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

[Kenngo1969]

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. 

I wasn't aware that I had a theory.

[Kenngo1969]

 

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

 

 

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?

 

 

Re: The "Men Are Important" spoof -- Unless that's his daughter, I want to know, How did that old guy score such a young, good-looking chick?  (And before all the "Harrumph"-ing about my alleged sexism starts, don't worry: I'm quite content being ignored by The Female of the Species )

[Senator]

 

 The doctrines are along the lines of women will become queens and priestesses in the eternities.

 

Which means what?  Can you describe what the role/authority/function of an eternal queen and priestess is?

Edited October 4, 2013 by Senator

[jkwilliams]

Which means what?  Can you describe what the role/authority/function an eternal queen and priestess is?

If we can extrapolate from mortal marriage, her role would be to give birth (however you interpret that) to spirit children and nurture and raise them.

[Kenngo1969]

If we can extrapolate from mortal marriage, her role would be to give birth (however you interpret that) to spirit children and nurture and raise them.

The question is, can we?  That's a big "if," my friend; a big if!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Which means what?  Can you describe what the role/authority/function of an eternal queen and priestess is?

 

 

If we can extrapolate from mortal marriage, her role would be to give birth (however you interpret that) to spirit children and nurture and raise them.

 

 

Per Elder Maxwell, at least one assignment is arranging the music and decoration for our regal homecoming:

Finally, remember: When we return to our real home, it will be with the “mutual approbation” of those who reign in the “royal courts on high.” There we will find beauty such as mortal “eye hath not seen”; we will hear sounds of surpassing music which mortal “ear hath not heard.” Could such a regal homecoming be possible without the anticipatory arrangements of a Heavenly Mother?

[Calm]

Which means what? Can you describe what the role/authority/function of an eternal queen and priestess is?

My mother said some of the RS lessons made her feel like it would be similar to being a termite queen.

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/06/136028437/a-termite-queen-and-her-ultimate-sacrifice

Edited October 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

My mother said some of the RS lessons made her feel like it would be similar to being a termite queen.

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/06/136028437/a-termite-queen-and-her-ultimate-sacrifice

Oh, my!  Well, as long as we're on the subject of comparing humans to insects, I'm certainly glad I'm not a Male Praying Mantis.

 

http://www.insects.about.com/od/matingreproduction/f/praying-mantis-cannibalism.htm.

 

Makes me glad the Female of the Species ignores me!  Things could definitely be worse!

 

P.S.:  "Don't worry, Ken: I'm not going to eat you ... probably!"

Edited October 4, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[jkwilliams]

The question is, can we?  That's a big "if," my friend; a big if!

 

I was always taught that this life was to teach us how to do what we would be doing in the next. So, sure, I'm making a guess, but it's not unwarranted.

[Kenngo1969]

I was always taught that this life was to teach us how to do what we would be doing in the next. So, sure, I'm making a guess, but it's not unwarranted.

Personally, I would hope that whatever I'm doing as an immortal that I also did as a mortal, I can do it better! (My $0.02, actual value $0.019638640.)

[Stargazer]

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.

 

So, I guess I am somewhat mystified by the bolded part.  What did she want to be in the Church?

 

I am not criticizing your daughter, whose immature understanding was evident in her question to you has surely by now gone on to greater understanding, or so it would be hoped, but I guess I am concerned because it is obvious that lots of people might have such a misunderstanding.  And that is what I am responding to.

 

I have spent my church "career", so to speak, being asked to take on responsibilities of one sort or another.    I have been a branch clerk, ward clerk, stake missionary, primary teacher, sunday school teacher, branch mission leader, branch president, elders quorum president, sunday school presidency member, cubmaster, assistant scoutmaster, branch finance clerk, high priests group secretary, assistant stake dry-pack food storage coordinator, stake emergency communications specialist, and oh, yes, full-time missionary.  My wife has been a primary teacher, relief society presidency counselor, primary president, relief society visiting teaching supervisor, stake dry-pack food storage coordinator (I was her assistant), cub scout den leader, and mother to 10 children.  There are certainly more callings for her that I cannot list because I've only been married to her for 33 years of her 47 years in her Church "career," and I've not been told about them all.

 

Now, I ask you, can you guess just how many of those callings I've just listed either of us have gone to the bishop or stake president about and asked for?  Of course you know the answer: ZERO.  None of them.  They all came seemingly out of nowhere (except in one case where the Lord told me I was being called to the position a full month before I was called to it).  In fact, let me see how many of these callings I actually wanted?  Hmmmm.  Got to think hard about that one....  The answer again: ZERO.  None of them.  Oh, except for full-time missionary.  I did ask for that one.  But in my defense, there seemed to be a general call out there for any church member who was worthy to serve a mission. 

 

At no time did I ever seek to "be anything" other than a faithful member.  And according to the voice of the Lord (and virtually all of these callings seemed to have more than a scent of inspiration about them falling to us) we did as we were bidden.   Now, we reaped blessings from all of these callings, but aside form the incidental fact that I hold the priesthood explicitly and my wife only holds it implicitly, those blessings came about irrespective of holding that priesthood.  The priesthood was certainly involved, no question, but I have not been blessed in any way superiorly to my wife for our service in the Lord's kingdom.

 

And if the Lord is running this Church, as I am certain He is, then these foolish women asking for ordination are exactly that: foolish, and lacking understanding.  If the matter of all things being restored in this the last dispensation of the fullness of times has not already included the ordination of women to the priesthood, then it isn't going to happen because it isn't in the plan of the Father to make it happen.

[Stargazer]

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. 

 

Heh.  I don't fully understand MY OWN role in life and in the Church -- and I hope that when I am dead I might perhaps be led to the understanding that eludes me in this mortal life.  That is not condescension, bluebell, that's fact.  We all see through a glass darkly.  And of those who perhaps see somewhat less darkly through it, some are men and some are women.  We are equal at least in that respect.

 

And who is my gender specific exemplar?  Same as yours: Jesus Christ.

[jkwilliams]

So, I guess I am somewhat mystified by the bolded part.  What did she want to be in the Church?

Nothing in particular.

 

I am not criticizing your daughter, whose immature understanding was evident in her question to you has surely by now gone on to greater understanding, or so it would be hoped, but I guess I am concerned because it is obvious that lots of people might have such a misunderstanding.  And that is what I am responding to.

I think it just comes down to her feeling that not being eligible to be of service in ways men can be meant that Heavenly Father thought she and other women aren't capable of doing those things and are not wanted for those responsibilities. I think that's a valid point.

 

Now, I ask you, can you guess just how many of those callings I've just listed either of us have gone to the bishop or stake president about and asked for?  Of course you know the answer: ZERO.  None of them.  They all came seemingly out of nowhere (except in one case where the Lord told me I was being called to the position a full month before I was called to it).  In fact, let me see how many of these callings I actually wanted?  Hmmmm.  Got to think hard about that one....  The answer again: ZERO.  None of them.  Oh, except for full-time missionary.  I did ask for that one.  But in my defense, there seemed to be a general call out there for any church member who was worthy to serve a mission.

It's a mistake to confuse feeling that God doesn't trust women with authority and aspiring to callings. Just saying. I never asked for a calling, though I knew I was getting called as elders quorum president as soon as the phone rang and before I knew who was calling. The last calling I had was first assistant to the high priests group leader, and I stayed in that calling a good six months after I stopped believing in the church. I think I learned from every calling I had, and I don't regret serving, though there are few things I did that I regret, mostly when I was asked to do things I didn't feel were right but did them anyway.

 

At no time did I ever seek to "be anything" other than a faithful member.  And according to the voice of the Lord (and virtually all of these callings seemed to have more than a scent of inspiration about them falling to us) we did as we were bidden.   Now, we reaped blessings from all of these callings, but aside form the incidental fact that I hold the priesthood explicitly and my wife only holds it implicitly, those blessings came about irrespective of holding that priesthood.  The priesthood was certainly involved, no question, but I have not been blessed in any way superiorly to my wife for our service in the Lord's kingdom.

Again, it's hard for me not to see this as a criticism of these women explicitly (and my daughter implicitly) for aspiring to callings, but I don't think that's what's happening here. It wasn't with my daughter, anyway.

 

And if the Lord is running this Church, as I am certain He is, then these foolish women asking for ordination are exactly that: foolish, and lacking understanding.  If the matter of all things being restored in this the last dispensation of the fullness of times has not already included the ordination of women to the priesthood, then it isn't going to happen because it isn't in the plan of the Father to make it happen.

Like I said, I don't really care who is ordained to what, as it's none of my business. I think it's foolish for members to think they can put pressure on the brethren to effect change. The church doesn't work that way. The church usually adapts to changing situations, and if there is ever a time when it makes sense for the church to ordain women, they'll probably do it. I don't see it happening in my lifetime, and the only thing I believe these women will achieve is having a disciplinary council.

Edited October 5, 2013 by jkwilliams

[Stargazer]

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.

 

Is it any less glorious to be a queen and priestess to one's husband, rather than to God?  No man achieves this divine kingship and ultimate priesthood without his wife beside him as Queen and Priestess.  No woman achieves divine queenship and ultimate priesthood without her husband.  There is literally nothing to feel pain about.  They are called up and exalted as a unit, not singly. 

 

Besides that, Seeking, the words I've bolded and italicized are in fact, wrong.  When was the last time you attended a sealing ceremony?  Have you ever done so?  Not to put to fine a point on it, but if you have attended such a ceremony, then you weren't paying attention.  Husband and wife are each asked if they give themselves to each other of their own free will and choice.  I have served on so many sealing teams that I have the words of the ordinance memorized.  If I were called to be a sealer I wouldn't need the cheat sheet.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't happen to know if you are or were a member of the Church, or if a member, then sealed?  I might be assuming too much, and if so, you have my apologies.  Do you remember the words of the ordinance at all?  The words of the ordinance of sealing are so filled with power and glory that it is simply breathtaking to me, even after having heard it hundreds and hundreds of times.  I simply cannot understand how anyone, husband or wife, could listen to the words of that ordinance and feel anything other than lifted up beyond anything possible to imagine.

[MorningStar]

If the prophet were to announce during General Conference this weekend that they are aware of the feelings/concerns and prayed a great deal about whether women should be ordained, I wonder what OW's response would be if the answer were no?  Would they trust what he has to say or continue to demand that women should have the priesthood? 

 

As a woman, I feel valued and loved in the church and I trust that if we are ever meant to have the priesthood, our leaders will be inspired and it will happen. 

[jkwilliams]

If the prophet were to announce during General Conference this weekend that they are aware of the feelings/concerns and prayed a great deal about whether women should be ordained, I wonder what OW's response would be if the answer were no?  Would they trust what he has to say or continue to demand that women should have the priesthood?

I'm not them, but I think that would be way cool. I can't remember ever hearing church leaders say that they'd prayed about something members had been asking for. It would be an amazing way to show they're listening. 

 

As a woman, I feel valued and loved in the church and I trust that if we are ever meant to have the priesthood, our leaders will be inspired and it will happen.

My wife feels exactly the same way.

Edited October 5, 2013 by jkwilliams

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Is it any less glorious to be a queen and priestess to one's husband, rather than to God? No man achieves this divine kingship and ultimate priesthood without his wife beside him as Queen and Priestess. No woman achieves divine queenship and ultimate priesthood without her husband. There is literally nothing to feel pain about. They are called up and exalted as a unit, not singly.

Besides that, Seeking, the words I've bolded and italicized are in fact, wrong. When was the last time you attended a sealing ceremony? Have you ever done so? Not to put to fine a point on it, but if you have attended such a ceremony, then you weren't paying attention. Husband and wife are each asked if they give themselves to each other of their own free will and choice. I have served on so many sealing teams that I have the words of the ordinance memorized. If I were called to be a sealer I wouldn't need the cheat sheet.

I'm sorry, but I don't happen to know if you are or were a member of the Church, or if a member, then sealed? I might be assuming too much, and if so, you have my apologies. Do you remember the words of the ordinance at all? The words of the ordinance of sealing are so filled with power and glory that it is simply breathtaking to me, even after having heard it hundreds and hundreds of times. I simply cannot understand how anyone, husband or wife, could listen to the words of that ordinance and feel anything other than lifted up beyond anything possible to imagine.

I haven't done sealings for about a year, but the last time a did I listened specifically for the difference (which I heard about online). Men do not give themselves, only recieve (of their own free will and choice).

[Darren10]

I just want to point out that D. Kelly Ogden isolated Kate Kelley and her movement to speak against; not all women in the LDS church / community who feel oppressed or lessened by not having the priesthood. As for me, if one of my sisters in Zion feels oppressed or demeaned, I absolutely want to know about it. I've sat and listened to my daughter wonder why she can't have the priesthood and I'll be glad to do so a thousand times over whenever she genuinely feels "left out" because of it. As for Kate Kelley, her movement is what borders, if not already crossing into apostasy. Kelley's movement I have no tolerance for and will speak out against. Any of my sisters in the Lord who has a doubt or concern regarding women and the priesthood, absolutely speak your mind. I'll listen.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Darren10

[mercyngrace]

Is it any less glorious to be a queen and priestess to one's husband, rather than to God? 

 

Let's put this in a mortal context because God is my Father. Not just my husband's.

 

I can't imagine being asked to step back and serve my husband while my husband serves my dad. 

 

Not only that, I wouldn't let it happen because I love my dad so much that to not serve Him would create an awful ache in me. In fact, when He needs his children to act on his behalf, it breaks my heart to not to live close enough to be right there. And if my dad ever asked me to step aside and let only my husband assist him, I'd be terribly hurt. Because there's nothing I wouldn't do for my dad. Nothing. 

 

Now I don't equate serving God with the priesthood because people serve God without the priesthood all the time. So this isn't about ordination. It's about the wording in the temple. It's about me being told that I am not a priestess to God, my Father, but to a mortal, who in turn has the privilege of acting as a priest to my creator while I am effectively invited to stand at a distance. 

 

Stargazer, perhaps my analogy will seem incomprehensible to you, maybe inane, and easy to deconstruct,  but please, don't dismiss the feelings of your faithful sisters who struggle with feeling less serviceable because of the wording in temple ordinances. It is, for several women I know, a source of real heartbreak and adds to their general struggle to find a meaningful identity within our faith. 

 

Just as in Jacob's day, tender hearts are broken over this issue, And we should do what we can to heal wounds, not pretend they are non-existent.Or worse yet, to do as Bro. Ogden did and imply that women simply don't understand the temple ceremony. It's precisely because they are listening so intently that these distinctions are impressed upon their minds. 

[Darren10]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

True enough that the temple and the Spirit teach us individually and thus we each have unique perspectives to various degrees of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But what in the temple is taught which leads one to conclude that women should have the priesthood. As I think of it, there's quite specific directives from God to Eve to listen to her husband *and he listens to God*.

[Darren10]

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. 

 

True enough regarding the lack of gender specific role models for women when applied to priesthood authority. Furthermore, according to eh official doctrine and faith of the LDS Church, we worship a male God only. We know that God cannot be God, particularly our Father without a Mother. We also know that the "Heavenly Mother" is equal to the Father. As I see it, that means if Heavenly Father is all powerful than so is Heavenly Mother. If Heavenly Father is all loving, kind, gentle, benevolent, and vengeful, than so is Heavenly Mother. But officially we worship the Father and the Father only through His Son (another male of all things). I've wondered why that is exactly but this reasoning of a Heavenly Mother is all speculation beyond that we know She's there and so I don't think we'll fully know why we worship only the Father through the Son until then next life.

 

(Am I sounding like Ogden?  )

[Darren10]

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.

 

 

Here's from Revelations 1:

 

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

 

It's nice that the restored gospel at least adds "queens and priestesses" to clarify that doctrine. Why would being a "queen and priestess" be a source of "great pain". Wonderment, curious, and even confused and concerned, sure; but "great pain"? What I see you arguing is our cultural perspective that one's worth is tied up with who can gain the most power outside the home. That's just bogus. If anything, true power is grassroots and the family is as "grassrooted" as you can get. Applied to Ordain Women, these are women who view governance in the LDS Church as gaining some worth.

 

Where do they get that idea from? Certainly not from the temple.

[Darren10]

 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 think you're safe approach to report yourself is good but if what I read is what you originally wrote, I don't find anything of violation nor off the limits of public discussion.

 

In the sealing husbands *absolutely* give themselves to their wives. Men make explicit covenants (as do women) to be faithful to their wives and sexually chaste. Along your lines of reason, are we to conclude that women don't give themselves to God? Only the men? I find that a bit strange of an interpretation of the temple covenant.

[Darren10]

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?

 

Umm, the vast majority of Ogden's article addresses what to do in the here and now to understand. Injecting "wait until you're dead and you'll understand" is a minor part of his argument.

[Darren10]

 

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

 

 

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?

 

 

Everything in that spoof is regularly taught in the Church, no?

Edited October 5, 2013 by Darren10