ordainwomen.org

[UtahDan]

http://ordainwomen.org/

This is a website that just went live a few days ago and is authored by a DC area woman Super and I know. I thought this might spark some interesting debate. I'll just get my cards on the table that I believe most women for whom this is a concern are probably better off outside the church at the end of the day, so I'm not necessarily itching for them to achieve their goals. But I respect what they are attempting. Here are some interesting quotes from the FAQ page:


Why is ordination necessary for women in the LDS Church?


Except at the highest levels of administration, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a lay church. It is organized such that all members have the opportunity to speak, teach, and pray in local congregations. Only boys and men, however, are ordained to the lay priesthood and have ritual and administrative authority in the Church. Despite their gifts, talents, and aspirations, women are excluded from almost all positions of clerical, fiscal, ritual, and decision-making authority.While women perform significant service in the Church’s auxiliaries, such as the Primary, Relief Society, Sunday School, and Young Women’s organizations, their contributions are always mediated and under the direction of male priesthood leaders. According to the Church’s Gospel Principles manual, “Men use priesthood authority to preside in the Church. . . . Women who hold positions in the Church . . . work under the direction of the priesthood.” As such, Mormon women have many delegated responsibilities but lack the authority to define and oversee those responsibilities.This lack of female authority does not stop at the church doors. The Church’s Proclamation on the Family declares that men preside over their wives and families, thus preserving an antiquated and unequal model in both the domestic and ecclesiastical realms.While many thoughtful men in priesthood leadership positions make decisions that include input from women, the male governing structure of the Church means that women’s voices are inevitably left out, overlooked, and discounted.Since leadership and positional authority in Mormonism is inextricably tied to priesthood ordination, it is clear that Mormon women must be ordained in order to be full and equal participants in their Church.


Don’t women and men have fundamentally different but equal roles?


Many Mormons respond to questions about the inequity of an all-male priesthood by insisting that men and women have distinct but equal roles. Women have motherhood, they argue, and men have priesthood. What they fail to acknowledge is that fatherhood is the appropriate parallel to motherhood. Priesthood power is separate and distinct from parenthood and gender. Rhetoric that uses motherhood to circumscribe women’s lives has been used throughout history to deny women access to the voting booth, political office, education, employment, and spiritual empowerment. Ordain Women does not question the importance of motherhood and fatherhood. Rather, we reject the use of motherhood to justify limitations on women’s authority in the LDS Church.Equality is not about sameness; it is about removing obstacles to access and opportunity. We refuse to tolerate inequity in our secular institutions. Ordain Women asserts that we must also reject it in our homes and religious communities.

[wuapinmon]

I joined the facebook group after scottie posted the link the other day, and immediately my extended family began grousing. Anyone with the last name of "Craig" in the comments is my kin.

[UtahsMrSports]

Yawn................................

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

If this goes down I'm going to try and become bishop, then pick two attractive sisters as my counselors and let the rumor mill run.

[wuapinmon]

If this goes down I'm going to try and become bishop, then pick two attractive sisters as my counselors and let the rumor mill run.

No divorcees though.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

No divorcees though.

I'm sorry, I believe in the atonement. I'll not discriminate.

[UtahDan]

Yawn................................

That's what they said about the prayer thing! Look out!

[Solon]

I like the destruction of the motherhood-being-equivalent-to-priesthood paradigm. The point is obvious - father hood is the counterpart to motherhood.

On the one hand, I commend people who care enough to agitate for reform within the system.
On the other hand, I believe churches generally consider themselves to be run from the top-down (with God or a version of Him at the top); who are the members to give advice to God? Perhaps those who don't like the direction of a given church should find another one.

It might be worth pointing out that the most successful religious reformers in history have usually opted to start their own churches. There's only so much that can happen internally.

[UtahDan]

I like the destruction of the motherhood-being-equivalent-to-priesthood paradigm. The point is obvious - father hood is the counterpart to motherhood.


Another interesting point they make is that priesthood is so closely identified with maleness that asking a woman if she wants the priesthood is like asking her if she wants to be a man. I think that really comes very close to explaining the almost visceral revulsion to the idea that so many women have, a revulsion not nearly as many men seem to share. Was it Pew or some other poll that showed that something like half of Mormon men would be fine with it but only about 10% of Mormon women? Can't recall.

[Rocker Ute]

I'm going to start a website demanding that men be allowed to be Primary Presidents.

[UtahsMrSports]

I'm going to start a website demanding that men be allowed to be Primary Presidents.


I am glad someone has the same attitude as me on this stuff. What a waste.

[UtahDan]

Isn't that what they are still saying about the prayer thing?

They mock, but they shall mourn.

[wuapinmon]

I am glad someone has the same attitude as me on this stuff. What a waste.

http://www.8notes.com/images/artists/jason_mraz.jpg

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I'm going to start a website demanding that men be allowed to be Primary Presidents.

Of the first 100 comments on your new site only 99 will accuse you of being a pedophile. Progress!

[UtahsMrSports]

http://www.8notes.com/images/artists/jason_mraz.jpg
Ok..................

[Scratch]

A couple of points. I'm all for members of any church, including the LDS church (of which I'm a very active member) advocating for change. I think there are many instances where it doesn't have a chance of working, but go for it by all means.

That said, I think it's interesting when feminism-themed movements attempt to make a point by degrading motherhood. To me, that's sort of selling out some of the movement's sisters-in-arms. I can certainly see why many people would push for an expansion of the priesthood, and can understand the arguments that are being pushed, but get a little uncomfortable when the means by which it occurs is by kind of throwing motherhood, and women who do believe that motherhood is more important than they might, under the bus.

[Rocker Ute]

I am glad someone has the same attitude as me on this stuff. What a waste.

I know I am being facetious about this stuff, but it isn't meant to mock women or the discussion. I think the interesting thing for me is that since I've never aspired to a leadership position, and would very much prefer not to ever have one, that it is almost strange when people are asking for them. I know that is a big part of Mormon culture to either not aspire to position, or at the very least feign that you aren't.

But I get the point, some women of the LDS church feel unequal or ill-represented, presided over and undervalued, among other things. That is a problem. On the surface the remedy would seem to be ordaining women with the priesthood, but I don't know if that even addresses the fundamental issue.

[SeattleUte]

I'm going to start a website demanding that men be allowed to be Primary Presidents.

While you're at it, how about a website demanding that all conference champions be allowed to play in the NIT.

[Rocker Ute]

While you're at it, how about a website demanding that all conference champions be allowed to play in the NIT.

I thought that it was kind of assumed that would be part of the site.

[UtahDan]

A couple of points. I'm all for members of any church, including the LDS church (of which I'm a very active member) advocating for change. I think there are many instances where it doesn't have a chance of working, but go for it by all means.

That said, I think it's interesting when feminism-themed movements attempt to make a point by degrading motherhood. To me, that's sort of selling out some of the movement's sisters-in-arms. I can certainly see why many people would push for an expansion of the priesthood, and can understand the arguments that are being pushed, but get a little uncomfortable when the means by which it occurs is by kind of throwing motherhood, and women who do believe that motherhood is more important than they might, under the bus.

What do you have in mind here? Who is degrading motherhood?

[Scratch]

What do you have in mind here? Who is degrading motherhood?

There are lots of women who do believe that [motherhood = (or >) fatherhood + priesthood]. Whether or not you agree with that, or think that women who believe that are up in the night, some of those women are going to be put off by impliedly telling them that they are wrong and that motherhood really isn't comparable.

Again, I'm not saying this to take a position against the movement.

[UtahDan]

There are lots of women who do believe that [motherhood = (or >) fatherhood + priesthood]. Whether or not you agree with that, or think that women who believe that are up in the night, some of those women are going to be put off by impliedly telling them that they are wrong and that motherhood really isn't comparable.

Again, I'm not saying this to take a position against the movement.

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. You believe that saying that fatherhood, and not priesthood, is the equivalent of motherhood denigrates motherhood? (In the eyes of some women anyway?).

[Scratch]

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. You believe that saying that fatherhood, and not priesthood, is the equivalent of motherhood denigrates motherhood? (In the eyes of some women anyway?).

I'm saying that, as the quote from the website recognizes, there are many people who believe that motherhood is equal or superior to fatherhood plus the priesthood (so both of them combined). I know that there are some women who take offense to being told that that is not the case, and that telling them that motherhood is only equal to fatherhood denigrates their view of motherhood. Furthermore, the proponents of the movement are likely going to turn off some possible supporters by taking this approach.

Another way of looking at it is if you tell someone who believes that A=B+C that no, in fact A=B (and naturally assuming that C has a positive value, which is inherent to the conversation here), then you are telling them that A has less value than they believe.

[Jeff Lebowski]

While you're at it, how about a website demanding that all conference champions be allowed to play in the NIT.

All the low-hanging fruit in this thread and this is what you go with?

Man, it is weird seeing a neutered, de-clawed version of CatBlue in operation.

[LA Ute]

All the low-hanging fruit in this thread and this is what you go with?

Man, it is weird seeing a neutered, de-clawed version of CatBlue in operation.

Don't you have a board to run? I hear YOhio is running amok over there, and you're here harassing SU. Disappointing.

[Rocker Ute]

I'm saying that, as the quote from the website recognizes, there are many people who believe that motherhood is equal or superior to fatherhood plus the priesthood (so both of them combined). I know that there are some women who take offense to being told that that is not the case, and that telling them that motherhood is only equal to fatherhood denigrates their view of motherhood. Furthermore, the proponents of the movement are likely going to turn off some possible supporters by taking this approach.

Another way of looking at it is if you tell someone who believes that A=B+C that no, in fact A=B (and naturally assuming that C has a positive value, which is inherent to the conversation here), then you are telling them that A has less value than they believe.

Count my wife as one of these people, but that may be more a reflection on me than anything. I would say that my and my wife's views on what the priesthood is are very far from what these people view it as though.

[DU Ute]

I'm saying that, as the quote from the website recognizes, there are many people who believe that motherhood is equal or superior to fatherhood plus the priesthood (so both of them combined). I know that there are some women who take offense to being told that that is not the case, and that telling them that motherhood is only equal to fatherhood denigrates their view of motherhood. Furthermore, the proponents of the movement are likely going to turn off some possible supporters by taking this approach.

Another way of looking at it is if you tell someone who believes that A=B+C that no, in fact A=B (and naturally assuming that C has a positive value, which is inherent to the conversation here), then you are telling them that A has less value than they believe.

This is great for married women who are able to have children, but what does it say to single sisters?

[wuapinmon]

I'm saying that, as the quote from the website recognizes, there are many people who believe that motherhood is equal or superior to fatherhood plus the priesthood (so both of them combined). I know that there are some women who take offense to being told that that is not the case, and that telling them that motherhood is only equal to fatherhood denigrates their view of motherhood. Furthermore, the proponents of the movement are likely going to turn off some possible supporters by taking this approach.

Another way of looking at it is if you tell someone who believes that A=B+C that no, in fact A=B (and naturally assuming that C has a positive value, which is inherent to the conversation here), then you are telling them that A has less value than they believe.

If women are getting offended by being told that motherhood equates to fatherhood and not to fatherhood + priesthood, that's just a pathology of their 'knowledge' about motherhood's putative primacy in Mormondom made manifest. The sooner we stop putting women on a pedestal for being moms, culturally, the sooner we can move past that line of juvenile thinking. Each role is difficult. One is not nobler than the other.

[Flystripper]

If women are getting offended by being told that motherhood equates to fatherhood and not to fatherhood + priesthood, that's just a pathology of their 'knowledge' about motherhood's putative primacy in Mormondom made manifest. The sooner we stop putting women on a pedestal for being moms, culturally, the sooner we can move past that line of juvenile thinking. Each role is difficult. One is not nobler than the other.

Boom!

[DU Ute]

If women are getting offended by being told that motherhood equates to fatherhood and not to fatherhood + priesthood, that's just a pathology of their 'knowledge' about motherhood's putative primacy in Mormondom made manifest. The sooner we stop putting women on a pedestal for being moms, culturally, the sooner we can move past that line of juvenile thinking. Each role is difficult. One is not nobler than the other.

Bingo. This pedestalization of motherhood isn't doing men or women any favors.

[Rocker Ute]

If women are getting offended by being told that motherhood equates to fatherhood and not to fatherhood + priesthood, that's just a pathology of their 'knowledge' about motherhood's putative primacy in Mormondom made manifest. The sooner we stop putting women on a pedestal for being moms, culturally, the sooner we can move past that line of juvenile thinking. Each role is difficult. One is not nobler than the other.

So the message is take me off of this pedestal because I want to be put up on another pedestal? I might argue that the current popular notion of equality is primitive in that I have never in my life seen it actually exist. And yes, I will put my mom and wife on a pedestal because they are the two single most important figures in my life who have influenced me like none other, and all others combined don't even equal what they've contributed to my life. I'll go out on a limb and assume that this is probably true for many others here too.

[Scratch]

If women are getting offended by being told that motherhood equates to fatherhood and not to fatherhood + priesthood, that's just a pathology of their 'knowledge' about motherhood's putative primacy in Mormondom made manifest. The sooner we stop putting women on a pedestal for being moms, culturally, the sooner we can move past that line of juvenile thinking. Each role is difficult. One is not nobler than the other.

So now any woman who esteems motherhood highly is pathological and juvenile? I don't like telling people how they should value their choices, whether it's about how they view their choice to be a mom or how they view their choice to pursue priesthood expansion.

[Flystripper]

So the message is take me off of this pedestal because I want to be put up on another pedestal? I might argue that the current popular notion of equality is primitive in that I have never in my life seen it actually exist. And yes, I will put my mom and wife on a pedestal because they are the two single most important figures in my life who have influenced me like none other, and all others combined don't even equal what they've contributed to my life. I'll go out on a limb and assume that this is probably true for many others here too.

Individual pedestals erected by individuals, for individuals, are great. Institutionalized pedestals erected by organizations, for entire genders, are not OK.

[Rocker Ute]

Individual pedestals erected by individuals, for individuals, are great. Institutionalized pedestals erected by organizations, for entire genders, are not OK.

What if I hold in esteem other women who do similar things for other people? Is that okay?

[Scratch]

Bingo. This pedestalization of motherhood isn't doing men or women any favors.

I disagree with what you're saying here on numerous levels, including your attempt to qualify my position as "pedestalizing" motherhood (along with all of the negative connotations that come along with that), but I don't want to get into a pissing match over that. All I'm saying is that I hope all people can find value and importance in how they choose to live their lives. As to your other question, this goes for single sisters, too. I hope that they can find value and importance in their lives, but I also believe that they can do so without tearing down the life choices that others have made. Note that I never said that women (or people) who value motherhood highly are right, I just said that I would prefer that those who disagree with them do so without simultaneously attacking those who have different value structures.

[Rocker Ute]

I disagree. The whole argument is about sameness. The Church maintains that you can have equality without sameness - that different types of access and opportunity are enough. The petition maintains that no amount of different responsibility, input, or leadership can be enough without the sameness in position.

Based on my very limited experience in marriage, I would say that I do believe in equality without sameness.

I've just been trying to steer this thread into a conversation about solid fundamental basketball vs dunking skills.

[LA Ute]

Individual pedestals erected by individuals, for individuals, are great. Institutionalized pedestals erected by organizations, for entire genders, are not OK.

I agree with this. I do think, however, that any pedestalization is cultural, not doctrinal. From the much-maligned Proclamation on the Family (https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation):


Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children.... Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations....

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

(Emphasis added.) I am not seeing any pedestalization there at all.

As a purely personal matter, I share Rocker's view. I am in awe of my wife and my mother's ability to do what they do (and neither of them could be fairly described as "stay at home moms"). But that doesn't change my core view of what our respective responsibilities are, or whether one of us is more important than the other.

[Mrs. Funk]

I remember the day of our son's blessing with vividness. I remember feeling sort of lost as the men in our extended family rose to circle up around our child I had carried until three weeks before. The men are good men whom I love and who love our son, but they had nothing to do with bringing our baby into the world. In that moment, nothing seemed more natural or right to me than for we, his parents, who co-created this little human with God to bless and consecrate his life to God together. It felt strange and unnatural to me that people who were still near strangers to our son could participate in his blessing while I sat as a mere observer.

Perhaps this sounds grasping or blasphemous to some. Wishing to participate in our child's blessing is a holy desire to me. I support ordination of women for this and other reasons, none of which have to do with denigrating motherhood. And if it means I have to clear sidewalks when it snows, hand me a shovel.

[Scratch]

I remember the day of our son's blessing with vividness. I remember feeling sort of lost as the men in our extended family rose to circle up around our child I had carried until three weeks before. The men are good men whom I love and who love our son, but they had nothing to do with bringing our baby into the world. In that moment, nothing seemed more natural or right to me than for we, his parents, who co-created this little human with God to bless and consecrate his life to God together. It felt strange and unnatural to me that people who were still near strangers to our son could participate in his blessing while I sat as a mere observer.

Perhaps this sounds grasping or blasphemous to some. Wishing to participate in our child's blessing is a holy desire to me. I support ordination of women for this and other reasons, none of which have to do with denigrating motherhood. And if it means I have to clear sidewalks when it snows, hand me a shovel.

Thanks for adding this. This is a perfect example of what I was trying to say, whether I said it or not. There are plenty of ways to advocate, and lots of good arguments (like the one you just made), without denigrating motherhood. Thanks; great post.

[LA Ute]

I remember the day of our son's blessing with vividness. I remember feeling sort of lost as the men in our extended family rose to circle up around our child I had carried until three weeks before. The men are good men whom I love and who love our son, but they had nothing to do with bringing our baby into the world. In that moment, nothing seemed more natural or right to me than for we, his parents, who co-created this little human with God to bless and consecrate his life to God together. It felt strange and unnatural to me that people who were still near strangers to our son could participate in his blessing while I sat as a mere observer.

Perhaps this sounds grasping or blasphemous to some. Wishing to participate in our child's blessing is a holy desire to me. I support ordination of women for this and other reasons, none of which have to do with denigrating motherhood. And if it means I have to clear sidewalks when it snows, hand me a shovel.

I personally feel it would be nice if the mother could hold the baby while it is being blessed. That might be seen as even worse, however.

[Virginia Ute]

http://ordainwomen.org/

This is a website that just went live a few days ago and is authored by a DC area woman Super and I know. I thought this might spark some interesting debate. I'll just get my cards on the table that I believe most women for whom this is a concern are probably better off outside the church at the end of the day, so I'm not necessarily itching for them to achieve their goals. But I respect what they are attempting. Here are some interesting quotes from the FAQ page:

This seems like an exercise in futility for these people and will most likely end in either them leaving the church or them giving up on their cause. Praying in general conference is one thing, but ordaining women to the Preisthood would require some deep doctrinal changes that warrant more than just popular opinion.

[Mrs. Funk]

I personally feel it would be nice if the mother could hold the baby while it is being blessed. That might be seen as even worse, however.

I think it's an easy way to involve mothers that doesn't require radical change. It certainly would be a start at least. :)

[Mrs. Funk]

Funny, I always feel like the blessing is one the first chances I have to really do something myself for the baby after Mom has done pretty much everything. I'm there at the very beginning of course, and then nine months later I just stand there in the hospital not doing much other than giving encouragement. Then baby sleeps and eats 20 hours a day, until I finally get a little moment to feel special as a Dad. I'm sure there are 1,000 other different perspectives on the experience.

I'm sorry it was not enjoyable for you. It is tragic that it felt so strange and unnatural.

My feelings about the blessing are complicated. It was a nice moment for our families and the blessing was beautiful, &c., &c. My role as an observer felt strange and unnatural.

Perhaps your experience has been different, but pregnancy and childbirth were definitely a team effort for us. I had a difficult pregnancy in some respects and mpfunk had to step up a lot. Childbirth was a grueling and wonderful experience for both of us. Our choice to work with a midwife and a birth center meant he had a very active role throughout the entire birth.

The very last thing in the world I want is to take something away from my husband. I don't think he would view my participation in a blessing as doing that, though.

[LA Ute]

My feelings about the blessing are complicated. It was a nice moment for our families and the blessing was beautiful, &c., &c. My role as an observer felt strange and unnatural.

Perhaps your experience has been different, but pregnancy and childbirth were definitely a team effort for us. I had a difficult pregnancy in some respects and mpfunk had to step up a lot. Childbirth was a grueling and wonderful experience for both of us. Our choice to work with a midwife and a birth center meant he had a very active role throughout the entire birth.

The very last thing in the world I want is to take something away from my husband. I don't think he would view my participation in a blessing as doing that, though.

If the baby were ill and your husband gave him a blessing, you'd hold him. So I really don't know why a mom couldn't do the same thing in a baby blessing. It seems to me this has been proposed (and even done) in the past, and was stopped. But Handbook 2 (http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng&query=baby+blessing) currently says only this:


Only brethren who hold the necessary priesthood and are worthy may perform an ordinance or blessing or stand in the circle....When several brethren participate in an ordinance or blessing, each one places his right hand lightly on the person’s head (or under the baby being blessed) and his left hand on the shoulder of the brother to his left.

So there's some wiggle room there, I think. You wouldn't be standing in the circle. Still, there's a suggestion that the baby should be held by the men performing the blessing, which would be awkward if the mom were also holding the baby. That seems like a practice to me, not a principle, which could be worked out. But I just work here.

[UtahDan]

I disagree with what you're saying here on numerous levels, including your attempt to qualify my position as "pedestalizing" motherhood (along with all of the negative connotations that come along with that), but I don't want to get into a pissing match over that. All I'm saying is that I hope all people can find value and importance in how they choose to live their lives. As to your other question, this goes for single sisters, too. I hope that they can find value and importance in their lives, but I also believe that they can do so without tearing down the life choices that others have made. Note that I never said that women (or people) who value motherhood highly are right, I just said that I would prefer that those who disagree with them do so without simultaneously attacking those who have different value structures.

You might be interested to know that the vast majority of women who have been involved in both the pants movement as well as the ordain women movement are mothers. Most of them stay at home mothers.

I do see what you are saying though.

[DrumNFeather]

I've just been trying to steer this thread into a conversation about solid fundamental basketball vs dunking skills.

You're on the right track here...but if a website is needed, it should be for bringing back regional basketball tournaments. I grew up in a church that had trophies in trophy cases in some buildings. Whatever happened to that?

[DrumNFeather]

And now to add to the actual discussion.

I sincerely hope that those behind this movement get or find everything they desire out of it. If it helps them stay in or return to the fold, all the better. I'm just not sure how to solve the severe disconnect between any movement like this and the church. Frankly, it would require a level of mutual respect, faith, and understanding that I'm not sure either side is prepared for.

[CardiacCoug]

I personally feel it would be nice if the mother could hold the baby while it is being blessed. That might be seen as even worse, however.

Funny. Do you think it would be nice if the mother could bless the baby? Seems like it would be even nicer, no?

[LA Ute]

Funny. Do you think it would be nice if the mother could bless the baby? Seems like it would be even nicer, no?

Don't you have lives to save somewhere?

Seriously, I was just thinking of ways to involve the mom. Ms. Funk even said she likes the idea, even if it doesn't go all the way. Sorry, her vote counts more than yours.

[Mrs. Funk]

Don't you have lives to save somewhere?

Seriously, I was just thinking of ways to involve the mom. Ms. Funk even said she likes the idea, even if it doesn't go all the way. Sorry, her vote counts more than yours.

I like the idea of participating in the circle better of course, but I think having mothers hold the babies is a valid option for them to participate within the existing framework. I would have liked for it to have been an option for me.

[USS Utah]

Speaking of baby blessings, I would like to suggest that they no longer be done during Sacrament Meeting. Sunday's with multiple baby blessings can be difficult for those who do not have children.

[LA Ute]

I like the idea of participating in the circle better of course, but I think having mothers hold the babies is a valid option for them to participate within the existing framework. I would have liked for it to have been an option for me.

Yes, you hold the baby, the men lay hands on him/her. Seems pretty slick to me. I have seen older children (toddlers) blessed, and the moms have held them on their laps while the husband does the ordinance. Simple.

[Mrs. Funk]

Yes, you hold the baby, the men lay hands on him/her. Seems pretty slick to me. I have seen older children (toddlers) blessed, and the moms have held them on their laps while the husband does the ordinance. Simple.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I've held our son during every other blessing he's had.

[LA Ute]

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I've held our son during every other blessing he's had.

I was agreeing with you!

[Mrs. Funk]

I was agreeing with you!

Sorry. It seemed like you were explaining how we'd go about it like I didn't understand. Anyway, yeah. No reason for mothers not to hold their babies.

[LA Ute]

Sorry. It seemed like you were explaining how we'd go about it like I didn't understand. Anyway, yeah. No reason for mothers not to hold their babies.

That was for the benefit of others on the board. ;)

[Mrs. Funk]

Your holy desire reminds me of Alma, whose great wish was to be an angel.

I don't see the parallel. I understand that both seem equally implausible to you. But our church's history has women blessing each other, anointing and administering women during childbirth, and even blessing the sick. A desire for reinstatement of those practices doesn't seem to me analogous to wanting to sprout wings and shout repentance with a trumpet.

[Scratch]

You might be interested to know that the vast majority of women who have been involved in both the pants movement as well as the ordain women movement are mothers. Most of them stay at home mothers.

I do see what you are saying though.

Oh, I'm sure of that, and it wasn't my intention to imply otherwise. I'm sure there are also plenty of single women who would be opposed to the movements. My intention, whether it was expressed or not, was to differentiate between the different viewpoints as well and say that we should try to fund ways to encourage self-esteem, fulfillment, and self-worth for all of the differing viewpoints. I think it's possible to do without attacking the ways others accomplish those goals, that's all.

[wuapinmon]

So now any woman who esteems motherhood highly is pathological and juvenile? I don't like telling people how they should value their choices, whether it's about how they view their choice to be a mom or how they view their choice to pursue priesthood expansion.

If people get offended because someone tells them that motherhood and fatherhood are equals, that the priesthood isn't a consolation prize for not having a womb, then they are indeed pathological and juvenile in their thinking.


So the message is take me off of this pedestal because I want to be put up on another pedestal? I might argue that the current popular notion of equality is primitive in that I have never in my life seen it actually exist. And yes, I will put my mom and wife on a pedestal because they are the two single most important figures in my life who have influenced me like none other, and all others combined don't even equal what they've contributed to my life. I'll go out on a limb and assume that this is probably true for many others here too.

No, that's not the message at all. Who views the priesthood as a pedestal? I view it as a burden usually. It means that I'm going to asked to do things for people at inopportune times and be given assignments to do things to save the church money (like driving sister missionaries to district meeting). It's fine for you to put your mom and wife on pedestals. And, many might share this view. I'd counter that that's a product of the social construction of your reality, especially in the case of your mother. To paraphrase Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann:


Persons and groups interacting in a social system create, over time, concepts or mental representations of each other's actions, and that these concepts eventually become habituated into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to each other. When these roles are made available to other members of society to enter into and play out, the reciprocal interactions are said to be institutionalized. In the process of this institutionalization meaning is embedded in society. Knowledge and people's conception (and belief) of what reality is becomes embedded in the institutional fabric of society. Reality is therefore said to be socially constructed.

You've decided that you know that your mother's role in your life gave meaning to it more than anyone else. That reality is socially constructed. If we imbue the sacrifices of motherhood with special meaning, privileging them over the ones of fatherhood, we arrive where we are. Veneration of motherhood arises in many cultures, especially in ones with motherhood infused with divine qualities. Our God was born of a Virgin Mother! Billions worship her! It's not a stretch to see that enculturation even in your post-Protestant Western American Mormon upbringing.


Whoa! Slow down man, you're talking to a bunch of football fans here.

I use a full spectrum vocabulary. Yall can keep up. If not, google "define:putative."


Individual pedestals erected by individuals, for individuals, are great. Institutionalized pedestals erected by organizations, for entire genders, are not OK.

I agree completely. Pedestals of motherhood are individual.


I agree with this. I do think, however, that any pedestalization is cultural, not doctrinal. From the much-maligned Proclamation on the Family (https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation):



(Emphasis added.) I am not seeing any pedestalization there at all.

As a purely personal matter, I share Rocker's view. I am in awe of my wife and my mother's ability to do what they do (and neither of them could be fairly described as "stay at home moms"). But that doesn't change my core view of what our respective responsibilities are, or whether one of us is more important than the other.

Here's a good talk by Elder Holland about motherhood. I can get behind this talk. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1997/04/because-she-is-a-mother?lang=eng

[Rocker Ute]

You've decided that you know that your mother's role in your life gave meaning to it more than anyone else. That reality is socially constructed. If we imbue the sacrifices of motherhood with special meaning, privileging them over the ones of fatherhood, we arrive where we are.


Thank you for telling me what I've decided.

Motherhood is more than a social construct, it is also a biological one. I don't hide that I'm a believer, so I also believe that there is a divine construct as well.

But even biologically and developmentally a mother's role is pretty important and can't be replaced by a man.

And historically a woman's role in society has been fundamentally critical into developing to where we stand as a society today.

I don't see any need to use that as a justification for what a woman should or shouldn't be able to do in the world or within a religion. But I also think it is worthy of some heightened respect.

I also don't think that respect or pedestal lessens their ability to function in society as they chose, nor does it minimize the roles of a father. I happen to have a great one of those too. I feel fortunate to have two people in my life who chose to invest and commit to me and my siblings, and think it is commendable for anyone out there in either role who does the same.

[SuperGabers]

If this goes down I'm going to try and become bishop, then pick two attractive sisters as my counselors and let the rumor mill run.

HFN, I just love you. :D

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2

[wuapinmon]

Thank you for telling me what I've decided.

Motherhood is more than a social construct, it is also a biological one. I don't hide that I'm a believer, so I also believe that there is a divine construct as well.

But even biologically and developmentally a mother's role is pretty important and can't be replaced by a man.

And historically a woman's role in society has been fundamentally critical into developing to where we stand as a society today.

I don't see any need to use that as a justification for what a woman should or shouldn't be able to do in the world or within a religion. But I also think it is worthy of some heightened respect.

I also don't think that respect or pedestal lessens their ability to function in society as they chose, nor does it minimize the roles of a father. I happen to have a great one of those too. I feel fortunate to have two people in my life who chose to invest and commit to me and my siblings, and think it is commendable for anyone out there in either role who does the same.

Don't get persnickety needlessly. Wait until there's at least a clear intent to offend, por favor. Motherhood is not a biological construct. It is biological fact. Your belief in a 'divine construct' is nothing more than a social construct, a socio-cultural reification of religious culture. A mother's biological role can be replaced by a man. Perhaps not by a father, but certainly a man can mother a child biologically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DiXp_See_Bs (NSFW)

Your mention of a woman's role being critical speaks of societal development. The consequences of that knowledge you possess are that you put mom on a pedestal, you feel that there should be heightened respect to them for performing their societal or biological roles (or both). Again, social constructs. I reject that contract. Fatherhood is a very difficult role. No more difficult nor less than that of a mother. I will not rise to respect my mother more than my father because that's comparing apples to oranges, and disrespects the very real sacrifices my father, our fathers, made for each of us. By your metric, the priesthood is almost penance for not being a woman, trying to earn our cultural salvation through works rather than the grace of having a XX chromosomes and working milk glands.

[Rocker Ute]

Don't get persnickety needlessly. Wait until there's at least a clear intent to offend, por favor. Motherhood is not a biological construct. It is biological fact. Your belief in a 'divine construct' is nothing more than a social construct, a socio-cultural reification of religious culture. A mother's biological role can be replaced by a man. Perhaps not by a father, but certainly a man can mother a child biologically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DiXp_See_Bs (NSFW)

Your mention of a woman's role being critical speaks of societal development. The consequences of that knowledge you possess are that you put mom on a pedestal, you feel that there should be heightened respect to them for performing their societal or biological roles (or both). Again, social constructs. I reject that contract. Fatherhood is a very difficult role. No more difficult nor less than that of a mother. I will not rise to respect my mother more than my father because that's comparing apples to oranges, and disrespects the very real sacrifices my father, our fathers, made for each of us. By your metric, the priesthood is almost penance for not being a woman, trying to earn our cultural salvation through works rather than the grace of having a XX chromosomes and working milk glands.

Who says I'm being persnickety? Don't take offense to my pretentiousness and I won't take offense to yours. Deal?

You have decided that my respect of women is a disrespect of men when it isn't. How you derived that priesthood is penance is puzzling but I get the sense you are just arguing for arguing a sake. I commend you for that. I don't view the priesthood in the limited role that you seem to so maybe that is the disconnect.

Also perhaps we should define motherhood to get on the same page. To me having a baby isn't the only criteria to motherhood, but the rearing, nurturing, protection, education etc are all part of motherhood. Women and men who have children and abandon them aren't those children's parents in the sense I'm speaking.

You've also decided that social constructs have no merit, but haven't proven why that is the case. Sometimes there is good reason for a social construct.

But I've become bored of the conversation because I'm a man and can't concentrate on anything for more than 15 minutes.

No I'm just kidding,(not on being bored with this, but on being able to concentrate on... whatever it is we are talking about) but I don't think you are going to convince me otherwise because I have that whole religious belief stuff that you can define as you wish.

I will note that your or my rejection of realities doesn't change those realities as much as we might want.

[tooblue]

Don't get persnickety needlessly. Wait until there's at least a clear intent to offend, por favor. Motherhood is not a biological construct. It is biological fact. Your belief in a 'divine construct' is nothing more than a social construct, a socio-cultural reification of religious culture. A mother's biological role can be replaced by a man. Perhaps not by a father, but certainly a man can mother a child biologically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DiXp_See_Bs (NSFW)

Your mention of a woman's role being critical speaks of societal development. The consequences of that knowledge you possess are that you put mom on a pedestal, you feel that there should be heightened respect to them for performing their societal or biological roles (or both). Again, social constructs. I reject that contract. Fatherhood is a very difficult role. No more difficult nor less than that of a mother. I will not rise to respect my mother more than my father because that's comparing apples to oranges, and disrespects the very real sacrifices my father, our fathers, made for each of us. By your metric, the priesthood is almost penance for not being a woman, trying to earn our cultural salvation through works rather than the grace of having a XX chromosomes and working milk glands.

Everything and anything in the human societal experience is a "social construct." You throw it around like it means something more than it does. And lets' be clear. Your posturing in this thread is also a social construct born of academic reasoning, relying upon unduly oblique language in an attempt to render this discussion more meaningful or significant phylosophically.

[LA Ute]

Motherhood is not a biological construct. It is biological fact. Your belief in a 'divine construct' is nothing more than a social construct, a socio-cultural reification of religious culture. A mother's biological role can be replaced by a man. Perhaps not by a father, but certainly a man can mother a child biologically.

Huh? Are you really being that dismissive, or are you just messing with us by parodying academic jargon?

[wuapinmon]

Huh? Are you really being that dismissive, or are you just messing with us by parodying academic jargon?

Don't out me, dammit. I'm having fun.

[LA Ute]

Don't out me, dammit. I'm having fun.

Sadist.

[wuapinmon]

Everything and anything in the human societal experience is a "social construct." You throw it around like it means something more than it does. And lets' be clear. Your posturing in this thread is also a social construct born of academic reasoning, relying upon unduly oblique language in an attempt to render this discussion more meaningful or significant phylosophically.

We exist in narratives, so we have to interpret the world through societal constructs, otherwise there's no need for language or thought, only reaction and instinct. Communication evolves from the need to go without oneself. You can be clear all you like, but framing what I say as posturing and unduly oblique is just Janus being priggish.

[wuapinmon]

Who says I'm being persnickety? Don't take offense to my pretentiousness and I won't take offense to yours. Deal?

You have decided that my respect of women is a disrespect of men when it isn't. How you derived that priesthood is penance is puzzling but I get the sense you are just arguing for arguing a sake. I commend you for that. I don't view the priesthood in the limited role that you seem to so maybe that is the disconnect.

Also perhaps we should define motherhood to get on the same page. To me having a baby isn't the only criteria to motherhood, but the rearing, nurturing, protection, education etc are all part of motherhood. Women and men who have children and abandon them aren't those children's parents in the sense I'm speaking.

You've also decided that social constructs have no merit, but haven't proven why that is the case. Sometimes there is good reason for a social construct.

But I've become bored of the conversation because I'm a man and can't concentrate on anything for more than 15 minutes.

No I'm just kidding,(not on being bored with this, but on being able to concentrate on... whatever it is we are talking about) but I don't think you are going to convince me otherwise because I have that whole religious belief stuff that you can define as you wish.

I will note that your or my rejection of realities doesn't change those realities as much as we might want.

Hey now, I put some boobs in that linked video. That should at least get your attention for a while longer. I didn't say that social constructs have no merit. I'm saying that the LDS social construct around motherhood is misguided, juvenile, and potentially pathological. Some social constructs are great "Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." As far as rejecting realities, I can only reject ones that are not ones I share

[LA Ute]

We exist in narratives, so we have to interpret the world through societal constructs, otherwise there's no need for language or thought, only reaction and instinct. Communication evolves from the need to go without oneself. You can be clear all you like, but framing what I say as posturing and unduly oblique is just Janus being priggish.

Oh, brother. 367

[wuapinmon]

Oh, brother. 367

Your semiotics are unclear. Are you lamenting the lack of nonsense?

[LA Ute]

Hey now, I put some boobs in that linked video. That should at least get your attention for a while longer. I didn't say that social constructs have no merit. I'm saying that the LDS social construct around motherhood is misguided, juvenile, and potentially pathological. Some social constructs are great "Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." As far as rejecting realities, I can only reject ones that are not ones I share

Is there someone I can call who will lead you by the hand back to your room and give you your meds?

[wuapinmon]

Is there someone I can call who will lead you by the hand back to your room and give you your meds?

202.608.6145. Ask for Jim

[Rocker Ute]

Hey now, I put some boobs in that linked video. That should at least get your attention for a while longer. I didn't say that social constructs have no merit. I'm saying that the LDS social construct around motherhood is misguided, juvenile, and potentially pathological. Some social constructs are great "Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." As far as rejecting realities, I can only reject ones that are not ones I share

It's a social construct that has produced (ahem) many of the great things in society today. I can appreciate a man who can post boobs and decry juvenile practices all on the same thread with a straight face.

For the record, neither of the women I have sang praises for have scrapbooked or done toll-painting ever in their lives, but I still find great value in them. Strange.

[Jarid in Cedar]

This discussion has fascinating, enlightening and humorous all sat the same time.

What hasn't been discussed is the underpinning drive behind this issue: power. Who has is, who wants it, and why one group seeks to control it, while the other covets it.

People always talk about the power of the priesthood, the power of the priesthood. One group wants to know what that power is all about, feeling they deserve to have that power just as much as the other group. While the group with the power doesn't feel like there is a real need to give any of it away.

In all honestly, all we are really discussing is a title. When a man is ordained, he is given a title: Elder. The only power that title has is what the group confers upon it. The amount of deference/reverence given that title is societally driven, and the degree of deference given that title directly reflects the degree of that power. The more deference we give to a title, the more power we allow to that title to have over our lives. For example, if a neighbor says that a woman should only wear one set of earrings, we would give little weight to that comment. But, if it is said over the pulpit by one of the 15, then it becomes a standard that all women are judged by that society.

Ultimately, this is all about power, or at least the perception of power.

[tooblue]

We exist in narratives, so we have to interpret the world through societal constructs, otherwise there's no need for language or thought, only reaction and instinct. Communication evolves from the need to go without oneself. You can be clear all you like, but framing what I say as posturing and unduly oblique is just Janus being priggish.

But what of the ineffable in human experience? Language (communication) by default is inadequate to explain a great many things. Using it to obfuscate meaning only exacerbates the problem. The only priggish gate keeper here are your words, if your intent is understanding.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

HFN, I just love you. :D

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2

It takes more than that to get on my counselor short list, I need a cookie sample and bikini picture.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

It takes more than that to get on my counselor short list, I need a cookie sample and bikini picture.

Shoot, I've gotta start thinking like a bishop, modest one piece picture.

[Mrs. Funk]

No, not implausible at all. I, like you, do not see a strong doctrinal reason for the priesthood to be held by men only. I simply meant that you have a trial of wanting to be something - a priestess - that you cannot yet be. Oliver wanted to be a translator, Emma wanted to be a witness, Elder Jones wants to be a zone leader. I meant nothing more than that. Sorry if I was unclear. Certainly was not trying to say anything deep or offensive.

I wasn't offended. I just didn't follow the analogy you tried to make. Thanks for clarifying. And having not been overly endowed with the virtue of patience, waiting for a package is a trial let alone something as important as the priesthood. :)

[UtahDan]

It takes more than that to get on my counselor short list, I need a cookie sample and bikini picture.

If she gives you one, will you pass a copy on to me?

[DrumNFeather]

It takes more than that to get on my counselor short list, I need a cookie sample and bikini picture.


If she gives you one, will you pass a copy on to me?

Wouldn't this be better suited for Mormon stories...zing!

[wuapinmon]

If she gives you one, will you pass a copy on to me?

:rofl:

[wuapinmon]

But what of the ineffable in human experience? Language (communication) by default is inadequate to explain a great many things. Using it to obfuscate meaning only exacerbates the problem. The only priggish gate keeper here are your words, if your intent is understanding.

The ineffable, the sublime, they are thorns in our side. Communion is what we call our attempts to resonate with the Divine. We're talking about deep stuff here. Jarid brought up power, which invites a serious discussion about cultural hegemony in the Church, which the Brethren enjoy in spades. But, by your standards, bringing Gramsci into this discussion is will only serve to muddy it. I disagree.

[wuapinmon]

368


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEu1dFLwf3E

[wuapinmon]

Well, I took your advice and googled it. But I still don't understand. I hope you're easier on your spanish students.

Well, to them, I really am speaking a foreign language, instead of big words in their native one. But, I'm not teaching here. I consider people here my equals; I know many of yall and you trend brilliant, so I don't dumb things down.

[Scratch]

I consider people here my equals; I know many of yall and you trend brilliant, so I don't dumb things down.

Except for those who are pathological and juvenile.

[LA Ute]

Be vewy, vewy careful in wesponding to wuap. He is a wascal.

[Solon]

I am glad someone has the same attitude as me on this stuff. What a waste.

Whether or not one agrees with the proposition, the out-of-hand dismissal of (some) women's concerns over this issue is condescending and paternalistic. An attitude that women who (respectfully) advocate for change or voice dissent are wasting their time doesn't speak well of LDS males.

There's really no doctrinal reason in the LDS scriptures that precludes women from priesthood. Sure, it's unconventional in today's Christian world, but it's not anti-doctrinal. In highly misogynistic ancient times, many pagan religions had female priestesses (for female deities), and an earlier post points out that New Testament times featured deaconesses.

There is some suggestion in LDS temple-worship of female subordination to males, but this (IMO) is hardly a deal-breaker for eventual ordination of females - especially in a religion that claims ongoing revelation.

[UtahDan]

I feel a podcast coming on.

[DrumNFeather]

I feel a podcast coming on.

(insert cash register sound here)

[UtahDan]

(insert cash register sound here)

It's true, it does cost me. Maybe one day the money will flow the other direction but I'm not holding my breath.

[DrumNFeather]

It's true, it does cost me. Maybe one day the money will flow the other direction but I'm not holding my breath.

Quit chasing the all mighty dollar!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Mormon women have had the priesthood since 1843.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171

[Jarid in Cedar]

Mormon women have had the priesthood since 1843.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171

That was my thought as well. We were progressive, then something happened and we became conservative. In regards to blacks and the priesthood (which law did I just provoke, I forget) that uturn happened when BY took power and removed mormon society from the rest of the world. I don't know what happened to cause the reverse course in regards to women's roles in the current hierarchical structure.

[wuapinmon]

Mormon women have had the priesthood since 1843.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171

Damn! Jeff, thanks for sharing that. I hadn't even thought about the temple robes' meaning, and how both sides of the aisle participate.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That was my thought as well. We were progressive, then something happened and we became conservative. In regards to blacks and the priesthood (which law did I just provoke, I forget) that uturn happened when BY took power and removed mormon society from the rest of the world. I don't know what happened to cause the reverse course in regards to women's roles in the current hierarchical structure.

For the most part, it didn't happen until early in the 20th century. Then we ordered women to stop performing healings on a routine basis and we have been changing the historical record here and there to cover things up.

[SavaUte]

Mormon women have had the priesthood since 1843.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171

I wouldn't be surprised if women are given the priesthood these days, just very few and it isn't made public. All the theology is there (it seems pretty clear to me that in the next life women will receive the priesthood, so why not now?)

I'm glad you guys have been talking about this - something I hadn't really though of and initially had the same reaction as MrSports, but the more I think of it, the less and less it would surprise me. Now as far as the women pushing to get it - the movement to me is "yawn" but the idea is "why not?"

[UtahDan]

I wouldn't be surprised if women are given the priesthood these days, just very few and it isn't made public. All the theology is there (it seems pretty clear to me that in the next life women will receive the priesthood, so why not now?)

I'm glad you guys have been talking about this - something I hadn't really though of and initially had the same reaction as MrSports, but the more I think of it, the less and less it would surprise me. Now as far as the women pushing to get it - the movement to me is "yawn" but the idea is "why not?"

Interesting. Why do you feel that way?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Damn! Jeff, thanks for sharing that. I hadn't even thought about the temple robes' meaning, and how both sides of the aisle participate.

And if Mormon women have had the priesthood since 1843, why aren't they using it?

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N02_231.pdf

[SavaUte]

Interesting. Why do you feel that way?

Not seeking for power or position in the Church. And let the revelation come from the top when its time. I know we've talked about "holy agitation" in this thread or another, and while I believe what has been said, I'm not a boat rocker.

Shrug. I'm also a man, so there is that

[NorthwestUteFan]

And if Mormon women have had the priesthood since 1843, why aren't they using it?



We have a number of generations of Mormon culture pushing us in the opposite direction. Culturally we have 'evolved' away from that and most women today never even had the thought cross their minds when they were young girls.

Solon mentioned pagan priestesses playing an important role. In early Christianity women also played a prominent role. Junia for example led one of Paul's congregations, and there is speculation that other early apostles were women. This last detail being removed from the later Latin versions of the scriptures.

Journals from frontier times are filled with mentions of women blessing their children, sick people, animals, etc. The total amount of work required to merely sustain a family at the time required a more egalitarian sharing of the workload, and sometimes only a woman was around to perform the laying on of hands to bless a sick or injured individual.

In Nauvoo it seems Joseph Smith was bringing some women into a 'higher level' of temple ordinance which seemed to dovetail with the prevailing folk magic world view. Lucy Mack Smith spoke of performing the 'Faculty of Abrac'* and 'magick circles'. Both of these are entwined with folk magic and Freemasonry. The Masons however did not allow women to participate, so Joseph Smith acted in a very deliberate manner to include women into these Priesthood events (his 'Celestial Masonry').

I posted on another thread that Sheri Dew may be the closest thing we have to a 'prophetess'. However she is not a mother and has never been married. Where does that leave her? The standard answer, that 'all will get worked out in the eternities', is patently unsatisfying and frankly is as paternalistic and condescending as a pat on the head with a "there, there... ".

Many of the women I know who support this movement do not want the authority positions, but desire only to be authorized to lay their hands on their children to bless them.


*... "Abrac, or Abraxas, is a Gnostic term for God that served as a magical incantation. It forms the root of the magic word known to every child: abracadabra." (Occult America: The Secret History of how Mysticism Shaped our History - Mitch Horowitz, 2009)

[SeattleUte]

All the low-hanging fruit in this thread and this is what you go with?

Man, it is weird seeing a neutered, de-clawed version of CatBlue in operation.

You know me well enough to know I couldn't care less if the LDS church ordains women. I think women should just leave. However, if the LDS church ever does ordain women it will have mutated into something else, because the LDS church is, at an atomic level, all about opposing progress, clear down to its atavistic belief in angels and miracles.

[tooblue]

The ineffable, the sublime, they are thorns in our side. Communion is what we call our attempts to resonate with the Divine. We're talking about deep stuff here. Jarid brought up power, which invites a serious discussion about cultural hegemony in the Church, which the Brethren enjoy in spades. But, by your standards, bringing Gramsci into this discussion is will only serve to muddy it. I disagree.

The ineffable and the sublime are not thorns. They are purpose and the reason for being. Why would I spend a life time waiting for some on else—another entity—to provide me answers? Especially when the answers are mine alone to construct if I am willing?

"Am I an act of creation that has been added to a grand narrative with a perpetual archive … is my purpose to extricate myself from that narrative, write my own text and create a new archive as infinite as my own existence?"

What's more, how can you be so certain the brethren enjoy it? From my perspective it looks more like they suffer it? How does one rule if there is no one willing to be ruled over? I wish be a disciple. I am not a subject. My agency is paramount. My willingness is a consequence. Just like the answers are mine alone to construct so are the means and methods by which revelation is given to me as a fully self-aware participant; believer; pupil or child eager to learn.

[wuapinmon]

The ineffable and the sublime are not thorns. They are purpose and the reason for being. Why would I spend a life time waiting for some on else—another entity—to provide me answers? Especially when the answers are mine alone to construct if I am willing?

"Am I an act of creation that has been added to a grand narrative with a perpetual archive … is my purpose to extricate myself from that narrative, write my own text and create a new archive as infinite as my own existence?"

What's more, how can you be so certain the brethren enjoy it? From my perspective it looks more like they suffer it? How does one rule if there is no one willing to be ruled over? I wish be a disciple. I am not a subject. My agency is paramount. My willingness is a consequence. Just like the answers are mine alone to construct so are the means and methods by which revelation is given to me as a fully self-aware participant; believer; pupil or child eager to learn.


There is no whole self. Grimm, in an excellent presentation of Buddhism (Die Lehre des Buddha, Munich, 1917), describes the process of elimination whereby the Indians arrived at this certainty. Here is their millennially effective precept: “Those things of which I can perceive the beginnings and the end are not my self.” This rule is correct and needs only to be exemplified in order to persuade us of its virtue. I, for example, am not the visual reality that my eyes encompass, for if I were, darkness would kill me and nothing would remain in me to desire the spectacle of the world, or even to forget it. Nor am I the audible world that I hear, for in that case silence would erase me and I would pass from sound to sound without memory of the previous one. Subsequent identical lines of argument can be directed toward the senses of smell, taste, and touch, proving not only that I am not the world of appearances - a thing generally known and undisputed - but that the apperceptions that indicate that world are not my self either. That is, I am not my own activity of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching. Nor am I my body, which is a phenomenon among others. Up to this point the argument is banal; its distinction lies in its application to spiritual matters. Are desire, thought, happiness, and distress my true self? The answer, in accordance with the precept, is clearly in the negative, since those conditions expire without annulling me with them. Consciousness - the final hideout where we might track down the self - also proves unqualified. Once the emotions, the extraneous perceptions, and even ever-shifting thought are dismissed, consciousness is a barren thing, without any appearance reflected in it to make it exist.

Grimm observes that this rambling dialectical inquiry yields a result that coincides with Schopenhauer’s opinion that the self is a point whose immobility is useful for discerning, by contrast, the heavy-laden flight of time. This opinion translates the self into a mere logical imperative, without qualities of its own or distinctions from individual to individual.
---Jorge Luis Borges, 1922

Challenge.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You know me well enough to know I couldn't care less if the LDS church ordains women. I think women should just leave. However, if the LDS church ever does ordain women it will have mutated into something else, because the LDS church is, at an atomic level, all about opposing progress, clear down to its atavistic belief in angels and miracles.

There we go. We just need a BYU fan to weigh in to get CatBlue's claws to come out.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You know me well enough to know I couldn't care less if the LDS church ordains women. I think women should just leave. However, if the LDS church ever does ordain women it will have mutated into something else, because the LDS church is, at an atomic level, all about opposing progress, clear down to its atavistic belief in angels and miracles.

And yes, SU. Your posting history clearly demonstrates that you couldn't care less what the LDS church does. Snort.

[tooblue]

Challenge.

How can someone else's words referencing the ideas of another auteur and philosopher, who once asserted that "woman is by nature meant to obey1" be a challenge? These are their constructs, taken out of context and when placed here is this thread could prove inflammatory.

What are your thoughts? What are your constructs?

Challenge.


1. A paraphrasing of Arthur Schopenhauer from his essay about women

[DU Ute]

I feel a podcast coming on.

You know how to deal these kinds of feelings.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWA_jr-AwyA

[wuapinmon]

What are your thoughts? What are your constructs?


My thoughts are my constructs. I cannot escape from the heteronomous society in which I was born unless I leave it or perform the margins (which I haven't the stomach to do). Therefore, I intend to agitate from within to change the social construction of my reality via sharing my thoughts (and those more articulate than myself) with the world.

Also, I am a humanist. I believe in situational ethics, pliable morals, and categorical imperatives. I think we all deserve equal treatment for those things which are innate in all.

I am a weak agnostic theist. I accept scripture that views each of us as equal creations of our Heavenly Father (with regard to his respecting of persons).

Therefore, I embrace Galatians 3


26 For ye are all the achildren (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/3.28?lang=eng#) of God by bfaith (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/3.28?lang=eng#) in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been abaptized (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/3.28?lang=eng#) into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor aGreek (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/3.28?lang=eng#), there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all bone (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/3.28?lang=eng#) in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye aAbraham’s (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/3.28?lang=eng#) bseed (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/3.28?lang=eng#), and cheirs (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/3.28?lang=eng#)according to the promise.

And 4 Nephi 1:3


3 And they had aall (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/4-ne/1.3?lang=eng#) things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly bgift (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/4-ne/1.3?lang=eng#).

I believe the temple ceremony conveys the priesthood on women. They already perform washings and anointings in the temple, they wear the robes of the priesthood and change shoulders in the endowment ceremony. Our religion sprang from an Eastern agricultural society that placed a premium on females as possessions. This legacy has been a constant thread throughout the Western enculturation of Christianity, save a few fleeting examples, including Joseph Smith for a few years.

Our Church claims to enjoy revelation from On High, despite nothing new being made doctrine in about 100 years through the most tumultuous times in the history of the world, with upheaval, paradigm destruction, and the rise of humanism. So, perhaps God has been asleep. However, I believe that religious institutions' continued existences are always precarious, dependent on people (myself included) embracing their plausibility by acting as if the institutions were real. We all agree to behave a certain way, not because we as a people choose to do so, but we because GOD COMMANDS IT!" This allows us to essentially forget that religions are of our own making. We imbue Joseph Smith's April 6, 1830 day with incredible meaning because it allows us to change the contingency of our religious reality into necessity. We need God because, dammit, he told us we did. Or, at least a couple of us.

[Pheidippides]

And yes, SU. Your posting history clearly demonstrates that you couldn't care less what the LDS church does. Snort.

Snort indeed.

I have long agree in general principle with Toscano and Quinn. I find it odd that I could write a letter expressing those views today to most apostles and nothing would come of it, but these people were severely disciplined for their thoughts.

[SeattleUte]

Snort indeed.

I have long agree in general principle with Toscano and Quinn. I find it odd that I could write a letter expressing those views today to most apostles and nothing would come of it, but these people were severely disciplined for their thoughts.

There's a difference between the LDS Church engaging in veiled guerilla tactics supporting Prop 8, or issuing a proclamation on the family that perpetuates mental enslavement of my female family members, and the question of whether women should receive the LDS priesthood. Do you see the difference? I care deeply whether gays have a right to marry that is coextensive with heterosexual rights, I care deeply whether women in the LDS church feel liberated and empowered to finish college, etc. I think whether they receive the preisthood is unimportant.

[Freaky Girl]

Mormon women have had the priesthood since 1843.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171


I knew the current teachings about women and the priesthood were incomplete when I first went through the temple and was blessed and anointed by women. Several years later I was in the temple with a female friend of mine and we were invited into the prayer circle to participate in the True Order of Prayer as a couple, since there was a shortage of men in the temple that day. I was surprised by the invitation, and pleased. It was very inclusive of all of us in the session, and I loved the idea it promoted of faithfulness over gender.

[Pheidippides]

There's a difference between the LDS Church engaging in veiled guerilla tactics supporting Prop 8, or issuing a proclamation on the family that perpetuates mental enslavement of my female family members, and the question of whether women should receive the LDS priesthood. Do you see the difference? I care deeply whether gays have a right to marry that is coextensive with heterosexual rights, I care deeply whether women in the LDS church feel liberated and empowered to finish college, etc. I think whether they receive the preisthood is unimportant.

Ignoring for a moment that there is something close to seven years of publicly available record on exactly how disinterested you are, what does the above have to do with the price of tea in China?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Snort indeed.

I have long agree in general principle with Toscano and Quinn. I find it odd that I could write a letter expressing those views today to most apostles and nothing would come of it, but these people were severely disciplined for their thoughts.

Of course that happened during a perfect storm which left the Grizzly Bear (Packer) in sole control of the church as acting president of the Q12 while Benson was incapacitated.

If Paul Toscano is to be believed, his stake president refused to hold his 'court of love'. Packer was forced to call back the former SP from his stint as an Area President in Mexico to deliver the predetermined outcome of the Kangaroo court.

Luckily for most of us, at least those of us who do not rely on the church for employment, this situation won't happen again. Recent similar situations have shown the church to be averse to bad publicity.

[DrumNFeather]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/03/im-a-mormon-easy-chair-and-i-believe-that-women/

[Mrs. Funk]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/03/im-a-mormon-easy-chair-and-i-believe-that-women/

If that's really the concern, then comments about my willingness to shovel snow seem moot. Apparently women with the priesthood will do all of the men's work in 10 minutes!

[FMCoug]

This is a fantastic thread. For the most part of the discussion has been really good. One hing though. The "yawners" are all male. Perhaps it is worth considering that if you are not in a particular position (i.e. a woman in the church) you really can't understand what it's like.

As a middle aged white man, I have never experienced racism, sexism, or ageism. So for me to denigrate those who have would be very juvenile.

[SavaUte]

One hing though. The "yawners" are all male.

Every woman I've spoken to about this has been a "yawner", that number is 3.

[FMCoug]

Every woman I've spoken to about this has been a "yawner", that number is 3.

I was referring to those in this thread.

[SoonerCoug]

One woman was already called in to her bishop's office for putting her profile on the site. Apparently the bishop also got a stake president involved, who decided to involve a "regional authority."

The final verdict was that she can't say anything about ordaining women to the priesthood in church, but she can keep her temple recommend. How generous of them.

[Mrs. Funk]

One woman was already called in to her bishop's office for putting her profile on the site. Apparently the bishop also got a stake president involved, who decided to involve a "regional authority."

The final verdict was that she can't say anything about ordaining women to the priesthood in church, but she can keep her temple recommend. How generous of them.

That's very upsetting.

[OrangeUte]

That's very upsetting.

I agree. It's aggravating how intrusive our church's lay leadership can be and how patronizing.

[CardiacCoug]

One woman was already called in to her bishop's office for putting her profile on the site. Apparently the bishop also got a stake president involved, who decided to involve a "regional authority."

The final verdict was that she can't say anything about ordaining women to the priesthood in church, but she can keep her temple recommend. How generous of them.

If this lady went to the local or national media with this story I'm pretty sure the local leaders would be told to stand down. At the top, the Church now realizes this kind of publicity is very bad and just not worth it. In fact it's counterproductive because it just brings more negative attention and more sympathy for the agitators for change.

[SoonerCoug]

If this lady went to the local or national media with this story I'm pretty sure the local leaders would be told to stand down. At the top, the Church now realizes this kind of publicity is very bad and just not worth it. In fact it's counterproductive because it just brings more negative attention and more sympathy for the agitators for change.

I think prop 8 probably had something to do with them realizing this.

What they ought to be doing is calling in all the creepy mormon men who are posting on the ordain women facebook page and belittling the women there.

[LA Ute]

I agree. It's aggravating how intrusive our church's lay leadership can be and how patronizing.

The whole idea of calling someone in to see the bishop/SP over this sort of thing just baffles me.

[SuperGabers]

I know someone working behind the scenes with OW (if you see a familiar face on one of the profiles, you can deduce for yourself who it is) who can confirm that this person called in was not disciplined or asked to give up their TR.

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2

[SuperGabers]

But, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't happen with an overzealous bishop soon.

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2

[NorthwestUteFan]

The whole idea of calling someone in to see the bishop/SP over this sort of thing just baffles me.

That is the reason we all wish we had you for a bishop/SP.

One thing myself wife and I have discussed recently is the following dichotomy: Men are not punished for Adam's sins, so why are women kept in subservience for Eve's transgression? This is especially troubling because 1) we teach that Eve was the 'smart' one, and 2) the story of Adam and Eve is meant to be allegorical. We may as well punish women because Lilith* refused to allow Adam to be superior, and instead demanded being equal to him. (Lilith was created out of the dust at the same time as Adam and felt she was his ewial. When she left, Adam was left alone in the garden so God was forced to create Eve from Adam's rib.)

Sheri Dew spoke at a regional woman's conference here in the area, and my wife attended. She was struck by several things in the conference. First, Ms. Dew has a highly powerful presence about her. My wife rightly calls her a 'prophetess'.

Second, Ms. Dew's new book talks about women exercising the priesthood during the early days of the church. Women exercised the priesthood by blessing sick people and generally blessing family members, both with the laying on of hands.

When the temple ceremony came about, women were told that since they were allowed to exercise the priesthood in the temple (washings and annointings) they no longer needed to bless the sick. However greater priesthood ordinances and were 'still to come' at the time of Joseph's death.


*Early Christian writings, Dead Sea Scrolls, the Talmud, and even the Bible contained the complete story of Lilith until John Calvin et al deleted her from the Genesis creation story in the Geneva Bible, 1587. For example Genesis 1:27 still maintains part of the story when it says, "...male and female he created them." However later in Gen 2:18, Adam is suddenly found alone in the Garden.

[NorthwestUteFan]

On second thought, perhaps God didn't appreciate Lilith being such an uppity woman and allowed her to leave in favor of the submissive Eve. That reason seems to make just about as much sense as any other reason...

[Freaky Girl]

On second thought, perhaps God didn't appreciate Lilith being such an uppity woman and allowed her to leave in favor of the submissive Eve. That reason seems to make just about as much sense as any other reason...


i hope not. If so, the subservient view of women held by many religious men would be justified - they would have arrived to that opinion in their quest to become more godlike.

[DrumNFeather]

The whole idea of calling someone in to see the bishop/SP over this sort of thing just baffles me.


My guess is that it would be at the behest of someone else. IOW, bishops and SP's don't have time to chase down all of the internet activity of people in their stake. I know that serving as an ES currently, my bishop gets all sorts of notifications about various things posted on FB etc...and he dismisses them outright. He's simply too busy to worry about that kind of stuff.

[NorthwestUteFan]

i hope not. If so, the subservient view of women held by many religious men would be justified - they would have arrived to that opinion in their quest to become more godlike.

I couldn't seem to find an appropriate smiley for that entirely tongue in cheek post... :rolleyes:

[USS Utah]

*Early Christian writings, Dead Sea Scrolls, the Talmud, and even the Bible contained the complete story of Lilith until John Calvin et al deleted her from the Genesis creation story in the Geneva Bible, 1587. For example Genesis 1:27 still maintains part of the story when it says, "...male and female he created them." However later in Gen 2:18, Adam is suddenly found alone in the Garden.

Calvin could not have deleted the story from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Just sayin'.

[Sullyute]

My guess is that it would be at the behest of someone else. IOW, bishops and SP's don't have time to chase down all of the internet activity of people in their stake. I know that serving as an ES currently, my bishop gets all sorts of notifications about various things posted on FB etc...and he dismisses them outright. He's simply too busy to worry about that kind of stuff.

Notification from whom? Are there really busy-bodies in relief society that tattle on others when they see something "inappropriate" on the internet?! If I was the bishop I would walk into relief society, elders quorum, or where ever it is coming from and put a fast end to those childish actions.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Calvin could not have deleted the story from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Just sayin'.

Calvin deleted Lilith from the Geneva Bible, and that deletion has been carried on through most versions of the bible since 1587. We only know the story of Lilith from existing Bibles that preceeded the Geneva Bible, and from earlier Christian and non-Christian sources.

[DrumNFeather]

Notification from whom? Are there really busy-bodies in relief society that tattle on others when they see something "inappropriate" on the internet?! If I was the bishop I would walk into relief society, elders quorum, or where ever it is coming from and put a fast end to those childish actions.

My guess is that there are 1-2 people...and like I said, he dismisses them outright.

[USS Utah]

Calvin deleted Lilith from the Geneva Bible, and that deletion has been carried on through most versions of the bible since 1587. We only know the story of Lilith from existing Bibles that preceeded the Geneva Bible, and from earlier Christian and non-Christian sources.

The Dead Sea Scroll were not found until 1946.

[Scratch]

Calvin deleted Lilith from the Geneva Bible, and that deletion has been carried on through most versions of the bible since 1587. We only know the story of Lilith from existing Bibles that preceeded the Geneva Bible, and from earlier Christian and non-Christian sources.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Lilith was thought to be a demon or something non-human. Also, I don't think the Dead Sea scrolls references to Lilith deal with the Genesis story, but rather address her in other clearly non-human contexts. I think the first reference to Lilith as Adam's first wife sprang up much later than the Dead Sea scrolls, like in the dark ages or something, although it's been a long time since I studies this in college. Please feel free to correct me.

[SuperGabers]

I know someone working behind the scenes with OW (if you see a familiar face on one of the profiles, you can deduce for yourself who it is) who can confirm that this person called in was not disciplined or asked to give up their TR.

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2

Did you all not see this?

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2

[SoonerCoug]

Did you all not see this?

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2

No kidding.

People who question my credibility clearly don't know my track record.

[DU Ute]

No kidding.

People who question my credibility clearly don't know my track record.

Or your Russian mob connections.

[Two Utes]

http://ordainwomen.org/

This is a website that just went live a few days ago and is authored by a DC area woman Super and I know. I thought this might spark some interesting debate. I'll just get my cards on the table that I believe most women for whom this is a concern are probably better off outside the church at the end of the day, so I'm not necessarily itching for them to achieve their goals. But I respect what they are attempting. Here are some interesting quotes from the FAQ page:


Will women pray at conference this week? Stay tuned.

[Rocker Ute]

Will women pray at conference this week? Stay tuned.

They'll be praying to be ordained to that holy union of benevolent sexiness. You heard it here first.

[#1 Utefan]

I know I am being facetious about this stuff, but it isn't meant to mock women or the discussion. I think the interesting thing for me is that since I've never aspired to a leadership position, and would very much prefer not to ever have one, that it is almost strange when people are asking for them. I know that is a big part of Mormon culture to either not aspire to position, or at the very least feign that you aren't.

But I get the point, some women of the LDS church feel unequal or ill-represented, presided over and undervalued, among other things. That is a problem. On the surface the remedy would seem to be ordaining women with the priesthood, but I don't know if that even addresses the fundamental issue.

Ditto for me. I not not ony don't aspire to these positions, I dread the possibility I might be called to one outside of the more basic stuff. I look at my brother in law who is a lawyer and bishop in No. Virgina and he is so busy, he doesn't get to spend anywhere near as much time as he would like with his young family. To his credit (he is admittedly a much better man than me), he thinks the blessings he receives from his service make it worth it. That said, this woman better be careful what she asks for... :)

In my case, I am probably safe. Something about still being single in my late 30's probably is keeping the major callings away.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Ditto for me. I not not ony don't aspire to these positions, I dread the possibility I might be called to one outside of the more basic stuff. I look at my brother in law who is a lawyer and bishop in No. Virgina and he is so busy, he doesn't get to spend anywhere near as much time as he would like with his young family. To his credit (he is admittedly a much better man than me), he thinks the blessings he receives from his service make it worth it. That said, this woman better be careful what she asks for... :)

In my case, I am probably safe. Something about still being single in my late 30's probably is keeping the major callings away.


The trouble with this idea is that as long as you refuse to say no, more and more will be asked of you. One of my mentors in residency pulled me aside one day and said, "Medicine is a machine. You can never give enough time, enough effort, enough of yourself to satisfy the machine. You can martyr yourself for the sake of the system, and when you are a burned up husk of a person, the machine will grind you up and spit you out the back, without even a single thank you."

I see church and church callings as similar to the machine of medicine. No matter how much service you render, how much you magnify your calling, there is more, and there will always be more. I guess at least you get a "raised arm as a vote of thanks" at the end, but that gesture seems hollow much of the time.

[CardiacCoug]

The trouble with this idea is that as long as you refuse to say no, more and more will be asked of you. One of my mentors in residency pulled me aside one day and said, "Medicine is a machine. You can never give enough time, enough effort, enough of yourself to satisfy the machine. You can martyr yourself for the sake of the system, and when you are a burned up husk of a person, the machine will grind you up and spit you out the back, without even a single thank you."

I see church and church callings as similar to the machine of medicine. No matter how much service you render, how much you magnify your calling, there is more, and there will always be more. I guess at least you get a "raised arm as a vote of thanks" at the end, but that gesture seems hollow much of the time.

Yep, I think that's right.

A wise man once spoke of...



Working for the church while your family dies
You take what they give you and you keep it inside
Every spark of friendship and love will die without a home
Hear the soldier groan, We'll go at it alone.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Yep, I think that's right.

A wise man once spoke of...

A Mormon, no less. Sort of.

[UtahDan]

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s153/supercrowley/generalconferenceinfographicapril6_zps9d33ac25.png

[Rocker Ute]

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s153/supercrowley/generalconferenceinfographicapril6_zps9d33ac25.png

On a side note, in a previous ward I was responsible for arranging prayers on Sundays among other responsibilities. The only marching orders were to avoid couples to be inclusive. I never even thought about the genders of who gave the prayers and when.

One day an old guy came up and told me that women shouldn't give the opening prayers in sacrament meeting and it was 'in the handbook.' I had noticed that most people who claimed things were in the handbook had never actually read it.

So I said, "I've read the handbook, and no where in there does it say such thing." He of course insisted that it did, to which I replied that it "sounded more like the foolish traditions of our fathers."

He wasn't happy. I intentionally chose women to open the meeting for about two months. How is that for Mormon passive aggression?

The final session yesterday was sweet vindication. ;)

[UtahDan]

Interview in the can. These are formidable people. I'm losing some of my doubt that this is a short term movement that people will tire of.

[DrumNFeather]

Interview in the can. These are formidable people. I'm losing some of my doubt that this is a short term movement that people will tire of.

Can't wait to see you back in the fold as a result!

[UtahDan]

Can't wait to see you back in the fold as a result!

Wah?

[UtahDan]

36: Ordain Women with Kate Kelly (http://mormonexpositor.com/36-ordain-women-with-kate-kelly/)


Podcast: Play in new window (http://media.blubrry.com/mormonexpositor/p/media.blubrry.com/mormonexpositorpodcast/p/mormonexpositor.com//wp-content/uploads/2013/04/mxp-episode_036.mp3) | Download (http://media.blubrry.com/mormonexpositor/p/media.blubrry.com/mormonexpositorpodcast/p/mormonexpositor.com//wp-content/uploads/2013/04/mxp-episode_036.mp3) (Duration: 1:07:21 — 46.3MB)
Matt sits down with Kate Kelly from Ordain Women, as well as Kaimi Wenger and Heather, to discuss: women, priesthood, and the push for female ordination.
Share this:

Twitter (http://mormonexpositor.com/36-ordain-women-with-kate-kelly/?share=twitter&nb=1)
Facebook12 (http://mormonexpositor.com/36-ordain-women-with-kate-kelly/?share=facebook&nb=1)
Google +1 (http://mormonexpositor.com/36-ordain-women-with-kate-kelly/?share=google-plus-1&nb=1)
Reddit (http://mormonexpositor.com/36-ordain-women-with-kate-kelly/?share=reddit&nb=1)
StumbleUpon (http://mormonexpositor.com/36-ordain-women-with-kate-kelly/?share=stumbleupon&nb=1)
Digg (http://mormonexpositor.com/36-ordain-women-with-kate-kelly/?share=digg&nb=1)
Email (http://mormonexpositor.com/36-ordain-women-with-kate-kelly/?share=email&nb=1)
LinkedIn (http://mormonexpositor.com/36-ordain-women-with-kate-kelly/?share=linkedin&nb=1)

By Heather C. (http://mormonexpositor.com/author/heather/) General (http://mormonexpositor.com/category/general/) Tags: Heather (http://mormonexpositor.com/tag/heather/), Matthew (http://mormonexpositor.com/tag/matthew/)



Here's the interview. Kate Kelly the founder and Kaimi Wenger (who is a founder of Times and Seasons and part of that effort) along with Heather and I from MX.

[Dawminator]

Just finished. Kate sounds like a smart, well spoken, and well intentioned individual. Having said that I think I have some problems with her stance and her approach (big surprise I know). That's probably all I will say for now. Very interesting listen.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Good job on this one, Matt.

Dawm, President Hinckley was asked whether they could ever receive a revelation to give women the priesthood. More specifically, whether they would ever go to the Lord in prayer and ask the question (as he admitted finally happened prior to 1978 revelation).
Hinckley's response: "That very well could happen, but there isn't any agitation for it at this time".

[mUUser]

Good job on this one, Matt.

Dawm, President Hinckley was asked whether they could ever receive a revelation to give women the priesthood. More specifically, whether they would ever go to the Lord in prayer and ask the question (as he admitted finally happened prior to 1978 revelation).
Hinckley's response: "That very well could happen, but there isn't any agitation for it at this time".


Well, here's hoping they can create just the right amount of agitation to get the change they want.

[Rocker Ute]

Good job on this one, Matt.

Dawm, President Hinckley was asked whether they could ever receive a revelation to give women the priesthood. More specifically, whether they would ever go to the Lord in prayer and ask the question (as he admitted finally happened prior to 1978 revelation).
Hinckley's response: "That very well could happen, but there isn't any agitation for it at this time".

I'm curious as to how to define agitation. Serious question is what percentage of Mormon women want this?

BTW - I keep encouraging my wife to put together her 'rebuttal' to what I posted a while back. We have talked even more about it, and for me it is fascinating stuff.

[Dawminator]

Disclaimer: This post is written from the standpoint that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it says it is: an organization led by men who are called of called and have the necessary authority to speak on God's behalf.

Northwest:

I have read that quote many times. I find it very interesting and it is why I have no problem with agitation. But I don't think the Ordainwomen folks are agitating the right way. I think it is perfectly fine for someone to say, "Hey President Monsen, we were wondering why women don't have the priesthood. It is something that means a lot to us, here's why, and we were hoping that now would be the appropriate time to bring this to the Lord to see what his will on it is?" Have it be a website or a signed petition. All well and good.

Kate, takes a different approach. She essentially bore her testimony that it is the will of the Lord that women should have the priesthood towards the end of that podcast. While I appreciate her concerns, that goes against the LDS Church doctrine for how the will of the Lord is both received and revealed. She said in the podcast that if Pres. Monsen prayed and said it is not the will of the Lord, it would not change anything for her. That is problematic in my opinion. They have made church leaders aware of their concerns. They can pray about it and hear the will of the Lord.

Now, those in favor of women getting the priesthood (and I am not opposed per se), like to point to Joseph Smith and talking about women being ordained. That's all well and good, but it proves little. I was always taught that the most important prophet is the current one. Therefore what Pres. Monsen says trumps what Joseph Smith said (I don't think in the areas that matter there is a whole lot of divergence). Moreover, a current member of the 12 once told a member of my family that the church (meaning the organization) is becoming more and more perfect and that will continue up until the second coming. Does that mean that the change made by leaders after Joseph Smith about women getting the priesthood (and I am not admitting their was much of a change) is the church becoming more perfect or that women getting the priesthood would make it more perfect? I don't know. But I think the answer to that question is not measured by any other standard other than the Lord's. And according to LDS doctrine there is only one person on earth who is designated to act as his mouthpiece.

I don't think Kate is apostate. I respect her for who she is and for her good faith efforts. But, I think she is wrong in her approach considering church doctrine on (ironically enough) priesthood authority and revelation.

[GarthUte]

If the day comes that women will hold the priesthood, that means the Relief Society can stop pestering the Elders Quorum to set up chairs and tables for RS activities. They can do it themselves.

[Sullyute]

Disclaimer: This post is written from the standpoint that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it says it is: an organization led by men who are called of called and have the necessary authority to speak on God's behalf.

Northwest:

I have read that quote many times. I find it very interesting and it is why I have no problem with agitation. But I don't think the Ordainwomen folks are agitating the right way. I think it is perfectly fine for someone to say, "Hey President Monsen, we were wondering why women don't have the priesthood. It is something that means a lot to us, here's why, and we were hoping that now would be the appropriate time to bring this to the Lord to see what his will on it is?" Have it be a website or a signed petition. All well and good.

Kate, takes a different approach. She essentially bore her testimony that it is the will of the Lord that women should have the priesthood towards the end of that podcast. While I appreciate her concerns, that goes against the LDS Church doctrine for how the will of the Lord is both received and revealed. She said in the podcast that if Pres. Monsen prayed and said it is not the will of the Lord, it would not change anything for her. That is problematic in my opinion. They have made church leaders aware of their concerns. They can pray about it and hear the will of the Lord.

Now, those in favor of women getting the priesthood (and I am not opposed per se), like to point to Joseph Smith and talking about women being ordained. That's all well and good, but it proves little. I was always taught that the most important prophet is the current one. Therefore what Pres. Monsen says trumps what Joseph Smith said (I don't think in the areas that matter there is a whole lot of divergence). Moreover, a current member of the 12 once told a member of my family that the church (meaning the organization) is becoming more and more perfect and that will continue up until the second coming. Does that mean that the change made by leaders after Joseph Smith about women getting the priesthood (and I am not admitting their was much of a change) is the church becoming more perfect or that women getting the priesthood would make it more perfect? I don't know. But I think the answer to that question is not measured by any other standard other than the Lord's. And according to LDS doctrine there is only one person on earth who is designated to act as his mouthpiece.

I don't think Kate is apostate. I respect her for who she is and for her good faith efforts. But, I think she is wrong in her approach considering church doctrine on (ironically enough) priesthood authority and revelation.

Dawminator, I disagree with almost everything you posted, but I enjoying reading your perspective. Thanks for sharing your point of view.

[LA Ute]

If the day comes that women will hold the priesthood, that means the Relief Society can stop pestering the Elders Quorum to set up chairs and tables for RS activities. They can do it themselves.

I think you'd make a dandy Young Women president.

[GarthUte]

I think you'd make a dandy Young Women president.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/images/smilies_custom/No.gif

[UtahDan]

Dawminator, I disagree with almost everything you posted, but I enjoying reading your perspective. Thanks for sharing your point of view.

Agree.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Instead of strongly suggesting the First Presidency prayerfully consider whether women deserve to have the priesthood, perhaps this group needs to instead lobby the church to change the articles of incorporation to allow ANY member of the Q12 to be voted and selected to be the next President of the church.

That way Dieter Uchtdorf can succeed Pres. Monson (and skip over Bednar, Packer, and the other 3-4 who would object). I have a feeling that he will move to ordain women. Silver Foxes always know how to please the ladies.

[cowboy]

I see church and church callings as similar to the machine of medicine. No matter how much service you render, how much you magnify your calling, there is more, and there will always be more. I guess at least you get a "raised arm as a vote of thanks" at the end, but that gesture seems hollow much of the time.
I think there is some truth to this, but I think where we diverge is in thinking this is a bad thing. Rendering service and magnifying callings (which is another way of serving others) come with intrinsic rewards. You are right that very little acknowledgement is given to those who serve, but I believe that is kind of by design. No amount of thanks or public acknowledgement can make the countless hours of church service rendered by many worth it. Instead, the reward and motivation comes from the simple satisfaction of seeing one's efforts have a positive impact in people's lives. You are likewise correct that there will always be more, but the same can be said for Jesus, whom we strive to emulate. Some will allow church service to interfere with family life, but I don't think it has to, and I certainly don't think it should. I have turned away from assignments and responsibilities when I thought my family needed me more, and I've always had support from my leaders.


Did you all not see this?
We saw it, but you were wearing shoes and weren't in the kitchen when you posted it, a sure sign that you are just the kind of liberal feminist that we Mormon misogynists try to ignore.


Agree.
This is what I like about this site so far. Other sites have become echo chambers of sorts, while this one has a diversity of opinions/beliefs and encourages their respectful exchange. Perhaps it is the nature of all message boards to become more homogeneous over time, but I'd like to think you can maintain this mix.

[Sullyute]

Instead of strongly suggesting the First Presidency prayerfully consider whether women deserve to have the priesthood, perhaps this group needs to instead lobby the church to change the articles of incorporation to allow ANY member of the Q12 to be voted and selected to be the next President of the church.

That way Dieter Uchtdorf can succeed Pres. Monson (and skip over Bednar, Packer, and the other 3-4 who would object). I have a feeling that he will move to ordain women. Silver Foxes always know how to please the ladies.

It actually does allow for it. The AofI state that if there is a vacancy that the president or acting president of the quorum of the twelve apostles, or any member of said quorum may be appointed president of the corporation. So we are just waiting for the electdeiter.org website to launch.

[NorthwestUteFan]

No kidding? I thought the AofI for the Corporation Sole demanded it be the Q12 president. I will need to check Daymon Smith's references again.

I will get right on the ElectUchtdorf.com website. I am confident that 80% of the female church members (whose votes don't really count anyway) plus ~55% of the male church members (at least those not related to higher-ranking Q12 members) will move his direction. There will be a landslide victory for the German Silver Fox in the 2015 Prophetic/Presidential election!

[FMCoug]

No kidding? I thought the AofI for the Corporation Sole demanded it be the Q12 president. I will need to check Daymon Smith's references again.

I will get right on the ElectUchtdorf.com website. I am confident that 80% of the female church members (whose votes don't really count anyway) plus ~55% of the male church members (at least those not related to higher-ranking Q12 members) will move his direction. There will be a landslide victory for the German Silver Fox in the 2015 Prophetic/Presidential election!

We could Americanize the pope thing and shoot off cetain colored fireworks above temple square to signify the election.

[hostile]

We could Americanize the pope thing and shoot off cetain colored fireworks above temple square to signify the election.
Just have different colors of Jello to distribute once the announcement is made.

[Moliere]

Interview in the can.

Was the acoustics better in there or are you on a shoestring budget?

[DrumNFeather]

Both the pants party and ordain women got a mention from the pulpit in my ward after the sister who was preparing her talk googled "LDS women."

[UtahDan]

Both the pants party and ordain women got a mention from the pulpit in my ward after the sister who was preparing her talk googled "LDS women."

Favorable mention I assume. :)