Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Bikeemikey]

Last one I promise!  

 

If we are supposed to respect the women who tell us they want the priesthood, and to take them at their word, then we also have to respect the women who don't want it and to take them at their word.

 

I fully agree with this sentiment. 

 

One of the most difficult things about this particulate conversation is that it is going to be a very hard conversation to have.

 

The challenge right now is that many who in opposition to OW are not simply in opposition to OW based on tactics or action, they are in fact opposed to the conversation period.

 

This is very problematic as we are currently spending more time engaging in the conversation about whether we should be having a conversation than we are actually engaging in the question of womens ordination or responsibility in the church. This thread is just another very interesting example of this.

 

It is going to take a lot of hard conflict filled engagement between many different groups before we actually get to the point where we are talking about the issues OW raises, rather than talking about how the OW has raised them or whether we should even engage with the questions at all.

 

Not all hard conversations are devilish contention. Some are just old fashioned disagreements.

 

Posting this again as it is a very interesting take on conflict vs contention:

 

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

[rockpond]

I fully agree with this sentiment. 

 

One of the most difficult things about this particulate conversation is that it is going to be a very hard conversation to have.

 

The challenge right now is that many who in opposition to OW are not simply in opposition to OW based on tactics or action, they are in fact opposed to the conversation period.

 

This is very problematic as we are currently spending more time engaging in the conversation about whether we should be having a conversation than we are actually engaging in the question of womens ordination or responsibility in the church. This thread is just another very interesting example of this.

 

It is going to take a lot of hard conflict filled engagement between many different groups before we actually get to the point where we are talking about the issues OW raises, rather than talking about how the OW has raised them or whether we should even engage with the questions at all.

 

Not all hard conversations are devilish contention. Some are just old fashioned disagreements.

 

Posting this again as it is a very interesting take on conflict vs contention:

 

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

 

Amen.

[Calm]

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

I have only gone through more than a couple dozen profiles, I assume that most in the past at least were likely active and faithful, but recently Holly Welker told people on her blog that if they were still members of record to go put a profile up...so official members, be surprised if the majority wasn't, have no clue if they are believing or not.

Edited March 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

I'm starting to wish we could skip to the end.  It seems that excommunication of the group ringleaders is moving towards unavoidable.

Perhaps the Church will just bite the bullet and separate itself from them.  It's happened before with little to no repurcussion for the Church.

 

- When some church leaders continued to live plural marriage after the manifesto the Tribune published list after list of them.  Cries of hypocrisy were shouted.  A second manifesto had to be issued and two apostles were excommunicated.  Bad PR but nothing bad actually happened to the Church organization.

- When the September Six were excommunicated for publishing controversial LDS topics it was splashed all over the papers and tv.  Tons of bad press.  Nothing actually happened to the church which continued to grow and flourish.

 

Excommunicating rebels and getting a bit of bad PR has never really hurt the church.

Bad PR doesn't seem to cause any kind of serious long term issues for the Church or Church membership as a whole.  Going all the way back to the "bad PR" the Church had in Joseph's day in Missouri - that was probably the worst the Church ever went through, and yet it continued to grow, flourish and develop in spite of true persecution and bad press.

The fact is the Church could excommunicate Kate Kelly and her organizational directors and completely deligitimize them in the Church and there really wouldn't be any repurcussion.  Oh, there'd be a bit of PR work necessary, but in the end would anything bad actually happen to the Church as a result.  History would say they'd continue on their way like nothing happened.  Maybe they should take a deep breath and skip to the inevitable conclusion

[Bikeemikey]

It is meaningful because it comes from Pew. That is why it was such an effective response, it is bullet proof.   The church can't be attacked for it...all that can be done is to try and diminish highly respected pollsters.  I am also seeing the claim that it would come out differently if done today or that the questions asked were faulty. But none of that has anything to do with the church.  The only rescue from this is another poll.

 

I agree the stats are right on (in the sense mormon women gave those response.

 

However, Stoneholm was pointing out that even Pew does not survey with a margin of error based on religious cultural norms of divine authority. That said I trust the numbers to be reasonably accurate. Even if they are inflated by 10% it still shows an overwhelming majority of women are presently not interested in the priesthood.

 

The statistic in no way suggest that 90% of women are 100% satisfied with the role of women in the church.

 

Also, and more importantly, this number is going to change, and I think that it will change relatively quickly (that is in 10-15 years we will likely see a more 50%/50% split on this issue).

 

What is interesting is that the use of statistics to justify a what is effectively a refusal to engage withe the OW movement seems to open the door to the notion that if the statistics change it would also justify the church being more engaged with the OW movement. I personally think that the use of a statistical defense opens up to many pandora's boxes when people start to see those numbers slide the other way.

 

Of course there is always the chance that the church will totally clamp down on this issue and those who do feel strongly about it will simply find themselves, either by choice or force, out of the church. If this does happen (and i hope it does not) then we may not see a shift in "active mormon women" that want the priesthood. Rather we would see a shift of women who do want the priesthood leaving the church.

[Calm]

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

This is wise, my apologies to all….

Edited March 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

I'm starting to wish we could skip to the end.  It seems that excommunication of the group ringleaders is moving towards unavoidable.

Perhaps the Church will just bite the bullet and separate itself from them.  It's happened before with little to no repurcussion for the Church.

 

- When some church leaders continued to live plural marriage after the manifesto the Tribune published list after list of them.  Cries of hypocrisy were shouted.  A second manifesto had to be issued and two apostles were excommunicated.  Bad PR but nothing bad actually happened to the Church organization.

- When the September Six were excommunicated for publishing controversial LDS topics it was splashed all over the papers and tv.  Tons of bad press.  Nothing actually happened to the church which continued to grow and flourish.

 

Excommunicating rebels and getting a bit of bad PR has never really hurt the church.

Bad PR doesn't seem to cause any kind of serious long term issues for the Church or Church membership as a whole.  Going all the way back to the "bad PR" the Church had in Joseph's day in Missouri - that was probably the worst the Church ever went through, and yet it continued to grow, flourish and develop in spite of true persecution and bad press.

The fact is the Church could excommunicate Kate Kelly and her organizational directors and completely deligitimize them in the Church and there really wouldn't be any repurcussion.  Oh, there'd be a bit of PR work necessary, but in the end would anything bad actually happen to the Church as a result.  History would say they'd continue on their way like nothing happened.  Maybe they should take a deep breath and skip to the inevitable conclusion

 

You say nothing actually happened to the church... institutionally you may be correct, nothing did happen.

 

However, the church is made up of individual people, and as such when an individual is impacted by a decision the church as a community is also impacted. The result of the September six was a cultural entrenchment in the church that pitted "intellectual" mormons against "faithful" mormons. 

 

These things have an impact on the sort of people we are able to reach via missionary work. They impact the way in which mormons are perceived in our communities and around the world. They impact the deep seated culture of mormonism. To say that nothing happened to the church is to discount what makes our church a community...

 

Again the biggest issue is the impact decisions to engage in public excommunications has on our ability to retain a diverse membership base. 

 

The root of the question can be thusly asked: "is it bad for our church to have members that want womens ordination to be a reality?"

 

If the answer is yes then I guess at some point the institution will have to act. However, I do not see there being any issue with members of the church wanting womens ordination to be a reality.

 

The next question is exactly how much dissent can the church tolerate before the dissent is worse for the church than the impact of action against the dissenters?

 

I suggest the answer to this is a hell of a lot more than it is currently taking now.

[Calm]

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.

Based on what happened last year, there isn't any reason to suppose much of an obstacle course, they stood in a separate line off to the side a bit, there was plenty of room to walk around them.  They were quiet and orderly.  Unless they've received different instructions for this time, I see it as likely they are planning on doing the same thing.

[Calm]

Yes -- ears are definitely jangling.

 

I think that the PA dept, in this case, should have remained silent on the issue.  Primum non nocere.  Instead, they have elevated the media attention and made a point of saying:  we're tracking the percent of women who feel similarly.  Wow!

But isn't this an indication that they are listening/paying attention, which is what at least some of the women are adding their voices to the group over?

 

(what Bluebell said)

Edited March 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[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

 

 

This is wise, my apologies to all….

 

 

So this is an example of the question I keep having...

 

Smac97,

 

Would you please be able to explain why it is a good idea for us to "stick with a critique of the OW groups actions" as opposed to engaging in discussion about the OW movements questions and engage them in serious conversation about women in the church?

 

Do you see that your insistence in responding as a critic of the OW groups actions means that we are stuck debating whether we should be having a conversation as opposed to actually having the conversation the OW group is asking us to have?

 

And to Calmoriah, 

 

Given that you think Smac97 advice on this matter "is wise", please feel free to chime in here also. As well as anyone else who may have a thought to share on this.

 

And Smac97... I have already rep pointed you up a couple of times in this thread because you have been doing a very good job monitoring criticism and speculation related to motives. I honestly commend you for this. Please don't take my post here as an attempt to derail those efforts. Im just wondering if rather than draw the line at motives if we might all have a better OW experience if we actually engage the questions they are asking, as opposed to obsessing about how they are asking.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

Last one I promise!  

 

If we are supposed to respect the women who tell us they want the priesthood, and to take them at their word, then we also have to respect the women who don't want it and to take them at their word.

Darn, I ran out of rep points awhile back…need to remember to revisit this thread to make sure you get your fair share.

[JLHPROF]

 

The root of the question can be thusly asked: "is it bad for our church to have members that want womens ordination to be a reality?"

 

If the answer is yes then I guess at some point the institution will have to act. However, I do not see there being any issue with members of the church wanting womens ordination to be a reality.

 

The next question is exactly how much dissent can the church tolerate before the dissent is worse for the church than the impact of action against the dissenters?

 

I suggest the answer to this is a hell of a lot more than it is currently taking now.

 

- It's not bad to have members that want women to be ordained.

- How much dissent can the church tolerate?  I would disagree with you.  Historically, they will take very little publicly but a lot more internally.

 

That's why excommunication is right around the corner and this will actually slow down any progress that could be made if these believers stayed members.  Once they're ex'd, nobody in the Church will listen to a word they say.  And they will be ex'd.  It's unavoidable.  Skip to the credits...and move on.

[Calm]

 

This is very problematic as we are currently spending more time engaging in the conversation about whether we should be having a conversation than we are actually engaging in the question of womens ordination or responsibility in the church. This thread is just another very interesting example of this.

 

It is going to take a lot of hard conflict filled engagement between many different groups before we actually get to the point where we are talking about the issues OW raises, rather than talking about how the OW has raised them or whether we should even engage with the questions at all.

 

I disagree.  I think a very significant reason why we are having so much discussion right now about having this discussion is the way OW framed their part of it.  It has indeed distracted from other conversations going on.  There are even some assuming that there was no conversation going on before OW brought it to the fore…which is a real shame, essentially wiping out all the hard work of past decades as if it never happened. 

[why me]

I'm starting to wish we could skip to the end.  It seems that excommunication of the group ringleaders is moving towards unavoidable.

Perhaps the Church will just bite the bullet and separate itself from them.  It's happened before with little to no repurcussion for the Church.

 

Not much would happen if the leaders were excommunicated. Most people understand that a church cannot have dissenters among them. It causes friction, contention and schisms. Even Paul warned against this by encouraging members to be of one mind. The early church at the time of paul had members attempting to go their own way too.

 

The catholic church can excommunicate bishops and priests who go against catholic dogma when it comes to ordaining women. No repercussion at all.

[Calm]

 

Also, and more importantly, this number is going to change, and I think that it will change relatively quickly (that is in 10-15 years we will likely see a more 50%/50% split on this issue).

 

Is this not assuming that changes will not continue to occur as they had been prior to OW's appearance (though perhaps slower and less obvious) and likely will continue no matter what (imo)?

[rockpond]

- When the September Six were excommunicated for publishing controversial LDS topics it was splashed all over the papers and tv.  Tons of bad press.  Nothing actually happened to the church which continued to grow and flourish.

 

Grow?  Yes.  But I don't think the data suggests that the church has flourished.

[Calm]

So this is an example of the question I keep having...

 

Smac97,

 

Would you please be able to explain why it is a good idea for us to "stick with a critique of the OW groups actions" as opposed to engaging in discussion about the OW movements questions and engage them in serious conversation about women in the church?

 

Do you see that your insistence in responding as a critic of the OW groups actions means that we are stuck debating whether we should be having a conversation as opposed to actually having the conversation the OW group is asking us to have?

 

And to Calmoriah, 

 

Given that you think Smac97 advice on this matter "is wise", please feel free to chime in here also. As well as anyone else who may have a thought to share on this.

 

And Smac97... I have already rep pointed you up a couple of times in this thread because you have been doing a very good job monitoring criticism and speculation related to motives. I honestly commend you for this. Please don't take my post here as an attempt to derail those efforts. Im just wondering if rather than draw the line at motives if we might all have a better OW experience if we actually engage the questions they are asking, as opposed to obsessing about how they are asking.

I think you misunderstood what Smac was suggesting.

 

If we stick with just addressing what OW members have done and said, we will be discussing the "whys" of what they said, as opposed to making assumptions that they didn't really mean what they said but said it for other reasons.

[rockpond]

But isn't this an indication that they are listening/paying attention, which is what at least some of the women are adding their voices to the group over?

 

(what Bluebell said)

 

Yes... but I don't think that the church's PA department considers that a "win".

[Bikeemikey]

I disagree. I think a very significant reason why we are having so much discussion right now about having this discussion is the way OW framed their part of it. It has indeed distracted from other conversations going on. There are even some assuming that there was no conversation going on before OW brought it to the fore…which is a real shame, essentially wiping out all the hard work of past decades as if it never happened.

So the OW movement has caused other developing conversations to the halted? Or worse than halted, the OW movement has actually (in about two years) erased all the progress that these other conversations had achieved?

Would you be able to share some examples of this. While I do not a card carrying supporter of the OW movement, i do respect their right to do what they are doing. And so far have seen nothing but peaceful participation and a website with lots of faces on it.

I mean if these guys are engaging in protests that destroy decades of work and development then why not just come right out and call Ghandi a terrorist who over through a free country while were at it. this big smile means this whole last paragraph is a big fat joke and you should probably ignore it and respond to the stuff that came before it instead.

[why me]

So this is an example of the question I keep having...

 

Smac97,

 

Would you please be able to explain why it is a good idea for us to "stick with a critique of the OW groups actions" as opposed to engaging in discussion about the OW movements questions and engage them in serious conversation about women in the church?

 

Do you see that your insistence in responding as a critic of the OW groups actions means that we are stuck debating whether we should be having a conversation as opposed to actually having the conversation the OW group is asking us to have?

I don't think that the OW movement is interested in conversation unless this conversation is on their terms.. In other words they wish to control the conversation. Also, they seem to be interested in pressuring the church from the outside. Moreover, quite a few of them are former members who now have found an issue to harass the church about. Why give it up? And finally, I cannot see many of them coming back to the fold because of the priesthood issue. I don't think that it is about any one issue. Many just don't believe in the church. They think that it is false. And by pressuring the church into granting priesthood to females and if they succeed, it will give them the opportunity to prove it by exclaiming that the church bows to social pressure.

 

The only way to counter them is to stick to revelation and not kowtow to social pressure. We need to remember the negative press that the church at Joseph's time was receiving. It wasn't easy being a member back then. But they showed fortitude and perseverance. And they had their belief to get them through.

Edited March 20, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

Yes... but I don't think that the church's PA department considers that a "win".

Not sure I am following you….if you mean women adding their names to the list because they see it as the only way to make their voice heard…yes, I agree with you.  It is unfortunate.

 

I would like to see someone start a group that required membership (could have a subsection of nonmember and former member supporters), that required a statement of commitment to the beliefs and doctrines of the Church and sustaining the prophets and a statement of willingness to abide faithfully by whatever is stated to be doctrine and that if it is the Lord's Will that women function with different gifts than men even in this area they will willingly take on whatever role the Lord wants for them, but that as they see it having the Priesthood would be a blessing in being able to stand by the side of their husbands and Brothers in blessing others and serving as they see what a wonderful gift it has been to men and what men have been able to do with such a gift.

 

And then have another parallel list for those of us who believe the same, but also believe that it is likely the Lord has in mind for us something that is not the Priesthood, but something unique for women…but are also willing to let the Lord take his time, but just wanting to let people know there are those of us who think that way out there.

 

Don't think the media would jump all over that though so not sure how public it would be to get the numbers to make it a powerful statement of both desire and acceptance.

Edited March 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

So the OW movement has caused other developing conversations to the halted? Or worse than halted, the OW movement has actually (in about two years) erased all the progress that these other conversations had achieved?

No, they have removed them from the conversation (for example Kate Kelly's dismissive "so called feminists" and at least some of the longtimer effective dialoguers removed themselves from the blogs because of those kinds of dismissive attacks)…at least from what I've seen.  I suspect they are still there plugging away and will resurface as more of the leaders of the discussion again, at least I hope so.

 

It is only in one recent discussion (reddit) that I have seen Kelly even refer to other groups' work with something more than a dismissive attitude.

Edited March 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

I think you misunderstood what Smac was suggesting.

If we stick with just addressing what OW members have done and said, we will be discussing the "whys" of what they said, as opposed to making assumptions that they didn't really mean what they said but said it for other reasons.

That makes sense... Having said that I still see us far more concerned with the debate about whether we should have the debate. I have yet to see an explosion of threads about the ways in which the church would be different if women were included differently, for example.

Having said that I am an infrequent passerby on the forums and may have simply missed it. I have also not started it myself!!!

[Bikeemikey]

No, they have removed them from the conversation (for example Kate Kelly's dismissive "so called feminists" and at least some of them removed themselves from the blogs because of those kinds of dismissive attacks)…at least from what I've seen. I suspect they are still there plugging away and will resurface as more of the leaders of the discussion again, at least I hope so.

Do you have any examples. I would like to try to keep an eye on other conversations as I don't really feel super strongly about women's ordination but I am very interested in the changing role of women in the church.

[Bikeemikey]

Not sure I am following you….if you mean women adding their names to the list because they see it as the only way to make their voice heard…yes, I agree with you. It is unfortunate.

I would like to see someone start a group that required membership, that required a statement of commitment to the beliefs and doctrines of the Church and sustaining the prophets and a statement of willingness to abide faithfully by whatever is stated to be doctrine and that if it is the Lord's Will that women function with different gifts than men even in this area they will willingly take on whatever role the Lord wants for them, but that as they see it having the Priesthood would be a blessing in being able to stand by the side of their husbands and Brothers in blessing others and serving as they see what a wonderful gift it has been to men and what men have been able to do with such a gift.

And then have another parallel list for those of us who believe the same, but also believe that it is likely the Lord has in mind for us something that is not the Priesthood, but something unique for women…but are also willing to let the Lord take his time, but just wanting to let people know there are those of us who think that way out there.

Don't think the media would jump all over that though so not sure how public it would be to get the numbers to make it a powerful statement of both desire and acceptance.

That's a cool idea! Of course is far less sexy! (From a social dissent point of view).