Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[Bikeemikey]

What part of "all worthy males" do you not understand as a restriction of the priesthood to males only? When it says "males", it means "males" and does not open it up to "females".

There's no stretch there at all. The current doctrinal, revelatory policy is the priesthood restricted to males.

Moving on with your other comments, I don't accept the premise that any tactic is acceptable. It doesn't work that way in the real world, and it doesn't work that way in the church.These women are not trying to petition the church, they're trying to manipulate public or media sentiment in hopes of forcing the church to meet their demands. If this is the Lord's church - and it is - then they are in effect trying to manipulate the Lord through his prophets for what they want.

That's pretty dangerous spiritual ground to stand on.

I never disputed that currently only males can have the priesthood. What I was stating is simply that the revelation was stating who is currently included, not who is forever excluded. OD2 is not a source that shows women can NEVER have the priesthood.

As for the rest of your response: I am uncertain it was meant for me. If it was it must be addressing something I never said.

Please CFR that I ever claimed any tactic is acceptable.

I personally have zero fear about the LORD being manipulated into change so I don't have any issue with these so called manipulative tactics.

I am far more in favor of a strong open conversation as opposed to not discussing concerns that some members have.

I for one hope that these questions the OW folks are asking are being seriously discussed and prayerfully considered by the church leadership and prophet-apostles.

[smac97]

Paloma,

I have a long response to your post (which I very much appreciate by the way), but let me think on it before posting.

Thank you,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2013 by smac97

[Stone holm]

I never disputed that currently only males can have the priesthood. What I was stating is simply that the revelation was stating who is currently included, not who is forever excluded. OD2 is not a source that shows women can NEVER have the priesthood. As for the rest of your response: I am uncertain it was meant for me. If it was it must be addressing something I never said. Please CFR that I ever claimed any tactic is acceptable. I personally have zero fear about the LORD being manipulated into change so I don't have any issue with these so called manipulative tactics. I am far more in favor of a strong open conversation as opposed to not discussing concerns that some members have. I for one hope that these questions the OW folks are asking are being seriously discussed and prayerfully considered by the church leadership and prophet-apostles.

 

I agree.  I have no problem with the Prophet praying about this issue, or people asking the Prophet to pray about this issue.

[smac97]

I agree.  I have no problem with the Prophet praying about this issue, or people asking the Prophet to pray about this issue.

I agree, with the caveat that the the "asking the Prophet" bit does not include public agitation against the Church, PR stunts designed to embarrass the Church or distract from General Conference, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[EllenMaksoud]

It was the words of President Hinckley that put my heart to rest about the Mormon church...

 

http://mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church

[smac97]

I never disputed that currently only males can have the priesthood. What I was stating is simply that the revelation was stating who is currently included, not who is forever excluded. OD2 is not a source that shows women can NEVER have the priesthood.

I pretty much agree with you. While I do not think ordination of women is part of the Plan, I am open to that possibility.

As for the rest of your response: I am uncertain it was meant for me. If it was it must be addressing something I never said. Please CFR that I ever claimed any tactic is acceptable. I personally have zero fear about the LORD being manipulated into change so I don't have any issue with these so called manipulative tactics.

I don't have a fear of the Lord being manipulated, either. But your reasoning is essentially an example of Reductio ad absurdum. We might as well say "I have zero fear about God's Plan of Salvation not proceeding as planned, so I see no need to do anything about it."

I am far more in favor of a strong open conversation as opposed to not discussing concerns that some members have.

I don't know what that means. You think public agitation against the Church by members is okay? PR stunts designed to make the Church look bad? Publicity campaigns pointing out the "concerns" of some members, along with demands that the Church resolve these concerns in a particular way, and that "nothing less will suffice?"

Is there any standard of behavior to which you would hold Church members? If so, what is it?

I for one hope that these questions the OW folks are asking are being seriously discussed and prayerfully considered by the church leadership and prophet-apostles.

Um, why? What does prayerful consideration have to do with what the OW are demanding? They have said on multiple occasions that they want women ordained to the priesthood, and that "nothing less will suffice." If "nothing less will suffice," then what God has to say about it doesn't matter, so "prayerful consideration" is ultimately irrelevant.

The OW folks may pay lip service to some notion of asking the Brethren to pray about this, but they aren't really looking for an answer from God, since they are only interested in what they want, and "nothing less will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

Ironic, though, that the OW folks have said that one of the reasons why they want to attend the Priesthood Session is because the Church occasionally makes big announcements in that session. In my view, the Proclamation on the Family was one of the most significant announcements in recent years. I think its announcement during the RS session was calculated to emphasize the centrality of women in the family. And yet now the Brethren are being faulted for not telling the RS Presidency.

By the way, did the RS Presidency publicly complain about not being told of the change ahead of time? Did they publicly agitate against the Church about it? Did they coordinate publicity stunts to take place during conference? I doubt it.

I currently serve in my ward's bishopric. We often discuss things which are kept "close the vest," so to speak. Our RS president is in the loop on a lot of things, but not all things. Further, the bishop and the RS president keep a number of issues confidential (where we, the counselors, are out of the loop).

 

I've got a little bit of time today and wanted to address 2 things in here. 

 

First with the proc. It may be ironic that they find major announcements when it was decided to announce it in relief society. But to be quite frank, that's missing the big picture. A document meant to describe and affirm male and female roles and the make of the family was written and decided entirely upon by men. That they read it in the RS meeting first comes off not as the emphasis on the centrality of women in the family but how that centrality is often more of a nod to women's roles than an actual integration. If women were so central you think they could have had at least one woman on the board to discuss the document and help in its word before it was read out. 

 

2. 

I will take your word for it. I would like a better understanding of what this "something" is.

 

Can you expand on this a bit? What sort of "access?" What "more" things do LDS women want to do? How are they impeded from doing these things?

 I am all for discussing and addressing the concerns of women in the Church. I strongly disagree, however, with church members publicly "agitating" against the Church, scheduling PR stunts intended to make the Church look bad, etc.

 

I guess I can see your point to an extent. But these are not concerns afflicting LDS women in general. If the RS Presidency is unhappy with being left out of the loop (are they?), it would seem they have recourse available to them. But you are speaking of "something is missing" as to LDS women in general. What is it?

I'm at "or something." I do not understand what you are saying.

 

Again, I will take your word that there is "growing" dissatisfaction among the women in the Church. I just wish this dissatisfaction, and its specific association with gender, could be articulated.

 

 

On the something missing, Paloma did a good job of describing things for women in general. I'm very much active and if given that question about female ordination would have put "no".....but am in large agreement with Cal and Juliann. Here's some specifics to the LDS way that I've seen in no specific order:

 

The women on pedestal bit (women are so much more  _______)

when/where the women are accessed in wards (I know this will vary, but it could be generalized and it should be expanded...women make up half the ward afterall)

the amount of time and energy with boy scouts and active (expensive) activities that do not meet up with the YW's (I remember quite often being a little envious of all the things the boys got to do)

how modesty and chastity lessons are conceptualized

the disparity between what happens in the temple for women compared to women's activity and capacity to take part in religious ordinances

The fact that part of the reason I don't want to stop being a temple worker is because I so enjoy and love the experience of laying hands upon a persons head and proclaiming blessings....without it I wouldn't have that opportunity

The way that we talk about women's role being exceptional when really it more so feels like it's an exceptions (ex. men should give blessing, except if you can't find one, then women could do it) or more like garnish (women can sit quietly as support on disciplinary councils)  

How education for women is often viewed more as a fail safe (you need it cuz you'll never know what'll happen to your husband) than as enrichment and expansion of ones own gifts and talents

How my cousin fretted about delaying children a few years to be able to start law school. 

How women's roles are often formulated as supportive/sustaining/passive to the male role as opposed to active/autonomous/and enriching

How often informal work (ex. service projects) are designated more by what is expected by me due to my sex rather than what I actually enjoy

How it took me years to like the Proclamation because the way it was worded allowed of the assumption of traditional roles that I have no particular affinity to. I like it now, because how I see and read it has altered. But it was first there because of the LDS cultural expectations and role-models of ideal women that was given to me

How I get excited for a single or latina or any other "different" sister on the stand, because her outlook just seems so much more accessible than to the roles I sense that I'm probably failing at

How at the end, I can be getting a masters, work at the temple, be/do my best and that inkling that it's not enough is still there no matter what I do. Because I'm not a wife and mother even though I want both. (p.s. I do love myself and have a healthy self-esteem, and believe I'm doing as God desires of me, but I'm painfully aware of how different that is from proscribed gendered expectations)

How what I'm becoming and what God expects of me as a person, woman, and future wife and mother, still seems out of step with what is expected in mormon culture and often what is tacked on as doctrine.

How I know almost nothing about Heavenly Mother and Her divine role and capacities, except her existence. (At least we've got a basic idea of what HF does) And yet one day I'm to become as She is. 

How few examples are found of women in the scripture and how fewer still of those are actively discussed in church. 

How often men's roles are unintentionally/intentionally described as leaders, when I quite like leading and have a divine sense (PB) that that's part of why I'm hear. 

How often women seemed like they're tacked on as some glorious footnote

(And to bring it back around to the beginning) How the proclamation was read in RS as indicative of women's central role in the family and how that could be seen as a good egalitarian set (priesthood/RS could both be used for important announcement) when women had not say about what was put in the document and it sounds more like men ascribing roles than a joint and cohesive decision. How women may be central in the home, but the further that circle expands (community, ward, Stake, general/higher leadership callings) the less central and more superfluous women's voice and position seems to be.

How motherhood (however you describe this) is suppose to be equal to priesthood....but how it actually is enacted in our church through participation and the above certainly doesn't look like that. 

 

So there's a more specific list of something missing. They span both personal, cultural, theological, leadership, and relationship. Something missing is a lot easier to state. But to put it more poetically: I feel like a bird of prey, with power and capacity and strength to soar and rule....but my wings are quite often clipped.

 

 

And I know that agitation may not be the best way and I certainly don't approve of the tactics currently moving forward in OW....but when I read their individual answers and reasons I can understand and resonate with plenty of them. I just have differing conclusions as to what should be done (going back to 2 different philosophies)

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 27, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Stone holm]

I've got a little bit of time today and wanted to address 2 things in here. 

 

First with the proc. It may be ironic that they find major announcements when it was decided to announce it in relief society. But to be quite frank, that's missing the big picture. A document meant to describe and affirm male and female roles and the make of the family was written and decided entirely upon by men. That they read it in the RS meeting first comes off not as the emphasis on the centrality of women in the family but how that centrality is often more of a nod to women's roles than an actual integration. If women were so central you think they could have had at least one woman on the board to discuss the document and help in its word before it was read out. 

 

2. 

 

On the something missing, Paloma did a good job of describing things for women in general. I'm very much active and if given that question about female ordination would have put "no".....but am in large agreement with Cal and Juliann. Here's some specifics to the LDS way that I've seen in no specific order:

 

The women on pedestal bit (women are so much more  _______)

when/where the women are accessed in wards (I know this will vary, but it could be generalized and it should be expanded...women make up half the ward afterall)

the amount of time and energy with boy scouts and active (expensive) activities that do not meet up with the YW's (I remember quite often being a little envious of all the things the boys got to do)

how modesty and chastity lessons are conceptualized

the disparity between what happens in the temple for women compared to women's activity and capacity to take part in religious ordinances

The fact that part of the reason I don't want to stop being a temple worker is because I so enjoy and love the experience of laying hands upon a persons head and proclaiming blessings....without it I wouldn't have that opportunity

The way that we talk about women's role being exceptional when really it more so feels like it's an exceptions (ex. men should give blessing, except if you can't find one, then women could do it) or more like garnish (women can sit quietly as support on disciplinary councils)  

How education for women is often viewed more as a fail safe (you need it cuz you'll never know what'll happen to your husband) than as enrichment and expansion of ones own gifts and talents

How my cousin fretted about delaying children a few years to be able to start law school. 

How women's roles are often formulated as supportive/sustaining/passive to the male role as opposed to active/autonomous/and enriching

How often informal work (ex. service projects) are designated more by what is expected by me due to my sex rather than what I actually enjoy

How it took me years to like the Proclamation because the way it was worded allowed of the assumption of traditional roles that I have no particular affinity to. I like it now, because how I see and read it has altered. But it was first there because of the LDS cultural expectations and role-models of ideal women that was given to me

How I get excited for a single or latina or any other "different" sister on the stand, because her outlook just seems so much more accessible than to the roles I sense that I'm probably failing at

How at the end, I can be getting a masters, work at the temple, be/do my best and that inkling that it's not enough is still there no matter what I do. Because I'm not a wife and mother even though I want both. (p.s. I do love myself and have a healthy self-esteem, and believe I'm doing as God desires of me, but I'm painfully aware of how different that is from proscribed gendered expectations)

How what I'm becoming and what God expects of me as a person, woman, and future wife and mother, still seems out of step with what is expected in mormon culture and often what is tacked on as doctrine.

How I know almost nothing about Heavenly Mother and Her divine role and capacities, except her existence. (At least we've got a basic idea of what HF does) And yet one day I'm to become as She is. 

How few examples are found of women in the scripture and how fewer still of those are actively discussed in church. 

How often men's roles are unintentionally/intentionally described as leaders, when I quite like leading and have a divine sense (PB) that that's part of why I'm hear. 

How often women seemed like they're tacked on as some glorious footnote

(And to bring it back around to the beginning) How the proclamation was read in RS as indicative of women's central role in the family and how that could be seen as a good egalitarian set (priesthood/RS could both be used for important announcement) when women had not say about what was put in the document and it sounds more like men ascribing roles than a joint and cohesive decision. How women may be central in the home, but the further that circle expands (community, ward, Stake, general/higher leadership callings) the less central and more superfluous women's voice and position seems to be.

How motherhood (however you describe this) is suppose to be equal to priesthood....but how it actually is enacted in our church through participation and the above certainly doesn't look like that. 

 

So there's a more specific list of something missing. They span both personal, cultural, theological, leadership, and relationship. Something missing is a lot easier to state. But to put it more poetically: I feel like a bird of prey, with power and capacity and strength to soar and rule....but my wings are quite often clipped.

 

 

And I know that agitation may not be the best way and I certainly don't approve of the tactics currently moving forward in OW....but when I read their individual answers and reasons I can understand and resonate with plenty of them. I just have differing conclusions as to what should be done (going back to 2 different philosophies)

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Quite beautifully said. Course you are going to probably get a lot of negative vibes for having said it. But giving you a bump on it nevertheless.

[Kenngo1969]

I agree.  I have no problem with the Prophet praying about this issue, or people asking the Prophet to pray about this issue.

But until he comes out and explicitly says that he has actually done so, does that mean you and your like-minded fellows are going to presume that he hasn't? And if he says that he has and that the Answer he received wasn't to your liking, will there then be a presumption that he simply "did it wrong" (my phrase)?

[Paloma]

Paloma,

I have a long response to your post (which I very much appreciate by the way), but let me think on it before posting.

Thank you,

-Smac

Sure, smac. Take all the time you need. (And I hope you know that I don't need or expect a response from you ... but will appreciate hearing your thoughts.)

Thank you for starting the thread and creating an opportunity for this discussion.

And thanks to those who found my post to be helpful.

Any one person can only add so much to the discussion, and at that, one person can only offer partial thoughts at a time!

So it's great to have many voices here!

[Analytics]

...Um, why? What does prayerful consideration have to do with what the OW are demanding? They have said on multiple occasions that they want women ordained to the priesthood, and that "nothing less will suffice." If "nothing less will suffice," then what God has to say about it doesn't matter, so "prayerful consideration" is ultimately irrelevant.

The OW folks may pay lip service to some notion of asking the Brethren to pray about this, but they aren't really looking for an answer from God, since they are only interested in what they want, and "nothing less will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I don't have a horse in this race, and I don't know any "OW folks" so I can't comment on any individual's specific motives, but since you've emphasized on this thread that being a male doesn't preclude you from sharing your opinion, I figured not having a horse in the race shouldn't preclude me from sharing mine.

 

It seems unfair and judgmental for you to tell other people that they really don't care about God's opinion.  After all, that denies the possibility that the reason they think women should have the priesthood and the reason they think "nothing less will sufice" is because God told them that.  In a church that believes in personal revelation, its at least theoretically possible that God would tell somebody something before telling the Prophet.  It's at least theoretically possible that He'd tell them to ask the Prophet to pray about something he might not otherwise pray about. 

 

If we fast-forward say, 30 years, its quite possible that there will be more sister missionaries than Elders.  It's quite possible that many church units will have few well-qualified males for key leadership roles, but many otherwise qualified women.  It will eventually become painfully obvious that excluding from key leadership roles on the basis of sex well over half of the Church's most talented and dedicated members is a huge liability.  When that happens, will God continue to exclude women from holding the priesthood?

 

The church can be as provincial as it wants for as long as it wants.  Like I said, I don't have a horse in the race.  But if I was a betting man, I'd put $20 on women getting the priesthood before I die.

[omni]

So you're telling us that the quality of current church leadership is somewhat lacking and it would take women to improve it.

 

Right.

 

In some areas of the world, yes the quality of leadership is lacking.  This is not a knock on those men who volunteer their time and efforts in their callings, as most do a great job.  I'm not sure where you've lived, but I've been in a number of branches that would greatly benefit from a change.  Branches in which the president didn't even live in the boundaries, or one in which the BP was an American senior missionary who barely spoke the language, or one where the BP was a convert of less than a year (who then became inactive within two years of his calling), all because they lacked quality leadership. Do you think this is ideal?  

 

It's a simple math, ordaining women would instantly double (and more in many cases as the developing areas seem to have higher rates of active women) the leadership pool and therefore increase the quality of leadership...unless of course you believe women make inferior leaders.

Edited September 27, 2013 by omni

[smac97]

Wow. This thread is devolving into a big gripefest. Against the Church. Against Church members, both male and female, who are being categorically slandered in ways big and small.

I have been a lifelong member of the Church. I am pretty active in it. My family is active in it. My extended family is active in it. My wife's extended family is active in it. The tree is healthy, both roots and branches. I am aware that the Church has many ways in can improve, some pruning of the tree is and always will be necessary. But I reject the repellent characterization of Church I am seeing in this thread. It has become an exercise in faultfinding, in complaining - directly and indirectly - against the men in the Church (including the Brethren), in excusing/justifying inappropriate behavior against the Church by Church members solely because they are women, in creating a caricature of the Church as being hostile or demeaning to women.

To some extent, I may bear responsibility for this. Perhaps I have been too strident in my comments. In any event, I think the turn this thread has taken has become both unproductive and offensive. I'm out.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2013 by smac97

[Senator]

 In any event, I think the turn this thread has taken has become both unproductive and offensive. I'm out.

 

 

Interesting!  With the late appearances of Jullian, Cal, Paloma and BlueDreams, I felt this thread was finally becoming really productive.

 

So when some finally articulate the "something missing", as you wished they could, you get offended?

 

Come on......

Edited September 27, 2013 by Senator

[Calm]

I am not sure if those of us who are expressing the sense of something being missing are included in your above post as griping against the Church.

For me it is not that way, it is more like being a happily married couple who still feel a lack in their relationship due to not having a child. I do not see it as a labelling that what they have now is bad or in any way negative or even stagnanted simply because there is a recognition that the relation could expand dramatically in a new way.

I also believe that the Lord has structured the Church so as to not fully provide all needs so as to drive people to seek out the Lord rather than rest in contentment in Zion...

Edited September 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Wow. This thread is devolving into a big gripefest. Against the Church. Against Church members, both male and female, who are being categorically slandered in ways big and small.I have been a lifelong member of the Church. I am pretty active in it. My family is active in it. My extended family is active in it. My wife's extended family is active in it. The tree is healthy, both roots and branches. I am aware that the Church has many ways in can improve, some pruning of the tree is and always will be necessary. But I reject the repellent characterization of Church I am seeing in this thread. It has become an exercise in faultfinding, in complaining - directly and indirectly - against the men in the Church (including the Brethren), in excusing/justifying inappropriate behavior against the Church by Church members solely because they are women, in creating a caricature of the Church as being hostile or demeaning to women.To some extent, I may bear responsibility for this. Perhaps I have been too strident in my comments. In any event, I think the turn this thread has taken has become both unproductive and offensive. I'm out.Thanks,-Smac

smac, without providing specific examples those who want to improve communication may not relealize there is a need to change their approach and there may be those who you do not have a problem with that may assume that you do and in making this mistake it may lead them to not take the risk to discuss their POV in the future, thus leading to further misconceptions and confusion. Perhaps a more effective approach would be to identify to the mods those who have taken the thread in directions you do not feel are called for so they can be removed if necessary so that the thread can be focused on increasing understanding rather than condemning others for whatever reason. Edited September 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

The church can be as provincial as it wants for as long as it wants.  Like I said, I don't have a horse in the race.  But if I was a betting man, I'd put $20 on women getting the priesthood before I die.

$20? Such high stakes.

 

And the time period is your own lifetime, so any payout on your part won't come until after your demise.

 

No doubting your conviction, is there?

 

We've heard of something being "damned with faint praise." Is this an instance of a prediction being damned with faint risk?

Edited September 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

smac, without providing specific examples those who want to improve communication may not relealize there is a need to change their approach and there may be those who you do not have a problem with that may assume that you do and in making this mistake it may lead them to not take the risk to discuss their POV in the future, thus leading to further misconceptions and confusion. Perhaps a more effective approach would be to identify to the mods those who have taken the thread in directions you do not feel are called for so they can be removed if necessary so that the thread can be focused on increasing understanding rather than condemning others for whatever reason.

I've not read this thread in several days, so I have no personal knowledge of what smac might be referring to specifically.

 

But I might point out that, conceivably, there is much that might be posted on this board that one might find unpalatable -- even contemptible -- that would not be egregious enough to warrant moderator sanction.

[Bikeemikey]

But until he comes out and explicitly says that he has actually done so, does that mean you and your like-minded fellows are going to presume that he hasn't? And if he says that he has and that the Answer he received wasn't to your liking, will there then be a presumption that he simply "did it wrong" (my phrase)?

I see no issue with fully faithful members of the church following all the light and knowledge they have and asking, every day if they want, if women can have the priesthood. If the prophet says no the first day then ask the next.

Until the prophet specifically says, do not ask the question there is zero issues with asking it.

There is nothing in this process contrary to god. There is nothing in asking the church to inquire on this matter in a daily basis that would preclude the partitioner from being fully faithful and strong in the gospel.

Are you concerned that the prophet may not be comfortable telling people to stop asking and this need to do it for him?

I know of no request from the church that has requested this question be stopped. In fact, the absence if such a request makes me very proud of the church that we are.

[Calm]

I've not read this thread in several days, so I have no personal knowledge of what smac might be referring to specifically.

 

But I might point out that, conceivably, there is much that might be posted on this board that one might find unpalatable -- even contemptible -- that would not be egregious enough to warrant moderator sanction.

But if I gather from the way smac wrote it, much may be off topic.

[Scott Lloyd]

But if I gather from the way smac wrote it, much may be off topic.

Possibly.

 

As I said, I've not been following the thread lately.

[Stone holm]

Wow. This thread is devolving into a big gripefest. Against the Church. Against Church members, both male and female, who are being categorically slandered in ways big and small.I have been a lifelong member of the Church. I am pretty active in it. My family is active in it. My extended family is active in it. My wife's extended family is active in it. The tree is healthy, both roots and branches. I am aware that the Church has many ways in can improve, some pruning of the tree is and always will be necessary. But I reject the repellent characterization of Church I am seeing in this thread. It has become an exercise in faultfinding, in complaining - directly and indirectly - against the men in the Church (including the Brethren), in excusing/justifying inappropriate behavior against the Church by Church members solely because they are women, in creating a caricature of the Church as being hostile or demeaning to women.To some extent, I may bear responsibility for this. Perhaps I have been too strident in my comments. In any event, I think the turn this thread has taken has become both unproductive and offensive. I'm out.Thanks,-Smac

Have seen the comments as fairly restrained. Most are mainly aimed at pointing out the flaws in the scriptural claims being made. Most express concern about the OW tactics. But there seems to be this notion that people can say the most outrageous things in defense of the status quo and any response is an attack

[omni]

I've not read this thread in several days, so I have no personal knowledge of what smac might be referring to specifically.

I think those of us who have been following this thread are wondering the same thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think those of us who have been following this thread are wondering the same thing.

Well, having read smac's posts over the past several years, I'm inclined to give his judgment the benefit of the doubt.

 

And, like him, I have no taste for petty faultfinding.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

I agree, with the caveat that the the "asking the Prophet" bit does not include public agitation against the Church, PR stunts designed to embarrass the Church or distract from General Conference, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

If the prophet has not asked these people to stop, or expressed concerns about the movement, then why are you?

Asking the prophet can take a number of forms. So far this one is pretty benign.