- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Over these past year or so I have not engaged in any conversation over Ordain Women, I have read their website and listened to or read blogs and comments on the matter and organization. I do have feelings on the matters in discussion. For now I will not go into them, suffice it to say there are important women’s issues I too would like some clarification or redress in church practices for women. There are inequalities that leave me puzzled. However, I fear that Ordain Women and The Church Leadership are falling into a parent/child trap that will lead to an even deader end then we are right now. I have raised teenagers, and there are times when each side is pushing so hard and so stubbornly for their point of view – whether its out of concern for safety or a passion of selfishness – but each side sets its heels and won’t budge. They don’t listen to the other, feeling of love or caring seemed lost, from there wounds are inflicted – and sometimes even a worse result ensues.
That’s what I fear is happening here. I don’t know if I want Ordination. But a more respected voice for women, a return of historic powers to bless by laying on of hands, more autonomy and respect for Relief Society and Sisters. I just worry that none of these types of conversations will occur.
Great post, mom3. I agree, and this is why I just can’t support the OW movement. Priesthood Session is a terrible venue for protest. Also, the very name of the organization implies something that the Church will not even consider (yet), so it is an argument from the introduction. I would much prefer a non-protest approach and one that focuses on what the Church could actually do today, if it wanted: separating hierarchy from priesthood. Taking Elder Oaks talk from Priesthood Session last night, the Church could easily move to a model in which a Bishop is all that is needed in order to perform ALL other ward functions. We aren’t even close to that today, but it would be so easy. If we had a movement that asked for new and more leadership roles available to either sex, without regard to the priesthood, I could get behind that. I want women to have the priesthood, too. But there is zero chance that we will get there in one giant step.
I dont know if a minority or not on this issue, but as a woman i really dont want women to have the Priesthood. In reference to what some of OON said…i do see a few callings that women could hold (such as ward clerk, i dont understand why not). But the fact that men have the Priesthood was one of the reasons why i joined the church. Along with some other things, it made perfect sense and felt right. I dont believe that equality is the same thing as equity (hope i got that right ). Just because i cant do something that i really want to do doesnt make it right. The Priesthood is one of the defining characteristics of our church and it wouldnt be same if just anyone could get it. I support Ordain Women. I didn’t participate in the action, for various reasons. But I know some of the participants. And I have to tell you that the newspaper articles about what took place on temple square last night are not accurate. I agree that general authorities are threatened and going into retrenchment mode. But I don’t think it’s fair to blame Mormon feminists. It’s not true that they are “detracting from the conversation” by the way they are going about this. The conversation is happening BECAUSE of Mormon Feminists! How could they “talk” to the church leadership OTHER than through the media? There is no effective way to get member needs to the general leadership because 1. Letters get sent back to your bishop, 2. Repeated requests for OW to meet with the church were ignored, 3. Women don’t even have the opportunity to serve in ward and stake leadership positions of authority, which are “priesthood responsibilities.” So their perspectives can’t even “trickle up.”
I’m glad that so many women “feel equal” and don’t see the need for any change. But some women are hurting A LOT over these issues. They are clinging to their faith desperately, trying to find ways to heal and to stay. Petitioning for leaders to pray and respond to them is what they are doing to try to find a place for themselves (ourselves) in Mormonism. What other recourse is there besides leaving, voting “with their feet?”
I honestly don’t personally feel the need to be ordained. But I DO care that our church routinely sends girls the message that they are not valued by the church, or by God. I think that we need to get people our of their comfort zones enough to consider other perspectives. They NEED to hear that our church policies related to gender hurt people !
I have so, so much too say on this topic. But my feelings are too raw right now. I’d better stop for a bit.
I think the clash of the main players could be called any number of negative things, but without it, “everyone else” might not be doing what they’re doing. Seems like there are some good changes afoot. I just hope that people don’t go off saying that any changes have NOTHING to do with OW, orthat OW is responsible for ALL change. Ann wrote:I think the clash of the main players could be called any number of negative things, but without it, “everyone else” might not be doing what they’re doing. Seems like there are some good changes afoot. I just hope that people don’t go off saying that any changes have NOTHING to do with OW,
orthat OW is responsible for ALL change. I agree that there are subtle changes in the right direction, and I do believe LDS feminists are responsible for some of the changes. Elder Oaks made a good point about the priesthood keys and that almost all of us, men and women, are only exercising limited priesthood in our callings anyway. That, of course, leaves it open to the idea then that sisters could be clerks and Sunday School presidents. In reality the RS/YW/P presidencies are not different in their use of the priesthood from the YM/SS presidencies – they all act under the keys of the bishop.
I also agree with the OP that both sides have dug in and any real dialogue is difficult in that situation. On the other hand, I think even 20 years ago, maybe even less, the leadership of OW would have been excommunicated.
Personally I am not in favor of ordination for women, but I am in favor of women having a greater voice in church administration and policy and I see no reason, especially in light of Elder Oaks’ remarks referenced above, that women cannot and should not hold certain positions now reserved only for men – and likewise, I don’t see why men can’t be in the PP.
It’s unfortunate. The OW movement makes a convenient straw man, but I don’t think I deserve to be tarred with the same brush. (I never have and never would attempt to get inside the PH session – I live thousands of miles away, for one.) There are so, SO many changes that can be made to the patriarchal nature of the church without ordaining women, but those changes are unlikely to be made when the people in charge – all of them male – have their fingers in their ears going ‘la la la.’ I don’t want to be ordained to the PH but I don’t want to feel like a second class citizen in my own faith, either. But it’s so easy to write off me, the OW group, and millions of other faithful women in one fell swoop.
I share the same concern as the OP. I support so much of the OW effort, but I have come to loathe the way some of those involved now are spinning it. For example, the semantic posturing is getting to me. They were asked not to demonstrate or protest on the Temple Square grounds. Right or wrong, they did so – but now they are claiming they aren’t demonstrating or protesting. That is ludicrous; of course, they are doing both. They are doing so more respectfully than many demonstrations and protests, but they obviously are doing both.
They are castigating the PR statement that said they were asked to leave, by claiming they never were asked to leave – after they ignored the request at the gates and entered. They are saying, “No usher asked me to leave,” but Sister Kelly said explicitly in an interview that they were asked not to enter. That is the exact same request as one to leave; it simply is worded differently. They are calling the Church dishonest in the PR statement, but it is an accurate recounting of what happened – and it takes semantic quibbling and twisting to assert otherwise.
I don’t like that sort of approach. I want them to own and admit what they are doing. I saw that at first, but I am seeing more and more obfuscation lately – and the reaction to the PR statement is the worst case I’ve seen yet. If that response continues, it will do a lot of harm among the ranks of those who are sympathetic but not actively supportive.
Maybe from their perspective the truly believe that they aren’t protesting? I’ve seen people have very divergent interpretations of the same event, depending on which side of the event that they were on. As an outsider sometimes the perspective can be a little clearer but even then people that are emotionally invested have a reality that is veryreal to them. Interpretations can differ drastically. Heck, I’ve caught myself thinking “oh really, well next time maybe I’ll record it an play it back for you” when I think people have called the sun the moon just to later deny it.
🙂 Thankful wrote:I support Ordain Women. I didn’t participate in the action, for various reasons. But I know some of the participants. And I have to tell you that the newspaper articles about what took place on temple square last night are not accurate. I agree that general authorities are threatened and going into retrenchment mode. But I don’t think it’s fair to blame Mormon feminists.
It’s not true that they are “detracting from the conversation” by the way they are going about this. The conversation is happening BECAUSE of Mormon Feminists! How could they “talk” to the church leadership OTHER than through the media? There is no effective way to get member needs to the general leadership because 1. Letters get sent back to your bishop, 2. Repeated requests for OW to meet with the church were ignored, 3. Women don’t even have the opportunity to serve in ward and stake leadership positions of authority, which are “priesthood responsibilities.” So their perspectives can’t even “trickle up.”
I’m glad that so many women “feel equal” and don’t see the need for any change. But some women are hurting A LOT over these issues. They are clinging to their faith desperately, trying to find ways to heal and to stay. Petitioning for leaders to pray and respond to them is what they are doing to try to find a place for themselves (ourselves) in Mormonism. What other recourse is there besides leaving, voting “with their feet?”
I honestly don’t personally feel the need to be ordained. But I DO care that our church routinely sends girls the message that they are not valued by the church, or by God. I think that we need to get people our of their comfort zones enough to consider other perspectives. They NEED to hear that our church policies related to gender hurt people !
I have so, so much too say on this topic. But my feelings are too raw right now. I’d better stop for a bit.
I agree with you and Joni.
Keep reading, I swear it will get to my point about OW: My problems with the church started with the idea of polygamy and how it is still alive today. I don’t believe it’s fair to let a man be sealed to more than one woman, let alone the fact that women can’t be sealed to more than woman. This presents inequality. In modern apologist context, a widower loves his living wife so much, he wouldn’t want to choose, and wants to be with both for eternity. If it’s simply out of love for both spouses (one dead, one living), why not allow women reciprocation of this principle of love. If my husband died today and was sealed to his next wife, I would be stuck in a polygamist marriage for eternity. What’s more? I never gave my consent (and I wouldn’t). I just don’t see how that could possibly lead to eternal happiness for me. So, when I see inequalities in things like this, it makes me feel pain, and brings out the feminist I never knew I was. That is how I began my dissent from orthodoxy. When I realize that other women agonize over this same thing, I don’t think it unfair to have the prophet/apostles administer to us in our call for guidance or revelation. Why not prophesy, reveal “how this works” how it “brings happiness.” I firmly believe that the church still believes in 132 as applied to plural marriage and the celestial kingdom. I can’t stand it. It really brings me pain. So why can’t they (apostles/prophets) clear it up? Or is their silence to be taken as fact that it is current doctrine?
So, how does this apply to ordain women thread?
I would LOVE to support them for the cause of having communication with the leadership, find a way to reach more equality, truly ease the questions we (maybe just I) have. But, I won’t sign the petition for OW because I don’t want the priesthood. I can recognize a division of responsibilities; yet, I also see ways women can be included in the priesthood more. I didn’t know until recently that women in the early church used to bless others. If that was okay then, why not now?
Maybe this is way out there and the TBM RS member would look at me very strangely, but when we joke that if a bishop (mission president/stake president/etc.) has the calling, his wife does too- why doesn’t she? IF we truly share in the priesthood with our husbands, why aren’t there some joint callings in the church in regard to leadership? I can name a few examples I’ve seen over the internet where it was inappropriate for a priesthood to be behind a closed door with a girl. Wouldn’t a woman’s involvement cushion that?
So, I support the OW for some feminist purposes, but I don’t.
Perhaps this post is too “all over the place” but I’m new here. Let this one slide?
I object to the fact that my husband didn’t covenant to me in our wedding, only to God, while I did covenant to him. So I’m married, but he’s not. That’s how I see it. I know he doesn’t see it that way, but it’s not equal. No, not at all. It’s wrong. Likewise with the endowment putting men under God and women under men. It’s not the gospel in the NT. It’s not what we were taught. Women need theological answers that don’t subjugate us for eternity to men. We aren’t promised exaltation like men are. Will I really not be exalted just because of Eve’s curse and because I’m a woman? How is that right? Every feeling revolts. But the temple ceremony says what it says. I don’t need to be ordained, but our theology surrounding women is horribly, horribly broken, and our leaders don’t hear how it sounds to any observant, thinking woman. The problem is we are so steeped in it, most don’t realize it.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I object to the fact that my husband didn’t covenant to me in our wedding, only to God, while I did covenant to him. So I’m married, but he’s not. That’s how I see it. I know he doesn’t see it that way, but it’s not equal. No, not at all. It’s wrong. Likewise with the endowment putting men under God and women under men. It’s not the gospel in the NT. It’s not what we were taught. Women need theological answers that don’t subjugate us for eternity to men. We aren’t promised exaltation like men are. Will I really not be exalted just because of Eve’s curse and because I’m a woman? How is that right? Every feeling revolts. But the temple ceremony says what it says.
I don’t need to be ordained, but our theology surrounding women is horribly, horribly broken, and our leaders don’t hear how it sounds to any observant, thinking woman. The problem is we are so steeped in it, most don’t realize it.
I agree, Hawkgrrrl. It is the inequality that needs to be fixed. I saw a national news report on the OW protest (where, by the way, an usher is heard asking one to leave) which included poll stats indicating most LDS, and most women, are opposed to ordaining women. I would bet far fewer support the inequalities. Still, there are those women who simply don’t think about it or are so into the idea that the church is true no matter what that they don’t see it as an issue. Frankly, most of those inequalities would be quite easy to fix – they’re mostly policy.
I think most every person here at StayLDS believes that women are unfairly treated by the Church, its culture and its doctrine. It is on my short-list of hot-button issues. I want the temple ceremony to change to be genderless (Adam and Eve said this, Adam and Eve did that, Adam and Eve covenent to…), I want to expunge polygamy in any form from our “of God” dialog and recognize it as a failure of human attempts to live a godly lifestyle, I want to see women and men in callings that say nothing of the priesthood. I want to see men and women who aren’t in the bishopric conducting Sacrament Meeting and Stake Conference. I want to see women as Mission Presidents. I want to see men as Primary Presidents. I want to remove any concept of “preside in the home” from the men column. I want to see priesthood used for the Church’s few sacred ordinances and not for counting how many people are attending Sacrament Meeting. I want young women to help prepare the sacrament. I want young women to help pass the sacrament. Someday, I hope women will be ordained to the priesthood.
I don’t support OW.
I bring this up simply to point out that support of OW is not the same as support for change in the Church. I have no problem with anyone supporting OW as the only clear way to have their voice heard. I understand that. I don’t support OW because I think it is doing more harm than good in the present environment. That’s my opinion. Others have different opinions and, again, I understand. All I ask is don’t heap me onto the pile of evil misogynists because I don’t support the very specific goals and methods of OW.
Kcarp wrote:Maybe this is way out there and the TBM RS member would look at me very strangely, but when we joke that if a bishop (mission president/stake president/etc.) has the calling, his wife does too- why doesn’t she? IF we truly share in the priesthood with our husbands, why aren’t there some joint callings in the church in regard to leadership? I can name a few examples I’ve seen over the internet where it was inappropriate for a priesthood to be behind a closed door with a girl. Wouldn’t a woman’s involvement cushion that?
In one church where I participate all the pastors are husband and wife teams (Lead pastors, youth pastors, children’s pastors). I see no reason why this wouldn’t work in the LDS church. The female spouse could work under the priesthood keys of her husband. It isn’t full equality but it would get women into leadership positions and potentially add women’s voices to the table.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Women need theological answers that don’t subjugate us for eternity to men. We aren’t promised exaltation like men are. Will I really not be exalted just because of Eve’s curse and because I’m a woman?
I had never heard that. I would be very interested in knowing the exact wording you are referencing. If it is in the temple and you don’t feel comfortable with quotation then perhaps just point me in the right direction. Thanks!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.