In Response to a Pro-Ordain Women Movement Post
Written on April 11, 2014
A recent post on The Atlantic website has troubled me. I admit that I don’t know much about the The Atlantic as an organization, so this could be some kind of hoax – a fake news site like The Onion. I sincerely hope this is the case, because the deception that is espoused in this story is appalling. As advocates for the Ordain Women movement pass it around on social media, they harm their own cause by supporting ignorance of the doctrines of the priesthood. It is entitled “What Mormon Women Want” (see note below), and you can go read it for yourself. Someone needs to point out this outright deception, and it should be someone with much more talent and eloquence than me, but oh well. I base my thoughts on the ideas and attitudes which I have personally experienced from supporters of the Ordain Women movement in addition to the issues covered in this specific article. Here we go:
First of all, I could understand a title like “What Some Mormon Women Want,” or “What We as Mormon Women Want,” but to suggest that women who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints generally do want to be ordained to the priesthood is deceiving. In fact, those who push for their ordination are in the extreme minority when it comes to women in the church as a whole. So the title of this article would be more accurate were it to read “What a Very Small Number of Mormon Women Want.” Of course, being small in size does not mean that you can’t be right, or that you’re not important. But it does mean that you represent the desires of, in fact, very few people.
Next, the author demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how the priesthood operates. This quote, in bold letters on the left margin convicts them of their ignorance of how the priesthood operates in the church, stating:
“Boys are allowed to receive the priesthood at age 12. Little Bennie, the rascal who lives around the corner, has more power in the Church than the wisest older woman.”
(Again, edited by the author, but the attitude expressed in the original wording makes the lack of understanding clear)
While it is true that those who are called to serve a group of the saints, whether that is a class, a quorum, a ward, a stake, etc. have the right to receive revelation concerning their responsibilities to serve that group, they do not hold power over those they serve. And while it is true that no earthly authority can trump that of even a 12 year old deacon, duly ordained, that deacon has no authority, except in righteousness. Priesthood holders may give assignments, carry out responsibilities unique to their calling, or in some cases give counsel to those in their care, but they do not control anyone. Presiding is not ruling. Consult D&C 121, particularly verses 34-44 on how any leader, a priesthood holder or not, can be evaluated. If unrighteous dominion is sought after – if gratification of our pride or aspirations is sought after – then the heavens withdraw. So the moment “Bennie” seeks to place his “power” above another’s in the church, he is gratifying his pride and aspiring to the honors of men, and any priesthood authority he held is gone. If anyone, man or women, is seeking priesthood authority in order to somehow move up the ladder, to be sure that “Bennie” has no more power than they do, or to have some kind of exalted place in the eyes of others, then they don’t qualify for the priesthood. Elder Dallin H. Oaks addressed this in his remarks not one week ago in the priesthood session of conference:
“There is no ‘up or down’ in the service of the Lord. There is only ‘forward or backward,’ and that difference depends on how we accept and act upon our releases and our callings.”
We’re all guilty of it at some point, but the Ordain Women movement makes it their battle cry. They clamor to be given a different calling than the one that God has given them. They view priesthood responsibilities as a way to assert power or influence (again, see D&C 121), and they see a lack of priesthood office as some kind of second class citizenship – as if the duties they hold as women in the church are not good enough for them. By setting up a false model of “up or down” in the service of the Lord, they demonstrate a lack of understanding when it comes to service in the Lord’s kingdom as defined by Elder Oaks.
Another falsehood:
“The first talk of the priesthood session the protesters were shut out of? A sermon detailing why women will never hold the priesthood.”
At least they got one thing right – for some reason people have been arguing that this planned act of disobedience (and yes, when you do something against the specific and individualized instruction of the church, on their property and at their meeting, it is rightly labeled as disobedience) is not a protest. Well, here the author rightly has no problem calling it a protest, but I digress . . .
Please point to the statement where Dallin H. Oaks said that women will never hold the priesthood. You can’t. I can’t. No one can. It was never said in his remarks. Perhaps the author should review his address.
There are several other items I could address, but I’m going to skip to the end of the post where there is a meme-like graphic posted which takes words of chosen servants of the Lord, and distorts them in order to deceive and confuse. Here’s what the Dallin H. Oaks quote looks like when taken out of its true context, and placed in an artificial one (this is how it appears on the graphic):
“They [women] are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.”
Notice the bracketed [women] insertion. This is wholly inaccurate. Read what Dallin H. Oaks really said, and who he was really speaking about:
“The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.”
Quick quiz: who was Elder Oaks speaking about? If you said the leaders of the church, not women, then you are correct! The fact that members of the church could support this kind of inaccurate account of a modern Apostle’s words is astounding to me. If the error in this graphic does not jump out at you, then you (like me) need to spend more time studying the words of modern prophets.
Now, I’m not aware of any kind of sponsorship of this article on The Atlantic website by the Ordain Women movement, but I see it passed around by advocates of the movement, and it is clearly written from a sympathetic point of view. Perhaps I am mistaken, and the Ordain Women movement has distanced itself from this post – if that’s the case I would be overjoyed at the wisdom of that decision. But the fact remains – this movement has disregarded both doctrinal truths as revealed through modern prophets, and direct and specific instruction from the church regarding its own proceedings.
In March, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a letter to the Ordain Women movement, and specifically asked them to not demonstrate at the doors of the conference center during conference. They had already been told that the priesthood session seats in the conference center were reserved for priesthood holders, and prospective priesthood holders. Yet, after being asked by the Brethren (albeit through a spokesperson who was authorized to speak on their behalf) to not perform a very specific action at a very specific time and place, they decided that they knew better, and that the Brethren were not acting in harmony with God’s will. Some members of the movement claimed that they were acting on revelation from God in their protest. So here we have a group who, when given specific and direct instruction from church leaders, claimed to receive revelation which supersedes that of the modern prophets. If you do not know what the Lord has said about individuals who arrive at that conclusion, then go read D&C 28.
I want to close with a thought about questions in the church. Some will read this and think that I must be against anyone who has questions about church doctrine and church policies. Such is not the case. I have plenty of questions of my own – questions about doctrine, about policy, about history. We should be ready and willing to express love and to still accept those with serious concerns about our faith, and that includes sisters who wonder why they don’t hold a priesthood office. But there is a difference between humbly asking our questions and attacking and disobeying the church when we don’t like the answer, to say nothing of distorting the words of modern prophets. I support anyone’s honest search for truth, yet I reject attitudes which seek to condone defiance of the Lord’s voice through his chosen servants. We all make mistakes, and we all find ourselves straying from the voice of the Good Shepherd. But when that voice has been willingly disobeyed, we must have the sense to label that action as sin, and to discourage anyone from taking part in that attitude of disobedience.
We must teach our families and ourselves that justifying attitudes of rebellion to the Lord’s Prophet leads to spiritual death. The scriptural record is clear on how we are to obey the Lord’s servants, and the consequences of those who decide to not heed their word. I feel it is appropriate to defend the church from sources which spread falsehood, like this post on The Atlantic. I have not insulted any individuals, but I have tried to point out the error in these attitudes and in this article in particular so that others who feel the way that I do have some food for thought. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be ashamed to refuse to endorse the actions and message of the Ordain Women movement, and they should feel secure in denouncing the falsehoods which are presented in this particular post on The Atlantic.
Each of us needs to be less casual in our adherence to the Word of the Lord. We all have moments when we disregard the Lord’s counsel because of our pride. We all are in grave need of forgiveness. Happiness will not result from persistent dismissal of the words of modern prophets. Prophets are here to warn and guide against the philosophies of men which would seek to supplant the counsels of God. I know that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are true prophets of God, and following God’s counsel as revealed through them and ancient prophets will result in happiness. They who reject this glad message, however, shall never such happiness know.
Note: since drafting this response the author has edited her remarks, including changing the title, which I think show’s that even she knew that she had stepped too far – I’m glad she made the changes. Nevertheless, I retain her original wording in some of my quotes, because although she has edited her remarks, the damage has still been done, and possibly millions have already been puzzled by her remarks. I wish I would have been smart and taken screenshots of her original story as verification, and I also wish she would explain why she has changed her post with something more than “*sentence edited for clarity.”
A recent post on The Atlantic website has troubled me. I admit that I don’t know much about the The Atlantic as an organization, so this could be some kind of hoax – a fake news site like The Onion. I sincerely hope this is the case, because the deception that is espoused in this story is appalling. As advocates for the Ordain Women movement pass it around on social media, they harm their own cause by supporting ignorance of the doctrines of the priesthood. It is entitled “What Mormon Women Want” (see note below), and you can go read it for yourself. Someone needs to point out this outright deception, and it should be someone with much more talent and eloquence than me, but oh well. I base my thoughts on the ideas and attitudes which I have personally experienced from supporters of the Ordain Women movement in addition to the issues covered in this specific article. Here we go:
First of all, I could understand a title like “What Some Mormon Women Want,” or “What We as Mormon Women Want,” but to suggest that women who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints generally do want to be ordained to the priesthood is deceiving. In fact, those who push for their ordination are in the extreme minority when it comes to women in the church as a whole. So the title of this article would be more accurate were it to read “What a Very Small Number of Mormon Women Want.” Of course, being small in size does not mean that you can’t be right, or that you’re not important. But it does mean that you represent the desires of, in fact, very few people.
Next, the author demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how the priesthood operates. This quote, in bold letters on the left margin convicts them of their ignorance of how the priesthood operates in the church, stating:
“Boys are allowed to receive the priesthood at age 12. Little Bennie, the rascal who lives around the corner, has more power in the Church than the wisest older woman.”
(Again, edited by the author, but the attitude expressed in the original wording makes the lack of understanding clear)
While it is true that those who are called to serve a group of the saints, whether that is a class, a quorum, a ward, a stake, etc. have the right to receive revelation concerning their responsibilities to serve that group, they do not hold power over those they serve. And while it is true that no earthly authority can trump that of even a 12 year old deacon, duly ordained, that deacon has no authority, except in righteousness. Priesthood holders may give assignments, carry out responsibilities unique to their calling, or in some cases give counsel to those in their care, but they do not control anyone. Presiding is not ruling. Consult D&C 121, particularly verses 34-44 on how any leader, a priesthood holder or not, can be evaluated. If unrighteous dominion is sought after – if gratification of our pride or aspirations is sought after – then the heavens withdraw. So the moment “Bennie” seeks to place his “power” above another’s in the church, he is gratifying his pride and aspiring to the honors of men, and any priesthood authority he held is gone. If anyone, man or women, is seeking priesthood authority in order to somehow move up the ladder, to be sure that “Bennie” has no more power than they do, or to have some kind of exalted place in the eyes of others, then they don’t qualify for the priesthood. Elder Dallin H. Oaks addressed this in his remarks not one week ago in the priesthood session of conference:
“There is no ‘up or down’ in the service of the Lord. There is only ‘forward or backward,’ and that difference depends on how we accept and act upon our releases and our callings.”
We’re all guilty of it at some point, but the Ordain Women movement makes it their battle cry. They clamor to be given a different calling than the one that God has given them. They view priesthood responsibilities as a way to assert power or influence (again, see D&C 121), and they see a lack of priesthood office as some kind of second class citizenship – as if the duties they hold as women in the church are not good enough for them. By setting up a false model of “up or down” in the service of the Lord, they demonstrate a lack of understanding when it comes to service in the Lord’s kingdom as defined by Elder Oaks.
Another falsehood:
“The first talk of the priesthood session the protesters were shut out of? A sermon detailing why women will never hold the priesthood.”
At least they got one thing right – for some reason people have been arguing that this planned act of disobedience (and yes, when you do something against the specific and individualized instruction of the church, on their property and at their meeting, it is rightly labeled as disobedience) is not a protest. Well, here the author rightly has no problem calling it a protest, but I digress . . .
Please point to the statement where Dallin H. Oaks said that women will never hold the priesthood. You can’t. I can’t. No one can. It was never said in his remarks. Perhaps the author should review his address.
There are several other items I could address, but I’m going to skip to the end of the post where there is a meme-like graphic posted which takes words of chosen servants of the Lord, and distorts them in order to deceive and confuse. Here’s what the Dallin H. Oaks quote looks like when taken out of its true context, and placed in an artificial one (this is how it appears on the graphic):
“They [women] are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.”
Notice the bracketed [women] insertion. This is wholly inaccurate. Read what Dallin H. Oaks really said, and who he was really speaking about:
“The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.”
Quick quiz: who was Elder Oaks speaking about? If you said the leaders of the church, not women, then you are correct! The fact that members of the church could support this kind of inaccurate account of a modern Apostle’s words is astounding to me. If the error in this graphic does not jump out at you, then you (like me) need to spend more time studying the words of modern prophets.
Now, I’m not aware of any kind of sponsorship of this article on The Atlantic website by the Ordain Women movement, but I see it passed around by advocates of the movement, and it is clearly written from a sympathetic point of view. Perhaps I am mistaken, and the Ordain Women movement has distanced itself from this post – if that’s the case I would be overjoyed at the wisdom of that decision. But the fact remains – this movement has disregarded both doctrinal truths as revealed through modern prophets, and direct and specific instruction from the church regarding its own proceedings.
In March, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a letter to the Ordain Women movement, and specifically asked them to not demonstrate at the doors of the conference center during conference. They had already been told that the priesthood session seats in the conference center were reserved for priesthood holders, and prospective priesthood holders. Yet, after being asked by the Brethren (albeit through a spokesperson who was authorized to speak on their behalf) to not perform a very specific action at a very specific time and place, they decided that they knew better, and that the Brethren were not acting in harmony with God’s will. Some members of the movement claimed that they were acting on revelation from God in their protest. So here we have a group who, when given specific and direct instruction from church leaders, claimed to receive revelation which supersedes that of the modern prophets. If you do not know what the Lord has said about individuals who arrive at that conclusion, then go read D&C 28.
I want to close with a thought about questions in the church. Some will read this and think that I must be against anyone who has questions about church doctrine and church policies. Such is not the case. I have plenty of questions of my own – questions about doctrine, about policy, about history. We should be ready and willing to express love and to still accept those with serious concerns about our faith, and that includes sisters who wonder why they don’t hold a priesthood office. But there is a difference between humbly asking our questions and attacking and disobeying the church when we don’t like the answer, to say nothing of distorting the words of modern prophets. I support anyone’s honest search for truth, yet I reject attitudes which seek to condone defiance of the Lord’s voice through his chosen servants. We all make mistakes, and we all find ourselves straying from the voice of the Good Shepherd. But when that voice has been willingly disobeyed, we must have the sense to label that action as sin, and to discourage anyone from taking part in that attitude of disobedience.
We must teach our families and ourselves that justifying attitudes of rebellion to the Lord’s Prophet leads to spiritual death. The scriptural record is clear on how we are to obey the Lord’s servants, and the consequences of those who decide to not heed their word. I feel it is appropriate to defend the church from sources which spread falsehood, like this post on The Atlantic. I have not insulted any individuals, but I have tried to point out the error in these attitudes and in this article in particular so that others who feel the way that I do have some food for thought. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be ashamed to refuse to endorse the actions and message of the Ordain Women movement, and they should feel secure in denouncing the falsehoods which are presented in this particular post on The Atlantic.
Each of us needs to be less casual in our adherence to the Word of the Lord. We all have moments when we disregard the Lord’s counsel because of our pride. We all are in grave need of forgiveness. Happiness will not result from persistent dismissal of the words of modern prophets. Prophets are here to warn and guide against the philosophies of men which would seek to supplant the counsels of God. I know that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are true prophets of God, and following God’s counsel as revealed through them and ancient prophets will result in happiness. They who reject this glad message, however, shall never such happiness know.
Note: since drafting this response the author has edited her remarks, including changing the title, which I think show’s that even she knew that she had stepped too far – I’m glad she made the changes. Nevertheless, I retain her original wording in some of my quotes, because although she has edited her remarks, the damage has still been done, and possibly millions have already been puzzled by her remarks. I wish I would have been smart and taken screenshots of her original story as verification, and I also wish she would explain why she has changed her post with something more than “*sentence edited for clarity.”