Amen, Sherri Dew!

[Avatar4321]

We aren't to seek offices, but rather to seek gifts. Sister Dew clearly recognizes that. I wish we all would.

[mtomm]

They have a much more authoritative position. They are wives to the Bishops.

This is not true. It is a myth that men LIKE to believe but as someone in this position my role of having any authority is completely exaggerated. And, if fact, the stake president said to us when my husband was set apart that I was NOT a third counselor. I was put in place, no doubt.

[MorningStar]

This is not true. It is a myth that men LIKE to believe but as someone in this position my role of having any authority is completely exaggerated. And, if fact, the stake president said to us when my husband was set apart that I was NOT a third counselor. I was put in place, no doubt.

I would take that to mean that he needs to keep things confidential.

[Tacenda]

Isn't that just saying that women aren't smart or perceptive enough to know what is best for them on their own, and that someone has to tell them something is o.k. before they will realize it's good for them?

No, not IMO.  Or I'm not too bright.  It never dawned on me that I might also hold the PH.  My mom would say to me that women have the babies, so the men need something just as Godly.  Not in those words, she was a Saint and probably put it much more eloquently.  But I never really cared about any of that.  But now that it's been brought up by women such as the OW group.  I see that some may be getting left out.  I would never want it or the responsibility that comes with it.  But not everyone is like me....light bulb lit now.           

[Jazzdreamer]

We aren't to seek offices, but rather to seek gifts. Sister Dew clearly recognizes that. I wish we all would.

We are also to stand for righteous causes.

Women can have babies. Cool.

Men can grow beards...AND they have the priesthood! I'm jealous!

Nah just kidding but some circumstances suck, I'm part of these OW women and they are actually wonderfully intelligent women. Now, like in EVERYTHING, there are some who take it to the extreme but most don't. Many people read way too far into the cause and ignore the support we have that backs us.

I love the gospel, it's good and true and wonderful. Blacks couldn't have the priesthood at a certain point, and say what you want but we are all equal in the eyes of god! If the priesthood was given to black men, 1/3 of the church would have left. So you're gonna tell me that god believed they should wait to have it because people that sustained the prophet wouldn't have listened to him? Let's face facts. Heavenly Father didn't believe in waiting, racism believed in waiting. And it's gonna be the same stuff with the OW. Doctrine does NOT say women can't hold it. And Joseph smith even said...I'll have to find the quote but something to the effect of "if sisters should have the power to heal by the laying of hands lets all hold their tongue."

Now we are just working with a different kind of "ism" called sexism. It's a worthy cause and I encourage people to look at D&C 58:26-28. I think that pretty much sums it up right there.

[bluebell]

We are also to stand for righteous causes.

Women can have babies. Cool.

Men can grow beards...AND they have the priesthood! I'm jealous!

Nah just kidding but some circumstances suck, I'm part of these OW women and they are actually wonderfully intelligent women. Now, like in EVERYTHING, there are some who take it to the extreme but most don't. Many people read way too far into the cause and ignore the support we have that backs us.

I love the gospel, it's good and true and wonderful. Blacks couldn't have the priesthood at a certain point, and say what you want but we are all equal in the eyes of god! If the priesthood was given to black men, 1/3 of the church would have left. So you're gonna tell me that god believed they should wait to have it because people that sustained the prophet wouldn't have listened to him? Let's face facts. Heavenly Father didn't believe in waiting, racism believed in waiting. And it's gonna be the same stuff with the OW. Doctrine does NOT say women can't hold it. And Joseph smith even said...I'll have to find the quote but something to the effect of "if sisters should have the power to heal by the laying of hands lets all hold their tongue."

Now we are just working with a different kind of "ism" called sexism. It's a worthy cause and I encourage people to look at D&C 58:26-28. I think that pretty much sums it up right there.

 

I completely agree with every woman's right to form her own opinion about this-so i'm not going to try to argue you out of yours. 

 

However, it is just that-an opinion.  I don't at all believe that it is sexist that God only allows men to be ordained to the priesthood.  I don't at all believe that this is similar to blacks not being given the priesthood.  I don't believe that Heavenly Father is behind the OW's 'cause'.

 

And I'm not alone in my beliefs as an intelligent LDS woman who very much supports equality of the genders in the church.

 

Again, I don't say all of this to belittle your own feelings on the matter, but only to point out that those who disagree with OW's agenda, are not people who have not studied the matter, or read the scriptures, or who don't believe in standing for righteous causes, or aren't against sexism.

 

[Jazzdreamer]

I completely agree with every woman's right to form her own opinion about this-so i'm not going to try to argue you out of yours.

However, it is just that-an opinion. I don't at all believe that it is sexist that God only allows men to be ordained to the priesthood. I don't at all believe that this is similar to blacks not being given the priesthood. I don't believe that Heavenly Father is behind the OW's 'cause'.

And I'm not alone in my beliefs as an intelligent LDS woman who very much supports equality of the genders in the church.

Again, I don't say all of this to belittle your own feelings on the matter, but only to point out that those who disagree with OW's agenda, are not people who have not studied the matter, or read the scriptures, or who don't believe in standing for righteous causes, or aren't against sexism.

Well I DEFINITELY believe everyone can form their own opinion!

I felt the same way at first until nobody could give me and doctrinal evidence that women couldn't.

And then I read an interview from GBH and he was asked kinda why women don't hold the priesthood and he said that they didn't hold it because women were happy in the church and because there was no agitation for it. So I love him for being awesome like that and giving a very straightforward response!

I know when I first got into the feminist group I was like appalled by what I saw but now I see what they mean, I had an Elder tell me I'm doing Satan's work and that maybe it would be best if I left the church...the same elder who prior to finding about my feminist side, was all into me and hitting on me. It was so interesting to watch it play out. I was awesome at first because his words would shut me up but when I started formulating my own opinion, I wasn't worthy of his company anymore. It kinda sucks.

I think SOME women in the OW are going about it the wrong way, but it's not my place to tell someone how to feminize so I leave it be.

[juliann]

Your sons will never have the opportunity of conceiving, carrying or giving birth to a baby.  A much more profound experience than administering the sacrament, serving as a bishop or even than being called as a prophet.

This isn't even close to a comparison and is part of the patronization that is offensive.   Is there any reason you didn't add menstruation?  That is part of it, you know.   When you can line up even five guys who want these things (or have  formed groups to discuss how not being able to menstruate every month results in inequitable treatment from the church),  get back to us. 

Edited November 12, 2013 by juliann

[juliann]

What about those people who themselves believe that their life is incomplete without a spouse and who regularly express that feeling?  Can we sympathize with them without others seeing it as self righteous or judgmental?  

 

And if we can, what's the best way to do that? 

As I told a GD teacher who bemoaned his daughter's sense of defeat because she hadn't yet married,  we have failed as a church if our young women are growing up feeling that their lives are worthless if they don't have a man.  (And that goes for the young men, too).  It isn't in how we look in reinforcing that feeling, it is that we reinforce it.  Many just won't be married.  Especially when we demand that it be only to other Mormons.  It is time to recognize that living life as a single shouldn't mean a lifetime of mourning,  quite the opposite.  

[Tacenda]

As I told a GD teacher who bemoaned his daughter's sense of defeat because she hadn't yet married,  we have failed as a church if our young women are growing up feeling that their lives are worthless if they don't have a man.  (And that goes for the young men, too).  It isn't in how we look in reinforcing that feeling, it is that we reinforce it.  Many just won't be married.  Especially when we demand that it be only to other Mormons.  It is time to recognize that living life as a single shouldn't mean a lifetime of mourning,  quite the opposite.  

 

This is very sad to me, someone that lives alone because they haven't met the right LDS man/woman.  What if they're missing out on someone perfect for them, but isn't LDS?  What if there isn't another life after this (sorry I'm going through a stage of whether or not to believe in God, I'm going to try to pry my way out of this horrible mindset, feels so scary and dark), and this is it?  Then we should see that we only live once and do it up well.  Not party hardy or something like that, but don't put everything on hold until the next life.  Sorry for the tangent, I'm just going through, like I said, a stage.  Something about your post made me speak up.  For people to not live out their hopes dreams because it doesn't fit the LDS mold, then that is sad.  

[juliann]

 

I think SOME women in the OW are going about it the wrong way, but it's not my place to tell someone how to feminize so I leave it be.

If you are part of a group,  it just might be your place.  That is what the moderates are saying, I think.  It is time to step up and do things ourselves instead of waiting for permission.  OW needs some balance.  The "some of the women" who are going about it in the wrong way happen to be the spokesperson who is in full on attack mode.  There are plenty of women who wonder about the priesthood restrictions but I am watching those who were maybe a little open to OW turn away in disgust over recent comments.   I think they provide a necessary counterpoint to drive the conversation, so to speak.  But when the conversation is filled with ad hominem attacks and insults, they have sidelined themselves.   Like it or not,  OW is an apologetic organization by definition and everybody knows about "good" apologetics vs "bad" apologetics.  OW is quickly moving toward the bad end and will lose all influence with anyone who could effect change in the church if they don't clean it up.

[mtomm]

As I told a GD teacher who bemoaned his daughter's sense of defeat because she hadn't yet married,  we have failed as a church if our young women are growing up feeling that their lives are worthless if they don't have a man.  (And that goes for the young men, too).  It isn't in how we look in reinforcing that feeling, it is that we reinforce it.  Many just won't be married.  Especially when we demand that it be only to other Mormons.  It is time to recognize that living life as a single shouldn't mean a lifetime of mourning,  quite the opposite.  

 

I've heard more than a few fathers bemoan the fact that their daughters are not married and how awful that is for them.  "Them" meaning the fathers not the daughters.  How can the women ever feel it is okay if their own parents are devastated by their singleness?

How can a woman ever be equal if she is only complete when married?  

[Jazzdreamer]

If you are part of a group, it just might be your place. That is what the moderates are saying, I think. It is time to step up and do things ourselves instead of waiting for permission. OW needs some balance. The "some of the women" who are going about it in the wrong way happen to be the spokesperson who is in full on attack mode. There are plenty of women who wonder about the priesthood restrictions but I am watching those who were maybe a little open to OW turn away in disgust over recent comments. I think they provide a necessary counterpoint to drive the conversation, so to speak. But when the conversation is filled with ad hominem attacks and insults, they have sidelined themselves. Like it or not, OW is an apologetic organization by definition and everybody knows about "good" apologetics vs "bad" apologetics. OW is quickly moving toward the bad end and will lose all influence with anyone who could effect change in the church if they don't clean it up.

I've brought this to their attention actually once and I realized it's not my place to tell them. I've absolutely said the same thing to them that you just said-I noticed some male allies being attacked and I stood up for the guy but the patriarchy issues that I've been dealing with for...oh about two months..? These women have been dealing with for YEARS. I get so angry when a man doesn't listen to me and I don't talk to him to avoid blowing up. Telling me I have the honor of giving childbirth because all men came from women makes me very angry to say the very least. How about me menstruation every month? Let's add that! Let's add to the fact you can't make a baby without a man. Let's get deeper and add the fact WOMEN CAME FROM MAN. And thus my argument. And explaining this to people who DO NOT listen and want to tell me where my place is, I have a huge problem with that and I've only noticed it for two months, these women that have gone years noticing it, I don't blame them for how they act like I used to because having to go through anything like what I've been going through in a few months for many many years, you're bound to get ticked off and fed up. I've seen it, gone through it, I understand it, I don't agree with it so I don't attack those that don't agree but I definitely see where these women are coming from!

[Jazzdreamer]

If you are part of a group, it just might be your place. That is what the moderates are saying, I think. It is time to step up and do things ourselves instead of waiting for permission. OW needs some balance. The "some of the women" who are going about it in the wrong way happen to be the spokesperson who is in full on attack mode. There are plenty of women who wonder about the priesthood restrictions but I am watching those who were maybe a little open to OW turn away in disgust over recent comments. I think they provide a necessary counterpoint to drive the conversation, so to speak. But when the conversation is filled with ad hominem attacks and insults, they have sidelined themselves. Like it or not, OW is an apologetic organization by definition and everybody knows about "good" apologetics vs "bad" apologetics. OW is quickly moving toward the bad end and will lose all influence with anyone who could effect change in the church if they don't clean it up.

Also would you mind referencing the comments for me!? Because if there is something wrong, I would like to bring that to the attention of the board!

[Garden Girl]

I think it comes down to we either accept that nothing will be withheld if we keep our covenants or we don't.  If we do, there isn't any reason to look at another woman's life and comment about it being incomplete or sad.   That is exactly what the militant feminists are doing with the lack of priesthood.  But mostly,  it makes it hard for singles to stay in the church when they know people are looking at them as less than or equating their worth and happiness to being married. 

 

Juliann... Please do not assign meaning to my words that just is not there... just because I can feel for a sister who WANTS to be married but is not, as expressed by that sister, (and thousands of other LDS women) does not mean that I -- or anyone else that I know -- look down on them as "less than" or equate their "worth" and happiness to being married.... now that to me is offensive. 

 

As a single (widowed for 15 years) sister with no children in a very family oriented Church, I am continually faced with being on the "outside" so to speak... and I can have emphathy for other sisters who do express their desire... their righteous desire... to be married.  And because of this I welcome the counsel expressed by Elder Ballard in a women's conference talk, that if we as single LDS women live up to our covenants and live the gospel faithfully, that no blessings will be withheld from us... particularly in view of Church doctrine and exaltation.

And as far as people in the Church looking down on me, shame on them, if any, shame on them.

 

 

GG

Edited November 12, 2013 by Garden Girl

[juliann]

Jazzdreamer, the first I saw from Kelly was her referring to those feminists who didn't 100% back her as "so-called feminists".  This was in an article on Neylan McBaine's Mormon Woman Project where Neylan had graciously given her a forum....where she promptly insulted her host.   I don't have that link readily available. 

 

http://mormonstories.org/alternative-feminist-approaches-to-ordain-women/

Here, she begins the comment section following a podcast with Fiona Givens, Neylan McBaine, Maxine Hanks, and Margaret Young.   She called them narcissists in her first comment which was edited (the unedited comment was posted later in the comments).

 

Kate Kelly

October 17, 2013 at 8:10 am

After listening to this podcast, I found a link to this recent study that was published in the scientific journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. The research found that a high sense of entitlement disposes women to internalize patriarchal beliefs. http://www.psypost.org/2013/10/self-entitled-women-are-more-likely-to-endorse-benevolent-sexism-study-finds-20644

To me that research seems relevant to the views of the women in this podcast, so it was a timely email.

I’m looking really forward to a conversation with both points of view equally represented and I think that will move the dialogue forward in a really productive way.

Thanks John!

 

She defends herself from the (I think) appropriate label of "catty" with one of the most breath taking ad hom attacks I have ever seen.   In the following comments,  she never backs down and engages with those participants who tried to talk to her. Most disappointing is her same condescending/patronizing/snarky tone that we so often get from men.

 

 

Kate Kelly

October 17, 2013 at 12:29 pm

nc47 I think it is always wrong to refer to the arguments of women as “catty” both because that words is rarely (if ever) used to delegitimize the arguments of men AND because it makes a direct comparison of women to animals (cats in this case), which is highly problematic, for obvious reasons.

The position of “entitlement” to which I refer is that Fiona, Margaret, and Neylan all have a stake in not being overly critical of the church or the patriarchal structure because they directly benefit from it, financially and in other ways.

Deseret Book (owned by the Church) sells Fiona’s books. Margaret’s paycheck comes from BYU (Church-owned university). and Neylan is a Brand Strategist at Bonneville Communications (media and broadcasting company, wholly owned by the Church).

This came to mind because as a lawyer, it is my ethical obligation to check conflicts of interest so that no attorney involved in any legal proceeding directly benefits from the outcome of a case so that those involved can proceed in an ethical and impartial way.

These are all capable and amazing women, but it makes sense to analyze in this context what might influence the perspectives of those on this podcast.

 

 

Following this, there is the recent conference [edited to add direct link].   http://66.147.244.239/~girlsgo6/mormonwomensforum/?page_id=5with a summary on FMH  http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2013/11/counterpoint-conference-2013/  which discloses comments which are implied attacks like these: 
 

 

  Janice Allred’s comment  was spot on when she reminded the audience that non-violent action’s purpose is to expose evil.

 

 

the violent act of excommunication

Any action the church might take against respectful agitation would backfire in this media saturated environment and expose the underbelly of the most unsavory elements of an outmoded patriarchy.

When we are not invested in our broader faith community, when we are not advocating for alignment or pertinent revision of doctrine, policy and culture, the risk is alienation.  Far from making us model members, we become apathetic. . .

 

 It’s a refreshing thing to be validated as a woman of intellect because it is not exactly held up as a desirable standard for LDS women. . .

 

It may be unfair to judge the conference from a second hand report but this back-handed slap verbiage is borne out elsewhere.  In continuing with the insults to the mainstream members,  they seem to be retreating into an echo chamber where they are no longer even trying to appeal to the average LDS woman, who like it or not, they will need before seeing any change move up the ranks.  That is especially apparent when their first conference is done with those who are not LDS.   I find their activism confusing and disjointed.  The cleverness and appeal of All Enlisted has been replaced with meanness towards those who merely disagree with some of what they are espousing.  

Edited November 12, 2013 by juliann

[juliann]

Juliann... Please do not assign meaning to my words that just is not there... just because I can feel for a sister who WANTS to be married but is not, as expressed by that sister, (and thousands of other LDS women) does not mean that I -- or anyone else that I know -- look down on them as "less than" or equate their "worth" and happiness to being married.... now that to me is offensive. 

 

My apologies, GG.  I see where I gave that impression.  What I should have said is that there really is no other way to perceive "sympathy" comments from a listener's perspective.  That is why I think we just need to stop reinforcing anything that implies a single person is lacking...and that includes letting them get away with self-pity.  There are advantages to being single just as there can be disadvantages to being married.  Those advantages need to be the focus not the poor me/you stuff.  Not to mention the thing we always conveniently leave out in the marriage is bliss fantasy is that it often isn't and won't be given a spouse who won't fix anything.  The divorce rate bears that out.  Singleness, on the other hand, can be made into something but we never seem to get past the "If only" narrative to elaborate.

Edited November 12, 2013 by juliann

[bluebell]

Well I DEFINITELY believe everyone can form their own opinion!

I felt the same way at first until nobody could give me and doctrinal evidence that women couldn't.

And then I read an interview from GBH and he was asked kinda why women don't hold the priesthood and he said that they didn't hold it because women were happy in the church and because there was no agitation for it. So I love him for being awesome like that and giving a very straightforward response!

I know when I first got into the feminist group I was like appalled by what I saw but now I see what they mean, I had an Elder tell me I'm doing Satan's work and that maybe it would be best if I left the church...the same elder who prior to finding about my feminist side, was all into me and hitting on me. It was so interesting to watch it play out. I was awesome at first because his words would shut me up but when I started formulating my own opinion, I wasn't worthy of his company anymore. It kinda sucks.

I think SOME women in the OW are going about it the wrong way, but it's not my place to tell someone how to feminize so I leave it be.

 

I see that Juliann already brought it up, but if you are a part of the group, then you might want to think about being more active in telling people when they are going about something the wrong way.

 

If the group is just there to vent or as a venue for likeminded people, then I agree that it's not anyone's place to say what is acceptable venting and what isn't.

 

If the group has an agenda though (which it appears OW does) and if it has goals that it is working towards (again, which OW appears to have), then any member who is actively making it harder for those goals to be achieved is doing a disservice to the group and should not be allowed to continue.

 

And from my outsider's perspective, there are many leaders in OW (namely, the spokesperson) who's actions and words are pushing people away from OW rather than convincing them to join or to at least take their agenda and complaints seriously.  Kate Kelly has become reactionary in her responses.  She often belittles those who disagree with her (while at the same time being self righteous about how horrible it is that anyone would belittle her or OW for disagreeing with them), and the new attitude that the church is violent or evil because it will not give these women what they want is probably the most damaging of all.

 

If OW wants the members of the church to support them, and wants the leadership of the church to listen to them, they are going about it in the wrong way.  If that's not o.k. with you, then it would be your place to speak up about it.

 

[Jazzdreamer]

Jazzdreamer, the first I saw from Kelly was her referring to those feminists who didn't 100% back her as "so-called feminists". This was in an article on Neylan McBaine's Mormon Woman Project where Neylan had graciously given her a forum....where she promptly insulted her host. I don't have that link readily available.

http://mormonstories.org/alternative-feminist-approaches-to-ordain-women/

Here, she begins the comment section following a podcast with Fiona Givens, Neylan McBaine, Maxine Hanks, and Margaret Young. She called them narcissists in her first comment which was edited (the unedited comment was posted later in the comments).

She defends herself from the (I think) appropriate label of "catty" with one of the most breath taking ad hom attacks I have ever seen. In the following comments, she never backs down and engages with those participants who tried to talk to her. Most disappointing is her same condescending/patronizing/snarky tone that we so often get from men.

Following this, there is the recent conference. http://66.147.244.239/~girlsgo6/mormonwomensforum/ with a summary on FMH http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2013/11/counterpoint-conference-2013/

which discloses comments which are implied attacks like these:

It may be unfair to judge the conference from a second hand report but this back-handed slap verbiage is borne out elsewhere. In continuing with the insults to the mainstream members, they seem to be retreating into an echo chamber where they are no longer even trying to appeal to the average LDS woman, who like it or not, they will need before seeing any change move up the ranks. That is especially apparent when their first conference is done with those who are not LDS. I find their activism confusing and disjointed. The cleverness and appeal of All Enlisted has been replaced with meanness towards those who merely disagree with some of what they are espousing.

Before I respond to all points can I just ask what conference you are referring to?

[juliann]

Before I respond to all points can I just ask what conference you are referring to?

   http://66.147.244.239/~girlsgo6/mormonwomensforum/?page_id=5

 

I'm glad to have an OW perspective here, BTW!

[Garden Girl]

My apologies, GG.  I see where I gave that impression.  What I should have said is that there really is  no other way to perceive "sympathy" comments from a listener's perspective.  That is why I think we just need to stop reinforcing anything that implies a single person is lacking... and that includes letting them get away with self-pity.  There are advantages to being single just as there can be disadvantages to being married.  Those advantages need to be the focus not the poor me/you stuff.  Not to mention the thing we always conveniently leave out in the marriage is bliss fantasy is that it often isn't and won't be given a spouse who won't fix anything.  The divorce rate bears that out.  Singleness, on the other hand, can be made into something but we never seem to get past the "If only" narrative to elaborate.

 

No other way to perceive "sympathy" (empathy) comments... than to view them as holding someone as "less than" or equating "worth" to being married??  Ummm... if that's the case that there is no other way to perceive such empathy then it seems to me a perspective adjustment is needed... that said, such empathy should indeed, I agree, focus on encouraging a sister not to wallow in self pity but to realize the here and now blessings of her life... and to help her to face forward and be strong as she fully lives her faith, including hearing the counsel of prophets and apostles that in doing so she will be eternally blessed with all the blessings Heavenly Father has for his children. 

Juliann... you and I are both strong Latter Day Saint women with strong voices and presence... we both have come to terms with the reality of being single and the blessings it can hold rather than sit and feel self pity... not all women are as strong as we are.  But as strong as I am, there are times when being childless does weigh on me... when I sit in RS and the sisters are chatting about their children and grandchildren, sharing pictures, and looking forward to holiday visits, etc etc... yes it gives me a twinge of holy envy so to speak... but... being as strong as I am I can face foward as I try to encourage others like me to open their eyes and see their what their lives can be in the here and now as well as eternally... and I can be understanding of them as I encourage them... I do not view them, nor myself, as "lacking" in any way... and I convey that whenever I can...

 

GG

[juliann]

  Kate Kelly has become reactionary in her responses.  She often belittles those who disagree with her (while at the same time being self righteous about how horrible it is that anyone would belittle her or OW for disagreeing with them), and the new attitude that the church is violent or evil because it will not give these women what they want is probably the most damaging of all.

 

 

I just saw another "we are so courageous" blog.  There is always an element of courage involved in speaking against something that is accepted.  But it becomes very out of place when the person is bestowing courage on themselves...somewhat in the same vein as announcing they are beautiful.  Some things are just better left to others to label.  I also wonder if the word courage is diminished when it is applied to a situation where the brave person is not facing universal disapproval but is, in fact, being applauded by a much, much larger group than the one they are speaking against.  In effect, given the relatively small numbers of Mormons, it seems more courageous to speak out for current policy than against it.  Those who do are not the ones receiving glowing, congratulatory news articles accompanied by massive numbers of approving comments. 

 

Anyway, as I thought about those who I think have displayed unbelievable courage...usually putting their lives at risk where OW members are not even putting their membership at risk...it occurs to me that is why the emergence of the violent/evil rhetoric is coming from.  There needs to be a dangerous situation to make an appeal to courage convincing.  I also notice in the report of the conference that there was reference to the risk of excommunication...which anybody can see isn't happening anymore. 

 

What I am wondering is if there is a need to manufacture a sinister opponent that just doesn't exist to make themselves relevant.   I can't think of anyway in which the march (notice they had to change that confrontive word to walk) to the priesthood mtg was effective beyond the flash of news coverage.  I haven't heard any of the "masses" outside of the internet even mention it.  At best, it was just seen as rude to crash a male event....at worst, the mean thing again.  So I think we will, unfortunately, see more inflammatory rhetoric to fill in the gaps. 

[Deborah]

We have failed as a church if our young women are growing up feeling that their lives are worthless if they don't have a man. 

 

And I would add if they feel they need to have the Priesthood to feel of worthy. However, I still believe this is caused more by family dynamics than church dynamics. I know too many women, including single women, who don't have this less than worthy attitude so it can't be all due to the church.

 

As to the OW group, I think it would help if all the ex-Mormons and non-Mormons weren't so vocal in their support. It really does sound more political than the concerns of women who are believers.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This isn't even close to a comparison and is part of the patronization that is offensive.   Is there any reason you didn't add menstruation?  That is part of it, you know.   When you can line up even five guys who want these things (or have  formed groups to discuss how not being able to menstruate every month results in inequitable treatment from the church),  get back to us. 

So not every aspect of being a women is desirable?  Do you think that everything associated with the priesthood is desirable? I mean really being a bishop would suck. Would it be a great experiance? Yup. Is there a lot of crap that comes with it? Yup. I just look to my mission. Was it great. Yeah it was I would not ever trade that experiance. Was there a lot of crap that came with it. Yeah. So next.

[MorningStar]

So not every aspect of being a women is desirable?  Do you think that everything associated with the priesthood is desirable? I mean really being a bishop would suck. Would it be a great experiance? Yup. Is there a lot of crap that comes with it? Yup. I just look to my mission. Was it great. Yeah it was I would not ever trade that experiance. Was there a lot of crap that came with it. Yeah. So next.

My husband's dad was bishop three times and stake president twice.  And this is why my husband never wants to be a bishop.  He knows how hard it is!