Ordain Women Group Publishes "six Discussions" To Proselytize For Its Agenda

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You can take as much pride as you wish in the three rep points (LOL), however In a very important respect, it wasn't an apt comparison, as made most evident in the fact the black cause was rightly referred to as the civil rights movement, and not the equal rights movement.

The emphasis, then, was on gaining civil rights and being treated civilly. This made perfect sense since civil treatment works pragmatically in everyone's best interest.

I'm not sure where you get your definition of civil rights as only being treated civilly. You can treat blacks civilly without giving them the civil right to vote. Just as you can treat a pet civilly without letting it vote. Civil Rights do have a definition. According to Webster this definition is "the rights that every person should have regardless of his or her sex, race, or religion." In other words the civil rights movement was about giving blacks the same (equality) civil rights as whites.

 

Being ordained to the priesthood is not a civil right, nor is it uncivil for women to be denied the priesthood--any more than it would be uncivil to deny the priesthood to children under the age of 12, non-members, etc.

No disagreement on your first clause, but I'm not sure anyone ever claimed otherwise. As to your second clause, we are not talking about civility, we are talking about equality (as in not discriminating based on gender in this case). Obviously, you can be civil ("courteous and polite") to someone while denying them their civil rights. Please note I do not personally view civil rights and priesthood office as the same thing.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, Martin Luther King was correct when he said that people should be judged according to the content of their character rather than on the color of their skin (which rationally implies that different content of character should be judged differently rather than equally)

Indeed. People should be judged by what they individually can contribute, not what gender or color they are. Equal opportunity and equal access. This is a call to equal opportunity that depends only on what you abilities are and it is the same call to equality that the OW women organization is invoking. The only difference is one talks about not prejudging based on skin color and the other talks about not prejudging based on gender.

 

Be that as it may, to the extent that some in the civil rights movement departed from the rational notion of civil rights and civil treatment and best interest, and focused emotively instead on the unbaked liberal notion of equality, it has harmed the nation as a whole, though more particularly the black community. (See HERE),

 

Such is the inane unintended negative consequence of the politics of equality.  (See HERE)

The first sentence from wiki on Civil Rights Movement is "Movements for civil rights were a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law." Do you disagree with this? Really? It was just about being treated civilly (whatever that means) and had nothing to do with a pursuit of equality?

 

It is in this limited and unflattering sense that your analogy is apt. Politicized calls for equality tend to be irrational and too oft end up producing the opposite result from what may have been charitably intended.

 

More to the point, though, such calls are usually selective and actually amount to preferential treatment, as attested to in the case of affirmative action and the women-centric agenda of OW .

So the civil rights movement was not about equality under the law, but was rather about being treated civilly (at least until the movement was hijacked by leftist nutjobs). Got it. And OW is not about gender blindness when it comes to priesthood office, but about women getting preferential treatment. Got it. And if the OW crowd was really concerned about equality they'd be advocating for horse ordination. My head is spinning.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I appreciate your graciousness in letting me explain further.

 

Perhaps the most pervasive set of inequalities that are natural and healthy is replete across the spectrum of human development and growth.

 

As just one example of millions that could be expressed, a newborn infant lacks the capacity to survive by itself, let alone perform heart surgery, while a certified doctor at John Hopkins may be well suited. To impose equality in relation to the job of heart surgery across these circumstances of natural and healthy inequality, would be asinine to the max. 

 

I doubt that as an infant I would have felt bad that I wasn't permitted to perform heart surgery then. In fact, I don't feel bad that I can't perform heart surgery nowadays. Since even today I am naturally and healthily unequal to trained medical professions when it comes to heart surgery (having chosen another career path), I don't feel bad about being treated unequally in this regard.

 

I provide other examples in my article on the Politics of Equality. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade can you come up with a quote from anyone supporting OW that would come close to this? When people talk about social equality they don't mean that we should all be treated the same. Here is a primer for you about what advocating for civil social equality would look like from wiki:

Social equality requires the absence of legally enforced social class or caste boundaries and the absence of discrimination motivated by an inalienable part of a person's identity. For example, sex, gender, race, age, sexual orientation, origin, caste or class, income or property, language, religion, convictions, opinions, health or disability must not result in unequal treatment under the law and should not reduce opportunities unjustifiably.

Edited May 30, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[why me]

It is more than shout them down, unfortunately. There does not seem to be a realization that you cannot convincingly claim to "honor" or "respect" women when a group of women is set aside for derision and ridicule. 

 

OW has made enough bad decisions for there to be ample fodder for discussion. So why does this topic always end up maligning the women themselves?  Ironically, the Mormon Women Stand site shares OW's weaknesses to a fault. They are mirror images.

This would be the case because the male is the enemy and not the friend. If all men are the problem and if all women who do not share the views of OW or MWS are infantile and ignorant, one can assume that there will be a problem with inclusion. But that is also the nature of radical feminism.

[Calm]

This would be the case because the male is the enemy and not the friend. If all men are the problem....

This claim contradicts the reality of OW having "male allies".

In criitcizing what OW is doing, it is not going to help find solutions to exaggerate their position.

[mfbukowski]

I think this is where OW is taking us. And it is going to have to be laid out plainly at some point. The priesthood and authority (and men) have been intertwined to the point that none seems to have a clear role definition or purpose anymore. It almost seems as if the church is being reactionary as each issue arises rather than having a carefully constructed plan...as in OW is clearly leading the discussion.  It is almost as if they are taken by surprise at each challenge.

 

What I think is missing from the men in these discussions is an explanation of what "the priesthood" is.  What does it feel like? How does it benefit you...or not benefit you? It is almost always about how much work it is....not what it is.  How would your life be different if you had to go through life without it, like women do?

I agree fully.

 

I could cite numerous spiritual examples of what the priesthood means to me, based on spiritual experiences, instances where I have been part of helping to heal others, instances in which I have felt words which were not my own coming into my mind from above, which comforted and blessed the lives of others.

 

But reciting those all day will convince no one of the "reality" of the Priesthood any more than any recitation will prove that the "church is true" without one's own spiritual manifestation.

 

I think that men have an innate, inbred need for hierarchy.  I think that - call it evolution or how God created us, or both- we have thousands of generations of men being the hunters, using hierarchies, to provide food for the family.

 

I think that is just plain undeniable.  A hunting party needs someone to make the plan, and people to show up where and when they are supposed to, to do the work at hand.  That is a team, that is a hierarchy, it is whatever you want to call it, and those behavior sets are necessary to human survival.

 

THAT is a socio-biological fact of life.  That is how society has been for untold thousands of years.

 

On the other hand we have the job of nurturing children.  Without that role, humanity could not and cannot survive- still.  Traditionally of course women have had that role.

 

Our culture now encourages equality in sex-roles, but it will be an uphill battle for women, as it has been.   Biology with thousands of generations behind it is not going to be easy to reverse.

[CV75]

How about this line from that letter CV75:

 

"Bishops are extraordinarily busy, but like local leaders, should be particularly aware of how easy it is to come across as patronizing or dismissive when a woman wants more than anything to be listened to and feel as if she has truly been heard."

 

Now, do you think that I can find posts in this thread come across as patronizing and dismissive of the concerns of these women?

 

I think I can ...

 

Ben McGuire

Of course, and i see them too. But that is a far more complex analysis of interpersonal interaction than looking at principles and practices.

 

And what is said on this thread hasn’t much to do with the progress that has been made and will continue to be made in genuinely and more effectively valuing “a [feminist] voice that is respected and welcomed” in the Church or with giving credit. The open letter identifies an effective way to establish dialogue and discourse over divisiveness involvng the Church following Gospel principles.

[CV75]

I think they have advanced and hindered the situation. When a letter from the head of PAs alludes to OW, it really is impossible to convincingly claim they are not having a profound effect.  Aside from the priesthood, I don't think they offer anything unique over the moderate feminists they don't always treat too well.  Except they are the ones who get the media attention. Thus, they are far bigger than their numbers. 

 

I think OWs biggest and eventually fatal mistake is that they have not reached out to those who don't share their views about priesthood, they actively push them away.  It is a mistake all of the more radical Mormon feminists are making when they set up an environment where allegiance to certain political and social positions is assumed...as determined by the regular disdain expressed toward "TBMs" who don't share their enlightenment.  (MWS is making the same mistake, BTW.  Different political positions, same disdain for others.) 

I don’t think it’s about “effect” alone. I can kill a fly or let it out the window. The effect that it is out of the kitchen is the same (yay!), but that has to be weighed with the effect on the fly and the effect on my love for living things and on the example I show young children. So it is better to let it out the window and we have the same and better effects for all involved.

 

So I don’t think we need to resort to divisiveness to attain a kind of unity (if that is what equality is meant to lead to) that isn’t necessarily proven to be the Lord’s will. The is so much more to consider than the immediate “effect.” As the scriptural references point out, unity and equality in the Gospel often mean different things than what we might normally construe them.

 

I haven’t looked at this from a tactical standpoint, but what you say about the various approaches certainly seems reasonable.

[why me]

This claim contradicts the reality of OW having "male allies".

In criitcizing what OW is doing, it is not going to help find solutions to exaggerate their position.

What if the men do not actually realize the position of OW? Of course men can be for women having the priesthood without the ideological pinning of OW and their radical feminism. And men can support OW and yet not realize the foundation of OW and its anti-patriarchy role. This is not just about women having the priesthood. It is about challenging what they perceive the patriarchy inside the church and the control of the church by men.

[Calm]

What if the men do not actually realize the position of OW? Of course men can be for women having the priesthood without the ideological pinning of OW and their radical feminism. And men can support OW and yet not realize the foundation of OW and its anti-patriarchy role. This is not just about women having the priesthood. It is about challenging what they perceive the patriarchy inside the church and the control of the church by men.

Are you saying men are incapable of understanding OW's position?

They do have men as actual members of OW.

Edited May 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

Are you saying men are incapable of understanding OW's position?

They do have men as actual members of OW.

 

I think many people don't understand OW's real position.

 

When the word "equality" is thrown into an agenda, too many people of both sexes line up behind whoever is demanding it without questioning what the real agenda is. In fact, the agenda of the group demanding "equality" is not allowed to be questioned. Doing so provokes accusations of hating and demeaning women and ignoring their concerns, as have been found on this thread.

 

"Equality" along with words like "fair" and "rights" have been abused in our society to the point that they really have no meaning except as an emotional rallying cry to push an agenda.

 

So the real question becomes, what is OW's actual agenda? Ignore the demands for "equality" because they're a red herring. What are the real issues at hand? What do they really want and what are they really demanding?

 

I'm not too sure OW's supporters want us to look too much at what's behind that particular curtain. It's far easier to get everyone behind the nebulous concept of "equality". Unfortunately, it doesn't facilitate any real discussion of the real issues facing both women and men in the church; it just ticks everyone off, since everyone has different perceptions of what "equality" really is, and no one is willing to narrow the definition down to what we're really trying to talk about.

[jwhitlock]

This claim contradicts the reality of OW having "male allies".

In criitcizing what OW is doing, it is not going to help find solutions to exaggerate their position.

 

Here's what the OW website says about men participating in their organization:

 

"Men are welcome to participate in public actions and in a variety of supportive roles."

 

Maybe it's just me, but the way this is phrased seems a little odd for an organization that's demanding "equality". Perhaps I'm just reading too much into it.

[changed]

Discussion #3. Study the Scriptures

Yes, there a few (obscure) examples of women who were called into priesthood responsibilities due to unusual circumstances in the scriptures, but while pondering the women of the scriptures, I, and most people, consider the greatest women to be Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Eve, the mother of us all. Neither of these women were recorded as holding the priesthood, nor were they described as being prophets, or priests. Their glory came because of their motherhood. I could also list other prominent women - Ruth & Naomi, Rachel, Sarah, Rebecca, Esther, Martha, Mary Magdalene, Elisabeth, Anna, the Widow who Gave Two Mites, woman at the well etc. none of which is recorded as holding the priesthood. Again, the greatest of anyone's accomplishments are not a matter of titles or positions, it is a matter of the number of lives that were touched, the friendships that were formed, the refinement of character - the degree of faith, hope, humility, love, and courage someone attains to. 




8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;

 9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.

10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have ^cworship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

 11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. - Luke 14


I would add that those who humble themselves eventually see the glory within humility, and no longer seek to be exalted.  

Edited May 31, 2014 by changed

[Storm Rider]

Here's what the OW website says about men participating in their organization:

 

"Men are welcome to participate in public actions and in a variety of supportive roles."

 

Maybe it's just me, but the way this is phrased seems a little odd for an organization that's demanding "equality". Perhaps I'm just reading too much into it.

 

It would seem you are holding up a mirror to the OW organization and seeing them for what they are.  Never listen to words; look at actions.  I have felt for some time this was only about what a few individual women thought was power and that they wanted it.  It has nothing to do with any sincere desire to hold the priesthood and everything to do with these same individuals being "in charge".  As a human I tend to avoid such individuals because I find them so disagreeable.  

[Storm Rider]

Discussion #3. Study the Scriptures

Yes, there a few (obscure) examples of women who were called into priesthood responsibilities due to unusual circumstances in the scriptures, but while pondering the women of the scriptures, I, and most people, consider the greatest women to be Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Eve, the mother of us all. Neither of these women were recorded as holding the priesthood, nor were they described as being prophets, or priests. Their glory came because of their motherhood. I could also list other prominent women - Ruth & Naomi, Rachel, Sarah, Rebecca, Esther, Martha, Mary Magdalene, Elisabeth, Anna, the Widow who Gave Two Mites, woman at the well etc. none of which is recorded as holding the priesthood. Again, the greatest of anyone's accomplishments are not a matter of titles or positions, it is a matter of the number of lives that were touched, the friendships that were formed, the refinement of character - the degree of faith, hope, humility, love, and courage someone attains to. 

.....

I would add that those who humble themselves eventually see the glory within humility, and no longer seek to be exalted.  

 

Excellent thoughts.  In today's society we don't seem to really value motherhood or fatherhood.  

[BlueDreams]

Here's what the OW website says about men participating in their organization:

 

"Men are welcome to participate in public actions and in a variety of supportive roles."

 

Maybe it's just me, but the way this is phrased seems a little odd for an organization that's demanding "equality". Perhaps I'm just reading too much into it.

 

Organizations that promote and are for minority rights generally are ran and organized by said minority group ("minority" being not in numbers but in power differential). This is a common practice for a number of pretty obvious reasons: no matter how thick the empathy or entrenched the sense of connection, it's still an outsiders perspective of a minority group. The capacity for patronization and the fact that the point of these groups is usually to give the disenfranchised a voice. These groups usually want and need allies/supportive figures as apart of their organization and welcome it. so yes, you're reading way too much into this.

 

 

with luv,

BD

[why me]

Here's what the OW website says about men participating in their organization:

 

"Men are welcome to participate in public actions and in a variety of supportive roles."

 

Maybe it's just me, but the way this is phrased seems a little odd for an organization that's demanding "equality". Perhaps I'm just reading too much into it.

And that is the point. In radical feminism, men play a secondary role. They can be supportive of the ideology but they should not expect to be treated with equality since there is always a danger that the organization will become controlled by the enemy (men).

[why me]

Are you saying men are incapable of understanding OW's position?

They do have men as actual members of OW.

Have OW claimed to be a radical feminist organization and what exactly that means? If not, then their ideology is hidden beneath the rhetoric. Most people who support OW probably have no idea of their radical feminist roots nor what that means for their call of female priesthood.

[BlueDreams]

Changed

 

I have a number of problems with your response to their discussion #3. I also am not a fan of it. My reason is much the same as my problem with discussion #2….it assumes that their evidence is clearly pointing to their conclusion…it doesn’t. Most of this I already read and have reached a very different conclusion than theirs. I find it an incomplete study to not really delve or show other means of interpretation....but I find the traditional response about women's role and understanding of said role in the scripture also lacking. Your view highlights, to me, some of these assumptions that I find lacking. Here are a number of them that I thought of while reading your post:

 

1. The assumption that these women were obscure and the definition of priesthood responsibilities. It’s not obscure for women to fulfill priesthood responsibility…just look at Oak’s GC talk about it. Priesthood is neither male nor female….men have a specic role within it, but it’s general function is simple “The authority and power that God gives to man to act in all things for the salvation of man.” (guide to the scriptures: priesthood). Our definition of “priesthood responsibility” has become too broad. We culturally and incorrectly assume that male prophecy is somehow more authoritative than female. We assume (now) that you must be male to give a blessing/laying on of hands when there is historical and current evidence that points otherwise. Which brings me to my second problem....

 

1. Our culture has made these women obscure in our minds….they’re not actually obscure. A fun example is to go look up huldah in your Bible Dictionary. You won’t find her….but where her name could be, there’s a man named Hur with a small entry. Hur’s accomplishment: holding up moses’ arm…literally. He’s mentioned almost in passing in exactly 3 verses. And Huldah? She was a prophetess whose prophesy was the backbone of saving a generation from sin. The priest, scribe, and king’s rep went to her for guidance. And it’s not like there was a shortage of prophets running around. She’s mentioned in 2 full chapters in 2 different books. Yet when she's mentioned in scripture guides, she's mentioned only in passing. Deborah's role is even more ironically listed as something that sounds almost like a supportive and tangential stance to Barrack....when that's definitely not how the text is read. 

 

1. When pondering the women of the scriptures I currently think of just how little I know of them. How much I yearn for more. And sometimes just how narrow our perception of them can get. Even in your 2 most prominent women their stories are filtered to the role of literal birth/mothering as their marker of greatness. Few think of the verse in 1 Nephi of mary who is the prominent imagery for the tree of life (it even parallels descriptors). Or Eve being the first to receive revelation after the fall in the temple and partnered revelation with Adam in PoGP. Women’s glory being birth and rearing children makes as much sense of men’s glory being baptizing and being bishops. These are means that the Lord’s work can and should be manifest, but they are not in and of themselves glory. The true glory is shown by manifesting Christ. That’s the universal tie of all the other women you mentioned (many of whom are never mentioned as biological mothers). Again their glory did not come because of their motherhood anymore than a man comes from their priesthood ordination. It came because they exemplified and manifested God’s work.

 

1. Mother is a title that is not specifically linked to the act of becoming a physical mother. Eve was call the mother of all living long before having a child. Deborah was called a mother in Israel without ever mentioning rearing a child. Her “child” was the nation. As was Eve’s. this was brought in a similar fashion….birth may or may not be apart of it, but the call to lead, organize, raise up, teach, bless, judge/discern, and prophecy in the ways of God are also that call. It is the fostering and birth of a people/society, in every sense of the word, that parallels men in partnership. That is the definition of mother that I find in scripture.

 

1. Lastly, I do think that the goal of OW is “looking beyond the mark” per se. But I also believe their intentions are not defined as necessarily trying to exhalt themselves and moreso working in the same sense as Abr 1:2. In short they as seeking the gifts of the spirit. I believe their assumptions about that is off base. Their tactics are blinding them. But their hearts are largely genuine.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited June 1, 2014 by BlueDreams

[why me]

Kate Kelly why she had women line up one by one to be refused entry:

I had an hour-long interview with Kate Kelly about a week ago. She said that she envisioned the Ordain Women action as “a way to assert radical self-respect* and to claim the narrative as our own.”

http://mainstreetplaza.com/2013/10/07/my-ordain-women-testimony/

Very radical feminist reply. when one analyses the words behind the actions, we see a very radical agenda that pits women against men to control the narrative. And what is the narrative? Power.

[why me]

Should we make a difference between the rank and file member of OW and the leaders of OW? I think that we can. Getting control of the narrative is quite an undertaking by Kate Kelly. In other words, she wants women to get control of the church narrative when it comes to the priesthood.

This was a response to BDs statement: But their hearts are largely genuine.

Edited June 1, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Is this the answer that OW was looking for. In the June Liahona there is an article called: Priesthood Power Available to All. Now if OW claims that the GAs should seek heavenly guidance on this issue they may be disappointed with this article because it says nothing about ordaining women. But will they take this as an answer to their inquiry? I think not. They will not rest until they get a yes.

Unfortunately, it is not yet on the internet. When it is I will post it on this thread.
 

[Calm]

Have OW claimed to be a radical feminist organization and what exactly that means? If not, then their ideology is hidden beneath the rhetoric. Most people who support OW probably have no idea of their radical feminist roots nor what that means for their call of female priesthood.

Have you ever even talked to one of the leaders of OW?

You need to use quotes when you quote something. Otherwise it is confusing about who is saying what.

Edited June 1, 2014 by calmoriah

[BlueDreams]

Should we make a difference between the rank and file member of OW and the leaders of OW? I think that we can. Getting control of the narrative is quite an undertaking by Kate Kelly. In other words, she wants women to get control of the church narrative when it comes to the priesthood.

This was a response to BDs statement: But their hearts are largely genuine.

 

 

No. For one I read her comment very differently. The terminology follows a post-modern approach which views the story of one as pertinent to the story of another. What Kate could be saying is allowing a greater visibility of diverse thought. Not as taking control, per se. For another I prefer not to condemn someone I don't know. I may no be a fan of her and have found a number of her words alienating, but it doesn't mean I should somehow view her any differently than any other sister/brother that I have my discrepancies with.

 

With luv,

BD

[jwhitlock]

Organizations that promote and are for minority rights generally are ran and organized by said minority group ("minority" being not in numbers but in power differential). This is a common practice for a number of pretty obvious reasons: no matter how thick the empathy or entrenched the sense of connection, it's still an outsiders perspective of a minority group. The capacity for patronization and the fact that the point of these groups is usually to give the disenfranchised a voice. These groups usually want and need allies/supportive figures as apart of their organization and welcome it. so yes, you're reading way too much into this.

 

 

with luv,

BD

 

After thinking about it some more, not sure that I am reading too much into it.

 

If why me is correct (and there is a good possibility he is), OW is more about obtaining power than anything else. And as has been noted on this thread, there is clear antipathy between those who espouse a more radical form of feminism and those who are more moderate - not to mention those who don't consider themselves feminists.

 

it's bad enough when men misuse priesthood authority as described in D&C 121. If radical feminists were given the priesthood, to what end would they want to use it? Can you envision someone such as Margaret Toscano, who is part of OW and who speaks sneeringly of "partriarchy", benevolently exercising the priesthood as it is intended?  I certainly can't.

 

After reading over their website in some detail, I see claims that they can't fully "serve" unless they're given the priesthood. Since the level of one's Christlike service is not measured in terms of whether one holds the priesthood or not, such a sentiment is clearly false. In light of that, we must ask why they actually want the priesthood. And the answer to the question inevitably boils down to a demand for more power and influence.

 

That is inconsistent with what the priesthood is all about. I don't see anything from OW that indicates they understand at all what holding the priesthood is really all about, but I see quite a bit such as what I quoted that gives me pause about what their real agenda is.

 

Too much smoke for me to be comfortable with them.

[why me]

No. For one I read her comment very differently. The terminology follows a post-modern approach which views the story of one as pertinent to the story of another. What Kate could be saying is allowing a greater visibility of diverse thought. Not as taking control, per se. For another I prefer not to condemn someone I don't know. I may no be a fan of her and have found a number of her words alienating, but it doesn't mean I should somehow view her any differently than any other sister/brother that I have my discrepancies with.

 

With luv,

BD

And you see this is also the point. The use of words like condemn. Am I condemning her by critiquing her statements? No. I am analysing what she says and how she says it and looking into her tactics. Is this condemning? Such loaded words do not further the conversation but rather are designed to stifle it. But in our postmodern society, people wish to proclaim victim status and so, by using the word condemn, Kate Kelly becomes  a victim. Here is an interesting book about the victim revolution:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/books/review/the-victims-revolution-by-bruce-bawer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Such is postmodernism with its stress on individual identities and group identities and non allowance of critique.