Rewriting History: Women Praying In Conference And Other Things

[Scott Lloyd]

My question:  Why, four decades later are you still beating this horse? 

Because, as I said, he was born late enough that he knows everything.

 

And, conveniently enough for him, the event in question occurred in the days before digital newspaper archives, so the sort of thing he is demanding cannot be easily provided by means of a Google search string, but would require old-fashioned library research.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

I stand corrected as to the causation of OW and Sister Stevens praying in conference.  Apparently, OW had NOTHING to do with that.  And surely, OW had nothing to do with all of the other inconsequential and placating changes that preceded it.

 

As for being dismissive about the timidity and impotence of past Mo Fem efforts for gender equality, I stand guilty as charged.  And let's be clear, I, Mormon H. Newb, have laid that charge.  I do not speak on behalf of, or for, OW or its board, some of whom have been very active in "respectable" Mo Fem circles.  However, I am simply not sophisticated enough to understand how ANY grown woman could believe that she should not have the ecclesiastic authority of a 12-year-old boy, because my limited knowledge of Mormon history (and/or intellect) does not allow me to see it.  Perhaps, if I were smarter or better informed, I could understand how a person of your immense wisdom believes that you can't be trusted to perform His most sacred ordinances, but rather that task should fall to CHILDREN.  Perhaps, upon further reflection and prayer, I could understand how this Church is better off NOT fully utilizing the organizational, managerial and financial skills of ALL of its members.

 

Or perhaps, I completely misunderstand.  Perhaps, you have the same ultimate goal (full equality) but think that you can "sneak up on it" by just asking for incremental change.  That you can, in effect, "boil the Brethren" by simply raising the temperature in the pot one half-measure at a time.  Or perhaps, that you must "trick" the Brethren into thinking that the idea for equality was really their idea all of the time (men are silly that way sometimes).

 

I should probably give that approach more credence, but it doesn't seem to fit the pattern of how change happens in this Church.  Blacks didn't get the priesthood piecemeal ("Now, you can pass out the bread, but not the water.  Now, you can pass out the bread and the water, but you don't get the consecrated oil until next Tuesday.").  For WHATEVER reason (I really don't want to get into another argument on that issue, please), it happened all in one "long-awaited day."  The same was true for OD1.  Some condition caused the Brethren to seek revelation and everything changed in an instance (well, at least, on paper, it changed).  So, as I see it, those of us seeking gender equality in this Church should be seeking to create that condition.  OW is an attempt to do just that.

 

And certainly, there can (and should) be other attempts.  However, any effort that does not start with a clear statement of the goal -- FULL EQUALITY -- is either disingenuous or feckless.  The idea that there should be a "separate but equal" status for women in this Church in 2015 is, in my very humble opinion, ridiculous.  Separate but equal is inherently unequal.  A nation of Gentiles figured that out half a century ago.  Even the South Africans figured that out in 1990s.  So I find it very difficult to take serious any Mo Fem efforts that accept gender apartheid as permissible in this fine church.  But hey, I'm a newb after all.  Maybe I'll "grow" into an acceptance of fundamental inequality as part of God's eternal order (although I wouldn't bet on it).

[why me]

My question:  Why, four decades later are you still beating this horse? 

Because it works for him. There is no better way to score points than to make white folk feel guilty about something they had nothing to do with. I think that he refers to white priviledge. However, he forgets to know that the church had many races in it by 1978. The church was growing by leaps and bounds in latin america and people with black skin did receive the priesthood before 1978. But knowing this fact would not help his case. However, old timers must take the opportunity to educate the newbies in the church. But the critic voice can be convincing and persuasive.

 

For example, in NYC we had a hispanic ward. All had the priesthood if they wished to have it. And they were various shades of brown and black. And this was before 1978. But to hear mormonewbie, only whites had the priesthood. It wasn't the skin color but the tribe that one belonged to.

Edited July 20, 2015 by why me

[KevinG]

Blacks and the Priesthood is a terrible analogy for Ordaining Women.  A primary force moving the brethren to "repent" of the priesthood ban was the respectful actions and petition by black Saints in West Africa, Brazil and other nations around the world.  It was not protests and outside pressure.  Learn the history before critiquing it.  

[Calm]

I don't want to derail this thread, but to be quite clear, I think that white Mormons were largely indifferent to the priesthood/temple ban and simply supported it because "the Brethren said so."  So in 1978, I don't think it was a big deal for most Mormons either way.  There may have been some relief that the Bob Jones people would from then on hold the undisputed title as "Most Racist Christians," but I doubt that there was all of the uncontrollable weeping on the side of the road that has become folk lore four decades later.  But please feel free to follow Calmoriah's example and PROVE me wrong.  Just ONE picture of one of those crying-induced traffic jam, or heck, even ONE mention from a 1978 news source about open rejoicing from amongst the saints, and I will GLADLY admit that I am wrong.  But please start another thread to do that because I don't want to derail this important conversation.

I don't care about the derail since I think I proved my point in the OP.

 

Have you read Russell Stevenson's For the Cause of Righteousness yet?

[Gray]

Blacks and the Priesthood is a terrible analogy for Ordaining Women.  A primary force moving the brethren to "repent" of the priesthood ban was the respectful actions and petition by black Saints in West Africa, Brazil and other nations around the world.  It was not protests and outside pressure.  Learn the history before critiquing it.  

 

OW is made of up of LDS men and women too 

[Calm]

As for being dismissive about the timidity and impotence of past Mo Fem efforts for gender equality, I stand guilty as charged.

 

So your respect of women and desire to promote their voice is only limited to a very small group.  Got it.

 

And dismissing as "inconsequential" life altering events for many women is just more evidence of your arrogant ignorance.

Edited July 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[why me]

I don't want to derail this thread, but to be quite clear, I think that white Mormons were largely indifferent to the priesthood/temple ban and simply supported it because "the Brethren said so."  So in 1978, I don't think it was a big deal for most Mormons either way.  There may have been some relief that the Bob Jones people would from then on hold the undisputed title as "Most Racist Christians," but I doubt that there was all of the uncontrollable weeping on the side of the road that has become folk lore four decades later.  But please feel free to follow Calmoriah's example and PROVE me wrong.  Just ONE picture of one of those crying-induced traffic jam, or heck, even ONE mention from a 1978 news source about open rejoicing from amongst the saints, and I will GLADLY admit that I am wrong.  But please start another thread to do that because I don't want to derail this important conversation.

Please read this: You will hear from a witness at that time what happened:

 

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/10/priesthood-restoration?lang=eng

 

 

The question of extending the blessings of the priesthood to blacks had been on the minds of many of the Brethren over a period of years. It had repeatedly been brought up by Presidents of the Church. It had become a matter of particular concern to President Spencer W. Kimball.

Over a considerable period of time he had prayed concerning this serious and difficult question. He had spent many hours in that upper room in the temple by himself in prayer and meditation.

On this occasion he raised the question before his Brethren—his Counselors and the Apostles. Following this discussion we joined in prayer in the most sacred of circumstances. President Kimball himself was voice in that prayer. I do not recall the exact words that he spoke. But I do recall my own feelings and the nature of the expressions of my Brethren. There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. The Spirit of God was there. And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to that prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come, and that now the wondrous blessings of the priesthood should be extended to worthy men everywhere regardless of lineage.

Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing.

It was a quiet and sublime occasion.

There was not the sound “as of a rushing mighty wind,” there were not “cloven tongues like as of fire” (Acts 2:2–3) as there had been on the Day of Pentecost. But there was a Pentacostal spirit, for the Holy Ghost was there.

No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the Spirit whispered with certainty into our minds and our very souls.

It was for us, at least for me personally, as I imagine it was with Enos, who said concerning his remarkable experience, “And while I was thus struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind.” (Enos 1:10.)

So it was on that memorable June 1, 1978. We left that meeting subdued and reverent and joyful. Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.

All of us knew that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens. The answer was clear. There was perfect unity among us in our experience and in our understanding.

We met the following Thursday when the Presidency presented to the Twelve their letter of announcement. The following day we met with all of the General Authorities then in the city. Those absent were talked with by long-distance telephone. There was unity and there was rejoicing on the part of each. The letter was released to the Church and to the world.

I need not tell you of the electric effect that was felt both within the Church and without. There was much weeping, with tears of gratitude not only on the part of those who previously had been denied the priesthood and who became the immediate beneficiaries of this announcement, but also by men and women of the Church across the world who had felt as we had felt concerning this matter.

 

Do you think that HInckley was lying when he spoke this?

Edited July 20, 2015 by why me

[bluebell]

I stand corrected as to the causation of OW and Sister Stevens praying in conference. Apparently, OW had NOTHING to do with that. And surely, OW had nothing to do with all of the other inconsequential and placating changes that preceded it.

As for being dismissive about the timidity and impotence of past Mo Fem efforts for gender equality, I stand guilty as charged. And let's be clear, I, Mormon H. Newb, have laid that charge. I do not speak on behalf of, or for, OW or its board, some of whom have been very active in "respectable" Mo Fem circles. However, I am simply not sophisticated enough to understand how ANY grown woman could believe that she should not have the ecclesiastic authority of a 12-year-old boy, because my limited knowledge of Mormon history (and/or intellect) does not allow me to see it. Perhaps, if I were smarter or better informed, I could understand how a person of your immense wisdom believes that you can't be trusted to perform His most sacred ordinances, but rather that task should fall to CHILDREN. Perhaps, upon further reflection and prayer, I could understand how this Church is better off NOT fully utilizing the organizational, managerial and financial skills of ALL of its members.

Or perhaps, I completely misunderstand. Perhaps, you have the same ultimate goal (full equality) but think that you can "sneak up on it" by just asking for incremental change. That you can, in effect, "boil the Brethren" by simply raising the temperature in the pot one half-measure at a time. Or perhaps, that you must "trick" the Brethren into thinking that the idea for equality was really their idea all of the time (men are silly that way sometimes).

I should probably give that approach more credence, but it doesn't seem to fit the pattern of how change happens in this Church. Blacks didn't get the priesthood piecemeal ("Now, you can pass out the bread, but not the water. Now, you can pass out the bread and the water, but you don't get the consecrated oil until next Tuesday."). For WHATEVER reason (I really don't want to get into another argument on that issue, please), it happened all in one "long-awaited day." The same was true for OD1. Some condition caused the Brethren to seek revelation and everything changed in an instance (well, at least, on paper, it changed). So, as I see it, those of us seeking gender equality in this Church should be seeking to create that condition. OW is an attempt to do just that.

And certainly, there can (and should) be other attempts. However, any effort that does not start with a clear statement of the goal -- FULL EQUALITY -- is either disingenuous or feckless. The idea that there should be a "separate but equal" status for women in this Church in 2015 is, in my very humble opinion, ridiculous. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. A nation of Gentiles figured that out half a century ago. Even the South Africans figured that out in 1990s. So I find it very difficult to take serious any Mo Fem efforts that accept gender apartheid as permissible in this fine church. But hey, I'm a newb after all. Maybe I'll "grow" into an acceptance of fundamental inequality as part of God's eternal order (although I wouldn't bet on it).

At least you've cleared up the idea that your support of OW has anything to do with caring about women in general.

Since you seem to be saying that a woman's voice and opinion only counts, is only logical, and is only valuable, if she thinks like you, I can understand your support of Kate Kelly.

The explanation will be helpful in understanding where you're coming from in the future.

[why me]

This is the best intepretation that I have read on blacks and the priesthood from the university of chicago:

 

https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/wrong-side-white-w-paul-reeve

 

But I don't think that it will ever get much attention. But I do think that it puts the issue in context.

 

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) has consistently found itself on the wrong side of white. In a recent New York Times article, "Black Mormons and the Politics of Identity," an embedded video begins with a Times reporter commenting "it may come as a surprise to people that there are black Mormons in America." It is a telling statement that captures the nexus of the LDS Church's racial past and its efforts to realize a more diverse racial future.

Although few in number, blacks have been a part of the LDS movement from its founding to the present. The first documented African American to join the LDS Church was a former slave known only in the historical record as "Black Pete." He became a member at Kirtland, Ohio, in 1830, the year of the Church's founding. More significantly, at least two black men, Elijah Abel and Q. Walker Lewis, were ordained to the Mormon priesthood in the Church's early years. Abel participated in Mormon temple rituals at Kirtland and was baptized as proxy for a deceased friend and two relatives at Nauvoo, Illinois.

In this regard, it is most accurate to speak of integrated priesthood and temples in Mormonism's early years, a progressive stance in a charged national racial context. At the same time that the nation moved toward legal segregation in the wake of Reconstruction's demise, the open space for full black participation in Mormonism gave way in fits and starts. By the first decade of the twentieth century race-based priesthood and temple bans were firmly in place.

It is impossible to understand that trajectory without first understanding the ways in which white Mormons themselves were racialized. The prevailing American fear of interracial mixing played a significant role in that process, especially as outsiders projected their own alarm over race mixing onto Mormons. At Kirtland, outsiders suggested that Black Pete received revelations to marry white women. In Missouri settlers argued that Mormons were inviting free black converts to that state, not only to incite a slave rebellion but to steal white women.

After the Mormons openly announced the practice of polygamy in 1852, the charge of interracial mixing took on a life of its own. One Army doctor filed a report with the United States Senate in which he claimed polygamy was giving rise to a degenerate "race." Political cartoons depicted interracial polygamous families, sometimes with black, Asian, and Native American wives mixed in among the white. In a variety of ways outsiders constructed Mormons as racially suspect, facilitators of interracial mixing and therefore of racial contamination. As one news account put it, "the days of the white race are numbered in this country." At the crux of this fearful deterioration was the "American of the future," "a black Mormon."

Against such a charged national racial backdrop, Mormons responded with an effort to claim whiteness for themselves. In 1852, Brigham Young drew upon the curses of Cain, Ham, and Canaan, derived from long standing Judeo-Christian Biblical exegeses, to bar black men from the priesthood. Leaders later expanded the policy to include temple worship for black men and women, except for proxy baptisms for their deceased ancestors. In 1908, leaders cemented those policies in place when historical forgetfulness trumped verifiable evidence to misremember that the bans had always been there, divine mandates that only God could rescind.

With that reconstructed memory as the new guiding principle, it took Spencer W. Kimball, the faith's mild and unassuming prophet, to overturn the ban. In 1978, Kimball announced a revelation which returned Mormonism to its universalistic roots and reintegrated its priesthood and temples.

Since that time, Mormon growth in Africa has been rapid, while the pace among blacks at home has been much slower. The bans and the doctrines that supported them sometimes plague missionary efforts among blacks and make it difficult to retain converts once they join. LDS leaders have yet to repudiate past teachings which shored up the bans, a lingering problem that makes it possible for various iterations of those teachings to live on in the hearts and minds of some members.

In the meantime, black Mormons, like their coreligionists of all stripes, must decide how they will vote in this historic election year. It is a contest that is poised to pit the nation's first president of African ancestry against the first Mormon of any color to capture a major party nomination. Mitt Romney's ascendency to the top of the GOP ticket might signal to some Mormons that their historically pariah faith has finally arrived. In that regard, Romney may very well mark Mormonism's full racial passage to whiteness. It is an awkwardly-timed if not tepid acceptance that coincides with Mormon attempts to claim a more diverse racial identity for themselves—witness the "I Am a Mormon" national media campaign featuring a heterogeneous group of Latter-day Saints as the faces of modern Mormonism.

Unlike his Mormon ancestors, no one today questions Mitt Romney's whiteness. One culture critic went so far as to call him "the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory." It is a designation that Mormons craved a century ago, but one that comes as a liability today. The historical arc of Mormonism's racial dance is richly ironic. In the nineteenth century they were denigrated as not white enough, by the twenty-first century, as too white.

Edited July 20, 2015 by why me

[Damien the Leper]

To calmoriah, re: the OP.

 

There you go, running up your rep point total again.

Jealous much? I am.

[BlueDreams]

 

I stand corrected as to the causation of OW and Sister Stevens praying in conference.  Apparently, OW had NOTHING to do with that.  And surely, OW had nothing to do with all of the other inconsequential and placating changes that preceded it.

 

As for being dismissive about the timidity and impotence of past Mo Fem efforts for gender equality, I stand guilty as charged.  And let's be clear, I, Mormon H. Newb, have laid that charge.  I do not speak on behalf of, or for, OW or its board, some of whom have been very active in "respectable" Mo Fem circles.  However, I am simply not sophisticated enough to understand how ANY grown woman could believe that she should not have the ecclesiastic authority of a 12-year-old boy, because my limited knowledge of Mormon history (and/or intellect) does not allow me to see it.  Perhaps, if I were smarter or better informed, I could understand how a person of your immense wisdom believes that you can't be trusted to perform His most sacred ordinances, but rather that task should fall to CHILDREN.  Perhaps, upon further reflection and prayer, I could understand how this Church is better off NOT fully utilizing the organizational, managerial and financial skills of ALL of its members.

 

Or perhaps, I completely misunderstand.  Perhaps, you have the same ultimate goal (full equality) but think that you can "sneak up on it" by just asking for incremental change.  That you can, in effect, "boil the Brethren" by simply raising the temperature in the pot one half-measure at a time.  Or perhaps, that you must "trick" the Brethren into thinking that the idea for equality was really their idea all of the time (men are silly that way sometimes).

 

I should probably give that approach more credence, but it doesn't seem to fit the pattern of how change happens in this Church.  Blacks didn't get the priesthood piecemeal ("Now, you can pass out the bread, but not the water.  Now, you can pass out the bread and the water, but you don't get the consecrated oil until next Tuesday.").  For WHATEVER reason (I really don't want to get into another argument on that issue, please), it happened all in one "long-awaited day."  The same was true for OD1.  Some condition caused the Brethren to seek revelation and everything changed in an instance (well, at least, on paper, it changed).  So, as I see it, those of us seeking gender equality in this Church should be seeking to create that condition.  OW is an attempt to do just that.

 

And certainly, there can (and should) be other attempts.  However, any effort that does not start with a clear statement of the goal -- FULL EQUALITY -- is either disingenuous or feckless.  The idea that there should be a "separate but equal" status for women in this Church in 2015 is, in my very humble opinion, ridiculous.  Separate but equal is inherently unequal.  A nation of Gentiles figured that out half a century ago.  Even the South Africans figured that out in 1990s.  So I find it very difficult to take serious any Mo Fem efforts that accept gender apartheid as permissible in this fine church.  But hey, I'm a newb after all.  Maybe I'll "grow" into an acceptance of fundamental inequality as part of God's eternal order (although I wouldn't bet on it).

 

Well, this does explain why you like KK a lot. So many of these statements are loaded, vaguely insulting (particularly to women and particularly to feminists, such as myself, who disagree of what the future should hold in vision) I don't know where to begin. 

 

But here are a list of my pet peeves that I have that seems to always come up when you've written about this, like a broken record.  

 

1.) Grown women do not have less authority than a 12 year old boy. The temple, in and of itself, means that I hold more authority than my 12 year old brother (okay, the 14 year old one...because he has been ordained to the priesthood. The 12 year old isn't baptized). As a temple worker (which my brothers can't be) I perform and bestow higher ordinances than they do on a weekly basis. As a mother in zion (in training ), I hold more authority than a 12 year old because of the ordinances and calls found in the temple. So as a grown woman I do have more general authority (excuse the pun) than my 14, 16, and 18 year old brothers. Both spiritually and because I'm their far older sister who half-raised them (R-E-S-P-E-C-T....they know how to spell it, I assure you). Which is my issue to the use of terms. You're using the term to assume authority, ie. Jurisdiction, the power to influence others, enforce obedience, make decisions, etc.  Where as I see authority in the power to act in a specified way (ie. delegation of responsibilities). The 12 year old boy has authority/responsibilities that he's accountable toward that I don't under the same priesthood (that I hold as well.... again Temple). It doesn't mean he has greater power than I or power "over me." If they did try to pull that, not only would my bros be in trouble with God for unrighteous dominion (going beyond the bounds of their responsibilities) they would also be running for their lives.

 

2. "Separate but equal" is not what we have in the church! It's an interdependence model with distinctive roles that are (supposed to be) equitable.  I say supposed to be, because I think, and have stated repeatedly, that there's work to make this so. But that's the model. Separate but equal is a loaded catch-all to shut down dissenting opinions as following a pattern that maintained institutionalized racism (and therefore inherently wrong). Separate but equal is unequal...but that's not what we've got. Gender issues in the church are not equivalent to racial issues in the larger society....they're not even equivalent to racial issues in the church...the differences are also fundamental in understanding how we should move forward. Gender apartheid is even more inflammatory and ridiculous. You, nor I, nor most women in the church haven't seen what gender apartheid actually looks like (think purdah). We haven't experienced it. 

 

3.  "Full equality" as the only way or goal possible to be genuine/non-feckless is ridiculous! And, as I stated, insulting. Cal, is an intelligent, strong, genuine woman who works in her fields of influence to make things better. I'm a woman who doesn't believe in "full equality" (as defined by an OW perspective) I'm also a strong, genuine, intelligent woman who voices my opinions in my field of influence. I'm starting my career in the hopes to help women (particularly LDS) to find their voice, particularly in sexuality, and in hopes to help shift cultural norms and dialogue around sex in general in our faith. I've talked and shared my views one female power and my own feminist bend in clear terms, including lessons in church. I've done things my way, as directed by God, even when it wasn't the PC way to do things. But, please, Newb, tell me how disingenuous/feckless my approaches are because I don't have in my life-goal statements "seeking out full equality" as ascribed by OW.

  

4. There's not reason to follow a (western) world perspective of how to create gender parity. I think there's some deep flaws that are making it difficult for parity to actually be reached. It's not the "one true way" to equality. Other cultures have greater gender equality, WHILE, maintaining and embracing gender roles/differences. It's those models that I prefer because I feel it is more congruent with what doctrine we do have.

 

5. You may not be aware of it, heaven know Kate isn't, but in the name of equality you're shunting every other voice that's not following the OW party line. In doing so it designates the VAST MAJORITY of women as subjugated peons and belittling what power and authority we do have. It is profoundly disrespectful to women who have worked hard to bring about change and insulting to many women's overall intelligence and strength. Shouting catch-phrases to shame us into following along or shutting us down for believing differently is not progress. It is not equality. It is a form of repression, ironically exactly the type that Kate accuses the church of doing.

 

Ok, I'm done. Time for lunch,

BD

Edited July 20, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

 

This is the best intepretation that I have read on blacks and the priesthood from the university of chicago:

 

https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/wrong-side-white-w-paul-reeve

 

But I don't think that it will ever get much attention.

 

Paul Reeve has a book, Religion of a Different Color, out that is getting a lot of attention, at least among those I hang out with.

 

I am picking it up at the FairMormon Conference along with others on my yearly wish list.

 

https://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=1631

[mormonnewb]

At least you've cleared up the idea that your support of OW has anything to do with caring about women in general.

Since you seem to be saying that a woman's voice and opinion only counts, is only logical, and is only valuable, if she thinks like you, I can understand your support of Kate Kelly.

The explanation will be helpful in understanding where you're coming from in the future.

 

So if I disagree with ANY woman's stance on ANY issue, I have no respect for women in general?  Then I must hate men A LOT because I very often disagree with them.

 

I don't think that caring about someone means that I must validate their every opinion.  I can love you to pieces and think you are dead wrong on an issue.  In fact, I think that love is often the catalyst for having an opinion one way or the other.

 

I don't know where the Quakers stand on women's ordination and sadly, I don't really care.  I don't know any Quakers.  As a general principle, I would hope for equality in their corner of Christendom, but I'm simply not personally vested enough in the issue.  On the other hand, some of the best and brightest people I know are Mormon women who feel (and I believe rightly) devalued by the institution they so deeply love.  And yes, I realized that equally intelligent women are perfectly comfortable in the Church.  So, in this case, how do I respect ALL women -- by agreeing that two contradictory positions are both correct?

 

In fact, by taking the OW side of the matter, I think I am doing as much as I can to respect ALL of women in the Church.  No one is suggesting that the priesthood be foist upon women who do not want to take on that responsibility.  If a woman feels totally valued and that she is maximizing her contribution without it, good for her!  But why should that woman's contentment prevent another woman from giving greater service?

 

I see it analogously to, say, gays serving in the military.  Most of my gay friends would never consider serving in the military.  Yet, I have never met a gay person who did not support the right of OTHER gay people to so serve.  So why do women who don't want that role for themselves feel the need to deny it to others?  Now, certainly I can see why a woman wouldn't agitate for a priesthood that they don't want.  But to oppose it for others?  That seems, in my view, somewhat selfish.  (Oops, I did it again)

[Calm]

 

 

5. You may not be aware of it, heaven know Kate isn't, but in the name of equality you're shunting every other voice that's not following the OW party line. In doing so it designates the VAST MAJORITY of women as subjugated peons and belittling what power and authority we do have. It is profoundly disrespectful to women who have worked hard to bring about change and insulting to many women's overall intelligence and strength. Shouting catch-phrases to shame us into following along or shutting us down for believing differently is not progress. It is not equality. It is a form of repression, ironically exactly the type that Kate accuses the church of doing.

Amen, amen, amen.

[Calm]

So if I disagree with ANY woman's stance on ANY issue, I have no respect for women in general?

No, it is saying stuff like "[a]s for being dismissive about the timidity and impotence of past Mo Fem efforts for gender equality, I stand guilty as charged" and "all of the other inconsequential and placating changes that preceded it" and "any effort that does not start with a clear statement of the goal -- FULL EQUALITY -- is either disingenuous or feckless".

 

Shows ignorance and worst, a lack of caring about that ignorance of what women have experienced and accomplished in the Church outside of OW.  Apparently you think receiving temple endowments as "inconsequential and placating".

 

Lack of caring=lack of respect.

 

Do you dismiss the efforts of the Genesis group and their accomplishments as well as timid, impotent, inconsequential, placating, disingenous and/or feckless because there is as yet no black apostle?

 

PS: there are a lot of women in the Church that have worked for change over the years that would have no problem with accepting or allowing other women to have the priesthood.  Simply because some of us disagree with the methods of OW does not mean we are attempting to deny any woman the Priesthood.  In fact, a great many of us believe we already have it even if the exercise of it has not be fully explored outside of the temple and it needs to be.

Edited July 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[halconero]

He was probably born in the '90s or later, which means he knows everything.

 

We don't?

 

I know my weight and height in metric. Beat that Scott.

[Kenngo1969]

I think that OW assumes a lot of things about their power and grandeur that are not apparent to people who aren't a part of OW.

Ya think?

[Kenngo1969]

If I were a member of Feminist Mormon Housewives, or Exponent, or, heck, even Mormon Women Connect, I'd be royally ticked to find out that Kate Kelly/Ordain Women invented Mormon feminism.

[Kenngo1969]

Mormon feminist efforts didn't begin with Ordain Women, any more than organized dissent began with "Any Opposed" ...p

[bluebell]

So if I disagree with ANY woman's stance on ANY issue, I have no respect for women in general?  Then I must hate men A LOT because I very often disagree with them.

Not at all.  It's being completely dismissive of (and sarcastic to, to the extent that i really wondered how you didn't hurt yourself) women who disagree with your agenda or your actions that mean you don't have respect for women in general.  You respect the women who agree with you and who like to use the same tactics you do.  But women in the church in general, no, i don't believe you do.  You have not made a good case for yourself there.

 

I don't think that caring about someone means that I must validate their every opinion.  I can love you to pieces and think you are dead wrong on an issue.  In fact, I think that love is often the catalyst for having an opinion one way or the other.

 

 

I agree.

 

So, in this case, how do I respect ALL women -- by agreeing that two contradictory positions are both correct?

 

 

I'll give you this secret to life where you can respect everyone without agreeing with them.  It's pretty simple.  You do not belittle or dismiss the experiences of those who disagree with your position.  

 

In fact, by taking the OW side of the matter, I think I am doing as much as I can to respect ALL of women in the Church.  No one is suggesting that the priesthood be foist upon women who do not want to take on that responsibility.  If a woman feels totally valued and that she is maximizing her contribution without it, good for her!  But why should that woman's contentment prevent another woman from giving greater service?

 

 

Go back and re-read what you wrote about women who are ok with being the ecclesiastical inferiors of 12 year olds (it's not true, but to use your words) and see if it sounds like you respect them.  I'm certainly not getting that from you.

 

I see it analogously to, say, gays serving in the military.  Most of my gay friends would never consider serving in the military.  Yet, I have never met a gay person who did not support the right of OTHER gay people to so serve.  So why do women who don't want that role for themselves feel the need to deny it to others?  Now, certainly I can see why a woman wouldn't agitate for a priesthood that they don't want.  But to oppose it for others?  That seems, in my view, somewhat selfish.  (Oops, I did it again)

 

 

Those women do not seek to deny it to others, they seek to uphold God's will in the matter and they believe that God has denied it (to use your term) to women.  

 

It would be selfish if the church was a social club.  It's not all selfish if someone believes that God is in control of the church and that God has said no.

[Calm]

Mormon feminist efforts didn't begin with Ordain Women, any more than organized dissent began with "Any Opposed" ...p

They didn't even 'invent' the getting the media involved in some public protest style (see Pants and Prayer events referred to, other letter writing campaigns posted online, we could go back to SoniaJohnson even with the chaining herself to the temple gates).  

 

They just cranked it up to focusing on one issue and being dogmatic in their demand imo.

 

Peggy Fletcher Stack probably did the hard work for them, getting media attention.  

Edited July 21, 2015 by calmoriah

[carbon dioxide]

Blacks and the Priesthood is a terrible analogy for Ordaining Women.  A primary force moving the brethren to "repent" of the priesthood ban was the respectful actions and petition by black Saints in West Africa, Brazil and other nations around the world.  It was not protests and outside pressure.  Learn the history before critiquing it.  

That is a good point.  When my sons nice request or petition something that I do for them, I might seriously consider the request.  If they demand or protest that I give them something, it is an automatic NO.  I think our heavenly parents are no different.  

[mormonnewb]

No, it is saying stuff like "[a]s for being dismissive about the timidity and impotence of past Mo Fem efforts for gender equality, I stand guilty as charged" and "all of the other inconsequential and placating changes that preceded it" and "any effort that does not start with a clear statement of the goal -- FULL EQUALITY -- is either disingenuous or feckless".

 

Shows ignorance and worst, a lack of caring about that ignorance of what women have experienced and accomplished in the Church outside of OW.  Apparently you think receiving temple endowments as "inconsequential and placating".

 

Lack of caring=lack of respect.

 

Do you dismiss the efforts of the Genesis group and their accomplishments as well as timid, impotent, inconsequential, placating, disingenous and/or feckless because there is as yet no black apostle?

 

PS: there are a lot of women in the Church that have worked for change over the years that would have no problem with accepting or allowing other women to have the priesthood.  Simply because some of us disagree with the methods of OW does not mean we are attempting to deny any woman the Priesthood.  In fact, a great many of us believe we already have it even if the exercise of it has not be fully explored outside of the temple and it needs to be.

 

No, it is saying stuff like "[a]s for being dismissive about the timidity and impotence of past Mo Fem efforts for gender equality, I stand guilty as charged" and "all of the other inconsequential and placating changes that preceded it" and "any effort that does not start with a clear statement of the goal -- FULL EQUALITY -- is either disingenuous or feckless".

 

Shows ignorance and worst, a lack of caring about that ignorance of what women have experienced and accomplished in the Church outside of OW.  Apparently you think receiving temple endowments as "inconsequential and placating".

 

Lack of caring=lack of respect.

 

Do you dismiss the efforts of the Genesis group and their accomplishments as well as timid, impotent, inconsequential, placating, disingenous and/or feckless because there is as yet no black apostle?

 

PS: there are a lot of women in the Church that have worked for change over the years that would have no problem with accepting or allowing other women to have the priesthood.  Simply because some of us disagree with the methods of OW does not mean we are attempting to deny any woman the Priesthood.  In fact, a great many of us believe we already have it even if the exercise of it has not be fully explored outside of the temple and it needs to be.

 

In about 2,000 posts on this board, have I EVER shown even the slightest bit of humility or indicated any ability to express respectful disagreement with those who have a different opinion (i.e., are wrong)?  I ATTEMPT to be humorous in my interactions, but I am never understanding or reasonable.  Heck, as evidenced by this thread, I'm not even usually factually correct.  I have been guilty of every logical fallacy in the book (and a few that I invited on my own).  Hyberbole is my middle -- thus, Mormon H. Newb.  And so you're surprised that I use those same "lovable" qualities in expressing my disagreement with my more moderate sisters in the Church?  Really?  From my warped perspective, it would be sexist for me to NOT be just as unreasonable with you as I am with Why Me, Scott Lloyd and Kenngo.  Think about it.  Kenngo is probably the nicest person on the planet and I was so unreasonable with him that even HE is probably still mad at me for something that happened months ago.  I would not insult your intelligence to pretend that I have the ability to entertain the possibility that those who disagree with me are being logical or honest in their assessment of the situation.  How could they be?  Otherwise, they would see things the "correct" way (I'm not totally kidding here).

 

So leaving out the hyperbolic rhetoric, my very black and white thinking on the matter is as follows: any attempt to fix particular inequalities is just playing a never-ending game of whack-a-mole unless we get the root cause of the issue -- male supremacy.  And its most obvious and blatant manifestation is in the segregation of the priesthood -- the very power of God on earth -- and the prerequisite for all administrative power in the Church.

 

So take, for instance, the disparity in funding between young men and young women's programs (I believe that closing that gap was one of the achievements listed in an earlier post).  However, do you believe that young women are given the same level of training and guidance as young men in the Church?  I don't think that it is even close.  Of course, I don't have any girls in my house, so I really have NO idea what the young women do.  NONE.  However, even if I was childless, I'd have a pretty good idea about what the young men do because at some point, I would have been invited to an Arrow of Lights ceremony, a Pinewood Derby race, etc.  In short, the achievements and accomplishments of boys in the Church matter.  But for girls, the attitude is largely "Whatever!"

 

And by the way, that is the LOGICAL reaction to a young woman's development given her potential for contribution to the organization.  Military branches spend far more per person to train and educate their officers than they spend on their enlisted persons.  Why?  Because an officer is being groomed to be a LEADER in the organization, who will be given tremendous responsibility and be entrusted to make life-or-death decisions for thousands of soldiers under her charge.  Now, don't get me wrong.  Enlisted personnel are essential to the armed forces.  And each soldier makes a significant contribution in his own right.  Yet, we don't pour as many resources into their development because their decisions will affect far fewer people.

 

In the Church, we apply the same thinking to women.  They are essential to the organization.  You simply can't have a church without them.  And within their limited spheres of influence, they make incredible contributions.  But those spheres are necessarily limited to their families (and perhaps, on a ward level).  And to be honest, most men will make similar contributions to the organization.  But there are SOME men who will make decisions with far-reaching ramifications.  And, of course, starting from the beginning, we don't know who these people are.  But we do know one thing -- they will be MEN.  By virtue of our current doctrine, they MUST be men.  So we do the logical thing -- we pour more time, attention and training into young men than young women.

 

And this officer/enlisted saint dichotomy runs through dozens of other facets of Church life.  Trying to stamp them out one-by-one seems immeasurably harder (and quite frankly, impossible) than it would be to strike at the root cause for the disparity.  Of course, interestingly enough, the Church doesn't seem to impose discipline on those who seek a piecemeal solution (my sinister side suspects this is so because the MEN in charge know that fundamental change can't be achieved that way).  And here is where I should probably be more respectful, but I have to question -- Am I seeing something that the moderate feminists are not seeing or are they simply not willing to "go there"?

 

And I think that's the source of the disrespect from "hard-liners" like myself.  Believe it or not, it isn't a lack of respect for your intellects.  Even I'm not delusional enough to think that I have the intellectual bandwidth of a Calmoriah, BlueDreams or bluebell.  So, in my mind, the thought process is, "These intelligent people see that their plan is unworkable, but they pursue it anyway because at least, they won't get excommunicated, disowned, divorced, etc."

 

I guess, in fairness (and just this once), I will acknowledge that there MIGHT be an alternative.  I guess it is possible that my assessment could be wrong and that a piecemeal solution is possible.  And I guess another possible alternative is that, regardless of its feasibility, moderate feminists could SINCERELY believe that their plan is workable and therefore, are acting more from prudence than cowardice.  Yes, I guess those are both possibilities but since I wouldn't extend this benefit of the doubt to men in the Church, is it really fair for me to extend it to women?  As someone committed to equality, I'm committed to being equally unreasonable in casting aspersions on members of both genders.  I may be completely wrong on all counts, but I am consistently so.

[Calm]

In about 2,000 posts on this board, have I EVER shown even the slightest bit of humility or indicated any ability to express respectful disagreement with those who have a different opinion (i.e., are wrong)?

 

And you act as if this should mean we pay attention to you?

 

You are not unintelligent or inarticulate and I assume you have some decent feelings for other human beings, but you act like a juvenile brat.  It is extremely distasteful and not at all humorous.

 

And I refuse to give you any more of a platform for your arrogant ignorance.

Edited July 21, 2015 by calmoriah