Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[Tacenda]

On pondering the responses I've read from some women here on mormondialogue, and thinking of insights I've gleaned from listening to women in Christian leadership in other contexts, I'm more convinced than ever that the heart of the discussion is really about spiritual giftedness, living out who God made each unique individual to be, and expressing the diversity ("the body has many parts") within Christian community.

I see the importance of 'community' as a huge strength in the LDS church and culture, and so I think that a recognition of gender differences along with individual giftedness for the purpose of building up the whole body is key.

A Scripture verse that I keep thinking of here is: "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again." (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). This talks about having to serve our Lord (our love for him, and his love for us) because of our love and gratitude to him. (And even more, it speaks of God's love for us as a supreme motivation for obedience and service.) And the love of God flows from him, through us, reaching out to everyone he loves, all for whom Christ died.

For me, this concept of the love of Christ compelling us is foundational, along with understanding that God gifts us uniquely for service.

I think of the movie, Chariots of Fire and Eric Liddell's words: "I feel God's pleasure when I run." There is a sense of being fulfilled (that has nothing to do with selfishness!) when we express who God made us to be and use the gifts he's given us.

We are given spiritual gifts so we can give and serve, for the benefit of the whole community.

We (Christian men and women) have the Holy Spirit, the giver of gifts, within us and longing to live out his life through us. ("For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." Galatians 2:19-20)

With these words in mind, and also thinking of how "Christ's love compels us", I am thinking that there's the possibility of blocking what's within. But blockage can hurt! I will always remember the words of a woman telling her story about how she had longed for the opportunity for spiritual leadership in her community. She said that she felt like a nursing mother who had no outlet for expressing what she had to give. It's incredibly painful, as some of us know from experience about that need for relief!

I think both of how the community needs that gift of women being empowered to minister in their community, fully using their God-given gifts, and also the need for a visible, inclusive presence within the community of both genders involved in spiritual ministry.

This is changing course a little from what I've written above ...

Something I've thought about regarding women in the LDS church (lets put it under the heading: How Life would be for me if I were to become an LDS woman) is the mothership role. I've been aware that the role of motherhood is highly valued and regarded. To tell you the truth, what blows my mind here is that a woman (as I understand it) cannot participate in the ceremony (searching here for the actual word ... it's not sacrament ... is it officiation? No! it's ordinance!) that is the blessing of the baby within the LDS community. I love that this is done in community. But as I understand it (and I've seen it only once), the mother does not hold her baby; she does not stand in the circle; she sits with the rest of the onlooking community.

The "mother and child" motif, whether it's the Madonna and child or the Piéta where Mary holds her newborn and her dying son respectively, are powerful images for me because of the reality they express regarding the bond and love between mother and child. (That's not to take away at all from the love between father and child, a strong and beautiful biblical theme illustrated wonderfully between God the Father and his son Jesus Christ.)

That's all I'm going to say about that!

Oh, that I could put this quote on loudspeaker in every ward building during the SS class. Or somewhere......

[ksfisher]

Yes, let's turn this into a pile-on thread about how (fill in the blank here: stupid, idiotic, bigoted, provincial, uneducated, unenlightened, arrogant, overly zealous, under committed, poorly dressed, overweight, underweight, unsophisticated, etc.) Mormons from Utah are.

 

It can be so unifying for the rest of us to find a certain group to blame all our ills on. And, as Christ said, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine."

 

I wasn't trying to pile anything on anybody.  But I am curious about how Stone Holm sees Vermont Mormons as being different than Utah Mormons.  I'm sure each has their own style and unique way of expressing themselves.  Hopefully we realize that neither is right or wrong, just different.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wasn't trying to pile anything on anybody. 

I recognize that.

 

But I am curious about how Stone Holm sees Vermont Mormons as being different than Utah Mormons.  I'm sure each has their own style and unique way of expressing themselves.  Hopefully we realize that neither is right or wrong, just different.

 

If the intent were that benign, I would not object.

[ksfisher]

I recognize that.

 

If the intent were that benign, I would not object.

 

Intention was completely benign.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Intention was completely benign.  

I wasn't referring to your intention.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Maybe you should spend some more time among Mormons in Utah if this caricature really constitutes your perception.

No Scott! We do live in a bubble. Good grief. Some people really ought to get out more.

 

 

Note: I am being sarcastic towards Stone Holm.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Stone holm]

I wasn't referring to your intention.

 

He was referring to mine....

[Scott Lloyd]

No Scott! We do live in a bubble. Good grief. Some people really ought to get out more.

 

 

Note: I am being sarcastic towards Stone Holm.

I just got back from a work trip to Illinois and, prior to that Hawaii.

 

The cultural dissonance was shattering -- nay, devastating -- to me.

 

It took a full week of a steady diet of green Jell-O and funeral potatoes and intense viewing of Tabernacle Choir videos to get over it.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I just got back from a work trip to Illinois and, prior to that Hawaii.

 

The cultural dissonance was shattering -- nay, devastating -- to me.

 

It took a full week of a steady diet of green Jell-O and funeral potatoes and intense viewing of Tabernacle Choir videos to get over it.

 

(In fairness to Stone holm, it was Buckeye who made the "bubble" remark.)

Either way it is silly to think we live in a bubble here in utah. Maybe at one point in time that was true. But currently nothing could be further from the truth.

[Scott Lloyd]

Either way it is silly to think we live in a bubble here in utah. Maybe at one point in time that was true. But currently nothing could be further from the truth.

Oops, I'm wrong. I went back and checked. It was Stone holm who made the bubble comment.

[ksfisher]

Either way it is silly to think we live in a bubble here in utah. Maybe at one point in time that was true. But currently nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Personally, I like living in "the bubble."  I like raising my children here.  The bubble isn't perfect but I think that it has much to offer that other parts of the world are missing.

 

D&C 45

 

 68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his ^aneighbor must needs flee unto ^bZion for safety.

 69 And there shall be ^agathered unto it out of every ^bnation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at ^cwar one with another.

 

Perhaps Utah isn't Zion, but it's a start.

[Scott Lloyd]

Either way it is silly to think we live in a bubble here in utah. Maybe at one point in time that was true. But currently nothing could be further from the truth.

While in Springfield, Ill., for example, I spent time with some of the non-Mormon folks at the Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum. While in Nauvoo, I broke bread with an Illinois state senator and his wife and an Illinois appellate judge.

 

It struck me that any of those folks would have fit in quite well in any Mormon neighborhood along Utah's Wasatch Front.

 

We seemed to enjoy each other very much; at least, they were very cordial to me.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

Not that I don't agree with this. But it may help to remember what part of outside of utah stone holm's from (vermont area). Speaking as an east coaster who had a companion who was very utahn (rural utah at that) in the north east....it's a bit of a culture shock. East coasters (myself included) are blunt, naturally sarcastic, and often have a different set of values that often don't mesh well with what I've seen out west. I wouldn't make the point as value-laden as stone-holm did (for example instead of platitudes my utahn comp would have called it tactful . And my blunt ways of telling it as it is was often deemed rude. I assure you we actually got along quite well). But seeing it first hand, I would state that there can be a number of cultural differences to navigate in either circle....and that these differences can be a hindrance or a source of strength depending. (ex. my comp began asking me very poignant questions because she trusted me to be honest and I learned to be more considerate of how I said things). 

 

But this is fairly off topic anyways.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Well it may be more than just an East Coast thing since I am a transplant from Indiana and you kind of saw similar reactions there.  But what is fair to say is that usually we only encounter middle-class Utah Mormons who are in graduate school or the professions or something.  My eldest son, who is probably the most elitest in the family being an attorney married to a physician, just accepted a calling to be a YM President in an urban Tennessee Spanish Speaking Ward.  I asked him what the heck?  The first reason he gave was that his former Ward was too affluent and that he and his wife were screwing up their kids sufficiently that they didn't need the help of the Ward to put their kids in a bubble.  Course when he is was single he had a list of requirements for a wife -- one was that she could not be from Utah.... so what a lot of of people are seeing are young couples working on graduate studies or doing residencies or in some professional line of work, etc. which may or may not reflect Utah Mormons in general out here.  Then they see Utah Mormon women on TV with the perfectly coifed hair and heavy make up, etc. etc.  My daughter couldn't take the culture shock when she went to BYU.  Personally, I thought the female scenery was very pleasant when I went to visit, as long as I didn't try to carry on a conversation with anyone about current national or global affairs.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well it may be more than just an East Coast thing since I am a transplant from Indiana and you kind of saw similar reactions there.  But what is fair to say is that usually we only encounter middle-class Utah Mormons who are in graduate school or the professions or something.  My eldest son, who is probably the most elitest in the family being an attorney married to a physician, just accepted a calling to be a YM President in an urban Tennessee Spanish Speaking Ward.  I asked him what the heck?  The first reason he gave was that his former Ward was too affluent and that he and his wife were screwing up their kids sufficiently that they didn't need the help of the Ward to put their kids in a bubble.  Course when he is was single he had a list of requirements for a wife -- one was that she could not be from Utah.... so what a lot of of people are seeing are young couples working on graduate studies or doing residencies or in some professional line of work, etc. which may or may not reflect Utah Mormons in general out here.  Then they see Utah Mormon women on TV with the perfectly coifed hair and heavy make up, etc. etc.  My daughter couldn't take the culture shock when she went to BYU.  Personally, I thought the female scenery was very pleasant when I went to visit, as long as I didn't try to carry on a conversation with anyone about current national or global affairs.

Stereotype much?

[Stone holm]

Stereotype much?

 

Yeah, am pretty good at it.  Course I have a college roommate from my old alma mater Univ. of Oregon who is a non-Mormon and of all the potential places to live wound up in SLC, his comments about Utahns make me seem awfully tame.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, am pretty good at it.  Course I have a college roommate from my old alma mater Univ. of Oregon who is a non-Mormon and of all the potential places to live wound up in SLC, his comments about Utahns make me seem awfully tame.

I daresay no one is holding him prisoner here.

 

But then, I don't know his background; maybe they are. We do have a rather sprawling facility for that purpose near Draper, not far from where I live.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

I daresay no one is holding him prisoner here.

 

But then, I don't know his background; maybe they are. We do have a rather sprawling facility for that purpose near Draper, not far from where I live.

 

Well I think he likes to hike in the Mountains.  Journalism brought him there, you know those strange people in journalism, but i think he worked for brand x before moving into something else.

[Glenn101]

You need to read Neylan's blog entry about the reaction to her FairMormon (previously known as FAIR)  talk two years ago... she doesn't advocate for priesthood.  She was responsible for the I Am a Mormon church campaign and runs the Mormon Women Project.  In short, you don't get more supportive and involved with the church,  but look at the abuse she took.  (And this was ongoing, not just some of the conference audience.)   Most important, look at the attitude change that took place in just one year.     

 

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2013/10/a-moderate-mormons-manifesto/

 

Again, one can not credibly deny that we do not "speak our minds" about church doctrine and policy,  men or women.    I would never say what I am saying here in a church setting....just as I would never start talking about Joseph Smith's 30+ wives in a lesson about temple marriage.  That is our culture and to repeatedly deny that becomes merely argumentative to the point of derailment.

 

Juliann,

   I was not arguing against that particular case. I do understand that many women will speak their mind. I ma not arguing that "all is well in Zion" and that there is no need for a change. A lot of LDS men's attitudes toward women need to change. I was not arguing that women often will find a backlash, even among other women for speaking their mind about the need for some changes.

 

I was merely speaking to Stone Holme's assertion that LDS women would not, for the most part, reply with their true feelings to a poll where their responses would remain anonymous.

 

Again, I do distrust most polls because they can be designed to pretty much achieve a desired response by the wording of the questions. I would have to know the actual questions asked and the people (not names but other pertinent information) in order to have any confidence in the results of any poll.

 

Glenn

[Stone holm]

Juliann,

   I was not arguing against that particular case. I do understand that many women will speak their mind. I ma not arguing that "all is well in Zion" and that there is no need for a change. A lot of LDS men's attitudes toward women need to change. I was not arguing that women often will find a backlash, even among other women for speaking their mind about the need for some changes.

 

I was merely speaking to Stone Holme's assertion that LDS women would not, for the most part, reply with their true feelings to a poll where their responses would remain anonymous.

 

Again, I do distrust most polls because they can be designed to pretty much achieve a desired response by the wording of the questions. I would have to know the actual questions asked and the people (not names but other pertinent information) in order to have any confidence in the results of any poll.

 

Glenn

 

Wow, I love how that quote travels....anyone ever play "telephone" as a kid?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Juliann,

   I was not arguing against that particular case. I do understand that many women will speak their mind. I ma not arguing that "all is well in Zion" and that there is no need for a change. A lot of LDS men's attitudes toward women need to change. I was not arguing that women often will find a backlash, even among other women for speaking their mind about the need for some changes.

 

I was merely speaking to Stone Holme's assertion that LDS women would not, for the most part, reply with their true feelings to a poll where their responses would remain anonymous.

 

Again, I do distrust most polls because they can be designed to pretty much achieve a desired response by the wording of the questions. I would have to know the actual questions asked and the people (not names but other pertinent information) in order to have any confidence in the results of any poll.

 

Glenn

The exact poll question was "Should women who are dedicated members of the LDS Church be ordained to the priesthood?"

 

90% of female respondants said no (8 percent said yes).  Among those with high religious commitment, only 4 percent of respondents answered yes (95% no).  As someone who would be elated if women were given the priesthood, as someone who hopes that the prophet is actively seeking the will of the Lord on the matter, as someone who sees many inequities with how women are treated in the church, as someone who sympathizes with the ordain women group, I would have answered that question no. It is not for me to decide.  

[jwhitlock]

Stereotype much?

 

Well, that's a big +1 in the pro-Utah column if Stone holm doesn't like the state or the people.

[Bikeemikey]

Not within my lifetime, if ever.

 

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?)

 

 

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.

 

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.)

 

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?

 

 

You suggested that one of the primary reasons we ought to throw out parallels between the OW movement and the Blacks Ordination (OD2) experience is that in the immediate years (what ever time frame that may mean) prior to OD2 being issued there was a strong consensus within the Church about the importance of blacks receiving the priesthood.

 

There are two objections to this, one minor and one far more substantial.

 

1. Is is debatable that the unity in feeling on the issue was as universal as you seem to suggest. However, this is a matter of interpretation and what exactly is exactly is meant by the term "period prior to OD2"

 

2. Totally separate to the contestation of the notion that there was a strong unity of feeling about Black Ordination is the single reality that there was a period prior to OD2 that the common belief was not that the blacks would be able to have the priesthood, perhaps in this life, perhaps ever.

 

As such, the objection you raise regarding drawing parallels between OW and Black Ordination (OD2) is more a matter of timing than totality. That is to say it may be very reasonable to assert that the general disposition towards OW is very different in the church today than it was immediately prior to OD2. To this statement I have no objection. However, all that means is that OW may be engaging in activity similar to action similar to that which occurred during the decade or two prior to OD2 (Black Ordination). 

 

That is to say, lets agree that there was total agreement Church wide that the time had arrived for Blacks to have the Priesthood immediately preceding 1978. This does not mean that parallels between the objectives of OW and Black Ordination are invalid because church wide unity for the objectives of OW are not currently present. It may simply mean the OW movement is in its infancy wheres Black Ordination efforts were fully matured immediately preceding 1978.

 

On to the other items you raised in your response:

 

Toward the end of his life Harold B Lee advocated strongly for the notion that blacks would get the priesthood in this life. This does however not change the fact that he was a strong opponent of attempts during the 1960's to have the blacks granted the priesthood as a matter of policy direction (a position championed by Brown). As for you latter former and all that I implied... I never said anything about Lee's position on Black Ordination in the long term... only that he was a very strong voice against Brown in the 1960's.

 

Thanks so much for the bio of your early years. Sounds like you had a great life. I am not sure you being alive at a certain period in time gives you more control over the historical events. I was not alive when it was announced. My Mum was alive. She had a missionary who left his mission at the request of his father in protest to the announcement. Again, I am happy to concede strong Church wide support immediately preceding OD2, that does not impact my primary objection to your use of such support as an argument against the comparison between OW and the Black Ordination efforts.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

You suggested that one of the primary reasons we ought to throw out parallels between the OW movement and the Blacks Ordination (OD2) experience is that in the immediate years (what ever time frame that may mean) prior to OD2 being issued there was a strong consensus within the Church about the importance of blacks receiving the priesthood.

 

There are two objections to this, one minor and one far more substantial.

 

1. Is is debatable that the unity in feeling on the issue was as universal as you seem to suggest. However, this is a matter of interpretation and what exactly is exactly is meant by the term "period prior to OD2"

 

2. Totally separate to the contestation of the notion that there was a strong unity of feeling about Black Ordination is the single reality that there was a period prior to OD2 that the common belief was not that the blacks would be able to have the priesthood, perhaps in this life, perhaps ever.

 

As such, the objection you raise regarding drawing parallels between OW and Black Ordination (OD2) is more a matter of timing than totality. That is to say it may be very reasonable to assert that the general disposition towards OW is very different in the church today than it was immediately prior to OD2. To this statement I have no objection. However, all that means is that OW may be engaging in activity similar to action similar to that which occurred during the decade or two prior to OD2 (Black Ordination). 

 

That is to say, lets agree that there was total agreement Church wide that the time had arrived for Blacks to have the Priesthood immediately preceding 1978. This does not mean that parallels between the objectives of OW and Black Ordination are invalid because church wide unity for the objectives of OW are not currently present. It may simply mean the OW movement is in its infancy wheres Black Ordination efforts were fully matured immediately preceding 1978.

 

On to the other items you raised in your response:

 

Toward the end of his life Harold B Lee advocated strongly for the notion that blacks would get the priesthood in this life. This does however not change the fact that he was a strong opponent of attempts during the 1960's to have the blacks granted the priesthood as a matter of policy direction (a position championed by Brown). As for you latter former and all that I implied... I never said anything about Lee's position on Black Ordination in the long term... only that he was a very strong voice against Brown in the 1960's.

 

Thanks so much for the bio of your early years. Sounds like you had a great life. I am not sure you being alive at a certain period in time gives you more control over the historical events. I was not alive when it was announced. My Mum was alive. She had a missionary who left his mission at the request of his father in protest to the announcement. Again, I am happy to concede strong Church wide support immediately preceding OD2, that does not impact my primary objection to your use of such support as an argument against the comparison between OW and the Black Ordination efforts.

I was alive at the time and I can assure you that quite a few Mormons were caught by surprise. Most around where I lived at the time were relieved that they would no longer be classified as bigots and some shrugged and said well if its okay with pres. Kimball it must be okay. But to say there was any general expectation that it was going to happen anytime soon, or before the Millenium, no. There were a few cynics who felt the Church had just been waiting for the civil rights movement to die down sufficiently so they could claim that all the protests had no impact, but realized that the Church either had to fix the issue or get permanently linked with the racist Christians down South. Some few felt that Pres Kimball had to fix it before he died because they could not in their wildest dreams imagine that ETB would.

[Bikeemikey]

I was alive at the time and I can assure you that quite a few Mormons were caught by surprise. Most around where I lived at the time were relieved that they would no longer be classified as bigots and some shrugged and said well if its okay with pres. Kimball it must be okay. But to say there was any general expectation that it was going to happen anytime soon, or before the Millenium, no. There were a few cynics who felt the Church had just been waiting for the civil rights movement to die down sufficiently so they could claim that all the protests had no impact, but realized that the Church either had to fix the issue or get permanently linked with the racist Christians down South. Some few felt that Pres Kimball had to fix it before he died because they could not in their wildest dreams imagine that ETB would.

 

It was obviously not universally expected... that said, i think there was more support at that time for the extension of the priesthood to blacks compared to current levels of church wide support for the ordination of women.

[Stone holm]

It was obviously not universally expected... that said, i think there was more support at that time for the extension of the priesthood to blacks compared to current levels of church wide support for the ordination of women.

The situation is not completely the same. Within the Church at the time, the disenfranchised Africans were an infinitely small minority. Had the Church persisted with the tradition, it would have survived, but would eventually have been marginalized in polite society. The Church here must be very careful, because it is dealing not with a very small minority, but with a majority of the members. If it is to maintain its status quo, it must strongly and energetically support traditional American family values which assigns roles by gender. If that were to see a major shift away from gender assigned roles then the status quo in the Church would be in peril. Right now our Sisters are very devout and would not think of applying strong internal pressure for change as that would be unrighteous behavior. However if that level of devotion ever shifted there would be serious internal issues.