"these Are Our Sisters"

[frank_jessop]

A recent blog on Fairmormon title "These are our Sisters" calls for a more respectful dialogue with our Sisters in the Ordain Women group.

 

Here are few good statements:

 

"Rather than engaging in a respectful and compassionate discussion of what is obviously an extremely divisive topic, many participants have responded with derogatory and dismissive remarks. ... By always responding with kindness in our disagreement, we will be better able to create a safe space for all, without pushing those who feel marginalized to the more extreme positions."

 

"Why does the way we speak to each other matter? The gospel is supposed to be a refuge for all. It welcomes all, and so must we as church members."

 

"We can share his message not only those who have left the faith, but also with members who may wonder if they are even still welcome. We can stop the rejection, insults, and condemnation and make a place on the pew for all who want to follow Christ."

 

 

 

 

I say bravo.

Edited March 27, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Storm Rider]

It has long been the way of a Jesus' disciple to always turn the other cheek and to respond with patience and kindness to both friend and foe.  We should all remember to follow him more fully in our dealings with others.  

 

Fortunately, I am not in a position where I must deal with these activists to any degree except on this Forum. However, I do find that often have little patience for this type of thing.  I find their position offensive in so many ways that I find myself not even wanting to talk to them.  I am not a good man and my weaknesses are obviously many, but when someone wants to bend my ear to their many complaints and wants I tend to find an exit quickly in order to enjoy my daily life. 

[why me]

A recent blog on Fairmormon title "These are our Sisters" calls for a more respectful dialogue with our Sisters in the Ordain Women group.

 

Here are few good statements:

 

"Rather than engaging in a respectful and compassionate discussion of what is obviously an extremely divisive topic, many participants have responded with derogatory and dismissive remarks. ... By always responding with kindness in our disagreement, we will be better able to create a safe space for all, without pushing those who feel marginalized to the more extreme positions."

 

"Why does the way we speak to each other matter? The gospel is supposed to be a refuge for all. It welcomes all, and so must we as church members."

 

"We can share his message not only those who have left the faith, but also with members who may wonder if they are even still welcome. We can stop the rejection, insults, and condemnation and make a place on the pew for all who want to follow Christ."

 

 

 

 

I say bravo.

All of the above is true. However,. we do have these verses to consider:

 

King James Bible

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

 

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/1-10.htm

 

And then we have this:

 

2 Corinthians 13:11

Finally, brothers and sisters, rejoice! Strive for full restoration, encourage one another, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.

 

King James Bible 1 Peter 3:8

Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

 

 

And it is here that we have the problem. Is the OW movement causing the members of the church not to be of one mind?

[mtomm]

It has long been the way of a Jesus' disciple to always turn the other cheek and to respond with patience and kindness to both friend and foe.  We should all remember to follow him more fully in our dealings with others.  

 

Fortunately, I am not in a position where I must deal with these activists to any degree except on this Forum. However, I do find that often have little patience for this type of thing.  I find their position offensive in so many ways that I find myself not even wanting to talk to them.  I am not a good man and my weaknesses are obviously many, but when someone wants to bend my ear to their many complaints and wants I tend to find an exit quickly in order to enjoy my daily life.

Who are the OW activists on this forum?

[stemelbow]

Priestesses, Queens and prophetesses must have a place in heaven.  I suspect they too will hold power and authority beyond anything man now holds.  With that, I can't say it's completely right that the priesthood is withheld from women.  I'm open to the possibility.  \

 

Besides many a man with the priesthood are weenies.  It'd be nice for it to be held more commonly.  Then perhaps it might temper some of the attitudes.

Edited March 27, 2014 by stemelbow

[Buzzard]

Well, when I think of some of the fights and quarrels I had with my sisters growing up, the stuff written about OW that I have seen is pretty tame.in comparison.  

And as an aside, I have read what Fairmormon is reputed to have found. I have not seen that level of vitriol on this or any other site out there. I'm sure if you patrolled Facebook and enough blogs you could find it, but the really nasty comments they claim to have found do not seem to be indicative of most responses.

And let's be honest, some of the OW supporters comments have been pretty snarky, as well. Just like my sisters. ;-)

[bluebell]

I think part of the point of the blog is that we can't blame or justify our anger because someone else did something worse first.  As members of the church we have a standard that we have promised to try to live up too.  I see this blog as simply a reminder of that.

 

Sometimes it's better just to say "yes, I can work on being more Christ-like" than to attempt to explain why it's o.k. sometimes not to be.

[JLHPROF]

I absolutely agree that we should be more Christ like in our discussions.  Christ came to save the sinner as well as the saint.

 

But we also have to be careful not to follow the -> Allowing -> Tolerant -> Accepting -> Embracing path that would leave us open to incorrect principle.  Unless we receive revelation we should not be tolerating, accepting or embracing the goals of the OW group, even if we treat them with respect and love.

[stemelbow]

I absolutely agree that we should be more Christ like in our discussions.  Christ came to save the sinner as well as the saint.

 

But we also have to be careful not to follow the -> Allowing -> Tolerant -> Accepting -> Embracing path that would leave us open to incorrect principle.  Unless we receive revelation we should not be tolerating, accepting or embracing the goals of the OW group, even if we treat them with respect and love.

Then again if they are right and we are wrong, perhaps it's not so pleasing to God for us to look at this with such fear or concern. 

[juliann]

 

And as an aside, I have read what Fairmormon is reputed to have found. I have not seen that level of vitriol on this or any other site out there. I'm sure if you patrolled Facebook and enough blogs you could find it, but the really nasty comments they claim to have found do not seem to be indicative of most responses.

And let's be honest, some of the OW supporters comments have been pretty snarky, as well. Just like my sisters. ;-)

FairMormon doesn't write the blogs, individuals do. I'm responsible for what I said not FM.  There are variations of those comments found in almost every discussion at one point or another...and this topic is generating daily blogs and posts.  The really nasty comments weren't used, only the more common ones.

 

I absolutely agree that we should be more Christ like in our discussions.  Christ came to save the sinner as well as the saint.

 

But we also have to be careful not to follow the -> Allowing -> Tolerant -> Accepting -> Embracing path that would leave us open to incorrect principle.  Unless we receive revelation we should not be tolerating, accepting or embracing the goals of the OW group, even if we treat them with respect and love.

I would suggest, again from what I am seeing online, that the intolerant and unaccepting responses are leading to the embracing. But that also misses the point that it is our method of defense itself that has become a problem because there has been an alarming tendency to downgrade the priesthood in an effort to convince women that it isn't really that big of a deal or too much work so why want it.

[stemelbow]

 But that also misses the point that it is our method of defense itself that has become a problem because there has been an alarming tendency to downgrade the priesthood in an effort to convince women that it isn't really that big of a deal or too much work so why want it.

 

On a meter how big a deal is it? 

 

From what I"ve seen among active women who oppose it they often say, essentially, I have enough to do, I don't want the added responsibility of holding the priesthood, or whatever.  Seems like a weird defense to me.

[frank_jessop]

And as an aside, I have read what Fairmormon is reputed to have found. I have not seen that level of vitriol on this or any other site out there.

A few of the quotes used in the blog are comments found on this site.

[bluebell]

On a meter how big a deal is it? 

 

From what I"ve seen among active women who oppose it they often say, essentially, I have enough to do, I don't want the added responsibility of holding the priesthood, or whatever.  Seems like a weird defense to me.

 

In some ways i think it's an honest defense, in that most people that i know of don't want more responsibility added to their already busy lives.

 

But it is weird too, because think of how we would react if we heard a man say that about the priesthood. It wouldn't fly.  Or if a woman said that about becoming a mother.  Most people would believe she needed to repent.

 

For these women who sincerely don't want the priesthood because of added responsibility, i think some of the issue is one of misunderstanding.  I don't think they don't want the priesthood because they don't want something else to do so much as they don't want a responsibility which they view as legitimately and purposefully belonging to someone else.

 

They don't want to be responsible for someone else's 'job' as well as theirs.

 

When we look at it that way (even if it's a flawed interpretation on the part of the woman who holds it) then it becomes more understandable.  It also lessens any dishonor to the priesthood itself.

[juliann]

On a meter how big a deal is it? 

We won't know how big a deal it is without data. But when troubled questions over the invisibility and narrow role given to women  is no longer just something I only see on the internet, I consider it a big deal.  It is the quiet discontent I am seeing in so many women, young women in particular,  that I think is the real concern, not OW.

 

 

From what I"ve seen among active women who oppose it they often say, essentially, I have enough to do, I don't want the added responsibility of holding the priesthood, or whatever.  Seems like a weird defense to me.

 

I call it the suicide bomb defense. It blows up the sacred nature of the priesthood and has us talking out of both sides of our mouths as we tell men how essential it is to their very existence.  It is just something that is easy to say and hasn't been thought through.  I think it is self-destructive to start with the premise that anyone shouldn't want the priesthood, it is the greatest gift God has offered to the world. But that then requires us to evaluate what women do have and why it is of comparable significance.  We have really failed at that when we limit women's purpose to marriage and a relatively brief period of gestation and mothering children...something a growing number will not even do.

Edited March 27, 2014 by juliann

[stemelbow]

In some ways i think it's an honest defense, in that most people that i know of don't want more responsibility added to their already busy lives.

 

But it is weird too, because think of how we would react if we heard a man say that about the priesthood. It wouldn't fly.  Or if a woman said that about becoming a mother.  Most people would believe she needed to repent.

 

For these women who sincerely don't want the priesthood because of added responsibility, i think some of the issue is one of misunderstanding.  I don't think they don't want the priesthood because they don't want something else to do so much as they don't want a responsibility which they view as legitimately and purposefully belonging to someone else.

 

They don't want to be responsible for someone else's 'job' as well as theirs.

 

When we look at it that way (even if it's a flawed interpretation on the part of the woman who holds it) then it becomes more understandable.  It also lessens any dishonor to the priesthood itself.

 

What added responsibility will be added to them if they had the priesthood?  There's only one bishop per ward for crying aloud and there tends to be plenty of men in each ward who want to fill that spot, because of the honor and glory that comes with it.  My guess is there would be plenty of women who'd want the job too.

 

Is it tough to go home teaching?  Oh wait, women have the same responsibility there.  Is it tough to go to extra meetings?  or yeah women with kids do that too.  Give blessings?  not tough, particularly if your worthy.  Conduct?  Some people shy away from that I suppose.  Teach?  Women do that too. 

 

I'm just not sure what they think they are so busy with now that would be any different if they had the priesthood. 

 

Thus, I say it's weird sounding. 

[stemelbow]

We won't know how big a deal it is without data. But when troubled questions over the invisibility and narrow role given to women  is no longer just something I only see on the internet, I consider it a big deal.  It is the quiet discontent I am seeing in so many women, young women in particular,  that I think is the real concern, not OW.

 

I call it the suicide bomb defense. It blows up the sacred nature of the priesthood and has us talking out of both sides of our mouths as we tell men how essential it is to their very existence.  It is just something that is easy to say and hasn't been thought through.  I think it is self-destructive to start with the premise that anyone shouldn't want the priesthood, it is the greatest gift God has offered to the world. But that then requires us to evaluate what women do have and why it is of comparable significance.  We have really failed at that when we limit women's purpose to marriage and a relatively brief period of gestation and mothering children...something a growing number will not even do.

 

Hm... Interesting.

 

Read this earlier:

“Woman’s inferiority, as we have seen, originally came from the fact that she was restricted to [perpetuating] life, while man invented reasons for living, in his eyes more essential than the pure facticity of existence; confining woman to motherhood is the perpetuation of this situation. But today she demands participation in the movement by which humanity ceaselessly tries to find justification by surpassing itself; she can only consent to give life if life has meaning; she cannot try to be a mother without playing a role in economic, political, or social life. It is not the same thing to produce cannon fodder, slaves, victims, as to give birth to free [people]. In a properly organized society where the child would in great part be taken charge of by the group, where the mother would be cared for and helped, motherhood would absolutely not be incompatible with women’s work. . . . If too often today a woman has a hard time reconciling the interests of her children with a profession that demands long hours away from home and all her strength, it is because, on the one hand, woman’s work is still too often a kind of slavery; on the other hand, no effort has been made to ensure children’s health, care, and education outside the home.”

 

--Simone de Beauvoir

[frank_jessop]

I would suggest, again from what I am seeing online, that the intolerant and unaccepting responses are leading to the embracing. .

I agree that when one person degrades another or castigates another, a natural response is to step in and defend against the apparent bully. Because of this tendency in response to apparent bullying, is why I stated in the other thread that it would be a PR nightmare for the Church to call out the police and have the Ordain Women arrested if they stepped on to Church property - as opposed to the OW group who post here hope will happen.

Over the past few years the Prophets and Apostles have called for dialogue that is respectful in disagreement.

However, I think the PR arm of the Church could use a lesson in respectful dialogue as well. In my opinion, the statements from Sister Todd and Jessica Moody made deliberate comments to marginalize and togive thinly veiled insults to the OW group. For example "Millions of women in this church do not share the views of this small group..." and "Women in the Church, by a very large majority, do not share your advocacy..." Each comment, in my opinion, was a calculated statement designed to marginalize the group and to discourage others from looking into the OW group.

Edited March 27, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Peppermint Patty]

A recent blog on Fairmormon title "These are our Sisters" calls for a more respectful dialogue with our Sisters in the Ordain Women group.

 

 

This was an excellent article.  Thanks Cal and Juliann!

[frank_jessop]

 

All of the above is true. However,. we do have these verses to consider:

...

And it is here that we have the problem. Is the OW movement causing the members of the church not to be of one mind?

You agree with the authors that the dialogue should be respectful and compassionate. The blog did not call for agreement with or advocacy of OW. So what is you point with those verses? Are you using those verses to suggest that the dialogue should not be respectful or compassionate?

[Paloma]

As others have said, this is a great article!

[bluebell]

What added responsibility will be added to them if they had the priesthood?  There's only one bishop per ward for crying aloud and there tends to be plenty of men in each ward who want to fill that spot, because of the honor and glory that comes with it.  My guess is there would be plenty of women who'd want the job too.

 

Is it tough to go home teaching?  Oh wait, women have the same responsibility there.  Is it tough to go to extra meetings?  or yeah women with kids do that too.  Give blessings?  not tough, particularly if your worthy.  Conduct?  Some people shy away from that I suppose.  Teach?  Women do that too. 

 

I'm just not sure what they think they are so busy with now that would be any different if they had the priesthood. 

 

Thus, I say it's weird sounding. 

 

I guess you would have to ask them those questions if you really want to understand that point of view.

[MorningStar]

 

What added responsibility will be added to them if they had the priesthood?  There's only one bishop per ward for crying aloud and there tends to be plenty of men in each ward who want to fill that spot, because of the honor and glory that comes with it.  My guess is there would be plenty of women who'd want the job too.

 

Is it tough to go home teaching?  Oh wait, women have the same responsibility there.  Is it tough to go to extra meetings?  or yeah women with kids do that too.  Give blessings?  not tough, particularly if your worthy.  Conduct?  Some people shy away from that I suppose.  Teach?  Women do that too. 

 

I'm just not sure what they think they are so busy with now that would be any different if they had the priesthood. 

 

Thus, I say it's weird sounding. 

I would do it if I were asked just like any other calling, but my main reason that I don't want the priesthood is because it's not God's will, at least not right now. I believe if He wanted women to have the priesthood at a later time, our prophets would receive that revelation.  There are callings in the church that would be my favorite, but I have never asked Heavenly Father to give them to me.  That's up to Him.  We don't do callings to glorify ourselves. 

Edited March 27, 2014 by MorningStar

[MorningStar]

Very well said.  I have several friends who support OW and I do my best to disagree with them in a respectful manner.  I still don't understand their point of view though.

[awyatt]

I posted the following as a comment on the FM blog, but thought it bore stating here as well.

 

I applaud the major thrust of this post: We should strive for civility in discourse, especially on sensitive topics such as this one. There have been (as pointed out) “horrific” comments directed Ordain Women and its members.

 

One needs to remember, though, that Elder Uchtdorf’s two-word sermon (“Stop it!”) applies not just to those opposed to Ordain Women’s goals or tactics, but to those who support it. While the examples of incivility cited in the post are one-sided (being drawn overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, from Ordain Women’s opposition), similar expressions of incivility can be found among Ordain Women’s supporters, as well.

 

The temptation to sink to lower, courser, harsher, uncharitable methods of communication afflict all of us, regardless of the position we may take on any given issue. Similarly, the tendency to see fault and excess only in one’s ideological opponents knows no bounds.

 

Civility is needed, but it is needed on all sides. Indeed, it is lacking on all sides.

 

 

The fact that "these are our sisters" has nothing to do with it and rings a bit hollow when all are rolling around in the muck.

 

-Allen

 

[juliann]

I posted the following as a comment on the FM blog, but thought it bore stating here as well.

 

 

The fact that "these are our sisters" has nothing to do with it and rings a bit hollow when all are rolling around in the muck.

 

-Allen

But Cal and I wrote this about our side of the debate :-)    Writing about OW would be another blog  We used the Trib Talk interview because it was the best example I have seen (on this topic) of a really informative discussion where everyone walked away looking very good through their disagreement.