Beyond Pants

[Wordnerd]

At the risk of causing contention, I would like to point out this:

Hope’s Bright Flame Alight: Ordain Women’s Launch

Brought to you by the same folks who agitated for wearing pants, and claimed it had nothing to do with ordination for women.

I know there are likely some people who feel there is nothing wrong with this type of activism. But this isn't a community group that needs to keep up with the times, this is the Lord's own church, we are led by revelation, not agitation. It makes me very sad to see members setting up the church for the ridicule of the world. There are more appropriate ways to make your feelings known to the leadership if it matters so deeply to you. I don't understand how these members could claim they are sustaining the leadership of the church when they are trying to use public pressure from the world to shame the church into doing what they want.

[Vort]

Honestly, such women (and men) need desperately to repent or to find their way out of the Church.

[annewandering]

It is puzzling to me. I would like one, who is active in this, to explain how they believe the church is run by Jesus yet they feel its ok to tell Him what to do.

[Just_A_Guy]

Brought to you by the same folks who agitated for wearing pants, and claimed it had nothing to do with ordination for women.

Theological liberals, exposed for having previously concealed their true vision for the future of the Church?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

It's gonna be fun to see how long they can keep up their charade of "loyal opposition" if the Church doesn't change its policy by October conference.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Wingnut]

Brought to you by the same folks who agitated for wearing pants, and claimed it had nothing to do with ordination for women.

While there might be a fair amount of crossover in membership, this is not the "same folks" who created the Wear Pants to Church event. That was a group called All Enlisted. This is a group called Ordain Women. They are not one and the same, and not everyone who supported the former will also support the latter.

[Just_A_Guy]

They are not one and the same, and not everyone who supported the former will also support the latter.

I see a lot of LDS progressives saying, in general terms, "hey, we're not all alike". But, with some relatively rare exceptions, I don't see a lot of them saying "hey, this particular group does not speak for me." There's a subtle, but important difference between those two statements.

It seems to me that if an otherwise progressive Mormon is against female ordination, there's no reason not to just (pardon the pun) "come out" and say so. And if a progressive Mormon is in fact for it--again, why not just say so; rather than hiding behind this "well, we don't all think alike" smokescreen?

Plausible deniability doesn't strike me as a particularly effective platform for change.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Wordnerd]

I can set up two corporations, call them different names and represent them as separate entities, and legally, they are. But if I were engaged in wrongdoing through those corporations I could still be held personally liable as a director because I am still controlling their actions. If you were a ripped off client you would likely consider them as morally the same entity, because of the shared director and actions. By the "same folks" I mean that the memberships pull from the same community, the methods are the same, and they are being promoted on the same blogs. There may also be crossover on the actual creators, but I can't find that All Enlisted has a publicly acknowledged founder, so I can't compare it with Ordain Women.

[Wingnut]

I see a lot of LDS progressives saying, in general terms, "hey, we're not all alike". But, with some relatively rare exceptions, I don't see a lot of them saying "hey, this particular group does not speak for me." There's a subtle, but important difference between those two statements.

It seems to me that if an otherwise progressive Mormon is against female ordination, there's no reason not to just (pardon the pun) "come out" and say so. And if a progressive Mormon is in fact for it--again, why not just say so; rather than hiding behind this "well, we don't all think alike" smokescreen?

Plausible deniability doesn't strike me as a particularly effective platform for change.

I get your point and generally agree with it. I don't think it's entirely a black and white issue, though. I supported wearing pants to church. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of female ordination. I won't be writing letters, protesting, or campaigning for it anytime soon (if ever), but I don't know that I'm entirely against the idea itself.

[ADoyle90815]

I'll just say that one reason I'm not LDS or Catholic is that I think women should be ordained as clergy just as men can be. I understand it's tradition in the LDS and Catholic churches and while they're free to discriminate based on gender, I have the freedom to chose to worship somewhere else if I want.

[Vort]

I'll just say that one reason I'm not LDS or Catholic is that I think women should be ordained as clergy just as men can be. I understand it's tradition in the LDS and Catholic churches and while they're free to discriminate based on gender, I have the freedom to chose to worship somewhere else if I want.

What you don't understand is the difference between "tradition" and "doctrine". But you are certainly correct that you can choose to worship wherever you please.

[EarlJibbs]

Things like this will end up dividing the church one day.

[Janus3003]

It is puzzling to me. I would like one, who is active in this, to explain how they believe the church is run by Jesus yet they feel its ok to tell Him what to do.

I'd imagine their response would be something similar to some blessings requiring prayer before the Lord gives them to us. I don't agree with this particular interpretation, but I can see how one might.

[dahlia]

I'll just say that one reason I'm not LDS or Catholic is that I think women should be ordained as clergy just as men can be. I understand it's tradition in the LDS and Catholic churches and while they're free to discriminate based on gender, I have the freedom to chose to worship somewhere else if I want.

I left the Catholic church partly over the place of women. In Reform Judaism, women can be rabbis. At the time, I thought it was very important to have exact equality of the sexes; why shouldn't a woman be a priest?

Years have passed and I find it isn't the burning issue it once was with me. I don't see men controlling women in my ward. We have mostly college educated women, so no one has gone without an education (they just may not be using it right now) - a fair number of our couples met in college so the men know the women can think for themselves, the men aren't in a position to elevate their status over their wives because the wives aren't dumb (young and inexperienced to my mind sometimes, but not dumb). We seem to have couples that respect what each brings to the marriage and it appears that the women, via RS, do a great deal for the ward that wouldn't be done without them.

When I became LDS and learned about the priesthood, rather than thinking 'ooh, I wanna be a priest,' I thought, isn't this wonderful for the men? Of course I read all the conference priesthood stuff because I just want to know everything, but I will continue to support men only as priests because the role of the priesthood in families is not a small thing. It supports men and families in a way that modern US culture does not. I know there is the passing down of authority, etc. I'm not talking about that. I'm less interested in how men obtain the priesthood, than I am in the results of them having it.

I know I rant about some of the women's issues I see, but I've never once lobbied for the admission of women to the priesthood - just as I don't want men in RS.

I feel completely equal in the church - differences do not mean that there are inequalities. Maybe I had to get older to realize this.

[Backroads]

Admittedly, I don't know for sure what these supporters are thinking and feeling. But it just doesn't sit right with me, and my lurking about such things as revealed too many that want to change the Church from "the inside out". Like EarlJibbs said, that is a source of division we do not need, and I don't think these people want to divide the Church. They just want it, for whatever reason, closer to their specifications. Perhaps if they declared as much as wanting to form their own little off-shoot of the Church, I wouldn't be as bothered. They'd have their church and I'll be sticking to what I believe was correct instituted by God and His prophets. But the declaration of changing the Church is disturbing. Now, I can get not liking everything about the Church. I can get having a gap between what is taught (culturally or doctrinally) and your own thoughts and impressions on the matter. And I can even get taking the proper course for seeking answers and even solutions to your qualms. I'm not saying all these people are thinking so nefariously as to consciously destroy the Church, but I am saying they may not realize the slippery slope they might be on.

[Vort]

I'm not saying all these people are thinking so nefariously as to consciously destroy the Church

No, not all, but don't decieve yourself into believing that none of them fit that description.

[carlimac]

Things like this will end up dividing the church one day.

Exactly! I think they should just start their own church if they want it so bad. Of course it wouldn't be the Lord's church but they can play at being in charge and all that. See if they really like it all that much.

[mikbone]

I have numerous friends who have left the church. In fact, very few of my friends from BYU are still active. When one of my most faithful single friends left the church she told me, “I became irrelevant to the church, so the church became irrelevant to me.” It is no surprise to me that 70% of single women who have lost their faith ranked gender inequality in the church as significant. We are letting their hope be snuffed out.

/facepalm

perhaps she is hanging out with the wrong crowd?

[Vort]

/facepalm

perhaps she is hanging out with the wrong crowd?

Huh. Ya think?

I so desperately hope that one day I will grow feathered wings out of my back and be able to fly around! That would be so cool! I am disappointed that the Church makes no doctrinal room for my desire. How do we know God won't grant such a thing unless we ASK?! How dare they take away my hope? It's the evil avian patriarchy, I tell you!

[Dravin]

Huh. Ya think?

I so desperately hope that one day I will grow feathered wings out of my back and be able to fly around! That would be so cool! I am disappointed that the Church makes no doctrinal room for my desire. How do we know God won't grant such a thing unless we ASK?! How dare they take away my hope? It's the evil avian patriarchy, I tell you!

Personally, I'm waiting on heat vision.

[Wingnut]

I have numerous friends who have left the church. In fact, very few of my friends from BYU are still active. When one of my most faithful single friends left the church she told me, “I became irrelevant to the church, so the church became irrelevant to me.” It is no surprise to me that 70% of single women who have lost their faith ranked gender inequality in the church as significant. We are letting their hope be snuffed out.

/facepalm

perhaps she is hanging out with the wrong crowd?

I'd say so...if she's hanging out with the BYU crowd. The only time in my life that I've been inactive (in either testimony or attendance) was the one year I attended BYU. Truth.

/end tongue-in-cheek

Sarcasm aside, that was my experience. It's easy to feel irrelevant there.

[Backroads]

No, not all, but don't decieve yourself into believing that none of them fit that description.

Especially when I've seen people say flat out "Let's change the church from the inside out".

[Guest]

If the Church really cared about mothers, they'd find a way for me to be really flexible like Elastigirl. That they haven't addressed this in conference is really trying my faith.

[estradling75]

In the end its not about Women having priesthood, or saying prayers, or wearing pants.

Its about Satan using anything and everything he can to pull anyone and everyone off the strait and narrow path. To crack faith. If he can get you to change focus from Faith in Christ to anything else he wins. That is why things like this are dangerous... Because no matter if it ends up being won or lost individuals will be lost.

Edited April 3, 2013 by estradling75

[annewandering]

Hearing about things makes me realize how extremely conservative I am as far as the church goes. Hard to believe but its true. I figure if God wants it to happen it will and if He doesnt it wont. As far as it concerns me I am willing to support either side if that is what He wants.

[NightSG]

While there might be a fair amount of crossover in membership, this is not the "same folks" who created the Wear Pants to Church event. That was a group called All Enlisted. This is a group called Ordain Women. They are not one and the same, and not everyone who supported the former will also support the latter.

You know, this reminds me of a scene from Life of Brian. Considering the "Pregnant man gives birth" thread reminded me of the scene right before this one, I'm worried about where today's theme is headed.