Church Pr: Open Letter On Women Issues

[Scott Lloyd]

The OW Group has apparently responded to the article being discussed in this thread: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58008349-180/women-church-ordain-otterson.html.csp

 

 

Here's the link to the actual blog posting by OW: http://ordainwomen.org/ow-response-to-public-affairs-statement/

 

At a time when many are leaving organized religion, we are encouraged that there is continued sincere interest in more deeply discussing women’s opportunities and service in our church. We are glad that Michael Otterson took the time to specifically respond to questions many LDS women have. We also appreciate that the Public Affairs Department is interacting with LDS blogs. We are proud of the women and male allies of Ordain Women who have courageously moved this conversation on gender equality in the Church forward. As the majority of Ordain Women supporters are faithful, active members of the Church, we look forward to the day when we can sit down with our leaders and discuss these issues with those we sustain to do God’s work.

Here is also a link to a Times & Seasons response to the article: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/05/a-partial-response-to-brother-otterson/

Thanks,

-Smac

 

From the Trib link:

 

 

Though she does not support Ordain Women, Julie Smith, writing for the Mormon blog Times & Seasons, said Otterson’s statement is "not a good way for Mormons to argue against ordaining women."

For one thing, the modern LDS Church "does all sorts of things that we have no evidence for from Jesus’ day, such as sending out female missionaries or authorizing women to teach in church, lead organizations, participate in the [temple] endowment, and pray publicly," Smith writes. "Jesus did not ordain anyone who wasn’t an adult, but we ordain 12-year-old boys. Jesus didn’t ordain anyone who was well-educated, but we do. Jesus didn’t ordain anyone of Asian ancestry, but we do."

 

 

 

 

I wish Julie Smith had paid more attention to the paragraph just preceding that in Otterson's letter:

 

We might wonder what the Savior’s reaction would have been had the many prominent women in his life taken such a course [making non-negotiable demands]. If Mary Magdalene, or Mary, his mother, or Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, had demanded ordination to the Twelve, had spoken publicly about their insistence and made demands such as we hear today, how would Jesus have felt, who loved them every bit as much as he loved the Twelve? Some of these women were closest to him in life and in death. One was the first mortal to witness a resurrected Being. There was nothing “lesser” about these women in his eyes.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it was so much a matter of Michael Otterson saying that the pattern during Christ's mortal ministry precludes something different happening today as it is that he was decrying the disposition to make shrill or non-negotiable demands.

 

I will also observe here that the response from Ordained Women to the Otterson letter has thus far been restrained and positive. This is, of course, to their credit.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[EllenMaksoud]

The Church has pushed out a statement from signed by Michael Otterson

 

Open Letter: Context missing from discussion about women

 

It was given to several Mormon blogs including (but likely not limited to) Mormon Women Stand, By Comment Consent, and Feminist Mormon Housewives. The latter site has deferred posting it until they could formulate a response (hence not linked).

 

I personally found a great deal in the letter which was encouraging and true. Though, not every one will feel the same way. Just making sure everybody knows about it.

Yes, the criticisms 1-3 are right on target in my estimation. There is no path of appeal for women, or perhaps men also. And, I have heard of decisions by Bishops that make me break out in a sweat.

 

I especially agree that the church associating its self with radical groups does not serve us well. Almost invariably when I talk to a member of the public about the Mormon church, they immediately want to talk about Proposition 8. Gee, I hope we never do that again.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, the criticisms 1-3 are right on target in my estimation. There is no path of appeal for women, or perhaps men also. And, I have heard of decisions by Bishops that make me break out in a sweat.

I especially agree that the church associating its self with radical groups does not serve us well. Almost invariably when I talk to a member of the public about the Mormon church, they immediately want to talk about Proposition 8. Gee, I hope we never do that again.

I think we can count on the Church in the future to continue to align itself with good, like-minded people in supporting public policy that safeguards and promotes morality, the traditional family, and other values we champion.

I heartily disagree that in supporting Prop 8, the Church was involved with radical, fringe groups -- unless that's how you regard the Catholic Church.

Whatever has been the long-term success of Prop 8, I don't for a moment regret the involvement of Latter-day Saints in promoting its passage. It was fighting the good fight.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

From the Trib link:

 

 

 

 

I wish Julie Smith had paid more attention to the paragraph just preceding that in Otterson's letter:

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think it was so much a matter of Michael Otterson saying that the pattern during Christ's mortal ministry precludes something different happening today as it is that he was decrying the disposition to make shrill or non-negotiable demands.

 

I will also observe here that the response from Ordained Women to the Otterson letter has thus far been restrained and positive. This is, of course, to their credit.

And maybe Jesus did ordain these women and confer upon them priesthood but the NT does not mention it. It is after all, the LDS position that many plain and precious truths have been lost from the biblical record.

The problem with this issue is people aren't satisfied with gender role explanations and it seems many will never be. If the priesthood was not meant for women, then why are we told women in eternity will be and are considered priestesses, goddesses and queens? If it's good enough for women to have godly power and authority in eternity then why not good enough in mortality? And if women in eternity will be endowed with godly power and authority it seems like gender role explanations are ineffective.

Are men given priesthood authority here because we are less valiant and need this time to learn and understand the priesthood while women are so much more valiant they don't need it in mortality? I fear that type of explanation is coming down the road. Meh...I feel there's something missing on this issue. Either we don't really know enough to make a good case for men only priesthood, much like are terribly embarrassing handling of the explanation for no priesthood for blacks, or we don't realize priesthood was never meant just for men.

Edited June 2, 2014 by stemelbow

[CV75]

And maybe Jesus did ordain these women and confer upon them priesthood but the NT does not mention it. It is after all, the LDS position that many plain and precious truths have been lost from the biblical record.

It seems if that were the case, He would not have mentioned it as part of the manner and pattern of ordination (men-only) described in D&C 107 (for example verses 107:16, 29, 41, 99 and related verses).

 

If the priesthood was not meant for women, then why are we told women in eternity will be and are considered priestesses, goddesses and queens?

This gets into priesthood order, not office. We are also told that men will be priests, gods and kings only if they have a priestess, goddess and queen to be it with (and vice-versa).

 

They are not elders/eldresses, priests/priestesses, deacons/deaconess; patriarchs/matriarchs, etc. in the sense of priesthood office as we use them in the earthly kingdom.

[bluebell]

And maybe Jesus did ordain these women and confer upon them priesthood but the NT does not mention it. It is after all, the LDS position that many plain and precious truths have been lost from the biblical record.

 

 

I know CV75 already touched on this, but the existence of the D&C for LDS means that we don't have to wonder if this particular truth was lost from the Bible.

 

What I mean is, other churches might be able to argue that Jesus really did want women ordained to the priesthood but that those acts and teachings were lost in time or removed from scripture.  However, because the LDS church teaches that Christ restored His church thru Joseph Smith, and told Him exactly who was to hold the priesthood and how it was to be conferred and all that, there is really no way to get around the fact that Jesus did not ever teach female ordination when the gospel and His church was restored.  The D&C does not teach female ordination, and if it had been a part of Christ's ancient church, then it is reasonable to assume it would.

 

Now that doesn't mean that that's not something that might happen in the future, or that female ordination couldn't be a part of the 'haven't yet revealed' truths of the gospel still to come (I don't personally believe that to be the case but nothing in what i'm saying precludes it's possibility).

 

But it is strong evidence against the idea that Christ has always wanted women ordained to the Priesthood, and ordained some Himself during His mortal ministry, but that that knowledge has been lost.

[stemelbow]

It seems if that were the case, He would not have mentioned it as part of the manner and pattern of ordination (men-only) described in D&C 107 (for example verses 107:16, 29, 41, 99 and related verses).

Sure, but we also don't know that this was intended to suggest no women could be ordained to the priesthood. Nor do we know the nature of how this revelation came, exactly. Perhaps God intended these verses to also mention/include women but poor Joseph didn't hear it that way. Perhaps in his mind, much like the order of his day, it seems, men were to be priests. Not women. He just didn't hear it correctly.

 

This gets into priesthood order, not office. We are also told that men will be priests, gods and kings only if they have a priestess, goddess and queen to be it with (and vice-versa).

 

They are not elders/eldresses, priests/priestesses, deacons/deaconess; patriarchs/matriarchs, etc. in the sense of priesthood office as we use them in the earthly kingdom.

Not sure how that matters. Just pointing out, it seems, that women eternally will have godly power and authority. If so, why not have it now?

[stemelbow]

I know CV75 already touched on this, but the existence of the D&C for LDS means that we don't have to wonder if this particular truth was lost from the Bible.

But it doesn't eliminate the possibility of the mistakes of men creeping into the D&C. I'm not sure we take scripture as inerrant.

 

What I mean is, other churches might be able to argue that Jesus really did want women ordained to the priesthood but that those acts and teachings were lost in time or removed from scripture.  However, because the LDS church teaches that Christ restored His church thru Joseph Smith, and told Him exactly who was to hold the priesthood and how it was to be conferred and all that, there is really no way to get around the fact that Jesus did not ever teach female ordination when the gospel and His church was restored.  The D&C does not teach female ordination, and if it had been a part of Christ's ancient church, then it is reasonable to assume it would.

I think it's a safe assumption we hold on this. I do, but I don't think the explanation works the best and that troubles me.

 

Now that doesn't mean that that's not something that might happen in the future, or that female ordination couldn't be a part of the 'haven't yet revealed' truths of the gospel still to come (I don't personally believe that to be the case but nothing in what i'm saying precludes it's possibility).

 

But it is strong evidence against the idea that Christ has always wanted women ordained to the Priesthood, and ordained some Himself during His mortal ministry, but that that knowledge has been lost.

Strong evidence? I guess we can say that. But even with that, there is possibility of error.

[bluebell]

But it doesn't eliminate the possibility of the mistakes of men creeping into the D&C. I'm not sure we take scripture as inerrant.

 

I think it's a safe assumption we hold on this. I do, but I don't think the explanation works the best and that troubles me.

 

Strong evidence? I guess we can say that. But even with that, there is possibility of error.

 

I agree there is definitely the possiblity of error.

 

However, if Christ had told JS to ordain women, and had taught that as a restoration of His gospel, JS not doing that, and not recording that, would not be an error.  It would be outright disobedience on JS's part.  

 

It would be defiance of a central commandment  and doctrine of God by His prophet.  There just isn't enough time between when the church was restored and now to interpret such a thing it any other way.

[CV75]

Not sure how that matters. Just pointing out, it seems, that women eternally will have godly power and authority. If so, why not have it now?

Women do have godly power and authority now, just not in the form of a priesthood office.

 

What priesthood office exists in exaltation?

 

Sure, but we also don't know that this was intended to suggest no women could be ordained to the priesthood. Nor do we know the nature of how this revelation came, exactly. Perhaps God intended these verses to also mention/include women but poor Joseph didn't hear it that way. Perhaps in his mind, much like the order of his day, it seems, men were to be priests. Not women. He just didn't hear it correctly.

That is precisely why we proceed based on what we know and not on what we don't know: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/power-in-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

And maybe Jesus did ordain these women and confer upon them priesthood but the NT does not mention it. It is after all, the LDS position that many plain and precious truths have been lost from the biblical record.

 

This has been responded to well by others but it is peripheral to the point I made, which was to cite Otterson's point that the women of whom we have record who were close to Jesus did not demand ordination to the priesthood while declaring that "nothing else will suffice."

 

Perhaps stemelbow is suggesting that they actually did but that record of it is part of the "plain and precious truths" that have been lost. In which case, I would respond that such a notion seems quite a stretch and strikes me as alien in character to what has been preserved for us about these women in the Biblical record.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

I agree there is definitely the possiblity of error.

However, if Christ had told JS to ordain women, and had taught that as a restoration of His gospel, JS not doing that, and not recording that, would not be an error. It would be outright disobedience on JS's part.

It would be defiance of a central commandment and doctrine of God by His prophet. There just isn't enough time between when the church was restored and now to interpret such a thing it any other way.

IMO, Joseph did try to do that and it was usurped by BY, just as giving blacks the PH was.

[stemelbow]

I agree there is definitely the possiblity of error.

 

However, if Christ had told JS to ordain women, and had taught that as a restoration of His gospel, JS not doing that, and not recording that, would not be an error.  It would be outright disobedience on JS's part.  

 

It would be defiance of a central commandment  and doctrine of God by His prophet.  There just isn't enough time between when the church was restored and now to interpret such a thing it any other way.

Fair point. It is probably also to point out, that it might not have occurred to Joseph right off the bat. Perhaps later in his life we began to learn and take steps toward ordaining women. Not sure that can be argued well, but its not like it's not possible.

[stemelbow]

Women do have godly power and authority now, just not in the form of a priesthood office.

 

What priesthood office exists in exaltation?

 

That is precisely why we proceed based on what we know and not on what we don't know: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/power-in-the-priesthood?lang=eng

what godly power and authority do women have now? I'd probably agree but not sure what you're thinking.

[bluebell]

IMO, Joseph did try to do that and it was usurped by BY, just as giving blacks the PH was.

Can you give us some evidence that supports the idea that JS tried to ordain women to the priesthood?

[CV75]

what godly power and authority do women have now? I'd probably agree but not sure what you're thinking.

In no particular order: the power and authority that come with bearing and raising children, standing as a witness of God in all times and places, moral authority, temple covenants and sealing (and in some cases service), forming a council in partnership with her husband, heading the family council with her husband.

 

There are a lot more in here, and better expressed: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/the-moral-force-of-women?lang=eng

[Tacenda]

Can you give us some evidence that supports the idea that JS tried to ordain women to the priesthood?

c/p from a google search.  I knew I had read something from Quinn stating it.  I believe JS wanted to ordain women but it was stopped. 

 

"The confusion of priesthood office with priesthood has characterized many contemporary discussions of women and priesthood," Quinn wrote.

It wasn't until the 20th century that Mormon leaders completely backed away from the idea that women held the priesthood, Quinn said. In doing so, they relied on official histories that deleted evidence or changed meanings in "documents which were detailed and explicit in their original form."

Still, for nearly 100 years after Smith's death in 1844, Mormon women were authorized to perform the priesthood function of healing other women by anointing and blessing.

The issue is further complicated by the Mormon belief in continuing revelation from God to Mormon prophets. That principle was cited in 1978 when then-President Spencer W. Kimball lifted a ban against black males holding the priesthood.

More than half of Quinn's 44-page essay in a book, "Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism" comprises notes on sources. The volume, edited by Maxine Hanks and published by Signature Books, has 16 other contributors.

Two weeks before Smith organized the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Ill., in 1842, he told the women that "the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and he was "going to make this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day."

Much later, in printing the official minutes of Smith's remarks, the official "History of the Church" omitted Smith's first use of the word "Society" and changed the second "Society" to "Church."

"Those two alterations changed the entire meaning of his statement," said Quinn, a former Brigham Young University historian who is writing a history of the church hierarchy.

By the early 1880s, death had claimed all of Smith's contemporaries, including Brigham Young, who at various times had affirmed that the temple endowment conferred priesthood on women.

Later church leaders taught that women held priesthood authority only in concert with their husbands. By 1921 church apostles were maintaining women merely "enjoy the blessings of the priesthood through their husbands."

Edited June 2, 2014 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

"The confusion of priesthood office with priesthood has characterized many contemporary discussions of women and priesthood," Quinn wrote.

It wasn't until the 20th century that Mormon leaders completely backed away from the idea that women held the priesthood, Quinn said. In doing so, they relied on official histories that deleted evidence or changed meanings in "documents which were detailed and explicit in their original form."

Still, for nearly 100 years after Smith's death in 1844, Mormon women were authorized to perform the priesthood function of healing other women by anointing and blessing.

The issue is further complicated by the Mormon belief in continuing revelation from God to Mormon prophets. That principle was cited in 1978 when then-President Spencer W. Kimball lifted a ban against black males holding the priesthood.

More than half of Quinn's 44-page essay in a book, "Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism" comprises notes on sources. The volume, edited by Maxine Hanks and published by Signature Books, has 16 other contributors.

Two weeks before Smith organized the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Ill., in 1842, he told the women that "the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and he was "going to make this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day."

Much later, in printing the official minutes of Smith's remarks, the official "History of the Church" omitted Smith's first use of the word "Society" and changed the second "Society" to "Church."

"Those two alterations changed the entire meaning of his statement," said Quinn, a former Brigham Young University historian who is writing a history of the church hierarchy.

By the early 1880s, death had claimed all of Smith's contemporaries, including Brigham Young, who at various times had affirmed that the temple endowment conferred priesthood on women.

Later church leaders taught that women held priesthood authority only in concert with their husbands. By 1921 church apostles were maintaining women merely "enjoy the blessings of the priesthood through their husbands."

 

No one is arguing that women's roles in the church have changed over time or that the church's understanding of how women use the power of the priesthood hasn't changed.

 

What I would like to see though is evidence that JS ordained women to the priesthood, or tried to, as that is what you have asserted.  

[Tacenda]

No one is arguing that women's roles in the church have changed over time or that the church's understanding of how women use the power of the priesthood hasn't changed.

 

What I would like to see though is evidence that JS ordained women to the priesthood, or tried to, as that is what you have asserted.  

  

Two weeks before Smith organized the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Ill., in 1842, he told the women that "the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and he was "going to make this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day."

Much later, in printing the official minutes of Smith's remarks, the official "History of the Church" omitted Smith's first use of the word "Society" and changed the second "Society" to "Church."

"Those two alterations changed the entire meaning of his statement," said Quinn, a former Brigham Young University historian who is writing a history of the church hierarchy.

By the early 1880s, death had claimed all of Smith's contemporaries, including Brigham Young, who at various times had affirmed that the temple endowment conferred priesthood on women.

Later church leaders taught that women held priesthood authority only in concert with their husbands. By 1921 church apostles were maintaining women merely "enjoy the blessings of the priesthood through their husbands."

[bluebell]

Two weeks before Smith organized the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Ill., in 1842, he told the women that "the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and he was "going to make this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day."

Much later, in printing the official minutes of Smith's remarks, the official "History of the Church" omitted Smith's first use of the word "Society" and changed the second "Society" to "Church."

"Those two alterations changed the entire meaning of his statement," said Quinn, a former Brigham Young University historian who is writing a history of the church hierarchy.

By the early 1880s, death had claimed all of Smith's contemporaries, including Brigham Young, who at various times had affirmed that the temple endowment conferred priesthood on women.

Later church leaders taught that women held priesthood authority only in concert with their husbands. By 1921 church apostles were maintaining women merely "enjoy the blessings of the priesthood through their husbands."

 

The RS was organized in 1842.  JS was killed in 1844.  He had 2 years to ordain women to the priesthood if those quotes mean that's what he intended to do.

 

If you are asserting that the above quotes prove that JS tried to ordain women to the priesthood, why didn't he actually do it?

[Storm Rider]

Two weeks before Smith organized the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Ill., in 1842, he told the women that "the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and he was "going to make this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day."

Much later, in printing the official minutes of Smith's remarks, the official "History of the Church" omitted Smith's first use of the word "Society" and changed the second "Society" to "Church."

"Those two alterations changed the entire meaning of his statement," said Quinn, a former Brigham Young University historian who is writing a history of the church hierarchy.

By the early 1880s, death had claimed all of Smith's contemporaries, including Brigham Young, who at various times had affirmed that the temple endowment conferred priesthood on women.

Later church leaders taught that women held priesthood authority only in concert with their husbands. By 1921 church apostles were maintaining women merely "enjoy the blessings of the priesthood through their husbands."

 

Quinn does this kind of deduction pretty consistently.  The problem is that at no time during Joseph Smith's life did he ever act like the sister's would preside in a priesthood role.  What he did do is make it clear that the male is not without the female and vice-versa; together they are one i.e. they are not whole without the other.  There will always be something significantly lacking.  

 

Joseph was pretty good about clarifying proper meanings. It is one of the reasons that I always appreciated the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon; his last edits which we did not begin to use as a Church until the 1980s.  

 

It is a stretch to state that Joseph wanted to organize the women in priesthood roles and have them preside in the Church hierarchy.  I really don't know why God and prophets do this way of assigning responsibilities on such a wide range of qualities.  Yet, I know when I see or hear something that is true.  There is a simplicity and a "fit" that works.  I realize this sounds childish and very unenlightened, but as I strive to understand God and his will I have concluded that there will be somethings I don't need to understand.  I don't understand how snow flakes are so unique, but they still amaze me when I take the time to look at them.  They may appear incredibly complex on inspection, but it never stops them from falling. 

[EllenMaksoud]

I think we can count on the Church in the future to continue to align itself with good, like-minded people in supporting public policy that safeguards and promotes morality, the traditional family, and other values we champion.

I heartily disagree that in supporting Prop 8, the Church was involved with radical, fringe groups -- unless that's how you regard the Catholic Church.

Whatever has been the long-term success of Prop 8, I don't for a moment regret the involvement of Latter-day Saints in promoting its passage. It was fighting the good fight.

You are judging me for comments on a subject that you perhaps have little knowledge of.  There are lots of good Mormons who know there will be further developments in these issues. More and more I am seeing the elderly medically evaluated to determine their cognitive abilities and the results of those tests being used to determine the future of their driving license. Things will change when those or more advanced tests will be used to determine a person's ability to make their own decisions to lead. I look at this with some trepidation because of my own age. This Sunday I drove a woman home who had just lost her license as a result of these tests.

 

Further, those without an issue have been allowed to determine the path and future of those with issues that "someone" has said to be a sign of moral decline. How smug of them. I know far too many good solid Mormons whose children or siblings have come out as gay or what ever. I wonder how the shoe fits now? Pinches a bit does it?

 

I am not saying that churches should become the site of homosexual orgies, but I am saying that it is high time that the devout become more devout and dedicated to finding solutions and helping those who suffer.

 

May you not be judged for your unkind attitude.

Edited June 2, 2014 by EllenMaksoud

[stemelbow]

In no particular order: the power and authority that come with bearing and raising children,

There is something grand about this no doubt, but every woman has that. Any woman can bear a child, unless otherwise constituted, and every woman can raise a child, unless exceptionally incapable.

standing as a witness of God in all times and places,

Standing as a witness is not power and authority. Anyone can witness and stand, for that matter.

moral authority,

Not sure what you mean by this.

temple covenants and sealing (and in some cases service),

Not sure what you mean by this either.

As aloud by forming a council in partnership with her husband,

really not sure what you mean by this.

heading the family council with her husband.

I think we have different ideas of what is meant by authority officially given of God. This is granted to every woman.

 

There are a lot more in here, and better expressed: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/the-moral-force-of-women?lang=eng

hm.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not saying that churches should become the site of homosexual orgies, but I am saying that it is high time that the devout become more devout and dedicated to finding solutions and helping those who suffer.

Doing this does not require the acceptance of immoral public policy.

 

 

May you not be judged for your unkind attitude.

 

In judging my attitude as "unkind," you have just passed unrighteous judgment yourself.

[EllenMaksoud]

Doing this does not require the acceptance of immoral public policy.

 

In judging my attitude as "unkind," you have just passed unrighteous judgment yourself.

If you are offended, I apologize. Your attitude hurt me. What am I to do with that?