Amen, Sherri Dew!

[Calm]

One of my husband's beloved quotes: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

[bluebell]

 

 

By your logic a gun-owner who is not a member of the NRA has no right to criticize the NRA or the way NRA members behave and interact.  That is patently absurd, and, as others have pointed out, nothing more than a smaokescreen.

 

 

It is absurd.  Of course, it's not at all what Cal said either.

 

She said that you have a right to criticize how OW treats outsiders, but not how they treat or interact with each other. 

 

In order for your example to at all be comparable to what Cal said, it would have to read "By your logic a gun-owner who is not a member of the NRA has no right to criticize the way NRA members behave and interact with other NRA members".

 

When your example matches Cal's actual post, her argument is not absurd at all.  You may disagree with it, but it's not absurd.

[Erin15]

Deflecting is better then misrepresenting, don't you know.

PS...perhaps you have noticed but I am not in OW and as such feel and fill no need to take on the role of busybody, master of morality and reason and Molly Manners for them, even if I know a few including my daughter by another mother. That is a job for those who have put their blood sweat and tears into their vision. Heaven help the crusade that leaves it to the outsider to determine what kind of people they should be.

You know what is better than deflecting and misdirecting?  Answering an honest question as to your position when it is asked you instead of cowering in the shadows.  It is impossible to have a real discussion with you until you are willing to state what your position is by answering my questions.  Instead of engaging in the discussion you are resorting to back-handed name calling.  At the moment your behavior is borderline trolling, and a waste of everyone's time.

 

 

Oh, and your PS presumes that their cause is a just crusade rather than a snare of the advesary, a very dangerous assumption with such high stakes involved.

In order for your example to at all be comparable to what Cal said, it would have to read "By your logic a gun-owner who is not a member of the NRA has no right to criticize the way NRA members behave and interact with other NRA members".

Good point, I thought I had said it that way but looking back I didn't.  I'll go edit my previous post.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Erin15

[juliann]

 

 

 

Oh, and your PS presumes that their cause is a just crusade rather than a snare of the advesary, a very dangerous assumption with such high stakes involved.

Ah, Satan can always be counted on to win an argument that is going, well, south.  

[Erin15]

Ah, Satan can always be counted on to win an argument that is going, well, south.  

You didn't answer my questions either, Juliann, so your integrity in this discussion has already taken a hit or three.

 

But yes, OW fails the sniff test and it fails the fruits test.  You've already admitted as much several times in this thread.  We both agree that their leadership and tactics are inappropriate.  Remember that it is not by their ideology or by the persuasivenss of their arguments that we shall know them, but by their fruits.  (Matt 7:16)

 

Doing the wrong things for a good reason is a huge red flag.

 

Erin has been escorted out of the building.  Everyone get back on topic.

[juliann]

Well, it said on my local news, it was. I'll link to it when I'm not on my mobile.

 

ETA: http://www.4utah.com/story/can-this-marriage-be-saved-a-look-behind-utahs-divorce-rate/d/story/KvDrr-3W9kyAALePA_67QQ

Thanks for supplying the link...but here are the MORMON not "Utah" divorce stats from Pew/Barna

 

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2010/02/married-christians-less-likely-to.html

[Calm]

You didn't answer my questions either, Juliann, so your integrity in this discussion has already taken a hit or three.

 

But yes, OW fails the sniff test and it fails the fruits test.

if you feel that way about it, I am shocked you see yourself as belonging to the group. Now that is inconsistent to me.

[Tacenda]

Thanks for supplying the link...but here are the MORMON not "Utah" divorce stats from Pew/Barna

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2010/02/married-christians-less-likely-to.html

Sorry, I tend to think Utah is synonymous with Mormon sometimes.

[Jazzdreamer]

And I thought another "Wear Pants to Church" has been scheduled, thinking it was in December.

Yes that's December 15th.

[Jazzdreamer]

Tactically speaking, where does OW go from here? Kate Kelly promised "more direct action" in future GC sessions, but I wonder what the next move will be (especially given OW's penchant for increasingly and progressively "gutsy" moves ---- e.g., the parallel, concurrent meeting/press conference with priesthood session, last month's attempt to get into priesthood session, etc.)

Did October represent "swinging for the fences," and missing? I honestly don't think they're going to try to get into the overflow line and get in, again. So, what's the next "direct action?" Especially given the new 8-98 year-old semi-annual women's meeting, which seems to me designed the give Ruth Todd something tangible to say to Kate Kelly in line next time (this time around, she told them that the women's meeting was last week, and this meeting was for men and boys only).

I think that the women may have been quietly let into priesthood session, if they hadn't emphasized in the weeks going in to it that getting in would constitute the Church recognizing them as prospective elders, because prospective elders may attend priesthood session. I think OW forced the Church's hand, and I for one was surprised that the women were turned away. I thought that there were no good PR options for the Church (turn women away and face meanness attacks, let them in and face declarations of victory, etc.). I wonder if OW didn't shoot themselves in the foot in October.

Plus men were allowed in the relief society meeting...so I mean not letting females in the priesthood was a little ridiculous.

[Jazzdreamer]

So, when you come across something that you dislike in the church, your response is to join a political activism group to champion change, but when you see something within the political activism group that you dislike, your response is to pateintly submit?

You've got it completely backwards.

Your political affiliations derserve your loud objections, and your church deserves your patience and understanding.

There is no submission. I've experienced what they have. It's infuriating to have someone tell you that your opinions are wrong.

I sometimes let's myself slip when people start ripping apart my testimony. I'll become very not nice under those circumstances. Deal with that for enough time, of course you're gonna blow up.

I have spoke out in this and I got a very good response. We all do feminism differently. I choose to support my sisters instead of rip down what they do. A little understanding goes a very long way.

[Jazzdreamer]

Wait, so the OW movement claim to represent me, and fight for my interests, but I have no right to criticize or comment on them? On what planet does that make sense?

Four points I'd like to make here:

1) You are "othering," a practice long and rightly bemoaned by people who are intellectually honest. The reality is that a good point is a good point regardless of where it originates, and you know it. The whole basis for debate is to examine the ideas, positions and points on their own merits, or is this not the place for that?

2) You are contradicting yourself. If the OW movement is a religious movement as you indicated, then it is an LDS religious movement and as an LDS women I am part of the group and may comment on it. The only way your logic makes sense is if you claim that the members of the OW movement are no longer LDS, and therefore not part of my group. Is that what you are claiming?

3) Impressing you is irrelivant to the discussion, and you know it. It is just more blame and shame instead of real discussion, or is that not your goal?

4) You failed to answer my questions so I will ask them again:

Is not the church hierarchy deserving of at least the same level of patience and submission one is willing to give to the OW hierarchy?

Is not the hierarchy of the OW deserving of at least the same level of scrutiniy and open criticism one is willing to give to the church hierarchy?

You're actually mistaken Erin,

The women in the OW are VERY willing to listen to whatever issue and of it's supporters bring up.

Anyone can be part of the OW there's no restrictions. Feel free to join and bear your sisters burdens. Make sure to keep those baptismal covenants.

It's not how you're seeing it. I'm two months a part of this group. I'm two months standing up for what I believe in. I'm two months openly speaking my mind, these women have been doing it much longer than I have so in a sense, yes they are "higher" up than I am. They know more than I do. That's a given.

Anyone that takes the time to read through what goes on in the OW might actually find they agree on many points.

As far as you relating it to the church-these women HAVE tried to be nice and stay under the radar so to say-and they have been ignored. I absolutely commend what they do. I absolutely understand and listen to them as much as they understand and listen to me. I can't yet say that about the church.

[Jazzdreamer]

Everyone here knows that being open to other points of view is a personal choice irrespectinve of the evidence and arguments being used. Even the most presuasive and evidenciary arguments will bouce off a person who chooses to cover their ears and close their heart and mind. We all know this. So, bringing up how likely my post was to change Jazzdreamer's mind is irrelivant in the extreme, because that has everything to do with her personal choices and nothing to do with me.

I strongly disagree. If a group lobbies on my behalf, claims to represent me, and their actions affect my group directly, I believe I have every right to hold them to a standard of rational behavior and ettiquite, even amongst themselves. That is true of all ambassadors and representatives. Even representatives of small companies are held that way, so I don't understand why these pundits are suddenly immune from it in your mind.

Now, whether or not the OW people do so is their choice and their choice alone, but I have every right to insist that those who claim to speak for me behave in a way I find rational and civil.

By your logic a gun-owner who is not a member of the NRA has no right to criticize the NRA or the way NRA members behave and interact with other NRA members. That is patently absurd. When their behavior reflects upon me, I absolutely have a say in it, and, as others have pointed out, this is nothing more than a smokescreen.

Rather than discuss the real suject, all you seem willing to do is address this non-issue.

Twice now you have ignored my questions. I ask them of you a third time.

Is not the church hierarchy deserving of at least the same level of patience and submission one is willing to give to the OW hierarchy?

Is not the hierarchy of the OW deserving of at least the same level of scrutiniy and open criticism one is willing to give to the church hierarchy?

The OW doesn't represent you unless you want them to...they represent women that would like to see change.

Motherhood =fatherhood

Motherhood doesn't equal priesthood. That's our opinion. If you agree, great, come help your sisters out. If not, don't support it. It's really that simple.

[Jazzdreamer]

Darn I missed that this was already dealt with lol... *cries*

[bluebell]

Plus men were allowed in the relief society meeting...so I mean not letting females in the priesthood was a little ridiculous.

 

I wonder if that wasn't partly OW's fault though.

 

OW specifically said that if they were let into the Priesthood session, it would signal that the church saw them as prospective elders.  They really backed the church into the corner with that kind of language, essentially holding the church hostage by saying "either you let me in under MY terms, or not at all".  Under those conditions, you can't really blame the church for choosing 'not at all'.

 

I'm guessing that if a group of men got together and declared publicly and in the news that being let into the RS meeting meant the church was saw them as prospective members of the RS, that they wouldn't have gotten very far either. 

[Calm]

I agree with bluebell, I think the reaction might have been quite different if someone had stated "I'd like to go so I can better support my brethren in their Priesthood" rather than making it a symbolic acceptance of the ultimate goal of OW.

[juliann]

Plus men were allowed in the relief society meeting...so I mean not letting females in the priesthood was a little ridiculous.

Yeah, that is one of the things that needs to change.  If they have men sitting on the stands in RS meetings, they should have the women leaders on the stand in Priesthood meetings.  I ran into the double standard yesterday.  The Stake Sunday School Prez just sat himself down in our RS meeting.  I've seen male missionaries do this as well.  It does change the dynamics....not to mention it makes me feel like a looky loo tourist destination.  Our ward has also had a really annoying habit of bringing in men to talk to us on Mother's Day.  Women do not go talk to the men on Father's Day.   But irony of irony,  next Sunday Pres. Uchtdorf's excellent priesthood session talk, in which he specifically addresses men,  will be the lesson for RS. 

 

I have yet to settle on a position about the priesthood protest.  There is just something troubling about crashing a significant male bonding event...although I understand the principle.  It just seems to be something based on a logically sound premise that just doesn't transfer into the real people realm.  But back to the above, what this shows me is that the local awareness is virtually nonexistent.  Anyone that was even peripherally aware of the priesthood protest would not have selected that talk for women.  It really is kind of facepalm thing after women were denied hearing it live....as in, at least just wait a little longer for goodness sake.

 

We have soooo much to do on the local level to up the respect factor.....and it really is just a matter of awareness, even the diehard keep 'em in their place folks are dying off on the internet.  But it gets back to my concern that OW alienates with mean spiritedness from spokespeople instead of helping.

 

I am unsure what another pants day is supposed to do.   I have been wearing pants ever since without any repercussions at all.  In fact, I have gotten far more compliments than I ever have...probably because I overcompensate for the pants by really dressing it up.  It almost has a running out of ideas feel to it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

NVM 

Edited November 18, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[bluebell]

By all means come on in to Elders Quoram I am sure it will help you out tremendously as I am sure it helped this dude out that went to your RS class.

 

Juliann's point is that a sister would probably not be allowed to sit in on a priesthood lesson.  More than likely she would be asked to leave.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Juliann's point is that a sister would probably not be allowed to sit in on a priesthood lesson.  More than likely she would be asked to leave.

She should try it. I mean really try it. Give it a shot and then give us an account.

 

 

Special note: I mean it could be that I have a cloudly lense when I respond to Juliann. For some reason I am under the impression that she is for this OW movement. Even though I don't think she is fully.

 

On another note I just am not sure about all of this.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Calm]

One can agree with some reasons a movement is created without agreeing with the primary goal of the movement.

I agree with some of the things of OW, but I very much disagree with seeking the Priesthood as a solution and presenting it as a given that this is what God wants for the women of the Church.

And I personally think that even given their goals, they have gone about it in the wrong way leading to alienation of the very people they need to join them in order to be successful.

Edited November 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

One can agree with some reasons a movement is created without agreeing with the primary goal of the movement.

I agree with some of the things of OW, but I very much disagree with seeking the Priesthood as a solution and presenting it as a given that this is what God wants for the women of the Church.

And I personally think that even given their goals, they have gone about it in the wrong way leading to alienation of the very people they need to join them in order to be successful.

I think this largely would sum up my view as much as it could.  Being a guy and all that. To Juliann's point I am not sure why a quy would be in RS. It seems kind of pointless and yes, She would be more than likely asked to leave if she came to Preishtood.

[juliann]

She should try it. I mean really try it. Give it a shot and then give us an account.

 

 

Special note: I mean it could be that I have a cloudly lense when I respond to Juliann. For some reason I am under the impression that she is for this OW movement. Even though I don't think she is fully.

 

On another note I just am not sure about all of this.

I am not settled myself.  I am open to the priesthood although I am finding the moderate feminists actually more consistent in a feminist philosophy by expecting women to step up ourselves without begging, so to speak.  That is why I find issues like I spoke of above troublesome...we need to start standing up for ourselves at the local level.  Then we need to start adding more about women into church discourse.  We can do that. But I have been very put off by the more recent attacks on moderate feminists from OW.  I have seen what I call a schism developing for some time which seemed to erupt in some very ugly stuff from Kate Kelly in the Mormon Stories comment section.   I cannot think of a more important time for women to stick together and be tolerant of one another....which is why I am fed up with trash the feminists talk even if I don't back all feminists. 

 

I think OW is important in the sense that we do need discourse from both ends of the spectrum to keep things current and informed.  But most of those that I know who have been open to them are now alienated to some extent because of the off putting trash talk coming from them.  So I think our best bet is the moderates who also support change short of priesthood and who also have the advantage of access to leadership. 

 

I have a very pragmatic outlook.  I want what works to give women more respect and inclusion.  I see it as more of a need for behavior change than any great underlying principle...although I am concerned about the message sent to our Young Women given the difference in what they get compared to the Young Men when they have to face a different world than the rhetoric was created in.  I do not consider any of this a matter of life and death.  It does not rise above the level of annoyance to me because I see it as a once a week kind of problem and there are greater benefits than losses.  We have an incredible community which is why so many people end up fighting over it.

Edited November 18, 2013 by juliann

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am not settled myself.  I am open to the priesthood although I am finding the moderate feminists actually more consistent in a feminist philosophy by expecting women to step up ourselves without begging, so to speak.  That is why I find issues like I spoke of above troublesome...we need to start standing up for ourselves at the local level.  Then we need to start adding more about women into church discourse.  We can do that. But I have been very put off by the more recent attacks on moderate feminists from OW.  I have seen what I call a schism developing for some time which seemed to erupt in some very ugly stuff from Kate Kelly in the Mormon Stories comment section.   I cannot think of a more important time for women to stick together and be tolerant of one another....which is why I am fed up with trash the feminists talk even if I don't back all feminists. 

 

I think OW is important in the sense that we do need discourse from both ends of the spectrum to keep things current and informed.  But most of those that I know who have been open to them are now alienated to some extent because of the off putting trash talk coming from them.  So I think our best bet is the moderates who also support change short of priesthood and who also have the advantage of access to leadership. 

Glad you cleared that up for me. I think I have just a bad taste in my mouth with feminism as I have been on the other side of it. So sometimes it clouds my views.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[juliann]

I think this largely would sum up my view as much as it could.  Being a guy and all that. To Juliann's point I am not sure why a quy would be in RS. It seems kind of pointless and yes, She would be more than likely asked to leave if she came to Preishtood.

Exactly.  And this points out our problem.  We don't ask them to leave!  It wouldn't even occur to us.  So to me, that is the solution.  Women speaking up for themselves and creating their own rules instead of always waiting to be told.  That is our problem not a church problem.   I am going to begin by having a chat with my RS Prez.  Actually,  with the bishop, too.  I got the no opening prayer by a woman changed by just bringing it to his attention.