Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

Recommended Posts

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

First, it is generally not up to "the Brethren" to make a determination of apostasy. It is up to the local leadership at the ward/stake level.

Second, there has been a determination of apostasy as far as Margaret Toscano.

Third, Kate Kelly's group has openly aligned itself with an excommunicated apostate. Margaret Toscano appears on their website, in their literature, and so on. She was on a panel discussion conducted by the OW group last year. She speaks to the media on behalf of the OW group. I think it is reasonable to surmise that the OW group knew her background and, with that information in hand, chose to make Toscano one of the visible representatives of that group. The alignment between the OW group and an excommunicated apostate is therefore aptly described as calculated. Brazen. Flagrant. Deeply troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

First, it is generally not up to "the Brethren" to make a determination of apostasy. It is up to the local leadership at the ward/stake level.

Second, there has been a determination of apostasy as far as Margaret Toscano.

Third, Kate Kelly's group has openly aligned itself with an excommunicated apostate. Margaret Toscano appears on their website, in their literature, and so on. She was on a panel discussion conducted by the OW group last year. She speaks to the media on behalf of the OW group. I think it is reasonable to surmise that the OW group knew her background and, with that information in hand, chose to make Toscano one of the visible representatives of that group. The alignment between the OW group and an excommunicated apostate is therefore aptly described as calculated. Brazen. Flagrant. Deeply troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Because someone has been excommunicated for "something" does not been they have no valuable contribution to make or that we can disregard everything that they do in the future for evermore. The entire restoration is littered with excommunicated people who continued to make valuable contributions to the gospel afterward.

 

The idea that excommunication should equal total rejection of the individual for ever after is silly.

Share this post


Link to post

Because someone has been excommunicated for "something" does not been they have no valuable contribution to make or that we can disregard everything that they do in the future for evermore. The entire restoration is littered with excommunicated people who continued to make valuable contributions to the gospel afterward.

 

The idea that excommunication should equal total rejection of the individual for ever after is silly.

Smac was not inferring that, he is saying Toscano is an apostate. 

 

Excommunicated people have a voice and can make valuable contributions, but it isn't during conference protesting the church.

A logical conclusion.

Edited by Anijen

Share this post


Link to post

Because someone has been excommunicated for "something" does not been they have no valuable contribution to make or that we can disregard everything that they do in the future for evermore. The entire restoration is littered with excommunicated people who continued to make valuable contributions to the gospel afterward.

 

The idea that excommunication should equal total rejection of the individual for ever after is silly.

 

Maybe i'm misunderstanding him, but i don't think Smac is talking about Toscano not having anything valid to say in any situation.

 

I think he saying that it is a problem for OW, who has been claiming that they are sincere believing members supportive of the LDS church, to have a known excommunicated member be a spokesman/top leader.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe i'm misunderstanding him, but i don't think Smac is talking about Toscano not having anything valid to say in any situation.

 

I think he saying that it is a problem for OW, who has been claiming that they are sincere believing members supportive of the LDS church, to have a known excommunicated member be a spokesman/top leader.

 

Which is only an objection to OW if you assume excommunicated people have nothing valuable to contribute.

Edited by Bikeemikey

Share this post


Link to post

Here is their response:

http://ordainwomen.org/ordain-womens-response-to-ticket-denial/

 

 
Ordain Women’s Response to Ticket Denial

Posted by Nancy on Mar 17, 2014 in Actions | 0 comments

We at Ordain Women are saddened to learn that our request for tickets to the upcoming priesthood session of General Conference has been denied. As faithful Mormon women, we are eager to participate in the dialogue on the policy of women’s priesthood exclusion.

As a demonstration of our eagerness for the blessings and responsibilities of the priesthood, we will reverently seek admission to the priesthood session on Saturday, April 5th. We pray that our request will be reconsidered.

Share this post


Link to post

Which is only an objection to OW if you assume excommunicated people have nothing valuable to contribute.

 

Not if you are objecting to OW claiming to be an organization compromised of 'church members'.

 

Notice how in the reply to the denial to get into the priesthood session OW claims to be an organization of 'faithful Mormon women'.  Given that that's not true, it makes sense that some members would object to OW's inclusion of an excommunicated member.

Edited by bluebell

Share this post


Link to post

Which is only an objection to OW if you assume excommunicated people have nothing valuable to contribute.

Again excommunicated members do have a voice, can add a perspective that is seldom heard, and likewise can be a valuable contribution. 

 

However, during conference protesting the doctrine of the church is not the best way to voice that concern.

Share this post


Link to post

Not if you are objecting to OW claiming to be an organization compromised of 'church members'.

 

Notice how in the reply to the denial to get into the priesthood session OW claims to be an organization of 'faithful Mormon women'.  Given that that's not true, it makes sense that some members would object to OW's inclusion of an excommunicated member.

 

The majority of women involved in OW that I know personally are all "faithful mormon women". The fact that there are some participants who are former members does not undermine the primary focus of the OW movement which is to be a spokes-group for some "faithful mormon women". 

Edited by Bikeemikey

Share this post


Link to post

Again excommunicated members do have a voice, can add a perspective that is seldom heard, and likewise can be a valuable contribution. 

 

However, during conference protesting the doctrine of the church is not the best way to voice that concern.

 

Obviously that is the view of many. It is obviously not the view of OW.

Share this post


Link to post

We lose nothing by waiting, listening and observing the thoughts and actions of these members as they attempt to understand portions of the Gospel (as currently practiced) that are difficult for them.

First, I have listened and observed. A lot. The listening and observing preceded my public remarks about the OW group.

Second, having listened and observed, I have spoken out publicly about the impropriety of professed Latter-day Saints protesting against their own Church.

Third, I must say I enjoy the irony of you attempting to suppress viewpoints which dissent from the OW group. When they protest and speak against the Church, they are . . . what? Brave? "attempt(ing) to understand portions of the Gospel?" But if someone speaks out against them, you come along and try to tsk tsk us into silence. Sorry, not gonna happen.

We risk losing everything if we villianise them and refuse to respect their personal experiences in the church.

First, I think it is entirely appropriate to fault someone when they engage in inappropriate conduct. Church members protesting against the Church is wrong. Demanding a change in doctrine, and stating that "nothing less will suffice," is wrong. Threatening to defy the Church's instruction and trespass on its property to protest is wrong. Kate Kelly aligning her group with an excommunicated apostate, using that apostate as a public representative of that group, and then characterizing her group as "faithful women" is wrong. There is nothing "faithful" is aligning with an apostate.

Second, I again note the rich irony of you trying to suppress opposing viewpoints.

Third, I have said nothing about their "personal experiences" of Kate Kelly or anyone else in her group. Stop trying to paint them as a bunch of waifish ninnies. They've put themselves out there for public comment and criticism. I think it is a little absurd for women to demand a voice in the public sphere (which is fine by me), then have people like you hop to and defend their delicate ladyships when someone voices an objection to what they are doing (protesting, aligning with apostates, etc.).

I have enough confidence in our church and our prophet that change will not come if it is not desired by God. So how can we lose by accepting the dissent in the mean time.

So dissent is okay, but dissenting against dissent is not? Just trying to figure out the rules here ...

Surely we owe the women in the church the periodic reappraisal of gender roles in the church and the question of authority in the priesthood and institution as a gendered right.

No, we don't. The priesthood is a matter of "right" only through lineal succession (see D&C 68:16-21). Unless Kate Kelly is claiming to be "the firstborn among the sons of Aaron," then there is no "right" to the priesthood at issue here. (By the way, did you notice how the the "right" referenced here belongs to the sons of Aaron?)

I think we should certainly discuss the role of women in the Church. But that discussion should not be through protests, through public demands for changes in doctrine, for unilateral declarations that "nothing less will suffice," and so on.

In the main, I believe we should be guided by Hebrews 5:4 ("And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."). In my view, public protests demanding the priesthood, with accompanying declarations that "nothing less will suffice," amounts to conduct which is not incompatible with Hebrews 5:4.

Now, before you throw a hissy fit about that, I suggest you apply your reasoning regarding the tolerance of dissent. My dissent. If in your view Kate Kelly and her ilk are entitled to voice their dissenting views, then surely you must give me, a male church member, the same privilege when it comes to dissenting against Kate Kelly?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

Because someone has been excommunicated for "something"

Margaret Toscano was not excommunicated for her taste in clothing. She was excommunicated for apostasy.

does not been they have no valuable contribution to make or that we can disregard everything that they do in the future for evermore.

Phbbt. Kate Kelly has organized a group, consisting in part of self-professed Latter-day Saints, who are demanding the priesthood, who are saying that "nothing less will suffice," who are publicly protesting against the Church to make that demand, who have aligned themselves with and appointed as a key leader of their movement an excommunicated apostate, who are now planning to defy the Church and trespass on its property during the next General Conference.

You are apparently okay with these things. But can you perhaps grant that others might take exception to these things, and that they would have a reasonable, good faith basis for dissenting from and disagreeing with Kate Kelly's group?

Or are dissenting viewpoints only deserving of your respect when the dissent is directed against the LDS Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

First, I have listened and observed. A lot. The listening and observing preceded my public remarks about the OW group.

Second, having listened and observed, I have spoken out publicly about the impropriety of professed Latter-day Saints protesting against their own Church.

Third, I must say I enjoy the irony of you attempting to suppress viewpoints which dissent from the OW group. When they protest and speak against the Church, they are . . . what? Brave? "attempt(ing) to understand portions of the Gospel?" But if someone speaks out against them, you come along and try to tsk tsk us into silence. Sorry, not gonna happen.

First, I think it is entirely appropriate to fault someone when they engage in inappropriate conduct. Church members protesting against the Church is wrong. Demanding a change in doctrine, and stating that "nothing less will suffice," is wrong. Threatening to defy the Church's instruction and trespass on its property to protest is wrong. Kate Kelly aligning her group with an excommunicated apostate, using that apostate as a public representative of that group, and then characterizing her group as "faithful women" is wrong. There is nothing "faithful" is aligning with an apostate.

Second, I again note the rich irony of you trying to suppress opposing viewpoints.

Third, I have said nothing about their "personal experiences" of Kate Kelly or anyone else in her group. Stop trying to paint them as a bunch of waifish ninnies. They've put themselves out there for public comment and criticism. I think it is a little absurd for women to demand a voice in the public sphere (which is fine by me), then have people like you hop to and defend their delicate ladyships when someone voices an objection to what they are doing (protesting, aligning with apostates, etc.).

So dissent is okay, but dissenting against dissent is not? Just trying to figure out the rules here ...

No, we don't. The priesthood is a matter of "right" only through lineal succession (see D&C 68:16-21). Unless Kate Kelly is claiming to be "the firstborn among the sons of Aaron," then there is no "right" to the priesthood at issue here. (By the way, did you notice how the the "right" referenced here belongs to the sons of Aaron?)

I think we should certainly discuss the role of women in the Church. But that discussion should not be through protests, through public demands for changes in doctrine, for unilateral declarations that "nothing less will suffice," and so on.

In the main, I believe we should be guided by Hebrews 5:4 ("And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."). In my view, public protests demanding the priesthood, with accompanying declarations that "nothing less will suffice," amounts to conduct which is not incompatible with Hebrews 5:4.

Now, before you throw a hissy fit about that, I suggest you apply your reasoning regarding the tolerance of dissent. My dissent. If in your view Kate Kelly and her ilk are entitled to voice their dissenting views, then surely you must give me, a male church member, the same privilege when it comes to dissenting against Kate Kelly?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I have no issue with your dissent.

 

I think that the meeting point of your dissent and the OW dissent will be the fulcrum of our church for the 25 years.

 

Without the dissent there would be no stake to the conversation, and there is important stuff at stake.

 

Protest is important. Your protest of them and their protest of the institution. I am actually very excited about living in a time when we seem to be able to live with those competing ideas without totally fragmenting.

Share this post


Link to post

Margaret Toscano was not excommunicated for her taste in clothing. She was excommunicated for apostasy.

Phbbt. Kate Kelly has organized a group, consisting in part of self-professed Latter-day Saints, who are demanding the priesthood, who are saying that "nothing less will suffice," who are publicly protesting against the Church to make that demand, who have aligned themselves with and appointed as a key leader of their movement an excommunicated apostate, who are now planning to defy the Church and trespass on its property during the next General Conference.

You are apparently okay with these things. But can you perhaps grant that others might take exception to these things, and that they would have a reasonable, good faith basis for dissenting from and disagreeing with Kate Kelly's group?

Or are dissenting viewpoints only deserving of your respect when the dissent is directed against the LDS Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

Just for clarity's sake... being excommunicated for not accepting the church's stance on clothing would still referred to as apostasy.

 

As for your issues with my reported dissent of your dissent... well I addressed that in my prior post. You have imagined by dissent of your dissent and thus descended into a tizzy over something you imagined i said. I therefore dissent.

Share this post


Link to post

The majority of women involved in OW that I know personally are all "faithful mormon women". The fact that there are some participants who are former members does not undermine the primary focus of the OW movement which is to be a spokes-group for some "faithful mormon women".

I would have a very hard time lending credence to a pro-America group led by Aldrich Ames. I would not have trusted a report from Ephialtes about how Leonidas was faring at the Hot Gates. I would have a hard time listening to a discourse on effective diplomacy from Vidkun Quisling.

Kate Kelly could hardly have found a more effective means of obliterating her group's credibility as advancing the interests of "faithful Mormon women" than by choosing an excommunicated apostate as a principal visible representative of that group. And since Kate Kelly is obviously an intelligent and calculating person, her choice of Margaret Toscano as that representative means something. Aligning with Toscano is a statement unto itself. And I don't think it's a statement that most "faithful Mormon women" would recognize as representing them and their views.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post

I have no issue with your dissent.

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

I think that the meeting point of your dissent and the OW dissent will be the fulcrum of our church for the 25 years.

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.

Without the dissent there would be no stake to the conversation, and there is important stuff at stake.

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

Protest is important.

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

Share this post


Link to post

The majority of women involved in OW that I know personally are all "faithful mormon women". The fact that there are some participants who are former members does not undermine the primary focus of the OW movement which is to be a spokes-group for some "faithful mormon women". 

 

I think the fact that there are many non and ex and excommunicated members as part of OW actually does undermine the primary focus of the OW movement as a spokes group for faithful Mormon women.

Share this post


Link to post

Just for clarity's sake... being excommunicated for not accepting the church's stance on clothing would still referred to as apostasy.

Just for clarity's sake, your comment on clarity did not provide any. Margaret Toscano was excommunicated for apostasy. Your attempt to gloss over and disregard her status as an excommunicated apostate will just not work. Your attempt to diffuse the profoundly troubling development of a group of ostensibly "faithful Mormon women" allowing themselves to be led and represented by an excommunicated apostate will just not work. We cannot elide over the intentional symbolism of Kate Kelly aligning her group with Margaret Toscano and making Toscano one of the principal public faces of her movement.

As for your issues with my reported dissent of your dissent... well I addressed that in my prior post. You have imagined by dissent of your dissent and thus descended into a tizzy over something you imagined i said. I therefore dissent.

So your abandoning your effort to nanny the conversation. I'm glad that we can disregard absurdities like criticism of the OW being equivalent to "villainising" them and exposing us to "losing everything." I think such histrionics have little value.

Kate Kelly has publicly aligned her group of so-called "faithful Mormon women" with an excommunicated apostate. I find that very troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

The majority of women involved in OW that I know personally are all "faithful mormon women". The fact that there are some participants who are former members does not undermine the primary focus of the OW movement which is to be a spokes-group for some "faithful mormon women". 

 

But it does undermine it, Bikeemikey.   First, they drew a circle and excluded almost all LDS, most importantly, the feminists who don't think priesthood is the path to more inclusion and visibility. That is where they lost me.  At this point, I can only say that OW is tone deaf, if we are to believe that they are trying to communicate with LDS....and I take them at their word that they are.  You may talk to media like this...but not the 90% they need to reach.

 

We at Ordain Women are saddened to learn that our request for tickets to the upcoming priesthood session of General Conference has been denied. As faithful Mormon women, we are eager to participate in the dialogue on the policy of women’s priesthood exclusion.

As a demonstration of our eagerness for the blessings and responsibilities of the priesthood, we will reverently seek admission to the priesthood session on Saturday, April 5th. We pray that our request will be reconsidered.

 

The church has just said plainly, unequivocally that this is doctrine not policy....and we can thank OW for that stand.  Not one of the 90% would consider what they are planning to be "reverent".  They have not only introduced a foreign (and insulting) vocabulary to describe Mormon men, they are trying to change the meaning of words in play. Meanwhile, the underlying needs remain. I can only be grateful that we do have more reasonable feminists engaging in those conversations with the church because OW has squandered their opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post

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).

I love the quote of her telling the elders in her mission that 'no, it was not going to be done their way, this is how you are going to do it'…If that was a demonstration of unjust patriarchal domination in the Church, the Church is definitely not that bad off.

 

OTOH, the men might be able to use some assertiveness training.

Edited by calmoriah

Share this post


Link to post

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). 

Share this post


Link to post

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?

Share this post


Link to post

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

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.

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.

3. The cat is out of the bag on some issues with women and the priesthood. Women act under the priesthood in the temple and gave blessings in the Nauvoo era. Some of them see that and are not sure why they can`t participate more within the priesthood.

4. The September 6 excommunication did not go well within the world of PR and I am not sure that they would have been excommunicated today. Margaret is outspoken and at least part of the reason she was excommunicated was for the book Stranger in Paradox. I have read Strangers in Paradox and I have got to say that it is an amazing book. No, there are a number of things I don`t agree with, but wow I got some insights into the gospel.

5.My oldest daughter is a support of OWN and is active. My wife is adamantly opposed in the opposite direction. We have had some interesting discussions at reunions.

6. The gospel of Christ requires us to show as much compassion and love to my daughter and the other women of OWN.

7. I am personally opposed to the ordination of women, but I see how they could have keys delegated within the structure we have now such as happens in the temple.

Share this post


Link to post

Which is only an objection to OW if you assume excommunicated people have nothing valuable to contribute.

I would have no problem with OW if they did not make it a selling point that they are faithful, active members.  I don't have an issue with them having nonmembers, resigned and excommunicated and even ones defined as apostates.  They can indeed have value to contribute.

 

However, pretending they are something that they are not is problematic for me.

Share this post


Link to post

The majority of women involved in OW that I know personally are all "faithful mormon women". The fact that there are some participants who are former members does not undermine the primary focus of the OW movement which is to be a spokes-group for some "faithful mormon women". 

No it doesn't.  What does undermine the movement is pretending to be of only faithful mormon women.  Why not be open that they are composed of a varied group?  Is not one of their purposes to promote acceptance of diversity?

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...