That’s the answer.
I have a really good, respected LDS friend who posted the announcement on his Facebook page saying,
“I welcome clarity from the Church at the official level, as well as the reassurance that we can continue to ask questions and pray about issues and practices, seeking better understanding and being open to developments and even new revelation.”
Except I don’t get clarity from that. I got 1984 newspeak.
Here’s some clarity that I would welcome…
Why? “The blessings of the priesthood are equally available to men and women. Only men are allowed to serve in priesthood offices.” (That’s like saying that “everyone is welcome to eat in this restaurant. Only men are allowed in the kitchen.”) Why?
As a side note, saying motherhood is equal to the priesthood seems to discount my fatherhood. My fatherhood is the male equivalent of female motherhood. There is no female equivalent to male priesthood in the LDS faith. All the OW ladies are saying is that some of them want to be cooks and not just patrons of your restaurant. For that matter, I would have liked to just remain a patron and not be required to work in your kitchen. I don’t get the problem.
Where exactly and in what forum can these supposedly allowed questions regarding church doctrine, history and practice be earnestly expressed? (Because every single time I tried to express a doubt or sincere question I was told to figure it out on my own or that I was being sinful and rebellious for even harboring the question. I quickly learned that I couldn’t ask my bishop, my family members, CES employees. Heaven forbid I should bring up a real question during a Sunday School or priesthood lessons! 40 years of praying clearly indicated that God wasn’t going to answer.) Where and how are these questions allowed?
Do two or more people with the same questions constitute “advocacy” or “encouragement”? Where exactly is the line? (Because in my experience the line is actually at vocalization or fingers touching a keyboard no matter how confined and insignificant, whereas this statement implies it’s farther from that at mass publication or such). Can the questions only exist between my two ears?
How am I to think of the following individuals who acted in “clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the established Church or its faithful leaders” at the time? Helmuth Hubner (who went again LDS church practice and defied the Nazi party in Germany, pre WWII)? Alma the Younger (who criticized his fellow Nephite Chief Judges for their neglect of the poor)? Abinadi (who pointed out religious leaders’ sins)? Jesus Christ? Shouldn’t they all have kept their questions and observations to themselves instead of acting in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the LDS Leaders, Nephite Chief Judges, King Noah’s Priests, and the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Saducees?
What are the chances that as in those past times “the Church or its faithful leaders” are themselves wrong and in apostasy to the will of God? (The current leaders want us to believe the chances are zero, but there’s no reason to believe this is how God operates… other than the declarations of these men themselves). Its not “apostasy” if the leaders themselves aren’t “faithful,” is it?
What operational checks and balances are in place for the earthly church to account for the human nature of the current leaders? (Because I don’t recognize any that assure us that they aren’t the ones in the wrong).
How can someone be reprimanded for teaching against church doctrine when you won’t make clear, concise declarations of church doctrine, but would rather leaving it obscure and hard to pin down, like nailing Jello to a wall?
Have the leaders asked God, which is what Ordain Women merely asked? (Because I don’t get the sense that they have).