On No! They Got In!

[Bernard Gui]

Women have crashed the Priesthood Party!   

And at BYU, no less!!!

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58487302-78/women-priesthood-session-ordain.html.csp

Edited October 5, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

Welp, guess we have to give them all the Priesthood now. Rules are rules.

[Bernard Gui]

Abby fit the battle of BYU

BYU, BYU
Abby fit the battle of BYU
And the walls come tumblin' down, Hallelujah

 

You may talk about the men of Ogden
You may talk about the men of Provo
But there're none like good old Abby
At the battle of BYU

 

Up to the walls of BYU
With her Sunday pants in her van 
Go wear them purple ties, cried Abby
The battle is in my hands

 

Abby fit the battle of BYU
BYU, BYU
Abby fit the battle of BYU
And the walls come tumblin' down, that mornin'

Abby fit the battle of BYU
BYU, BYU
Abby fit the battle of BYU
And the walls come tumblin' down, Hallelujah

Edited October 5, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Welp, guess we have to give them all the Priesthood now. Rules are rules.

Yep. The end is in sight. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Women have crashed the Priesthood Party!   

And at BYU, no less!!!

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58487302-78/women-priesthood-session-ordain.html.csp

No one seems to be speaking about how the women were treated at those venues:  Were the men polite, civil, rude, or what?  It isn't as though there is anything secret about the Priesthood session.  It is broadcast live on lds.org, so any woman could see and hear it.  So, what's the big deal?!

[sheilauk]

So, it feels special to be there and ”we belong here"? Did they show the same enthusiasm in attending the women's meeting at the stake centres? Have they attended every session of Conference? Or is it grandstanding? And would they support men attending the women's conference? Why not just abolish the gender specific meetings, we're all the same aren't we?

[cdowis]

Yawn,
Now that the priesthood session is televised, every location except in the Conference Center is technically just a large TV screen for anyone to watch any session of conference. 
After a few mentions in the media, they find some other publicity stunt.

[Kenngo1969]

Go wear them purple ties, cried Abby ...

 

I was invited to participate in the Tooele/Grantsville/Stansbury (Utah, USA, for those of you in points hence ) choir that sang in the afternoon session yesterday.  One of the tie colors offered for men is purple, and that's the one I chose.  Does that mean, despite my public proclamations to the contrary, that I have latent sympathy for the aims of Ordain Women?  

 

P.S.: Will any of the group's members attempt to attribute such sympathy to those of us who wore purple?

Edited October 5, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

So, it feels special to be there and ”we belong here"? Did they show the same enthusiasm in attending the women's meeting at the stake centres? Have they attended every session of Conference? Or is it grandstanding? And would they support men attending the women's conference? Why not just abolish the gender specific meetings, we're all the same aren't we?

Indeed.  (They weren't all that interested in paying attention at the first Priesthood session where they staged a publicity stunt: according to our MA&DB man on the scene, many of them were yakking on their phones et cetera.)  Nice to cyber-see you, Sheila.

[Kenngo1969]

No one seems to be speaking about how the women were treated at those venues:  Were the men polite, civil, rude, or what?  It isn't as though there is anything secret about the Priesthood session.  It is broadcast live on lds.org, so any woman could see and hear it.  So, what's the big deal?!

The big deal is (and I'm not saying I agree with this stance) that the women attach special significance to being admitted to the meeting.  They say it makes them prospective elders.  (I wonder, what if they were given the Priesthood starting "from the ground up"?  Would they speak in glowing terms about what a blessing it is to be able to prepare, bless, and pass the Sacrament; collect fast offerings; et cetera?  This is, of course, mere speculation on my part, but I think at least some of them would be insulted: "This isn't what we meant when we said that nothing less than ordination would suffice!"

Edited October 5, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

So, it feels special to be there and ”we belong here"? Did they show the same enthusiasm in attending the women's meeting at the stake centres? Have they attended every session of Conference?

Not Kate Kelly:

"I did not actually see this broadcast. One: because I live in Kenya and it happens at 3am where I live and, two: because I find it generally offensive that at something called a “Women’s Meeting” men attend, preside over and give the keynote speech. However, I heard about the news the next day"

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/10/sister-mkhabelas-prayer-a-time-to-mourn-and-a-time-to-dance/

Edited October 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

In the article I read a sister said they were treated very graciously and welcomed, after being reminded that the meeting was not for them.

I'm glad this didn't turn into a big issue and that the church chose to let them disobey the counsel they were given if they wanted too. In this instance it seemed stupid to make a scene.

I do find it odd though that the sisters (at least in the article I read) felt like they accomplished something by being let in.

[bluebell]

Not Kate Kelly:

"I did not actually see this broadcast. One: because I live in Kenya and it happens at 3am where I live and, two: because I find it generally offensive that at something called a “Women’s Meeting” men attend, preside over and give the keynote speech. However, I heard about the news the next day"

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/10/sister-mkhabelas-prayer-a-time-to-mourn-and-a-time-to-dance/

I'll be excited when her 15 minutes of fame are up. She's making herself irrelevant.

[Senator]

I do find it odd though that the sisters (at least in the article I read) felt like they accomplished something by being let in.

 

I don't know.  A change was made in the church and it's hard to argue that they where not instrumental in it.

[JAHS]

I don't know.  A change was made in the church and it's hard to argue that they where not instrumental in it.

This is what bothers me a little; that some small changes have been made, which they will claim responsibility for, by way of their demonstrations.

They don't really represent many LDS women of the church; it's a very small minority.

[bluebell]

I don't know. A change was made in the church and it's hard to argue that they where not instrumental in it.

But did the change accomplish anything? I'm not seeing anything that has changed, other than the church is trying doubly hard to be kind.

The priesthood session has always been available to both sexes and recently it became available to both sexes at the same time, which is nice but not much of an accomplishment.

And the church specifically said that it didn't want sisters at the local meeting houses for the priesthood session but it was better to let them in than to disrupt the spirit if they persisted.

Under such circumstances, being let in, with the session already available live in the sisters homes, seems less than celebratory or exciting.

It was nice for the sisters that got in since that's what they wanted, but clearly the church's feelings about them being there hasn't changed at all.

What do you believe they accomplished senator?

[Deborah]

I don't know.  A change was made in the church and it's hard to argue that they where not instrumental in it.

 

Actually, I think that some of these things were already being implemented before the hullabaloo. I have that on good authority and in fact they were delayed a little because of the open protests. Based on yesterdays talks it seems the GA's are very aware of the issues affecting members.

[Senator]

What do you believe they accomplished senator?

 

Perhaps a change in attitudes and perceptions more than anything.  Having the PH session broadcast removes any sense that it is a special, private meeting. No more so than the women's meeting.

 

They may have also simply shown that it's just no big deal for women to attend the PH meetings. Heck maybe someday it will be common for women to be speakers at the PH session.  We are seeing an increased emphasis in the language used, that women hold and excersise priesthood authority. These are not just small things in my opinion.

[Senator]

Actually, I think that some of these things were already being implemented before the hullabaloo. I have that on good authority and in fact they were delayed a little because of the open protests. Based on yesterdays talks it seems the GA's are very aware of the issues affecting members.

 

I know. There seems to a necessity in demonstrating that they have had no effect on the church. I don't share that necessity.

[Senator]

This is what bothers me a little; that some small changes have been made, which they will claim responsibility for, by way of their demonstrations.

They don't really represent many LDS women of the church; it's a very small minority.

 

I'm not sure how small it is.  For priesthood ordination? Perhaps. For these other "small" changes that many women have expessed that effect their experience in the church? We might be surprised at the numbers.

[bluebell]

We are seeing an increased emphasis in the language used, that women hold and excersise priesthood authority. These are not just small things in my opinion.

I agree, those are all very important changed.

But I don't see that women being let into meeting houses last night accomplished them.

There are actually a lot of women, not at all associated with or very fond of OW, that have been working towards such changes (and more), some directly with the church.

[Senator]

I agree, those are all very important changed.

But I don't see that women being let into meeting houses last night accomplished them.

There are actually a lot of women, not at all associated with or very fond of OW, that have been working towards such changes (and more), some directly with the church.

 

I agree, that that action alone accomplished any change. But it was an ingredient in my estimation to a mulifaceted issue.

[bluebell]

I agree, that that action alone accomplished any change. But it was an ingredient in my estimation to a mulifaceted issue.

Got it.

I was addressing the quote by a sister where she implied that being let into the meeting was an accomplishment.

[EllenMaksoud]

Women have crashed the Priesthood Party!   

And at BYU, no less!!!

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58487302-78/women-priesthood-session-ordain.html.csp

Oh, goodness what has been unleashed?  Being an old fashioned woman, this is not understandable.

 

What if women are forced to be Bishops some day? I would not do what Bishops do. Mine has taken money to someone at 3:00 AM, been yelled at and threatened, and is much more patient than I am.

[JLHPROF]

Welp, guess we have to give them all the Priesthood now. Rules are rules.

 

Exactly.  It's not like a person can attend a priesthood general meeting and not be ordained -

 

Seriously - it's like if some non-member managed to sneak into the temple and observe the goings on.  It's not like they come out being endowed.

A couple of sisters getting into a priesthood meeting means absolutely nothing to either doctrine, policy or "progress" (if you can call it that).