Seriously. These are objections people raise?

Seriously, Stephen. Depressing, I know, but these are far and away the most common negative reactions.

Too true, Ziff.

Also, two ZD comments in one thread = success.

It seems the administrators of the Facebook page are being very proactive about keeping the contention level down. This is wise, because that way it’s harder to accuse them of trying to embarrass the church in any way. Objectively, what gives things like this legs in the national press is opinions like the ones I’ve cited above when couched in zealotry, followed by the inevitable smackdown from people on the other side of the issue. Mormons behaving badly always make the news. (Not to mention that they’d surely like to avoid what happened last time — see Travis James Richardson’s infamous comment).

Unfortunately, it has severely limited the pool of evidence for my selection of objections. You’ll just have to take my word for it. The only other alternative is to keep tabs on the site for a day and take note of the problematic comments before they are removed. Or you could just go read all the feedback on the pants issue — it’s essentially the same stuff.

Stephen,

Yes, I see these all the time. People who feel threatened but don’t have a solid argument to make will often resort to these. Another one is to cite temple covenants and imply that somebody is violating them.

When we fail to distinguish between our culture and the gospel people can get very defensive about the culture, thinking that they are defending Jesus himself.

This is a good post because, although these arguments are fallacious, they have a certain rhetorical appeal, so they keep coming back over and over again, no matter the issue. They are a means of stifling any sort of dissenting opinons. We can’t allow them to succeed because reasonable dissent is absolutely crucial in any organization, especially in an organization like the Church where submission to authority is seen as such a virtue (which in some cases it certainly can be). We need to show that reasonable dissent is also a virtue and can be healthy for any organization.

One point worth making:

“I (or my female relation, friend, or acquaintance) don’t care about this issue so neither should you.”

I think this argument is actually raising a “standing” objection. An objection on the basis of “standing” essentially means that only certain people have the right to raise certain issues. In other words: unless you are female you have no right to complain about unequal treatment of females. As you say, the person making the argument usually adds that they are female or know someone who is and that they or their female friend are not complaining, so no man has a right to do so.

The argument is an old one and was often used during the era of civil rights demonstrations. The best response to it then and now is Martin Luther King’s response:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

I agree, silver rain. By the way, I loved your analysis of the pants in church issue. I tried to say I have a girl crush, too but my damn computer froze.

Orwell, I think you are mis-quoting or misconstruing the all-or-nothing argument from Elder Holland. Or else you are responding to a mis-use of it by the people you are arguing against. (If your opponents are the ones misconstruing it, you should attack the misapplication, and not pretend or presume that they are accurately quoting Elder Holland.)

Elder Holland’s “all true or a fraud” is specific to the foundational claims of the church, specifically to the Book of Mormon. His remarks should not be taken to mean green jello and funeral potatoes are “true”. That is, the Book of Mormon can’t be inspired fiction, or a well-intentioned creation. There really were Nephites, or else the BoM is a total fraud. Jesus, the carpenter’s son from Nazareth, was either the son of God, or a liar or a lunatic. He could not have been just a “good teacher”. Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God or he was a liar and a fraud. (Granted, that much of the arguments devolve into what a prophet is expected to do or to be.) Mormon priesthood really is authorized power from God, or it’s not. Temple rites have eternal meaning for departed souls, or it’s a total waste. There is no middle ground in those things.

From my recent readings, I think there are people on both sides, of both the pants issue and prayer issue, who are conflating policy/tradition with doctrine. And I’m disappointed that many people on the “pro-pants side” have “blamed” others for their previous misunderstanding of policies/dress-codes. I’m referring to those women who are angry because they assumed they were not allowed to wear pants to church, and are angry that they were somehow tricked, lied to, forced or brainwashed into thinking that, whether by being actively misled by those who wrongly said it was doctrine, or more subtly by example and cultural expectation.

Whoa there, Bookslinger, I never pinned that on Elder Holland specifically. He is not the author of it, not by a long shot. It has been repeated and repeated ad nauseum for decades — applied to both specific elements of the church as well as to the church as a whole. I absolutely accept that the idea can be more useful under the right circumstances and nuanced the right way, but it is almost never used so carefully or precisely, especially among your rank-and-file members. There is no question that members of the church frequently use it exactly how I described. (“Either you have a testimony or you don’t” was a word-for-word quote, as was “Either the church is true or it isn’t,” ergo, either this policy is from Jesus or the whole church is a fairy tale — I did not invent these for the sake of this post.) All or nothing. Black and white. The Lord’s side of the line, etc. It has been used extensively in the missionary program for decades (not to mention, SS, Priesthood, and RS). The mental leap from JS was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is true to everything the prophets have ever said, policies, manuals, press releases, Pres. Kimball’s favorite snack, and the handbook are all products of direct, dictated revelation form Jesus is deeply entrenched in some members’ minds (obviously this is hyperbole, but you see my point). Naturally, there may be people with a more realistic spin on this, but I stand by my characterization of it, in general terms.

As for conflating policy/tradition/culture and doctrine, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Doctrine is a subset of culture which is constantly in flux and hard to pin down. Much of what is today considered policy, tradition, culture, or even ideas which have been entirely discredited and repudiated was accepted as doctrine by our predecessors. Many things we accept as doctrine now may ultimately prove not to be so.

As far as Elder Holland goes, I appreciate his more careful use of the idea (which I wasn’t attacking specifically), but there are still problems. Incidentally, to pick up on your parenthetical, I see no reason Joseph Smith could not have been a liar, fraud, and a prophet of God. Just sayin’. (Mind you I’m not saying he was, I’m just saying that I can reconcile that.) Jesus is a little harder, I’ll grant you, but just because he was the son of God and the Savior does not mean that the way we conceptualize him is entirely accurate. I can also see how the Book of Mormon can be fraudulent in some aspects and true in others (again, I’m not claiming it is, just that it’s not impossible — I mean, how do we know we can trust this Omni fellow, even if JS translated his words by the gift and power of God? [Everybody relax, I mean this very lightheartedly]). And even if temple rites didn’t have eternal meaning for departed souls, I can’t say I would consider them a total waste. On the flip side, even granting that they do have meaning for departed souls, there may be elements of them which are a total waste anyway.

And if you don’t believe me, go over to FMH and disagree with something. Anything.

I don’t know where I stand on women praying in general conference. I’m fine with it, but I have more important battles to fight.

I’m not sure Silver Rain’s comment is a sidestep, John. It’s important for those who are fighting for equity for women in the church to not alienate those women who do not agree with them. Alienate is euphemistic, really, for the level of animosity I believe is part of the soul of the Mormon feminist movement. There’s such a veiled anger, I think, beneath even the civil conversations. To win “hearts and minds” women in the church who are not feminists must not be made to feel rejected.

I never read the initial—was it facebook?—call for women to wear pants to church. I looked at Orwell’s link, but I’m not sure I’ve found the genesis of the women praying in general conference topic, either. So I was without context then and perhaps am now.

All those years when I was bitching about women in my ward not being allowed to give the opening prayer, I never got in an argument with another woman about it. It was my opinion and my private battle; I argued with priesthood holders and my husband. But it wouldn’t have been right to attack other women who didn’t care. I can’t explain why intellectually, but that’s what I think.

“So you approve of the goals but not the methods? Or are you saying that the methods are so inappropriate that the goals don’t even matter? I’m not sure I understand you.”

Basically, I think it’s a whole lot more complex than people on either side of the issue would like to spin it, and the methods do more to harm the worthy stated causes than help them.

“Also, are you being intentionally ironic in your statement about being non-judgmental after clearly being judgmental?”

Yes and no. I’m not trying to force other people to accept me by deliberately pushing their buttons. When I push people’s buttons, I own up to what I’m doing. ;)

Orwell is free to add these to “the list” in an attempt to discredit real concerns, but I trust that there is enough discernment here to parse between those who are trying to shut people up, and those who are sympathetic, but disagreeing with methodology. The latter group could be real allies, if the intent is truly to change the culture and not just to indulge in a sort of group temper tantrum (which is how it comes across more often than not.)

And actually, it does engage the “real issue” here, given that the “real issue” in the OP is criticizing lame arguments against the movement. It is entirely relevant to point out that there are real disagreements beyond the lame ones.

But I’m not trying to persuade you, just point out that there is more than straw men out there. A wise lobbyist will recognize the possibility and do their own research with an open mind. I try not to argue with closed minds any more. I figure it’s their job to open their minds if they wish. I’m busy enough with myself to waste my time. So I point out opportunities, and let other people take them or not as they wish. :)

But it wouldn’t have been right to attack other women who didn’t care. I can’t explain why intellectually, but that’s what I think.

Because it’s hypocritical. You can’t claim to be all about equality for women and then also shout down any woman who disagrees with you.

Orwell,
here in indianapolis, over the last 10 years, I’ve only met one member who thinks all policies are divinely inspired and are applicable in all situations. Well, and maybe some new converts before their bubble gets popped. I realize the inter-mountain west is almost a different church at the ground level.

agb,
I think writing hand-written hard-copy letters to one’s stake president might help in some of these matters of the kinds we’re talking about. We’re not supposed to write to GAs, right? But if a stake president gets enough letters on a topic, he’s going to mention it to his Area Authority. And if an Area Authority gets more than one SP bringing up a subject matter, he’s going to mention it to his Area President, who is one of the GA 70’s, and it will get passed up the line.

The problem though, is that to get enough numbers to matter, the proponents of whatever the topic is (pants or prayer) members have to go public to a certain degree to find like-minded other members and encourage them to get on the bandwagon and agitate _properly_ through their SP.

In my opinion, the -ward council- thing and the Brethren’s instructions on how to use it, is a response to get women more involved in running wards.

It only took a century, but the church finally gave an official public global clarification on the caffeine thing. Let’s hope it doesn’t take that long on the pants thing. But I expect to see more such press releases of clarifications as the church has come under more public notice and scrutiny, and as the media picks up on the various grass roots voices in the online Mormon community.

in general,
Does anyone else remember the “surprise”, bordering on resentment, or disappointment, some members had when “non standard”, non-clean-shaven, and non-SAHMs appeared in the “I am a Mormon” campaign? One woman online commenter said she felt like she was somehow cheated because she thought the church didn’t want her to have a career, and here the church was now putting career women out there as “model” or exemplar Mormons.

It only took a century, but the church finally gave an official public global clarification on the caffeine thing. Let’s hope it doesn’t take that long on the pants thing.

The Church did issue a statement about women wearing pants:

Generally church members are encouraged to wear their best clothing as a sign of respect for the Savior, but we don’t counsel people beyond that.

This generic statement clarifies that there is no rule against women wearing pants to Church, which would be very helpful if we didn’t already know that and if the movement was all about women being able to wear pants to Chuch. But we do and it’s not.

Orwell, I actually wrote a post or two on how to engage these issues without being immediately dismissed. Basically, it’s by using the same methods that leadership should be using: long-suffering, patience, love unfeigned, gentleness, meekness, patience, refraining from hypocrisy or guile, reproving with sharpness only rarely, and this followed with an increased demonstration of love.

The problem is that those methods are hard, and people are angry. It is a very difficult thing to deal with one’s anger first before seeking change, since it is almost always the anger which gives impetus to seek change in the first place. It’s much easier to lash out at people and dismiss them when they react as can be expected.

The problem is that those methods are hard, and people are angry. It is a very difficult thing to deal with one’s anger first before seeking change, since it is almost always the anger which gives impetus to seek change in the first place. It’s much easier to lash out at people and dismiss them when they react as can be expected.

There’s no doubt that these issues can ignite a lot of anger on both sides. However, as I’ve already mentioned, I think the organizers are going out of their way to curtail anything too far beyond the respectful and sincere tone they are aiming for. Overall, they’ve done a pretty fair job of it, and it just isn’t the cascade of vitriol people automatically assume.

Here’s a new gem from the Facebook page. I won’t call it a common objection because it’s the first time I’ve heard it, but I just had to memorialize it here before it gets removed:

Seriously, probably one of THEE dumbest things I’ve heard of. Whoever came up w/this probably hasn’t found an Eternal Companion &so now they’re bored and feel like they need to make the church a better place for THEIR needs. &WEARING PANTS TO CHURCH?!?! REALLY?!?!?!?!

That’s right, folks, your problem is that you need to get married.

Who’s negating the call for civility?

I’m among those who fully support the objectives of these types of movements, yet hesitate to fully endorse the methods. It’s certainly not because I’m concerned with ark-steadying or because I believe Jesus would simply mandate a change if he really wanted to. It’s because I worry about whether this kind of thing might actually be counter-productive.

See, I think the GAs would generally hate the perception that they’re responding to grassroots activism. As compelling to me as the evidence that the Civil Rights movement was a sin qua non factor in reversing the Priesthood Ban, for instance, I think there’s plenty of resistance to conceding such a notion in the Church. It makes it look maybe like God really wasn’t at the helm at the origin of the ban, and maybe wasn’t the bottleneck for it being reversed either. While that’s obviously a much larger fish than women praying in Conference, I think the same mentality might be at play.

Could a strong desire to avoid the perception that the Church “caved” to pressure from run-of-the-mill members actually galvanize resistance to change? I fear it could.

I’m with you, MCQ. And although I hedge when it comes to endorsing these methods, I certainly don’t have any better ideas :D

annegb: Members, mostly on Facebook.

Trevor:

See, I think the GAs would generally hate the perception that they’re responding to grassroots activism. As compelling to me as the evidence that the Civil Rights movement was a sin qua non factor in reversing the Priesthood Ban, for instance, I think there’s plenty of resistance to conceding such a notion in the Church. It makes it look maybe like God really wasn’t at the helm at the origin of the ban, and maybe wasn’t the bottleneck for it being reversed either. While that’s obviously a much larger fish than women praying in Conference, I think the same mentality might be at play.

I’ve had this worry too, Trevor. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that, if our leaders would resist doing something good or right merely because they don’t want to appear to be influenced… well, then we’ve got more problems than I thought. I don’t want to give into being that cynical just yet.

And MCQ is right, agitation among the membership did influence the end of the Priesthood ban to some degree. SWK is known to have even read and marked up Lester Bush’s definitive article in Dialogue on the subject while he studied and pondered the issue.

It’s entirely possible that the brethren will hear of this and say “sure, no sweat.” Which would diffuse the situation.

Orwell, I don’t follow those sites. I’m confused enough.

Sometimes people /organizations just keep doing things the way they do out of habit. If I were God, I’d be a little bemused and tell President Monson “we should have done that years ago. ”

More I think about it, true men of God wouldn’t bother to fight over an idea just because they felt pressure. They would not consider it pressure but enlightenment.

Yeah, I’m going with rose colored glasses on that.