Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Scott Lloyd]

I think this raises a legitimate point on which the Church can improve. I would like to see the Church, perhaps through the website, or even a general conference talk, clarify the "process" by which Church members can petition the Church (through the priesthood hierarchy) , and also provide instruction against the type of public agitation and protesting as we have seen the OW utilize.

Thanks,

-Smac

Would you outline that process as you understand it?

I don't believe the Brethren are overly eager to invite a rash of petty grievances. They have quite enough on their plate as it is.

Edited to add:

Including, it would seem, malicious prosecution in overseas courts.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

They can silence different points of view by not including them in the discussion or conversation. The CFR is how they present their position without including the positions of the other.

 

So now it is silencing other positions by simply not including other positions?

 

I'm not sure that "not including" every idea on the subject of women in the LDS church can be equated to a hostile attempt to "silence" other opinions on the subject. As you stated above, each group is entitled to take their standpoint (you included yourself in this), and I agree. You do not have to be all inclusive in order to avoid the charge of actively silencing. This would be an impossible requirement for civil discussion.

 

As a side note, did it read correctly that you posted a a few days back that are currently not fully active at church and don't hold a calling? I seem to recall it was you who made this comment. If that is the case then some of the logic that is being applied to the OW movements associated with both inactive and non-members can be reversed...

 

If you are not fully active in church then your opposition to the OW movement, by association, undermines the legitimacy of the church communities opposition against OW, in virtue of the fact that inactive members share the same view. 

 

You can see obviously why this is ridiculous and why I reject this thinking on both sides of the debate.

 

Perhaps it was not you who made the comment about their current level of church attendance, if not i apologize for my faulty memory. Suffice to say, some where in the opposition to OW is a disaffected, inactive or non-believing mormon. As such the point stands.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[smac97]

Would you outline that process as you understand it?

I don't believe the Brethren are overly eager to invite a rash of petty grievances. They have quite enough on their plate as it is.

Edited to add:

Including, it would seem, malicious prosecution in overseas courts.

Perhaps we could start with this:

Oaks, Dallin H. “Criticism.” Ensign, Feb. 1987, 68. (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng )

This article also has a useful summary:

Courts of Love: Legal Structures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/Legal_Systems_Very_Different_13/papers_05/LDS.htm ). See

Scott, I think a separate thread devoted to this topic would be worthwhile.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bikeemikey]

I'm rejoining this fast-moving thread after a lot of comment has been made, but I want to weigh in on the wisdom of pointing to the Pugh study.

One characteristic of protest movements, public demonstrations, media shows and the like is that they seem bigger than life. That gives them an element of power and makes them a popular medium of expression for pressure groups. The term "silent majority" was coined back in the '60s in recognition of this fact.

So, pointing out the 90 percent (which, as public opinion polls go, is an amazing majority) has value even if it does nothing more than put things in perspective. Which is always a good thing.

 

Agreed. I think this perspective is very important for the broader LDS community as the OW movement is a very small minority at present.

 

I do find it interesting that the decision to reference such data was made based on the risk of a shift over time on this very position. How will the church respond when PEW finds that there is a shifting in the opposite direction (if that happens). Will the decision to rely on church social trends in the past come back to haunt the same discussion in the future?

Edited March 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Here is an interesting discussion about mormon feminism. However, in the discussion I see no spiritual discussion. Just a secular discussion. I see no reference to heavenly father and the truthfulness of the lds church. I see no discussion about the lds church being revelatory church. I just see a secular discussion on equality.

 

 

Toward the end, we hear about the different voices within the movement at around the 30 minute mark and kelly does say some interesting things toward the end. But does social protest hasten the revelation?

 

Given that revelation comes from God social protest will always be limited in engaging religious change. That does not mean it is not an acceptable from of protest/discussion.

 

Your criticism that they don't talk about the truthfulness of the church just really doesn't seem very relevant to me. Their mission is not to promote the truthfulness of the church. It is to engage the LDS community in a discussion about gender.

[awyatt]

I'm curious about this. I think the EQs and HPGs in the Church have likewise lost some autonomy. Is there evidence that this lessened autonomy is limited to the Relief Society and not the other organizations in the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

That was my thought, exactly. For women to say "correlation" (or whatever procedural change) trivialized the RS and, by extension, women within the Church" is rather myopic. The financial changes that have been made over the past 60 years affected *every* part of the Church at every level. Think "rich wards" vs. "poor wards." Changes resulted in money and assets being transferred to the general Church, rather than being held by local units. The result? Some local units had less financial clout and all benefited. (Think of the law of consecration or the United Order being applied at an organizational level instead of an individual level. That's what the changes implemented.)

 

Yes, individual RS organizations were no long able to control their own funds. But neither were EQ or HP groups. Neither were Primaries or Boy Scout troops. It all changed.

 

It is myopic to say "we were singled out" when the historical records shows that no, they weren't singled out.

 

-Allen

[JLHPROF]

I don't think speculating about excommunication is appropriate. Such a topic is not within our province. If we, as Latter-day Saints, object to the OW group taking an unseemly approach to matters of doctrine, revelation and church governance, then we must take care that we do not do the same. Church discipline is not within our stewardship.

Moreover, it is my hope that a reconciliation between the Church and people presently acting against it is possible. I think it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Now who's being naive?

To be clear I am not calling for their excommunication (not my stewardship).  I am merely stating what should be the obvious conclusion and saying it is starting to seem pretty unavoidable.  And all this talk of motivations and actions will become pretty moot once the inevitable occurs.

 

Reconciliation won't happen because there is only one thing this group wants and the Church (right now) is just not going to give it to them.  You can't reconcile that with all the love, fellowshipping and kind words in the world.  The Church and OW are becoming two divergent groups, and that can only have one result.

[Bikeemikey]

I think this raises a legitimate point on which the Church can improve. I would like to see the Church, perhaps through the website, or even a general conference talk, clarify the "process" by which Church members can petition the Church (through the priesthood hierarchy), how that process works, and so on. Church members would also need instruction on patience and humility in seeking light and knowledge from God (the need for this counsel is evident from the incredibly arrogant "we want the priesthood 'and nothing less will suffice'" message from the OW group), and also instruction against the type of public agitation and protesting as we have seen the OW utilize.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

This would be a very positive step forward.

 

Im not sure that our church has any real need to stop public agitation (at the level that OW is currently engaging in). Again, I just dont see how it can have any kind of negative impact on the church.

 

We certainly almost all agree that it will not impact "revelation", so what is the harm of tolerating a diverse range of acceptable conversations on a given topic?

[Bikeemikey]

I don't think speculating about excommunication is appropriate. Such a topic is not within our province. If we, as Latter-day Saints, object to the OW group taking an unseemly approach to matters of doctrine, revelation and church governance, then we must take care that we do not do the same. Church discipline is not within our stewardship.

Moreover, it is my hope that a reconciliation between the Church and people presently acting against it is possible. I think it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

It is also important to remember that a poll that shows 90% of mormon women are not in favor of ordaining women to the priesthood is very different to a pool that shows 90% of mormon women oppose the OW movement.

[Bikeemikey]

Again, a conversation can be had about this topic, but not with a group who says that "nothing less (than them getting what they want) will suffice." Until they correct their misbehavior and dis-align themselves with an excommunicated apostate, I do not think discussion with them is feasible or appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

So as an interesting aside, part of your core objection is that they have rejected the revelatory process, something I personally do not agree they have done, but I do see why others do.

 

To what extent is holding fast to the revelatory process a slippery slope to total inaction? For example you have stated above that the conversation can only be had on specific terms, just as the OW women have, yet neither you nor them are revelatory spokes people for the church. To what extent is your statement above in violation of the revelatory process because you have presumed to speak in a concrete fashion on a church conversation, but are not entitled to (unless you are an avatar for President Monson )

 

And of course the slippery slope of this is, to what extent is any speech that is not prophetically utter, a rejection of revelation?

 

Are you legitimately authorized to draw a line in the sand about the conversation they are promoting and not be subject to the same criticism you have levied against the OW movement? I have seen no statement by the church that would suggest that your line in the sand that I quoted above is the "revealed" position of the church. Feel free to provide a CFR if I am incorrect on this.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm curious about this. I think the EQs and HPGs in the Church have likewise lost some autonomy. Is there evidence that this lessened autonomy is limited to the Relief Society and not the other organizations in the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Bushman's remarks were in reference to a loss of autonomy across the board but she did feel that it had a disproportionate impact on the women in the church compared to the men.

 

All auxiliaries become less autonomous but in the process the leadership/men actually got more power as they become the party that was directly in control of what was previously administered by auxiliary organizations. She used the specific example of thousands of independent relief society bank accounts having their full balances signed over to the church and then stipends were provided back to the relief society.

 

Dont get me wrong I am not raising this as a universal condemnation of the correlation movement in the church. To a certain extent is was extremely important as the church moved global. The socialization of the church funds under correlation allows for all of the new church growth centers to have funds redistributed to them through a central administration that would have been totally impossible otherwise. It has been very impactful in church growth. However, it has also, according to bushman, had a disproportionate impact on LDS women.

[Bikeemikey]

That was my thought, exactly. For women to say "correlation" (or whatever procedural change) trivialized the RS and, by extension, women within the Church" is rather myopic. The financial changes that have been made over the past 60 years affected *every* part of the Church at every level. Think "rich wards" vs. "poor wards." Changes resulted in money and assets being transferred to the general Church, rather than being held by local units. The result? Some local units had less financial clout and all benefited. (Think of the law of consecration or the United Order being applied at an organizational level instead of an individual level. That's what the changes implemented.)

 

Yes, individual RS organizations were no long able to control their own funds. But neither were EQ or HP groups. Neither were Primaries or Boy Scout troops. It all changed.

 

It is myopic to say "we were singled out" when the historical records shows that no, they weren't singled out.

 

-Allen

 

But it is accurate to say that the control of funds went from being handled by both men and women (albeit separately at auxiliary level) to just Men (the bishopric of the ward). Coupled with that was the reality that women did not have a strong presence in the ward council process at that point (and some say they still really don't).

 

It should also be pointed at that no one actually said that women were crying woe is me. The person who made this observation pointed to the fact that all auxiliaries were impact, but she felt the impact was more severe to women (not the relief society, but women specifically) as the new structure moved the control of funds exclusively to men.

[Bikeemikey]

Now who's being naive?

To be clear I am not calling for their excommunication (not my stewardship).  I am merely stating what should be the obvious conclusion and saying it is starting to seem pretty unavoidable.  And all this talk of motivations and actions will become pretty moot once the inevitable occurs.

 

Reconciliation won't happen because there is only one thing this group wants and the Church (right now) is just not going to give it to them.  You can't reconcile that with all the love, fellowshipping and kind words in the world.  The Church and OW are becoming two divergent groups, and that can only have one result.

 

Well that is not obvious to me...

[Teancum]

So if you subtract all the non-members, apostates and excommunicants, they are an even smaller minority than appears at first glance.

 

"We are the Church"? Hardly.

 

 

Are many of them members?  Active?  Have you reviewed the  OW site to confirm that a bunch of them are ex members or resigned?  I know most here cannot much stand anyone who does not toe the party line. But many of them are members, Kate Kelly is.  As much as you Mr. Lloyd or as much as me.  Keep that in mind.

[smac97]

Now who's being naive?

I don't think I am naive.

To be clear I am not calling for their excommunication (not my stewardship).  I am merely stating what should be the obvious conclusion and saying it is starting to seem pretty unavoidable.

I think excommunication is very avoidable. It is an extreme solution to a problem with many potential, less extreme, solutions.

And all this talk of motivations and actions will become pretty moot once the inevitable occurs.

I think it is inappropriate to talk of inevitabilities. We don't have all the facts.

Reconciliation won't happen because there is only one thing this group wants and the Church (right now) is just not going to give it to them.  You can't reconcile that with all the love, fellowshipping and kind words in the world.

I think you underestimate the power of patience, charity and listening. I think there are many people in the OW group who are strongly devoted to the Church, and who are being mislead and acting in a very wrongheaded manner. Counseling with them will, I think, bear fruit.

The Church and OW are becoming two divergent groups, and that can only have one result.

I disagree. I think that reconciliation with some/many in the OW group is not only possible, but very possible.

I work as an attorney, and I have participated in numerous mediations which, at the beginning, had seeming zero chance of success, and, at the end, succeeded. Optimism and pragmatism, together with communication, patience and charity, can work wonders.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

But it is accurate to say that the control of funds went from being handled by both men and women (albeit separately at auxiliary level) to just Men (the bishopric of the ward). Coupled with that was the reality that women did not have a strong presence in the ward council process at that point (and some say they still really don't).

 

It should also be pointed at that no one actually said that women were crying woe is me. The person who made this observation pointed to the fact that all auxiliaries were impact, but she felt the impact was more severe to women (not the relief society, but women specifically) as the new structure moved the control of funds exclusively to men.

 

So it is not that groups suffered, a gender suffered more; the pain, abuse, etc. was more acute for a specific gender.  I find this logic so full of stupidity it makes me grind my molars.  This is someone that is desperate to be a victim and creating their problem.  Loss of control was across the board; it was loss of control for all auxiliaries.  Women groups did not suffer more; groups lost a degree of self-determination.  A gender lost nothing.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps we could start with this:

Oaks, Dallin H. “Criticism.” Ensign, Feb. 1987, 68. (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng )

This article also has a useful summary:

Courts of Love: Legal Structures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/Legal_Systems_Very_Different_13/papers_05/LDS.htm ). See

 

These are useful and informative links. Thanks.

 

Scott, I think a separate thread devoted to this topic would be worthwhile.

 

Perhaps, though I'm not so inclined. I won't carry forward discussion of it here, however.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Are many of them members?  Active?  Have you reviewed the  OW site to confirm that a bunch of them are ex members or resigned?  I know most here cannot much stand anyone who does not toe the party line. But many of them are members, Kate Kelly is.  As much as you Mr. Lloyd or as much as me.  Keep that in mind.

At this point, they seem to be on the outside beating on the gates.

 

Would to God i never find myself in that position.

 

There are institutions I would have no problem showing such contempt for. The Church of Jesus Christ is not one of those institutions.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Paloma]

Now who's being naive?

To be clear I am not calling for their excommunication (not my stewardship).  I am merely stating what should be the obvious conclusion and saying it is starting to seem pretty unavoidable.  And all this talk of motivations and actions will become pretty moot once the inevitable occurs.

 

Reconciliation won't happen because there is only one thing this group wants and the Church (right now) is just not going to give it to them.  You can't reconcile that with all the love, fellowshipping and kind words in the world.  The Church and OW are becoming two divergent groups, and that can only have one result.

 

It seems to me that you are not fully taking into account the power of prayer and the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I have seen many examples of love and grace transforming situations where intransigence and irreconcilable differences seemed to rule the day and where there seemed to be "only one result".

 

Certainly, there needs to be a realistic assessment of the factors and dynamics at play.  And I admit that I'm thinking in much more general and global terms here than the OW initiative alone, but I think that the power of love and grace is so much stronger than we often realize.  It seems to me that you are tending to trivialize "all the love, fellowshipping and kind words in the world". 

 

Love and grace are not easy, but incredibly difficult and costly.  Think of Nelson Mandela's (and Desmond Tutu"s) Truth and Reconciliation endeavour in South Africa. 

 

C.S. Lewis described love as "hard as nails" in his poem below:

 

 

 Love's as Warm as Tears

 

Love's as warm as tears,

Love is tears:

Pressure within the brain,

Tension at the throat,

Deluge, weeks of rain,

Haystacks afloat,

Featureless seas between

Hedges, where once was green.

Love's as fierce as fire,

Love is fire:

All sorts--infernal heat

Clinkered with greed and pride,

Lyric desire, sharp-sweet,

Laughing, even when denied,

And that empyreal flame

Whence all loves came.

Love's as fresh as spring,

Love is spring:

Bird-song hung in the air,

Cool smells in a wood,

Whispering 'Dare! Dare!'

To sap, to blood,

Telling 'Ease, safety, rest,

Are good; not best.'

Love's as hard as nails,

Love is nails:

Blunt, thick, hammered through

The medial nerves of One

Who, having made us, knew

The thing He had done,

seeing (with all that is)

Our cross, and His.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Paloma

[bluebell]

Are many of them members?  Active?  Have you reviewed the  OW site to confirm that a bunch of them are ex members or resigned?  I know most here cannot much stand anyone who does not toe the party line. But many of them are members, Kate Kelly is.  As much as you Mr. Lloyd or as much as me.  Keep that in mind.

 

That point has plainly been made many times.  It is an important thing to acknowledge.

 

This really isn't about, for most of the posters here, who toes the party line though.  Saying things like that just makes you what you are mocking.  Either both sides deserve to be treated with respect, or neither side does.

[Gray]

No, it was needed to give men of black African descent the priesthood.

But in so doing, it established a clear scriptural / canonical / doctrinal limitation on the priesthood. D&C 84 and various other passages took gender for granted, but OD-2 made specific the nexus between gender and holding the priesthood.

 

 

 

I believe the ban was a mistake (and I think the recent essay bears that out), so I don't think a revelation was needed. The text of OD 2 is, again, silent on women. Specifically mentioning one gender/race for inclusion is not the same as revelation excluding the other. 

 

 

 

 

So it's a matter of eisegesis, but not exegesis? I'm not sure that's a good recipe for discerning doctrine.

 

So do I. But another rule of thumb is to sustain the Brethren. That has to include certain components in order to be workable. We need to assume the Brethren are in communion with God (absent evidence to the contrary). We need to recognize that reasonable minds can disagree about things, including important things. We need to allow the Brethren deference on debatable issues. We need to express concerns and attempt to affect positive change through charity, patience, humility, the Spirit. I don't think the OW group, with their public protests, aligning with excommunicated apostates, etc. is doing these things.

 

I agree. The scriptures require some exegesis. So the folks who are taking a literalist approach (saying that ordaining women to the priesthood should happen unless it is specifically prohibited in scripture) should reconsider their position.

 

I was referring to the ordination of women in the LDS Church. In that context, I think agitation for female ordination is something of a novelty. Were there instances of 19th-century LDS women making public demands for the priesthood? If so, I would appreciate a reference or two.

 

I'm not inclined to lay all social ills at the feet of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

I don't think trying to find the spirit of the law necessarily counts as eisegesis. 

 

Re: sustaining the brethren. Sustain is not the same as agree with. Sustain means to strengthen. I don't think anyone is strengthened by being sheltered from honest feedback. I don't think deference to any person is healthy or spiritually warranted. Love and respect, yes. Deference is unhealthy, in my opinion. 

 

Yes, agitation for female ordination is something of a novelty in Mormon culture, but positions for change in general have often come from the bottom up. 

 

Re: social ills: agreed.

 

I realize I've made a somewhat legalistic defense of my position, and I think that was a mistake. I'm not a legalistic thinker - I'm actually very non-literalist and don't really see importance or spiritual value in legalism.

[Bernard Gui]

Sisters, having had my conscience raised in the 60s and 70s, I recommend real protest if your are serious. Ladies...if you want the Priesthood that badly, break some stuff and hurt some people. Chain yourself to the temple gates. Lie down in front of missionaries' bicycles. Get some real attention. Put something on the line. None of this namby-pamby let-me-in-or-I-will-blow-your-house-down faux protest stuff. 

 

Some may say this represents a tiny portion of the Mormon Church, but I am here to say somewhere, some place, in some ward in this vast Church of ours today, a sister really, really wants to be ordained to the Priesthood. She is down for the struggle and is ready to act! Viva la revolution!

[Gray]

Just don't tell my wife

 

Discretion is my watchword 

[smac97]

Sisters, having had my conscience raised in the 60s and 70s, I recommend real protest if your are serious. Ladies...if you want the Priesthood that badly, break some stuff and hurt some people. Chain yourself to the temple gates. Lie down in front of missionaries' bicycles. Get some real attention. Put something on the line. None of this namby-pamby let-me-in-or-I-will-blow-your-house-down faux protest stuff. 

 

Some may say this represents a tiny portion of the Mormon Church, but I am here to say somewhere, some place, in some ward in this vast Church of ours today, a sister really, really wants to be ordained to the Priesthood. She is down for the struggle and is ready to act! Viva la revolution!

You cannot be serious. This is an attempt at ironic humor, right?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bikeemikey]

So it is not that groups suffered, a gender suffered more; the pain, abuse, etc. was more acute for a specific gender.  I find this logic so full of stupidity it makes me grind my molars.  This is someone that is desperate to be a victim and creating their problem.  Loss of control was across the board; it was loss of control for all auxiliaries.  Women groups did not suffer more; groups lost a degree of self-determination.  A gender lost nothing.  

 

Well you sure seem to have strong feelings on it. 

 

I am simply reporting what Claudia Bushman discussed a few months back. It was her thoughts on the subject, and I would also like to point out that in the format that it was shared in I am sure that it was not addressed in enough detail for her to express all of the nuances that need to be expressed for me to fully understand a her position authoritatively. 

 

This is a one paragraph review of a 5 mins aside in the 60 mins lecture condensing decades of a womens life experience and thought. 

 

But let me ask you a simple question. 

 

If something goes from being controlled by men and women to simple being controlled by men how is it unreasonable to suggest that women lost out a little more than men did?

 

Also, I find your tone a little confrontational about this subject. There is no need to call someone stupid. In fact there is every need not to.

 

I'm sure your molars could use some relief as well.