"these Are Our Sisters"

[why me]

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

Which of course is why Paul admonishes the church to be of one mind. This would certain avoid much incivility. We are human beings and as such we act human. And a part of that humanness is to react in unpleasant ways. So, why create a social action movement that is meant to sow conflict by pressuring the lds church to change its doctrine? OW has broken a cardinal rule of being of one mind.

Edited March 27, 2014 by why me

[why me]

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.

I am not sure if all walked away looking good. And I think that I saw the discussion on the trib site. It seemed to me that two of the women were pragmatic, understanding the use of words and language and understanding. One however seemed too embedded in their movement's beliefs and goals. I saw no pragmatism at all, just a staunch belief that their cause was right.

Edited March 27, 2014 by why me

[bluebell]

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

 

I think the blog posts come at this issue from the side of 'what can/should we do.'   

 

In that pretext, what anyone else is doing is completely irrelevant.  As i often tell my children, "the only person you can control is you, and whether or not someone else is being a jerk does not justify bad behavior on your part.  'He started it' is not an acceptable excuse for your actions.  You need to make choices based on what is right, not based on what someone else is doing."

 

I think that as adults, we still too often struggle with the same weaknesses that we struggled with as children-not feeling justified in an angry response when someone is a jerk to us.  

[why me]

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.

I think that when pinpointed down to what revelation means they can get a little flustered. If the lds church is revelatory and a group of people believe in social action and to pressure god in granting them the priesthood, how can such an idea be reconciled with revelation?

 

I think that the catholic way would be best for OW: pray and ask the saints, including Mary to help intercede for them. But social pressure as if god reacts to social pressure and media reports seems a little odd.

[stemelbow]

 

 

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. 

 

 

But is it God's will?  I think its a fair question to ask.  it might very well be His will and we're too traditionally-minded to be open to the possibility.  It seems God has a desire for us to figure things out on our own before He reveals His will on some matters. 

 

Many treat it like it's a silly notion on the face of it.  We simply might not be open enough to really hear God on the topic. 

[stemelbow]

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

 

 

I have.  I don't think any adequate or helpful answers have come. 

[bluebell]

I have.  I don't think any adequate or helpful answers have come. 

 

What were their answers?  What were the extra responsibilities that they didn't want to share?

[stemelbow]

What were their answers?  What were the extra responsibilities that they didn't want to share?

 

I remember one saying "it'd be tough to go to all those meetings".  I was like, "what meetings?"  my wife attends more meetings than I do each week. 

 

Most others just seemed to emphasize the responsibility itself, the having such authority, sounds tough.  I told them, not any tougher than being a member. 

[why me]

But is it God's will?  I think its a fair question to ask.  it might very well be His will and we're too traditionally-minded to be open to the possibility.  It seems God has a desire for us to figure things out on our own before He reveals His will on some matters. 

 

Many treat it like it's a silly notion on the face of it.  We simply might not be open enough to really hear God on the topic. 

OW is very much part of the postmodern notion of identity politics. They have one issue and push to forward that issue. It is basically all about them and what they believe. And their ability to push their political agenda. What we see in america today is not collective politics but identity politics with various groups pushing their own agendas for change. And everyone believing in their own version of equality. Sadly, we can never be equal because in the human condition there is always some sort of inequality. Even karl marx recognized this: thus he used the expression: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

 

In other words, even though we are unequal, we should still be encouraged to develop our talents to better society. Or as the wiki said:

 

Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents

 

In the lds church, both men and women are encouraged to develop their talents to help the family and church community. But equality...I think that it is impossible because humans have their own specific talents and intelligences.

Edited March 27, 2014 by why me

[bluebell]

I remember one saying "it'd be tough to go to all those meetings".  I was like, "what meetings?"  my wife attends more meetings than I do each week. 

 

Most others just seemed to emphasize the responsibility itself, the having such authority, sounds tough.  I told them, not any tougher than being a member. 

 

When i have heard it used, it has typically been by women who have husbands who are not good at using their priesthood-they don't 'preside' at home, don't want to give blessings or do home teaching, and otherwise struggle with regular priesthood responsibilities as they general deal with the home and family.

 

These women, as they have related, don't want to give their husbands any reason to make it easier for them to do less than they already do, in regards to the family's spiritual development and leadership.  They are already doing it, as women, but they hold out hope that their husbands will step up to the responsibilities that should be theirs.  If that responsibility becomes no longer theirs, they are afraid that will remove any motivation their husbands might have had to do better someday.

 

With other women, i have not known them well enough to ask what responsibilities they were talking about so i can't speak for what is most prevalent. 

[awyatt]

In the lds church, both men and women are encouraged to develop their talents to help the family and church community. But equality...I think that it is impossible because humans have their own specific talents and intelligences.

 

Ahhh... But that, too, is addressable. Think of the idyllic world of Harrison Bergeron.

 

-Allen

[stemelbow]

OW is very much part of the postmodern notion of identity politics. They have one issue and push to forward that issue. It is basically all about them and what they believe. And their ability to push their political agenda. What we see in america today is not collective politics but identity politics with various groups pushing their own agendas for change. And everyone believing in their own version of equality. Sadly, we can never be equal because in the human condition there is always some sort of inequality. Even karl marx recognized this: thus he used the expression: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

 

In other words, even though we are unequal, we should still be encouraged to develop our talents to better society. Or as the wiki said:

 

Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents

 

In the lds church, both men and women are encouraged to develop their talents to help the family and church community. But equality...I think that it is impossible because humans have their own specific talents and intelligences.

 

I can't tell if you meant it, but you seem to have illustrated my point perfectly.  Thanks. 

[why me]

Ahhh... But that, too, is addressable. Think of the idyllic world of Harrison Bergeron.

 

-Allen

Good ol' Kurt was certainly giving the notion of equality a twist. In the past, in the lds church, the church recognized that men and women were not equal because women gave birth and men didn't. Thus, women were the mothers and nurturers. It was based on extinct. And men, were providers. But in the home, both male and female complimented the other and raised a family that was pleasing to god. And both had their own talents. And in the church, the relief society could not exist without the priesthood and the priesthood could not exist without the relief society. As organizations, they complimented the other and learned lessons on how to do this.

 

But with identity politics, all this is turned upside down and relief society is disparaged as women no longer see their roles as complimentary to the priesthood but as identical. Likewise for the priesthood since all will have the priesthood and as such as identical to the women.

Edited March 27, 2014 by why me

[why me]

I can't tell if you meant it, but you seem to have illustrated my point perfectly.  Thanks. 

I don't know. But my point was that equality is impossible because we are human and as such humans can never be equal. But we certainly can develop our talents to better society and compliment our existence as a species. Strangely the two most violent societies in europe are two of most equal: denmark and finland. To be a woman in either society is a problem since women are the most likely to be abused by men in both societies and yet, both countries pride themselves on their equality.

 

http://yle.fi/uutiset/finland_is_eus_second_most_violent_country_for_women/7120601

 

http://yle.fi/uutiset/women_face_more_violence_at_work/5158048

 

Why is this the case? Researchers have determined that measures that bring about equality seem to create a lack of well being between the sexes because differences are not recognized. I must also add that in both societies, female violence toward men is also on the rise.

Edited March 27, 2014 by why me

[pogi]

Which of course is why Paul admonishes the church to be of one mind. This would certain avoid much incivility. We are human beings and as such we act human. And a part of that humanness is to react in unpleasant ways. So, why create a social action movement that is meant to sow conflict by pressuring the lds church to change its doctrine? OW has broken a cardinal rule of being of one mind.

 

While I disagree with the tactics of OW movement, I don't find it problematic that they are not united in mind on this matter with the rest of the church.  Not even the GAs are of "one mind" in this way.  They disagree all the time on certain subjects.  To be honest, I don't really know what Paul meant by that, but I do not think he meant that we should never disagree or have differences of opinion. 

 

I don't believe that the purpose of the movement is to "sow conflict."  Their main purpose seems to be to receive the priesthood.  I think that they would be more well received if their main purpose was to influence the prophet to pray about the issue and seek the mind of the Lord on the subject, rather than demanding the priesthood and placing conditions upon their membership. 

 

 I agree that by making statements such as "nothing less will suffice", they are marginalizing themselves, but that does not justify the way we react in "unpleasant ways."  It sounds like you are saying that they are to blame for our unpleasant reaction by starting the movement in the first place.  To me, this takes away control and accountability for our actions.  Nobody can "make" me react in an unpleasant ways.  That is my choice.  While they may be in the wrong for their approach, we are in the wrong when we react in unpleasant ways. 

[pogi]

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.

 

I see it different. I don't think these comments were "veiled insults".   They are responding to the demands of the OW stating that "nothing less will suffice."  This kind of statement marginalizes them from the "millions" of women in the church who do not share this view.  They are are a minority group of women demanding the priesthood for the majority of women who disagree with them.  That is all that they are pointing out here.  It is a good point too.  I think that they are saying, "please don't make demands for all women in the church to receive the priesthood when the vast majority don't agree with you".

[why me]

While I disagree with the tactics of OW movement, I don't find it problematic that they are not united in mind on this matter with the rest of the church.  Not even the GAs are of "one mind" in this way.  They disagree all the time on certain subjects.  To be honest, I don't really know what Paul meant by that, but I do not think he meant that we should never disagree or have differences of opinion. 

 

I don't believe that the purpose of the movement is to "sow conflict."  Their main purpose seems to be to receive the priesthood.  I think that they would be more well received if their main purpose was to influence the prophet to pray about the issue and seek the mind of the Lord on the subject, rather than demanding the priesthood and placing conditions upon their membership. 

 

 I agree that by making statements such as "nothing less will suffice", they are marginalizing themselves, but that does not justify the way we react in "unpleasant ways."  It sounds like you are saying that they are to blame for our unpleasant reaction by starting the movement in the first place.  To me, this takes away control and accountability for our actions.  Nobody can "make" me react in an unpleasant ways.  That is my choice.  While they may be in the wrong for their approach, we are in the wrong when we react in unpleasant ways. 

Since we humans are known to have differences of opinion and as such it can create conflict, it is important that at least in the church we depend on revelation. if not, we become just a church of men and women who seem to desire to push their own agendas as to what a church should be. I think that this was the problem that paul had. Not just with gentile churches but also with the church in Jerusalem. But somehow they had to become of one mind. And I believe they did. And they prospered until the schisms separated various groups from the mother church.

 

Where would the lds church be if schisms were created at the time of Joseph Smith? Much weaker. But the schisms occurred when BY was chosen the leader. Various factions were created: strangites, rigdonites, restorationists etc. and each went their separate ways. Can we ever see this happening today? What if, the OW movement does create a schism. And some members leave over this issue and form their own church? Or they leave and join the CoC? Or they stay and create a division among the relief society women?

[why me]

I see it different. I don't think these comments were "veiled insults".   They are responding to the demands of the OW stating that "nothing less will suffice."  This kind of statement marginalizes them from the "millions" of women in the church who do not share this view.  They are are a minority group of women demanding the priesthood for the majority of women who disagree with them.  That is all that they are pointing out here.  It is a good point too.  I think that they are saying, "please don't make demands for all women in the church to receive the priesthood when the vast majority don't agree with you".

And these women who do not want the priesthood are saying please don't sow contention and division when we all should be of one mind and depend on revelation.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I agree with why me that we should rely on revelation and not try to control the direction of the church.

[pogi]

Since we humans are known to have differences of opinion and as such it can create conflict, it is important that at least in the church we depend on revelation. if not, we become just a church of men and women who seem to desire to push their own agendas as to what a church should be. I think that this was the problem that paul had. Not just with gentile churches but also with the church in Jerusalem. But somehow they had to become of one mind. And I believe they did. And they prospered until the schisms separated various groups from the mother church.

 I agree.

 

 

Where would the lds church be if schisms were created at the time of Joseph Smith? Much weaker. But the schisms occurred when BY was chosen the leader. Various factions were created: strangites, rigdonites, restorationists etc. and each went their separate ways. Can we ever see this happening today? What if, the OW movement does create a schism. And some members leave over this issue and form their own church? Or they leave and join the CoC? Or they stay and create a division among the relief society women?

 

 I don't agree with the tactics used by OW by placing conditions and demands on the prophet.  While I don't find any problem opposing their position, as we have as much right to voice our opinions as they do, we need to do so respectfully and with civility - without contention and judgment. 

Edited March 27, 2014 by pogi

[why me]

 

 I don't agree with the tactics used by OW by placing conditions and demands on the prophet.  While I don't find any problem opposing their position, as we have as much right to voice our opinions as they do, we need to do so respectfully and with civility - without contention and judgment. 

I can understand this. However, we can take it to the extreme too. I have been on the boards for quite some time. I have seen critics really mock the lds church, use a tone that is not very desirable, and be disrespectful. And when a lds member responds harshly, they get the be christlike lecture. Critics use this against the lds as a weapon. It sort of makes the playing field less fair. So, what happens? The critics use judgment and they can use contention. And yet, we must be kind and christlike. However, to assume that christ never got angry would be a stretch. I am sure that he did but perhaps his angry outburst were left of the gospels because they would not be so faith promoting. We need to remember that the New Testament was written by men who wished to give a very faith promoting narrative for the early church. But at the end of the day, christ was also a human being who had a childhood, who was a teenager and who was a young adult. I would find it hard to be believe if he never got angry and used words accordingly when he was a teenager.

Edited March 27, 2014 by why me

[MiserereNobis]

I think that the catholic way would be best for OW: pray and ask the saints, including Mary to help intercede for them.

 

I totally agree.  Ask Mary for intercession

 

[pogi]

The critics use judgment and they can use contention. And yet, we must be kind and christlike. 

If this was a question, the answer would be - yes. 

 

It is OK to feel angry, but we shouldn't always jump in the river of emotion and let it take us down stream.  Otherwise we are no better than those who offend us.  If they invite the spirit of contention, and we jump on the same ship they are on, we all end up in the same place. 

Edited March 27, 2014 by pogi

[why me]

I totally agree.  Ask Mary for intercession

Or they could do it the mormon way: ask heavenly father in his son's name. Either way, it would be far better than social activism. I think that OW when they decided to use social activism actually betrayed their true motive: to cause contention within the lds church, especially among the women. To pray would have been too peaceful and uncontentious.

[why me]

If this was a question, the answer would be - yes. 

 

It is OK to feel angry, but we shouldn't always jump in the river of emotion and let it take us down stream.  Otherwise we are no better than those who offend us.  If they invite the spirit of contention, and we jump on the same ship they are on, we all end up in the same place. 

And yet, one could use reason and still use anger or even be mad. It can perhaps be healthy to use both feelings when on the internet. However, both within reason. I do believe that Joseph Smith also became angry on occasion. It is a normal reaction.