Subtle...did The Ow Group Hear That?

[Scott Lloyd]

No one has said that. In fact most members I knew back then were elated when we heard the ban was lifted. The difference then is that you didn't see black members parading in front of Conference making a public spectacle. They were humbly beseeching the prophets (note multiple prophets) and praying and waiting for the answer.

 

As one who was around 35 years ago, and who was disposed to noticing what was going on, I can attest that this was the case. I can also affirm Deborah's observations about the differences between events then and what's happening now.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

No one has said that. In fact most members I knew back then were elated when we heard the ban was lifted. The difference then is that you didn't see black members parading in front of Conference making a public spectacle. They were humbly beseeching the prophets (note multiple prophets) and praying and waiting for the answer.

 

These women are now saying that they will forgive the leaders for just throwing them stones when they didn't get their way. Many of them are in a snit because they fully expected, even after being explicitly told they wouldn't be admitted to Priesthood that at the last minute they would be allowed to. I have no patience with them and the whining is really getting irritating, especially when you know a lot of them aren't even active members now.

 

 

Don't they have enough to keep them occupied?  It is after all a service organization, not an honor fraternity.

[BCSpace]

Did you notice she was wearing a purple suit?

 

Was she wearing pants too?  I couldn't tell.

[CMZ]

The choice needs to be the same whether presented as a duty---even though also a great blessing---to take on or as a choice based on personal appraisal.

 

There's a reason for it.

[CMZ]

As one who was around 35 years ago, and who was disposed to noticing what was going on, I can attest that this was the case. I can also affirm Deborah's observations about the differences between events then and what's going on now.

 

Yes, it's a different thing. For one, before the ban black women could not go to the temple. After the ban they could. (I'm speaking in generalities here; somebody I'm sure could point out an exception they know or heard of.) With this "present issue" women not having the priesthood conferred upon them in the same way men do does not prevent them from receiving ordinances in the temple.

[Calm]

Don't they have enough to keep them occupied?  It is after all a service organization, not an honor fraternity.

They sound like they have very full lives, the profiles that I read.  It is firmly focused on the need for equality for protection of women's rights, imo.  The leader, Kate Kelly talks about how she got the idea to start the organization in connection with thinking about the women she had been working with in Zimbawe who were being abused....not that she compared the two, but if she was doing that, why not for 'her own people'.

 

After my mission, I finished my studies at BYU and got married in the Salt Lake City Temple. When I graduated from law school, I began working in human rights litigation. I work with some amazingly courageous people around the word, such as women in Zimbabwe who are routinely arrested, beaten and tortured for asking for simple concessions and to be treated equally, and it gave me a lot of pause. I began to wonder, I’m doing all this work around the world but what am I doing for my own community? It was one of those moments—you know that quote, “I always thought someone should do something about this, and then I realized I am somebody”? Well, for me, I wished someone would do something about women and the priesthood. I thought someone has got to start this conversation and no one seems to be doing it, so I’m going to do it. I am somebody.

 

[CMZ]

I have no patience with them and the whining is really getting irritating, especially when you know a lot of them aren't even active members now.

 

It'd be interesting to admit them in and see if they became active because of it.

[wenglund]

I only wish the Internet was around 35 years ago, so I could go back and read message board posts just like this one about how blacks were envious and prideful in our desire to assume the responsibilities of the priesthood. I just assume, Dear Brother, that when Heavenly Father makes the priesthood available to ALL worthy members of the church that you won't be one of the people who will clim that they "pulled over to the side of the road and wept tears of joy" (that pride and envy prevailed).

 

My male black acquaintances in the gospel, along with their black sisters, back in the day weren't envious and prideful and forming groups to protest and demand the priesthood and/or forcing their attendance at General Conference or pulling any other publicity stunts, but were humbly accepting of policies of God's chosen leaders on earth, and we ALL were equally humbled by what was later revealed, and the tears of joy were a product of that humility. 

 

This, to me, is how the gospel works. It is quite distinct, dear respondent, from what I am see from OW.

 

And, if the priesthood is extended to women, I will weep tears of joy, not because of, but in spite of the envy and pride of certain members.

 

In short, you compared apples with bitterroot.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 6, 2013 by wenglund

[CMZ]

The leader, Kate Kelly talks about how she got the idea to start the organization in connection with thinking about the women she had been working with in Zimbawe who were being abused....not that she compared the two, but if she was doing that, why not for 'her own people'.

The answer to that is because Mormon women are not being abused; or if they are (and I know wives get abused and that their husbands will stand accountable before God) it is in limited instances of people not following the teachings of the Church. If a man pulls open the drapes to let the light of the sun in and the women in the room are then bathed in sunlight how much sense does it make for them to claim they are being abused because they weren't the one to open the drape?

 

 

I thought someone has got to start this conversation and no one seems to be doing it

 

Hmm, seems I've been hearing about this for decades.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I would agree with this sentiment if our church leaders were infallible (I.e., their leadership and guidance always perfectly reflected the will of Heavenly Father). However, that isn't the case:

"To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or LEADERS in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.” Pres Uchtdorf, YESTERDAY

If this great man of God is correct, isn't possible that mistakes are CURRENTLY being made and that this is one of them? And while I totally understand why a man "don't care," I would think that women members would. As an African-American, I so wish so that more of my beloved white brothers and sisters had cared about my ancestors receiving the blessings of the priesthood.

This is just not true that "no man" should care about any issue, also note nothing capitalized, so I am not yelling this.

[ERayR]

They sound like they have very full lives, the profiles that I read.  It is firmly focused on the need for equality for protection of women's rights, imo.  The leader, Kate Kelly talks about how she got the idea to start the organization in connection with thinking about the women she had been working with in Zimbawe who were being abused....not that she compared the two, but if she was doing that, why not for 'her own people'.

 

It seems an awfully large stretch and melodramatic to compare this with being abused. 

[mormonnewb]

No one has said that. In fact most members I knew back then were elated when we heard the ban was lifted. The difference then is that you didn't see black members parading in front of Conference making a public spectacle. They were humbly beseeching the prophets (note multiple prophets) and praying and waiting for the answer.

 

These women are now saying that they will forgive the leaders for just throwing them stones when they didn't get their way. Many of them are in a snit because they fully expected, even after being explicitly told they wouldn't be admitted to Priesthood that at the last minute they would be allowed to. I have no patience with them and the whining is really getting irritating, especially when you know a lot of them aren't even active members now.

 

While the reaction of black members pre-1978 was humility and long-suffering, the reaction of ALMOST ALL other black Americans was to dismiss this wonderful church out of hand.  Even 35 years later, when my black friends find out that I'm a Mormon, the first question is usually, "You belong to that racist church?"   And even the ones kind enough not to be so blunt, aren't AT ALL interested in hearing what this church has to offer.  So when I compare the thousands of faithful black members to the MILLIONS of potential black members who are ambivalent (at best) about the church today, I'm not sure that I would chalk it up as such as great testament to meekness.

 

In that vein, the members of OW are at least trying to stay in the church.  In fact, I would argue that they are even trying to aid in the work of salvation by offering the entirety of their talents and abilities to the kingdom.  They could (and faced with such antipathy, some will) leave the church and go where their considerable ministerial, pastoral and administrative gifts will be appreciated.  However, most are willing to face the slings and arrows of those who called them "prideful," "envious" and even "whiners" to help this church reach its full potential.  Or is it our belief that our current church is all it can ever be?

[why me]

 

In that vein, the members of OW are at least trying to stay in the church.  In fact, I would argue that they are even trying to aid in the work of salvation by offering the entirety of their talents and abilities to the kingdom. 

I don't agree. I think that quite a few are out of the church. I don't see the work of salvation being aided by going to the New York Times or the mass media. Nor from organizing people through the social media. I am surprised that you do. What exactly does ordainwoman mean? Boys are ordained into the priesthood. Why not girls? Why not call the organization OrdainGirls? One reason for not doing so is because such a name does not play well with the social media and mass media and yet, it would be far more accurate title for the organization.

[why me]

While the reaction of black members pre-1978 was humility and long-suffering, the reaction of ALMOST ALL other black Americans was to dismiss this wonderful church out of hand.  Even 35 years later, when my black friends find out that I'm a Mormon, the first question is usually, "You belong to that racist church?"   And even the ones kind enough not to be so blunt, aren't AT ALL interested in hearing what this church has to offer.  So when I compare the thousands of faithful black members to the MILLIONS of potential black members who are ambivalent (at best) about the church today, I'm not sure that I would chalk it up as such as great testament to meekness.

 

 

It is unfortunated that the people who say such things are closed minded. You can take this opportunity to educate them about the lds church and explain that africans were welcomed warmly as members and sat in the same pews as whites. And then go into the history etc.

[Calm]

It seems an awfully large stretch and melodramatic to compare this with being abused. 

You missed the word "not".

[Deborah]

I don't agree. I think that quite a few are out of the church.

 

And they are. As one woman wrote today "I find it interesting that so many women, including myself, who have left the LDS church are standing in support of those sisters who remain and desire the right to use the priesthood they have already been ordained to. "

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would agree with this sentiment if our church leaders were infallible (I.e., their leadership and guidance always perfectly reflected the will of Heavenly Father). However, that isn't the case:

"To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or LEADERS in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.” Pres Uchtdorf, YESTERDAY

If this great man of God is correct, isn't possible that mistakes are CURRENTLY being made and that this is one of them? And while I totally understand why a man "don't care," I would think that women members would. As an African-American, I so wish so that more of my beloved white brothers and sisters had cared about my ancestors receiving the blessings of the priesthood.

Gonna go out on a limb and say you are using wishful thinking if you think women are going to get the preisthood any time soon and this is all some mistake. I think the confrence talks made it abundantly clear that there is no confusion and that it is part of a man's role to hold and administer the priesthood not a womans.

 

There are no mistakes in this regard. People that are with the OW movement sight the change in 1978. There is a huge difference though. Not once have I heard that women at a future date will recieve the preisthood. Unlike with the blacks and the preisthood.  Time to abandon this silly notion. It is not going to happen.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

In that vein, the members of OW are at least trying to stay in the church.

I predict that this will change. Just a hunch.

[ERayR]

You missed the word "not".

 

If she wasn't making the comparison why mention it at all?  Perhaps it wasn't but mentioning it does draw that comparison in the mind of the reader despite protestations to the contrary.

[ERayR]

I would agree with this sentiment if our church leaders were infallible (I.e., their leadership and guidance always perfectly reflected the will of Heavenly Father). However, that isn't the case:

"To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or LEADERS in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.” Pres Uchtdorf, YESTERDAY

If this great man of God is correct, isn't possible that mistakes are CURRENTLY being made and that this is one of them? And while I totally understand why a man "don't care," I would think that women members would. As an African-American, I so wish so that more of my beloved white brothers and sisters had cared about my ancestors receiving the blessings of the priesthood.

 

It is always possible that they are currently making mistakes.  That is a question you must decide for yourself.  Just remember when you begin to oppose them you are taking steps that could have some very deleterious consequences so be very sure before you act.  You might just be walking in the footsteps of Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, a couple of Whitmers, and several others.

[ERayR]

In that vein, the members of OW are at least trying to stay in the church.  In fact,

 

Lets see I think I would write that this way:  In that vein, the members of OW are at least trying to stay in  take over the church.

[escott3564]

So women do have the priesthood already if temple endowed? Hmmm - maybe that will appease the OW group. Unlikely.

This is true. I think that what the Church should do is reestablish the norm of endowed women giving blessings to the sick and to babies as they did in the early days of the Church.

[Deborah]

I predict that this will change. Just a hunch.

 

A lot of these women are already out of the church.

[Deborah]

This is true. I think that what the Church should do is reestablish the norm of endowed women giving blessings to the sick and to babies as they did in the early days of the Church.

 

I keep hearing this. I have actually laid my hands on my infant son and blessed him with peace and rest when he was crying and crying and I was alone and couldn't get hold of anyone. He was very colicky. He immediately calmed down and slept through the night.

 

I think what the church doesn't want is that this is done in place of the Priesthood and anointing with oil. I think even in the pioneer days when it was done it was done in exigency.

[CV75]

I would agree with this sentiment if our church leaders were infallible (I.e., their leadership and guidance always perfectly reflected the will of Heavenly Father). However, that isn't the case:

"To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or LEADERS in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.” Pres Uchtdorf, YESTERDAY

If this great man of God is correct, isn't possible that mistakes are CURRENTLY being made and that this is one of them? And while I totally understand why a man "don't care," I would think that women members would. As an African-American, I so wish so that more of my beloved white brothers and sisters had cared about my ancestors receiving the blessings of the priesthood.

I think Elder Uchtdorf was referring to leaders and members individually and not collectively. So it does not apply to priesthood policy and revelation for the entire Church.

 

I would also say that your ancestors are receiving the blessings of the priesthood and "that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect." None of the work for them can be done without you, your ancestors, and anyone else of any color (whether now or then) living according to the light they possess(ed)and passing it on so that you and yours can have it; the same for me.