Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Ordain Women Group Publishes "six Discussions" To Proselytize For Its Agenda

Recommended Posts

I agree that it is very consistent…Smac is one of the most consistent and nonhypocritical posters on the board, imo.  He is willing to go the extra mile to find the evidence for his position and doesn't appear to usually drawn conclusions until he has made his observations.  But I also agree his decline to do so helped the conversation to stay in a more unproductive rut when something more positive than pointing fingers might have occurred.

 

I agree with Smac that it is important to defend Church brethren against inappropriate criticism.  I think Juliann does too.  I doubt she founded FAIR and financially supported it in its early years to a great extent (I am tooting her horn on this because she won't) because she wanted to tell others what to do ;).  I have already told Juliann elsewhere that I disagreed with how far she took that post.  While I am capable of taking it in the context of a myriad of other comments where she has made clear her recognition of the sincerity and good will (and other extremely respectful views) of the Church leaders, given the time and place she chose to say it, it was a mistake to post it.  Even taking into context what I know about her POV, I think she went too far and got careless in her use of words, something that I recognize in myself happening when I feel like I am banging my head against the wall and start using sharper and sharper 'tools' in an attempt to break through and get a glimmer of understanding of just my position, who cares about acceptance of it.  Invariably such methods only make the wall thicker.

 

I recognize that some here will feel I am giving Juliann too much of a benefit of the doubt and if I thought it would be useful to anyone, I would go back and itemize (which was my original plan last night to respond in detail to Smac's detailed appraisal) what and where I thought she veered off the road due to the context of the thread and board and where she veered off no matter who was listening/reading but at this point there is way too much other clutter in the thread and I think it would do no more good than a simple public recognition of disagreement.

Cal,

Thank you for your thoughtful and informative post. I learned a lot.

Regarding my participation in an online discussion about the role of women in the Church, I have many reasons for declining to do so.

First, the climate is not healthy when the discussion is in a thread about the OW group. Their tactics and rhetoric are, in my estimation, to divisive and toxic, and therefore overshadow any earnest discussion about the more substantive issue of the role of women in the Church.

Second, I think there is already a healthy discussion under way in other fora about the role of women in the Church.

Third, I am not yet in a place where I feel prepared to articulate my views on this subject. I am more inclined at present to listen and ponder. In terms of what we should not be doing (read: OW tactics and rhetoric), I have more or less finalized and expressed my views on that. I am also sufficiently concerned about the influence of the OW group on the Saints that I think the Saints should be aware of the more disconcerting aspects of that group.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

See what juliann's accusations bring out in me?

Boy that Juliann, let's hope she never gets into a position where she can really tell people what to do given how good she is at making people behave without any actual power.

 

(yes, this is sarcastic)

Share this post


Link to post

Then I do apologize to Smac for those undeserving words.  I was perhaps stretching for words to express my dismay/frustration at what appeared to be a willingness to criticize others' issues while withholding his own.  I actually thought it would instructive to see how he would word a problem he has with the church without it being  worthy of being labeled demeaning, faultfinding, disparaging.

Given the tone of the thread and the overall tendency of the board to go down rabbit trails and not stay focused, I can see why he is reluctant…doesn't stop me, but then I being a woman am made of stronger stuff. ;)

 

(no, that wasn't sarcastic, just funny)

Share this post


Link to post

You have to hurry and let Kenngo know you are kidding, or he will get downcast. I just found that out.

Ken, I promise next time I see you you will get a group hug and if you promise not to record it, I will even sing a few bars of Kumbaya (and then hurriedly excuse myself so I can rush to the bathroom to barf).

Share this post


Link to post

How in the world is "look in the mirror" ever considered to be anything but an insult?  And to Blue Dreams, of all people? Why are you treating our most gentle posters so disrespectfully when they politely disagree? All you are proving is that it isn't about who is polite and using the proper words, it is about disagreeing...you smear them with the same broad brush as those who disagree more vehemently.

 

More misrepresentation. Tell you what, juliann. If you're ever ready to actually honestly address something specifically that I said rather than going into DefCon 5 mode and blasting everything in site at the slightest perceived provocation, then maybe I'll respond in kind.

 

Your outbursts play well for the home crowd, but I, for one, won't be responding further to you "posts" except to note their inaccuracy.

Share this post


Link to post

Cal,

Thank you for your thoughtful and informative post. I learned a lot.

Regarding my participation in an online discussion about the role of women in the Church, I have many reasons for declining to do so.

First, the climate is not healthy when the discussion is in a thread about the OW group. Their tactics and rhetoric are, in my estimation, to divisive and toxic, and therefore overshadow any earnest discussion about the more substantive issue of the role of women in the Church.

Second, I think there is already a healthy discussion under way in other fora about the role of women in the Church.

Third, I am not yet in a place where I feel prepared to articulate my views on this subject. I am more inclined at present to listen and ponder. In terms of what we should not be doing (read: OW tactics and rhetoric), I have more or less finalized and expressed my views on that. I am also sufficiently concerned about the influence of the OW group on the Saints that I think the Saints should be aware of the more disconcerting aspects of that group.

Thanks,

-Smac

You have almost convinced me to keep my own mouth shut about it…

Share this post


Link to post

Your "criticism" included name calling - something that I haven't done in referring to OW. If you're going to make accusations of me being demeaning, you need to have solid evidence rather than tenuous rationalizations.

 And you will simply deny these are demeaning comments that are almost all directed to long time female posters on this board...just as you deny that you didn't compare me to Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley...and then to Margaret Toscano.

 

What I found is that almost all of your arguments are based on "you/they don't understand [like I do]." That is demeaning when it is not followed by any explanation of the alleged misunderstanding or one iota of support for your belief that you understand. It is just thrown out as a conversation stopper.

 

Still intent on misrepresenting me, juliann? That's too bad. Seems like you're all too willing to throw anyone under the bus when you think they get on your wrong side, even when you have to manufacture accusations against them that are clearly false.

 

This is the kind of stuff Margaret Toscano - associated with OW - spouts off. Congratulations.

 

You really don't understand what demean means, do you.  Look it up, rather than using a cherry picked definition like you did.

 

 

 

Since I'm being such a gifted mind reader in this thread, I find a number of responses in this thread to be absolutely schizophrenic in nature. . .Reminds me of Al Sharpton jumping on the Tawana Brawley case.

 

Give me a break, Juliann. You know full well I wasn't comparing LDS women to Tawana Brawley and calling them criminals and liars, yet you still make this kind of asinine accusation. When you talk about engaging in a meaningful way, you need to take a look in the mirror at your own slash and burn methodology as has been demonstrated on this thread.

 

Cal, when you resort to these kinds of sarcastic personal attacks rather than addressing what is really being said, you don't really further the discussion.

 

 

What a shallow understanding of what the priesthood is really all about.

 

 

To Cal:

Evidently, some people have trouble thinking outside the box and positioning things within the greater context of the entire gospel and real life.

 

To Cal again:

 

And obviously, this means that a woman can't experience any of this without holding the priesthood.

 

I'll inform my wife immediately. She'll wonder what the heck she's been experiencing all these years.

 

And again:

 

 

A misunderstanding of Abraham doesn't validate a sentiment. And I think very few people, if any, understand fully what Abraham was talking about.

 

I think many people don't understand OW's real position.

 

Nothing demeaning about telling someone they are not being honest.  Good grief, you seriously don't see a problem with your communication?

 

More misrepresentation. Tell you what, juliann. If you're ever ready to actually honestly address something specifically that I said rather than going into DefCon 5 mode and blasting everything in site at the slightest perceived provocation, then maybe I'll respond in kind.

 

Your outbursts play well for the home crowd, but I, for one, won't be responding further to you "posts" except to note their inaccuracy.

 

 

Edited by juliann

Share this post


Link to post

Seeking Understanding and Ben were not females last I checked.

 

Any females not on your side?

Share this post


Link to post

Then I do apologize to Smac for those undeserving words.  I was perhaps stretching for words to express my dismay/frustration at what appeared to be a willingness to criticize others' issues while withholding his own.  I actually thought it would instructive to see how he would word a problem he has with the church without it being  worthy of being labeled demeaning, faultfinding, disparaging.

That's sort of the point, innit? I am loyal to the Church. I have thrown my lot in with it. I believe it is what it claims to be. I am generally not comfortable with publicly airing my personal views on so-called "problem(s) ... with the church." Similarly, I do not publicly criticize my employer, or my parents or siblings, or my wife and children. That is not to say that these persons are without fault or room for improvement. Sure they are. It's just that I believe public criticism is a potentially caustic thing, and that we should be circumspect about it, particularly when it comes to one's Church, family members, or employer.

And yes, I have considered whether I should gloss over and ignore what I know about the OW group. I feel that their actions are too troubling and problematic to ignore, particularly when they have injected themselves into the public square. So I have criticized their actions, and I will continue to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post

Any females not on your side?

Your wife, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you comparing Juliann and me (and perhaps a few others) to Al Sharpton defending Tawana?  Because that is how it appeared.

 

I thought long and hard about including that particular line. I felt there was a good chance that someone would intentionally misconstrue it.

 

But then again, I've always enjoyed chumming to see what would come up. I was not disappointed, though some will disagree with the appropriateness of that particular sport.

 

For the record, my intent with referring to the Rotund Reverend was to demonstrate that when it comes to special interest groups, they always close ranks against any and all claims of being victimized - or in this case, demeaned. It doesn't matter whether those claims are valid or not; that's not important. It's more important to show solidarity.

 

That was the connection. Any resemblance to actual persons is entirely coincidental and unintended by me.

 

The responses (which were what I wanted to get) have been more than instructive.

Share this post


Link to post

Any females not on your side?

Side?

I see her playing the role as my Grandmother that's got two awnry kids by the ear.

Share this post


Link to post

Try quoting what you actually said: "you are a bitter man who hates uppity women and just wants to oppress them."

 

That's demeaning. I haven't posted anything like that concerning OW.

 

I agree its demeaning. You have stated that women supporting ordain women are power hungry and want to tell others what to do. This is also demeaning.

Share this post


Link to post

 

For the record, my intent with referring to the Rotund Reverend was to demonstrate that when it comes to special interest groups, they always close ranks against any and all claims of being victimized

Please identify the special interest group you see closing ranks here.

Share this post


Link to post

Closed by OP request.

 

Skylla

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...