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

[Benjamin McGuire]

CV75 writes:

I wouldn’t acknowledge OW as paving the way for the less conspicuous to be heard.

Yes, CV75, we already heard you. You don't want to give OW any credit for anything that might possibly be construed as helpful, or useful, or beneficial or ... well you get the idea.

 

Ben M.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott Loyd writes:

 

 

This would make sense except ... that it isn't equally applied is it. Remember when it was suggested that women can pray in Sacrament Meetings? Do you remember what the published reasoning was by the Church? Let me quote it for you:

 

 

 

The problem isn't over the issue of divine direction. We have a great deal of direction that isn't divine, and quite a bit of it is assumed to be divine when it simply isn't. And in this situation, earthly dynamics like gender gaps have very real relevance.

 

Ben M.

I see just as urgent a problem with people determining unilaterally that there is no divine direction when, in fact, there is.

 

A very timely example: those who are pressing for the repeal of the law of chastity with respect to homosexual relations.

[CV75]

"Men are that they might have joy"

 

The long-standing pattern must also be, then, that joy is strictly for men only

You need to do better than that!

 

Show how the use of the "men" and "son" and the individuals named in D&C 107 is about the ordination of women to priesthood office, such as in verses 40-52. And yes, this is scripture, not tradition of men (for the 2nd time).

[Calm]

jwhitlock writes:

The flip side of the coin is that with their high visibility (and media campaigns), those involved in the OW movement have seen both negative and positive responses. You see, for them, this is huge even if the responses are mostly negative. Why? They are being heard (even if they are not directly responded to). There is an awareness of their voice by the Church. And this means that they have a voice that they haven't had before. And while there may be an attempt to avoid responding to them directly, yet, all the same, changes continue to happen. And some of these changes seem clearly directed at them and their complaints (like, for example, the general broadcast of the Priesthood sessions of conference). So I don't think they have hindered progress at all. And I don't think that they see the response to their efforts as hindering their objectives.

Or maybe it really is just that the influence of some apostles has increased and the influence of others has decreased, and that is allowing these kinds of changes to pass a sustaining vote of the brethren ...

Do you really see change slowing down or going in the opposite direction because of OW?

Ben M.

One would have to hear about policies that were not changed based on reasons associated with OW and other similar movements to see one part of how things have been hindered and such non changes are not going to be publicised. It is only being in a certain place at a certain time I managed to hear of one likely nonchange happening (the change was a simple pragmatic one with no doctrinal inplications) where something was being considered before the demand was publicised that was then withdrawn to avoid the misunderstanding it was connected to that specific demand.

An example of a policy change that is claimed by church leaders to have been already instituted before the demand was formulated is women giving prayers in Conference where it was stated the prayers had already been assigned before the activist group Let Women Pray made their public demand (I have little doubt that the idea to have women pray in conference did originally come from public discussion that had been going on for a least a decade pointing out this was one of the inequalities in visibility between women leaders and men, it is hardly surprising that more than one group of individuals decide to do something to make that change). The statement the change was already in the works has led to some claiming the Church is lying and using such claims as evidence to how powerful agitation actually is so it should hardly be surprising if there are some policy changes that were being considered have been put on the shelf for now until when it is felt to be a more suitable time where it won't contribute to the media circus currently going on.

Edited June 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[smac97]

I think a certain gender gap is illustrated in this very statement, "such correction is the province........of the Brethren.

 

At the end of the day, no matter how "inclusive" the councils are, it will be the men that will have the final word and make the decision. 

 

There is an undeniable gap in such an arrangement.

I am not persuaded that every gender imbalance is per se a bad thing. I also reject gender quotas in most circumstances, and particularly when we are speaking of the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I saw implicit in Smac's remark the province of the Brethren as they are divinely directed.

A Mormon's reference to "Brethren" with a capital "B" is, I think, generally an explicit reference to priesthood leaders acting in that capacity.

Where divine direction is present, such earthly dynamics as "gender gaps" cease to have relevance.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

No, I saw it all.

My remarks have to do with Section 4, the Ward Council, and its proper functioning, which women do without having priesthood keys. Attributing a laundry list of problems to women not having priesthood keys is irrelevant, a misapplication of secular principles of "equality" to a spiritual structure and process to solve problems, which is what councils are there for.

[CV75]

CV75 writes:

 

 

Yes, CV75, we already heard you. You don't want to give OW any credit for anything that might possibly be construed as helpful, or useful, or beneficial or ... well you get the idea.

 

Ben M.

Is this reflective listening? We've already heard you too (over and over)--do you have a problem with our not pointing that out?

[Calm]

But among many of the lds there is this concern of not offending anyone. If one is critical of OW, suddenly one is said to be condemning them. People seem to walk on egg shells. And I believe that this can be dangerous. If the lds members do a tip toe through the tulips on issues such as on ordaining women and SSM etc, the lds will find themselves in a not very good situation. We can not be concerned about causing offense in the age of victimization.

If this refers to me and those who are critical of criticising OW using mind reading tactics, attacking their sincerity and colouring them as apostates at this point (I believe they could cross that line but have not yet) and even inviting them to leave, I don't think there has been any suggestion from us that criticism should be withheld based on the fear of offending anyone.

Pointing out that being overly aggressive in attacks on OW women has the result of causing people to be more sympathetic to them seems to be a practical observation of tactics that are backfiring on the users and suggesting someone change to a more moderate approach is a suggestion based on common sense, not fear. Pointing out when people move beyond what the Church has requested its members to do and how to behave should be evidence of a desire to be more faithful and in tune with our leadership and not looked on as driven by fear of offending instead of a desire to show the love and compassion and understanding our leaders plead with us to use.

One could look at these protests against criticism of certain overly critical tactics as an attempt to paint themselves (why me and others I have seen do this here and there) as victims who are getting attacked trying to do the right thing. That type of global claim is easily flipped around. The same attitudes and tactics are seen at both extremes. And if behaviour is wrong in one group, why wouldn't it be wrong in the other? A good cause does not justify bad behaviour. Better to keep observations and criticisms to specific and well defined instances, keep arguments narrow and focused on actual issues rather than spread it to people's personal life where such attacks on alleged hidden agendas and unspoken personal beliefs and unknown personal behaviours (such as making sincere prayers and participating in devout temple attendance) can only be a result of guessing.

I am not going to fear causing offence among either the attackers or the defenders of either POV, if someone has chosen to agitate for the Church or against it, they have chosen to make their views open to criticism so I feel no need to hold back for that reason, but I will use criticism that is based on objective evidence and not guesses and I will try to keep it in line with the guidance given by the Church leadership, especially how they are approaching those involved with love and compassion and invitations to continue to be part of the church family even when it is necessary to point out the practical consequences of certain actions and when they are contrary to church teachings.

Edited June 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[Senator]

I am not persuaded that every gender imbalance is per se a bad thing. I also reject gender quotas in most circumstances, and particularly when we are speaking of the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, as I noted in my response to SR, I was not arguing the right or wrong(ness)of said gender gaps, but merely demonstrating their existence. Per your request.

So, are you saying that you feel that there are gender imbalances in the church which are good? If so, which?

Edited June 2, 2014 by Senator

[smac97]

Smac writes:

 

I don't care whether you agree with it or not. I think that the evidence points to this. I think that the ongoing struggle with women in the Church points to this. I think that this is where the problem of you and I being men comes into play because I don't think you can relate to this issue very well.

Translation: You are the wrong gender, therefore you are not at liberty to express your views on this matter.

You dismiss my points because of my gender. I do not think that is any more appropriate than dismissing points raised by a woman because of her gender.

 

I think at the same time that you have no moral basis to judge these women until you are working to resolve their complaints as best you can in an appropriate fashion.

First, you do not know what I have or have not done.

Second, I feel no obligation to assist the OW group when I do not agree with their behaviors.

Third, I am at liberty to criticize unseemly and inappropriate behavior.

Fourth, I do not recognize a privilege for LDS women to engage in unseemly behavior because of their gender. I hold women to the same standards of behavior as I do men.

 

Let's just skip to the end game in this discussion, shall we?

No, let's not. I made a number of points about your very troubling advocacy of "the ends justify the means." That is a scary rationale when adopted by Latter-day Saints against their own Church.

I'd like to discuss and analyze the ramifications of the justification you are forwarding in defense of the OW Group. You do not want to have that discussion/analysis. I suspect this is because you harbor a "'the ends justify the means' excuse is good for me and mine, but not for thee and thine" way of thinking about it, because it is not particularly defensible in the context of the Restored Gospel, and because a thoughtful discussion and analysis of it would demonstrate that indefensibility.

 

What isn't really that amusing is your comparison of this action to violence.

It wasn't a comparison so much as a question about the parameters of your ends-justify-the-means reasoning. I agree with you that the things that the OW group has done is not as bad as resorting to violence. But that doesn't mean that your ends-justify-the-means reasoning cannot be deployed with equal utility in defense of violence (or apostasy).

I agree that this is an ugly prospect. But it's one that is entirely susceptible to your line of reasoning. If you don't like that, perhaps you should reconsider how much misbehavior you are willing to excuse.

 

Let me ask a simple question. Are there, in your opinion, gender issues in the Church that I

'need to be addressed?

Yes. But not through adversarial PR campaigns, alignment with excommunicated apostates, defiance of the Church, trespasses onto sacred ground, protesting on sacred ground, intentionally disrupting and distracting from sacred convocations, and so on.

 

It is a simple and straight forward question.

My questions were also straightforward. Yet you are ignoring them.

 

Your over the top caricatures do nothing for your argument.

 

Ben M.

I did not resort to caricatures. You are justifying the OW group's conduct on the grounds that "the ends justify the means." I am curious as to the extent of that rationale.

The OW group has openly aligned itself with an excommunicated apostate. For you, this is okay because "the ends justify the means." For me, this is not behavior that is acceptable for observant Latter-day Saints.

The OW group has publicly defied the Church, trespassed onto its sacred ground, and conducted a protest on that sacred ground. Not even to most virulent anti-Mormons in our society have descended to the point of defying the laws of the land and disregarding the Church's most basis property rights. But the OW group has. And for you, this is okay because "the ends justify the means." For me, this is not behavior that is acceptable for observant Latter-day Saints.

The OW group has publicly demanded a profound change in doctrine, and declared that "nothing less will suffice." For you, this is okay because "the ends justify the means." For me, this is not behavior that is acceptable for observant Latter-day Saints.

But this isn't really a discussion, since you are ignoring my arguments.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 2, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

Again, as I noted in my response to SR, I was not arguing the right or wrong(ness)of said gender gaps, but merely demonstrating their existence. Per your request.

So, are you saying that you feel that there are gender imbalances in the church which are good? If so, which?

Sure. I believe that the gender-based restriction on holding the priesthood is, like the other restrictions on it, from God. The resulting gender imbalance is by God's design, and is therefore "good."

I also believe that the leadership of the Relief Society organization consisting exclusively of women is likewise from God. The resulting gender imbalance is by God's design, and is therefore "good."

I also believe that the respective principal roles of men and women as described in the Proclamation on the Family are divinely inspired, and that they therefore create gender imbalances in these roles which are "good."

I reject the notion of gender quotas in most things, and therefore likewise reject an inherent problem with "gender imbalances."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 2, 2014 by smac97

[Calm]

Sometimes I wonder if the provocateurs in these discussions have not employed the tactic of "ask for a mile, in hopes of getting an inch" sort of thing? You know, like Doctors do with their medical billing to insurance companies.

But if you don't ask for anything, you'll likely not receive anything.

It is possible. But when one presents something as nonnegotiable, it may result in others not bothering to come to the table to even try. This would appear to be what has happened to OW. While it has likely had an impact on what is being discussed 'at the table' they are specifically not being invited to join the conversation themselves. Which means they will have to rely on others more moderate in appearance to effect changes. Such tactics may result in the wrong inch being got when if they had placed themselves as open to different solutions and not just one, they woould have had a better chance at influencing movement towards the desired goal.

I can see it happening for the other extreme as well as I have seen a few (not on this board) express their position that righteous church leaders will undoubtedly protect the church from such apostates by excommunication, that the only reason it hasn't happen yet is they are giving the apostates rope enough to hang themselves. What happens if those excommunications don't happen and OW (or pick your target) ontinues unabated? I have seen some lose faith in their leaders as led by the spirit because certain excommunications didn't occur, they begin to see the Church as run by public opinion not by God and then have stepped into the Church is in apostasy....

Extreme, rigid positions rarely lead to positive results in my experience and have a way of backfiring.

Edited June 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[Senator]

Sure. I believe that the gender-based restriction on holding the priesthood is, like the other restrictions on it, from God. The resulting gender imbalance is by God's design, and is therefore "good."

I also believe that the leadership of the Relief Society organization consisting exclusively of women is likewise from God. The resulting gender imbalance is by God's design, and is therefore "good."

I also believe that the respective principal roles of men and women as described in the Proclamation on the Family are divinely inspired, and that they therefore create gender imbalances in these roles which are "good."

I reject the notion of gender quotas in most things, and therefore likewise reject an inherent problem with "gender imbalances."

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you. I'll take this essentially as an agreement to my argument in post #370, which was my attempt to answer your request to establish the presuppositions. So you've basically satisfied your own request, at least in part.

Now I guess the next question to you would be: Do you see any gender imbalances in the church that are "not good"?

[wenglund]

I think a certain gender gap is illustrated in this very statement, "such correction is the province........of the Brethren.

 

At the end of the day, no matter how "inclusive" the councils are, it will be the men that will have the final word and make the decision. 

 

There is an undeniable gap in such an arrangement.

 

Yes, there are all sorts of so-called "gaps" that are manifest in the term "Brethren.". It doesn't include children. it doesn't include the general male membership population. It doesn't include non-member children, women, and men. It only includes those relatively few men that God has chosen. Oh...the horror.

 

Even less inclusive is the term, Heavenly Father. What are we LDS to do?

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 2, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

There are quite a few passages that support ordination of women. But even if there weren't, good principles of justice and fairness as well as learned experience that women are just as capable leaders as men make my point for me. 

 

You may have a point were priesthood callings a function of justice, fairness, and presumed capability. It isn't. Rather, it is, as it ought to be, a function of the will of God--except perhaps in your divergent world view.

 

"But, you will see it however you need to see it. Confirmation bias demands it of you."

 

Only the people we disagree with suffer from this malady 

 

Again, you may have a point were I, like you, to trust predominately in my own thinking rather than trusting in God and his chosen spokesmen on earth.. I am not confirming my bias, but rather subjecting myself to God. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[smac97]

Thank you. I'll take this essentially as an agreement to my argument in post #370, which was my attempt to answer your request to establish the presuppositions. So you've basically satisfied your own request, at least in part.

Now I guess the next question to you would be: Do you see any gender imbalances in the church that are "not good"?

 

In terms of Church callings?  Not really.  I think the Church's organization is reflective of divine directives.  That it is not reflective of contemporary secular expectations of "equality" (read: gender quotas) does not trouble me at all.

 

Women giving prayers during General Conference?  I'm fine with that (I was quite pleased to see this change recently).

 

Women giving more talks during General Conference?  I dunno.  There is an entire session devoted to women.  The bulk of the talks are given by church leaders, and most of the leadership positions are for priesthood holders, so we end up with a de facto imbalance.  And we do get a good number of talks from women.  I am quite uncomfortable with the notions of nose counting, gender quotas, etc.  That's not what we are about.

 

Having more women on the curriculum committees of the Church?  That's a very narrow field, so gender quotas don't seem to be very feasible there.  I am fine with women on these committees.

 

Do you have any particular area of inquiry in mind?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Calm]

Ben writes:

Smac writes:
 
Quote

I do not altogether agree with that. While the Church has room for improvement in many respects, including the role of women, I think it is a significant overstatement that the voices of women in the Church "have not been heard."

I don't care whether you agree with it or not. I think that the evidence points to this.

I am actually going to disagree with Ben here.  While I do believe there can be significant room for improvement in women's voices being heard and even much needed more improvement in some form of feedback besides obvious evidence of change that they have been heard and listened to but perhaps not agreed with at this time, I do believe that women's voices have been heard in the past before this type of agitation became popular.

 

Perhaps the best example in my own life is when the shift came to allow single women of all adult ages to get their endowments even if they hadn't gone on missions.  Having a maiden aunt who went to her death in her 90s wanting to but never going to the temple with no one I know more committed and active in the faith plus having another dear friend who was married to an LDS man who had lost any desire to go to the temple though I believe he had promised her and who wanted to go on her own, but couldn't at that time, this was huge for me. Almost as big as when blacks were granted the Priesthood and access to temple blessings themselves in this life.

 

There was also the shift to seal women to multiple husbands after all were dead which as far as I know did not result from agitation (it happened recently but I don't think there was much public attention drawn to it, while I was hearing quite a bit of concern from women themselves and when I was working as a genealogist it was a big point of discussion among the women.

[Calm]

Ben, while I can see positive results as evidence that it was a good thing that something occurred and since we don't know if that good could have occurred without that specific action (we start having to play "what ifs" then), I get the "ends justifies the means" argument….but I have to admit that I am closer to Smac's position then yours. Simply because we don't know for sure change couldn't have occurred without something negative occurring, I think we can extrapolate at times reasonable scenarios and in this case I believe that change would have occurred without the extreme position currently being held by OW.

I don't interpret God and others allowing good things to come from wrong (in the sense of not being moral or in line with church doctrine...not equating morality and obedience in all areas, btw) as meaning the same thing as the ends justifies the means. Something that is wrong will still require being held accountable and repentance even if the result of that action is something beautifully good.

It may be hard to explan the nuances but perhaps the example of a family with an out of wedlock child who they love and cherish and would feel like their life would be emptier without her in it. Some people may assume it was those exact circumstances that gave them that child and to change anything is a repudiation of her so for them the ends do justify the means, for others they may believe that if something is that good in their lives, that the Lord would ensure that they would receive it even in other circumstances.

Another example would be those who like the kind of person they are so they look back on their life and say I wouldn't change a thing, even the mistakes. Otoh, there are those who assume that while environment influences us we would still be essentially the same even without the mistakes so they would gladly change things if given the chance.

I am not sure either argument or any variation between can be solved by anything beyond appealing to what one feels most comfortable with.

Edited June 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[juliann]

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.

Surely you realize that this can be turned around and said about the men demeaning these women.   If OW only wants power, then the men who denounce them can quite legitimately be painted as only wanting to keep that power for themselves.

 

There is an alarming lack of introspection in responses that merely go after one segment for asking what another already has and expects to keep. The only difference is that one segment's motives are impugned and the others' elevated....the only support seems to be a possession is 99% of the law kind of thing.

 

And saying an excommunicated member is going to magically be part of the church if the undesirable element has what the elevated element has?  Strawman in the extreme.

[juliann]

 

 

Women giving more talks during General Conference?  I dunno.  There is an entire session devoted to women.  The bulk of the talks are given by church leaders, and most of the leadership positions are for priesthood holders, so we end up with a de facto imbalance.  And we do get a good number of talks from women.  I am quite uncomfortable with the notions of nose counting, gender quotas, etc.  That's not what we are about.

 

 

 

-Smac

There is one session devoted to men. Again, what you are saying can be turned around. Assigning talks by "priesthood" is a de facto gender quota.  Women are over half of the church. They should be in leadership positions that do not require priesthood. And we do not get a good number of talks from women. It is embarrassingly low in a church that claims women are so special that they have attributes men do not. Yet those attributes are so insignificant the men do not need to learn anything from them. Surely if women are as important as the church claims, they should be seen and heard in equal numbers. If not, any claim that women are equally important and valuable are not sincere.

 

These kinds of attitudes simply cannot be sustained now that they are being examined and thoughtfully analyzed. Much better reasons will have to be constructed if the church is going to continue to relegate women to the sidelines while claiming their input is of inestimable worth.

[wenglund]

There is an alarming lack of introspection in responses that merely go after one segment for asking what another already has and expects to keep. The only difference is that one segment's motives are impugned and the others' elevated....the only support seems to be a possession is 99% of the law kind of thing.

 

The alleged mutual impugning can be avoided by taking it out of the realm of what each human party may want, and turn it over to what God may want.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Then it becomes an issue of what each human party says God desires and who you believe....even if each person seeks for revelation themselves and believes they have received it, as long as there is any conservation it will be based on human understanding and even with revelation that will vary because people are at different points of progression in their lives (and some may be highly advanced in one area but sadly lacking in another).

Unless you are suggesting that conversation by everyone should be limited to Thy Will be done and we each go off on our own attempting to fulfill that Will to the best of our abilities without ever trying to interact with others.

Edited June 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

 

But obviously, this isn't a priesthood calling is it, and while she may have a strong voice, that strong voice has zero decision making power in terms of administering the ward.

 

 

And here we have, in a nutshell, the whole reason as understood by OW supporters for having the priesthood - to wield administrative power, to be able to tell others what to do.

 

What a shallow understanding of what the priesthood is really all about.

[Calm]

And here we have, in a nutshell, the whole reason as understood by OW supporters for having the priesthood - to wield administrative power, to be able to tell others what to do.

 

What a shallow understanding of what the priesthood is really all about.

If this was the only thing they were mentioning in regards to priesthood I would agree, but they also mention giving blessings and other things associated with the Priesthood.

In church language there has been confusion between administrative power and the Priesthood in how it is presented. That these women make the same error is hardly surprising.

And the others they would like to contribute making decisions for and to be -"able to tell others what to do" include their daughters and sons.

Is it a shallow understanding of the Priesthood when men are grateful for having stewardship over others to be able to tell them what to do?