Ordain Women - The Curse of Pride

So, about a year ago I heard about a great movement called Ordain Women.  I went to their website and saw their mission statement.  I can't say for sure, but I think it was worded a bit differently at the time.  Regardless, what caught my attention was that this group seemed to support a few things.

1. They earnestly believed, as did I, that the Priesthood was not eternally a Male thing.
2. They believed that the time had come for Women to receive the Priesthood.
3. They understood that revelations generally come to/for those who ask.
4. They wanted the Brethren to take this matter to the Lord.

My understanding at the time was that this movement intended to gather supporters by word of mouth and education.  In time, they planned to gather signatures and send a letter to the brethren asking that the matter be taken to the Lord.  I was thrilled!  This is how the Lord works, I thought.  He inspires us to help one another prepare for a blessing, and then he reveals it to the Prophet.  I almost created a profile on their site.

Sadly, the tone changed pretty quickly.  By October 2013 conference, it was clear that the leaders of Ordain Women were getting a bit pushy.  Nonetheless, the still claimed to be bringing the message to the brethren in order for them to take it to the Lord.  I still defended them, but I certainly thought they were walking a fine line.  Fast forward to April 2014.  By this point it was clear that Ordain Women was an outright protest movement.  Word of mouth was no longer good enough; they wanted media attention, and a lot of it.  The quotes from their leaders were increasingly negative and critical, and their actions were more and more demanding.  When they announced that they intended to line up for priesthood session AGAIN, I was a bit annoyed.  I thought, "Clearly you realize that your voice has been heard"?  There was no question that the brethren had heard what they wanted, and there seemed to be no good that could come of being even more vocal.  So I was not surprised when the church released a statement requesting that they not come get in line, and specifically indicating that if they wished to demonstrate they could do so in the area that had been set apart for demonstrators.  In other words, if you want to raise a spectacle, do it with the other protesters.  What did surprise me, however, was that they didn't back down.  They even went as far as to say, "that was a request from the pubic affairs department, not the brethren".  Really!?  

This has all culminated, not surprisingly, in a disciplinary hearing for the leader of the movement.  She was "shocked", she said, that such a hearing was called.  I think she may be the only person who was shocked, and frankly I doubt she was either.  After all, she'd been told 2+ months earlier that if she continued on the path she was on, just such a hearing would come about.  Sadly, we only get one side of the story, as her leaders are not (and should not) publicly commenting on the situation.  I'll agree, assuming her facts are true, that it's a bit odd that her Bishop never expressed reservations about her behavior until he sent her a letter regarding this action.  I'll also say that, given the public profile of the case, I'd call for a high council court, rather than a Bishop's court.  Nonetheless, it is clear that this group has blown it.  What started as a call for united faith and a request for prayerful consideration, has turned into a foot stomping spectacle.  I'll never know for sure where things started, but I have little doubt where they have ended.  

What would happen if Sister Kelly received a letter from President Monson?  If he told her, today, "we've taken this matter to God in prayer, and the answer is no?"  Would she walk away from it all?  Would anything change?  And if that letter would be good enough, what about one from a Seventy?  And if that one is good enough, why not the one from her own Stake President?

And the strangest twist; she and her supporters accuse Salt Lake of coordinating the disciplinary action.  Yet, we're left with two possibilities.  A. They are right, in which case it is clear that the highest leadership in the Church has asked you to stop.  B. They are wrong, and they should stop saying otherwise.  Which is it??

UPDATE:
Shortly after being excommunicated, Kelly released a copy of the formal letter she received from her Bishop explaining the terms of her excommunication.  In this letter - which she, not her Bishop, made public - her Bishop tells his side of the story.  It appears that he had actually counseled with her several times regarding this matter, as had her stake president.  Both had patiently attempted to help change her behavior over several months.  When it became clear that she was leaving the area, they felt it was crucial to put a hold on her records (a very common practice for anyone in the midst of these sorts of discussions).  In any case, it is more clear than ever that she was far from honest about the situation. 

Women and Priesthood Authority

Ok, so this post has been churning in my head for at least a year.  I haven't written it yet because there's just so much to say, I don't know where to begin.  So, I'm sorry that this is a rambling mess, but I need to finally get it out.

My family history is full of strong (and strong headed), faithful, capable, and amazing women.  My Grandad and my Pa (Grandfather and Father) were my example of what it meant to be a good man, and how to treat a woman.  Each treasured his wife as the greatest gift he had ever received, and treated her like a queen.  It was far more than holding doors; I always knew that their happiness was the single most important priority.  My mom was "boss" in my home.   Ultimately she had decision making authority over all matters relating to the home.  She was the book keeper, the cook, the maid, and the caregiver.  But she was also the craftsman, the yard worker, and the source of sometimes two additional incomes.  Likewise, my father was the bread winner, but he also cooked frequently, cleaned often, and loved his children passionately.

My grandmother was primary president for most of my childhood.  She was also a book keeper and clerk for the local building supply company.  She taught piano and was always in control. She'd have made an excellent politician if she were willing to lie enough.  With that upbringing, I have become what I would call a traditional feminist.  I believe that women are great, and should be treated with great love and respect.  However, I find little in modern feminism with which I can agree.  I think it is a great insult to womanhood that modern feminists want to measure a woman's success with a man's measuring stick.  I could write about that for days, but it's not the point of this blog post.

I was first exposed to the idea of women holding the Priesthood several years ago.  My knee jerk reaction was to laugh and dismiss the idea;  however, further contemplation and discussion changed my views considerably.  I immediately considered the great women of the scriptures, and then what little I knew of the great women of the restoration.  I realized that there was a great power among the sisters.  Later, it was pointed out to me that Sisters officiate in saving ordinances in the temple. (which I knew, but had never thought about).  As I studied the topic more, I learned a great deal about the early Relief Society and the sisters who sat at its head.  I became a believer, and began to consider how ordination of sisters to the priesthood would impact the church.  Would they hold the Aaron and Melchizedek  Priesthood, or some other order?  Would they hold the same offices?  I concluded that it was unlikely that sisters would hold the same offices, for example female bishops.  Anyhow, this had all been stewing around in my head when the notion of Feminist Mormons resurfaced in 2012-2013.  And that gave me a lot more to think about.....

Around the time that Ordain Women and "Wear Pants to Church Day" started to stir up controversy, I was starting to read articles and blogs about gender inequality in the church.  Like most things I read online, I found a lot of garbage, but as my wife will tell you, I have a knack for finding great things mixed in with garbage (literally and figuratively).  Mostly what I found was an invasion of "modern feminism" into the church, and it made me sick.  Unlike traditional feminism, which celebrates the greatness of womanhood, modern feminism does two things.  1. Blames gender inequality for ANYTHING I don't like about my life.  2.  Insists that women should be "equal" to men, which translates to "measure a woman's value, ability, talent, and desires the way you measure the same things in a man".  In essence, it is the exact opposite of traditional feminism.  Rather than lifting up women as amazing in and of themselves, it insists that women are only great if they are manly.

But, I digress; as I said, I found some great gems and jewels in this prolonged study.
1. I learned that I was no alone in feeling that the future would hold more authority and power for women
2. I learned that there are many cultural issues in the church that hurt women and men
3. I learned that there are many ways to empower women without any direct intervention from God
4. I learned that I don't understand the priesthood as well as I thought
5. I learned that Preisthood ordination and Preisthood power/authority are very different things.
6. I became convinced that God is actively preparing his daughters for something dramatic

Well, I was going to write more, but this is already getting long.  So I'm going to split the rest of this into a few blogs.  The first, which I'm about to write, is about the Ordain Women movement, and why it makes me sad, angry, disappointed, and frustrated.

Generations and change

There has been a great deal in the news over the past several years about a generational dichotomy that is leading to a massive exodus of young people from the Church.  We have a very colorful past as a Church, and there are a lot of thing in our past that are uncomfortable, scary, and down right disturbing.  Traditionally, the approach taken by the leaders of the Church has been to, in effect, ignore those difficult subjects.  "If it's not uplifting", the saying goes, "then don't teach or speak of it".  I don't disagree with the approach, and for many decades it was a reasonable approach.  Those who never ask hard questions will never have their faith tried by answers that are not a simple as they had hoped.  However, that does, in my estimation, sell people short.  It reduces apostasy, but it also reduces faithfulness.
Additionally, that approach has not been viable for the better part of a decade, and it gets less realistic every year.  For decades the Church controlled the narrative, and had control of most of the records, journals, etc about our history.  We were able to, in effect, hide the ugliness.  The advent of the internet, however, has changed that dramatically.  Our detractors make the same claims, but now they can back them up with sources that can actually be read by an average member.  And, when faced with only one interpretation of a sub-set of the facts, it is VERY easy to be misled.  Unfortunately, the Church continued to ignore the issue, assuming people would simply ignore the anti-Mormon literature out there.  That is, until very recently.  The last six months have been very refreshing for me.
You see, I spent the better part of 5 years deeply studying the literature of our opponents, and it was really hard work.  I read their claims, checked their references, and in many cases had nothing left to stand on but my testimony.  I knew that the Church was true, as was the Book of Mormon, and Joseph was a prophet.  Yet, those facts were not consistent with many things I learned in those years.  Ultimately, I prioritized absolute truth - that truth I had received from God - over partial truth - that truth I'd discovered in my own research.  When the two appeared to conflict, I assumed I was missing some facts.  I'm forever grateful for the perspective to take that approach.
What's more, after I learned to avoid the anti-Mormon stuff - it never was very uplifting or fulfilling to me - I was still left sitting in Elders' Quorum meetings that were full of nonsense.  We'd talk about polygamy, for example, and someone would always mention things like "only a small number of men were polygamists, and they were always called to it by the prophet, and their wife always had to approve, and......."  Or we'd talk about the issue of race and the priesthood and all sorts of ideas would fly about why and when and so forth.  I was always certain that these "facts" were baseless, but I never had the resources to debunk them.  I also heard people downright deny some of our tougher historical realities.  The Saints were not just victims of mob violence in Missouri; our members were, at times, the initiators of such violence.  The Mountain Meadows Massacre actually happened.  It was real, and it was members of the Church that committed that heinous crime.
So what's changed?  Well, several things.
First, there was Elder Uchtdorf's talk in this past conference.  In it, he freely admits that we (as a Church) have made mistakes.  Inspired leaders are not perfect, and not every decision they make is by direct and total revelation from God.  It shouldn't need to be said, but it needed to be said.  God doesn't have prophets on Earth because he wants to micro-manage the kingdom.  If he wanted to make all the decisions, he'd be down here leading it directly.  Rather, he wants us to do our best, and steps in when he feels it is particularly important we get things right.
Secondly, there have been two excellent articles added to LDS.org in the last month or two that deal directly with our most visible challenges - polygamy and race.  The first one released was entitled Race and the Priesthood, and laid out what most researchers have been saying for a long time.  The priesthood ban was, more or less, a direct impact of culture.  We got caught up in the racist culture of the time, and once the policy was in place, revelation was required to fix it.  It's a great read, albeit a little dry, but very honest.
The other article Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah, is also a frank look at a traditionally ignored subject.  I've met many members who had no idea Joseph had more than one wife, and I can't blame them.  We did two years in Elders' Quorum and Relief Society from the Joseph Smith manual, and I don't recall any references to any other wives, and the term "his wife" is used often.  This article debunks many "well known" myths that I've heard spread for years in lessons.  My favorite excerpt:
Still, some patterns are discernible, and they correct some myths. Although some leaders had large polygamous families, two-thirds of polygamist men had only two wives at a time.¹⁸Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages; remarriage was also readily available.¹⁹ Women did marry at fairly young ages in the first decade of Utah settlement (age 16 or 17 or, infrequently, younger), which was typical of women living in frontier areas at the time.²⁰ As in other places, women married at older ages as the society matured. Almost all women married, and so did a large percentage of men. In fact, it appears that a larger percentage of men in Utah married than elsewhere in the United States at the time. Probably half of those living in Utah Territory in 1857 experienced life in a polygamous family as a husband, wife, or child at some time during their lives.²¹ By 1870, 25 to 30 percent of the population lived in polygamous households, and it appears that the percentage continued to decrease over the next 20 years

For me, these articles and this talk represent a turning point for the Church.  A new approach to face our past head on, with honesty.  No longer are we leaving doubters to seek answers from those who hate us.  Rather, we are giving them good and honest answers to some really hard questions.  I really hope the trend continues.