LDS Church To Hold Disciplinary Council For Ordain Women Founder Kate Kelly, Excommunication A Possibility

On June 11th, 2014, the New York Times reported that two dissident activist members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Kate Kelly and John Dehlin, face upcoming disciplinary councils and may be excommunicated from the Church. This post is about the Kate Kelly story.

Sister Kelly received an email on June 8th from the bishop of her previous ward in Virginia (she currently lives in Provo) informing her that she faces disfellowshipment or excommunication on the grounds of apostasy, and calling her to a disciplinary council hearing at the Oakton Virginia Stake Center on June 22nd. Disfellowshipment means limiting the participation of a church member, while excommunication is removing someone from membership. Kelly’s stake president had previously warned her in a letter in May that if she did not shut down the Ordain Women website, dissociate herself from it and repent, she faced excommunication for openly, repeatedly and deliberately acting in public opposition to the church and its leaders after having been counseled not to do so. The letter said "you are not required to change your thinking or the questions you may have in your own mind", but that she must keep her questions private and resolve them by talking to her bishop. According to this comment posted on Millennial Star, Kelly was placed on informal probation at that time, the conditions of which she could not identify herself as a member in good standing, participate in temple or sacrament ordinances, pray or speak in church. Another source reveals that when Kelly attempted to appeal the informal probation up the chain of command, Elder Donald L. Hallstrom of the Quorum of the Seventy said he could do nothing for her.

Kelly has posted a copy of this letter HERE, although I've not been able to get it to load successfully.

Kate Kelly describes this development in her own words on the Ordain Women website:

I was informed on June 8 that there will be a disciplinary council held in absentia by my former bishopric on June 22 to try me for "apostasy". I have moved away from the Washington, DC area, and after I left my former Stake President sent me a letter outlining what he called “informal probation” after meeting with me one time, while I was packing to move. The trial will be held in my former ward and I am not able to return.

I was open and honest with my bishop from the day we launched ordainwomen.org on March 17, 2013. I communicated with him each and every time Ordain Women did an action and asked that he come to me if he had any questions. While I was living in his ward, he never once personally called me in to meet with him. Nor did he email or call me with any questions regarding Ordain Women. Three weeks after I had moved out of his ward, and he sent me this letter. Convening a council in my absence, after I have moved, is both cowardly and unchristlike.

During two successive General Conferences, in October 2013 and April 2014, Kelly and Ordain Women announced their intention to line up outside the Conference Center and ask for admission tickets to the all-male General Priesthood Session. On both occasions, LDS authorities told them in advance they would not be admitted. Nevertheless, they showed up and lined up anyway. The latter implies that Kate Kelly and the Ordain Women activists went beyond merely advocating for women's Priesthood ordination, coming out in open rebellion against LDS Church authorities. Sister Kelly seems absolutely blind to the effects of this action and the futility of influencing Church policy through civil disobedience. Nevertheless, the LDS Church was willing to blow it off and turn the other cheek after the first incident in October 2013, although they rebutted five formal requests by Ordain Women to meet the Church authorities.

But Ordain Women chose to do it a second time in April 2013. This means they slapped the LDS Church's other cheek. Consequently, the LDS Church had no viable alternative but to initiate a disciplinary council and try Kate Kelly for her membership. But while this is just, it is no cause for joy. Those of us who believe she deserves ecclesiastical discipline ought not to be celebrating this occasion. It is a bit troubling that Kelly reports she will not be able to attend her own council, but perhaps that's a misunderstanding on her part, since it is a requirement that the subject of a disciplinary council be allowed to attend and speak in his/her own defense.

Since this post was published, the LDS Church has issued an updated statement on Church discipline which makes no specific reference to either Kate Kelly or John Dehlin:

"The Church is a family made up of millions of individuals with diverse backgrounds and opinions. There is room for questions and we welcome sincere conversations. We hope those seeking answers will find them and happiness through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Sometimes members’ actions contradict Church doctrine and lead others astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the Church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members. In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent other members from being misled. Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.

"Actions to address a person’s membership and standing in their congregation are convened after lengthy periods of counseling and encouragement to reconsider behavior. Ultimately, the door is always open for people to return to the Church."

Ordain Women Responds: KSTU Channel 13 reports that Kimberly Baptista, public relations director of Ordain Women, stated in an email that they have two actions in response. The first is that they are asking supporters to submit a letter describing how the group has improved their relationships with the Church or strengthened their testimonies. Representatives from Ordain Women will deliver these letters to the Church Office Building and will also send them to those who make up Kelly's disciplinary council. The letters are being collected HERE. The group is also planning to hold a candlelight vigil on June 22 at 5 p.m. MDT, the same time as the hearing. The vigil will be held outside the LDS Church Office Building in Salt Lake City, and those who gather will do so to show their support of Kelly.

Other Reaction: Predominantly LDS reaction from a number of sources (after the jump):

LDS Public Affairs Czar Michael Otterson Releases Five-Page Letter Identifying Context Missing From Discussions Of Mormon Women's Issues

On May 29th, 2014, LDS Public Affairs Managing Director Michael Otterson sent a five-page letter to several prominent LDS blogs to offer context specifically to online discussions about women in the church. Mainstream media outlets quickly picked up the story and weighed in. One interesting variation in mainstream media coverage; while the Salt Lake Tribune reported that By Common Consent had published the letter, KSL Channel 5 noted that the letter was published in its entirety on Millennial Star.

-- PDF copy of Elder Otterson's letter

The variety of comments published on various blogs about Mormon women's issues during recent months prompted Elder Otterson to provide an insider's perspective on context he believes has been missing from these discussions. Specifically, Elder Otterson addressed three points:

Criticism 1: The Church doesn’t want to hear from women about painful experiences, doesn’t talk to them or only wants to hear from women who are blindly obedient. Elder Otterson says this is patently untrue, and that the senior leadership is actively engaged, meeting with rank-and-file members as they travel worldwide. He freely acknowledged that since we are all human, we occasionally say things clumsily or lack sufficient sensitivity or language skills or experience.

Criticism 2: There is nowhere for women who don’t feel safe in their wards to have a conversation about some of their negative experiences that isn’t seen as subversive. Elder Otterson acknowledges that this is a serious question and believes the Brethren welcome this type of discussion as they seek to understand the concerns of the members. He also advised women that matters of personal concern, as long as they are not "worthiness" issues, can be voiced privately to faithful Relief Society Presidency members and other local leaders, who in turn could not only offer counsel, but could be invited to accompany a sister to see a bishop or a stake president in some circumstances. There are some exceptional circumstances in which a sister might feel awkward about discussing a personal concern one-on-one with a male bishop or stake president without another female present.

Criticism 3: By not engaging with the more extreme groups, the Church –- and Public Affairs in particular -- is not acting as Christ would. Elder Otterson addresses two separate issues here:

-- First, in response to doubters and skeptics who think LDS Public Affairs goes off the reservation at times, he clearly states that Public Affairs does not "freelance", noting that for Public Affairs to initiate or take a position inconsistent with the views of those who preside over the Church is simply unthinkable. He explains that as managing director of Public Affairs, he works under the direct supervision of two members of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles, two members of the Presidency of the Seventy, and the Presiding Bishop.

-- Second, he responded to criticism by some progressive Mormons and Mormon feminists who were upset because LDS Church public affairs representatives recently conducted a 90-minute video conference with leaders of Mormon Women Stand, an online group supporting the church’s priesthood stance, while rejecting similar talks with Ordain Women, the grass-roots organization pushing for female ordination. Elder Otterson effectively addressed this issue without mentioning either group by name, stating "there are a few people with whom Public Affairs and general authorities do not engage, such as individuals or groups who make nonnegotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the church can’t possibly accept. No matter what the intent, such demands come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion". Ordain Women have repeatedly stated they will be satisfied with only one outcome -- women's ordination, so the LDS Church would be foolish to parley with those whose minds are made up in advance.

Besides, how do you talk to someone like Gina Colvin who says "It is a given that women aren’t equal to men in the Church -- and any argument that brawls with this fact is a nonsense."? She's shut down dialog before it can even begin. Elder Otterson decries this lack of civility:

Occasionally, as we have seen in recent weeks on some feminist blogs, those who are spokespeople for the Church and therefore are required to put their names out in the public square find themselves in the crosshairs of critics. Sometimes those critics are highly cynical and make things personal. In recent weeks, I have seen some of our staff ridiculed by some feminist commentators, called disingenuous or, worse, accused of lying.

Our people are professionals and they have borne this with charity, good grace and without the slightest complaint. I don’t believe for a minute that these strident voices represent a significant proportion of LDS women, or even of those Church members who describe themselves as feminists.

Reaction: Some of the more prominent sources have posted their responses (after the jump):

LDS Church Asks Ordain Women Feminists Not To Crash The Priesthood Session Of The April 2014 General Conference

The 184th Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is at hand. It will kick off on Saturday March 29th, 2014 at 6:00 P.M. MDT with the General Women's Meeting, which this year is a combined meeting for all females eight years of age and older, and will culminate with the customary general sessions and priesthood session during the weekend of April 5-6. There are persistent rumors that the Church may announce a modification of the temple wedding policy during this Conference; to wit, that the one year waiting period between a civil marriage and a temple marriage may be eliminated in North America.

Unfortunately, the feminist activists of Ordain Women want to upstage the Conference with their selfish agenda once again. They propose to line up before the all-male Priesthood Session on Saturday April 5th and demand tickets to enter the session. They will begin with opening exercises at City Creek Park at 4:00 P.M., then form up in the standby line outside the Conference Center at 4:30 P.M. to ask for admission tickets. Then, regardless of the outcome, they will reconstitute at City Creek Park. Over 100 of them did this in October 2013 even though LDS authorities told them in advance that they would not be admitted to the Priesthood Session. To their credit, the Ordain Women organizers intend to rigorously police the conduct of activists; they will not permit their people to display signs, vent any anti-Mormon tirades, and they ask activists to dress in Sunday best. The official Ordain Women spokespersons are identified as Kate Kelly, April Young Bennett, Debra Jenson, Suzette Smith, Chelsea Shields Strayer, Hannah Wheelwright, and Lorie Winder.

The LDS Church has fired back. According to the Deseret News, LDS spokeswoman Jessica Moody sent a letter to Ordain Women accusing them of intractability and saying that their activities detract from the helpful discussions that Church leaders have held as they seek to listen to the thoughts, concerns, and hopes of women inside and outside of Church leadership. Moody reminded the group that ordination of women to the priesthood is a matter of doctrine that is currently contrary to the Lord’s revealed organization for His church, and suggested that if they really felt like they needed to make a public statement, they should reconsider their current plans to demonstrate and instead assemble at one of the free-speech zones outside Temple Square. The full letter is published at the end of this post, after the jump.

Kate Kelly quickly responded. She tried to put a positive spin on the Church's letter by characterizing it as a sign that the Church is willing to continue the dialogue. But she rejected the notion of diverting her group to the free speech zones, saying "We feel as faithful, active Mormon women we have nothing in common with people who oppose the church and want to protest against it. The church is its members. We aren't against the church, we are the church." Kelly takes umbrage at the thought of being linked with the customary anti-Mormon protestors in the free speech zones, saying that they're out to destroy the Church, and Ordain Women does not share that goal.

Prognosis: By their response, the LDS Church clearly indicates they would rather not subject these women to disciplinary councils. By suggesting the free speech zones as an alternative, the Church clearly respects Ordain Women's First Amendment rights to advocate for their cause. However, if Ordain Women chooses to line up for tickets, they are doing so against specific counsel; their actions can be interpreted as being in open rebellion against the Church, and they will jeopardize their membership. There is no way the Church could let it go, particularly after excommunicating Denver Snuffer and Brent D. Larsen under more sketchier pretexts. It is interesting that the Ordain Women activists want to stubbornly impose their minority opinion upon a 15-million member church rather than consider transferring to another church which confers priesthood upon women, such as the Community of Christ.

Unofficial LDS Reaction: Lining up in support of Ordain Women is Feminist Mormon Housewives and Approaching Justice. April Young Bennett posted additional support on The Exponent.

In support of the Church's position is Millennial Star, where Geoff B. notes that while the Ordain Women movement has garnered a total of 2,076 “likes” on its Facebook page, a counter-movement started last week called “Mormon Women Stand” already has 2840 “likes” with hundreds being added every day. A brief but eloquent statement of support for the Church's position is also posted on Rains Came Down. Public comments to media outlets such as KSL Channel 5 are mostly supportive of the Church.

Kate Kelly Won't Face Church Discipline For Her Ordain Women Activities; Too Bad Denver Snuffer Didn't Have The Same Stake President

I fully expected Ordain Women's founder Kate Kelly to face a disciplinary council over her effort to seek admission to the General Conference Priesthood Session on October 5th, 2013. Because she chose to seek admission even after she was told by Church authorities that she and her group would not be admitted, I interpreted that as an act of open rebellion against duly constituted Church authority.

However, Sister Kelly's local priesthood chain of command in Washington DC does not share that perspective. Kelly states that while she was called in by her bishop and stake president to explain her actions, she was told she was not facing any disciplinary action. Furthermore, she states that her priesthood chain of command told her they were not ordered to call her in by senior Church authorities, and that the senior leadership is not contemplating a crackdown on Ordain Women activists.

The money shot from Sister Kelly's post on Feminist Mormon Housewives:

The most important, immediate takeaways from my encounter with leadership were:

1) They explicitly and emphatically assured me that I was not facing any type of disciplinary action for my founding of, and participation in, Ordain Women.

2) They told me there was no directive from any area authority or higher-level Church leader instructing them to meet with me, interview me or punish me in any way. Hence, they assured me when I asked, there is no concerted effort on the part of the Church to “crack down” on members of Ordain Women or target us specifically for our unequivocal calls for female ordination.

Clearly the power dynamic was not balanced, but I came away from the meeting feeling proud and satisfied. While they do not agree with me, I felt I spoke clearly and the discussion was a productive one. My friend Suzette, and my dad also recently met with their leaders. They both discussed their Ordain Women participation with candor and had their temple recommends renewed.

Other commenters to the post indicate they also haven't faced any excommunication threats. So if Kate Kelly's activism passes muster with her local leadership, that would seem to settle the issue. The Church has set a newer and more flexible standard as to what constitutes acceptable public disagreement with Church policy by members.

Too bad Denver Snuffer didn't have the same stake president. Unlike Kate Kelly, Snuffer never led any public protests; his book, Passing The Heavenly Gift, was deemed by Church authorities to denigrate all LDS presidents since Joseph Smith. I can offer two reasons as to why Denver Snuffer was treated more harshly than Kate Kelly:

(1). Stake presidents enjoy considerable autonomy to run their fiefdoms with minimal interference. The Church chooses not to micromanage their stake presidents, reflecting Joseph Smith's old mantra "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves". The First Presidency upheld the excommunication of Denver Snuffer on appeal.

(2). Unlike Kate Kelly, Denver Snuffer also held the priesthood. Because the priesthood confers additional authority and responsibility, a bearer of the priesthood incurs additional accountability. Thus Snuffer's stake president must have concluded that Snuffer, as a priesthood holder, should be judged by a higher and harsher standard than an ordinary member. This is implied by Doctrine & Covenants 121:36 which states, in part, "...the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness".

Is Ordain Women Organizer Kate Kelly Guilty Of Apostasy? Feminism Becoming Incompatible With Mormonism

The actions by Ordain Women during the 183rd Semiannual General Conference continue to generate considerable backlash from believing Mormons. And one woman pulls no punches about her attitude. Jenny Hatch, the editor of The Natural Family Blog, lets 'em have it right between the eyes. She reproves with major-league "sharpness".

Most impressively, Jenny Hatch is wise to the true agenda of the Mormon feminist movement:

I believe this group of activist women are an organized cabal of professionally trained leftist agitators who have been tasked with doing a well publicized stunt in order to be excommunicated so they can then then whine to the media for the next twenty years about how evil and patriarchal the church is, having put their Feminist beliefs on the line and paid the seemingly ultimate sacrifice. I just wonder how much money they have been paid to do it…

I have quietly observed Joanna Brooks well timed book rollout, her many blog posts, media appearances, book tours, and I even attended her lecture on the campus of SUU [Southern Utah University] last fall. She is a statist progressive who has no clear understanding of the basic doctrines of the church.

She is someone who believes her agenda of ordaining women to the Priesthood will “shape” the future of the Faith I love.

And I am here to tell you, “No, it will not”.

In her post today [October 7th] she made it clear they are just getting started as a group.

She hits the nail on the head; the fact that Kate Kelly is a "human rights lawyer" from Washington DC is no coincidence. Feminism is divisive, corrosive, inherently anti-male, blaming men for all the sins of the universe, past, present, and future. In fact, one non-Mormon preacher, John Hagee, once suggested that feminism could be considered witchcraft, defining witchcraft as the unrighteous control over someone through manipulation or intimidation for the purposes of domination (scroll down to Hagee on Feminism). Feminism actually cultivates and enshrines female victimhood by encouraging vulnerable women to blame men and patriarchy for their problems instead of taking their share of responsibility for problem-solving. And although some "sensitive" men may go into "Uncle Tim" mode and identify with feminists as a reflection of Stockholm Syndrome, most men and are put off by feminism because they want to remain men and don't think they should have to walk on eggshells in their own homes or in church.

However, it might be a mistake to condemn all 150 of the activists who showed up at Temple Square on October 5th as apostates. Not all are equally culpable; many have been misled and have become deluded. It is only the leadership of this group that could really be considered as "sinning against the light". On The Millennial Star, LDS Philosopher articulates a good distinction between heresy and apostasy. He suggests that while heresy is limited to thought alone, apostasy takes place when the "heretic" promotes that heresy publicly. To wit:

In short, if you have a different opinion, if you disbelieve certain core Church teachings, you are fully welcome to worship with us. It’s ok to have questions and doubts. That doesn’t make you a bad Mormon. We want you with us. But when you start to publish opinions that directly contradict the established teachings of the Church, and earnestly try to persuade others to believe such an opinion, you are engaging in apostasy. For example, if you believe that same-sex activity is not sinful, you might be a heretic, and that’s ok. We can accept you. We will try and teach you, but we will embrace you with open arms and fellowship nonetheless. If you publish a book about it, or write a blog post about it, in which you try to convince others that the established teachings of the Apostles on sexuality are wrong and misguided, you are not longer just a heretic — you are an apostate.

According to the 2010 Church Handbook of Instructions Volume 1 (not officially available online), it is not heresy that's actionable, but apostasy. According to paragraph 6.7.3, apostasy is one of the transgressions mandating a disciplinary council. Here's how the Church defines it:

Apostasy. As used here, apostasy is used to refer to members who:

(1). Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church and its leaders.

(2). Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

(3). Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

(4). Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Unlike other transgressions like murder, rape, and incest, which mandate excommunication as the only outcome, the CHI does not mandate excommunication as the only outcome for an apostasy trial. Thus a stake court may consider the full range of actions from formal probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication.

While Kate Kelly is certainly not guilty of items (2), (3), and (4), she comes close to the line on Item 1. Even after she was told in advance by the Church that women would not be admitted to the Priesthood Session, she and her cohorts chose to go to Temple Square and seek admission. This is more than just apostasy; this constitutes open rebellion against the Church leadership, and even if there's no track record of Kate Kelly doing this "repeatedly", it certainly warrants a response by her local Church leadership in Washington DC. At the very least, her bishop and/or stake president should call her in and ask her to explain her actions. In fact, some of the Ordain Women activists have already been called in by their bishops to explain their participation, although Kelly herself claims her local leadership has been supportive. Whether it would escalate into a full-blown disciplinary council would depend upon her response. If Kate Kelly's act of open rebellion goes unexamined, this could encourage more rebellion. Denver Snuffer's so-called "apostasy" pales by comparison.

Feminism is growing more and more incompatible with Mormonism with each passing day.

LDS Church Stands Strong Against Radical Feminists; Backlash Erupts Against Ordain Women's Plan To Crash The Priesthood Session Of The LDS General Conference

The plan by Ordain Women to crash the Saturday evening Priesthood session of the 183rd Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has bumped up against a big STOP sign by the Church itself and a growing manifestation of backlash by rank-and-file Church members. The LDS Church plans to stand strong and refuse admittance to these radical feminists. Here's the full statement released on September 24th by the LDS Church:

"It is the hope of the Church that the Priesthood session will strengthen the men and young men including fathers and sons, and give them the opportunity to gather and receive instruction related to priesthood duties and responsibilities, much the same way parallel meetings are held for sisters, such as the general Relief Society meeting. It's for these reasons that tickets for the Priesthood session are reserved for men and young men and we are unable to honor your request for tickets or admission".

Good response. Just as the women have the right to their own meeting, so we men likewise have an equal right to our own meeting. Diversity and equality do not require that everything be equally kaleidoscopic. The fact that the First Presidency shows up at both the General Relief Society Meeting and the General Young Women Meeting doesn't make these meetings any less of "women's meetings"; the First Presidency is merely exercising their obligation to preside over the Church when they show up at the women's meetings. The women's meetings are actually conducted by the respective women's presidencies themselves.

However, the LDS Church did try to address Ordain Women's concerns part way by also announcing that for the first time, the Priesthood Session will be broadcast live on television and online on BYUtv, as well as on LDS.org and the Mormon Channel. However, the announcement may have come too late for cable companies to pick up the additional broadcast; check Bonneville.info to see if your cable company has added the Priesthood broadcast. In the past, the Priesthood session was only broadcast live from the Conference Center in Downtown Salt Lake via satellite to LDS stake centers and the Tabernacle on Temple Square, although the session eventually appeared on Conference archives and transcripts of talks published in the Ensign magazine. Mormon Momma believes the two announcements are related, and they could be right.

In response, representatives of Ordain Women said they still plan to wait in the standby line at the Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City for tickets to the session. One of the lead organizers, Kate Kelly, who is also a so-called "international rights lawyer" from Washington DC, sees this as a continuation of them asking, seeking and knocking, and demonstrating their willingness to receive the priesthood and to accept the responsibilities that come with it.

Feminist Mormon Women Plan To Crash The LDS General Conference Priesthood Session For Political Reasons; Where Are The Disciplinary Councils Now?

According to a post on Feminist Mormon Housewives, the group Ordain Women plan to crash the Priesthood Session of the upcoming 183rd Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

They do plan to be dignified about it, however. On Saturday, October 5th, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. MDT, they plan to meet at City Creek Park and walk over the the Conference Center together. The women and their so-called "male allies" will form up in the standby line in order to gain admittance to the Priesthood Session. If they are admitted, they will celebrate this "historical achievement" by attending the Priesthood Session together. Afterwards, they will reconstitute at City Creek Park to speak to the public about the outcome. At this meeting, Ordain Women will also make a public statement continuing their unequivocal call for complete equality and the ordination of Mormon women. The possibility of a full-blown media circus exists. How many will show up? As of this post, 126 people have posted their intent to participate on the Ordain Women Facebook Page, with another 67 saying Maybe.

Despite their protestations to the contrary, these people are not doing this because of an honest desire to serve the Lord. Their real motivation is obvious -- to turn Priesthood ordination into a political football, sow hate and dissension within LDS ranks, and inflict damage upon the Church. On FMH, Rah writes "I predict that the conversation will be hard, messy and in some sad cases pit mother against daughter, wife against husband, friend against friend." This is NOT the way our Savior works; this is the way of Satan. Unfortunately, Ordain Women is also leading astray some fundamentally honest but frustrated women who have been persuaded that ordination of women could "double the power of God in one day". Notice there is no corresponding group of men planning to crash the General Relief Society Meeting to be held on Saturday September 28th. The LDS Church needs to politely but assertively lay the smack down on these women and refuse them entrance.

If Ordain Women does indeed try to carry this out, the leaders of this group also need to be hauled before disciplinary councils and tried for their Church membership. If Denver Snuffer, who has consistently expressed love and loyalty towards the Church and the Gospel, was worthy of excommunication, then excommunication of these insurgents is FAR MORE JUSTIFIED. A commenter on Pure Mormonism noted the double standard between the treatment meted out to Denver Snuffer and that accorded to dissident Mormon feminists.

LDS Church Continues Counteroffensive Against Radical Feminism; Elder M. Russell Ballard Speaks At BYU Devotional

Conscious of the fact that radical feminism has gained a foothold among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Church launched a counteroffensive against radical feminism which actually began during the April 2013 General Conference. And on August 20th, 2013, Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve served as the Church's latest point man when he delivered an address at a devotional attended predominantly by females at BYU-Provo. The occasion was this year’s BYU Campus Education Week. The transcript of speech will eventually be archived HERE, and the video is available HERE beginning at the 21-minute point.

Taylor Street does a fine job summarizing Elder Ballard's speech on The Digital Universe. Elder Ballard's objective was to confront the false preconceived notions of women’s roles within the Church often voiced by journalists and non-Mormons. Most importantly. Elder Ballard expressed five key points to provide a proper perspective about the roles of women in the Church:

(1). Our Heavenly Father created both man and woman, and that gender is eternal. Of course, this statement will be difficult for those with gender identity disorders to digest, but the bottom line is your sexual identity is signified by your genitalia. Gender identity disorders could simply be another of those challenges some chose to accept prior to mortality, which is why the Church launched a campaign to remind members to behave in a more Christ-like and inclusive fashion towards those with gender identity issues.

(2). The LDS Church is the Lord’s church, governed by leaders with divine priesthood power. Elder Ballard said both men and women are essential to the priesthood; it cannot work successfully without both men and women. But he specifically cautioned women “not assume a role that is not yours” by encroaching on priesthood roles. The latter is undoubtedly a subtle response to the Ordain Women movement.

(3). Although men and women’s roles differ, God doesn’t view one or the other as more important. "Equal" doesn't mean "identical"; it can mean "complementary". And no man can achieve exaltation in the celestial kingdom without a woman by his side, nor can a woman achieve the same status without a man. This would explain why in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12, the Apostle Paul states "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God".

(4). Both men and women are endowed by the same priesthood power and subsequently have equal access to priesthood keys, even though only men get ordained. The fact that only men get ordained may very well increase their level of accountability.

(5). Women are counseled to learn and understand the doctrine of the gospel, allowing them to bear testimony in a complex, troubling world. The answers to many of the issues can be found not only in the scriptures, but in the writings of previous Church presidents. A thorough understanding of Gospel principles will assure people that no blessing denied to someone in this world through no personal fault will be forever withheld; the blessing will be offered in the next world. This is why we perform proxy ordinances for the dead in our temples. We are also not expected to become perfect in this life, but merely to learn how to conquer sin.

In closing, Elder Ballard bore his testimony of the importance of women in the Church. “Sisters, your sphere of influence is one of unique spirit, one that cannot be duplicated by men,” Ballard said. “No one can defend our Savior with anymore persuasion and power than you. … The Church needs your voices now more than ever.”

Reaction: The only reaction so far has been posted on Feminist Mormon Housewives, which is not representative of mainstream LDS opinion. Many of the women who post there are pretty far gone; not only do they believe the LDS Church is a "patriarchy", but some believe patriarchy is inherently evil. Three comments capture the variety of opinion (after the jump):

LDS Church Officially Responds To The "Ordain Women" Initiative; Most LDS Women Still Do Not Support Female Ordination

Although the Ordain Women initiative has been previously presented and discussed on this blog, the mainstream media has launched a fresh wave of publicity. Just today, the San Jose Mercury-News published a story which was first published by the Salt Lake Tribune on April 3rd, 2013. And the story contains official reaction from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You can visit the Ordain Women website HERE.

It appears the LDS Church does not view the Ordain Women initiative as heresy or apostasy at this time, and it is unlikely that the people who submitted a supportive profile will face any disciplinary councils. LDS spokeswoman Jessica Moody issued the following statement:

"The worth of a human soul is not defined by a set of duties or responsibilities. In God's plan for his children, both women and men have the same access to the guidance of his spirit, to personal revelation, faith and repentance, to grace and the atonement of his son, Jesus Christ, and are received equally as they approach him in prayer. But a male-only priesthood was established by Jesus Christ himself, and is not a decision to be made by those on Earth."

This is a smart and sensible reaction, because the Ordain Women movement is proceeding cautiously. They are not advocating that priesthood be extended to women independent of revelation. Kate Kelly, one of Ordain Women's founders who is a lifelong Mormon who served a full-time mission and who is also an international human rights lawyer in Washington, D.C., said "We sustain the prophet and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and ask them to prayerfully consider this change. We believe that what we are doing demonstrates our faith in the gospel." The key is that she sustains the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, which deflects concerns about apostasy.

To support her contention, Kelly points to a 2011 self-reported survey of about 3,000 Mormons who no longer believe in the church that found 63 percent of all women and 70 percent of single women cited gender issues as being the primary reason for their loss of faith. However, the key is that her referenced survey was limited to those Mormons who no longer believe in the Church; in contrast, in a survey of U.S. religion by Robert Putnam and David Campbell, who published "American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us" in 2010, they reported that 90 percent of ALL LDS women opposed female ordination in the Church, while only 52 percent of LDS men were against it. So it appears that Kate Kelly is more concerned about doubters and skeptics than about mainstream Mormons. The Mormon Women Project, which showcases diverse, talented and strong LDS women, is not enthused about the Ordain Women initiative because they are uncomfortable with movements that take on the church as a whole, and fear that overreaching will kill any influence LDS women already have on Church direction.

So long as Ordain Women sustains the "Brethren", and does not solicit or support diatribes against the LDS Church, I see no reason to question their worthiness, although they will have to remain vigilant against feminist manipulation. A repeat of the 1993 purge of the "September Six" would not be in our best interests.

Some pertinent comments to the Mercury-News story (after the jump):

The Ugly Truth About Feminism: Confronting, Combatting, And Preempting Feminism Within The LDS Community:

Mormon feminists strive to sanitize their worldview as much as possible. On The Exponent, the feminists there seem more willing to engage and persuade rather than bully and intimidate; one usually goes away from that blog educated rather than enraged.

The same cannot be said for Feminist Mormon Housewives. Despite weak protestations to the contrary, they enrage far more often than they educate. And some of them even maintain that men can be feminists (such men are often referred to as "Uncle Tims"). On June 30th, they present a post from their folk heroine Joanna Brooks, considered an intellectual calendar girl by Mormon progressives. Entitled "Ask Mormon Girl: Should Women Be Ordained? Or Do They Already Hold the Priesthood?", Brooks in her post seems to advocate for priesthood power for women in everything but in name. This, of course, is the same strategy employed by the gay rights lobby when they initially agitated for "civil unions", which proved to be a ploy to soften us up for gay marriage.

The video embedded below reveals what feminism seems to be really all about -- POWER! The person who uploaded the video embedded below to YouTube wrote "Feminism is interesting. Ask any feminist about men and almost immediately their true nature comes to the fore. Mention anything about Male advocacy and see how fast they shame you, abuse you or turn to the pig swill that is their 'belief system' no matter how much information or unbiased studies you put forth, their feelings are more important than your pesty logic ever will be".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EakCqdkSoPs



At one time, feminism was a means to an end rather than an end unto itself. Feminists like Susan B. Anthony worked for important reforms such as obtaining the right to vote for women rather than obsess with wearing pants to church. But modern feminism is different. At its core, modern feminism is divisive, corrosive, inherently anti-male, blaming men for all the sins of the world, past, present, and future. Modern feminism could even be considered a form of witchcraft, defining witchcraft as the unrighteous control over someone through manipulation or intimidation for the purposes of domination.

Feminism promotes tunnel vision through its exclusionary theology and liturgy. Feminists believe that women always have and always will be victims. Feminists promote the false and divisive doctrine of male privilege, in which even a male earning a mere $50,000 per year is considered to be inherently privileged over a female CEO earning millions. Basically, male privilege is the flip side of male supremacy. Feminists complain about so-called "male gaze", expecting that men will ignore their biology and quit looking at women. In short, feminism defies human nature itself. And in her book "Men On Strike", Helen Smith documents the negative consequences of feminism, such as the financial traps of marriage and fatherhood, family courts which hold men financially liable even for children conceived by women who falsely claimed to be using birth control, colleges which deny the presumption of innocence for men accused of sexual misbehavior, and the growing presumption that male sexuality is a scary disease, all of which are driving men away from women.

The Doctrine & Covenants tells us men how to most effectively combat feminism. Ideally, we can preempt it by responsible, equitable, and Christ-like behavior towards women. While Section 121, verses 34 through 43, sets the overall context, pay particularly close attention to verses 36, 37, and 41-43:

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to cfight against God.

39 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.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

The will and word of the Lord is crystal clear. When a man uses his priesthood to exercise unrighteous control and dominion over a woman, particularly his wife, mother, or daughter, he has crossed the line from priesthood to priestcraft. Priestcraft is the Satanic counterfeit of priesthood; having damned himself for eternity because of open rebellion, Satan has become more subtle and is now a master counterfeiter who can even masquerade as an angel of light. When man exchanges priesthood for priestcraft, the heavens become as brass until he gets his mind and heart right. Furthermore, "sharpness" as described in verse 43 does NOT mean abusiveness or anger; it means clarity. Cut straight to the chase and allow the other person a full opportunity for explanation and self-defense. A husband may preside over his family, but he rules WITH his wife.

Equal opportunity is irreconcilable with equal outcome.

Equality of value does not require equality of status.

The best antidote to feminism is the righteous exercise of priesthood power and authority.

Mormon Female Equality: "Privilege" Doctrine Stereotypes Groups, Promotes Class Warfare, Induces False Guilt, And Discourages Personal Responsibility

An interesting post entitled "Getting at the Heart of the Female Equality Debate" was published on New Cool Thang on May 11th, 2013. In his post, DavidF identifies three categories of equality central to the equality debate with LDS ranks: Responsibility Equality, Recognition Equality, and Theology Equality. His conclusion is that while there is theological equality, there is a certain amount of responsibility inequality, and an even more pronounced recognition inequality, where in the latter, young men get more public recognition in church for their accomplishments than young women. DavidF chooses to defer judgment on these equalities for a future post.

But what's just as interesting is the old "privilege" arguments that break out in the comments section. It starts with this comment:

Comment by Howard — May 12, 2013 @ 8:22 am:
Men and women are different. Women and men are the same. Both statements are true! The simplified model I like to use to visualize this is a male bell curve and a female bell curve. These curves overlap arguing sameness but this also means there are areas of non-overlap arguing differences. The overlapping curves also account for reversed traditional role relationships.

Defining equality isn’t necessary to see that women are clearly one down in church practice or that there is a pecking order to women’s roles with SAHM on top just under married men, and it cascades downward to include working mothers, single mothers, never marrieds etc.

Chances are if you’re in a faithful SAHM marriage you’ll have a lot of trouble appreciating the position of single women in the church and the fact that a woman prayed in GC for the first time in 182 years won’t carry much meaning for you because privilege bias tends to eclipse empathy and because when the brethren speak there’s nothing more to consider.

In response to a comment by Naismith protesting that the "privilege" argument is a stereotype, Howard posts this response:

Comment by Howard — May 13, 2013 @ 11:32 am:
Naismith,
In order to see my observations and those of others simply compare your SAHM church status (past or present, it doesn’t matter) with that of a never married women. Your preferred parking spot is literally any chair you choose in any meeting you attend. Why? Because an overwhelming number of lessons and talks are geared to and will speak to and revere your role (past or present) as a SAHM and only a tiny portion of a few lessons or talks will even mention her situation let alone offer something that will positively resonate with her. Not only is she left out, but due to her faith in the gospel she is compelled to painfully sit through the reality of her less than SAHM position reenforced over and over by the church and church members she otherwise loves.

(Still haven’t figured out what that so-called privilege does for one…) It provides a comforting high status social position in an exclusive club and the fact that you cannot see that speaks to my original comment.

There are four distinct problems with "privilege" doctrine:

(1). Privilege doctrine promotes profiling and stereotyping: All members of a particular class are presumed to be equally privileged simply because of who they are, regardless of any other differentiating circumstances. This is no different -- and no less destructive -- than presuming that all Blacks are lazy, all Latinos are illegal immigrants, or all Polynesians are temperamental. Furthermore, proponents of "privilege" doctrine try to quash debate by claiming that many of them are "unaware" of their privilege. This runs contrary to the spirit and intent of the Second Article of Faith, which implies that a man is not responsible for any sins that he doesn't personally commit.

Male privilege? I see males standing on street corners throughout Anchorage holding up signs that say "Will Work For Food". They don't strike me as being very "privileged". If that's "privilege", then I am profoundly grateful I don't enjoy that "privilege", and instead am "cursed" with the disadvantages of a roof over my head, food in my belly, and a steady income.

(2). Privilege doctrine promotes class warfare. Those subject to an endless barrage of privilege propaganda who are not a part of the "privileged" group will begin to feel resentment toward those who are part of the group. Left unchecked, it can lead to vigilantiism, vengeance, and full-blown genocide. In Nazi Germany, Jews were presented as being "privileged", but not only did the National Socialist government fail to stop it, they poured gasoline on the fire through staged events such as "Kristallnacht". The Holocaust was the end result. In the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin targeted the "kulaks" as a privileged group; the Holodomor was the result. The genocides in Rwanda and Burundi were also fueled by one group of people believing the other group was "privileged". While the vast majority of privilege proponents do not desire the genocide of a privileged group, once you set these types of events in motion, they tend to run their course.

(3). Privilege doctrine induces false guilt. Many of those in a privileged group take offense to being told they are "privileged" despite other variations. As a result, they begin to feel guilty about their so-called "advantages". But this is a false guilt, because it is guilt over who they are rather than what they've done. And this attracts the attention of Satan and his hosts, who exploit this vulnerability as an opportunity to make people even more miserable. "Privilege" doctrine resulted in the civil rights movement being hijacked and steered away from equality, and more in the direction of identity-based spoils system which promote identity at the expense of merit. An example of this is in the U.S. Air Force, where in order to maintain the "right" number of females, the physical fitness tests for females are less stringent than those for males, although males and females perform the same missions.

(4). Privilege doctrine discourages personal responsibility. When non-privileged groups are constantly subjected to a barrage of privilege propaganda, they begin to conclude they are not responsible for their personal situation. They will start blaming their problems on "The Man" or "ZOG", even if they are still in control of their own destinies.

Proponents of privilege doctrine like to cite economic statistics showing that Whites and males make more money to "prove" their points. But what they are citing is correlation, and correlation doesn't always constitute proof. The bottom line: Privilege doctrine is based upon assumptions; there are no objective or empirical smoking guns showing proof beyond reasonable doubt that all males are privileged or all Whites are privileged. Privilege doctrine runs counter to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; Galatians 3:28 states, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all bone in Christ Jesus".

This does not mean individual identity is not important. It simply means that to effectively mirror Jesus Christ, we must consider individual identity to be secondary in importance to common identity in the Gospel.

Mormon Feminists Claim To Want To Protect Women Against Objectification And Sexualization, But Don't Condemn Female Sexual Predation

Mormon feminists are constantly crying about the objectification and sexualization of women in modern society. Yet on the two leading LDS feminist blogs, Feminist Mormon Housewives and The Exponent, I can't recall the last time I've seen condemnation of those female sexual predators who undermine legitimate efforts to protect women against exploitation. In particular, I speak of the growing epidemic of predation against male students by female teachers in our public schools.

The Daily Mail carries yet another story about female predation. On April 18th, 2013, in a story entitled "Two female Long Island teachers pulled from classroom for inappropriate contact with football player and wrestler", the Mail reports that two female Long Island teachers, Donna Newton-McNally, 41, and Melanie Akerberg, 33, who are both married, allegedly carried on with a wrestler and a football player at Sachem High School North. The two are now being investigated by Long Island district officials. The girlfriend of one of the high school students found a suggestive text from a teacher on his phone, after which she alerted the school's principal. As of this post, it has not yet been determined if physical contact occurred.

However, this is merely the tip of the iceberg; the practice of female sexual predation on vulnerable young males is reaching epidemic proportions. Not a week goes by in which there isn't at least one or two similar stories posted on the Daily Mail. On April 17th, the Mail reported that Manhattan Theatre Lab HS teacher Julie Warning, 26, was fired earlier this year over a May 2012 fling with her 18-year-old pupil, Eric Arty. It was not reported if Warning was married. Department of Education officials did not reveal this to the media until April 16th. And also on April 17th, the Daily Mail reported that Jeanine Shimandale, a married 42-year-old woman from Bradenton, Florida, is now facing four counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor after she allegedly plied two boys, aged 13 and 17, with cake-flavored vodka and then had sex with them while three other teens watched. To add insult to injury, Shimandale allegedly threatened to hire a hit man to kill anyone who spoke of what happened between her and the teens.

What the heck is it with all these married woman who find it necessary to stray? Don't they understand that one of the purposes of marriage is to procreate with your spouse, and ONLY WITH YOUR SPOUSE? What's so hard about that to figure out?

Of course, I condemn the same behavior when men engage in it. But feminism isn't about men; it's about women. Yet instead of exposing and condemning female sexual predation as being detrimental to women's welfare and rights, Mormon feminists actually attack LDS officials who propose ways for women and girls to better protect themselves against sexual predation. Case in point: When former LDS Young Women General President Elaine Dalton gave her "Guardians of Virtue" talk back in March 2011, when she specifically said "Young women, in a world ever growing in moral pollution, tolerance of evil, exploitation of women, and distortion of roles, you must stand guard of yourself, your family, and all those with whom you associate...you must be guardians of virtue", Feminist Mormon Housewives immediately witch-hunted her, falsely claiming that she was letting young men off the hook, and that she was implying that if young men cannot control themselves, young women are responsible for any consequences that result from sending these sexually explicit text messages to young men. Never mind the fact that Sister Dalton's message was intended to be BENEFICIAL to young women, and that her point was that men and women must be guardians of each other and look out for each other as well.

And in September 2012, Feminist Mormon Housewives also criticized LDS campaigns to promote more female modesty. In response to the Church adding sleeves onto images of adorable young girls and classical angels, FMH complained that is was actually contributing to the sexualization of young girls because, in their opinion, they say that the Church is competing against the "sexy" argument rather than countering it. While it's true that a few Priesthood leaders can obsess with skirt lengths and sleeves from time to time, the objective of modesty campaigns is to convince girls that they don't have to dress like whores to attract worthy males, and that dressing modestly can actually screen out the more lascivious males. Dressing modestly does not require a woman to wrap herself up in a chador like an enchilada. Isn't that what feminists should want?

The fact is, feminists will never stop complaining regardless of what the Church says or does. Feminism is no longer merely a means to an end; it has become an end unto itself replete with a specializd vocabulary and distinctive theology. Men are automatically guilty until they prove themselves innocent, and they can find themselves held guilty all over again without any prior notice. Feminism does not promote female suffrage, but male suffering. For feminism to become credible once again, feminists must be willing to work in partnership with men rather than exclusively in opposition to men. This means condemning female misbehavior which undermines the cause of women. If gun rights is a legitimate topic for FMH to cover, then even more so is female sexual predation.

Moving The Overton Window: Radical Mormon Feminists Launch OrdainWomen Website To Bully The LDS Church Into Extending Priesthood To Women

The mainstream media is now beginning to pick up on a campaign dominated by radical Mormon feminists to pressure the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into ordaining women to the Priesthood even without a revelation. They've launched the OrdainWomen website as their clearinghouse. KSTU Channel 13 has published the earliest story, while the Ogden Standard-Examiner weighs in with an AP story.

Although the timing of this campaign is a bit suspicious, considering it comes hot on the heels of the Pants insurgency and the Let Women Pray campaign, the latest push for LDS women’s ordination came after the Sunstone Foundation’s recent symposium in California, where Mormon and Catholic feminists joined together to talk about women’s roles in their patriarchal churches (read Sunstone's March 21st press release). Mary Ellen Robertson, the executive director of the Sunstone Foundation, said that the primary purpose of the OrdainWomen website is to encourage dialogue, adding that the group wants to know if male-exclusive priesthood is doctrinal, or merely the product of more than a hundred years of tradition. The fact that Jesus Christ selected only men to be his original Twelve Apostles doesn't seem to enter the discussion.

In their FAQ, OrdainWomen makes it clear that their coalition includes many devout Mormon women -- some of who who have contributed countless hours of voluntary service to the LDS Church and view OrdainWomen as a continuation of that faith-affirming service. For that reason alone, I find it premature and inflammatory to trot out the "A-word" (apostate) at this time. But their mission statement does not imply that a revelation through the President of the Church is necessary; they even twist a 1997 statement by the late President Gordon B. Hinckley, when he said “Yes. But there’s no agitation for that”, as justification for their insurgency:

The fundamental tenets of Mormonism support gender equality: God is male and female, father and mother, and all of us can progress to be like them someday. Priesthood, we are taught, is essential to this process. Ordain Woman believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings.

Last year the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed its commitment to equality: “The Book of Mormon states, ‘black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God’ (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.” Ordain Women embraces this statement. We are committed to work for equality and the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

Based on the principle of thoughtful, faith-affirming strategic action, Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormon women to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

Note the lack of a reference to the need for a revelation to change Priesthood eligibility, although they use the term "faith-affirming". However, the initial official reaction by the LDS Church is diplomatic; LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter simply explained, “It is the doctrine of the Church that men and women are equal. The Church follows the pattern of the Savior when it comes to priesthood ordination.” And that pattern was first set when the Savior ordained twelve men to be his first group of apostles.

"Equal" does not always mean "interchangeable". Why is it that only women are allowed the privileges of pregnancy and motherhood? Why is it that the most demanding physical professions are overwhelmingly dominated by men? And why is it that, in order to accommodate more women, the military services have lower physical fitness thresholds for women than men? Those variations prove that men and women were not designed to be totally interchangeable. Equality of value does not always require equality of status.

LDS Church Reportedly To Allow Women To Offer Prayers At Upcoming 183rd Annual General Conference

On March 18th, 2013, the Salt Lake Tribune reports that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made the decision to allow women to offer invocations or benedictions at the four general sessions of the upcoming 183rd Annual General Conference to be held on April 6-7. This would be a first in the Church's 183-year history, even though LDS women leaders have given addresses during General Conference on a recurring basis since 1994. However, Church spokesman Scott Trotter would not confirm or deny the story, saying only that decisions on speakers and prayers at General Conference were made many weeks ago.

The decision follows in the wake of an Internet-based campaign called Let Women Pray in General Conference, in which activists urged Church members to write letters to six high-ranking LDS leaders, including Linda K. Burton, Relief Society president; Elaine S. Dalton, Young Women general president; Rosemary M. Wixom, Primary general president; Jeffrey R. Holland, Quorum of Twelve Apostles; and David F. Evans and Anthony D. Perkins, members of the First Quorum of the Seventy. The drive generated about 1,600 letters from 300 participants; activists personally delivered the letters to the various leaders or their secretaries. One of the 300 letter-writers explained herself in this Tribune comment:

gr8scot • 3 hours ago:
It's about time. My letter was one of those sent. It seems like small potatoes, but this is a big deal for women in this church. Those outside the church probably think it's a pointless endeavour, but to those who want to be believing members, but are frustrated by gender inequality (we all choose our own battles to fight), this is an important change in cultural practice within the church. There has never been an edict against women praying in GC, it's just culturally never been done, or encouraged by our male leaders. Women are a force to be reckoned with. We are no longer just "Mrs. (insert spouse's last name)" or "Sister (spouse's name)" We are finally learning to stand up against incorrect cultural practices that have become the norm in the church, and are showing that we have an identity beyond that of our men.

As expected, preliminary reaction is favorable. Analisa Estrada, a Salt Lake City graphic designer who was one of the organizers of the Let Women Pray campaign, said "I am really excited. It’s the kind of thing that came out of a lot of personal prayers on part of the organizers and the letter writers." Feminist Mormon Housewives almost breaks their arms patting themselves on the back, triumphantly crowing that it means the leaders "read and know about Mormon feminism". But true to their insurgent core, FMH says this is only a small step towards "equality", meaning that they will find something else to yap about. Zelophehad's Daughters, despite also being a feminist-themed LDS blog, has a more restrained reaction, merely posting a short excerpt to the Tribune story. Mormon Momma also expresses pleasure at the decision. The feminists need to avoid hijacking this story; allowing women to offer prayers in Conference is long overdue and is a matter of common sense. We don't need to corrupt it with divisive identity politics.

Despite the fact that women haven't offered prayers at the conference general sessions before, Ardis Parshall, who edits the Keepapitchinin historical blog, wanted to point out that women haven't exactly been silenced in Church history. She notes on Juvenile Instructor that from 1915 to 1970, the Relief Society held its own auxiliary conference for the ladies in the Tabernacle each April and October, several sessions over two days, usually on the days immediately before General Conference or, in April, sometimes in the middle of General Conference. This was not a simple meeting like today’s annual women’s meeting — it was a full conference, with reports from the stakes and instructions from the General Board, with breakout sessions for, say, secretaries or education counselors or musicians or whatever. Primary and YMMIA had their conferences, too, but not so directly tied to General Conference. She adds that while we today may not think that speaking at an even beefed-up Relief Society conference is the equivalent of speaking at General Conference, it may well be that the Saints of the mid-20th century, women and men, considered that planning, directing, speaking at, and participating in the full-scale Relief Society Conference was an adequate, equivalent, and satisfactory involvement of women in the Church’s two great annual conferences.

Primary Sharing Time: One Would Think Feminist Mormon Women Would Be More Supportive Of LDS Modesty Standards For Kids

Is this modest?

On the Post Partum Progression blog, Jewelboxcreek discusses her proposal to discuss modesty during a Sharing Time segment in Primary. The Sharing Time theme for the month of June is "I Choose the Right by Living Gospel Principles", and on Week Four, the specific presentation is "When I dress modestly, I respect my body as a gift from God".

To the basic lesson, Jewelboxcreek proposed some additions. First, she created a story to explain the origin of the modesty standard. She traces it all the way back to Adam and Eve, and notes that the clothing supplied to them by the Lord had sleeves, shirts and that the pants/skirts go to their knees -- or, at least that's the way it is in the representations of them.

Second, Jewelboxcreek proposed to play a game with the Primary class entitled "Modest or Immodest". She would hold up various pictures of kids dressed in various ways, and ask the class to make their best guess. She presents a number of examples in her post. I'll admit that I do not agree with all of her characterizations of immodesty; I don't find the picture of Peter Pan to be immodest. But Jewelboxcreek's heart is in the right place, and maybe a bit of overkill won't hurt.

One would think that Mormon feminists would be amongst her most ardent supporters. After all, feminists constantly chide men for sexually objectivizing women and minimizing their other characteristics. Yes, in some respects, feminists have played a useful role in getting men to take women more seriously. But in a post on Feminist Mormon Housewives entitled "An Open Response Re: Modesty Lessons For Children", Rune expresses some serious misgivings about Jewelboxcreek's method and unintended messages. Like other extremists, feminists are frequently plumbing for "hidden" and "unintended" messages; they often assume the worst about the greater society and project their bad experiences upon everyone else. Here are three interesting points that Rune brings out:

"Teaching concepts of clothing modesty to very young children is problematic for quite a few reasons, especially when our own cultural discourse on modesty is so heavily skewed to mean coverage in order to obscure sexual characteristics and prevent others from viewing us sexually..."

But I thought the objective of feminists was to convince men to view women LESS sexually and pay more attention to other attributes. Which is it -- make up your mind.

"There is a lot of danger in putting pressure and responsibility on children to keep from being inadvertently sexual".

There is also a lot of danger of pedophiles exploiting kids who are inadvertently sexual. The pedophile doesn't really care whether or not it's inadvertent.

"There are lots of ways to teach a child to truly love and respect their bodies without inadvertently giving the impression that parts of it are bad, and need to be hidden away".

I agree with this in part; we shouldn't teach kids that their sacred parts are "naughty bits". But they do need to be "hidden away" so that they don't become the central issue. After all, I always thought that feminists opposed a woman's sexuality being viewed as the central issue.

A comment appended to the post also deserves to be addressed. Type A wrote, in part, "...My (almost) 7 year old was getting dressed on Monday and told me that if you wear a tank top you’re not allowed to go to church. I’m so sad that was the message SHE got, whether or not it was intended. I of course, corrected her and told her that she could wear any clothing that she feels comfortable in and that her father and I feel is appropriate for church". A seven-year-old is old enough to be asked to dress in more traditional worship clothing for church. Although a tank top may be O.K. for a Monday, is would not be appropriate for Sunday services. When we attend church to worship the Lord, we owe Him the best we have. It doesn't have to be a Brooks Brothers suit -- it can be a cheap Mr. Mac missionary suit. But whatever your wardrobe contains, wear the best you have for Sunday services. This is in the tradition of the ancient Israelites, who, when they brought an animal to the priests for sacrifice, brought the best of their herds -- without blemish.

Modesty can also be attractive for adults as well.

There's also another reason why we need to maintain and enforce high standards of modesty for our kids. The media-driven campaign to sexualize our youth is unprecedented. Remember Miley Cyrus? She made a rather abrupt transition from Hannah Montana to a half-dressed pole-dancing pop tart after the manner of Lady Gaga, Christine Aguilera, Rihanna, and Britney Spears. We need to continue offering a clear-cut alternative to those poor role models.

But Jewelboxcreek got a very effective last word at her blog, writing "To the New Order Mormons: the wheat and tares are bundled together for a short season prior to the separation. Enjoy our company while you can". I strongly suspect the father of JonBenet Ramsey might be more sympathetic with Jewelboxcreek than with Feminist Mormon Housewives.

No Place For Goddess Worship In The LDS Church: Discussing The Heavenly Mother Is O.K., But Praying To Her May Be Apostasy

A post on The Exponent has triggered my interest in and response to this subject. The author has launched a poll which asks readers if they feel comfortable exploring a relationship with the Divine Feminine, also known as the Heavenly Mother or Mother in Heaven. Belief in the existence of a Heavenly Mother is part of the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; after all, if it took two parents to create our mortal tabernacles, logic follows that it also took two Parents to create the spirit tabernacles currently housed within our mortal tabernacles. How they came together to create those spirit tabernacles is unknown and inconsequential at this point.

The justification offered for this poll is that the author, Corktree, believes we can neither talk to the Heavenly Mother directly nor discuss Her at length without running the risk of blasphemy. This is only partially true; discussing Her is one thing, but talking to Her directly, known as "praying", is something else altogether. The latter can be construed as "goddess worship".

Another reason for this thinking is that some Mormon feminists are frustrated with the patriarchal system of governance within the LDS Church because of the ineptness and malevolence of imperfect men. Satan has capitalized upon their frustration by convincing them that patriarchy, in and of itself, is evil; he even insinuates that women are second-class citizens in the Church because they don't hold the Priesthood. The fact that these women have rejected Satan in advance is of no consequence to him; under the Divine Rules of Engagement, he gets at least 6,000 years to compete with our Heavenly Father for the attention, affection, and souls of men. Furthermore, Satan is not required to ask our permission before he influences or tempts us; if he sees a vulnerability, he's allowed to exploit it. Satan is even permitted on rare occasion to masquerade as an angel of light. Membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not and cannot guarantee absolute protection against temptation; in fact, it would be contrary to the purposes of mortality for us not to be tempted at some point.

The Bible, in part, defines the limits of our relationship with the Heavenly Mother, if by omission only. In Matthew 6:9, Jesus Christ Himself set the pattern of our prayers, saying "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven...". This means we are to direct prayers to the Father, not to the Son, the Mother, or any other entity.

But in an article entitled "Daughters of God" published in the November 1991 Ensign, a modern-day prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, addressed this issue at greater length, posting numerous additional scriptural references. Here's the applicable part of the article (after the jump):

An Excellent Rebuttal To Mormon Feminism By A Woman On Feminist Mormon Housewives

In the course of researching for another story, I encountered a February 2009 post on Feminist Mormon Housewives entitled "The Man at Women's Conference". Authored by FMH blogmistress FMHLisa, she complains about the fact that women's meetings in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must have at least one male priesthood holder present, but no females are required at men's meetings. An example of this dichotomy takes place at every General Conference; while the meeting for Young Women and/or the Relief Society usually includes a speech delivered by a member of the First Presidency, the General Priesthood Meeting on Saturday night features no speeches by women.

And that dichotomy apparently pisses Lisa off. Lisa was at a Stake Women's Conference, and she noticed the Stake President was also there. She writes, "It isn’t as though after a lifetime of Mormoniness I was surprised by his presiding presence, but my eyes and my mind were drawn to him nonetheless. Wondering at the meaning, both real and symbolic of his presence, and having to make a concerted effort not to feel insulted by or bitter about the implied paternalism of it all".

It turns on she was pre-judging. By her own admission, when the Stake President got up to give the closing remarks, she found that they were by far the most pro-feminist of the evening.

Unfortunately, judgmentalism is characteristic of feminism. Feminists tend to spend more time yowling about what's wrong with men rather than what's right with women. Later in the comments, one more-traditionally minded woman called Lisa out on it:

Comment #78 by Michelle — February 22, 2009 @ 2:53 pm:
My question is why do we as women have to be men too? Doesn’t it degrade our position as women by always whining that it’s not good enough to be a woman and why do the men get to do this and that in the church and women don’t? Like it says in the proclamation to the family that men and women have different roles and that’s the way it should be. Because men preside in the church doesn’t mean they rule and they are higher than us. There aren’t levels. Just differing and complementary roles. When you realize this and learn to find purpose and meaning in your role as a woman rather than always trying to be a man than these kinds of insignificant and perceived slights won’t matter. It doesn’t mean we have to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen all the time to be a woman but it does mean we need to magnify our very important and influential roles as women. Find power in influence in your sphere as a woman, which is by far the most powerful sphere because someone who has a good mother will turn out a whole lot better than someone with a bad mother and a good male stake president.

Bingo! Michelle hit the nail on the head. Our Heavenly Father doesn't focus merely on equality of status; instead, He takes the longer view of equality of value. Get the most out of what you have before you start lusting after more. So how did Lisa respond to this critique?

Comment by fmhLisa — February 22, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
Michelle, the accusations you make, that women (who disagree with you) really want to be men are both silly and false. It’s fine to disagree but I suggest you do so on intelligent and thoughtful actual issues, rather than tired recycled falsehoods.

Basically, she blew Michelle off, arrogantly and sanctimoniously dismissing her concerns rather than attempt to intelligently rebut them. This is characteristic of many feminists -- treat the other side as if they were the enemy. By the way, it is not to be assumed that Lisa's worthiness as a member of the Church is to be called into question just because she promotes feminism -- that is strictly an issue between her and her bishop.

Not all the women posting in the thread are upset about men attending women's conferences. In comment #22, Lu wrote "If you’ll notice in General Conference, the prophet always speaks last — so that he may give his approbation to the meeting and give his blessing to those who are attending/listening. To me it’s the icing on the cake". That's exactly how it's intended -- to be the "icing on the cake".

Why our Heavenly Father has chosen to restrict Priesthood only to men at this time is a question He has not chosen to answer. Perhaps it is a test -- for women, a test of patience and perseverance, and for men, a test of humility and forbearance. Will the women swallow their pride and vain ambition, and make patriarchy work for them? And will the men use the power of Priesthood wisely and justly, and to avoid exercising compulsion and unrighteous dominion? The restriction of Priesthood to men alone may prove to be unique to mortality -- there's no reason to assume it will be that way in the next world.

Women would do well to maximize the power they already have rather than lust after power they may not be ready for, even if there are women in the Church who would make better bishops and stake presidents than some of the men.