Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

Recommended Posts

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.

Your views are incorrect... But as your allowed them I won't bother you further.

Share this post


Link to post

 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involvement seems to me to be a vile idea, locking men and women into a structure that is probably quite a few years out of date but through inspirationis given new life..

 

Just curious.

 

 Are you suggesting that we will change the temple ordinance retroactively  to give the phd to all of those women who have been endowed, both living and vicariously?  How would you advise the Prophet on how would that work for temple work that has already been done.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post

Your views are incorrect... But as your allowed them I won't bother you further.

I tend to know activist groups since I was a member of several in the past. I know the tactic very well. Get publicity by going to the media...seek a confrontation that would make the news and bring attention to the cause regardless if it ruins the spiritual experiences of the others who are attempting to attend the meeting.

 

The goal: to be disruptive.

 

The goal: to bring negativity about the lds church in hope that the policy will change.

 

However, how a church implements policy is their own business. It is always between them and god. Not between outside pressure groups. And churches that have succumbed to social pressure tend to lose members quickly for various of reasons but mainly because it it looked upon as a human led church and not god led, which can also be a goal for this group.

Edited by why me

Share this post


Link to post

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.

The name is a take off on NOW the leading feminist group.

The Church's statement, if I understand correctly, states that only ordaining males is a matter of doctrine not policy? Is this new?

Share this post


Link to post

I tend to know activist groups since I was a member of several in the past. I know the tactic very well. Get publicity by going to the media...seek a confrontation that would make the news and bring attention to the cause regardless if it ruins the spiritual experiences of the others who are attempting to attend the meeting.

The goal: to be disruptive.

The goal: to bring negativity about the lds church in hope that the policy will change.

However, how a church implements policy is their own business. It is always between them and god. Not between outside pressure groups. And churches that have succumbed to social pressure tend to lose members quickly for various of reasons but mainly because it it looked upon as a human led church and not god led.

I agree with this for the most part.

I just don't OW movement wants to bring negativity to the church (not as a primary goal). They want to bring attention to the question of women's lack of priesthood ordination.

In our society today this seems to solicit a negative response. That is due to society's norms, not the OW group.

I don't think any group should change because of pressure from outside the group. That said, they must also live with the consequence of a decision to not change.

Share this post


Link to post

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 know you were being somewhat facetious but I've heard this sentiment expressed by other women whom I respect and admire, and yet, it still shocks me EVERY TIME. I can't speak for black members of the Church during, say, the 1940s and 50s, but I do know that black citizens were clamoring for the "soldierhood" -- the right to die a painful death on some faraway battlefield. Certainly, if any group has ever felt that they had already "done enough," it was black Americans who already performed the most backbreaking and thankless jobs in the country. Yet, they were willing to "up the ante" because they understood that, with equality comes responsibility. Most admirably, these people fought for the right to assume the responsibility FIRST with the hope of receiving the equality part later.

I simply can't imagine my grandfather (a WWII vet) saying, "Look, I already work hard enough around here. If I go to the army, what are the white guys going to do -- just sit around and watch football on Sundays?" He felt privileged for the "opportunity" to die for a country that very often mistreated him.

Yet, this Church treats its women with deference and respect (at least, ostensibly) and yet, I hear my sisters say, "I already do enough around here." This statement is so incongruous to the way that these wonderful saints selflessly and tirelessly serve the ward. I've never heard a woman express that sentiment when it comes to making brownies for the Cub Scouts or preparing a lesson for Sunday School, so why are they suddenly "too busy" to bless the sacrament, baptize their children or provide a blessing to a sick baby?

I don't suspect that this is AT ALL what the sisters mean when they say this, but this is how it comes across to someone with my warped sensibilities.

Share this post


Link to post

EllenMaksoud, on 17 Mar 2014 - 10:45 PM, said:

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 know you were being somewhat facetious but I've heard this sentiment expressed by other women whom I also respect and admire, and yet, it still shocks me EVERY TIME. I can't speak for black members of the Church during, say, the 1940s and 50s, but I do know that black citizens were clamoring for the "soldierhood" -- the right to die a painful death on some faraway battlefield. Certainly, if any group has ever felt that they had already "done enough," it was black Americans who already performed the most backbreaking and thankless jobs in the country. Yet, they were willing to "up the ante" because they understood that, with equality comes responsibility. Most admirably, these people fought for the right to assume the responsibility FIRST with the hope of receiving the equality part later.

I simply can't imagine my grandfather (a WWII vet) saying, "Look, I already work hard enough around here. If I go to the army, what are the white guys going to do -- just sit around and watch football on Sundays?" He felt privileged for the "opportunity" to die for a country that very often mistreated him.

Yet, this Church treats its women with deference and respect (at least, ostensibly) and yet, I hear my sisters say, "I already do enough around here." This statement is so incongruous to the way that these wonderful saints selflessly and tirelessly serve the ward. I've never heard a woman express that sentiment when it comes to making brownies for the Cub Scouts or preparing a lesson for Sunday School, so why are they suddenly "too busy" to bless the sacrament, baptize their children or provide a blessing to a sick baby?

I don't suspect that this is AT ALL what the sisters mean when they say this, but this is how it comes across to someone with my warped sensibilities.

Edited by mormonnewb

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't OW movement wants to bring negativity to the church (not as a primary goal). They want to bring attention to the question of women's lack of priesthood ordination.

 

If they were mormons in the real sense of the word, they would know that the church depends on revelation. The organizers of this movement do not seem to believe in such revelation. And they know this very well since they must know that mormons believe that their church is led by god. So, they should take their concerns to god by praying for a change or for an answer. But they do not do this because they wish to bring negative attention to the church. It is one way to take a jab at the church.

Share this post


Link to post

, so why are they suddenly "too busy" to bless the sacrament, baptize their children or provide a blessing to a sick baby?

I don't suspect that this is AT ALL what the sisters mean when they say this, but this is how it comes across to someone with my warped sensibilities.

Because they know that the priesthood will give them certain responsibilities that they can live without. Easier not to have the priesthood because it does carry its own burden and 'cross'. When one has the priesthood, one needs to perform certain functions that one may not wish to have the responsibility to perform.

Share this post


Link to post

Because they know that the priesthood will give them certain responsibilities that they can live without. Easier not to have the priesthood because it does carry its own burden and 'cross'. When one has the priesthood, one needs to perform certain functions that one may not wish to have the responsibility to perform.

Well said. However, wasn't it Christ who said that we must pick up their crosses and follow Him? In fact, I think I've read somewhere that the exercise of the priesthood will make us more like Him.

Why wouldn't EVERY member of the Church want this? As for me, it is the ONLY reason that I joined. In fact, what else is there, but to seek to be more like the Savoir?

Share this post


Link to post

If they were mormons in the real sense of the word, they would know that the church depends on revelation. The organizers of this movement do not seem to believe in such revelation. And they know this very well since they must know that mormons believe that their church is led by god. So, they should take their concerns to god by praying for a change or for an answer. But they do not do this because they wish to bring negative attention to the church. It is one way to take a jab at the church.

Take it to god.

Take it to your leaders.

Take it to your friends.

Take it to your church.

Take it to your community.

These are not mutually exclusive.

It's not ordain women's fault that society finds the mormon view of priesthood and male-female roles old fashioned.

Do I agree with the process they have elected to use... Not really. But I believe in their right to that process.

As for them not believing in revelation - I don't believe in the same sort of revelation you do it you think it happens in a vacuum. I believe revelation to be context driven. As such they are aids to revelation by shaking context. They may not like the final answer but at least we can be sure the question was clear!

Share this post


Link to post

  Demanding a change in revealed doctrine, and saying that "nothing less will suffice" (as Kate Kelly has said repeatedly) is not compatible with the the revelatory process.

 

 

 

What revealed doctrine would that be?

Share this post


Link to post

What revealed doctrine would that be?

That would be a question for the brethren, since in the recent letter they said that ordaining men only to the priesthood was a matter of doctrine. And using that word vs. "policy" does carry additional weight.

I don't have a problem with the sisters asking the question, that is the right of every saint. I do have an issue with them declaring that ordination for women is "non-negotiable"-and that is the phrase they used. Unless you don't think that the leadership of the church prayerfully considers such things and receives revelation on them, why would you presume to dictate to the brethren, and by extension, the Lord? I'd say they had chutzpah, but that'a Jewish term, not an LDS one. 

Share this post


Link to post

That would be a question for the brethren, since in the recent letter they said that ordaining men only to the priesthood was a matter of doctrine. And using that word vs. "policy" does carry additional weight.

I don't have a problem with the sisters asking the question, that is the right of every saint. I do have an issue with them declaring that ordination for women is "non-negotiable"-and that is the phrase they used. Unless you don't think that the leadership of the church prayerfully considers such things and receives revelation on them, why would you presume to dictate to the brethren, and by extension, the Lord? I'd say they had chutzpah, but that'a Jewish term, not an LDS one. 

 

Nothing wrong with having some chutzpah. The scriptures speak, after all, of wrestling with the Lord. However, there is no revelation that anyone can point to that says that women can't have the priesthood. It just doesn't exist canonically.  

Share this post


Link to post

What revealed doctrine would that be?

Lol. Troll.

 

 

It is quite obvious that some people have reading comprehension problems. It appears to be done on purpose.

 

Note: My last comment was not directed to you.

 

You will be thread banned if you do another drive-by insult.

Share this post


Link to post

What revealed doctrine would that be?

 

The doctrine relating to those who can hold the priesthood.  But you knew that when you asked the question, right?  And the next part of this discussion with be a demand for prooftexting, which the pro-OW folks will find subjectively insufficient.  Been there, done that ...

 

Meanwhile, the real problem here is not that a group of women want the priesthood (I find that somewhat problematic under Hebrews 5:4, but I think some latitude is in order).  Instead, the problem is the flagrantly inappropriate tactics that the OW group has adopted.

 

Latter-day Saints protesting against their own Church is wrong.

 

Protesting during General Conference is wrong.

 

Proceeding with protesting on Church property after being told by the Church not to is wrong.

 

Presuming that membership in the Church gives you special protesting privileges against the Church is wrong.

 

Publicly demanding a change in doctrine, and saying that "nothing less will suffice," is wrong.

 

Rejecting the role of revelation in matters of church governance and doctrine is wrong.

 

Orwellian revisionism of words like "protest" is wrong.

 

Aligning with an excommunicated apostate is wrong.

 

Choosing an excommunicated apostate as one of the key leaders in the OW group is wrong.

 

Describing a group which has chosen to be led and represented by an excommunicated apostate as "faithful Mormon women" is wrong (or, at least, quite misleading).  I do not think that faithfulness is compatible with choosing to be led and represented by an excommunicated apostate.  I know I am ringing that bell a lot, but I think this is one of the most troubling aspects of the OW group.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post

Amen to all of that, Smac!

Share this post


Link to post

I know you were being somewhat facetious but I've heard this sentiment expressed by other women whom I also respect and admire, and yet, it still shocks me EVERY TIME. I can't speak for black members of the Church during, say, the 1940s and 50s, but I do know that black citizens were clamoring for the "soldierhood" -- the right to die a painful death on some faraway battlefield. Certainly, if any group has ever felt that they had already "done enough," it was black Americans who already performed the most backbreaking and thankless jobs in the country. Yet, they were willing to "up the ante" because they understood that, with equality comes responsibility. Most admirably, these people fought for the right to assume the responsibility FIRST with the hope of receiving the equality part later.

I simply can't imagine my grandfather (a WWII vet) saying, "Look, I already work hard enough around here. If I go to the army, what are the white guys going to do -- just sit around and watch football on Sundays?" He felt privileged for the "opportunity" to die for a country that very often mistreated him.

Yet, this Church treats its women with deference and respect (at least, ostensibly) and yet, I hear my sisters say, "I already do enough around here." This statement is so incongruous to the way that these wonderful saints selflessly and tirelessly serve the ward. I've never heard a woman express that sentiment when it comes to making brownies for the Cub Scouts or preparing a lesson for Sunday School, so why are they suddenly "too busy" to bless the sacrament, baptize their children or provide a blessing to a sick baby?

I don't suspect that this is AT ALL what the sisters mean when they say this, but this is how it comes across to someone with my warped sensibilities.

To be clear, as a Muslim, I spent years being with mostly "Black" people, with arabs, and others in the mix. So, I have no sinister feelings about Blacks..

 

I am just going to back down on this issue.because of my views on men in general. They are just so much better at certain things than me.

Share this post


Link to post

Just curious.

Are you suggesting that we will change the temple ordinance retroactively to give the phd to all of those women who have been endowed, both living and vicariously? How would you advise the Prophet on how would that work for temple work that has already been done.

No.

I would not.

I am certain the Lord is capable of instructing the Prophet. When a woman becomes a temple worker and performs ordinances in the temple, I am not aware of it being a stumbling block then. Why would it be if it was expanded beyond the temple, even with the proxy work?

Edited by calmoriah

Share this post


Link to post

 

The goal: to bring negativity about the lds church in hope that the policy will change.

 

But your comment was that they didn't really care about the policy changing, didn't care about ordaining women actually, just wanted to make the Church look bad for the sake of making it look bad iow.

That is not the same as you are now saying. Did you make a mistake in what you meant before or now?

Share this post


Link to post

As a matter of policy, not doctrine, I don't see ordaining women as a net plus for the Church in conversion efforts. Thousands of liberal women are not going to flock to the Church if they ordain women, it is still too conservative on other areas, yet many potential converts on more conservative countries would avoid the Church for that reason.

This I see as the opposite of the 1978 decision on the Preisthhod which expanded conversion opportunities in other countries.

Share this post


Link to post

If they were mormons in the real sense of the word.

If anything could convince me to join the group, it would be this kind of dismissive attitude.

Real Mormons may lack correct understanding and all real Mormons make mistakes, including some big ones like turning their back on a troubled brother or sister and deeming them not worthy of being part of the faith community because they disagree with what they do.

Edited by calmoriah

Share this post


Link to post

Things are always just so much better and easier when women know their place.  It's always just problems and contention when they stir things up.  Sigh.  

Share this post


Link to post

Things are always just so much better and easier when women know their place.  It's always just problems and contention when they stir things up.  Sigh.  

 

I personally haven't heard anyone who doesn't support OW use this as their reasoning, have you?

Share this post


Link to post

If anything could convince me to join the group, it would be this kind of dismissive attitude.

Real Mormons may lack correct understanding and all real Mormons make mistakes, including some big ones like turning their back on a troubled brother or sister and deeming them not worthy of being part of the faith community because they disagree with what they do.

Why Me needs to listen to this MS Podcast, http://mormonstories.org/ordain-women-spring-2014/ , in which one of the guests is Nadine Hansen, she is the MIL to Todd Compton, mother to Laura Compton.  She has been a Mormon Feminist/Activist for many years.  I'd call her a pioneer.  She is also an attorney in Cedar City.  And has represented children in custody disputes with the FLDS.  She is also an appointed guardian for them.  In the 80's she published in Dialogue called "Women and the Priesthood". ETA:  Just type in her name and the title and it should provide a link to view it.  

 

So here is an example of a woman who sincerely might just be "a mormon in the real sense of the word"!

 

If you or anyone have the time, it's an enlightening podcast.  I don't really have much to do with any of this since I'm on the fence with belief.  But if this is what it takes for women to be heard, great!  Gone are the days of excommunicating women for it, so that's probably why a lot of women feel safe to come forth.       

Edited by Tacenda

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...