Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[Buckeye]

None of the women are wearing pants?

 

Ha!  One miracle at a time.

[Duncan]

Duncan, that's a tough spot to be in.  I'm not sure any global program and idea would fit your stake exactly.  There is always local adaptation.  So take this counsel with a grain of salt, as you know your local situation infinitely better than I. 

 

Would it possibly help these men if they had less time-consuming or less-prominent positions?  Perhaps some of the reason for their falling away is that they know they will be given significant callings if they participate at all.  Also, if these are older men, it could be that they are burned out from doing the same things for so long.  I'm only in my mid-30s and I'm pretty sick of talks on hometeaching.  I can't imagine what it will be like when I'm 80.  I personally know some wonderful sisters who got burned out of primary after 20-30 years there.  These are exceptional women.  They would be on the list of possible bishops if they had the priesthood.  But they just can't stomach the thought of spending more time in primary.  For me, that's one positive of removing gender barriers to callings.  It may well be that sisters who are burned out from primary would flourish on the high counsel.  And the men who are burned out from high counsel could flourish as a primary teacher. 

 

 

that's what I think as well, or even have them as home teacher just so they learn the doctrine.

[Stone holm]

Here's a starting point: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60432-what-is-the-scriptural-basis-for-limiting-the-priesthood-to-males/#entry1209240010

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yeah, references to men receiving the Priesthood do not constitute doctrine that women cannot receive it.  There may be valid doctrinal reasons, but what one generally sees is references to men being authorized to hold the priesthood being spun as doctrine that women cannot.  At least the ban on the men of African descent had some curse language to hang their hats on.  So there may be a reason and at this point if they way in which the ban on African descent was lifted is precedent, then it is going to take something akin to a revelation from the Brethren.  Thing is that one matter seems to be beyond dispute, the Lord rarely gives revelation to the Prophet when he isn't asking the question.  The concern then should be as to whether the Prophet is praying about it or not.   If he says that he is praying about it, that is good enough for me.

[Buckeye]

It depends on how you want to read them. Aside from a handful of (disputed) cases in the New Testament all scriptures referring to Priesthood refer to men. That said I'm not aware of scriptures that specially ban women from the priesthood (they may exist I'm simply unaware if them).

Interestingly one of the scriptures used to overturn the ban says that all are alike unto God including "black and white, bond and free, male and female"

 

Yes, and it's very interesting that that scripture is cited in full in the new intro to OD-2.  The church didn't need to include the language about "male and female" in that intro, but it chose to.  More tea leaves, I guess.

[Buckeye]

that's what I think as well, or even have them as home teacher just so they learn the doctrine.

 

Well, when you're talking about high counselors, I would assume they know the doctrine.  But maybe not.  In my experience, what really gets rough is when you are left pulling more weight than you should.  Sometimes its because members move away.  Sometimes they go inactive.  It's kind of like being in a group of men in a tug of war.  When the first team mate bails, it's manageable.  But when half the team leaves it quickly becomes too much and every leaves except the guy tied to the rope - who then gets pulled face first through the mud.

[MorningStar]

Ha!  One miracle at a time.

 

I think they should wear pants, demand tickets, and then demand to say the opening and/or closing prayer. 

[Duncan]

Well, when you're talking about high counselors, I would assume they know the doctrine.  But maybe not.  In my experience, what really gets rough is when you are left pulling more weight than you should.  Sometimes its because members move away.  Sometimes they go inactive.  It's kind of like being in a group of men in a tug of war.  When the first team mate bails, it's manageable.  But when half the team leaves it quickly becomes too much and every leaves except the guy tied to the rope - who then gets pulled face first through the mud.

 

 

oh man!!!!! the stories I can tell about some guys around here, being judgemental of course! haha! it's the STP principle here with men and women, my Mom has been in primary for 7 years and she is over 70 now and is exhausted doing it but there is no one else to do it.

[smac97]

Yeah, references to men receiving the Priesthood do not constitute doctrine that women cannot receive it.

First, by that reasoning, we should also be free to bestow the priesthood on inanimate objects. Or animals. Or computers. Or infants. And on and on.

Second, OD-2 seems to be fairly specific about the gender thing.

Third, I concede that scriptures require some exegesis. I also concede that it is conceivable that women could be given the Priesthood, though I think a revelation would be required for that.

 

There may be valid doctrinal reasons, but what one generally sees is references to men being authorized to hold the priesthood being spun as doctrine that women cannot.  At least the ban on the men of African descent had some curse language to hang their hats on.

So the priesthood restriction as to race had a doctrinal basis, but the one on gender does not? You're really stretching here.

 

So there may be a reason and at this point if they way in which the ban on African descent was lifted is precedent, then it is going to take something akin to a revelation from the Brethren.

A point I have made many times.

 

Thing is that one matter seems to be beyond dispute, the Lord rarely gives revelation to the Prophet when he isn't asking the question.

We have no evidence that the question isn't being asked. In any event, public agitation designed to make the Church look bad is not the way a house of order operates. Proceeding from a position that disregards revelation on the subject ("nothing less will suffice") is not the way a house of order operates.

 

The concern then should be as to whether the Prophet is praying about it or not.   If he says that he is praying about it, that is good enough for me.

I'm not sure it's the place of members to call a tune and publicly demand that the prophet dance to it. And it is certainly not our place to demand a change in doctrine and declare that "nothing less {than a change in doctrine} will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2013 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'm not sure it's the place of members to call a tune and publicly demand that the prophet dance to it. 

 

I struggle with that.  And of course there is the case of Zelophehad's Daugters who publicly petitioned the prophet Moses, Eleazar the priest, the princes and the whole congregation.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I struggle with that.  And of course there is the case of Zelophehad's Daugters who publicly petitioned the prophet Moses, Eleazar the priest, the princes and the whole congregation.  

Of course we all know that Zelophehad's daughters were a bunch of ark steadiers out to make Moses look bad. I mean if God wanted them to have an inheritance he would have revealed it to Moses in his law the first go around.  And if they weren't happy with the revealed law of Moses, they should have probably just prayed privately and waited for God to act. Right?

 

Edited to add:Please note I am not trying say the two situations were exactly analogous because they are obviously not.  I find it interesting that the same criticisms leveled at ordain women could also be applied here as well though.

Edited September 26, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[juliann]

You seem to be under the impression that I oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood. As I have said several times, I am open to this. I don't think it will happen, but I am open to it. This thread is about tactics being used by people who are agitating for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

  Smac,  I think women have different philosophies on how to go about things.  I do not think a binary question of do you want the priesthood gets anywhere near what is going on in our minds.  More and more women are feeling that, as Cal says, something is missing.  We can do more but we need to have more access to the institution.   Are you aware that the Proc on the Fam was a complete surprise to the RS Presidency?  It was then announced in the RS session!  That is what something is missing means.  The current RS/PH manual was also a complete surprise to the RS.   Something is missing when a curriculum for women is written not only without their input but without their knowledge. 

 

One philosophy is that this has been going on far too long, the only way that real inclusion will ever happen is to have women in the offices where decisions that effect them are made...at all levels in the church.  The other thinking is that this devalues what we are even further, thus cementing the perception that what women create for themselves is inadequate.  Women need to empower themselves. I'm explaining that badly but maybe you can read between the lines.  Or something.  What this 90% of women don't want the priesthood does not reflect is that probably 90% of women are growing dissatisfied on some level or another.   It is particularly dangerous when the older ones, who would be expected to toe the line, are those who can remember when women had much greater autonomy while the young ones no longer live in a culture that puts up with these sorts of things.  

 

What is of greatest concern, regardless of where anyone is on this, is how we talk about women in the church while claiming that women are valued.  Those men who are getting personal are doing more harm to the church than any group of women could.  They are proving the point that women will, indeed, have to take over their positions of authority to be treated as human beings, let alone as equals.  The trash talk is giving a horrible, horrible image of what the church thinks of women to outsiders.

[MorningStar]

The thing that really annoys me is that there seems to be an assumption that throughout the years this has been a controversy, our prophets have never thought to pray about this.  Or that they have prayed about it and for some reason disobeyed what the Lord told them.  These women have determined that they are correct and all it will take is some poking and prodding until they get their way. 

[smac97]

I struggle with that.  And of course there is the case of Zelophehad's Daugters who publicly petitioned the prophet Moses, Eleazar the priest, the princes and the whole congregation.

First, their petition pertained to their claimed legal right to inherit land. They were not seeking a change in doctrine.

Second, there is no indication that these women adopted an adversarial, we-want-what-we-want-when-we-want-it, we-don't-care-about-revelation, "nothing less will suffice" attitude when they petitioned Moses.

Third, Moses took the matter to God, who approved of the sisters' petition. In contrast the OW folks have disregarded the role of revelation in the Church, and have instead demanded ordination (in violation of Hebrews 5:4), saying that "nothing less will suffice."

Fourth, Moses did not administer to a flock of 14 million. President Monson does.

Fifth, Moses, despite leading a much smaller group than the current Church, nevertheless exhausted himself in running the show until he was corrected by this father-in-law (my namesake, as it happens), who counseled Moses to delegate some of his responsibilities. This concept of delegation of priesthood responsibilities is, I think, currently in force in the Church. But the OW folks don't care about that. They aren't taking their petition to their local leaders. They aren't even taking their petition to the Church. They are taking their petition to the media, in an effort to make the Church look bad.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Smac,  I think women have different philosophies on how to go about things.  I do not think a binary question of do you want the priesthood gets anywhere near what is going on in our minds.  More and more women are feeling that, as Cal says, something is missing.

I will take your word for it. I would like a better understanding of what this "something" is.

 

We can do more but we need to have more access to the institution.

Can you expand on this a bit? What sort of "access?" What "more" things do LDS women want to do? How are they impeded from doing these things?

 

Are you aware that the Proc on the Fam was a complete surprise to the RS Presidency?  It was then announced in the RS session!

Ironic, though, that the OW folks have said that one of the reasons why they want to attend the Priesthood Session is because the Church occasionally makes big announcements in that session. In my view, the Proclamation on the Family was one of the most significant announcements in recent years. I think its announcement during the RS session was calculated to emphasize the centrality of women in the family. And yet now the Brethren are being faulted for not telling the RS Presidency.

By the way, did the RS Presidency publicly complain about not being told of the change ahead of time? Did they publicly agitate against the Church about it? Did they coordinate publicity stunts to take place during conference? I doubt it.

I currently serve in my ward's bishopric. We often discuss things which are kept "close the vest," so to speak. Our RS president is in the loop on a lot of things, but not all things. Further, the bishop and the RS president keep a number of issues confidential (where we, the counselors, are out of the loop).

I am all for discussing and addressing the concerns of women in the Church. I strongly disagree, however, with church members publicly "agitating" against the Church, scheduling PR stunts intended to make the Church look bad, etc.

 

That is what something is missing means.  The current RS/PH manual was also a complete surprise to the RS.   Something is missing when a curriculum for women is written not only without their input but without their knowledge.

No women were involved in the development of the curriculum?

I guess I can see your point to an extent. But these are not concerns afflicting LDS women in general. If the RS Presidency is unhappy with being left out of the loop (are they?), it would seem they have recourse available to them. But you are speaking of "something is missing" as to LDS women in general. What is it?

 

One philosophy is that this has been going on far too long, the only way that real inclusion will ever happen is to have women in the offices where decisions that effect them are made...at all levels in the church.  The other thinking is that this devalues what we are even further, thus cementing the perception that what women create for themselves is inadequate.  Women need to empower themselves. I'm explaining that badly but maybe you can read between the lines.  Or something.

I'm at "or something." I do not understand what you are saying.

 

What this 90% of women don't want the priesthood does not reflect is that probably 90% of women are growing dissatisfied on some level or another.

Again, I will take your word that there is "growing" dissatisfaction among the women in the Church. I just wish this dissatisfaction, and its specific association with gender, could be articulated.

 

What is of greatest concern, regardless of where anyone is on this, is how we talk about women in the church while claiming that women are valued.  Those men who are getting personal are doing more harm to the church than any group of women could.

Let me be frank: I don't care that the OW folks are mostly women. You will note that recently I was similarly critical of Denver Snuffer regarding his inappropriate behavior toward the Church. Nobody suggested that a critique of his actions was off limits because of his gender. So in all candor, I don't think it's appropriate for women to misbehave toward the Church and then hide behind their gender when called on their behavior.

The OW group, consisting of both women and men, is demanding the priesthood for women, saying that "nothing less will suffice." They are publicly "agitating" (their word) against the Church. They are planning a public demonstration against the Church during the Priesthood Session. They are trying to make the Church look bad.

These are all fair criticisms. And they are not being leveled because the actors are women. They are being leveled because the actions are wrong.

 

They are proving the point that women will, indeed, have to take over their positions of authority to be treated as human beings, let alone as equals.  The trash talk is giving a horrible, horrible image of what the church thinks of women to outsiders.

So women in the Church, because they are women, should be treated differently from men when they engage in adversarial behavior against the Church. They should be held to a lesser standard of accountability. They are free to agitate against the Church in ways that men are not because they are women. Other Church members may not criticize women who agitate against the Church in ways that would invite criticism if men were the perpetrators. And the different standard of treatment is based solely on gender.

I cannot agree to this. I cannot even agree that there is gender-specific "trash talk" going on (not from me, anyway). I have not faulted Sister Kelly because of her gender. I have not criticized the OW group because most of its constituent members are women. And I strongly disagree with your characterization that criticism of the OW group demeans the humanity of those people. If someone targets the OW group by disparaging their gender, I will stand along side you in defending them. But if you want me to excuse otherwise unacceptable behavior from the OW group because of their gender, I will not do that. I will hold LDS women to the same standard as I hold LDS men.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2013 by smac97

[Tacenda]

Smac, I think women have different philosophies on how to go about things. I do not think a binary question of do you want the priesthood gets anywhere near what is going on in our minds. More and more women are feeling that, as Cal says, something is missing. We can do more but we need to have more access to the institution. Are you aware that the Proc on the Fam was a complete surprise to the RS Presidency? It was then announced in the RS session! That is what something is missing means. The current RS/PH manual was also a complete surprise to the RS. Something is missing when a curriculum for women is written not only without their input but without their knowledge.

One philosophy is that this has been going on far too long, the only way that real inclusion will ever happen is to have women in the offices where decisions that effect them are made...at all levels in the church. The other thinking is that this devalues what we are even further, thus cementing the perception that what women create for themselves is inadequate. Women need to empower themselves. I'm explaining that badly but maybe you can read between the lines. Or something. What this 90% of women don't want the priesthood does not reflect is that probably 90% of women are growing dissatisfied on some level or another. It is particularly dangerous when the older ones, who would be expected to toe the line, are those who can remember when women had much greater autonomy while the young ones no longer live in a culture that puts up with these sorts of things.

What is of greatest concern, regardless of where anyone is on this, is how we talk about women in the church while claiming that women are valued. Those men who are getting personal are doing more harm to the church than any group of women could. They are proving the point that women will, indeed, have to take over their positions of authority to be treated as human beings, let alone as equals. The trash talk is giving a horrible, horrible image of what the church thinks of women to outsiders.

I hate when leaders have to praise the women as if they need it. Why don't they do that with the men?

[Bikeemikey]

I hate when leaders have to praise the women as if they need it. Why don't they do that with the men?

Quote function only grabbed the last little bit - I really enjoyed your whole post.

Cheers!!

[rongo]

We are discouraged from writing letters to GA's and if we do those letters are sent back to our bishop.

No they're not, at least not from what one can gather from Conference. They are read from the pulpit by multiple brethren and used in their talks (thus ensuring that many more people who think it would be really cool to have their letter read in GC send letters to GAs, despite directions to the contrary and insistence that they will be sent back to local leaders). 

 

Sorry --- pet peeve of mine. Carry one! 

 

[/slight threadjack]

[SeekingUnderstanding]

No they're not, at least not from what one can gather from Conference. They are read from the pulpit by multiple brethren and used in their talks (thus ensuring that many more people who think it would be really cool to have their letter read in GC send letters to GAs, despite directions to the contrary and insistence that they will be sent back to local leaders).

Sorry --- pet peeve of mine. Carry one!

[/slight threadjack]

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2004/04/news-of-the-church

The Lord, in His wisdom, has so organized His Church that there is accessible to every member a bishop or branch president and a stake, district, or mission president, who serve as spiritual advisers and temporal counselors. We have the utmost confidence in the wisdom and judgment of these priesthood leaders. By reason of their callings, local leaders are entitled to the spirit of discernment and inspiration to enable them to counsel members within their jurisdiction. Accordingly, in most cases, correspondence from members will be referred back to their local leaders for handling. Priesthood leaders who have need for further clarification about doctrinal issues may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency.

[rongo]

I know that, Seeking. 

 

So, why do we continue to have several letters quoted every Conference?

 

That's all I'm saying.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I know that, Seeking.

So, why do we continue to have several letters quoted every Conference?

That's all I'm saying.

I didn't say letters were banned or that GA's never read them only that they were discouraged.

[rongo]

But they say out of one side of their mouth that they are discouraged, and then they continually read from letters they got from people. Which ensures that people will continue to send GAs letters, discouragement to the contrary.

[Tacenda]

Quote function only grabbed the last little bit - I really enjoyed your whole post.Cheers!!

You grabbed my whole quote, maybe you thought it was part of Juliann's quote? Which would be compliment.

[jwhitlock]

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

I have found no connection with young adults leaving the church and the ordination of women to the priesthood.  Try again.

[Duncan]

But they say out of one side of their mouth that they are discouraged, and then they continually read from letters they got from people. Which ensures that people will continue to send GAs letters, discouragement to the contrary.

 

 

that's what i was going to say as well, plus sitting next to a GA on an airplane is something that will likely come up! just don't be crazy and you won't end up getting quoted!

Edited September 27, 2013 by Duncan

[jwhitlock]

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

 

Evidently you don't have any idea what verbal abuse really is. Here's a hint: none of those phrases you quoted amount to verbal abuse.