Letter from the Church to Ordain Women group

[pam]

Interesting letter the church sent to the leaders of the Ordain Women's group.

Church Asks Activist Group to Reconsider Plans to Protest at General Conference

[Backroads]

Very professional letter.

I love what was said about the protests detracting from the spirit of Temple Square.

[Palerider]

Interesting

[Roseslipper]

It was a very nice letter.....

[Guest DeborahC]

Yes it was.

A nice letter.

[Just_A_Guy]

Trying to cast Ordain Women as "extreme" is classic demonizing.

LDSDem, I couldn't help but notice your screenname. So I must ask you: Do you consider the Tea Party "extreme"? Do you condemn those of your political compatriots who apply that label to Tea Partiers?

Because statistically, the Tea Party represents about 30% of Americans whereas statistically, Ordain Women represents perhaps 5% of Mormons.

Food for thought . . .

[lagarthaaz]

Yes, it's a 'nice' letter.

I'm probably reading too much into it, but I wonder the 'please reconsider' is a veiled warning to the potential demonstrators, who also just happen to be members of the church.

[NeuroTypical]

Trying to cast Ordain Women as "extreme" is classic demonizing.

Heh. From where I'm standing, trying to label the church's letter as "classic demonizing", is classic demonizing.

This doesn't look like demonizing to me:

"Women in the Church, by a very large majority, do not share your advocacy for

priesthood ordination for women and consider that position to be extreme.

Declaring such an objective to be non-negotiable, as you have done, actually

detracts from the helpful discussions that Church leaders have held as they seek to

listen to the thoughts, concerns, and hopes of women inside and outside of Church

leadership."

Calling a group of women extreme for wanting to be equal to men is not a way to create a positive image to the world.

From where I'm standing, you are taking a single word, in a letter containing over 500 words, trying to color the entire letter in terms of a harsh interpretation of that word, and trying to assign your own word "demonizing" as a counterattack.

Can you explain why it's bad for the church to do it, but it's apparently ok for you to do it? Because right now, it looks like you're just namecalling because you don't like what you heard in that letter. I'd like a more charitable way to view your response, so I'd appreciate your clarification.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Wingnut]

Yes, it's a 'nice' letter.

I'm probably reading too much into it, but I wonder the 'please reconsider' is a veiled warning to the potential demonstrators, who also just happen to be members of the church.

I agree -- you probably are. I think it was more a plea to the group to help maintain an appropriate Spirit on Temple Square, than any sort of disciplinary warning or threat.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, well, well.

Remember how this "wear pants/purple to Church" thing was just about awareness of women's issues generally, not ordination for women in particular?

Yeah. They lied. OW is now asking that their supporters wear purple to the General Women's Meeting.

But on one level, it's brilliant. I mean, take the six colors of the rainbow. Add black, white, and brown. That's nine colors, one of which is purple. Statistically, 11% of women at this meeting will be wearing purple anyways; which will make OW look like it has twice as much support as it really does. PR win!!!

[notquiteperfect]

It sure does bother me when groups hijack colors like that! Thanks for mentioning it so I know what color to wear - or not!

[pam]

Well, well, well.

Remember how this "wear pants/purple to Church" thing was just about awareness of women's issues generally, not ordination for women in particular?

Yeah. They lied. OW is now asking that their supporters wear purple to the General Women's Meeting.

But on one level, it's brilliant. I mean, take the six colors of the rainbow. Add black, white, and brown. That's nine colors, one of which is purple. Statistically, 11% of women at this meeting will be wearing purple anyways; which will make OW look like it has twice as much support as it really does. PR win!!!

My understanding is that was the color the Women's choir was going to be wearing at General Conference and they are frantically trying to come up with something else to wear now as to not to be associated with the group.

[Suzie]

Really? I find that silly. I still don't get what the fuss of this group is all about and the scorn they are getting over these things. Even the Church is keeping in touch with them, making a few changes here and there which shows they are listening to their concerns and that's something I really appreciate so I am not sure why some people within the Church (generally speaking) wants to put them into the category of anti-Mormons or apostates.

[Wingnut]

The reason for choosing purple was because it is a color associated with women's suffrage and the women's liberation movement. It makes sense that it was used then (wear pants), and that it would be used now (Ordain Women). Also, (1) it's a color. Get over it. (2) No one owns colors, therefore colors can't be "hijacked." (3) It's not a sudden thing. It's a new application of a color previously used in a similar way.

[Just_A_Guy]

Even the Church is keeping in touch with them, making a few changes here and there which shows they are listening to their concerns and that's something I really appreciate so I am not sure why some people within the Church (generally speaking) wants to put them into the category of anti-Mormons or apostates.

With all due respect, I think this is only half the story (maybe less than half, in point of fact). OW tried to shame the Church into caving to their particular demand--one that this letter alleges to be a doctrinal impossibility--by making an attempt to crash priesthood session as visibly as possible; and by all accounts I've heard they are preparing to do so again. It is the Church itself, by telling them to confine their antics to the "free speech zones", that has categorized them as anti-Mormons.

If it looks like an Anti, walks like an Anti, quacks like an Anti, puts the Church leadership to open shame like an Anti . . .

Also, (1) it's a color. Get over it. (2) No one owns colors, therefore colors can't be "hijacked."

We'll see if the FMH/BCC crowd accepts that, or if they start gushing about how all those people wearing some semblance of purple indicates that they "never knew just how much support we have!!!"

And, let's be candid: Colors and symbols do come to represent particular movements, to the point that--in extreme cases--anyone who displays those colors/symbols is automatically tied to such movements without further inquiry. Remember back when MoE's avatar here was a Scout emblem, in rainbow hues? No one here thought that MoE just happened to think it looked pretty. It was immediately interpreted, as MoE intended, as a direct political statement; because of the political movement that has espoused the symbol of the rainbow for the past few decades (not saying MoE was right or wrong in doing it; I'm just making an observation on the way visual symbols are interpreted generally).

Edited March 23, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Wingnut]

The reason for choosing purple was because it is a color associated with women's suffrage and the women's liberation movement. It makes sense that it was used then (wear pants), and that it would be used now (Ordain Women). Also, (1) it's a color. Get over it. (2) No one owns colors, therefore colors can't be "hijacked." (3) It's not a sudden thing. It's a new application of a color previously used in a similar way.

Wow...sorry! I got a little heated there. I've actually been doing really well all week this week, both here and on FB in conversations along this topic, and I've felt that threads on LDS.net have been really civil on both sides. Not sure what got into me earlier this evening. I agree with what I wrote here, but I could have expressed it more tactfully.

We'll see if the FMH/BCC crowd accepts that, or if they start gushing about how all those people wearing some semblance of purple indicates that they "never knew just how much support we have!!!"

Well, I don't doubt that will happen. But it doesn't matter if it were purple, green, or white (all colors associated with women's suffrage, BTW )...it would still happen. I think that choosing a color was just for the sake of inviting men to visibly participate as well. And women's suffrage aside, purple tends to be a more feminine color, but not as taboo for men to wear as pink. It's a natural choice, even aside from it's history.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think that choosing a color was just for the sake of inviting men to visibly participate as well.

Wait--are we talking about wear-pants-to-church-Sunday; or General Women's Meeting? Because I don't think men are invited to the latter (except the 1st Presidency--is someone holding out for Uchtdorf to show up in a purple leisure suit? )

And women's suffrage aside, purple tends to be a more feminine color, but not as taboo for men to wear as pink. It's a natural choice, even aside from it's history.

But, with women's attire especially, any color is going to be seen as a PR boon to them because they're going to assume that anyone wearing that color supports them. Why not something less ambiguous--like an armband, for example, or a purple ribbon on the lapel?

I certainly respect not wanting to make too much of a scene (by wearing pants, for instance). But at some point, a purported "display of support" such as this comes across as either calculated to make the movement look bigger than it really is, or calculated to give the participants plausible deniability if actually confronted. Neither one strikes me as particularly laudable.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Quin]

Wait--are we talking about wear-pants-to-church-Sunday; or General Women's Meeting? Because I don't think men are invited to the latter (except the 1st Presidency--is someone holding out for Uchtdorf to show up in a purple leisure suit? )

But, with women's attire especially, any color is going to be seen as a PR boon to them because they're going to assume that anyone wearing that color supports them. Why not something less ambiguous--like an armband, for example, or a purple ribbon on the lapel?

I certainly respect not wanting to make too much of a scene (by wearing pants, for instance). But at some point, a purported "display of support" such as this comes across as either calculated to make the movement look bigger than it really is, or calculated to give the participants plausible deniability if actually confronted. Neither one strikes me as particularly laudable.

We could have "wear kilts to church day".

Q

[Wingnut]

Wait--are we talking about wear-pants-to-church-Sunday; or General Women's Meeting? Because I don't think men are invited to the latter (except the 1st Presidency--is someone holding out for Uchtdorf to show up in a purple leisure suit? )

I was talking about Wear Pants, but that's obviously going to spill over.

And I think I'd pay good money to see President Uchtdorf wear a purple leisure suit.

But, with women's attire especially, any color is going to be seen as a PR boon to them because they're going to assume that anyone wearing that color supports them. Why not something less ambiguous--like an armband, for example, or a purple ribbon on the lapel?

"Wear ______ color" is easiest, because you don't have to worry about any overhead cost of distributing armbands, or any sort of uniformity, so I can see how that makes sense. A purple ribbon on the lapel would certainly be doable. And actually, it would probably be more of a conversation-starter than a man wearing a purple tie or purple shirt. Okay, you win!

[notquiteperfect]

Wow...sorry! I got a little heated there. I've actually been doing really well all week this week, both here and on FB in conversations along this topic, and I've felt that threads on LDS.net have been really civil on both sides. Not sure what got into me earlier this evening. I agree with what I wrote here, but I could have expressed it more tactfully.

Thanks for the apology.

I just prefer not to be mistakenly associated with a group/cause I don't necessarily agree with (and I'm sure I'm not the only one).

[MarginOfError]

Well, well, well.

Remember how this "wear pants/purple to Church" thing was just about awareness of women's issues generally, not ordination for women in particular?

Yeah. They lied.

To be fair, JAG, Wear Pants to Church Day was organized by a group that went by All Enlisted. While I can't provide definite proof that the groups are different (All Enlisted seems to have gone extinct following the closing of its Facebook page), Ordain Women would later congratulate All Enlisted for its work in advocating for women to pray at General Conference.

While there may still be some cross over from one group to the other, there are plenty (many many) women I know who strongly associate with the mission of All Enlisted, but not so strongly with Ordain Women (I think the best word to describe most of the women I know on Ordain Women is "indifferent.")

My point? I think it would be misleading to ascribe the Ordain Women philosophy to everyone who wore pants or purple on wear pants to church day. Not all feminists have the same end goals in this discussion.

[lagarthaaz]

I agree -- you probably are. I think it was more a plea to the group to help maintain an appropriate Spirit on Temple Square, than any sort of disciplinary warning or threat.

I dunno, as another poster here noted, they've been told to pretty much go to the 'anti-Mormon protest' area. That's a pretty clear message. It's not too much of a leap to see they are on the path to being labelled as apostate and possibly facing church discipline.

I do agree that they should choose a more appropriate way to have their voices heard - crashing any kind of religious meeting considered sacred by those attending is just plain disrespectful and tacky.

[lagarthaaz]

I certainly respect not wanting to make too much of a scene (by wearing pants, for instance)...

Is it really so scandalous for women to arrive at church wearing pants in the US?

We do see quite a few women on this side of the world wearing pants to church in winter especially, and many of the younger women get around the 'no pants' thing by wearing thick tights under a skirt or dress. Here we just think 'eh, whatever' and those who may disapprove generally keep it to themselves. I doubt anyone here would dare challenge a woman about their attire.

Or did I completely misunderstand your post and you were referring to men who might make a scene by turning up to church in purple pants?

[lagarthaaz]

We could have "wear kilts to church day".

Q

Many of the men in my ward from various Pacific Island cultures wear lava-lavas to church. Clothing as a sign of respect is such a variable thing.

[Wingnut]

I dunno, as another poster here noted, they've been told to pretty much go to the 'anti-Mormon protest' area. That's a pretty clear message. It's not too much of a leap to see they are on the path to being labelled as apostate and possibly facing church discipline.

There are many who have already labelled this group as "apostate." I've even been told by a member of this forum that I should "find my way out of the Church" for sympathizing with them.

I do agree that they should choose a more appropriate way to have their voices heard - crashing any kind of religious meeting considered sacred by those attending is just plain disrespectful and tacky.

Agreed.