Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[Bikeemikey]

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!

Yeah, I've read that before. It's a good piece.

I certainly think there is a lot of complexity to all sides of the debate that was unfolding in the two decades leading up to OD2. The layers of complexity do not change the stance that people had though, simply there reasoning for that stance.

Harold B lee was opposed to blacks getting the priesthood.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

Yeah, I've read that before. It's a good piece.

I certainly think there is a lot of complexity to all sides of the debate that was unfolding in the two decades leading up to OD2. The layers of complexity do not change the stance that people had though, simply there reasoning for that stance.

Harold B lee was opposed to blacks getting the priesthood.

Let's not just single out Pres Lee, there were a lot of Prophets who were opposed and said very lamentable things from today's perspective. What get it eventually translated into for BRM and many others was not until the Millenium which meant basically never during the normal period of human history. Given reflection on Temple initiator is one might, but is not compelled, reach a similar conclusion regarding the sisters.

[Bikeemikey]

Let's not just single out Pres Lee, there were a lot of Prophets who were opposed and said very lamentable things from today's perspective. What get it eventually translated into for BRM and many others was not until the Millenium which meant basically never during the normal period of human history. Given reflection on Temple initiator is one might, but is not compelled, reach a similar conclusion regarding the sisters.

It is true that many shared thoughts that were acceptable in the historic context but objectionable by today's standards.

However, my selection of Harold B Lee was specific to is chronological proximity to the 1978 OD2.

It was an example more of the lack of uniform opinion on this matter during the years preceding the 1978 change. This lack of a uniform shared perspective on the subject was ranged from regular members all the way up to different opinions with in 12 apostles.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[juliann]

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.

 

 

 

 

Now that certainly doesn't get circulated much!  Thanks for bringing that to light. 

 

As for the ban, there was no sense that I was aware of that there would be an end to it.   I think the idea that the protests (especially the one against BYU) didn't make a difference isn't exactly accurate.  Even though it was still awhile before the ban was lifted, the memory and shame of the public exposure to a then indefensible practice never went away.  There seems to be an idea that a protest had to be current to matter.  It always hung in the air.  Because there was again the silence,  we didn't know what to think and there was no basis on which to hope.  So after I moved to an area where I was working with blacks, I finally had to face what the church I belonged to stood for.  I tried to cope by not letting them know I was Mormon.  But that is hard to pull off when you always have to say you are from Utah.  I vividly remember the moment where the knowledge poured through me that I would have to make a decision whether I could stay in a church that treated the people I now knew and loved so poorly,  I couldn't have it both ways.  It was shortly after that the ban was lifted so I never had to make the choice.   We now know that there was a lot going on behind the scenes but none of it was public knowledge.  I think we may have a tendency to treat this today as if more was known than was.  Just as today,  we have no idea what they are thinking or doing about the women's issues, back then was no different up to the day it was lifted.

 

I should add....the hypocrisy was as stifling then as it is now.  While doing research when the LOOK magazine article where Pres. Smith referred to blacks as "darkies" became a favorite of the anti-Mormon EV crowd, I bought a copy of that issue.  It was laughable...they used the Mormons to show their own enlightened thinking.  Meanwhile, there was not one black person anywhere in that issue except in a group picture where they recipients of white charity (which the article was about not the blacks, they were just grateful).   There was not one drop of awareness of how ridiculous they made their still racist mag with their faux outrage look.  (oh, good pun there...)

Edited September 28, 2013 by juliann

[EllenMaksoud]

Now that certainly doesn't get circulated much!  Thanks for bringing that to light. 

 

As for the ban, there was no sense that I was aware of that there would be an end to it.   I think the idea that they protests (especially the one against BYU) didn't make a difference isn't exactly accurate.  Even though it was still awhile before the ban was lifted, the memory and shame of the public exposure to a then indefensible practice never went away.  There seems to be an idea that a protest had to be current to matter.  It always hung in the air.  Because there was again the silence,  we didn't know what to think and there was no basis on which to hope.  So after I moved to an area where I was working with blacks, I finally had to face what the church I belonged to stood for.  I tried to cope by not letting them know I was Mormon.  But that is hard to pull off when you always have to say you are from Utah.  I vividly remember the moment where the knowledge poured through me that I would have to make a decision whether I could stay in a church that treated the people I now knew and loved so poorly,  I couldn't have it both ways.  It was shortly after that the ban was lifted so I never had to make the choice.   We now know that there was a lot going on behind the scenes but none of it was public knowledge.  I think we may have a tendency to treat this today as if more was known than was.  Just as today,  we have no idea what they are thinking or doing about the women's issues, back then was no different up to the day it was lifted.

The ban? Are you speaking of the ban on Blacks getting the Priesthood?

 

I've been fortunate enough to travel a little,  and just do not see a person's race any more. We raised an Asian child, I was Muslim for several years, so have seen a lot of variation in God's creation.

 

As for the Priesthood, I have lived a good long life and just don't want to to do it.

[Senator]

 

 

As for the Priesthood, I have lived a good long life and just don't want to to do it.

 

Don't want to do what?

[Peppermint Patty]

  Smac,  I think women have different philosophies on how to go about things.  I do not think a binary question of do you want the priesthood gets anywhere near what is going on in our minds.  More and more women are feeling that, as Cal says, something is missing.  We can do more but we need to have more access to the institution.   Are you aware that the Proc on the Fam was a complete surprise to the RS Presidency?  It was then announced in the RS session!  That is what something is missing means.  The current RS/PH manual was also a complete surprise to the RS.   Something is missing when a curriculum for women is written not only without their input but without their knowledge. 

 

One philosophy is that this has been going on far too long, the only way that real inclusion will ever happen is to have women in the offices where decisions that effect them are made...at all levels in the church.  The other thinking is that this devalues what we are even further, thus cementing the perception that what women create for themselves is inadequate.  Women need to empower themselves. I'm explaining that badly but maybe you can read between the lines.  Or something.  What this 90% of women don't want the priesthood does not reflect is that probably 90% of women are growing dissatisfied on some level or another.   It is particularly dangerous when the older ones, who would be expected to toe the line, are those who can remember when women had much greater autonomy while the young ones no longer live in a culture that puts up with these sorts of things.  

 

I really appreciate this comment.

[juliann]

Thanks, PP.  Blue Dreams and Paloma gave more helpful detail.  It is hard to put a label of it because some will infer from words like dissatisfaction that they are unhappy with the church or leadership.    "Something is missing" seems less value laden.  To quote Paloma:

 

However, I do understand (and wish everyone could!) that there are some women within all faith groups that feel that "something missing". It may be they have leadership gifts, and no avenue to use these gifts to their potential. It may be that they need to know they have a voice, and they need to have a means of expressing their voice. And no amount of hearing that they can trust their (male) leadership to faithfully, charitably and respectfully guide them, can quell that need and longing. Ít's not about not trusting or not submitting to male leadership. And it's not about male vs. female where one has to be diminished in order to raise up the other. And it's not necessarily about equality, either. In my opinion and experience, it's about having a compelling internal sense of needing to use God-given gifts in ministry, both to serve others and to feel that one is "whole". It's about having integrity in the sense that one is internally "integrated", living out who God made them to be.

 

The church, of necessity, has become very rule ridden.  Even though roles have opened up dramatically for women in western society, they have actually constricted in church instruction.  I base that on my experience with earlier RS curriculums that were directed "outward".   They were about other countries, good literature.  Much of what we have now is directed "inward" toward what being a woman is, even to the point of telling us what characteristics are "innate".  The trouble arises when women know darn well a characteristic assigned to women is not innate at all.  Or worse, when it is made conditional on the biology of having children which may not happen.  So we have a growing population who are just not relating to these things.   I suppose if you have a lot of children, motherhood consumes your life but if you don't...it is rather short lived as we empty nesters can attest to.  Yet women are stuck in that same paradigm no matter what their circumstances.  So back to Paloma's point that we see things in ourselves that don't match up to the script at all...yet we are not being given ways to use and magnify them if they do not fall within the narrowly prescribed path set out for women.  We get outliers...those who become very successful and even famous in their unsanctioned activities.  They are rather idolized.  But there is no path for those who can't make it from here to there on their own.  The more girls can see the possibilities of life, the less satisfied they are going to be with being told that their worth resides in finding the perfect man and having a few decades of mothering.   The saddest part of this is that we will never really know what we are even talking about because the church has never unleashed women to know.

 

Giving the priesthood would require too much structural change to be helpful right now in my opinion.   But I think that women have to be trusted to do the right things without a male signing off.  If I was going to pick change, it would be returning RS to women.  The curriculum, budget,  everything.  And providing emeritus status for General Board members so that women don't just disappear into the night when we get really exceptional leaders like Chieko Okakazki....and this includes putting them on the stands so that girls grow up seeing a female presence.

[Paloma]

Thanks, PP.  Blue Dreams and Paloma gave more helpful detail.  It is hard to put a label of it because some will infer from words like dissatisfaction that they are unhappy with the church or leadership.    "Something is missing" seems less value laden.  To quote Paloma:

 

The church, of necessity, has become very rule ridden.  Even though roles have opened up dramatically for women in western society, they have actually constricted in church instruction.  I base that on my experience with earlier RS curriculums that were directed "outward".   They were about other countries, good literature.  Much of what we have now is directed "inward" toward what being a woman is, even to the point of telling us what characteristics are "innate".  The trouble arises when women know darn well a characteristic assigned to women is not innate at all.  Or worse, when it is made conditional on the biology of having children which may not happen.  So we have a growing population who are just not relating to these things.   I suppose if you have a lot of children, motherhood consumes your life but if you don't...it is rather short lived as we empty nesters can attest to.  Yet women are stuck in that same paradigm no matter what their circumstances.  So back to Paloma's point that we see things in ourselves that don't match up to the script at all...yet we are not being given ways to use and magnify them if they do not fall within the narrowly prescribed path set out for women.  We get outliers...those who become very successful and even famous in their unsanctioned activities.  They are rather idolized.  But there is no path for those who can't make it from here to there on their own.  The more girls can see the possibilities of life, the less satisfied they are going to be with being told that their worth resides in finding the perfect man and having a few decades of mothering.   The saddest part of this is that we will never really know what we are even talking about because the church has never unleashed women to know.

 

Giving the priesthood would require too much structural change to be helpful right now in my opinion.   But I think that women have to be trusted to do the right things without a male signing off.  If I was going to pick change, it would be returning RS to women.  The curriculum, budget,  everything.  And providing emeritus status for General Board members so that women don't just disappear into the night when we get really exceptional leaders like Chieko Okakazki....and this includes putting them on the stands so that girls grow up seeing a female presence.

Juliann, I think your thoughts here provide really valuable insights and additions to the conversation.

And I appreciated Blue Dreams' thoughts too.

There's a sense that I feel I can't or shouldn't say too much because I'm not an LDS woman. (And I like listening more than talking, anyway!) But in the same sense, I feel strongly that this conversation really needs the input of LDS women. I can understand that you're working within the framework of your church hierarchy and precepts. I just really hope that there's a recognition of how needed and valuable are women's voices, especially when it comes to matters that so characterize, concern and impact women.

[juliann]

Paloma, one of the things I have become very aware of is that LDS women don't really have the language to describe what it means to be a woman past the narrow list of adjectives we hear (nurturing, mother, wife, kind, etc).   For instance, the word womanhood is used but try asking Mormon women what that means to them and there will be a long silence.  We are particularly lacking in vocabulary to describe what we are supposed to become even though we express the wonderfulness of being like Heavenly Mother.  So essentially, we are operating with a lot of empty rhetoric that lacks deep personal meaning or power.  That is where non-LDS opinions can be very helpful...we need vocabulary and language to move ahead.  And frankly, that has to come before demanding any changes because without it, the thinking really does stop and all we are left with is...vague feelings of discomfort and no way to express it.

Edited September 28, 2013 by juliann

[Tacenda]

I wish the leaders could read this thread. I want to cry.....

I knew something was missing but didn't know what it was.

[EllenMaksoud]

Don't want to do what?

I would not want the Priesthood.

[Stone holm]

So long as the media can point to polls showing a majority of LDS women saying they do not want the Priesthood, then I would suspect that we are not likely to see much in the way of changing LDS perspective on the role of women. Women seem not to understand the power they could wield.

[rpn]

Isn't seeking power one of the basic ways to undermine that power when it belongs to someone else who alone has the power to delegate it?  

[Storm Rider]

So long as the media can point to polls showing a majority of LDS women saying they do not want the Priesthood, then I would suspect that we are not likely to see much in the way of changing LDS perspective on the role of women. Women seem not to understand the power they could wield.

What power are you talking about? How would women be more powerful?

[Paloma]

Paloma, one of the things I have become very aware of is that LDS women don't really have the language to describe what it means to be a woman past the narrow list of adjectives we hear (nurturing, mother, wife, kind, etc).   For instance, the word womanhood is used but try asking Mormon women what that means to them and there will be a long silence.  We are particularly lacking in vocabulary to describe what we are supposed to become even though we express the wonderfulness of being like Heavenly Mother.  So essentially, we are operating with a lot of empty rhetoric that lacks deep personal meaning or power.  That is where non-LDS opinions can be very helpful...we need vocabulary and language to move ahead.  And frankly, that has to come before demanding any changes because without it, the thinking really does stop and all we are left with is...vague feelings of discomfort and no way to express it.

Juliann, something I read here that I thought would be really helpful (from Calmoriah as well as yourself, I think) was regarding women having more ownership and voice within your own women's group, the Rellef Society. "Restoring it to its former glory", I think I read.

In anything I say or support, I feel a need to tread lightly because I understand the wariness of crossing lines when it comes to criticizing the church or appearing to push for change.

For myself personally, I find that my sense of what it means to be a 'woman in Christ' has many different facets. I think about what it means for me as a woman to bear and reflect the Image of God. I look at the varying roles of women throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. I study how Jesus treated women and how he interacted with them through listening, teaching them and inviting them into ministry in a way unheard of within the culture of the day. (While he didn't choose women as disciples, neither did he choose Gentiles. I think he had a starting point and showed the way to future inclusion.) I ponder the words in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Something that is very compelling to me is the idea that passages about "spiritual gifts" in the Bible (Ephesians 4; Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12) include the spiritual community as a whole and are not gender specific. In fact, the whole idea of "giftedness" and using the gifts God has given us to serve others, is important to me.

It seems to me that any discussion about women's spirituality and their role in the church shouldn't be about the priesthood (something Calmoriah has said!) but about being authentic and serving God in all humility and grace out of the uniqueness and giftedness of who God made them to be.

I've been interested to see that young women constitute a large percentage of missionaries being sent out from the LDS church. Their desire to serve is evident! And in the past I've had the pleasure of knowing a number of women missionaries whose faith and passion to be in service for God "on the frontlines" is beautiful. I haven't sensed their wanting more power and authority but have seen them really enjoy wider avenues of ministry. (At least that's how it seemed to me!)

In non-LDS Christian missions (i.e what we call the "modern" missionary movement from the late 19th century until today), women have comprised more than two thirds of the total missionary number. Many have been single women. And many of them have been involved in both leadership and compassionate roles - setting up and working within hospitals, schools, orphanages, rescue ministries, etc. And an intriguing phenomena I've seen is that on the mission field, women have generally been viewed and accepted as leaders, speakers, teachers, etc. even where the home culture and often the local culture would not ordinarily sanction women in those roles.

Juliann, (and Calmoriah and others) I don't know what kind of opportunities there may be within the LDS structure to talk about what it means to be a woman of God within the body of Christ. I would hope that there would be an openness to that, and I certainly see the value of doing so in the open rather than covertly. Has the recent "I am a Mormon" ad campaign (that shows quite a lot of diversity among committed LDS folk) opened doors for talking about diversity within Mormon womanhood?

I agree with you that exploring what it means to be a Mormon woman is a needed conversation among Mormon women. I'm aware of a number of books on the subject of Christian women, and I imagine there are likely such books about women within the LDS church. Would that be a possible area of study?

Edited September 29, 2013 by Paloma

[mfbukowski]

nevermind

Edited September 29, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So long as the media can point to polls showing a majority of LDS women saying they do not want the Priesthood, then I would suspect that we are not likely to see much in the way of changing LDS perspective on the role of women. Women seem not to understand the power they could wield.

The church is not a political party.  I will leave it at that.  If you are interested in "wielding power" you do not belong in leadership

[Calm]

I've been interested to see that young women constitute a large percentage of missionaries being sent out from the LDS church. Their desire to serve is evident! And in the past I've had the pleasure of knowing a number of women missionaries whose faith and passion to be in service for God "on the frontlines" is beautiful. I haven't sensed their wanting more power and authority but have seen them really enjoy wider avenues of ministry. (At least that's how it seemed to me!)

I am anticipating that this will have a dramatic effect on how women view themselves as time goes on based on what I have heard reported from female RMs, especially how they are now interacting with the young adult men.  Just as it has been demonstrated that LDS members in general tend to have an advantage in leadership out in the general population due to having the opportunity to teach, speak publicly, etc....which all boils down to having greater confidence in oneself due to experience, so shall having the opportunity to be a missionary add to the confidence of women, including having additional opportunities to work side by side with men in almost identical roles.

 

My own gut response to women who verbalize a desire to have the priesthood is 'you are missing the boat' as I do believe as I've mentioned quite a bit that what is missing is something uniquely feminine, but since the world (at least as LDS usually encounter it since we tend to stay away from things like Wicca and other societies/faiths that center themselves on aspects of womanhood, "Women Studies" in my day was considered the domain of more extreme liberals even if they did have some classes at BYU) has defined pretty much almost everything outside of the family as either male or neutral in gender (and those that are defined as 'feminine' are basically defined as 'maternal' as well, IOW it is being a mother in a nonfamily setting rather than being a woman) we haven't really had the chance yet to see what feminine means when taken on its own and not in relationship to men (as in sexual attraction).

 

I believe it will take a lot of effort to guide the discussion of answering needs of women in the LDS faith away from the quick and easy (and why that doesn't make it suspect I don't know, when has the quick and easy answer ever worked for a complicated issue, ) solution of giving them the Priesthood.  I hope that as it becomes evident (as I expect it will) that this is not a solution that is going to be appealed to (of course this is my own bias creating this prediction) that this will open up the discussion in other ways where we need to have it going rather than all this focus on this one issue of who should have the Priesthood.  Leadership (and I am not talking about those who desire it for themselves, but rather the need for everyone to be a part of an organization at all levels of discussion, if not authority) does not have to equal Priesthood in members' minds, there is plenty of material to work with on this principle in our doctrine and teachings, imo.

Edited September 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

A lot of good comments and discussion with a more healthy direction. Discipleship is not feminine or masculine; it is open to all regardless of gender or anything else. Seeking to be holy and putting the context of the conversation in these terms changes the complete feel of the conversation. It is unifying, it is all-encompassing, and individual callings, positions, roles, etc. are irrelevant.  The Savior becomes the focus of the conversation and how we serve him in daily life; how we strengthen our personal relationship and our relationship with others.

 

As I have read the comments, I have been somewhat surprised that this sense of "something missing" is described only in terms of gender. All disciples of Christ are seeking a better way; it is the meaning of seeking after holiness that opens our minds, hearts, and souls to a better way.

[Erin15]

The majority? On what planet would you be able to take an accurate poll when a group is taught that even suggesting the possibility would make them appear spiritually deficient, if not outright subversive?

Wow, it is so rare these days to see mysogyny waved around so brazenly.

 

On the one hand, you are being a white knight throughout this thread, which is insulting enough, since we women can fight our own battles, thank you very much.

 

But, on the other hand, comments like this one reveal a deep and profound contempt for women.

 

Let me say this:  I've been a member of the relief society for 27 years.  I've lived in 16 wards in three countries, and I've never met a single woman who wouldn't speak her mind openly, candidly, and willingly on this subject.

 

The arrogance behind your assertion astounds me.  For you to assert that we women are so cowed and intimidated that we cannot possibly say what we really think when polled on the subject.  That you would hold us in such low esteem as to claim that we cannot even be trusted to tell the truth when we are asked.

 

No, no, we need a big tall strong man like you to tell everyone what we really meant, because we are too small and scared.

 

Your behavior in this thread disgusts me.  If you have such a poor opinion of us women, why would you even want us to have the priesthood to begin with?

 

And the worst part is, I know I am just wasting my time.  I know that right now you are sitting there at your computer barely paying attention to what I'm saying, dismissing the blatant sexism in your position and comments, and thinking of excuses for why you are actually in the right.  But, I'll say it anyway:

 

Stone Holm, when we women of the church are polled, and nearly all of us say we do not want the priesthood, that is because that is EXACTLY what we think on the subject.  You do NOT represent us, you do NOT speak for us, and your opinion on this matter is a fringe extremist voice, barely a drop in the ocean.

 

We women are here in the church because we have chosen of our own free will to accept an ideology, a theology, and a loyalty to Jesus Christ.

 

We do not need you to be our champion.  We got along just fine before you came along, and we'll get along just fine after you are gone.  If you have any decency at all, you will step aside and never post on this subject again.

[Stone holm]

When I referred to power, I was not referring to wielding power by virtue of having the Priesthood, sorry if I gave that impression. What I was referring to was the dormant power that women hold. I guess you are correct to call that political power. Several women have noted in this thread that something is missing. In a vague way they have suggested that it has something to do with access. Whenever this subject comes up at our house, my wife cuts it short by saying that women already hold the Priesthood, if anything it just needs to be expanded. Several women have talked about vague references to Heavenly Mother. If they wish to know more about our Heavenly Mother(s), all they need to do is ask in a United voice. But so long as whatever change it is they seek is muffled by polls like the one I referenced, then there is no real reason for the Church to take such voices seriously.

[Calm]

The church is not a political party.  I will leave it at that.  If you are interested in "wielding power" you do not belong in leadership

I would agree that if anyone is seeking leadership anywhere (whether in the Church or outside) for the purpose of fame, fortune, or power (in the sense of having control over others), they are not the best leadership material.  Christ taught that leaders should be first and foremost servants of those they lead and we can easily see what happens when this principle is forgotten in governments around the world.

 

I think that if anyone says "I want leadership so that I can...." they need to seriously look at themselves.  If on the other hand, they are saying "I believe that this particular group should have leadership positions so that they can...." then we can look at what the ultimate goal is and see if that is a desirable one or not.  For example, if a government is set up on the principle of the people having direct input into the government through voting, it makes sense to give voting rights to all adults rather than restricting it to a particular gender, ethnic group or religion though it may make sense to limit it according to ability such as having a requirement that anyone who votes is properly informed before voting...as long as you give equal access to all to that information so that anyone who desires to put in the effort may vote.

 

To avoid endless discussions that go nowhere because they hit the wall of 'revelation required' (which when it comes to fundamental changes it should if we want to have a true and living faith and not one solely built on reason and past sciptures), rather than challenging the individual when s/he states 'women should be given the Priesthood', I think it is much more effective to direct the conversation into 'what do you want to accomplish that you see would be accomplished by women getting the Priesthood' and then deal with these goals individually as many imo can be reached without waiting for revelation to happen....and what a shame if all change was delayed because those desiring it imagined that there was only one way for the Church to provide the environment to achieve all their goals or that they had to wait in all cases to work on change for someone else to do something rather than making those changes themselves in their lives and roles where they could...especially in their relationship of husband and wife.

[rodheadlee]

This thread kind of reminds of when I was 19 and my wife left me to "go find herself".

Edited September 29, 2013 by rodheadlee

[Calm]

I've never met a single woman who wouldn't speak her mind openly, candidly, and willingly on this subject.

How would you know if you met a woman who wouldn't?