Feminist Wants Women Only Speakers At General Meeting

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I get the fact that you hate the idea.  I assume that's because you relish the opportunity to hear from our beloved prophet.  Okay, I get it.

Clearly you don't relish the opportunity to hear for a prophet of God? That is what it looks like you are saying.

[DJBrown]

Seems like a preference for "social justice" or political correctness over hearing the Word of the Lord.  Not that women do not deliver the Word of the Lord.  But to prefer a speaker other than prophets with Priesthood keys- that has to tell you something.

 

I have absolutely no issue with hearing from a women at Priesthood meeting.   Great.  But we should defer to those holding the keys to make those decisions.

[mormonnewb]

But you apparently don't respect it.

Indeed. Who do they think they are? Who authorized them to think for themselves? Such uppitiness by LDS women against their self-appointed feminist betters is deeply troubling.

</sarcasm>

My personal opinion is that self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" are not gaining traction with the women of the Church because A) they are "self-appointed," B) they are engaging in offensive conduct, C) some appear to be setting themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to the General Authorities, and D) they are "selling" wares which most LDS women are simply not interested in "buying," and E) there appears to be more than a little hostility within the self-appointed LDS "feminist" movement against, well, the Church and its leaders and its doctrine.

Which speaks very well for Dr. King, and very ill for the self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" under discussion.

Your implied endorsement of groupthink seems a bit weird, but whatever.

Anyhoo, Dr. King appears to have had a message which resonated with most black folks. Self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" amongst the LDS faithful apparently do not. Dr. King had remarkable gifts of oratory and persuasion. Self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" amongst the LDS faithful apparently do not. And here's the kicker: Dr. King was viewed as being fundamentally correct in his overarching desire to advance the circumstances and welfare of those on whose behalf he advocated. Self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" amongst the LDS faithful apparently are ... apparently not so viewed.

Right. When will these women just shut up and submit to their self-appointed feminist betters? They really need to learn their place.

And I really appreciate you speculating about these women having ulterior motives ("extra points on their TR worthiness score") because they do not listen to their self-appointed feminist betters. I'm so glad we finally have a man around to stand up and speak for LDS women (and demean them in the same breath!). Props, man!

Again, my personal opinion is that self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" are not gaining traction with the women of the Church because A) they are "self-appointed," B) they are engaging in offensive conduct, C) some appear to be setting themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to the General Authorities, and D) they are "selling" wares which most LDS women are simply not interested in "buying," and E) there appears to be more than a little hostility within the self-appointed LDS "feminist" movement against, well, the Church and its leaders and its doctrine.

I think D) is perhaps the most significant factor. The self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" are advocating a paradigm which most LDS women do not want. But that's just my view. I hope some of the LDS women on this board will weigh in on this topic. I think they'll do so, even if it means risking getting dissed and having their motives/honesty questioned by . . . well, you ("I sometimes wonder if they get extra points on their TR worthiness score...").

Thanks,

As for your last point, MOST gays did not want to serve in the military, but they almost unanimously supported the rights of OTHER gays to do so. So if an LDS woman doesn't want the priesthood, fine. But I don't get the hostility to OTHER women getting it.

[mormonnewb]

DELETED IN A RARE ACT OF RESTRAINT.

Edited March 27, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Storm Rider]

As for your last point, MOST gays did not want to serve in the military, but they almost unanimously supported the rights of OTHER gays to do so. So if an LDS woman doesn't want the priesthood, fine. But I don't get the hostility to OTHER women getting it.

 

I wonder if it is more a hostility toward the tactics used by those individuals who want women to have the priesthood rather than a personal animosity.  It is important to distinguish between the two.  For me I don't sense the degree of animosity that you find, but I suspect an animosity felt is a reaction toward tactics rather than a personal rejection. 

[Deborah]

I'm going to say something radical. I really am not that enthusiastic about the women's conference. I don't think it's that big a deal. So women have their own conference. Are the messages any different. I'm not enthusiastic about most women speakers, though we have had some excellent ones. I think it's very sad that some women want to create a division between men and women because of society's promotion of the feminist definition of "equality". I suppose that is why in social gatherings I have preferred the company of men who don't overreact to every supposed slight. This is why I have always preferred male bosses. You can be direct with them without them getting offended because you get right to the point without all the preliminary niceties.

[ERayR]

I get the fact that you hate the idea.  I assume that's because you relish the opportunity to hear from our beloved prophet.  Okay, I get it.

 

But I don't think she ever stated (or even implied) that she spoke for all women (or even a majority of women).  Does she not have a right to express her own opinion about who should address her at the event?

 

To me, this is the most confusing part about the issue of gender equality in the Church -- the fact that so many WOMEN are opposed to feminists.  During the civil rights movement, Dr. King was VERY popular amongst black people.  I imagine that there were VERY few who would say, "He doesn't speak for ME."  And I know they wouldn't say it very loudly (at least not in the presence of other black people).

 

However, women in our church seem to go out of their way to attack other women who are interested in ... gasp ... women being equal to 12 year old BOYS in ecclesiastic authority.  Just about every Sunday, some sister will make an unsolicited (and often irrelevant) dig at "feminists" or "prideful women."  I sometimes wonder if they get extra points on their TR worthiness score if they have insulted at least one other woman each quarter.

 

I just couldn't imagine standing up in our church in 1977 to slam those who had the "nerve" to suggest that I should have the priesthood.  And if any of you know a black man who did such a thing, please punch him in the throat for me (I'm MOSTLY kidding, but if you decide to do it, I won't be mad at you).

 

Seriously, I get why men would be hostile to women who have the "temerity" to desire full participation in the religion that they give their lives to.  I really do get it.  But that they would get hostility from other WOMEN?  But hey, I'm new here.  Maybe a seasoned Mormon can explain this one to me.

 

Do you really think it is hostility to want to follow the revealed order or are your incendiary words only meant to incite a response?

[mormonnewb]

I wonder if it is more a hostility toward the tactics used by those individuals who want women to have the priesthood rather than a personal animosity. It is important to distinguish between the two. For me I don't sense the degree of animosity that you find, but I suspect an animosity felt is a reaction toward tactics rather than a personal rejection.

I have a hard time seeing how OW's tactics could have been more respectful. They simply asked the Brethren to "double check" with HF about ordaining women. OW didn't put any demands or conditions of their request. They didn't threaten to stop paying tithes or inserting carrots into Jello. In terms of agitation, OW doesn't qualify as "radical extremists."

And the truth is that many would attack them no matter what "tactics" they used. Contrary to smac's fond misrememberances of Dr. King, he was NOT popular amongst the defenders of the status quo. He was called an "outside agitator." Hoover called him "the most dangerous black man in America."

They didn't object to Dr. King's tactics. They objected to his MESSAGE of equality and his "temerity" to claim equality with his superiors. I'm not sure that there isn't a lesson here for us.

[mormonnewb]

Do you really think it is hostility to want to follow the revealed order or are your incendiary words only meant to incite a response?

Is it hostility to believe in continuing revelation and to ask for God's anointed to seek such? Much of the D&C is EXACTLY that and these people were asking THE Prophet to double check. When did HF reveal that we should stop this practice?

[smac97]

I'm going to say something radical. I really am not that enthusiastic about the women's conference. I don't think it's that big a deal. So women have their own conference. Are the messages any different. I'm not enthusiastic about most women speakers, though we have had some excellent ones. I think it's very sad that some women want to create a division between men and women because of society's promotion of the feminist definition of "equality". I suppose that is why in social gatherings I have preferred the company of men who don't overreact to every supposed slight. This is why I have always preferred male bosses. You can be direct with them without them getting offended because you get right to the point without all the preliminary niceties.

 

I just came across an interesting article that touches on this issue (WARNING: The author describes some pretty harrowing stuff):

‘Microaggressions’ And ‘Trigger Warnings,’ Meet Real Trauma

I don't want to hear your whining about 'microaggressions' and 'trigger warnings.' Those aren't trauma. Besides, coming to terms with pain is part of growing up.

By Chris Hernandez

 

Here are some excerpts:

 

When I joined the Marines, I met a man who had survived a helicopter crash during a training exercise. The first time I saw him his head and face were covered in burn scars. A balloon filled with saline, that looked like a dinosaur’s crest, was implanted in his scalp to stretch the skin so hair could grow. Something that looked exactly like the checkered buttstock of an M16A2 was imprinted on one side of his head.

He greeted me when I checked in to my unit, and totally ignored the shocked expression I must have had when he approached. He shook my hand, asked a few questions, then left with a friendly “See you later, PFC.” His demeanor left me with the absurd thought, Maybe he doesn’t know how strange he looks.

He had been assigned to my reserve unit while undergoing treatment at a nearby military burn unit. I wound up becoming friends with him later, and eventually worked up the nerve to ask him about the crash. Of course, I quickly followed my question with, “But if you don’t want to talk about it, never mind. Sorry.”

He brushed off my concerns. “Nah, no problem. The day I can’t talk about it is the day it starts to haunt me.”

...

What struck me was how easily he was able to tell the story. I had never heard of someone deciding not to let trauma affect his or her life. I had a great uncle, still alive then, who had been a Marine in the Korean War. He came back traumatized, took years to get back to normal, and to his dying day never told anyone in the family what he experienced. Even after I became a Marine, he gave me only the barest details of his service. As far as I know, he never told his Marine son, either. Unlike my friend, my uncle couldn’t talk about his trauma.

I’ve experienced trauma myself. I don’t know how many murder scenes I’ve worked as a police officer. I remember the shock I felt when I walked up to a car after a seemingly minor accident and saw a two-year-old’s head lying on the floorboard. I stood helplessly outside a burning house as a 92-year-old woman died inside, while her son screamed hysterically beside me. For years after my time as a soldier in Iraq, I’d have a startle response if I unexpectedly saw a flash, like from a camera, in my peripheral vision (it reminded me of flashes from roadside bombs). Soldiers near me were shot, burned, or killed by weather in Afghanistan.

...

I’m no stranger to trauma, and I’ve dealt with it by writing and talking about it. I suppose I’ve always defined “trauma” the traditional way: a terrible experience, usually involving significant loss or mortal danger, which left a lasting scar. However, I’ve recently discovered my definition of trauma is wrong. Trauma now seems to be pretty much anything that bothers anyone, in any way, ever. And the worst “trauma” seems to come not from horrible brushes with death like I described above; instead, they’re the result of racism and discrimination.

Over the last year, I’ve heard references to “microaggressions” and “trigger warnings.” Trigger warnings tell trauma victims that certain material may “contain disturbing themes that may trigger traumatic memories for sufferers”; it’s a way for them to continue avoiding what bothers them, rather than facing it (and the memories that get triggered often seem to be about discrimination, rather than mortal danger). Microaggressions are minor, seemingly innocuous statements that are actually stereotype-reinforcing trauma, even if the person making the statement meant nothing negative.

Here are two examples of “trauma” from the “Microaggression Project”:

 

My dad jokes with my younger sister that he remembers selling Girl Scout Cookies when he was a Girl Scout. She laughs, understanding the fact that since he’s a boy means that he could not have been a Girl Scout. Thanks, Dad. I’m a boy and a formal Girl Scout.

The assumption that Girl Scouts will be girls. That causes trauma.

 

24, female-bodied, in a relationship – so Facebook shows me ads with babies, wedding dresses, and engagement rings. Change gender on Facebook to male – suddenly I get ads pertaining to things I actually care about.

Facebook thinking a woman might be interested in marriage and children. That causes trauma.

A horrible example of microaggression: asking someone if she’s been to Europe.

Read the whole thing if you are so inclined (particularly the section "Here’s What to Do With Your Trauma"). Mr. Hernandez has some salty language (bleeped out in the above link, but not in the original blog post), but I think he makes some fairly salient points.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 27, 2015 by smac97

[Deborah]

Smac, great article. We've become so sensitive that people are afraid to express how they think because someone will get offended. That is the great thing about being old. You just don't care any more what over sensitive idiots think.

[Buckeye]

I'm going to say something radical. I really am not that enthusiastic about the women's conference. I don't think it's that big a deal. So women have their own conference. Are the messages any different. I'm not enthusiastic about most women speakers, though we have had some excellent ones. I think it's very sad that some women want to create a division between men and women because of society's promotion of the feminist definition of "equality". I suppose that is why in social gatherings I have preferred the company of men who don't overreact to every supposed slight. This is why I have always preferred male bosses. You can be direct with them without them getting offended because you get right to the point without all the preliminary niceties.

 

Can I join the radical bandwagon? I really am not that enthusiastic about general conference. I don't think it's that big a deal. So we have keys and prophets and apostles ... even some women who can pray now. Big deal. Are the messages any different? I'm not that enthusiastic about most GA speakers, though we have had some excellent ones (Uchtdorf, Holland, Eyring to some extent). Frankly, even President Monson is most likely going to just rehash a talk that he wrote in the 1960s. I think it's very sad that some members want to create a division in the church to exclude those who want greater access to God. I suppose that is why in social gatherings I have preferred the company of the youth. The adults just want to harp on how wicked society is today because they're losing the gay marriage battle. This is why I have always hated going to High Priest Quorum. Assuming they're even awake, you can't reason with old dogs whose bodies may be kept alive through modern science, but whose spirits gave up the desire decades ago to experience any more growth.

[Deborah]

I have a hard time seeing how OW's tactics could have been more respectful.

 

Are you kidding? They have been anything but respectful in many cases. I'll tell you what respectful is, how the blacks in Africa asked with humility if it was time yet that they could receive the missionaries and when the answer was no they remained humble and faithful. Unlike OW which demanded the prophet get a revelation and then marched on temple square and tried to force entry where they were specfically asked not to come.

[ERayR]

Is it hostility to believe in continuing revelation and to ask for God's anointed to seek such? Much of the D&C is EXACTLY that and these people were asking THE Prophet to double check. When did HF reveal that we should stop this practice?

 

NO but your verbal vitriol exudes hostility.  Now that just may be your board persona.

[mormonnewb]

I'm going to say something radical. I really am not that enthusiastic about the women's conference. I don't think it's that big a deal. So women have their own conference. Are the messages any different. I'm not enthusiastic about most women speakers, though we have had some excellent ones. I think it's very sad that some women want to create a division between men and women because of society's promotion of the feminist definition of "equality". I suppose that is why in social gatherings I have preferred the company of men who don't overreact to every supposed slight. This is why I have always preferred male bosses. You can be direct with them without them getting offended because you get right to the point without all the preliminary niceties.

THIS is why we really must end our priesthood apartheid because it creates this type of disrespect for women AMONGST women. And I'm not picking on you. I've heard similar comments from DOZENS of women. Yet, strangely I've never heard a MAN say that he doesn't really need to hear male speakers or that he generally prefers the company of women or to have women bosses. At best, men are equally comfortable in the company of either gender, but more likely we prefer to be with, hear from and work for MEN.

It's not overt sexism, but rather a normal preference to be with those we are most like. Yet, our society (and church) conditions women to see men as superior -- more worthy of our attention and to receive their direction.

Of course, the Mormon Church didn't create this problem, but as the "one true Church," it should be the one to fix it.

[Deborah]

Buckeye, I do love GC. I find it very inspiring. And I have to disagree with you that somehow you need the Priesthood (at least that is what your statement implies) to have greater access to God. I think that is a sad reflection on those women making such demands.

However I have to agree with you on one point I much prefer the company of children to adults, at least small children because they are so non-judgemental and guiless.

[Deborah]

Yet, our society (and church) conditions women to see men as superior -- more worthy of our attention and to receive their direction.

 

I assure you my preference for the company of men has nothing to do with seeing them as superior or more worthy of attention. I just find their conversations more interesting and on subjects I like to talk about.

[ERayR]

you can't reason with old dogs whose bodies may be kept alive through modern science, but whose spirits gave up the desire decades ago to experience any more growth.

 

And you can't reason with the young pups who think they already know it all and have nothing to learn from the old dogs.

[mormonnewb]

NO but your verbal vitriol exudes hostility. Now that just may be your board persona.

Vitriol? Really?

I will confess that I have yet to achieve Calmoriah or Brother Smith's zen-like cordiality, but I don't think I'm being hostile. I'm certainly not using crude or vulgar language. Nor am I calling people names.

I MAY have resorted to exaggeration or straw man building once (maybe twice), but vitriol? And sure I can be sarcastic and mocking, but I am more often than not, the brunt of my jokes (as in just the last sentence).

Now, when I resort to using expletives and calling people "poopy heads," I will accept my appointment to the high offices of vitriol, hostilely and exudor. Until such point, I remain as harmless as a serpent and as wise as a dove.

[smac97]

I have a hard time seeing how OW's tactics could have been more respectful.

Oh, there are all sorts of ways. The OW group's tactics and Kate Kelly's statements against the Church have been profoundly disrespectful.

Demanding the Priesthood and saying "nothing less will suffice" is compulsory and coercive, not "respectful."

Protesting on Church properties during sacred convocations is compulsory and coercive, not "respectful."

Seeking to foment public opinion against the Church is compulsory and coercive, not "respectful."

Encouraging her followers to "raise hell" in the Church is compulsory and coercive, not "respectful."

 

They simply asked the Brethren to "double check" with HF about ordaining women.

They have repeatedly demanded the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will suffice." That's not a request for a "double check."

Defying the Church and protesting on sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, with the specific intention of disrupting and distracting from that sacred convocation, is not a request for a "double check."

Kate Kelly characterizing her bishop to The New York Times as "cowardly and unchristlike" is not a request for a "double check."

Kate Kelly publicly accusing the Church of "sexism" and "injustice" and "insidious discrimination" against women is not a request for a "double check."

Kate Kelly publicly encouraging her followers to "raise hell" in the Church is not a request for a "double check."

Kate Kelly publicly accusing her bishop of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike" is not a request for a "double check."

Kate Kelly threatening to sue her stake president is not a request for a "double check."

Kate Kelly repeatedly publicizing her stake president's employer (apparently to attempt to foment a Brendan Eich-type blowback on her stake president's employment) is not a request for a "double check."

Yep, they've done a lot more than just ask for a "double check." A lot more.

 

OW didn't put any demands or conditions of their request.

This is simply incorrect. Consider this article by Kate Kelly:

 

I am one of the founding mothers of the Ordain Women movement. I decided to start Ordain Women in January of 2013. I wanted the name of the group to be a clear and unequivocal imperative. "Ordain Women" was actionable. We would know when our goal had come to fruition.

An "imperative" is, by definition, "a command," "something that demands attention or action; an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity." So when Kate Kelly says that she wanted the name of her group to be "a clear and unequivocal imperative," she was, by definition issuing a "command" to the Church. Not a "request" that that Church leaders pray and ask the Lord if ordination could be conferred on women. Not just a "double check." There is no "if" in the OW group's "goal." They want the priesthood, "and nothing less will suffice."

And the truth is that many would attack them no matter what "tactics" they used. Contrary to smac's fond misrememberances of Dr. King, he was NOT popular amongst the defenders of the status quo. He was called an "outside agitator." Hoover called him "the most dangerous black man in America."

I was speaking of the respect for Dr. King that existed amongst blacks.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

Smac, great article. We've become so sensitive that people are afraid to express how they think because someone will get offended. That is the great thing about being old. You just don't care any more what over sensitive idiots think.

 

I'm not old and I already don't care what over sensitive idiots think, especially when it comes to PC-ifying the gospel.

[JLHPROF]

THIS is why we really must end our priesthood apartheid because it creates this type of disrespect for women AMONGST women.

 

No what creates disrespect is our inability to own who we are and not insist on being someone else because we think they have some perk we don't.

How about a little self-respect and understanding of how God created each one of us, differently from how he created others.

 

Godhood is the goal for all.

Edited March 27, 2015 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

Vitriol? Really?

I will confess that I have yet to achieve Calmoriah or Brother Smith's zen-like cordiality, but I don't think I'm being hostile. I'm certainly not using crude or vulgar language. Nor am I calling people names.

I MAY have resorted to exaggeration or straw man building once (maybe twice), but vitriol? And sure I can be sarcastic and mocking, but I am more often than not, the brunt of my jokes (as in just the last sentence).

Now, when I resort to using expletives and calling people "poopy heads," I will accept my appointment to the high offices of vitriol, hostilely and exudor. Until such point, I remain as harmless as a serpent and as wise as a dove.

Two thoughts:

First, I think mormonnewb has substantially altered and improved his tone on the board, for which I am grateful.

Second, I am a hypocrite for not emulating him.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

THIS is why we really must end our priesthood apartheid because it creates this type of disrespect for women AMONGST women.

Huh? Do women who fundamentally disagree with the tactics, rhetoric and objectives of the OW group "disrespect" the OW group?

Also, is it possible that the OW group has done some things which do not merit respect (I'm thinking of things like staging protests on sacred ground, Kate Kelly telling her followers to "raise hell" in the Church, and so on)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Buckeye]

Buckeye, I do love GC. I find it very inspiring. And I have to disagree with you that somehow you need the Priesthood (at least that is what your statement implies) to have greater access to God. I think that is a sad reflection on those women making such demands.

However I have to agree with you on one point I much prefer the company of children to adults, at least small children because they are so non-judgemental and guiless.

 

Wait, the Women's Session is now officially part of General Conference. So do you find conference inspiring or not? You said no to women's session, but now you say yes to GC. I'm confused.

 

One certainly can have great access to God without priesthood office. But priesthood office allows for access you otherwise would not have - specifically, the ability to conduct ordinances. Women lack that access at this time. I'm not saying that if one adds up all the categories of "access" men have, that it would be greater than the total of the categories that women have (I'm not that good at math), all I'm saying is that if women had priesthood office they - they women - would have more access than they currently do now. If that is not true, then one must concede that men can have just as much "access" to God without a priesthood office - and yet the church (at least in my YM manuals) actively teaches our boys that priesthood office gives them something more than they otherwise would have.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Buckeye