Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

Recommended Posts

One would hope they would be arrested.  Trespassing, private property etc.

Please tell me you are not part of the Church PR department.

One would hope the Church would not greet with open arms a public relations nightmare. A nightmare that would polarize and garner support for the women you hope would be arrested.

Share this post


Link to post

A few more bits about how the OW group has aligned itself with an apostate:

1. http://ordainwomen.org/resources/ - The OW website includes an article by Margaret Toscano, an excommunicated apostate.

2. http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-margaret/ - The OW website includes a profile for Margaret Toscano.

3. https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/update-issue-171/ - This article includes a photo of women described as "the force behind Ordain Women." The group includes Kate Kelly and . . . Margaret Toscano.

4. http://mormonfem.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/priesthood-ordination-for-women/ - This includes a photo of the panel at last year's "Priestesshood Session," at which Kate Kelly shared the stage with, among others, Margaret Toscano.

Toscano's participation in the OW group is entrenched and top-tier. She is a person who was excommunicated for apostasy.

Thanks,

-Smac

There is also Holly Welker, an exMormon writer for Religion Dispatches, who affiliates with OW.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Please share with us all the smear you can, so that the choice will be clear to vilify our Sisters in Christ. And by context, anyone recommend holding member who supports the OW group, needs to turn in their recommend because they associate with an apostate.

 

It's obvious that Smac disagrees with the group (as i'm sure the group disagrees with him) but what exactly did he say that was a 'smear' or vilifying?

Share this post


Link to post

It's obvious that Smac disagrees with the group (as i'm sure the group disagrees with him) but what exactly did he say that was a 'smear' or vilifying?

 

Deleted

Edited by Bikeemikey

Share this post


Link to post

It's obvious that Smac disagrees with the group (as i'm sure the group disagrees with him) but what exactly did he say that was a 'smear' or vilifying?

I do not believe that you are dense, which would necessitate that I would need to explain. And I mean that a compliment.

Edited by frank_jessop

Share this post


Link to post

Please tell me you are not part of the Church PR department.

One would hope the Church would not greet with open arms a public relations nightmare. A nightmare that would polarize and garner support for the women you hope would be arrested.

Well if that's going to happen, I suppose the die is cast, because they have been warned not to bring their protest onto the temple grounds, and the warning has been made public.

Share this post


Link to post

Please tell me you are not part of the Church PR department.

One would hope the Church would not greet with open arms a public relations nightmare. A nightmare that would polarize and garner support for the women you hope would be arrested.

 

Nope.  I'm far too politically incorrect to ever be in PR.  But you give them far too much credit if you think that an apostate group being forcibly escorted off church property by the police would garner support among members.  As for the general public, well, the church stance on SSM marriage has led to PR issues and the church really doesn't care what the public think.

Share this post


Link to post

I do not believe that you are so dense that I would need to explain.

I guess I'm dense as well, because I don't see it either.

Share this post


Link to post

I do not believe that you are so dense that I would need to explain.

I am. Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post

I do not believe that you are so dense that I would need to explain.

 

It was a sincere question.

 

One can disagree with a group, and point out why, without 'vilifying'.

Share this post


Link to post

And, if they bring divisions into the body of Christ -- and protest movements tend, by nature, to be very divisive -- they bring about what Christ expressly and stringently warned against when He said, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine."

Just for a moment, it would be very instructive to be able to see the Church through the lens of Kate Kelly's mind. It would be enlightening to know if she's sincerely motivated, howbeit ignorantly and foolishly, by a naïve idealism; or if she's actually trying to cause real harm and embarrassment to the Church in reprisal for the many years of supposed "unjust patriarchal domination." I also wonder if she and her comrades quietly hope to be excommunicated so as to become martyrs and thus cause another 'September 6' style media ruckus. If so, it would seem pride and not humility would be the prime motivator.

Edited by teddyaware

Share this post


Link to post

 

Please share with us all the smear you can, so that the choice will be clear to vilify our Sisters in Christ.

I think my statement, that the OW group has aligned itself with an apostate, is objectively true. It's not a "smear" to state an uncontrovertible fact.

And by context, anyone recommend holding member who supports the OW group, needs to turn in their recommend because they associate with an apostate.

I have said nothing about temple recommends or the ability of the OW folks to hold them. Speaking of smears . . .

Sheesh!

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

Nope.  I'm far too politically incorrect to ever be in PR.; But you give them far too much credit if you think that;an apostate group being forcibly escorted off church property by the police would garner support among members.

naive.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think my statement, that the OW group has aligned itself with an apostate, is objectively true. It's not a "smear" to state an uncontrovertible fact.

I have said nothing about temple recommends or the ability of the OW folks to hold them. Speaking of smears . . .

Sheesh!

-Smac

Another uncontrovertible fact:

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

It is clear what you doing. Sheesh!

Share this post


Link to post

Just for a moment, it would be very instructive to be able to see the Church through the lens of Kate Kelly's mind. It would be enlightening to know if she's sincerely motivated, howbeit ignorantly and foolishly, by a naïve idealism; or if she's actually trying to cause real harm and embarrassment to the Church in reprisal for the many years of supposed "unjust patriarchal domination." I also wonder if she and her comrades quietly hope to be excommunicated so as to become martyrs and thus cause another 'September 6' style media ruckus. If so, it would seem pride and not humility would be the prime motivator.

They would not be alone in that pride. The unChristlike responses to them are buried in it.

Share this post


Link to post

There is also Holly Welker, an exMormon writer for Religion Dispatches, who affiliates with OW.

I was not familiar with her status vis a via church membership. It appears she resigned her membership. I don't see that she was excommunicated for apostasy as Toscano was.

Welker is quite acerbic in her comments relative to the Church, to be sure. But I think Toscano is a far more toxic ally to the OW. Sis. Kelly reaching out to ex-mormons for solidarity against the Church is bad, but positioning an excommunicated apostate as one of the key figures of her movement? That's a figurative birdflip at the Church. That's open rebellion.

Kate Kelly is far too intelligent a person to feign ignorance about the enormity of aligning her group with an excommunicated apostate. I do not lend her statements about being "faithful" the normal benefit of the doubt. Sorry, Sis. Kelly, but your partnership with an apostate makes such claims ring hollow.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post

Just for a moment, it would be very instructive to be able to see the Church through the lens of Kate Kelly's mind. It would be enlightening to know if she's sincerely motivated, howbeit ignorantly and foolishly, by a naïve idealism; or if she's actually trying to cause real harm and embarrassment to the Church in reprisal for the many years of supposed "unjust patriarchal domination." I also wonder if she and her comrades quietly hope to be excommunicated so as to become martyrs and thus cause another 'September 6' style media ruckus. If so, it would seem pride and not humility would be the prime motivator.

 

I have no idea, but i personally believe that she is sincere.

 

She has led a privileged life and as far as i am aware of, other than not being ordained to the priesthood i don't believe she has had any previous 'unjust patriarchal domination' to fuel a need for revenge.  If her life story is any indication, she has always been able to attain whatever she has wanted (and maybe that is part of her determination now, but that is pure speculation).

Share this post


Link to post

I do not believe that you are dense, which would necessitate that I would need to explain. And I mean that a compliment.

I'm not dense. And you do need to explain. Please do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

naive.

 

Really?  Name one apostate who publicy protested the church that achieved membership support AND achieved their goal AND retained their membership.  Not naive, just observant.

 

These women will not and cannot achieve their goals through publicity stunts and demonstration.  And if they make a scene that will lose them more membership support than it will gain.  I for one would love to see them escorted away - it would prevent their legitimization among the members.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Another uncontrovertible fact:

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

So you are quoting a TR question. I have not done so. So your point is . . . what, exactly?

It is clear what you doing. Sheesh!

Please stop being coy. What is is that you think I am doing?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

I think my statement, that the OW group has aligned itself with an apostate, is objectively true. It's not a "smear" to state an uncontrovertible fact.

I have said nothing about temple recommends or the ability of the OW folks to hold them. Speaking of smears . . .

Sheesh!

-Smac

 

I guess you might be right... Joseph Smith was an apostate Christian in his time. 

 

Being apostate is only a big deal if what you are opposing is the will of God... History would suggest that this may be an issue that may change in time.

Share this post


Link to post

Deleted

 

I was just coming back to give you a rep point for this.  To bad.  :pardon:

Share this post


Link to post

Really?  Name one apostate who publicy protested the church that achieved membership support AND achieved their goal AND retained their membership.  Not naive, just observant.

 

These women will not and cannot achieve their goals through publicity stunts and demonstration.  And if they make a scene that will lose them more membership support than it will gain.  I for one would love to see them escorted away - it would prevent their legitimization among the members.

 

Being an apostate is a matter of context... it is up to the "Brethren" to make that determination. So far they have not.

 

Of course they can't achieve their goals via this method.

 

But they can make this an issue that the Church ponders and contemplates at a deep level and then perhaps one day there may be a change... again, blacks and the phood.

Edited by Bikeemikey

Share this post


Link to post

I guess you might be right... Joseph Smith was an apostate Christian in his time.

 

A number of problems here.

First, from the LDS paradigm, calling Joseph Smith an "apostate Christian" is a meaningless slur. I hesitate to even call it is "slur" (I only do so because your intention was clearly to give offense).

Second, Joseph Smith was not comparably situated to Kate Kelly. Their situations are very, very different.

Third, Margaret Toscano's status as both A) an excommunicated apostate and B) an honored, integral, visible, key figure in the OW group is not in dispute.

 

 

Being apostate is only a big deal if what you are opposing is the will of God... History would suggest that this may be an issue that may change in time.

Perhaps. As I have said many times, I am open to the possibility of women receiving the priesthood. That is not the bone I have to pick with Kate Kelly and her group.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post

 

A number of problems here.

First, from the LDS paradigm, calling Joseph Smith an "apostate Christian" is a meaningless slur. I hesitate to even call it is "slur" (I only do so because your intention was clearly to give offense).

Second, Joseph Smith was not comparably situated to Kate Kelly. Their situations are very, very different.

Third, Margaret Toscano's status as both A) an excommunicated apostate and B) an honored, integral, visible, key figure in the OW group is not in dispute.

 

 

Perhaps. As I have said many times, I am open to the possibility of women receiving the priesthood. That is not the bone I have to pick with Kate Kelly and her group.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by Bikeemikey

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...