Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[juliann]

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!

Keep it coming!

[Scott Lloyd]

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"

You yourself used the phrasing "the decade leading up to OD2." I went off of that. I took pains to give you my background and explain what I was doing in that period, beginning in 1968 and ending with the announcement of the new revelation in 1978. I did this to show how and why I was a qualified witness of events and conditions pertaining to that period of time.

 

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.

 

 

You keep asserting this. I've yet to see you provide any documentation of such a "common belief."

 

 

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.

 

 

Not just "may be." it is, in fact, very different.

 

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). 

 

 

There were no widespread political pressure campaigns on the part of active, observant church members regarding the blacks and the priesthood issue. Wallace's antics are about all I can recall in this regard, and he was very much in apostasy.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

One could pontificate all day about what "might be." Doesn't mean it is apt to materialize. According to the poll results I just saw in the post from seekingunderstanding, any change such as you are prognosticating seems highly unlikely at this point.

 

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.

 

You are now being more careful in your phrasing. Earlier, you gave a flat statement that Harold B. Lee was opposed to ordination of blacks to the priesthood. Period. You didn't qualify it as pertaining to time period, conditions, circumstances, etc., probably because it would have weakened your argument. Hence my CFR for what you appeared to be stating. I take it you have now backed off from that.

 

If you examine Prince's writings carefully, you'll come to understand that the dispute among some of the Brethren had to do with a misunderstanding of what President McKay meant by use of the term "policy." Some, apparently including Hugh B. Brown, seemed to feel that this meant the restriction could be ended merely by administrative action. But that is not what President McKay meant to imply. He, and, it would seem, the majority of the Brethren, including Harold B. Lee, felt that, regardless of whether it was considered doctrine or policy, it would take a revelation from God to change it. Ultimately, that was the view that prevailed, and that is what eventually happened.

 

The bottom line is that the Brethren felt, as did the general Church membership, that worthy black men would one day receive the privilege of holding the priesthood. It was only a question of when and how.

 

 

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've explained the relevance above. My background qualifies me as a witness of general conditions and circumstances during what you have identified as "the decade leading up to OD2."

 

 

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.

 

It is as I suspected: Your assertions are drawn from bits and pieces of hearsay and your own perception of things you've read here and there.

 

Incidents such as the father withdrawing his missionary son in protest were very much isolated and uncommon, I assure you. There have always been such people who have railed against revelation from the Lord through His prophets, and they have always been left to "kick against the pricks."

 

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.

 

On the contrary, my position as an eyewitness to events and circumstances "in the decade leading up to OD2" makes your comparison seem strained indeed.

 

But I suppose we must leave it up to readers of this exchange to determine that for themselves. For my part, I feel quite confident.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

Heaven preserve us from that sort of attitude. Whatever the leadership role of women in the Church might be in the future, I dearly hope it is not reflected by such regional factionalism and blanket faultfinding, which I would find equally unpalatable whether it emanated from a female or a male.

Great!  Now just to reassure us all, please publicly proclaim your pride (hey, alliteration!  Cool! ) in being a D*** Utah Mormon !   (Sorry!  Couldn't resist!  Carry on!)

[Scott Lloyd]

I was alive at the time and I can assure you that quite a few Mormons were caught by surprise.

Surprised and greatly elated. All it takes is an examination of archived news stories from the time to determine that.

 

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.

 

Such relief was only a part of the reason for the general elation Churchwide

 

 

But to say there was any general expectation that it was going to happen anytime soon, or before the Millenium, no.

 

There's been no assertion here, on my part or anyone else's, of "any general expectation that it was going to happen anytime soon."

Edited October 2, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Great!  Now just to reassure us all, please publicly proclaim your pride (hey, alliteration!  Cool! ) in being a D*** Utah Mormon !   (Sorry!  Couldn't resist!  Carry on!)

Consider my pride thus publicly proclaimed (he responded alliteratively).

[Calm]

Consider my pride thus publicly proclaimed (he responded alliteratively).

Would have been better if you had responded....

 

"Please perceive personal pride publicly proclaimed...."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Cool story bro.

[Scott Lloyd]

Would have been better if you had responded....

 

"Please perceive personal pride publicly proclaimed...."

Have you ever been a headline writer? You'd be good at it.

[Calm]

Be sure and recommend me to your boss, I could use a little cash to finish up some odds and ends of renovation projects....

[Scott Lloyd]

Be sure and recommend me to your boss, I could use a little cash to finish up some odds and ends of renovation projects....

With the Tribune having so recently laid off 20 percent of its staff, I'm afraid the job market for budding journalists in Salt Lake City is rather dismal just now.

[Kenngo1969]

Consider my pride thus publicly proclaimed (he responded alliteratively).

 

 

Would have been better if you had responded....

 

"Please perceive personal pride publicly proclaimed...."

 

Perfect!   (Have I yet publicly proclaimed my penchant for puns? )

[Kenngo1969]

With the Tribune having so recently laid off 20 percent of its staff, I'm afraid the job market for budding journalists in Salt Lake City is rather dismal just now.

Unless one is willing to write solely for the compensation of the vain glory of seeing one's name in print ...    (Of course, that's not exactly a market, since it removes anything of monetary value from the equation ... )  (For all of the crowing anyone might be tempted to do regarding the Tribune's recent woes as a fan of its competitor, while I might be alone [or nearly so] in this corner of Cyberspace in so hoping, I hope Salt Lake doesn't become a one-newspaper town anytime soon ... whether that "one newspaper" is the Trib or the News.)

[Scott Lloyd]

Unless one is willing to write solely for the compensation of the vain glory of seeing one's name in print ...     (Of course, that's not exactly a market, since it removes anything of monetary value from the equation ... )  (For all of the crowing anyone might be tempted to do regarding the Tribune's recent woes as a fan of its competitor, while I might be alone [or nearly so] in this corner of Cyberspace in so hoping, I hope Salt Lake doesn't become a one-newspaper town anytime soon ... whether that "one newspaper" is the Trib or the News.)

As an employee (not just a fan) of its competitor, I share in that hope.

 

Incidentally, there's something to be said for "the vainglory of seeing one's name in print." It kept me going during the lean years.

[Garden Girl]

You yourself used the phrasing "the decade leading up to OD2." I went off of that. I took pains to give you my background and explain what I was doing in that period, beginning in 1968 and ending with the announcement of the new revelation in 1978. I did this to show how and why I was a qualified witness of events and conditions pertaining to that period of time.

 

 

The bottom line is that the Brethren felt, as did the general Church membership, that worthy black men would one day receive the privilege of holding the priesthood. It was only a question of when and how.

During the 50's, I was raised to expect such an event as blacks receiving the priesthood... my folks quoted some statement by Brigham Young I believe where he expressed the view that blacks would receive the priesthood which was different than earlier statements.  Whatever, I was always of the view that it would happen, and during the 60's when the civil rights movement got started in earnest, including demonstrations at Temple Square, I always had confidence that one day it would happen.  In fact, I remember a conversation I had with the leader of the campus Black Student's Union when, knowing I was Mormon, he questioned me about it... and I remember my response was that the demonstrators could protest at Temple Square all they wanted, the Church would not change it's position until the time was right and it would come through revelation, but that I was raised expecting it to happen... I just didn't know when, only that it would be when it was right.  And 10 years later that revelation came, and the rest is history... my point is, because of the way I was raised there was never any question in my mind that it would happen...

 

 

GG

[Kenngo1969]

As an employee (not just a fan) of its competitor, I share in that hope.

 

Incidentally, there's something to be said for "the vainglory of seeing one's name in print." It kept me going during the lean years.

Well, then ... perhaps I can draw inspiration from that source, as well!  Thanks for the (albeit perhaps unwitting) encouragement!

[Stone holm]

During the 50's, I was raised to expect such an event as blacks receiving the priesthood... my folks quoted some statement by Brigham Young I believe where he expressed the view that blacks would receive the priesthood which was different than earlier statements.  Whatever, I was always of the view that it would happen, and during the 60's when the civil rights movement got started in earnest, including demonstrations at Temple Square, I always had confidence that one day it would happen.  In fact, I remember a conversation I had with the leader of the campus Black Student's Union when, knowing I was Mormon, he questioned me about it... and I remember my response was that the demonstrators could protest at Temple Square all they wanted, the Church would not change it's position until the time was right and it would come through revelation, but that I was raised expecting it to happen... I just didn't know when, only that it would be when it was right.  And 10 years later that revelation came, and the rest is history... my point is, because of the way I was raised there was never any question in my mind that it would happen...

 

 

GG

I think some were raised that way, others were raised with BRM's Mormon Doctrine as an accurate doctrinal work and expected it not to happen until the Millenium, which as far as normal history is concerned would basically mean never.

[Glenn101]

I think some were raised that way, others were raised with BRM's Mormon Doctrine as an accurate doctrinal work and expected it not to happen until the Millenium, which as far as normal history is concerned would basically mean never.

 

When it comes to the priesthood ban and just about everything else in church history for which there was no clearcut guidance, there have been a plethora of speculations to fill that void. I was told by many that the ban would not be lifted until the mellenium or such, but my own studies left me wondering. In the absence of revelation, there are some wonderful debates raging as to Book of Mormon geography. If I recall corrrectly, there were many members of the church who believed the "56 year prophecy" of Joseph Smith meant that the mellenium would begin in 1891. (Too bad that didn't happen. We would have been spared a couple of world wars and countless "engagements" since.) BRM's Mormon Doctrine was an esoteric work here in the south. We preferred our own versions.

 

Glenn

[Nofear]

Was this September interview of Kate Kelly of the Ordain Women movement already posted in the thread?

http://www.mormonwomen.com/2013/09/12/the-house-she-lives-in/

[Storm Rider]

Was this September interview of Kate Kelly of the Ordain Women movement already posted in the thread?

http://www.mormonwomen.com/2013/09/12/the-house-she-lives-in/

I apologize, but as soon as I read how wonderfully educated she was, without children, and then telling all women, including mothers they need the priesthood, I began to shudder. She does not have a clue what it means to be a mother nor does she appreciate such a position the second thing I thought was of the example another thread gave of the professional woman and mother that had even been to the White House, but did not blow her horn or try to convince every other woman they need to follow her. She felt called to her profession and did it without fanfare. Her husband raises the children. No fuss, just following the Spirit. Example speaks so much louder than words.

[Buckeye]

I apologize, but as soon as I read how wonderfully educated she was, without children, and then telling all women, including mothers they need the priesthood, I began to shudder. She does not have a clue what it means to be a mother nor does she appreciate such a position the second thing I thought was of the example another thread gave of the professional woman and mother that had even been to the White House, but did not blow her horn or try to convince every other woman they need to follow her. She felt called to her profession and did it without fanfare. Her husband raises the children. No fuss, just following the Spirit. Example speaks so much louder than words.

 

I wonder if you reacted with the same hostility to Sheri Dew - another well educated LDS woman without children - when she though she could teach the women of the church something about motherhood.  (See http://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/11/are-we-not-all-mothers?lang=eng).  Perhaps we should focus on the merits of female ordination rather than the worthiness of Sister Kelly.  Extend to her the same courtesy we give to Joseph and other imperfect people who are trying to do good.

[Calm]

She doesn't make it very clear why she values the LDS faith from my reading....perhaps someone can point out where she discusses the positive aspects of the faith and/or the culture.  She mentions spiritual benefits, but I don't remember her actually identifying any of them.  There was quite of bit of 'in spite of' instead, it seemed to me.  I think it is problematic for her to have neglected those aspects if she was attempting to convince others that being true to the faith (not talking about the culture, but one's covenants with God, etc.) was ultimately more important than all other things and that she is pushing for the Priesthood within that limitation.  Instead it appears almost as a generic conservative faith that she just happened to be brought up in, her connection is based on heritage it seems, not on actual doctrine...and she is committed to promoting equality, but the mechanism for that---the Priesthood--is almost irrelevant save for what it will accomplish by sharing it in her view.

 

I am not claiming that this is the way she actually feels, just that this is what comes across to me in her writing.....it does not give me confidence in her seeking the Priesthood...it seems more just a means to an end and since I consider the Priesthood a divine gift, to treat it in such a way would be wrong in my view.  It would be like using an ancient diamond heirloom to cut glass for windows in one's home...a very important and worthwhile project, but it is disregarding what makes the heirloom unique and valuable and instead focuses on a minor and mundane quality.

 

I have heard much better arguments, if she means to be the face of the movement to a great extent (as in the one who speaks to the press, etc.) she needs to show if she regards the Priesthood with deep respect and love.

 

There was a lot of imbalance, and that’s when I started factoring in priesthood as being the root of all these gender inequalities.

 

This is also an extremely simplistic view.  All one has to do is look out into the world and see all the inequality going on out there...and the Priesthood isn't there.  In order for the Priesthood to be the root of all the inequalities in the Church, then the Church culture would have to be completely isolated from the general culture of the communities we live in....but that is impossible, we carry that culture into church with us just as we carry our church culture out into the world.

 

This is a fundamental problem with the movement, I believe.  There is such a tremendous focus on getting the Priesthood that other issues that contribute may be ignored and even if the Priesthood ends up being opened to women, it will only be a partial solution which means there will be a lot of disappointment and dissatisfaction when expectations aren't meant.

[Storm Rider]

I wonder if you reacted with the same hostility to Sheri Dew - another well educated LDS woman without children - when she though she could teach the women of the church something about motherhood.  (See http://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/11/are-we-not-all-mothers?lang=eng).  Perhaps we should focus on the merits of female ordination rather than the worthiness of Sister Kelly.  Extend to her the same courtesy we give to Joseph and other imperfect people who are trying to do good.

Hostility? My you have a very low threshold for hostility.

My point still stands. This individual is attacking motherhood whether she admits it or not. In fact, whether you admit it or not.

[Buckeye]

Cal, a sincere question - have you met any supporters of female ordination who you believe sufficiently value their faith and their covenants? I'm trying to gauge whether you think Sister Kelly is just the wrong person to lead OW or whether it is impossible for any sister to do so in good faith.

[Calm]

I haven't researched the individuals, but I have met several women who I feel desire the Priesthood for its sacredness and the spiritual connection they believe it aids with God rather than valuing it primarily as something that will correct inequalities.

 

I don't know if she is the 'wrong' person, she just may have had a bad day for expressing herself though I have not been particularly impressed by anything I've read yet from her or from the official presence.  OTOH, I have read a number of thoughtful comments from women who could very well be part of the movement now.

 

I believe those who will be more effective in creating solutions whatever they may be will be the ones who are consciously addressing the spiritual aspect of the Priesthood separate from the decision making process...which can to a great extent be altered without using the Priesthood to create a more level field, so to speak.

Edited October 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Buckeye]

I haven't researched the individuals, but I have met several women who I feel desire the Priesthood for its sacredness and the spiritual connection they believe it aids with God rather than valuing it primarily as something that will correct inequalities.

 

I don't know if she is the 'wrong' person, she just may have had a bad day for expressing herself though I have not been particularly impressed by anything I've read yet from her or from the official presence.  OTOH, I have read a number of thoughtful comments from women who could very well be part of the movement now.

 

I believe those who will be more effective in creating solutions whatever they may be will be the ones who are consciously addressing the spiritual aspect of the Priesthood separate from the decision making process...which can to a great extent be altered without using the Priesthood to create a more level field, so to speak.

 

That's very thoughtful.  Thanks.  For my part, I agree that the spiritual dimensions are more important than administration.  It's like the saying "the things that matter most are the things that last the longest."  I also find the most sympathy for women's ordination comes when people discuss baby blessings, baptisms, and the like, rather than women bishops and high counselors. 

 

Have you read this blog about good-cop vs. bad-cop:  http://www.wheatandtares.org/12847/good-cop-bad-cop-on-womens-ordination/ ?  I'm not comfortable labeling Sister Kelly as a "bad cop," but I understand the point they are trying to make.  I don't think female ordination will happen anytime soon, but I wouldn't be surprised to see smaller steps like female clerks, YW as VTs, etc. come to pass, in no small measure because of OW.