D. Kelly Ogden's Response To Kate Kelly And Ordain Women

[Calm]

Then, after the congregation had suffered enough, I blinked at the paper, scrunched my eyes, looked at my mom, and said, "I'm sorry, mom. I just can't read your handwriting."

I hope she gave you a good slap on the head for that one.  

[Calm]

I'm listening to conference and reading this board. The last part of your post made me laugh, but I squelched it and laughed heartily in my mind......so funny.

I am supposed to be sleeping so I laughed out loud....but no one to share the joke with here.  

[mercyngrace]

I, for one, have never said or believed that the priesthood is "an equalizer" to level the playing field between men and women. That women have certain unconditional blessings that men don't *just is* --- with nothing being said about priesthood. Similarly, that men hold ordained priesthood while women don't *just is* ---- with nothing being said about why that is.

 

Another way of describing things that "just are" (without explanation or revelation) is "traditions of our fathers".

 

Now, I'm not saying that the temple wording and gender based priesthood are traditions of our fathers. I'm saying that barring an explanation or supporting revelation, we have the freedom (arguably the responsibility) to question why things are as they "just are". We are a church restored because of asking hard questions.

[rongo]

I hope she gave you a good slap on the head for that one.  

Oh, my wife punches me on the arm enough to make up for any "deficiency" of my mom slapping me for sacrament meeting "opening jokes" . . .

[rongo]

Another way of describing things that "just are" (without explanation or revelation) is "traditions of our fathers".

 

I think that describing things we don't have explanations or more light and knowledge on as "traditions of our fathers" (with all of the negative Book of Mormon connotations that implies) is way too broad of a brush. In other words, I don't think that every things we can't give an authoritative "why" for can simply be chalked up as "traditions of our fathers" (and by implication, just as faulty as the Lamanites' worldview).

 

Now, I'm not saying that the temple wording and gender based priesthood are traditions of our fathers. I'm saying that barring an explanation or supporting revelation, we have the freedom (arguably the responsibility) to question why things are as they "just are". We are a church restored because of asking hard questions.

 

I completely agree with this. There is nothing wrong, and great value, in asking "why" and pondering "why."

[mercyngrace]

I should also add that I think it might have been wiser (just speculation) for the church to allow the sisters entrance to the meeting if there were empty seats. The could have simply announced that priesthood meeting is "required for men, optional for women". This would have deflated the protest aspect of OW without acquiescing on the ordination issue. 

[rongo]

What, if anything, happened last night? Was there an attempt made to gain entrance, but women were turned away?

 

I haven't heard anything.

[Calm]

I should also add that I think it might have been wiser (just speculation) for the church to allow the sisters entrance to the meeting if there were empty seats. The could have simply announced that priesthood meeting is "required for men, optional for women". This would have deflated the protest aspect of OW without acquiescing on the ordination issue. 

There weren't empty seats as reported by someone who was there, though there were many apparently close to the start.

[Calm]

I should also add that I think it might have been wiser (just speculation) for the church to allow the sisters entrance to the meeting if there were empty seats. The could have simply announced that priesthood meeting is "required for men, optional for women". This would have deflated the protest aspect of OW without acquiescing on the ordination issue. 

The OW have stated though that allowing them in would be a sign of accepting them as "prospective elders".  If you need me to, I will find a reference.  Having drawn that line, it would be very confusing to others if they were allowed.  Even if the leadership announced this was in no way about women being prospective elders, that information may not be shared as extensively as the "prospective elders" potential meme.

[Calm]

What, if anything, happened last night? Was there an attempt made to gain entrance, but women were turned away?

 

I haven't heard anything.

The 200 or so women lined up in their own line next to the standby line and apparently took turns (which comes across as rather rude imo, should have just stood in the same line but that is less pressworthy) one by one to go up and ask for admittance from the ushers/security.  They were refused, resulting in some crying even though it was expected.

 

Sevenbak stated that as they left the usual anti-mormon protestors turned to attacking them with yells of "women should be silent in Church", etc.  Poor women, can't win.

 

I found it very strange that some exmormons and at least one excommunicated individuals asked for admittance given that the promotion was about being perceived as prospective elders.  How could someone who had left the Church even want such a perception applied to herself?

 

ABC4 has a good video, I liked DeseretNews as the most complete report of both sides.  Ruth Todd,  the Church's spokesperson, was excellent and very inclusive making the point informing the press there had been a meeting last week for women, that this was to strengthen young and older men and that they were viewed and loved as sisters and hoped that they would be given peace by the Spirit.  

 

There are a ton of articles on it reporting what happened.  They appear to be accurate if varying in completeness...according to the personal report of a friend who was there and followed the group from the initial meeting.

Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[rongo]

<duplicate>

Edited October 6, 2013 by rongo

[mercyngrace]

What, if anything, happened last night? Was there an attempt made to gain entrance, but women were turned away?

 

I haven't heard anything.

 

They did try to get in. They lined up to enter the tabernacle, I think, which was the overflow area. They were turned away, one by one. And they made the NYT and other news outlets.

 

I feel bad for the fellow tasked with turning these women away.

[why me]

 

I found it very strange that some exmormons and at least one excommunicated individuals asked for admittance given that the promotion was about being perceived as prospective elders.  How could someone who had left the Church even want such a perception applied to herself?

I remember that in the past I said that quite a few of the women may no longer be members or even active members. They wanted to give negative publicity to the church. If women were given the priesthood many of these women would not come back to the church and many would then claim that the church has no revelation but they do respond to social pressure.

[rongo]

The women lined up in their own line next to the standby line and apparently took turns (which comes across as rather rude imo, should have just stood in the same line but that is less pressworthy) one by one to go up and ask for admittance from the ushers/security.  They were refused, resulting in some crying even though it was expected . . . I found it very strange that some exmormons and at least one excommunicated individuals asked for admittance given that the promotion was about being perceived as prospective elders.  How could someone who had left the Church even want such a perception applied to herself?

It looks to me like they've overplayed their hand, and the Kate Kelly & Co.'s influence will be short-lived and on the wane. Especially, as you've pointed out, that they were trying to spin entrance as tacit ("deemed as passed") Church acknowledgment that attendees are "prospective elders." 

 

Whence, OW? Where do they go from here?

[MorningStar]

So there were men standing in the standby line and the women thought they should have priority?

[Calm]

 They wanted to give negative publicity to the church.

Or they just wanted to support those female friends who were still members in what they considered was the best way.

[Calm]

So there were men standing in the standby line and the women thought they should have priority?

Not priority in the sense they hadn't cut in line even if they did form a separate line, but say equal access more or less rather than waiting to see if any were available after all those actually invited to the meeting had their chance.

 

But yes...if they had been granted entrance there would have been men turned away...I do not know how many men were turned away as it was, perhaps Sevenbak saw and can report.

 

At least I assume they got there at the same time as the men in the line, but wanted to make their presence felt stronger by not mingling in the line but remaining separate...which gives the wrong 'feel' to their efforts to, but this is becoming standard for me and it is rather surprising to me that it is so.  But perhaps that is because I am thinking more about how one personally would relate to their goal and less about making the movement itself look strong and valid.

Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[GingerRed]

 

Whatever the wording of any given ordinance, I think the power inherent in the ordinances themselves transcends their wording. Personally, while I've never been sealed (and I'm not holding my breath), if-and-when that happens, I aspire to follow the counsel of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25).  Whatever the wording of the ordinance involved, that passage certainly doesn't make it seem as though I'm supposed to hold much of anything back from my wife.

 

P.S.: Whoever you are, wherever you are, Love You, Dear!

 

 

 

I hear ya Kenngo......I am single too!  I can't reach the highest exhalation either, without a spouse.   But hey....whatever happens, happens,.

 

I don't think it's any kind of 'defect' if men don't have the Priesthood. I don't look at it that way. I don't have or want the Priesthood. I'm not defected. I feel already fulfilled and completed as an LDS women.   There's nothing more that I spiritually need. I am a Daughter of Heavenly Father!! HIS daughter!! It can't get an better than that! I don't need the priesthood to make me feel worthy and special before the Lord. I don't want to be a 'priest'...but I WOULD love to be a priestess!

 

A gal posted this on a LDS Singles group page I am a member of, It reflects how I feel..

 

"Personally, I feel that God has blessed me beyond my deepest desires. Even with all that I lack, I have everything I need and so much more. I feel to demand something that has never been previously promised shows a huge lack of gratitude. If Heavenly Father wants me to hold the priesthood someday, even though I already have all the rights, without the responsibilities of the priesthood, He will give it to me when the time is right. And I won't have to march in protest in order to receive any blessings which He has waiting for me."

 

 

 

Red

Edited October 6, 2013 by GingerRed

[Kenngo1969]

While there is a certain strain of thought in the Church of Jesus Christ (gravely mistaken, in my view) particularly as regards men (since social custom dictates that we do the asking) that the clock is ticking for us: if we (men) depart this life not having been sealed, then our fate ... as ministering angels ... is sealed.  I don't believe that, because it removes moral agency ... for which Christ spilled His blood and died ... from the equation, as though, if all else fails, I should simply find someone whom I think is a suitable candidate, bean her over the head, knock her unconscious, be sealed to her, and ... well, she'll get used to the idea eventually after she wakes up!

 

Just as God's single daughters aren't second-class citizens in His Kingdom, nor are his single sons.  

[wenglund]

...but it's not as good as showing them with your actions.

 

That is debatable. I have been given the impression from many women that the words "I love you" are more important to them than loving actions, though the loving actions aren't necessarily unimportant. This was borne out to me in relationships where I, personally, have acted lovingly and didn't speak my love, and my love was doubted, and having witnessed relationships where men have spoken their love, exhibit actions to the contrary, but where the spoken love wasn't doubted.

 

However, be that as it may, you initially claimed that "If the church really valued women, its leaders wouldn't have to keep saying how much they value women." Should I take your last statement (quoted at the top of this post), in light of Darren's salient quip ("Sweet, I no longer have to tell my wife or children how much I value them "). as a tacit admission that your initial (bolded) statement is incorrect?

 

I would suggest that you got it exactly backwards. Logically, the much saying is evidence of greatly valuing women, rather than the opposite as you supposed.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

I would suggest that you got it exactly backwards. Logically, the much saying is evidence of greatly valuing women, rather than the opposite as you supposed.

 

Then we simply disagree. Not that it's ever happened before.

[Darren10]

Mercyandgrace #162;

I feel bad for the fellow tasked with turning these women away.

I would have loved turning them away.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Wenglund;

I would suggest that you got it exactly backwards. Logically, the much saying is evidence of greatly valuing women, rather than the opposite as you supposed

My thoughts exactly. If women were not valuable, why bother telling them?

[jkwilliams]

Mercyandgrace #162;

I would have loved turning them away.

 

Bummer that you didn't have the opportunity.

[Darren10]

Kengo #169;

I should simply find someone whom I think is a suitable candidate, bean her over the head, knock her unconscious

Worked for the cave men.