- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My husband wrote this last night, it’s his letter that he would have sent to OW had he been the PR department. It’s not an endorsement of them or a rejection, but a way he and I believe this could have been addressed, since it seems important to have addressed it at all. Quote:Dear Sisters of Ordain Women Movement.
We know many of you will be in Salt Lake near downtown Saturday evening of General Conference weekend. Priesthood Session starts at 6pm. Starting at 4:30pm in the Joseph Smith Building Ballroom, we would like to invite you to a buffet dinner. Sister whoosits, the general RS president wishes to host a dinner for you all, with a live feed coming in from priesthood session into the JS Memorial Building. After the session, the building will remain open until 11pm with snacks, ice-cream, internet access, and plenty of cozy sitting areas for small or large gatherings to discuss the messages heard during the session. If you wish, you may invite your spouses, but this evening will be for you sisters to enjoy each other company, listening (if you desire) to the messages from priesthood session.
If any of you are coming from great distance, we wish to host you as an overnight guest of ours in a nearby hotel.
We hope to maintain the reverence you sisters brought to temple square six months ago and hope this opportunity to gather, mingle, and listen to the words of men who have been called as leaders will inspire you to achieve great things. We believe in you so much. Welcome to Salt Lake City.
With Warm Regards,
The First Presidency.
I have said it before but the church is the only place in my entire life that I feel powerless. As a woman in today’s Western Society I can become a judge or file patents or start my own company. In order to remain a faithful Lds woman I cant even co-preside in my own family, pick out my own underwear, must discuss private sexual matters with only a male authority and will be taught “moddest is hottest” to attract a man but the sin of his sexual thoughts falls onto me if I’m to tempting. The men of the church do not realize the amount of cognitive dissonance that modern LDS women have to do at all times to remain “faithful”. Lds men do not know what it is like to be in charge of employees of both sexes daily only to go to church and have zero true ability to decide anything without final say coming from a male in all matters? Or how about the fact that any adult lds male can over rule a woman at any moment if he so chooses as she has no real authority. The Proclamation to the Family didn’t even seek input from the General Relief Society board at the time….of all things one would think that the PF would be something that women could contribute on. My thoughts on the OW movement are mixed but my Lord people, Hawkgrrl is correct that the church is pushing women away, especially young women. There comes a point in which as a Lds woman you either “drink the cool aid” to accept the way things are or you drift way. I am not surprised that many women are afraid to even acknowldge their feelings. What do you think polygamy taught Lds women regardless of the era? That in all areas including having to share your husband sexually, women are to differ to the men of the church for direction or risk eternal damnation. Polygamy imbedded into the Lds culture at large, in a way that little else could, the subconscious belief that the desires and voices of women need not be heard or acknowledged. That men alone have the “authority” to command in all things. This developed a culture in the church in which women have lost their voices and out of reflex differ to men/ie “the priesthood” for direction in all matters. This also causes within the culture the unspoken rule that when push comes to shove women are to be SILENT,obedient, supporters of ALL things the brethren “command” regardless of how women may really feel.
As much as I loathe the way polygamy took root in the church, and as much psychic damage as I think it’s done to LDS women, I’m not sure it has all that much to do with opposition to ordination. Thinking about the Roman Catholics here. Hard to tell, though – we’re a very different church.
mom3 wrote:My husband wrote this last night, it’s his letter that he would have sent to OW had he been the PR department. It’s not an endorsement of them or a rejection, but a way he and I believe this could have been addressed, since it seems important to have addressed it at all.
Quote:Dear Sisters of Ordain Women Movement.
We know many of you will be in Salt Lake near downtown Saturday evening of General Conference weekend. Priesthood Session starts at 6pm. Starting at 4:30pm in the Joseph Smith Building Ballroom, we would like to invite you to a buffet dinner. Sister whoosits, the general RS president wishes to host a dinner for you all, with a live feed coming in from priesthood session into the JS Memorial Building. After the session, the building will remain open until 11pm with snacks, ice-cream, internet access, and plenty of cozy sitting areas for small or large gatherings to discuss the messages heard during the session. If you wish, you may invite your spouses, but this evening will be for you sisters to enjoy each other company, listening (if you desire) to the messages from priesthood session.
If any of you are coming from great distance, we wish to host you as an overnight guest of ours in a nearby hotel.
We hope to maintain the reverence you sisters brought to temple square six months ago and hope this opportunity to gather, mingle, and listen to the words of men who have been called as leaders will inspire you to achieve great things. We believe in you so much. Welcome to Salt Lake City.
With Warm Regards,
The First Presidency.
I am supporter of the Ordain Women action, I don’t agree with all their tactics right now, but I’m need something! I need to not be silent and overlooked, and they have the only acceptable solution. I don’t love all of what they are doing, but hey, I don’t feel that way about the church either.
This letter would have been awesome, but isn’t it interesting that your husband doesn’t know the name of the General Relief Society President, while I assume he knows the names of the First Presidency.
I don’t know off the top of my head either, in fact I can’t reliably name any general auxiliary leaders of the church, but could come up with all of the FP and Q12. Isn’t that sad?
It’s also interesting to point out that many women (and men) would find mom3’s husband’s letter condescending and patronizing, even though I don’t read it that way at all. I guarantee it would have caused a firestorm online, just like the PR statement did. rebeccad – My husband does know the name of the General Relief Society President – he was just writing a mock up letter and left any particular names out. It wasn’t to be directed toward anyone. Notice he used The First Presidency instead of names. It was just an idea he had to try and bridge a gap that is forming. Curtis – I do agree that almost any response was going to meet a firestorm. We have become entrenched in firestorm war. I am as guilty as the next person in it. Every time one comes up and I get involved I swear I won’t do it again, but then it happens. Darn it. Becoming Mature is hard.
mom3 wrote:rebeccad – My husband does know the name of the General Relief Society President – he was just writing a mock up letter and left any particular names out. It wasn’t to be directed toward anyone. Notice he used The First Presidency instead of names. It was just an idea he had to try and bridge a gap that is forming.
Curtis – I do agree that almost any response was going to meet a firestorm. We have become entrenched in firestorm war. I am as guilty as the next person in it. Every time one comes up and I get involved I swear I won’t do it again, but then it happens. Darn it. Becoming Mature is hard.
The crux of any worldwide institution is to appear to meet the needs of all with system X. Without much flexibility it is impossible. Different people have different needs and as much as I hate to say it, without trying to cater to indivisible people it’s impossible for a works wide institution including ours to not have firestorms in a one size fits all model.
The crux is that we like all such institutions want as much clients as possible for our cause.
By definition that is impossible since so many people have such diverse needs.
A reality that can never be meant. One size fits all models have the least success.
So that means people reach in in-pass. Everyone needs there needs met, the direst rim starts when group x and y realize it is not bring met. The choice then is to either leave and find a place that will or try to accommodate the needs on a indivisible basis. Which is tough. It would be like a one size fits all culture, that in essence is what happens across the world. It takes maturity to realize it and realize we can’t convert just a few % who’s needs we reach naturally. Trying to convert or hold into more then that is asking for a firestorm. Ya becoming nature is hard, very hard. It means acknowledging a person or systems limitations and strengths.
Mom3, I think your husband’s letter is awesome! But also very patronizing, it’s true. That letter would work if the banquet was attended by general authorities willing to grant an audience and just LISTEN though. General authorities would need to be present, and not in a “presiding” or “leader” or “teaching” role. They wouldn’t even have to make any immediate offers to change. They just need to hear what women have to say…really hear.
I don’t see the OW “demonstration” as all that “radical.” They aren’t trying to hurt the church. They have no other recourse to be heard. Were they presented with GAs who could be humble enough to recognize they can benefit from the experiences of women, it would do wonders. And I don’t mean in the patronizing pedestal way of “we love women” (so much that we ignore their needs entirely). I mean really listen to them when they say that certain policies are hurtful and make them feel worthless and question God’s love for them. Mormon women who are hurt by the church’s behaviors around gender need to be less invisible to the church.
I support Ordain Women completely. Not because of my investment in the issue of actual ordination, but because it is making the pain of Mormon women visible. These are discussions that need to happen, and would NOT happen without the advocacy of faithful feminist Mormon women.
The issue isn’t the priesthood per se. It is that “priesthood” is code in our church for being respected, being listened to, having authority, being autonomous, etc. Having only men make decisions for everyone hurts women. Sometimes in very deep ways.
If men all over the church were to suddenly renounce their priesthood and priesthood duties, but keep attending meetings and classes, would they still be appreciated for their divine worth as sons of god from the pulpit at general conference? Would they be told that they are appreciated for being such sweet men? Would they be told they are equal in all things? Thankful wrote:I support Ordain Women completely. Not because of my investment in the issue of actual ordination, but because it is making the pain of Mormon women visible. These are discussions that need to happen, and would NOT happen without the advocacy of faithful feminist Mormon women.
The issue isn’t the priesthood per se. It is that “priesthood” is code in our church for being respected, being listened to, having authority, being autonomous, etc. Having only men make decisions for everyone hurts women. Sometimes in very deep ways.
This is what I’ve been thinking too, as I’ve followed the OW story. I don’t necessarily like the “protest” they are planning, especially now after receiving that letter since it seems the church has changed their message out from under them, and yet I know that many women in that organization have tried the approved route first of sending letters and such. No one listens when you try it that way. I like their original message, asking the prophet to pray about this issue. I wish he would at least acknowledge them. I don’t like that they keep using PR statements to respond, and I think the fact that they use women PR people actually makes it worse in some ways. Like its saying, “see, we’re women and we are fine with how things are.” Also, its like the men won’t even deign to speak to these women. The letters keep mentioning how it’s a minority group, as if that would mean God wouldn’t care about what they have to say.
I don’t think women should get the priesthood though, because I think no one should have it. Or really, I guess I already think no one has it. The priesthood is God’s power, so he has it. When someone prays or invokes his blessing, then he may or may not use his priesthood in that situation. The men in the church don’t actually have any thing tangible. I think the priesthood is very misunderstood.
The real problem is like Thankful said, that men have authority where women don’t. They need to allow all callings to be open to men and women. It doesn’t make sense how it’s currently done, nor does it fit with the scriptures or doctrine.
I agree with you JG that the priesthood is generally misunderstood. As far as I can tell there is no actual power, there is an authorization to perform ordinances. The power is God’s and God may (and I think does) answer the prayer of a woman just as well as the blessing of a high priest. I think women already have the priesthood. As a man I support gender equality in the church.
mackay11 wrote:I also think it’s a smart move that a woman signed it. A woman acting as the spokesperson for the Lord’s church and declaring doctrine. Prophetess Deborah would be proud.
AGREE!!What would I reform?
*I* would ask that temple promises be made available to members BEFORE entering the temple, or at least before they enter the endowment room.I also think that the sealing ceremony should be written out and explained to couples before they enter the sealing room.
Have we EVER seen anyone walk out of an endowment room during own endowments b/c they didn’t like what they heard? Nope…it would be socially awkward.
Allowing people to know beforehand what is expected would probably bring in more “committed” members…those who had a chance to think things through and make an educated choice…not a choice based on social settings.
DarkJedi wrote:So, what would I like to see changed/reformed? Frankly, the priesthood is not one of them. Although I do see that women could certainly be treated more equally in the church, I also see progress there as mentioned in the letter, and I foresee more progress. I would like to see:
1. More emphasis on teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and less emphasis on other teachings (tithing, for example). I know that most things can be related to the gospel, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’d like to see more actual teaching/preaching about Jesus and what Jesus taught and I’d like to see Jesus mentioned more than he currently is.
2. The church has become much more open, especially about history, over the past few years and I think this needs to continue and improve.
3. I’d like to see Sunday meetings revamped, shortening the time and perhaps even eliminating a meeting. I’d advocate for a two hour block with SM and SS, and hold PH/RS less frequently, perhaps monthly and perhaps on a day other than Sunday. I’d also advocate for fewer meetings/activities overall. Perhaps making the ward council meeting the most important meeting, giving it some actual administrative authority and taking over some of the responsibilities of the bishopric (like planning SM, for instance).
4. I’d also like to see the temple recommend questions revised, with less (or no) emphasis on the WoW and tithing. I realize these both indicate a level of commitment, but I also realize we can be committed without necessarily keeping these more open/visible commandments. IOW, it should be more spiritual than temporal.
5. I think the leadership of the church should emphasize their humanity more. That is, I believe they should be more open about the idea that they have faults just like everybody else; that they, too, have faced trials and might have questions; and that much of what they say is their opinion and understanding, not necessarily God speaking through them. Along with this (and #2), I believe the idea of infallibility of the prophets, and the 14 Fs, should be openly and actively refuted.
So well said!I’d like to see a woman be the closing speaker in SM!
I once spoke with my husband and he made it VERY clear that I had ONLY 10 minutes to speak and that he would be given 20 minutes. Nice.
Is the church leadership afraid to let a female have the microphone for more than 10 minutes?
We had a “missionary” Sunday today…ugh…and I sat there as all three MEN speakers talked about “finding and teaching”…and it occurred to me…I bet MOST of our church members don’t even know WHAT to teach!
A SM topic on your #1 … for an entire year would be amazing!
mackay11 wrote:I am still outraged by black men being denied the priesthood. It sickens me to the stomach to think we had a racist policy.
I don’t feel the same way about women being denied it. Don’t get me wrong. I would welcome them getting it and, if asked, I see no reason why women shouldn’t have it. But, if I’m honest, I simply don’t see it in the same way. I wish I did and I wonder why I don’t. Why am I, apparently, still passively sexist but hate racism?
It saddens me to think that I am still part of the problem and a barrier when considering reform.
I agree with you a bit here.
I’m not interested in being a “priesthood holder” – that seems weird to me.
BUT…I don’t like the fact that women are not allowed to attend the priesthood meeting.
THAT makes me a bit angry.
:thumbdown:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.