LDS letter addresses online criticisms about women


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here is letter that Michael Otterson, Managing Director of LDS Public Affairs wrote about the online debates regarding women.

 

You can get the link from this ksl article.

 

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=30095720&nid=1016&title=lds-church-letter-addresses-online-criticisms-about-women&s_cid=queue-9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, I've got a TON of experience with this topic.  I am NOT a feminist.  I do NOT wish to receive the priesthood, but I DO wish to be treated with respect and dignity as a women in the church.  As a stake primary president my stake president told the women attending the stake council that we were not allowed to speak, not allowed to address issues in the meeting (unlike the men) and when I opened the handbook to read that we were to bring our concerns to discussion to this meeting, I was told, "I don't know what more women in the church can do than shake hands, pat backs, and be cheerleaders."  At the next stake meeting, the women were no longer allowed to sit around the high council table - we were asked to sit in chairs at the back of the room.

 

One bad experience?  Oh no.....   How about a man who during church had me backed against a wall in the hallway, in public, while he berated me - in my face, pointing a finger, threatening me - and then calling other men over to 'join' him in a gang-like verbal attack, because this man felt I had 'offended' his wife.  No action was taken against the man or men.  In fact, I was the one who was told I was in the wrong- even though I said and did nothing during the incident.   The men, including the Bishop, surrounded these men as part of their 'club' protecting one another and blaming me. NEVER is it appropriate for a priesthood holder to act in this manner.

 

Or a Bishop who threatened to not give me a temple recommend because I suffer from depression (therefore something is wrong with me).  When I asked him if there was no room in the Kingdom of God for those who struggle with mental issues his reply was, 'there's not room for all of them.'  

 

Or the Bishop who I went to to share the sorrow and fear of my husband being deployed into Iraq.  I begged him for help and support.  I asked him to please 'keep track of me.'  I never heard from him again.

 

Or the time as a RS president I sat in ward council and brought up some serious issues our sisters in the ward were struggling with.  The counselor in the bishopric said, "the women are taking too much time in the meeting, can their have their own welfare meeting without us so we can leave?"

 

Or the member of the bishopric who use to come up and stroke and touch my hair and arm and make comments that made me, and other women uncomfortable.  We went to the Bishop to tell him our experiences.  Two weeks later this man was called to be a High Counselor - his actions only increased.

 

Or how about the home teachers that NEVER show up -- I mean, does the HT program still even exist?

 

Or the Bishop who saw me putting in sprinklers (by myself because my husband was deployed).  I'm reading online instructions, having a few problem with it,  and he said, "wow, looks like a lot of work, have fun!"  and then he drove off.

 

Or how about the time a bishop called my husband in and asked him how it felt to be the head of a less-active family?  Confused, my husband said, "what?"  I had had a surgery that didn't go well, was down for over 2 months, and then went in for another surgery - which didn't go well, then another surgery and finally I had spent 18 days in the hospital with infection and complications.  When my husband replied that I had been in the hospital the Bishop replied, "it doesn't take that long for a women to get over a hysterectomy, it's not that complicated!"   His RS president was well aware of my complications.  

 

Or how about the time I hear from several other ward member what I had shared in confidence with the Bishop about a problem one of our children was having.   When I went to the Bishop.... he said, 'HE gets to determine what is confidential and what is not.'  Not me, it is HIS priesthood responsibility to discern that... not mine.  

 

I could go on and on and on and on......

 

Being military we've moved every 2 years on average.  We've attended 15 different wards in our married life.  I've seen it over and over and over..... the brethren mistreat women, they 'hang' together in a male 'club' protecting each other, they ignore, demean, degrade, and punish women.  This is only a SMALL sampling of what we have experienced.

 

Do I think they have all done it on purpose?  No.  Some of them are just ignorant.  Others don't understand the gospel.  Still others have allowed their priesthood power and position to go to their heart and create pride.  Have I gone inactive?  No.  Why??  Because I have a testimony of he restored gospel.  Attending church for me.... has not one thing to do with being 'social'  it is all about obedience to my God and worshiping Him.  

 

I might add, the way the brethren act is despicable, it is evil when they are in positions over us and use that position to put women 'in their place' or to 'punish or ignore' our tender hearts.  BUT..... I can't say that the women treat each other much different.  They gossip, backbite, they are threatened by other sisters.... they do anything but ban together to add support and uplift.  Yes, there are exceptions, but I find them to be increasingly more rare.  Always being the "NEW" woman (or family) in the ward gives us a different perspective as everyone quickly lets you know what 'kingdom' is THEIRS in the ward.  THEIR kingdom of friends, THEIR kingdom of reputation for being the 'crafty' one, THEIR kingdom of their calling.  etc.  Continually being the 'new' one, in some wards... we don't even stand a chance.

 

I have great concern about how we as saints are to endure what prophecies are coming about our times being more and more chaotic.  We are told to find refuge in our wards and stakes.  More than not, we have found that our wards and stakes ARE the chaos in our lives.  The drama, the personal kingdom building.  The unrighteous dominion.   We've come to realize that we need to look outside the church for more like minded people for support and fellowship and friendship.  We've come to understand that we must rely more on ourselves and our relationship with our Heavenly Father to fill our needs, guidance, direction and revelation.  

 

I will NEVER go to my priesthood leader again for help of any sort.  They've proven fairly consistently that they are NOT trust worthy individuals.  It's not the gospel that is the problem.  The Savior has taught us... I'm just not sure the majority of the members are listening anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa.  It's like you're talking about some other Church altogether!  So sorry you've been through all that!

 

I've been in the Church for over 12 years - attended many wards including ones halfway around the globe - and I, honestly, have never seen anything remotely close to what you've experienced.  Count my lucky stars?

 

And I'm a feminist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a member for 50+ years and I've never seen anything that even remotely comes close to this and I grew up in a military family as well and moved around.  And was married to a retired military person.

 

I've been in numerous leadership positions in the church and our opinions were taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this letter to be a mixed bag.  It's nice to get more clarification from their side of things, but I was pretty irritated by their claim that they "don't meet with extreme groups."  I consider Mormon Women Stand to be an extreme group as it isn't welcoming of any questioning of church policy or leadership.  If you got to read my blog post on conformity, MWS is a group that I would argue is promoting all the dangerous aspsects of over-conformity.

 

I'm also find it a little grating the the letter tosses local leadership under the bus.  I'm glad to see an admission that more training is needed for local leaders, but the problems that arise and create experiences like bijulie's (and I expect and hope that her experiences are a bit beyond the ordinary experience) are fostered and enabled by cultural and structural elements in the Church.  So the general church leadership needs to accept some responsibility for that, and this letter attempts to absolve them of that.

 

Overall, though, there are good points in the letter, especially about not targeting people that are doing their jobs.  It's a small minority that is lashing out at some of the public affairs people, but they are vocal and they're only creating more victims.  I wish they would stop.

 

http://myuncommondissent.blogspot.com/2014/05/on-missing-context.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bjjulie, I'm sorry for your experiences.  I'm sorry they've been so seemingly universal as well.  That's not only unfortunate, it's also unusual.  I've only had one bishop I can think of that I had personal problems with, and they were -- I think -- issues less misogynistic and more, quite simply, thoughtless and insensitive on his part.  I've never in my life, until that bishop, hard a hard time sustaining any of my leaders.  I tried to separate the personal man from the bishop man, and that helped a little, but not much.  I also worked with a branch president on my mission who was, to a T, exactly one of the descriptions you listed above (though I won't say which).

 

This is why I was somewhat concerned with the second bullet point in the letter from public affairs (full text here: http://www.millennialstar.org/the-lds-church-responds-to-criticism-and-details-efforts-to-reach-out-to-women/).  That is, "Criticism 2: There is nowhere for women who don’t feel safe in their wards to have a conversation about some of their negative experiences that isn’t seen as subversive."  I feel, unfortunately, that the point was completely missed here.  When a woman doesn't feel safe in her ward, and it's because of a feminist-related issue, it's usually that she doesn't feel safe in regards to ward leadership, and in particular, those of the male gender.  When she doesn't feel safe in that context, she certainly won't go to said leadership to discuss her concerns.  Going to a RS president (as suggested in the letter) could help, emotionally, but I still see several potential issues with that:

 

(1) a man who is in a leadership position where he tends to demean women beneath him (whether intentional or not) is likely to call a RS president who is more of a puppet or conformist than someone who will challenge him.

(2) women can often be worse to each other (emotionally) than men can be toward women.

(3) while it might help emotionally, talking to the RS president isn't likely to actually accomplish anything.

 

I know what it's like to not feel safe, sheperded, or wanted at church, though for issues aside of feminist ones.  It's not a good feeling.  It made me not want to come back.  I really struggled for a few months about whether or not to continue coming to church.  I knew I could feel the Spirit and learn and be uplifted in other faiths, as well as be accepted as I am.  In the end, the same as bjjulie, I decided to stay because of my testimony, and because I wanted to honor the covenants I'd made.

 

I can't quite tell from bjjulie's post, based on one negative experience after another and another, if she feels that all local LDS leadership are like this (anti-feminist, misogynistic, etc.), of if she just isn't going to take a chance again.  I certainly don't feel that it's a blanket condition, though I know that it does, unfortunately, exist.  I saw this shared by a friend this morning on Facebook, and I felt it was appropriate.  In case you can't click through to see the image, it's a meme that says, It's not about "not all men harass women." It's about "all women have been harassed by men."

 

I'm still not sure it's accurate to make that blanket statement either, but consider this:

  • If you're a woman who's ever been cat-called, you've been harassed.
  • If you're a woman whose boss has ever make a remark about your physical appearance, particularly if it made you uncomfortable, you've been harassed.
  • If you're a woman who's been told that you need to keep your arms covered, your necklines high, and your skirts long to prevent men from having lustful thoughts, you've been harassed.

I could go on.  And it's not just about harassment, but also about belittling, dismissing, and ignoring.  It's real, and it happens, even in the LDS Church.  It's regrettable and it needs to change.  This letter, generally, is a step in the right direction, but I feel that in some areas, it misses the mark, widely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa.  It's like you're talking about some other Church altogether! 

 

I've been a member for 50+ years and I've never seen anything that even remotely comes close to this...

 

+1.

 

While I know there are things like this that do happen (I've been mistreated myself by ward leadership, and I'm not a female or a feminist) I find that when there is a consistent pattern of supposed problems like this (assuming it isn't all fabricated to get a rise out of everyone) then there's something amiss with the offended more than the accused offenders.

 

For example, we have a family in our ward that has gone inactive because of "abuse". I have been personally involved in much of the effort around them and there has been nothing but love, invitation, kindness, help, service, etc., etc. shown towards them. But according to them they are constantly abused, belittled, judged, mistreated, berated, hated, and marginalized.

 

It's easy to throw one-sided accusations at church leadership. I wonder what the local leaders would say were they willing to accuse back. I wonder what would really come out in an honest, fair, both sides, legitimate assessment.

 

These are easy, safe attacks on the church. The best the church can do to defend themselves is with content like in this letter, because the bishops and stake president don't publish the issues, tell their side of the story, etc., because it would break confidences and offend even worse.

 

The church is, and has been, working to solve legitimate issues. The letter makes that clear for anyone who didn't already believe it (not that those who didn't believe it before will believe the letter). Frankly, the church is, and has been, working to solve non-legitimate, irrational issues too.

 

It will never be enough. The efforts of Satan to tear down the church can never be satiated. No matter how many policy changes, doctrinal alterations, and management re-orgs occurred (even up to and including replacing the entire leadership of the church with women) it will NEVER be good enough for those unwilling to humble themselves and look past human imperfection to God's will, ways and means.

 

We live a spoiled-brat existence in these latter-days. The current cultural climate breeds entitlement.  Entitlement is not God's way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this letter to be a mixed bag.  It's nice to get more clarification from their side of things, but I was pretty irritated by their claim that they "don't meet with extreme groups."  I consider Mormon Women Stand to be an extreme group as it isn't welcoming of any questioning of church policy or leadership.  If you got to read my blog post on conformity, MWS is a group that I would argue is promoting all the dangerous aspsects of over-conformity.

 

The reason given was because there is no room for dialogue but only contention.   You can't have dialogue with somebody who is opposed to your hard and fast principles and is not open to it.  You can have a dialogue with somebody who agrees with you - even if they agree too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm still not sure it's accurate to make that blanket statement either, but consider this:

  • If you're a woman who's ever been cat-called, you've been harassed.
  • If you're a woman whose boss has ever make a remark about your physical appearance, particularly if it made you uncomfortable, you've been harassed.
  • If you're a woman who's been told that you need to keep your arms covered, your necklines high, and your skirts long to prevent men from having lustful thoughts, you've been harassed.

 

 

Wingy, why do you feel if a boss (or someone with authority over you) compliments your physical appearance is harrassment?  Obviously, if one feels uncomfortable with the compliment, then that is an issue.  But, to make a blanket statement that something as benign as "that's a nice blouse" equates to harrassment confuses me.

 

And for the record, I don't mind catcalls....on the other hand, the mooing is disturbing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wingy, why do you feel if a boss (or someone with authority over you) compliments your physical appearance is harrassment?  Obviously, if one feels uncomfortable with the compliment, then that is an issue.  But, to make a blanket statement that something as benign as "that's a nice blouse" equates to harrassment confuses me.

 

And for the record, I don't mind catcalls....on the other hand, the mooing is disturbing....

 

Lol at the last part.

 

Regarding the workplace, because it's simply inappropriate.  I suppose I probably should have specificied "a male boss/supervisor."  If your boss is a female and you've developed a good relationship with her, and you even occasionally get together or "hang out" outside of work, and she comments on you losing weight, or a flattering blouse, etc., I think that would be a different circumstance, because there's an extended relationship there.  But an opposite-gender boss should not be making remarks about your physical appearance, pretty much ever.  A simple observation, "nice haircut," for example, might be alright.  Maybe it's overly PC on my part, but it's also against the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this letter to be a mixed bag.  It's nice to get more clarification from their side of things, but I was pretty irritated by their claim that they "don't meet with extreme groups."  I consider Mormon Women Stand to be an extreme group as it isn't welcoming of any questioning of church policy or leadership.  If you got to read my blog post on conformity, MWS is a group that I would argue is promoting all the dangerous aspsects of over-conformity.

 

 

 

I don't understand how you see MWS as an extreme group.  Their mission statement reads:

 

Mormon Women Stand is a collaborative online effort to join like-minded female members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who share a desire to make a public stand as witnesses of Jesus Christ and in support of 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World'. We believe standing together will reflect the divine nature and power that LDS women are endowed with to influence others for good. We unequivocally sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—commissioned by God and sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. We support how the Lord has delegated priesthood authority to organize and administer the gospel among all of His children.

 

What is wrong with a group that is standing together for the beliefs that many women in the church hold and that is supporting our leaders, supporting the Proclamation to the World regarding families and supporting the Priesthood as was organized here on earth under the direction of Jesus Christ himself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol at the last part.

 

Regarding the workplace, because it's simply inappropriate.  I suppose I probably should have specificied "a male boss/supervisor."  If your boss is a female and you've developed a good relationship with her, and you even occasionally get together or "hang out" outside of work, and she comments on you losing weight, or a flattering blouse, etc., I think that would be a different circumstance, because there's an extended relationship there.  But an opposite-gender boss should not be making remarks about your physical appearance, pretty much ever.  A simple observation, "nice haircut," for example, might be alright.  Maybe it's overly PC on my part, but it's also against the law.

 

I used to teach sexual harrassment classes to the military.  For a male boss to comment on a pretty blouse or a dress to a female is actually not against the law.  Unless he puts it in a way like "wow the style of that dress really brings out those curves and makes you sexy."  If he is simply complimenting her on her dress or blouse is another thing.  Or if she has been losing weight and he makes mention of it and congratulates her on her accomplishment is not against the law.  It becomes a sexual harrassment issue if that female employee tells her boss that she is uncomfortable with those types of comments and he continues to do so after being told.

 

Should he do it?  That's the fine line.  A sincere compliment that is nothing more than a compliment can be taken in so many different ways.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Newbie, I'm sorry you have had all of those tough experiences. I admire the fact that you've stuck it out remembering your testimony of the Gospel through all you've been through. I wish I could give you and your family a big hug! I'm sorry for those you've encountered who've abused their authority in various ways. I've had a few experiences with that but the great experiences I've had far outweigh the bad. Stay strong and remember that the Lord loves you and this is His Restored Church. Sending love and prayers of comfort to you and your family! (:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bjjulie:  I understand that my experiences are many and extreme.  Yes, I have looked at myself over and over to see if I am the problem.  I've gone to a counselor to see if I am the problem.  I've spent many years blaming myself and asking what can I do differently and what do I need to repent of so that I can have a different experience with some leaders. I've even sought out a General Authority friend and asked his opinion.  All I am told is to be patient, that the Lord loves me, that I've not done anything wrong, and that I need to continue to forgiving and faithful.  And I have followed that counsel.  Still, the experiences sting!

 

Have I had good priesthood leadership?  Absolutely!  I've had the privilege of working with men who are true SERVANT LEADERS.  I love and respect these men.  They quickly earn my trust and loyalty and under their direction I have always had leaps of personal growth as they set the standards high and loving expect us to live them.  

 

 All I can figure is that:

1.  Because of excessive moving I've had more contact with different kinds of leaders than most.

2.  Always being 'new' and everyone knowing we are only there 2 years - sometimes we get 'set aside' to focus on the 'long-       term' ward members- and have actually been told that.

3.  I am kind, but I do speak my mind with as much tact and thoughtfulness as possible, but I do speak up, and that can be        an irritant to some men.

4.  Times are changing as we near the second coming and these experiences will become more and more frequent as the Lord 'sifts' the church.  Which is why I think there are so many women out there starting to speak up - enough of us have had bad experiences that it's time someone listen to our hurts, our calls for some compassion, kindness, and love.  

 

Yes, I agree local leaders need more training.  But honestly, you either have the spirit or you don't.  You are either loving & compassionate or your not. You either internalize the gospel and act like a disciple, or you don't.   Those already with loving  attributes will work harder to develop them more, those without them will think the brethren are talking about someone other than themselves and make no changes.  The 'sifting'

 

My responsibility when being treated poorly by the priesthood is for me to do my best to look past the offense, pray for the person, do my best to make sure I am supporting them the best I can, and then look to fill my own needs elsewhere.  Sometimes, I've found it best to just fade as much into the background as possible and separate myself from them to protect my own heart.

 

I fully support the Prophet and the 12 Apostles.  I keep my eye on them, and NOT on my local leaders.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden June 7, 2014 - No reason given
Hidden June 7, 2014 - No reason given

I always found church to be chaotic and stressful, its not the message, I can get the message by myself, by reading the scriptures.

I generally don't get anything from sitting in a building, half asleep, around people I don't get along with or can talk to (as I realised quickly that I have nothing to say to married men and I guess single 25 year old men are a rarity there) lol

The message has wisdom but I don't need a culture

Link to comment

. . . but I was pretty irritated by their claim that they "don't meet with extreme groups." I consider Mormon Women Stand to be an extreme group as it isn't welcoming of any questioning of church policy or leadership.

The bloggernacle, with few exceptions, isn't much more welcoming to conservative/orthodox Mormons than MWS has been to OW. Millennial Star has had some thought-provoking posts recently on the "you attack, we defend--for a while" paradigm that seems to permeate the 'nacle and tends to lead to conservative burn-out.

And it's worth noting that MWS doesn't exist merely to provide another forum for kvetching-- er, open discussion; and as far as I know, never claimed such a purpose. OW started a Facebook group for that--and after two years, it has garnered a little over one tenth of the "likes" that MWS got in two months. I can certainly understand why OW so desperately wants to turn the MWS Facebook page into its own mouthpiece to parrot its tales of woe and historical half-truths to a captive audience of actual believing, practicing Mormons that is tenfold as wide as anything it has managed to reach to date--but MWS' organizers are by no means "extreme" for their refusal to allow their resources to be thus hijacked.

If you got to read my blog post on conformity, MWS is a group that I would argue is promoting all the dangerous aspsects of over-conformity.

I'll take a look, thanks. You may be right, but my initial observation would be "if you don't want people to develop a bunker mentality against your ideas, don't try to assault/publicly humiliate them and don't pal around with people who do."

I'm also find it a little grating the the letter tosses local leadership under the bus. I'm glad to see an admission that more training is needed for local leaders, but the problems that arise and create experiences like bijulie's (and I expect and hope that her experiences are a bit beyond the ordinary experience) are fostered and enabled by cultural and structural elements in the Church. So the general church leadership needs to accept some responsibility for that, and this letter attempts to absolve them of that.

It strikes me that the root of the problems bijulie cites are (unrighteousness use of) hierarchy, not patriarchy. I believe she even mentions an unpleasant run-in with an RS president. Ordaining women won't end that--unless you buy into the "females-are-inherently-more-righteous" argument that OW supporters are only to happy to mock when it is made by defenders of the status quo. The subtext I see in Otterson's letter is "this abuse-of-authority issue may well be a discussion worth having; but we won't be having it with them" (which should come as no surprise to OW, one of whose founders (Margaret Toscano, I believe) was excommunicated for trying to shame the church into "having a dialogue" on that issue).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...one of whose founders (Margaret Toscano, I believe) was excommunicated for trying to shame the church into "having a dialogue" on that issue).

 

I'm sure wondering how long it will be until this starts happening again. They (OW) seem determined to push the issue further and further. Eventually...the church will need to defend itself and it's members against the barrage of attacks that continue to be more and more aggressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how you see MWS as an extreme group.  Their mission statement reads:

 

Mormon Women Stand is a collaborative online effort to join like-minded female members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who share a desire to make a public stand as witnesses of Jesus Christ and in support of 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World'. We believe standing together will reflect the divine nature and power that LDS women are endowed with to influence others for good. We unequivocally sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—commissioned by God and sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. We support how the Lord has delegated priesthood authority to organize and administer the gospel among all of His children.

 

What is wrong with a group that is standing together for the beliefs that many women in the church hold and that is supporting our leaders, supporting the Proclamation to the World regarding families and supporting the Priesthood as was organized here on earth under the direction of Jesus Christ himself?

 

To also quote from the MWS facebook page: "LDS Women who, without hesitation, sustain the Lord's Prophet, the Family Proclamation as doctrine and our divine role as covenant women for Christ." (emphasis mine).  On their website, they describe an expectation of "unequivocal support."  Those are the elements I find extreme, and I consider them unhealthy.  So I find MWS as extreme in their positions as OW is in theirs.  

 

Add to that, statements such as "Many sisters have come up to me and argued that we should all be Mormon Feminists. And I have continued to attempt to make my point that there is no such thing as a faithful Mormon Feminist."  and my decision to label it as an extreme group is solidified.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bloggernacle, with few exceptions, isn't much more welcoming to conservative/orthodox Mormons than MWS has been to OW. Millennial Star has had some thought-provoking posts recently on the "you attack, we defend--for a while" paradigm that seems to permeate the 'nacle and tends to lead to conservative burn-out.

And it's worth noting that MWS doesn't exist merely to provide another forum for kvetching-- er, open discussion; and as far as I know, never claimed such a purpose. OW started a Facebook group for that--and after two years, it has garnered a little over one tenth of the "likes" that MWS got in two months. I can certainly understand why OW so desperately wants to turn the MWS Facebook page into its own mouthpiece to parrot its tales of woe and historical half-truths to a captive audience of actual believing, practicing Mormons that is tenfold as wide as anything it has managed to reach to date--but MWS' organizers are by no means "extreme" for their refusal to allow their resources to be thus hijacked.

I'll take a look, thanks. You may be right, but my initial observation would be "if you don't want people to develop a bunker mentality against your ideas, don't try to assault/publicly humiliate them and don't pal around with people who do."

It strikes me that the root of the problems bijulie cites are (unrighteousness use of) hierarchy, not patriarchy. I believe she even mentions an unpleasant run-in with an RS president. Ordaining women won't end that--unless you buy into the "females-are-inherently-more-righteous" argument that OW supporters are only to happy to mock when it is made by defenders of the status quo. The subtext I see in Otterson's letter is "this abuse-of-authority issue may well be a discussion worth having; but we won't be having it with them" (which should come as no surprise to OW, one of whose founders (Margaret Toscano, I believe) was excommunicated for trying to shame the church into "having a dialogue" on that issue).

 

I actually don't take much issue with the fact that the Church chooses not to meet with Ordain Women.  It isn't really how I'd handle the issue myself if I were the one calling the shots, but I'm not.  

 

What I take issue with is the claim that "we don't meet with extreme groups" when, in fact, they meet with the opposite extreme.  The actions thus far paint the picture that the MWS stance of unfailing conformity is the moderate stance, and anything beyond that is pushing the boundaries of apostasy.

 

It's worth noting that there are far more moderate voices out in the bloggernacle.  In any forum other than Feminist Mormon Housewives (which has become almost unreadable at this point), I read a lot more comments calling into question the assumptions OW makes.  There's a lot of middle ground to be found, but the only acknowledgement I've heard of middle ground from the Church is "we could train our leaders better."  It's all a little too black-and-white for my tastes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I take issue with is the claim that "we don't meet with extreme groups" when, in fact, they meet with the opposite extreme. 

 

Surely you must understand that "extreme" is a relative status. When the church says "extreme groups" they mean as compared to the church and it's teachings, not as compared to society as a whole. Clearly, the church itself is an extreme group if you compare it to regular folk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Add to that, statements such as "Many sisters have come up to me and argued that we should all be Mormon Feminists. And I have continued to attempt to make my point that there is no such thing as a faithful Mormon Feminist."  and my decision to label it as an extreme group is solidified.  

 

Why that is... because the word FEMINIST has been HIJACKED in America just like the word LIBERAL.

 

So that, I can't use that word with confidence in public anymore because it comes with connotations that is not what I want to portray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To also quote from the MWS facebook page: "LDS Women who, without hesitation, sustain the Lord's Prophet, the Family Proclamation as doctrine and our divine role as covenant women for Christ." (emphasis mine).  On their website, they describe an expectation of "unequivocal support."  Those are the elements I find extreme, and I consider them unhealthy.  So I find MWS as extreme in their positions as OW is in theirs.  

 

Add to that, statements such as "Many sisters have come up to me and argued that we should all be Mormon Feminists. And I have continued to attempt to make my point that there is no such thing as a faithful Mormon Feminist."  and my decision to label it as an extreme group is solidified.  

 

While I share your concerns to the extent that they apply to "blind obedience", I'm not sure that's really what MWS is advocating here.  If someone has a testimony of something, why should they only "hesitatingly" bear that testimony?  Does "unequivocally sustaining/supporting" a person mean you agree with them 100% of the time?  Does--or should--a person "unequivocally support" his or her spouse? 

 

I'm not inclined to jump all over the author of the LDS Women of God post you indirectly cite, without knowing more about the conversation.  Was she referring to all types of Mormon feminists, or just the same brand to which her interlocutor was referring?  And is the source of that statement (LDS Women of God) an effective corporate alter ego of MWS the same way that--for example--OW was basically an alter ego of All Enlisted?

 

What I take issue with is the claim that "we don't meet with extreme groups" when, in fact, they meet with the opposite extreme.  The actions thus far paint the picture that the MWS stance of unfailing conformity is the moderate stance, and anything beyond that is pushing the boundaries of apostasy.

 

As I indicate above, I think your view of MWS is a bit of a caricature.  But even if it isn't--and I can't speak for you personally, but as a general proposition--it strikes me that progressives and self-proclaimed centrists can't spend sixty percent of their online existence either alluding to or outright complaining about the dominance of "TBM"s within the Church, and then parse Otterson's statement and argue that those same scorned TBMs are also (from, as TFP points out, a social standpoint) merely a tail trying ineffectually to wag the dog of Mormon culture.

 

 

It's worth noting that there are far more moderate voices out in the bloggernacle.  In any forum other than Feminist Mormon Housewives (which has become almost unreadable at this point), I read a lot more comments calling into question the assumptions OW makes.  There's a lot of middle ground to be found, but the only acknowledgement I've heard of middle ground from the Church is "we could train our leaders better."  It's all a little too black-and-white for my tastes.

 

It seems to me that the Church has been making some changes--sister missionary ages and leadership positions, breaking down the cultural taboos about women praying in conference/giving opening prayers or closing talks in Sacrament meeting, reinforcing the role of women in the ward council, and the like.  Otterson's statement is also very clear that dialogue/focus grouping continues with LDS women across an ideological spectrum.  That said, most of the anecdotal stuff you hear from OW--other than lack of actual priesthood ordination--does boil down to local issues.  That certainly seems to be the crux of the complaints brought up in this thread, at any rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may not be against the law, but I agree, opposite gender shouldn't be dishing out compliments pertaining to physical appearance in the workplace. Keep it professional. Keep the compliments professional. I would never in my lifetime ever say to a male colleague or employee (if I was his boss): "Hey, nice pants". To me, that's an inappropriate and unnecessary comment to make, regardless, if I was just being friendly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may not be against the law, but I agree, opposite gender shouldn't be dishing out compliments pertaining to physical appearance in the workplace. Keep it professional. Keep the compliments professional. I would never in my lifetime ever say to a male colleague or employee (if I was his boss): "Hey, nice pants". To me, that's an inappropriate and unnecessary comment to make, regardless, if I was just being friendly.

 

I would have no problem commenting on a pair of pants to the opposite gender. There are some pretty cool pants I've seen some men wear.  As long as I left it at that.  It's when the comments get more personal that it is inappropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may not be against the law, but I agree, opposite gender shouldn't be dishing out compliments pertaining to physical appearance in the workplace. Keep it professional. Keep the compliments professional. I would never in my lifetime ever say to a male colleague or employee (if I was his boss): "Hey, nice pants". To me, that's an inappropriate and unnecessary comment to make, regardless, if I was just being friendly.

 

BIIINNNIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Okay, carry on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share