The "Ordain Women" Website

[Stone holm]

I think one would have to be naive not to think that the cultural pressure and moral condemnation that started buffeting the Church from within and from without did not play any role in the extension of the Priesthood. The similarities to this issue are not going to be easily ignored either as time goes on. I doubt this one will be resolved in a similar manner though. If aim right in my pure speculation, this one will occur a piece at a time with couples being called to positions instead of simply a man. I think we are already seeing some examples of this and you will see that practice expand until it will just seem so natural that you will hardly realize it has happened until...oh they called brother and sister so and so to the Bishopric well imagine that why didn't they do that years ago.

[why me]

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.

You are right about the background and have given a marvelous statement from Woodward as to why the change was made and how it was done. This is something that is overlooked by many women who are involved in the ordaining women site. And it makes their intent seem rather dubious.

[tyler90az]

I think one would have to be naive not to think that the cultural pressure and moral condemnation that started buffeting the Church from within and from without did not play any role in the extension of the Priesthood. The similarities to this issue are not going to be easily ignored either as time goes on. I doubt this one will be resolved in a similar manner though. If aim right in my pure speculation, this one will occur a piece at a time with couples being called to positions instead of simply a man. I think we are already seeing some examples of this and you will see that practice expand until it will just seem so natural that you will hardly realize it has happened until...oh they called brother and sister so and so to the Bishopric well imagine that why didn't they do that years ago.

That is an interesting idea.

Whenever a person gets called the spouse should also get called. They should stand up and all that jazz. The spouses primary role would be as the persons main counsel. In other words, you have to talk everything over with your spouse. I do not think that is a bad idea at all. It promotes communication between spouses and would make everyone more effective in their callings. Strengthen marriages and the church, that sounds like something Jesus would have up his sleeve in his perfect plan.

[why me]

I think that many women who are advocating the ordination of women (girls) seem not to realize that many women in the church would feel very uncomfortable with such a change of policy. I am thinking of my own daughters who responded to my question with a strange look and a feeling of craziness.

[why me]

I think we are already seeing some examples of this and you will see that practice expand until it will just seem so natural that you will hardly realize it has happened until...oh they called brother and sister so and so to the Bishopric well imagine that why didn't they do that years ago.

It would take at least a generation and would need to be built from a young age...that both girls and boys are taught and prepped for the priesthood. I can see many women actually feeling upset and uncomfortable with such a change and maybe even leaving the church.

For such a decision to be successful, there would need to be a spiritual manifestation that was well documented such as when the africans received the priesthood in 1978. We also need to remember that this decision about extending the priesthood to africans had a long history among the leadership and many discussions over a few decades before the decision was made to ask in prayer.

Edited March 21, 2013 by why me

[smac97]

Here's that prediction I made on March 1 again (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.

Regarding the part of the prediction about "some of these self-appointed activists within the Church aligning themselves with groups and individuals outside of and hostile to the Church" who will then "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" seems to be borne out by this:

Looking Under the Skirts of Theology: Roman Catholic and Mormon Women Team Up in Support of Women Priests

Roman Catholic and Mormon women met in Berkeley, California last Saturday, March 16th, to advocate for women's inclusion in the governance of their respective churches. Hosted by the Sunstone Education Foundation, the panel featured women from both traditions who value their religious communities and share a common mission, namely, to advocate for practical, equitable, and inclusive change, including the ordination of women.

While the Roman Curia contemplated the future of the Church under Pope Francis and the all-male hierarchy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prepared for their semi-annual General Conference, Roman Catholic and Mormon women teamed up in Berkeley, California on Saturday, March 16, to advocate for women's inclusion in the governance of their respective churches. The panel, hosted by the Sunstone Education Foundation, featured women from both traditions who value their religious communities but are troubled by their exclusion from ecclesiastical and ritual authority. Having met at a previous dialogue sponsored by the Women's Studies in Religion Program at Claremont Graduate University, they share a common mission, namely, to advocate for practical, equitable, and inclusive change, including the ordination of women.

In her introduction to the panel, Sunstone director of symposia Mary Ellen Robertson spoke frankly: "If I see a flaw in contemporary Mormon feminism, it's that we haven't ventured outside our own religious community to partner with other religious feminist activists. Working separately or in ignorance of the work already done by other religious feminists, we're more likely to spend time reinventing the wheel than building upon the lessons learned."

"Fortunately," Robertson continued, "there's an exciting shift afoot. Catholic and Mormon women are having dialogues about women's ordination and examining the theological and cultural assumptions upon which an all-male priesthood rests."

...

Representing the Mormon tradition, Lorie Winder offered a theological argument for women's ordination and questioned why women who advocate for ordination are stigmatized: "Those who accuse women of being power-hungry if they advocate for women's ordination fail to recognize that in Mormonism, spiritual empowerment is the sum of God's hope for us as men and women. There is no shame nor are there accusations of improper ambition attached to a 12-year-old boy in the Church who aspires to priesthood ordination. In fact, in a church where all men are ordained, it often is applauded. Why, then, are women's aspirations for ordination suspect?"

"Mormon history and theology provide one of the strongest justifications for women’s priesthood ordination in the history of Western religions," noted Margaret Toscano, a scholar of myth, Mormonism, religion and gender. "Joseph Smith announced to the Mormon women of his day that he intended to make them a 'kingdom of priests' . . . We were called to this mission in 1842, six years before the famous Seneca Falls conference that led the way in women’s rights in this country. We should have been in the vanguard advocating women’s ordination; instead we have dragged far behind in promoting women’s equality in all arenas of life."

It's a little foolish to call most of this a "prediction," as such agitators have been around for quite a while. But the confluence of these agitators with social media means that their message is getting a lot more press.

I also can't figure out why they'd use a sexual perversion reference ("looking under the skirts") in their press release (see here, here, here, here, here). Whom are they trying to impress with this stuff?

-Smac

Edited March 21, 2013 by smac97

[why me]

It's a little foolish to call most of this a "prediction," as such agitators have been around for quite a while. But the confluence of these agitators with social media means that their message is getting a lot more press.

-Smac

And their message would be getting much more traction if someone did not lose the presidency. At the moment, interest in mormonism and history etc is not exactly as it was a year ago. It is waning.

[Stone holm]

It would take at least a generation and would need to be built from a young age...that both girls and boys are taught and prepped for the priesthood. I can see many women actually feeling upset and uncomfortable with such a change and maybe even leaving the church.

For such a decision to be successful, there would need to be a spiritual manifestation that was well documented such as when the africans received the priesthood in 1978. We also need to remember that this decision about extending the priesthood to africans had a long history among the leadership and many discussions over a few decades before the decision was made to ask in prayer.

I sincerely doubt you would see many women leaving the Church over being offered the Priesthood, our women are not that fragile and timid. I remember once attending a Bishop's Training session which was a gathering of the Bishops in the Stake, and they were talking about mini-missions for the young men. And I listened for awhile, and then said why are we limiting this to young men -- my daughter would love to go on one. The other bishops looked at me like I had grown another head or something and then one of them said we don't encourage young women to go on missions we encourage them to get married. I strongly doubt that would be the reaction today when the number of young women serving missions is skyrocketing. Change is already in the wind whether we want to recognize it or not.

[Stone holm]

. I can see many women actually feeling upset and uncomfortable with such a change and maybe even leaving the church.

I ran the above by my wife over breakfast, her response: "Seriously? Is this guy married?" I laughed, and then said, "Well, its possible that he found one of those meek and submissive Mormon women the press keeps talking about whose existence I have to take on faith because the evidence isn't seen." Actually, I don't even think the Molly Mormons that BYU produces in such an abundance would react that way.

[wenglund]

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?

Right on! Instead of this being a gospel of Christ and of order and of stewardship, where Jesus is the shepherd and we his sheep, let us become a religion of ark-steadier and protesters where the sheep take the lead and we all follow each other where ere we are want to go. Forget just minding our own affairs, let this be a Church of meddling in everyone else's business and telling them what to do. Let us all take upon ourselves the responsibility and authority of running Christ's kingdom on earth since we know better than the chosen leaders and Christ what is needed. If we are going to live in and of this upside-down world, let's embrace it with passion. After all, it is what we want. Who cares about the will of God. We ought to be centered on ourselves. Let us cease losing ourselves, and make this it about "me." We shall over come!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mercyngrace]

I ran the above by my wife over breakfast, her response: "Seriously? Is this guy married?" I laughed, and then said, "Well, its possible that he found one of those meek and submissive Mormon women the press keeps talking about whose existence I have to take on faith because the evidence isn't seen." Actually, I don't even think the Molly Mormons that BYU produces in such an abundance would react that way.

Stone holm,

I literally laughed out loud at this post with your reference to Hebrews 11:1. And I agree with your wife. Maybe I just know a lot of "tough, old broads" but the women I know, love, and admire have faith made of much sterner stuff. They wouldn't walk away from the church over a change like this one any more than they did when blacks got the priesthood, polygamy was discontinued, or temple ordinances were altered.

[bluebell]

I ran the above by my wife over breakfast, her response: "Seriously? Is this guy married?" I laughed, and then said, "Well, its possible that he found one of those meek and submissive Mormon women the press keeps talking about whose existence I have to take on faith because the evidence isn't seen." Actually, I don't even think the Molly Mormons that BYU produces in such an abundance would react that way.

I don't know about 'many' but i have personally spoken with quite a few women for whom it would be a trial of faith if the priesthood were extended to them.

It's good for all of us, myself and women like your wife, to remember that just because something is obvious to us doesn't mean there aren't rational, spiritual people who sincerely disagree and think that we are the crazy ones.

[mercyngrace]

Right on! Instead of this being a gospel of Christ and of order and of stewardship, where Jesus is the shepherd and we his sheep, let us become a religion of ark-steadier and protesters where the sheep take the lead and we all follow each other where ere we are want to go. Forget just minding our own affairs, let this be a Church of meddling in everyone else's business and telling them what to do. Let us all take upon ourselves the responsibility and authority of running Christ's kingdom on earth since we know better than the chosen leaders and Christ what is needed. If we are going to live in and of this upside-down world, let's embrace it with passion. After all, it is what we want. Who cares about the will of God. We ought to be centered on ourselves. Let us cease losing ourselves, and make this it about "me." We shall over come!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Or we could just trust that God is actually in charge and that He can handle His own Uzza's.

Which was, incidentally, my point.

Edited March 21, 2013 by mercyngrace

[rongo]

That is an interesting idea.

Whenever a person gets called the spouse should also get called. They should stand up and all that jazz. The spouses primary role would be as the persons main counsel. In other words, you have to talk everything over with your spouse. I do not think that is a bad idea at all. It promotes communication between spouses and would make everyone more effective in their callings.

This is already a de facto reality in a lot of ways, without formalizing it. Prior to my release as bishop, the stake president went over possible "successors" with me to get my input. A major factor with many men who would otherwise have been outstanding bishops were their limitations based on their wives. When you call a bishop, you are actually getting a "package deal" with the bishop's wife as well. Some wives cannot handle the time and emotional demands of a 5+ year tour of duty, and this should (and usually is) be factored into the calculus.

While not privy to confidential information, the bishop's wife functions (or should, ideally, in my book) as an informal but important "counselor" as well. My wife was an invaluable sounding board for ideas and proposed callings for some people, a valuable data point along with the formal counselors.

I think this state of things works well just as it is (informal, rather than wives being formally sustained), and I don't see any need or advantage in changing it.

[sheilauk]

Whenever a person gets called the spouse should also get called. They should stand up and all that jazz. The spouses primary role would be as the persons main counsel. In other words, you have to talk everything over with your spouse. I do not think that is a bad idea at all. It promotes communication between spouses and would make everyone more effective in their callings. Strengthen marriages and the church, that sounds like something Jesus would have up his sleeve in his perfect plan.

And what of those of us who are single? (whether never married, divorced or widowed) Not all single people will become one half of a couple and this sort of thing could leave single people feeling, if not actually being left out. Its hard enough at the moment, especially if you've never been married.

[wenglund]

Or we could just trust that God is actually in charge.

Which was, incidentally, my point.

That's right. God is in charge of us steadying the ark and protesting and everyone meddling in leadership affairs. It is God's will that we take up our pet pop culture projects and protest against God's church. It is God's will that we look no longer to his leaders, but lean unto our own understanding. It is God's will that the sheep lead the flock. It is God who has encouraged his loyal friends in the media to trumpet his will throughout the world, and he has inspired the invention of social networks to provide a platform of grass-root dissent. Who can doubt this? It permeates the scriptures. It is the rule rather than the mis-applied exception.

So, let us shed our suites and ties and Sunday dresses and dawn instead we now our tie-dye apparel, and trade our scriptures in for placards with popular slogans, and tune out "the MAN," and tune into facebook and tweeter. Again, right on! And, we shall over come!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

We actually discussed the situation where the World becomes more morally sophisticated than the Church in an adult education class last night that has been reading Pres. Kimball's sons account of the extension of the Priesthood. We acknowledged that it sometimes happens, and that we tend to think Church = all correct and good, World = evil -- so we don't like to think that the world has any influence on the Church -- which is absolutely nuts. What really happens is the Church in many respect adopts the cultural norm of a certain period and in order to make sure it doesn't make an incorrect move institutionally tends to lag a ways behind where the culture is moving. That doesn't mean the culture is wrong, it just means we, and most churches, after their creative era tend to be conservative in nature and hence tend to cling to the status quo. In the case of the black Africans, the Lord was probably waiting on the majority of the whites in the Church to get their collective acts together -- I suspect, but do not know, that the same is probably true of the Lord waiting for the men to get over themselves as well.

The idea that women would feel squeamish about receiving the Priesthood is part of our stereotyping of gender -- and in tune with Victorian era thinking which still echoes loudly in Utah. Maybe there will never be any change, but my money is on there being change. Have seen quite a bit of it during the 40 odd years in the Church. Not sure who posted it above, but you are absolutely correct, when calling a Bishop they think deeply about his wife, and in many cases Bishops are even counseled to use their wives as third counselors. A lot of positions are already being filled by couples instead of just men.

[Mayan Elephant]

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?

is inequality worth the price of many souls?

[mercyngrace]

That's right. God is in charge of us steadying the ark and protesting and everyone meddling in leadership affairs. It is God's will that we take up our pet pop culture projects and protest against God's church. It is God's will that we look no longer to his leaders, but lean unto our own understanding. It is God's will that the sheep lead the flock. It is God who has encouraged his loyal friends in the media to trumpet his will throughout the world, and he has inspired the invention of social networks to provide a platform of grass-root dissent. Who can doubt this? It permeates the scriptures. It is the rule rather than the mis-applied exception.

So, let us shed our suites and ties and Sunday dresses and dawn instead we now our tie-dye apparel, and trade our scriptures in for placards with popular slogans, and tune out "the MAN," and tune into facebook and tweeter. Again, right on! And, we shall over come!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I appreciate that you believe your sarcastic diatribes are related, however tangentially, to what I've written but I believe you are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting my posts.

Thanks,

MnG

Edited March 21, 2013 by mercyngrace

[Stone holm]

is inequality worth the price of many souls?

Actually, my wife also noted a woman who would probably lead her family back into the Church if the women were treated equally with respect to the Priesthood, and we have been shedding members left and right because we are perceived frequently as sheeple. Tacenda mentioned a saying that is applicable. Mormon doctrine is that the Prophet is fallible, but Mormons don't believe it. Catholic docttrine is that the Pope is infallible, but Catholics don't believe it. Someone who can't deal with people having their own opinion in the presence of GAs is probably not ready for the Gospel.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Stone holm

[Mayan Elephant]

When the church changes policy because of pressure groups or identity groups, the church might as well close its doors. The lds church is not an organization that should buckle under a pressure group.

start ordering door locks. this church is late, or conservative, but usually bends and adapts to social pressure. if it were not the case, we would still be an all-white bunch of polygamists.

other examples of the church changing in response to social pressure - the temple ceremony/language has been changed multiple times in response to massive social pressure, the shape of garments, and recently the headings and some language in the scriptures were changed because of outside commentary and pressure.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I appreciate that you believe your sarcastic diatribes are related, however tangentially, to what I've written but I believe you are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting my posts.

Thanks, MnG

You would know better than me whether I accurately represent your posts. If I have misunderstood them (and I will take your word for it), it wasn't intentional.

However, I believe my sarcastic point is valid and worthy of mention whether it applies to your posts, in part or whole, or not. Consider your posts as but a catalyst for expressing my thoughts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

start ordering door locks. this church is late, or conservative, but usually bends and adapts to social pressure. if it were not the case, we would still be an all-white bunch of polygamists.

other examples of the church changing in response to social pressure - the temple ceremony/language has been changed multiple times in response to massive social pressure, the shape of garments, and recently the headings and some language in the scriptures were changed because of outside commentary and pressure.

Oh but its not polite to point out such things. Nice handle, do you remember when they used to decorate chapels with Mayan calendars -- guess that isn't fashionable any more.

[wenglund]

What really happens is the Church in many respect adopts the cultural norm of a certain period and in order to make sure it doesn't make an incorrect move institutionally tends to lag a ways behind where the culture is moving. That doesn't mean the culture is wrong, it just means we, and most churches, after their creative era tend to be conservative in nature and hence tend to cling to the status quo. In the case of the black Africans, the Lord was probably waiting on the majority of the whites in the Church to get their collective acts together -- I suspect, but do not know, that the same is probably true of the Lord waiting for the men to get over themselves as well.

Tis true. We as a Church are being led by popular culture, rather than Christ. We just aren't as smart as Stone holm in figuring it out. Our peculiarity as a people isn't because we follow the Savior and his will, but merely because we are slow to change and lag behind the true source of light and knowledge and wisdom--i.e. mainstream media. As such, and if we were honest with ourselves, we would change the name of our Church to, The Church of Entertainment Tonight of Lagging Saints.

Some may think I am being absurd and sarcastic, but this way of thinking is fast becoming the "new normal" in our upside-down world. And, good folk like Stone holm and the "Ordain Women" website, are gallantly leading the vanguard. "On word Christian sodliers, marching....."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 21, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

Tis true. We as a Church are being led by popular culture, rather than Christ. We just aren't as smart as Stone holm in figuring it out. Our peculiarity as a people isn't because we follow the Savior and his will, but merely because we are slow to change and lag behind the true source of light and knowledge and wisdom--i.e. mainstream media. As such, and if we were honest with ourselves, we would change the name of our Church to, The Church of Entertainment Tonight of Lagging Saints.

Some may think I am being absurd and sarcastic, but this way of thinking is fast becoming the "new normal" in our upside-down world. And, good folk like Stone holm and the "Ordain Women" website, are gallantly leading the vanguard. "On word Christian sodliers, marching....."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, I don't get into that militaristic Baptist hymn much. I didn't say we were led by popular culture, at least that is not what I meant, but I do believe that some parts of popular culture are led by Christ or at least influenced by Him. I don't believe that His influence is restricted solely to the Church. We are the custodians of His religious rituals and ordinances and Priesthood authority, not the embodiment of some Divinely decreed culture. We tend to adopt the culture around us and it sometimes gets treated like it is doctrinally mandated and actually sometimes it is -- but in either case it often lags behind. Example facial hair ban was adopted to distinguish us from the 60's/70's radical counterculture revolutionaries (think Castro and Che). Now ironically it is also, along with short hair, the predominant fashion in the gay community -- exactly how long do you think that ban is going to hold tight -- when huge numbers of Mormon males currently wear beards and have little connection at all with any counterculture movement -- eventually someone is going to realize, uh what was the reason for that again? Right now we have adopted white middle-class American 1950's family lifestyle and appearance as the normative good -- are we going to hang with that and their poltics for ever? No I don't think so. Was there a cultural impact? Yep you betcha.