Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[Bikeemikey]

I don't have a fear of the Lord being manipulated, either. But your reasoning is essentially an example of Reductio ad absurdum. We might as well say "I have zero fear about God's Plan of Salvation not proceeding as planned, so I see no need to do anything about it."

I don't know what that means. You think public agitation against the Church by members is okay? PR stunts designed to make the Church look bad? Publicity campaigns pointing out the "concerns" of some members, along with demands that the Church resolve these concerns in a particular way, and that "nothing less will suffice?"

Is there any standard of behavior to which you would hold Church members? If so, what is it?

Um, why? What does prayerful consideration have to do with what the OW are demanding? They have said on multiple occasions that they want women ordained to the priesthood, and that "nothing less will suffice." If "nothing less will suffice," then what God has to say about it doesn't matter, so "prayerful consideration" is ultimately irrelevant.

The OW folks may pay lip service to some notion of asking the Brethren to pray about this, but they aren't really looking for an answer from God, since they are only interested in what they want, and "nothing less will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

I hope that you are aware that your reduction to absurdity position cuts both ways... Though I reject its relevance to the matter at hand. If standing back and doing nothing is objectionable then standing back and asking nothing would also be objectionable on the same grounds... Though I think your use of this objection is misplaced as I have never said stand back and so nothing... In fact, I am in support of this OW conversation because if is doing exactly the opposite of nothing.

There are a few standards of behavior that I would object to. So far these folks are a small vocal group expressing a view that some women in the church, perhaps a small minority, share.

Because these questions and issues are impacting some members of our church I truly hope there is prayerful humble consideration of the issues being expressed.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[jwhitlock]

I never disputed that currently only males can have the priesthood. What I was stating is simply that the revelation was stating who is currently included, not who is forever excluded. OD2 is not a source that shows women can NEVER have the priesthood. As for the rest of your response: I am uncertain it was meant for me. If it was it must be addressing something I never said. Please CFR that I ever claimed any tactic is acceptable. I personally have zero fear about the LORD being manipulated into change so I don't have any issue with these so called manipulative tactics. I am far more in favor of a strong open conversation as opposed to not discussing concerns that some members have. I for one hope that these questions the OW folks are asking are being seriously discussed and prayerfully considered by the church leadership and prophet-apostles.

 

My quotation of OD2 was to the claim that there is "zero" support in the scriptures for only males holding the priesthood. I have, despite your claim, never stated that it will stand forever. That was never my position.

 

It is, however, quite clear that currently the Lord intends for only men to hold the priesthood. As smac has noted, when He sees fit to change that, He'll let us know. But it is not going to change because of groups like OW and their tactics, which demonstrate a clear lack of understanding concerning the purpose of the priesthood in the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

If the prophet has not asked these people to stop, or expressed concerns about the movement, then why are you?

 

 

The fact that the prophet himself has not specifically denounced something does not make that thing decent or acceptable. Nor does it prohibit others from voicing their opinions about that thing.

 

Asking the prophet can take a number of forms. So far this one is pretty benign

 

I agree with smac that a strident PR stunt is unseemly when it concerns the Church and its anointed leaders.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

In some areas of the world, yes the quality of leadership is lacking.  This is not a knock on those men who volunteer their time and efforts in their callings, as most do a great job.  I'm not sure where you've lived, but I've been in a number of branches that would greatly benefit from a change.  Branches in which the president didn't even live in the boundaries, or one in which the BP was an American senior missionary who barely spoke the language, or one where the BP was a convert of less than a year (who then became inactive within two years of his calling), all because they lacked quality leadership. Do you think this is ideal?  

 

It's a simple math, ordaining women would instantly double (and more in many cases as the developing areas seem to have higher rates of active women) the leadership pool and therefore increase the quality of leadership...unless of course you believe women make inferior leaders.

 

Glad you were able to backpedal a bit. Your original statement was unqualified in what it inferred about all male leadership in the church being lacking.

 

While what you say is interesting (aside from your cheap little shot about women and inferior leadership) but I doubt that who holds the priesthood is determined by what the world thinks is fair, or would work best from a logistical standpoint. The policy - from the Lord, mind you - currently limiting the priesthood to men appears to be designed for particular reasons related to this phase of our temporal existence, and how salvation is applied. I've seem some very interesting speculation about what that might be, but it is ultimately only speculation.

 

None of that, in any case, is why the policy is there. It's there because the Lord wants it that way. When He decides to change it, He will do so. In the meantime, I still don't see any particular significant barrier that stands in the way of progress in the kingdom that would be eliminated by giving women the priesthood. Those in OW agitating for the priesthood do not seem to be doing it for the right reasons.

[BlueDreams]

Wow. This thread is devolving into a big gripefest. Against the Church. Against Church members, both male and female, who are being categorically slandered in ways big and small.

I have been a lifelong member of the Church. I am pretty active in it. My family is active in it. My extended family is active in it. My wife's extended family is active in it. The tree is healthy, both roots and branches. I am aware that the Church has many ways in can improve, some pruning of the tree is and always will be necessary. But I reject the repellent characterization of Church I am seeing in this thread. It has become an exercise in faultfinding, in complaining - directly and indirectly - against the men in the Church (including the Brethren), in excusing/justifying inappropriate behavior against the Church by Church members solely because they are women, in creating a caricature of the Church as being hostile or demeaning to women.

To some extent, I may bear responsibility for this. Perhaps I have been too strident in my comments. In any event, I think the turn this thread has taken has become both unproductive and offensive. I'm out.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

This is probably too late, but just in case this was in anyway influence by my comment, I don't see the church as a caricature and I also see it as having some of the greatest capacity to empower women and men together. There's plenty of positive or I wouldn't be here. I love my faith. But from time to time the sense that there needs to be more, that there's "something missing" is also definitely there. It shouldn't be taken out of the context of the fact that there is much the church has to give, an amazing assortment of people who have been blessings and strengths to my life, and that I wouldn't be nearly a good of a person nor have some of the opportunities I've had without it.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Bikeemikey]

It is, however, quite clear that currently the Lord intends for only men to hold the priesthood. As smac has noted, when He sees fit to change that, He'll let us know. But it is not going to change because of groups like OW and their tactics, which demonstrate a clear lack of understanding concerning the purpose of the priesthood in the church.

It may be the case that the change coincides with there movement thought.

There is no doubt that the change will occur only when The Lord reveals it: this is true... And given our religious framework it is also tautologous.

However, if the change in build up to OD2 shows us anything it is that such changes occur, at least in part, as a response to some external pressures.

If our context was not changing then we would not need to change as an institution either.

[Bikeemikey]

The fact that the prophet himself has not specifically denounced something does not make that thing decent or acceptable. Nor does it prohibit others from voicing their opinions about that thing.

This position, which I totally agree with, also 100% supports the OW in voicing their opinions.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[jwhitlock]

This is probably too late, but just in case this was in anyway influence by my comment, I don't see the church as a caricature and I also see it as having some of the greatest capacity to empower women and men together. There's plenty of positive or I wouldn't be here. I love my faith. But from time to time the sense that there needs to be more, that there's "something missing" is also definitely there. It shouldn't be taken out of the context of the fact that there is much the church has to give, an amazing assortment of people who have been blessings and strengths to my life, and that I wouldn't be nearly a good of a person nor have some of the opportunities I've had without it.

 

I appreciate your comment. It's spot on. Yet there are others on this thread who have taken it as an opportunity to find fault with the church and its leadership.

 

The amazing thing about the church is not what it lacks, but how it has held together and grown and moved the work of the kingdom forward despite the significant imperfections of its members - including me. That, in and of itself, should give some serious pause when considering Who is actually in control. There are bounds, and He sets them, but gives all of us a significant amount of leeway to use our agency in. The fact that we mess up, and yet the Lord still moves the church forward, indicates that He is very interested in what we are learning from our experiences.  It is about the journey, and not about perfection here and now.

[Scott Lloyd]

It may be the case that the change coincides with there movement thought. There is no doubt that the change will occur only when The Lord reveals it: this is true... And given our religious framework it is also tautologous. However, if the change in build up to OD2 shows us anything it is that such changes occur, at least in part, as a response to some external pressures. If our context was not changing then we would not need to change as an institution either.

This is an old debate, but I don't see it as self-evident that OD2 was a response to external pressure. I don't think a persuasive case has been made for that notion.

 

If anything, the criticism against the Church for its priesthood policy had subsided a great deal by 1978.

 

If the 1978 revelation was brought on by anything, it was a fervent desire on the part of the Brethren to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all, espeically in developing areas of the Church where the scarcity of priesthood leaderhip would be critical without it.  

Edited September 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

Yet there are others on this thread who have taken it as an opportunity to find fault with the church and its leadership.

CFR on people using this thread as an opportunity to find fault with the church.

I honestly have not seen that. But there are a few posts I think I may have skipped.

[Scott Lloyd]

This position, which I totally agree with, also 100% supports the OW in boxing their opinions.

What does "boxing their opinions" mean?

 

Are you the victim of an over-zealous auto-correct function?

[jwhitlock]

It may be the case that the change coincides with there movement thought. There is no doubt that the change will occur only when The Lord reveals it: this is true... And given our religious framework it is also tautologous. However, if the change in build up to OD2 shows us anything it is that such changes occur, at least in part, as a response to some external pressures. If our context was not changing then we would not need to change as an institution either.

 

You're correct that the 1978 revelation was in response to some outside pressures. However, those pressures were relevant to moving the kingdom forward and were appropriate needs. Contrary to what some would like to believe, it is clear that agitation against the church by some in the civil rights movement was not a deciding factor. Indeed, that agitation had started to fall off quite a bit by 1978.

 

The agitation by OW is more akin to agitation from civil rights activist, than to appropriate petitioning of the Lord for a needed change to move the kingdom forward. That, and because they are demanding that things be done their way instead of the Lord's way, I doubt very much that priesthood ordination policy will be changed because of them.

 

Edit: added "not" where it should have been in the original comment.

Edited September 27, 2013 by jwhitlock

[Bikeemikey]

If it was brought on by anything, it was a fervent desire on the part of the Brethren to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all, espeically in developing areas of the Church where the scarcity of priesthood leaderhip would be critical about it.

The issues with leadership in Brazil and other developing missions were the exact external impacts I was thinking of.

To clarify, my reference to external forces was not specifically intended to be read as people. Rather new pressure points arising from changing circumstances.

In OD2 these pressures came from huge church growth (a great event that still brought new pressure external to the normative context that the church had been operating under up until that point).

[Bikeemikey]

What does "boxing their opinions" mean?

Are you the victim of an over-zealous auto-correct function?

Auto correct!!!

Voicing.

[Scott Lloyd]

. Contrary to what some would like to believe, it is clear that agitation against the church by some in the civil rights movement was a deciding factor. Indeed, that agitation had started to fall off quite a bit by 1978.

 

I think you left the word "not" out of the first sentence above. If that's the case, then I agree with you.

[jwhitlock]

CFR on people using this thread as an opportunity to find fault with the church. I honestly have not seen that. But there are a few posts I think I may have skipped.

 

Please try not to misuse CFR. And feel free to go back and read any of Stone holm's posts. It's pretty much SOP with him to jump in to any discussion with overwrought comments about the deficiencies of the church and its members, and to agree with anyone who does the same.

[jwhitlock]

I think you left the word "not" out of the first sentence above. If that's the case, then I agree with you.

 

Whoops. You're correct, of course. It was NOT a deciding factor.

[Scott Lloyd]

The issues with leadership in Brazil and other developing missions were the exact external impacts I was thinking of. To clarify, my reference to external forces was not specifically intended to be read as people. Rather new pressure points arising from changing circumstances. In OD2 these pressures came from huge church growth (a great event that still brought new pressure external to the normative context that the church had been operating under up until that point).

I think we are in danger of having rising generations who were not alive or have no memory of pre-1978 circumstances carry forward the false presumption that the 1978 revelation resulted from intimidation by civil rights activists.

[Stone holm]

I think we are in danger of having rising generations who were not alive or have no memory of pre-1978 circumstances carry forward the false presumption that the 1978 revelation resulted from intimidation by civil rights activists.

Yes that is possible. Or the rising generation may come to a more realistic understanding of the various factors that were involved

[Bikeemikey]

...because they are demanding that things be done their way instead of the Lord's way, I doubt very much that priesthood ordination policy will be changed because of them.

I think almost all contributors to this thread have agreed any change would only occur based on revelation from god. As such, the OW movement will not be directly responsible for the change.

However, it may be possible that god has been waiting a long time for the church to deeply and thoughtfully ponder some of the questions OW is raising. It may also be the case that OW becomes a catalyst to some changes that god would like to see happen.

Perhaps god is waiting on us and this is an agitation that creates new external pressure that create some change that is positive.

OD2 is fairly recent history and makes me quite cautious in railing against the anti-establishment. Those anti-establishment folks in 1977 were the new main stream in 1978.

In so ardently committing to this antidisestablishmentarianist position (with the OW women viewed as the potential heretic railing against the church) there is real risk that you may find yourself in a situation were your old position carefully crafted to protect the church now makes you a potential heretic.

[Bikeemikey]

Please try not to misuse CFR. And feel free to go back and read any of Stone holm's posts. It's pretty much SOP with him to jump in to any discussion with overwrought comments about the deficiencies of the church and its members, and to agree with anyone who does the same.

With a CFR the burden is on the individual who posted the assertion to support it. Simply saying go read the thread is not sufficient.

The reason for this is it allows you to post the exact item that you feel supports your position and allows me the opportunity to evaluate your assertion against the very evidence you claim supports it.

I failed to see these posts by stoneholm that you are referring to.

Post numbers would be sufficient. I can use those to review his posts against your claims of attacks against the church.

[Bikeemikey]

I think we are in danger of having rising generations who were not alive or have no memory of pre-1978 circumstances carry forward the false presumption that the 1978 revelation resulted from intimidation by civil rights activists.

Possibly, though there are a number of excellent sources that dispel the idea that the change was solely motivated by civil rights concerns quite effectively. These same sources also do highlight that civil rights considerations did act as a broad undercurrent to the conversation, though not the primary motivator for the change.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[omni]

Glad you were able to backpedal a bit. 

 

 

Backpedal?  In this case, your perception most certainly isn't reality.

 

 

Your original statement was unqualified in what it inferred about all male leadership in the church being lacking.

 

 

This is what I said in my original post

 

Lack of priesthood leadership is a very real problem in much of the world. This is enhanced by the fact that in many of these areas the activity rate of men is significantly lower than that of women. 

 

 

I never once indicated that all male leadership in the church was lacking.  Seeing as how most of the world has relatively few members and even fewer who are qualified for leadership roles, I stand by my original statement.

 

[Stone holm]

You're correct that the 1978 revelation was in response to some outside pressures. However, those pressures were relevant to moving the kingdom forward and were appropriate needs. Contrary to what some would like to believe, it is clear that agitation against the church by some in the civil rights movement was not a deciding factor. Indeed, that agitation had started to fall off quite a bit by 1978.

 

The agitation by OW is more akin to agitation from civil rights activist, than to appropriate petitioning of the Lord for a needed change to move the kingdom forward. That, and because they are demanding that things be done their way instead of the Lord's way, I doubt very much that priesthood ordination policy will be changed because of them.

 

Edit: added "not" where it should have been in the original comment.

Actually, I was at a Priesthood leadership session where Boyd K. Packer said that the triggering of action was that the Brethren were struggling with what to do about the upcoming dedication of São. Paulo Brazil Temple. I believe that Pres Kimball was especially prepared to overcome the cultural opposition to extending the Priesthood. If you look at his assignment to work with the Native Americans, etc. In addition, there was a very narrow time window, since his successor was ETB, who had actively opposed the Civil Rights movement. In addition, membership attitudes had started shifting as a younger generation arose in the Church. I know how difficult it became as a HT to a biracial family to defend the Church, which I did, but I expect I was not the only one. Cultural traditions are not easily overcome and are not overcome quickly. But clearly the civil rights movement started the Brethren rethinking about the issue under Pres McKay. To say it had no impact, is a bit naive.

[Calm]

. Those anti-establishment folks in 1977 were the new main stream in 1978.

My memory is that in general those who were vocally anti-establishment in 77 were still the same in 78 and later. It was not enough to lift the ban, the leadership were required to admit they were wrong among other things. Many moved on to the ERA as the next step.

Edited September 28, 2013 by calmoriah