Amen, Sherri Dew!

[bluebell]

Also here is the letter OW wrote asking for tickets in the priesthood session.

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Ticket-Letters.pdf

 

Here is the news article where Kate Kelly talks about OW's efforts to attend the priesthood session and shares their reasoning with the public.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56795670-180/women-says-church-kelly.html.csp

 

Note the part where she says-"Since the meeting is open to men who are "prospective elders," Kelly says, "were we permitted to attend, it would help church leaders see us as the prospective elders we believe ourselves to be."

 

If the church has no intentions of seeing these women as 'prospective elders', using this language does make it difficult for the church to acquiesce without encouraging people in a pursuit that the church doesn't support.

[Kenngo1969]

... Note the part where she [Kate Kelly] says-"Since the meeting is open to men who are "prospective elders," Kelly says, "were we permitted to attend, it would help church leaders see us as the prospective elders we believe ourselves to be."

 

If the church has no intentions of seeing these women as 'prospective elders', using this language does make it difficult for the church to acquiesce without encouraging people in a pursuit that the church doesn't support.

If I believed myself to be the Queen of England, and, as a result, attempted to start walking around Buckingham Palace as though I thought I owned the place, something tells me I'd be greeted by more than just the odd raised eyebrow (famous British reservedness notwithstanding).  Hebrews 5:4 comes to mind.  (Substitute "one" for "man" if the Scriptures aren't "PC enough" for you. )  If-and-when women get the Priesthood, it will happen "top-down" rather than "bottom-up."

[juliann]

If I believed myself to be the Queen of England, and, as a result, attempted to start walking around Buckingham Palace as though I thought I owned the place, something tells me I'd be greeted by more than just the odd raised eyebrow (famous British reservedness notwithstanding).  Hebrews 5:4 comes to mind.  (Substitute "one" for "man" if the Scriptures aren't "PC enough" for you. )  If-and-when women get the Priesthood, it will happen "top-down" rather than "bottom-up."

Although I know you do not mean it that way, this tone is mocking and condescending.  And this is where I think we need the most work.  For some reason, it is acceptable to talk about women in this tone.  It does not jibe with a church that claims to respect and honor women.  There is nothing relevant to "PC" about scriptures that rarely mention women, it should be a simple admission.  It should also be recognized that this does cause problems for girls and women who have to continually insert themselves into a male world they are then told isn't their God given place.  That is why groups like OW exist...and frankly, will need to exist until awareness reaches the level that racism finally has.

 

This is a growing problem.  It isn't going to go away.  We can fan the flames or we can try to understand.

[T-Shirt]

For some reason, it is acceptable to talk about women in this tone.

 Who, in the Church, says this is acceptable?

It should also be recognized that this does cause problems for girls and women who have to continually insert themselves into a male world they are then told isn't their God given place.

Where is this taught in the Church? Seriously, there may me bigoted idiots in the Church, but I have never seen, in my meager 55 years, anything close to this kind of teaching or attitude coming from the Church.

This is a growing problem.

Maybe I'm blind, or maybe you live in a strange place that has more of this kind of thing, but I don't see this as anything more than a minor issue, but certainly not a growing problem. There will always be people with abrasive personalities and they need to be dealt with, but I don't see this as a growing problem coming from the Church. Sometimes problems can stem, just as much, from people who are hypersensitive as from people who are ignorant and abrasive.

I would be interested to know if others see this differently than I do, or if, maybe, I'm just up in the night.

[Kenngo1969]

As I have said elsewhere (albeit, perhaps, in a different context), while our respective situations are inapposite in many respects, I do not hold the fullness of the Priesthood.  I will not do so unless and until I am sealed to someone.  There is a certain strain of thought in the Church of Jesus Christ that single men are solely and completely responsible for their plight, as though resolving the problem is as simple as bopping someone I think is a suitable candidate over the head (her moral agency, feelings about me, and the issue of consent, apparently, all being irrelevant), being sealed to her while she's unconscious, and ... well, she'll get used to the idea eventually after she wakes up.  I'm dissatisfied on some levels with this state of affairs.  But I'm not going to pick up a banner, start marching, invite other similarly-situated "Eternal Bachelors" to join me in my cause, and agitate for the Church of Jesus Christ to extend blessings which currently are available only to sealed couples to people in my situation.  I simply have to trust that the Lord knows what He's doing and that I "won't be ashamed" as I "wait for [Him]" to resolve the situation in His own time and way.

 

P.S: But of course, I would never recommend such a course of action to Kate Kelly, et al. They, apparently, are special.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

... I would be interested to know if others see this differently than I do, or if, maybe, I'm just up in the night.

You're "up in the night."  But if you'd like to join me, I'll bring the videos, and you bring the popcorn, and we'll have a session of late-night video watching.

[Ahab]

This is exactly how I feel. 

 

http://youtu.be/-QYlDLChzig

I'm glad you don't think women are better than men.  I think they are, but as a woman I would rather that you not believe that.

[Tacenda]

Who, in the Church, says this is acceptable?

Where is this taught in the Church? Seriously, there may me bigoted idiots in the Church, but I have never seen, in my meager 55 years, anything close to this kind of teaching or attitude coming from the Church.

Maybe I'm blind, or maybe you live in a strange place that has more of this kind of thing, but I don't see this as anything more than a minor issue, but certainly not a growing problem. There will always be people with abrasive personalities and they need to be dealt with, but I don't see this as a growing problem coming from the Church. Sometimes problems can stem, just as much, from people who are hypersensitive as from people who are ignorant and abrasive.

I would be interested to know if others see this differently than I do, or if, maybe, I'm just up in the night.

Well your not a girl are you? Edited November 21, 2013 by Tacenda

[omni]

You're "up in the night."  But if you'd like to join me, I'll bring the videos, and you bring the popcorn, and we'll have a session of late-night video watching.

"Video watching"? I always knew you were a little old school.

[Kenngo1969]

"Video watching"? I always knew you were a little old school.

OK.  DVD-watching.  I'm flexible!

Edited November 21, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[T-Shirt]

Well your not a girl are you?

Why does that matter? If, according to you, guys cannot be like girls, then why do some of the girls want to be like the guys? Isn't that a double standard? And, by the way, do you have answers to the questions that I asked Juliann?

[Scott Lloyd]

As I have said elsewhere (albeit, perhaps, in a different context), while our respective situations are inapposite in many respects, I do not hold the fullness of the Priesthood.  I will not do so unless and until I am sealed to someone.  There is a certain strain of thought in the Church of Jesus Christ that single men are solely and completely responsible for their plight, as though resolving the problem is as simple as bopping someone I think is a suitable candidate over the head (her moral agency, feelings about me, and the issue of consent, apparently, all being irrelevant), being sealed to her while she's unconscious, and ... well, she'll get used to the idea eventually after she wakes up.  I'm dissatisfied on some levels with this state of affairs.  But I'm not going to pick up a banner, start marching, invite other similarly-situated "Eternal Bachelors" to join me in my cause, and agitate for the Church of Jesus Christ to extend blessings which currently are available only to sealed couples to people in my situation.  I simply have to trust that the Lord knows what He's doing and that I "won't be ashamed" as I "wait for [Him]" to resolve the situation in His own time and way.

 

P.S: But of course, I would never recommend such a course of action to Kate Kelly, et al. They, apparently, are special.

I was single for a long time -- probably longer than most LDS men -- and it has not been so long ago that the above does not resonate with me.

[Tacenda]

Why does that matter? If, according to you, guys cannot be like girls, then why do some of the girls want to be like the guys? Isn't that a double standard? And, by the way, do you have answers to the questions that I asked Juliann?

There are nuances you'd not understand unless you lived it as a woman, my personal opinion, thank you very much.  Or some background of operating in a Relief Society Presidency and many years of RS classes/meetings.  For instance the RS president is needing things from the bishop for various things because she doesn't hold the priesthood.  But she is given the compliment that the RS is more or less in charge because they are sometimes at the helm of things, yet cannot take full charge without someone overlooking.  In the early church we didn't have the top down in the church concerning the women in the RS organization.  That has slowly dwindled.  We are the same as men in our RS class.  We should be able to decide things.  Correlation changed it to be blah, IMO.  The old days were a combination of lessons having to do with faith, family, personal, cultural, etc.    

[Kenngo1969]

I was single for a long time -- probably longer than most LDS men -- and it has not been so long ago that the above does not resonate with me.

Thank you, Scott.   That means a lot.  (Hey!  That rhymes! )

[Kenngo1969]

Christ is a guy ...  Did He do anything for women as far as helping them by shouldering a good part of their burdens through completing the Atonement, or is it not possible for Him to do that because He lacks certain things with respect to anatomy and biology?

[T-Shirt]

There are nuances you'd not understand unless you lived it as a woman, my personal opinion, thank you very much.

If I said the same thing to you, inserting "man" in the place of "woman", I would be labeled insensitive and disrespectful to women 

Or some background of operating in a Relief Society Presidency and many years of RS classes/meetings.  For instance the RS president is needing things from the bishop for various things because she doesn't hold the priesthood.  But she is given the compliment that the RS is more or less in charge because they are sometimes at the helm of things, yet cannot take full charge without someone overlooking.  In the early church we didn't have the top down in the church concerning the women in the RS organization.  That has slowly dwindled.  We are the same as men in our RS class.  We should be able to decide things.

What things are the women not able to decide? I am sure you know that every organization in a ward falls under the jurisdiction of the bishop or stake president. Even the Melchizedek priesthood quorums have to clear things with the bishop before acting.

Now getting back to the questions I asked Juliann, do you have answers to them? I am truly interested as I just don't see the growing problem that she does. If it exists, help me see it so I can add my effort to changing it.

[Calm]

If I said the same thing to you, inserting "man" in the place of "woman", I would be labeled insensitive and disrespectful to women 

 

I totally disagree.  Of course men will experience things differently than women and women from men and sometimes they won't be able to communicate what that difference is because they are so unconscious of it.

 

It happens between individuals and other groups as well.  It is always very important imo to remember the background of who you are trying to communicate and see what assumptions you share and what you don't.

[bluebell]

If I said the same thing to you, inserting "man" in the place of "woman", I would be labeled insensitive and disrespectful to women 

 

 

I ditto what Cal said.  It's a dumb woman who doesn't realize that there are things about being a man that she will never understand.  It's not insensitive or disrespectful, it's just reality.

 

The truth is that there are things in this world that you can't 'know' until you experience them.  The plan of salvation is based on that premise and it's true to different degrees for a lot of other things as well.

[ERayR]

There are nuances you'd not understand unless you lived it as a woman, my personal opinion, thank you very much.  Or some background of operating in a Relief Society Presidency and many years of RS classes/meetings.  For instance the RS president is needing things from the bishop for various things because she doesn't hold the priesthood.  But she is given the compliment that the RS is more or less in charge because they are sometimes at the helm of things, yet cannot take full charge without someone overlooking.  In the early church we didn't have the top down in the church concerning the women in the RS organization.  That has slowly dwindled.  We are the same as men in our RS class.  We should be able to decide things.  Correlation changed it to be blah, IMO.  The old days were a combination of lessons having to do with faith, family, personal, cultural, etc.    

 

"You wouldn't understand because your not like me".  Tacenda this is just plain condescending.

 

Every priesthood quorum or auxiliary organization in the ward must get approval of the bishop.

[Kenngo1969]

Christ is a guy ...  Did He do anything for women as far as helping them by shouldering a good part of their burdens through completing the Atonement, or is it not possible for Him to do that because He lacks certain things with respect to anatomy and biology?

 

Reposted because the only response so far is ... [Crickets chirping].

 

I assume, at some point, that we're all going to become privy to the true nature and extent of the Atonement.  Will the response of some then be, "Sure, I get the whole 'bleeding-from-every-pore' and 'even-more-than-a-[wo]man-can-suffer-except-it-be-unto-death' thing, but hey ... You think that's bad, try childbirth [or some other ordeal unique to women]"?  What, if anything, does the infinite Atonement not cover?

[Calm]

Ken, behave!  Don't create strawmen, dear.  

[Kenngo1969]

Ken, behave!  Don't create strawmen, dear.  

I wouldn't have posted if if I thought it was a straw man, Dear! 

 

If you don't think it raises any points worth pondering, or that it doesn't otherwise add to the discussion, that's your prerogative.  I don't love you any less!

Edited November 22, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[ERayR]

Ken, behave!  Don't create strawmen, dear.  

 

Cal the way I see it it Ken was pretty much on target. Just my NSHO

Edited November 22, 2013 by ERayR

[Calm]

I just don't think there is one woman on the list that doubts that Christ is able to understand her and every other man, woman and child ever in existence...but Christ is in a slightly different situation which is how the Atonement works.  Once we get to that point of being able to see as we are seen, thankfully the struggles to understand each other will be over.

 

Where in what is being said do you think it implies there is a limit to the Atonement?

[Kenngo1969]

My multiquote function isn't working, alas, so I'm afraid I'll simply have to say ... I hope ya'all see this, and if you think the shoe fits, wear it; if not, feel free to discard it.

 

I'm not attempting to set up a straw man and flailing wildly and ineffectually at an argument that no one has made.  What I am attempting to do is to ask, in light of the arguments which have been made on this thread, would anyone making those arguments also attempt to make that argument when she stands before Christ?  (Perhaps you see that as a distinction without a difference or as an "attempt to slice the Salami too thin," to use an old phrase which was popular in my post-Baccalaureate program).  Fine.  What I'm asking is, sure, it's validating for women to be heard and understood, and to have their concerns adequately addressed on the rare occasions when we mortal men are (Miracle of miracles! ) up to the task.  But if someone (of whatever gender) feels that not another soul on the planet understands his or her particular trials, tribulations, experiences, and point of view, in the end, does lack of human understanding really matter as long as Christ does understand because He took those things upon Him in the course of completing the Atonement?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Kenngo1969