Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Bikeemikey]

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.  

 

Hasty hasty, dont be hasty.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

So if no one even noticed why does it even matter? Why make a big deal about something that up until very recently seems to have not mattered? Looks like some just are looking to find fault? In the words of Hillary "What difference does it make?"

[mtomm]

How do you know it took "years of conversations for it to happen"? Maybe it never occurred to anyone until now.

 

You have to read the to the end of the news article.

[Shizfan]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but with the statement the church made 3/17/14 and stated that women holding the PH was against doctrine (I'm assuming by revelation)......Soooo I'm also assuming that the church can't come out even 20 years from now and say "oh by the way it is now revealed doctrine that women can now hold the PH? If it's doctrine (not the practice of doctrine) then it's in stone, correct?

[mtomm]

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.

 

Exactly, Juliann.  Of course, *I* believe the Church will continue to make progress!  I love the gospel and I love our leaders and I have LOTS of faith in them. They are just like my husband who often times looks at me and proclaims, "I just had no idea until you pointed it out."  Sadly, some people feel that when inequalities are being pointed out that it is about being critical of church leaders and it isn't.  But they wouldn't even see the need if someone wasn't making the needs known.  But you know all of this.

I don't happen to think that those participating in OW are as evil as they are being portrayed in this thread.  I also feel like they could do things better (just as you've indicated).  This isn't all black/white, good/evil.  

[Scott Lloyd]

You have to read the to the end of the news article.

OK, I read to the end of the news article. This is what is there:

 

"Conversations about giving more visibility to women have been going on for some years," LDS spokeswomen Jessica Moody said in a statement. "The decision to have the sister leaders of the church be more visible in the Conference Center is just one outcome of those conversations."

 

It says that "conversations about giving more visibility to women have been going on for some years." It doesn't say that the decision to put up the pictures in the Conference Center has been under discussion for years. It may be that the specific idea of putting the pictures there did not occur until more recently, as part of the broader deliberation.

 

The wording is somewhat ambiguous in that respect, and your reading of it is not definitive.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Exactly, Juliann.  Of course, *I* believe the Church will continue to make progress!  I love the gospel and I love our leaders and I have LOTS of faith in them. They are just like my husband who often times looks at me and proclaims, "I just had no idea until you pointed it out."  Sadly, some people feel that when inequalities are being pointed out that it is about being critical of church leaders and it isn't.  But they wouldn't even see the need if someone wasn't making the needs known.  But you know all of this.

I don't happen to think that those participating in OW are as evil as they are being portrayed in this thread.  I also feel like they could do things better (just as you've indicated).  This isn't all black/white, good/evil.  

Evil? Who has portrayed them as evil?

[juliann]

I for one am saddened that this group has chosen such an adversarial and demanding approach toward prophets and apostles to bring about their desires. It strikes me as unseemly.

I just see it in practical terms not emotional ones. They have obviously alienated a huge majority of Mormons and those Mormons are not always making the distinction between OW and the need for more inclusion and visibility of women, which is everyone's loss.  The biggest "whoa!" yet is an FMH blog that has cautioned readers to not conflate OW with those who want ordination. That seems a pretty good indication of what OW has done to itself.  Convincing Mormons to change their minds may not be their ultimate goal, however. It is hard to say since members were ordered not to discuss "strategy" on the first event.

 

I so, so, so want someone who knows game theory to analyze this chess game. OW should have been able to predict the church's response to their moves on that alone. Where blogs have been assertive and self-confident, I am seeing a lot of defending now.  If the reactions to the church response are any indication, the Pew poll stats and being characterized as a tiny insignificant group of protestors has been the most hurtful.

 

And I agree that forcing these women to move would be a PR disaster, yet at the same time the church really does need to maintain control over its own turf.  Which makes me wonder if there is some way to re-engineer the entrance.

[Bikeemikey]

OK, I read to the end of the news article. This is what is there:

 

It says that "conversations about giving more visibility to women have been going on for some years." It doesn't say that the decision to put up the pictures in the Conference Center has been under discussion for years. It may be that the specific idea of putting the pictures there did not occur until more recently, as part of the broader deliberation.

 

The wording is somewhat ambiguous in that respect, and your reading of it is not definitive.

 

The decision to place the photos is one outcome of a conversation that has been going on for years. Obviously they have not been talking about putting photos up for years... that would be crazy

[juliann]

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

I should add that Allen is the expert on what goes on there.

[mtomm]

Concerning revelation and women's ordination, President Hinckley in an interview with ABC news Australia.   I love the last part that I included.  President Hinckley asks his wife if she is happy and she replies that she is and so therefore everything must be great!  And I believe this is exactly how things have been working in the church since it's foundation.  But now other concerns are being brought forth and the brethren can look past their wives and daughters and see how other women in the church perceive themselves within it. 

 

 

 

RB: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?

GBH: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. There own ???. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organisation of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied.

RB: They all say that?

GBH: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.

RB: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?

GBH: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.

RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

RB: So you’d have to get a revelation?

GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife. 

GBH: Are you happy? (to his wife...)

Mrs. H: Very happy! (laughs)

Aired November 9, 1997.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm

Edited March 19, 2014 by mtomm

[Scott Lloyd]

Correct me if I'm wrong but with the statement the church made 3/17/14 and stated that women holding the PH was against doctrine (I'm assuming by revelation)......Soooo I'm also assuming that the church can't come out even 20 years from now and say "oh by the way it is now revealed doctrine that women can now hold the PH? If it's doctrine (not the practice of doctrine) then it's in stone, correct?

It's probably beyond my pay grade to make such a pronouncement.

 

But this does seem to me to be fundamentally different from either the practice of plural marriage or the priesthood restriction in that it was always foregone that those things were subject to change. That has never been the case with the idea of women holding the priesthood.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The decision to place the photos is one outcome of a conversation that has been going on for years. Obviously they have not been talking about putting photos up for years... that would be crazy

That's kinda how I read it too. But apparently, mtomm doesn't see it that way.

[why me]

 

And I agree that forcing these women to move would be a PR disaster, yet at the same time the church really does need to maintain control over its own turf.  Which makes me wonder if there is some way to re-engineer the entrance.

I think that the OW movement knew that the church would eventually have a reaction to their presence. Back in my day, it was all about tactics and these tactics always had intended and unintended consequences. For OW, the tactic is to get confrontation and headlines. Members do have a right to worship in a hassle free zone. They also have the right to get the spirit which to my understanding doesn't enjoy confrontation or hassle. But it does enjoy peace and contemplation.

[smac97]

Yes. It is.

 

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

Broadly speaking, I agree. But the 7th temple recommend question appears to constrain members who wish to attend the temple from supporting, affiliating with, or agreeing with groups or individuals whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Affiliating with an excommunicated apostate matters.

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 have never suggested otherwise.

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

I'm okay with that, except that I think you are misunderstanding my "line of reasoning" (as evidenced by your apparent impression that I think ex-mos "do not have anything valuable to contribute").

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.

Yes. And your point is . . . what? That we should fellowship excommunicates? I agree with that.

But should we align and affiliate ourselves with excommunicated apostates against the Church? No. It is mind-boggling to suggest otherwise.

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

You must not have looked very hard.

She is featured in the photograph at the top of the FAQ for the OW group: http://ordainwomen.org/faq/

Here's a YouTube video of her speaking at the "Launch Event" for the OW group:

Note that Kate Kelly, at about 1:18, is seated right next to her.

Here's a list of speakers at the Launch Event: http://ordainwomen.org/resources/

Toscano was the second speaker. The other participants were Lorie Winder, Mary Ellen Robertson, Hannah Wheelwright, Debra Jenson and Kate Kelly. Lorie Winder is listed as one of the "Founding Mothers" of Ordain Women (http://ordainwomen.org/happy-birthday-ordain-women/).

Here's a Sunstone article about the OW group: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/update-issue-171/ . This article includes a picture of Kate Kelly, Mary Ellen Robertson, Debra Jenson, Margaret Toscano, Lorie Winder Stromberg, Hanna Wheelwright (the group who spoke at the Launch Event), and who are described as "the force behind Ordain Women."

Toscano was also on the panel at the Launch Event (see here: http://www.the-exponent.com/priestesshood-session/).

She does not appear to be a founder of the movement.

I would not be surprised if she is not a nominal "founder" (actually, apart from Kate Kelly and Lorie Winder, the OW group has not disclosed its constituent officers/members). But she was a key participant in the "Launch Event." She is pictured with the other key players in the OW group on the OW website. She was represented to Sunstone as being part of "the force behind Ordain Women."

Perhaps you have some information I have not been able to find.

Perhaps so. My information comes from an obscure website called Google.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mtomm]

That's kinda how I read it too. But apparently, mtomm doesn't see it that way.

 

Oh, no, I certainly do thinks it's crazy.

[juliann]

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. 

 

 

The problem is that there have been more than one statements by Kate Kelly that these are all active Mormon women (or whatever terms she used). That is the problem. Not the reality of the situation. I don't know what your CFR is for, but there was another thread where these declarations were questioned and Cal came up with them. She did say it.  And it is a reflection on credibility. That is not to make a judgment regarding the faithful women I know to be involved. It is just another of those areas where I think OW has made fatal mistakes when it comes to reaching that alleged 90% of Mormon women. Again, that may not be their goal and we just think it should be.  But it matters very, very, very much to Mormons who is involved. That is just the anti-Mormon baggage left behind from too many years of attacks that they have to contend with. What should be is secondary to what just plain is.

[Kenngo1969]

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. 

OK.  Thanks for the clarification, but the issue of the status of Priesthood ordination isn't an issue on which Church leaders "had not before" requested or received guidance.  My understanding is that President McKay essentially wearied the Lord and essentially was told "don't ask again."  Conversely, President Kimball asked (again) and we know what the answer was then.

 

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.

 

Much revelation results from such direct questions.  Perhaps most does.  But not all of it.  God has His Own timetable and His Own purposes, and I don't think that timetable or those purposes are driven necessarily (or primarily) by His tapping His toe and checking His watch impatiently until we are "ready."

 

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).

 

Perhaps the issue of Priesthood ordination comes close to being a response to a specific need and to specific questions, but even it isn't a perfect illustration of what you're suggesting.  If I remember what I've read correctly, there was a difference of opinion among the Brethren on the matter, not just years before the revelation was received, but months, weeks, and even days before it was received (see, e.g., Elder McConkie: "Forget everything that I have said ...").  Conversely, I think it's also possible for the Lord to say, "Ready or not, here I come!"  (See, e.g., polygyny.  That was a hard doctrine for a lot of people, and then when the commandment was rescinded/changed, that was hard for a lot of people.)

 

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

 

No, it does not.  On that, we agree.

 

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?

 

I don't view revelation as entirely context-dependent or need-dependent, nor do I view it as entirely context-independent or entirely need-independent.  From an earthly perspective, without a good deal of speculation relying on "the reasoning of men," it's hard not to see a need for something like the lifting of the ban; conversely, without a good deal of such speculation, it's hard to see a need for something like polygyny.  (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that the OW movement knew that the church would eventually have a reaction to their presence. Back in my day, it was all about tactics and these tactics always had intended and unintended consequences. For OW, the tactic is to get confrontation and headlines. Members do have a right to worship in a hassle free zone. They also have the right to get the spirit which to my understanding doesn't enjoy confrontation or hassle. But it does enjoy peace and contemplation.

I don't see how anyone can justly blame the Church for denying the group entrance onto the temple grounds when group has already been warned well in advance what will happen if they push the matter.

 

That is one reason why I'm glad the letter was made public.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, no, I certainly do thinks it's crazy.

Whether you think it's crazy is not in question. What is in question is what is meant by the wording of the quote in the Tribune article.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[jaxenro]

Are ther really promoting that Al Jeezera is covering them?

[Gray]

Actually, I'm not.

 

I see here a commendation for the service rendered by certain women in the church, similar to a commendation that might be given to Relief Society sisters of today. I scarcely see any difference. Certainly not evidence of ordination to priesthood office.

 

What else have you got?

 

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae"

 

Currently relief society sisters are not permitted to be ordained as deacons. 

[jaxenro]

Just a related question is Preisthood optional for worthy male members?

[smac97]

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

She is a prominent player in the OW group, which has described itself as being comprised of "faithful Mormon women." It appears there have been a nontrivial number of non-LDS or formerly LDS participants in OW events. Describing such a disparate group as "faithful Mormon women" is misleading.

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.

They have described themselves as "faithful Mormon women." I think that's not altogether accurate.

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.

Fair enough.

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

You guess incorrectly. You seem to have a very difficult time grasping my position. I do not object to the OW group existing. I am also open to a revelation about women receiving the priesthood (I don't think it will happen, but I'm open to it). What I object to is some/many of the OS group's tactics.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

I get his point: It is absurd to assume blanket divine approval for everything that is not specifically prohibited in ancient scripture.

 

It's not absurd, however, to assume that God sees everyone, black or white, male or female, as equally worthy and capable.