Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

Recommended Posts

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.  

Can you point to the canonical revelation that states that for revelation to be valid it must "exist canonically"?

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

In those words exactly?  Heavens no.  Who would dare say that?  Telling the women to take their "protest" to the other side of the street is a subtle way of saying it without saying it.  

 

But is it not true?  If the fairer sex would quietly submit we wouldn't be having this discussion or contention.  Men would not be speaking up for women's equality causing all of these problems and headaches.  

Share this post


Link to post

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"!

 

   

I think that she is a mormon in the real sense of the word. No doubt about it. However, if she attends demonstrations about ordaining women, then, I may question it. Mormons know that the church is revelatory in nature. It can never be seen caving in to social pressure from outside or from within. For women to get the priesthood, it will take a revelation. Most mormon women know this rather well. As do the men.

 

So, I do question the attitude of the women who will protest outside the temple grounds about this issue. Prayer just may work better for their cause.

Share this post


Link to post

.  

 

But is it not true?  If the fairer sex would quietly submit we wouldn't be having this discussion or contention.  Men would not be speaking up for women's equality causing all of these problems and headaches.  

I don't think that anyone is asking women to quietly submit. However, is the lds church a revelatory church? Does it depend on revelation to change a doctrine or policy or does it depend on social protests? I think that these are the questions that need to be answered.

 

For example, Lets just say the lds church submits to protest demands, in this case females getting the priesthood. Would you feel comfortable with the truthfulness of the lds church or would be just like any other protestant faith that has succumbed to social pressure?

Share this post


Link to post

In those words exactly?  Heavens no.  Who would dare say that?  Telling the women to take their "protest" to the other side of the street is a subtle way of saying it without saying it.  

 

And you will perhaps pardon us if we choose to reject this blatantly cynical take on what is happening.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that anyone is asking women to quietly submit. However, is the lds church a revelatory church? Does it depend on revelation to change a doctrine or policy or does it depend on social protests? I think that these are the questions that need to be answered.

 

For example, Lets just say the lds church submits to protest demands, in this case females getting the priesthood. Would you feel comfortable with the truthfulness of the lds church or would be just like any other protestant faith that has succumbed to social pressure?

If you had a group of men trying to exert outside agitation and social pressure on a matter that was properly the province of the prophets under revelation from God, I'm confident the Church's response would be substantially the same. It won't do to pull the gender card here, especially when 90 percent of the women in the Church (a higher percentage than with the men) don't support the goals of the OW movement.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

And you will perhaps pardon us if we choose to reject this blatantly cynical take on what is happening.

 

Of course you can reject it and perhaps it should be seen as just a cynical view.  But if we can posit our own views as to the motivation of the OW group then I suppose we can also feel free to question the motives of those opposed to them, correct?

Share this post


Link to post

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?

The goal is to bring the church to the public in a negative light. Of course, if the church would change its policy I do think that they would be happy to take the credit. And as such would then claim that the church reacted to social pressure which would certainly dilute the church is true claim. And they would take credit for that too. And I don't believe that many would return to the fold. Just the opposite.

 

I do believe that most active lds women would believe that change comes through prayer and not from social protests within the lds church.

 

That being said, I really don't have a dog in this fight at all. I am not active, I don't pay tithing, I have no callings etc. So, if women received the priesthood due to social protests within the church. Fine with me. But I would have a hard time believing the church to be true.

Share this post


Link to post

Of course you can reject it and perhaps it should be seen as just a cynical view.  But if we can posit our own views as to the motivation of the OW group then I suppose we can also feel free to question the motives of those opposed to them, correct?

It depends on the motives of those who oppose them. Is it sexist? Patriarchal? Doctrinal? Or some other reason? Much would depend on the reason for opposition.

Share this post


Link to post

If you had a group of men trying to exert outside agitation and social pressure on a matter that was properly the province of the prophets under revelation from God, I'm confident the Church's response would be substantially the same. It won't do to pull the gender card here, especially when 90 percent of the women in the Church (a higher percentage than with the men) don't support the goals of the OW movement.

Which is why I can't seem to get my head around how active lds women could support this group on this forum. What ever happened to revelation?

Share this post


Link to post

That being said, I really don't have a dog in this fight at all. I am not active, I don't pay tithing, I have no callings etc.

Well it's high time that changed.

 

Start by finding out what time your ward meeting block is, and show up for sacrament meeting this Sunday. Get an appointment with your bishop and iron things out, if need be.

 

We need you to be fully engaged, why me.

Share this post


Link to post

Which is why I can't seem to get my head around how active lds women could support this group on this forum. What ever happened to revelation?

I'm not seeing support so much as an effort to be fair and compassionate.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think anyone can see into their hearts enough to understand their motives.

Their tactics, however, are transparent.

Share this post


Link to post

In those words exactly?  Heavens no.  Who would dare say that?  Telling the women to take their "protest" to the other side of the street is a subtle way of saying it without saying it.

No it's not. It's a completely not subtle way to say 'we don't want any protests on temple square grounds'.

Not only do i think there is no reason to insinuate that Moody, a woman, is telling other women to stay in their 'place', but I also don't think there is any reason to equate a disagreement with OW about whether or not it is appropriate to protest on temple square, be you a member or not, with telling women to stay in their place.

 

But is it not true?  If the fairer sex would quietly submit we wouldn't be having this discussion or contention.  Men would not be speaking up for women's equality causing all of these problems and headaches.

 

 

This is a caricature of those who disagree with OW, and is absolutely no better than those who do the same thing to those who agree with OW.   

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Why the hostility? 

Share this post


Link to post

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 ...

 

 

Please cite chapter and verse. I'd like to read this revelation that bans women from the priesthood. Consider this a formal "CFR"

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post

Please cite chapter and verse. I'd like to read this revelation that bans women from the priesthood. Consider this a formal "CFR"

How about you first answer my CFR from post #126:

 

Can you point to the canonical revelation that states that for revelation to be valid it must "exist canonically"?

 

Unless and until you answer that, I submit that your CFR is moot.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

Please cite chapter and verse. I'd like to read this revelation that bans women from the priesthood. Consider this a formal "CFR"

 

Here's a good place to start.  

 

And now the next part of this discussion with be a demand for prooftexting, which the pro-OW folks will find subjectively insufficient.  Watch for it, folks!  It's a comin'!

 

Now, please cite chapter and verse the revelation which prohibits consumption of pornography.  That's a CFR.

 

Also, please cite chapter and verse the revelation which prohibits the recreational use of heroin.  That's a CFR as well.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a good place to start.  

 

And now the next part of this discussion with be a demand for prooftexting, which the pro-OW folks will find subjectively insufficient.  Watch for it, folks!  It's a comin'!

 

Now, please cite chapter and verse the revelation which prohibits consumption of pornography.  That's a CFR.

 

Also, please cite chapter and verse the revelation which prohibits the recreational use of heroin.  That's a CFR as well.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I liked this comment from a post by Smac on that thread:

 

What about exegetical interpretation? The Word of Wisdom does not specifically prohibit meth or heroin, but no reasonable and observant Latter-day Saint would argue that the WoW does not prohibit such things.

It seems to me that the ordination of women to the priesthood is something of a novelty. If so, then authoritative exegesis from the Brethren may be all we're going to get (over and above passages like D&C 84 and OD-2). But I suspect that the agitators behind this "movement" will not be satisfied with that.

 

It is absurd to think that just because something isn't specifically prohibited in scripture that it is permissible. Otherwise, the field would be wide open for any outrageous thing somebody could come up with.

 

Which is why I gave the CFR to Gray:

 

Can you point to the canonical revelation that states that for revelation [and, I will add, or knowledge] to be valid it must "exist canonically"?

 

Share this post


Link to post

Please cite chapter and verse. I'd like to read this revelation that bans women from the priesthood. Consider this a formal "CFR"

I also think that the root is in the organization of the priesthood during Joseph's and Oliver's time. It was given to men by men at the exclusion of women. I would think that the beginning of the church would have women ordained into the priesthood, starting with emma or one of the wives of the 11 witnesses.

Share this post


Link to post

WARNING

 

This is a hot button topic. There are obviously OW supporters posting here. Questioning their worthiness, faithfulness, intelligence or name calling, mockery, etc. isn't appropriate. Disagree respectfully.

Share this post


Link to post

WARNING

 

This is a hot button topic. There are obviously OW supporters posting here. Questioning their worthiness, faithfulness, intelligence or name calling, mockery, etc. isn't appropriate. Disagree respectfully.

I would hope and expect this admonition applies across the board and would take in sarcastic insinuations that those who disagree with the protest movement are bigots.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

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.

lest any confusion exists because this was attached to my scolding of whyme, I personally do not believe such a protest is "what it takes"for women to be heard and in fact I think their use of political means is adding a great deal of noise to the discussion making it more difficult for many other women of more moderate position to be heard. I think the extremes of both sides would do well with a time out where they were required to actually listen and not just twiddle their thumbs until the timer rings and they can start shouting (metaphorically speaking so far) again.

Share this post


Link to post

In those words exactly?  Heavens no.  Who would dare say that?  Telling the women to take their "protest" to the other side of the street is a subtle way of saying it without saying it.  

 

But is it not true?  If the fairer sex would quietly submit we wouldn't be having this discussion or contention.  Men would not be speaking up for women's equality causing all of these problems and headaches.

Submit in what sense? I have seen significant changes in attitudes and policies over the years without the noise that such protests cause. It is a conversation that has been going on as long as I've been aware of such things. Protest may have speeded up some small (not discounting the value of those) changes, but I know of one case it had to be shutdown because of the confusion it would have caused.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Ellen, I wasn't even remotely suggesting that you have an ounce of racial bias. I was simply demonstrating how incomprehensible the "my plate is already full" response is to someone from my tradition.

As for men being "so much better at certain things," I'll just have to be left to wonder about those things, unless you're referring to reaching the top shelf, lifting furniture and killing spiders, ;)

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...