Pages

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Ordained Women Movement....and why I'm not a fan.

http://fromdctobc.blogspot.com/2013/09/why-i-am-becoming-uncomfortable-with.html?m=1

I read this. It's more intellectual approach to the "Ordain Women" Movement trying to get the Priesthood. 

Tonight, when Trent and I were discussing this, we felt that the root of this is their own pride and selfishness-----they think they are "unequal" or suffering in some way by not having the "title" or "power" that the men have. 
I believe the contrary....if there is any inequality, it's on the men's side. If I am sick, Trent can bless me. If Trent is sick, I cannot bless him. He suffers his pain without a priesthood power being exercised whereas if I am sick, I receive a blessing that he cannot in return receive. 

Deseret News did a piece on this and had the official response from the church: 
"Kate Kelly, one of the organizers of the action to request priesthood meeting tickets for women. "This is an important step toward a future where Mormon women will participate side by side with our brothers in all areas of church leadership and life." 
“To me, agitating on the issue is a question of self-respect,” she said. “I respect and value the church and myself too much to be silent on this question. I truly believe that God wants us all to equally share the burdens and blessings of the priesthood. The ordination of women would put us all on equal spiritual footing with our brethren, and nothing less will suffice.”"

I admit confusion...I don't see where this Kate Kelly thinks that we do not participate in church leadership and life. Women carry leadership roles and are needed to fulfill responsibilities just like men...not the same, but similar. We are not supposed to be the same. It's just not genetically engineered that way, and I'm glad. Again, I think she is prideful and selfish. She has let a perceived inequality seep in and has not stepped back to actually view just how much she DOES receive by allowing the men to be ordained to the Priesthood. Frankly, I thought the issue was going to die when I first heard about it because I thought it was so idiotic on so many different levels and the reasoning was flawed and biased. But it looks like this whole movement is not going away quietly and now trying to assimilate themselves to the Blacks before they received the Priesthood. 


"This Thing Was Not Done in a Corner"
President Hinckley was already getting these types of questions in interviews with Mike Wallace (scroll down a bit to the question and answer segment. Mike asks him an initial question on women and their role, and then after health and moral code, he tries again to dig deeper in the "men running the church" question): 

And I really like what this lady said: 

Kathryn Skaggs, who writes her widely read blog, A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman, from her home in Murrieta, Calif., said she believes she speaks for that vast majority of Mormon women when she expresses frustration "that this small element within the church who are pressing for the priesthood use the media to draw attention to themselves, as if they speak for all Mormon women."
"They don't represent us," Skaggs said in a telephone interview. "That's not to minimize those who have these passionate feelings about women being ordained to the priesthood. But my personal church experience suggests that most of us are at peace with how the Lord has chosen to establish his kingdom upon the earth. And there's a bit of resentment that the beautiful messages of conference might be overshadowed by this small group that doesn't even represent the feelings of mainstream Mormon women.
"I just really have a hard time feeling good about it," Skaggs continued. "They are taking the attention away from the reason we have general conference in the first place: to listen to what living prophets have to say to us. Instead, they are trying to get the living prophets to listen to them. That just seems wrong to me."

Elder Maxwell said, "events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions"  (http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=909)

Pro Choice v Pro Life

I hesitate to share this. Mostly because of it's content. But, it's very much a part of what is happening...and unfortunately, used in the last election with Obama and Romney. The Pro-choice advocates were trying to say that Mitt Romney wanted to take away a woman's choice because he was Pro-Life...but I wonder how many of them have ever been to one of these clinics or seen exactly what is done. And I wonder how many would continue to push for this agenda after witnessing the "procedure" being performed. This is a highly controversial subject. But we are supposed to be active advocates in our communities. And I'd like to spread factual content knowledge regarding this topic and state that though a woman does have a choice, someone needs to be a 'voice' for the baby who is very much 'alive' inside of her. She cannot disregard the responsibility of her initial 'choice' to engage in intercourse that resulted in a pregnancy...and it's connected consequence. Is there a disjointed view that one can bypass the natural consequence of a choice to have sex? The two are irreparably connected. And the child is not to be dismissed as a footnote. We can be the voice for the child who does not yet have one...but will if given the chance.