Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Gray]

We, being members of the LDS church, actually have quite a bit of info on whether or not Christ taught ordination of women. Because we are not forced to rely on the ancient biblical record but also have the D&C as well as other more contemporary records of Christ's followers.

You are right, in that there is a lot we don't know, but we aren't just secular historians trying to piece together the past here.

Did Christ, for example, direct JS to ordain any women as a part of the restoration? When He speaks extensively about the priesthood in the D&C, does He speak about women at all?

What evidence do we have that Christ condoned female ordination when He was organizing His church, or restoring it? It doesn't have to be proof, but what evidence can we use to support it? Can we make an argument in support of female ordination that is comprised of something more than "can you prove it didn't happen"?

 

I have no evidence that Christ condoned female ordination, but it would be consistent with the substance of his ministry. 

[Gray]

I'm not comparing them in any disparaging sense, so let's not go looking for ways to be offended. Holding the priesthood is an exclusive, rather than inclusive, thing. It is not at all disparaging to provide categories of people who do not hold it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

We have a priesthood of all believers. To me that means it's inclusive. 

[smac97]

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.

First, they are not being prevented from protesting because of their gender or dress, but because of their behavior.

Second, neither membership in the Church nor a temple recommend privileges an individual from engaging in behavior prohibited by the Church on its property.

Third, to the extent it is a "bad call" to have protesting Mormons consign themselves to the designated protest zones, it is their bad call.

 

The messaging and optics of it are highly offensive to me... we will wait and see what actually happens at conference.

I can understand your feeling about the "messaging and optics." Portraying the Church poorly, generating nnegative "messaging and optics," is the objective of the OW group. They are protesting against their own Church, they are planning to defy the Church's instructions and trespass on Church property, they are intentionally disrupting General Conference. And you take offense at . . . the recipient of this repellant and unseemly behavior?

The mind reels.

-Smac

Edited March 19, 2014 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

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

 

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

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

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?

LOL. So the Church is faulted when women leaders are not photographically portrayed in the Conference Center, and then faulted for taking "this long" when it does photographically portray them.

The Church is darned if it does, darned if it doesn't, darned no matter what it does. That's the pernicious thing about faultfinding: One can always succeed at it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

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.

But some will still manage to fault the Church even when it changes in a positive way. For example, when the Church takes the affirmative step of placing photographs of LDS female leaders in the Conference Center, a person could either appreciate the effort or . . . gripe that it took too long to do so.

Just sayin'...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

"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?

If it is like last time, they may only leave when asked face to face, one by one, thus having multiple encounters on camera of women members being required to leave Temple Square for highest visible impact. Edited March 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[smac97]

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.

Also, don't forget this bit: http://ordainwomen.org/ordain-womens-response-to-ticket-denial/

Ordain Women is saddened to learn that our request for tickets to the upcoming priesthood session has been denied. As faithful Mormon women, we will reverently seek admission to the April 5th general conference priesthood session as a demonstration of our eagerness for the blessings and responsibilities of the priesthood.

Emphasis added.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

We have a priesthood of all believers. To me that means it's inclusive. 

I have never heard this term applied to the LDS church.  Can you explain what you mean?

 

I have only ever heard this used by protestant churches to explain why they don't need a line of authority in order to use the priesthood.  As i understand it, it is one of their core doctrines and illustrates their separation from Catholics.

[Tacenda]

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.

Just like the idea that women should also say prayers in General Conference, last Year!! So interesting. ...

[Calm]

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

It is the place for anyone 'protesting'. When a group went up to Temple Square to protest the protestors in support of the Church, that is where they would have had to stand.

add-on: I see that Allen provided much more detail.

Edited March 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

"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. 

 

This verse reads as such in the KJV-

 

"I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:"  I'm not sure why the translation is different.

 

Paul also said that women should remain silent in the churches, which doesn't make a lot of sense if he knows they are functioning as ordained priests who are equal to men in their priesthood.  

Edited March 19, 2014 by bluebell

[smac97]

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."

Out of curiosity, when you identify a point on which your husband needs improvement, do you organize protests against him? Do you publicly demand that he change his behavior to suit your expectations, and that "nothing less will suffice?" Do you align yourself with people who are estranged from your husband and publicly hostile to his views? Do you broadcast your dissatisfaction to the world?

Also, is it possible to respective the underlying purpose of the OW group (to explore the possibility of women receiving the priesthood) and yet strongly disagree with their tactics?

You are willing to let the OW group protest against the Church. Are you likewise willing to let people protest against the OW group? Or is criticism only a good thing when its against the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

[awyatt]

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.

 

How come nobody ever notices that the only auxiliaries in the Church to have their own building are the women's auxiliaries? Does that count for anything? ;-)

 

-Allen

[why me]

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.

Which is a favorite tactic with apostate groups. They need to lie to lure members in and to get some press. So, how can such a group be trusted?

[bluebell]

I have no evidence that Christ condoned female ordination, but it would be consistent with the substance of his ministry. 

 

But completely inconsistent with His actions in mortal life and teachings regarding the priesthood, both in mortality and after.

[JLHPROF]

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

 

I have no evidence that Christ condoned female ordination, but it would be consistent with the substance of his ministry. 

 

This has never been about worthiness or capability.  It has always been about eternally defined roles and whether women holding ecclesiastical priesthood is part of the female role.  OW says it is (or should be).  Others say it isn't (and can't be).  Scripture & revelation don't specify except that there is no record of any women holding ecclesiastical priesthood throughout history.  Is this just a tradition or a divinely established way of doing things?

 

If it's just tradition then OW should keep up their mission and work within Church guidelines to achieve their goal. 

If it is based on eternal law then they should let it go and focus on the roles (and non-ecclesiastical priesthood) that they have already been given.

Because God doesn't change and his laws don't change just because we ask.

If it's just tradition that prevents them holding EP then by all means give it to them.  But if it is God's law that prevents it then they should leave it alone or offend God.

[smac97]

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.

I think the OW group is angling for "a PR disaster." They are forcing the Church's hand. The Church can either have a "PR disaster" involving the OW folks being turned away from the Conference Center, or else a "PR disaster" of having the OW folks being escorted off Temple Square. The OW group surely knows they have created this conundrum. I don't think it was created accidentally.

I think the tactics of the OW group betray its radicalism. Public protests against the Church during General Conference is a dumb way to drum up support amongst Mormons. But the OW group isn't dumb.

Aligning with an excommunicated apostate is a sure way to alienate many Latter-day Saints. The OW group must have known this before inviting Margaret Toscano to speak at its Launch Event, to be on the Launch Event's panel discussion panel, to be included in photographs of the key players of the OW group, and so on.

Publicly demanding the priesthood for women, with a concomitant declaration that "nothing less will suffice," is a sure way to turn off Mormons to your overall message. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this.

The OW group has done all these things. So they are either very dumb or vary radical. We know they aren't dumb, so...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Paloma]

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.

 

What is this "right to get the spirit" that you mention here?

 

Isn't the Holy Spirit conferred on LDS believers after baptism?

 

Or if you are speaking of those who are not yet baptized, would they not "get the spirit" upon their baptism?

 

And what do you mean by "the spirit which to my understanding doesn't enjoy confrontation or hassle"?  Life is fraught with confrontation and hassle ... certainly Jesus' own life would indicate that.  Of course most people don't normally seek out controversy and confrontation.

 

Are you saying that LDS believers no longer have God's Spirit when in uncomfortable situations?  I don't think that's what you're saying, but I must admit your words are incomprehensible to me.

[Calm]

So they are either very dumb or vary radical. We know they aren't dumb, so...

Or naive. Kate Kelly has made a number of statements that portray her as politically unaware. For example, while it may not have been all she stated (according to her elsewhere), she should have known better that the reporter just might latch on to her dismissive remark about Pants day wher she stated she didn't join in as 'she didn't like pants' or some such thing.

Also the fact that after the last time, they were caught in the aftermath just chatting and wandering around the gathering group without one of them listening to the allegedly treasured Priesthood Session by phone. This wasn't caught on camera, we just know about it because of the cameraman who was there. Kelly response when asked about the Session though IIRC was something along the lines of "it just didn't speak to me".

So she is begging to get into the Session, portraying herself and others as moving heaven and earth about it and she dismisses as irrelevant to her.

I don't see that as politically astute at all. There were several other missteps that occurred that I don't remember the details of, but I've commented on them here and there.

[awyatt]

Or naive. Kate Kelly has made a number of statements that portray her as politically unaware.

 

...

 

I don't see that as politically astute at all. There were several other missteps that occurred that I don't remember the details of, but I've commented on them here and there.

 

It is hard to believe that a practicing human rights attorney (from Washington DC, no less) would be either naive or non-politically astute.

 

Just sayin'...

 

-Allen

[Calm]

And yet the evidence of how she speaks…..

She demonstrates no awareness of how to speak to a Mormon audience.

[smac97]

Or naive. Kate Kelly has made a number of statements that portray her as politically unaware. For example, while it may not have been all she stated (according to her elsewhere), she should have known better that the reporter just might latch on to her dismissive remark about Pants day wher she stated she didn't join in as 'she didn't like pants' or some such thing.

Also the fact that after the last time, they were caught in the aftermath just chatting and wandering around the gathering group without one of them listening to the allegedly treasured Priesthood Session by phone. This wasn't caught on camera, we just know about it because of the cameraman who was there. Kelly response when asked about the Session though IIRC was something along the lines of "it just didn't speak to me".

So she is begging to get into the Session, portraying herself and others as moving heaven and earth about it and she dismisses as irrelevant to her.

I don't see that as politically astute at all. There were several other missteps that occurred that I don't remember the details of, but I've commented on them here and there.

Perhaps you are right. But naivete and radicalism are not mutually exclusive. Kate Kelly is a returned missionary and an attorney. I have a hard time imagining that someone with so much experience in the Church, and also a doctorate, could make such boneheaded moves.

Thanks,

-Smac

[VideoGameJunkie]

You can't force the church to have revelation about who gets the priesthood. You have to have faith and trust that Thomas S Monson is seer and revelator. If the group opposes this then they lied during their temple recommend interviews.

[Calm]

smac, I know, that is what is so constantly astonishing to me about it.

Unless she is a mole and trying to sabotage her own organization…that might make more sense to me.

Edited March 19, 2014 by calmoriah