D. Kelly Ogden's Response To Kate Kelly And Ordain Women

[Darren10]

Another great link from Daniel Peterson regarding the Ordain Women movement. I found this one by taking a quick peek at Dan’s Patheos blog. There from his post called “Women and the Priesthood”, Dan links to D. Kelly Ogden’s article in Meridian Magazine. Dan describes Ogden as a friend and colleague and no doubt Dan runs with insightful people.

 

Ogden responds to various comments made by Kate Kelly who is a co-founder of Ordain Women.  Ogden lays out Kelly’s position via various quotes attributed to Kelly. Kelly’s cited statements to “ordain women” are as follows:

1. “This is an important step toward a future where Mormon women will participate side by side with our brothers in all areas of church leadership and life.” (Referring to women getting ordained into the priesthood after gaining entrance into this wekend’s Priesthood Session during General Conference.
2. “This is about the ordination of women to the priesthood.” She says that she represents “Mormon women seeking equality and ordination to the priesthood.”
3. “We consider ourselves to be prospective priesthood holders, and we . . . are ready for both the benefits and responsibilities of the priesthood
4. “To me,” she continued, “agitating on the issue is a question of self-respect. I respect and value the church and myself too much to be silent on this question. I truly believe that God wants us all to equally share the burdens and blessings of the priesthood. The ordination of women would put us all on equal spiritual footing with our brethren, and nothing less will suffice.”

Ogden outlines is reactionary thoughts as follows:

1.I believe Jesus was the greatest champion of women who has ever lived. (For example: Jesus broke social norms when His first recorded open declaration that He was the Messiah was to a woman, and a Samaritan woman even. He repeatedly showed in His ministry that all women are valued daughters of our Heavenly Father. And His first appearances after His resurrection were to women.)

2.I also believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s Church, and that He is in charge of how it is organized and how the doctrines of His gospel are revealed and taught in the Church.

3.I believe He now has, just as when He organized His Church two thousand years ago, specially ordained servants on the earth—called prophets and apostles—who speak for Him, and that the Lord asks for our loyalty to Him and to His appointed leaders.

4.I believe Him when He says, regarding His revealed instructions, “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38).

5.I believe that each presiding prophet, who holds all priesthood keys, may speak for God on any subject, and, as for each member of the Church, the Lord says: “thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments . . . for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4-5). In other words, we are expected to live by the Lord’s rules—which He calls commandments—and not seek to stir up contention over those rules (“Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine” – D&C 10:63).

 

Ogden then points to a portion of the Proclamation to the World. Kelly cites and comments:

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

 

“In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters . . . accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life.

 

“By divine design [and maybe that suggests that the arrangement comes through eons of experience], fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” (There’s so much more in the Proclamation, but these lines will do for now.)

 

 

That portion of the Proclamation beautifully renders the eternal truth that God loves His daughters just as much as He loves His sons. That all children are to be nurtured by both their mother and father and that the mother and father have equal responsibility to raise their children.

 

This equality, as Odgen points out, applies to the priesthood. Ogden quotes Elder M. Russell Ballard ata BYU devotional:

Men and women have different but equally valued roles. Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without a man, so a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman. In the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by a husband and wife. . . . “Why are men ordained to the priesthood offices and not women? . . . When all is said and done, the Lord has not revealed why He has organized His Church as He has.” Women are integral to the governance and work of the Church. “Let us not forget that approximately one-half of all of the teaching that takes place in the Church is done by sisters. . . . Much of the leadership provided is from our sisters.”

 

Men and women are equal in God’s eyes and in the eyes of the Church, but equal does not mean that they are the same. Although responsibilities and divine gifts of men and women differ in their nature, they do not differ in their importance or influence. “It takes a man and a woman to create a family, and it takes men and women to carry out the work of the Lord in the Church.”

 

When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is by definition priesthood power. “All who enter the house of the Lord officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood. This applies to men and women alike.” (End of excerpts from Elder Ballard.)

 

 

 

Here Ogden makes an opined point that, “I would surmise that if any persons in the Church have an issue with women not receiving the priesthood by ordination, then they are not attending the temple. And if they are attending the temple, they do not really understand what they are hearing and experiencing there. All faithful women, learning and understanding the true, eternal nature of womanhood and the power of God available to them, receive a clear vision of heavenly powers magnified in them beyond their fondest hopes or dreams. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses.””

 

I do not know of any other religion which explicitly teaches (despite it’s explicit mention in Revelations) that man and woman may be a “king and priest” or a “queen and priestess” before God in the eternities.

 

Not only is it errant to alter the leadership of the priesthood, there’s no need for it. LDS sisters such as Kate Kelley, I think, are viewing the priesthood in terms of social and political levels of respect and achievement. I wholeheartedly agree with Odgen’s response to Kate Kelly and the Ordain Women movement. What Kelly and these women are doing s not compatible to applying temple covenants and doctrines to their lives. Furthermore, it will not enhance the LDS Church, nor its culture. Only confusion and further strife will result in ordaining women to the priesthood. Most important, there should be no doubt that our Holy Father loves women just as much as He loves men. Women’s contribution to the kingdom of God on the earth is immensely valuable and men and women need each other, their similarities and differences, to fully progress in Christ the Lord.  

 

Full Ogden article: Women and the Priesthood

[juliann]

Regardless of who is right on this,  he is not even engaging the real issues in his well written article.   That means it isn't a good defense.  The days when it can just be declared women are [insert hyperbole here] are over because it will be followed with a laundry list of instances where they just aren't treated that way.  

 

"...they do not really understand what they are hearing and experiencing there.".  No, he...a man...did not just tell women what they should understand in their personal temple experience.  You don't understand the gospel [like I do],  you are not righteous [like I am], my wife thinks [exactly what I say so she should let me do the talking] need to go to the painful death they deserve.  

 

It's not working anymore,  time to get educated on what is really being said and why.

[jkwilliams]

A non-LDS friend of mine put it succinctly: If the church really valued women, its leaders wouldn't have to keep saying how much they value women. Actions speak louder than words.

 

I don't really care who gets the priesthood (none of my business, anyway), but what I see in this is that women feel devalued in the church, and it doesn't matter how many times they are told how valued they are or that they just need to go to the temple, it won't change the fact that they feel devalued. And there's a reason why they feel devalued, and I don't see people like Brother Ogden caring about why that is enough to listen to them. If I were an LDS woman and were told I wouldn't be feeling this way if I understood the temple as well as Brother Ogden, I'd feel more than a little insulted.

 

When my daughter was 15 or so, she asked me why Heavenly Father likes boys more than he likes girls. I said he doesn't, and she said, He must like boys better because they can be whatever they want, and girls can't. I said that wasn't true, and she said that girls can't have the priesthood and they can't be bishops or prophets or even pass the sacrament. We had a long talk, and the best answer I could give her was that, just because the church does or teaches something, it doesn't mean that's what God does or teaches. This immense look of relief came over her face, and she said, "You're right. I know Heavenly Father loves me, no matter what the church does." My wife, of course, was horrified at my answer, so she tried the "men can't have babies" argument, which made as much sense to my daughter as it does to me (not much).

 

And according to my carefully crafted plan to destroy my family's faith, my daughter went to BYU and was married in the temple and is active in the church.

[Darren10]

Regardless of who is right on this,  he is not even engaging the real issues in his well written article.   That means it isn't a good defense.  The days when it can just be declared women are [insert hyperbole here] are over because it will be followed with a laundry list of instances where they just aren't treated that way.  

 

"...they do not really understand what they are hearing and experiencing there.".  No, he...a man...did not just tell women what they should understand in their personal temple experience.  You don't understand the gospel [like I do],  you are not righteous [like I am], my wife thinks [exactly what I say so she should let me do the talking] need to go to the painful death they deserve.  

 

It's not working anymore,  time to get educated on what is really being said and why.

 

By all means elucidate us. You realize he singled out Kat Kelley who openly advocates division, disruption, and uninspired *major* changes in LDS governance, namely the priesthood, right? Are you telling me she's living up to her temple covenants and understanding the doctrines taught in  there. And I ask this as a husband whose wife suffers from deep depression and me telling her what she thinks would be fatal to my health. 

 

/I love my Niki

[Darren10]

If the church really valued women, its leaders wouldn't have to keep saying how much they value women.

 

Sweet, I no longer have to tell my wife or children how much I value them .

 

Now, avoiding a strawman argument on my part, what's wrong with assuring women how much they are valued?

 

but what I see in this is that women feel devalued in the church

 

Such as?

 

and it doesn't matter how many times they are told how valued they are or that they just need to go to the temple

 

As I read the article, it said nothing of the sort along the lines of "just go to the temple". Rather, D. Kelley Ogden admonishes women to ponder (deeply I may add) on the doctrines of the temple. The doctrines are along the lines of women will become queens and priestesses in the eternities. What other church teaches such a doctrine? (All Christian churches should teach it since it's right there in the Bible).

 

And there's a reason why they feel devalued, and I don't see people like Brother Ogden caring about why that is enough to listen to them.

 

And yet here is Brother Ogden giving a very lengthy article in response to detailed arguments in women getting ordained to the priesthood.

 

If I were an LDS woman and were told I wouldn't be feeling this way if I understood the temple as well as Brother Ogden, I'd feel more than a little insulted.

 

I think he's challenging the Ordain Women and Kate Kelley specifically to understand what is taught in the temple and how that applies to her insistency to get women ordained to the priesthood. And his article is not just on the idea but also on her tactics which I find highly political and social and little to nothing spiritual.

 

 He must like boys better because they can be whatever they want, and girls can't.

 

Huh? This from God who cannot be God without a Heavenly Mother?

 

I sense that your daughter was viewing "boys can be whatever they want" from society's point of view which has over the past several decades placed a high value on out of the home careers to mark yourself and raise your status and respectability in society. I find this movement absolutely devastating to the family. Can you cite her one official LDS doctrine which would prohibit her from getting employment outside the home and becoming a career woman? I tell you, I'd love it if my wife went out and worked and I stayed home with the kids. But, that said, there is immense value with stay at home moms. Immeasurable value even.  My mom did not work out of the home until my last sibling was preschool aged and I would not change that for the world. In fact I see first hand of having one parent at home in the security and happiness of my kids and all my nieces and nephews. That includes my brother who's a stay at home dad.

 

I said that wasn't true, and she said that girls can't have the priesthood and they can't be bishops or prophets or even pass the sacrament. We had a long talk, and the best answer I could give her was that, just because the church does or teaches something, it doesn't mean that's what God does or teaches.

 

YIKES!!! The one true church doesn't do what God would have them do? That's what I got from that statement. What did your wife tell your daughter beyond the baby argument? When my wife and I had such a conversation with our daughter it included the idea that men and women are different, have deferring roles in God's kingdom; but neither is more important than the other. As Brother Ogden points out in his article (and I hope you've read it)

 

“Sisters, some will try to persuade you that because you are not ordained to the priesthood, you have been shortchanged. They are simply wrong, and they do not understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. The blessings of the priesthood are available to every righteous man and woman. We may all receive the Holy Ghost, obtain personal revelation, and be endowed in the temple, from which we emerge ‘armed’ with power. The power of the priesthood heals, protects, and inoculates all of the righteous against the powers of darkness. Most significantly, the fullness of the priesthood contained in the highest ordinances of the house of the Lord can be received only by a man and woman together.”

 

LDS doctrine is explicitly clear that man needs woman and woman needs man in Christ the Lord. What other church teaches such a thing?

 

And according to my carefully crafted plan to destroy my family's faith, my daughter went to BYU and was married in the temple and is active in the church.

 

Good. Could you ask her real quick how going to the temple has helped her faith to know Heavenly Father loves her and her role as a woman in the kingdom of God?

 

In fact, what do you get rom the temple teachings?

[jkwilliams]

Sweet, I no longer have to tell my wife or children how much I value them .

 

Now, avoiding a strawman argument on my part, what's wrong with assuring women how much they are valued?

Nothing, but it's not as good as showing them with your actions.

 

 

Such as?

I'm not sure what you're asking. To me it's obvious that these women feel devalued in the church, or they likely wouldn't be doing what they are doing.

 

As I read the article, it said nothing of the sort along the lines of "just go to the temple". Rather, D. Kelley Ogden admonishes women to ponder (deeply I may add) on the doctrines of the temple. The doctrines are along the lines of women will become queens and priestesses in the eternities. What other church teaches such a doctrine? (All Christian churches should teach it since it's right there in the Bible).

I'm with Juliann on this one. I can't imagine being more condescending than saying this: "I would surmise that if any persons in the Church have an issue with women not receiving the priesthood by ordination, then they are not attending the temple. And if they are attending the temple, they do not really understand what they are hearing and experiencing there." My wife would probably punch me if I said something like that.

 

And yet here is Brother Ogden giving a very lengthy article in response to detailed arguments in women getting ordained to the priesthood.

And I'm saying he's responding to the wrong thing. He's not listening.

 

I think he's challenging the Ordain Women and Kate Kelley specifically to understand what is taught in the temple and how that applies to her insistency to get women ordained to the priesthood. And his article is not just on the idea but also on her tactics which I find highly political and social and little to nothing spiritual.

I have no idea who Kate Kelly is, and as I said, who gets ordained is none of my business, but I'll just say again that telling women they obviously don't attend the temple or don't understand it is, well, just a tad condescending.

 

Huh? This from God who cannot be God without a Heavenly Mother?

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

 

I sense that your daughter was viewing "boys can be whatever they want" from society's point of view which has over the past several decades placed a high value on out of the home careers to mark yourself and raise your status and respectability in society. I find this movement absolutely devastating to the family. Can you cite her one official LDS doctrine which would prohibit her from getting employment outside the home and becoming a career woman? I tell you, I'd love it if my wife went out and worked and I stayed home with the kids. But, that said, there is immense value with stay at home moms. Immeasurable value even.  My mom did not work out of the home until my last sibling was preschool aged and I would not change that for the world. In fact I see first hand of having one parent at home in the security and happiness of my kids and all my nieces and nephews. That includes my brother who's a stay at home dad.

She never said a word about employment. Her concerns were entirely religious. Her own mother never worked until our youngest was in elementary school, and our conversation had nothing to do with careers, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.

 

YIKES!!! The one true church doesn't do what God would have them do? That's what I got from that statement.

I suppose I'd have to believe it was the one true church for that to merit a yikes.

What did your wife tell your daughter beyond the baby argument? When my wife and I had such a conversation with our daughter it included the idea that men and women are different, have deferring roles in God's kingdom; but neither is more important than the other. As Brother Ogden points out in his article (and I hope you've read it)

Yes, my wife said all of those things.

 

LDS doctrine is explicitly clear that man needs woman and woman needs man in Christ the Lord. What other church teaches such a thing?

The Bible teaches that, so presumably most Christian churches do.

 

Good. Could you ask her real quick how going to the temple has helped her faith to know Heavenly Father loves her and her role as a woman in the kingdom of God?

I don't think I've ever talked to her about the temple and probably won't. It was and may still be a sore point that I waited outside during the wedding.

 

In fact, what do you get rom the temple teachings?

I'm not going to get into that, as I have no interest in possibly violating the rules here.

[Darren10]

Nothing, but it's not as good as showing them with your actions.

 

I don't get it. How is the LDS Church NOT acting on showing how much women are valued? By not ordaining them to the priesthood?

 

When I asked "such as", could you give me specifics as to how the LDS Church "devalues" women? Is there another church which teaches a more beautiful doctrine of exaltation, "becoming God" for women? I've always heard how women are immensely valued in the LDS Church. I've also seen it with my own eyes. You loose me when you make a statement that "it's obvious" the LDS Church does not value women. I'm not looking for your take on how women may "feel", but rather how are they devalued by the LDS church?

 

I like Brother Ogden linking discontent by LDS women for getting ordained in the priesthood. The temple is pretty clear who gets God's authority to govern. What do they not understand from the temple that Kate Kelley would make the claim that LDS women want the priesthood and are ready for the responsibilities of priesthood ordination. What temple doctrine does she get that from?

 

Reading your replies I'd say that you see the LDS church as a mere social organization which may have some nice things in it but nevertheless, a social organization. From that point of view I can see why you would take empathy for "hurtful" sentiments made by not ordaining women to the priesthood. As a believer, I view this as having to come from God n revelation. At least I know where you're coming from and I hope you are aware from where I'm coming from, which, I'm sure you are.

 

As far as Christian churches go, a point of criticism upon the LDS church by other Christian churches / believers is the doctrine of man and woman needing each other for full salvation. They say it removes, at least to some degree,  Jesus from salvation. I say nothing can be further from the truth. The doctrine of exaltation and eternal family sealings bring Christ much more intimately into life and existence than by proclaiming that only Jesus can save. Despite doctrines such as being kings and princes, queens and princesses in the eternities, traditional Christianity has long divorced itself from accepting that doctrine as literal.

 

Thank you for your time. I have enjoyed this dialogue.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Darren10

[Storm Rider]

Based upon what was said above, they "said" that women were valued rather than demonstrated that women were valued. See, it does give a good flying flip what God thinks of women or how he acts towards women; it on matters how women "feel" here on earth. This sounds all the more like a political battle; "I" want to be in charge; if "I" am not in charge I am not important enough and therefore I need to be in charge because "I" need to feel valued, important, in charge. 

 

When will we learn that these feelings have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit and no one is responsible for them except our own selves. If the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ and is inspired, then try and understand why there is a conflict in ourselves. If the Church is not the Savior's church, then forget this mess, start your own church and have at it. You would be following in the shoes of a number of other churches that want to create the church in their own image, after their own desires. Why is this so hard; get on with it and make a decision, take a stand.  In view of this constant call from some, how are we to interpret 2 Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears".  Does it apply?  For me, it is not a dark glass, but as clear as the nose on your face.

 

Another's actions cannot affect our feelings; our feelings are based upon our own perceptions and expectations of how we think people should treat us.  . 

[bluebell]

A non-LDS friend of mine put it succinctly: If the church really valued women, its leaders wouldn't have to keep saying how much they value women. Actions speak louder than words.

I don't really care who gets the priesthood (none of my business, anyway), but what I see in this is that women feel devalued in the church, and it doesn't matter how many times they are told how valued they are or that they just need to go to the temple, it won't change the fact that they feel devalued. And there's a reason why they feel devalued, and I don't see people like Brother Ogden caring about why that is enough to listen to them. If I were an LDS woman and were told I wouldn't be feeling this way if I understood the temple as well as Brother Ogden, I'd feel more than a little insulted.

When my daughter was 15 or so, she asked me why Heavenly Father likes boys more than he likes girls. I said he doesn't, and she said, He must like boys better because they can be whatever they want, and girls can't. I said that wasn't true, and she said that girls can't have the priesthood and they can't be bishops or prophets or even pass the sacrament. We had a long talk, and the best answer I could give her was that, just because the church does or teaches something, it doesn't mean that's what God does or teaches. This immense look of relief came over her face, and she said, "You're right. I know Heavenly Father loves me, no matter what the church does." My wife, of course, was horrified at my answer, so she tried the "men can't have babies" argument, which made as much sense to my daughter as it does to me (not much).

And according to my carefully crafted plan to destroy my family's faith, my daughter went to BYU and was married in the temple and is active in the church.

Just wanted to point out that some women feel devalued in the church, not all women.

Those in support of OW are definitely in the minority and as I understand it, some with profiles on that site have never been mormon or haven't considered themselves mormon for a very long time.

Given that, I don't even know that it's completely honest for Kate Kelly to suggest she's a leader of mormon women who want the priesthood since she's actualky leading both members and non/no longer identifying members as well.

I don't really agree with a lot in Ogden's article, but it seems important to view OW as they are and for what they are. And spokeswomen for mormon women in general they definitely aren't.

Edited October 4, 2013 by bluebell

[jkwilliams]

I don't get it. How is the LDS Church NOT acting on showing how much women are valued? By not ordaining them to the priesthood?

Again, you'd have to ask these women, not me. Obviously they feel devalued, so it might be a good idea to find out why.

 

When I asked "such as", could you give me specifics as to how the LDS Church "devalues" women? Is there another church which teaches a more beautiful doctrine of exaltation, "becoming God" for women? I've always heard how women are immensely valued in the LDS Church. I've also seen it with my own eyes.

And yet, some women feel devalued. Go figure.

You loose me when you make a statement that "it's obvious" the LDS Church does not value women.

I never said that, so I guess I couldn't have lost you.

I'm not looking for your take on how women may "feel", but rather how are they devalued by the LDS church?

My point was that what matters is that some women feel devalued, and rather than being defensive and condescending, as Kelly Ogden did, it might be better to find out why these women feel devalued.

I like Brother Ogden linking discontent by LDS women for getting ordained in the priesthood. The temple is pretty clear who gets God's authority to govern. What do they not understand from the temple that Kate Kelley would make the claim that LDS women want the priesthood and are ready for the responsibilities of priesthood ordination. What temple doctrine does she get that from?

Let me give you an analogy: say that a friend comes to you struggling with a particular doctrine or issue in the church. What's the best response? 1) Tell him that if he understood the scriptures or the temple, he'd understand and stop complaining, or 2) Talk to him about why he's struggling and try to work it out. Sounds like you and Kelly Ogden prefer the first option. I'm just saying that may not be the wisest course of action.

Reading your replies I'd say that you see the LDS church as a mere social organization which may have some nice things in it but nevertheless, a social organization.

No, I'm an evil apostate. You can ask around here. They know me.

From that point of view I can see why you would take empathy for "hurtful" sentiments made by not ordaining women to the priesthood.

First of all, I haven't said anything about hurtful sentiments, and as a matter of fact, I haven't even said anything about ordaining women other than that my daughter felt less valued because she "couldn't be anything she wanted to be" in the church. My solution wasn't to start agitating to ordain women but to help my daughter feel that she was valued. I suppose some might say I threw the church under the bus, but it was the right thing to do.

As a believer, I view this as having to come from God n revelation. At least I know where you're coming from and I hope you are aware from where I'm coming from, which, I'm sure you are.

Sure, but even a believer ought to recognize that the issue is about a lot more than just who gets the priesthood.

 

As far as Christian churches go, a point of criticism upon the LDS church by other Christian churches / believers is the doctrine of man and woman needing each other for full salvation. They say it removes, at least to some degree,  Jesus from salvation.

I'm almost 50 years old, and I spent over 40 of those years as an active, believing member of the church. Yet I've never heard any Christian make the criticism you describe above. Maybe I need to get out more.

I say nothing can be further from the truth. The doctrine of exaltation and eternal family sealings bring Christ much more intimately into life and existence than by proclaiming that only Jesus can save. Despite doctrines such as being kings and princes, queens and princesses in the eternities, traditional Christianity has long divorced itself from accepting that doctrine as literal.

I've always liked that doctrine, but it really doesn't have anything to do with some women feeling devalued.

 

Thank you for your time. I have enjoyed this dialogue.

Likewise.

[Buckeye]

Citing the Proclamation as the sole authority for denying women priesthood ordination merely proves the necessity of ordination.  The Proclamation was written without any input from the Sisters.  If they Sisters had been involved, the Proclamation would have been worded differently.  Please read this interview of Sister Chieko Okasaki, who was part of the General RS Presidency at the time the Proclamation was presented.

 

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf

[jkwilliams]

Just wanted to point out that some women feel devalued in the church, not all women.

Yes, I should have qualified that.

Those in support of OW are definitely in the minority and as I understand it, some with profiles on that site have never been mormon or haven't considered themselves mormon for a very long time.

For some reason, I'm not surprised.

Given that, I don't even know that it's completely honest for Kate Kelly to suggest she's a leader of mormon women who want the priesthood since she's actually leading both members and non/no longer identifying members as well.

I don't really agree with a lot in Ogden's article, but it seems important to view OW as they are and for what they are. And spokeswomen for mormon women in general they definitely aren't.

Completely agree. I don't know Kate Kelly, and I hadn't even heard of her until this thread, but she doesn't represent the women of the church. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that she'll eventually be told by her priesthood leaders to stop pushing this agenda, and if she doesn't, she'll face church discipline. But if nothing else, this whole episode shows that some women feel devalued in the church, and this is an opportunity for the rest of the church to ask why that is.

[bluebell]

Completely agree. I don't know Kate Kelly, and I hadn't even heard of her until this thread, but she doesn't represent the women of the church. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that she'll eventually be told by her priesthood leaders to stop pushing this agenda, and if she doesn't, she'll face church discipline. But if nothing else, this whole episode shows that some women feel devalued in the church, and this is an opportunity for the rest of the church to ask why that is.

 

There are a lot of women in the church who feel that there are things that definitely need to change, in regards to gender roles and such.  There is a still a lot of 1950s American culture in the church that could easily go away and not impact anything doctrinal and a lot of women feel that it should go away as soon as possible.

 

But because of Kate Kelly and the OW crowd, it's really hard for any sister in the church to talk about those issues without a lot of members instantly accusing them of being in cahoots with her and her agenda and therefore on the verge of feminist apostasy (could there be a worse kind?!   ).  And so Kate and that group are getting a lot of push back from Mormon women who want some things to change, but who see the OW agenda as overshadowing those real issues, making it even harder for the real meaningful changes they are seeking to be taken seriously. 

 

And the OW group's affinity for calling anyone who wants to see some changes but does not support ordination for women as 'so called feminists' only serves to further alienate their group from the majority of women they claim to want to represent.

Edited October 4, 2013 by bluebell

[Darren10]

Storm Rider #8;

 

 

 

This sounds all the more like a political battle; "I" want to be in charge; if "I" am not in charge I am not important enough and therefore I need to be in charge because "I" need to feel valued, important, in charge. 

 

That's how I see it.

 

 

 

If the Church is not the Savior's church, then forget this mess, start your own church and have at it.

 

EXACTLY!!! But, as one who believes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indeed christ's church, I encourage all to join it and to stay in it. I'd never impose such a osition on anyone but do admonish them to do so.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Darren10

[Tacenda]

Yes, I should have qualified that.

For some reason, I'm not surprised.

Completely agree. I don't know Kate Kelly, and I hadn't even heard of her until this thread, but she doesn't represent the women of the church. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that she'll eventually be told by her priesthood leaders to stop pushing this agenda, any if she doesn't, she'll face church discipline. But if nothing else, this whole episode shows that some women feel devalued in the church, and this is an opportunity for the rest of the church to ask why that is.

I think the more women are exposed to her and the points of her mission, they may well come around. There really has never been anytime before now that women have been able to freely ask for the PH. She's changed my perspective quite a lot. I still don't need the PH but maybe some do, or something close to it. I see that down the road it could affect many LDS, men and women, enough to get things changed a lot or a little, but change indeed.

[Kenngo1969]

I think the more women are exposed to her and the points of her mission, they may well come around. There really has never been anytime before now that women have been able to freely ask for the PH. She's changed my perspective quite a lot. I still don't need the PH but maybe some do, or something close to it. I see that down the road it could affect many LDS, men and women, enough to get things changed a lot or a little, but change indeed.

Yeah.  That'll happen ... if the Church of Jesus Christ is a political organization which does things according to majority vote.  If, on the other hand, this is God's Church and Kingdom Restored to the Earth in the Latter-days, and if it's supposed to happen, it'll likely happen when a revelation comes well after the earthly clamor for it to happen among "many LDS ... to 'get things changed'" has died down.

 

P.S.: God's timing can be so exasperating sometimes!

Edited October 4, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Buckeye]

Yeah.  That'll happen ... if the Church of Jesus Christ is a political organization which does things according to majority vote.  If, on the other hand, this is God's Church and Kingdom Restored to the Earth in the Latter-days, and if it's supposed to happen, it'll likely happen when a revelation comes well after the earthly clamor for it to happen among "many LDS ... to 'get things changed'" has died down.

 

P.S.: God's timing can be so exasperating sometimes!

 

So under your theory, the OW movement is a vitally necessary step for ordination to happen - just not the only step.  We'll also need a waiting period.  But the waiting can't happen until the some clamoring is done. 

[Calm]

So where does his argument leave all the women in the Church who through no fault of their own cannot attend the temple?

Not that long along that included the vast majority of single sisters.

 

=====

 

I will also admit to always feeling somewhat wary of anyone who claims to personally know what type of spiritual experience  someone else can receive to the point of interpretation.

 

The temple and the Spirit in my understanding individualizes the message they teach.  Not everyone learns the same thing or in the same way.  I have known faithful wonderful women who have the temple ceremonies memorized, who have served in the temple, who have shared magnificent lessons they have learned in their attendance...but never phrased such in terms of how Brother Ogden has.

 

I think with the very recent talk by Elder Ballard we will see more people seeing this particular insight in their experiences...now that permission to do so has been essentially given.

Edited October 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

I think the more women are exposed to her and the points of her mission, they may well come around. There really has never been anytime before now that women have been able to freely ask for the PH. She's changed my perspective quite a lot. I still don't need the PH but maybe some do, or something close to it. I see that down the road it could affect many LDS, men and women, enough to get things changed a lot or a little, but change indeed.

 

That could be.

 

I can only speak from my personal experience and relate that being exposed to that group and Ms. Kelly's words specifically has actually taken me further from her position than closer to it.

 

Nothing personally against her-i'd probably like her if I met her in person-but I personally don't believe she is a good spokeswoman for the group.

[bluebell]

So where does his argument leave all the women in the Church who through no fault of their own cannot attend the temple?

Not that long along that included the vast majority of single sisters.

 

=====

 

I will also admit to always feeling somewhat wary of anyone who claims to personally know what type of spiritual experience  someone else can receive to the point of interpretation.

 

The temple and the Spirit in my understanding individualizes the message they teach.  Not everyone learns the same thing or in the same way.  I have known faithful wonderful women who have the temple ceremonies memorized, who have served in the temple, who have shared magnificent lessons they have learned in their attendance...but never phrased such in terms of how Brother Ogden has.

 

I think with the very recent talk by Elder Ballard we will see more people seeing this particular insight in their experiences...now that permission to do so has been essentially given.

 

I have to admit that I find Ogden's last paragraph telling women that if they don't understand their true role in life and in the church to just wait until they are dead and then they'll finally have a good role model to follow is really lame.  I know he's quoting another leader, but it does not help his cause one bit.  It actually has the effect of illustrating how women lack gender specific examples to follow in the church. 

[Calm]

That could be.

 

I can only speak from my personal experience and relate that being exposed to that group and Ms. Kelly's words specifically has actually taken me further from her position than closer to it.

 

Nothing personally against her-i'd probably like her if I met her in person-but I personally don't believe she is a good spokeswoman for the group.

It has helped me elaborate in depth the principles involved....and has also resulted in me believing something further in distance from her position as well.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

As I read the article, it said nothing of the sort along the lines of "just go to the temple". Rather, D. Kelley Ogden admonishes women to ponder (deeply I may add) on the doctrines of the temple. The doctrines are along the lines of women will become queens and priestesses in the eternities. What other church teaches such a doctrine? (All Christian churches should teach it since it's right there in the Bible).

 

If you actually bothered to talk to or listen to some of these women, you'd know that for many of them the temple is a great source of pain.  You note that they are queens and priestesses just like men are kings and priests? Not quite.  Men are kings to god and women are queens to their husbands. While the language has been softened some, many women notice the difference between the promises to be obedient that men and women take.  In the sealing ceremony, women give themselves to their husbands, but the husbands do not give themselves to their wives.  These are painful things for many of them.

 

Note: I've reported my own post to moderation, as I want to make sure I didn't cross any lines on temple content.

[Calm]

to just wait until they are dead

 

Seems like that is asking a lot of someone when that understanding is the focus and motivation for how one envisions what they desire the next life to be and whether or not the Church's current doctrine is teaching the truth....it is like asking someone to work for you while refusing to discuss salary and benefits.

 

In the end it does amount to trusting and faith in the Lord, but telling someone to just ignore their own interpretations on that basis....not all that good...it comes across as "I'm right, you're wrong as you will see when you are dead"....does he really think that is in the least reassuring?

Edited October 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

If you actually bothered to talk to or listen to some of these women, you'd know that for many of them the temple is a great source of pain.  You note that they are queens and priestesses just like men are kings and priests? Not quite.  Men are kings to god and women are queens to their husbands. While the language has been softened some, many women notice the difference between the promises to be obedient that men and women take.  In the sealing ceremony, women give themselves to their husbands, but the husbands do not give themselves to their wives.  These are painful things for many of them.

 

Note: I've reported my own post to moderation, as I want to make sure I didn't cross any lines on temple content.

 

I can certainly understand if a woman has issues with the wording.

 

However, since it is LDS doctrine that a man can't be a king or priesthood unless his wife is also a queen and priestess, is the issue more one of semantics than actual doctrine?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If the church really valued women, its leaders wouldn't have to keep saying how much they value women.

 

Sweet, I no longer have to tell my wife or children how much I value them .

 

Now, avoiding a strawman argument on my part, what's wrong with assuring women how much they are valued?

 

 

Darren, why don't church leaders assure the men of the church how much they are valued?

Why doesn't the friend publish an article like this?

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/578755_10151007889483305_1708317734_n.jpg

 

Note, this is a spoof of this article in the friend:

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/magazines/friend/2012/08/fr12aug16-000-women-are-important-in-the-Church.jpg

 

Why doesn't Elder Cook tell us how incredible LDS men are?