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

[Duncan]

Besides visiting teaching, I have volunteered for all my callings save maybe four that I can remember. Whenever we came to a new ward, I would in the past inform the bishop I very much enjoyed Primary callings knowing how hard it can be in some wards to get consistent teachers...and invariably shortly thereafter I would be in Primary. Other callings I heard or saw there was an issue, in one case they couldn't find any men available for Akela..the Canadian male version of a Den mother...it was not a position usually held by women up ther, another I created a unique position of being the teacher of one pupil who disrupted and terrified his Primary classmates...if anyone was destined to grow up and be a serial killer, it was him (but with some great intervention from the school district in an very special and 'elite' anger management class and loving parents he has apparently made a complete turnaround) and another was the 14-15 years old...when I heard it reported by my nephew that they had 14 teachers in one year....that was just wrong. I lasted a year and a half teaching with a couple of major class parties before we switched to the 9am slot and my disorder made it impossible...so back to the library which has become my default calling due to not being able to sit.

 

 

it's true, the Cubs here has been run for some time by women, all women. The guys either don't want to do it or they can't find anyone interested in doing it

[Stargazer]

Besides visiting teaching, I have volunteered for all my callings save maybe four that I can remember. Whenever we came to a new ward, I would in the past inform the bishop I very much enjoyed Primary callings knowing how hard it can be in some wards to get consistent teachers...and invariably shortly thereafter I would be in Primary. Other callings I heard or saw there was an issue, in one case they couldn't find any men available for Akela..the Canadian male version of a Den mother...it was not a position usually held by women up ther, another I created a unique position of being the teacher of one pupil who disrupted and terrified his Primary classmates...if anyone was destined to grow up and be a serial killer, it was him (but with some great intervention from the school district in an very special and 'elite' anger management class and loving parents he has apparently made a complete turnaround) and another was the 14-15 years old...when I heard it reported by my nephew that they had 14 teachers in one year....that was just wrong. I lasted a year and a half teaching with a couple of major class parties before we switched to the 9am slot and my disorder made it impossible...so back to the library which has become my default calling due to not being able to sit.

 

Well, you are clearly special.  And not just because of this post, of course, but...

 

My dream calling would be one in which I got to give talks about once per month.  Unfortunately, this would involve being called to the Stake high council, and I can just see myself going to the stake president and volunteering for it. 

 

Yes, I know I am crazy, but there it is.

[Calm]

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.

Does it sound petty to say that I would love it to happen just so I could see their reactions? Maybe it makes it okay because I would be even more curious to see the reactions to an announcement of "yes" from all those so certain it won't be happening...including myself.

[Storm Rider]

Mercy, if you interpret something one way and it hurts your feelings and you talk to me and I state that I have a different interpretation of it.  I explain my interpretation is directly opposed to your perception of the same thing. What is the best course of action for you to take?  Should you accept the better interpretation or should you continue to agitate over your perception/interpretation?

 

I don't want this to devolve into a conversation about all the ways we could improve the temple session; I have my own issues. But, I do wonder why we as humans don't gravitate to those things that may bring us happiness rather than continue in the way that obviously annoys us. 

[Calm]

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.

So does that mean it should just be ignored, if so great.

[Calm]

What if your dad said he'd like your husband to help and you could too in a different but equally valuable capacity than your hunband's capacity?

Also, 'stand at a distance"? When I see witness couples called up in the temple session a man and a woman come up together, kneel together, and receive the covenants together. When is Eve ever "at a distance" to Adam after the Fall? Truth be told the woman's direct presence is absolutely essential for a man to receive his full blessings from the Lord.

Your husband may be worth two quarters but you're a half dollar piece. It's silly to argue which of you is seen as more valuable.

As utterly fantastic as that might be, kneeling at the side of one's husband, having one's eyes on him is not the same as kneeling at the feet of the Lord, gazing into His face. Edited October 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

Darren,

 

This isn't about value. In fact, I don't think I used that term. And this isn't about serving in different capacities. It's about being told that men serve God and women serve men. 

 

It's about distance in the relationship and being separated from God by having one's husband placed as an intermediary. 

 

Clearly, you don't hear the temple wording that way but can you, given the compassion you've expressed for those who feel marginalized, understand that some women do feel they are placed at a distance - even the veiling of their faces being a symbol of the separation? And if so, do you believe simply dismissing their concerns is an effective way of lifting up the hands that hang down?

 

With all due respect, this has to be about value otherwise why get worked up over being told that "me serve God and women serve men"? Women are not lessened by this declarative and if they feel they are, are they not placing a value on what is being told to them?

 

I do hear the temple wording of placing a "distance" between women and God. In fact the wording does raise an eyebrow in terms of, "Huh?", "whah"? with me but I am extremely unconvinced that that this lessens women or makes them secondary to men before God.

 

so, I again ask, when you hear the words of "serving your husband" in the temple where is Eve at that point? Away from Adam? Adam gets exclusive dips on coming to God? Or is eve *always* by his side after the Fall?

 

I do not at all dismiss "concerns" but I absolutely do pronounce Ordain Women as wrong and they get their temple doctrine wrong, ignore it, or falsify it. I think they are using societal standards to decide what the temple teaches them.

[Calm]

it's true, the Cubs here has been run for some time by women, all women. The guys either don't want to do it or they can't find anyone interested in doing it

Well, it can be hard given the timing of afternoon. It is wiser if it is held in the evening, IMO, like achievement day girls was held in our ward up there, unlike down here where both are right after school...which works much better with the kids with the school right across the street.

[Darren10]

 

 

Clearly, you don't hear the temple wording that way but can you, given the compassion you've expressed for those who feel marginalized...

 

Mercygrace, did you read my #68 post?

 

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.

[Darren10]

So does that mean it should just be ignored, if so great.

 

Heh!

 

Actually, it should not be ignored but it did seem that as this thread continued, that became more and more the primary talking point among some. Ogden's post is not a bout "just wait until you're dead" but rather about what to do now to denounce Ordain Women and why they are in error.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Darren10

[Tacenda]

Does it sound petty to say that I would love it to happen just so I could see their reactions? Maybe it makes it okay because I would be even more curious to see the reactions to an announcement of "yes" from all those so certain it won't be happening...including myself.

Well the same rumor that went around a year ago is going around again, the one that said something big is going to be announced, lol. You might get your wish.

[Darren10]

As utterly fantastic as that might be, kneeling at the side of one's husband, having one's eyes on him is not the same as kneeling at the feet of the Lord, gazing into His face.

 

Women will do that too.

 

1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.

 

(snip)

6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

9 ¶And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

 

(Mathew 28)

 

21 And when he had said these words, he wept, and the multitude bare record of it, and he took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them.

22 And when he had done this he wept again;

23 And he spake unto the multitude, and said unto them: Behold your little ones.

24 And as they looked to behold they cast their eyes towards heaven, and they saw the heavens open, and they saw angels descending out of heaven as it were in the midst of fire; and they came down and encircled those little ones about, and they were encircled about with fire; and the angels did minister unto them.

25 And the multitude did see and hear and bear record; and they know that their record is true for they all of them did see and hear, every man for himself; and they were in number about two thousand and five hundred souls; and they did consist of men, women, and children.

 

(3 Nephi 17)

[Calm]

I would agree, but it doesn't say that in the temple so some may not interpret it that way.

[Storm Rider]

These types of concerns are what the RS Presidency, if they are not already or have already, should be bringing to the attention of the First Presidency. I know that it is like moving through molasses to get some procedural or other changes made, but they can and do occur.  

 

There is something far more valuable to me when those with a concern speak directly to those who either can make an impact or directly to the decision maker. It is not wise or enlightened to start a web site, start speaking, and demand changes to meet one's demands. One method exerts a positive influence and the other is like spitting into the wind. 

[Darren10]

I would agree, but it doesn't say that in the temple so some may not interpret it that way.

 

Doesn't the temple say "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ"? And it says so without anyobligation for women to distance themselves from their husbands.

 

Amazing!!!

[mercyngrace]

Mercy, if you interpret something one way and it hurts your feelings and you talk to me and I state that I have a different interpretation of it.  I explain my interpretation is directly opposed to your perception of the same thing. What is the best course of action for you to take?  Should you accept the better interpretation or should you continue to agitate over your perception/interpretation?

 

I don't want this to devolve into a conversation about all the ways we could improve the temple session; I have my own issues. But, I do wonder why we as humans don't gravitate to those things that may bring us happiness rather than continue in the way that obviously annoys us. 

I understand your point, Storm Rider, but it's not that simple because women aren't alone in their interpretation. Yesterday on another forum, I read the words of an active LDS man:

 

It is simple, restore the roles a wife and a husband commit to in the temple. A women covenants to work under her husband's stewardship, and a man covenants to work under the Lord's stewardship.

 

And this is a man opposed to female ordination. In the months since I've been following this issue, I've encountered many who describe this hierarchy of service which puts man between the women and God. If it were just about choosing to take the words a different way, that would be a relatively easy fix. But it's not. It's about living in a society where many see this distance and inequity and accept it as defining a woman's place. And the language used to justify this hierarchy comes from the liturgy in our holiest house of worship. 

 

We talk about being equals in the home, ignoring that women commit not to act as equals in the temple. We even commit to receive the word of the Lord secondhand. The temple can be a hard place for some women. Not a healing experience at all. That's sad, indeed. 

 

I agree that the actions of the temple are much more egalitarian. If the words were aligned to reflect the actions, I think this particular issue could be put to rest. 

Edited October 5, 2013 by mercyngrace

[bluebell]

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.

 

It is a fact that we all will have to wait until death to fully understand our own roles.  It is not a fact though that women have the same number of spiritual role models-in teaching them how to be a woman in God's kingdom in this life-as men do.

 

As the popular saying goes, this isn't magic, it's math.    Look thru the scriptures and write down every positive male role model you find in them.  Then look thru them and write down every positive female role model.  Compare.

 

Women and men obviously aren't the same-we learn differently and we related to things differently.  We see the same experiences differently.  The very same idea (which it seems most male posters on this forum agree with) that suggests that it is beneficial for men and women to learn separately in RS and priesthood, and to learn separately in General RS meetings and General Priesthood meetings, suggests that it would ALSO be beneficial for women to have their own spiritual role models as well, just as the men already have.

 

You can't argue that having separate spaces for the genders is actually superior for both men and women in learning how to navigate their own unique roles in this life thru gender specific teaching and relating, and then in the same breath attempt to argue that women can just as easily learn how to navigate their own unique roles in this life by focusing solely on male examples and male experiences, told thru male voices and from male points of view.

 

Either one is true, or the other is.  They can't both be.

 

And following that line of reasoning.  If it's good, if it's a blessing, for men to understand their true place in God's kingdom by following the righteous examples of other men in the scriptures and to also understand in this life  their own potential by looking to the example of their Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ, then it's kind of lame to tell women that they don't need any examples right now and they can just wait until they die and then they'll have a clue about what it is exactly they are trying to become and what it means to be a Heavenly Mother someday.

Edited October 5, 2013 by bluebell

[bluebell]

Mercy, if you interpret something one way and it hurts your feelings and you talk to me and I state that I have a different interpretation of it.  I explain my interpretation is directly opposed to your perception of the same thing. What is the best course of action for you to take?  Should you accept the better interpretation or should you continue to agitate over your perception/interpretation?

 

I don't want this to devolve into a conversation about all the ways we could improve the temple session; I have my own issues. But, I do wonder why we as humans don't gravitate to those things that may bring us happiness rather than continue in the way that obviously annoys us. 

 

I think MnG is coming at this issue not from what the upset person needs to do, but what the not upset person needs to do.

 

Psychologists are very fond of saying that perception is reality.  In other words, it doesn't matter what is actually real, if you truly believe something, it's as real for you as any actual reality is.

 

If you believe you see dead people (to use a silly example) it has the exact same effect on you as if you are actually seeing dead people.

 

For these sisters who feel marginalized, it really doesn't matter if others disagree with them.  Knowing that doesn't make them feel any better.  Since we can't help anyone feel better by pointing out we disagree with them or telling them how wrong they are, then perhaps there are other ways that we can help them and 'comfort those who stand in need of comfort' as our baptismal covenants tell us we must do.

 

And maybe we should focus on figuring out what those other ways are, instead of continuing down the path that comforts no one. 

 

This is what I understand MnG to be saying. 

[Senator]

 

 

Clearly, you don't hear the temple wording that way but can you, given the compassion you've expressed for those who feel marginalized, understand that some women do feel they are placed at a distance - even the veiling of their faces being a symbol of the separation?

 

You don't have to be a woman to feels this.  Every time these points are reached in the temple I experience a certain uneasiness. I always look to my left and wonder if any of these women are feeling and thinking what I'm feeling and thinking.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Senator

[Senator]

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

 

Did I just really read that??????

 

Heavens t-betsy

Edited October 5, 2013 by Senator

[Senator]

 But, I do wonder why we as humans don't gravitate to those things that may bring us happiness rather than continue in the way that obviously annoys us. 

 

Because we as intelligent creatures  have this thing about us.

 

Here's and example. 

 

I love to hike; especially in nature's beautiful places. At times along the way, I'll take up a small rock in my shoe. Why is it, in spite of the great joy and happiness I am experiencing in my current environment, I will take the time to stop my journey, take of my shoe and remove this silly thing that is causing me discomfort?

 

So you ask a good question. Why would we continue in the way that obviously annoys us?

[Calm]

Cal, which talk was that?

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2133

 

Sorry it took me so long...I am rather spacey the past few days with lack of sleep...

[mercyngrace]

Mercygrace, did you read my #68 post?

I did - that's why I referenced your compassion. I absolutely take you at your word that you feel for sisters who feel marginalized. That's why I trust that you can step out of your shoes and into those of your wounded. sisters, even if only as an exercise of empathy.

[cinepro]

It occurs to me that if things were to change in regard to "women and the Priesthood" in the future, there may be a few LDS Church members (and leaders) who experience a bit of a crisis of congruity, especially if they have made strong arguments against such a change being needed or even doctrinally possible.

 

Were that to be the case, I would want these Church members and leaders to be at peace, and to be able to reconcile the change with their past statements and arguments.  To that end, I have prepared the following statement for them to use.  If you are now arguing against the doctrinal suitability of women receiving the priesthood, please feel free to cut-and-paste this statement and save it for future use in talks, Church newsletters, and online use including blogs and message boards. 

 

 

 

There are statements in our literature by the Brethren and others which we have interpreted to mean that women would not receive the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. I have said the same things, and people write me emails and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what D. Kelly Ogden said, or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

 

No attribution necessary.  Use it freely as needed.

Edited October 5, 2013 by cinepro

[Storm Rider]

And of course if there is a clear proclamation contrary to the position of ordaining everyone to the priesthood, feel free to....that might be an interesting conversation.  I will still lean on Jacob 2, but to each his own.