Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Stone holm]

Lets say that females get the priesthood. Of course there can't be visiting teaching anymore unless men can also be visiting teachers because that would be a symbol of equality. However, we can have more home teachers. But how would this work. If I am a married man could I have a single woman as my companion? And if I am elder's quorum president and married would it be okay to call two women to be my counselors? I would suppose that it would need to be okay because if not, we would run into equality and trust problems. And can the female bishop call two men to be her counselors? And if I am a single male, could I call two single females as my counselors? I would suppose that this would need to happen since men and women can be equal when they are together sharing in responsibilities. We certainly couldn't just have an all male leadership elder's quorums or all female elder's quorum's leadership.  Tjat would make no sense at all.

 

I wonder how the spouses would feel about these arrangements.

Not necessarily the route which would be taken. Already in rural Wards out in the mission field, couples are going out and doing theor HT and VT together. Bishop couples could be called, just like Senior Missionary Couples. It used to be we sent older men on missions, now we send couples. These are all issues the Church could overcome. In addition, it is not inevitable that it would be the MP, possibly there is a female priesthood laying out there ready to be restored which is something other than the MP.

[halconero]

Do letters from the corporation's public affairs department now contain "counsel of the church" that must be obeyed?

Remember, the letter was signed by Jessica Moody with no other authorship noted. She has not been sustained by the church to act in a counsel giving capacity. Corporations speak through their public affairs department. Church counsel comes through quite different channels.

If the Q12 had, for example, sent that letter to Kelly & OW then I would agree with what you are saying here.

 

The moment you started referring to the Church as "the corporation" any interest I had in reading the rest of your post was lost.

[rockpond]

The moment you started referring to the Church as "the corporation" any interest I had in reading the rest of your post was lost.

 

I didn't refer to the Church as "the corporation".  Check my text, please.  The church is the church.  But there is also a corporation.  That's a simple fact.  And Jessica Moody is an employee of a corporation.  She speaks on behalf of that corporation.

 

Check the scriptures for me and tell me... who speaks for the Lord's church?  Public affairs or the prophet?

 

The point was made that Kelly & OW were disobeying counsel from the church by refusing to follow Moody's letter.  My point is that the letter from PA does not constitute counsel from the church.

[halconero]

I didn't refer to the Church as "the corporation".  Check my text, please.  The church is the church.  But there is also a corporation.  That's a simple fact.  And Jessica Moody is an employee of a corporation.  She speaks on behalf of that corporation.

 

Check the scriptures for me and tell me... who speaks for the Lord's church?  Public affairs or the prophet?

 

The point was made that Kelly & OW were disobeying counsel from the church by refusing to follow Moody's letter.  My point is that the letter from PA does not constitute counsel from the church.

 

Where in the scriptures is there a division between the Church and a church?

 

"The corporation" trope is a pejorative description of the Church that is frankly overdone, overused, and an almost lazy attempt to denigrate the Church by slapping a word on it with all of its modern negative connotations. 

 

Edit: Check the scriptures for me and tell me...is there any prohibition on the prophet using channels to declare his message?

Edited March 22, 2014 by halconero

[Bikeemikey]

Where in the scriptures is there a division between the Church and a church?

"The corporation" trope is a pejorative description of the Church that is frankly overdone, overused, and an almost lazy attempt to denigrate the Church by slapping a word on it with all of its modern negative connotations.

Edit: Check the scriptures for me and tell me...is there any prohibition on the prophet using channels to declare his message?

Our church institution is a corporation.

[smac97]

Our church institution is a corporation.

 

And those who dwell on and unduly emphasize that do so for pejorative purposes.

 

Virtually all churches are incorporated.  It's a legal necessity for many vital purposes.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

EDIT: I see now that the reference to the Church as a corporation pertained to distinguishing a directive from the PA Department versus a directive from the First Presidency or some other ecclesiastical body. So in this instance, I think bringing up the Church's status as a corporation is appropriate.

However, I disagree that the OW group is at liberty to ignore the instruction from the Church's corporate PA Department. That's not so much a doctrinal point as a pragmatic/legal one. The Church is entitled to control behavior on its own property. That can include prohibiting groups from protesting on church property, even where some of the protesters are members of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 22, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

I didn't refer to the Church as "the corporation".  Check my text, please.  The church is the church.  But there is also a corporation.  That's a simple fact.  And Jessica Moody is an employee of a corporation.  She speaks on behalf of that corporation.

 

Check the scriptures for me and tell me... who speaks for the Lord's church?  Public affairs or the prophet?

 

The point was made that Kelly & OW were disobeying counsel from the church by refusing to follow Moody's letter.  My point is that the letter from PA does not constitute counsel from the church.

 

I think Rockpond is making a fair point here.  There is a mechanism for the Church to promulgate doctrinal pronouncements, and that would be a letter from the First Presidency.

 

That said, I don't think Kate Kelly is excused from complying with the Church's directive through the letter.  The Church clearly is speaking through that department, it's just not doing so in an ecclesiastical capacity.

 

Them's my two bits.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[rockpond]

Where in the scriptures is there a division between the Church and a church?

"The corporation" trope is a pejorative description of the Church that is frankly overdone, overused, and an almost lazy attempt to denigrate the Church by slapping a word on it with all of its modern negative connotations.

Edit: Check the scriptures for me and tell me...is there any prohibition on the prophet using channels to declare his message?

Where in the scriptures is there a division between the Church and a church? I don't know. I'm not making such a distinction. Are you?

I wasn't trying to denigrate anything or anyone by referencing our church's corporation. Our church has a corporate side. Public affairs is a part of that corporation. These are facts. Do they upset you? Because you seem to be reacting to something other than what I actually wrote.

I'm not aware of a prohibition that the prophet use other channels. But where has President Monson claimed that the letter from Public Affairs to OW was written on his behalf? Or more generally, when did he let the church know that he would be speaking through Moody and the PA dept?

So once I again I will try to bring this around to the original point: It's being said on this thread that Kate Kelly should obey the church counsel she received in the PA letter. I'm pointing out that the Sister Moody has not been sustained as someone to provide counsel to the members of the church and her letter doesn't identify anyone else.

[smac97]

Do letters from the corporation's public affairs department now contain "counsel of the church" that must be obeyed?

Remember, the letter was signed by Jessica Moody with no other authorship noted. She has not been sustained by the church to act in a counsel giving capacity. Corporations speak through their public affairs department. Church counsel comes through quite different channels.

If the Q12 had, for example, sent that letter to Kelly & OW then I would agree with what you are saying here.

 

I think letters from the Church about behavior on its property "must be obeyed."  The obedience stems from general principles of church governance, and also secular law.  It does not appear to be an ecclesiastical directive, or else it would have come from an ecclesiastical body.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

So once I again I will try to bring this around to the original point: It's being said on this thread that Kate Kelly should obey the church counsel she received in the PA letter. I'm pointing out that the Sister Moody has not been sustained as someone to provide counsel to the members of the church and her letter doesn't identify anyone else.

You've made a fair point about distinguishing the PA department from the Brethren. But come on, are you really suggesting that church members are free to disregard any instruction from the Church unless it comes from an ecclesiastical source?

The OW group wants to participate in a meeting to which women are not invited. They have announced an intention to stage a protest-but-don't-it-that event on Church property, and the Church, through its PA Department, has instructed them not to. They are now planning to disobey that instruction.

That's not disobedience to an ecclesiastical leader per se, but you can't say it's not disobedience at all. It's also illegal, as the OW group's stated intention must now be construed as a trespass on church property.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

I think letters from the Church about behavior on its property "must be obeyed." The obedience stems from general principles of church governance, and also secular law. It does not appear to be an ecclesiastical directive, or else it would have come from an ecclesiastical body.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree.

[Bikeemikey]

You've made a fair point about distinguishing the PA department from the Brethren. But come on, are you really suggesting that church members are free to disregard any instruction from the Church unless it comes from an ecclesiastical source?

The OW group wants to participate in a meeting to which women are not invited. They have announced an intention to stage a protest-but-don't-it-that event on Church property, and the Church, through its PA Department, has instructed them not to. They are now planning to disobey that instruction.

That's not disobedience to an ecclesiastical leader per se, but you can't say it's not disobedience at all. It's also illegal, as the OW group's stated intention must now be construed as a trespass on church property.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think that this is a very interesting distinction and a very difficult one.

I think that I agree with the position you are making and also the conclusions you are drawing - that is the institution has the right to make the request and violating that is wrong.

That said, the fact remains, people on this board, and out side it, have accused the OW movement of disregarding the prophets direction asserting that disobeying the PR request is disobedience to religious council, not legal council.

We have a prophet who is capable to speaking to the world anytime. We will be able to hear him speak in a couple of weeks. It is a little bit of a predicament to suggest that the PR department is the new mouth of prophecy and revelatory council.

I will trust prophecy and revelation from the prophet, or at least a document that has the prophets name on it, not from anyone else!

Edited March 22, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[juliann]

If I am remembering accurately and too lazy to check...the letter did have a notation that it was issued on behalf of the church. That makes it as official as it needs to be.  Besides, it might be a little silly for the prophet to be issuing "stay off the grass" pronouncements.

[why me]

Not necessarily the route which would be taken. Already in rural Wards out in the mission field, couples are going out and doing theor HT and VT together. Bishop couples could be called, just like Senior Missionary Couples. It used to be we sent older men on missions, now we send couples. These are all issues the Church could overcome. In addition, it is not inevitable that it would be the MP, possibly there is a female priesthood laying out there ready to be restored which is something other than the MP.

We need to remember that these possible changes would come from social action by mormon feminists. Since kelly's brand of mormon feminism is radical in nature by putting patriarchy in the center of the discussion, I can safely say that there would be a complete change in structural dynamics. The elder's quorum would have woman leaders with male counselors, male leaders with female counselors, home teaching would be coed and not unisex etc. It would have to be that way. And visiting teaching would be history unless males could also be visiting teachers. And no church sunday meeting could be segregated if one wishes to stress equality. We are not dealing with rural situations but with a complete new church structure, somewhat resembling the CoC.

 

Also, I think that quite a few women would leave the church. I don't think that they would be able to get their head around getting the priesthood, especially if it looked like buckling under social pressure.

[why me]

Let me bring up a problem with all this. Lets say that why me founds an organization of active chruch members who wish to reestablish polygamy. We entreat the church leadership to pray over the issue. And we organize a 'protest' on temple square during conference where 200 of the members of the organization will gather outside the conference door to demonstrate our cause.

 

Would the people on this forum be in favor of this? Would I and my organizations members be excommunicated? We would only be calling for a change in doctrine to bring it back to the time of Joseph. Nothing as revolutionary as women receiving the priesthood. So, outside the conference doors there is my 'organization' and kelly's organization leading a silent protest on church grounds.

 

Would that be okay for many here? I would bet a pair of cowboy boots that I would be called in and exed in a heartbeat.

Edited March 22, 2014 by why me

[juliann]

We need to remember that these possible changes would come from social action by mormon feminists. Since kelly's brand of mormon feminism is radical in nature by putting patriarchy in the center of the discussion, I can safely say that there would be a complete change in structural dynamics. The elder's quorum would have woman leaders with male counselors, male leaders with female counselors, home teaching would be coed and not unisex etc. It would have to be that way. And visiting teaching would be history unless males could also be visiting teachers. And no church sunday meeting could be segregated if one wishes to stress equality. We are not dealing with rural situations but with a complete new church structure, somewhat resembling the CoC.

 

Also, I think that quite a few women would leave the church. I don't think that they would be able to get their head around getting the priesthood, especially if it looked like buckling under social pressure.

You have no idea what would happen and if the Lord did give women the priesthood and you and those headless women didn't support it, you would be the one not following the prophet. But nice scaremongering.  Those scary wimmims.

[juliann]

Let me bring up a problem with all this. Lets say that why me founds an organization of active chruch members who wish to reestablish polygamy. We entreat the church leadership to pray over the issue. And we organize a 'protest' on temple square during conference where 200 of the members of the organization will gather outside the conference door to demonstrate our cause.

 

I can definitely see you on the front lines if it meant having more wimmins to preside over in your home.    However, this is derailing the thread.

[why me]

You have no idea what would happen and if the Lord did give women the priesthood and you and those headless women didn't support it, you would be the one not following the prophet. But nice scaremongering.  Those scary wimmims.

So, those women who did not support women getting the priesthood would be headless? I don't think that I am scaremongering. I am just using my imagination, trying to picture just what would happen if women got the priesthood because of social action. And how the church structure would change. And I don't think that I am far off the mark.

[why me]

I can definitely see you on the front lines if it meant having more wimmins to preside over in your home.    However, this is derailing the thread.

My point was simple. I would be exed for asking for doctrine change if it were about polygamy. I couldn't see myself not being called in. However, since we do have women calling for a doctrinal change, could I claim unfair practice if I and my organization members were exed but not the ordain women members? I am just saying that once we allow social action to exist as it is now...we need to be ready for many other lds groups who wish to protest to induce doctrinal change in the church.

[rockpond]

If I am remembering accurately and too lazy to check...the letter did have a notation that it was issued on behalf of the church. That makes it as official as it needs to be. Besides, it might be a little silly for the prophet to be issuing "stay off the grass" pronouncements.

If this letter is jus a silly stay off the grass pronouncement than OW and Kelly are correct to disregard it. If you have an actual quote from the letter that suggests a prophetic or apostolic origin, please cite it.

[why me]

You have no idea what would happen and if the Lord did give women the priesthood and you and those headless women didn't support it, you would be the one not following the prophet. But nice scaremongering.  Those scary wimmims.

I think that I got a good take on it. My daughter said that she would think that the prophet was wrong but she would go with the flow. She also said that her friends were discussing this at institute and they said the same: prophets can make mistakes. I think that my daughters represent quite a cross section of the lds. It would not go over easy, women receiving the priesthood.

 

And I just checked, my daughter has all her body parts.

Edited March 22, 2014 by why me

[why me]

If this letter is jus a silly stay off the grass pronouncement than OW and Kelly are correct to disregard it. If you have an actual quote from the letter that suggests a prophetic or apostolic origin, please cite it.

I suppose that most letters from the church office building are silly. But it wasn't silly. it was a polite letter with a request.

[Kenngo1969]

Oh, noes!!!  Sister Moody's letter on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ is an unethical attempt to intimidate!

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57702780-82/women-letter-public-ordain.html.csp

 

Nothing will get the undecided to your side faster than saying whatever you feel you need to say to poison the well and to villainize and demonize the opposition!  That's what I say!  Good job, Sister Peffer! (Disagreeing with Sister Moody's letter is one thing, but I have to wonder if Sister Peffer even read it.  If she did, she needs to read it again ... probably more than once.)

 

P.S.: http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1317612.pdf

 

And to all of the non-individual private property owners out there, beware how you assert your private property rights, lest you be deemed unethical bullies!

Edited March 22, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[halconero]

Our church institution is a corporation.

 

Recognized. But when we say "the corporation's public affairs department" we seem to shift the focus from it being an official notice from the Church to just another corporation's pa letter.

[rockpond]

I suppose that most letters from the church office building are silly. But it wasn't silly. it was a polite letter with a request.

I agree. I was just responding to the point Juliann was making. That's why I started my statement with "if".

For the record, so that I am not misunderstood, I think that the PA request/letter was reasonable. I think that OW should abide by it and find a new way to make their point (there are other methods they could use). I just think it's important to keep this letter in its proper perspective: it is not church counsel that must be obeyed. It's a corporation's polite and appropriate request that their rights be respected.