Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Tacenda]

Fine. If President Thomas S. Monson said that the Brethren had made the matter a subject of prayer, and if their answer was that the status quo should be maintained, do you think that would satisfy Ordain Women and all of those who are in agreement with that organization? I doubt it.

Well, after thinking about it, I think many of the ladies might be on their way out and that might be the nudge that will get them out. They might want to join the Community of Christ church. But in their wake, they may have done a favor whereby the LDS women left behind might realize they are just as capable as men to function in areas they never dared/hoped to before. So the answer may be no, but they probably left the door slightly open for others to get some changes.

[Stone holm]

Fine.  If President Thomas S. Monson said that the Brethren had made the matter a subject of prayer, and if their answer was that the status quo should be maintained, do you think that would satisfy Ordain Women and all of those who are in agreement with that organization?  I doubt it.

So do I , because that is exactly what happened in a sense with Pres. McKay over blacks. But there are more possible avenues open in this case. The Church moves slowly on issues like this, but when it finds itself in a non sustainable cultural position it eventually moves. The situation reminds me of a comment once made by Warren Buffet regarding the advent of the automobile. He noted that a lot of investors lost money trying to guess which type would eventually replace the horse, what they should have done was simply short horses. That''s the safe bet here. Women may not get the MP, but governance of the Church being a men's club is going to change.

[jaxenro]

Again, what makes you think that the Brethren haven't made the subject a matter of prayer? I'm quite certain that the individual Brethren who have addressed the subject, however briefly, in General Conference have done so. Ordain Women and those who sympathize with it simply don't like the answers they've gotten.

Did I say that? Look back at my posts I think I stated quite clearly that they had said only ordaining males was doctrinal in the communication to OW. (please check post 197 in this thread)

What I said was there should be a mechanism for members to inquire of the Lord through the Prophet and then questioned if one already existed through the GA's.

Please read what I write not what you think I write

Edited March 19, 2014 by jaxenro

[Stone holm]

Well, alrighty then! Don't mind me! I'm too busy mumbling to myself and drooling all over myself!

Hmmm. OK. Were you ever given any letters to read over the pulpit to that effect, or do you recall attending any Priesthood/Leadership meetings in which one of the Brethren made such a pronouncement? It may be true that they were not actively encouraged, but that's a far cry from saying they were "actually discouraged."

Don't know about the mumbling or drooling, but auxiliaries are just that. When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve do not consult with the General Relief Society Presidency about the wording on the most important declaration regarding gender made in recent times,but just inquires whether they want it announced in their meeting, I think that pretty much sums up the non sustainable aspect of the situation. Edited March 19, 2014 by Stone holm

[Kenngo1969]

But it didn't satisfy the church community who were concerned about black ordination either. Mckay said that he prayed and the blacks could not have the priesthood. 

 

People kept engaging the discussion until eventually the revelation change.

 

Does that undermine the revelation. Not at all. But it also doesn't mean we should look down or really be upset with people who are fomenting for change within the church even after a prophet has said, "ive prayed about it and god has not change his mind".

 

I really fail to see what damage the OW can do to the church. They can't force revelation. They can't force god. They can impact public opinion, but really, who cares about that. Are we saying we think the OW movement should stop because they may make the public not like mormons?

 

 

I think one's perspective on this issue depends on how he sees the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  If it is like many other social, political, and other worldly organizations, then I agree with you: agitation for change from the bottom up can play a vital role in helping an organization evolve, adapt, and survive in a turbulent, ever-changing sociopolitical climate.  However, if it really is Jesus Christ's Church, as the name suggests, then I believe He has the "evolution, survival, and adaptation" angles covered, and He doesn't need us to help Him with that, however fervently such groups as Ordain Women and those who sympathize with them (or any other group which feels that any other change might be necessary) may be convinced otherwise.  As I've said elsewhere on the Board, it's true that God works by the principle of minimum "force" necessary: if the still, small "whisperings of the Spirit" will get the job done, He's not going to send an angel (or appear Himself).  On the other hand, if God really wants a change (and He wants it now), He's not above using more dramatic, immediate means that will be impossible for even the most recalcitrant of the Brethren to ignore.

 

Now I don't think that the black ordination and womens ordination are the same issue from a doctrinal context, as has already been pointed out by many. However, the process of the leadership and general church coming to terms with the revelatory process of change will be the same for new revelation as it was for black ordination.

 

The process of revelation that changed the black ordination issue was really a twenty year process that culminated in a new revelation. Revelation is a process. That is what black ordination demonstrated. Is this respect black ordination can serve as a model of modern day revelation directing change in the church.  

 

The OW movement is a legitimate voice in that process. That does not mean they will get what they want. But we can be assured that their question will solicit revelation, and that revelation that states the status quo is unchanged does not require the immediate disbanding of their efforts.

 

To each, his own, but in a sense, I take a lesson which is diametrically opposed to the one you draw from the Church of Jesus Christ extending the Priesthood to all worthy male members.  By the time that revelation finally was received in 1978, although there were exceptions, the public outcry regarding the Church's stance largely had died down.  For example, if BYU athletics largely can serve as a  microcosm for what was happening in the Church of Jesus Christ and in society at the time, the "high-water mark" of protest against the Church's policy of not ordaining Black men of African descent to the Priesthood actually came 8 1/2 or 9 years earlier, with the so-called "Black 14" incident with the University of Wyoming, in which Coach Lloyd Eaton dismissed 14 black University of Wyoming football players from the team when they refused to comply with his order to not turn a game against BYU into a protest by wearing black arm bands.  After that, I don't believe schools which disagreed with the policy bothered protesting it; I think they had simply resigned themselves to the fact that such efforts wouldn't change the Church's policy.  And those who chose to boycott BYU because of the Church's policy simply weren't playing the Cougars.

 

If you want to see Official Declaration - 2 as an example of how pressure from the bottom up can induce needed change in the Church of Jesus Christ, I suppose we'll simply have to disagree.  Conversely, I believe that if sociopolitical pressure were a primary driving force behind the Priesthood policy change, it would have occurred much earlier.  By the time it finally did occur, while there no doubt were rare exceptions who were displeased with it, it was a pleasant surprise to many in the Church. While I'm sure you see it differently, whatever one thinks of the Priesthood ban (that it was ordained of God, that it wasn't ordained of God, or that one is not sure [doesn't know whether] it was ordained of God), the way it was lifted does serve as a model for resisting sociopolitical change which God wants nothing to do with.  The lesson to be drawn from it is that God doesn't care if we think He's racist or sexist or homophobic or politically incorrect.  If this really is His Church and Kingdom on the Earth today, He runs it, period. 

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[mtomm]

An interesting blog post.  It has been mentioned in her multiple times that OW has drawn a line in the sand and will accept only one outcome.  I'm not sure how much a spokesman for OW Jana Reiss is but Kate Kelly's response to this post was  "Love Jana."
 

I used the word rancor previously but a much better word would have been frustration as evidenced by this quote:

 

 

In other words, the best-case scenario of these “thoughtful discussions” is to leave Mormon women hoping that conversations about their spiritual future are occurring . . . in all-male leadership meetings to which they have no access.

So we blog, and we speak out in unofficial ways about the need for change, since there is such a limit to what we’re allowed to express within institutional channels.

 

Lack of access, lack of knowledge of what is happening = frustration.

 

 

Mormon feminists will continue speaking out in all our variety. Many of us don’t support full ordination for women but seek smaller changes within the existing structure of the Church. Part of the reason that some of those smaller changes have occurred, however, is that it is in the Church’s best interest to show that it is flexible and it is listening: if it can’t accommodate the demands of full ordination, it can at least offer some crumbs from the master’s table.

If Ordain Women is the radical fringe movement that the Deseret News paints it to be, it is a radical fringe that will help to galvanize the middle ground.

- See more at: http://janariess.religionnews.com/2014/03/18/im-mormon-feminist-anti-mormon-protestor/#sthash.7W67r5Wt.dpuf

 

 

Since Kate Kelly gave a thumbs up to this blog post by Jana I'm getting the feeling the group is not near as militant as we've been lead to believe.  Maybe.  I'm willing to give these sisters the benefit of the doubt. 

 

As someone who finds myself with a lack of desire for the priesthood (which I think comes from my lack of an appreciation for the power of it) this would pretty much sum up my feelings about women's issues in church.  To pretend that women are equal is really not a fair assessment. 

[Kenngo1969]

Don't know about the mumbling or drooling, but auxiliaries are just that. When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve do not consult with the General Relief Society Presidency about the wording on the most important declaration regarding gender made in recent times,but just inquires whether they want it announced in their meeting, I think that pretty much sums up the non sustainable aspect of the situation.

If they disagreed with it, do you think they would have agreed to have it announced at their meeting?  Or do you think, if they did disagree with it (or with having it announced there), President Hinckley simply said, "Too bad, so sad!  Tough cookies!  I'm the ranking Priesthood holder on the Earth today, and I'm announcing it in your meeting!  Period!"?  (Yeah, that sounds exactly like the kind of guy President Hinckley was/is! )

[smac97]

I fully agree with you statements on this.

 

I would simply add that the the nature of revelation allows that this current position may change. That is the great thing about revelation... nothing is ever off the table.

I agree with you regarding the possibility of change. I am open to that. My opposition to the OW group relates to their tactics.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Since Kate Kelly gave a thumbs up to this blog post by Jana I'm getting the feeling the group is not near as militant as we've been lead to believe.  Maybe.  I'm willing to give these sisters the benefit of the doubt.

 

What about OW's alignment with Margaret Toscano? Kate Kelly selected her to be a visible leader and representative for the group. Does aligning with an excommunicated apostate affect your assessment of the OW group and its overall nature and objectives?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

I know there was speculation on the subject by various individual Brethren, but they did not speak with one voice on the subject when offering that timetable.  If they had, they would have done so in some sort of official pronouncement.  True, the 1949 First Presidency letter on the subject referenced a statement of President Brigham Young to that effect.  However, the 1969 letter which superseded it only references a statement from President David O. McKay that it would happen "sometime in God's eternal plan."

 

Sure they do.  In the temple.  (Just something to think about.  By the way, love the implication that only those who are agitating for women to receive the Priesthood in the same way that men receive it are the only ones who have "[thought] about it"! )

 

Saying "just something to think about" does not in any way imply that others have not thought about it.  I can assure you that there was absolutely zero derogatory intent with that statement.

 

So, if the Brethren never spoke with one voice on the subject of when the temple & priesthood ban would be lifted, then we really don't have anything to work from.  Apparently, as with the ban itself, we don't really know if there was any inspiration behind it.

[Kenngo1969]

Well, after thinking about it, I think many of the ladies might be on their way out and that might be the nudge that will get them out. They might want to join the Community of Christ church. But in their wake, they may have done a favor whereby the LDS women left behind might realize they are just as capable as men to function in areas they never dared/hoped to before. So the answer may be no, but they probably left the door slightly open for others to get some changes.

One of the problems with Ordain Women is that its leadership has misrepresented its membership as "the faithful opposition" (my phrase).  In fact, not a few of its number are among those who have left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but can't leave it alone.  Personally, if and when I leave organizations after having been a part of them, I no longer concern myself with how they're run.

[Kenngo1969]

Saying "just something to think about" does not in any way imply that others have not thought about it.  I can assure you that there was absolutely zero derogatory intent with that statement.

 

 

OK.  You know your own mind and heart best. I apologize for imputing a meaning to that statement you did not intend.  (It's very easy to be misunderstood in a medium such as this.  And then, on the other hand, those of us who use emoticons liberally in an attempt to prevent that from happening are excoriated by some for that, as well!  Can't win for losing, I guess!) 

 

So, if the Brethren never spoke with one voice on the subject of when the temple & priesthood ban would be lifted, then we really don't have anything to work from.  Apparently, as with the ban itself, we don't really know if there was any inspiration behind it.

 

The Fifteen didn't, but President David O. McKay did.  Your mileage may vary, but I think that's sufficient.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

Was there an authoritative prophecy that explicitly stated the change would happen during the millennium? My understanding (and I was alive and aware and a Church member in good standing during the pre-1978 time period) was that it would happen someday but no one could definitively state when. I don't recall it being widely taught that anyone knew when it would happen.

 

Perhaps some were giving their opinion that it would happen during the millennium (there were a number of varying opinions expressed on the subject), but I don't recall such opinion being couched as a prophecy.

 

Apparently there isn't much left that is considered authoritative... I'm not sure how we delineate what has and has not been disavowed now.  I was referring to the statement made by the prophet who instituted the ban... whether or not you want to call it a prophecy, BY said that blacks would receive the priesthood after "all the other children of Adam have the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity."

[mtomm]

 

What about OW's alignment with Margaret Toscano? Kate Kelly selected her to be a visible leader and representative for the group. Does aligning with an excommunicated apostate affect your assessment of the OW group and its overall nature and objectives?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

No, not really.  I would assume their overall objectives are what they say they are in their mission statement.  I'm not going to read more into than that.  I'm not looking for sinister motives. Just like I don't attach my own motives to anything the church does with regards to their for-profit businesses as some are so anxious to do.  (You know, when people call it  LD$, Inc.)

It seems to me that Margaret has been tapped because of her extensive research into the historical aspects of women's priesthood ordination.  

 

[smac97]

No, not really.  I would assume their overall objectives are what they say they are in their mission statement.  I'm not going to read more into than that.

Forming a group, claiming that it is comprised of "faithful Mormon women," electing an excommunicated apostate to be one of its primary leaders, demanding a change in doctrine and declaring that "nothing less will suffice," protesting against the Church, defying the Church and trespassing on its property, and so on. I don't think there's a need to "read more into" the situation. The situation is disturbing on its face.

 

I'm not looking for sinister motives.

Nor am I. I am looking at sinister behavior. Aligning with an excommunicated apostate is sinister.

 

It seems to me that Margaret has been tapped because of her extensive research into the historical aspects of women's priesthood ordination.

Okay. I cannot be so indifferent to the ramifications of professed Latter-day Saints aligning themselves with an excommunicated apostate and against the Church (as evidenced by their recent stated intention to defy the Church's instruction and to trespass on its property at the next General Conference).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 19, 2014 by smac97

[Shizfan]

I fully agree with you statements on this.

 

I would simply add that the the nature of revelation allows that this current position may change. That is the great thing about revelation... nothing is ever off the table.

Honest question. Can revelation be used in order to cement revelation? In other words if it was revealed that women not EVER hold the PH then wouldn't that subject be "off the table?" Seems confusing that a revelation can state a fact and then the next day reveal that's it's not a fact. Just a thought, not arguing

[MiserereNobis]

Honest question. Can revelation be used in order to cement revelation? In other words if it was revealed that women not EVER hold the PH then wouldn't that subject be "off the table?" Seems confusing that a revelation can state a fact and then the next day reveal that's it's not a fact. Just a thought, not arguing

 

This is often what confuses Catholics about Mormon theology.  It's hard for us to wrap our heads around the fact that something can be divine revealed truth one day and then the next day not.  We like our pronounced dogmas

[smac97]

Honest question. Can revelation be used in order to cement revelation? In other words if it was revealed that women not EVER hold the PH then wouldn't that subject be "off the table?"

I don't think Bikeemikey was intending to be taken quite so literally. Elder McConkie once put it well: "Truth is ever in harmony with itself." There are things which, in the LDS paradigm, are "off the table" in terms of what can be revealed, because revealed truth from God will not contradict other revealed truths. For example, the divine sonship of Jesus Christ is "off the table." The scriptural status of The Book of Mormon is "off the table." The prophetic calling of Joseph Smith is "off the table." And so on.

There are, of course, many aspects of the Restored Gospel which are subject to revelatory change. And I think there are legitimate disputes about what those aspects are. For Kate Kelly and her group, the ordaining of women to the priesthood is possible. The problem, though, is that they are not looking for a revelation on the subject. They are not even looking for a discussion. They want the priesthood, and "nothing less will suffice." That is a deeply, deeply flawed approach to the Restored Gospel.

Seems confusing that a revelation can state a fact and then the next day reveal that's it's not a fact. Just a thought, not arguing

I'll let Bikeemey respond, but I don't think he is saying God will contradict Himself.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

This is often what confuses Catholics about Mormon theology.  It's hard for us to wrap our heads around the fact that something can be divine revealed truth one day and then the next day not.  We like our pronounced dogmas

I don't think that is an accurate statement of Mormon theology. If something is "divinely revealed," it is "truth," before, during, and after the revelation.

Take polygamy, for example. Some outsiders think that the Manifesto is an example of "changing" a previously-revealed "truth." That's not so. The LDS position has never been that the polygamy was commanded by God, and that God later denied that He commanded it. Rather, the LDS position is that polygamy was commanded by God during a specific period of time and in specific circumstances, and that after a time God sent a new commandment to supersede the previous one and prohibit polygamy. These two commandments are not in conflict.

Christians of all stripes must acknowledge this. Jesus Christ did not destroy the Law of Moses, He fulfilled it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

This is often what confuses Catholics about Mormon theology.  It's hard for us to wrap our heads around the fact that something can be divine revealed truth one day and then the next day not.  We like our pronounced dogmas

 

I don't understand how anyone who believes in both the OT and the NT would have issues with doctrinal changes.  

[jaxenro]

One of the problems with Ordain Women is that its leadership has misrepresented its membership as "the faithful opposition" (my phrase). In fact, not a few of its number are among those who have left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but can't leave it alone. Personally, if and when I leave organizations after having been a part of them, I no longer concern myself with how they're run.

Exactly when I left the Church I left the Church and would have never commented on it again if I wasn't seeking to rejoin

[why me]

No, not really.  I would assume their overall objectives are what they say they are in their mission statement.  I'm not going to read more into than that.  I'm not looking for sinister motives. Just like I don't attach my own motives to anything the church does with regards to their for-profit businesses as some are so anxious to do.  (You know, when people call it  LD$, Inc.)

It seems to me that Margaret has been tapped because of her extensive research into the historical aspects of women's priesthood ordination.  

 

I think that we also need to use our critical thinking skills and see the actions of the group and just how these actions match their mission statement. This will not be the first time when a mission statement by members or former members might not measure up to actual practice.

 

One reason for the difference is to lure people in with nice words in the statement and then, actuality is quite different. I think that we can see this with the OW movement.

[why me]

For the same reason women in general were ignored in that time period. If you ask that question in the context of the culture of the time it is pretty clear.

So, john the baptist and the three apostles ignored the women because of the culture at that time? We need to remember just how the priesthood was returned to the earth because it did set the standard.

[why me]

Last time someone "inferred" at me I became very distraught.

 

I think that I was addressing Tacenda. It was explained to her just what president hinckley meant by what he said. She inferred a different meaning from his real intention.

[rockpond]

Well, nothing draws media attention quite like telling the media that they are not allowed to be there...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/18/mormon-church-bans-women-from-clergy-and-all-male-meeting/