The "Ordain Women" movement.

Preamble:
I mentioned recently on my facebook page that this movement, which I've been hearing a lot about despite its relatively small size, is a movement that absolutely frustrates me to no end.  I believe this group is wrong.  It is possible that I am mistaken, and I wish to make that clear from the outset.  I am relying upon the Lord's promise, repeated many times in the scriptures: 3 Nephi 21:12 "...For I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil."  I believe with certainty that He is indeed in charge of His church, leading the destiny of the Saints as individuals and as a church.  Whatever is His will, is ultimately going to be revealed from the head of the church, and that is what I will try to follow.  If, at any point, any opinion I express here is contradicted, "whether by [The Lord's] voice, or by the voice of [His] servants," then I will accept that revelation and seek to add it to my personal testimony.



Body:
Having said all of that, I wish to express why I think this movement is flawed.  I suggest that, before, during, and after this blog post, you read "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." That is much more authoritative than anything I say here, and I hope it guides my thoughts as I write.  Doctrine and Covenants 83:2 reads:
"Women have claim on their husbands for their maintenance, until their husbands are taken..." and I think that fits well with The Family.  That 'claim' that women have on their husbands, incidentally includes a claim on their husband's priesthood.  If you are familiar with the doctrine of the temple, that should bring some things to your mind, I think.

One last, disorganized thing, and then I'll start a list.  I appreciated this blog post on the subject.

With that long preamble out of the way, and a few things for a sort of doctrinal background, let me list a few of the issues I have, from my observation.

1) I have heard from several people (if I remember correctly, one of them a leader of this movement), that some people look at this as a way for women to become leaders in the church.  I would first of all like to say that I think it's ridiculous to say women don't lead in the church--local Relief Society presidencies worldwide accomplish miracles, and the general leaders of the relief society, young women, and primary, are some of the most amazing women in the world.

Let's take some more time on this point, because I have a lot to say.  First of all, I worry that some people might have the sentiment that these women are "limited" to taking care of children and youth.  Whenever I hear any disparaging remark about people who take care of children and youth, I can't help but lose respect for that person.  Children and youth are the future, in its only real sense.  There is maybe no more important thing that we can do, after saving ourselves, than to help save our children.  Women have natural talents and abilities that make them, I believe, better able to fulfill this most important of roles--it is only natural that women, with those talents, should have leadership over the teaching of those children, as in the Primary and Young Women organizations.

Secondly, allow me to ask a question: people want women to have leadership positions, and prominence?  So, if we accept the (false) premise that they don't (aren't Julie B Beck, Pat Holland, Marjorie Pay Hinckley, and even Sheri Dew, prominent in the Church?  Aren't they leaders and examples? No less a source than Wikipedia describes these women as leaders of the LDS church), my next question is, why?  I'm going to be very frank.  What do these women actually want to gain, here?  When have prominence, fame, and leadership ever done any good for any person?  The examples of betterment resulting from those things are scattered throughout history, whereas the vast majority of all history screams, desperate for our attention, that leadership, power, fame, and wealth pointedly do *not* make people better.  "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." (D&C 121, read it all)   President Monson is not good because he is a prophet.  He would never have been chosen to be a prophet if he were not a good, faithful man.  He, and all the Brethren, can lead and have the notoriety that comes with their office only because they were already good men, and the Lord knew He could trust them to not misuse that power.  Go read that whole section in the D&C.  Read also President Packer's classic discourse, The Choice.  The message is, people in leadership positions succeed almost in spite of that leadership.

Consider the following, From a recent general conference talk:
And to the near-perfect elderly sister who almost apologetically whispered recently, “I have never been a leader of anything in the Church. I guess I’ve only been a helper,” I say, “Dear sister, God bless you and all the ‘helpers’ in the kingdom.” Some of us who are leaders hope someday to have the standing before God that you have already attained. (Because of Your Faith, Jeffrey R. Holland, October 2010 General Conference, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/because-of-your-faith?lang=eng)

If you, personally, have ever struggled with not holding a leadership position, please go listen to that talk.  If you have 14 minutes now, or will at any point in the near future, you should stop reading here, and listen to that talk.  What Elder Holland says is of far more worth than anything else I'm going to write. One quick, last thought, this one from my former Elders' Quorum President: "A lack of a call to leadership is not a lack of a call to be a leader."

You don't need any leadership callings to learn everything the Lord wants you to learn in this life, and you can be exalted without having them here on Earth.

2) An official statement of this movement is that all they are asking for is for the leadership of the Church to take this issue up with God in prayer.  While I have no issue with the leadership praying about this, I do have a little bit of an issue with telling the prophet to go tell the Lord to give him a revelation.  I cannot speak for the intent of these people, maybe they are sincere, but I worry that we sometimes have the wrong idea that we can force the prophet to represent us to the Lord.  This is a false idea.  Boyd K. Packer, as quoted by my D&C professor, once said that we do not face the Lord, with the people at our backs telling us what to say; we face the people, with the Lord at our backs, representing Him to the people.

I also want to mention, it frustrates me a little when I hear people make statements like, "we want to make sure they know we want them to pray about it." I sometimes feel like these people are being condescending with the fifteen men who are, as far as I'm concerned, the most in-tune with the Spirit in the entire world.  They are not ignorant of our world and affairs.  They are very active in many areas, and besides that, we accept as doctrine that they receive guidance for the whole church that will lead us out of the perils and dangers that the world faces.  I cannot help but believe that they are acutely aware of practically any major issue, especially one that concerns the members of our church.

3) There is such a thing as going to the Lord and telling Him the answer you want to receive.  We sometimes go, expecting the Lord to give us the answer we want, and frequently, when our mind is so made up, we don't accept any other answer.  I worry that the followers of this movement have done just that--whether they've specifically prayed about it or not, they think they know the right answer.  When they say "we just want the leaders to pray," I hear, "--because we know that if they would just pray about it, they would come around to our side of the issue."  While I am technically putting words in their mouths, I must admit that I don't know how else to read the things they say.  Again, condescension; they seem to me to be saying, "obviously they must not have prayed about it yet, because they haven't agreed with me yet!"  Remember Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, and the lost 116 pages. Verse 4: "...Although a man may have many revelations...if he...follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall."

4) Attending priesthood session--Go!  This has never been an issue.  I've seen women sit in at priesthood sessions before, they were never kicked out.  The talks have always been published in the Ensign, alongside the general relief society broadcast, and the talks are all available online.  Now, the Church has even been so accommodating as to broadcast it live for the first time outside of church buildings--it's so very available now!

Please, before you go and get in the standby line at the Conference Center, consider how very close you are coming to picketing the Church.

Consider further the response given by Ruth Todd to the group that wrote Church Headquarters asking for tickets:

“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,” church spokeswoman Ruth Todd said Tuesday in a letter to the group, "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."

If you were admitted to the priesthood session, you would be taking a seat that would have been filled by one of the people for whom the meeting was intended--you may never know what a blessing it might have been in his life to attend that meeting.  The speakers at that meeting have prayed and fasted and pondered and written and rewritten and received revelation for the men and boys who are supposed to be in attendance, just like those who spoke at the General Relief Society broadcast did for the women and young women in attendance there.  They have received revelation, and I want as many as possible to hear revelation intended for them.

5) On a somewhat less spiritual note, this is a general complaint I have against feminist groups of nearly all kinds, sizes, and organizations; why are we trying so hard to make dissimilar things the same?  I mean, the Church has accepted as doctrine that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." (See The Family).  Our biology and anatomy are different.  Different hormones make us grow in different ways.  Our psychology is different.  We are not the same, and it would be a true pity if we were.  How boring would the world be if everyone was just a slightly different variety of guy?  Think of how much we are trying to encourage diversity, culturally and politically, and imagine how that would change if we just lost one of the most determining and diversifying factors that makes us who we are.

This is more than just a complaint.  What I'm getting at is: in an eternal sense, if we are so different, we must have different parts to play.  Mothers have, in most cases, a stronger bond with their children.  They love and care for them, they feel a special attachment to them.  A woman is spiritually enlarged by the children she bears and rears.  To be honest, I am a little jealous of that.  I want my children to think the world of me, as I already think the world of them before they have even been born.  I want to be every good thing a father can be for my children, but I don't believe that even if I were as good to them as I want to be, I could ever match the closeness of a good, dedicated mother.  But I do have something.  I can be defender and provider in my home, for my wife and kids.  I can preside in my home with the priesthood, and call down the blessings of heaven on my family's behalf with that priesthood.  Let me be as open and vulnerable as I can for a moment; where do I go if my wife has the priesthood?  How am I different from a Peter Griffin or a Homer Simpson if I don't have that uniqueness?  I would feel like my contribution to the most important part of my life was severely diminished if I was somehow replaceable in that way.

I believe that it is the priesthood that allows a man to be his wife's equal, not that a woman needs the priesthood to become man's equal.

Conclusion:
I have labored over this.  I have spent hours.  At several points, I have tried to bear sincere testimony.  I have been open and frank and candid.  I have gone over this time and again, trying to find some angle from which this could be seen as offensive.  I have rewritten things.  I have been as generous as I think I can be without losing the truth about what I feel, and when I've had questions, I have unfailingly erred on the side of caution.  I don't mind sharing this around; rough though some parts may be, I think it will provide food for thought and room for open, honest discussion about the things I have addressed.  However, I want you all to know how much I've put into making this as kind as it can be, and I expect to have respect and courtesy in return.  Please, share your thoughts and feelings, but do so in a manner that will not hurt me or take lightly my feelings.  I deserve at least that much respect for the amount of effort I have put into this.

Thank you for reading; it makes me feel good to have page counts.  Please, don't think I don't want conversation; any civil conversation is encouraged and welcomed.  If you wish to talk about this with me, know that I regularly check my comments.

All my best,
Brett