Traditional or Questioning?
For the last few months, the Bloggernacle has been rife with stories about the Ordain Women Movement, a group that seeks to have The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints change its longstanding policy of only ordaining men to specific offices in the Priesthood. While the reasons behind this are far too complex to be treated in this post, the point is that this group wants this change to occur, and has been attempting to effectuate this change through a variety of methods—not the least of which is showing up at the Priesthood Session of the Church’s Annual and Semiannual General Conferences and requesting admission to the men’s meeting.(As an aside, the men’s meeting is always preceded by a General Women’s Meeting, the preceding Saturday. Of course, all women are invited to attend this meeting, and men requesting admission to this meeting would likely be turned away for the same reason women have been turned away from the men’s meeting. In addition, both meetings are broadcast via television, radio, satellite, and the Internet, so anyone who wants to attend either meeting virtually is welcome to do so. I’ve actually attended the Women’s Meeting in my own living room!)
In response to the Ordain Women Movement’s request for tickets to the upcoming General Priesthood Meeting, and in anticipation of the corresponding protest directly outside said meeintg, the Church has issued an official response. This response, carrying the signature of Church Public Affairs representative Jessica Moody, points out that “Women in the Church, by a very large majority, do not share your advocacy for priesthood ordination for women and consider that position to be extreme.” It also asks the movement’s organizers to reconsider their planned demonstration, as “Activist events like this detract from the sacred environment of Temple Square and the spirit of harmony sought at General Conference.” To date, the Ordain Women Movement has shown no signs of heeding this request.
Not surprisingly, this ongoing discussion continues not only between the OWM’s organizers and the Church, but also on the Internet. Recent posts in the Facebook group “LDS Gospel Mysteries,” for example, have been extensive and at times even heated. The most recent discussion has involved group member Jed Hill’s postulation that the Church is somewhat divided into “traditionalists,” who stand by the established order of the Church; and “questioners,” who do not necessarily do so. I expressed my opinion that it’s not so cut and dry, and the ensuing discussion has led to a sincere question from Jed, directed at me:
“Okay, Jeff Drake, I am confused. I either have you mixed up with someone else or I just misread your posts from the last thread. I thought you were arguing before that it was wrong for women to challenge the power structure. But yet here you are arguing that we should challenge. I would clearly identify with the latter of the 2 positions. Have I misunderstood you? What is your position in all of this? Do you disagree with the Ordain movement and how it is operating?”The following is my response:
Group member Anthony Fennell has stated that “It’s wrong to continue to resist the structure when a question has been answered and you insist in spite of that. That would be a state of rebellion. These women wanting the priesthood, I would assume, would be in such.” While I stop short of assuming a “state of rebellion,” I believe that his assertions are nonetheless sound.
Personally, I have absolutely no problem with questioning, and I indeed encourage people to do so (as do the scriptures). I’ve personally called up the Church Office Building with a concern regarding the Church’s family history software development path. When no one else could answer my question, was actually transferred to President Hinckley’s office. (I was not expecting that!) I expressed my concern to his secretary, who seemed to be writing everything down. I later received a response that the Church would not be pursuing my suggested solution, but it wasn’t long before the issue was remedied. The solution placed into effect was FamilySearch, which has far exceeded both my expectations and my vision. I praise the prophets for seeing what I could not, yet there is absolutely nothing wrong with me having alerted them to the problem I saw, in the first place!
I think this story explains how I feel my situation differs from the Ordain Women movement. For example:
1) I understood exactly what I was requesting and exactly what benefit it would offer me and millions of others. As I have explained extensively in other threads, I do not believe the members of the Ordain Women understand what the Priesthood really is, nor do they understand the repercussions of their requested ordination.
2) The concern I had regarding family history research was every bit as relevant as theirs, and was actually quite similar in some ways. However, my approach was significantly different: I contacted the Church privately and encouraged others to do the same. I did not build a web site, hold rallies, stage protests, alert the media, etc.. In short, I did not allow—let alone encourage!—my personal desires to become a major international news story about how the Church was oppressing me. At this point, even if the First Presidency were to announce that women will heretofore be ordained to Priesthood offices, the world (and particularly critics of the Church) will forever claim that the prophets have yet again bowed to public opinion, that they only receive so-called “revelation” when forced to do so. (Goodness knows people already say that about each of the Official Declarations in the Church’s book of Doctrine and Covenants.)
3) When the Church responded to my concern and the response was not exactly what I wanted, I accepted it and moved on. The OWM has now received a response, yet the April 5 protest is still on the calendar and prominently featured on OrdainWomen.org. I suspect this is what Anthony meant by being in “a state of rebellion”: they have received a response, yet they do not seem to be accepting it. (If true, this is particularly ironic because they are calling into question the specific Priesthood authority they so desperately want!)
There may be other relevant differences, but these are the three I can think of, off the top of my head. Basically, I think this latest development underscores what Maureen Proctor wrote in her recent article Airtime or Error Time? The New York Times and the Ordination of Women :
“I have asked this of the Ordain Women group before and I do again. If you had a private meeting with the prophet, asking that women be ordained to the priesthood, and he answered that the Lord had said ‘no,’ would you be finished with your quest? If you asked him if he had prayed about this and he said ‘yes,’ would that be enough? Would you close down your website, pack up your bags and go home?
“They state on their website: ‘We are demonstrating our desire for both the blessings and the authority of the priesthood and asking LDS Church leaders to prayerfully consider the ordination of women.’ The question becomes, how do they know that this hasn’t already happened?
“Even more important, how would they know when to stop their demonstration? What does the end game really look like for them? How, in fact, could LDS Church leaders demonstrate to them that they had prayerfully considered this matter? Would they stop only if there were an announcement that women were going to be ordained? Would they stop only if they had private assurance that this matter had been prayerfully considered?
“My sense is that they have left this open-ended because their cause has become their purpose—and no other endgame except ordination will suffice for them.”
Does that explain my position a little better?
Comments
Post a Comment