- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Do they seek ordination? No, I think that’s probably only between 5-10% of women who do, although the majority wouldn’t say no to it if the prophet revealed it was to be.
Yes, the women that want ordination are in the vast minority. At times the majority is being wielded as a weapon against the minority, which is nothing new in the history of Earth. Look at all these good, honest, faithful women that don’t have the same issue… which is just another way to dodge open discussion.
I agree that the majority wouldn’t have a problem with a revelation from the prophet, but that’s a game changer. At that point they’d be following the prophet, which puts them on solid ground in the church. Up until an official revelation they’d only have their own conviction as support and there’s no established leadership hierarchy to support someone operating in that territory.
hawkgrrrl wrote:lesson manuals for women and girls that aren’t so obviously written by men
1) I never really thought about that before, being a man I’m largely blind to it.
2) I watched the general women’s meeting back in March. Aside: it’s not listed chronologically on lds.org like all the other sessions of GC, it’s listed last rather than first like it should be, but that
really isnit picking. This one won’t make me any friends but here goes… I’ve heard some women criticize the meeting as being a “hurray for women” pep rally. Personally I felt like a part of the message was to provide a counterpoint to the OW movement. There were several moments where the focus was to showcase what impact women dohave in the church. Now I’m a man so I have a different world view. Knowing about OW also put a slant on how I viewed the meeting. Still it makes me wonder how manuals would turn out if they were written by women
leadersin the church. Women leaders that likely have the same mindset as the men. Women leaders that are stilloperating under the direction of men. How different would they be? If you’re referring to the teachings of the prophets manuals… I think we’d all like to move on to something different. I hate to say it but women who are steeped in patriarchy, who are the tools of patriarchy, are hardly women at all in my book. GBSmith wrote:shoshin wrote:Shawn wrote:shoshin, this “follow the prophet” mantra is somewhat new – meaning it began in the 20th century.
I respectfully disagree that this is a recent modern thing. The JS quote you gave is great. I think he’s saying that we are each responsible for our own salvation.But I think it should be taken in context with the many scriptures that talk about following the prophet, such as the list found here:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophet?lang=eng I scanned over the list and they say there are prophets and God speaks to them but it’s not until you get to a few D&C verses that the “follow the prophet” mantra starts to show up. I think Shawn is right on this one.
I have to go with Shawn and GBSmith on this one. While my depth of study of church history is not as intense as some others here, my understanding is that the “follow the prophet” idea originated about the time of the Manifesto due a large number of members leaving the church because they believed in polygamy and thought the prophet was wrong. The idea the prophet won’t lead us astray was designed to stem and control the tide as undoubtedly people at the time saw it the way some in our time see it – an effort by the church to appease the US government, preserve ownership of property and assets, and become eligible for statehood. As a revelation, it could go either way – God could have had the same goals, or God could have not been involved. The “follow the prophet” idea was further bolstered during the “second manifesto” when the church actually began to enforce the polygamy ban. Objectively speaking (if that is possible), it is nothing more than an attempt to control the membership.I’m actually encouraging my sons to follow the prophet and not serve missions – neither President Monson nor either of his counselors did (and neither did several other apostles/prophets).
🙂 OK. I’m kidding about that, but it should fit under following the prophet – there is no reason to pressure any young man to serve a mission when the prophet did not choose to do so (and he also is not the first to have not done so). (Yes, I know about WWII and things were different then, but I also know they had the opportunity to do so after the war if that was their goal.)Several years ago, Pres. Hinckley (as president, not counselor) spoke in conference and stated how he got his best insights and inspiration (paraphrased) in the early morning. My very zealous bishop at the time took that to mean we should all get up early and even started having bishopric and PEC meetings at 6 am weekdays. Just because that worked for Pres. Hinckley, doesn’t mean it works for everyone – we all have different biorhythms. I function much better later in the day, and tend to be quite foggy in the morning. My greatest insights and inspirations tend to come later at night. Moral: We don’t have to follow the prophet in every detail, even if he says it in conference.
Bringing this back to the topic, I believe both Kelly and Dehlin do follow the prophet. Neither started an offshoot church, and Kelly is actually trying to work within the framework of the established leadership, even if you disagree with her methods. But it’s really not up to me to decide whether they do or don’t – “Who am I to judge?” (h/t Pope Francis). And, I’m not sure it’s up to the bishops or stake presidents to decide and I don’t think it’s really central to this discussion. I think real apostasy has much more to do with what one does or doesn’t believe about core tenets of the gospel than it does with following the prophet.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I hate to say it but women who are steeped in patriarchy, who are the tools of patriarchy, are hardly women at all in my book.
??? Seriously?
shoshin, I really do respect you and your posts here. I want to address what you posted from the Gospel Principles manual on page 8 of this thread. It says “We should follow his inspiredteachings completely.” D&C 21:4–5 states:
Quote:Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you
as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
It doesn’t say we have to follow every word he says; it specifies that we must give heed towords he receives from God. I think there are differences between “heed the prophet” and “follow the prophet.” Heed the Prophet: I think this means listening intently when the prophet has a message from God and when he testifies of Christ. It means obeying the word of God spoken through the prophet. They can also be agents over some things and direct them without revelation, but that should not apply to doctrine. Follow the Prophet: This is more than those things under “Heed the Prophet.” It may include hanging on every word he says, treating his counsel as doctrine (eg: one pair of earrings), buying his talks printed in hardback books, hanging his picture in the home, reading his documentaries, watching movies about him, and relying on him more than God. People “look to the brethren” on how to talk, walk, dress, and groom. These may apply to any of the 15 apostles. I’m not saying this is what is meant by you (shoshin), but it’s safe to say these things are quite common in the church. To me, the verses listed on that “
ProphetMaybe all of this will help you understand why some people here do not completely agree with this (from page 5 of this thread):
Quote:However, in my opinion she does not understand the church or its doctrine very well. The church is a theocracy. Literally, this means “rule by God” and of course in practice it’s basically “follow the prophet.”
Though I would be okay if women were ordained to the priesthood, I donotsupport Ordain Women. With that said, it doesn’t appear we have heard the word of God through his prophet on this matter today. Elder Oaks talked about it and statements have been released, but there is no language indicating God has been consulted or that revelation has been received. I would be happy to hear of anything to the contrary. I can say that I do sustain the prophet. President Monson holds the keys of the priesthood and I will heed the word of God spoken through him.
:thumbup: Well put Shawn.On Own Now wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:I hate to say it but women who are steeped in patriarchy, who are the tools of patriarchy, are hardly women at all in my book.
??? Seriously?
Yes, seriously. Women who act against the interests of women, including their own, are simply supporting the systems that hold women back. How do they represent women’s interests? It’s the Uncle Tom problem.
Fortunately, I don’t think there are many women like that, although I don’t doubt there are a few among the highest levels of women in the church. Women who don’t rock the boat are required for a patriarchy to flourish. Women who keep the other women in line. Women who police modesty, who police thought, who out women who don’t fit the mold.
I was in RS one week and a new sister was sitting next to me. A friend of mine introduced me to her and said I was a feminist. I thought that was odd coming from her because she was also a feminist as far as I could tell, and I said, “Really, we are probably all feminists. Do you believe men and women should be treated equally?” And both laughed and said, “Of course!” and they owned their feminism.
Quote:“I sometimes see a little bit of a change that the women themselves prompt, but most of the time, I haven’t seen women who would make that change possible. Wherever I go, I think that they already know their place. . . . when women get the message that their job is to be supportive and just agree with the decisions of the bishop, they become clams.” Chieko Okasaki
I agree with most things you write and say, Hawkgrrrl, but I have never disagreed more strongly with you than I do in this case. I appreciate the attempt at clarification in the follow-up comment (very few, in your opinion, and the comparison to clams – as well as the use of “steeped” and “tools, which I see as very, very different things), but the first statement is WAY too broad for me. Serious question, focused on the first statement:
Isn’t kicking a whole group of women out of womanhood for supporting a system in which they are comfortable the very antithesis of a core principle of feminism? It’s one thing to say they are deceived or deluded or working against female interests generally (that they aren’t feminist and don’t understand feminism), but it’s another thing entirely to say they are no longer or not legitimately women.
It’s especially ironic, imo, that such a statement is being asserted in a thread alongside statements opposing excommunication from a group (the LDS Church) that is MUCH smaller than the group (women) from which they are being excommunicated, figuratively, by the comment. Kate Kelly MIGHT be excommunicated from the LDS Church, so those who don’t support her should be excommunicated / excluded from womanhood?
I disagree.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Women who don’t rock the boat…. Women who keep the other women in line. Women who police modesty, who police thought, who out women who don’t fit the mold.
I know there’s a bigger conversation going on in this thread, but I just have to say that this struck me. I was that woman. I did some of this stuff – in the nicest, most subtle, “classiest” way possible – but I did it.
I look back and I don’t know why.When Richard Bushman talks about liking the man he is because of the LDS church, I wince a little. I don’t like the person I thought the church wanted me to be. I was (obviously, I see that now) doing it wrong. I think there are probably not a few women in the church struggling not just with doubt, but also with guilt over how they’ve treated each other. I’ll clarify, Ray.
Quote:Isn’t kicking a whole group of women out of womanhood for supporting a system in which they are comfortable the very antithesis of a core principle of feminism?
Only third wave feminism, and I’m a second wave feminist. I’m old school like that.
Quote:It’s one thing to say they are deceived or deluded or working against female interests generally (that they aren’t feminist and don’t understand feminism), but it’s another thing entirely to say they are no longer or not legitimately women.
I say it in the following spirit: 1) in the Uncle Tom way I mentioned – that they hurt the cause of women generally, through their direct and indirect actions against womanhood (this part includes a dose of hyperbole, admittedly), and 2) in the restricted sense that when those who oppose equality for women cite these women as evidence that women don’t want to be treated equally, well then I say they are not really women in that they are acting against their own interests and the interests of women in general. So they are not “women” in that they do not represent womanhood’s interests, and yet they are being cited to oppose the interests of women in general. To me, that invalidates them as representing women’s interests. They are not “women” if someone is looking to understand women. They are women who only talk of their role the way men have instructed them to do and benefit from them doing.
Thanks for that addition. I understand better now what you mean. I still wouldn’t say it the way you said it initially, but I understand better why you said it that way – and I still think it’s ironic in a thread decrying excommunication.
Old-Timer wrote:I still think it’s ironic in a thread decrying excommunication.
There are signs all around us.
…we are and always will be human beings.
shoshin wrote:I would like to re-iterate my opinion that there is a big difference between privately and publicly disagreeing with church leaders.
I agree with this. I do not know what the outcome of all these councils will be. I just hope that Godly discernment and an overflowing of charity are known and felt.
shoshin wrote:The news about these possible excommunications is a distraction, like most of these “controversies” are. The things that matter are: Am I becoming more like Christ?
Ditto.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.