Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[mfbukowski]

Quite a bit of work could be done via Skype, I would think...

That works.  I know of some quorum meetings being held that way.

 

Edit: I meant quorum presidency meetings.

Edited September 30, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

At first, a couple serving together sounds good... but it seems like it would only work for an older couple with no kids at home that were well-off.  Leadership callings come with a high workload, seems like it would be asking quite a lot from one family to take both mother and father....

 

sorry, for some reason I read it to mean women's blessings were higher than men's...

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 41:1)

1 HEARKEN and ahear, O ye my people, saith the Lord and your God, ye whom I delight to bless with the greatest of all bblessings,...

I thought the greatest of all blessings was revelation?

No question but what there would be issues that would need to be resolved when calling young couples to certain positions no question about that. Although I can recall many times in small branches where the husband and wife are called to major callings when they have a boatload of kids at home in fact it happened several times to me and my deceased wife. She was called to be RS Pres, YW. Pres, Primary Pres. All while I was either in the Br presidency, Br Clerk, orStake Exec Sec.

[jwhitlock]

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

 

Well expressed and accurate. And unfortunately, it's become even worse since this was posted.

[MorningStar]

I do see a point in this thread, which is that when LDS women do give opinions that we don't want the priesthood, we're viewed as little weaklings who are afraid to speak out and need someone to stand up for us.  When I speak to LDS women in person about these issues, they don't identify at all with OW.  Actually, they don't identify with even participating online in these sort of discussions either.

 

For me it's not a matter of wanting it or not wanting it.  It's a matter of whether it's God's will for us to have it or not.  I'm fine with whatever He decides and believe He communicates through his prophets. 

[Kenngo1969]

That is inexcusable, and someone should complain about that- LOUDLY when it happens.  I would go straight to the area authority 70.

I realize you have more experience in Church leadership than I do (and ever will, for that matter ) so normally, I would defer to you.  but with due respect, I disagree.  You're assuming that the Stake President knows what's going on and has given his (at least tacit) approval to it.  I wouldn't go over the Stake President's head before I knew that this was the case.  My $0.02, actual value $0.01750875043750201825.

[Kenngo1969]

I do see a point in this thread, which is that when LDS women do give opinions that we don't want the priesthood, we're viewed as little weaklings who are afraid to speak out and need someone to stand up for us.  When I speak to LDS women in person about these issues, they don't identify at all with OW.  Actually, they don't identify with even participating online in these sort of discussions either.

 

For me it's not a matter of wanting it or not wanting it.  It's a matter of whether it's God's will for us to have it or not.  I'm fine with whatever He decides and believe He communicates through his prophets. 

As far as I'm concerned, you can be my Bishop any time ... but then you'd have to put up with me as your Executive Secretary ... ... so, on second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea after all ...

[Senator]

I do see a point in this thread, which is that when LDS women do give opinions that we don't want the priesthood, we're viewed as little weaklings who are afraid to speak out and need someone to stand up for us. 

 

Really?

 

Cal and BlueDreams are two prominent LDS women in this thread who have given their opinions that they don't want the priesthood. Yet I don't see anyone viewing them as weaklings.

[mfbukowski]

I realize you have more experience in Church leadership than I do (and ever will, for that matter ) so normally, I would defer to you.  but with due respect, I disagree.  You're assuming that the Stake President knows what's going on and has given his (at least tacit) approval to it.  I wouldn't go over the Stake President's head before I knew that this was the case.  My $0.02, actual value $0.01750875043750201825.

I agree with you- yes, I was assuming that the SP knew about it- since the SP's are supposed to attend these meetings from time to time or at least get reports from the High Council bro who is assigned to that ward.  If nothing else clearly the HC bro should know.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

Not within my lifetime, if ever.

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.

 

 

Was Harold B. Lee opposed to ordination of black men ever in all eternity, or was he just saying that the time was not yet right? If it's the latter, I submit that you have grossly distorted the man's position by implying the former. Accordingly, I must issue a call for references. Gregory A. Prince does not sustain your assertion, either in the book you cited or in the Mormon History Association speech I read that he wrote. (Incidentally, the name of our ninth Church president is David O. McKay, not "David I. Mckay". Another instance of the auto-correct function having gone awry?)

 

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.

 

Were you alive in 1978? If so, were you old enough to be conscious of what was happening then?

 

I was born and reared in the Church in the heart of the Salt Lake Valley with parents who held stake and ward leadership roles. Here's what was going on in my life "during the decade leading up to OD2":

 

Beginning in 1968, I was an active holder of the Aaronic Priesthood.

 

I enrolled in seminary in 1969 and completed a four-year program therein.

 

Throughout high school, from 1969-72, I already had aspirations to become a journalist, so I paid attention to current events and public affairs.

 

In 1972, I enrolled as a freshman at BYU in pursuit of a degree in journalism.

 

I interrupted my academic coursework to serve a mission from 1974 to 1976.

 

I returned to BYU as a student in 1976. In June 1978, I was attending summer term and working for the student newspaper, the Universe, when the news broke about the revelation granting the priesthood to all worthy men without regard to race. I participated that day in the preparation and publication of an "extra" edition of the newspaper devoted to announcement and coverage of the new revelation and its impacts. We were told it was only the second or third time in history (as I recall) that our newspaper had published an "extra." The news spread with the speed of light around the globe. There was a palpable euphoria that pervaded the Church worldwide -- both leadership and rank-and-file -- that didn't subside for many months. It's possible, I suppose that there were some few who were opposed to the change, but if so, they were below the radar and outside my notice.

 

Were we in a "Mormon Utopia" in the 1960s and 1970s? Of course not. But I can tell you as an observant witness that the conventional wisdom among the Latter-day Saints was that at some time in God's eternal plan, people of African descent would receive the priesthood, but only God knew when and how.

 

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.

 

The relevance is that I am presenting them as examples of the many strong women I spoke of. One of them, a single adult, has been a close friend of several Church presidents, apostles and their wives over many years. The other is a mother of school-age children and a former ward Primary president. Neither one would regard the OW activists as being representative in the least of her position. And I daresay that, in terms of attitude and understanding pertaining to Church teachings, both are more characteristic of Latter-day Saint women generally.

 

(By the way, I work for the Deseret News, not the "desert news" and, more particularly, the LDS Church News.)

 

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.

 

The glaring difference, as I have sought to point out here, is that there was a near-universal yearning among the Latter-day Saints for the change effected by the 1978 revelation, which was globally acclaimed when it finally happened. That is not the case with what the OW activists are demanding.

 

Edited to add:

 

Another glaring difference: Has there ever been, in all the history of the Church, a prophet or apostle who has so much as suggested, let alone predicted or advocated, that women would one day be ordained to the priesthood?

Edited September 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

 

The glaring difference, as I have sought to point out here, is that there was a near-universal yearning among the Latter-day Saints for the change effected by the 1978 revelation, which was globally acclaimed when it finally happened. That is not the case with what the OW activists are demanding.

 

I would agree with you specifically speaking of women's ordinations. However, in terms of the general contentment of the gender status quo? I'm not so sure.

[MorningStar]

As far as I'm concerned, you can be my Bishop any time ... but then you'd have to put up with me as your Executive Secretary ... ... so, on second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea after all ...

Haha!  I really don't think I could handle being Bishop, but thank you.  

[MorningStar]

We would just have to get past the prejudice of allowing men and women to frequently work close together.

The problem is, it's not wise for men and women to spend time alone together, especially frequently.

[Paloma]

The problem is, it's not wise for men and women to spend time alone together, especially frequently.

While I understand the caution and see the need for discretion (keeping in mind the scriptural mandate to avoid the appearance of evil), I am rather shocked to think that adults (especially those in Christian service ... presumably mature believers who are living out an ethic that includes faithfulness to God and spouse [if married], and self control) cannot work together or be alone together according to the necessary functions involved in their work.

I'm not naïve and am aware of the failings of those in Christian service. However, I don't see the answer to be one of segregating men and women. I'm not at all convinced that that really prevents illicit behaviour. In my view, better screening, more accountability, and even more opportunities for men and women to work together on an even footing (helping to remove the temptation to adore those in power or alternately, abusing one's power) are more effective deterrents.

I've worked closely with men for many years, both in groups and also in situations where I've been alone with men either in our shared ministry or in physical surroundings or both. Obviously, faithfulness, wisdom, discretion and a good sense of boundaries are essential. In my world, I constantly see men and women working well (and safely!) together. When there are failings, I don't see that it's rooted in the opportunities for men and women to work together or be alone together. I tend to think that human nature (even in believers) will find a way to fulfil wrong behaviour, and that most believers tend to live up to trust in their Christian maturity and behaviour. And we all need accountability and guidelines for best practices. I'm a big advocate for protection policies (especially for children and youth). So we always have windows in our offices, classrooms, (or open doors) etc.

[Tacenda]

The problem is, it's not wise for men and women to spend time alone together, especially frequently.

When are men and women going to be tested to follow the covenants they make in the temple to live the law of chastity? And when are people going to realize they were given a moral compass to follow? Are we so weak not to think, but be as some animals? This has always disappointed me when I see infidelity in so called staunch LDS people in my wards throughout the years. And no it's not Satan, the proverbial scapegoat. It's the individuals that are selfish snd haven't learned to keep the first two commanments.

[MorningStar]

When are men and women going to be tested to follow the covenants they make in the temple to live the law of chastity? And when are people going to realize they were given a moral compass to follow? Are we so weak not to think, but be as some animals? This has always disappointed me when I see infidelity in so called staunch LDS people in my wards throughout the years. And no it's not Satan, the proverbial scapegoat. It's the individuals that are selfish snd haven't learned to keep the first two commanments.

We're supposed to avoid temptation, not test ourselves to see what we can handle.  I know of many stories in the church where men and women developed feelings they never expected to have. 

[BlueDreams]

The problem is, it's not wise for men and women to spend time alone together, especially frequently.

 

Personally, I meet with my (male) advisor each week completely alone for 30 minutes. I work side by side with married/single/engaged men daily. I worked with my (male) boss for 5 years often alone together on Saturday's and throughout the week. I considered him a friend as well as my boss....we had a great working relationship. None of these have had even a moment of poor incidence. In today's world, it's very common for men and women to spend time alone together, working side-by-side, and the vast majority of these relationships are without any real problems or wrongful behavior. It's a matter of knowing proper boundaries and living by them. Often I've found it very wise to have men and women working together, alone or otherwise and I don't think that works for a strong reasoning against greater collaboration between men and women in the church. 

 

 

So basically, what paloma said.

 

With luv,

BD

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Another glaring difference: Has there ever been, in all the history of the Church, a prophet or apostle who has so much as suggested, let alone predicted or advocated, that women would one day be ordained to the priesthood?

 

The closest I've seen is this exchange with President Hinckley which could be ​ interpreted as a suggestion that if enough women agitated for a revelation it could come:

 

DR = David Ransom

 

DR: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organisation of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied.

 

DR: They all say that?

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.

 

DR: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.

 

DR: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks?

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

 

DR: So you’d have to get a revelation?

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.

[Paloma]

Stendhahl's Holy Envy would seem to come into play here.  We may have to learn from other religions that have opened up to women.   We don't even have a woman's curriculum anymore.   We are taught from the same manual as the men...women or even women's quotes are rarely used.  Women have always had to read themselves into a male world through scriptures that were written during a time when they were not considered to be complete human beings.   Mormon women have to be even more creative since we have even more male scripture.  But we also have, ironically, a more robust women's theology than most.  It is just more of a future thing.   In the here and now...only thinking off the top of my head....womanhood is centered around supporting the men/priesthood/family.   There is little in there that applies to the whole person.    We have a very accomplished and powerful woman in our ward which has always been very conservative.  She has sat around a conference table with the President in the White House.  She has told me that she stays in her career because she was called to it. She is quiet and unassuming, never talks about it...the perfect LDS woman...except her husband stays home with the kids.    In other words, unless you knew her personally you would never know.  This is just freakin' wrong.  What an example to the possibilities to contribute to the world for our young women.  But because it conflicts with the standard marry and take care of your family teachings,  these things are not recognized.  Probably an even better example is what my sister told me about young women unable to get into nursing schools in Utah even with their A+ grades...there are just too many of them.   I think in any other place, these top students would be going into medical school instead of competing for positions in a nursing program.  But for some reason in Mormon culture, teaching and nursing seem to be socially acceptable even though they would allow less flexibility than some other professions.  So rather than our best and brightest women going for the top drawer positions they are being taught that education and jobs are "just in case".  Meanwhile, we have legions of young women who didn't graduate, didn't get experience, and are essentially unemployable or get little money for their time when they do have to make a living.  

 

This is another thing that is "missing"...the teaching that women can excell at anything and bring their talents to a world as well as a family.  The church is currently really trying to correct the perception that priesthood and man are interchangable (as in "the priesthood will set up the chairs").  There have been Gen Conf talks trying to elevate women's spiritual powers (as in through faith rather than priesthood)  that I don't think have worked well because there is a fuzzy line between that and priesthood.  We have never used the Gifts of the Spirit which are available to all to elevate women's spiritual development. That would probably be a good starting point.

 

There is so much to be done to get women to reach full personhood which includes but does not begin or end at "motherhood".   None of it has much to do with priesthood....other than the reason we are where we are is because males control doctrine, theology, and the teaching of it.

Juliann, you mentioned "holy envy", and I love the concept ... and have written in the past about some of those things I deeply admire about the LDS faith, top of which would be the wonderful sense of community and the dedication and passion shown by missionaries. (I have a soft spot for Mormon missionaries. I tend to love young adults anyway, but have a special fondness for young LDS missionaries, both male and female.)I'm editing here to say that my last sentence can sound kind of creepy ... but I hope it won't be seen that way! I like people, is all! Think healthy, wholesome and good boundaries!

During church yesterday, I found myself thinking of ideas in connection with this thread. I haven't had a chance to write them down, and today I'm watching little grandchildren all day. I hope to find time to add more thoughts to the discussion.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Paloma

[Stone holm]

We're supposed to avoid temptation, not test ourselves to see what we can handle.  I know of many stories in the church where men and women developed feelings they never expected to have.

This sounds a lot like the slippery slope type of argument that leads to women wearing full length robes with head scarf and veil, doesn't it?

[MorningStar]

This sounds a lot like the slippery slope type of argument that leads to women wearing full length robes with head scarf and veil, doesn't it?

 

No.

[Glenn101]

juliann, on 29 Sept 2013 - 4:34 PM, said:

I should just ignore this ugly hateful rant.    But it is so hateful and ugly I can't.   Everyone got along just fine before you came along as well, Erin.  But telling you that hardly advances dialogue on a topic where it is so badly needed.  Women do not speak their minds in RS, we have no opportunity.  It is bad form to express negative thoughts for one reason.  The fact that there are so many faithful and active LDS women online saying things that we would never hear in church is proof enough that something is changing to anyone willing to look past their prejudices.

Thanks.

 

However, there was a nugget of truth in that rant. Stone Holme's reaction to the poll is fairly typical of critical reactions toward women in cases where their voiced opinions go against someone's paradigm of what those women should think.

 

Glenn

Edited September 30, 2013 by Glenn101

[Glenn101]

Really?

 

Cal and BlueDreams are two prominent LDS women in this thread who have given their opinions that they don't want the priesthood. Yet I don't see anyone viewing them as weaklings.

 

Have you read Stone Holme's post which essentially says just such?

 

Glenn

[Kenngo1969]

Haha!  I really don't think I could handle being Bishop, but thank you.

I didn't think I could handle being Executive Secretary.  After two years ... I still don't!

[Senator]

Have you read Stone Holme's post which essentially says just such?

 

Glenn

 

I have and I doubt Stone Holme would view them as weaklings.  However, I'll let him speak for himself.

[Stone holm]

However, there was a nugget of truth in that rant. Stone Holme's reaction to the poll is fairly typical of critical reactions toward women in cases where their voiced opinions go against someone's paradigm of what those women should think.

 

Glenn

Or their voiced opinions mirror exactly what they have been reared to think. But I hardly believe that Calmoriah's expressed opinions on this and other threads necessarily fall into the nice box you want them to. I have no paradigm as to what women think. However I do believe there is a very strong paradigm in the Church which suggests that women should think a certain way and if they do not think that way and verbalize their thoughts they may well find themselves being considered subversive. And, of course, if anyone suggests that they might be conditioned to think in a certain way according to their assigned gender role well then of course you are calling them weaklings. Because of course the assigned gender role and expressing complete satisfaction with that role is a sign of strength in the church. The same strength that permits us to short change YW programs year after year, and puts a woman before an entire male disciplinary council if she is accused of transgression, and which excludes women from many of the policy formation bodies in a Ward, and which gives a very peculiar way of looking at modesty, etc. I remember quite well going through the period when the men of African descent were denied the Priesthood, I do not believe you would have had very many men saying extend the Priesthood now....I certainly didn't despite many awkward hometeaching moments with a biracial family. Did I think Mormon men were weak back then? No we were simply following what we were being told. So why is it making the same observation about women now is an assertion that they are weak. By the way whenever I bring this up with my wife she corrects me and informs me she already has the Priesthood, and that if women want more access they should just asked that its offices be expanded.