Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

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

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

From Edward Kimball's write up on the priesthood revelation:

 

 

 

 

The revelation finally came in 1978. Should President Kimball have stopped earlier when no revelation was forthcoming?

 

What Scott said.  Also, how do you reconcile Luke with the loss of the 116 pages?  
 
According to your quote, President Kimball “prayed, trying not to prejudge the answer.”  Kelly has prejudged the answer.  She apparently is not willing to accept “no“ for an answer.  Quite a difference from continuing to pray until you get an answer.: 

Share this post


Link to post

What Scott said. Also, how do you reconcile Luke with the loss of the 116 pages?

According to your quote, President Kimball “prayed, trying not to prejudge the answer.” Kelly has prejudged the answer. She apparently is not willing to accept “no“ for an answer. Quite a difference from continuing to pray until you get an answer.:

Just to be clear, an answer had been given on the priesthood issue and it was not until the end of the millennium.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting that this is being phrased by Kate Kelly as an "equality" issue.

 

I find far too often nowadays that claims of wanting "equality" are nothing more than a thin facade for trying to obtain power or prestige.

 

So it's always refreshing to find a case where valid claims of inequality can be worked for and addressed in a productive manner.

 

Unfortunately, what Kate Kelly and OW are demanding and doing is not - and I repeat, not - one of those cases.

Share this post


Link to post

I think President Kimball understood that it was foregone there would be a change. It was just a question of when.

 

And it is consistent with Church doctrine that prayer is a matter of unifying one's own desires with God's. So, if President Kimball knew by virtue of the spiritual gifts to which a prophet is entitled that the revelation would be coming, and that it was consistent with God's will, it would not be inappropriate for him to persist in his petitions. Think of Christ's parable of the importunate widow.

I don't even think we have an exact date for the PH being restored do we?  For something with that kind of importance it seems an after thought.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting that this is being phrased by Kate Kelly as an "equality" issue.

 

I find far too often nowadays that claims of wanting "equality" are nothing more than a thin facade for trying to obtain power or prestige.

 

So it's always refreshing to find a case where valid claims of inequality can be worked for and addressed in a productive manner.

 

Unfortunately, what Kate Kelly and OW are demanding and doing is not - and I repeat, not - one of those cases.

 

Are you saying that their case is not a valid claim of inequality, or that they have not worked for and addressed it in a productive manner?

Share this post


Link to post

Are you saying that their case is not a valid claim of inequality, or that they have not worked for and addressed it in a productive manner?

 

My comment says exactly what I meant it to say.

Share this post


Link to post

My comment says exactly what I meant it to say.

 

Obviously I'm not clear on what you meant to say.

 

If you don't want to answer the question....fine.

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously I'm not clear on what you meant to say.

 

If you don't want to answer the question....fine.

 

I thought it was rather clear.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought it was rather clear.

 

That's what you get for doin your own thinkin :)

Share this post


Link to post

I think this idea is just going to make these women come off as wolves in sheep's clothing.  Mormon women who don't feel the way they do aren't interested in being converted to their way of thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post

That's what you get for doin your own thinkin :)

 

Suffice it to say, I'm not an admirer of what I perceive to be OW's real agenda, nor of their methodology in pursuing that agenda.

Share this post


Link to post

Suffice it to say, I'm not an admirer of what I perceive to be OW's real agenda, nor of their methodology in pursuing that agenda.

 

I was trying to isolate what appeared you might be claiming; that their's is not a valid case of inequality, separate from the claim that they have not worked for and addressed it in a productive manner.

 

And for the record I'm not an admirer of their methodology either. However, I'm not entirely certain of their agenda.

Edited by Senator

Share this post


Link to post

Just to be clear, an answer had been given on the priesthood issue and it was not until the end of the millennium.

 

Please refresh my memory.  Did BY say he had received an “answer” on the “end of the millennium” timing?  I recall scriptural support being cited to justify the “ban” but none to support the “millennial timing.”  If memory serves, this was simply a conclusion BY reached by reasoning  that since Cain killed Abel, Cain’s descendants would not receive the priesthood before Abel was resurrected, had children, and they had a chance to receive the priesthood. (Which, of course, doesn‘t logically follow.  But that is a subject for a different thread). 

Share this post


Link to post

I was trying to isolate what appeared you might be claiming; that their's is not a valid case of inequality, separate from the claim that they have not worked for and addressed it in a productive manner.

 

And for the record I'm not an admirer of their methodology either. However, I'm not entirely certain of their agenda.

 

I think that equality is not really what is driving their agenda.

Share this post


Link to post

Please refresh my memory. Did BY say he had received an “answer” on the “end of the millennium” timing? I recall scriptural support being cited to justify the “ban” but none to support the “millennial timing.” If memory serves, this was simply a conclusion BY reached by reasoning that since Cain killed Abel, Cain’s descendants would not receive the priesthood before Abel was resurrected, had children, and they had a chance to receive the priesthood. (Which, of course, doesn‘t logically follow. But that is a subject for a different thread).

BY was the ban's author and is the source for the "long promised day" quote. He was also quite clear about when that promised day would be:

Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father's rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to.

Share this post


Link to post

I am sure I missed it, but where did Kelly state that she had made the problem a matter of earnest prayer and that it was revealed to her that she must petition the brethren until they submit to the will of the Lord ? She must be frustrated that the Brethren are so stiff-necked on the issue.

I don't think she did. But her real agenda is not to be faith promoting because her tactics are not faith promoting but it is confrontational. The tactic is to get more members involved in pressuring the leaders to give women the priesthood. She seems to feel that the church is behind the times in its patriarchy and now it is time for lds women to assert themselves and demand the priesthood.  And she seems to do this in church vocabulary and dress. In the group pictures of the women at the leadership positions in OW outside temple square, they all looked like sister missionaries...even the ones that have left the church. Imaging is important too.

Share this post


Link to post

BY was the ban's author and is the source for the "long promised day" quote. He was also quite clear about when that promised day would be:

 

Yet, he did promise that the ban would be lifted, the curse removed, and all the blessings given. Hardly the words of an angry dyed-in-the-wool evil white Anglo-saxon racist patriarch. That promise has surely

come to pass. Hallelujah. Continually playing the victim does not lead to growth.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post

These words are not enough?

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

Where is the loophole?

Share this post


Link to post

Here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57978283-78/women-ordain-lds-discussion.html.csp

Some excerpts/observations:

 

Well, I suppose that's a good thing.

 

Here is a link to those discussions: http://ordainwomen.org/six-discussions/

Currently only the first two are available. The rest will be rolled out over the next few weeks.

In "Discussion One," entitled "See the Symptoms" (the Church has a disease, apparently) is a game called "Patriarchal Bingo." It's essentially an exercise in cherry-picked griping.

One of the questions in this discussion states: "How can we cherish the parts of the gospel we love and treasure, while at the same time think critically about the ways in which we have been harmed or discriminated against?"

There is also an article, "Feminism 101: Patriarchy" by Ingrid Asplund. It's not particularly well-written, but it is not overtly critical of the Church, either.

There is another brief article, "Equality is Not a Feeling," by Heather Olsen Beal. This one is a bit more overt in its criticism of the Church:

 

TWO-PART PROCLAMATION FROM ME:

1. I don’t know what I think about God these days, but this much I know: God is not the author of inequality. I don’t care who claims otherwise. I’m not buying what you’re selling.

2. Separate but equal is bollocks. I don’t buy it in movie theaters, schools, water fountains, hospitals, government, laws, train cars, soda counters, or busses. I sure as heck don’t buy it in my church.

Here she is explicitly publicly accusing the Church of behavior on par with Jim Crow laws. That's troubling.

There is another section, "Ask a Feminist," by Chelsea Shields Strayer. This includes a laundry list of grievances about why she feels "unequal."

Discussion Two is entitled "Know the History." It is an attempt to present a historical/doctrinal basis for women to receive the priesthood. It consists mostly of three articles, a Dialogue article about an interview with Chieko Okazaki, a Sunstone article by Linda Newell, "A Gift Given: Washing, Anointing, and Blessing the Sick among Mormon Women," and an excerpt from the minutes of the 1842 organization of the Relief Society by Joseph Smith.

There is also a timeline which goes back to biblical times, and which asserts that Phoebe held the priesthood office of "deacon" and Junia held the priesthood office of "apostle" (citing Romans 16). I think this is a bold claim, both because it is disputes (there is considerable dispute about Phoebe being a deacon (see here: http://tinyurl.com/mu3lb2p) and Junia being an apostle - see here: http://tinyurl.com/nypuujz).

The page introducing these discussions (http://ordainwomen.org/six-discussions/) encourages people to "Please consider starting your own local discussion group (similar to a book club, all viewpoints are welcome)." It also includes a "Getting Started Packet" (http://tinyurl.com/kkjxdrf) which includes the following list of "Objectives of the 6 Discussions":

 

• To foster conversations that help people reflect on their own thoughts and experiences

• To reaffirm our faith in God and testimony of continuing revelation

• To encourage continued membership and full fellowship in the LDS Church as we explore the topic of women’s ordination

• To effect change through faithful agitation as a united group of LDS women

 

The first three bullest sound nice, but "faithful agitation" has a rather repellant ring to it.

And none of these materials reference the OW group's alliance with Margaret Toscano, an excommunicated apostate. That seems rather dishonest to me. I think the OW group needs to be open about this sort of thing, as I am reasonably sure that most LDS women are not going to be comfortable taking cues from a group which invited an excommunicated apostate to be a key speaker and contributor at its founding event.

Back to the Trib article:

 

This is a much different tack from the militant we-want-the-priesthood-and-nothing-less-will-suffice posture they previously exhibited.

 

I'm not comfortable with this. I seem to recall a whole bunch of hand-wringing about how the OW group had been mistreated in some online comments (I acknowledge that these comments I read were inappropriate and offensive). But now the OW group is accusing others who disagree with them of "a lack of faith." Will there be a similar outcry?

Personally, I agree that we should consider female ordination as a "possibility." But I'm not willing to publicly denigrate those who disagree with me as "demonstrat(ing) a lack of faith."

I do give major props to Sis. Downing for her next point:

 

I'm not as concerned about usurpation of power and authority, but rather denigration of the Church and the Brethren, defiance of instructions from the Church, trespassing and protesting on sacred ground, disregarding the revelatory process in the Church ("nothing less will suffice"), and the OW group's now conveniently obscured alignment with an excommunicated apostate.

Back to the article:

 

I think this is the crux of Kate Kelly's boneheaded approach to this issue. Mormons will not, I think, ever like to see other Mormons deploying adversarial "social activism" against their own church. It's not that Mormons are "unfamiliar" with this approach, it's that they reject it when applied to a profoundly important doctrinal matter which can and should only be discussed with humility, sanctity, reverence, and submission to God's will as discerned through the Spirit and revelation.

Agitation (aka "direct action" against the Church), such as PR campaigns against the Church, defying the Church, trespassing and protesting on sacred ground, repeated deliberate attempts to disrupt and distract from sacred convocations, aligning with excommunicated apostates, and so on, is the hallmark of "social activism." And as much as it has alienated so many LDS from the overall message of the OW group, Kate Kelly seems too wedded to it to try a more appropriate approach. That's bone-headed.

 

I continue to lose respect for the OW group. They are not "asking," they are demanding. And they are demanding more than "the LDS prophet to inquire of the Lord," because they have repeatedly declared that "nothing less (than female ordination) will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

This is odd because every single woman I have talked to could care less to have the priesthood. Perhaps someone just wants to create a tempest where there is none.

Share this post


Link to post

This is odd because every single woman I have talked to could care less to have the priesthood. Perhaps someone just wants to create a tempest where there is none.

I would call it possible seed planting. Like Johnny Appleseed, they will go around and spread the seeds of their agenda and hope that many seeds will begin to sprout their agenda.

Share this post


Link to post

This is odd because every single woman I have talked to could care less to have the priesthood. Perhaps someone just wants to create a tempest where there is none.

Familiarity with the Long Tail principal may be warranted here.

 

I would call it possible seed planting. Like Johnny Appleseed, they will go around and spread the seeds of their agenda and hope that many seeds will begin to sprout their agenda.

While not every sister may be agitating for priesthood ordination, that is also not to say the Church has a ways to go with gender issues. Indeed, the vision and instructions the Brethren gave in the 2010 worldwide leadership training still has, in many cases, not quite realized itself in the local units.

 

PS: For the record, I am no ally of the Ordain Women movement.

Share this post


Link to post

That promise has surely come to pass.

Let's say I was mad at my oldest son and I promised him he would get a driver's licence only after all of his younger siblings got theirs. After listening to his pleadings for years, I relent and let him have his driver's licence before his two youngest siblings, has my promise come to pass? I'd say no. I guess you'd say yes? Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
In case you missed the thread on Elder Bednar, when GA's stand up in general conference and declare some things as revealed truths, they may just be relating a long held belief shared by many in the church and their statement might not be based on actual revelation. In other words we don't have a doctrine of infallibility, and sometimes apostles get things wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this idea is just going to make these women come off as wolves in sheep's clothing. Mormon women who don't feel the way they do aren't interested in being converted to their way of thinking.

I'm glad the idea is at least being presented clearly enough for you to see the contrast between your position, which is also my position. Fewer people wondering about what their true motives are will mean fewer people who need to go through their 6 discussions.

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...