The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[JAHS]

Here's a clip of a film coming to a film festival near you. I guess they still haven't gotten the memo.

"Where We Stand is the latest film by the filmmaker Kristine Stolakis—it’s the story of a controversial group of Mormon feminists fighting for the ordination of women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this short scene from the film, we meet Abby Hansen, a stay-at-home mom turned vocal advocate for Ordain Women. Stolakis wrote in an email: "The film is not just for Mormons. It is not just for feminists. It is for anyone who has questioned what it means to believe and to belong." Stolakis is currently running an Indiegogo to raise completion and distribution funds, and the full film will premiere in film festivals this winter."

The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[carbon dioxide]

Those who demand the priesthood or fight to have are those who should be the last people to have it.  The priesthood is never about the person who holds it.  It is not about making people feel good about themselves or raising their status among the group.  If women ever get the priesthood it will for one reason and one reason only.  That being it is the will of God for women to have it.  God the Father needs them to have it.  Anything else is a "my will be done" position and should be always rejected.

[The Nehor]

I think I would rather watch this movie:

 

 

[Calm]

My word, how do you find these travesties? (Nehor's video, not the OP)

Edited February 3, 2016 by Calm

[why me]

7 hours ago, JAHS said:

Here's a clip of a film coming to a film festival near you. I guess they still haven't gotten the memo.

"Where We Stand is the latest film by the filmmaker Kristine Stolakis—it’s the story of a controversial group of Mormon feminists fighting for the ordination of women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this short scene from the film, we meet Abby Hansen, a stay-at-home mom turned vocal advocate for Ordain Women. Stolakis wrote in an email: "The film is not just for Mormons. It is not just for feminists. It is for anyone who has questioned what it means to believe and to belong." Stolakis is currently running an Indiegogo to raise completion and distribution funds, and the full film will premiere in film festivals this winter."

The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

i didn't acutally get the clip. Women can wear pants to church if they wish to. There is no ordinance that forbids it when attending church. So, why make a big deal of it? Of course, it is a cultural thing as the white shirt for men. But no one is forced to wear a white shirt either. I don't and no one seems to care. It seems that some lds women have very little going on in their lives or they are not  intune with what is happening in the world. To focus on wearing pants to church in the face of the problems of terrorism, brutality and other norms now happening, seems to be trivial.

And I don't think that many people who are not mormons care about such issues.

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think I would rather watch this movie:

 

 

The full title is "Birdemic: Shock and Terror," Released in 2008, it cost $10,000 to make, with most of the money spent on really cool special effects.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

 an Indiegogo to raise completion and distribution funds, and the full film will premiere in film festivals this winter."

Is that a form of want-priestcraft?

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, why me said:

i didn't acutally get the clip. Women can wear pants to church if they wish to. There is no ordinance that forbids it when attending church. So, why make a big deal of it? Of course, it is a cultural thing as the white shirt for men. But no one is forced to wear a white shirt either. I don't and no one seems to care. It seems that some lds women have very little going on in their lives or they are not  intune with what is happening in the world. To focus on wearing pants to church in the face of the problems of terrorism, brutality and other norms now happening, seems to be trivial.

And I don't think that many people who are not mormons care about such issues.

The LDS culture is a little different depending on where you live. Some wards in some areas would think it blasphemous for women to wear pants to church, but in my California ward there are a few women who always wear pants and no one gives it a second thought. So the message would be lost where I live. 

[juliann]

On 2/3/2016 at 10:06 PM, carbon dioxide said:

Those who demand the priesthood or fight to have are those who should be the last people to have it.  The priesthood is never about the person who holds it.  It is not about making people feel good about themselves or raising their status among the group.  If women ever get the priesthood it will for one reason and one reason only.  That being it is the will of God for women to have it.  God the Father needs them to have it.  Anything else is a "my will be done" position and should be always rejected.

There is not one mention in that video of a demand or fight. Most of these women are asking for parity and pushing through the limitations of arbitrary gender roles. If those who want the priesthood should be the last to get it, then men shouldn't have it. And it really isn't very convincing to have men who have all of the benefits (which most certainly includes status and feeling good about themselves!) telling everybody else why they should be the only ones to have those things. Male privilege and entitlement doesn't even begin to cover this. That said, it is most certainly the will of God. But maybe God the Mother needs them to have it. Mormon men too often think that they can not only speak for God but for women. This is a woman's discussion

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by juliann

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is not one mention in that video of a demand or fight.

That is just a short clip of the main video. We'll have to wait and see what the rest of the video has to say when it comes out.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

My word, how do you find these travesties? (Nehor's video, not the OP)

Possibly the best worst movie ever. I make it habit to watch bad movies.

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

That is just a short clip of the main video. We'll have to wait and see what the rest of the video has to say when it comes out.

If it is anything different, it would be out of step with what they say everywhere else. Kate Kelly was the one using over the top language and you will notice she no longer seems to have a presence in the prominent mofem orgs.  I wouldn't be surprised if she damaged OW so badly they never recover.  These smart women aren't oblivious.

[smac97]

So let's sum up the trailer: 

Start With an Excommunicated Person Well-Known for Being Hostile to the Church: The trailer starts with a shot of . . . Kate Kelly, whom we all know was excommunicated for apostasy relating to her "agitation" for female ordination.

Directly Connect that Hostile Person to the Woman in the Film: The next shot is of the woman's Facebook page and her getting a note of encouragement from Kate Kelly regarding an upcoming "experience" with her "bishop," and that this "experience" will "help other women."

Publicly Divulge Sensitive Communications Involving Her Bishop, Knowing Full Well Her Characterization of Those Communications Can Never Be Countered or Examined: The next part is a voiceover of the woman recounting her bishop's threatening her with excommunication.  This part also has the woman putting words in the bishop's mouth ("Like, he needed to make a stand that I was not okay.").

Immediately After Vilifying the Representative of the LDS Church (the Bishop), Focus on the Niceness of the Woman:  Most of the trailer shows nice, family-friendly moments of this woman with her child (the woman who that mean ol' bishop was threatening to excommunicate).

Establish How Bishop Is Victimizing Her: The next part establishes the woman's status as a victim of the bishop.  ("I couldn't sleep.  I was getting these bad stomachaches.  And they had to have been, like, stress-induced. ... I would be trying to get ready to go to church and I would be sobbing, just trying to get myself calmed down.").

Establish How Bishop is (Indirectly) Victimizing Her Children: The next part focuses on, apparently, how the bishop's threat to excommunicate her (we can only take this woman's word about it, since the bishop is constrained to remain silent about any such issues - a point certainly known to the woman who is presuming to characterize him publicly in a movie) is also adversely affecting her children.  In voiceover (with the shot being of her little girl's sunday clothes hanging in the closet) she states: "It's really hard, 'cause you don't know how things are affecting kids."

Establish the Horrors of Dress-Wearing: The next part focuses on her hoping that her children will not have to go through "an awakening" as she has endured.  She doesn't explain an awakening to what, but it apparently involves the nefarious wickedness pertaining to . . . the unofficial tradition of women wearing dresses to Church.  She is seen preparing her child for church and specifically explaining that she is wearing pants.  The next part is about a "really, really strong cultural norm" about women wearing dresses (or, as this woman weirdly puts it, "not wearing pants").  

Re-Emphasize Victim Status by Alleging Death Threats Against the Woman (a/k/a Victim of the Bishop/LDS Church) and Connect Pants-Wearing (???) to Female Ordination: In the last part she characterizes the seriousness of this "cultural norm" as being . . . really, really serious.  And she specifically and directly connects the women-wearing-pants thing to female ordination (the reasoning of this eludes me, but whatever).  She characterizes the LDS Church and its members to her upcoming movie audience this way: "When you realize that just organizing a group of women to wear pants to church on Sunday got death threats, you kinda realize how big a deal it is for women to be asking for the priesthood."

Emphasize an Adversarial Condition Existing Between the Bishop/LDS Church and the Nice-Mom-Who-Just-Wants-to-Wear-Pants-And-Has-Been-Threatened-With-Murder-Over-It: The movie's title is "The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood."  Against whom is she "fighting?"  Well, the organization that A) has members threatening to murder her, B) that has victimized her and her children, and C) is apparently supposed to capitulate to pressure tactics like this.

Overall, not very impressive, particularly the incoherent and incredibly unfair and mean-spirited cheap shot of tying pants-wearing to "death threats," and tying both of those to her innocuous-sounding "asking for the priesthood."  She aggrandizes herself at the expense of the reputation and character of her bishop, her fellow adherents, and the LDS Church.

Yeah, not very impressive at all.

-Smac

Edited February 3, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

There is not one mention in that video of a demand or fight. Most of these women are asking for parity and pushing through the limitations of arbitrary gender roles. If those who want the priesthood should be the last to get it, then men shouldn't have it. And it really isn't very convincing to have men who have all of the benefits (which most certainly includes status and feeling good about themselves!) telling everybody else why they should be the only ones to have those things. Male privilege and entitlement doesn't even begin to cover this. That said, it is most certainly the will of God. But maybe God the Mother needs them to have it. Mormon men too often think that they can not only speak for God but for women. This is a woman's discussion

The title of the movie includes the word "fight."  And the subject of the film frames the narrative as a fight or dispute between her and her bishop (who is threatening her with excommunication), between her and dastardly Mormons (who have threatened to murder her for wearing pants), between her and the LDS Church (which is not letting her be ordained to the priesthood).

I've never thought of holding the priesthood as a "benefit."  It's occasionally described as a "privilege," a means of serving others.  But a "benefit?"  That men get and women do not?  How does that work?

I am surprised, and even a little appalled, at your effort to silence men because of their gender ("This is a woman's discussion").  "Male privilege and entitlement" indeed.  With respect, I refuse to be silenced because of my gender.  This is not a "a woman's discussion."  It's not "a man's discussion," either.  It is a discussion for the Latter-day Saints.  All of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

We have a couple of women in my ward whom I've never seen wear a dress to church. I think I'll ask them this Sunday how many death threats they've been getting.

[Russell C McGregor]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am surprised, and even a little appalled, at your effort to silence men because of their gender ("This is a woman's discussion").  "Male privilege and entitlement" indeed.  With respect, I refuse to be silenced because of my gender.  This is not a "a woman's discussion."  It's not "a man's discussion," either.  It is a discussion for the Latter-day Saints.  All of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

You nailed it.

 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We have a couple of women in my ward whom I've never seen wear a dress to church. I think I'll ask them this Sunday how many death threats they've been getting.

Our ward's previous organist wore pants on most Sundays.  I did not hear about any death threats against her (or even any adverse remarks at all).

Personally, I have no qualms with women wearing pants, or with men wearing non-white dress shirts.  Both are traditions in the LDS Church, but they are not doctrinal.  And while adhering to such traditions is harmless, so is not adhering to them.

That said, I'm not a fan of people wearing clothes to church which are intended to "send a message."  "Sunday best" is intended to reflect devotion to God, not "message sending" or flipping the bird at tradition or convention.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Our ward's previous organist wore pants on most Sundays.  I did not hear about any death threats against her (or even any adverse remarks at all).

Personally, I have no qualms with women wearing pants, or with men wearing non-white dress shirts.  Both are traditions in the LDS Church, but they are not doctrinal.  And while adhering to such traditions is harmless, so is not adhering to them.

That said, I'm not a fan of people wearing clothes to church which are intended to "send a message."  "Sunday best" is intended to reflect devotion to God, not "message sending" or flipping the bird at tradition or convention.

Thanks,

-Smac

When I was a RS president one of the sisters that I requested (and who was called) frequently wore pants to church. It wasn't a big deal. 

[ERMD]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

There is not one mention in that video of a demand or fight. Most of these women are asking for parity and pushing through the limitations of arbitrary gender roles. If those who want the priesthood should be the last to get it, then men shouldn't have it. And it really isn't very convincing to have men who have all of the benefits (which most certainly includes status and feeling good about themselves!) telling everybody else why they should be the only ones to have those things. Male privilege and entitlement doesn't even begin to cover this. That said, it is most certainly the will of God. But maybe God the Mother needs them to have it. Mormon men too often think that they can not only speak for God but for women. This is a woman's discussion

The video reminds me of the biggest problem I have with the current feminist scrip....the "sobbing." I read blogs of women "sobbing" through sacrament meetings or the temple endowment. In fact most mofem blogs seem wet with tears nowadays . Trouble is, sobbing is noisy. I'm still trying to imagine a woman shaking with loud sobs in the temple and getting no reaction. I'm sure it is hyperbole but it is time to stop crying. It has lost any its effectiveness due to overuse.

A woman's discussion?  Male privilege and entitlement?

I for one believe that some Mormon men speak for God, or rather that God speaks through them.  If they have something to say on this subject, I will give heed to their words.  Additionally, I see no reason why men in general cannot have and express a valid opinion on this topic.

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That said, I'm not a fan of people wearing clothes to church which are intended to "send a message."

I think the only message I pick up from our ward members is, 'Hey, I wanted to be with you at church today, and you probably don't want to see me without clothes, so...'

Seriously, we have women in skirts and men in skirts, women in pants and men in pants, boys in long pants, boys in short pants, boys in skirts, girls in skirts and girls in pants. We have men in thongs and boys in boots, and we sometimes have barefoot children. Our most recent convert wore something resembling pink pyjamas to his confirmation because that's formal wear where he comes from. Everyone thought it was beautiful.

When the 'Nephites' in North America finally stop trying to rip the Church apart from the inside, just let us know. We're ready to go here.

[juliann]

The name of the film is Where We Stand, not fighting for the priesthood. So perhaps some posters are trying to insert other messages that just aren't there. Like mocking the death threats. There are screen shots of them. Some may think that is funny or they deserved it but claiming it never happened does not establish credibility. I may not agree with everything said but it is a story of one woman's experience from her perspective and it is quite tame, although what follows may not be. But that isn't under discussion. Notice they are still seeking funding. Having Kelly in there will ensure it won't be taken seriously. That is the first mistake. 

It is a shame that so many want to make this a fight. And as is evident here, it isn't always the feminists. Patrick Mason said in his new book that we have to face the reality of new generations. A huge part of that is that males can no longer tell women what they should think or do. Or expect women to always view themselves through a male lens. There have been changes that don't seem as interesting to some as demonizing women. Men are already losing some of that status just by no longer being referred to as "the priesthood." Women are being acknowledged as operating within that same priesthood. Males may be the only ones ordained to offices of priesthood at present but for anyone putting together the statements being made by Oaks and others, priesthood is not "male."  And until males are humble enough to pay attention to the women who are doing most of the scholarship on this, they won't be able to sustain a discussion. Which is why some turn to hyperbole and insults.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

The name of the film is Where We Stand, not fighting for the priesthood.

And I saw a movie called "The Longest Day," not "The D-Day Invasion." Titles are interesting, but they're not all there is.

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

So perhaps some posters are trying to insert other messages that just aren't there.

Did you read the OP? The film is marketed as "the story of a controversial group of Mormon feminists fighting for the ordination of women." That isn't something "some posters" just decided to make up.

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

Like mocking the death threats. There are screen shots of them. Some may think that is funny or they deserved it but claiming it never happened does not establish credibility.

Nor does merely claiming that they happened establish credibility. Has anyone taken them seriously enough to actually investigate them? Threatening to kill people is a crime. Has any official action been taken? If not, why not? Given that this is a group of publicity-hounds, how do we know the alleged death threats aren't of their own manufacture?

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

It is a shame that so many want to make this a fight. And as is evident here, it isn't always the feminists. Patrick Mason said in his new book that we have to face the reality of new generations. A huge part of that is that males can no longer tell women what they should think or do. Or expect women to always view themselves through a male lens. There have been changes that don't seem as interesting to some as demonizing women. Men are already losing some of that status just by no longer being referred to as "the priesthood." Women are being acknowledged as operating within that same priesthood. Males may be the only ones ordained to offices of priesthood at present but for anyone putting together the statements being made by Oaks and others, priesthood is not "male."  And until males are humble enough to pay attention to the women who are doing most of the scholarship on this, they won't be able to sustain a discussion. Which is why some turn to hyperbole and insults.

Is that how you justify your claim that "This is a woman's discussion?" Are the men supposed to sit down, shut up, and wait upon the deliberations of their betters?

Did your fellow feminists take Elder Oaks seriously when he firmly shut the door on female ordination? Are you sure you're not arguing a double standard here?

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

The name of the film is Where We Stand, not fighting for the priesthood.  So perhaps some posters are trying to insert other messages that just aren't there.

The promotional material presented by the filmmakers characterizes the film as being about "a controversial group of Mormon feminists fighting for the ordination of women."

The trailer starts with an introduction to Abby Hansen by . . . Kate Kelly.

The trailer in its entirety is, in tone and content, adversarial.

Quote

Like mocking the death threats. There are screen shots of them. Some may think that is funny or they deserved it but claiming it never happened does not establish credibility.

As with Wendy Montgomery's recently published-and-almost-certainly-fabricated-to-make-the-LDS-Church-look-bad "statistic", I am not willing to take Abby Hansen's say-so about death threats.  The Latter-day Saints are not really known for murder threats (despite context-free characterizations of us by . . . people like Abby Hansen).  There is no question that virtually every faithful Latter-day Saints everywhere would condemn the idea of threatening the life of anyone.  It would be bad faith to state or imply otherwise.  And yet, in the context of this trailer, Abby Hansen speaks of death threats in a matter-of-fact way.  As Mr. McGregor has noted, do we have any evidence that such threats were made?  Were they reported to the police?  Who were they from?  Any risk of gaslighting (a la Wendy Montgomery)?  How often have we heard of observant Latter-day Saints threatening to murder other Latter-day Saints over matters of doctrine?  How often have we heard of observant Latter-day Saints threatening to murder other Latter-day Saints over matters of clothing?  How often have other Latter-day Saints chimed in and said "Yeah!  I'm glad Abby Hansen was threatened with murder!"?  How often have the leaders of the LDS Church condoned such things?

I'm not "mocking" the alleged death threats.  I am voicing skepticism about them.  This is an extraordinary and outrageous accusation for one Latter-day Saint to lay at the feet of other Latter-day Saints.  But Abby Hansen has done so.  Publicly.  And this allegation just happens to have several fascinating characteristics: A) it is it profoundly out of character and out of the ordinary for observant Latter-day Saints to threaten to murder other Latter-day Saints (and over something as absurdly trivial as women wearing pants, no less), B) it is unsubstantiated (AFAIK, although I am open to correction on this point), C) it has been presented to the world, D) it is presented with the calculated intent of making Latter-day Saints and their Church look bad (I mean horrendously, villainously, wickedly bad), and E) it is also presented with the calculated intent of portraying Abby Hansen as a victim living in mortal fear for her life.  Golly!  All these ducks lining up in a row seems just a bit . . . convenient, don't you think?

Quote

I may not agree with everything said but it is a story of one woman's experience from her perspective and it is quite tame,

Accusing your fellow Latter-day Saints of sending you death threats is "tame?"

Publicizing such accusations in an environment of resurgent they-look-and-seem-nice-but-deep-down-the-Mormons-are-eeeevil penny dreadfuls (think John Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith and September Dawn) is "tame?"  Let's get real here.  Some people have very little experience with or information about the Latter-day Saints.  They might read stuff like Krakauer's book and think they've got the skinny on us.  And then while browsing online one day they come across a movie trailer about Abby Hansen, a spunky LDS woman, mother to two adorable little kids, living in an LDS neighborhood, normal as the day is long, who then casually drops a line about living under death threats from her fellow Mormons.  This, in your view, is "tame?"

Quote

Notice they are still seeking funding. Having Kelly in there will ensure it won't be taken seriously. That is the first mistake. 

 

Oh, I don't know.  A glib, context-free, public accusation that her fellow Latter-day Saints are threatening to murder her might have also been a little inappropriate.

Quote

It is a shame that so many want to make this a fight.

Abby Hansen being the first of these "many," right?  It's not like any of us went out to "fight" her.

Quote

And as is evident here, it isn't always the feminists. Patrick Mason said in his new book that we have to face the reality of new generations. A huge part of that is that males can no longer tell women what they should think or do. Or expect women to always view themselves through a male lens. There have been changes that don't seem as interesting to some as demonizing women.

"Demonizing women?"  Who's doing that?

What's with the casual slurs we are seeing from Latter-day Saints against other Latter-day Saints?

Wendy Montgomery fabricates suicide data as a talking point to exploit against the LDS Church and its leaders and members.

Abby Hansen stars in a documentary where she casually accuses her fellow Latter-day Saints of wanting to murder her for wearing pants.

And now you are accusing participants of this thread of "demonizing women."

What is going on???

Quote

Men are already losing some of that status just by no longer being referred to as "the priesthood." Women are being acknowledged as operating within that same priesthood. Males may be the only ones ordained to offices of priesthood at present but for anyone putting together the statements being made by Oaks and others, priesthood is not "male."  

Earlier you said: "It is a shame that so many want to make this a fight."  And yet here you are, framing the Priesthood as a "fight."  As an "us-versus-them," "men-versus-women" kind of thing.  Physician, heal . . . 

Quote

And until males are humble enough to pay attention to the women who are doing most of the scholarship on this, they won't be able to sustain a discussion. Which is why some turn to hyperbole and insults.

Yet another casual and gender-based slur.  "Males" as a category aren't "humble enough to pay attention?"

Again, what is going on here???  What's with the gender-based vitriol?  If any LDS man made such a broad, demeaning representation about "females" being intellectually inattentive, we'd be raked across the coals.  So what do we learn here?  That sexism okay when women engage in it?  Sorry, not gonna buy that.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited February 4, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Has anyone taken them seriously enough to actually investigate them? Threatening to kill people is a crime. Has any official action been taken?

Yes, I believe they were investigated.  IIRC the man was kicked out out of BYU (he was a student).

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r4E9x54sf_cJ:https://www.facebook.com/WearPantsToChurchDay/posts/444695815585004+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

apparently the full posting on the Student Review facebook page:

Quote

A BYU philosophy student was reported to the Honor Code Office and University Police on Dec. 13 for allegedly making death threats toward All Enlisted, a group responsible for the Facebook event “Wear Pants to Church Day,” the first event created by the advocacy group to promote women’s equality in the LDS Church.

The student’s post on the event’s Facebook page states “every single person who is a minority activist, should be shot.. in the face… point blank… GET OVER YOURSELVES”. Hours after the threat was posted the event was removed from Facebook and members of All Enlisted reported the student to BYU’s Honor Code Office and police.

“We organized this event to highlight one of the gendered cultural norms in our church as a symbol of the larger gender inequities that exist,” said event coordinator Kimberly Brinkerhoff Baptista. “It looks like people get pretty angry when you challenge the status quo.”

BYU Police Public Information Officer Arnold Lemmon confirmed that they had been contacted about the incident, but that it was outside of their jurisdiction because the student is suspected to live off-campus. BYU Police referred the complaint to the BYU Honor Code Office which has opted not to comment on the status of its investigation of the threats to protect the student’s privacy.

In a later comment, the same student retracted his death threat but not his malice stating, “the motive of the comment was to rile each of you up, which I did in a most successful way. I didn’t even know that this post made such an impact till I received a phone call this morning pleading for me to delete this post. I will not be deleting this post. I will let this fire burn until anyone who chooses to be an activist has their day ruined completely.”

The student had been the most public and extreme assailant of All Enlisted but not the only one to make threats of violence. One organizer, who has since left the group All Enlisted, received a private message that threatened her life. Details on that instance have not been disclosed to protect the anonymity of the threatened organizer but the threat is under investigation by authorities.

Other severe responses to the “Wear Pants to Church Day” ranged from impartial to extreme. Another BYU student allegedly messaged a member of All Enlisted saying, “…lighten up. If God designed you to take a [word omitted], you should be able to at least take a joke.”

The negative responses did not damage the event according the event organizers. Dialogue of “Wear Pants to Church Day” put the event in the national spotlight, hitting news sites The New York Times and National Public Radio.

“In the end, the extreme nature of the criticisms leveled against our event made our point for us better than any pair of pants ever could,” Baptista said. “Not only that, but it was the single factor that landed us in the international press. So in that sense, the best way to have opposed the event would have been to not oppose it at all.”

 

Edited February 4, 2016 by Calm

[Sleeper Cell]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

There is not one mention in that video of a demand or fight. Most of these women are asking for parity and pushing through the limitations of arbitrary gender roles. If those who want the priesthood should be the last to get it, then men shouldn't have it. And it really isn't very convincing to have men who have all of the benefits (which most certainly includes status and feeling good about themselves!) telling everybody else why they should be the only ones to have those things. Male privilege and entitlement doesn't even begin to cover this. That said, it is most certainly the will of God. But maybe God the Mother needs them to have it. Mormon men too often think that they can not only speak for God but for women. This is a woman's discussion

Sense of status?  Feeling good about myself?  I have never felt any sense of status from having the priesthood, nor do I feel any better about myself than I would have, had I not received the priesthood.  Indeed, when called as a high priest, I initially declined because I saw no reason for it,  as I had never held a presiding position in the church and was sure I would never do so.  (I was once a counselor in a Sunday School presidency for a few months, but that’s about it).  To this day, I do not know why I was called as a high priest.  I have never done anything in the church that required me to be a high priest, and very few things (other than temple work) that I felt required me to hold the priesthood at all.   

As far as church goes, I get my "sense of status" from my baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and my sense of feeling good about myself from the all too infrequent occasions I actually live up to my covenants.  

I am puzzled by your last few sentences.  Are you actually suggesting the possibility of a difference of opinion between God the Father and God the Mother?  (“It is most certainly the will of God.  But maybe God the Mother needs them to have it.”)

If the subject of “women receiving the priesthood” should only be a discussion among women, surely the subject “does God the Mother need them to have it”  should only be a discussion between Our Heavenly Parents.