Last October, Ordain Women announced its intention to attend the males-only General Priesthood session, and repeated the intention this past April. In response, Church leaders excommunicated Kate Kelly in June of this year, announcing that Temple Square was off limits for this “protest.” Furthermore, the Church decided to ban media from both the Women’s meeting (held one week ago) along with the General Priesthood Meeting Saturday night. This has led many to believe that Ordain Women is no longer an issue. But is that true?
Prior to last April’s General Conference, Ordain Women announced that they would not go to Temple Square to attend the Priesthood Session. Instead they encouraged women to go to their local stake centers to attend the session, and the Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that many were successful this time, and some women even attended at the Marriott Center on BYU’s campus. 3rd times the charm?
The LDS Church seems to have made many changes in response to Ordain Women. Women are praying more in General Conference, and seem to have a higher profile than in years past. Is Ordain Women’s lower profile helping or hurting the cause?
[poll id=442]
[poll id=443]
Women in our Ward seem to prefer to go out to dinner with each other rather than be with men. No women showed up for the Priesthood Session here.
I have no idea if any women showed up for PH in our ward building. I listened at home as the good Lord intended when He made the broadcast available over the Internet. 😉
I note that Pres. Uchtdorf had referred to the Women’s Conference as the first session of General Conference, but that others used the standard wording on Saturday and Sunday – “this third session, fourth session,” etc., inclusive of the PH session but not of the WC. I’d like to think that wording was old habit, not intentional exclusion.
I didn’t see any women at my stake center, but I did see photos of women at BYU and in Ogden.
My daughter asked to come with me to Priesthood Session. I’d have brought her if she weren’t 6 years old. But being out until 10:00 (11:00 if you include our trip for ice cream) is a bit late for her age. I told her she can come when she’s 8, since that’s when she’s old enough to attend GWC.
But for what it’s worth, when someone in my ward asked about bringing non-member (male) friends to Priesthood Session, my rather conservative elders quorum president said, “Sure. Bring your friends, bring your wives. It’s open to anyone.”
I’d say we’re making progress.
I didn’t go I was doing Homecoming dance chauffeuring. I have no problem with the sisters attending. The bigger deal that’s made out of it, the bigger deal it will be. Not sure why anyone WANTS to attend another session. No secrets….
Women can access it via broadcast or Internet the same as men anyway, and they’ve ALWAYS been able to read the transcripts in the subsequent Ensign. I don’t see what the big deal is, it’s not like they’ve been kept from any “Deep, Dark Secrets!”.
I was pausing the PH talk figuring that the Giants-Nationals game (started at 1430 hours PDT) would be over soon after PH session started. Little did I know that the game would go eightneen innings. I did view it the following morning. That’s the advantage of technology; it lessens time commitments. However, I DO miss taking my boys to PH session and going to get ice cream or burgers afterwards. They’ll do THAT with my grandSONS soon enough.
Here is a map of places where OW attended the priesthood session: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=zsRLJBrINW1U.k2YIIholYa1E
To clarify, the announcement “that Temple Square was off limits for this “protest.”” happened in response to the intention of staging a second protest, not in response to Kate Kelly’s excommunication.
I think much of the hype on this Conferences’ action was diffused by the direction given to local leaders to not make a big deal out of it. Women attended at local buildings without fanfare many times before; those who feel the need attending again remains no big deal.
For those who voted “other” in response to poll question 1 above, can you tell us why you chose that option?
I went for “other” on the first question as neither choice was adequate. It wasn’t a net success. No idea what the excommunication has to do with it, as it was months ago. They aren’t really opposites. The “current status of Ordain Women”, to me, is less than it was, with the Oct2014 action being a general “meh”.
I voted other. Attending Priesthood meeting is a no op. doesn’t matter, doesn’t progress their cause. Some folks are way bend out of shape about it as though they went into the men’s locker room.
I believe I am in agreement with Jeff on this one. First of all, trying to attend another church meeting is definitely not my style. Second, sisters attending locally had a few different outcomes: 1) some few attended with little fanfare, 2) some attended after a bit of browbeating at the door (being asked why they wouldn’t follow the prophet), and 3) some were reportedly blocked from attending by men at the doors so their womanly taint would not disrupt the meeting. IOW, it’s a reflection of local leadership how the women were treated.
Those who were treated shabbily will probably be gone within a year, along with their families. Maybe that would have happened anyway. Some people seem to care about that more than others.
Women have always attended General Priesthood at my building in the past. Some would be coming from a football game or whatever and were not be able to drive home first. Some were older guys who could no longer drive after dark and were driven by their wives and they sat together for the session. It was never a big deal.
Only this year did such attendance become imbued with political meaning that did not exist before.
I think it’s too early to tell where OW is going. Certainly they have been effective at broadening the LDS feminist audience and provoking an interesting but non-answer response from the church, although their tactics and language have often been so openly and blatantly secular that I wonder if there is ANY overarching strategy aside from the binary of ordain! (or not) Charge!
Saturday’s action was designed to be local and therefore called upon the courage of many in a soft but moderate confrontation laced with worries of repercussions and rejection and without broad support. I would have been surprised if they had a high participation rate but perhaps this is a way to begin to encourage local OW supporters to take these issues into the chapels.
What are viable alternatives for being heard? The so called “proper channels”? Hmm, would those be the same channels that as we were reminded in GC are are blocked by a 70 NOT representing the people to the prophet but the prophet to the people? Don’t call us, we’ll call you!
Or maybe you liked the recent “This is a woman’s church” apologist spin (because LDS men don’t beat their women)!?! Well, I guess all is well in Zion then!
So, which way do you face?
It’s a worship service. Ow is proud of saying that are reverent and respectful but it is quite the opposite.
OW are bad. Shame on them.
“some were reportedly blocked from attending by men at the doors so their womanly taint would not disrupt the meeting. IOW, it’s a reflection of local leadership how the women were treated.”
While this goes against most of my experience, it does lend credence to why change is necessary. No one at HQ told those guys to block the doors.
As Howard says at 16 Some problems with the local action idea. It removes the collective strength part.
How many go to local buildings when you can watch at home, as my wife and I did?
No method to transmit to leaders for response.
Hopefully someone from the 15 will extend a hand of friendship and actually talk to them before next conference.
Otherwise if I were them I’d be going back to the main meeting as last year. That got attention.
Winifred, they are reverent and respectful. Of course, some think OW’s efforts are misplaced, but the individual participants have always been reverent and respectful in their actions. Unless you think a woman even showing up to listen to priesthood session is irreverent and disrespectful?
The timing here is somewhat different. In Britain we get the priesthood session shown in our chapels on a Sunday morning from 10-12, and then the Saturday afternoon session from 1-3pm, which doesn’t give a lot of time between. We then get Sunday morning live from 5-7pm. Husband and son go to the priesthood session, which my daughter and I catch at home and get dinner made for shortly after 12 (we’re only a 10 minute drive away from the chapel so its doable), and then we all watch the Saturday afternoon at the chapel. Now the children are older we also try to fit in the 5-7pm Sunday morning via computer (we managed it this time) after an early meal.
Growing up however I think we only really got to see one session at the chapel.
I think when someone shows up to a meeting when they have been specifically asked not to turn it into a political platform, “irreverent and disrespectful” is a rather gentle way of putting it.
One might agree or disagree with OW, but involving the public media is hardly classified as reverent or respectful.
I think OW tries very hard to doublespeak: looking respectful from an outside view while scorning the culture they wish to change: using those with innocent intentions as faces behind which those with little concern or investment in the church can hide. I just feel sorry for those who don’t see it, and allow themselves to be used.
OW wants to be heard by a two faced imperfect organization with a history of being flagrantly wrong that by design stops bottom up change suggestions by members from ever reaching the top, instead holding them at the local level and not infrequently re-indoctrinating, blaming or punishing the suggesting member. They claim to lead by God *not* man but anyone with eyes and ears can clearly see that they do change more frequently reactivity in response to agitation than proactively (as they did under Joseph) in response to God’s command.
So a two faced church invites (perhaps even demands) two faced action! Believers know We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. and that all things shall be done by common consent in the church Almost all men! Are we to believe that LDS leaders are immune to these verses? There needs be checks and balances for without them black men would still be denied the priesthood and black men and women would still be denied the temple. See Dr. Lowry Nelson’s 1947 prophetic warning to the First Presidency and the 1949 Statement from the First Presidency:
So while they may not always be right it seems they are never in doubt.
We in Australia, have the session in the same order they are live, but the following week, because we are 18 hours ahead of Utah.
We are encouraged by some to attend all sessions at the chapel but most watch them at home.
In our house we stayed home and watched the Saturday sessions last Sunday and will do the same next week on a smart TV, which can pick up the internet.
What I heard about OW they seemed very restrained. They could have held placards, they could have insisted on being let in and struggled when refused, they could have blocked the door way so no one else could get in. They could in fact have behaved like protesters. They were very restrained.
I thought it was interesting that one speaker in each of the session they were turned away from gave talks that could be interpreted as support. One saying we should not turn away those who are at the door seeking entry, in April, and in October a speaker talked about ongoing, unfinished revelation and how we should embrace it. Perhaps there are those in leadership who outside of Apostolic solidarity might be supporters?
Until there is some way a member or group of members can communicate with the 15 respectfully, what alternative does a group have?
Yes, Geoff. My ex-husband thought he was “very restrained” because he broke my things and tried to throw me out of the house instead of hitting me in the face according to his first inclination. The logic of “restrained compared to what COULD have been done” doesn’t really hold water, now, does it?
The concept of “group” organized to change the church is where the understanding fails to speak to the rest of the Church. That shows a lack of trust, perhaps warranted. What many people have a hard time understanding is: if you don’t trust the Church, why petition them? There is only one reason, and that is the spectacle. They’re hoping to embarrass the Church into compliance.
FWIW, I personally don’t think OW should have been turned away originally simply because they have rendered themselves not important enough to be worth the fight, but sadly the Church played right into their hands. The sheer demand for the leadership to communicate with them demonstrates hubris and an inability to be taught. Every change regarding women that has happened has been done in spite of OW, not because of them, by those who are humbly and earnestly petitioning in faith. They refused the lines of communication open to them, demanded and forced ones more to their liking, then failed to understand why they were rejected out of hand.
I believe it’s because many of those organizing OW fully intended the rejection of those who play into OW’s scheme. There are many earnest, believing, faithful people who have joined themselves to OW, never realizing that they are patsies being used to “prove” how hard-hearted and out of touch Church leadership are. Sadly, the only winners here are the ones pulling the strings. The casualties are those with good intentions who have been misled.
if you don’t trust the Church, why petition them? This is faulty logic.
The sheer demand for the leadership to communicate with them demonstrates hubris and an inability to be taught. This is buying into a Catch-22.
Every change regarding women that has happened has been done in spite of OW, not because of them, by those who are humbly and earnestly petitioning in faith. And this is just plain old bullshit.
They refused the lines of communication open to them… Which open lines are you referring to?
Howard, I am wondering how you know it is bullshit? Is there data to back this up, or merely your opinion?
When my kids were overseas in a country where the church does not have chapels, there was discussion of having Priesthood session streamed, they may have been a pilot. And that was well before OW.
There had been prayers by women in churchwide devotionals and concerts prior to the first female prayers at GC
And my local mission had already developed a system of “sister leadership” before the missionary age change was announced.
So I am not comfortable giving OW for credit for these things.
Howard just knows…..
Naismith,
There have been many, many discussions regarding LDS feminist issues percolating and incubating for many, many years in the bloggernacle alone and I suspect long before the internet as well as and as helpful as they were to define and refine the issues there was little or no visible pro-female response or action or change by the church until OW became a known acronym, largely because of their direct confrontation covered by the press that could no longer be easily ignored or just brushed aside. Following this we see change (though minor) after change. OW didn’t invent the arguments, they didn’t distill and refine the arguments but they did something very effective that no one else had before, they confronted the church with some of the arguments and until that happened there had been little or no movement by the church. The threat of OW motivated the church to do something for a change! Their response was mostly defensive, the rest mostly cosmetic and those pro-female changes could have been implemented long ago but weren’t! I’m not pleased with OW’s approach but it WAS EFFECTIVE.
This is a familiar pattern seen with the civil rights movement and with the gay marriage movement. (unfortunately) Agitation works! It would be nice if agitation weren’t the only channel of communication commonly available with Q15. It is a concept implied and recognized by President Hinckley’s ABC interview with David Ransom where he indicated at present there is “no agitation” for women and the Priesthood. OW used that concept and it worked again!
Nice snark Jeff!
Yes mam
Ow is ticked off because their cause has been proven not to be just
What cause are you referring to, Winifred? Seeking greater light and knowledge concerning the roles & responsibilities of women concerning the priesthood? Petitioning the prophet for a revelation on an important question for our time? Seeking more service opportunities for women in our church?
It is the next divisive issue for the church to deal with, as we see from the comments here now that they have lost the gay marriage debate.
Again I think they are fighting a loosing battle but on this one it’s hard to who will push them. Perhaps the Lord?
I’m not an insomniac, it’s 5.50 pm on Monday here.
Okay, so it sounds like that is your opinion, looking at the world through Howard-colored glasses.
There are data to the contrary, which don’t fit with that narrative. There has been lots of action prior to OW. It was in 2010 that the church released the new handbook, stressing the importance of women in councils and decision-making. For the last decade, BYU has been hiring female faculty and promoting women to leadership as department chairs and deans, and some of which had infants at the time of their hire. Sharon Eubank did not get her job as director of LDS Charities because of OW.
But then, I don’t agree that many of the things that you see as “progress” are. I have no interest in treating women more like men and ignoring the substantial contributions of women.
shouldn’t the excommunication of kate Kelly be a wake-up call to the members of ordain women? perhaps the cause is not just?