condense a lot down onto slides. Elder Roberts' treatment of the background and the pathos in the Church, and the special Church-wide fast, is very touching.

September 1890: Special Church‐wide fast

The First Presidency called for a special Church‐wide fast to ask for a special endowment of the Holy Ghost

“as a witness that he was still with them” and that the Church’s enemies might be confounded in their

persecution. While it had no measurable effect on minimizing the persecution, those who lived through that time felt that it “prepared the saints themselves in mind and heart for the mighty change then pending.”

(B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church 6:218‐219)

President Woodruff’s Journal, 1890

"September 24: I signed 25 recommends. I received 19 letters. I signed 23 school certificates—I met with three of the twelve apostles and my counselors upon an important subject."

"September 25: I have arrived at a point in the history of my life as the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the church. The United States government has taken a stand and passed laws to destroy the Latter‐day Saints on the subject of polygamy, or patriarchal order of marriage; and after praying to the Lord and feeling inspired, I have issued the following proclamation [Official Declaration 1; the “Manifesto”] which is sustained by my counselors and the twelve apostles."

------

I think people are delusional if they think ordaining women will simply be announced in Conference. Something like that will require a lot of prepping and damage-control in advance, a la OD1.

[Calm]

I think people are delusional if they think ordaining women will simply be announced in Conference. Something like that will require a lot of prepping and damage-control in advance, a la OD1.

Quite agree.

And very interesting, thanks for posting that.

Edited March 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

I think people are delusional if they think ordaining women will simply be announced in Conference. Something like that will require a lot of prepping and damage-control in advance, a la OD1.

I agree, as well. But no time like the present to get going on it...

[CV75]

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.

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

I think it goes beyond someone expressing a view because it is neither a dialogue nor venting. The larger group that the Mormon woman is sharing her view with has already decided what the one correct course of action is regarding that view, both in behalf of the woman articulating her view well as the group’s intended audience. I think the misapplied group strategy does more harm than an individual expressing herself in a well-applied way.

[mercyngrace]

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

On the other hand, our own church authorities have lauded men like Martin Luther for their vocal, public protests.

I think the more interesting question is why the protests of fellow saints make some of us, myself included at times, a bit uneasy. We don't claim infallibility and we openly acknowledge in our articles of faith that God has more to reveal. We also claim the restoration resulted from the heavenward prodding of a mere mortal. If some feel compelled, for whatever reason, to agitate for change, let them. Who is to say that God won't teach us, them, or even the world a thing or two in the process?

[smac97]

So you believe that the Church leadership's action involved the Manifesto and removal of polygyny was wrong?

No. But I believe that public pressure campaigns waged against the Church by church members is wrong.

I am not saying that the way activists are currently going about trying to invoke change in the Church is right.

Okay. I'm a bit more ardent in my opposition to what they are doing.

Certainly I view the federal government's persecution of the early Saints over plural marriage to be entirely in wrong....and yet the Lord gave a revelation because of that persecution and the Church acted upon it.

And yet I doubt we, as church members, are supposed to emulate what the federal government did in the late 19th century.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MorningStar]

The thing that irritates me is that these women are assuming that it's OK with God for us to have the priesthood and that church leaders are just standing in their way with their lack of inspiration. Do they really think our prophets have never asked about this with the question coming up countless times?

On a positive note, the women on the home page have very nice, white teeth.

[smac97]

And I think it does not matter what triggers the guidance from the Lord,

I disagree. I think it matters very much. Apostasy might trigger guidance from the Lord, but that does not justify apostasy, does it?

we should accept it no matter what. (I am not saying here you are disagreeing with this, I think we are just approaching this from a different angle.)

I have no qualms with accepting revelation. This isn't about revelation from God. it's about church members waging a campaign against their own church. It's about attempting to create doctrinal change not through "guidance from the Lord," but through public pressures against the Church which are being instigated by church members. There is nothing good about that.

If that trigger is due to the unworthy actions of members or nonmembers, then they will have to bear the burden of their sins...

I think it is appropriate to call out such "unworthy actions" rather than just shrug it off as inevitable or somehow beyond our control. If I had a family member or friend who was participating in this endeavor, I would advise them of my concerns about it.

and I believe they will suffer for it greatly if they don't repent but as a Church we need to be willing to follow the direction of the Lord no matter what it appears like to the outside world,

Of course. But again, my comments have nothing to do with that point. I fully agree with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

On a positive note, the women on the home page have very nice, white teeth.

Well stated.

[smac97]

I would not say that they are automatically morally equivalent (at least not the majority of them, I suppose there are some that might be willing to go to the extreme of destroying the Church to get what they want). Simply because it is a precedent of change, doesn't mean that it is identical.

Not "identical," but still in the same category of out-of-bounds conduct for church members (in my view). As soon as activists within the Church start emulating the persecutors of the 19th-century Church, they need to start to re-examine what they are doing and how they are doing it.

However, I do believe those that are agitating for change without following the Spirit on how to go about seeking change in the Church are risking their spiritual well being by doing so as does anyone who demands something from the Lord rather than asking in faith while being willing to sacrifice their desire to the Lord's Will.

I can't speak to that, except that I do not believe God wants Church members to behave in this way.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I would not say that they are automatically morally equivalent (at least not the majority of them, I suppose there are some that might be willing to go to the extreme of destroying the Church to get what they want). Simply because it is a precedent of change, doesn't mean that it is identical.

Not "identical," but still in the same category of out-of-bounds conduct for church members (in my view). As soon as activists within the Church start emulating the persecutors of the 19th-century Church, they need to start to re-examine what they are doing and how they are doing it.

However, I do believe those that are agitating for change without following the Spirit on how to go about seeking change in the Church are risking their spiritual well being by doing so as does anyone who demands something from the Lord rather than asking in faith while being willing to sacrifice their desire to the Lord's Will.

I do not see any "asking in faith" in this endeavor. That website has nothing to do with seeking spiritual guidance. It has to do with fomenting adverse public opinion against the Church and its doctrines.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 21, 2013 by smac97

[Calm]

Smac,

There is more than one variation on the theme going on in this and other threads on the subject. One of these is reaction to the activism itself. I expressed somewhere as soon as I saw it (too many threads on this to keep track) that I had no problem with the idea of petitioning the Lord or petitioning the leaders to petition the Lord as long as one was also stating that one would be patient and abide by the Lord's Will no matter what the answer was....

And I pointed out I didn't see this on the "OrdainWomen" site and I don't remember seeing it on the "LetWomenPray" site either. There is an assumption there that others have expressed that this is the way it is supposed to be--without any condition of waiting on the Lord to make it so.

However, others (especially why me) have turned the conversations on these threads to a discussion of how they and the Church would react to the change if it were to happen, what the implications of such a revelation would be. So I was responding to that part of the conversation....including your comments that seemed to be a part of that side of the conversation. If I misunderstood you, please excuse me and we can consider that dialogue done with.

Edited March 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[smac97]

On the other hand, our own church authorities have lauded men like Martin Luther for their vocal, public protests.

Protests that were not directed against the Church of Jesus Christ.

I think the more interesting question is why the protests of fellow saints make some of us, myself included at times, a bit uneasy.

Because we are supposed to be of one heart and one mind.

Because church members playing on their membership to augment their self-appointed guardianship of LDS women is disturbing.

Because church members deliberately fomenting adverse public opinion against the Church is wrong.

Because church members publicly criticizing the doctrines of the Church is wrong.

We don't claim infallibility and we openly acknowledge in our articles of faith that God has more to reveal.

True. But I don't think God intends for the revelatory process to include public criticisms of the Church by members of the Church. I just don't think that's in the program.

We also claim the restoration resulted from the heavenward prodding of a mere mortal. If some feel compelled, for whatever reason, to agitate for change, let them.

Why let them? Why not speak out against behavior which we believe to be wrong?

Who is to say that God won't teach us, them, or even the world a thing or two in the process?

I don't think God wants us to take a laissez fair attitude about things like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

On the other hand, our own church authorities have lauded men like Martin Luther for their vocal, public protests.

I think the more interesting question is why the protests of fellow saints make some of us, myself included at times, a bit uneasy. We don't claim infallibility and we openly acknowledge in our articles of faith that God has more to reveal. We also claim the restoration resulted from the heavenward prodding of a mere mortal. If some feel compelled, for whatever reason, to agitate for change, let them. Who is to say that God won't teach us, them, or even the world a thing or two in the process?

Your commentary makes one pause to wonder if successful agitation for change by rank and file LDS Church members has had a history in the Church? For example, are there instances where the Prophet Joseph Smith or President Brigham Young instituted changes in Church doctrine, procedure or practice that were initially sought for by grass roots pressure groups that functioned outside of the leadership councils of the Church?

[mercyngrace]

I don't think God wants us to take a laissez fair attitude about things like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

I appreciate your opinion, SMac. I guess my question then is what do you think should be done to those whose public statements might bring bad press on the church?

Edited March 21, 2013 by mercyngrace

[mercyngrace]

Your commentary makes one pause to wonder if successful agitation for change by rank and file LDS Church members has had a history in the Church? For example, are there instances where the Prophet Joseph Smith or President Brigham Young instituted changes in Church doctrine, procedure or practice that were initially sought for by grass roots pressure groups that functioned outside of the leadership councils of the Church?

There are more recent examples certainly, of changes that weren't "top down". See here.

Edited March 21, 2013 by mercyngrace

[smac97]

Smac,

There is more than one variation on the theme going on in this and other threads on the subject. One of these is reaction to the activism itself. I expressed somewhere as soon as I saw it (too many threads on this to keep track) that I had no problem with the idea of petitioning the Lord or petitioning the leaders to petition the Lord as long as one was also stating that one would be patient and abide by the Lord's Will no matter what the answer was....

I have no problem with "petitioning the Lord," either. But not this way. This is not the Lord's way.

And I pointed out I didn't see this on the "OrdainWomen" site and I don't remember seeing it on the "LetWomenPray" site either. There is an assumption there that others have expressed that this is the way it is supposed to be--without any condition of waiting on the Lord to make it so.

However, others (especially why me) have turned the conversations on these threads to a discussion of how they and the Church would react to the change if it were to happen, what the implications of such a revelation would be. So I was responding to that part of the conversation....including your comments that seemed to be a part of that side of the conversation. If I misunderstood you, please excuse me and we can consider that dialogue done with.

Sounds good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I appreciate your opinion, SMac. I guess my question then is what do you think should be done to those whose public statements might bring bad press on the church?

I will speak out against this sort of thing, but as far as what "should be done" to these folks? That's not within my province. I'll leave such matters to the priesthood leaders who have stewardship over these folks.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stone holm]

I am not in favor of organizing protest against the Church. On the other hand, I see no harm in discussing the religious doctrines supporting an all male Priesthood, to the extent that even can be correctly asserted to currently exist, or speculating as to whether it will always continue to exist. I guess it is an element of conservatism to maintain that the way things are currently done in the Church are the way they always should continue to be done. But, I also can sympathize with the frustration that many educated women must feel at the gender stereotyping and subordination that goes on in the Church. I believe that as the cultural pressure grows we will see changes, and are already experiencing changes, in the Church over gender issues. Exactly where that will lead, I don't know. But I do know its going to lead towards more equality and greater respect for our sisters, not stay as it is.

[Calm]

Your commentary makes one pause to wonder if successful agitation for change by rank and file LDS Church members has had a history in the Church? For example, are there instances where the Prophet Joseph Smith or President Brigham Young instituted changes in Church doctrine, procedure or practice that were initially sought for by grass roots pressure groups that functioned outside of the leadership councils of the Church?

I don't think you would call them pressure groups, but changes have been brought about by grassroots groups, such as the beginning of Sunday School, Primary and YMs and then YWs groups. (add-on: I see that Mercyngrace has provided a better post about these.) Edited March 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[tyler90az]

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.

You are pulling this information out of thin air unless you have magic powers. I did a thorough search of the registrants name and found nothing. You are telling me he/she put in false details, which would require a fake debit care etc etc., that is highly illegal. Tell me how you would even know what the persons real identity is anway. Come on now...