Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[Calm]

I think the OW movement and others are likely driving the discussion up considerably though it is still not widespread among members much in my experience, sometimes not even an awareness of what has been printed in the news media.

 

I am debating whether it is helping or hurting movement toward greater visibility, etc. as I believe the Church had started moving in that direction before any organizing took place, though I wouldn't be surprised if they had people mining the internet for points of view, my experience (though limited) with leadership being when they are organizing something, they look into it pretty thoroughly.  I have heard a lot of negativity and I have to wonder if that negativity is directed toward the basic concept or is it more to the way it's being presented, using pressure tactics to get attention.  

 

I think they've done a real disservice for themselves though by drawing the lines with the longtime feminists who have been effectively working for years within the church structure as excellent role models on the 'wrong side' and labeling them as "so-called feminists" (one of the nicer terms I've seen) as if all their years working in the public realm mean nothing simply because the others don't see the same solution to the equality issue as they do.  They've lost a lot of credibility because of that, in my view, enough so that if others weren't involved, I would probably be ignoring them just like I pretty much ignore the women who label them as faithless apostates or worse.  I don't 'do' polarized politics.  They accomplish nothing in the long run imo save creating more contention.  There has been some softening from some of those who have demonized others in the past on blogs and such (as least the major players, the more contentious commenters seem to feel as free to trash as ever), hopefully they have learned from some of the commentary on their own actions that such is distasteful to those they need to gather in to keep up their momentum and gain strength.

[juliann]

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 will be saving this as a response to those who don't see the problem in confining women to "motherhood" as their role.  This is the reaction to those who are not mothers.  So we have a large population of women who are not mothers and may never be who are openly disdained if they should dare to speak.    Ironically,  the same unkind words could be used on all men "without a clue"  who dare to speak for women.   And you totally missed the point of my example of the woman who felt called to her position but fades into the background at church instead of having her not mother related talents used.  I might even say that was pretty clueless.

[Buzzard]

Just speculating here, but if Sister Kelly was invited into a GA's office-maybe even an apostle's-and told words to the effect that the brethren had listened to her reasoning and prayerfully considered whether women should be ordained, and that the unanimous impression they received was that they should not, and she was invited to sustain and follow the Prophet and the Quorum in this matter, would she thank them for hearing and considering the change and raise her hand in conference to sustain her leaders, or would she decamp to the streets with a megaphone and a message that the misogynist leaders of the church need to get with the program?

Because that is the bright line. Petitioning the brethren has never been an issue, but saying that they are a bunch of old fogeys who are out to lunch...well, that puts you over the line, and the next interview with her bishop or SP might not be so friendly. 

[Stone holm]

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.

Oh my, the next thing you know they will be attacking apple pie, we need to nip this in the bud right now...print out the disciplinary council notices and let's get this show on the road.

[Storm Rider]

I will be saving this as a response to those who don't see the problem in confining women to "motherhood" as their role.  This is the reaction to those who are not mothers.  So we have a large population of women who are not mothers and may never be who are openly disdained if they should dare to speak.    Ironically,  the same unkind words could be used on all men "without a clue"  who dare to speak for women.   And you totally missed the point of my example of the woman who felt called to her position but fades into the background at church instead of having her not mother related talents used.  I might even say that was pretty clueless.

Juliann, I did not miss your point, I just saw something different from the example you gave.  You wanted to shout and proclaim the wonder of this professional woman so that daughters could be inspired; I saw her take her accomplishments in stride and she personally saw not need to trumpet her choices.  Why should she?  She followed the Spirit; when has the Church taught anything different; it is our bedrock principle.  You may enjoy claiming that I am clueless, but I would encourage you to see the simple fact that I took a different lesson from your example. If that is clueless, I am guilty.  If you cannot appreciate that I could see it differently than you and be just as justified with a different perspective, please tell me what that says about you?  First hint, it ain't being clueless.

 

I don't know why I have to repeat so dang much, but it seems like unless everyone bends the knee to a specific line of thinking we are either clueless, Troglodyte, unenlightened, or misogynistic.  Or maybe a host of you just don't get it or are clueless about what I said.  First, FOLLOW THE SPIRIT.  If you are supposed to be a professional woman, go for it and be proud of it.  However, don't ridicule those poor stupid saps that stay at home and are just mothers.  Second, it is okay to be a mom and not work.  I can see where a professional woman that has never had children is clamoring for more to do; give me the priesthood because I am just as good as any man in the church. My simple question was, what happens to motherhood when mom is now the bishop?  Is there any value to motherhood? Obviously, this sister sees much less value than the equality that she sees in being a lawyer.

 

No ever woman will be a mother, but does that mean they should demean those who are mothers?  Does it mean that...oh bloody well forget it.  This is just so silly.  There is no listening; no attempt to see any other point of view except your own. Be happy.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

My simple question was, what happens to motherhood when mom is now the bishop?  Is there any value to motherhood? 

 

Couldn't this be rephrased to "What happens to fatherhood when dad is now the bishop? Is there any value to fatherhood?"

[Calm]

 

I don't know why I have to repeat so dang much.....

 

No ever woman will be a mother, but does that mean they should demean those who are mothers?  Does it mean that...oh bloody well forget it.  This is just so silly.  There is no listening; no attempt to see any other point of view except your own. Be happy.

I don't know why you feel the need to repeat, no one here is demeaning mothers that I can see.

[CV75]

Seeing the comments about motherhood, I'm wondering if it serves our purposes better if we include it as one of the subsets of the helpmeet role when evaluating its relationship with priesthood.

 

Whatever one thinks of motherhood, I think the real power of women is in their capacity as helpmeets. As the women at Jesus' tomb were the first to see Him risen (and testify to the apostles of it), and Eve was the first to see the newly risen (awakened and no-longer-alone) Adam, and the first to see mortality and explain it all to Adam, women are the first to bring a new spirit into their own souls and then into the world, and in nurturing them tell their husbands about each stage of progress, from conception onward.

 

The helpmeet function of a woman is every bit as essential as the priesthood function of a man, and each function corresponds perfectly to the other (I think the new and everlasting covenant of marriage has gender-specific requirements for this reason). It was not good for Adam to be without a counterpart; his priesthood was not enough. She was female, because the two functions were designed by God to be gender-specific, as we see represented in the accounts of the Garden of Eden and the Resurrection of the Lord. As we examine what the women did and what the men did in these instances, and what they did in relation to each other, we see how the Lord is glorified.

 

In both the Garden of Eden and Resurrection accounts, the women are directed by God, after they have seen and done something that brings about God’s eternal work, to inform the men so that they can in turn follow, listen and obey the Lord in relation to their priesthood office. I think contemplating how the women qualified themselves and carried out this role shows the eternal and sacred nature of it, and how it can be applied by the rank and file membership today (both men and women).

 

That one involves ordination, and one does not, makes no difference. In each instance, women are the helpmeets and men are the priesthood holders, and this vital relationship plays out again and again in many ways as we become perfected in Christ. Of course the traditions of a fallen world interfere, but I think this is the way God designed things and what He is trying to accomplish in His Church. The council structure facilitates this, whether in the home, among extended families, the units of the Church or among the general Church authorities and officers.

[juliann]

 

 

No ever woman will be a mother, but does that mean they should demean those who are mothers?  Does it mean that...oh bloody well forget it.  This is just so silly.  There is no listening; no attempt to see any other point of view except your own. Be happy.

Let's get back to what happened.  You attacked and demeaned a woman because she was not a mother.  Then accusing others of demeaning mothers only compounds your initial attack.  

 

Seeing the comments about motherhood, I'm wondering if it serves our purposes better if we include it as one of the subsets of the helpmeet role when evaluating its relationship with priesthood.

 

Whatever one thinks of motherhood, I think the real power of women is in their capacity as helpmeets. As the women at Jesus' tomb were the first to see Him risen (and testify to the apostles of it), and Eve was the first to see the newly risen (awakened and no-longer-alone) Adam, and the first to see mortality and explain it all to Adam, women are the first to bring a new spirit into their own souls and then into the world, and in nurturing them tell their husbands about each stage of progress, from conception onward.

 

 

 

Maybe use a different word?  "Helpmeet" is a made up words of sort.  In Hebrew the word merely meant someone worthy of the other.  Savior isn't too strong of a word to translate it.  So it means they are co-whatevers.   The woman was not created to merely "help" the man in the sense we have come to use it so I think that word triggers some inaccurate associations. 

[Storm Rider]

Couldn't this be rephrased to "What happens to fatherhood when dad is now the bishop? Is there any value to fatherhood?"

 

In a previous thread or comment I addressed this. There has been a lot of talk for the last several decades about the woeful lack of participation of fathers at home due to their work outside the home. Now, are you saying that we want to take both parents outside the home in that ever demanding need to be "equal".  What exactly happens to the family as we demand that all things be identical. Is this best for the family?  What is the ideal?  Should there be ideals or should those also be cast aside as we become androgynous automatons without any need to for any differences between the sexes because we are equal, without difference, no feminine and certainly none of that evil masculinity.  

[Storm Rider]

Let it go Juliann, we are talking past one another and it has gone beyond any value at this point. 

[CV75]

Maybe use a different word?  "Helpmeet" is a made up words of sort.  In Hebrew the word merely meant someone worthy of the other.  Savior isn't too strong of a word to translate it.  So it means they are co-whatevers.   The woman was not created to merely "help" the man in the sense we have come to use it so I think that word triggers some inaccurate associations. 

I'm suggesting a different word (at least for the sake of discussion) so as to consider a more basic principle of divine right and power where other words (mother, helper, assistant, mate, savior, priesthood, etc.) trigger negative and inaccurate associations.

 

Looking at what Eve did doctrinally for example, it was far more than just assisting and helping Adam under his direction. Whatever she did was under God's direction and as far as having dominion over paradise, she seems to have acted as independently as Adam (their mutual independence really wasn't the long range plan--they were supposed to "correspond"). They eventually decided to work together to multiply and promulgate the Savior's Gospel among their posterity, thus ultimately replenishing the earth with the glory of God.

 

The Bible refers to Eve as a "help meet for him [Adam]." While Adam may be considered God's "help" (assistant, employee) in managing the Garden (tending, naming the animals, etc.), the context in which  "a help meet for him" (or "a corresponding help") is used shows that some other "employee" was to join Adam in exerising dominion in paradise and beyond. Genesis 1:26-27 shows that the dominion that Adam first exercised alone was meant for the male and the female to have jointly ("let them have dominion... male and female." So as long as Adam was alone, God's work was incomplete, and so it was not good to have only half the help.

 

"Corresponding" of course means several things, but to me it carries a sense of complimentary different things (rather than identically equal things) inherently designed to work well together. In practice, it requires concurrence, compatibility, accord, etc. that sometimes take a lot of work and sacrifice to achieve.

 

Which of course gets me back to the "different word" for the vehicle of divine right and power for Eve's proper exercise of dominion (the kind that women possess without ordination), if priesthood (the kind that comes to men by ordination) is the vehicle for Adam's.

[Calm]

Dan wrote an article a while back on the phrase:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865585036/How-was-Eve-an-help-meet-for-Adam.html

 

In Latter-day Saint circles (and perhaps beyond), it’s long since become customary for a husband to praise his wife as a “helpmeet.” However, since most of us find that term just a bit puzzling — intuitively, I suspect, we know that it makes no real sense — we sometimes change the word to “helpmate,” which, unlike “helpmeet,” is actually comprehensible.

The term “helpmeet” is derived from the King James rendition of Genesis 2:18, where God decides to provide a companion for the newly created man, Adam: “And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

However, it’s important here to note that “help meet” in the KJV is two words, not one. This is not only a hint as to how we ought to read it aloud, but a clue about what the passage means. We should already be familiar with such King James language from other biblical passages. In Acts 26:20, for instance, we see Paul telling the Gentiles that “they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” (Thankfully, we don’t call righteous deeds “worksmeets.”) It should be obvious from the context that “meet,” in this verse, means something like “worthy,” “befitting” or “appropriate.” (And that is, precisely, what the underlying Greek and Hebrew words do mean.)

It’s hardly surprising, in this light, to see how other translations render Genesis 2:18: The New International Version, for example, reads “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (I certainly hope that Mormon husbands won’t start calling their wives “helpersuitables” anytime soon!)

 

I like the term "comrade" or "companion", but perhaps "collaborator" is the most precise.

Edited October 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

Dan wrote an article a while back on the phrase:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865585036/How-was-Eve-an-help-meet-for-Adam.html

 

I like the term "comrade" or "companion", but perhaps "collaborator" is the most precise.

 

Comrade makes me think of bad films during the Cold War. Do you remember the James Bond movies where the Russians would always call their associates, Comrade. Collaborator also brings up the cold war period.

 

It is difficult to find the right term that will please everyone. When my wife and I talked about this well over 30 years ago, she determined she preferred the simple, "my wife".  I know at times I have talked of her with others as my "better half".  This has made sense to me because we make a whole together, but apart we are not nearly as good. 

Edited October 4, 2013 by Storm Rider

[Calm]

I know at times I have talked of her with others as my "better half".  This has made sense to me because we make a whole together, but apart we are not nearly as good. 

Perhaps then it should be "my bettering half" rather than "better half".

[CV75]

Dan wrote an article a while back on the phrase:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865585036/How-was-Eve-an-help-meet-for-Adam.html

 

I like the term "comrade" or "companion", but perhaps "collaborator" is the most precise.

Yes, “helpmeet” is a made-up word (for the sake of discussion). I like the terms “befitting” and “appropriate,” assuming that the label “help” is not used in a subordinate sense. The important thing is what Adam and Eve brought to their dominion was of equal standing, if not of identical nature, and what God gave them was also of equal standing, if not of identical nature… and perhaps even compensating for each other.

 

Here’s a couple of interesting articles, somewhat dated, but also has some insight into the translated meaning of the words “help meet.”

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng “The significance of this phrase “help meet” is that the woman is a creation who is a fitting and proper companion for Adam because she is like him and corresponds to him. This concept is further solidified by the description of the creation of woman as being formed from the rib of Adam—a rib being a metaphor for a person corresponding to Adam.”

 

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ec0d2150a447b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____ “Help meet should not carry the connotation that Eve was an assistant of lesser status, or less competence, than Adam.”

 

Here’s one from 2008 ...and he actually uses “helpmeet!”: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,538-1-4399-1,00.html “Perhaps we should define helpmeet. You must not misunderstand what the Lord meant when Adam was told he was to have a helpmeet. A helpmeet is a companion suited to or equal to us. We walk side by side with a helpmeet, not one before or behind the other.”

 

This article from Meridian Magazine delves deeply into the Hebrew word roots to convey the same messages as above: http://ldsmag.com/article/8701/1 “Help” is more like “power” or “strength” to rescue, save or succor; and “meet” is more like “equal” or “next to.” The article speaks of a “power equal to man.”

 

So we have the word “priesthood” obviously, and any combination of a prefix (talent, power, strength, rescuer, savior) with a suffix (appropriate, befitting, corresponding, equal to, next to) on the other, as the “power equal to man.” Adam and Eve are “Saviors on Mount Zion” for their posterity, one having priesthood and the other having “talentappropriate” (both in forms suited for the task); and both having priesthood in another sense, as is often discussed.

 

Now I think that whatever the original term for Eve’s divine gift was, and however the term got lost, and however the "true meaning" was eradicated by the traditions of men, it must have conveyed something apart from “priesthood” since that latter word was retained. If her “powerequaltopriesthood” requires ordination or some other outward mechanism of bestowal, it will certainly be restored. But I think it has been restored, by confirmation, as a spiritual gift or Gift or companionship of the Holy Ghost. Or maybe it was always entailed in the Light of Christ as a birthright to all daughters of God regardless of covenant affilliation.

 

But then, all forms of divine power needn’t be expressed and work in the same way, but they can become a “compound in one” as is found in the order of the new and everlasting covenant or in councils.

[Kenngo1969]

If-and-when I ever meet The Future Mrs. G., I'm simply going to call her, "The Lovely One" ...  (Unless, of course, she's rather homely; then, that might work out so well.  )

 

[David T]

Well, there is this from our hymnal:

There is no end to matter;

There is no end to space;

There is no end to spirit;

There is no end to race.

Granted, I interpret that to mean "human race" or something like that. Definitely not skin color. But others could view it differently.

I take it as in there's no end to the race we are running. No finish line.

[Calm]

I've always interpreted it as the human race as in mankind continues on forever, eternally progressing, worlds being created and redeemed over and over...

Edited October 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

I asked this question on another thread, is the assignment of roles by gender somehow critical to the Gospel of Christ?

[Bikeemikey]

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.

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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 seeking understanding, any change such as you are prognosticating seems highly unlikely at this point.

 

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.

 

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."

 

 

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."

 

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.

 

Hey there Scott,

 

I think you may be entirely missing the boat on my posts on this subject.

 

I am not prognosticating any change related to the priesthood in the church. I think that any change relative to this issue will likely be a slow burn issue over an extended period of time and such change may or may not every result in the formal acceptance of female ordination.

 

I am purely commenting on the nature of the responses to the OW women movement that have cropped up over the last couple of months.

 

As so your assertions that I misrepresented Harold B Lee... I did nothing of the sort. I am puzzled by the way in which you are able to read the worst possible insinuated meanings in to the spaces between the words to use to express what I am saying. The Mckay biography book clearly relayed (as have many other sources) the events of the late 1960's when Lee was out of town and Brown managed to get the majority of the 12 to sign a document changing the status of Black ordination. Lee came back to town and very quickly ensured that the decision was reversed. I never stated the reasoning behind Lee's opposition to blacks being able to receive the priesthood at that time. I did not insinuate one way or another that it was a matter of racism of lack of revelation on the matter. The fact does not change, if one is opposed to blacks receiving the priesthood because the lord has not revealed it then one is opposed to blacks receiving the priesthood. Harold B Lee through out his life was opposed to black ordination. This thread is not about the nuances of his position or reasoning on the matter. The reasoning for his opposition has no bearing on my position. If there is one obvious criticism of what I am saying it would be that it is tautologous to say he was opposed. All prophets prior to the policy would have to have been opposed to the change as if they would have been for it then God would have revealed that to them and they would have changed it.

 

You are correct that leading up to the OD2 there had been a shift in the Church position on the matter. I am however not interested in debating with you whether church membership and leadership, during 150 years prior to OD2, believed very differently than they did during the years leading up to OD2. If you are not willing to acknowledge the well documented opinions of many church leaders on this subject from the mid 1800's - until the mid 1900's thats your business. 

 

You seem to suggest that "my assertions" are based on "bits and pieces of hearsay"... If you would be so kind to state the three primary assertions I have made then I would be happy to review them against your claim that they are grounded in hearsay. I think that what i will find however is that you have no idea what I have asserted because you have failed to grasp the point I am making... one which is fundamentally neutral on female ordination and the OW movement. 

 

I would also suggest that your best guess of the cultural zeitgeist regarding blacks and the priesthood (based on you being alive at the time) is about as good as you looking at a bus and guessing how much it weights, or how many linear feet of steel were used to construct it. The idea that your being alive at a given point in time provides you with a more accurate picture of the broad base of community feeling on something is amusing. By your own admission you were studying, missionarying, dating, getting married etc during this period... not polling the mormon populace for there feelings on the subject.

 

Your final line about this being some kind of competition is likely a key insight into your need to respond so defensively to the OW movement. You should go and read, or reread if you already have, "Charity, Intellectualism and the military metaphor".

 

As a final observation... this OW movement says more about social media than it does about anything else. 

 

Very small groups of members were often expressing their views on the need for the policy regarding blacks and the priesthood to change during the decades leading up to 1978. Some meet privately with leadership, some talked with news stations, some just chatted in small groups. The difference is that now a tiny group can have a disproportionate voice. They can force conversations about almost anything... This increases the number of complex questions we must address and consider. There is nothing wrong with this. The church is like all other instituions and and is learning, growing and developing. We have a prophet to ensure we dont change when we shouldn't and are willing to change when we must, even if such change is hard.

 

Social media increases the pace and impact of these conversations by helping people create a movements in a month that would have taken decades to create in the pre-social media era. If you think our church is never going to seriously confront the question of female ordination, the role of women, female leadership and the laundry list of other questions OW is pushing you are wrong. Social media simply forces us to confront them at a speed and in a manner that is far more unsettling that previous movements in the past. There is also nothing wrong with using this framework to ask the question.

 

Just because it took roughly 150 years for blacks to get the priesthood does not mean it will take another 150 years for the next dramatic change in church ordination policy. The pace of change is no faster than ever.

[Mystery Meat]

Agitation is an interesting word. I can't help but wonder what President Hinckley thought it meant when he said it in that 60 Minutes interview. I am not entirely sure he meant lots of publicity and loud statements. I think it could mean we have a problem that needs fixing. As someone mentioned earlier, perhaps that is leaders of girls and women approach leaders and say, "We are worried about the girls/women under our care in our ward and how they feel the Church/God values them compared to men? We feel inadequate to answer them, what do we do?" Maybe that is the type of agitation President Hinckley had in mind.

 

Think about those suffering from a crisis of faith due to Church history and how the teaching of that history was handled. Many of them were just honest truth seekers. I have a brother who so much wants the Church to be true but struggles with doubt based on what he has learned about Church history. And clearly he is not alone. As a result the Church has started to become much more open. President Uchtdorf's talk today showed what the right kind of agitation can do. Ask and you will find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. We don't demand or insist. We ask with an honest heart for further knowledge. If I was a leader in the OW I would take a page out of the changes we are seeing in how the Church handles its history and those who are leaving the Church or struggling through activity with doubts due to its history.

 

Just my two cents.

[Calm]

 Maybe that is the type of agitation President Hinckley had in mind.

 

If it is, that is a weird use of the term imo as "agitating for" tends to mean presenting a position desired and going and saying one is worried and please could you help us doesn't seem much like "agitation" to me.

 

If I was a leader in the OW I would take a page out of the changes we are seeing in how the Church handles its history and those who are leaving the Church or struggling through activity with doubts due to its history.

 

I agree, they would be much better approaching it that way.  That is essentially what Margaret Young said in her blog.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/welcometable/2013/09/priesthood-restrictions-shall-we-protest/

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/welcometable/2013/09/i-return-to-ordain-women-where-angels-fear-to-tread/

 

Let’s remember a few things about Genesis first: 1) The initial approach by Gene Orr was not answered. Darius Gray, known as a loyal Mormon and a KSL reporter, made the second and successful approach. 2) There was no set agenda. The three black men, each of whom was very different from the others, went in with a problem–the loss of their children to church activity–and a desire to discuss the issue. DISCUSS THE ISSUE. That was it. Eventually, Gene Orr did ask for the priesthood, but Ruffin, the one who repeatedly said, “Don’t rock the boat,” was simply concerned about his sons. The open-ended agenda and the concise statement of the problem got President Joseph Fielding Smith’s attention. The meetings began.

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

 

Think about those suffering from a crisis of faith due to Church history and how the teaching of that history was handled. Many of them were just honest truth seekers. I have a brother who so much wants the Church to be true but struggles with doubt based on what he has learned about Church history. And clearly he is not alone. As a result the Church has started to become much more open. President Uchtdorf's talk today showed what the right kind of agitation can do. Ask and you will find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. We don't demand or insist. We ask with an honest heart for further knowledge. If I was a leader in the OW I would take a page out of the changes we are seeing in how the Church handles its history and those who are leaving the Church or struggling through activity with doubts due to its history.

 

Just my two cents.

I don't think that a testimony depends on church history in its complete form. It depends on much more subtle things such as prayer. I don't have a testimony of church history since such history is made by human beings. However, I do remember praying about the book of mormon and receiving a powerful spiritual experience. History cannot trump that experience. What is important in church history? The 11 witnesses are important. The translation process is important whether head in hat or any other way and what the witnesses said about those times.

 

Bottomline: if one attempts to live according to what the church teaches, one will have a good  and productive life.

[why me]

 

Social media increases the pace and impact of these conversations by helping people create a movements in a month that would have taken decades to create in the pre-social media era. If you think our church is never going to seriously confront the question of female ordination, the role of women, female leadership and the laundry list of other questions OW is pushing you are wrong. Social media simply forces us to confront them at a speed and in a manner that is far more unsettling that previous movements in the past. There is also nothing wrong with using this framework to ask the question.

The church will confront issues such as ordaining women because the liberal mores of the time demand that it does so. Likewise for other issues that are now out there. When the social mores were more conservative the church fit into the world like a nice glove on a hand. But now, as social more have become much more relative, it will face such issues as ordaining women etc. This is no different than what the catholic church experiences. Much easier to go with the flow...much more difficult to swim upstream. The lds church is not like many other churches because the concept of the priesthood is different. Boys get the priesthood. I know of no other church that does this. This is not about sending off someone to seminary school so that they can be a priest or a pastor. It comes from the grassroots of boyhood.

 

For the lds church to ordain girls, much would have to change in the lds structure. And it would not sit easily with many members and many mormon women would leave the fold, if seen as social pressure.