Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Bernard Gui]

That was my thought, exactly. For women to say "correlation" (or whatever procedural change) trivialized the RS and, by extension, women within the Church" is rather myopic. The financial changes that have been made over the past 60 years affected *every* part of the Church at every level. Think "rich wards" vs. "poor wards." Changes resulted in money and assets being transferred to the general Church, rather than being held by local units. The result? Some local units had less financial clout and all benefited. (Think of the law of consecration or the United Order being applied at an organizational level instead of an individual level. That's what the changes implemented.)

 

Yes, individual RS organizations were no long able to control their own funds. But neither were EQ or HP groups. Neither were Primaries or Boy Scout troops. It all changed.

 

It is myopic to say "we were singled out" when the historical records shows that no, they weren't singled out.

 

-Allen

Or as a direct comparison with Relief Society funds, remember the old Seventies' Bookstores that were set up in chapels?

[Scott Lloyd]

Obviously he was regarded as an apostate, he was excommunicated.

 

Wallace, Merchant, Syphers... all were members.  That's protests and pressure from within.

 

You guys and this Patheos article continue the pattern of gently revising history to make it fit with current views. 

I was there and lived through that period. If I remember correctly, you weren't. You're a guy with a computer and an Internet account looking up things on Wikipedia.

 

The fact that I momentarily forgot about Wallace's antics in my effort to set the record straight (not "revise history") should be an indication to you about how much of an impression he made upon our collective consciousness.

 

I repeat: He was regarded as an anomaly, a fanatic and a malevolent apostate. Much like Ed Decker and his "Ex-Mormons for Jesus."

 

At no time was he taken seriously by the Church membership at large.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Or as a direct comparison with Relief Society funds, remember the old Seventies' Bookstores that were set up in chapels?

Ah yes. Those were the days.

 

The world turns. How easy it is to take things out of their historical context.

[Bernard Gui]

And of course the requirement that Bishop's have a wife...

 

But seriously, to say there is no revelation delineating the ecclesiastical priesthood as a male role is to ignore so many of these scriptures.  Of course there is no revelation banning women from priesthood because they receive certain priesthood keys in the temple.  But the "no ban" argument is a little like the litlle kid who says "but you didn't explicitly say that I couldn't so I did".  God established in the scriptures who does get the ecclesiastical priesthood.  He doesn't need to specify who doesn't.

It is the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God. It existed before the foundation of the world. Those who hold the Priesthood now were foreordained in the pre-mortal existence. It was passed down from father to son. These things we know by revelation.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bikeemikey]

I would take it as anecdotal evidence, at best. To add my own (equally valid) anecdote, in the 6.5 years I was bishop, in our ward the RS and Primary *always* got every penny they asked for in the annual budget request. I typically gave YW more than they asked for, as (IMO) they didn't ask for enough. I wanted to make sure that on a per-capita basis, they got the same amount as the YM.

 

Of course, the very act of saying "I typically gave" coupled with the fact that annual budget requests were turned in to me could be seen by some as prima facia evidence of the very point that was being made. If the only way to remove such complaint is to remove the bishop from the process entirely, that would go against scriptural mandate for the bishop to handle the Church's temporal affairs, no? Plus, I don't see the statement "bishop, here's what we need" with the response, "fine, go for it" as evidence of women being "hit hard" by financial changes.

 

-Allen

 

This example was not raised because of financial concerns about people not getting enough money, or getting equal amounts of money. The point was purely about control. Thats it.

 

I do not see how women going from managing the use of their funds (both generation and expenditure) with no male oversight, to a new context where women need ask men for the funds they want can be perceived as anything other than a a reduction of the autonomy of womens role in the church generally and the relief society specifically. 

 

That said, the correlation movement of the church has yielded some enormous benefits and I am not raising this as an example of something that either shouldn't of happened or is bad. I am purely raising it as an example of something that is.

 

During correlation the church moved (amongst other changes) to a context where women needed to ask men to approve their budgets. This did not happen before.

[rockpond]

I was there and lived through that period. If I remember correctly, you weren't.

 

The fact that I momentarily forgot about Wallace's antics in my effort to set the record straight (not "revise history") should be an indication to you about how much of an impression he made upon our collective consciousness.

 

I repeat: He was regarded as an anomaly, a fanatic and a malevolent apostate. At no time was he taken seriously by the Church membership at large.

 

I was around during the tail end of that period but not old enough to be aware of the events.  I agree that he likely was not taken seriously be the church membership at large.  Neither is Kate Kelly (IMO).  I'm guessing you'll say the same of Merchant and Syphers.

 

But the point I responded to was whether there were protests from inside church membership.  There were.  It's a fact.  You might disregard those members, along with a majority of the membership at the time.  But there were both internal and external protests -- and that was the question.  Do I need to ask for a CFR on your recollections about Wallace, an explanation of Merchant/Syphers, or can we at least agree on the point I was making?

 

And, I stand by my point about the revisionism in Young's Patheos article.  We'll never learn as long as we refuse to take an honest look at our history.

[juliann]

This example was not raised because of financial concerns about people not getting enough money, or getting equal amounts of money. The point was purely about control. Thats it.

 

I do not see how women going from managing the use of their funds (both generation and expenditure) with no male oversight, to a new context where women need ask men for the funds they want can be perceived as anything other than a a reduction of the autonomy of womens role in the church generally and the relief society specifically. 

 

That said, the correlation movement of the church has yielded some enormous benefits and I am not raising this as an example of something that either shouldn't of happened or is bad. I am purely raising it as an example of something that is.

 

During correlation the church moved (amongst other changes) to a context where women needed to ask men to approve their budgets. This did not happen before.

I remember when this was done. And there was disappointment, no one should think that this was greeted with joy at the time, just obedience and trust.  I was too young to realize the consequences but I sure do remember what I can only describe as some sadness expressed among the women.

[Scott Lloyd]

I was around during the tail end of that period but not old enough to be aware of the events.  I agree that he likely was not taken seriously be the church membership at large.  Neither is Kate Kelly (IMO).  I'm guessing you'll say the same of Merchant and Syphers.

 

But the point I responded to was whether there were protests from inside church membership.  There were.  It's a fact. 

Are you forgetting that I immediately corrected my post when I was reminded about Wallace? And this was before I saw your follow-up post twitting me about it.

 

The disdain for Wallace was far greater than anything Kate Kelly has experienced. As I said before in an addition to my post, he was regarded as being of the same stripe as Ed Decker, with his ex-Mormons for Jesus.

 

You might disregard those members, along with a majority of the membership at the time.  But there were both internal and external protests -- and that was the question.  Do I need to ask for a CFR on your recollections about Wallace, an explanation of Merchant/Syphers, or can we at least agree on the point I was making?

 

 

meh.

 

 

And, I stand by my point about the revisionism in Young's Patheos article.  We'll never learn as long as we refuse to take an honest look at our history.

 

I reject the implicit accusation that I am not taking an honest look at history. As I said in another addition to my prior post, I'm one who was there and aware of what was happening; you're a guy with an Internet account looking up things on Wikipedia.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

You are aware that President Mckay reported not to ask the lord agin on the issue of black ordination and then a couple of prophets later the question was asked again and a new revelation was given.

 

Here is a very interesting blog post about the the phrase Joseph Smith often used, "weary the lord until he blesses you".

 

http://withoutspot.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/weary-the-lord-until-he-blesses-you/#103

 

The CFR to the JS quote is footnote three.

 

I think you may have in inaccurate understanding relating to correct principle on this matter.

 

Actually, the Joseph Smith quote I prefer is "

We never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of their being no previous revelation to suit the case... TPJS 22

 

So as I said before, once we get an answer we do NOT have the right to pester God for a different one again.  And you do realize the point of that story of Joseph & Martin is that Joseph lost blessings for wearying the Lord AFTER an answer had been given?  Joseph explained that clearly too.

Edited March 20, 2014 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

Are you forgetting that I immediately corrected my post when I was reminded about Wallace? And this was before I saw your follow-up post twitting me about it.

 

 

meh.

 

I reject the implicit accusation that I am not taking an honest look at history.

 

Meh.  Good response.

 

You barely corrected your post... you just dismissed Wallace.  And you haven't addressed Syphers and Merchant.  It's a fact that there were protests from within church membership but you don't seem to want to admit that.  You'd rather just diminish/ignore those individuals.

 

Go ahead and reject the implicit accusation.  I've just presented the facts.

[Bikeemikey]

Kelly herself has admitted that her organization is a social action organization. They believe in social action to get their point across. There are many lds people who do not believe in social action when dealing with the church. The more moderate people who wish to have women ordained may believe in a different way of doing things. These are the people whose voice would be silenced in her organization.

 

May I also add that the media loves a liberal, feminist social action group which is challenging conservation social dogma. Thus, they will also go to Kelly.

 

What you are saying is that members who do not share OW goals and beliefs would not have full voice "WITHIN" the movement... that is not the same as saying that the OW is silencing other voices OUTSIDE their movement.

 

I have no issue with people who are not supportive of the OW message not being given voice within the movement. 

[Bikeemikey]

Not quite. I do believe that for the lds church to be true it must be able to resist social pressure and rely on revelation. OW is a social action organization and I see a contradiction in believing that social action can bring about revelation. Revelation is given through prayer and not social action. Now if OW was a secular organization, I can understand their social action. I have been there and done that. But to claim to be made up of active members who wish to change policy by social action seems like a contradiction. And it is this contradiction that I see between her words and in her imaging as seen in her video that I linked to on thread 24 I believe.

 

Social actions can bring out contexts where revelation is sort. Does that mean social action brings about revelation... not in my book. Revelation comes from god and it seems we are in agreement that God is unlikely to be persuaded just because some protesters are wearing pants. However, that does not mean that that social pressure and revelation are in opposition. 

 

Social pressure can still guide the sorts of questions we ask. This is not a bad thing. We should always be going to God with questions about the world around us.

[Scott Lloyd]

Meh.  Good response.

 

Thanks. I gave it the thought that it merited.

 

You barely corrected your post... you just dismissed Wallace.  And you haven't addressed Syphers and Merchant.

 

I include them by implication.

 

 I

t's a fact that there were protests from within church membership but you don't seem to want to admit that.

 

 

Criminy, man, I already have. Give it a rest!

 

 

 You'd rather just diminish/ignore those individuals.

 

 

I've told you how they were the regarded at the time. And it's not comparable to comparable to Kate Kelly. Again, you weren't there.

 

Those guys were a blip on the radar. What was getting the attention were the militant protests at BYU athletic events, the cancellation by Stanford University of competitive contests with BYU, the boasting by militant radical Jerry Rubin that he was going to integrate the Mormon Church or destroy it, the rumors that civil rights activists were going to march on Temple Square during general conference time. That sort of thing.

 

 

Go ahead and reject the implicit accusation.  I've just presented the facts.

 

Here's a fact for you: You are wrong and unfair to state or imply that I am trying to revise history.

 

And I refuse to participate in further derailment of this thread. You can have the last word if you want it.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

No protests, just revelation and many prayers from the members. Which is my case in point. Social action will not work when it comes to ordaining females. But prayers may do the trick.

 

WOW!!!

 

This is a very revisionist history you have proposed. I would consider a member ordaining a black man to the priesthood as a protest action of the churches policy to be a protest. The church sure thought it was and excommunicated him for it. You may want to note that social media has played a huge role in lowering the threshold required for people of a common mind to come together and form (very easily) groups with strong common belief. As such it is a little reductive to compare the social engagement pre-1978 with that now. Technology alone has transformed this process.

 

Here is some interesting timeline points for you to review:

 

http://www.blacklds.org/history

[Bikeemikey]

To clarify, there was no pressure from within, but there were protests and demonstrations and other forms of pressure applied externally (this was during the turbulent '60s, a time of civil unrest, etc.)

 

All of that had died down by 1978, however.

 

Edited to add:

 

Just saw rockpond's post. I forgot about Wallace.

 

He was very much an anomaly, though, and was regard by Church members at large much as Tom Phillips is regarded today.

 

What about the rift this issue created between some of the apostles. Hugh B Brown was very passionate about this issue. It was the cause of some substantial disagreement between the 12 at the time.

 

To suggest that there was no pressure from with in may a statement of comparative accuracy when looking at the OW movement today. It is however not an accurate statement of the general climate of the time. 

 

Two big changes have occurred within the church and world that make it far easier for church members to voice their opinions when they are in strong opposition to established policy.

 

1. The church has really cut back on excommunication for dissent.

2. Social media and the internet have brought people together and helped create an awareness that people are not alone in their views on issues like womens ordination. This helps make people brave and increases the likelihood of action.

[Gray]

It's not self evident that Junia is a female or, if she is, that she is an apostle.

 

Some Greek manuscripts give a masculine name (Junius).

 

And the wording is ambiguous; i.e. "of note among the apostles" doesn't have to mean a member of that body. It could mean well-esteemed by the apostles. There is a grammatical issue at play here.

 

The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, so in one scriptural sense, all who have the testimony of Jesus are prophets (or prophetesses) as in the case of Anna who saw the Christ child and testified of His divinity.

 

No requirement here that it be regarded as a priesthood office when used in that sense.

 

I think the evidence is in favor of Junia being a woman. Re: prophetess, the same thing can be said about prophets. Who is to say Isaiah had the priesthood? After all, he wasn't the leader of any church.  The argument works both ways. 

[Gray]

For this to happen, the Church will have to repudiate D&C 68 and Alma 13.

 

Section 68

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, November 1, 1831, in response to prayer that the mind of the Lord be made known concerning Orson Hyde, Luke S. Johnson, Lyman E. Johnson, and William E. McLellin. Although part of this revelation was directed toward these four men, much of the content pertains to the whole Church. This revelation was expanded under Joseph Smith’s direction when it was published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

 13 And now, concerning the items in addition to the covenants and commandments, they are these—

 14 There remain hereafter, in the due time of the Lord, other bishops to be set apart unto the church, to minister even according to the first;

 15 Wherefore they shall be high priests who are worthy, and they shall be appointed by the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood, except they be literal descendants of Aaron.

 16 And if they be literal descendants of Aaron they have a legal right to the bishopric, if they are the firstborn among the sons of Aaron;

 17 For the firstborn holds the right of the presidency over this priesthood, and the keys or authority of the same.

 18 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant and the firstborn of Aaron.

 19 But, as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power, under the hands of the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 20 And a literal descendant of Aaron, also, must be designated by this Presidency, and found worthy, and anointed, and ordained under the hands of this Presidency, otherwise they are not legally authorized to officiate in their priesthood.

 21 But, by virtue of the decree concerning their right of the priesthood descending from father to son, they may claim their anointing if at any time they can prove their lineage, or do ascertain it by revelation from the Lord under the hands of the above named Presidency.

ALMA 13

 1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

 2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.

 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

 4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

 5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

 6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest—

 7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—

 8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—

 9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.

 10 Now, as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith andrepentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish;

 11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

 12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

 13 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest.

 14 Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever.

 15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.

 16 Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.

 17 Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness;

 18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

 19 Now, there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater; therefore, of him they have more particularly made mention.

 20 Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.

 25 And now we only wait to hear the joyful news declared unto us by the mouth of angels, of his coming; for the time cometh, we know not how soon. Would to God that it might be in my day; but let it be sooner or later, in it I will rejoice.

 26 And it shall be made known unto just and holy men, by the mouth of angels, at the time of his coming, that the words of our fathers may be fulfilled, according to that which they have spoken concerning him, which was according to the spirit of prophecy which was in them.

 

"Sons" is a synonym for children in many languages. 

[Gray]

It shows enough flexibility to refute the notion that a revelation is not a revelation unless it's canonized

 

The verse doesn't say that.

 

It's explicit enough to refute the notion that a revelation must be canonized to be valid. As I said above.

 

I don't think its explicit to support any hard and fast rule at all. 

[Storm Rider]

I like the fact that we can shout louder than others, gain as much attention as possible from all forms of media, not be completely honest in what we say, and then we can get what we want.  It seems like such a natural process to change religious organizations to more closely fit our more enlightened, progressive way of thinking.  I am sure God wants to do exactly like we want; I mean, hey, if he didn't he would give a shout down and tell us to stop.  Besides, if the scriptures have not been explicit then it obviously means he supports seeking after our own desires.  

 

There are just too many examples in scriptures about the wisdom of molding God into our image.  I am just surprised there is any fuss at all.  If you want something, heck knock on that door, force it open and be rewarded with the desires of your heart.  That is the Lord's way....I am sure.  

[Scott Lloyd]

What about the rift this issue created between some of the apostles. Hugh B Brown was very passionate about this issue. It was the cause of some substantial disagreement between the 12 at the time.

 

 

There was certainly no rift evident to the membership at large.

 

And in actuality, I think the incident has been overblown, even to the point of calling it a "rift."

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think its explicit to support any hard and fast rule at all. 

What it supports is the understanding that there is not a hard-and-fast rule pertaining to canonization.

 

You're the one who is arguing for the hard-and-fast rule.

[Bikeemikey]

Actually, the Joseph Smith quote I prefer is "

We never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of their being no previous revelation to suit the case... TPJS 22

 

So as I said before, once we get an answer we do NOT have the right to pester God for a different one again.  And you do realize the point of that story of Joseph & Martin is that Joseph lost blessings for wearying the Lord AFTER an answer had been given?  Joseph explained that clearly too.

 

Did you read the link I posted? it included both the lost pages use of wearying the lord and the other more positive use of JS asking us to weary the Lord.

 

Here is a link into to some of the pre-1978 movements with the church, it shows a lot about the back room politicking of revelation.

 

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the evidence is in favor of Junia being a woman. Re: prophetess, the same thing can be said about prophets. Who is to say Isaiah had the priesthood? After all, he wasn't the leader of any church.  The argument works both ways. 

I don't think the evidence is conclusive.

 

And the fact that any worthy individual, male or female, can have the spirit of prophecy does not negate that there is an established priesthood office of prophet, seer and revelator.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

I like the fact that we can shout louder than others, gain as much attention as possible from all forms of media, not be completely honest in what we say, and then we can get what we want.  It seems like such a natural process to change religious organizations to more closely fit our more enlightened, progressive way of thinking.  I am sure God wants to do exactly like we want; I mean, hey, if he didn't he would give a shout down and tell us to stop.  Besides, if the scriptures have not been explicit then it obviously means he supports seeking after our own desires.  

 

There are just too many examples in scriptures about the wisdom of molding God into our image.  I am just surprised there is any fuss at all.  If you want something, heck knock on that door, force it open and be rewarded with the desires of your heart.  That is the Lord's way....I am sure.  

 

 

Let's be clear - denying women the priesthood is exactly in line with the cultural values of traditional, modern Christianity and American culture until recently. It's in line with the image of an older generation.  Giving women the priesthood is in line with current culture. Culture moves toward greater inclusiveness because we perceive that it's just. 

 

I believe we awaken as a people to morality over time, and one of those values is inclusiveness. I believe this to be a form of divine inspiration. Orthodoxies always resist this kind of change - how can they do otherwise? Orthodoxies are always (small c) conservative.

 

Is either side molding God in their image? Maybe both. But my heart tells me inclusiveness is a value worth cherishing and expanding. 

[rockpond]

Thanks. I gave it the thought that it merited.

 

I include them by implication.

 

 I

Criminy, man, I already have. Give it a rest!

 

 

I've told you how they were the regarded at the time. And it's not comparable to comparable to Kate Kelly. Again, you weren't there.

 

Those guys were a blip on the radar. What was getting the attention were the militant protests at BYU athletic events, the cancellation by Stanford University of competitive contests with BYU, the boasting by militant radical Jerry Rubin that he was going to integrate the Mormon Church or destroy it, the rumors that civil rights activists were going to march on Temple Square during general conference time. That sort of thing.

 

Here's a fact for you: You are wrong and unfair to state or imply that I am trying to revise history.

 

And I refuse to participate in further derailment of this thread. You can have the last word if you want it.

 

You told me how Wallace was regarded at the time.  Are you now saying ("by implication") that Merchant was also an "anomaly, a fanatic and a malevolent apostate".  And Syphers?

 

I don't believe I am wrong in implying that you are revising history.  In past threads you have painted a picture of a church that was waiting for the priesthood & temple ban to be overturned... knowing that it would happen... when in fact, there were serious problems under the surface and within church membership.

 

And I know that the outside protests/actions were getting a lot more attention.  But...

 

I don't regard this as a thread derailment.  I think we are seeing elements of history being repeated.

 

Someday women in the church will be ordained to the priesthood.  When that day comes, how will we look back on the events occurring now?  How will we describe them?  How will we discuss & debate them?