By the Waters of Babylon: My Reaction to the Response to the OW Action

by: Hedgehog

October 10, 2013

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. (Psalms 137:1)

As a teenager, many Sunday afternoons were spent singing with my family, whilst my mother played guitar. I became familiar with the round ‘By the Waters of Babylon’, in which Israel laments its captivity, long before I ever got to hear Don McLean singing it. Prior to being taken into captivity Israel underwent a reformation of worship practice; reforms which, amongst other things, banished a female deity from the temple. Margaret Barker suggests, in her work, that the Israelites blamed this reform for the Babylonian conquest they later suffered1.

Over the past year, I have been reading what I can find about the Priesthood and Priesthood organisational reforms in the LDS church, and the way in which women were involved with things that are now considered solely the remit of male Priesthood function, and which at the time that women were involved, might or might not have meant women had some form of Priesthood power. Considering that we claim a restored Priesthood, our discourse surrounding what the Priesthood actually is, and the position of women in relation to that Priesthood, is incredibly confused. For me this confusion was highlighted further in the talks given during the recent General Conference. I’m going to have to read them once the text is available, and hope to make more sense of them than I was able to do listening. Nevertheless, the overwhelming impression I have gained from my study is that the authoritative position of women prior to correlation was superior to our position now. And I mourn the loss of a time when husbands and wives were permitted to bless their children together, when wives could bless husbands as well as husbands their wives.

Whilst I have been studying, other women have been seeking to improve our position in the church; suggestions at FAIR 2012, followed by Wear Pants, through Let Women Pray, to the recent OW action requesting admittance to the Priesthood Session of General Conference. I’ve been wearing trousers to church ever since Wear Pants, but I don’t have a profile on Ordain Women. I’ve not been sure what I feel. I’ve always protested being shoved into that ill-fitting box labelled ‘innate feminine attributes’. It makes me want to spit, and I do not care how unrefined that might be. I know I don’t like our current hierarchical Priesthood structures. I would vote in favour of eradicating all titles rather than begin addressing women as President. And I seriously dislike ideas of a separate female Priesthood, because well, I just don’t feel comfortable in an all female environment. But I feel closer to ordaining women as a solution than I do to Neylan McBaine’s ideas.

I have watched the actions of Ordain Women with interest, and with some awe at the courage it must have taken to get them to the action of Saturday evening. Like Kate Kelly, it seems I must really have believed these women would have been permitted to enter. When they were turned away, to paraphrase Elder Holland, it delivered a psychic blow so intense, coming as it did after recent heart-felt struggles in trying to carry out a new calling at church, and colliding with Priesthood authority at seemingly every turn, I lay down and wept. And have been weeping since, for the current captivity of women in Zion.

And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell. (2 Ne 28:21)

 

1. Yes, I had noticed the recorded complaints are from the refugees in Egypt rather than the captives in Babylon. The point still stands.

Tags: , , , , ,

47 Responses to By the Waters of Babylon: My Reaction to the Response to the OW Action

  1. KT on October 10, 2013 at 2:49 PM

    I honestly expected they would be allowed to enter as well. It was broadcast live. The only reason I can come up with as to why they would not be allowed to enter is because leadership felt having people with different anatomy might ‘detract from the spirit’. Why else? And is that even legitimate?
    “I would vote in favour of eradicating all titles rather than begin addressing women as President. And I seriously dislike ideas of a separate female Priesthood, because well, I just don’t feel comfortable in an all female environment.” Me too!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  2. Janie on October 10, 2013 at 3:04 PM

    The only reason I can come up with as to why OW sisters would want to be allowed to enter is because the OW leadershop felt having people with different anatomy might “attract the Spirit.” Why else? And is that even legitimate?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  3. alice on October 10, 2013 at 3:20 PM

    I suspect Heavenly Father wanted women to connect again with the spirit of the pioneer women who made their lives in Zion possible in a more real way than putting on antiquated garb and pulling replica wagons.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  4. ji on October 10, 2013 at 4:26 PM

    It’s private property, and the invitation went out to holders of the priesthood — it’s impolite, even rude to crash a party, so to speak. For that reason, I’m glad they weren’t allowed to enter. For myself, I could never crash a meeting or occasion where I wasn’t invited.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 9

  5. brjones on October 10, 2013 at 4:53 PM

    Ji, that’s not just silly, it’s factually inaccurate. If a non-member male had come with a member friend, or even on his own, he would have been invited right inside. That argument is nothing more than a pedantic attempt to reduce the issue to something simplistic and easy to compartmentalize. That’s not helpful, and moreover, it’s insulting to people who genuinely care about this issue.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 13

  6. Martin on October 10, 2013 at 5:39 PM

    I would say about 300-400 standby tickets were given out about 1.5 hours before the PH session started. I got one of those tickets, but because I expected to be standing there for a long time, I had sent my son off to get food with the family. The women handing out the standby tickets would only give one per person, so I returned my ticket and got back in line with my son when he arrived. We ended up sitting in the tabernacle while they waited to see how many more tickets would be given out. Almost the entire floor-level of the tabernacle was filled with men, and I was close to the front. I believe almost everybody, if not everybody, seated in the tabernacle got a ticket (though we only beat the opening prayer by 2 or 3 minutes). From where I sat within the conference center, i could see only about 20 or so remaining seats in the corner balconey (not counting one’s and two’s scattered around). I suspect there’s always seats like that left over because it’s less disruptive to have a few seats left over than to have extra people milling about, and with the number of people involved, 20 seats would be pretty fine resolution. I don’t think there was room to sit 200 women without taking seats from men.

    I realize that sitting in the session wasn’t the objective, but if there were hundreds of seats left over, I couldn’t find them from where I was.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  7. Rigel Hawthorne on October 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM

    To leave open seats instead of inviting sisters in as guests seems overly restrictive.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  8. alice on October 10, 2013 at 6:22 PM

    Asking for a ticket and to be admitted is hardly “crashing”.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 8

  9. ji on October 10, 2013 at 6:23 PM

    brjones (no. 5), It is private property. And a property owner has the right to invite whom it will. For that reason, I’m glad the women weren’t allowed to enter. That’s honesty. People who genuinely care about the issue will appreciate honesty. Trespass is a common law or statutory law offense in almost all countries, isn’t it? I don’t want to encourage trespass, or to allow our trespass laws to become unenforceable. By sustaining the church’s right to invite whom it will onto its property, I sustain that right for all property owners everywhere. For that reason, I’m glad the women weren’t allowed to enter.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  10. Martin on October 10, 2013 at 7:36 PM

    Rigel, I think you missed my point.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  11. hawkgrrrl on October 10, 2013 at 10:28 PM

    ji – Trespassing?! Are you kidding me? Well, that certainly makes it clear where the women of this church stand. “Get lost, no one wants you here anyway.” Bear in mind that men were not turned away from the RS broadcast one week earlier. There were men in attendance at that session. How can anyone look at the sisters, some of whom were returned missionaries, some with tears running down their cheeks, and not have compassion? The savior didn’t turn women away. Then E. Causse said (ironically) in the session that we don’t turn people away, we welcome all. Apparently not all.

    Are women not paying tithing, not raising children in this church, not serving missions, not magnifying their callings? They were treated like enemies. How is that deserved?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 14

  12. Hedgehog on October 11, 2013 at 1:40 AM

    Ji #4&9, I’m baffled. Had these women been given permission to enter they would not have been trespassing. At no point did they attempt to trespass. When denied entry, they left.

    Alice #8: “Asking for a ticket and to be admitted is hardly “crashing”.”
    Quite.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  13. Hedgehog on October 11, 2013 at 1:45 AM

    KT #1 “might ‘detract from the spirit’.”
    This is an obsession (though not in relation to this issue necessarily) I’ve come up against, that is worth a post in its own right. I’ve certainly been thinking on it.
    “Me too!”
    It’s nice not to be the only one thinking that way.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  14. Hedgehog on October 11, 2013 at 1:51 AM

    Janie #2, I recommend you take a look at the reasons these women give for their actions themselves. The information is out there.

    brjones, thank you for supprtive comments.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  15. SilverRain on October 11, 2013 at 5:54 AM

    You think they were turned away primarily because they were women?

    That is sadly amusing.

    Just because someone claims certain motives does not mean those are their actual motives. Their behavior reveals their true motives.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 7

  16. Janie on October 11, 2013 at 7:39 AM

    Hedgehog #14. Funny – you could have said the same thing to KT but you didn’t. There are reasons why these women weren’t admitted. Yet, the only stuff I see coming from the OW supporters is something judgmental and critical of church leaders, as if they know the minds and hearts of our leaders. Really? The “only” reason KT can come up with is a sarcastic thought that church leaders were afraid women might detract from the spirit? When OW supporters stop judging church leaders and quit putting words in their mouths, I will stop judging OW supporters and quit putting words in their mouths. Turn about is fair play, after all.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  17. Howard on October 11, 2013 at 8:00 AM

    Great post Hedgehog!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  18. Howard on October 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM

    Anyone see the gate Crasher’s photos yet? http://www.flickr.com/photos/104456736@N08/

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  19. Hedgehog on October 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM

    Silver Rain #15: “You think they were turned away primarily because they were women?”
    Let’s see, none of the men were required to provide evidence of their priesthood office, the standby queue was not dealt with on a first come first served basis – the men were directed to walk around the women as the queue progressed, and male supporters of OW queueing with them were given entry when requested. There were still empty seats available, yet the women were turned away. I can’t see any other interpretation.

    Janie #14. KT’s comment resonnated very well with my own recent experience where leaders over-pre-occupation with whether or not something will/won’t detract from the spirit has proven to be a distraction from the weightier matters. That was the reason for my response. I wish things were otherwise, and am glad your personal experience would appear to have been better. You will note that in my comment to KT I indicated that it may not necessarily have been the case here.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  20. Jeff Spector on October 11, 2013 at 8:45 AM

    The women were turned away simply because it was not their meeting. They already knew that long before they chose to line up at the Tabernacle. I would not be allowed to come to the Stake Presidency meeting nor would I be welcomed at the Relief Society Presidency Meeting. There are many church meetings where folks are not invited. I don’t think that parents would want, for example, a bunch of men sitting among their YW at the Young Women’s General Meeting. The men, other than GA’s, are not invited to attend.

    We all know it was a protest action, with a known outcome. Hedge talks about Leaders pre-occupation. They were not the ones who were pre-occupied. They were conducting business as usual. Let’s not assign motives that you cannot prove.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  21. Hedgehog on October 11, 2013 at 8:50 AM

    Jeff, if you read my comments you will see that I did *not* state that the leaders at these meetings were preoccupied. The preoccupation I referred to was something within my own personal experience.

    Men did attend the General Relief Society Meeting the week before, and were not turned away.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  22. Jeff Spector on October 11, 2013 at 9:14 AM

    Men did? What men? Were they leadership? or just protesters that wanted to prove they could get in? And how do you know this?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  23. Jen on October 11, 2013 at 11:20 AM

    We have men spending the nights at Girl’s Camp, but I’m just supposed to be grateful for the priesthood protection that they bring. We are supposed to graciously accept the presence of men in our female spaces all the time, even when it is completely unnecessary. And yet the presence of women is somehow damaging to male spaces. Is our moral force not that influential after all?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 13

  24. Hedgehog on October 11, 2013 at 11:29 AM

    Jeff: http://gailymormon.com/2013/09/29/keeping-my-covenants-by-supporting-ordain-women/
    I also read another account by someone else that I cannot now find. Not leadership. You might argue they wanted to prove they could get in. For me that’s neither here nor there. The point is that they did in fact get in.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  25. Jeff Spector on October 11, 2013 at 11:42 AM

    “The point is that they did in fact get in.”

    I wouldn’t have let him. If it wasn’t for the Ordain Women’s movement, he would not have bothered. Plus I suspect there are many women who would prefer they not let men who are not GA’s in as well.

    I did listen to the broadcast myself.

    Jen, I was one who has attended Girl’s Camp to cook for them so the women who attended could be where they should be, with the girls.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  26. brjones on October 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    Ji, no one is arguing the church didn’t have the legal right to keep women out of their meeting. Obviously they have the right and they exercised that right. There’s no issue on that point. Your original comment was inaccurate in that you stated that only priesthood holders were invited, and any other persons who tried to get in would be interlopers, party-crashers and trespassers. That is inaccurate, because non-member males are welcome to show up and attend, even though according to you they were not invited. It wasn’t about priesthood, it was about sex.

    It’s self-evident that the only reason women were denied admittance is because they were women. Again, reasonable minds can differ on the rightness or wrongness of that policy, but it’s disingenuous to pretend that there was a reason other than sex that women were not allowed in the session.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  27. Casey on October 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM

    To Jen’s point, I remember about a year ago being asked by our bishop to attend the weekly Relief Society meeting in our married student ward so there’d be a priesthood presence there. Why he asked me I was never sure since I hardly knew him and held no leadership callings, but he must have been desperate and I said yes without thinking. That night was the first time I really understood how the requirement of male presence in practically all female church activities could be awkward and even invasive. My “presiding” at that activity was more than useless, it was demeaning to the women who actually ran, conducted, and attended the thing. The idea that my presence lent the occasion some kind of ethereal “authority” was a farce, and I wish now that I’d have respectfully declined to participate.

    So in regards to OW, I get why same people are uncomfortable with women seeking to be part of a traditionally all-male space. I think exclusively male or female events can be very good things; I’d be lying if I said that attending priesthood session with my brothers or my roommates wasn’t enjoyable. But so many of the arguments I hear against OW are incredibly myopic, because in the church “priesthood” is so omnipresent and entirely wrapped up in maleness that it denies the possibility of the kind of institutional female spaces that men take for granted. Even if men in female spaces are helpful and unobtrusive–offering to cook at Girls Camp, for example–it’s a simple fact that they aren’t just there to be helpful, but because the church doesn’t recognize activities as religiously valid UNLESS there’s a male presence. I’m fine with OW because it makes people uncomfortable imagining women in an all-male space; hopefully it sparks a few conversations about why the reverse isn’t controversial.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 12

  28. TrdBrglr on October 11, 2013 at 2:47 PM

    #20 Jeff, you’ve started with the right idea here. The point is not creating equality for who’s allowed at what meeting. Men being allowed in YW meetings or at girls camp or at the general RS meeting is irrelevant. The purpose of the OW movement standing in line on Saturday was to present themselves as prospective elders and priesthood holders. These women are turned away because the priesthood session is for those who can potentially hold that power. Creating a space for women only is also irrelevant, at least in terms of the OW objectives.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  29. KT on October 11, 2013 at 5:08 PM

    #16 Janie……it’s not the ‘only reason’, just the only thing I can think of. They don’t know, of the women who asked to get in, who just had alterior motives (if any), as ‘part of the movement’, and who just wanted to be part of the same thing as all the guys. There’s obviously a reason to want to be involved as a member if so many men do, so why wouldn’t women want the same thing? Especially if men got into the relief society meeting earlier…. Also, I was really asking, why else…?! I suppose we can only speculate and ‘put words in church leaders mouths’ and I’m open to hearing what people really think.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  30. KT on October 11, 2013 at 5:12 PM

    Hedgehog….’detract ion from the Spirit’
    This is an obsession (though not in relation to this issue necessarily) I’ve come up against, that is worth a post in its own right. I’ve certainly been thinking on it.

    What a great topic to dissect and discuss!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  31. SilverRain on October 12, 2013 at 5:49 AM

    Let’s see. Ordain Women is a formally organized entity who publicized their intent to attend priesthood meeting because they declare they will soon be getting the priesthood despite lack of any official statement to that effect, who organized a media debriefing afterwards, and you can’t see any other reason they were turned away?

    Really?

    Up until now, women have attended the Priesthood session every time. Not in droves, but they weren’t turned away, either. I have two independent sources, one a former female usher and the other a former male SLC missionary. It was their ill-conceived hubris, and their organization against the Church that got them turned away, as is quite obvious when one isn’t caught in their political posturing.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  32. Phil on October 12, 2013 at 8:39 AM

    Agree with Silver Rain 100%

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  33. Hedgehog on October 12, 2013 at 11:36 AM

    Silver Rain. “Up until now, women have attended the Priesthood session every time.”
    Not everyone would appear to agree with you, and I certainly doubt your assertion that it was *every* time. I’ve read of female ushers & technicians having to leave before the start, a female choir director being replaced etc. Anyway, since I am a long way from SLC, I have no personal experience. I’ve read the stories, and I think on them.
    Also, whatever you may think of OW and their motives, the wisdom of their actions, etc., that they are women is a primary driving force in their actions, and it also seems that membership or support of OW did not prevent men being given permission to enter, so ultimately, whichever way you slice it, it does come down to their being women, that they were denied entry.
    However, I didn’t actually wish to get into a discussion about the rights or wrongs of the OW action. This post was about my response to the events that unfolded. Actually, I was surprised that it cut as deep as it did when they were denied entry, though as I stated in my post that was preceded my my own recent unwelcome experiences as a woman in the church. I do think there are issues that need to be addressed in the church. And whether OW are approaching this in the right way or the wrong way, I admire their courage to be doing something. I also tend to think that there is a place for activism in highlighting issues. I know you disagree with that, and you’re entitled to your views. I’m only sorry you find the pain of others to be amusing.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  34. SilverRain on October 13, 2013 at 7:24 AM

    I don’t find pain amusing. I find mental contortionism amusing. I find it amusing the lengths some people go to to paint themselves victims when they are not. I find political melodrama amusing. But less in the funny sense than in the pitiful sense.

    I laugh a little at myself when I do, it, too. It gives perspective.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  35. SilverRain on October 13, 2013 at 7:48 AM

    And I was, by the way, addressing your reaction to it. When you said you couldn’t think of any other reason, it needed to be pointed out that there was another, much more compelling and quite rational reason.

    Ordain Women set up a political win-win situation for themselves. Either they would be let in, giving credence to their stated claims that they would soon be given the priesthood, or they would not, and they could play victim. If they really were what they say, and not what I suspect they are, their behavior would have been quite different. Though, as you say, it isn’t the place and time for me to go into the specifics.

    So here’s focusing on reactions: I have deep sorrow for those who have been hoodwinked into thinking that the motives behind OW are pure, and that they are innocent victims simply asking to sit in some empty seats. I do not doubt that most participants truly believe that. I do not doubt that many hearts will be further separated from Zion, where they could be nurtured best, by the actions of the motivators behind this type of political organization against the Church. I find it reprehensible that some people are willing to tear down the Church of God by capitalizing on the feelings of people who are hurting, rather than helping them find healing through the only Source that can grant it. My first priority is to reach out to those in pain.

    But that does not mean that I have to tolerate attitudes, behaviors, and deceptions aimed to tear down the Kingdom of my Savior, which I love with all my heart, despite how it has hurt me in those EXACT same ways. I have navigated, am navigating, the same waters of pain and have found the Compass without feeling compelled to force my environment into my image of it regardless of how it might affect others. I never find genuine pain amusing. But my sense of gallows humor does tend to a possibly inappropriately morbid chuckle when I see people heaping ashes on their own heads with plainly illogical assumptions.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  36. Mormon Heretic on October 13, 2013 at 10:01 AM

    “it isn’t the place and time for me to go into the specifics.”

    I am always perplexed when you say this Silverrain. It makes no sense to me.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  37. […] liked Holly’s story. See also these photos, the storify version, this round-up, and the story behind the […]

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  38. Hedgehog on October 13, 2013 at 1:48 PM

    SilverRain, I wonder did you actually read my post and comments, or have you simply skimmed over them quickly and leapt in jumping to conclusions.
    “And I was, by the way, addressing your reaction to it. When you said you couldn’t think of any other reason “
    This was not something I said in the OP. Not anywhere. You initially supposed it it in your first comment, at which point I considered it, but it did not in fact form part of my reaction I described in the OP. Actually my view on that is considerably more nuanced than you seem to suppose, and I attempted to give a glimpse of that in my comment #33 without generating a whole new post. But the post was not my analysis of the OW actions, and I am not a member of OW.
    Sure, OW are politicising things. I’m not stupid. I can see that. I also see that you seem to be ignoring that OW men could enter if they so desired. So I am not sure where your accusation of illogical comes in. You seem to be conveniently ignoring that which does not fit your view. No doubt it is something we are all guilty of.
    “My first priority is to reach out to those in pain.”
    You certainly have a peculiar approach to comforting those who might stand in need of such comfort.
    Not everyone sees OW as tearing down the church. From your comments, you do. I try to take a wider view, which you may think is wrong-headed. For what it’s worth, I think we all have our part to play in God’s kingdom, as it moves forward. I happen to think activism is one of those roles. But by it’s very nature, too many activists is not a good thing, because whilst problems need to be brought to light, sometimes very visibly, stability is also extremely important, if we’re to avoid chaos. So, just as I can appreciate the efforts of OW, I also see that stabilisers, such as yourself have an important function too. For me, the pity here, is that we cannot simply appreciate each for their strengths. I share in the sorrow of OW turned away, because it was their sorrow, and they too are part of the kingdom. I didn’t expect it to hurt as much as it did.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  39. SilverRain on October 13, 2013 at 6:14 PM

    MH, it’s simple this time: Hedgehog claimed this wasn’t the time or place to criticize the OW movement, it was about the reaction to it. So I refrained from going onto the specifics of why the movement proves that it isn’t what it claims to be and only described my reaction to it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  40. SilverRain on October 13, 2013 at 6:21 PM

    #19 Hedgehog, you said exactly that. I wasn’t aware we were supposed to ignore your comments and only respond to the OP.

    I’m not ignoring that the men could enter. It is irrelevant. But I’m not going to go into that here, unless by that and your subsequent questions/commentary I’m to infer that you have changed your mind, and you now do want to go into it? Or is it that you are free to discuss it here, but I not?

    As I said, just because I have a first priority to reach out to those in pain does not mean I must abandon standing up for what I feel is right. They are not mutually exclusive, no matter how some might like to paint them that way.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  41. hawkgrrrl on October 13, 2013 at 6:42 PM

    I too was surprised at my own reaction to what happened to the women of OW since I don’t feel strongly that women should be ordained. I am aware that a few of the women in the movement are not faithful. The simple fact that Holly Welker was associated brings the movement in question; however, there were many other women (most) who were faithful, members in good standing, tithe payers, return missionaries, women there with husbands who agreed with the stated aims. Those women deserved more respectful treatment than being blocked by a garbage truck. I don’t think the church responds well to activism, which is too bad. They don’t have to do what activists say, but they should be respectful and loving in what they do. They look strong by doing so, not weak. Treating these women like a real threat makes church leadership look weak and vulnerable, like a benevolent dictatorship afraid of being deposed.

    As we become a more global church, we need to learn to value all voices so we don’t have so many blind spots. In the UK (where Hedgehog lives), the opposition party is valuable, not viewed as an enemy. When the opposition party is weak, the media turns on the ruling party (according to Tony Blair’s autobiography). He says that a strong opposition party makes the ruling party stronger through challenging thought and ideological discussion about policy. The women in the movement stated that they aren’t seeking to change policies directly, just to petition the leaders to pray about it. It’s impossible to tell that this has happened based on the rhetoric coming from church HQ. On the contrary, the party line sounds a lot like we should just ignore those asking the questions who aren’t the majority.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  42. Hedgehog on October 13, 2013 at 10:14 PM

    SilverRain, I don’t see how any of my comments preceding your first comment can be interpreted that way. After your first comment I responded, sure. My mistake it seems, but I already pointed out I commented on it in response to your first comment.
    Since we now seem to be descending into yes/no you did/didn’t territory perhaps we can draw a line here.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  43. ji on October 14, 2013 at 7:50 AM

    “And have been weeping since, for the current captivity of women in Zion.”

    “They were treated like enemies.”

    I am saddened by these statements. I don’t think they reflect honesty or reality, but are probably offered as a tactic to make a point or shame an differing view. That’s how arguments are won these days.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  44. Jeff Spector on October 14, 2013 at 7:59 AM

    In a show of support, a new organization is being formed entitled “Let Them Enter,” a group of non-members who wish to attend the Temple because they are prospective Temple Goers who just haven’t quite yet qualified for a full recommend, but should be qualified for a “limited-use” recommend since we issue them to non-endowed YM and YW.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  45. Hedgehog on October 14, 2013 at 8:11 AM

    ji, I am not alone in feeling that the pedestal upon which women are placed by much of the rhetoric we hear in church imprisons us. And at the time of writing that sentence was the truth. The frustrations of my position as a woman in the church have driven me to tears more than a few times over the years. I have now, a week later mostly dried those tears for the moment, which is just as well given your response and that of others. What saddens me is our seeming inability to mourn with those that mourn.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  46. Phil on October 15, 2013 at 10:01 PM

    OW says that all they are is just good humble sisters. But then they staged this event and then made sure the press was alerted. You do the math.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  47. Hedgehog on October 16, 2013 at 2:22 AM

    Phil, I don’t for one moment suppose they *all* fall into the catergory you describe, but I believe many of them are good humble sisters. It is inevitable that there will be others who also choose to participate, with any kind of action. Regarding the inclusion of the press, that’s just the world we live in. The church has put out plenty of press statements itself over years, including on the topic of women, and seems to me to know very well how to use the press. It is sad that things have got to the point that women have felt that this action is necessary, but this is where their own experiences with church leadership have led them, and I really can sympathise with that.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

Archives

%d bloggers like this: