Presidency Pictures In Conference Center

[rockpond]

In case anyone still thinks that the Mormon feminist movement is not having an impact...

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57702450-219/leaders-women-church-center.html.csp

Or, you can keep writing these developments off as coincidence.

[Kenngo1969]

Who, specifically, says the MFM "is not having an impact" or wishes to "write[ ] these developments off as coincidences"?

 

P.S.: Several faithful women on this Board would, I think, also describe themselves as part of (or in sympathy with) the MFM.  But one need not, I do not believe, accept the Kate Kellys of the world and their tactics uncritically in order to identify with MFM.

 

P.P.S.: I'm hurt!  In the top left corner of the thread, it still says "No replies to this topic".  What'm I, chopped liver?!

[Storm Rider]

I doubt the OW movement or the MFM groups feel any sense of accomplishment at having pictures of the RS presidency in the CC.  To me these things are yawners, but I am also not one to hang a picture of the FP in my home or anywhere else either.  It is a personal thing and I have never done it.  

 

Were it up to me it would be a cold day in blue blazes before I would hang a picture of any presidency up in any building male or female.  If they want to look at pictures look at the Ensign or on the website.  

[bluebell]

Now the male auxiliary leaders just need to work on getting their own buildings, and then the sexes will finally be equal.

[rockpond]

Who, specifically, says the MFM "is not having an impact" or wishes to "write[ ] these developments off as coincidences"?

 

P.S.: Several faithful women on this Board would, I think, also describe themselves as part of (or in sympathy with) the MFM.  But one need not, I do not believe, accept the Kate Kellys of the world and their tactics uncritically in order to identify with MFM.

 

P.P.S.: I'm hurt!  In the top left corner of the thread, it still says "No replies to this topic".  What'm I, chopped liver?!

 

I don't keep track of who I chat with on this board... but there have been plenty who have said to me that this isn't how the church works... that we don't protest or petition the Brethren.

 

I completely agree with you P.S.

 

I have no idea what your P.P.S. means.  You can always reply to me.

[rockpond]

I doubt the OW movement or the MFM groups feel any sense of accomplishment at having pictures of the RS presidency in the CC.  To me these things are yawners, but I am also not one to hang a picture of the FP in my home or anywhere else either.  It is a personal thing and I have never done it.  

 

Were it up to me it would be a cold day in blue blazes before I would hang a picture of any presidency up in any building male or female.  If they want to look at pictures look at the Ensign or on the website.  

 

Ha.  Good point.  I'm not a fan of hanging pictures of latter-day leaders (male or female).  I just look at it as a small sign that someone is recognizing inequalities.

[bluebell]

Ha.  Good point.  I'm not a fan of hanging pictures of latter-day leaders (male or female).  I just look at it as a small sign that someone is recognizing inequalities.

 

Were pictures of the YM's presidency and Sunday School presidency already up there then?  

 

I've been there but obviously have no recollection of who's pictures are there other than the prophets and apostles.  

[BlueDreams]

I don't keep track of who I chat with on this board... but there have been plenty who have said to me that this isn't how the church works... that we don't protest or petition the Brethren.

 

I got the feeling, from what I've read, that it's more about attributing change that's occurring to OW specifically. That's what I've had probs with...I don't think OW is directly linked to most of the changes happening. I do think they've been a means to bring more dialogue out into the open, but that their scope/purpose is extremely limited and can be counter-productive as equity is re-framed into only one real means (ordination). So any other outcome and methods are not really enough and any ideas that don't entail this are really not seeking equality or are limited in scope. And I dislike the idea that MFM and OW is sometimes used interchangeably. 

 

 I have no problem thinking that the MFM has helped bring these up and moved ideas forward. I do think that more of this is quieter and more integrated into the groups and common voice than we're probably aware...the larger, more vocal movements are just more visibly seen currently. Even in this article, it was mentioned that the visibility of women leadership/contribution had been discussed for years. I would agree. The discussion did not suddenly crack into existence 2 or so yrs ago. I don't think the events are purely coincidental, but I don't think these events can be entirely attributed to petitioning or protests. And though these have been often taken up as minor victories or moves forward by the petitioners or protesters of the MFM, looking into the details at both events, leaves me less than convinced that their actions were the major conception for the current changes.   

 

For one the Church and these more outward movements have 2 very different ways of communicating about feasible changes. The petitions and various forms of protest seek visibility and public voice. What they do, why, how, and when are all pretty clear and obvious. The church is fairly quiet about discussions until the change actually occurs....there is, at most, hints and basic statements about the process. So you have to stitch things together with them. So, for example, this states that female visibility has been discussed for "years." Considering presidents  like Okazaki, changes in Sister's missionary age, etc I doubt years for them is equivalent to 2-3. At both changes they have mentioned a longer term time table than the OW or petitions. So, for example the prayer thing, they consistently mentioned throughout the petition that the assignments were already made long before conference and the petition themselves. Though it is generally considered a large success, I can't say that the petitions were really the reason to the change. For it to be so, either the church changed it's mind at the last minute and made an exception to it's policy about GC assignments (possible) or they had already made assignments for female prayers (possible....and IMO probable). Other changes, though touted as small moves forward and attributed to OW's protests don't really line up and probably undermine their main purpose. For example General women's conference, the priesthood session now broadcasted live, and OW unveiling of their move to get in the session, and we assume/tie the events together. But these changes are large and the sort that probably took more discussion than looking out the proverbial window and wondering how to maneuver around the OW trying to get into the Priesthood sessions as prospective elders.

 

I don't think they're conicidental events. Rather I think their 2 distinctive expressions of a commonly felt problem: women are equal/included more by name than actual action in church affairs and that needs to change. MFM is apart of that. OW, as a subset in the MFM is also an expression of that. But the current actions of the church have not been in line with OW's goals and actions, IMO. It is not the direction the church is headed in, from what I've seen in various ways. Other ideas in the MFM are in line with it, IMO, and are probably being reached and utilized moreso than the protests and petitions really have.  

 

I'd say more, but I'm hungry and need to go brush up on my spanish for a little bit.

 

With luv,

BD

[The Nehor]

Or, you can keep writing these developments off as coincidence.

 

Will do.

[rockpond]

I got the feeling, from what I've read, that it's more about attributing change that's occurring to OW specifically. That's what I've had probs with...I don't think OW is directly linked to most of the changes happening. I do think they've been a means to bring more dialogue out into the open, but that their scope/purpose is extremely limited and can be counter-productive as equity is re-framed into only one real means (ordination). So any other outcome and methods are not really enough and any ideas that don't entail this are really not seeking equality or are limited in scope. And I dislike the idea that MFM and OW is sometimes used interchangeably. 

 

 I have no problem thinking that the MFM has helped bring these up and moved ideas forward. I do think that more of this is quieter and more integrated into the groups and common voice than we're probably aware...the larger, more vocal movements are just more visibly seen currently. Even in this article, it was mentioned that the visibility of women leadership/contribution had been discussed for years. I would agree. The discussion did not suddenly crack into existence 2 or so yrs ago. I don't think the events are purely coincidental, but I don't think these events can be entirely attributed to petitioning or protests. And though these have been often taken up as minor victories or moves forward by the petitioners or protesters of the MFM, looking into the details at both events, leaves me less than convinced that their actions were the major conception for the current changes.   

 

For one the Church and these more outward movements have 2 very different ways of communicating about feasible changes. The petitions and various forms of protest seek visibility and public voice. What they do, why, how, and when are all pretty clear and obvious. The church is fairly quiet about discussions until the change actually occurs....there is, at most, hints and basic statements about the process. So you have to stitch things together with them. So, for example, this states that female visibility has been discussed for "years." Considering presidents  like Okazaki, changes in Sister's missionary age, etc I doubt years for them is equivalent to 2-3. At both changes they have mentioned a longer term time table than the OW or petitions. So, for example the prayer thing, they consistently mentioned throughout the petition that the assignments were already made long before conference and the petition themselves. Though it is generally considered a large success, I can't say that the petitions were really the reason to the change. For it to be so, either the church changed it's mind at the last minute and made an exception to it's policy about GC assignments (possible) or they had already made assignments for female prayers (possible....and IMO probable). Other changes, though touted as small moves forward and attributed to OW's protests don't really line up and probably undermine their main purpose. For example General women's conference, the priesthood session now broadcasted live, and OW unveiling of their move to get in the session, and we assume/tie the events together. But these changes are large and the sort that probably took more discussion than looking out the proverbial window and wondering how to maneuver around the OW trying to get into the Priesthood sessions as prospective elders.

 

I don't think they're conicidental events. Rather I think their 2 distinctive expressions of a commonly felt problem: women are equal/included more by name than actual action in church affairs and that needs to change. MFM is apart of that. OW, as a subset in the MFM is also an expression of that. But the current actions of the church have not been in line with OW's goals and actions, IMO. It is not the direction the church is headed in, from what I've seen in various ways. Other ideas in the MFM are in line with it, IMO, and are probably being reached and utilized moreso than the protests and petitions really have.  

 

I'd say more, but I'm hungry and need to go brush up on my spanish for a little bit.

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

Yeah, I think that OW is just a subset of the larger MFM.  And it's a subset that is a recent arrival and appears to be more on the extreme edge of the movement.

 

But I think it's futile to try to figure out which groups and which individuals are most responsible for the changes we see.  Will women in the church someday be ordained to the priesthood?  Of course.  Will OW have been responsible?  It will be impossible to ever know.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't keep track of who I chat with on this board... but there have been plenty who have said to me that this isn't how the church works... that we don't protest or petition the Brethren.

 

I completely agree with you P.S.

 

I have no idea what your P.P.S. means.  You can always reply to me.

I don't know how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints works on the general level, but I do know how it's supposed to work on the local level.  Handbook 1 says Bishops are supposed to actively solicit feedback and input from everyone in Ward Council meetings.  (And I'll freely admit that some Bishops are better at that than others: we could always do better.)  I would be surprised if something similar doesn't happen on the general level.  

 

Part of the reason we have General Auxiliary and Area Presidencies, respectively, is to ensure that "the water makes it to the end of the row" with respect to problems and challenges Saints are experiencing throughout the world so that these problems and challenges can effectively be addressed.  Does that process always work perfectly, or always work the way it should?  No, because human beings are involved.  Could the Church institute more effective mechanisms for doing this?  Perhaps.  As Elder Holland recently said in General Conference (paraphrasing), "Imperfect, mortal, fallible human beings are all God has ever had to work with.  That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it."  

 

So, frankly (and with all due respect, although I'm not necessarily accusing you of this, Rockpond), I think any accusations that the Brethren or the General leadership are tone deaf are more than just a bit overwrought, and I think the proof of that can be found in how many General Conference addresses begin with (or at least include) a phrase such as, "When I recently met with the Saints in [fill-in-name-of-country-here] ..." .  (Again, I'm not necessarily saying that you are making such accusations, Rockpond; I'm simply saying that they are quite common.) 

 

My PPS is insignificant ... in the blue bar under the "Topic Title" on the far left, it says "[X] replies to this topic."  It still registered 0 even after I made the first reply, so I was just kibbutzing about that.

[Calm]

In case anyone still thinks that the Mormon feminist movement is not having an impact...

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57702450-219/leaders-women-church-center.html.csp

Or, you can keep writing these developments off as coincidence.

Has anyone claimed that the MFM in general hasn't had an impact? 

 

Like Ken stated, to group all the various women who see themselves as "feminists" (as well as the men who do) into one monolithic clump would be inappropriate.  I have no doubt that the moderate feminists are having a great deal of impact and even the radical ones are having an impact, at times opposite to what they want in that we see movement towards more restricted roles at times in response to what some feel is overpushing.

[Calm]

I don't keep track of who I chat with on this board... but there have been plenty who have said to me that this isn't how the church works... that we don't protest or petition the Brethren.

 

I completely agree with you P.S.

 

I have no idea what your P.P.S. means.  You can always reply to me.

I don't think there is anything wrong with private petitions.

 

IIRC, Margaret Young gave an excellent example of a private petition of the church leadership by Darius Gray and other leaders of the Genesis Group which resulted in the Genesis Group being formed…the difference being they didn't tell the leadership what the answer was to their need, they shared their need with them instead and then it was worked out together (in part by establishment of the Genesis Group).

[Kenngo1969]

I don't think there is anything wrong with private petitions.

 

IIRC, Margaret Young gave an excellent example of a private petition of the church leadership by Darius Gray and other leaders of the Genesis Group which resulted in the Genesis Group being formed…the difference being they didn't tell the leadership what the answer was to their need, they shared their need with them instead and then it was worked out together (in part by establishment of the Genesis Group).

And I'm sure that a similar process was followed in coming to the decision for women to pray in General Conference, to include General Young Women and General Relief Society Presidency pictures in the Conference Center, and so on.

[rockpond]

And I'm sure that a similar process was followed in coming to the decision for women to pray in General Conference, to include General Young Women and General Relief Society Presidency pictures in the Conference Center, and so on.

If that similar process was followed, it would have been done back in the 70's when President Kimball formally announced (via First Presidency letter) that women should pray in all meetings that they attend.

I credit the Let Women Pray petitioners for being the catalyst that got us to apply Pres Kimball's counsel to Gen Con after 35 years of overlooking it.

[Calm]

I credit the Let Women Pray petitioners for being the catalyst that got us to apply Pres Kimball's counsel to Gen Con after 35 years of overlooking it.

I don't.  I believe them when they said the assignments were confirmed prior to the formation of the appeal.  I checked it with Mark Tuttle in fact.  What I do believe was the impetus was the extended conversation going on for years on the internet and elsewhere where more visible women suggestions were constantly being made, including having them pray.  The creation of the Let Woman Pray and the occurrence of the conference prayers were from the same source in my view, not the latter a cause of the second.

[rockpond]

I don't. I believe them when they said the assignments were confirmed prior to the formation of the appeal. I checked it with Mark Tuttle in fact. What I do believe was the impetus was the extended conversation going on for years on the internet and elsewhere where more visible women suggestions were constantly being made, including having them pray. The creation of the Let Woman Pray and the occurrence of the conference prayers were from the same source in my view, not the latter a cause of the second.

Yep, I remember you sharing Tuttle's comments with me. And I respect your viewpoint. I consider all of them to be part of the movement, including the petition.

I also see a strong desire within some of the LDS community to marginalize these sisters who are petitioning their leaders because they are going about it the "wrong way". The LWP petition was part of a broader effort and that's great. I honor all who were involved, especially those people who worked silently behind the scenes. But I can't dismiss the LWP petition because someone came forward after the fact and said: "yeah, we were already discussing that.".

Sorry, we ignored the prophet's direction on the matter for 35 years. They lost the moral high ground to claim it was an entirely internal "council" process.

[Calm]

"I also see a strong desire within some of the LDS community to marginalize these sisters who are petitioning their leaders because they are going about it the "wrong way"

I hope none of my comments come across as marginalising anyone. I would not have the least bit of problem with any of the petitions having either success or a public "thank you for your idea, but no".

If I argue against influence, it is a desire to understand where change actually comes from, not to disregard certain sources.

And just because the women might not have been organised yet and made a petition doesn't mean they weren't part of the conversation that was being listened to and thus may very well have been a direct influence on the change in prayers.

[Tacenda]

You've got to wonder, since the church had women pray for the first time ever in GC soon after the protesting for it, and now the women presidencies pictures now on the wall in the Conference Center, if it's just adding fuel to the fire and now the OW think it's a possibility to have the PH. Because of the little things the church is doing.

[Calm]

So do you think the Church should completely stop change until all the petitioning etc. fades away so that no one gets confused about what caused what when?

[rockpond]

So do you think the Church should completely stop change until all the petitioning etc. fades away so that no one gets confused about what caused what when?

Of course not. There's nothing wrong with a petition or protest or social media campaign being the catalyst for a change.

[Tacenda]

Of course not. There's nothing wrong with a petition or protest or social media campaign being the catalyst for a change.

Cal was responding to my post above hers. I made a remark about how the church changing might add ammunition to the OW group. But it is a catch 22. Your darned if you do and darned if you don't, like many have noted in various posts.

[The Nehor]

Of course not. There's nothing wrong with a petition or protest or social media campaign being the catalyst for a change.

There is something wrong with them claiming to be the cause of something when they are not. God is a jealous God and has a long history of smiting those who take credit for his actions. If a fireball comes down from the sky and consumes a OW meeting I will have to say "I told you so."