bluebell Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 If it is a place for anti-mormons then they don't belong there. It's a place for people to protest things they disagree with about the LDS Church. In the past, that has pretty much only been anti-mormons (as no one else cared enough to protest). That doesn't mean though that other people, including active LDS members, do not legitimately belong there if they are also protesting. And while i know that OW doesn't like to use the word 'protest' in regards to what they are doing, but if they are there to take part in a public display or demonstration against the church than calling it a protest is very valid. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 During your lifetime... I don't know. But the ban and the teachings around it existed long before you and I joined this mortality. But the idea of the change being prophesied to happen during the millennium is not a teaching that I remember as being promulgated -- which speaks against its authoritativeness. There's nothing in there about "time enough" so I would suggest that you are reading into it. What are you talking about? The phrase "time enough" is right there in the quote you provided. Did you misquote it? Brigham Young's statement seems to be the official position as it was repeated in a First Presidency letter as late as 1949. Here's the quote from that letter: "And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.” (emphasis mine) I was going by the wording of the quote as you gave it in your prior post.
Bikeemikey Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 It's a place for people to protest things they disagree with about the LDS Church. In the past, that has pretty much only been anti-mormons (as no one else cared enough to protest). That doesn't mean though that other people, including active LDS members, do not legitimately belong there if they are also protesting. And while i know that OW doesn't like to use the word 'protest' in regards to what they are doing, but if they are there to take part in a public display or demonstration against the church than calling it a protest is very valid. Sure all of that is very rational and reasonable and I fully agree with what you have said. However, I still think it is a bad call to ask a temple recommend holding (yep many OW women have em) faithful LDS individual to go stand in the protest line because they are standing in line to priesthood meeting wearing a dress. The messaging and optics of it are highly offensive to me... we will wait and see what actually happens at conference.
bluebell Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 This is what the OW policy is on Bio's: We do not solicit, nor do we support, diatribes against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rather, we encourage thoughtful submissions on what the ordination of women would mean personally and/or for the institutional Church. We welcome those who are faithful Mormons, those who might return to the LDS Church but for gender inequality, or those who care deeply about the Church and its members and are concerned about how gender inequity affects all of us. There is no restriction on the non-mormons posting one. That doesn't mean that the OW movement is not a place where faithful mormon women can push forward the conversation. As I've said before, I don't think too many would have much of a problem with the membership make-up of OW if Kate Kelly, as spokesperson for OW, had not claimed that all the profiles on OW were from sincere believing Mormons.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Public Affairs should hire you... you've said it much better than they did. I think they're doing OK without me. I don't know about your thoughts, but I think that the entire letter was a mistake. They had 6 months to think about this, knowing that the OW group would be back. I don't see how they could have known this definitely before the group publicly made its intentions known in the weeks approaching the conference. It is entirely possible that the activists would have backed off before now. No sense drawing a line in the sand before it is necessary to do so. They also had to know that the letter they wrote to OW would go public. No doubt. It doesn't bother me that the letter went public. I don't know that it bothers the Church. I think that they would have been better off to have stayed silent (as you said, all the policies regarding protests and media were already in place long before OW). I quite firmly disagree. The letter gave the group the opportunity to pursue a wiser course of action. Alas, they have not elected to do so. I'm curious though... what are your thoughts (given your career)... was the letter a good idea, a bad idea, or just poorly written? Other than the error I have mentioned, I think the letter was fine. And I'm glad to see the Church take such a firm position against the disruption of its sacred general conference proceedings.
bluebell Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Sure all of that is very rational and reasonable and I fully agree with what you have said. However, I still think it is a bad call to ask a temple recommend holding (yep many OW women have em) faithful LDS individual to go stand in the protest line because they are standing in line to priesthood meeting wearing a dress. The messaging and optics of it are highly offensive to me... we will wait and see what actually happens at conference. I don't think it should matter at all if they are temple recommend holding members. If they are at temple square to demonstrate, then they should do so in the designated place.
mtomm Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Hey, check this out: A first: Photos of Mormon women leaders in Conference Center It took this long to recognize these women that we revere so much? Edited March 19, 2014 by mtomm
Scott Lloyd Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Sure all of that is very rational and reasonable and I fully agree with what you have said. However, I still think it is a bad call to ask a temple recommend holding (yep many OW women have em) faithful LDS individual to go stand in the protest line because they are standing in line to priesthood meeting wearing a dress.The intent of their presence -- in this instance, an adversarial intent -- makes all the difference, and this is so regardless of whether they hold a temple recommend. Edited March 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Bikeemikey Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 But the idea of the change being prophesied to happen during the millennium is not a teaching that I remember as being promulgated -- which speaks against its authoritativeness. What are you talking about? The phrase "time enough" is right there in the quote you provided. Did you misquote it? I was going by the wording of the quote as you gave it in your prior post. Given that revelation requires no precedent; That present day revelation can reserve historical revelation; That revelation does not need to be confirmed in Canonical scripture; And that any change in the status of women's ordination will be due to present day revelation, there is zero benefit in looking for canonical evidence for or against, no value in reviewing previous statements on the policy, etc etc. The only thing existing or historical revelation/scripture can tell you is what has happened in the past, or what is happening now. It cant tell you what will happen.
Bikeemikey Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 As I've said before, I don't think too many would have much of a problem with the membership make-up of OW if Kate Kelly, as spokesperson for OW, had not claimed that all the profiles on OW were from sincere believing Mormons. CFR for that please... please ensure the time/date the statement was made is confirmed. There may have been a point at the beginning when this statement was accurate. Also, how do we address the issue of self-identifying mormons who the church does excommunicated or who may have stopped attending due to issues they have experienced... are these people sincere believing mormons? Is there scope for a believing mormon to be outside the institutional name register?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I don't think it should matter at all if they are temple recommend holding members. If they are at temple square to demonstrate, then they should do so in the designated place.Thanks. You said this much better than I tried to.
awyatt Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 If it is a place for anti-mormons then they don't belong there. Yes, anti-Mormons are in those zones. (The zones are set up by the city, and they line the streets surrounding temple square and the conference center.) But anti-Mormons are not the only ones there. What nobody bothers to say is that the singers that many people note lining the sidewalks before and after each session of conference are, as far as the city is concerned, "protesters." They officially request a spot in the protest zones and are granted right to those zones by the city. Also, one can look in the protest zones and routinely find people who are pro-Church. I've seen bag pipers there, people with signs offering "free hugs," people mocking the anti-Mormons, and many others. I've seen Internet radio show hosts seeking interviews. I've seen pro-gay demonstrators. I've seen Christian anti-Mormons. I've seen fundamentalist Mormons. I've seen regular preachers, street preachers, and itinerant preachers. I've seen missionaries and returned missionaries. Actually (and technically) the protest zones hold both pro-Church and anti-Church folk, all "doing their thing." For the OW folk to say that they don't want to make their voice heard in the place set up for such voices (both pro-voices and con-voices) indicates that either (1) they don't understand the reality of those "protest zones" or (2) they believe they require special treatment. (I'd have a hard time understanding #1, as the letter from the Church provided information about those zones to the OW folk.) -Allen 3
Scott Lloyd Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Hey, check this out: A first: Photos of Mormon women leaders in Conference Center It took this long to recognize these women that we revere so much?Straw man. Women's auxiliary leaders have long been recognized and honored in the Church.
Bikeemikey Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 The intent of their presence -- in this instance, a hostile intent -- makes all the difference, and this is so regardless of whether they hold a temple recommend. So we are paralleling the intent of their presence with the intent of people who hate the church, actively want to destroy it, burn garments during conference etc? That is who we are asking them to go and share the ring with... again. Rationally I fully understand the statement. However, there is always a symbolic layer to language that is interpreted differently by different people. It is this component of the press release that causes me to feel sad.
MiserereNobis Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Yes, anti-Mormons are in those zones. (The zones are set up by the city, and they line the streets surrounding temple square and the conference center.) But anti-Mormons are not the only ones there. What nobody bothers to say is that the singers that many people note lining the sidewalks before and after each session of conference are, as far as the city is concerned, "protesters." They officially request a spot in the protest zones and are granted right to those zones by the city. Also, one can look in the protest zones and routinely find people who are pro-Church. I've seen bag pipers there, people with signs offering "free hugs," people mocking the anti-Mormons, and many others. I've seen Internet radio show hosts seeking interviews. I've seen pro-gay demonstrators. I've seen Christian anti-Mormons. I've seen fundamentalist Mormons. I've seen regular preachers, street preachers, and itinerant preachers. I've seen missionaries and returned missionaries. Actually (and technically) the protest zones hold both pro-Church and anti-Church folk, all "doing their thing." For the OW folk to say that they don't want to make their voice heard in the place set up for such voices (both pro-voices and con-voices) indicates that either (1) they don't understand the reality of those "protest zones" or (2) they believe they require special treatment. (I'd have a hard time understanding #1, as the letter from the Church provided information about those zones to the OW folk.) -Allen Sounds like a party. Or, to see if there are any Deadheads out there, it also sounds like Shakedown Street. ("six up!") ETA: If there were nude people with dreadlocks in the mix, it might even be a Rainbow Gathering... Edited March 19, 2014 by MiserereNobis
Bikeemikey Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Straw man. Women's auxiliary leaders have long been recognized and honored in the Church. Sure. And now we have a picture to prove it. This is all part of the broader sea-change and conversation that is happening. It is also a obvious visual example of the issues that women with in the church have been feeling. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) So we are paralleling the intent of their presence with the intent of people who hate the church, actively want to destroy it, burn garments during conference etc? That is who we are asking them to go and share the ring with... again. Rationally I fully understand the statement. However, there is always a symbolic layer to language that is interpreted differently by different people. It is this component of the press release that causes me to feel sad.I'm sorry your own inference brings you sadness, but it is, nonetheless, your own inference. It is not binding on others. And not everybody in those free-speech zones hates the Church. The thing they seem to have in common is, well, the desire to exercise their free speech. There is no reason to privilege this group above others. I hope by now you have seen Allen Wyatt's very sensible post above. Edited March 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Sure. And now we have a picture to prove it. This is all part of the broader sea-change and conversation that is happening. It is also a obvious visual example of the issues that women with in the church have been feeling.I agree it's a very positive change -- and one that was not brought about, I daresay, by public protest and agitation.
Bikeemikey Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I'm sorry your own inference brings you sadness, but it is, nonetheless, your own inference. It is not binding on others. And not everybody in those free-speech zones hates the Church. The thing they seem to have in common is, well, the desire to exercise their free speech. There is no reason to privilege this group above others. I hope by now you have seen Allen Wyatt's very sensible post above. I fully agree. But you also need to realize it is a real and growing inference from within the church community. It is because of members experiencing the symbolism of certain components of the LDS experience in this way that this conversation is even occurring. Allen Wyatt's post above is very sensible. As is the churches initial statement highlighting the appropriate protest zones. I have already very clearly articulated that. There is a gap between experiencing something rationally and emotionally. Good or bad, it is real.
mtomm Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Straw man. Women's auxiliary leaders have long been recognized and honored in the Church. You are right. I should have said explicitly "honored in the Conference Center along with the apostles and prophets." ETA: And it took years of conversations for it to happen. No one will accuse the church of acting rashly. Edited March 19, 2014 by mtomm
bluebell Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 CFR for that please... please ensure the time/date the statement was made is confirmed. There may have been a point at the beginning when this statement was accurate. Also, how do we address the issue of self-identifying mormons who the church does excommunicated or who may have stopped attending due to issues they have experienced... are these people sincere believing mormons? Is there scope for a believing mormon to be outside the institutional name register? The exact quote was- " Similarly, each profile on Ordain Women is an expression of sincere faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and an equally sincere explanation of why each individual hopes for women’s ordination.... “We’re Mormon,” the pictures say to visitors of the site. “Can’t you see?”. It'll take me a couple of minutes to find the date for it. Also, there are profiles from people who have never been mormon and profiles from women who have resigned. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 You are right. I should have said explicitly "honored in the Conference Center along with the apostles and prophets." ETA: And it took years of conversations for it to happen. No one will accuse the church of acting rashly. How do you know it took "years of conversations for it to happen"? Maybe it never occurred to anyone until now.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) I fully agree. But you also need to realize it is a real and growing inference from within the church community. It is because of members experiencing the symbolism of certain components of the LDS experience in this way that this conversation is even occurring. Allen Wyatt's post above is very sensible. As is the churches initial statement highlighting the appropriate protest zones. I have already very clearly articulated that. There is a gap between experiencing something rationally and emotionally. Good or bad, it is real.I for one am saddened that this group has chosen such an adversarial and intransigent approach toward prophets and apostles to bring about their desires. It strikes me as unseemly. Edited March 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
juliann Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Hey, check this out: A first: Photos of Mormon women leaders in Conference Center It took this long to recognize these women that we revere so much?This is wonderful but does show how bad the situation truly is. The sad fact is that we give women so little attention (other than to remind them of their roles and how "important" they are) no one even noticed they were missing. That is the real story. But I do think the church will continue to make progress. 2
bluebell Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 CFR for that please... please ensure the time/date the statement was made is confirmed. There may have been a point at the beginning when this statement was accurate. Also, how do we address the issue of self-identifying mormons who the church does excommunicated or who may have stopped attending due to issues they have experienced... are these people sincere believing mormons? Is there scope for a believing mormon to be outside the institutional name register? As far as i can tell, the statement was given around March 6 of this year.
Recommended Posts