X-Communication Problems: The Words That Divide

In following the recent excommunication of Kate Kelly, and having friends and relations on both sides of the issue, I have been putting some thought into seeing if there could have been some common ground that could have been found.  I have arrived at the conclusion of the criticality of language.  Could a little language change made a difference?  Not sure, but here is my go at it and my bet effort at being fair minded and neutral (OK as a lawyer that is impossible, but I’ll give it my best go and ask for grace where I fall short):

What's in a Name? - Sometime Everything:
Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?  Yes, but Romeo and Juliet still ended up just as dead.  From the seating in which I am sitting, one of Ordain Woman’s (“OW”) largest flaws or even an affront to some, is its name.  To many (including me) it is not just a name; it is a dictate or an objective.  It feels single minded and immovable.  The name becomes particularly problematic when the church, through Elder Oaks, pretty frankly said that the current leaders of the church do not believe that they have the authority to ordain woman to offices in the priesthood.  So like Wesley and the Sicilian, we are at an impasse (unless someone has been sipping Iocane Powder).

What I was surprised to learn is that OW is promoting a number of other women’s issues; issues I found surprisingly reasonable.  For me, however, the name Ordain Woman only had one perceivable goal that made me bristle as it sounded like a non-negotiable demand to God or to men trying to follow the will of God.  I generally refrain from giving ultimatums to God and the Church and though Kate Kelly and company may not have seen it that was, a lot of us saw it as just that.  Therein lays the naming problem.

As a bit of wordsmith and lexicographer (OK patents words are not real words, but I’ll claims that title anyway) I wonder what would have happened if Kate Kelly and company (I love the alliteration) had simply changed the name of the organization after her first run in with her bishop.  It would have taken some humility, which is hard for all of us, but the message conveyed by the name could have changed while still preserving her goal of opening the discussion of women’s issues in the church.

Could I suggest even now for the members of OW who are felling pulled between their faith in the church and their duty to their fellow sisters to make a subtle yet profound name change?  Try SUSTAIN WOMEN.  How can anyone disagree with that?  We all want to sustain women in their goals of knowing they are valued and important.  It is utterly harmless; close enough to the original Ordain Women name that there is recognition (important in marketing); it makes no demands; and sustainwomen.org is available on GoDaddy.com for $16 (which I find horribly ironic).

So with some minor backtracking and strategic rebranding, the conversation can continue on without anyone getting Sundays off or saving 10% in take home pay.... (OK not the best sales pitch).

Express a Concern, Not a Demands:
In negotiating most legal settlements I try to ask the other side what are their company’s goals, separate from the lawsuit.  Often their goals are entirely different (or even conflicting) from what issues are driving suit.  Sometimes they just want to make the other side “kneel before Zod” to show they are right.   Such is my perception here with the OW issue.  Look at the Demand vs. Concern below:     

A Demand:  Woman demand to be ordained to an office in the priesthood (period).

A Concern:  A significant number of women (one is significant enough for me) feel as though they are undervalued or unvalued in the church and that the only way given them to provide a meaning contribution to God’s kingdom is by supporting their husbands and children.  How can we change this?

Do the two statements feel different?  They should.  There are many ways of addressing the concerns, but only one way of meeting the demand.  We tell our doctor where we hurt; not what perception to write out.  That seems to make for better healing.

Adjectives Are Everything (sometime nouns too):
We all like to advocate our position.  I do it all the time – probably way more than I should. One of the key tools for building our position is word choice, especially adjectives.  Adjectives have the power to take facts and turn them into propaganda.  For example, compare the phrase “unmoving old-guard church leaders sitting in their red velvet chair” to “humble and inspired church leaders.”  Both make a judgment on the noun and when we are trying to express the facts accurately we are in truth slathering them in our own bias.  As we are talking about admittedly imperfect people leading a church full of even more imperfect people (yours truly in particularly), such characterizations are unnecessary and all they do in inflame.  Likewise, the way in which the other side describes OW can be less than fair as well.  I should know, I have done this in my prior posts and have probably done is here now.  Perhaps a little less advocacy in adjectives and a little more listening and loving could go a long way.

Don’t Be So Angry at the “Nos” that You Miss the “Yeses” Slow Pitched to You:
When Elder Oaks spoke on the priesthood last conference, it was no surprise to me that he said that ordinations to offices in priesthood would not be extended to women.  Not a big shocker.  But what astonished me was that no one seemed to pick up on the other message that was given.
Elder Oaks taught that all callings in the church, for both men and women, are performed under the authority of the priesthood, not under the authority of men, but under the authority of the power of God.  The question for me is if woman have been holding callings under the authority of the priesthood what other callings actually require an ordination to an office of the priesthood to hold?  In other words, the question I would next ask for OW is not “are you sure” (or simply stating “you are wrong”), but “are there callings that having been traditionally held by men that could be extended to women who operate under power of the priesthood? (Do I need to emphasize again that this is not the same as “operating under control of men”?) 

To me what was acknowledged here was that woman have been operating under the authority of the priesthood for a long time (again, priesthood is the power of God, not some group of men misnomer).  So my OW friends and family, I propose you ask “Can woman hold calling X or calling Y?” or “Can the priesthood responsibilities of this calling be delegated to a female?” (we like delegation in this church anyway).  I think this would make some progress in the direction OW is seeking and though it is not everything they/you want right now…line upon line my sisters …line upon line.  Mankind does not do well with major changes too fast without bloodshed or schisms.  I think God knows this pretty well. 


So there is my two-bits worth and since it was entirely free for you to read it was probably worth just that.  I hope I just did my part in no furthering this rift of people who truly love each other and are really not that far apart in 98.3% of their beliefs.