The Ongoing Impact Of Ordain Women

[rockpond]

I have a strong distaste for OW and Ms. KK because their/her methods are vile to me; they reek of self-aggrandizement, selfishness, and ego.  They are qualities I find repugnant in any individual regardless of gender.

 

Interesting.  I feel the same about your post.

 

While I feel that the group became too extreme, I think it's still important to try to understand where they were coming from.  When I do that, I feel more sympathy & sorrow.

[why me]

The problem with OW is in the name. It makes it an one issue group. And this issue cannot succeed because of social pressure but because of revelation. This will make the group irrelevant in the future. How far can a group with the name OrdainWomen go in the church? Not very far. This is why lds women need a more broad based name for an organization that would represent women. Also, there is nothing wrong with women having more voice or responsibility in the church. This does not depend on revelation but on modifications. However, OW will always be a marginalized group based on its social politics and what it wishes to accomplish.

 

One cannot claim that OW is responsible for what is happening now with women in the church since OW is basically concerned about women receiving the priesthood. And this is now off the table and will be for quite some time.

[tonie]

The problem with OW is in the name. It makes it an one issue group. And this issue cannot succeed because of social pressure but because of revelation. This will make the group irrelevant in the future. How far can a group with the name OrdainWomen go in the church? Not very far. This is why lds women need a more broad based name for an organization that would represent women. Also, there is nothing wrong with women having more voice or responsibility in the church. This does not depend on revelation but on modifications. However, OW will always be a marginalized group based on its social politics and what it wishes to accomplish.

Like Relief Society, "a divinely established appendage to the priesthood". Women do not need another group, the resources are already their. Personal agendas make up groups when there is a more than sufficient group already in place.

One cannot claim that OW is responsible for what is happening now with women in the church since OW is basically concerned about women receiving the priesthood. And this is now off the table and will be for quite some time.

I think this is quite short sighted. Do you think it just a random thing that the Church has sent out this survey asking about apostasy? Has there been a recent event about apostasy which is also unrelated to OW?

[why me]

Images of the survey from the Church regarding the activity around Ordain Women.

 

http://mormonstories.org/how-the-lds-church-does-marketing-research-around-progressive-issues/

 

It seems that the OW group is having some amount of impact and/or someone is paying attention.

I have read the comments section of the link. It seems that john has quite a following of disaffected exmember and members. I saw very few positive comments about the church. This shows just who the followers of john are and who is listening to him and why. The problem is that this survey can be interpreted as a positive that the church is listening and concerned about the well being of members. But the comment section shows just how people are using this survey as proof that the church is false and how it does not have prophets, seers or revelators. John's followers seem to be rallying and supporting each other in helping each other stay out of the church.

 

This would be the same reaction if women received the priesthood. The same people would use it to show that the church does not have prophets but is influenced by social pressure and give confirmation to them about why they left the church. I remember bringing this up months ago. Exmembers and critics within the lds church would not return to the fold if women got the priesthood. In fact, it would only confirm their feeling that the church was not true. It would help them in their confirmation or what they do actually believe about the church already.

[why me]

Like Relief Society, "a divinely established appendage to the priesthood". Women do not need another group, the resources are already their. Personal agendas make up groups when there is a more than sufficient group already in place.

I think this is quite short sighted. Do you think it just a random thing that the Church has sent out this survey asking about apostasy? Has there been a recent event about apostasy which is also unrelated to OW?

We do know that there are groups outside the official organizations of the lds church that were formed to dialogue about the issue. This is what I was referring to. OW because of its name will always be marginalized. There is nothing wrong with discussing gender issues and the church but the name of such an organization cannot be seen to be challenging doctrine etc. Relief Society was not formed for such a forum within the church.

 

I think that the church is concerned about the feelings of women in the church because they want them to feel included. But I don't think that the church is concerned with OW. Most women know that the church is run mainly through revelation and the holy spirit. We should see such a survey in a positive way and not make hay about it showing that the church is bowing to social pressure or as many of the comments in the link state that the church is not run by prophets, seers and revelators.

Edited August 15, 2014 by why me

[Storm Rider]

Interesting.  I feel the same about your post.

 

While I feel that the group became too extreme, I think it's still important to try to understand where they were coming from.  When I do that, I feel more sympathy & sorrow.

 

It is interesting how things can be so mutual.  Strange, as in funny, but not unusual.  

 

When individuals are extreme in their position and in their methods I find that there are too many other things in the world to occupy my time, my thoughts, and my efforts.  Some may feel the need to chase after the loudest, most grating noise in the junkyard; I am not one of them.  The most it does is cause me to distance myself from them in all ways.  I don't think my sympathy is needed or warranted.  However, I realize that it takes all kinds to make the world go round and I am glad that you feel compelled to listen to those that screech the loudest.  As long as it works for you, knock yourself out and the rest of us will do the same with our other pursuits.  

[rockpond]

It is interesting how things can be so mutual.  Strange, as in funny, but not unusual.  

 

When individuals are extreme in their position and in their methods I find that there are too many other things in the world to occupy my time, my thoughts, and my efforts.  Some may feel the need to chase after the loudest, most grating noise in the junkyard; I am not one of them.  The most it does is cause me to distance myself from them in all ways.  I don't think my sympathy is needed or warranted.  However, I realize that it takes all kinds to make the world go round and I am glad that you feel compelled

to listen to those that screech the loudest.  As long as it works for you, knock yourself out and the rest of us will do the same with our other pursuits.  

 

In the beginning, I did not find them to be extreme, grating, or screeching.  And I was interested in hearing the point they were making.

[Calm]

I think it will die out. They went too far to maintain enough support within the active LDS community. (Just my opinion.)

And have only taken it farther in my opinion in reaction to the excommunication of Kelly. Very few Mormon women in my experience even when they have experienced oppression from men and other women and unfortunately church leaders would see terms of violence being applied to these actions. It has turned the tables for me in that I see those claiming abuse at the hands of others being quite manipulative and bullying themselves...and while I can see and sympathise with choosing to go the public route because they felt they weren't getting the attention the issues observed, I cannot sympathise with any justification to attempt to publicly humiliate and ostracise good women and men trying to do their job in difficult situations with little to no positive recognition of their efforts to build bridges unless it could be used to forward the agitators' agenda.

And the throwaway line to raise hell in Church if you stay shows a distinct lack of awareness of community language and dynamic given the point of our existence is to create a Zion community of which hell is the complete opposite. Whether it is indifferent ignorance or intentional maliciousness to invoke such an image, it was ultimately profoundly stupid. For those who delight in it as a rallying cry, they will be seen as the immature and unaware of the spiritual community they are now trying to dominate through rebelliousness.

For the sake of the movement, they should let OW die. The negative way overwhelms the positive for all involved from what I've seen. Ower supporters are angrier at the Church and talk more of leaving or causing scenes than seeking constructive ways to mend burnt bridges. Those who rejected OW see their rejection as compleltely justified by the way KK has approached her public last act as a member...the removal of the right to call herself that.

IMO if those involved want to be effective as insiders and not as outsiders pushing change by seeing how miserable they have to make LDS be before they listen to them, they should step back, allow for a cooling off time during which they put their efforts into coming up with an approach that can be seen by members as much more inclusive, more adaptable, more about making life here and now better than pushing for the gigantic cure all approach of ordination which would in reality simply IMO create a whole new set of problems since it is more the attitudes getting in the way of things than the doctrine. If we lived at the level of our current doctrine in our home, wards and councils we might be a Zion community already. I think Sharon Eubank's talk made this clear. We need to make the Zion council type the default approach rather than less common as it is apparently now and so dependent on a bishop's inclination and whether women and men are comfortable speaking up. If everyone goes into a council knowing what the ideal is meant to be, women won't be hesitant on speaking up. A bishop who micromanages will find it too difficult given that everyone else functions on a higher level and he will most likely alter his way at least some...and training will underline over and over again how it is supposed to be done so unwritten rules will not find fertile ground to take root in etc.

We need efforts to educate, not agitate, that is where change will really happen.

Edited August 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

In the beginning, I did not find them to be extreme, grating, or screeching.  And I was interested in hearing the point they were making.

 

rockpond, each of us have many things in common and yet each is different.  You have a "listening" for things I don't and vice-versa.  Extreme, grating, or screeching are relative terms; for those things that are of interest to you it will take a lot before you will begin to find someone or something grating.  For another individual, a communication/demand/etc, quickly becomes grating, extreme, and even screeching.  

 

We each have different tolerance levels for different messages, methods, etc.  There is little value in pointing out that you did not find Ms. KK message grating; it does not make you better or worse than any other individual.  It means just what you said; you did not find their message extreme, grating, or screeching at first.  

 

If a group, any group, informs the Church they are showing up and the Church responds that is not advisable; if a group demands a change and nothing will be acceptable except that they obtain their objective; these things are grating and extreme.  I don't care what the message is; I am an individual that does not appreciate such delivery, or process, or method.  All that indicates is that I am different from you.  One is not better than the other; there is no value judgment; it is just different.  

 

While I appreciate you sharing that my comments cause you a visceral reaction; it is a meaningless communication for me.  I acknowledge your position and move on with an understanding that we have different interests, different objectives; and different preferred methods of communication.  We are just different.  

[Erin15]

I think this is a false dichotomy, Erin. One that basically shuts down important dialogue for maintaining the status quo. I don't agree with OW, but I don't agree that marking the need for change in terms of concerns of gender and women with more equitable roles is vying for position and prestige.

With luv,

BD

Equitable roles?

The church is a place for people to come together to serve God and serve each other. To set aside what we want and submit to His will.

I would say even introducing the concept of equitable roles illustrates a profound misalignment of focus and priority.

A disciple's focus is on helping the people she is called to serve, and discovering how to fulfill her calling more fully.

The minute a person serving God looks up and wonders if she would prefer serving in another capacity is the minute she has lost sight of the goal, which is to do His will, not hers.

Besides the very concept of equity should be irrelevant. The eternal rewards for faithful service are identical regardless of the calling. A faithful visiting teacher and a faithful Bishop are given the same level of blessings.

What is important to The Lord is that we serve willingly and obediently where He has called us. Fretting about whether or not we should be given higher earthly praise and prestige is wholly incompatible with the very spirit of discipleship He asks us to have.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Erin15

[MormonFreeThinker]

. 

Edited August 15, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[CV75]

I think that OW was a significant (but not the only) social pressure that caused the issue to come to a head.

 

And, I'll state again so nobody thinks I am an OW supporter -- I do not agree with all the methods they used.

It depends on the scope of significance.  OW is certainly significant to those who are influenced by it. I do not think the prophets, seers and revelators are influenced on women’s issues by OW. On the other hand, I think it is rather clear that OW is very much influenced by the broader popular / societal milieu while the prophets, seers and revelators are very much influenced to counter it.

 

In addressing women’s issues, I think the prophets, seers and revelators allow themselves to be influenced in that they listen and hear in a spiritual sense, and prayerfully discuss, ponder and consider the voices and messages of those who are more inclined to communicate in constructive ways and means. They have been doing this on women’s issues for years, and I don’t think the loudest, most vocal or the most extreme voices get this kind of attention or lead to the responses of the kinds the Church has implemented. They cut themselves out of the process.

 

I see OW as a catalyst for discussion about OW, not about women’s issues.

 

I think those who draw a direct correlation between OW and the posted survey are missing how the Church operates (and has been operating) and how futile some approaches are in influencing and motivating the prophets, seers and revelators. I’m sure the Church, in typical fashion, would have followed up with surveys on women’s issues with or without OW’s limited significance.

[rpn]

In order to complete the survey, the recipient had to agree not to take screen shots of it and not to talk about it.   So the fact of screenshots and discussion means that someone took the survey under false pretenses and/or didn't keep their word. 

[rockpond]

There is little value in pointing out that you did not find Ms. KK message grating; it does not make you better or worse than any other individual.  

 

You shared some fairly harsh words about fellow members of our church.  Some of those thoughts could be justified.  I acknowledge that for you, they certainly are.  But I felt there was value in sharing a counterpoint.  It wasn't a statement of superiority, just dialogue.

[rockpond]

In order to complete the survey, the recipient had to agree not to take screen shots of it and not to talk about it.   So the fact of screenshots and discussion means that someone took the survey under false pretenses and/or didn't keep their word. 

 

Does that mean you were a recipient?  And does that kind of secrecy coming from the Church not bother you at all?

[rodheadlee]

I'm sorry I just can't get past the comments on John's site or the SLC Trib, I don't think I can bother to read either one for any length of time. It's always the same people saying the same degrading things as if they were the truth.

 

On another note where do people find the time for all of this dissent? Don't they have jobs? Or are they posting from work? Yeah that would go over big with my boss. Thou  shalt not steal includes stealing your employer's time.

[Storm Rider]

When it is my game then I set the rules and if you don't want to play, pass.  When it is your game and you set up rules of participation, then they are your rules.  If I don't like them, I pass.  The dishonest, ignore your rules, participate under false pretenses and then immediately begin to undermine your rules.  Does it both you when people don't play by your rules and when they change the game because they prefer it differently even though their way destroys your game?  

 

Why would anyone be bothered that another has taken the time and effort to set up a social organization for those interested in participating?  If you want to participate, then do so and obey the rules.  If you don't like the rules don't be dishonest and live under false pretenses.  Either obey or pass.

 

Why do people want to be dishonest or participate under false pretenses?  It is just odd that there is a segment of society that prefers to be dishonest rather than just admit "this" is not for me; I pass and move on.  

[rockpond]

When it is my game then I set the rules and if you don't want to play, pass.  When it is your game and you set up rules of participation, then they are your rules.  If I don't like them, I pass.  The dishonest, ignore your rules, participate under false pretenses and then immediately begin to undermine your rules.  Does it both you when people don't play by your rules and when they change the game because they prefer it differently even though their way destroys your game?  

 

Why would anyone be bothered that another has taken the time and effort to set up a social organization for those interested in participating?  If you want to participate, then do so and obey the rules.  If you don't like the rules don't be dishonest and live under false pretenses.  Either obey or pass.

 

Why do people want to be dishonest or participate under false pretenses?  It is just odd that there is a segment of society that prefers to be dishonest rather than just admit "this" is not for me; I pass and move on.  

 

I'm confused at how this post relates to the conversation at hand.  What social organization are you talking about?

[Erin15]

My ward (in Provo) is, by a significant majority, unaware that OW exists.

Thanks,

-Smac

My experience is the same.

I would say that among active LDS OW has had an impact so close to zero it might as well be zero.

KK kicked herself out of the kingdom, threw away her blessings, and the work goes on without her.

I pray that one day she will repent and return. But, even if she never does, the work will roll forward regardless.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Erin15

[rockpond]

My experience is the same.

I would say that among active LDS OW has had an impact so close to zero it might as well be zero.

 

And you have survey data to back up this statement?

 

It seems that the church feels there may have been enough of an impact that they want to study it with a survey.

[Erin15]

And you have survey data to back up this statement?.

Do I require survey data to back up my personal experience and conclusion?

It feels like your desire for OW to be relevant is leading you to be obtuse.

I'm sorry if the reality offends you, but in my experience OW wasn't even a blip on the radar among active LDS people.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Erin15

[thesometimesaint]

I'm sorry I just can't get past the comments on John's site or the SLC Trib, I don't think I can bother to read either one for any length of time. It's always the same people saying the same degrading things as if they were the truth.

 

On another note where do people find the time for all of this dissent? Don't they have jobs? Or are they posting from work? Yeah that would go over big with my boss. Thou  shalt not steal includes stealing your employer's time.

 

I'm retired. My time is my own.

[wenglund]

I will be interested to see whether the pride-driven actions of OW may have more or less of an impact on the Church over the long run than the humility-driven actions of certain prominent women in the Bible (Ruth, Ester, Mary, etc.) and past and present Relief Society Presidencies. My guess is that humility will most often fare better than pride. (like I said on another thread, it amazes me how many members these days think they and their pop cultural icons know better than God and his chosen leaders what is best for the kingdom.)

 

Frankly, I see more coming spontaneously out of Sharon Eubanks' FAIR Conference presentation than generated by the uber-hyped efforts of OW, particularly in the way of good for women 

 

But, that may just be me.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

"OW is very much influenced by the broader popular / societal milieu while the prophets, seers and revelators are very much influenced to counter it."

I trust that our leaders are able to discern the good that is there in society as well as the bad and therefore don't fell driven to reject or "counter it" wholesale.

[stemelbow]

Frankly, I see more coming spontaneously out of Sharon Eubanks' FAIR Conference presentation than generated by the uber-hyped efforts of OW, particularly in the way of good for women 

 

But, that may just be me.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Its not a competition if any good results from both or either than great.