Letter from the Church to Ordain Women group

[LittleWyvern]

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

Maybe it's just different perspectives. When you're a missionary, you quickly learn to not have a negative reaction towards pants.

"Our investigator didn't wear shorts to Church! Hooray!"

[Just_A_Guy]

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

Given the prevailing culture here (at least within Mormonism): yes; I think a female wearing pants to church is generally seen as an open and highly visible rejection of the "Sunday best" norm. I can see wearing pants if you're going to be working in nursery or something; but that rationale doesn't really apply at General Women's Meeting.

@ MoE: when some conservative nut job goes off and says or does something ridiculous and/or horrifying, it seems the onus is on me to immediately reject the outlier with a loud and unambiguous "they do NOT speak for me" or risk being tarred with the same brush. I hold progressives--political, social, and theological--to the same standard; especially because--in my experience--yesterday's left-wing moon bats tend to be today's center-left.

The fact that OW thought that AE would accept and appreciate congratulations from the likes of them is, I think, telling.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[john doe]

I'm going to start my own movement to cut Sacrament Meeting down to 60 minutes. I am asking all members who support this movement to wear a piece of white clothing to church this week. I figure that if I can get 70% of members to do this, the Church will have no choice but to bend to my will. You can all thank me later when this becomes official doctrine to use that extra 10 minutes in Sunday School instead of Sacrament Meeting.

[Wingnut]

I'm going to start my own movement to cut Sacrament Meeting down to 60 minutes. I am asking all members who support this movement to wear a piece of white clothing to church this week. I figure that if I can get 70% of members to do this, the Church will have no choice but to bend to my will. You can all thank me later when this becomes official doctrine to use that extra 10 minutes in Sunday School instead of Sacrament Meeting.

I can get behind this. I think I might wear my temple dress today. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm going to start my own movement to cut Sacrament Meeting down to 60 minutes. I am asking all members who support this movement to wear a piece of white clothing to church this week. I figure that if I can get 70% of members to do this, the Church will have no choice but to bend to my will. You can all thank me later when this becomes official doctrine to use that extra 10 minutes in Sunday School instead of Sacrament Meeting.

You do that, you miserable apostate. But remember: any male who wears a necktie or a female who wears a dress agrees with me and wants to move to a four-hour block.

(Thanks for your support, Wingnut. A temple dress will do just fine; yes indeed.)

[john doe]

You do that, you miserable apostate. But remember: any male who wears a necktie or a female who wears a dress agrees with me and wants to move to a four-hour block.

(Thanks for your support, Wingnut. A temple dress will do just fine; yes indeed.)

You'll have to wait until next week. This week is mine. And if Wingnut wears her temple dress two weeks in a row, you can claim victory.

[Just_A_Guy]

You'll have to wait until next week.

Patriarchal oppression! Patriarchal oppression!

[pam]

Interesting dialogue between someone who is just a guy and a dead guy.

[Dravin]

Given the prevailing culture here (at least within Mormonism): yes; I think a female wearing pants to church is generally seen as an open and highly visible rejection of the "Sunday best" norm. I can see wearing pants if you're going to be working in nursery or something; but that rationale doesn't really apply at General Women's Meeting.

For me it's the element of public protest. If they all wore armbands, or a specific color or style of cardigan as a sign of visible and public objection to Church policy I'd disapprove just as much. Heck, it doesn't even have to be clothing, if people were organizing Fast Sundays where they all deliver their testimonies using Yoda syntax or Klingon or something I'd disapprove. I think some members having grown up in a democratic tradition where such actions are perfectly acceptable forms of communicating disagreements and objections with their leaders forget that the Church is not a democracy. It's a kingdom, and the mechanisms for bringing concerns, disagreements, or objections to leaders are different.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Dravin

[Suzie]

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 . . .

Shaming the Church and the leaders? Hyperbole? I do understand they could use better methods to address the issues, having said that putting them into the same category of anti-Mormons is absurd, IMO.

The letter was well written, but the part about asking them to express their views in the free speech zone was a really bad PR move and most media houses picked it up. Anyhow, I just wanted to say that I understand both sides.

[Suzie]

I'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 doubt it VERY much. This is clearly NOT September Six, the Church has moved on from those past episodes for a long time now. They have worked fervently to let the world know about the Church and spent millions in the campaign of "I am a Mormon". They will NOT ruin it by doing anything that will make others say "See? Women in the Mormon Church have no say, they excommunicated them".

The Church has been under constant scrutiny and they are going to be dealing with this issue (as well as others) through dialogue and understanding as they have been doing so far.

[Suzie]

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.

Wow. Sort of glad I am not the only one receiving bizarre messages.

[skippy740]

... if people were organizing Fast Sundays where they all deliver their testimonies using Yoda syntax or Klingon or something I'd disapprove.

[Just_A_Guy]

Shaming the Church and the leaders? Hyperbole?

Sadly, no. What does "put the Church leadership to open shame" mean if not to pull off a publicity stunt that is calculated to heap public scorn and ridicule upon them in hopes that they will change an existing practice?

I do understand they could use better methods to address the issues, having said that putting them into the same category of anti-Mormons is absurd, IMO.

Why? Having concluded that they are in the right and the Church in the wrong, their tactics seem more or less the same.

The letter was well written, but the part about asking them to express their views in the free speech zone was a really bad PR move and most media houses picked it up.

Well, sure; because the "public" (i.e. the national press corps, and those who take their writing at face value) would love nothing more than to get a George Wallace photo-op and to open up Temple Square to the antics of any crank with an MIS number.

Meanwhile, the people who--oddity of oddities--actually go to Conference for spiritual edification, will be grateful to be spared such antics.

I doubt it VERY much. This is clearly NOT September Six, the Church has moved on from those past episodes for a long time now. They have worked fervently to let the world know about the Church and spent millions in the campaign of "I am a Mormon". They will NOT ruin it by doing anything that will make others say "See? Women in the Mormon Church have no say, they excommunicated them".

If OW keeps trying to shame (yes, shame) the GAs and undermine their spiritual authority, the Church may be left with little choice. Kinda smart of Satan to put this in their hearts now, just when the Church's PR is starting to make headway--don't you think?

(And, yeah; I'm intentionally using black-and-white language here. There's an awful lot of grey in the world, and OW has been trying to take advantage of that. But right is still right, and wrong is still wrong. And OW is wrong.)

Edited March 23, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

Sadly, no. What does "put the Church leadership to open shame" mean if not to pull off a publicity stunt that is calculated to heap public scorn and ridicule upon them in hopes that they will change an existing practice?

And that's the root of the problem, why make such assumptions? And yes, those are assumptions. Now, first of all let me say I do not sympathize with their cause, NOT because I believe it is wrong but simply because I do not wish to hold the Priesthood.

Having said that, I think it is unfair to assume their main purpose is to heap public scorn and ridicule upon the Church so they can get the Priesthood. Perhaps there are some people who think this way but I also believe there are a lot of women who are not doing that or aiming at what you are describing. As a matter of fact, I think you are being very harsh with them JAG. But again, my approach and your approach to things like these are different.

Why? Having concluded that they are in the right and the Church in the wrong, their tactics seem more or less the same.

How voicing a view different from the Church makes them automatically anti-Mormons? And granted, as I said before, they could use better methods but disagreeing and voicing a different opinion than the Church has doesn't make them antis and I repeat, I would be extremely surprised if the Church decides to discipline them.

Kinda smart of Satan to put this in their hearts now, just when the Church's PR is starting to make headway--don't you think?

We love to blame Satan for everything we do instead of taking full responsibility for our actions. In this case JAG, I don't think it has nothing to do with Satan.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Suzie

[pam]

We love to blame Satan for everything we do instead of taking full responsibility for our actions. In this case JAG, I don't think it has nothing to do with Satan.

So you think it has everything to do with Satan then?

[Just_A_Guy]

Having said that, I think it is unfair to assume their main purpose is to heap public scorn and ridicule upon the Church so they can get the Priesthood. Perhaps there are some people who think this way but I also believe there are a lot of women who are not doing that or aiming at what you are describing.

Then what are they trying to do? Can you help me understand what process they hope to set into motion, by trying to get their attempt to crash Priesthood Session photographed and published, that doesn't involve putting public pressure on the GAs?

Do they not know that the GAs move about Temple Square at conference time through a network of subterranean tunnels, and therefore hope that the GAs will see them at the gates and suddenly realize for the first time that some women want to go to priesthood session? I mean, honestly, that's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.

How voicing a view different from the Church makes them automatically anti-Mormons?

Time, place, and manner.

We love to blame Satan for everything we do instead of taking full responsibility for our actions. In this case JAG, I don't think it has nothing to do with Satan.

I think that if the Nephites of AD 200, or the Pharoah who knew Moses, or Amalickiah of 75 BC, or any other one of the numerous rebellious individuals mentioned in scriptures stood before us today; they would insist that the situation was "more nuanced" than the scriptural authors' open use of terms like "Satan" and "wicked" imply. We can get into all kinds of philosophical/theological discussions about the contours of personal agency versus satanic inspiration.

But the bottom line is still that right is still right, and wrong is still wrong. What OW is doing--regardless of the virtues of their underlying position--is wrong. Full stop.

The fact that the early Godbeites turned out to be "right" (well, ahead of their time, anyways) about many key issues (polygamy, economic policy, political policy) doesn't make them any less apostate. Because in spite of their doctrine and their claims of fealty to the Church's foundational principles: their tactics betrayed an utter contempt for the institution and those who, having been unwillingly pressed into its service as leaders, were now moving it forward in the best way that they knew how.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

So you think it has everything to do with Satan then?

What I am saying is that I believe this is a cause some people believe in and I don't think Satan is putting anything in anybody's heart but simply, it is the cause that some people feel obviously passionate about and they are voicing it. Blaming Satan indirectly for their approach is not something I agree with, I think it is just people doing what they think is the right to do.

[Suzie]

Then what are they trying to do? Can you help me understand what process they hope to set into motion, by trying to get their attempt to crash Priesthood Session photographed and published, that doesn't involve putting public pressure on the GAs?

Do they not know that the GAs move about Temple Square at conference time through a network of subterranean tunnels, and therefore hope that the GAs will see them at the gates and suddenly realize for the first time that some women want to go to priesthood session? I mean, honestly, that's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.

And that's what I am trying to say JAG. I agree with you, I believe they could use other methods to voice their opinion but at the same time I believe there are active members of the Church, some of our sisters from RS, doing what they think is right and I do not think they are trying to shame the Church or the authorities, at least NOT on purpose.

[pam]

What I am saying is that I believe this is a cause some people believe in and I don't think Satan is putting anything in anybody's heart but simply, it is the cause that some people feel obviously passionate about and they are voicing it. Blaming Satan indirectly for their approach is not something I agree with, I think it is just people doing what they think is the right to do.

Ahh but Satan is the master of lies and confusion and deceit.

[Suzie]

Ahh but Satan is the master of lies and confusion and deceit.

Yes, but to be honest (and I know this isn't probably a popular take) I think all Christians (including us, Mormons of course) kind of overdo it with "Satan made me do it/Satan did it" approach.

[Just_A_Guy]

And that's what I am trying to say JAG. I agree with you, I believe they could use other methods to voice their opinion but at the same time I believe there are active members of the Church, some of our sisters from RS, doing what they think is right and I do not think they are trying to shame the Church or the authorities, at least NOT on purpose.

But, again--what is their thought process? How do they imagine this playing out in a way that doesn't put public pressure on the GAs?

[Suzie]

But, again--what is their thought process? How do they imagine this playing out in a way that doesn't put public pressure on the GAs?

To be honest, I believe there is a lot of naivety involved with regards to how the Church generally operates. I believe the thought process is somehow like unto a child who wants something badly and they think that if they nag you enough times they would get it, Mom and Dad in this case are saying no but at the same time are saying "we cannot give you P but we are doing X or Y" to keep you happy.

I don't think they are really planning this as to say "yes, we are going to shame the Church and the leaders and they will give us the Priesthood!". Think about it, it is really, really naive.

The naivety comes from thinking that because the Church went through a few changes recently, mainly about tradition such as women praying in General Conference for the first time, more visibility of women, etc they automatically thought it would be treated in same way with regards to the Priesthood.

[The Folk Prophet]

Personally, I think that assuming the thoughts of the Ordain Women's group is a mistake. First, we just don't know if, as a group, their intent is naive or malicious... Secondly, how can we apply individual motives to a group and vice versa? It's entirely possible that some of them do want to shame GAs and some do not. It's entirely possible that some are conniving, some are just stupid, etc.., etc...

[prisonchaplain]

My church ordains women. However, we do so because of our understanding of scripture. Is this group making the same argument, or are they simply lobbying members and leadership?