- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
DarkJedi wrote:
I know it’s been popular to try to compare OW and Blacks and the priesthood, but it really is an apples and oranges comparison. A huge factor in Blacks and the priesthood was the impending temple dedication in Brazil and the recognition that people in Africa were embracing LDS teachings (at least the Book of Mormon) and forming “Mormon” groups that were not connected with the Church. Simply put, they had to do something about the issue of Blacks, leadership, and temples.
On an ecclesiastic level, I agree with you. But my mom said the rejection of blacks had reached a fever pitch in and out of the church. She often sites an event that happened at a basketball game between UCLA (or Stanford) and BYU. The BYU players, all white, really took a hazing on and off the court at the game. Things thrown at them, spitting, even rumors of urinating on their shoes. Really crappy stuff, all because of the churches exclusion of black people. In my mind the Race and Priesthood issue has more whispering’s toward why we stopped practicing polygamy. I think it was a three pronged pressure, our own history and Joseph Smith’s ordination of black men, public outcry against the church, and the growing baptisms in Brazil and Africa.
OW doesn’t have all of that, i.e. convert baptisms etc., but we do have history of LDS women using laying on of hands, of verbal promises by Joseph Smith, and biblical references to ordained women. Because it is a huge swing of mind change, and because women really are experiencing 2nd class treatment – a lot can be done in the name of healing by reinstating past authorities. Making RS a separate part of the Kingdom, letting them write their own manuals, magazines, etc. Returning “laying on of hands” to women and so on.
The two things, OW and Race, are not synonymous, but apples and oranges are both fruit – they work well together. Perhaps a delightful salad could have been made, instead of throwing the oranges out all together.
There were major changes as regards African Americans in the 60s and 70s, that along with the opening up of Brazil, the international protests against legal racism in South Africa (especially on the sports field) probably had an influence. Remember this is the period when black American culture became big in the west, and not just in its group of origin. Quote:Kate Kelly has been bolder than I would have been, I also want an outcome different than hers, but her work – excommunicated or not, too bold or not, will someday be listed as a catalyst – just as Lester Bush’s article is referenced in the new essay on Race and the Priesthood.
Total silence would never have moved the church to change their stance on the Race and the Priesthood.
I agree mostly with what you say. There is another important principle that comes into play. When dealing with authority and power, whether that is ecclesiastical, political, military, police, or even social settings, challenging them almost always results in negative consequences. Early Americans threw a tea party, Kate ostensibly offended her bishop (or some other unnamed person higher up), most of us here at StayLDS know better than to get lippy with a traffic cop, the Blacks and Rosa Parks insisted on not setting in the back of the bus.
There are times that authority needs to be challenged. Outcomes are uncertain when playing power games on any level, be that with Kate not showing due deference to her bishop or Saddam Hussein thumbing his nose at President Bush. IMO Kate overtly challenged the Powers That Be, but you may feel she was fighting for a higher principle. Regardless, she has paid a horrible price.
,
dash – You quoted me, and I agree with you, if I had been the leader of that group and if I had chosen to lead it – I would have framed it, presented, and lobbied it very differently. I have never supported how she did it. For a smart attorney, she didn’t know her opposing client very well. On the other hand the church organisation didn’t handle their side well either, a garbage truck driven onto the grounds is more offense to me. The unwillingness of Brother Otterson to reach out to them privately – like he did with Mormon Women Stand – also fueled the fire.
Yes – Kate Kelly is bold and I imagine her offending a few people. I understand why the church wanted to reign her in. The odd part is they didn’t reign in the entire OW board. They didn’t do anything about OW, it is still in play – She was moving to Kenya anyway. That’s where I am not sure what good excommunicating was. What was gained?
Anyway – just my thoughts.
This paragraph from the Salt Lake Tribune article explains my idea with OW. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58361569-78/women-says-black-church.html.csp Quote:Mormons believe their church is a “restoration” of the authentic Christian gospel, stripped of centuries of accumulated traditions and practices. Instead of asking for tickets to the all-male priesthood session of LDS General Conference, writing letters, or marching to Temple Square, Williams-Schultz says, Ordain Women should have posed questions about the lost Mormon practice of women giving healing blessings and other ritual participations from the past.
The feminist group might not have encountered such resistance, she says. “It could have been a different conversation.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.