Dehlin and Kate Kelly Face Possible Excommunication

[ChinoCoug]

Yes but not much we can do (aside from getting a new theology).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Yes but not much we can do (aside from getting a new theology).

It is a problem when theology contradicts science.

[MikeWaters]

Sometimes it is hard to know what the theology is in this church.

Is being gay an eternal trait?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is a problem when theology contradicts science.

I'd be interested in hearing how.

Church has acknowledged that SSA is not a choice, not a disease, with no change in policy, let alone theology.

[MikeWaters]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58...ormon.html.csp

The Idaho mom said she had tried to raise feminist issues quietly, politely and behind-the-scenes for years, but it wasn’t until Ordain Women began their activism that LDS leaders paid attention.

"I’m not sure at what point a larger conversation in the church would have taken place if OW had not decided it wouldn’t be so polite," she said. "They have opened up a space for discussion."

This is the legacy of OW. They raised the issue that even people like me weren't aware of.

It reminds me of when I was talking with a Persian friend about the Palestinian issue. I asked why the Palestinians don't/didn't take the path of non-violent protests. He replied saying "they did and they do and no one pays any attention."

The de-legitimization of the Palestinian cause is achieved by labeling them as terrorists and decrying their "tactics". The same approach can be used against activist groups. Attack their leader, their intentions, their actions and approach, but never address the underlying issue, which is why could women perform priesthood functions in the past, but not (as much) now.

We'll see how things go. It's just now that more people will be paying attention, and things that didn't seem sexist a year ago will now raise eyebrows. Among some.

[ChinoCoug]

Indeed. They also turned ears toward the moderate feminists. The having RS general leaders up on the stand during conference was the Fiona Givens's idea. It's like MLK having Malcolm X to his left.

[SeattleUte]

I heard an LDS woman named Kelly (not Kate but a relative?) interviewed on our local public radio affiliate (KUOW) tonight. She was asked why it's so important that women be given access to the priesthood. I thought her answer nailed why it's important -- she said that the LDS patriarchy results in a "male centric" content of LDS teachings and outlook that is very damaging to LDS women in every possible way.

To me there's nothing to be open minded or patient about with respect to this issue. Either you believe that it's natural and fair to give women equal access to leadership and service opportnities or you don't. Either you believe that when LDS culture treats women as separate and not equal this contributes to a diminished self-image on the part of LDS women and girls outside LDS culture, or you don't.

If you don't then in 2014 there's not much for me to be open minded about. I don't know why this is tolerated by anyone in 2014. Unlike the gay marriage or blacks in the priesthood issues, I don't even hear anyone arguing about this that it's God's will. So it's not even a matter of me respecting anyone's religious belief, even if that were sufficient reason to accept treating women as separate and not equal.

Ms. Kelly (the one referenced above) said that LDS women will one day be given access to the priesthood and then it will be very hard for LDS leaders to explain to members why they did what they did to Kate Kelly and other women who simply asked to be treated in accordance with common sense and fairness. It would be great if LDS faith and culture were matured to the point if that day comes that the explanation would not be difficult.

[MikeWaters]

The one time I was able to interest a female friend in the church--she was very off-put by the relief society and the whole setup. She has a professional background, and while she didn't get very specific about her complaint, she essentially explained that she did not fit with those women.

It worries me when I hear my wife say that she didn't enjoy the YW program and found it off-putting as well---what's my daughter's future? Is she going to feel like the church is a dynamic place that meets her spiritual needs?

[SeattleUte]

This is an excellent elucidation of the LDS outlook that motivates its opposition to women and same sex couples. But it didn't make me more sypathetic to the LDS outlook; it only reaffirmed by own convictions. I think you could make analogous explanations for racist LDS teachings and practices.

http://hds.harvard.edu/news/2014/06/...E2%80%99s-plan

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The one time I was able to interest a female friend in the church--she was very off-put by the relief society and the whole setup. She has a professional background, and while she didn't get very specific about her complaint, she essentially explained that she did not fit with those women.

It worries me when I hear my wife say that she didn't enjoy the YW program and found it off-putting as well---what's my daughter's future? Is she going to feel like the church is a dynamic place that meets her spiritual needs?

Because LDS priesthood is available to every "worthy LDS male over age 12" the LDS sexism with respect to priesthood is more insidious than other Christian relgions'. From a young age women are told that their world is intended by god to be limited and less vital than men's. For example, Catholic priests are insular and a small minority of the Church, they are a profession, wear clothes that set them apart, etc. I'm reminded of this passage from Brown v. Board of Education:

"Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other 'tangible' factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does... Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system..."