Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[strappinglad]

OW with a heavenly petition, " Lord, we need to talk ! "

 

Heavenly response, " Oh dear me, what have I done wrong now ? "

[Calm]

I guess I'm still not seeing it. If this "something" is so vague and nebulous that it cannot even be identified, let alone quantified and explained, then is this a defect in the Church, or in individuals' perception of the Church? Are people projecting expectations onto the Church which emanate from societal expectations? Is there dissatisfaction about women not being ordained to the priesthood because the denomination down the road allows such a thing?

This discussion is getting rather fuzzy for me. I don't even understand the nature of the "something is missing" concept.

Who is "they?" What is it in the Church that is leading to the undesirable "results" you reference here? And since we are no longer talking about ordaining women to the priesthood, what are we talking about?

I love ya, Cal. I've known you online for several years now. I hope you see my questions as a sincere attempt at dialogue. I'm not trying to set you up or pin you down. I am just trying to understand the point you are trying to make.

Thanks,

-Smac

Calling it a night tonight...just can't think straight enough to form an answer I like, remind me if I don't respond by Friday (am planning on running errands tomorrow so likely will forget as I can't keep two things in my brain at the same time these days for some reason).

[Glenn101]

I agree with you. I don't think a poll in this instance is of much value, it would take a very strong willed woman to overcome the psychological pressure currently existing against even thinking about it ... to respond positively. Such a woman who actually vocalized such sentiments would fall under condemnation in the eyes of her brothers and sisters, and would probably sustain at least some verbal abuse.

 

 

Why should you discount the results of a poll where no names are published. And I do believe that you are doing a disservice to those 90%. I do not know very many women in the wards in which I have attended that were hesitant to voice their opinions, whether anonymous or not.

 

However, I think that we have strayed a bit from the actual OP. SMAC was not questioning whether women should or should not be ordained to the priesthood, but rather to the tactics that the OW group is planning to use. I hope that it does not get out of hand, i.e. that the OW group does not become militant and that the church authorities who are confronted handle the matter as gracefully as possible and do not lose their cool.

 

Glenn

[why me]

We need to---in my opinion---differentiated between those who turn the conversation into agitation (not a good thing as it leads directly to confrontation and contention in my opinion) and those who need to speak up about feeling they are missing something in the Church, something that perhaps they have not identified yet and will not be able to identify until others share their experience and ideas.....

I think that the church would need to change the separation of the sexes in their meetings to one of inclusion. Do men have a right to sit in relief society if they feel that they are missing something? Or does a young man have the right to attend a young women's meeting if his girlfriend would like him there? We need to understand that the stress on girls receiving the priesthood is also an attempt to abolish the relief society and meetings based on gender separation. The church would need to make revolutionary changes from within to accommodate such inclusion.

Edited September 26, 2013 by why me

[Buckeye]

When changes occur in church policy, it is primarily (in my experience) in response to a specific need to build the kingdom. It removes an identifiable barrier that exists that is hindering the work from moving forward at that particular time. In the cases where the priesthood ban was lifted and polygamy was suspended, the barriers were clear and identifiable and the timing was appropriate for the Lord to direct the policy change.

 

What particular barrier that is hindering the work would be removed by ordaining women to the priesthood?

 

The same barrier that led to the lowering of missionary age.  We are losing the young adults, particularly the young adult women.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So anyone who disagrees with OW is guilty of verbal abuse. 

Not all, but some. A sampling of motive speculation from some participants on this thread:

 

... their ultimate motivations are suspect . . . . The voices of these particular women are divisive and self centered.

 

The women ... hope to sow division in the lds church.

 

 They do not want to attend the meeting to hear the contents of it, but to create an adversarial situation and to make the Church look bad.

 

Adverse publicity against the Church, engineered by church members, is the point.

 

That's just dishonesty.

[ksfisher]

I think that the church would need to change the separation of the sexes in their meetings to one of inclusion. Do men have a right to sit in relief society if they feel that they are missing something? Or does a young man have the right to attend a young women's meeting if his girlfriend would like him there? We need to understand that the stress on girls receiving the priesthood is also an attempt to abolish the relief society and meetings based on gender separation. The church would need to make revolutionary changes from within to accommodate such inclusion.

 

Do you think that the OW group would want to sit on the men's side in the temple during the endowment?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The same barrier that led to the lowering of missionary age.  We are losing the young adults, particularly the young adult women.

HUh? CFR that we are losing "young adults, particularly the young adult women". This just sounds like fluff. And you seem to think that if women (even if your assertion were ture) had the preisthood that this would some how keep them from leaving.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you think that the OW group would want to sit on the men's side in the temple during the endowment?

Yup.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 I do hope to continue to see expanded roles and chances for their voices to be heard and valued.

This suggest that women don't have a voice and are not valued. They are a victim.

[Buckeye]

HUh? CFR that we are losing "young adults, particularly the young adult women". This just sounds like fluff. And you seem to think that if women (even if your assertion were ture) had the preisthood that this would some how keep them from leaving.

 

I can't provide formal numbers because the church doesn't provide them.  But anectdotally, it is definintly the case in my area.  I've spoken to many local leaders (the majority of whom I assume would not support OW) and they all believe the age limit was changed in order to help retain the youth.  Missionary work is becoming sort of an extension of our youth program now.  But we're still loosing lots when they get back.  There is a vaccuum for the age group after they leave missions and before they start families.  We just don't have a lot to offer that group.  I'm not saying this will be the cause, but it is not unreasonable to conclude that priesthood service could help retain some young adult women.

[omni]

When changes occur in church policy, it is primarily (in my experience) in response to a specific need to build the kingdom. It removes an identifiable barrier that exists that is hindering the work from moving forward at that particular time. In the cases where the priesthood ban was lifted and polygamy was suspended, the barriers were clear and identifiable and the timing was appropriate for the Lord to direct the policy change.

What particular barrier that is hindering the work would be removed by ordaining women to the priesthood?

Lack of priesthood leadership is a very real problem in much of the world. This is enhanced by the fact that in many of these areas the activity rate of men is significantly lower than that of women.

By ordaining women we would instantly double the numbers of priesthood holders and improve the quality of the leadership.

[ksfisher]

Lack of priesthood leadership is a very real problem in much of the world. This is enhanced by the fact that in many of these areas the activity rate of men is significantly lower than that of women.

By ordaining women we would instantly double the numbers of priesthood holders and improve the quality of the leadership.

...and give men even less reason to come to church.

[omni]

...and give men even less reason to come to church.

If a priesthood leader is only coming to church because of his calling, he probably shouldn't be in that calling.

[Buckeye]

...and give men even less reason to come to church.

 

Can you name a single active man who would stop his activity if priesthood were no longer gender exclusive?  I have yet to find one.  Yes, there are plenty of slacker men out there.  Always will be.  But that's no reason to stop progress for women.

 

Look at other areas where women are included:  Seminary - most young men do not attend, but none of them do so because young women can attend.  Missions - most men don't serve missions, but none of them decline the call because young women can also serve.  So why do we think it will be any different with administering the sacrament or directing the ward?  Yes, many men will still fail to live up to the call, but none of them will so just because women can now hold the same authority.

[ksfisher]

If a priesthood leader is only coming to church because of his calling, he probably shouldn't be in that calling.

 

We're given callings to help us grow.  Many callings are given, both to men and women, to teach that person how to love and to serve others.  Callings are given to some specifically to help them stay active or become more active.

 

Although, if women are filling callings in the priesthood that would open up callings in Relief Society, Young Womens, and Primary for the men to serve in.  So no problems there.

[smac97]

Lack of priesthood leadership is a very real problem in much of the world. This is enhanced by the fact that in many of these areas the activity rate of men is significantly lower than that of women.

By ordaining women we would instantly double the numbers of priesthood holders and improve the quality of the leadership.

Interesting choice of words there.

As I have said previously, I am open to the idea of women being ordained to the priesthood. But this will need to be the result of revelation, not agitation against the Church by a self-selected group of people demanding it and saying "nothing less will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

HUh? CFR that we are losing "young adults, particularly the young adult women". This just sounds like fluff. And you seem to think that if women (even if your assertion were ture) had the preisthood that this would some how keep them from leaving.

I am not sure that we are losing young adult women at a faster rate than we are losing young men. If anything, I would think that the reverse would be true. The YSA ward that meets in my building has significantly more women attending it than men, and it is my understanding that this is a fairly common ratio throughout the Church.

But the overall concern - that we are losing many youth in the Church to inactivity - is unfortunately correct. The Church is aware of this and I think is working hard to address it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stone holm]

Why should you discount the results of a poll where no names are published. And I do believe that you are doing a disservice to those 90%. I do not know very many women in the wards in which I have attended that were hesitant to voice their opinions, whether anonymous or not.

 

However, I think that we have strayed a bit from the actual OP. SMAC was not questioning whether women should or should not be ordained to the priesthood, but rather to the tactics that the OW group is planning to use. I hope that it does not get out of hand, i.e. that the OW group does not become militant and that the church authorities who are confronted handle the matter as gracefully as possible and do not lose their cool.

 

Glenn

 

I agree that I am not enthused about the tactics.  On the other hand,  there has been in the past some very heavy gender stereotyping coupled with shaming of anyone who might suggest that women are being accorded a lesser status than men.  Course on the other hand, I have also heard women complain that giving them the Priesthood would be just the men dumping even more of the work on them -- which is not a position that speaks well to the idea that women are truly nifty groovy with how they are being treated in the Church.  This issue is not going to go away as more and more women are choosing to have careers and get an education.  The days when my mother-in-law said to my wife, "Why do you want to go to college, you are just going to get married and raise kids" is very long gone, but I am not sure that the membership has figured that out yet.  When I went to high school, the girls had absolutely nothing in the way of competitive athletics were required to take home econ. and banned from shop class.  All of that has changed.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Stone holm

[Buckeye]

... The days when my mother-in-law said to my wife, "Why do you want to go to college, you are just going to get married and raise kids" is very long gone, but I am not sure that the membership has figured that out yet. 

 

Unfortunately, the idea is not that long gone.   http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865586505/Should-women-attend-college.html?pg=all

[smac97]

Can you name a single active man who would stop his activity if priesthood were no longer gender exclusive?  I have yet to find one.  Yes, there are plenty of slacker men out there.  Always will be.  But that's no reason to stop progress for women.

I do not think that women are impeded in their "progress" by not holding the priesthood.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Buckeye]

I do not think that women are impeded in their "progress" by not holding the priesthood.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Ordaining women would be a "progress" because women would be allowed greater agency and ability to act for good.  That doesn't mean they have no means to progress at the moment, or that they have no ability to do good at the moment. 

[smac97]

Ordaining women would be a "progress" because women would be allowed greater agency and ability to act for good.

I do not think women lack sufficient agency or ability to act for good.

In any event, I am open to the idea of women being ordained. However, I strongly disagree with church members publicly agitating against the Church and demanding such a change, stating that "nothing less will suffice." This is incompatible with the revelatory process.

"Thy will be done" and " no man taketh this a honour unto himself" are becoming passé, I guess. "I want the priesthood! And I want it now! And I don't care what God has to say about it! I want the priesthood, and nothing less will suffice!"

Yeah, that's the ticket.

-Smac

[Senator]

.... Any discussion of ordaining women to the priesthood would bring immediate condemnation from faithful church members.

 

 

Like this?

 

 

Buckeye, on 26 Sept 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Or .... it could be that we haven't known the will of the Lord all along and we're finally open to more blessings.  It all depends on whether you think we've "arrived" at perfection yet.

Have fun steadying the ark!   I think the Lord is able to do His own work.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Senator

[Stone holm]

I do not think that women are impeded in their "progress" by not holding the priesthood.Thanks,-Smac

Kind of like say people of African descent were not impeded?