Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[stelf]

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!!!

I recently started a thread about one aspect of this. No responses yet though so you may be right.

[Calm]

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.

That is a bit of work and I have other commitments I need to attend to right now.

 

Maybe ask me again in a week or so?  Or do a search on "Margaret Young" and "Neylan McBaine" (I think I spelled her name right), that might take you to both information about what they were doing before OW came along and how they have been treated and pushed to the side and their work dismissed and bulldozed since the appearance of OW because of their more moderate approach.

[Bikeemikey]

I recently started a thread about one aspect of this. No responses yet though so you may be right.

What's the thread called? I'd love you join in. Not tonight though, it's 1:30am were I am. Need to sleep.

Far less fun to debate women's equality than it is to debate women's rights to debate.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

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.

 

That would make sense though if OW has preempted the conversation (I grant the conversation was not out in the public view as OW has been so it does not surprise me that this board has not have an "explosion of threads" on it now or in the past.  We have had  extensive threads on discussions of Claudia Bushman and Neylan's talks and articles about the changing role of women and what can be done.  I don't know if they would be in the archives or if you can find them by searching.

[why me]

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?

 

This is what happens when an activist group attempts to control the conversations and is very adamant about it. The key is to control the conversation as to make it seem that their idea is the only idea out there. And of course, the liberal press loves the contention by making it an men/women struggle for equality.

 

The OW movement wishes to control the conversation, embarrass the church, make it bow to social pressure, and claim a victory. Finally, they wish to change the structure of the church as it stands today. Such would the goal of any activist organization where many are former members of the church.

Edited March 20, 2014 by why me

[stelf]

What's the thread called? I'd love you join in. Not tonight though, it's 1:30am were I am. Need to sleep.

Far less fun to debate women's equality than it is to debate women's rights to debate.

It's called Requirement of Priesthood. It may be a poor attempt at this kind of discussion, but it is something I've been thinking about.

[Bikeemikey]

That would make sense though if OW has preempted the conversation (I grant the conversation was not out in the public view as OW has been so it does not surprise me that this board has not have an "explosion of threads" on it now or in the past. We have had extensive threads on discussions of Claudia Bushman and Neylan's talks and articles about the changing role of women and what can be done. I don't know if they would be in the archives or if you can find them by searching.

A couple of months ago I attended a seminar in Boston with the bushmans and the givens! They were great. Claudia spent some time talking about the dramatic loss of autonomy women in the church and the relief society in particular have had in the past 6 decades. She mentioned that in many important ways women have less voice in the church now than they did when she was young. Most of this is the result of correlation, loss of budget and financial independence, and limited teaching topic discretion.

She also said that the loss of these features made the auxiliaries far less meaningful and powerful than they were, and this has had a compounding impact of women's equality in the church.

There was also some discussion about setting up a corresponding quorum of 12 women with there own presidency to work collaboratively with the male leaders in leading the church.

I really enjoyed her!

If love to read some threads like the ones you mentioned!

Edited March 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

This is what happens when an activist group attempts to control the conversations and is very adamant about it. The key is to control the conversation as to make it seem that their idea is the only idea out there. And of course, the liberal press loves the contention by making it an men/women struggle for equality.

The OW movement wishes to control the conversation, embarrass the church, make it bow to social pressure, and claim a victory. Finally, they wish to change the structure of the church as it stands today. Such would the goal of any activist organization where many are former members of the church.

I think you've already been censured a few times already but lay of the fabricated motive attribution! OW is very open about what it wants, women's ordination. You can take all your other victimhood issues about control and embarrassing the church etc and just quit already.

You've got a strong enough position with out all the other crap you chuck in there.

As for all the conversations they have control/silenced and the years of progress they have reversed I have still not seen any examples... Perhaps you have some?

Edited March 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

A couple of months ago I attended a seminar in Boston with the bushmans and the givens! They were great. Claudia spent some time talking about the dramatic loss of autonomy women in the church and the relief society in particular have had in the past 6 decades. She mentioned that in many important ways women have less voice in the church now than they did when she was young. Most of this is the result of correlation, loss of budget and financial independence, and limited teaching topic discretion.

She also said that the loss of these features made the auxiliaries far less meaningful and powerful than they were, and this has had a compounding impact of women's equality in the church.

There was also some discussion about setting up a corresponding quorum of 12 women with there own presidency to work collaboratively with the male leaders in leading the church.

I really enjoyed her!

If love to read some threads like the ones you mentioned!

You should read her FairMormon Conference talk…can't remember what year it was, it was awhile back though.  Hopefully it got transcribed, if not, the mp3 should be available.

[Bikeemikey]

That is a bit of work and I have other commitments I need to attend to right now.

Maybe ask me again in a week or so? Or do a search on "Margaret Young" and "Neylan McBaine" (I think I spelled her name right), that might take you to both information about what they were doing before OW came along and how they have been treated and pushed to the side and their work dismissed and bulldozed since the appearance of OW because of their more moderate approach.

Thanks for the names!

[why me]

I think you've already been censured a few times already but lay of the fabricated motive attribution! OW is very open about what it wants, women's ordination. You can take all your other victimhood issues about control and embarrassing the church etc and just quit already.

You've got a strong enough position with out all the other crap you chuck in there.

As for all the conversations they have control/silenced and the years of progress they have reversed I have still not seen any examples... Perhaps you have some?

I haven't been censured. However, after reading their pubic statements I came to a conclusion. I read the words, hear the words an see the action behind the words and make a conclusion of motive. This is done in a court of law all the time.

 

 

I see nothing in her presentation about praying about the issue. Or about taking the case to heavenly father. I see a lot of secular reasoning in her presentation. However, she does use mormon symbolism to make her case: underlining scripture, temple in the background, conducting the music, leaving the church building but I see her not with other mormons when doing this, only with her husband as they leave the building. But her words are secular. She says she wishes to stand up for what she thinks is right. It is all about what she thinks. And this is the conversation that dominates secular thinking: what I think is right.

 

And as she says, she just wants a little renovation in the church. But where is heavenly father in all this renovation? With all the imaging of the lds life in this video, I don't see any spiritual reasoning in her presentation with christ and heavenly father in the center of it.

Edited March 20, 2014 by why me

[why me]

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.

And this is what I meant about controlling the conversation. Feminism has many off shoots: radical, moderate, socialist, marxist etc. The OW movement seems to be on the more radical side of feminism. Radical not in the traditional sense but with its attitude toward patriarchy. The others you mentioned do not share the radical feminist vision and so, they have been sidelined within the conversation.

 

Sidebar: I had been involved in one type of feminism for quite a few years. So, I do know the strategy and the problems between the groupings.

Edited March 20, 2014 by why me

[Bikeemikey]

And this is what I meant about controlling the conversation. Feminism has many off shoots: radical, moderate, socialist, marxist etc. The OW movement seems to be on the more radical side of feminism. Radical not in the traditional sense but with its attitude toward patriarchy. The others you mentioned do not share the radical feminist vision and so, they have been sidelined within the conversation.

Sidebar: I had been involved in one type of feminism for quite a few years. So, I do know the strategy and the problems between the groupings.

Just so you know you comment above was in response to the assertion that they come in and silenced other mormon conversations in the subject.

I have requested repeatedly for someone to provide an example if this... So far no luck.

I'll add you the list of people I have request a CFR from. Please provide an example of the OW group silencing other groups.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

I haven't been censured. However, after reading their pubic statements I came to a conclusion. I read the words, hear the words an see the action behind the words and make a conclusion of motive. This is done in a court of law all the time.

I see nothing in her presentation about praying about the issue. Or about taking the case to heavenly father. I see a lot of secular reasoning in her presentation. However, she does use mormon symbolism to make her case: underlining scripture, temple in the background, conducting the music, leaving the church building but I see her not with other mormons when doing this, only with her husband as they leave the building. But her words are secular. She says she wishes to stand up for what she thinks is right. It is all about what she thinks. And this is the conversation that dominates secular thinking: what I think is right.

And as she says, she just wants a little renovation in the church. But where is heavenly father in all this renovation? With all the imaging of the lds life in this video, I don't see any spiritual reasoning in her presentation with christ and heavenly father in the center of it.

That's great that you have the capacity to chose evidence to that fits your position.

No where on the OW website to the claim that the are exclusively active LDS. That does not mean it can't be a group primarily for LDS women. They are however clear that they want bios from all people who feel passionately about mormon gender equality.

Some women have left the church over this issue, of course they will be attracted to a movement that is a central theme in an area they feel passionately about.

Please CFR that OW has actively come out and said the movement is only active mormon women.

[why me]

Just so you know you comment above was in response to the assertion that they come in and silenced other mormon conversations in the subject.

I have requested repeatedly for someone to provide an example if this... So far no luck.

I'll add you the list of people I have request a CFR from. Please provide an example of the OW group silencing other groups.

I thought that Cal gave you an example. However, what I meant was much more personal to their objective. When it comes to ordaining women they wish to be the only voice available. Thus, it would be difficult for them to accept more moderate voices to be among them. They have an agenda.

 

OW comes from a specific feminist tradition of conflict. Anthony Giddens in his monumental book Sociology described it this way: "Feminism is part of the conflict tradition, as feminists see a basic conflict in society between the interests of men and women." (p. 23) If I replace the word society with church and said. "as radical mormon feminists see a basic conflict in church between the interests of men and women" I would have described the outlook of OW. But not all women see it as conflict. But these would be the more moderate voices. Thus, it becomes important to keep the conflict alive for the OW movement and keep the conversation with conflict as central to it.

Edited March 20, 2014 by why me

[why me]

That's great that you have the capacity to chose evidence to that fits your position.

 

Well, that is how the debate is played. I show my position based on my own research and construct an argument. My position comes from research into the history of feminism and my active involvement in organizations.

 

I presented you with a video where Kelly is presenting herself and her cause. I showed how the video was directed at active mormons by showing herself also as active. But her demonstration of her activity was with herself conducting music with a sole focus on her to the exclusion of others....underlining scripture by herself, outside temple shots, and leaving a church building with her husband. And she dressed like a TBM mormon. However, her verbal presentation was extremely secular. No spiritual message at all. Just a secular message of equality because she thinks she is right. No mention of heavenly father, no mention of prayer etc. And the question is why?

Edited March 20, 2014 by why me

[Bikeemikey]

I thought that Cal gave you an example. However, what I meant was much more personal to their objective. When it comes to ordaining women they wish to be the only voice available. Thus, it would be difficult for them to accept more moderate voices to be among them. They have an agenda.

Cal did give me two names. Since then I've read some of their posts and commentary of LDS feminist issues.

I have not been able to find any direct attempts to silence these women by the OW. Hence the renewed request for CFR.

[why me]

Cal did give me two names. Since then I've read some of their posts and commentary of LDS feminist issues.

I have not been able to find any direct attempts to silence these women by the OW. Hence the renewed request for CFR.

They can silence different points of view by not including them in the discussion or conversation. The CFR is how they present their position without including the positions of the other.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm rejoining this fast-moving thread after a lot of comment has been made, but I want to weigh in on the wisdom of pointing to the Pugh study.

One characteristic of protest movements, public demonstrations, media shows and the like is that they seem bigger than life. That gives them an element of power and makes them a popular medium of expression for pressure groups. The term "silent majority" was coined back in the '60s in recognition of this fact.

So, pointing out the 90 percent (which, as public opinion polls go, is an amazing majority) has value even if it does nothing more than put things in perspective. Which is always a good thing.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

Here is an interesting discussion about mormon feminism. However, in the discussion I see no spiritual discussion. Just a secular discussion. I see no reference to heavenly father and the truthfulness of the lds church. I see no discussion about the lds church being revelatory church. I just see a secular discussion on equality.

 

 

Toward the end, we hear about the different voices within the movement at around the 30 minute mark and kelly does say some interesting things toward the end. But does social protest hasten the revelation?

Edited March 20, 2014 by why me

[smac97]

DUPLICATE

Edited March 20, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

This is the part the struck me as significant:

i posted not to ask or beg leaders for ordination, but to let them know, i am out there. the church has not provided me the avenue to share my opinion on this topic with church leaders, and this group is being heard. and i guess when the church says that the overwhelming majority of women do not want ordination, i just need to share that i am not part of that group.

I think this raises a legitimate point on which the Church can improve. I would like to see the Church, perhaps through the website, or even a general conference talk, clarify the "process" by which Church members can petition the Church (through the priesthood hierarchy), how that process works, and so on. Church members would also need instruction on patience and humility in seeking light and knowledge from God (the need for this counsel is evident from the incredibly arrogant "we want the priesthood 'and nothing less will suffice'" message from the OW group), and also instruction against the type of public agitation and protesting as we have seen the OW utilize.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 20, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

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

I don't think speculating about excommunication is appropriate. Such a topic is not within our province. If we, as Latter-day Saints, object to the OW group taking an unseemly approach to matters of doctrine, revelation and church governance, then we must take care that we do not do the same. Church discipline is not within our stewardship.

Moreover, it is my hope that a reconciliation between the Church and people presently acting against it is possible. I think it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

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?

I think we should be discussing the issues underlying OW group's movement, including a discussion of tactics and methodologies.

I am not persuaded that the OW group is entitled to some sort of privileged consideration. Their a bunch of self-appointed folks who have aligned themselves with an excommunicated apostate, have protested against the Church, have rejected the revelatory process (their lip service to it notwithstanding), and have done a lot of other things that materially taint the legitimacy of their overall objectives.

Put another way, I don't think they should be rewarded for misbehaving. A conversation can be had about this topic, but not with a group who says that "nothing less (than them getting what they want) will suffice." Until they correct their misbehavior and dis-align themselves with an excommunicated apostate, I do not think discussion with them is feasible or appropriate.

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?

No, I don't see that. I was speaking about this thread, not about the discussion in the Church in its entirety.

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.

Again, a conversation can be had about this topic, but not with a group who says that "nothing less (than them getting what they want) will suffice." Until they correct their misbehavior and dis-align themselves with an excommunicated apostate, I do not think discussion with them is feasible or appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

A couple of months ago I attended a seminar in Boston with the bushmans and the givens! They were great. Claudia spent some time talking about the dramatic loss of autonomy women in the church and the relief society in particular have had in the past 6 decades. She mentioned that in many important ways women have less voice in the church now than they did when she was young. Most of this is the result of correlation, loss of budget and financial independence, and limited teaching topic discretion.

I'm curious about this. I think the EQs and HPGs in the Church have likewise lost some autonomy. Is there evidence that this lessened autonomy is limited to the Relief Society and not the other organizations in the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac