Women At The Priesthood Session...again?

[slamarwi]

I just saw an interview and story about how "Ordain Women" is once again planning to attend the Priesthood Session. Only this time with twice as many women. How many more sessions will we have to endure the supposed "faithful" female members crashing Priesthood before some type of action occurs to deter it?

[Storm Rider]

This type of action is anything but representative of being faithful or being Christlike. It just appears so prideful and self-centered. However, I have never cared about the scads of anti-Mormons that hold signs at conference and these individuals fall in the same boat. They have an agenda that is conflict with the membership. Let them hold signs, refuse them entrance, and ignore them while going to conference.

[Bernard Gui]

"I'm going to hold my breath until I die unless you give me the Priesthood. And that's a fact!"

Sonya Rigdon Young

[Calm]

I just saw an interview and story about how "Ordain Women" is once again planning to attend the Priesthood Session. Only this time with twice as many women. How many more sessions will we have to endure the supposed "faithful" female members crashing Priesthood before some type of action occurs to deter it?

What would you suggest? Have them tear gassed?

[CMZ]

Will they let me into the General Women's meeting?

[canard78]

What would you suggest? Have them tear gassed?

I find rubber bullets more effective.

That's the problem with these darned democracies. Everyone thinks they have the right to a voice. They wouldn't tolerate this nonsense in China.

[Kenngo1969]

Will they let me into the General Women's Meeting?

 As a rationale for excluding men from the General Women's Meeting, many would argue that women have specific needs, points of view, ways of looking at the world, and so on, that the meeting is designed to address, and they would argue that, therefore, physical space there should not be taken up by someone who (while his needs, points of view, ways of looking at the world, and so on are no less valid) does not share those of women. They would also argue that the physical space at that meeting should be reserved for women, for those reasons.  They would be right, of course.  In the eyes of many (or most) of those in the Ordain Women, movement, however, it appears they believe that the reverse is not true: men have no specific needs, points of view, or ways of looking at the world that a meeting meant specifically for them should be designed to address, and, therefore, there is no need to preserve physical space for men at such a meeting.

 

In the case of Ordain Women and many of those who support it, perhaps their motto when it comes to the question of admitting men to the General Women's Meeting is, ¡Viva la semejanza!  However, in the case of the question of admitting women to the General Priesthood Meeting is ¡Viva la diferéncia!   It's not consistent, but there it is.  (You're welcome.  Glad I could clear that up for you.)   You know, another thought just occurred to me: Ordain Women and those who support it could take their complaints to Management (you know, on their knees in prayer).  But that wouldn't garner as many photo-ops, as many news segments, as much print media ink, and so on.  They could have a Web site dedicated to a campaign to appealing to the Lord, in prayer, for change, with invitations to post experiences resulting from those prayers on the site.  It makes one wonder who Ordain Women and its supporters think is really in charge.  If, as they appear to believe, the Lord really isn't in charge, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, at bottom, a man-made organization ("sexist" usage intended), I would expect their public pressure campaign, eventually, to succeed, and I wish them all the success in the world (again, usage intended). 

 

I find rubber bullets more effective.

That's the problem with these darned democracies. Everyone thinks they have the right to a voice. They wouldn't tolerate this nonsense in China.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the merit (or lack thereof, depending on one's vantage point) of Ordain Women's position, perhaps I missed it, but could you point to me where anyone has suggested that those opposed to the Ordain Women organization should appeal for government intervention to silence it?  Thanks in advance!

Edited March 10, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

What would you suggest? Have them tear gassed?

Nah!  If we're not gonna teargas the anti-Mormon protesters, I see no reason why we should teargas anyone from Ordain Women.  

[Calm]

Will they let me into the General Women's meeting?

There are men already there presiding and conducting I believe...perhaps only presiding though. I would hardly br surprised if they had let men in before. I would not have been surprised if the women had asked to enter PH session to be supportive of their brithers, husbands, sons, fathers and friends rather than as propspective elders, they would have got permission.

[canard78]

 Leaving aside, for a moment, the merit (or lack thereof, depending on one's vantage point) of Ordain Women's position, perhaps I missed it, but could you point to me where anyone has suggested that those opposed to the Ordain Women organization should appeal for government intervention to silence it?  Thanks in advance!

 

 

Nah!  If we're not gonna teargas the anti-Mormon protesters, I see no reason why we should teargas anyone from Ordain Women.

 

Just banter and quips replying to Cal's post (the same one you did).

[strappinglad]

I think that while the protesters are just standing around, they could do some service and make sandwiches and juice for the men to enjoy after the meeting. No?

[Gray]

I just saw an interview and story about how "Ordain Women" is once again planning to attend the Priesthood Session. Only this time with twice as many women. How many more sessions will we have to endure the supposed "faithful" female members crashing Priesthood before some type of action occurs to deter it?

 

Why would you want to deter them? 

[sheilauk]

I think that while the protesters are just standing around, they could do some service and make sandwiches and juice for the men to enjoy after the meeting. No?

 Quite right!  You know what they say about idle hands!   

Edited March 10, 2014 by sheilauk

[omni]

I'm still trying to figure out why someone would want to attend another church meeting they're not required to. 

[David T]

This really has an easy solution: rename the Priesthood session the General Men's Meeting. I am totally serious. 

Edited March 10, 2014 by David T

[sheilauk]

I've watched a number of the priesthood sessions on the internet and read many of the talks in the Ensign, partly out of curiosity (I'm incurably nosy) and partly because they can be pretty awesome sessions!   If it were an open, mixed session, I'd probably go, because of that.  The fact that its not doesn't bother me at all.  I don't expect men at the Relief Society conferences. 

 

I did once inadvertently attend a priesthood session of General Conference at my stake centre, not long after I'd been baptised.  I thought that Conference started at 3pm since this was the time the priesthood session started.  I just didn't yet understand LDS terminology.  I turned up - the only female amongst a lot of men!  Not one of them said anything to me, most smiled at me and no one asked me to leave.  No one told me afterwards I shouldn't have been there either.  I did feel a bit odd person out but it was the best session of that conference!

[CV75]

I just saw an interview and story about how "Ordain Women" is once again planning to attend the Priesthood Session. Only this time with twice as many women. How many more sessions will we have to endure the supposed "faithful" female members crashing Priesthood before some type of action occurs to deter it?

I don't think action would be taken based on the number of times women stand in line or picket, but if the form of "crashing" reaches the definiton of civil disorder, I'm sure we would see some type of action to stop or prevent it again.

[SeekerB]

It's just another attack by the adversary to cause disruption in the church and get as much bad publicity as possible.  I feel sorry for them.

 

The priesthood isn't for men only because God has it in for women. Perhaps it is because men need the priesthood to successfully navigate this mortal probation and receive exaltation while women don't.

 

After all, if women had the priesthood and ran the church with all the efficiency of the Relief Society, we men would have nothing to do and would all end up in hell.

[Buzzard]

I just saw an interview and story about how "Ordain Women" is once again planning to attend the Priesthood Session. Only this time with twice as many women. How many more sessions will we have to endure the supposed "faithful" female members crashing Priesthood before some type of action occurs to deter it?

I'm guessing they will have less than the last time, since the novelty of being new will have worn off. If they produce the 500 they claim will turn out, I'll wear a University of Utah hat for the day. And the thought of that makes me shudder. I do hope Sister Kelly wears something less garish than that yellow jacket (crossing guard uniform?) she showed up in last conference.

[Buckeye]

I'm curious whether anyone here would view the OW movement in a better light if these sisters chose to sit out this (or future) Priesthood Sessions.  My guess is that if they chose not to show up, we would see posts discussing how the sisters were (i) not really serious, (ii) came to their senses, or (iii) were resigned to failure just like all of satan's minions.  So I don't really see much point to this post.

 

For what it's worth, I'm with David T as far as the end-game.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the Priesthood Session renamed "Men's Session," but substantively remain the same.  Perhaps it would also be open to 8 year olds, but the talks would still pertain to priesthood issues.

 

Such a change would be symptomatic of many recent changes that have led to increased women's participation; namely, if women are not given the priesthood, and if women's roles expand, then the sphere of influence for the priesthood will necessarily diminish.  A few examples:  (i) when women were allowed to pray in sacrament meetings, it meant that those were not merely "priesthood meetings" as some had believed, (ii) when women were allowed to serve missions, it meant that missionary service was not just a priesthood function, as Joseph and others had believed, (iii) when women were allowed to give blessings, it meant that such ordinances were not only a priesthood rite, as many now believe.  I believe that, absent female ordination, we will see this trend continue.  Women's roles will expand because women are competent, have increasingly available time, and because men don't step up to the plate enough.  As women's roles expand, the uniqueness and necessity of the priesthood will coorespondingly diminsh. 

[Buckeye]

I'm guessing they will have less than the last time, since the novelty of being new will have worn off. If they produce the 500 they claim will turn out, I'll wear a University of Utah hat for the day. And the thought of that makes me shudder. I do hope Sister Kelly wears something less garish than that yellow jacket (crossing guard uniform?) she showed up in last conference.

 

At least her dress wasn't as bad as Elder Anderson's tie.  What?  You don't remember Elder Anderson's tie?  Neither do I.  That's because we don't judge male members by their clothing, but by their actions and words.  Let's cut the crap and start treating women with equal respect.  (And yes, I know that women are often their own worst enemies on this point)

[Avatar4321]

If the want to attend the priesthood session, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from streaming the session online. But i get the impression they don't really care what is being said in the meeting. So I think we should just ignore them.

[Buckeye]

After all, if women had the priesthood and ran the church with all the efficiency of the Relief Society, we men would have nothing to do and would all end up in hell.

 

I'm having trouble seeing how a well-run church equates to hell.  Seems like order and organization are the hallmark of God.  Or maybe I missed the verse in Genesis where it says, "And behold, the Gods did command the waters to gather together, but because the Gods are male they totally screwed it up, and the Goddesses finally got tired of waiting, decided to act, and in 5 minutes created order to their husband's mess." 

[Avatar4321]

I'm having trouble seeing how a well-run church equates to hell.  Seems like order and organization are the hallmark of God.  Or maybe I missed the verse in Genesis where it says, "And behold, the Gods did command the waters to gather together, but because the Gods are male they totally screwed it up, and the Goddesses finally got tired of waiting, decided to act, and in 5 minutes created order to their husband's mess." 

 

He's saying if the women ran everything the men would have nothing to do and idle hands would send us to hell.

[Storm Rider]

I'm curious whether anyone here would view the OW movement in a better light if these sisters chose to sit out this (or future) Priesthood Sessions.  My guess is that if they chose not to show up, we would see posts discussing how the sisters were (i) not really serious, (ii) came to their senses, or (iii) were resigned to failure just like all of satan's minions.  So I don't really see much point to this post.

 

For what it's worth, I'm with David T as far as the end-game.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the Priesthood Session renamed "Men's Session," but substantively remain the same.  Perhaps it would also be open to 8 year olds, but the talks would still pertain to priesthood issues.

 

Such a change would be symptomatic of many recent changes that have led to increased women's participation; namely, if women are not given the priesthood, and if women's roles expand, then the sphere of influence for the priesthood will necessarily diminish.  A few examples:  (i) when women were allowed to pray in sacrament meetings, it meant that those were not merely "priesthood meetings" as some had believed, (ii) when women were allowed to serve missions, it meant that missionary service was not just a priesthood function, as Joseph and others had believed, (iii) when women were allowed to give blessings, it meant that such ordinances were not only a priesthood rite, as many now believe.  I believe that, absent female ordination, we will see this trend continue.  Women's roles will expand because women are competent, have increasingly available time, and because men don't step up to the plate enough.  As women's roles expand, the uniqueness and necessity of the priesthood will coorespondingly diminsh. 

 

So, fundamentally, you think women haven't been ordained to the priesthood because the man doesn't think they are competent and men are do-nothings?  Yeah, I'll vote for you for being all-knowing and having it all figured out.