Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Bernard Gui]

"Sons" is a synonym for children in many languages. 

How about 19th century Northeast American English?

As in "Son" of God.

 

1828 Webster's Dictionary:

 

51043 son SON, n. 1. A male child; the male issue of a parent, father or mother. Jacob had twelve sons. Ishmael was the son of Hagar by Abraham. 2. A male

Edited March 21, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[cdowis]

Yeah, I get that.  In Catholicism we have immutable dogmas and then we have practices.  For example, priestly celibacy is not a dogma but a practice.  It could theoretically change (but I SERIOUSLY doubt it ever will).

Thanks for the instruction.  We really do have alot in common.

 

Now how does this relate to "tradition".  Is tradition primarily practice, dogma, or can be either one.

Edited March 21, 2014 by cdowis

[krampus]

I would like my fellow ladies to have the priesthood. I think they would do a better job than us guys can. I think eventually they will. hundreds of millions of women will never have the opportunity to be mothers in this life, so it doesnt make sense to just say, well they shouldnt gave it because theyvare all supposed to be mothers. There is no commandment to have children anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would like my fellow ladies to have the priesthood. I think they would do a better job than us guys can. I think eventually they will. hundreds of millions of women will never have the opportunity to be mothers in this life, so it doesnt make sense to just say, well they shouldnt gave it because theyvare all supposed to be mothers. There is no commandment to have children anyway.

On the contrary, the commandment to "multiply and replenish [fill] the earth" is given to all the posterity of Adam and Eve. And those who lack the ability or opportunity to have children within a lawful marital union will have that chance in the hereafter.

[Buckeye]

I would like my fellow ladies to have the priesthood. I think they would do a better job than us guys can. I think eventually they will. hundreds of millions of women will never have the opportunity to be mothers in this life, so it doesnt make sense to just say, well they shouldnt gave it because theyvare all supposed to be mothers. There is no commandment to have children anyway.

 

Scott is correct regarding the church's commandment.  I can't recall the last time when a general conferene went by without a reminder of the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.  Granted, the church is very careful not to dictate numbers or timing of children.  But the command remains.

 

At the same time, it would be accurate to point out that, unlike with the priesthood, the church does not take any action against a woman who chooses not to have children even though she could.  A married woman who is childless by choice will still receive a temple recommend, be allowed to serve as a (couple) missionary, and do everything that women who choose to have children can do.  The only consequences are those that flow naturally, such as not having joy in one's posterity.  This is not true for men who choose not to accept the priesthood.  For them, the church does more than just allow nature consequences to follow.  The church actively excludes the man from the temple and disallows him from serving a mission. 

[mtomm]

On the contrary, the commandment to "multiply and replenish [fill] the earth" is given to all the posterity of Adam and Eve. And those who lack the ability or opportunity to have children within a lawful marital union will have that chance in the hereafter.

 

Isn't that interesting though. There is a commandment that many are unable to keep even if it is through no fault of their own.  The commandment even says to replenish the earth.  

[wenglund]

Here: http://www.standard.net/stories/2014/03/17/lds-church-tells-mormon-women-s-group-not-protest

 

 

A few thoughts:

 

First, I am glad to see the Church asserting its property rights.  While it is unfortunate that some of these protesters are LDS, perhaps this will be a wake-up call to the adversarial nature of their conduct.  Put another way, they'll have to ditch the facade of their intended protest being something other than a protest.

 

Second, I think the Church is doing the right thing here.  I do not think protesters should be afforded some sort of privileged access to church property simply because some of them are LDS.

 

Third, I am concerned about Kate Kelly's comment that her group "will go forward with lining up outside the meeting."  That sound like she is planning to disregard the Church's instruction, and also the law.  Unfortunately, I think this group may be angling for a confrontation, as it will result in more publicity for their protest.

 

Fourth, I think Kate Kelly's claim about being "discouraged by church leaders comparing them with outside protest groups" is a bit absurd.  A protest is a protest, regardless of whether the protesters are "outside" or "inside" the Church.

 

EDIT:

 

Fifth, I think the article's title ("Mormon church tells women's group not to protest") is misleading.  The Church isn't telling the OW folks that they cannot protest, only that they cannot do so on Church property.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Has there been any bra-burnings over this?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mtomm]

McBaine, Kelly, and Smith being interviewed by the SL Trib.  Very, very enlightening.  

 

[why me]

McBaine, Kelly, and Smith being interviewed by the SL Trib.  Very, very enlightening.  

 

It is interesting just how Kelly leaves god out of the picture in the beginning. The priesthood has the power of god but it is god that must give such power. Not man. Listening to Kelly, I can see that she is locked in her mindset. The other two women seem to be much more reasonable and understand how the lds church is revelatory in nature and not a social pressure church. Kelly seems to be very secular in her ideas. She obviously is using church language in her discussions but her actions seem to be very different. Since she was asked not to do her protest, and since she still needs to do it, tells me much about her agenda.

Edited March 21, 2014 by why me

[JLHPROF]

McBaine, Kelly, and Smith being interviewed by the SL Trib.  Very, very enlightening.  

 

 

Very enlightening...but the question on everyone's mind?  Who is the charming fellow with the moustache and lipstick who kept popping up when Kate Kelly was speaking....?

[smac97]

Here is a summary for those who do not want to watch the entire video (significant points are in bold):

1. The reporter seemed to be a bit biased in her characterization of the Church.

2. Kate Kelly gave the Church credit for "a lot of steps" it has taken to "make it more inclusive place, to reach out to women, to include women," which she described as "excellent" and "necessary" steps. But she then said that putting up photos of women leaders at the Conference Center and having women pray at General Conference is not "sufficient," and that women want to participate in ordinances and not only be consulted about decisions, but to be a part of the decision-making process.

3. Neylan McBaine said she agrees with Kate Kelly regarding improving/increasing the role of women in the Church, but she disagrees with Kate Kelly regarding the "root cause" of an insufficient role for women. Her view is that the doctrine of the priesthood is not the root cause, that the Church has the most "revolutionary gender doctrine of any western denomination," but that this has not innoculated us from gender tensions in our practices and culture. She does not believe the ordination of women would "level the playing field." She thinks we would not be taking advantage of the power that women already have access too, which power already gives us equal worth. Local church administration problems would not be solved overnight by giving women the priesthood. Kate and her group are trying to target these issues, but the manner of that effort is "crucial," and she diverges from Kate on that.

4. Julie Smith had a position similar to Neylan McBaine. She agrees with Kate on advancing role of women in the Church. However, she went on to state that the methods the OW group is using are "alienating" to a lot of people, they "provoke a backlash" and are "fundamentally foreign to Mormonism" and are "causing more problems than helping at this point."

5. Kate Kelly defended the OW approach, saying it is "right." She said she has views which have a lot in common with Neylan and Julie. She agreed that ordaining women is not a panacea, but incremental changes and "concessions that the church can make" won't change the "fundamental dynamic that women can't be leaders," can't preside, can't serve in higher leadership positions. There are no women general authorities in the Church because the word "authority" is not associated with women. She also stated that "that fundamental division, strictly divided on gender lines, needs to change."

6. Regarding the Church's statement earlier this week, the reporter asked Kate if she was "detracting" from discourse by her group's actions. Kate responded that she is glad the Church is involved in discourse with women. She said nobody really knows how many women support ordination, including those who have left the Church over this issue or those who would join the Church but for "gender inequality." She says that her group's "courage" has improved the overall discussion.

7. Regarding the Church's statement, Neylan noted that the Church doesn't tell the OW group to stop writing/thinking about this issue, but instead asked them not to use General Conference as a "semi-annual bully pupit to detract from the communal worship ritual" of General Conference. People come to participate in that communal ritual, and to gain a sense of peace and unity. So the OW group can't have a "sincere hope" of being admitted to the session, so the action "is revealed as a true protest, which is by definition trying to draw attention away from the institutional organization, and to a group that represents a minority feeling." For that reason, the action should be seen for what it is, a "true protest," and the Church's letter as a response to that and not a "cease and desist" letter. (Note: Kate Kelly seemed to be looking not pleased during Neylan's remarks.)

8. The reporter noted that the OW group should go to the "free speech" zones, which is where the anti-Mormons go. Kate said the OW group doesn't "have anything in common with those (anti-Mormon) people" in the free-speech zones. She said "I don't have anything in common with people who are protesting the Church, so I think that characterization is unfair and disappointing." She also said that the letter says that it shows the Church is willing to "begin this dialogue." She also rejected the characterization of their planned action as a "protest." "We are not protesters. We are people who want to participate in a meeting."

9. Regarding the Church's statement, Julie said it was a "misstep" because of its emphasis on numbers. By noting that the OW group is small in number, the implication is that the Church would listen to them if their numbers were greater, and she did not think this would be accurate. She also said the letter described the OW group's approach as "non-negotiable," but that she (Julie) understood is that this is not correct, either because it conflated the ultimate objective (female ordination) with the current request (to attend a meeting). She also said the letter could have been worded to make it less inflammatory by pointing out that women frequently attend single-gender events (baby showers, girls' night out, etc.), and that there are benefits to that, and that men should also have the right to single-gender events.

10. Kate responded to July by saying the OW group doesn't take a position on single-sex event. The OW group is focused on the priesthood meeting is not because men are there, but because it is for priesthood holders, which is their "aspiration."

11. The reporter asked what the OW group will do if they do not get the priesthood and why they would remain a Mormon if they do not receive the priesthood. Kate responded that there is no place else for her, that this is the Church of God, that she is "Mormon through and through," and that just because she believes the Church should be a more inclusive place doesn't mean that she should leave it. The OW group is an "investment" in the Gospel, a way to engage in her faith. She called it a "retention effort" because women are leaving the Church "in droves" because they see inequality in it. She concluded by saying "We are not against the Church. We are the Church."

12. The reporter asked Neylan if the Church is a big enough tent to include people who are talking about changing "essential church doctrine." Neylan responded that the Church is big enough, that the scriptures show how these kinds of tensions have been resolved, such as in New Testament days. These are cultural tensions and are not unique to our time. The Jerusalem Conference addressed mixing Jews and gentiles together. There is scriptural precedent for working these things out. She also said: "I don't see any successful instance in the Scriptures where such forward hubris was rewarded in the way it was hoped to be rewarded. And I think one of the challenges with this approach is not that it's trying to include everybody, but that this approach is actually excludes most of the Church by saying, 'You haven't noticed this inequality, or this hasn't frustrated you before, you haven't done anything about this,' even if you have noticed it and have been frustrated by it. And so somehow you are 'lesser, you are not as attuned, you are not as willing to step forward as we are.' And so I think that 'us versue them' is one of the things that people are responding to negatively about this approach. That's not to say that if the prophet did come out at conference and say, 'We've prayed about this and it is going to happen,' that there wouldn't be a lot of us who would cheer, or who would be grateful for that continuing revelation. But I think that the idea of pointing out and saying, 'Look, you've lived a happy life in Mormonism, but you've actually been living under a fallacy,' is shaming, and I think one of the reasons people are responding negatively to this approach.

13. The reporter asked about "parallel priesthood," one for men, one for women. Julie addressed this by describing Joseph Smith's comments to the Relief Society that it would be a "kingdom of priests, as in Enoch's day and in Paul's day." She said most LDS don't know about this quote. She also characterized this as a revelation (that women were organized in Enoch's day and Paul's day as a "kingdom of priests"). This is part of our heritage. However, he restored it as part of the Relief Society, not as part of the priesthood. Also, it's a brief statement recorded in notes.

14. Regarding a "parallel priesthood" for women, Kate made a few comments about this. She said ongoing revelation is one of the "beauties of Mormonism." She disagreed with Neylan about her group's actions being inconsistent with scripture, saying instead that their behavior is "completely consistent" in context. She quoted "seek and ye shall find." We are asking, perhaps not through the traditional methods. We are asking with our bodies, our hearts, in person. People can disagree with how we are doing this. She supports all of the work of Mormon feminists, such as the Mormon Women's project. She said a separate priesthood would not make sense. She said "separate but equal" priesthood would not work, and that women would be relegated to only ministering to children and other women, and would not be given leadership roles. She said that she has "no doubt" that a revelation will come giving the priesthood to women, but that "if not," she will "continue to serve the Lord."

15. Julie responded by saying she is not an OW supporter, but she noted a single instance in scripture to where the Law of Moses was changed when a group of women asked for a change in inheritance laws. Moses prayed about it and received an answer to change the law and let women inherit. The difficulty is that women today can't go up to President Monson's tent and ask him to pray about something. She then asked about the proper method for a righteous women with a complaint about the law to get President Monson's ear. She said there is disagreement among Mormon feminists today about the proper method.

16. The reporter asked about whether many Mormon women already feel empowered. Neylan addressed this by saying we often trip over the word "equal," which in a moder context is synonymous with "the same." She thinks the YW and RS give women a "protective space" for developing their own views and voice. She doesn't understand how female ordination would solve administrative problems and maintain that "female space." One of the things the Gospel asks us to do is to do things which our popular culture is saying are not rights. In this case, does "equal" have to be "the same?"

17. The reporter asked about whether cultural forces and "modern society" will compel the Church to ordain women. It makes no sense for our churches to be the last basion of gender inequality. She conceded that there are fundamental differences between men and women, but that saying "I feel equal, I feel included" amounts to "mental gymnastics" because she had to tell herself that men are categorical leaders and women categorically are not. She also said she is speaking out because she cannot remain silent, and she has to speak out on behalf of women who are in a marriage, or a family, or a community where they can't say these things because they will be ostracized and punished and fired. There are women like that. There are women who have lost jobs and callings because they have been involved in the OW group.

18. The reporter asked about how the OW group's request has affected Mormon culture. Julie said local congregations don't seem to be talking about it, but online discussion has been exploding. Many reactions have been poor, such as telling the OW group to leave the Church and other vitriol. That's not being good Christians. Neylan responded that she receives a lot of communications telling her what is happening. She said there is a lot of confusion as to why some women are feeling this way (requesting the priesthood). For people who are not familiar with this conversation, we need to reach out to them. The response online has been "horrific." We should have a respectful, Christ-like response in these discussions.

19. Neylan said that General Conference might address this, but it will be a very broad discussion because of the worldwide audience listening to conference. Julie said that she anticipates an emphasis on motherhood, doctrine, the sanctity of womanhood, and perhaps some guidance on agreeing without being disagreeable. Kate Kelly also found the online response to be very poor. She said the OW group has been "extremely respectful." We were reverent and respectful at the Conference Center.

20. The reporter noted that the OW group has been asked not to go to Temple Square, and she asked if the OW group is still planning to come. Kate Kelly responded: "We are going to continue as planned. The letter said that they hope we reconsider, and we extended the invitation to them to reconsider. To let us in. To let us participate. Don't make us go back to the park and shiver while we are watching the session on our cell phones. Which is what we did in October. It would be no concession, no doctrine would have to change. No one would even have to issue any statement just to let us in, to let us participate, and let us demonstrate to our leaders that we are ready to receive the priesthood of God."

I'll have some thoughts on this discussion later. For now, I'll say that I was very impressed with both Neylan McBaine and Julie Smith. Their responses were superb. I have much to learn from them. I was also impressed with Kate Kelly. Not so much about her position on this issue, or on her plan to disobey the Church's instruction, but I think it is clear that she has a strong testimony. While I think her actions have been inappropriate and wrongheaded, my heart has softened toward her.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 22, 2014 by smac97

[why me]

Very enlightening...but the question on everyone's mind?  Who is the charming fellow with the moustache and lipstick who kept popping up when Kate Kelly was speaking....?

I have this strange feeling that the site was hacked and Ms. Kelly became the victim of the hacking. I must say that hearing her speak left a bad taste in my mouth as it would for many church members.

[smac97]

I have this strange feeling that the site was hacked and Ms. Kelly became the victim of the hacking. I must say that hearing her speak left a bad taste in my mouth as it would for many church members.

That's interesting. I ended up liking Ms. Kelly more than I did before.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

Very enlightening...but the question on everyone's mind?  Who is the charming fellow with the moustache and lipstick who kept popping up when Kate Kelly was speaking....?

Glad that wasn't just my computer.  This is an awesome must see interview for all...if they can fix that.  Kelly came off very well. It is the best she has ever presented herself, in my opinion. And she had to counter two others.  I had to shake my head when she said OW had been very, very respectful though.

 

I so want a transcript of this!   Thanks for the write-up, Smac.  One talking point I am not agreeing with is that the church shouldn't bring up numbers who disagree with OW. But I think that is probably necessary when OW continues to emphasize that they have so many numbers.

Edited March 21, 2014 by juliann

[Stone holm]

Glad that wasn't just my computer.  This is an awesome must see interview for all...if they can fix that.  Kelly came off very well. It is the best she has ever presented herself, in my opinion. And she had to counter two others.  I had to shake my head when she said OW had been very, very respectful though.

 

I so want a transcript of this!   Thanks for the write-up, Smac.  One talking point I am not agreeing with is that the church shouldn't bring up numbers who disagree with OW. But I think that is probably necessary when OW continues to emphasize that they have so many numbers.

I don't see how the numbers thing works with the Church's position, those numbers are only likely to move in one direction and that direction is not going to be beneficial to the Church.

[smac97]

Glad that wasn't just my computer.  This is an awesome must see interview for all...if they can fix that.  Kelly came off very well. It is the best she has ever presented herself, in my opinion. And she had to counter two others.  I had to shake my head when she said OW had been very, very respectful though.

 

I so want a transcript of this!   Thanks for the write-up, Smac.  One talking point I am not agreeing with is that the church shouldn't bring up numbers who disagree with OW. But I think that is probably necessary when OW continues to emphasize that they have so many numbers.

 

I agree with your assessment.  I would have liked to have heard them address A) Kate's "and nothing less will suffice" insistence on getting the priesthood, and B) the OW group's alignment with Margaret Toscano.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Calm]

 But I think that the idea of pointing out and saying, 'Look, you've lived a happy life in Mormonism, but you've actually been living under a fallacy,' is shaming, and I think one of the reasons people are responding negatively to this approach.

 

Kate Kelly's later comment about "mental gymnastics" certainly fell into this category for me.

 

Smac, wonderful job.  I would just add to point #17 that it was Kelly who was saying that the Church shouldn't be the last bastion, etc. IIRC.

 

I'll have some thoughts on this discussion later. For now, I'll say that I was very impressed with both Neylan McBaine and Julie Smith. Their responses were superb. I have much to learn from them. I was also impressed with Kate Kelly. Not so much about her position on this issue, or on her plan to disobey the Church's instruction, but I think it is clear that she has a strong testimony. While I think her actions have been inappropriate and wrongheaded, my heart has softened toward her.

 

I agree.  This is the first time I've heard Kelly talk where I got a real sense of that she believed in the Church itself. Though I see her as still too hyperfocused on her own point of view that she is misreading what is going on, I see her error as definitely sincere now and not manipulative (which I was iffy about before as I couldn't understand why she was making the missteps she did…I am thinking that in part it is because her job is in the secular field of rights and she was applying the same language she was used to using there to the religious and spiritual context that the Priesthood issue is embedded with).

Edited March 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

 

 

women want to participate in ordinances and not only be consulted about decisions, but to be a part of the decision-making process.

 

Her ignorance is deep and profound.

 

The sisters are already involved -- at the ward, stake and general church level.  Recently the General RS president spoke about her experience in meetings with the Presiding Bishopric and how they listen to and considered their ideas on decisions.  Is she not familiar with the Ward Council meeting?  and the role that the leaders of the auxiliaries have.  Who decides who is going to be called in positions in those organizations?  Of course the Bishop has final say because he may be aware of certain situations, and has the ultimate responsibility for the decisions, but the leaders make those proposals.

 

The Lord has made the priesthood leaders to bear the final responsibility for those decisions.  I truly feel sorry for those who want to reach out and to steady the ark.

Edited March 22, 2014 by cdowis

[Calm]

I have this strange feeling that the site was hacked and Ms. Kelly became the victim of the hacking. I must say that hearing her speak left a bad taste in my mouth as it would for many church members.

Maybe it would, but you should consider it might be because you had a preformed bias against her.  You don't like her, after listening to many of your posts, I think we all get that.  Perhaps you can leave off telling us this now?

 

That all three women talked about how horrific the response has been in some areas underlines to me the seriousness of that problem.  We should not contribute to it, imo, by painting negative portrayals of the women involved when it is not necessary.

[Scott Lloyd]

Isn't that interesting though. There is a commandment that many are unable to keep even if it is through no fault of their own. The commandment even says to replenish the earth.

<Interesting> or <troubling>?

As is so often the case with such matters, the doctrine takes on clarity when viewed with an eternal perspective. As I said, it is my firm belief that those who lack ability or opportunity to have posterity in mortality will be given that chance in the hereafter. And I view the command to multiply and fill the earth as transcending the earth's temporal existence.

[why me]

I agree.  This is the first time I've heard Kelly talk where I got a real sense of that she believed in the Church itself. Though I see her as still too hyperfocused on her own point of view that she is misreading what is going on, I see her error as definitely sincere now and not manipulative (which I was iffy about before as I couldn't understand why she was making the missteps she did…I am thinking that in part it is because her job is in the secular field of rights and she was applying the same language she was used to using there to the religious and spiritual context that the Priesthood issue is embedded with).

I think that she said all the right mormon things. But I am usually careful with forming a positive judgement when an organization is calling for structural change in the lds church. One can sugar coat their talking with a lot of mormonisms and yet, still mean harm. Since she and her organization are still planning on being at the door when the people attend their meeting, it does show true intent especially after she was asked not to do so by the church. As one woman on the panel claimed: people do have a right to worship without disturbance. A point that I brought up earlier.

 

I prefer to see the actions behind the words as representing true intent.

Edited March 22, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

And yet this is how the Church responds, not with distrust but...:

 

We appreciate the sincerity of your request and the explanation of your desire to participate in the session…

 

http://fox13now.com/2013/10/05/women-who-want-to-attend-priesthood-session-of-lds-general-conference-rally-for-that-right/

[why me]

I would like my fellow ladies to have the priesthood. I think they would do a better job than us guys can. I think eventually they will. hundreds of millions of women will never have the opportunity to be mothers in this life, so it doesnt make sense to just say, well they shouldnt gave it because theyvare all supposed to be mothers. There is no commandment to have children anyway.

In the lds church it is not just women who will get the priesthood. It would also have to be the girls. There can be no difference between boys and girls when it comes to receiving the priesthood. And like the boys who are more or less required to get the priesthood, the same would have to apply for the girls. I have never seen a boy refuse the priesthood.

 

And relief society would have to go. We can not have women priesthood holders having their own meeting and the men their own. This would also create inequality. True equality comes when all are present in the same meeting and all have a voice. We are not talking just priesthood like the catholic faith. They will need to be deacons, teachers, priests and elders, high priests etc.

 

I think that the bigger question is: since 90 percent of the members will have the priesthood, would the priesthood be lessened or lose its significance. In a way, I hope that females do get the priesthood. I would be interested in seeing just how it would all work out.

 

And then could it be claimed that the CoC were right all along when they ordained females?

Edited March 22, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

"I think that the bigger question is: since 90 percent of the members will have the priesthood, would the priesthood be lessened or lose its significance. In"

100% of the membership is baptised, does that lessened or lose it significance? Church leaders and I would hope all believing members would rejoiced to see a 100% temple endowment among adults and sealings among the families. Does that lessen the temp,e or cause it to lose any significance?

Did it lessen the Priesthood to be expanded beyond the sons of Aaron to the sons of Gentiles? Did it lessen it to be expanded to all worthy males?

Did God lessen the glory of his priesthood by sharing it with those mere mortal sinners who can't even find it possible to consider in their heart that sharing it with their loving sisters who want to serve them in such a marvellous way as they see their brothers sharing withthem, who deeply, sincerely believe in the first two commandments "love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself."

That is the real question here IMO.

Edited March 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[why me]

And yet this is how the Church responds, not with distrust but...:

 

http://fox13now.com/2013/10/05/women-who-want-to-attend-priesthood-session-of-lds-general-conference-rally-for-that-right/

And that was a great response. And what was the OW response? We will be there anyway. I think that their response speaks volumes. If they would have listened to the counsel to not come to the square, I may just have more respect for them.