Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[smac97]

Here's an interesting article in the Deseret News indicating that the "Ordain Women" folks are meeting with some serious resistance . . . from other women.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865586996/LDS-Church-responds-to-priesthood-meeting-request-by-activists.html
 

This Saturday, hundreds of thousands of women around the world will participate, either in person or via broadcast, in the annual general Relief Society meeting of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
...
Seven days later, a much smaller group of women — probably somewhere between 150 and 200 — plan to approach LDS Conference Center ushers and ask to be admitted without tickets to the priesthood session of the church’s 183rd Semiannual General Conference.
...
The women, who last week formally requested tickets to the Oct. 5 priesthood session, will not be admitted.

I do not think this is a good idea. These folks have already been told they cannot attend, so this is just a PR stunt designed to make the Church look bad. I think we can expect a lot of photos and videos of these women being denied access by the ushers.

There are enemies of the Church who have tried similar stunts by trying to gain access to the Church Office Building or a temple, all the while knowing they will be turned away, and all the while knowing that the purpose is to try to embarrass the Church. I expect this sort of thing from our opponents, but not from our fellow church members.
 

“It is the hope of the church that the priesthood session will strengthen the men and young men including fathers and sons, and give them the opportunity to gather and receive instruction related to priesthood duties and responsibilities,” church spokeswoman Ruth Todd said Tuesday in a letter to the group, "much the same way parallel meetings are held for sisters, such as the general Relief Society meeting.

"It’s for these reasons that tickets for the priesthood session are reserved for men and young men and we are unable to honor your request for tickets or admission."

Todd also invited the women to “view the live priesthood session broadcast, as well as the other general conference sessions, on lds.org, The Mormon Channel or BYUtv.”

This is a kind response, but I don't think listening to counsel from our priesthood leaders in the priesthood session is the objective. Rather, the objective is a publicity stunt during General Conference, deployed by church members, which is designed to try to make the Church look bad.
 

This will be the first time the general priesthood session of LDS conference is broadcast live to a general television or Internet audience. In a pre-conference press release issued Tuesday, church officials indicated the live TV and Internet broadcast of the session is "part of a continued effort to make general conference proceedings more accessible to members around the globe."

"We are pleased that the church has demonstrated its ability to change to be more inclusive by making the session available through live broadcast," said Kate Kelly, one of the organizers of the action to request priesthood meeting tickets for women. "This is an important step toward a future where Mormon women will participate side by side with our brothers in all areas of church leadership and life."

"This is an important step toward ..." That sounds an awful lot like the Ordain Women folks have a pre-set objective that either does not take into account the roles of prophetic authority and revelation (they are agitating for women to be ordained, and they don't care what God has to say about it) or else is an attempt at usurping prophetic authority (they know God's will on this matter, the Brethren do not, and so are using PR stunts like this to speak in place of the Brethren). Neither of these options is appealing.
 

However, the church's two decisions — to deny entrance to women and to broadcast the priesthood session live — will not curtail the planned action, Kelly said.

Yep. It will not curtail the planned action because attendance at a conference session is not the point. Listening to prophetic counsel is not the point. Adverse publicity against the Church, engineered by church members, is the point.
 

"We will be in the line for standby tickets to the priesthood session on Oct. 5 to demonstrate our continued willingness and desire to attend," said Kelly, who indicated the group will meet at City Creek Park at 4 p.m. to pray and sing and then walk together to the Conference Center to ask for admittance. "We are demonstrating our faith by standing at the door and knocking."

I do not buy this. Attendance at the session is not the objective. Pressuring the Church into giving women the priesthood is the objective.

As I have said before, I am open to the idea of women receiving the priesthood. I do not think it is part of God's plan, but I would be open to a revelation on this subject. But I don't think God reveals such things through PR stunts designed to make His Church look bad.
 

Besides, she noted during a telephone interview last week, "this isn't really just about going to priesthood meeting."

"This is about the ordination of women to the priesthood," said Kelly, an international human rights attorney in Washington, D.C., who is one of the founders of Ordain Women, an Internet-driven campaign that professes to be for “Mormon women seeking equality and ordination to the priesthood.”

As I said, attendance at the session is not the objective. This is a power play. By a self-selected group of church members against the leadership of the Church.
 

"We consider ourselves to be prospective priesthood holders," she continued, "and we want to go to priesthood meeting so we can show our leaders that we are ready for both the benefits and responsibilities of the priesthood. That is our focus."

Baloney. Attendance at the priesthood session is not the objective. Bad PR for the Church is the objective.

One of the responsibilities of the priesthood is to adhere to counsel from priesthood leaders. If a General Authority instructed these folks not to attend and to cancel the PR stunt they have planned, would they adhere to such instruction?
 

“To me, agitating on the issue is a question of self-respect,” she said.

"Agitating." Against the Church. Not cool. Not in this way.
 

“I respect and value the church and myself too much to be silent on this question. I truly believe that God wants us all to equally share the burdens and blessings of the priesthood. The ordination of women would put us all on equal spiritual footing with our brethren, and nothing less will suffice.”

"I truly believe that God wants us..." So much for Hebrews 5:4 ("And no man taketh this honour unto himself...").

What if the Brethren come to a different conclusion about discerning the will of God in this matter? Would this matter to Sis. Kelly? Apparently not, as she has repeatedly demanded ordination of women to the priesthood because - in her words - "nothing less will suffice."  (Note to Sis. Kelly: Claiming that your agitation is "respectful" is not compatible with you elsewhere stating that the only response to it which "will suffice" is the one you want.)

So much for prophetic authority. So much for a house of order.

Again, I am open to the idea of women receiving the priesthood. But such a revelation would not come to us like this. God reveals His will through his servants, not through rebellious individuals putting on PR stunts designed to make His servants and His church look bad.

I can't help but find Sis. Kelly's rhetoric a bit disconcerting, even perhaps dangerous. She would not be the first to try to usurp authority from the Lord's anointed, but usurpation permeates her position.

More in the next post.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2013 by smac97

[smac97]

A continuation of the OP:

Here's the part of the article with the "pushback" against Sis. Kelly's self-described "agitation."
 

“Equality is an interesting term,” said Sister Linda K. Burton, general Relief Society president, in a video posted last April featuring the leaders of three LDS Church auxiliaries talking about the role of women in church leadership. “It doesn’t always mean sameness. We are of equal value no matter where we are — in the church or in the home. In the home we are co-equal spiritual leaders. I think that’s an important thing that sometimes is misunderstood. We can have equality while having different roles.”

For the most part, Sister Burton said, “I don’t think (LDS) women are after the authority (of the priesthood) — I think they are after the blessings. And they are happy that they can access the blessings and power of the priesthood.”

The empirical research seems to support Sister Burton. For their landmark book, “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us,” David Campbell and Robert Putnam conducted two extensive surveys on religion and public life in America. They found that an overwhelming majority of LDS women — 90 percent — are opposed to priesthood ordination for women. By comparison, 52 percent of LDS men oppose priesthood ordination for women.

More recently, the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life conducted a national survey of Mormons in America. It found that overall 87 percent of Latter-day Saints — 90 percent of LDS women and 84 percent of LDS men — are opposed to women being ordained to the priesthood. The number climbs as high as 95 percent among those who claim a high degree of religious commitment. Even among those who claim a lower degree of religious commitment, 69 percent are opposed.

This is encouraging. A cynic might look at these data and say that the 90% of LDS women who oppose ordination of women have been brainwashed by the Church, and must therefore be corrected. That would be an odd sort of empowerment of women, wouldn't it? For a person like Sis. Kelly to presume to advocate on behalf of LDS women on a point which 90% of those women oppose?
 

Kathryn Skaggs, who writes her widely read blog, A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman, from her home in Murrieta, Calif., said she believes she speaks for that vast majority of Mormon women when she expresses frustration "that this small element within the church who are pressing for the priesthood use the media to draw attention to themselves, as if they speak for all Mormon women."

"They don't represent us," Skaggs said in a telephone interview. "That's not to minimize those who have these passionate feelings about women being ordained to the priesthood. But my personal church experience suggests that most of us are at peace with how the Lord has chosen to establish his kingdom upon the earth. And there's a bit of resentment that the beautiful messages of conference might be overshadowed by this small group that doesn't even represent the feelings of mainstream Mormon women.

"I just really have a hard time feeling good about it," Skaggs continued. "They are taking the attention away from the reason we have general conference in the first place: to listen to what living prophets have to say to us. Instead, they are trying to get the living prophets to listen to them. That just seems wrong to me."

Well said, Sis. Skaggs!
 

Writing on Patheos.com, BYU professor Margaret Blair Young, well-known for her detailed work on the history of black Mormons, said she would not be surprised to see more privileges extended to women in the near future. But, she observed, "this will not happen through press conferences.”

Agreed.
 

“For all who seek change of any kind in the church, I urge patience and faith,” Young wrote. “Cling to the things you value and don’t forget them as you seek positive change. We are not the Church of the Infallible Prophet, nor the Church of Your Particular Issue, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are a community, still learning lessons in loving one another and providing support for each other in our various journeys.”

Agreed. It is ironic that the agitation by a few for the ordination of women seems to fit the parameters described in D&C 121:36-39 (warning against misuse of the priesthood):

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

There are different types of authority and influence, and this passage warns against the misuse of authority and influence stemming from the priesthood. However, it is possible for a person to use other types of influence to indulge in "vain ambition" or to try to "exercise control or dominion or compulsion" on others. That's how I see this upcoming PR stunt by Ordain Women. And if improper "control or dominion or compulsion" is bad in the abstract, how much more so is it when exercised against the Church and the Lord's anointed?
 

For the Ordain Women movement, Kelly says, that journey won't end with the church's decision not to admit them to this October's general priesthood meeting.

"We operate on the Lord's time," she said. "We are not demanding anything. We are respectfully requesting that the brethren petition the Lord and ask if it is time that women are given the priesthood.

"Respectfully requesting" by scheduling PR stunts specifically designed to make the Church look bad?

That's not spin. That's just dishonesty.
 

"Of course we believe it is God's priesthood," she said, responding to a question that is often asked of her by Latter-day Saints who do not approve of the Ordain Women movement. "If we didn't believe that, then why bother? But we all know the priesthood has been expanded over time. Christ expanded it to the Gentiles. In 1978 it was expanded to all worthy males. We see this as just another expansion whose time has come."

I am open to that possibility. It is her tactics I find reprehensible and incompatible with discipleship in the Church.
 

And so, she says, "Ordain Women will remain intact."

"We will continue to seek ordination through action and discussion," she said. "We plan to move forward in creative, faithful, courageous ways."

Translation: She will continue to "agitate" (her word) publicly against the Church until she gets what she wants, regardless of revelation on the subject.

Why did I add that last italicized bit, you ask? Because Sis. Kelly herself has declared that she is insisting on only one answer to her question, only one result of her "agitation" and "action and discussion." That result is the ordination of women. She has repeatedly said that "nothing else {other than ordination of women} will do." If "nothing else will do," then she is either disregarding the role of revelation or else is claiming to have received revelation on this subject for the Church. Neither position is palatable to me.
 

Which Skaggs says she understands and respects, in a way.

"I think it's very natural for LDS women to ask why the order of the church is the way it is," she said. "I think we've all asked it in one way or another, at one time or another in our lives. But most of us have received the witness that this is God's living church on the face of the earth, and we are willing to accept that this is the way the Lord would have it be. Just knowing that that's his will, it makes it easier to say, 'Thy will be done.'

"So I'm not going to be upset or frustrated or angry, because I know and trust that this is the Lord's decision," she continued. "I don't have to know why. I just have to know that this is the way the Lord has laid it out, and continue to believe and exercise my faith in him and his living church."

Again, well said, Sis. Skaggs!

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2013 by smac97

[smac97]

So here's the graphic on the "OrdainWomen.org" website:

 

 

 

 

Yep.  Usurpation.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2013 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

I've had a few encounters with a couple of the women behind this movement.  They are educated about Women and the Priesthood historically, and can pull good examples.  But to say they have a complete misunderstanding of HOW women hold the priesthood and what kind of priesthood it is would be an understatement.

The major flaws I see are:

1. They are really seeking political (ecclesiastical) power and influence in the Church, not really priesthood.

2. They believe they can force a "revelation" to get what they want.

3. They really don't care what God wants, if it differs from what they see as right.

 

There are two types of members of "Ordain Women" that I have come across - The leaders of the movement who don't care what God has said on an issue and the naive members who have no understanding of the issue but think it would be a nice change.

 

Fortunately they won't be successful anytime soon.  Just another annoying group to march around Temple Square at conference.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This group makes me sick and all they are going to do is cause a division. This movment definatly is of God I can tell.

 

I was talking with my wife last night  about this. There is no point for women to attend because it has nothing to do with them. They will gain no insight. It is for men because it talks about and is specific and is directed to a man's role and preisthood responisibility.

 

Just so freaking dumb and misguided.

[bluebell]

Here's an interesting article in the Deseret News indicating that the "Ordain Women" folks are meeting with some serious resistance . . . from other women.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865586996/LDS-Church-responds-to-priesthood-meeting-request-by-activists.html

 

I do not think this is a good idea. These folks have already been told they cannot attend, so this is just a PR stunt designed to make the Church look bad. I think we can expect a lot of photos and videos of these women being denied access by the ushers.

There are enemies of the Church who have tried similar stunts by trying to gain access to the Church Office Building or a temple, all the while knowing they will be turned away, and all the while knowing that the purpose is to try to embarrass the Church. I expect this sort of thing from our opponents, but not from our fellow church members.

 

 

I don't generally agree with OW, but I don't think they are planning to still request tickets to embarrass the church, but to verify the church's reasoning for not granting them tickets in the first place.

 

If I understand correctly, the church said that tickets would not be given to women because they more rightly belong to those for whom the meeting is held.  However, if there are a lot of empty seats and the church still does not let these women in, then these women will prove that the church was not honest in it's reasoning for not allowing them to attend.

 

In essence, these women may have backed the church into a corner-if in fact the church does not want them there in person. 

 

And though like I said, I don't' agree with OW, neither do I agree with the church saying something that's not actually true, just to avoid dealing with the issue.  So if the church really doesn't want them there and it's not an issue of the number of seats available, then it might be fair for these women to force the church to admit that.

 

I say 'might' because like you, I don't really feel that members of the church should confront things in the church they disagree with in ways that purposefully are meant to bring embarrassment to the church, or to create contention.  On that issue, i'm not sure how I feel about these women publically attempting to force the church to admit something it obviously didn't want to discuss publically (if the church actually doesn't want these women there, which again, has not been proven).

[WmLaw]

This group makes me sick and all they are going to do is cause a division. This movment definatly is of God I can tell.

 

 

I presume that you meant the opposite of what I bolded... 

 

regardless, i prefer to not pass judgement.  in listening to many accounts, i believe that there are sincere and thoughtful brothers and sisters seeking after these changes - and many have felt personal revelations on the subject.

[changed]

If I understand correctly, the church said that tickets would not be given to women because they more rightly belong to those for whom the meeting is held.  However, if there are a lot of empty seats and the church still does not let these women in, then these women will prove that the church was not honest in it's reasoning for not allowing them to attend.

 

Even if there were empty seats - they would be a distraction. 

We had a stake member join RS last Sunday for our VT conference, and having him there was a distraction - any time anyone said something applying to women (like "I need someone there to support me through menopause") there was embarrasment, and apologies over it.  No way to get around the fact that there are gender-specific issues that are best discussed in the "red tent" or the "blue tent".

[smac97]

I don't generally agree with OW, but I don't think they are planning to still request tickets to embarrass the church, but to verify the church's reasoning for not granting them tickets in the first place.

I would disagree with you there. The Church has already stated its position. In print. There is no need for verification. And if there was needed, they could simply contact the Church. Instead, they are scheduling a publicity stunt like. They hope to have a large group of women walk up to the Conference Center and be turned away.

The leader of the group specifically describes her group's conduct as "agitation."

They are out to make the Church look bad.

 

If I understand correctly, the church said that tickets would not be given to women because they more rightly belong to those for whom the meeting is held.  However, if there are a lot of empty seats and the church still does not let these women in, then these women will prove that the church was not honest in it's reasoning for not allowing them to attend.

Wow. So their objective is to try to make the Church look dishonest? And to do so as publicly as possible?

Moreover, look at the explanation from the Church again:

 

"It is the hope of the church that the priesthood session will strengthen the men and young men including fathers and sons, and give them the opportunity to gather and receive instruction related to priesthood duties and responsibilities,” church spokeswoman Ruth Todd said Tuesday in a letter to the group, "much the same way parallel meetings are held for sisters, such as the general Relief Society meeting.

"It’s for these reasons that tickets for the priesthood session are reserved for men and young men and we are unable to honor your request for tickets or admission.

There is nothing in there about not having enough tickets to go around. It's about the intended audience. If a large number of men asked for tickets to the Women's Session, I think they'd be given the same response.

 

In essence, these women may have backed the church into a corner-if in fact the church does not want them there in person.

No, they haven't. But they are trying to. They are trying to make the Church look bad.

 

And though like I said, I don't' agree with OW, neither do I agree with the church saying something that's not actually true, just to avoid dealing with the issue.

What did the Church say "that's not actually true?"

 

So if the church really doesn't want them there and it's not an issue of the number of seats available, then it might be fair for these women to force the church to admit that.

Where did the Church say that the issue is about the number of seats?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2013 by smac97

[Buckeye]

Here's an interesting article in the Deseret News indicating that the "Ordain Women" folks are meeting with some serious resistance . . . from other women.

 

 

The strongest opposition to women's issues have always come from other women.  During the next few weeks, it would not be surprising for the issue of women's ordination to come up in conversations in local congregations.  If it happens in your ward, pay attention to who speaks up.  In my experience, 99% of the time it is a woman.  Men tend to sit out those discussions. 

 

And, for the record, while I think men should be involved in this discussion, I think the majority of speaking should be done by women.  I'm glad the DN article and the church newsroom have relied on primarily female voices for their articles/statements.  That alone is a great improvement over previous generations.  I'm grateful for women in previous generations who spoke up and changed our culture so that it became acceptable for women to be publicly heard.  We largely take that for granted now.  Hopefully future generations will reap the fruit of our current generation's women.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I presume that you meant the opposite of what I bolded... 

 

regardless, i prefer to not pass judgement.  in listening to many accounts, i believe that there are sincere and thoughtful brothers and sisters seeking after these changes - and many have felt personal revelations on the subject.

No, I meant what I said. It was just sarcasm and sometimes it is hard to tell. I am sure they are sincere. But that does not mean that what they are doing isnt going to causing a division. Sincerety is not enough. They are way misguided.  And they are just trying to playing gotcha. I can only predict that bitterness will come from this movement and some will fall away.

 

It is also important to undertstand what passing judgemnet means. I have not comdenmed these women to hell. What I have said is that this movement I can see no good in the end and only hurt feelings and bitterness. The church is not going to change in this regard.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[smac97]

I presume that you meant the opposite of what I bolded... 

 

regardless, i prefer to not pass judgement.

You raise a fair point. I think there are times when I go too far in my critiques of others. Where I judge the merits of the person. But I also think there is a risk of Church members failing to exercise discernment and instead surrender the field on important issues for fear of being accused of "judging" or "hating." The Prop 8 campaign was a good example of this.

So when someone like Sister Kelly publicly agitates against the Church, I think church members who disagree with her agitation need to step up and speak out. Properly. Poignantly. Thoughtfully. But speak out. That's not unrighteous judgment.

 

in listening to many accounts, i believe that there are sincere and thoughtful brothers and sisters seeking after these changes - and many have felt personal revelations on the subject.

I am open to that possibility. But sincerity and thoughtfulness do not carry the day. There are many people who engage in improper behavior based on sincere belief. That does not excuse their improper behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2013 by smac97

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Where did the Church say that the issue is about the number of seats?

Thanks,

-Smac

Very well said.  Bluebell I have seen stuff like this before. I suggest that you try not to hard to see the other side on the specific issue. This group is not a good group. I mean I am not calling them demonic but how they are going about it seem like something from Saul Alinsky. They are going about trying to create public pressure to get a change in something they don't like. Yeah I know they are doing it in the name of equality but that is not what this is about.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The strongest opposition to women's issues have always come from other women.  During the next few weeks, it would not be surprising for the issue of women's ordination to come up in conversations in local congregations.  If it happens in your ward, pay attention to who speaks up.  In my experience, 99% of the time it is a woman.  Men tend to sit out those discussions. 

 

And, for the record, while I think men should be involved in this discussion, I think the majority of speaking should be done by women.  I'm glad the DN article and the church newsroom have relied on primarily female voices for their articles/statements.  That alone is a great improvement over previous generations.  I'm grateful for women in previous generations who spoke up and changed our culture so that it became acceptable for women to be publicly heard.  We largely take that for granted now.  Hopefully future generations will reap the fruit of our current generation's women.

 

http://thehairpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Suffrage1915.jpg

 

 

Interesting image in many ways including the appeal to the 90%.

 

Sorry for the slight derail...

Edited September 25, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

The strongest opposition to women's issues have always come from other women.  During the next few weeks, it would not be surprising for the issue of women's ordination to come up in conversations in local congregations.  If it happens in your ward, pay attention to who speaks up.  In my experience, 99% of the time it is a woman.  Men tend to sit out those discussions.

I think that is unfortunate. I agree that men sit out on such discussions, and that many abstain due to fear of being castigated for speaking out of turn. 100 years ago it was women who were pressured to remain silent by men. Now the roles are occasionally reversed. I think today's misandry is just as repellent as yesteryear's misogyny.

And, for the record, while I think men should be involved in this discussion, I think the majority of speaking should be done by women.  I'm glad the DN article and the church newsroom have relied on primarily female voices for their articles/statements.

Um, why? Shouldn't arguments be measured on their merits, regardless of the gender of the person making them?

That alone is a great improvement over previous generations.  I'm grateful for women in previous generations who spoke up and changed our culture so that it became acceptable for women to be publicly heard.

Is it not also acceptable for men to be publicly heard? Why are you suggesting that men subordinate themselves in this discussion?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Buckeye]

Smac,

 

On my mission I taught primarily mexicans.  I learned to love the people and the culture.  In many ways I still identify with them today.  But at the same time, in a very real sense, I will never be mexican.  Likewise, many men love and want the best for women.  Men's voices are important.  But men are not women.  In some ways, they will never fully understand women's issues.  So while men's voices should be part of the discussion, the most important voices for women's issues are the voices of women. 

[Buckeye]

 

http://thehairpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Suffrage1915.jpg

 

 

Interesting image in many ways including the appeal to the 90%.

 

Sorry for the slight derail...

 

Great link.  And very insightful.  Women's ordination will harm families in the same manner that women's voting harmed families  In other words, not at all.  The result would be the exact opposite.

[WmLaw]

 

http://thehairpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Suffrage1915.jpg

 

 

Interesting image in many ways including the appeal to the 90%.

 

Sorry for the slight derail...

That's an interesting parallel.

[JLHPROF]

 

http://thehairpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Suffrage1915.jpg

 

 

Interesting image in many ways including the appeal to the 90%.

 

 

If this were simply a matter of common consent then the majority rules parallell would apply.

But priesthood is not a matter for voting.  It is an eternal authority that God distributes according to eternal laws.  All the voting in the world can't change that.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If this were simply a matter of common consent then the majority rules parallell would apply.

But priesthood is not a matter for voting.  It is an eternal authority that God distributes according to eternal laws.  All the voting in the world can't change that.

The point was the majority of women (according to the ad) didn't want women's suffrage.  Also I don't disagree with you that priesthood is not a matter for voting.  

[Buckeye]

If this were simply a matter of common consent then the majority rules parallell would apply.

But priesthood is not a matter for voting.  It is an eternal authority that God distributes according to eternal laws.  All the voting in the world can't change that.

 

If you come from a paradigm in which people sit patiently waiting for revelation to fall - like an apple from a tree - then yes, perhaps there is no parallel.  But if you come from a different paradigm in which God places people in positions where they must wrestle and learn for themselves what is good and evil and then approach God with their desires and ask if those desires are correct, well in that paradigm this newsarticle proves very telling.  The same wrestle that happened 100 years ago regarding voting is the one we are having now regarding ordination.  Looking back, it seems unfathamable that so many women would strongly oppose women's voting.  It's helpful to see that these women's concerns were no voting itself, but worries as to how voting would affect things they highly valued - christianity and the family.  That's helpful in coming to grasp with the question as to why so many LDS women today oppose a change that, on its surface, would give them additional blessings - such as the ability to participate in priesthood ordinances with their children.  Perhaps these women are also coming from an understandable position of fear of losing what they most hold dear.

[smac97]

Smac,

 

On my mission I taught primarily mexicans.  I learned to love the people and the culture.  In many ways I still identify with them today.  But at the same time, in a very real sense, I will never be mexican.  Likewise, many men love and want the best for women.  Men's voices are important.  But men are not women.  In some ways, they will never fully understand women's issues.  So while men's voices should be part of the discussion, the most important voices for women's issues are the voices of women.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. I understand with your position and, in the main, agree with it.

I guess my question would be whether ordination to the priesthood is a "women's issue."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Buckeye]

Okay, I see where you are coming from. I understand with your position and, in the main, agree with it.

I guess my question would be whether ordination to the priesthood is a "women's issue."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

That's a fair point.  I would argue "yes" because, however much the decision would affect men (and it would be huge), it would affect women more.  The complicating factor, though, is that the 15 primary decision makers for the church are all men. 

[smac97]

Great link.  And very insightful.  Women's ordination will harm families in the same manner that women's voting harmed families  In other words, not at all.  The result would be the exact opposite.

I won't pretend to be able to discern the effects resulting from the ordination of women. But that is neither here nor there. In my view, the questio ns for observant Latter-day Saints are A) whether there is revelation on the subject; B) whether women should be ordained to the priesthood; and C) how do we ascertain the will of God in this matter.

Public agitation against the Church is not part of the process.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Public agitation against the Church is not part of the process.

Thanks,

-Smac

Which is my whole problem with this movement.