Kate Kelly Lost Appeal To First Presidency. Her Husband Is Resigning From The Church

[smac97]

If the sisters (or brothers) were happy* with the current state of affairs in the Church, that would be a mistake and ignore the counsel from the Brethren.

I think people can be generally "happy" with the condition of the Church and yet still recognize that it has ways in which it can improve. I don't much care for the alternative mindset of grievance mongering and perpetual faultfinding that permeates much of the rest of our our socio-cultural-political landscape. Such an alternative mindset leads to unseemly negativism.

I also do not think the Brethren have instructed the members of the church to not be happy with the condition of the Church.

* The difference of opinion could well be a quantitative difference on what "happy" means.

Yes, I think you have a point here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

I don't much care for the alternative mindset of grievance mongering and perpetual faultfinding that permeates much of the rest of our our socio-cultural-political landscape. Such an alternative mindset leads to unseemly negativism.

I agree. Both you and I could probably provide plenty of examples of such "unseemly negativism". Definitely unfortunate, to put it mildly. Sometimes, however, the faithful will take an extreme position on the other end to counter the extreme criticism/negativity (and it is perhaps how I read your comment at first until I stepped back a bit). Kind of like deliberately asking for a low, low price so that when bargaining/haggling one comes back to the price one would be fine with in the first place. I see that happen on this board frequently -- but it is a dialectic technique I am not at all fond of.

[smac97]

I agree. Both you and I could probably provide plenty of examples of such "unseemly negativism". Definitely unfortunate, to put it mildly. Sometimes, however, the faithful will take an extreme position on the other end to counter the extreme criticism/negativity (and it is perhaps how I read your comment at first until I stepped back a bit).

I've never viewed my devotion to the Church as "extreme" (as in "exceeding the bounds of moderation") or overzealous. Rather, my devotion to the Church is more aptly described as being comparable to the devotion I have to my family.   I have previously described it this way:

 

I disagree with your sweeping statement that there "is nothing wrong with being critical." Yes, there is. Criticism can be misplaced. It can be based in inappropriate motives. It can be excessive. It can be based on faulty data or just differences of opinion. It can be expressed in inappropriate ways and circumstances.

A few nights ago I had a run-in with my rather strong-willed 11-year old son. I was attempting to correct his behavior, but it became apparent that I was not doing it well. Later that night, I spoke with my wife privately, and she pointed out what I had done wrong. She was free with her criticism, and I in fact requested it. I spoke with my son the next day, explained that I had spoken with his mother, that we had discussed my remarks and had determined that I needed to apologize to him. My son, ever the forgiving soul, freely forgave me.

There could have been several ways my wife's criticism of me could have gone badly. I think a wife openly criticizing her husband's parenting skills (or vice versa) in front of the children can undermine parental authority, can also create divisiveness in the family, can create in the children a sense of competing loyalties, etc. Instead, my wife waited until the appropriate moment (involving privacy and a contrite husband) to voice her criticisms. I was grateful that we had that discussion privately rather than in front of the children, and that my wife and I have a relationship wherein I love her, she loves me, we both know of each other's affection, and we are equal partners in the parenting of our children.

I can't help but compare this experience to the repellant comments being made against the Brethren and the Church by some of the women who want the priesthood.

 

And here:

 

I think, when discussing the propriety of public criticism, the Church is more comparably situated to a family or self-selected community, or perhaps even an employer. Right-minded husbands who have disagreements with their wives do not do their marriages any favors by publicly criticizing and berating their wives, publicly demanding that their wives alter their behavior, publicly trying to put their wives in a negative light, etc. The same, of course, can be said for how wives handle disagreements with their husbands, how siblings handle disagreements, and so forth. You don't "air the family's dirty laundry," so to speak.

The same goes with an employer, who should rightly expect some measure of loyalty and discretion from its employees. That is not to say that an employee cannot or should not voice concerns, only that they should not employ public adversarial tactics. "Biting the hand that feeds you" is the phrase that comes to mind.

Even with secular government, adversarial PR campaigns have limited utility. Public officials can be willing to listen to their constituents, and will probably be more attentive if the complaining constituent does not utilize public pressure tactics designed to make the officials look bad. "Honey attracts more flies than vinegar."

I do not think it is appropriate for observant members of the LDS Church to publicly criticize the doctrines of the Church.

I approach the Church the same way as I do my wife. My wife is a magnificent, albeit flawed, person. She deserves my allegiance, fidelity and devotion, and I will not undermine her or my relationship with her by publicizing the particulars of her occasional missteps to strangers (or, worse, to those who might seek to exploit such information to tear her down). Similarly, the LDS Church also deserves my allegiance, fidelity and devotion, and I will not seek to undermine it or my relationship with it by publicizing the particulars of its occasional missteps to strangers or enemies.

 

Kind of like deliberately asking for a low, low price so that when bargaining/haggling one comes back to the price one would be fine with in the first place. I see that happen on this board frequently -- but it is a dialectic technique I am not at all fond of.

I understand that. Similarly, I am not fond of the armchair quarterbacking-type public faultfinding I sometimes see on this board by members of the Church against the Brethren they supposedly "sustain" and the institution they supposedly believe to have been established and led by God.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6, 2015 by smac97

[ksfisher]

I approach the Church the same way as I do my wife. My wife is a magnificent, albeit flawed, person. She deserves my allegiance, fidelity and devotion, and I will not undermine her or my relationship with her by publicizing the particulars of her occasional missteps to strangers (or, worse, to those who might seek to exploit such information to tear her down). Similarly, the LDS Church also deserves my allegiance, fidelity and devotion, and I will not seek to undermine it or my relationship with it by publicizing the particulars of its occasional missteps to strangers or enemies.

 

 

 

I like these thoughts.  I've made it a point in my marriage to never say anything negative about my wife to anyone.  I feel it's the least she deserves.

[Calm]

 the faithful will take an extreme position on the other end to counter the extreme criticism/negativity

 

I've never viewed my devotion to the Church as "extreme" (as in "exceeding the bounds of moderation") or overzealous. 

You two seem to be talking about two different things.

 

Nofear seems to be talking about taking a particular position (that may in fact be inaccurate) in response to what may be viewed as an attack on the Church, you seem to be talking about an attitude towards the Church in general, as in saying something is very black in reponse to an accusation that something is completely white.

 

An example might be in response to a claim that Church leaders constantly lie, holding forth that not only is that wrong but they are the most trustworthy individuals one has ever known, etc (not saying this is inaccurate, a more extreme position might be that everything the Church has ever published has been accurate and completely truthful…no exceptions added such as 'to the best of their ability' or similar qualifiers that admit possible unintentional error).

 

Whether or not it is extreme to refrain from publicly criticizing leaders seems to be a different issue to me.

Edited March 6, 2015 by calmoriah

[Nofear]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting *you* were extreme smac97. Sorry if it came across that way. And I agree that there is a big difference between being critical of the Church and being cognizant of useful or even necessary changes.

[smac97]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting *you* were extreme smac97. Sorry if it came across that way. And I agree that there is a big difference between being critical of the Church and being cognizant of useful or even necessary changes.

Thanks for the clarification. We're all good!

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

I think that many would be gone. The shock would be too much and if the priesthood was more or less mandatory like it is for males, they would absolute hate it. It would be a disaster because women are not ready for such a challenge and neither are the men. And if it were seen as coming from social pressure it would be even worse. It is not about fairweather but it is about sensibility.

The concept itself I am open to.  God can give the Priesthood to cats and dogs if he wants to.  It is not for us to place a restriction on what God does.  OW however has poisoned the issue.  If the Church was to give the priesthood now to women, it would be widely claimed and probably rightly so by members and those that go against the Church that the Church caved in by social pressure.  The Church would really have to work hard at stating that the change was not due in anyway to OW or outside influence but that is what God wanted.  It would be hard to do at this time as the timing would be too hard deny a connection.  That would be my big problem and I probably would not personally recognize it.  Meaning I would not take part in any priesthood function with women.  I would have to withdraw myself from it. If God has ever thought about giving it to women in 2015 or 2016, OW probably has forced a delay of perhaps 20 years to allow the Church to distance itself from OW.

[smac97]

The concept itself I am open to.

Same here.

OW however has poisoned the issue.  If the Church was to give the priesthood now to women, it would be widely claimed and probably rightly so by members and those that go against the Church that the Church caved in by social pressure.

I don't think the Church would ever "cave" on a doctrinal issue. Polygamy wasn't abandoned because "the Church caved." It was abandoned because God told us to do so. Frankly, I'm not sure I would characterize such a think as "caving" to social pressure, since God is the one doing it. When God told Joseph to take Mary and Joseph and flee into Egypt, He was not "caving" to social pressure. When God inspired Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to take the Saints West, He was not "caving" to social pressure. And when God commanded Wilford Woodruff to have the Church cease the practice of polygamy, He was not "caving" to social pressure.

The Church would really have to work hard at stating that the change was not due in anyway to OW or outside influence but that is what God wanted.  It would be hard to do at this time as the timing would be too hard deny a connection.

You are probably right. This is one of the many considerations that has led me to think that the OW group is either profoundly stupid (in that they do not realize how they have poisoned the very issue they claim to hold so dear and put the Church in such a posture as to almost compel it to rebuff the OW group's demands) or profoundly Machiavellian (that they do realize how they have poisoned the issue, and that they intended to force the Church into a no-win situation). Somehow, I think most individuals affiliated with the OW group fall on a spectrum between these two points.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jwhitlock]

Yep. I think women (females) receiving the priesthood would be a profound shift in the Church's cultural paradigm, perhaps even more significant than the effects on the Church caused by the introduction, and cessation, of polygamy, the travails of Missouri and Nauvoo, and the trek west.

 

 

Definitely.

 

One of the things I hadn't done previous to OW was to take a detailed look at what the impact of female priesthood ordination would be on the church, its members, and its doctrine. Doctrine and Covenants contains detailed information on what the Lord expects of those who hold the priesthood, and how the priesthood is to be structured. The priesthood is not structured to be male oriented; it is structured to require those who hold it to submit themselves to God and to the order of the priesthood. Putting men and women in the same priesthood structure as revealed by the Lord would tear the church apart in that there is no accommodation for gender specific needs. Restructuring it to provide "separate but equal" gender based priesthood organizations would result in a house divided and a church that wouldn't look anything like what we have today.

 

It was difficult for me to envision how things could be appropriately structured to accommodate female ordination. As I looked at how the organization of the church has evolved to meet the needs of both men and women, it was clear that the current Relief Society / Priesthood structure, while imperfect in some areas, really does provide a good structure for moving the kingdom forward. Female priesthood ordination would require a wholesale gutting of the church organization and its doctrines related to the priesthood. I don't see that happening.

[Scott Lloyd]

Most women I know wouldn't leave the Church, per se, if the priesthood were granted to them, but they not only don't want it ---- they would be bothered and upset. I've shared here before that women in my ward council a few years ago (and my wife) unanimously said that they would view it as the Church "just trying to be PC" or being reactionary. I think it would cause a lot of soul-searching as far as whether this was truly God's will or of men, more so than with the lifting of polygamy or the priesthood ban. My wife tells me that she would be upset because she treasures accessing the priesthood through me and would sorely miss that if we both "held" the priesthood.

 

In talking to women within my sphere of influence, I really wonder how such a thing could be brought about. I don't think it would be near universal like it is with 12 year-old boys (many girls would not want it or would outright refuse it ---- nor would there be direct or subtle sanctions for them as there would be if boys simply didn't want it or refused it, I think).

When they started having women pray in general conference, I heard one good woman's reaction was, "Do they expect us to do everything?

[NotaMormon]

Definitely.

 

One of the things I hadn't done previous to OW was to take a detailed look at what the impact of female priesthood ordination would be on the church, its members, and its doctrine. Doctrine and Covenants contains detailed information on what the Lord expects of those who hold the priesthood, and how the priesthood is to be structured. The priesthood is not structured to be male oriented; it is structured to require those who hold it to submit themselves to God and to the order of the priesthood. Putting men and women in the same priesthood structure as revealed by the Lord would tear the church apart in that there is no accommodation for gender specific needs. Restructuring it to provide "separate but equal" gender based priesthood organizations would result in a house divided and a church that wouldn't look anything like what we have today.

 

It was difficult for me to envision how things could be appropriately structured to accommodate female ordination. As I looked at how the organization of the church has evolved to meet the needs of both men and women, it was clear that the current Relief Society / Priesthood structure, while imperfect in some areas, really does provide a good structure for moving the kingdom forward. Female priesthood ordination would require a wholesale gutting of the church organization and its doctrines related to the priesthood. I don't see that happening.

Has the OW movement offered any suggestions for what a female priesthood might look like?

[Ham Clam]

Has the OW movement offered any suggestions for what a female priesthood might look like?

From  I've collected in following them, people have put out many different ideas, but the OW organization itself doesn't endorse a particular idea of how it would all be worked out (where Relief Society would go, how it would work internationally ect) along different theories are out there, only that women would hold leadership priesthood positions that men currently hold.