Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[Bikeemikey]

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.

Well that certainly hasn't been the experience of those I know who were ardently opposed to the pre-1978 priesthood policy.

They were overjoyed with the change and have not been on any kind of crusade since then.

[Calm]

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

God himself has said there is more to come. There are many talks about how we are drawn to the gospel because we are looking for where we belong or something beyond that which we have...and if that is by God's side than that sense of something missing won't completely fade in this lifetime.

We are told it is a good and desirable thing to hunger and thirst after righteousness, combine that with the principle of eternal progression and we end up with the implication that we should never cease to yearn for something more and just settle for what we now have.

And this yearning for the gifts that God has promised us can be a sign that not only do we trust him, but that we are extremely grateful (as we should be) for the gifts we now have. It may be the very high value we put upon them that leads us to so actively seek out more.

[Calm]

Well that certainly hasn't been the experience of those I know who were ardently opposed to the pre-1978 priesthood policy.

They were overjoyed with the change and have not been on any kind of crusade since then.

The ones that were in the newspapers and making such public protests as ordaining a black man on their own?

[Bikeemikey]

The ones that were in the newspapers and making such public protests as ordaining a black man on their own?

I don't know any people who did that.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

This strikes me as a simplistic view.

There was such a universal yearning pre-1978 for the change that finally happened (and such joy afterward) that it could not be called an anti-establishment position. I didn't know a single person in the Church who didn't wish and hope for it.

As for those who railed against the Church, they were no more "mainstream" after June 1978 than they were before.

[Stone holm]

The ones that were in the newspapers and making such public protests as ordaining a black man on their own?

I am thinking in that regard of an African American who was an inactive member and a law school classmate of mine, the last time I ran into him was at the veil of the Chicago Temple. There were a lot of people who were very uncomfortable with the ban, who did not become involved in insubordination you speak of, but I am not sure had there been a total refusal to look at the issue whether there might eventually have been increased insubordination. I believe it is a little unclear what the future may be. I personally doubt that the status quo will endure, I also doubt that it will be resolved in the same way the extension of the Priesthood was. What I think you will see is more and more couples called as leaders in positions previously only held by a man.the change will be gradual and perhaps my grandchildren will be shocked when they discover how we operate now. But that is my personal totally unqualified speculation. But I believe the ardent defenders of the status quo will once again find themselves on the wrong side of history.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know any people who did that.

Oh, it happened! It got widespread news coverage, and it was very sensationalized.

[Calm]

I don't know any people who did that.

Doug Wallace, who claims I believe to be the one who forced the Church to lift the ban, is now attempting to get the missionary program shut down.

I admit other than him I can't recall names except personal acquaintances that didn't go so far as to rate immortality in old newspaper archives. Perhaps Scott remembers better, considering it is in his line of work. My acquaintances simply put all their focus on the ERA.

I have no doubt there were many who had been uncomfortable with the Ban who were then at peace with the way the Priesthood was structured, especially since, as Scott says, a vast majority of members were looking forward to that day. However when using the term "anti-" that is more extreme than feeling uncomfortable or dissatisfied, it is generally taken to mean those who want to bring down the "establishment" and of that extreme, I have not heard of any that I knew of that are now one of the "establishment" though I dearly hope that is true of many (though I doubt it).

Edited September 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

This is my memory and perception as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

Doug Wallace, who claims I believe to be the one who forced the Church to lift the ban, is now attempting to get the missionary program shut down.

I admit other than him I can't recall names except personal acquaintances that didn't go so far as to rate immortality in old newspaper archives. Perhaps Scott remembers better, considering it is in his line of work.

Wallace is the one I had in mind as well. He was an obnoxious publicity seeker.

[Bikeemikey]

This strikes me as a simplistic view.

There was such a universal yearning pre-1978 for the change that finally happened (and such joy afterward) that it could not be called an anti-establishment position. I didn't know a single person in the Church who didn't wish and hope for it.

As for those who railed against the Church, they were no more "mainstream" after June 1978 than they were before.

And yet there were members criticizing those members advocating for the inclusion of blacks in the priesthood right up until the end.

I agree my view is a simplistic one.

[LordUther]

Thank you, Paloma.. It is helping my frame my own ideas. I know that the "something missing" has been missed for a long time, my mother experienced it even before I was born. I have a feeling from the choices my grandmothers made in their lives as well as how they discussed them and pushed their granddaughters that they experienced it too, but it seems like a puzzle piece that is missing that is easier to describe by what it touches upon and where it fits than what it is itself. I have a belief that it is not the Priesthood itself, but that some have latched on to that because it was an obvious 'not have' for women.

I absolutely agree that the RS isn't the society it used to be & something is missing. I firmly believe that allowing the sisters to minister in the laying on if hands for healing & reintroducing the ordinance of W&A for confinement would help alleviate a lot of that. The purpose of the RS has been watered down I think a petition to restore it to its former glory would be much more effective.

[Stone holm]

Wallace is the one I had in mind as well. He was an obnoxious publicity seeker.

Are we equating what Wallace did with waiting in line for the Priesthood Session? Or is this a slippery slope argument?

[Calm]

I am not equating everyone connected with the OW organization with "anti-establishment". I wouldn't be surprised if it was only a small percentage that wanted to replace the current establishment with one closer to their own image.

I find using the label "anti-establishment" as applied originally in this thread to be imprecise and as polarising to the discussion as accusing those associated with the group as all wanting to be bishops, etc.

Edited September 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[EllenMaksoud]

Lest any one come to the conclusion that Women lack the wherewithal to manage the priesthood, it most certainly is not due to a lack of strength.  I used to know the owner of a large commercial trucking company. He said that they hired women when they could because the women were less prone to losing it under stress, and the maintenance bills were much less with them driving.

 

I was once doing an environmental logging remediation project where the only operators of the equipment were women, and finally in the following video, a certain company that builds Ice Breakers uses only women as heavy crane operators because they handle the stress better.  I was using a mid sized track hoe, and it was fun.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBEcZOQDR_Q

 

I worked with mainly men while working as a commercial Electrician, and if there was going to be an issue on the job it was usually due to male hubris.  Generally the men I worked with were quite compliant and helpful in spite of the fact that in my later years I was the boss. They knew that there would never be yelling and anger from me. And when I retired more than one of them thanked me for being such a good boss.

 

I do not know why women are not Priesthood holders. Heavenly Father said it, and that does it for me. The first man that says it was because of Eve's lapse, I will hunt you down.

Edited September 28, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[Scott Lloyd]

And yet there were members criticizing those members advocating for the inclusion of blacks in the priesthood right up until the end.

It was widely accepted that black men would one day have the privilege of holding the priesthood. The only thing in question was the matter of when.

In contrast, the ordain women movement is very much a vocal minority. I know plenty of intelligent, strong women in the Church who vehemently disagree with them. Two of them have a direct supervisory role over me in my professional occupation, which is working for a Church-owned, priesthood-correlated publication.

[Rivers]

My wife and I recently read Numbers 16 in our daily scripture study.  It describes an incident in which a group of Israelites rebel against Moses and seek priestly offices.

The rebels end up getting swallowed up in the earth.  It reminded me of the ordain women movement.  I hope the same thing doesn't happen to them.

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/num/16?lang=eng

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

This is doubtful. As has been noted, comparisons with the 1978 revelation are strained.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Others have noted the same thing I did. I don't intend to read the thread for you, since there is a clear sense that some are using it as an excuse to attack the church and its members. Stone holm's posts are quite clear - for instance his post telling us that those who disagreed with OW were guilty of verbal abuse is one example.

 

Back referencing this thread and a specific poster is enough of a reference as far as I'm concerned. If you'd really reviewed his posts, you would have seen how he attacks the church.

[jwhitlock]

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

 

This is what I said in my original post

 

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.

 

 

I see you didn't bother to quote your whole post, so I'll do it for you:

 

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. 

By ordaining women we would instantly double the numbers of priesthood holders and improve the quality of the leadership.

 

 

Looks to me like the "most of the world" - which is fairly all inclusive in and of itself - was simply a setup for the generalist statement you ended with - even though your math didn't make sense.

 

In any case, thanks for clarifying with the backpedaling.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

"No impact"? How do you extrapolate that out of my statement that it was not the deciding factor?

[slamarwi]

Can you name a single active man who would stop his activity if priesthood were no longer gender exclusive?  I have yet to find one.  Yes, there are plenty of slacker men out there.  Always will be.  But that's no reason to stop progress for women.

 

Look at other areas where women are included:  Seminary - most young men do not attend, but none of them do so because young women can attend.  Missions - most men don't serve missions, but none of them decline the call because young women can also serve.  So why do we think it will be any different with administering the sacrament or directing the ward?  Yes, many men will still fail to live up to the call, but none of them will so just because women can now hold the same authority.

 

You have found one now. I am not a slacker, but I do believe in order and decorum.

 

I don't want women in priesthood meeting. Especially those that feel the need to force their way in.

 

Even if they had positions now only held by men it would continue to be appropriate to hold separate meetings. There is a time and place for the separation of men and women that should be respected.

[Bikeemikey]

It was widely accepted that black men would one day have the privilege of holding the priesthood. The only thing in question was the matter of when.

In contrast, the ordain women movement is very much a vocal minority. I know plenty of intelligent, strong women in the Church who vehemently disagree with them. Two of them have a direct supervisory role over me in my professional occupation, which is working for a Church-owned, priesthood-correlated publication.

There was a time when the black ordination issue was nothing more than a vocal minority.

It was not always widely accepted that black men would get the priesthood. In fact, there was a long period of time where it was not accepted at all.

In fact Harold b lee (who was a prophet until his death 1972) was very open about his views in the matter. He was strongly opposed to black ordination and in recent David I Mckay: rise of modern Mormonism Harold B Lee was the apostle leading the charge against a change. Him and Hugh b brown were at total odds on the matter.

This mormon utopia where everyone was just sitting around wanting the blacks to have the priesthood and patiently waiting for the change just doesn't seem to match the variety of opinions that were among event the apostles during the decade leading up to OD2.

I know many strong women in the church who do not object to OW at all. I know many strong women who support it. I know many strong women who are opposed to it.

I that we either:

A) have these "strong women" fight it out so we can see which one is strongest and have her tell us what we should think about OW

Or

B) realize that the number of strong women we know and their opinions on this matter are not the only way of determining the value of the OW movement.

I think most people hear know you work for desert news. Good to know your boss is a women. I am not sure either are relevant to the discussion.

Some have stated that there is no valid comparison to be made between the blacks and the priesthood and the OW women and the priesthood issue today. I disagree. They are obviously not the same... They are however obviously similar.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

Others have noted the same thing I did. I don't intend to read the thread for you, since there is a clear sense that some are using it as an excuse to attack the church and its members. Stone holm's posts are quite clear - for instance his post telling us that those who disagreed with OW were guilty of verbal abuse is one example.

 

Back referencing this thread and a specific poster is enough of a reference as far as I'm concerned. If you'd really reviewed his posts, you would have seen how he attacks the church.

Engage in hyperbole much. Would like to see that statement. I believe there is plenty of room to disagree with the OW with legitimate arguments. There should, however, be care exercised to not include within those arguments assertions that they are unrighteous. There seems to be a tendency to charge anyone who questions the status quo, however cautiously with being anything from a heretic to being spiritually deficient.

[Duncan]

There was a time when the black ordination issue was nothing more than a vocal minority. It was not always widely accepted that black men would get the priesthood. In fact, there was a long period of time where it was not accepted at all. In fact Harold b lee (who was a prophet until his death 1972) was very open about his views in the matter. He was strongly opposed to black ordination and in recent David I Mckay: rise of modern Mormonism Harold B Lee was the apostle leading the charge against a change. Him and Hugh b brown were at total odds on the matter. This mormon utopia where everyone was just sitting around wanting the blacks to have the priesthood and patiently waiting for the change just doesn't seem to match the variety of opinions that were among event the apostles during the decade leading up to OD2. I know many strong women in the church who do not object to OW at all. I know many strong women who support it. I know many strong women who are opposed to it. I that we either: A) have these "strong women" fight it out so we can see which one is strongest and have her tell us what we should think about OW Or B) realize that the number of strong women we know and their opinions on this matter are not the only way of determining the value of the OW movement. I think most people hear know you work for desert news. Good to know your boss is a women. I am not sure either are relevant to the discussion. Some have stated that there is no valid comparison to be made between the blacks and the priesthood and the OW women and the priesthood issue today. I disagree. They are obviously not the same... They are however obviously similar.

 

 

I think there is more ot the Harold B. Lee side then Prince knows or is letting on

 

http://thegoateskids.blogspot.ca/2011/02/blacks-and-priesthood.html

 

This was written by Pres. Lee's grandson, has some good stuff in it!