Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Perhaps this is the real story and it is sad that no one even noticed this until now. Perhaps we all should organize and demand that men have their own building.

 

 

I mean seriously this is absurd. The whole thing is quite frankly dumb.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

She isn't. The facts just don't add up.

[mtomm]

And yet the evidence of how she speaks…..

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

 

But isn't this what we all do.  We see life through our own lens and think everyone else does too.  I'm sure over the past year she has gotten more astute and heard lots more opinions than she ever knew existed when this started. 

 

 

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

These are just rhetorical right?  But I would say all of my answers would be yes.

 

I believe I have stated earlier in this thread that I've not agreed with all of the tactics of OW, but I think they are being unnecessarily maligned on points that are not all that important.  I think they make valid points of how women could be more fairly represented at church and in serving in the gospel. 

 

I've seen Juliann criticize OW and you will not see where I have disagreed with her assessments.  

 

I would love to spend a lot of time answering the first questions, oh, if you only knew, smac, if you only knew!  

[jaxenro]

And yet the evidence of how she speaks…..

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

She isn't speaking to a Mormon audience she is speaking to a NYT audience

She wants women to sit on the leadership of the Church. Any idea what candidate she has in mind?

[Stone holm]

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

 

Which actions in His mortal life?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Is this movement group filled with mainly members or non members?

[bluebell]

And yet the evidence of how she speaks…..

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

 

What i find hard to believe is that she keeps doing it.

 

We all say dumb stuff sometimes-that's a given.  But when you are functioning as a spokesperson for a group, you would think that you would start to learn from your mistakes and get the hang of it. Especially because so much rides on your words alone and you are not speaking only for yourself.

 

But some of the things you have pointed out, where she said something that really was not a good thing to say, have been said just in the last couple of months, or even weeks.  

 

I wonder (and this is pure speculation) if maybe she just doesn't care.  I think we've all met people who consistently stick their foot in their mouths because they like that part of their personality and don't want to change it.  They consider it 'just being honest' or 'being brave enough to say what's on your mind', etc.  Perhaps Kelly is one of those people who believes that her honest reactions and words, however it is received, is always best?

[awyatt]

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.

 

Well, of course, if one is speculating, it could be that OW is jockeying for a "test case" to gauge the temperature of the "tolerance waters" within the Church. See this article by Margaret Toscono, a year ago, about the formation of OW. Pay particular attention to the closing:

 

I was excommunicated in November, 2000, for my public advocacy of women’s ordination and my refusal to be silent on the topic. I am hopeful that the LDS community has matured to a place where such actions are not condoned and where differences of opinion are tolerated.

 

What better way to determine whether "such actions [excommunication] are not condoned" then to try to force an excommunication?

 

-Allen

[Storm Rider]

I suspect she has chosen to sell her soul to achieve her objectives. The end justifies the means.  It is not a choice all will make, but she is not unique in rationalizing her actions to get what she wants.

[bluebell]

Which actions in His mortal life?

 

Did He ever ordain a woman or teach that they should be ordained?

 

If not, then believing that Christ wants women to be ordained is inconsistent with His actions in His mortal life.

 

I'm not saying it's proof of anything. I'm just saying that it's evidence that can be used to help understand how Christ felt about women and the priesthood.

[Paloma]

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Reading through this thread makes me feel for both the Ordain Women, and for the LDS Church that has been put in such a difficult position as you've outlined above.

 

I certainly don't know enough about the motivations and intentions of the OW (though I'm both sympathetic to their stated hopes, as well as to those non OW folk who take exception to their tactics), to form any kind of opinions or judgments.

 

I can't help but think of what alternate ways there may be (or have been!) of dealing with the situation.

 

I can appreciate that the letter sent by the church is a pro-active way of setting parameters in place, and can see the wisdom of that.

 

And I'm wondering if there may be a way of showing respect and compassion for the women.  I remember how impressed I was to read of LDS parents who chose to give up their right to attend their child's temple wedding in order to be together with the non-LDS or non recommend holding parents of their child's soon-to-be spouse.

 

I can't quite imagine what such a scenario could be here, but I always love to see situations where potentially antagonistic situations are transformed by grace.

[Ahab]

I am. Please explain.

Yeah, you can ask anbody. She really is dense.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Heck, I'm dense too, so you can also explain your comments to me.

[bluebell]

Is this movement group filled with mainly members or non members?

It's filled with members, less active members, non members, excommunicated members, and ex members.

 

I have no idea how the numbers break down though.  

 

The group is pushing for people to put up profiles who are still members of record, regardless of whether or not they are still active or what they believe about the church.  They obviously see some benefit in that but i'm not sure what it is.

[smac97]

I suspect she has chosen to sell her soul to achieve her objectives. The end justifies the means.  It is not a choice all will make, but she is not unique in rationalizing her actions to get what she wants.

I think we need to tread carefully when discussing motives. To the extent I have contributed to a discussion of motives, I apologize. Let's stick with a critique of the OW group's actions, and move away from speculating about their motives.

Thanks,

-Smac

[why me]

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

 

Lets say that I am attending this meeting that the OW movement are protesting. After braving the bull horns outside the temple grounds along with the mormons are going to hell people, I make it into the temple grounds. I then proceed to the meeting place to attend a church meeting. But what do I see? A protest by women who want to have the priesthood. So, I stand in line and see the protest, experience a shuffle and then I go in to listen to the meeting. Quite an obstacle course which could definitely affect the spirit.

Edited March 19, 2014 by why me

[why me]

I think we need to tread carefully when discussing motives. To the extent I have contributed to a discussion of motives, I apologize. Let's stick with a critique of the OW group's actions, and move away from speculating about their motives.

Thanks,

-Smac

But motive compliments a group's actions. They both go hand in hand. So, it would be perfectly okay to discuss motive for an action.

[smac97]

But motive compliments a group's actions. They both go hand in hand. So, it would be perfectly okay to discuss motive for an action.

Actions are objectively observable. Motives . . . not so much.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

"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. 

The King James Translation of the Bible renders this passage as follows:

 

I commend unto you Phebe, our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.

 

(Romans 16:1)

 

Whether the word translated here as "servant" is properly rendered as "deacon," as some translations have it, has long been a matter of debate among Bible scholars.

 

A comparative glance at several New Testament translations indicates that they vary as to whether the word is translated as "servant," minister" and "deacon," so there appears to be no unanimity of thought on this matter. Certainly, there is no clear indication that she was ordained to a priesthood office.

 

Among the women of the Church today we have those who could properly be regarded as servants or, in a broad sense, ministers. These would, of course, include Relief Society presidents and heads of other auxiliary organizations such as the Young Women and the Primary.

 

On a frequent basis in my work, I deal with women who are Public Affairs representatives of the Church, in both paid and volunteer positions. They serve in highly responsible and visible roles wherein they are expected to convey the face of the Church and communicate its message to news media and other outside organizations. But those roles are not priesthood offices.

 

You indicated, when challenged about your assertion that women were ordained to the priesthood in Biblical times that we could "start" with Romans 16. Is this the best example you have?

Edited March 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

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.

 

My apologies, Scott, I got confused as to which BY quote I had used and didn't take the time to go back and look before I responded.

 

So, here are the two quotes for clarification:

 

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."

 

-and-

 

"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.”

 

The phrase "then it will be time enough to remove the curse..." indicates that the "time enough" will happen in the millenium.  Not before.  Do you agree?

 

It sounds to me like you disagree with calling this a prophecy.  Fair enough.  Let's drop that term.  But the teaching that the priesthood would be granted to the blacks in the millenium (when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the priesthood) was certainly promulgated.  And was certainly proven incorrect.

[Paloma]

Lets say that I am attending this meeting that the OW movement are protesting. After braving the bull horns outside the temple grounds along with the mormons are going to hell people, I make it into the temple grounds. I then proceed to the meeting place to attend a church meeting. But what do I see? A protest by women who want to have the priesthood. So, I stand in line and see the protest, experience a shuffle and then I go in to listen to the meeting. Quite an obstacle course which could definitely affect the spirit.

 

Ahhh... it seems that you're talking about the atmosphere or mood.

 

And I was mistaken in somehow thinking you were referring to the Holy Spirit.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

On reflection, I've edited this to say that your word choice of "right to get the spirit" still sounds  a bit odd and mystifying to me.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Paloma

[VideoGameJunkie]

It's not a real protest until someone's arrested.

[why me]

Actions are objectively observable. Motives . . . not so much.

Thanks,

-Smac

After the action, one can deduce the motives. And we certainly had a few actions to deduce motives. And it is the motives that let us see into the heart and soul of someone or some organization.

[Scott Lloyd]

My apologies, Scott, I got confused as to which BY quote I had used and didn't take the time to go back and look before I responded.

 

So, here are the two quotes for clarification:

 

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."

 

-and-

 

"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.”

 

The phrase "then it will be time enough to remove the curse..." indicates that the "time enough" will happen in the millenium.  Not before.  Do you agree?

 

It sounds to me like you disagree with calling this a prophecy.  Fair enough.  Let's drop that term.  But the teaching that the priesthood would be granted to the blacks in the millenium (when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the priesthood) was certainly promulgated.  And was certainly proven incorrect.

Well, I'm certainly not going to tie myself to any statement by Brigham Young -- on this or any other topic -- that has subsequently been shown to be unwise.

[Bikeemikey]

I think we need to tread carefully when discussing motives. To the extent I have contributed to a discussion of motives, I apologize. Let's stick with a critique of the OW group's actions, and move away from speculating about their motives.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I fully agree! Rep +1 for you on that.

 

Here is a great FMHW blog post about the difference between contention and conflict. I found it very interesting.

 

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/03/contention-vs-conflict-and-some-rules-of-engagement/

[Bikeemikey]

After the action, one can deduce the motives. And we certainly had a few actions to deduce motives. And it is the motives that let us see into the heart and soul of someone or some organization.

 

Rubbish - unless your the BBC star Sherlock!