So much stuff about Ordain Women on the internet these days. Geez. If they were looking for exposure, they sure got it!
As this is a personal blog, I sometimes post personal feelings. A friend from high school who is no longer a member of the church asked me about this issue the other day on Facebook when I posted a link to another blog. I responded a huge essay to her on the matter. I'll post it here:
Briawna, I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. It's been hectic these last few days. I appreciate and respect your comments. Really. Having known you in high school, I know that you are very questioning in nature and are a free thinker. Some of the things I really REALLY like about you are these traits. I am struggling with what to write because this is such a sensitive issue. My only intent with posting this was to simply state my position hopefully without ruffling too many feathers, as I know social media isn't the best outlet for these topics. I was hesitant to post this at all. I do see what you're saying as being valid points and what my sister Hilary was saying and that's why I'm struggling what to write. I think there are some things on this issue that we are just not going to agree on, no matter how civil and polite the discussion is. So those things we will just have to agree to disagree on. I know you're not anti Mormon and I'm not worried about a heated discussion. And I hope you know I'm not a Mormon that dislikes any other faith and culture and clings to my own with disregard and disrespect for others. I didn't always grow up in the church so I know how exclusive and closed off it can seem.
Okay, so how to answer your question. I can't really respond to your point about gaining revelation that isn't inline with the church. I believe we all have our own ties to a loving God that genuinely loves and cares for us, no matter who we are or where we come from. If you got answers that didn't fit in with the church, who am I to say those weren't "right"? I have no idea, honestly. All I know is that people have differing views on life, spirituality, etc. and we all have a path to follow. I really believe that if we are doing our absolute best at being loving, compassionate human beings, our intention and thoughts really matter. Christ didn't just say that if you are unkind you are out of alignment with Him, He said that if you THINK unkind thoughts you are out of alignment with Him. I think personal revelation is just that, personal. Sorry that I can't answer your question there. As far as OW… There are a lot of things Kate Kelly did that I think led to her excommunication. However, whether she deserved or warranted it, that is totally not up to me to decide. There are so many untold sides to this story. Hers is the only one being told, and very loudly. How do we know what was going on in her personal life or what went down in her meetings with her local leaders? We don't. And we shouldn't. These hearings are meant to be private and personal. However, I have a real problem with someone taking something so private and posting it for the general public to see and then taking it to the media who definitely won't tell the whole or true story. It's just not fair. The public is too gullible and uninformed to be impartial and fair. And now it's turning her into a public martyr for a cause that the majority of the women in the church just don't support. And it’s shutting doors to individuals that might have listened to the Gospel message but now don’t want any part of it. What exactly she did wrong in my eyes had nothing to do with the questions she was asking. If you’ve seen her website she has set up 6 Discussions for promoting her position and for the intention of rallying supporters. I’ve read her discussions. Some of the info in them is accurate, other info is grossly taken out of context, other info is not backed by valid church sources, but instead feminist blogs. The wording is very leading and manipulative in my eyes. She was asked to change her website down. She refused. She was politely asked to not protest Priesthood session in order to not draw negative attention to the church. She refused. Even her group’s name is literally a command. We may look like a democratic church because we listen to our members and vote to sustain them, but we aren’t. We are literally Christ’s church. Those in leadership positions are (for the most part, although there will always be outliers) trying to make decisions on the local level based on prayer, meditation, and study of Christ’s doctrine. So we can’t demand reform and change like you would in a social movement. She is under the impression (based on what I heard her say on a recent interview on NPR) that her cause is analogous to a social movement. She’s starting a grassroots effort to get women to see a problem and demand change. But what she’s forgetting is that this isn’t Thomas Monson’s church. This isn’t Joseph Smith’s church. It is The Church of Jesus Christ. So all these things she has done is damaging because it is dividing members from within, it is openly opposing our prophet and apostles, it is rallying people to a subject that has been addressed and answered multiple times. The grassroots effort is not how change organically occurs in our church. Leaders pray about issues based on dialogues with people in ward and stakes and what local leaders bring to their attention. This is how change occurs, and it has been stated in a recent statement specifically addressed to OW. (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/.../church-asks-activist...)
I do think that she brought up GREAT questions for us to think about. Is there gender inequality? What can we do about those inequalities? How can we be more inclusive a gender that does not serve in as many leadership roles? Great questions. However, in every interview I have heard from her, she says that it isn't enough to just take steps towards equality, she is rallying for nothing less than Priesthood ordination for women. That is what she sees as being the only acceptable form of equality. She brings up the Hinckley quote from his interview on 60 minutes as being fact rather than taking it in the context it was stated, that it was a POSSIBILITY if given agitation. But ultimately, that possibility is based on what Christ directs. We can request and ask for answers, but we can’t guarantee that we get what we want. She brought the agitation and in the last General Conference her request was answered. Not once. But several speakers directly addressed why women and men have different responsibilities. Because these speakers pray and meditate about what to address, I have no doubt they had taken OW’s requests to heart and prayed for answers. They stated why having the Priesthood ordination does not make men greater, more important, etc. and women unequal. Elder Oaks particularly pointed out that Priesthood ordination is not a right, but a responsibility. And women have equivalent, equally valued responsibilities. Not only that, but women already do exercise Priesthood authority in their capacities, there are just some ordinances they do not officiate. Having lived in the church and having served many callings in the church, including that of wife and mother, I can understand exactly what he is saying and feel that his statements are accurate. But she disagrees. So at that point, what do you do? You've asked questions. You've gained attention to your concerns.
Now the leaders that you claim to support and sustain (and I've heard her say she does in several interviews) answer you. It isn't the answer you wanted, but you claim to support them. So now what? In the Church one of the things we believe and preach is that we literally having walking disciples (who aren't perfect, but they are called to this capacity) of Christ on the earth to lead and guide us. Just like in the New Testament. I don't love being overly direct, but if you don't believe this principle you are in the wrong church. That is why I think she was excommunicated, although I can’t say with certainty because I wasn’t in her or her bishop’s shoes. And I feel like people are in outrage because the term “excommunication” is misunderstood. One of the church’s PR representatives said on NPR most times excommunication is not meant to be punitive so much as it is to help the individual come back to Christ and realize their need for repentance. They’re not kicked out of their ward or made a public example (unless they make themselves one). It isn’t a way of silencing them. It’s a way of helping them see their need for repentance. In her case, she openly opposes our church leadership and rallying supporters and that’s just not okay. It’s one thing to say, “I have a question, let’s talk,” like she claims she has done. It’s another to say, “I have a question and if you don’t directly answer me right now the way I want I’m going to try and get other women to join with me by misquoting literature and creating 6 discussions to proselyte and then we will take it to the media.”
When Alma preaches the Gospel in the Book of Mormon it is stated that those who caused divisions in the church had their names blotted out in their records (essentially excommunication). She doesn’t sustain her leaders if she doesn’t acknowledge their answers as being valid. Sustaining our prophet and apostles is crucial to church membership. It's such an important principle that we require the belief in it for temple recommends and spiritual advancement. When Christ established His church on the earth in the New Testament during His ministry and after His resurrection, He appointed apostles to lead for Him. In Doctrine and Covenants He is quoted saying, “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” So we literally believe that those prophets and apostles are the voice piece for the Savior. Now you bring up the point that the church leadership is patriarchal and I know lots of women feel uncomfortable with this. They bring up that you always see men on the stands, praying, leading, guiding etc. Why are these positions specifically for men? I don’t know. But I do know it is because Christ set it up that way. So we have to ask Him. And, unfortunately, Christ doesn’t speak face to face with everyone. (Reasons being for a different conversation.) But our leaders say He wants it that way, so that’s how it is. So at this point it comes down to whether you sustain these men or not. I personally do sustain them. In the New Testament Christ ministers to women and men alike. He is close intimate friends with Mary and Martha. He reveals Himself after His resurrection first to women. Is that a coincidence? I don’t think so. But does He call women into apostleship? No. He doesn’t. I don’t know why. But I have a testimony of the Master being perfect and just and compassionate. So I trust His judgment. And I don’t think that the passing of time and culture and values changes the most foundational parts of His Gospel. While this can seem patriarchal and maybe even chavanistic, it is not. A great talk on the Priesthood by Gib Kocherans says, “Priesthood is not chauvinistic. The priesthood is “without father, without mother, … having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3), nor maleness nor femaleness. It is head to them both. Male and female alike come under it and must understand their true relationship to it, one to serve as priest within it, the other eventually as a priestess. Men here are given the priesthood power, but both man and woman must bring themselves into submission unto it, rather than she unto him as a person. The man must assume the same relationship of honor and obedience to priesthood truths and doctrines that the woman does. That is, it precedes them both. For the man to assume that because he “holds” the priesthood that it is his or that he is somehow exalted in importance is a serious distortion:”
I can see that while not all OW supporters feel Priesthood ordination is necessary, they see other gender inequalities. I can agree on this part. These things have nothing to do with the doctrine of the Priesthood, however. Things like budgetary allocation, women not being taken as seriously or heard as much as men, etc. But these things are just cultural problems that stem of a worldwide misunderstanding. And these parts of the church do change with time because they aren’t about doctrinal matters, but rather auxiliary execution. The ward I grew up in Highland was hideous with gender inequalities when it came to activities for young women and young men. It bothered even my dad so much that he refused to donate to the Boy Scouts until the young women saw equivalent programs. The young men in my ward did high adventure outings while we decorated pillow cases and made bird houses. Ridiculous. I literally HATED girls’ camps and mutual nights. I am still, to this day, incredulous about the things I was told by my leaders about the roles and expectations of women. But, in my husband’s ward in the area we live now, they had totally equal opportunities for men and women. The young women went backpacking, repelling, white water rafting, etc. They did the same stuff the young men did. They weren’t told they had to look a certain way or define themselves based on their relationship to the guys. The marrying age here is much older too. It was just a difference in the minds of local leaders and what their cultural beliefs were. So I can see what OW is saying there and I do think the leaders are validating their concerns with a slow shift in these cultural problems. Women are praying in large meetings, men’s meetings are televised for anyone to watch, the YW and RS meetings were merged into one giant women’s meeting, etc. These are changes that will just take time and education of local leaders to make things more inclusive and supportive or women.
However, I don’t buy their stance that men and women are unequal in the church. And, quite frankly, I’m insulted that they are saying this. I am NOT unequal to my husband. Just because he gives me a blessing, or blesses our son, or can perform baptisms does not make me inferior. We are equals. He will NEVER be able to create life with his body like I can. This alone makes us completely different people. In every decision at home we counsel together. He is not allowed to make a decision for our family without my consent and collaboration. I get that there are men who abuse their Priesthood and think it a right, but they are way out of line and are not granted the blessings of spiritual advancement. Again, Priesthood is NOT right. It is a responsibility. Just like the creation of life and nurturing of our kids is my responsibility, he is responsible for the blessings and ordinances of the Priesthood. So in that way, I am a little angry with OW for making us out to be inferior submissive individuals that are subject to our husband’s and bishop’s whims. It’s just not true and you will not find church literature that supports that idea.
Okay, so I think that’s a summary of all my thoughts on this issue. And again, I’m not trying to get heated or anything, but these are my thoughts. Some of them you won’t agree with, and that’s okay. I don’t think your opinions are wrong, but we will just have to disagree respectfully. Thank you for your questions. This is the first time I’ve spoken out about this too in a cohesive way.
Today I saw ANOTHER news story on the founder of the group. It bothers me to keep seeing these women in the media. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does because I think it continually hurts our church. So I sent them this email:
I have listened to Ms. Kelly on KUER several times. I have
read the discussions on your website. I have grappled with the issues
that OW tries to raise awareness to. And I have come to my own
conclusions.
The purpose of my email is not to scold or send hate, nor is it to
show support and give thanks. Ms. Kelly encourages all women to be true
to themselves and speak up. So here am I, speaking up. That's my only
purpose. You can delete this now and stop reading if you want.
I just want you to know that your cause is not one that the
majority of women in the church support. Several 3rd party polls have
shown that. I appreciate you trying to bring awareness to some of the
inequalities that women face, whether they belong to a Buddhist church
or our church. Some of the things are specific to our church, and I
appreciate you bringing some of these issues to light, because they
should be changed. However, campaigning for priesthood ordination is not
something I support and I feel that you are doing way more damage to
the church than good. You are stirring up anger in the hearts of many
women who have been offended or have had questions. Rather than giving
them tools to be empowered to come to grips with these issues, you are
providing discussions that are leading, manipulative and are false
doctrine. Your discussions really are "the teachings of men mingled with
scripture."
Why do you think Christ did not ordain women to apostleship
during his ministry? Do you think Christ was unfair and unjust and
established inequalities for the women he blessed, ministered to, loved,
died in front of, etc.? Do you really think that Christ would have set
up a flawed church during His life? I am really confused about how you
think priesthood ordination is a right that should be granted to
everyone. This is a very entitled paradigm that has no place in our
Gospel. In our church we do not have rights, we have responsibilities,
and those responsibilities are delegated by Christ, not by men or
leaders.
Furthermore, your cause, which Ms. Kelly tries to compare to a
social movement, is one that might deserve attention, but is now
pushing leaders away from having any valuable dialogue. You are bringing
media light to an issue poorly understood by those outside the church.
You are ensuring that doors slam in the faces of our missionaries that
might otherwise be heard. You are solidifying the hatred and prejudice
against our church that the public often has by turning this into a
typical social campaign that tries to rally support using intellect and
pride, rather than fostering faith and compassion. And Ms. Kelly is
under the assumption that because she is a woman, she is being unheard.
She plays the victim woman card so much, rather than simply realizing
that her questions have been answered in conference. Not once. Not
twice. But multiple times by several apostles. In my own life I have
seen two of my friends more disgusted with the church and our leaders
than ever, who were beginning to like us before all these social
protests started. So I'm disappointed in all of you for doing this and
driving my own friends further away.
I hope you all will realize quickly that you are either in the
wrong church, and your beliefs are out of alignment with some of the
most basic doctrine the LDS church teaches, or that you need to repent
and come back into alignment with the teachings of our prophets, who you
profess to sustain, and then publicly disagree and act against.
I also have to say that I'm deeply offended by some of your
statements on your website and within your "discussions." You paint this
picture of latter day women being unheard, not influential,
discriminated against, under represented. I have literally NEVER felt
that way. I feel powerful. I feel influential. I feel represented. My
husband practically worships me. My ward respects me. My Sunday School
class loves me. I get all the acknowledgment and respect I could ever
want. I am supported. Stop telling women they are not these things. They
will believe it! And it may never have occurred to them in the first
place they were anything but loved, respected, and powerful. You are
wreaking havoc of the self-esteem and self-worth of women by telling
them that because the Lord hasn't given them the Priesthood they are
less than. It's just not true. We create life with our bodies. We have a
bond with our babies, whether they are ours or adopted, that no man
will ever match. We are intelligent, creative, soft, loving, powerful,
AMAZING beings that the Lord has entrusted with the greatest, most
god-like gift of all, the gift of creation. Priesthood ordination does
not bring us "up" to being equal with men. We already are. So stop
telling women they need what men have. We don't. We never have.
I apologize for the directness of this email. I am just deeply
troubled by your organization, your false teachings, and your constant
media exposure. Please stop hurting the church. Please stop hurting
women. I hope you'll reconsider your methods, even if you don't
reconsider your beliefs.
Sincerely,
Adrienne
And that's all. I just wanted to throw my two cents out there mostly for myself, as this is is mostly a journal for me and my family.
As this is a personal blog, I sometimes post personal feelings. A friend from high school who is no longer a member of the church asked me about this issue the other day on Facebook when I posted a link to another blog. I responded a huge essay to her on the matter. I'll post it here:
Briawna, I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. It's been hectic these last few days. I appreciate and respect your comments. Really. Having known you in high school, I know that you are very questioning in nature and are a free thinker. Some of the things I really REALLY like about you are these traits. I am struggling with what to write because this is such a sensitive issue. My only intent with posting this was to simply state my position hopefully without ruffling too many feathers, as I know social media isn't the best outlet for these topics. I was hesitant to post this at all. I do see what you're saying as being valid points and what my sister Hilary was saying and that's why I'm struggling what to write. I think there are some things on this issue that we are just not going to agree on, no matter how civil and polite the discussion is. So those things we will just have to agree to disagree on. I know you're not anti Mormon and I'm not worried about a heated discussion. And I hope you know I'm not a Mormon that dislikes any other faith and culture and clings to my own with disregard and disrespect for others. I didn't always grow up in the church so I know how exclusive and closed off it can seem.
Okay, so how to answer your question. I can't really respond to your point about gaining revelation that isn't inline with the church. I believe we all have our own ties to a loving God that genuinely loves and cares for us, no matter who we are or where we come from. If you got answers that didn't fit in with the church, who am I to say those weren't "right"? I have no idea, honestly. All I know is that people have differing views on life, spirituality, etc. and we all have a path to follow. I really believe that if we are doing our absolute best at being loving, compassionate human beings, our intention and thoughts really matter. Christ didn't just say that if you are unkind you are out of alignment with Him, He said that if you THINK unkind thoughts you are out of alignment with Him. I think personal revelation is just that, personal. Sorry that I can't answer your question there. As far as OW… There are a lot of things Kate Kelly did that I think led to her excommunication. However, whether she deserved or warranted it, that is totally not up to me to decide. There are so many untold sides to this story. Hers is the only one being told, and very loudly. How do we know what was going on in her personal life or what went down in her meetings with her local leaders? We don't. And we shouldn't. These hearings are meant to be private and personal. However, I have a real problem with someone taking something so private and posting it for the general public to see and then taking it to the media who definitely won't tell the whole or true story. It's just not fair. The public is too gullible and uninformed to be impartial and fair. And now it's turning her into a public martyr for a cause that the majority of the women in the church just don't support. And it’s shutting doors to individuals that might have listened to the Gospel message but now don’t want any part of it. What exactly she did wrong in my eyes had nothing to do with the questions she was asking. If you’ve seen her website she has set up 6 Discussions for promoting her position and for the intention of rallying supporters. I’ve read her discussions. Some of the info in them is accurate, other info is grossly taken out of context, other info is not backed by valid church sources, but instead feminist blogs. The wording is very leading and manipulative in my eyes. She was asked to change her website down. She refused. She was politely asked to not protest Priesthood session in order to not draw negative attention to the church. She refused. Even her group’s name is literally a command. We may look like a democratic church because we listen to our members and vote to sustain them, but we aren’t. We are literally Christ’s church. Those in leadership positions are (for the most part, although there will always be outliers) trying to make decisions on the local level based on prayer, meditation, and study of Christ’s doctrine. So we can’t demand reform and change like you would in a social movement. She is under the impression (based on what I heard her say on a recent interview on NPR) that her cause is analogous to a social movement. She’s starting a grassroots effort to get women to see a problem and demand change. But what she’s forgetting is that this isn’t Thomas Monson’s church. This isn’t Joseph Smith’s church. It is The Church of Jesus Christ. So all these things she has done is damaging because it is dividing members from within, it is openly opposing our prophet and apostles, it is rallying people to a subject that has been addressed and answered multiple times. The grassroots effort is not how change organically occurs in our church. Leaders pray about issues based on dialogues with people in ward and stakes and what local leaders bring to their attention. This is how change occurs, and it has been stated in a recent statement specifically addressed to OW. (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/.../church-asks-activist...)
I do think that she brought up GREAT questions for us to think about. Is there gender inequality? What can we do about those inequalities? How can we be more inclusive a gender that does not serve in as many leadership roles? Great questions. However, in every interview I have heard from her, she says that it isn't enough to just take steps towards equality, she is rallying for nothing less than Priesthood ordination for women. That is what she sees as being the only acceptable form of equality. She brings up the Hinckley quote from his interview on 60 minutes as being fact rather than taking it in the context it was stated, that it was a POSSIBILITY if given agitation. But ultimately, that possibility is based on what Christ directs. We can request and ask for answers, but we can’t guarantee that we get what we want. She brought the agitation and in the last General Conference her request was answered. Not once. But several speakers directly addressed why women and men have different responsibilities. Because these speakers pray and meditate about what to address, I have no doubt they had taken OW’s requests to heart and prayed for answers. They stated why having the Priesthood ordination does not make men greater, more important, etc. and women unequal. Elder Oaks particularly pointed out that Priesthood ordination is not a right, but a responsibility. And women have equivalent, equally valued responsibilities. Not only that, but women already do exercise Priesthood authority in their capacities, there are just some ordinances they do not officiate. Having lived in the church and having served many callings in the church, including that of wife and mother, I can understand exactly what he is saying and feel that his statements are accurate. But she disagrees. So at that point, what do you do? You've asked questions. You've gained attention to your concerns.
Now the leaders that you claim to support and sustain (and I've heard her say she does in several interviews) answer you. It isn't the answer you wanted, but you claim to support them. So now what? In the Church one of the things we believe and preach is that we literally having walking disciples (who aren't perfect, but they are called to this capacity) of Christ on the earth to lead and guide us. Just like in the New Testament. I don't love being overly direct, but if you don't believe this principle you are in the wrong church. That is why I think she was excommunicated, although I can’t say with certainty because I wasn’t in her or her bishop’s shoes. And I feel like people are in outrage because the term “excommunication” is misunderstood. One of the church’s PR representatives said on NPR most times excommunication is not meant to be punitive so much as it is to help the individual come back to Christ and realize their need for repentance. They’re not kicked out of their ward or made a public example (unless they make themselves one). It isn’t a way of silencing them. It’s a way of helping them see their need for repentance. In her case, she openly opposes our church leadership and rallying supporters and that’s just not okay. It’s one thing to say, “I have a question, let’s talk,” like she claims she has done. It’s another to say, “I have a question and if you don’t directly answer me right now the way I want I’m going to try and get other women to join with me by misquoting literature and creating 6 discussions to proselyte and then we will take it to the media.”
When Alma preaches the Gospel in the Book of Mormon it is stated that those who caused divisions in the church had their names blotted out in their records (essentially excommunication). She doesn’t sustain her leaders if she doesn’t acknowledge their answers as being valid. Sustaining our prophet and apostles is crucial to church membership. It's such an important principle that we require the belief in it for temple recommends and spiritual advancement. When Christ established His church on the earth in the New Testament during His ministry and after His resurrection, He appointed apostles to lead for Him. In Doctrine and Covenants He is quoted saying, “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” So we literally believe that those prophets and apostles are the voice piece for the Savior. Now you bring up the point that the church leadership is patriarchal and I know lots of women feel uncomfortable with this. They bring up that you always see men on the stands, praying, leading, guiding etc. Why are these positions specifically for men? I don’t know. But I do know it is because Christ set it up that way. So we have to ask Him. And, unfortunately, Christ doesn’t speak face to face with everyone. (Reasons being for a different conversation.) But our leaders say He wants it that way, so that’s how it is. So at this point it comes down to whether you sustain these men or not. I personally do sustain them. In the New Testament Christ ministers to women and men alike. He is close intimate friends with Mary and Martha. He reveals Himself after His resurrection first to women. Is that a coincidence? I don’t think so. But does He call women into apostleship? No. He doesn’t. I don’t know why. But I have a testimony of the Master being perfect and just and compassionate. So I trust His judgment. And I don’t think that the passing of time and culture and values changes the most foundational parts of His Gospel. While this can seem patriarchal and maybe even chavanistic, it is not. A great talk on the Priesthood by Gib Kocherans says, “Priesthood is not chauvinistic. The priesthood is “without father, without mother, … having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3), nor maleness nor femaleness. It is head to them both. Male and female alike come under it and must understand their true relationship to it, one to serve as priest within it, the other eventually as a priestess. Men here are given the priesthood power, but both man and woman must bring themselves into submission unto it, rather than she unto him as a person. The man must assume the same relationship of honor and obedience to priesthood truths and doctrines that the woman does. That is, it precedes them both. For the man to assume that because he “holds” the priesthood that it is his or that he is somehow exalted in importance is a serious distortion:”
I can see that while not all OW supporters feel Priesthood ordination is necessary, they see other gender inequalities. I can agree on this part. These things have nothing to do with the doctrine of the Priesthood, however. Things like budgetary allocation, women not being taken as seriously or heard as much as men, etc. But these things are just cultural problems that stem of a worldwide misunderstanding. And these parts of the church do change with time because they aren’t about doctrinal matters, but rather auxiliary execution. The ward I grew up in Highland was hideous with gender inequalities when it came to activities for young women and young men. It bothered even my dad so much that he refused to donate to the Boy Scouts until the young women saw equivalent programs. The young men in my ward did high adventure outings while we decorated pillow cases and made bird houses. Ridiculous. I literally HATED girls’ camps and mutual nights. I am still, to this day, incredulous about the things I was told by my leaders about the roles and expectations of women. But, in my husband’s ward in the area we live now, they had totally equal opportunities for men and women. The young women went backpacking, repelling, white water rafting, etc. They did the same stuff the young men did. They weren’t told they had to look a certain way or define themselves based on their relationship to the guys. The marrying age here is much older too. It was just a difference in the minds of local leaders and what their cultural beliefs were. So I can see what OW is saying there and I do think the leaders are validating their concerns with a slow shift in these cultural problems. Women are praying in large meetings, men’s meetings are televised for anyone to watch, the YW and RS meetings were merged into one giant women’s meeting, etc. These are changes that will just take time and education of local leaders to make things more inclusive and supportive or women.
However, I don’t buy their stance that men and women are unequal in the church. And, quite frankly, I’m insulted that they are saying this. I am NOT unequal to my husband. Just because he gives me a blessing, or blesses our son, or can perform baptisms does not make me inferior. We are equals. He will NEVER be able to create life with his body like I can. This alone makes us completely different people. In every decision at home we counsel together. He is not allowed to make a decision for our family without my consent and collaboration. I get that there are men who abuse their Priesthood and think it a right, but they are way out of line and are not granted the blessings of spiritual advancement. Again, Priesthood is NOT right. It is a responsibility. Just like the creation of life and nurturing of our kids is my responsibility, he is responsible for the blessings and ordinances of the Priesthood. So in that way, I am a little angry with OW for making us out to be inferior submissive individuals that are subject to our husband’s and bishop’s whims. It’s just not true and you will not find church literature that supports that idea.
Okay, so I think that’s a summary of all my thoughts on this issue. And again, I’m not trying to get heated or anything, but these are my thoughts. Some of them you won’t agree with, and that’s okay. I don’t think your opinions are wrong, but we will just have to disagree respectfully. Thank you for your questions. This is the first time I’ve spoken out about this too in a cohesive way.
Today I saw ANOTHER news story on the founder of the group. It bothers me to keep seeing these women in the media. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does because I think it continually hurts our church. So I sent them this email:
Good day.
I've
been reading your website fairly thoroughly. I am an active member of
the church in East Millcreek, Utah. I love the Gospel with all my heart.
I have followed the OW "movement," if that's what you can call it.
Several years ago I had a trial of my faith looking at the discrepancies
in the church history. I really struggled with polygamy and the role of
women with that whole subject. I prayed and studied for a year and came
out stronger, with a greater testimony of The Book of Mormon, the
Savior, and a new found hope in the restored Gospel, while acknowledging
that prophets are imperfect people who are chosen by the Lord for His
purposes.
Sincerely,
And that's all. I just wanted to throw my two cents out there mostly for myself, as this is is mostly a journal for me and my family.
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
