Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

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

Recommended Posts

Sorry to jump in without reading the entire thread, glancing over the OW site -

1. See the Symptons, What is patriarchy?

Personally, as a female, I see two real needs within any organization, one need is for leadership, direction, council - the other need is for support, community, friends, and colleagues.  By trying to force everyone into leadership roles, I think the other necessary ingredient is being overlooked.  To me, Christianity is more about being "with" others than "in front of" them, the last shall be first, the greatest among you shall be your servant etc. etc.  Although I see leadership as necessary for logistics of an organization, I really do consider the heart and soul of it to reside within the followers - the desciples, the humble support, community, friends, and family - the people who are there "with" you.  There really is a glory in being "with" others that I think is being overlooked by #1.


2. Know the History -
There are certainly noble and great women from the past (starting with Eve), and currently among us.  The greatest of anyone's accomplishments are not a matter of titles or positions though, it is a matter of the number of lives that were touched, the friendships that were formed, the refinement of character - the degree of faith/hope/humility/love/courage someone attains to. 

I love this sentiment -

Women of God can never be like women of the world.
The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender.
There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind.
There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined.
We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith.
We have enough greed; we need more goodness.
We have enough vanity; we need more virtue.
We have enough popularity; we need more purity


I think it is a sign of disrespect, and ignorance about what Christianity is truly about to seek power/titles/leadership roles.  It's missing the entire point of it all.
The point of it all is not about being in front of others, it's about being with others.

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post

I have run into a very few Mormon men who rule by intimidation. I have talked to some who were decades behind prevailing, proven, scientific fact and still hold to their opinions on certain issues.

But are you also saying you believe the Church will eventually join the rest of the world and give up on its opposition to gay marriage?

Share this post


Link to post

But are you also saying you believe the Church will eventually join the rest of the world and give up on its opposition to gay marriage?

I did not say that, Sen Warren Hatch said that.

 

I am taking the long view, and I think the SSM marriage issue will be solved by science like so many other issues in religion and the larger world. Copernicus nearly died because he knew the world was round, Tindale did die because he believed that all should have access to the bible. In spite of the fact that Joseph Smith had a black Bishop, after his death, they were excluded from the temple until the mid 1970's.

 

I have seen too many so called "diversity folk" being persecuted because what they say is not a choice. Their tears are real, and their suicides are blood on the hands of the people. I have no medical or professional religous background, but I am entitled to my opinion on these matters. I have a personal stake in this not because I am gay or lesbian, and I can say that the pain is real.

 

Right or wrong decisions will be made on these issues and whether it will bring blessings or damnation, I do not know.

Share this post


Link to post

So according to you we can be sure that Blacks and their allies in the 1950's weren't serious about affecting equality in their protests against segregation. Because if they were really serious about affecting equality they would also have had to be advocating for minors ability to go into bars (can't segregate there), non-citizens right to vote, and for their family pets to use the "white" drinking fountain, etc.

 

You will find no mention of Blacks in my posts. Your evasive extrapolation (the second such) is entirely your own whether I agree with it or not. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post

I did not say that, Sen Warren Hatch said that.

 

I am taking the long view, and I think the SSM marriage issue will be solved by science like so many other issues in religion and the larger world. Copernicus nearly died because he knew the world was round, Tindale did die because he believed that all should have access to the bible. In spite of the fact that Joseph Smith had a black Bishop, after his death, they were excluded from the temple until the mid 1970's.

 

I have seen too many so called "diversity folk" being persecuted because what they say is not a choice. Their tears are real, and their suicides are blood on the hands of the people. I have no medical or professional religous background, but I am entitled to my opinion on these matters. I have a personal stake in this not because I am gay or lesbian, and I can say that the pain is real.

 

Right or wrong decisions will be made on these issues and whether it will bring blessings or damnation, I do not know.

Did Orin Hatch really say the Church is going to give up on its opposition to gay marriage, or did he say the world is going to accept it and we will have to learn to live with it while not actually condoning it?

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder where we might find another example of an apparent glass ceiling, which, upon more thoughtful examination illuminates that it really isn't so?

 

...as evinced by the proportionate ratio of men to women in the OW hierarchical ranks.  :crazy:

 

Perhaps you should take something for your irony deficiency.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post

Or perhaps location? Given that women perform priesthood ordinances inside the temple, seems like a minor thing for them to do so outside the temple right?

Look at Elder Oak's talk in the last phd meeting.  He addresses that specific issue -->> the difference between having priesthood authority and holding a phd office.

Share this post


Link to post

Did Orin Hatch really say the Church is going to give up on its opposition to gay marriage, or did he say the world is going to accept it and we will have to learn to live with it while not actually condoning it?

Perhaps the latter?  If they do condone it, I have full confidence that it will not happen until there is irrefutable evidence proving it is not sin and that will have to wait a generation or two.

Share this post


Link to post

Did Orin Hatch really say the Church is going to give up on its opposition to gay marriage, or did he say the world is going to accept it and we will have to learn to live with it while not actually condoning it?

First off, he didn't say it would, he said it likely would become law.

He also said he disagreed with the courts that were doing it, but recognized their authority to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps the latter?  If they do condone it, I have full confidence that it will not happen until there is irrefutable evidence proving it is not sin and that will have to wait a generation or two.

My opinion: The Church will never back off from its unwavering commitment to the divine law of chastity -- meaning sexual relations only between a man and a woman who are lawfully married -- and you can count on it. It is the Church's steadfast position on this issue, amongst other things, that will likely bring the prophesied sore persecutions down upon the saints prior to the Second Coming. This issue will also likely be among other points of contention that will cause the prophesied great rift among Church members in the latter-days. It's likely that when this division takes place there will be a mass exodus out of the Church by members who will no longer feel they can support and sustain the General Authorities. Could it be we are already beginning to see the battle lines being drawn right here on this board? Time will tell...

Edited by teddyaware

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion: The Church will never back off from its unwavering commitment to the divine law of chastity -- meaning sexual relations only between a man and a woman who are lawfully married -- and you can count on it. It is the Church's steadfast position on this issue, amongst other things, that will likely bring the prophesied sore persecutions down upon the saints prior to the Second Coming. This issue will also likely be among other points of contention that will cause the prophesied great rift among Church members in the Latter-days. It's likely that when this division takes place there will be a mass exodus out of the Church by members who will no longer feel they can support and sustain the General Authorities. Cou Hld it be we are already beginning to see the battle lines being drawn right here on this board? Time will tell...

I have, perhaps foolishly, been really candid about my own struggles. This rift you speak of is in full bloom right now. Certain groups are even using falsehood to spread their ideas. My own Step Sister left home and worked as a maid so she could attend college rather than  be forced to stay home an be forced into marriage with someone she did not love. I'll never be anything in the church, and I will be dead before much else can happen. Heavenly Father will right the wrongs then.

Share this post


Link to post

I have run into a very few Mormon men who rule by intimidation. I have talked to some who were decades behind prevailing, proven, scientific fact and still hold to their opinions on certain issues.

I am happy that you recognize that it is few and far between to find an unrighteous and domineering active Mormon.  Considering the situation within the general public, and within the world at large, my impression is that Mormon men are some of the kindest, and most sensitive people on this earth.  I've seen them move countless families in and out of houses, getting up in the middle of the night to give someone a blessing, taking on the burden of work day in and day out without daring to suggest that their wives could help provide, then come home, do the dishes, and tuck the kiddos in.  As a convert, I am incredibly impressed by the true blue's.  Yes, in any group you can find the oddball that doesn't quite get it yet for one reason or another, and the oddballs stick out because they are odd - but let's not overlook the ones who don't stick out, the quiet normal majority of them, the ones who represent what the church is really all about.

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post

I am happy that you recognize that it is few and far between to find an unrighteous and domineering active Mormon.  Considering the situation within the general public, and within the world at large, my impression is that Mormon men are some of the kindest, and most sensitive people on this earth.  I've seen them move countless families in and out of houses, getting up in the middle of the night to give someone a blessing, taking on the burden of work day in and day out without daring to suggest that their wives could help provide, then come home, do the dishes, and tuck the kiddos in.  As a convert, I am incredibly impressed by the true blue's.  Yes, in any group you can find the oddball that doesn't quite get it yet for one reason or another, and the oddballs stick out because they are odd - but let's not overlook the ones who don't stick out, the quiet normal majority of them, the ones who represent what the church is really all about.

The painful thing about being in the presence of gentlemen is that when I encounter a plonker, my guard is down and I have been deeply hurt by these sorts. I am not able to understand why a woman would want to be in the male priesthood. Practically speaking, women already have a "priesthood" that makes the optimum use of our strengths.

Share this post


Link to post

The painful thing about being in the presence of gentlemen is that when I encounter a plonker, my guard is down and I have been deeply hurt by these sorts. I am not able to understand why a woman would want to be in the male priesthood. Practically speaking, women already have a "priesthood" that makes the optimum use of our strengths.

We're all imperfect, sometimes we're the ones who hurt someone else, sometimes it's another who hurts us.  When we realize the hurtful things we have done (and we have all done them at one point or another) it is easier to forgive those who hurt us I think.  I do believe we're all doing the best we can though.  The real evils in the world are not one another, the real evils are death, sickness, pain, misunderstanding... we all need to stand together and fight on the same team, look for the good in everyone, be the person we want others to be.

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post

You will find no mention of Blacks in my posts. Your evasive extrapolation (the second such) is entirely your own whether I agree with it or not. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for your evasive response. I agree you made no mention of Blacks in your post, but certainly the analogy holds. It appears to be a common sentiment as well judging by its 3 rep points. Perhaps someone can explain to me why women "genuinely concerned about affecting equality" would need to advocate for the ordination of animals, but blacks concerned about voting rights equality would not also have to advocate for voting rights for pets. 

Share this post


Link to post

Look at Elder Oak's talk in the last phd meeting.  He addresses that specific issue -->> the difference between having priesthood authority and holding a phd office.

So expanding women's priesthood authority to perform additional ordinances would be a small change. Giving them a priesthood office is a big one. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post

...as evinced by the proportionate ratio of men to women in the OW hierarchical ranks.  :crazy:

 

Perhaps you should take something for your irony deficiency.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So by this same rationale we can necessarily conclude that for black and latino members of the church, there is a "glass ceiling" when it comes to the highest offices of leadership.

Edited by Senator

Share this post


Link to post

So by this same rationale we can necessarily conclude that for black and latino members of the church, there is a "glass ceiling" when it comes to the highest offices of leadership.

 

You will find no mention of church leadership in [Wade's] posts. Your evasive extrapolation ... is entirely your own whether [Wade] agree with it or not.

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post

 

You will find no mention of church leadership in [Wade's] posts. Your evasive extrapolation ... is entirely your own whether [Wade] agree with it or not.

 

Funny how that works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or doesn't

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for your evasive response. I agree you made no mention of Blacks in your post, but certainly the analogy holds. It appears to be a common sentiment as well judging by its 3 rep points. Perhaps someone can explain to me why women "genuinely concerned about affecting equality" would need to advocate for the ordination of animals, but blacks concerned about voting rights equality would not also have to advocate for voting rights for pets. 

 

You can take as much pride as you wish in the three rep points (LOL), however In a very important respect, it wasn't an apt comparison, as made most evident in the fact the black cause was rightly referred to as the civil rights movement, and not the equal rights movement.

 

The emphasis, then, was on gaining civil rights and being treated civilly. This made perfect sense since civil treatment works pragmatically in everyone's best interest.

 

Being ordained to the priesthood is not a civil right, nor is it uncivil for women to be denied the priesthood--any more than it would be uncivil to deny the priesthood to children under the age of 12, non-members, etc.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, Martin Luther King was correct when he said that people should be judged according to the content of their character rather than on the color of their skin (which rationally implies that different content of character should be judged differently rather than equally)

 

Be that as it may, to the extent that some in the civil rights movement departed from the rational notion of civil rights and civil treatment and best interest, and focused emotively instead on the unbaked liberal notion of equality, it has harmed the nation as a whole, though more particularly the black community. (See HERE),

 

Such is the inane unintended negative consequence of the politics of equality.  (See HERE)

 

It is in this limited and unflattering sense that your analogy is apt. Politicized calls for equality tend to be irrational and too oft end up producing the opposite result from what may have been charitably intended.

 

More to the point, though, such calls are usually selective and actually amount to preferential treatment, as attested to in the case of affirmative action and the women-centric agenda of OW .

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post

We're all imperfect, sometimes we're the ones who hurt someone else, sometimes it's another who hurts us.  When we realize the hurtful things we have done (and we have all done them at one point or another) it is easier to forgive those who hurt us I think.  I do believe we're all doing the best we can though.  The real evils in the world are not one another, the real evils are death, sickness, pain, misunderstanding... we all need to stand together and fight on the same team, look for the good in everyone, be the person we want others to be.

If you knew me, it would be easy to see that there is no polish. In fact, when I started in my present ward, the rumor went around that I am a retired Navy Seal. Yet, even the most hardened of us can be changed, and I thank Heavenly Father for that.

Share this post


Link to post

So by this same rationale we can necessarily conclude that for black and latino members of the church, there is a "glass ceiling" when it comes to the highest offices of leadership.

 

That rationale holds true for those, such as OW, looking through the distorting lens of EQAULITY, Hence, the irony that continues to allude you.

 

For my part, I prefer to look through the lens of God's revealed will, where the racial or gender make-up of church leadership is irrelevant. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post

That rationale holds true for those, such as OW, looking through the distorting lens of EQAULITY, Hence, the irony that continues to allude you.

 

For my part, I prefer to look through the lens of God's revealed will, where the racial or gender make-up of church leadership is irrelevant. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

It's safe to say that the gender of church leadership is not irrelevant to God. If it were, women would hold the priesthood. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post

That rationale holds true for those, such as OW, looking through the distorting lens of EQAULITY, Hence, the irony that continues to allude you.

 

For my part, I prefer to look through the lens of God's revealed will, where the racial or gender make-up of church leadership is irrelevant. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I don't know of any revelation banning women from the priesthood or from any priesthood office

Share this post


Link to post

It's safe to say that the gender of church leadership is not irrelevant to God. If it were, women would hold the priesthood. Just saying.

 

Perhaps I should have been more clear. What is relevant to me and those looking through the same lens as me, is God's will, and not mankind's inane politics of equality. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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...