- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On Own Now wrote:
So here we all are. Every person who has posted on this thread wants the Church to change in major ways. Some want ordination, others don’t, but we all want women to be fairly treated and not subjugated. We all want change so that we don’t have to continue to have this issue for our children and grandchildren.
The question is what can people like us do? This thread has shown that many here are not comfortable backing OW because of their tactics. It’s fine for those who do support OW, but recognizing that there are many who simply cannot, what CAN we do that is an alternative to OW?
Maybe go over to FMH (have to admit, I’m not always a supporter) and give a “thumbs up” to hawkgrrl’s comment on April 10th, 11:46 a.m.?
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/04/temple-talk-responding-to-the-mormon-priestess/ Quote:“I could not care less about female ordination compared to this stuff.”
Beyond anonymous shows of support like this, I’m not sure what else I
cando. ETA: Here is the testimony of the poster (“Elisothel”) at FMH. The title of the April 10, 2104, post is “Temple Talk: Responding to ‘The Mormon Priestess'”:
My Temple Testimony
Quote:Some have inquired about my personal feelings about the temple. I admit my first reaction to The Mormon Priestess, after I’d written it, was to walk away from the Church. Then I wanted to be in the Church but have nothing to do with the temple. Now I envision all the promise and potential of the temple. I do believe my interpretation of the current ceremony to be correct, but I think the current ceremony does not reflect reality.
I personally love the temple, and believe that the temple itself is not an institution to be abandoned, but one to be reclaimed. It has changed in the past, and it will change again.I recognize the temple as a place where real power is utilized during ordinances that actually change alter the universe. I see it as the antechamber to the eternities, connecting the temporal and spiritual worlds. I love the archetypes of creation and progression and sealing. I deeply appreciate that the temple uses methods of pedagogy that imprint ideas in our minds in multifaceted, subtle, and very effective ways. Yes, we are supposed to have temples, LDS temples are unique, and I do think God knows that we need them. I express my gratitude to God for temple worship.
My concern is that as a very effective identity-builder, the temple is is teaching men and women ideas about their identities that conflict with modern teachings. Modern teachings may not trump the temple, and could simply reflect cultural drift. Alternately, modern teachings may be more true than the temple. We won’t know for sure until we have canonized revelation. If women are learning something about themselves that is not true, then the ceremony needs to change. If the temple portrayal is true, we need to be honest about that and admit that Mormonism teaches that women will worship their husbands. If the truth is somewhere in between, we need further light and knowledge.
On Own Now wrote:So here we all are. Every person who has posted on this thread wants the Church to change in major ways. Some want ordination, others don’t, but we all want women to be fairly treated and not subjugated. We all want change so that we don’t have to continue to have this issue for our children and grandchildren.
The question is what can people like us do? This thread has shown that many here are not comfortable backing OW because of their tactics. It’s fine for those who do support OW, but recognizing that there are many who simply cannot, what CAN we do that is an alternative to OW?
I think OW is the best chance for change. The church will not change on their own or through more passive measures. A lower profile approach would just get people excommunicated. As it is their is power in numbers.Armond Mauss wrote: Quote:The tactics of the OW movement have one function, I think, that is helpful to the LDS feminist cause more generally, and that is to take a public position so far in advance of where most LDS women are now that other changes advocated by “progressive” LDS women seem moderate by comparison! We can expect lots of other changes, short of ordination itself, that will give Mormon women more “say” in what goes on in the life of the Church. At the same time, to the extent that the OW advocates have been cultivating press coverage for their appearances at priesthood meeting, they come across to Church leaders, and probably to most women, as more interested in attracting media attention than in enhancing women’s position in the Church.
By the way I believe women have just as much priesthood as men have. That is if priesthood is some kind of heavenly power from god. What we are talking about here is real power. The ability to have a voice and steer the church in a specific direction. That women do not have. Cadence wrote:By the way I believe women have just as much priesthood as men have. That is if priesthood is some kind of heavenly power from god. What we are talking about here is real power. The ability to have a voice and steer the church in a specific direction. That women do not have.
I agree with you Cadence, and strangely I think Elder Oaks agrees to an extent as well.
Cadence wrote:What we are talking about here is real power. The ability to have a voice and steer the church in a specific direction. That women do not have.
True, but to properly frame it, no lay member has a voice. I am a man. I don’t have the ability to steer the Church in a specific direction any more than mom3, Ann, thankful, joni, Dax or hawkgrrrl. We all lack power equally. Being of the same gender as BKP doesn’t make me feel empowered.In the week since I posted this topic, I have given it and myself, a lot of thought. My present feeling supports Bro. Armand Mauss’s. For me, the rise and struggle of OW – and the possible quiet it will take on for a while opens it’s own doors. Forgive me as I go back to the children/family analogy but it works for me. I have found over 25 years of parenting, that when I lock horns with a kid – neither of us make progress. Sometimes those battles do need to happen – it’s imperative for the next conversation. However, I have to give time between the battle and the next conversation, even if it’s regarding safety. The same applies here. The OW movement has already crashed the gates and elicited change. The landscape has already been affected by the sea. Now is the low tide, but in low tide change still occurs. I believe now we can gently have some dialogue about women’s power in the past. Planting righteous seeds of value. Discussing our sister Prophets in the Old Testament, mentioning Relief Society’s prior independence before correlation, brush up on our blessings by laying on of hands. It’s little drops of water time.
The effect isn’t over, but a break and rest is due. God wills it that way. Just watch him make a storm and then a calm – and then change.
Quote:Just watch him make a storm and then a calm – and then change.
I really like that.
On Own Now wrote:Cadence wrote:What we are talking about here is real power. The ability to have a voice and steer the church in a specific direction. That women do not have.
True, but to properly frame it, no lay member has a voice. I am a man. I don’t have the ability to steer the Church in a specific direction any more than mom3, Ann, thankful, joni, Dax or hawkgrrrl. We all lack power equally. Being of the same gender as BKP doesn’t make me feel empowered.True but you have at least the opportunity to rise up the ranks if you were so inclined.l You could spend 40 years doing callings to the max and then just maybe you would get to the top spot and say what you want. Women do not even have that slim chance.
Cadence wrote:On Own Now wrote:Cadence wrote:What we are talking about here is real power. The ability to have a voice and steer the church in a specific direction. That women do not have.
True, but to properly frame it, no lay member has a voice. I am a man. I don’t have the ability to steer the Church in a specific direction any more than mom3, Ann, thankful, joni, Dax or hawkgrrrl. We all lack power equally. Being of the same gender as BKP doesn’t make me feel empowered.True but you have at least the opportunity to rise up the ranks if you were so inclined.l You could spend 40 years doing callings to the max and then just maybe you would get to the top spot and say what you want. Women do not even have that slim chance.
Haha… I’ll tell you what… On the day I make my first speach in GC as Prophet, I’ll tug my ear, and that will be a sign just for you, Cadence.mom3 wrote:In the week since I posted this topic, I have given it and myself, a lot of thought. My present feeling supports Bro. Armand Mauss’s. For me, the rise and struggle of OW – and the possible quiet it will take on for a while opens it’s own doors. Forgive me as I go back to the children/family analogy but it works for me. I have found over 25 years of parenting, that when I lock horns with a kid – neither of us make progress. Sometimes those battles do need to happen – it’s imperative for the next conversation. However, I have to give time between the battle and the next conversation, even if it’s regarding safety. The same applies here.
The OW movement has already crashed the gates and elicited change. The landscape has already been affected by the sea. Now is the low tide, but in low tide change still occurs. I believe now we can gently have some dialogue about women’s power in the past. Planting righteous seeds of value. Discussing our sister Prophets in the Old Testament, mentioning Relief Society’s prior independence before correlation, brush up on our blessings by laying on of hands. It’s little drops of water time.
The effect isn’t over, but a break and rest is due. God wills it that way. Just watch him make a storm and then a calm – and then change.
When you first posted this I thought about being an onlooker in a big family blowup. When two people in our house are in conflict, everyone else tries to hold things together. They provide a listening ear, unconditional love, and usually do not take sides. With regards to the specific question of ordaining women, I think there are a lot of people in the church who either don’t care or see it as so far out of the realm of current possibilities as to be a non-issue. Instead of sort of “forcing” everyone to declare allegiance and take sides, I wish more of us could function like onlooking family in a fight and use language that signals, We love you both and we’re here for you.
Cadence wrote:On Own Now wrote:Cadence wrote:What we are talking about here is real power. The ability to have a voice and steer the church in a specific direction. That women do not have.
True, but to properly frame it, no lay member has a voice. I am a man. I don’t have the ability to steer the Church in a specific direction any more than mom3, Ann, thankful, joni, Dax or hawkgrrrl. We all lack power equally. Being of the same gender as BKP doesn’t make me feel empowered.True but you have at least the opportunity to rise up the ranks if you were so inclined.l You could spend 40 years doing callings to the max and then just maybe you would get to the top spot and say what you want. Women do not even have that slim chance.
Yes. And it goes beyond that too. Whether or not YOU ever make it into church leadership, the people in church leadership are more likely to have similar life experiences and understanding of you. Studies show that people tend to be biased toward those they feel are similar to them. This matters. There’s a reason the US justice system requires a “jury of peers.” Having ALL women be judged by ALL men (without exception) is dangerous. I’m talking about church courts here, but also the other temporal and spiritual matters that come before a bishop every day, as a “judge in Israel.” Having real power and decision making in the hands of only men hurts women every day. I can find examples if you’d like. I know of personal stories as well.
The fact that the GOOD, GOOD men in this group don’t see that discourages me so much. Privilege is often invisible to the privileged. The fact that thoughtful and caring men can still not “get it” when it comes to women’s experiences in the church causes me to despair. “Explain it to your husband day” is not enough. We ALL have blind spots. That’s why we need women in equal leadership positions, with or without the priesthood.
[Edit note: I originally asked a question to try to clarify exactly what you were concerned about, but after rereading your post a couple of times, I think I understand, so I’m just editing the prior question to respond, and you let me know if I have misunderstood] Thankful.
You are talking about something different from what Cadence was talking about.
I do get a passive benefit, what you call privilege, by being a man in the Church’s male-dominated culture. If I were ever brought before a Church court, then yes, they would all be men. I dispute that that would be an advantage to me, but I understand the angst that would go along with it if the shoe were on the other foot and I had to explain why I have such a problem with [name embarrassing issue] in front of a room full of women. To be more concrete, when I was a missionary I was put into leadership positions over sister missionaries who were better missionaries than I was. It always made me feel stupid, but yes, that is the type of privilege that men have in the Church. FWIW, I think I understand as well as I can, and I want it to change and I try to work toward changing it in the ways I can.
But passive privilege is fundamentally different from power, or as Cadence described it, “the ability to have a voice and steer the church in a specific direction.”
I don’t have that kind of power and I never will. Neither will the vast majority of men. I can provide you evidence. If I had power to steer the Church in a specific direction, we would accept same sex marriage. If I had power, we would eliminate gender roles. We would have women in the priesthood. We’d disavow polygamy, we’d remove section 132, we’d de-gender the Temple, we’d stop talking about multiply-n-replenish and we’d have female missionaries leading male missionaries and vice versa and they’d all be called at the same age and for the same length of service. Yes, a few “men” lead the Church. But don’t confuse that with “all men” or even “most men”. They got to the positions they are in by being completely on-board with the program. Men who aren’t completely on-board don’t rise to those levels. Ergo, men who aren’t completely on-board with the program don’t have power to change the program.
The bottom line is that we are in this thing together. I don’t see any reason to draw lines of separation between us. In fact, I’m trying to do the exact opposite.
On Own Now, Thank you for responding. I appreciate that you feel disempowered in your church experiences. The reasons you give make sense. I agree with you. I won’t argue that church leaders do not seek direction from the general membership and that we are slow to change. I realize we are a culture that rewards people who toe the line and don’t ask questions. I understand that the changes you seek aren’t happening, and that’s frustrating. And I get that.
But in theory, you could become a part of the general church leadership some day. You would have the power to change things eventually. That’s not the case for women, no matter how long or how faithfully we serve. With the current church structure, it would be theoretically possible for every female to leave the church, and it could still function. (I’m not saying that’s likely, obviously. Just possible.) Do you realize how horrible it feels to realize that?
Women even seem optional in the eternities. Per the temple representation, creation only involves men. What is the role of a Goddess? What can we women expect to be doing after death? Evidently not taking any part in creation, nor being at all involved in the lives of our children. Judging by our temple ceremony, the whole plan of salvation seems to make women eternally irrelevant, except to serve men.
I disagree also that one has to be called as a GA to have real, meaningful power and influence. Men are called into local positions of authority, and they DO have real decision making power. People like Bill Reel and Old-Timer are called into bishoprics all the time. While they tend to be on the more believing end of the scale, they are sensitive to doubters and do often add new perspectives. I’ve even known of non-believing members of bishoprics (and I know there were some on NOM at times).
Several members of this board have referenced being called onto the high counsel, even when inactive (which is fabulous by the way, and I hope you accept).
😮 )On own, you mention being uncomfortable being placed over female missionaries that were older and sometimes more mature. So I know you recognize my concerns.
Often women aren’t even “officially” excluded from discussions. They are just left out because no one thinks to ask (and being included isn’t “built in”). There are so many opportunities to share perspectives that women are excluded from, just by being women.
And, as I mentioned earlier, ecclesiastical discipline is an area where men have a “jury of peers” and women do not.
These things may seem little to you, compared to the influence that comes with being a GA. But once you’ve been on the receiving end of people misusing local authority, you realize it matters a great deal. Just ask Cwald if local leaders matter.
I am close to a couple who were going through a divorce years ago. They sought advice from the bishop during this time. The bishop misunderstood the situation and was more sympathetic to the man, with whom he could relate. As a result, he blamed the wife for the marital problems. That mattered in a big way when it came to: 1. the ward members who felt torn between “sides” and didn’t know how to support both members of the couple. They sensed the bishop’s feelings (or had heard his perspective in ward council meetings). 2. The custody battle, as the bishop was later asked to testify in court, and 3. the help offered to the wife in terms of temporal assistance.
I have a sister who was sexually assaulted while in a student ward. When she went to talk to her bishop about it, his perception was that since she wasn’t physically beaten she must have consented, or at least shown poor judgement. She was invited to start the “repentance process.” He went on a mission a year later, after confessing a “slip up” (but implying it was consensual). Needless to say, this sister no longer attends church. The bigger tragedy is how she went on to decide she was worthless, “damaged goods,” and to get into dangerous relationships after that.
Don’t even get me started on how much power local leaders have in situations of church employment or schooling (decisions made per bishop’s recommendation). Or how local leaders affect the ward response to a teen member who comes out as gay, or a teen girl who gets pregnant. Or whether doubters are allowed to have temple recommends, and attend a child’s wedding. The responses given by ecclesiastical leaders can change entire lives, for better or worse.
When one or a few people have the power to determine your standing in the church, or affect custody proceedings, or employment, or influence how your neighbors treat you, or if you get financial help, etc, that matters. And when women will NEVER be in such leadership roles unless a kind man decides to grant it-please don’t tell me these situations are the equivalent to not being a GA. (And please don’t misread my passion on this topic as anger toward you. That’s not the case at all.)
😮 )I’m with you that we are allies. We don’t need to make it a ” gendered” issue at all. We could seek positive changes in the church without referencing gender. The only problem is that our gender definitions are part of the problem. They HAVE to be addressed if we really believe “all are alike unto God.” They matter because many, many women are hurting. Our gender roles are considered part of our theology, our eternal identities. Until that changes or until women are treated better in the church, ignoring gender in discussing these problems is impossible.
Many people have gotten frustrated with OW for asking for the priesthood. They’ve said “you can ask to be more equal, without demanding the priesthood.” Don’t they see that this is a problem the church has created for itself? Women have been asking that for generations!
If church administration is different from the priesthood: fine. Never give us the priesthood, but give us equal opportunities for leadership. If church administration is NOT the same as the priesthood, and we are supposedly equal, tell us why we can’t be in those leadership roles?
The reason women ask for the priesthood is because we’ve asked “why aren’t we allowed to have real leadership, authority, and power in the church” and always been told “the priesthood.” If that’s what it takes, fine. Send some priesthood our way.
Sorry, that was longer than I intended. I agree we are “in this together” absolutely. I just got going because I don’t see men as having only “passive” privilege. Thanks for listening (reading).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.