The reason I am writing this blog post is because I have seen a few people share it on facebook with their own rebuttals, and a few shared it with their own praises, and because I got on facebook today and had 3 inbox messages with a link to it asking me how I feel about it. This is a topic I feel strongly about. I have posted about it several times on my facebook, and on others as well. Knowing that this is a passion inducing hot button issue I am going to start this post off with my favorite political disclaimer!
Fist of all, if you are going to read this post you have to educate yourself first. I will not be the person who encourages ignorance to the other side. Read the other side's thought, opinions, and ideas. They have some good points, points I disagree with for the most part, but they are valid. So before you read another word on my blog read these two sources:
First read the letter from the church, you have to know what these words say before you hear anyone's side or opinion, you need to form your own:
Church Asks Activist Group to Reconsider Plans to Protest at General Conference
The article I am responding to, which you have to read in order to understand what I am about to say. No but seriously read it, it's not that long:
Top 5 Reasons That Letter from Public Affairs Broke My Heart by Prudy Polly
If you read the blog post I am responding to (which if you didn't, seriously read it) you will see that Prudy Polly (no I am not being rude, that is her screen name) has numbered each of her concerns, to list 5. I am not going to restate her article, I am going to go through each point she makes and write my response to that point. If you did not read her article this won't make a ton of sense. I am also putting a disclaimer here that I am directly responding to what she said, not to every thought of every OW woman on the face of the planet.
Now that you are properly informed we can get this show on the road!
1- We can Make Room for Everyone
I do not think it is fair to say that just because you aren't getting your way means there is no room for you in this group. She uses several comparisons to toddlers in her article so I will do the same. When we are children we experience many times when we want something. We either want a change in rules, or scenery, or an item and it doesn't make sense to us why we cannot have that change. I recall feeling like my parents were dictators and evil. I cried at night wondering why all the injustice or "why don't they love me?". It's funny how now that I am older I see that the things I wanted were either silly, unimportant, or just not good for me, but I did not understand that at the time. No, I do not think the priesthood or women's ordination are silly or unimportant. I also do not think women's ordination is an evil or "bad" thing to believe in. I do believe however that we need to trust our leaders, and they have said "It isn't a part of God's plan." So I just figure that whatever I am told isn't a part of God's plan, but doesn't make sense to me or doesn't seem "fair", I will understand it when I am in the next life (or "older").
I would also like to point out in the scriptures when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son. that was not fair at all. I can only imagine how upset Abraham must have been. But did he argue about the injustice of what God was asking him to do? No. He said "okay, someday I guess I will understand." I think that is a great example of how we need to look at the policies and sacrifices we are asked to make in church. Most people say this story relates to tithing, but I think we sacrifice more than money to the church. We sacrifice time, talents, energy, and food (fasting). I have personally sacrificed friends, status, respect from others, my pride, political opinions, the will to get more tattoos and tank tops. I don't understand why I had to make a lot of those sacrifices, but that is where faith comes in.
Overall I think just because you, personally aren't in the room with the prophet hashing out women's ordination, doesn't mean people (including women) haven't had (and aren't continuing to have) productive conversations on this topic. There may even be people who agree with you and want women to be ordained. But you shouldn't decide you are being excluded from a group just because you aren't getting what you want. The church has put out several statements and given talks on women's ordination, it seems those would all be products of conversations about it. But this woman seems intent on the idea that if they aren't broadcasting the conversation or giving her her way then the conversation simply isn't happening. Just because I didn't get the curfew that I wanted in high school (or really anything that I wanted in high school) doesn't mean that my parents didn't talk about it when I wasn't around. It also doesn't mean that there was no place in their home or family for me.
2- We Don't Belittle
I think her point on this is a little bit of a stretch. The church states that the men have a special session about the duties and responsibilities of being a man and holding the priesthood just for them. Then they say that we have the same thing, it's just for women and is all about the duties and responsibilities of being a woman. I think it is just as sexist to decide that whatever is going on in the men's session is better than the women's.
Also the point Prudy Polly makes here is that she feels belittled because the church uses a tactic that she uses on her toddler. So my first question is a little off topic. If this behavior is belittling what makes it okay to do it to a toddler? They are at a very impressionable age and what you do to them between the ages of 2 and 5 have a massive amount of effect on the rest of their lives and more importantly their self esteem. So unless you want your child to grow up feeling unimportant or diminished, I suggest you cut out the behavior you describe here as belittling.
Now for the more relevant question. Is this comparison of "tactics" actually pertinent? I do not think so. I think it is important to acknowledge the desires of the person you are speaking to every single time when you do not agree with them. But I also do not think the church says "I understand you want to attend the priesthood session, oh look! Women's conference!" They do however say "we acknowledge your desire to attend the priesthood session, however it is designed for men only. But we do have a women's session over here which is designed for you." They don't acknowledge and misdirect with a distraction as Prudy is suggesting. They acknowledge your desire, explain why they can not allow you to do what you'd like, and then give you another option. That is a great way to handle a situation, even with your toddler.
I do not think it is fair to say that just because you aren't getting your way means there is no room for you in this group. She uses several comparisons to toddlers in her article so I will do the same. When we are children we experience many times when we want something. We either want a change in rules, or scenery, or an item and it doesn't make sense to us why we cannot have that change. I recall feeling like my parents were dictators and evil. I cried at night wondering why all the injustice or "why don't they love me?". It's funny how now that I am older I see that the things I wanted were either silly, unimportant, or just not good for me, but I did not understand that at the time. No, I do not think the priesthood or women's ordination are silly or unimportant. I also do not think women's ordination is an evil or "bad" thing to believe in. I do believe however that we need to trust our leaders, and they have said "It isn't a part of God's plan." So I just figure that whatever I am told isn't a part of God's plan, but doesn't make sense to me or doesn't seem "fair", I will understand it when I am in the next life (or "older").
I would also like to point out in the scriptures when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son. that was not fair at all. I can only imagine how upset Abraham must have been. But did he argue about the injustice of what God was asking him to do? No. He said "okay, someday I guess I will understand." I think that is a great example of how we need to look at the policies and sacrifices we are asked to make in church. Most people say this story relates to tithing, but I think we sacrifice more than money to the church. We sacrifice time, talents, energy, and food (fasting). I have personally sacrificed friends, status, respect from others, my pride, political opinions, the will to get more tattoos and tank tops. I don't understand why I had to make a lot of those sacrifices, but that is where faith comes in.
Overall I think just because you, personally aren't in the room with the prophet hashing out women's ordination, doesn't mean people (including women) haven't had (and aren't continuing to have) productive conversations on this topic. There may even be people who agree with you and want women to be ordained. But you shouldn't decide you are being excluded from a group just because you aren't getting what you want. The church has put out several statements and given talks on women's ordination, it seems those would all be products of conversations about it. But this woman seems intent on the idea that if they aren't broadcasting the conversation or giving her her way then the conversation simply isn't happening. Just because I didn't get the curfew that I wanted in high school (or really anything that I wanted in high school) doesn't mean that my parents didn't talk about it when I wasn't around. It also doesn't mean that there was no place in their home or family for me.
2- We Don't Belittle
I think her point on this is a little bit of a stretch. The church states that the men have a special session about the duties and responsibilities of being a man and holding the priesthood just for them. Then they say that we have the same thing, it's just for women and is all about the duties and responsibilities of being a woman. I think it is just as sexist to decide that whatever is going on in the men's session is better than the women's.
Also the point Prudy Polly makes here is that she feels belittled because the church uses a tactic that she uses on her toddler. So my first question is a little off topic. If this behavior is belittling what makes it okay to do it to a toddler? They are at a very impressionable age and what you do to them between the ages of 2 and 5 have a massive amount of effect on the rest of their lives and more importantly their self esteem. So unless you want your child to grow up feeling unimportant or diminished, I suggest you cut out the behavior you describe here as belittling.
Now for the more relevant question. Is this comparison of "tactics" actually pertinent? I do not think so. I think it is important to acknowledge the desires of the person you are speaking to every single time when you do not agree with them. But I also do not think the church says "I understand you want to attend the priesthood session, oh look! Women's conference!" They do however say "we acknowledge your desire to attend the priesthood session, however it is designed for men only. But we do have a women's session over here which is designed for you." They don't acknowledge and misdirect with a distraction as Prudy is suggesting. They acknowledge your desire, explain why they can not allow you to do what you'd like, and then give you another option. That is a great way to handle a situation, even with your toddler.
3- Labels Hide People
The last priesthood session protest session was pretty tame, but this session will not be. I know several OW women who are respectful and plan on singing hymns and being reverent outside of the conference center, but I also know several who do not think that is getting their cause enough attention and are preparing signs for picketing. The church's response was to many letters (there are facebook groups and articles about this as well) saying that the women would either get their priesthood session tickets, or they would be picketing and shouting in protest of their "rights" in this church. On top of that when you are trying to be in a spiritual environment negative energy is not appreciated. Women who are angry that they can't get a seat in the priesthood session and are standing outside the doors for 2 hours in the cold (even if they are quiet) are doing it in protest so others will see them and feel their energy. That detracts from the spirit. I see nothing wrong with the church asking you to take that energy somewhere else.
If it is the case that you are just a bunch of "faithful women requesting tickets" or "reverent women asking for a seat at the table" then when your request is denied you should leave right? If your child asks for a cookie once and you say no it is no big deal. But if your child then repetitively asks you over and over again for a cookie or sits in the kitchen and refuses to leave until you give him a cookie, it becomes an issue. Your child is being very rude and disrespectful. The church didn't say you were all bra-burning anti-Christians. They said there is a place across from Temple grounds that is appropriate for protesting and that they'd appreciate it if you recognized and respected the sacredness of temple square and conference as a time and place to worship, not protest.
Think about the time in the scriptures when Jesus went to the temple and found that people were using it to conduct business. Now I'd like point out that the businesses that were there were temple related. There were people selling pure white doves and lambs for others to sacrifice in the temple. There was nothing evil about their business, and they probably didn't have bad intentions, but temple grounds are not meant to be used for anything other than sacred worship and conduct. Well Jesus wasn't all to happy to see these vendors so he threw the tables over and yelled at them and chased them away. Protesting is not sacred worship or conduct. I do not believe the Lord thinks (and I certainly don't think) you are bad people or evil because of your desires to hold the priesthood, but He has made it clear that using temple grounds for anything other than worship and sacred activities is not appropriate or respectful.
4- We Don't Follow the Crowd
Jessica Moody doesn't just say in this letter that the majority of women don't care if the women are ordained. She says that a majority think it is extreme, and don't want it. Why in the world would an institution implement something that would make a majority of its members feel uncomfortable because a small handful wants it? That seems wrong to me.
I know many activists think it’s the ones who want it vs. the ones who don't care, but it's not. I do not want it. The priesthood comes with a lot of responsibility that I don't want. There is a lot of wonderful things that come from the priesthood, but there are massive burdens that I have witnessed first hand placed on someone for holding it. I know that not all women have the same nature and tendencies as most, but once again a large institution such as this should not make a major change that effects every single member if it is going to make a majority feel uncomfortable just to appease a small group.
Now with that being said I also do not believe it should make a decision just because most of the people want it. But I believe their statement in regards to the amount of people who do not want this was to be a rebuttal for all of the women saying "we all want it, why won't you give it to us?" which I have personally heard several times, and I can not imagine that the leadership of this church has not heard it as well.
5- It's More Important to be Nice
In this section Prudy Polly writes:
That isn't what the letter said. It said that all of the protests and tantrums are what detracts from the helpful discussions being had. Writing a letter to the prophet, talking about it with your friends and family and even your bishopric, blogging about the matter, spreading the word, spreading your opinion and desire is fine. That doesn't stop the discussion. In fact I think it would propel the discussions. But when a child throws a temper tantrum, not only is it not helping them get what they want, but it makes it hard to get anything done. They don't say in the letter that talking about this issue detracts from the helpful discussions, they are saying the tantrum acts of rebellion are. This quote is taken out of context.
I think there is a general misunderstanding by Prudy Polly and several others that this letter was written in retaliation to their acts and ways of protest and their acts only. This issue has formed many groups of women that have threatened to picket and shout in protest. Just because you are a reverent hymn singer does not mean that there aren't other ways of protesting currently being done. Just because the church gave them an answer to their protests does not mean it is an answer to all women's protests. The church encourages us to talk about our opinions and beliefs political or otherwise outside of church.I do not think they were saying writing or sharing a blog post or having a discussion with your friends is detracting from the conversations.
On a last note, I'd like to point out that I think she is a touch over dramatic here. I understand she is passionate, I am a very passionate person, but Prudy Polly takes several things out of context and then rewords them (after or around the actual quotes) with more demeaning versions, and then calls the church rude and says she wishes they'd be kinder. If someone asks me to give their honest opinion about their works habits and I say "You have great energy and are good with customers but you tend to be disorganized and you're not very punctual." I feel I am being kind, yet firm, and telling the honest truth. But it would be easy for that employee to be offended and tell her friends that the only good things I had to say about her was that I liked her "energy" but she is super messy and late all the time. It is the employee’s choice to see it as an attack instead of a firm but honest and kind evaluation.
If you'd like to read about my other views on this movement here is a link to my post about my response to most of the arguments I have heard from LDS feminist activists.
Feminism by Angela Woodward on Words from a Black Heart
Here are some links to wonderful things and discussions that this movement has done for our church:
On a last note, I'd like to point out that I think she is a touch over dramatic here. I understand she is passionate, I am a very passionate person, but Prudy Polly takes several things out of context and then rewords them (after or around the actual quotes) with more demeaning versions, and then calls the church rude and says she wishes they'd be kinder. If someone asks me to give their honest opinion about their works habits and I say "You have great energy and are good with customers but you tend to be disorganized and you're not very punctual." I feel I am being kind, yet firm, and telling the honest truth. But it would be easy for that employee to be offended and tell her friends that the only good things I had to say about her was that I liked her "energy" but she is super messy and late all the time. It is the employee’s choice to see it as an attack instead of a firm but honest and kind evaluation.
If you'd like to read about my other views on this movement here is a link to my post about my response to most of the arguments I have heard from LDS feminist activists.
Feminism by Angela Woodward on Words from a Black Heart
Here are some links to wonderful things and discussions that this movement has done for our church:
Portraits of LDS women leaders hang in Conference Center for first time
General Presidents Discuss Auxiliary Changes in New Video
What General Authorities Say About Their Wives
Addendum:
I feel that the word twisting and taking things out of context was abundant in Prudy Polly's blog post. I can't even go through all of the times I was like "when did they say that?" and then I referenced the letter to realize that the church said something entirely different, but Pridy had taken a small portion of a thought as a quote and putting with a different issue. I have been asked for several examples, I gave one in my post here is a second:
The idea that a majority of women in the church feel this opinion is extreme is not offensive (or at least it shouldn't be), but the phrases she has around the quote from the letter are no where to be seen in the actual letter and are Prudy Polly's own reworded interpretations.
I could probably go on about this for hours but that would be a massive waste of my time. I will not be giving more examples, and I will probably not be answering most of your emails.
General Presidents Discuss Auxiliary Changes in New Video
What General Authorities Say About Their Wives
Addendum:
I feel that the word twisting and taking things out of context was abundant in Prudy Polly's blog post. I can't even go through all of the times I was like "when did they say that?" and then I referenced the letter to realize that the church said something entirely different, but Pridy had taken a small portion of a thought as a quote and putting with a different issue. I have been asked for several examples, I gave one in my post here is a second:
The idea that a majority of women in the church feel this opinion is extreme is not offensive (or at least it shouldn't be), but the phrases she has around the quote from the letter are no where to be seen in the actual letter and are Prudy Polly's own reworded interpretations.
I could probably go on about this for hours but that would be a massive waste of my time. I will not be giving more examples, and I will probably not be answering most of your emails.
