The "Ordain Women" Website

[mercyngrace]

Your statement demonstrates the existence of envy, which, by definition, refers to a "feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc." It is decidedly odd that you describe envy as the justification for women to feel as they do, but then resent it when envy is identified as what it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, in calling the women's attitude "envy", are we then, by definition, declaring the priesthood an "advantage, success, or possession"?

I suppose what I'm asking is whether, by the definition you provided, one can be envious in the absence of inequality.

[smac97]

Mercyngrace,

Smac, in calling the women's attitude "envy",

Well, let's be clear here: It was you who characterized the situation as problematic because men "hold the priesthood and have power and rights in the Church that a woman just does not have access too." That being the case, then "envy" is an apt descriptor to what you are describing. You just don't like the word, but it is nonetheless appropriate.

are we then, by definition, declaring the priesthood an "advantage, success, or possession"?

What's this "we" Kemosabe? You are the one characterizing - incorrectly, in my view - the priesthood as something them men have and women do not. You are the one describing the priesthood as consisting of "power and rights."

I do not view the priesthood as a possession to be haggled over by self-appointed guardians of LDS women, or something which the practitioners of such presumption should loudly and publicly demand for themselves. They are doing so not through "persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned" per D&C 121:41, but rather through adversarial PR campaigns against the LDS Church, which campaigns are designed to make the Church look bad.

I suppose what I'm asking is whether, by the definition you provided, one can be envious in the absence of inequality.

Again, I would like to better understand the concept of "equal treatment." What does that mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 22, 2013 by smac97

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you as a Mormon are discrimited against it may not set well with you.

Time to pull your mind out of the progressive politically correct jibby jab. Discrimination is part of the church.

Smac, in calling the women's attitude "envy", are we then, by definition, declaring the priesthood an "advantage, success, or possession"?

I think this is a non sequitir.

[mercyngrace]

Mercyngrace,

Well, let's be clear here: It was you who characterized the situation as problematic because men "hold the priesthood and have power and rights in the Church that a woman just does not have access too." That being the case, then "envy" is an apt descriptor to what you are describing. You just don't like the word, but it is nonetheless appropriate.

Smac,

You have confused me with Teancum. I didn't write that quote you've excerpted. Further, I don't mind the word "envy", I even explicitly condemned the desire to "sit in chief seats" earlier in the thread. I was simply intrigued by the definition you used for "envy".

What's this "we" Kemosabe? You are the one characterizing - incorrectly, in my view - the priesthood as something them men have and women do not. You are the one describing the priesthood as consisting of "power and rights."

I do not view the priesthood as a possession to be haggled over by self-appointed guardians of LDS women, or something which the practitioners of such presumption should loudly and publicly demand for themselves. They are doing so not through "persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned" per D&C 121:41, but rather through adversarial PR campaigns against the LDS Church, which campaigns are designed to make the Church look bad.

Again, you have mistaken me for Teancum. You are attributing his words to me. I did use the word "we" when addressing you because I was asking about terminology that "we" might use in describing the movement we're discussing.

Again, I would like to better understand the concept of "equal treatment." What does that mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

Good question and kind of my point in asking the question. I was wondering if you saw inequality inherent in the definition of "envy" because the wording of that particular definition could be used to imply such.

Edited March 22, 2013 by mercyngrace

[Garden Girl]

God's plan will unfold, but that doesn't mean that the actors participating in that plan are justified in their conduct. Publicly demanding the priesthood is a very troubling thing. And what will happen if the Brethren say no? Will these folks relent? Or will they resort to even more dubious methods to try to get what they want?

Thanks,

-Smac

Exactly... perhaps it is not the Lord's will at this time (if ever) and in their weekly meetings of the Brethren, this is made known through revelation... do these women/men continue pressing or will they accept the counsel of the Brethren that no change is to be made...

Somehow I think not...

GG

[Ahab]

Exactly... perhaps it is not the Lord's will at this time (if ever) and in their weekly meetings of the Brethren, this is made known through revelation... do these women/men continue pressing or will they accept the counsel of the Brethren that no change is to be made...

Somehow I think not...

GG

I'm not expecting the Brethren to issue an official declaration to say anything about this, other than what they've already said about how things work in God's kingdom. I may be surprised, though. Maybe someone will say something about this particular movement in General Conference, or in some other general Church gathering, but I don't expect them to do that, and I don't see any need for it.

In fact, I'd even be surprised if the Pope came out and said anything about the women in his church who want some more "official" authority.

The whole situation is totally ridiculous. Whichever Church is God's church, and I know which one that is, it is God's church and God's rule governs it. It's not up for debate as if people can make any difference about how God's Church is governed. Churches governed by men alone, or with Satan at the head, may be influenced by what their members want, but God doesn't operate by the rule of democracy. We either accept his Church as it is and always will be, or we join some other church and make up our own rules.

[smac97]

M&G,

Sorry!

-Smac

[Stone holm]

CFR that people point to there having been no discussion, and then tend to say people are ark steadiers. I am aware of them saying the latter (having done so myself), but not the former. I am just trying to get a sense for whether, or the extent to which, you and I live in alternate universes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think there is at least one post in this thread asserting that there has been no such discussion. Problem is any discussion about whether or not a change may or should occur in the future, is likely to draw fire as being an ark steadier -- but then you have people saying that something won't happen until there has been a lot of discussion. It would seem that if a person, not necessarily you, thinks that there should be extensive discussion before a change is instituted then we should be encouraging people to discuss the merits or demerits of a possible change rather than trying to squelch discussion by such condemnatory sayings as "ark steadying". As long as the discussion is respectful and doesn't degenerate into slurs aimed at the Lord's Annointed. I don't think the Lord expects His prophets to be so shielded from alternative views by members that they live in some kind of bubble-wrapped coccoon. You can still sustain and support a person in their calling without according them infallibility, and you can still be a faithful member of the Church without necessarily believing that the Church always gets it exactly right exactly when they should. For example, there were a fair number of Saints who are deserving to be called Saints who wondered about the wisdom of having encouraged support from the pulpit at a Conference for Prop 8. Not because they were enamored with SSM -- I certainly am not, but because they felt that the Church had just taken a political stance which involved a question as to what extent we have any moral right to impose our beliefs on others and which painted every active prominent Mormon with one broad moral brush -- is it therefore a condition of membership that you necessarily have to stand quiet when you believe political oppression is afoot? I hope not. We unfortunately had a fair number of members who felt perhaps it was so they walked out the door and took their families with them. I stayed and went head to head with the Stake President on the issue. It was a very touchy issue in our Ward, so touchy that a High Councilman who was directed to read a letter regarding the need for oppositional political activism on SSM in one of the States that is part of our Ward in our Ward Relief Society basically was told by the Relief Society to take his letter and get out of their meeting. Is that steadying the ark? I don't know, but I do know that it kept some of the Sisters in the Church -- although we still lost others.

[smac97]

Exactly... perhaps it is not the Lord's will at this time (if ever) and in their weekly meetings of the Brethren, this is made known through revelation... do these women/men continue pressing or will they accept the counsel of the Brethren that no change is to be made...

Somehow I think not...

I don't think they will relent either. I suspect they will not relent because they are not viewing the Church as the entity it claims to be, but rather as just another sociopolitical organization to be pushed and cajoled by this or that constituent faction until that faction gets what it wants.

I do not think that discerning the will of God is the plan for these folks, else they wouldn't be resorting to such repellant tactics.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mercyngrace]

M&G,

Sorry!

-Smac

No worries, Smac.

Edited March 22, 2013 by mercyngrace

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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 oppose it based on all historical scriptures ever been canonized, not based on a moral issue or prejudice.

[GingerRed]

Exactly... perhaps it is not the Lord's will at this time (if ever) and in their weekly meetings of the Brethren, this is made known through revelation... do these women/men continue pressing or will they accept the counsel of the Brethren that no change is to be made...

Somehow I think not...

GG

I know! HOW many times must it be said,its not up to anyone but the Lord Himself, to change anything?? They should be partitioning the Lord their grievances, in prayer and humbleness, NOT the Brethren. They won't do anything, until a revelation is received.

I agree with those that said they just want it, BECAUSE they can't have it! It IS envy.

And I speak as an LDS woman. I do not feel, nor have I ever felt , that any blessing is denied me because I'm a woman! I am am NO less in God's eyes, I am His daughter! And His sons are not more important then His daughters! Never are, never have been. That's not what the church teaches. I have never once encountered an LDS man who thought less of me or treated me different or inferior, just because I don't 'have the priesthood'.

Those people trying SO hard to demand this change means to me they have NO clue what the priesthood is really all about, they don't have faith in the Lord that this is HIS church and HE runs the show, and they seem to revel in attention to make the church look bad as means to get what they want.

Personally, in all my over 35 + years in the church I have never felt more empowered as a women as I do today Do not underestimate the power of the woman! We don't NEED the priesthood!

Red

Edited March 22, 2013 by GingerRed

[Ahab]

Do not underestimate the power of the woman! We don't NEED the priesthood!

Do not underestimate the power of the man! We have the priesthood and you need what we can do with it!

How about a compromise? We both need each other, as I see it. Neither one of us can be perfect without the other!

[GingerRed]

Do not underestimate the power of the man! We have the priesthood and you need what we can do with it!

How about a compromise? We both need each other, as I see it. Neither one of us can be perfect without the other!

I meant we don't need the priesthood as a gift for ourselves...not that we don't need the men under it!

I feel just fine as whole person, just how I am. Having the 'priesthood' wouldn't make me feel any better/stronger/happier/more spiritual/ or more loved by Heavenly Father, than I already do!

Red

Edited March 23, 2013 by GingerRed

[ERMD]

Seeds of apostasy.

[mercyngrace]

Just saw this pop up on facebook.

It's a page sponsored by a group called MoFAB, Mormon feminist Action Board, and is calling for a change in the wording of the YW theme. The suggestion is to go from "We are daughters of our Father in Heaven..." to "We are daughters of our Parents in Heaven...".

Of course, I immediately thought of this thread.

Thoughts?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Seeds of apostasy.

Can only be planted in fertile ground to grow, let's pray they find hard ground.

[bluebell]

Just saw this pop up on facebook.

It's a page sponsored by a group called MoFAB, Mormon feminist Action Board, and is calling for a change in the wording of the YW theme. The suggestion is to go from "We are daughters of our Father in Heaven..." to "We are daughters of our Parents in Heaven...".

Of course, I immediately thought of this thread.

Thoughts?

The scriptures do not seem to support removing Heavenly Father in favor of Heavenly Parents when speaking about our divine nature.

[Stone holm]

Just saw this pop up on facebook.

It's a page sponsored by a group called MoFAB, Mormon feminist Action Board, and is calling for a change in the wording of the YW theme. The suggestion is to go from "We are daughters of our Father in Heaven..." to "We are daughters of our Parents in Heaven...".

Of course, I immediately thought of this thread.

Thoughts?

Don't know anything about the group, but it does seem very appropriate I suspect some people are kicking themselves right now for not thinking of it ... Oh but maybe that would offend our Christian Right friends ... And they might legislate that God has to be considered single and male.

[mercyngrace]

The scriptures do not seem to support removing Heavenly Father in favor of Heavenly Parents when speaking about our divine nature.

No, the thought makes reason stare.

[GingerRed]

Just saw this pop up on facebook.

It's a page sponsored by a group called MoFAB, Mormon feminist Action Board, and is calling for a change in the wording of the YW theme. The suggestion is to go from "We are daughters of our Father in Heaven..." to "We are daughters of our Parents in Heaven...".

Of course, I immediately thought of this thread.

Thoughts?

Are you kidding me????

Man they'll stop at nothing, now! Sheesh!!! Cant have a 'man' in charge of ANYTHING, can they? Gotta throw that 'woman' in there too, cause God forbid, teach our young women that Heavenly Father is the be all and end all!

Whats next? Combining YW and YM camp outs? Hey its not fair to keep them separate, no sir-ee! Boys and girls must do EVRYTHING together, no segregation! its discrmiantion!

Red

[Stone holm]

Are you kidding me????

Man they'll stop at nothing, now! Sheesh!!! Cant have a 'man' in charge of ANYTHING, can they? Gotta throw that 'woman' in there too, cause God forbid, teach our young women that Heavenly Father is the be all and end all!

Whats next? Combining YW and YM camp outs? Hey its not fair to keep them separate, no sir-ee! Boys and girls must do EVRYTHING together, no segregation! its discrmiantion!

Red

Funny you should mention that. I remember many decades ago as we were going through Boy Scout Basic Leadership training going to the religious segment which was taught by a Bishop's wife and a member of the local Stake Seven Presidents of 70, we were discussing at the time the fact that we weren't suppose to have Tiger Cubs in our LDS Pack -- which was predominantly non-members, and which was a handicap because Tiger Cubs was essential in recruiting Den Leaders, and my wife happen to mention having seen their daughters at the Council headquarters when she was picking up awards for the Pack Meeting and inquired about that. They said, oh they were there for an Explorer Post meeting. My wife got an odd look on her face, as she was the YW's President at the time, and asked but we aren't allowed to have co-educational Explorer Posts like other Units. They said, "Oh, well we can't have them, our daughters are in the Catholic Explorer Post." We laughed and from that time on did not worry about the fact that we were violating Church policy with our Tiger Cubs.

[rongo]

Funny you should mention that. I remember many decades ago as we were going through Boy Scout Basic Leadership training going to the religious segment which was taught by a Bishop's wife and a member of the local Stake Seven Presidents of 70, we were discussing at the time the fact that we weren't suppose to have Tiger Cubs in our LDS Pack -- which was predominantly non-members, and which was a handicap because Tiger Cubs was essential in recruiting Den Leaders, and my wife happen to mention having seen their daughters at the Council headquarters when she was picking up awards for the Pack Meeting and inquired about that. They said, oh they were there for an Explorer Post meeting. My wife got an odd look on her face, as she was the YW's President at the time, and asked but we aren't allowed to have co-educational Explorer Posts like other Units. They said, "Oh, well we can't have them, our daughters are in the Catholic Explorer Post." We laughed and from that time on did not worry about the fact that we were violating Church policy with our Tiger Cubs.

The Church has specifically prohibited LDS Explorer posts because they are co-ed, and Venture crews can be co-ed today, but LDS ones are prohibited from being so. I'm sure you know that, though. How long ago were you a bishop, Stone? Just curious.

[Stone holm]

The Church has specifically prohibited LDS Explorer posts because they are co-ed, and Venture crews can be co-ed today, but LDS ones are prohibited from being so. I'm sure you know that, though. How long ago were you a bishop, Stone? Just curious.

Yeah, I know they did and do. About ... gee guess a decade and a half ago or more. The point was these very active Mormons just put their daughters in co-ed units and it really didn't phase them at all. The normal conclusion would have been, oh let's see if the Church won't allow co-ed posts in their units there must be something, well morally wrong with that idea, so you would think that they would say -- oh I won't put my daughter in one -- but no they just decided well its Church policy for Church units so we will put our daughters in this other Church's unit. They wouldn't have dreamed of questioning the Brethern on the policy. We, however, had talked with one of the women associated with the National Council who helped drafted the Tiger Cubs manual (who was LDS) and it was very much like the family home evening manual. Go figure. Anyway back on track, I came across this article which is interesting: http://boydpetersen.com/2013/03/21/fourteen-years-later-a-response-to-the-priesthood-mens-last-best-hope/

[why me]

I know! HOW many times must it be said,its not up to anyone but the Lord Himself, to change anything?? They should be partitioning the Lord their grievances, in prayer and humbleness, NOT the Brethren. They won't do anything, until a revelation is received.

I agree with those that said they just want it, BECAUSE they can't have it! It IS envy.

And I speak as an LDS woman. I do not feel, nor have I ever felt , that any blessing is denied me because I'm a woman! I am am NO less in God's eyes, I am His daughter! And His sons are not more important then His daughters! Never are, never have been. That's not what the church teaches. I have never once encountered an LDS man who thought less of me or treated me different or inferior, just because I don't 'have the priesthood'.

Those people trying SO hard to demand this change means to me they have NO clue what the priesthood is really all about, they don't have faith in the Lord that this is HIS church and HE runs the show, and they seem to revel in attention to make the church look bad as means to get what they want.

Personally, in all my over 35 + years in the church I have never felt more empowered as a women as I do today Do not underestimate the power of the woman! We don't NEED the priesthood!

Red

Not only that but I think that women are valued in the lds church as heavenly father values his own wife. I really do believe that women are blessed in the lds church because of their spiritual mother. And because of the basic nature of their heavenly father. Heavenly Father, through his church, has blessed lds girls and women. I can see this in my own daughters.