Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Calm]

Thoughts off of the top of my head. No particular order.

2. The issue may be indicative of some women not feeling like they have a full voice in the church. There are things that could be done and have been done to help that.

My personal hope is to have administrative stuff more separated from holding the Priesthood so that it is seen less as equivalent.

 

If women are included in councils that are based on having to have unanimous positions and not presented as the presiding priesthood authority having the final say no matter what others say, I think it would help a great deal in perception of the power women have.  Actual influence imo is high, but it is still seen as optional and can be removed if a man isn't in the mood to accept that influence.  We need to somehow make it clear that accepting that influence is not optional (RS are supposed to be part of ward council and yet in some wards are still not attending) and it may require setting up obvious situations where women have the ultimate veto power at high levels.

Edited March 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[smac97]

Another point worth noting is the OW group's instructions for its protesters (available online here), which include the following (emphases added):

 

Do not:

· speak on behalf of OW (including discussing OW plans, strategies, or positions)

· use sarcasm or speak contemptuously of the Church

∙ describe this action as a “protest” (acceptable terms include: action, event, attending Priesthood Session, or demonstration)

 

Remember, you cannot ask reporters to ignore/not report/forget/keep off-­record something you have already said; reporters will not comply and they do not have to. If any reporters or camera people are in the vicinity, anything you say may be recorded. Make sure to only say things you would feel comfortable seeing in print attributed to you. You will be photographed. You may wear sunglasses, or do your hair differently than usual, but you may not prevent media from using images of you taken at a public event. Maintain a dignified image at all times.

...

 

Appearance/decorum:

 

This is an event organized by Ordain Women and organizers will make sure that participants represent the group appropriately. There will be no signs allowed and no tirades against the Church. Participants should wear their Sunday best.

 

My experience with "faithful Mormon women" is that they do not have to be told, when attending a church function, to abstain from "speak(ing) contemptuously of the Church" and to refrain from "tirades against the Church."

 

Which kinda sorta makes you wonder what kind of "faithful Mormon women" do require such instructions.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

Recently I read a post online that said that Ordain Women had gotten donations and were in a position to fund travel for those who wanted to attend.  It invited people to apply for the assistance if they wanted to participate.   That makes them paid protesters, even (though they claim that people who care enough to fund or hit up their own friends and relatives to fund their attendance are no different from those who hear about a free trip and take it). 

 

Yep.  So far they've raised nearly $8,000.  See here: http://www.youcaring.com/help-a-neighbor/help-send-women-to-priesthood-session-/141986

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

I will be praying that the hearts of these sisters will be softened. The Lord's Spirit can do anything. Let's do what we can to ask the Lord to help these sisters understand His Kingdom better.

[Bikeemikey]

So all that rigmarole about "We risk losing everything if we villianise them..." didn't mean anything?

There is a vast, vast difference between my dissent and theirs. They have aligned themselves with an excommunicated apostate. I have not. They have allowed themselves to be represented by an excommunicated apostate. I have not. They are protesting against their own church. I have not. They are demanding a change in doctrine, and simultaneously saying that "nothing less will suffice." I have not. They are planning to deliberately trespass on Church property and disrupt a session of General Conference. I have not. They are attempting to make the LDS Church look bad. I have not.

I strongly disagree with the time, place and manner of this dissent.

In secular matters, yes. In the Kingdom of God, not so much. Protest is not how we are supposed to function. That is not the way of the Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

So long and short - you think the church would be better off if the OW movement was silent.

I think the church is better off with a vocal OW movement.

That's about the easiest way to review the impasse. I'm fine with that.

[changed]

1. The polling data I have seen about the Priesthood issue had 90% plus of women and 50%plus of men are opposed to the women being ordained.

 

Interesting, does that mean 50% of the guys want help with their duties? 

[Bikeemikey]

I will be praying that the hearts of these sisters will be softened. The Lord's Spirit can do anything. Let's do what we can to ask the Lord to help these sisters understand His Kingdom better.

As opposed to asking The Lord to help you understand these women better... Or do you think you should ask for both.

[Bikeemikey]

Interesting, does that mean 50% of the guys want help with their duties?

Is say almost 100% of guys want help with their duties.

[Calm]

Interesting, does that mean 50% of the guys want help with their duties? 

Perhaps it means that 50% of the men would like their sisters to be able to share in the same joy they feel when performing their duties.

[Tacenda]

As per the churches letter to OW today:

"Ordination of women to the priesthood is a matter of doctrine that is contrary to the Lord’s revealed organization for His Church."

Is this the most precise, clearly stated, official word from the church that it is official church doctrine that women don't/won't receive the priesthood? Does this put to rest the whole "women not holding the priesthood is just a policy" stance?

Well awhile back, someone once asked Pres. Hinckley if women would ever hold the PH. Pres. Hinckley said that women weren't agitating for it and were happy with how things were, not in those words. I guess that sentiment opened the door for women who have quietly wanted the PH, or something like it, to say something.

[changed]

Well awhile back, someone once asked Pres. Hinckley if women would ever hold the PH. Pres. Hinckley said that women weren't agitating for it and were happy with how things were, not in those words. I guess that sentiment opened the door for women who have quietly wanted the PH, or something like it, to say something.

I know that quote, and it is taken out of context.  President Hinckley was not advocating or encouraging women to agitate - he was making a point about the 90% who are happy the way things are.

[smac97]

So long and short - you think the church would be better off if the OW movement was silent.

No, that's not what I think.

I think the church is better off with a vocal OW movement.

"Be one; and if yet are not one ye are not mine." D&C 38:27.

"And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been." 3 Nephi 11:28.

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Ephesians 4:13.

"Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Ephesians 4:3.

"And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with bone eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another." Mosiah 18:21.

In my view, none of these are reflected in the OW group's adversarial, my-way-or-the-highway, we-want-the-priesthood-and-nothing-less-will-suffice protests and upcoming defiant trespass against the Church.

If we were talking about a social club, or a political dispute involving secular government, I would agree that vocal opposition against political opponents or politicians who aren't adhering to the desires of the electorate would be the order of the day. But we are not a social club. We are not a secular government. We are supposed to be much, much more than that. Kate Kelly and her group are trivializing and coarsening the discourse of the Saints. They are setting themselves up against the Brethren (as evidenced by their stance that "nothing less will suffice" than what they want). They have aligned themselves with an excommunicated apostate and elected her to be one of their primary leaders. They are planning to once again protest during, and therefore detract from, General Conference. This time, they will be doing so against the express instructions they have received from the Church. They will therefore be trespassing. They are doing these things to make the Church look bad. They are doing these things to attempt to bend the Church to their will. They are doing these things despite the fact that overwhelming numbers of the very people they arrogantly claim to represent - LDS woman - do not agree with their position.

This state of affairs is, in your view, going to make the Church "better off?"

Oh.

-Smac

[Shizfan]

Well awhile back, someone once asked Pres. Hinckley if women would ever hold the PH. Pres. Hinckley said that women weren't agitating for it and were happy with how things were, not in those words. I guess that sentiment opened the door for women who have quietly wanted the PH, or something like it, to say something.

I'd say that quote is pretty clear on the churches official position about women and the PH. Unless I'm reading that wrong. I've always understood that the OW stance is that women not holding the PH was a matter of policy and not doctrine. So if this statement is an official stance about the doctrine of women and the PH, wouldn't it.....or should I say shouldn't it put an end to their organization or at least their stance on motives?

[emarkp]

Hey, if we're quoting Hinckley, could we at least see a citation?

[EllenMaksoud]

Here: http://www.standard.net/stories/2014/03/17/lds-church-tells-mormon-women-s-group-not-protest

 

 

A few thoughts:

 

First, I am glad to see the Church asserting its property rights.  While it is unfortunate that some of these protesters are LDS, perhaps this will be a wake-up call to the adversarial nature of their conduct.  Put another way, they'll have to ditch the facade of their intended protest being something other than a protest.

 

Second, I think the Church is doing the right thing here.  I do not think protesters should be afforded some sort of privileged access to church property simply because some of them are LDS.

 

Third, I am concerned about Kate Kelly's comment that her group "will go forward with lining up outside the meeting."  That sound like she is planning to disregard the Church's instruction, and also the law.  Unfortunately, I think this group may be angling for a confrontation, as it will result in more publicity for their protest.

 

Fourth, I think Kate Kelly's claim about being "discouraged by church leaders comparing them with outside protest groups" is a bit absurd.  A protest is a protest, regardless of whether the protesters are "outside" or "inside" the Church.

 

EDIT:

 

Fifth, I think the article's title ("Mormon church tells women's group not to protest") is misleading.  The Church isn't telling the OW folks that they cannot protest, only that they cannot do so on Church property.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Sorry, I need help ! I have not met one single active Mormon woman that wishes to do the men's job of priesthood TOO ! I feel sufficently occupied and I am not willing to take up the work of slackers.

[MorningStar]

I'm glad the church issued the statement.  We have enough people as it is who try to disrupt General Conference and make it a less than peaceful experience.   I don't know how much more clear they can be that women are not to meant to hold the priesthood (at least at this time).  Several talks mentioned this at our last conference too.

[why me]

Sorry, I need help ! I have not met one single active Mormon woman that wishes to do the men's job of priesthood TOO ! I feel sufficently occupied and I am not willing to take up the work of slackers.

I have had the same experience. I don't think that these women represent the majority of mormon women at all. And for those who would like the priesthood and who are active, I don't believe that they would support the tactics of the OrdainGirls movement. I say girls because it must be about ordaining girls also.

[why me]

The tactics of the organizations are designed to get publicity for their cause. I truly do not believe that they are interested in getting girls and women ordained. But they are interested to giving the lds church negative publicity by using the media. Most of these women would refuse the priesthood or because of their status in the lds church be denied the priesthood. The media will cover the event and photo opts will be taken. And then all will be basically quiet again until October.

 

They certainly do not believe in revelation or think of the lds church as a revelatory church.

[why me]

The name of the organization is misleading. Girls must also be ordained just as the boys are. In other words, it is all about ordaining females to the priesthood. Women cannot be ordained to the exclusion of the girls. So, the name of the organization is about getting media attention by getting others to believe that it is a man/woman issue when actually it is a gender issue.

[Calm]

The tactics of the organizations are designed to get publicity for their cause. I truly do not believe that they are interested in getting girls and women ordained. But they are interested to giving the lds church negative publicity by using the media. Most of these women would refuse the priesthood or because of their status in the lds church be denied the priesthood. The media will cover the event and photo opts will be taken. And then all will be basically quiet again until October.

 

They certainly do not believe in revelation or think of the lds church as a revelatory church.

I very much disagree and think it is worthless to act as if there is a hidden agenda, that this is all a big plain to make the Church look bad.

It comments like these IMO that push both sides of the discussions to the extreme and hinder actual interaction, presence of the Spirit and conversion of our souls to being truly unified.

[Calm]

Sorry, I need help ! I have not met one single active Mormon woman that wishes to do the men's job of priesthood TOO ! I feel sufficently occupied and I am not willing to take up the work of slackers.

I think if you separated out various aspects that are currently in one box labeled Priesthood, you would find a loy more takers.

I also think men may have a more realistic view of the implications and thus see it is not such a dramatic change as it may appear to be...thus the higher numbers among men.

If you asked a woman if she would like to be a witness at a baptism, even perform a baptism or give the confirmation while her husband performs the other part of the ordinance of if she would like to stand in the naming blessing and add her words to her husband''s, to be able to anoint and give he children priesthood blessings when their father is not at home or refuses to give them (not my husband, but I have heard a man reject the opportunity because he didn't think the kid was sick enough or another because he just had hurt and was afraid and he should be a 'man' about rather than running to get a blessing like a wimp...I think many women would embrace the decision.

I think have a parallel experience of some sort for young to contribute as an almost adult woman will remove the need to focus overly much on appearance and on sex and shift to more productive, important project. if they start seeing themselves as ordinaces workers...as adult members in their community they will become less obsessed with material things

If I could bless the sacrament with my daughter, she would accept it from me because i know what it means to her while she sees it from others as thinking she is something that is not and it would help her maintain her faith where before her shyness is driving her away from it. With me, it would not be a source of anxiety, all others it will be.

So I can see a number of priesthood ordinances I would shout hallaluya! Everytime I could give that service.

I personally think there is a priestess version that is missing, the ordinances are full in mortality but only half or less in the next life and the female side will be grafted back in and like two intertwining trees provide support and protection yet unique fruit to partake of.

There are others that I don't want and see great value for men to be alone or the primary mover. The idea that the priesthood has to stay the same,can not evolve in ways that do not in one whit remove an ounce of male involvement seems to me to be a vile idea, locking men and women into a structure that is probably quite a few years out of date but through inspirationis given new life...but there is so much more when the priest on the one side blesses the community with his life devoted to the Father and provides the Laws and Order of God while priestess of the Mother's order are there to nurture the law and order....leading the community that is the tree of life and tree of knowledge intertwined growing to full strength, all it's needs fulfilled as would be each man and woman.

Edited March 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

No, that's not what I think.

"Be one; and if yet are not one ye are not mine." D&C 38:27.

"And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been." 3 Nephi 11:28.

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Ephesians 4:13.

"Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Ephesians 4:3.

"And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with bone eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another." Mosiah 18:21.

In my view, none of these are reflected in the OW group's adversarial, my-way-or-the-highway, we-want-the-priesthood-and-nothing-less-will-suffice protests and upcoming defiant trespass against the Church.

If we were talking about a social club, or a political dispute involving secular government, I would agree that vocal opposition against political opponents or politicians who aren't adhering to the desires of the electorate would be the order of the day. But we are not a social club. We are not a secular government. We are supposed to be much, much more than that. Kate Kelly and her group are trivializing and coarsening the discourse of the Saints. They are setting themselves up against the Brethren (as evidenced by their stance that "nothing less will suffice" than what they want). They have aligned themselves with an excommunicated apostate and elected her to be one of their primary leaders. They are planning to once again protest during, and therefore detract from, General Conference. This time, they will be doing so against the express instructions they have received from the Church. They will therefore be trespassing. They are doing these things to make the Church look bad. They are doing these things to attempt to bend the Church to their will. They are doing these things despite the fact that overwhelming numbers of the very people they arrogantly claim to represent - LDS woman - do not agree with their position.

This state of affairs is, in your view, going to make the Church "better off?"

Oh.

-Smac

Yes it is, in my view.

But I'm still confused. You said you didn't think the church would be better off with the OW movement silent (not around). But then you went on and seemed to want to demonstrate that the OW is clearly not making the church better off?

Which one is it?

[Bikeemikey]

I'd say that quote is pretty clear on the churches official position about women and the PH. Unless I'm reading that wrong. I've always understood that the OW stance is that women not holding the PH was a matter of policy and not doctrine. So if this statement is an official stance about the doctrine of women and the PH, wouldn't it.....or should I say shouldn't it put an end to their organization or at least their stance on motives?

Very clear. Priesthood assignment is a matter of doctrine that can only be changed via revelation.

This is means all the protest in the world won't change a thing if revelation doesn't come to approve a change.

[Bikeemikey]

I'd say that quote is pretty clear on the churches official position about women and the PH. Unless I'm reading that wrong. I've always understood that the OW stance is that women not holding the PH was a matter of policy and not doctrine. So if this statement is an official stance about the doctrine of women and the PH, wouldn't it.....or should I say shouldn't it put an end to their organization or at least their stance on motives?

Very clear. Priesthood assignment is a matter of doctrine that can only be changed via revelation.

This is means all the protest in the world won't change a thing if revelation doesn't come to approve a change.

[Bikeemikey]

I'd say that quote is pretty clear on the churches official position about women and the PH. Unless I'm reading that wrong. I've always understood that the OW stance is that women not holding the PH was a matter of policy and not doctrine. So if this statement is an official stance about the doctrine of women and the PH, wouldn't it.....or should I say shouldn't it put an end to their organization or at least their stance on motives?

Very clear. Priesthood assignment is a matter of doctrine that can only be changed via revelation.

This is means all the protest in the world won't change a thing if revelation doesn't come to approve a change.