The June 1

[Portland Ute]

For that? You must have a very sensitive family.

I got it from somewhere, right?

I'm not saying it will be severe, but I'm sure there will be comments.

I am certain that all the members of my immediate family, sans my hermano, would read that blog entry and would be vigorously nodding in agreement.

It's not so much they are sensitive as much as they are very down-the-line TBMs. My mother is sensitive, I guess. She has actually gotten teary eyed when its been apparent I don't see things exactly their way in regards to church or gospel subjects.

[Pelado]

Well, if you can't get the Priesthood leadership to respond, what do you sugggest?

The Prophet, FP or Qo12 could have nipped this in the bud early on. They could have met with them, stated they have taken this issue to the Lord and the Lord said.... whatever the Lord said in response. Or that they haven't yet gotten a response.

Instead, they and their sincere questions were ignored. And when they didn't quit agitating/raising the issue, they were threatened with a church court.

I mean, I can almost imagine how the section heading would read had this come up in Joseph Smith's time:

"In May of _____, a group of sisters including ________, __________, _________ and others approached the Prophet Joseph Smith regarding the possibility of women receiving the keys to the priesthood. In response, Joseph Smith sought out the Lord for an answer to the sincere query. After much prayer and fasting, the Lord revealed the following to Joseph on August _, _____.

Behold, I say unto you, that as my servant Sister ________ has desired a witness at my hand regarding the ordination of women to my priesthood....

Instead, there is a summons to church court.

Sounds about right...

The imperative name notwithstanding, OW's primary request does not seem that much different from the explanatory headers for half of the Doctrine & Covenants - such and such member asks the Prophet to inquire of the Lord, the Prophet goes and inquires, and returns with a revelation (that was later edited).

[Pelado]

A feminist critique that I have seen (not from OW, mind you) is that the women who are in leadership now and who generally get called to what few leadership positions there are are those who support the patriarchy and therefore simply perpetuate the problem. In other words, if the entire system is what's broken, you can't fix it from within.

I am not sure if I agree or not, to be frank. Depends on whether or not the example trotted out before me is Chieko Okazaki or Julie Beck.

Not only do they perpetuate the patriarchy, but they also perpetuate that annoying "talking to children" voice from the pulpit.

[Portland Ute]

While I don't like the thought of them being silenced by a disciplinary council, their actions are clearly apostate IF (this is a big if) you believe that women not holding the PH is doctrine. I've talked with local church leaders (not progmos by any means, but just family and friends that are bishops or stake position) that would not call it doctrine and even say there is no canonical support to withhold the PH from women.

Ah...you hit on it. This is the crux. IF it is doctrine. From the Church's response, it would seem that the leadership DOES think it is doctrine, however, they lack the desire to make the pronouncement that it IS doctrine. Maybe it is because they don't want the blowback from the media and general public. Maybe its because they know there isn't really any canonical support.

Regardless, it would seem that a firm statement that ordination of women is in opposition to the doctine of the church would end this. Or, conversely, if they have taken it before the lord, make the pronouncement of revelation. It certainly is a revelation that would be pertinent to the general body of the church.

However, not much in the line of revelation goes on these days. Usually, there are clarifications or vague statements from the church publicist.

Has President Monson taken this before the Lord? If so, what is the answer? Was their an answer? Still no answer but waiting?

I mean anything would probably appease people, but just telling them to shut up and go away doesn't seem to be the way to go.

[Pheidippides]

Not only do they perpetuate the patriarchy, but they also perpetuate that annoying "talking to children" voice from the pulpit.

Which is a far greater crime, in my view.

[Pheidippides]

Ah...you hit on it. This is the crux. IF it is doctrine. From the Church's response, it would seem that the leadership DOES think it is doctrine, however, they lack the desire to make the pronouncement that it IS doctrine. Maybe it is because they don't want the blowback from the media and general public. Maybe its because they know there isn't really any canonical support.

Regardless, it would seem that a firm statement that ordination of women is in opposition to the doctine of the church would end this. Or, conversely, if they have taken it before the lord, make the pronouncement of revelation. It certainly is a revelation that would be pertinent to the general body of the church.

However, not much in the line of revelation goes on these days. Usually, there are clarifications or vague statements from the church publicist.

Has President Monson taken this before the Lord? If so, what is the answer? Was their an answer? Still no answer but waiting?

I mean anything would probably appease people, but just telling them to shut up and go away doesn't seem to be the way to go.

Ally Isom told us there is no canonical support for this at all. There was more canonical support for the priesthood ban.

[Portland Ute]

Ally Isom told us there is no canonical support for this at all. There was more canonical support for the priesthood ban.

That's fine. A modern revelation ala Doctrine and Covenants would clear this up quickly. Many things in the D&C have no prior canonical support. However, they immediately became doctrine.

[Moliere]

A feminist critique that I have seen (not from OW, mind you) is that the women who are in leadership now and who generally get called to what few leadership positions there are are those who support the patriarchy and therefore simply perpetuate the problem. In other words, if the entire system is what's broken, you can't fix it from within.

I am not sure if I agree or not, to be frank. Depends on whether or not the example trotted out before me is Chieko Okazaki or Julie Beck.

That is likely true for general auxiliary positions, but not always at the ward level and grassroots start at the ward level and they take time. A bishop will call dependable people into ward leadership positions. He generally won't care if there is a slight feminist tilt to lessons as long as the leader shows up and performs their calling.

Anecdotally, I'm somewhat known as socially liberal and I served as YM Pres for some time. The guy that replaced me is a democrat and somewhat similar in his social leanings.

[Pheidippides]

That is likely true for general auxiliary positions, but not always at the ward level and grassroots start at the ward level and they take time. A bishop will call dependable people into ward leadership positions. He generally won't care if there is a slight feminist tilt to lessons as long as the leader shows up and performs their calling.

Anecdotally, I'm somewhat known as socially liberal and I served as YM Pres for some time. The guy that replaced me is a democrat and somewhat similar in his social leanings.

I don't disagree with that, usually, although I am personally acquainted with a woman in my former stake who was released as RS president because she was too liberal (she is an OW supporter). But it then brings us into the realm of local vs. central. A local relief society president can do a lot of good and has a lot of responsibility, but has almost zero power to work any real change in the church. And that's pretty much the highest position available. (Stake relief society presidents have less influence, IMO, for reasons that are boring and not worth going into here). No power to change a broken system, if that's what you believe.

[Pheidippides]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mormon-crac...ry?id=24212297

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think these recent events are more significant that we might realize. The church (or some leaders, to be more accurate) have said that it is OK to differ with the church on certain issues and even share those thoughts with your family and friends, but you should not be posting those things on social media, or even in private forums. I think this represents a completely unrealistic and naive view of modern-day communications. Electronic communication is so fundamental that you can't possibly expect to rule it out as a means of discussing religious thoughts.

Here is an example. I am sure you have all heard of Clayton Christensen. He is a professor at Harvard Business School and is on the board of directors for KSL and Deseret News. He is prominently featured in Mormon Scholars Testify and various other high-profile LDS websites. Here is what he said in a recent interview:

http://nautil.us/issue/14/mutation/h...quered-america

Christensen says this process is similar to what the church is going through on some social issues. “Our understanding of God, and our relation to him, and questions like same-sex attraction and marriage, we’re somewhere between here and there.” Christensen says he realizes that same-sex attraction and marriage can be seen as a disorder and a sin. But that’s not what he sees. “My position would be, I think you guys are dead wrong. But I can’t announce to mankind that I’m right and the church is wrong. The best I can do is to say, ‘well, just like the brother of Jared, where the truth is on the other side of this boulder, I’m on this side, I’m learning and I can say to myself and to my friends, I think I’m farther along than the church is on this one.’ ”

But in responding to the interview question, he kind of did announce to mankind that he is right and the church is wrong. First of all: Wow! That is quite a statement from someone in his position. Second: Does he get called in for church discipline now? Where do you draw the line between public and private anymore?

The church courts are a bump in the road, but there is just no way you put the internet genie back in the bottle.

By the way, that is a really interesting article. The premise of the article is how the church is strong because it evolves over time to adapt to changing social conditions, but the change occurs in a unique way (slow and deliberate). I am guessing that the article was written just prior to the current events.

[creekster]

I think these recent events are more significant that we might realize. The church (or some leaders, to be more accurate) have said that it is OK to differ with the church on certain issues and even share those thoughts with your family and friends, but you should not be posting those things on social media, or even in private forums. I think this represents a completely unrealistic and naive view of modern-day communications. Electronic communication is so fundamental that you can't possibly expect to rule it out as a means of discussing religious thoughts.

Here is an example. I am sure you have all heard of Clayton Christensen. He is a professor at Harvard Business School and is on the board of directors for KSL and Deseret News. He is prominently featured in Mormon Scholars Testify and various other high-profile LDS websites. Here is what he said in a recent interview:

http://nautil.us/issue/14/mutation/h...quered-america



But in responding to the interview question, he kind of did announce to mankind that he is right and the church is wrong. First of all: Wow! That is quite a statement from someone in his position. Second: Does he get called in for church discipline now? Where do you draw the line between public and private anymore?

The church courts are a bump in the road, but there is just no way you put the internet genie back in the bottle.

By the way, that is a really interesting article. The premise of the article is how the church is strong because it evolves over time to adapt to changing social conditions, but the change occurs in a unique way (slow and deliberate). I am guessing that the article was written just prior to the current events.

That is a fascinating article. And one that all of us in this debate would benefit from reading, IMO (except SU, whose mind is made up). I think the premise is a little different than what you stated, btw, but it is a minor quibble. The point of the article, as I see it, is that the church's strength and weakness are the same: slow adaptation that makes the church woefully late on many social trends but also gives it tremendous stability and insulates it from charismatic leaders who would change too rapidly or in the wrong direction. I think this is spot on.

I am also not sure the church is really expecting people not to post any thoughts on-line, but they are more likely going to oppose any postings that look or smell like efforts to garner a following, or promote a movement or cause that is perceived in the COB as false doctrine or doctrinally subversive. Again, a minor difference, but I think that is what will make them act. So if I post on Facebook that I think women should be ordained it isn't likely to draw any reaction. But if I post on FB that I have a web site devoted to why women should be ordained and how there is no basis to prevent it, I will likely draw attention. Just my guess.

[SeattleUte]

Dude, I've realized they're significant. The LDS Church is about 150-200 years behind the rest of the world. Indeed, to many this is its appeal. Hence, the LDS Church is all about trying to turn back the clock to a world view that prevailed before the 18th century. There have been various movements, some malignant, others full of beauty -- including fascism, the US born religions including Mormonism, the Romantic Age, and postmodernism -- that express a yearning for the past and for mystery like the LDS Church does. But whereas the Romantic age is fraught with abstraction, the LDS Church tries to draw clear lines and reproduce an ethos and outlook that prevailed for thousands of years before the eighteenth century. Perhaps a recompense for growing up in the LDS church has been that if you are a skeptic you can experience your own personal Enlightenment. You feel a bit what it must have felt like to be Paine, Franklin, Spinoza, Hume, A. Smith, etc., even feel a bit of the risk and the danger combined with the thrill of discovery as they did. Those days are nearing an end, because time, science, and communications technology is catching up with the LDS Church and the illusion it strives to maintain is melting away. So if you ask yourself what is the LDS Church afraid of, given it's supposed to be the only true church, that's it. The very illusion of a modern day chosen people, prophets, a kind of Mosaic law, etc.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That is a fascinating article. And one that all of us in this debate would benefit from reading, IMO (except SU, whose mind is made up). I think the premise is a little different than what you stated, btw, but it is a minor quibble. The point of the article, as I see it, is that the church's strength and weakness are the same: slow adaptation that makes the church woefully late on many social trends but also gives it tremendous stability and insulates it from charismatic leaders who would change too rapidly or in the wrong direction. I think this is spot on.

I am also not sure the church is really expecting people not to post any thoughts on-line, but they are more likely going to oppose any postings that look or smell like efforts to garner a following, or promote a movement or cause that is perceived in the COB as false doctrine or doctrinally subversive. Again, a minor difference, but I think that is what will make them act. So if I post on Facebook that I think women should be ordained it isn't likely to draw any reaction. But if I post on FB that I have a web site devoted to why women should be ordained and how there is no basis to prevent it, I will likely draw attention. Just my guess.

Yes, your characterization of the article is better than mine. Thanks.

As to the second point, I agree but I have seen quite a few accounts in recent days of people losing their temple recommends (and in some cases being put on probation) for simply expressing disagreement with the church on some issue in a semi-public way. Hopefully, that is rare. Also (using your example), is there really that big of a difference posting a profile on OW vs making a similar statement on FB? Seems like a rather meaningless distinction to me.

[creekster]

Dude, I've realized they're significant. The LDS Church is about 150-200 years behind the rest of the world. Indeed, to many this is its appeal. Hence, the LDS Church is all about trying to turn back the clock to a world view that prevailed before the 18th century. There have been various movements, some malignant, others full of beauty -- including fascism, the US born religions including Mormonism, the Romantic Age, and postmodernism -- that express a yearning for the past and for mystery like the LDS Church does. But whereas the Romantic age is fraught with abstraction, the LDS Church tries to draw clear lines and reproduce an ethos and outlook that prevailed for thousands of years before the eighteenth century. Perhaps a recompense for growing up in the LDS church has been that if you are a skeptic you can experience your own personal Enlightenment. You feel a bit what it must have felt like to be Paine, Franklin, Spinoza, Hume, A. Smith, etc., even feel a bit of the risk and the danger combined with the thrill of discovery as they did. Those days are nearing an end, because time, science, and communications technology is catching up with the LDS Church and the illusion it strives to maintain is melting away. So if you ask yourself what is the LDS Church afraid of, given it's supposed to be the only true church, that's it. The very illusion of a modern day chosen people, prophets, a Mosaic law, etc.

This is an interesting post. I gather you found yourself feeling just like you imagined Hume or Paine or Franklin or Espinoza felt? There you go.