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

[Darren10]

Bummer that you didn't have the opportunity.

No kidding. The Church must not value me.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Darren10

[jkwilliams]

No kidding. The Church must not value me.

 

If it makes you feel better, you can kick me out of priesthood meeting in April.

[Darren10]

If it makes you feel better, you can kick me out of priesthood meeting in April.

Actually, I'd fully welcome you in. Now, if you were trying to get into the General relief Society meeting, I'd be more than happy to turn you away.

[mercyngrace]

Mercyandgrace #162;

I would have loved turning them away.

 

Why?

 

I'm under the impression that most people don't enjoy giving out disappointing news. That's why I said I felt sorry for the fellow who was tasked with manning the doors. 

[jkwilliams]

Why?

 

I'm under the impression that most people don't enjoy giving out disappointing news. That's why I said I felt sorry for the fellow who was tasked with manning the doors. 

 

Maybe some would consider it an honor to kick the apostates out, sort of like Jesus clearing the temple.

Edited October 7, 2013 by jkwilliams

[Garden Girl]

I hear ya Kenngo......I am single too!  I can't reach the highest exhalation either, without a spouse.   But hey....whatever happens, happens,.

 

I don't think it's any kind of 'defect' if men don't have the Priesthood. I don't look at it that way. I don't have or want the Priesthood. I'm not defected. I feel already fulfilled and completed as an LDS women.   There's nothing more that I spiritually need. I am a Daughter of Heavenly Father!! HIS daughter!! It can't get an better than that! I don't need the priesthood to make me feel worthy and special before the Lord. I don't want to be a 'priest'...but I WOULD love to be a priestess!

 

Red

 

IIRC, several talks by our leaders... Pres Faust, Elder Ballard, several others... have made a point that if a single sister is living the gospel faithfully and honoring covenants, she is entitled to every blessing Heavenly Father has to offer... none will be held back from her.  I don't know just how this would work, but I remember Elder Ballard's talk addressed single sisters specifically (at Women's conference)... that if they were not married due to no fault of their own, i.e., it just  hadn't happened, and they were faithful in all ways, including the temple, blessing would not be held back from her.

I would assume it would be the same for single men...

Someone correct me if I misunderstood... but Elder Ballard was pretty plain in telling the sisters not to worry, and to just live the gospel.

 

GG

Edited October 7, 2013 by Garden Girl

[SamIam]

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.

 

Harry Chapin has a thought on this subject - the final sentence.

 

Why do Little Girls?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KcbbzsRhZs

Edited October 7, 2013 by SamIam

[cinepro]

IIRC, several talks by our leaders... Pres Faust, Elder Ballard, several others... have made a point that if a single sister is living the gospel faithfully and honoring covenants, she is entitled to every blessing Heavenly Father has to offer... none will be held back from her.  I don't know just how this would work, but I remember Elder Ballard's talk addressed single sisters specifically (at Women's conference)... that if they were not married due to no fault of their own, i.e., it just  hadn't happened, and they were faithful in all ways, including the temple, blessing would not be held back from her.

I would assume it would be the same for single men...

Someone correct me if I misunderstood... but Elder Ballard was pretty plain in telling the sisters not to worry, and to just live the gospel.

 

GG

I'm sure that would have been a helpful message to be sharing back in Nauvoo in the 1840's. Because as far as I can tell, there were some women who were under the impression that getting sealed to a man (in this life and at that time) was pretty dang important.

But hey, better late than never!

Edited October 7, 2013 by cinepro

[wenglund]

Then we simply disagree. Not that it's ever happened before.

 

You actually agree with the old Wade, who didn't, for a time, listen to the women/girls in his life (thinking he may know better), but who later, through sad experience, came to see things differently by listening to and valuing the women in his life. And, he is a better man for it, and is now quite liberal with his verbal expressions of love--particularly with the women/girls in his life, realizing that it they tend to feel more valued rather than less in me so doing. But. your experience may be different. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Duncan]

I'm sure that would have been a helpful message to be sharing back in Nauvoo in the 1840's. Because as far as I can tell, there were some women who were under the impression that getting sealed to a man (in this life and at that time) was pretty dang important.

But hey, better late than never!

 

here is  a question. Does this idea of men or women who can't seem to find a mate in this life will get someone in the next life, is that scriptural? because if it isn't then what do we make of President Joseph Fielding Smith words?

 

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man¹s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted"

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Establishing_new_doctrine

 

and what does it mean if it isn't your fault? what if people don't want to get married because of economical reasons or health reasons or they don't think themselves a suitable match for anyone (think George Costanza!!)

[Darren10]

Wenglund #184;

 

And, he is a better man for it, and is now quite liberal with his verbal expressions of love--particularly with the women/girls in his life, realizing that it they tend to feel more valued rather than less in me so doing. But. your experience may be different. To each their own.

 

 

Precisely!!!

[Darren10]

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. 

 

A couple of things I really liked about your post here, mercyngrace. First, what you said about the temple doctrines precisely confirmes what D. Ogden is saying when he says that those of the Ordain Women movement are either not going to the temple or not understanding the doctrines/covenants taught and made within it. Second, you make a great point in how because of the doctrine to covenant to listen to one's husband can create a feeling on inferiority. I think that's a big reason the brethren frequently remind the sisters of their worth.

 

I'm very glad you made this post.

[sprite]

Let's say that Sis Kelly gets her wish.  Women now can officiate in the Priesthood.  Let's say Sis Kelly's husband is called as Bishop.  Let's say that Bishop Mr. Kelly calls as his counselors 2 lovely sisters, one of which happen to be single.  I have known many a Bishop's wife in my long life in the church.  Even the best of them are sometimes resentful of the time their husbands are required to spend in their Bishopric duties.  Hours meeting with counselors, lot's of travel time, called out at all hours, etc.  Often both counselors are not available to go with the Bishop as he attends to his duties.  Common sense tells me that this is an issue of  wisdom and order, not male/female equality.  The phrase "you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" comes to mind.  Sorry if that is dismissive.  Sort of. 

[Darren10]

Let's say that Sis Kelly gets her wish.  Women now can officiate in the Priesthood.  Let's say Sis Kelly's husband is called as Bishop.  Let's say that Bishop Mr. Kelly calls as his counselors 2 lovely sisters, one of which happen to be single.  I have known many a Bishop's wife in my long life in the church.  Even the best of them are sometimes resentful of the time their husbands are required to spend in their Bishopric duties.  Hours meeting with counselors, lot's of travel time, called out at all hours, etc.  Often both counselors are not available to go with the Bishop as he attends to his duties.  Common sense tells me that this is an issue of  wisdom and order, not male/female equality.  The phrase "you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" comes to mind.  Sorry if that is dismissive.  Sort of. 

 

Great point.

[Calm]

Mercyandgrace #162;

I would have loved turning them away.

And having them cry in front of you?  I think the fun would have faded for you quickly, you are too nice of a guy.

[Calm]

 

Someone correct me if I misunderstood... but Elder Ballard was pretty plain in telling the sisters not to worry, and to just live the gospel.

 

GG

I hope in this day and age, that single brothers are accorded the same leeway as women are much more comfortable turning offers of marriage down and I see it as likely that there are just as many single brothers who have not been given a real chance at marriage yet for whatever reason as there are single sisters and just as likely there are as many single sisters as single brothers who have chosen to make marriage a nonpriority in their lives and thus have missed the opportunities....if for unselfish reasons, they should be praised for the self-sacrifice, if for selfish ones...well they should be scolded and told to grow up by the Spirit, but I still hope that if they repent they will have an opportunity in the next life just as those who did not avoid marriage, but marriage avoided them.

[Calm]

Harry Chapin has a thought on this subject - the final sentence.

 

Why do Little Girls?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KcbbzsRhZs

Never heard that one that I can remember, how very, very sad.

[Stargazer]

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. 

 

 

 

Well, maybe it is just me, but I don't feel particularly damaged by this speculation.  I've made it myself from time to time. 

 

You know, receiving the priesthood, which I am admonished to honor and so forth, actually gives me something special to want to maintain in honor.  Otherwise, what is there?  I am a guy, and I should uphold guy-ness?  Please.  :-)

[Garden Girl]

I hope in this day and age, that single brothers are accorded the same leeway as women are much more comfortable turning offers of marriage down and I see it as likely that there are just as many single brothers who have not been given a real chance at marriage yet for whatever reason as there are single sisters and just as likely there are as many single sisters as single brothers who have chosen to make marriage a nonpriority in their lives and thus have missed the opportunities....if for unselfish reasons, they should be praised for the self-sacrifice, if for selfish ones...well they should be scolded and told to grow up by the Spirit, but I still hope that if they repent they will have an opportunity in the next life just as those who did not avoid marriage, but marriage avoided them.

I'll have to look and try to find Elder Ballard's talk...  IIRC he was saying that if a single sister "yearned" to be married but it just hadn't worked out in spite of her efforts and she continued to live worthy of temple marriage, to be at peace... she would not be denied the blessings... the key was the sister's wanting to be married...  not that she chose not to marry... I think it was a talk given at Women's Conf...

 

GG

[mercyngrace]

Well, maybe it is just me, but I don't feel particularly damaged by this speculation.  I've made it myself from time to time. 

 

You know, receiving the priesthood, which I am admonished to honor and so forth, actually gives me something special to want to maintain in honor.  Otherwise, what is there?  I am a guy, and I should uphold guy-ness?  Please.  :-)

 

What's wrong with guy-ness? Or maybe fatherhood.  I quite like it

 

We women are constantly told that we uphold womanhood and motherhood.... (gal-ness?)

[Hamba Tuhan]

I hope in this day and age, that single brothers are accorded the same leeway as women are much more comfortable turning offers of marriage down and I see it as likely that there are just as many single brothers who have not been given a real chance at marriage yet for whatever reason as there are single sisters and just as likely there are as many single sisters as single brothers who have chosen to make marriage a nonpriority in their lives and thus have missed the opportunities...

 

Section 1.3.3 of Handbook 2:

 

All members, even if they have never married or are without family in the Church, should strive for the ideal of living in an eternal family. This means preparing to become worthy spouses and loving fathers or mothers. In some cases these blessings will not be fulfilled until the next life, but the ultimate goal is the same for all.

 

Faithful members whose circumstances do not allow them to receive the blessings of eternal marriage and parenthood in this life will receive all promised blessings in the eternities, provided they keep the covenants they have made with God.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[mercyngrace]

A couple of things I really liked about your post here, mercyngrace. First, what you said about the temple doctrines precisely confirmes what D. Ogden is saying when he says that those of the Ordain Women movement are either not going to the temple or not understanding the doctrines/covenants taught and made within it. Second, you make a great point in how because of the doctrine to covenant to listen to one's husband can create a feeling on inferiority. I think that's a big reason the brethren frequently remind the sisters of their worth.

 

I'm very glad you made this post.

 

Darren,

 

Are you saying that church leaders recognize that the wording is hurtful and speak complimentary words to the sisters to make them feel better about it?

[jkwilliams]

You actually agree with the old Wade, who didn't, for a time, listen to the women/girls in his life (thinking he may know better), but who later, through sad experience, came to see things differently by listening to and valuing the women in his life. And, he is a better man for it, and is now quite liberal with his verbal expressions of love--particularly with the women/girls in his life, realizing that it they tend to feel more valued rather than less in me so doing. But. your experience may be different. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Hmmm. From this, you seem to think that my post argued that we shouldn't listen to women or express our love to them; in fact, I said quite the opposite.

[Tacenda]

While there is a certain strain of thought in the Church of Jesus Christ (gravely mistaken, in my view) particularly as regards men (since social custom dictates that we do the asking) that the clock is ticking for us: if we (men) depart this life not having been sealed, then our fate ... as ministering angels ... is sealed. I don't believe that, because it removes moral agency ... for which Christ spilled His blood and died ... from the equation, as though, if all else fails, I should simply find someone whom I think is a suitable candidate, bean her over the head, knock her unconscious, be sealed to her, and ... well, she'll get used to the idea eventually after she wakes up!

Just as God's single daughters aren't second-class citizens in His Kingdom, nor are his single sons.

So you believe there isn't progession to different levels after you die? What is temple work for? This has always been a confusion for me. And maybe I keep forgetting the answers given me. Will you see God anywhere other than the highest kingdom in our religion?

[Darren10]

And having them cry in front of you?  I think the fun would have faded for you quickly, you are too nice of a guy.

 

I appreciate that compliment but reality is that crying doesn't do much for me. I do not like suffering and pain but finding what Ordain Women are trying to do any crying from them for being turned away won't have much of an impact on me.