Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[cdowis]

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 

 

Be confused no longer.

 

You need to understand the difference between doctrine and the practice of that doctrine.  The early Christians had "all things in common" based on the law (doctrine) of charity, but, obviously, that is not the case today.  We have practice charity in a different way today.  The doctrine of polygamy has not changed -- a man can be sealed to his first wife, and if she dies, he can t then be sealed to the second wife.  The *practice* of polygamy has changed, and that comes thru modern revelation.

 

PS  Did you miss my question to you on the role of Mary in the RCC?

Edited March 19, 2014 by cdowis

[MiserereNobis]

Be confused no longer.

 

You need to understand the difference between doctrine and the practice of that doctrine.  The early Christians had "all things in common" based on the law (doctrine) of charity, but, obviously, that is not the case today.  We have practice charity in a different way today.  The doctrine of polygamy has not changed -- a man can be sealed to his first wife, and if she dies, he can t then be sealed to the second wife.  The *practice* of polygamy has changed, and that comes thru modern revelation.

 

Yeah, I get that.  In Catholicism we have immutable dogmas and then we have practices.  For example, priestly celibacy is not a dogma but a practice.  It could theoretically change (but I SERIOUSLY doubt it ever will).

[Bikeemikey]

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.

 

 

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 politically incorrect.  If this really is His Church and Kingdom on the Earth today, He runs it, period. 

 

I didn't say that pressure from with in or with out the church on church doctrine and policies can result in the church changing it's stance on things. 

 

I said that pressure from with in or with out the church on church doctrine and policies can result in the church leaders asking questions and seeking revelation on matters that they had not before. Such a change in questions can result in a change in policy, but only because a change in the question can lead to new revelation. The issue of black ordination is clearly an example of this. Social issues in the US, internal concern from members about the policy, large expansion of the church in Brazil, and many other factors resulted in an increase engagement with the questino over a period of three decades that then resulted in a revelation from God.

 

The change was a result of the revelation. 

 

The revelation was the result of continuos, sincere and deep questioning by church leaders.

 

The questioning was in response to all sorts of things (including changing cultural norms, societal dissent, internal church structural issues, inspiration, holy ghost etc etc).

 

The reality of this does not diminish the reality of revelation or the change that such revelation provides.

 

Do you view revelation as a context neutral phenomena? Is revelation a need neutral phenomena? What is your view on the relationship between need and context?

[Bikeemikey]

 

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

 

 

here is Toscano's OW bio.

 

http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-margaret/

 

Sounds nice enough to me

[mtomm]

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.

 

From Duncan's like above:  Kate Kelly, the group's founder, said they will gather again with respect and dignity. They'll insist on being allowed in Temple Square, but will leave once they are asked, she said. They requested tickets to the meeting but were denied again."

 

Sounds just about like their mission statement.  

[smac97]

here is Toscano's OW bio.

 

http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-margaret/

 

Sounds nice enough to me

I wouldn't expect anything but "nice." She's writing about herself, after all. In fact, she may very well be nice. Niceness, however, is not the point. An apostate being chosen by a group claiming to be comprised of "faithful Mormon women" to lead and represent that group is the point.

So again, does the OW group aligning itself with an excommunicated apostate affect your assessment of the OW group and its overall nature and objectives? Is aligning with apostates acceptable for Latter-day Saints as long as the apostate has a nice online bio?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 19, 2014 by smac97

[jaxenro]

"They'll insist on being allowed in Temple Square, but will leave once they are asked, she said"

 

They were asked not to go. They instead plan to show up and be asked to leave? Why? Simply to call more attention to themselves?

[Scott Lloyd]

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."

Hmm.

 

I read this as saying there will be "time enough" in the Millennium for it to happen. I don't see it as a definitive statement or "prophecy" that it would not happen until then, although I can see how that meaning could easily be read into it. Again, during my lifetime, I don't recall the teaching being widely promulgated that the change would happen during the Millennium or at any other specific time period.

[jaxenro]

"Sounds nice enough to me"

 

Actually it sounds a bit contradictory and deceitful. It starts off claiming to be Mormon and then later mentions excommunication. It takes Joseph Smith's comments to the Relief Society (at least how I read them in Jospeh Fieldings Smith's book) out of context.

 

 

" I was referring to the statement made by the prophet who instituted the ban"

 

Which Prophet insituted the ban? I have never seen a definitive statement on when the ban was instituted.

Edited March 19, 2014 by jaxenro

[Scott Lloyd]

From Duncan's like above:  Kate Kelly, the group's founder, said they will gather again with respect and dignity. They'll insist on being allowed in Temple Square, but will leave once they are asked, she said. They requested tickets to the meeting but were denied again."

 

Sounds just about like their mission statement.  

Seems to me they have already been asked not to enter Temple Square in the first place. At this point, pushing the matter and entering the temple grounds in defiance of that request could hardly be viewed as being less than disruptive.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

For me that is easily enough explained in the fact that times and conditions change and divine mandate might be adapted accordingly.

 

That, in fact, is the beauty of the doctrine of ongoing revelation.

[MorningStar]

I wouldn't expect anything but "nice." She's writing about herself, after all. In fact, she may very well be nice. Niceness, however, is not the point. An apostate being chosen by a group claiming to be comprised of "faithful Mormon women" to lead and represent that group is the point.

So again, does the OW group aligning itself with an excommunicated apostate affect your assessment of the OW group and its overall nature and objectives? Is aligning with apostates acceptable for Latter-day Saints as long as the apostate has a nice online bio?

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't consider it "nice" when a excommunicated member leads other people down the same path they have gone.  Maybe she believes there is safety in numbers and that the same thing won't happen to them if they keep pushing it? 

[Scott Lloyd]

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/

The statement from the Church spokeswoman referring to a "long-standing" ban of news media cameras on Temple Square during general conference is an unfortunate error. The fact is, news photographers routinely shoot pictures on the temple grounds during the two-day conference. I, myself, have done so as a representative of a news organization. I expect that routine will continue.

 

I think what needs to be conveyed is that the news media at any given time are allowed on the grounds as guests at the pleasure of the Church, which reserves the right to disallow public demonstrations of protest, news conferences and the like on the temple grounds along with news photo coverage of the same.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

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.

 

This is a non-objection in my book. They represented themselves for what they want to be. Many faithful LDS women are members of the movement. Some ex-mormons are also member.

 

If someone spends their life in the church, and then the church excommunicates them, that does not mean the person should all of a sudden ignore or not participate in church debates and issues.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

 The standard is it comes from God.

[rockpond]

Hmm.

 

I read this as saying there will be "time enough" in the Millennium for it to happen. I don't see it as a definitive statement or "prophecy" that it would not happen until then, although I can see how that meaning could easily be read into it. Again, during my lifetime, I don't recall the teaching being widely promulgated that the change would happen during the Millennium or at any other specific time period.

 

During your lifetime... I don't know.  But the ban and the teachings around it existed long before you and I joined this mortality.

 

There's nothing in there about "time enough" so I would suggest that you are reading into 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)

[rockpond]

The statement from the Church spokeswoman referring to a "long-standing" ban of news media cameras on Temple Square during general conference is an unfortunate error. The fact is, news photographers routinely shoot pictures on the temple grounds during the two-day conference. I, myself, have done so as a representative of a news organization. I expect that routine will continue.

 

I think what needs to be conveyed is that the news media at any given time are allowed on the grounds as guests at the pleasure of the Church, which reserves the right to disallow public demonstrations of protest, news conferences and the like on the temple grounds along with news photo coverage of the same.

 

Public Affairs should hire you... you've said it much better than they did.

 

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.  They also had to know that the letter they wrote to OW would go public.  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'm curious though... what are your thoughts (given your career)... was the letter a good idea, a bad idea, or just poorly written?

[Bikeemikey]

I wouldn't expect anything but "nice." She's writing about herself, after all. In fact, she may very well be nice. Niceness, however, is not the point. An apostate being chosen by a group claiming to be comprised of "faithful Mormon women" to lead and represent that group is the point.

So again, does the OW group aligning itself with an excommunicated apostate affect your assessment of the OW group and its overall nature and objectives? Is aligning with apostates acceptable for Latter-day Saints as long as the apostate has a nice online bio?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes. It is.

 

There is no requirement that we as church members should not a associate with people who have left the church. 

 

It is also not the case that people who have left the church do not have anything valuable to contribute back into the church.

 

I reject your entire line of reasoning related to this matter.

 

Many of the early church apostles were excommunicated and came back to be apostles. Many were excommunicated and didn't come back but still engaged in supporting the church in many ways.

 

Also, please CFR that Toscano is a "leader" or an "official representative" of OW. I have not been able to find any.

 

She does not appear to be a founder of the movement. Perhaps you have some information I have not been able to find.

[Stone holm]

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! )

Was not the main point, main point is they had no input into the language, it was here do we present this at your meeting. Of course they said, okay that's what the faithful do, even when it is something which lays out the gender roles and only one gender had input.

[Tacenda]

Seems to me they have already been asked not to enter Temple Square in the first place. At this point, pushing the matter and entering the temple grounds in defiance of that request could hardly be viewed as being less than disruptive.

They feel that that is a place that anti mormons have been relegated to and don't think they belong there. ETA: I should add that in the "free speech zone" is usually where anti's go, it's where they feel they don't belong. Edited March 19, 2014 by Tacenda

[Bikeemikey]

For me that is easily enough explained in the fact that times and conditions change and divine mandate might be adapted accordingly.

 

That, in fact, is the beauty of the doctrine of ongoing revelation.

 

I fully agree.

[Bikeemikey]

They feel that that is a place that anti mormons have been relegated to and don't think they belong there. ETA: I should add that in the "free speech zone" is usually where anti's go, it's where they feel they don't belong.

 

If it is a place for anti-mormons then they don't belong there.

[smac97]

This is a non-objection in my book. They represented themselves for what they want to be. Many faithful LDS women are members of the movement. Some ex-mormons are also member.

Ex-Mormons and apostates cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be appropriately referred to as "faithful Mormon women."

If someone spends their life in the church, and then the church excommunicates them, that does not mean the person should all of a sudden ignore or not participate in church debates and issues.

I can respect that. But they should not represent themselves as "faithful Mormon women," as they have done. That's straight-up misleading.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bikeemikey]

Ex-Mormons and apostates cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be appropriately referred to as "faithful Mormon women."

I can respect that. But they should not represent themselves as "faithful Mormon women," as they have done. That's straight-up misleading.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

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.

 

Any luck on that CFR?

Edited March 19, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

I can respect that. But they should not represent themselves as "faithful Mormon women," as they have done. That's straight-up misleading.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Toscano stated in her Bio she is not a current member of the church. That is not mis-leading.

 

To say that OW is a place where faithful can join their voice to the conversation is very different from saying that OW is exclusively for Mormon Women, something they have not done.

 

The women I know involved in the OW group are all faithful. 

 

The presence of those with overt negative intentions, the presence of those who are not members but have an interest in womens equality, or other women interested in mormondom that are not mormon in no way undermines that the founder/s (to my knowledge) are all faithful mormon women. 

 

I would guess however that you do not believe a founder of a group like OW could be a faithful mormon woman?