Bishop Publicly Campaigning For Women To Hold Priesthood - Against Church Policy?

[Scott Lloyd]

uhhmm.... I think its perhaps 60-40? A core group of lawyers and activists started it up but others have said "Hey me too!".

But the Trib article said they only have a couple dozen profiles so far -- not very many for a nationally-orchestrated social media campaign. Curiosity stemming from media coverage, as much as anything else, could account for the website hits.

[CASteinman]

But the Trib article said they only have a couple dozen profiles so far -- not very many for a nationally-orchestrated social media campaign. Curiosity stemming from media coverage, as much as anything else, could account for the website hits.

Well, having run a website before, I can tell you "hits" are not such a big deal as you would suppose. But this is probably generating a lot of interest.

[EllenMaksoud]

I think he is probably hoping he can off-load some of the priesthood burden onto the women.

I can think of some women in our ward who would do a great job on the bishopric or as Elder's QP. Mind you, I can think of a couple who would not be so good!!!

I will not welcome men into Relief Society.

[Stone holm]

I could not open the link, so I am guessing somewhat as to what it shows. My feeling is that just because a person has been ordained a Bishop in the past, doesn't deprive him of his right to voice his opinion. Least I hope not, or I am in trouuubbble. But if he is actively serving as a Bishop, then he should not be voicing such opinions publicly let alone acting as an activist. Also, I believe it is in poor taste to lead out as a activist by flaunting your Church credentials as Bishops aren't necessarily more enlightened as to general subjects such as this than any other member. They, while serving, have the right to specific revelation for the management of their Ward and counseling their Ward members -- but they have no authority beyond that. While serving a Bishop should be very circumspect about voicing his own opinion, actually that goes double for a GA.

[Stone holm]

I could not open the link, so I am guessing somewhat as to what it shows. My feeling is that just because a person has been ordained a Bishop in the past, doesn't deprive him of his right to voice his opinion. Least I hope not, or I am in trouuubbble. But if he is actively serving as a Bishop, then he should not be voicing such opinions publicly let alone acting as an activist. Also, I believe it is in poor taste to lead out as a activist by flaunting your Church credentials as Bishops aren't necessarily more enlightened as to general subjects such as this than any other member. They, while serving, have the right to specific revelation for the management of their Ward and counseling their Ward members -- but they have no authority beyond that. While serving a Bishop should be very circumspect about voicing his own opinion, actually that goes double for a GA.

I might add though, excellent way to get a prompt release though...lol

[MDalby]

He didn't say bishopric. He very directly said he is currently serving as bishop.

And why Missouri? His profile doesn't even give that much identification.

Missouri is the first place I was thinking due to the baseball caps of the sons. Two in the Missouri area and the Colorado Rockies. But he did mention that he ha a goal to visit all major league ball parks but it makes sense that he would maybe target the closer teams first.

[BlueDreams]

The more I read this thread, the more I feel like I must be reading a different profile....because the amount of ulterior motives associated or expected from him just isn't what I read or see warranted by his response.

But quickly:

I am not sure if it is campaigning or not. Here is why it is not so clear. He is lending voice to a campaign. An assertive, aggressive campaign. When you do that, are you campaigning or just voicing your opinion in support of a campaign?

I don't know that the difference is so huge that making the distinction is valid.

from some online dictionary - Campaign: a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result./....a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose

His action is no more campaigning than my profile on mormon.org is me campaigning. Lending voice, adding to the dialogue, or aggreeing is not the same as campaigning. I have no evidence that he's doing so. He's not campaigning in my book until i see evidence otherwise.

I think I would vote to not sustain him -- not because he is unworthy, nor because I disagree with his views, nor even because he appears to be very significantly ignorant on some important doctrines, but because he intentionally did something that was not needful but that would cause a rift in the congregation. There are sacrifices a Bishop must make and being silent is one of them. I am sure that other people who have been Bishops have an ability to lend support to that notion.

For that reason, I would make sure my vote to not sustain was recorded.

The only reason I'm willing to not sustain someone is that I have certifiable proof that the person is doing something morally reprehensible or he has been known to grossly abuse the power given to him in other circumstances. The end. Plenty of things can cause a rift in the ward...it doesn't mean that doing so means that its good enough to not sustain the person. Maybe I just don't have enough concern for this. I have no idea what my bishop's views are on the vast majority of social issues. I'm pretty sure I'll disagree with him on a number of things. As long as it has no effect on what he has stewardship over and in that has to do with me I could care less. Whether he would desire women to be ordained or not has no effect on this. If it begins to, then there is a case for something is not right. But from what I see, if he were my bishop, I'd probably have no idea that he believes this.

With luv,

BD

Edited April 3, 2013 by BlueDreams

[CASteinman]

I could not open the link, so I am guessing somewhat as to what it shows. My feeling is that just because a person has been ordained a Bishop in the past, doesn't deprive him of his right to voice his opinion. Least I hope not, or I am in trouuubbble. But if he is actively serving as a Bishop, then he should not be voicing such opinions publicly let alone acting as an activist. Also, I believe it is in poor taste to lead out as a activist by flaunting your Church credentials as Bishops aren't necessarily more enlightened as to general subjects such as this than any other member. They, while serving, have the right to specific revelation for the management of their Ward and counseling their Ward members -- but they have no authority beyond that. While serving a Bishop should be very circumspect about voicing his own opinion, actually that goes double for a GA.

Absolutely 100% agree.

[Stone holm]

The more I read this thread, the more I feel like I must be reading a different profile....because the amount of ulterior motives associated or expected from him just isn't what I read or see warranted by his response.

But quickly:

from some online dictionary - Campaign: a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result./....a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose

His action is no more campaigning than my profile on mormon.org is me campaigning. Lending voice, adding to the dialogue, or aggreeing is not the same as campaigning. I have no evidence that he's doing so. He's not campaigning in my book until i see evidence otherwise.

The only reason I'm willing to not sustain someone is that I have certifiable proof that the person is doing something morally reprehensible or he has been known to grossly abuse the power given to him in other circumstances. The end. Plenty of things can cause a rift in the ward...it doesn't mean that doing so means that its good enough to not sustain the person. Maybe I just don't have enough concern for this. I have no idea what my bishop's views are on the vast majority of social issues. I'm pretty sure I'll disagree with him on a number of things. As long as it has no effect on what he has stewardship over and in that has to do with me I could care less. Whether he would desire women to be ordained or not has no effect on this. If it begins to, then there is a case for something is not right. But from what I see, if he were my bishop, I'd probably have no idea that he believes this.

With luv,

BD

Actually, I have grown to dislike and resent our sustaining vote system and try to avoid meetings where I know there are going to be a mass of sustaining votes like, General Conference, Stake Conference and Ward Conference. If you don't raise your hand you appear to be a dork or a jerk, if you do raise your hand you get criticized for not supporting everything and anything they might decide to do and half the time you know zero about the person you are about to sustain, and if you raise your hand in opposition you get to have an immediate awkward conversation in a separate room with the presiding authority or one of his counselors. Yeah, I've got enough headaches in my life for any of that. I wonder if they had secret ballots if we would have to resort to colored smoke going up the chimney or something.

[alter idem]

I'm not comfortable with an effort to try to find out this man's real life identity and I don't think it is necessary.

I suspect that if he is a Bishop (and from what I've read here, I see no reason to believe he is not) then very likely his views on the ordination of women are known at least by some of his friends/associates and his profile on this website will eventually get back to his ward and most likely come to the attention of his Stake President. Most likely it would be reported if some of the members of his congregation are concerned about his public support of something not advocated by the church and which they disagree with.

IMO, simply coming out in support of ordination of women would not be a problem, but it could become one if his ward members find out and it undermines his ability to lead--such as members refusing to sustain him in Ward Conference. For this reason, I think his leaders might ask him to not voice public support while he is serving--once again, only if it were to be a problem for his ward members in being able to sustain him.

Now, if he were working for the church--as BYU professors are, it would be different, I think. They are employed by the church--they are not volunteers, so I think their situation is different and they are expected not to publicly undermine church positions or teachings.

[BlueDreams]

I could not open the link, so I am guessing somewhat as to what it shows. My feeling is that just because a person has been ordained a Bishop in the past, doesn't deprive him of his right to voice his opinion. Least I hope not, or I am in trouuubbble. But if he is actively serving as a Bishop, then he should not be voicing such opinions publicly let alone acting as an activist. Also, I believe it is in poor taste to lead out as a activist by flaunting your Church credentials as Bishops aren't necessarily more enlightened as to general subjects such as this than any other member. They, while serving, have the right to specific revelation for the management of their Ward and counseling their Ward members -- but they have no authority beyond that. While serving a Bishop should be very circumspect about voicing his own opinion, actually that goes double for a GA.

Here is the part where he mentions being a bishop:

About Me:

I am a life-long member of the Church and have served in many leadership positions since my mission. I currently serve as a bishop. I am a husband to an amazing wife and father to five wonderful children. We have a family goal to visit all 30 major-league baseball parks together

If you push the submit a profile button the prompt that comes is:

The format for the profiles is: first name, some brief biographical information that humanizes you and identifies your connection to Mormonism–your hobbies, talents, interests, employment, vocation and, particularly, your church service–and a personal statement about why you believe women should be ordained. If you feel comfortable doing so, we encourage you to add a brief statement as to why you’re Mormon and what Mormonism means to you.

So mentioning church service is emphasized in the prompt in writing. Afterwards it also mentions that the profile can be removed if it become problematic with local church leaders. They acknowledge that response can vary. On their FB profile they do have one woman who was a relief society teacher who asked their bishop about her profile. He read it in it's entirety and stated that was ok as long as it wasn't taught in her lessons. That's the only official response that I could find. But I would assume, considering everything, if his SP has a problem, he could have it removed. And personally, considering his overall tone in writing, I'd assume he would do so.

After that he mentions this he talks about why he thinks women should be endowed:

Priesthood authority is the heart of the restored gospel. Few things have been as meaningful in my life as exercising the priesthood to bless, baptize, confirm, ordain, and perform other eternal works for my family. Nothing has directed my life towards Christ as much as doing his works by his authority.

As sweet as the blessings of priesthood service have been, equally bitter is the exclusion of women I love from this service. When I confirm my children, I am keenly aware of the absence of my wife’s hands and wisdom. When I watch my son pass the sacrament, I am painfully reminded that my daughters are not allowed to join with him in the labor. When I read my father’s blessing, I wonder if I will ever receive the same from my mother.

The priesthood is much more than authority to receive ordinances. It is a primary means whereby we become joint-heirs with Christ. I believe in the gospel restored through Joseph Smith. The restoration did not end with him; it is an ongoing process. I yearn for the day when women will be included as fellow servants in the great priesthood body. I am confident priesthood service will strengthen motherhood just as it strengthens fatherhood.

After that he explains why he chose to speak up in the first place:

Some question whether speaking on this issue is an affront to the Church. Nothing could be further from my intent. I love and sustain the First Presidency and the Twelve. They alone direct and speak for the Church. Revelation will only come through them. But I do not believe it can come until the church body is prepared to receive it. I add my voice so that others will know of the pain many members feel from our practice of excluding women from priesthood circles. I add my voice so that others may find courage in expressing their heartfelt desires for greater blessings.

Generally, to me, his tone and the way it is presented makes it pretty clear that what he's stating is his opinion. He understand where it falls under the whole things about revelation. And he's not trying to "push" for change, but open space for speaking about personal concerns and pains about the current policy.

There it is in a nutshell

With luv,

BD

Edited April 3, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Stone holm]

Here is the part where he mentions being a bishop:

About Me:

I am a life-long member of the Church and have served in many leadership positions since my mission. I currently serve as a bishop. I am a husband to an amazing wife and father to five wonderful children. We have a family goal to visit all 30 major-league baseball parks together

If you push the submit a profile button the prompt that comes is:

So mentioning church service is emphasized in the prompt in writing. Afterwards it also mentions that the profile can be removed if it become problematic with local church leaders. They acknowledge that response can vary. On their FB profile they do have one woman who was a relief society teacher who asked their bishop about her profile. He read it in it's entirety and stated that was ok as long as it wasn't taught in her lessons. That's the only official response that I could find. But I would assume, considering everything, if his SP has a problem, he could have it removed. And personally, considering his overall tone in writing, I'd assume he would do so.

After that he mentions this he talks about why he thinks women should be endowed:

Priesthood authority is the heart of the restored gospel. Few things have been as meaningful in my life as exercising the priesthood to bless, baptize, confirm, ordain, and perform other eternal works for my family. Nothing has directed my life towards Christ as much as doing his works by his authority.

As sweet as the blessings of priesthood service have been, equally bitter is the exclusion of women I love from this service. When I confirm my children, I am keenly aware of the absence of my wife’s hands and wisdom. When I watch my son pass the sacrament, I am painfully reminded that my daughters are not allowed to join with him in the labor. When I read my father’s blessing, I wonder if I will ever receive the same from my mother.

The priesthood is much more than authority to receive ordinances. It is a primary means whereby we become joint-heirs with Christ. I believe in the gospel restored through Joseph Smith. The restoration did not end with him; it is an ongoing process. I yearn for the day when women will be included as fellow servants in the great priesthood body. I am confident priesthood service will strengthen motherhood just as it strengthens fatherhood.

After that he explains why he chose to speak up in the first place:

Some question whether speaking on this issue is an affront to the Church. Nothing could be further from my intent. I love and sustain the First Presidency and the Twelve. They alone direct and speak for the Church. Revelation will only come through them. But I do not believe it can come until the church body is prepared to receive it. I add my voice so that others will know of the pain many members feel from our practice of excluding women from priesthood circles. I add my voice so that others may find courage in expressing their heartfelt desires for greater blessings.

Generally, to me, his tone and the way it is presented makes it pretty clear that what he's stating is his opinion. He understand where it falls under the whole things about revelation. And he's not trying to "push" for change, but open space for speaking about personal concerns and pains about the current policy.

There it is in a nutshell

With luv,

BD

Oh that sounds like something similar that I read lately. I don't have any problem with that, it looks spot on.

[canard78]

If a Bishop or a Stake President of even an apostle comes out in opposition against the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve then they are guilty of apostasy and if they do not repent they should be cut off from the Church. I always follow the First Presidency (the Prophet) and the twelve... because we do not believe in the infallibility of any man. But we do have the promise from God Himself that the prophet will never lead the church astray.

Out of interest, did you read what he said?

Why I choose to speak on this issue:

Some question whether speaking on this issue is an affront to the Church. Nothing could be further from my intent. I love and sustain the First Presidency and the Twelve. They alone direct and speak for the Church. Revelation will only come through them. But I do not believe it can come until the church body is prepared to receive it. I add my voice so that others will know of the pain many members feel from our practice of excluding women from priesthood circles. I add my voice so that others may find courage in expressing their heartfelt desires for greater blessings.

But I would also say that him mentioning his calling is somewhat crass. It seems to be done to strengthen his statement but in doing so, for me, undermines it.

[canard78]

Sorry, double post

Edited April 3, 2013 by canard78

[CASteinman]

The more I read this thread, the more I feel like I must be reading a different profile....because the amount of ulterior motives associated or expected from him just isn't what I read or see warranted by his response.

I think you might also be reading more into the comments than are there.

from some online dictionary - Campaign: a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result./....a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose

....He's not campaigning in my book until i see evidence otherwise.

I actually think the more correct definition would be the verb -- as in "He is campaigning". Which, from that same online dictionary is: "to conduct, serve in, or go on a campaign"

And he is serving the campaign. In your view this service might be minor or trivial or whatever. But that is not really part of the definition. It is really more binary: Did he or did he not serve in the campaign? Yes he did. So, now you have evidence ... but I suspect that what you meant was "evidence that I will accept and be convinced by, contrary to my inner convictions" and not merely just "sufficient evidence to make the point to an objective and disinterested third party".

The only reason I'm willing to not sustain someone is that I have certifiable proof that the person is doing something morally reprehensible or he has been known to grossly abuse the power given to him in other circumstances. The end. Plenty of things can cause a rift in the ward...it doesn't mean that doing so means that its good enough to not sustain the person. Maybe I just don't have enough concern for this. I have no idea what my bishop's views are on the vast majority of social issues. I'm pretty sure I'll disagree with him on a number of things. As long as it has no effect on what he has stewardship over and in that has to do with me I could care less. Whether he would desire women to be ordained or not has no effect on this. If it begins to, then there is a case for something is not right. But from what I see, if he were my bishop, I'd probably have no idea that he believes this.

Its a good thing for you not to really know about your Bishop's political opinions. Unfortunately, the members of this Bishop's ward no longer have that blessing.

And you are absolutely entitled to the reasons you would do something or not such as sustaining him. I gave my reasons and I think that they are not invalid. You might take notice of Stone Holm's views as well -- I think he expresses them differently but we are in agreement.

[CASteinman]

Now, if he were working for the church--as BYU professors are, it would be different, I think. They are employed by the church--they are not volunteers, so I think their situation is different and they are expected not to publicly undermine church positions or teachings.

Bishops have a greater responsibility than BYU Professors.

[Calm]

Cite please? If you are thinking of Kloosterman, I don't think you have got his statements correct.

Quite possibly...my brain isn't working too well today, he was the one I was thinking of.

[CASteinman]

Actually, I have grown to dislike and resent our sustaining vote system and try to avoid meetings where I know there are going to be a mass of sustaining votes like, General Conference, Stake Conference and Ward Conference. If you don't raise your hand you appear to be a dork or a jerk, if you do raise your hand you get criticized for not supporting everything and anything they might decide to do and half the time you know zero about the person you are about to sustain, and if you raise your hand in opposition you get to have an immediate awkward conversation in a separate room with the presiding authority or one of his counselors. Yeah, I've got enough headaches in my life for any of that. I wonder if they had secret ballots if we would have to resort to colored smoke going up the chimney or something.

I don't like it a lot of time, because I am traveling and I do not feel that it is correct for me to add my hand in a vote on callings which do not involve me at all. So I sit with my hand down and it feels odd.

However, I prefer it to having absolutely zero voice.

I also do not want to see such things become secret -- I prefer them to be public.

I know of one instance, where a certain man might be called to a position. I was going to raise my hand and definitely not sustain him. He did not get called. I am grateful.

[CASteinman]

Oh that sounds like something similar that I read lately. I don't have any problem with that, it looks spot on.

This statement and your previous statements are out of harmony. I actually like it when a person can really fully embrace being self contradictory sometimes, even making a point of it. But did you really intend that?

[Tacenda]

When I go to the Ordain Women website I don't see his profile, do you think it's been removed? Or I'm just blind.

ETA: I am on limited, so no posts yet for me to use. But if Scott Lloyd is reading, I don't think there should be first and last names given on the Ordain Women website. There are weirdos out there! So because this bishop doesn't provide his full name it doesn't mean he's not real or that he is lying.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

You can still access it through the link given in the OP, don't know if it is on the main page....will go look now.

http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-david/

Still there on the home page, first profile.

Edited April 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I agree with BlueDreams, there is a sameness to his introduction and quite a few others that appear to be using the site's instructions as inspiration as what to say. If so, there is a significant probability there was no intent on his part to use his calling to give himself more credibility especially since it was somewhat of a throwaway comment, no attempt to draw special attention to it....though the site may have that intent...not the level of callings, but to demonstrate these are active, faithful, members who are respected and trusted by other members (thus the callings). I would say his description of himself as a lifelong, active member is for that purpose as well.

Edited April 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[alter idem]

From the Bishop's profile:

When I read my father’s blessing, I wonder if I will ever receive the same from my mother.

All he has to do is ask. His mother can give him a blessing, so can his wife. They lay hands on his head and pronounce the blessing by the power of faith in Jesus Christ. Women don't need the priesthood to bless others through the power of faith.

[alter idem]

Bishops have a greater responsibility than BYU Professors.

But the church has more control and can demand certain behavior from employees which they ought not demand from lay clergy who are not in their employ.

[CASteinman]

But the church has more control and can demand certain behavior from employees which they ought not demand from lay clergy who are not in their employ.

I suppose in some alternate universe this might obtain. They say that there are an infinite number of them. One of them may operate the way you have proposed.