Women: If You Understand Your Roles And Responsibilities You Will See No Need To Lobby For Rights

[Scott Lloyd]

Which is more charitable, to seek clarification or just go by what was actually said?

A clarifying statement removes any doubt as to what was meant by what was said. I'm not asking for an apology. A forced apology is worthless.

I'm saying a spirit of charity and forbearance would motivate one to read/listen for comprehension and to seek not to misconstrue the message, whether or not a follow-up clarification is given.

[Glenn101]

I guess that it is high time that all who feel Sister Dalton was out of line to lobby the First Presidency to have her recalled.

Glenn

[thesometimesaint]

I'm saying a spirit of charity and forbearance would motivate one to read/listen for comprehension and to seek not to misconstrue the message, whether or not a follow-up clarification is given.

I am not seeking to misconstrue her statement. I am seeking comprehension of what she meant by what she said.

With all the good intent in the world if I say something you don't understand. It is up to me to explain what I meant. I ask no less from others.

I neither want to be misunderstood nor do I want others to be misunderstood.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not seeking to misconstrue her statement. I am seeking comprehension of what she meant by what she said.

With all the good intent in the world if I say something you don't understand. It is up to me to explain what I meant. I ask no less from others.

I neither want to be misunderstood nor do I want others to be misunderstood.

I think I understood fairly well her intended meaning, and it is not what some others seem to be imputing to her. Whether she wants to issue a subsequent clarification is up to her, but I for one won't make my charitable reading of her words conditional upon her producing that subsequent clarification.

I'm funny that way, I suppose.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

those who are faithful enough

It seems to always boil down to this.

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems to always boil down to this.

Nice example of blatant distortion and out-of-context quotation there. Especially ironic in the context of a discussion about charitable reading of discourse.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

I think I understood fairly well her intended meaning, and it is not what some others seem to be imputing to her. Whether she wants to issue a subsequent clarification is up to her, but I for one won't make my charitable reading of her words conditional upon her producing that subsequent clarification.

I'm funny that way, I suppose.

Apparently some didn't.

I personally don't believe she meant anything nefarious by what she said. Church people generally aren't that tone deaf. I'm not unique in that most of us have met tone deaf people inside and outside of the Church. Thus I seek clarification of what she meant.

Her right and privilege. However that leaves it to others to explain it. Even with all the best intents in the world they may or may not be accurate in that explanation.

Edited January 22, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Senator]

She didn't need to! It should have been self evident from the context of the speaker and her position what she was referencing. Hopefully it wont cause too much grief for YWPs to explain this to those lacking common sense.

Oh, please...

It should have been self evident, but it evidently wasn't.

So, if someone is confused or a in some measure put off by Sis Dalton's remark, they are simply lacking common sense?

What if there are YW (even adult women) in the church that have heard nothing about the resent "lobbying" that has gone on in the church. What would make them think that she was speaking in the context of "in the church"? Might they not reasonably get the wrong idea, that she was meaning "at large"? I think so.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Senator

[Saints Alive]

Oh, please...

It should have been self evident, but it evidently wasn't.

So, if someone is confused or a in some measure put off by Sis Dalton's remark, they are simply lacking common sense?

What if there are YW (even adult women) in the church that have heard not anything about the resent "lobbying" that has gone on in the church. What would make them think that she was speaking in the context of "in the church"? Might they not reasonably get the wrong idea, that she was meaning "at large"? I think so.

Perhaps they should climb out from under the rocks

[Senator]

Nice example of blatant distortion and out-of-context quotation there. Especially ironic in the context of a discussion about charitable reading of discourse.

Likewise............ironically

[Tacenda]

I think Sis. Dalton hasn't lived on boards like this, she is probably making better use of her time, speaking only of myself. She is going about doing the Lord's work. In her mind, she isn't thinking what maybe some of us are thinking. I just think mindset is something to excuse some of what she said. Maybe she will see it herself and make changes for the future, who knows.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently some didn't.

I personally don't believe she meant anything nefarious by what she said. Church people generally aren't that tone deaf. I'm not unique in that most of us have met tone deaf people inside and outside of the Church. Thus I seek clarification of what she meant.

Her right and privilege. However that leaves it to others to explain it. Even with all the best intents in the world they may or may not be accurate in that explanation.

(Bold emphasis mine for reference.)

OK, so it's the non-tone-deaf folks -- such as you -- whom I identify as those who are apt to read Sister Dalton's words charitably. You and and others like you need not insist on subsequent clarification in order to get Sister Dalton's intended meaning.

That's all I'm saying.

[Scott Lloyd]

Likewise............ironically

non sequitur.

[Senator]

Perhaps they should climb out from under the rocks

Scott Lloyd has asked for charity and forbearance on the part of those hearing the message. Perhaps there also needs to be equal charity and forbearance shown by the giver of the message (in this case some of the defenders of the message giver) to the hearers and their reponse, misunderstood as it may be.

[Senator]

non sequitur.

non.....sense

[canard78]

Perhaps they should climb out from under the rocks

The rocks of not knowing about the 'pants to church' thing? The majority of the people at the church I attend were unaware of the pants thing. Most people spend little time in the 'bloggernacle' - I guess they have a life

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

non sequitur.

Scott,

You are wasting your time. If nothing else Senator's post was indeed ironic.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

You are wasting your time. If nothing else Senator's post was indeed ironic.

I'm glad at least one other person recognized it.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Perhaps they should climb out from under the rocks

Perhaps I am misremembering your previous reactionand if so please feel free to correct me but to first dismiss an event as worthless and then insist that others should have been paying attention to it seems to be expecting contradictory reactions. As has been pointed out, the vast majority of members have not heard of the pants event, they do not hang out in arenas that report such things. Unfortunately the statement by Sis. Dalton uses terms often associated with political efforts thus is likely to draw attention from media rightly or wrongly that ignored the pants event so that when it gets reported people won't have the sufficient dots to connect it. While I agree that adults in the church should be aware and sensitive enough to give her the benefit of the doubt, my concern is for young women whose experience and idealism has not yet provided them with similar caution as well as nonmembers who have superficial knowledge of the Church and will be confused by it.

Responding to concerns could provide a great opportunity for the Church to make others aware of their efforts to support women and families in less fortunate countries thus leading to greater donations for humanitarian programs.

[Calm]

I understand what she is saying though if women understood their greatness no lobbying would take place. To me, motherhood is more honorable then being a Priesthood holder(is that doctrine?). The problem is none of us are spiritually perfect to comprehend the greatness of all God's plans. If we/they were spiritually perfect they would see what they have is greater(motherhood) than Priesthood. It would essentially be lowering themselves to Priesthood holders, a lesser privilege(if you will)..

This is not how it is presented by the Church though as a quick look through manuals will demonstrate. (Nor should it be IMO.)

"The Lord also promises that faithful priesthood holders will “become … the elect of God” (D&C 84:34). This means that we priesthood bearers who magnify our callings and enter into all of the sacred saving ordinances of the priesthood will be given the fulness of the Father’s kingdom.". (Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood)

"I was then a priest, but God defended me and preserved my life. I speak of this because it is a principle that has been manifest in the church of God in this generation as well as in others. I had the administration of angels while holding the office of a priest. I had visions and revelations.". http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=b0bda41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=ba805f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[canard78]

Perhaps I am misremembering your previous reactionand if so please feel free to correct me but to first dismiss an event as worthless and then insist that others should have been paying attention to it seems to be expecting contradictory reactions. As has been pointed out, the vast majority of members have not heard of the pants event, they do not hang out in arenas that report such things. Unfortunately the statement by Sis. Dalton uses terms often associated with political efforts thus is likely to draw attention from media rightly or wrongly that ignored the pants event so that when it gets reported people won't have the sufficient dots to connect it. While I agree that adults in the church should be aware and sensitive enough to give her the benefit of the doubt, my concern is for young women whose experience and idealism has not yet provided them with similar caution as well as nonmembers who have superficial knowledge of the Church and will be confused by it.

Responding to concerns could provide a great opportunity for the Church to make others aware of their efforts to support women and families in less fortunate countries thus leading to greater donations for humanitarian programs.

Thanks for your, as usual, balanced and fair comments on the situation.

I find it interesting that it seems to be only a handful of men on the thread who are adamant that nothing at all was said that was in any way problematic for anyone other than the critics and fault-finders. I may be guessing at genders a little.

I appreciate the comments of you and some other (I think) female posters who have recognised the impact the quote could have on both the young women who could be disheartened by this or get the wrong idea, along with faithful adults who may feel this sets a tone that conveys a message that is misleading to the rest of what the church actively does do in support of women's rights.

I just hope that the same people who paid no attention to the babble over pants will pay no greater attention to the quibbles over lobbying for rights. That way it's just us who twit about on the bloggernacle who can fuss around it.

[Hestia]

There seem to be a multiple of offensive comments on this. Time to close.