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

[jkwilliams]

I've been curious and would love to start a thread on the very topic as to why you no longer believe in the LDS church. But, obviously that would not be here. I'd love to do that on my own blog but I have not touched that thing in a very long time.

I don't do exit stories anymore. I'm pretty sure I wrote it out on my blog a long time ago, so I suppose you could find it there if you wanted to find it.

 

I'm definitely one of them who am interested to telling why Ordain Women is wrong. I don't mind at all to find out their reasons but for this thread I just want ot say how wrong they are and I think Brother Ogden makes great points in doing that.

We men are good at trying to fix things and arguing about who is right. In this case, it's probably more productive to listen, as I don't think the obvious issue (women being ordained to the priesthood) is the real issue.

 

So, do you find it of eternal worth? As much as being a guy in the eternities, whatever that entails?

The idea that humans have divine potential and can become like God is, to me, one of the most attractive and beautiful doctrines of Mormonism, so no, I don't denigrate it. And if it's true, obviously it would be of eternal worth.

[Stargazer]

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.

 

Sigh.  I suppose I will just have to confess to being a shallow-minded male.  I just don't see the problem, and I am genuinely sorry. 

 

I know that many of us believe that what we learn in this life is something that we will benefit from in the life to come, and while I accept this on faith, at the same time it still seems like so much bilgewater.  I like to think I am pretty smart, and I know that when I was tested as a child they reckoned me as "gifed" -- which made my father wonder what the heck was wrong with me, since I was so content with mediocrity -- but I know this for a cast-iron, take-it-to-the-bank fact, that the amount of knowledge and understanding any of us can acquire in this life is so inadequate for the task of becoming a joint-heir with Christ, that we might as well have died before we reached the age of accountability.  It's nothing!  It's meaningless!  I will have a PhD in Looking Up At the Sky and Shaking My Head in Wonder.  That and $5 will get you a decaf Cappucino at Starbucks.  Maybe.

 

I go for a refuge to Ecclesiastes 12:13

 

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

 

We are here for a test.  Some of us clearly needed less testing than others, and so we died very young.  But the dead children who did not live long enough to require a male model or a female model, will receive exaltation despite that.  The rest of us already have an impossible model to follow and that is Jesus Christ. 

 

You think you need a female model?  I don't even have a male one.  The Lord Jesus Christ had more feminine compassion and understanding in the tip of his left pinkie than you have in your entire being.  Do I as a man need an example of courage and perseverance?  Again, the Lord Jesus Christ had more of that in the tip of his right pinkie than I do in my entire being.  If you wonder about that, consider that He didn't have to endure the pain of the Atonement, that He freely chose it, knowing how horrible it would be and knowing how much of a test it would be, even for Him, and yet still he did it.  On a scale of one to ten, where giving birth is ONE, what Christ endured willingly is a MILLION.

 

You want a female spiritual role model?  Do you think that Sister Monson could have been that, even without the priesthood?  Just because she didn't call attention to herself doesn't mean that she wasn't a role model.

 

And for the record, I don't look at President Monson as a spiritual role model.  He's a great guy, and I appreciate his gifts and all that, but I prefer to look to the Lord for my model.

 

Aim high.  You might miss, but at least you won't shoot your foot off.

[rongo]

 

. . . can you . . . understand that some women do feel they are placed at a distance - even the veiling of their faces being a symbol of the separation?

My grandfather, who worked in the Ogden Temple for around 40 years, told me that multiple temple presidents had told him that the women veil their faces at a certain time in the temple because they are ritualistically in the presence of God in a way that the men aren't. This dovetails with promises that are made to the women unconditionally in the temple that are conditional to the men.

 

It's interesting to me that any number of things that some take to be a slight, oppression, inequality, etc. are intended to be the exact opposite. The gender roles in the Church and women's veils in the temple are only two examples of this.

[mercyngrace]

My grandfather, who worked in the Ogden Temple for around 40 years, told me that multiple temple presidents had told him that the women veil their faces at a certain time in the temple because they are ritualistically in the presence of God in a way that the men aren't. This dovetails with promises that are made to the women unconditionally in the temple that are conditional to the men.

 

It's interesting to me that any number of things that some take to be a slight, oppression, inequality, etc. are intended to be the exact opposite. The gender roles in the Church and women's veils in the temple are only two examples of this.

 

That's the approach my father took as well. But that too is sexist, indicating that the daughters of God are favored above His sons.

 

I don't buy that either. 

[rongo]

That's the approach my father took as well. But that too is sexist, indicating that the daughters of God are favored above His sons.

 

I don't buy that either. 

It only "too, is sexist, indicating that the daughters of God are favored above His sons" if people are intent on seeing it that way. How many men feel slighted or diminished because women wear veils and they don't? Or, that women have unconditional promises while men don't?

 

Women who feel slighted or diminished are going out of their way to find slights, in my view.

 

<cue juliann coming in with "This shows that you just don't get it" . . .>

 

If you don't buy that, either, then what is your explanation for women having unconditional promises while the men don't?

Edited October 5, 2013 by rongo

[mercyngrace]

It only "too, is sexist, indicating that the daughters of God are favored above His sons" if people are intent on seeing it that way. How many men feel slighted or diminished because women wear veils and they don't? Or, that women have unconditional promises while men don't?

 

Women who feel slighted or diminished are going out of their way to find slights, in my view.

 

<cue juliann coming in with "This shows that you just don't get it" . . .>

 

If you don't buy that, either, then what is your explanation for women having unconditional promises while the men don't?

 

Rongo,

 

I don't know whether men feel slighted. I do know that the unintentional consequence of gender inequality is that it wounds both genders. And it is as much because I love my sons as because I love my daughter, that questions like these are important to me. (I wrote a thread about how the idea that "women are more spiritual" is damaging to both women and men but it seems to have been memory holed... Nemesis, where have all the old threads gone?)

 

As for the wording, I don't know for certain why it is different but I am open to a number of possible explanations. 

[Senator]

 

 

If you don't buy that, either, then what is your explanation for women having unconditional promises while the men don't?

 

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to.  Is this something found in the initiatory ordinance for women?

[MorningStar]

It only "too, is sexist, indicating that the daughters of God are favored above His sons" if people are intent on seeing it that way. How many men feel slighted or diminished because women wear veils and they don't? Or, that women have unconditional promises while men don't?

 

Women who feel slighted or diminished are going out of their way to find slights, in my view.

 

<cue juliann coming in with "This shows that you just don't get it" . . .>

 

If you don't buy that, either, then what is your explanation for women having unconditional promises while the men don't?

I think I know what you're talking about.  Is it referring to something women already are and what men may become?

[rongo]

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to.  Is this something found in the initiatory ordinance for women?

Yes. Women have certain unconditional blessings, while the men's are conditional.

[rongo]

Rongo,

 

I don't know whether men feel slighted.

 

 

I don't think any do. My point is that women have certain wonderful blessings that men don't, and I don't think anyone can provide even anecdotal evidence of men feeling slighted because of this.

 

I do know that the unintentional consequence of gender inequality is that it wounds both genders.

 

This presupposes that there is actual "gender inequality" and that there are real "wounds." From my example, I guess the fact that there are certain blessings women have that men don't in the temple could theoretically be claimed as "gender inequality," although I don't know anyone who actually claims or believes this. It seems to only apply where holding ordained priesthood authority is concerned, not when women are the recipients "at men's expense."

 

I wrote a thread about how the idea that "women are more spiritual" is damaging to both women and men

 

I find this to be obnoxious, too, although I don't find it to be "damaging." Ditto with "men need the priesthood to bring them up to women's level." Our premortal, mortal, and eternal roles, identities and purposes just are, without an end in view to bring either up or down to the other's level.

[Stargazer]

Rongo,

 

I don't know whether men feel slighted. I do know that the unintentional consequence of gender inequality is that it wounds both genders. And it is as much because I love my sons as because I love my daughter, that questions like these are important to me. (I wrote a thread about how the idea that "women are more spiritual" is damaging to both women and men but it seems to have been memory holed... Nemesis, where have all the old threads gone?)

 

As for the wording, I don't know for certain why it is different but I am open to a number of possible explanations. 

 

Well, you asked him, but I have to respond, too.

 

There was a time when I was young when I thought I would prefer to be a woman.  It was before I was member of the church.  I don't know why.  I think I felt left out of a great secret by being a mere man.  Women, to me, occupy a privileged level in my spirit, and I tend to idolize them as a gender.  I know women can be just as bad as men can, but when you get right down to it, who are the ones who are in prisons for wrongdoing and who are not?  That's right, men are and women aren't.  It isn't because society is soft on them, its because they are preternaturally disposed to do righteously.  I see that rongo knows the wording for the Initiatory for women -- I do wonder how he happens to know the wording when what kind of opportunity would he have? -- but if it is true what he says about unconditional blessings it actually makes perfect sense.  At least to me.

 

Women in this life get dumped on like nobody's business, in practically every culture on the face of the earth.  It seems like there really ought to be some kind of compensation, and perhaps this is how the Lord chose which intelligences would be male and which would be female, by how much humility and patience were possessed by the spirit under question.  Just my ruminations.  I am sure nobody knows, at least here in mortality.

 

mercyngrace, you don't need the priesthood, trust me.  I think the only reason I have it is so I can learn to be as noble as a woman already is.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Stargazer

[MorningStar]

Well, you asked him, but I have to respond, too.

 

There was a time when I was young when I thought I would prefer to be a woman.  It was before I was member of the church.  I don't know why.  I think I felt left out of a great secret by being a mere man.  Women, to me, occupy a privileged level in my spirit, and I tend to idolize them as a gender.  I know women can be just as bad as men can, but when you get right down to it, who are the ones who are in prisons for wrongdoing and who are not?  That's right, men are and women aren't.  It isn't because society is soft on them, its because they are preternaturally disposed to do righteously.  I see that rongo knows the wording for the Initiatory for women -- I do wonder how he happens to know the wording when what kind of opportunity would he have? -- but if it is true what he says about unconditional blessings it actually makes perfect sense.  At least to me.

 

Women in this life get dumped on like nobody's business, in practically every culture on the face of the earth.  It seems like there really ought to be some kind of compensation, and perhaps this is how the Lord chose which intelligences would be male and which would be female, by how much humility and patience were possessed by the spirit under question.  Just my ruminations.  I am sure nobody knows, at least here in mortality.

 

mercyngrace, you don't need the priesthood, trust me.  I think the only reason I have it is so I can learn to be as noble as a woman already is.

At the beginning of the endowment, part of initiatory is mentioned. 

[mercyngrace]

I don't think any do. My point is that women have certain wonderful blessings that men don't, and I don't think anyone can provide even anecdotal evidence of men feeling slighted because of this.

 

See Stargazer's comment just below yours. Also, I would refer to Elder Christofferson's talk in which he referenced a pervasive double standard in which women we sainted while "boys would be boys" (my paraphrasing). I believe we inadvertently lower the bar for our sons when we put our daughters on a pedestal. As I said, I don't believe it's intentional but I do believe it is a significant part of our LDS culture.. 

 

This presupposes that there is actual "gender inequality" and that there are real "wounds." From my example, I guess the fact that there are certain blessings women have that men don't in the temple could theoretically be claimed as "gender inequality," although I don't know anyone who actually claims or believes this. It seems to only apply where holding ordained priesthood authority is concerned, not when women are the recipients "at men's expense."

 

Some people seem to believe, based on the temple wording, that women get a free pass to the Celestial Kingdom. See here. I can't imagine a greater gender inequity.

 

I find this to be obnoxious, too, although I don't find it to be "damaging." Ditto with "men need the priesthood to bring them up to women's level." Our premortal, mortal, and eternal roles, identities and purposes just are, without an end in view to bring either up or down to the other's level.

 

As I sat in sacrament meeting and listened to our high councilor, in his stumbling attempts to praise women, tell my three sons that "men are stupid" (direct quote) and that women were more spiritual than men,  I received the strong impression that it was damaging. I corrected that teaching immediately because I don't want expectations set too low for my sons any more than I want my daughter placed on a pedestal, from which falling is the only way down. After church, my then 13 year old son told me he'd gotten the same lesson from his deacon quorum's teacher. Women are more holy than men. We'll just have to disagree on this point if you feel this message has no negative impact on our young men. Even if they are not consciously aware of it. 

Sorry the editing is wonky. My responses are in italics. 

Edited October 6, 2013 by mercyngrace

[mercyngrace]

mercyngrace, you don't need the priesthood, trust me. 

Stargazer, I actually agree with this. That's why I specifically said my comments were not about ordination but about specifics of the wording in temple ordinances.

 

PS I do appreciate that you are esteeming women greatly and even though we disagree on some of the particulars, I want you to know that I do appreciate the love and kindness in your remarks and your position. 

[Senator]

I don't think any do. My point is that women have certain wonderful blessings that men don't, and I don't think anyone can provide even anecdotal evidence of men feeling slighted because of this.

 

 

 

I wonder how many men even know this. I didn't until now.

[Kenngo1969]

As a single man in the Church of Jesus Christ, I do not yet possess the fulness of the Priesthood.  That is not, and will not be, bestowed until my wife and I (wherever you are, whoever you are, Love You, Dear! ) are sealed together for time and for all eternity.

 

I'm having trouble feeling like the second-class citizen I should apparently feel like, given that state of affairs.  Whatever's supposed to happen, with whomever it's supposed to happen, will happen on the Lord's timetable, and not a nanosecond sooner. "Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content" (Philippians 4:11 KJV).  (At least, I am learning that ... slowly but surely).  While I recognize that our situations are vastly different, perhaps there's a lesson in there somewhere for women who want the Priesthood (or who are otherwise dissatisfied with their roles).

 

Just food for thought.  Your mileage may vary.

[mercyngrace]

Another example of the collateral damage of placing women on a pedestal:

 

 

Justin makes this comment

An Open Letter to Kate Kelly and Those Pressing for Ordination

Friday, 04 October 2013

For crying out loud, men do not get the Priesthood because they are somehow superior, they get it because that's what men need. Women don't need the Priesthood to get to heaven. Do you give everybody an extra robotic arm just because amputees get one?

 

 

The message getting through is that men are, by nature, deficient - the priesthood makes up for something men innately lack. I don't know how that isn't damaging. 
 
 

Edited October 6, 2013 by mercyngrace

[Calm]

Another example of the collateral damage of placing women on a pedestal:

 

 

The message getting through is that men are, by nature, deficient - the priesthood makes up for something men innately lack. I don't know how that isn't damaging. 

 

 

Excellent observation that is so easily missed.  And the implications too often are read 'why bother trying since I am damaged goods from the start'.  I had a young man who felt that way who just couldn't seem to get the idea that he was worth putting effort into....though I have to grant that this idea just contributed to an already huge problem due to the dynamics between his divorced parents and the bitterness of his mother towards men.  

 

It is the flip side of this speculation when many women don't get recognition of what they have to go through in (overcoming histories of abuse or neglect, postpartum or other types of depression and emotional disorders that makes it difficult for them to bond with their children and others) order to achieve what they've been able to because it is just assumed that it is 'natural' for them to be loving and nurturing or spiritual.  Without such recognition, these women have to struggle on their own rather than their way being smoothed by others supporting them emotionally or even encouraging them to seek out medical intervention when needed.

Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

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).

 

Whatever the wording of any given ordinance, I think the power inherent in the ordinances themselves transcends their wording. Personally, while I've never been sealed (and I'm not holding my breath), if-and-when that happens, I aspire to follow the counsel of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25).  Whatever the wording of the ordinance involved, that passage certainly doesn't make it seem as though I'm supposed to hold much of anything back from my wife.

 

P.S.: Whoever you are, wherever you are, Love You, Dear!

Edited October 6, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Another example of the collateral damage of placing women on a pedestal:

 

 

The message getting through is that men are, by nature, deficient - the priesthood makes up for something men innately lack. I don't know how that isn't damaging. 

 

 

If I "need" food, am I deficient?  ("Ken, bad analogy: everybody needs food.")  OK: If I have a congenital or genetic condition for which I need a specific treatment to stay well that a person without that condition doesn't need, am I somehow, by nature, deficient, even though (by nature, congenitally, or genetically) I have this condition and need this treatment?

[mercyngrace]

 

de·fi·cient

diˈfiSHənt/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   not having enough of a specified quality or ingredient.

 

 

 

If you are lacking something, you are by definition, deficient in that thing. So yes, to say that men need the priesthood to acquire blessings which women are unconditionally afforded implies that men are innately deficient in some quality that women innately possess. 

[rongo]

 

 

If you are lacking something, you are by definition, deficient in that thing. So yes, to say that men need the priesthood to acquire blessings which women are unconditionally afforded implies that men are innately deficient in some quality that women innately possess. 

 

I, for one, have never said or believed that the priesthood is "an equalizer" to level the playing field between men and women. That women have certain unconditional blessings that men don't *just is* --- with nothing being said about priesthood. Similarly, that men hold ordained priesthood while women don't *just is* ---- with nothing being said about why that is.

 

As for anecdotal examples of men doing a ham-handed job of doing obeisance to women from the pulpit --- well, I refuse to be held responsible for that.    I cringe when these things happen, too.

 

I did do something funny when I was a youth speaker on Mother's Day when I was fifteen. I never used written talks, but rather spoke extemporaneously. So, people were a little shocked when I stumbled for a minute reading a lofty ode to my mother, spelling out all the ways she was superior in every way to every other mother. Then, after the congregation had suffered enough, I blinked at the paper, scrunched my eyes, looked at my mom, and said, "I'm sorry, mom. I just can't read your handwriting."

[Calm]

OK: If I have a congenital or genetic condition for which I need a specific treatment to stay well that a person without that condition doesn't need, am I somehow, by nature, deficient, even though (by nature, congenitally, or genetically) I have this condition and need this treatment?

Perhaps it is not politically correct, but I believe the answer to this is "yes" and that is from someone who is in such a condition.

 

There is the example of the deaf community attempting to create a sense of total equality with the hearing community to the point of some being offended and thinking it is inappropriate for a deaf person to take advantage of an cochlear implant, but generally if in comparison to a greater community an individual is required to have something in order to have the same advantages and opportunities, I don't see how it can be seen as not lacking at least in comparison.

 

Now if one wanted to use the example of adding brain implants to improve memory or expand one's intelligence and were defining whether or not that human without it was "lacking", I think we could debate whether it was a lack or one should just see the implants as additions even if the vast majority took advantage of the opportunity....however we are talking about a situation where it is the natural state that is being discussed and one group has the ability that another doesn't in that state and the second group requires something to bring into equality.

 

So like MnG, it just comes across to me as defining a lack.

[Calm]

That women have certain unconditional blessings that men don't *just is* --- with nothing being said about priesthood. Similarly, that men hold ordained priesthood while women don't *just is* ---- with nothing being said about why that is.

 

I would agree.  Having the Priesthood is not about filling gaps or being equal or anything like that.  It is not something that is required to be held by everyone in order to achieve its effects...in fact one can point to where it was not even present at times in the world and it doesn't appeared to have concerned God or get in the way of people seeking him and their own salvation.

 

 I think Abraham described what it results in best:

 

2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

 

And I believe the way it interacts with spiritual development for a person is probably quite individualized, it might have a huge effect on one person...expanding their spiritual gifts exponentially, on another it may simply give his efforts an authority that they didn't have before with the results being the same due to his faith and spiritual connection being very developed before receiving the Priesthood.

Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

I, for one, have never said or believed that the priesthood is "an equalizer" to level the playing field between men and women. That women have certain unconditional blessings that men don't *just is* --- with nothing being said about priesthood. Similarly, that men hold ordained priesthood while women don't *just is* ---- with nothing being said about why that is.

As for anecdotal examples of men doing a ham-handed job of doing obeisance to women from the pulpit --- well, I refuse to be held responsible for that. I cringe when these things happen, too.

I did do something funny when I was a youth speaker on Mother's Day when I was fifteen. I never used written talks, but rather spoke extemporaneously. So, people were a little shocked when I stumbled for a minute reading a lofty ode to my mother, spelling out all the ways she was superior in every way to every other mother. Then, after the congregation had suffered enough, I blinked at the paper, scrunched my eyes, looked at my mom, and said, "I'm sorry, mom. I just can't read your handwriting."

I'm listening to conference and reading this board. The last part of your post made me laugh, but I squelched it and laughed heartily in my mind......so funny. Edited October 6, 2013 by Tacenda