why me Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 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!And this was my point too. OW just by being what they are...are attempting to sow seeds of contention. If so, lets see if they will be successful. I also think that OW are all about getting the media attention through shock. 1
Stone holm Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 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.Maybe, certainly if the Church goes militant over the issue it could eventually wind up with the scenario you describe as it gets pushed from its presently non sustainable position. But I would say that is a fairly unlikely scenario. I suspect you will instead see one of two scenarios, one couples start being called to leadership positions instead of individuals (I judge this the most likely), or a female priesthood is revealed. The posing of radical chane scenarios as you have done is a tactic which only works for awhile, and if persisted in sometimes becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Calm Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 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.Kindest regards, Jessica Moody Public Affairs, On behalf of The Church
Kenngo1969 Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 If I were part of the Mormon Feminist Movement, personally, I'd be ticked about the kind of whining (sorry; just calling what I think is a spade, a spade) that Sister Peffer engages in in her Op-Ed. If those of a certain gender wish to highlight what they see as inequality and wish to be treated like equals to those of the opposite gender, maybe I'm wrong, but whining definitely doesn't seem to be the way to go about accomplishing those goals.
Calm Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 If this letter is jus a silly stay off the grass pronouncement than OW and Kelly are correct to disregard it. If is hardly silly to encourage another to respect the sacred space of an entire faith community, especially during the time period where we are gathering together in our only global community ritual (General Conference). Personally I think if an ordinary rank and file came up to them and pointed out how they were intruding upon and disruption the formation of our sacred space, they should respect that and withdraw if not completely, to the same area all are instructed to do including members who are there in support of the Church.
juliann Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 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.Oh. My. Gosh. And how is that any different than those you complain about not following the prophet? And it was you who said women couldn't "wrap their heads" around priesthood. IF the prophet gave women the priesthood (and that was your scaremongering scenario) those women would either be unfaithful or...headless.
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 What will this group do if they don't get their way?
why me Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Oh. My. Gosh. And how is that any different than those you complain about not following the prophet? And it was you who said women couldn't "wrap their heads" around priesthood. IF the prophet gave women the priesthood (and that was your scaremongering scenario) those women would either be unfaithful or...headless.I tend to think that the OW people have their own agenda to change the structure of the church. But I suppose that since OW can push their agenda through social action against the lds church, my daughters and their friends can also say that the prophet is wrong, if females get the priesthood. Why not? But you see, the seeds are already being planted for a possible division. What scaremongering? I gave a good scenario about what would happen if women get the priesthood. Can you see relief society continuing? Young Women's and Young Men's organizations? Visiting teaching? etc. How can such things continue? And elder's quorum is just that: a quorum of elders, for both men and for women, if females get the priesthood. I don't see any other possibility, if this is all about patriarchy and equality. .
why me Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 What will this group do if they don't get their way?From someone who has been involved in social action for a long time, a most likely scenario would be that they continue to get more women involved, become bigger, get media attention and continue until the goal is met. And then once it is met, make sure that the structure of the church has their version of equality in place if female's get the priesthood. At least that would be my goal if I were the leader of this social action organization.
rockpond Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 What will this group do if they don't get their way?They'll leave temple square. Just like they did last year. They've been pretty clear about that.
Bikeemikey Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 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.I think you are still struggling with the distinction between asking for something and actually already living for what you are asking for.If you went to the church with a large group as you have described I would be fully supportive of your right to be there and ask the prophet to provide revelation on the matter.Now if you were there as an active practicing polygamist you would be violating the law of chastity. I would expect you to be disciplined. However, even with you were excommunicated she to "practice" you would still be entitled to be there and ask.At the moment the OW movement is not practicing female ordination. They are just asking.
Bikeemikey Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 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.I do not believe you would be excommunicated for asking the prophet to seek revelation or restoring the practice of polygamy. Perhaps a few decades ago but not any more.If you were not practicing polygamy i think you can ask as long as you want.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 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 you are fantasizing if you really believe that letter was not sent at the behest of the Church leadership.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) Unintended post. Board seems to be having issues today Edited March 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Bikeemikey Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I think you are fantasizing if you really believe that letter was not sent at the behest of the Church leadership.In an organization as large and complex as our church there is no way the leadership (the 12 or the first presidency) will be able to review and know about every decision that is being made. More importantly it us totally impossible that all the brethren would be able to come together to provide a revelatory consensus on more than a few issues.Most stuff in the church will be done without there explicit approval.
JLHPROF Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 What will this group do if they don't get their way? We'll never find out because they'll be excommunicated out of the church before they get a chance to be told for sure "not going to happen" and have to come up with a plan B.This topic is becoming tiresome - a tiny % of members who want a system wide change (and even fewer riled up enough to stage a peaceful protest).It's only fascinating because of the societal issues attached, but in the end this group is getting way more attention than their influence merits.
Stone holm Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 We'll never find out because they'll be excommunicated out of the church before they get a chance to be told for sure "not going to happen" and have to come up with a plan B.This topic is becoming tiresome - a tiny % of members who want a system wide change (and even fewer riled up enough to stage a peaceful protest).It's only fascinating because of the societal issues attached, but in the end this group is getting way more attention than their influence merits.Isn't that normally the case with significant cultural issues?
rockpond Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I think you are fantasizing if you really believe that letter was not sent at the behest of the Church leadership.The Brethren know how to sign a letter. They do it frequently when an issue is important enough.
Calm Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) The Brethren know how to sign a letter. They do it frequently when an issue is important enough.Don't you think it was possible in this case it might have been considered be more appropriate/better to include a woman as spokesperson/voice? Edited March 23, 2014 by calmoriah
rockpond Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Don't you think it was possible in this case it might have been considered be more appropriate/better to include a woman as spokesperson/voice?Yes. And I think that there is a difference in message when it comes from Sister Moody as opposed to Sister Burton.Either way, I think that OW should comply with the request in the letter. But there is a clear distinction between a letter from a sustained ecclesiastical leader and a public affairs employee.
Stone holm Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I do not believe you would be excommunicated for asking the prophet to seek revelation or restoring the practice of polygamy. Perhaps a few decades ago but not any more.If you were not practicing polygamy i think you can ask as long as you want.Where do you draw the line between asking and advocating?
why me Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) I do not believe you would be excommunicated for asking the prophet to seek revelation or restoring the practice of polygamy. Perhaps a few decades ago but not any more.If you were not practicing polygamy i think you can ask as long as you want.I think that if i would form an organization of active members who wished the church to reinstate polygamy, the bishop would call me in to ask me questions and also ask me to stop advocating polygamy and if I did not do it, I would be disciplined. I can't see any organization of active lds who would not be disciplined for being in such an organization. But my point in bringing this up was to imply that if OW can continue to advocate and agitate for prieshood without consequences, it can open the door to other identity lds groupings advocating their own causes for social change in the church. Whether it be polygamy or same sex marriage. Would it be divisive? Edited March 23, 2014 by why me
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I hope this movement understands that they're protesting God. God is the one that gives the priesthood, not the church.
why me Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Where do you draw the line between asking and advocating?If OW describes itself as a social action organization, it would tend to be on the side of advocating and not of asking.
Bikeemikey Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I think that if i would form an organization of active members who wished the church to reinstate polygamy, the bishop would call me in to ask me questions and also ask me to stop advocating polygamy and if I did not do it, I would be disciplined. I can't see any organization of active lds who would not be disciplined for being in such an organization. I would be very disappointed if the church chose to discuple any member for advocating for polygamy within the church. Stoneholm just posted the question, "where do we draw the line between ask and advocating". I don't think that we do draw the line, I think such a line is unnecessary. I think we draw the line between advocacy and action. Not the action of advocating, but the action of implementing what you are advocating within the your church community before the church has authorized you to do so. The comparsion between your Polygamy example and the OW movement would be as follows: You can ask/advocate for female ordination but you can't ordain a female to the priesthood until the church approves and expect to avoid disciple. Likewise, you can ask/advocate for a reinstatement of polygamy but you can't engage in polygamous activity until the church approves and expect to avoid disciple. I think this is a simple and obvious distinction that ought to be easily understood. If you were disciplined for asking the church to reinstate polygamy I would be very upset if the church were to take disciplinary action against you. If you were to practice polygamy I would not be surprised if the church took disciplinary action against you. But my point in bringing this up was to imply that if OW can continue to advocate and agitate for prieshood without consequences, it can open the door to other identity lds groupings advocating their own causes for social change in the church. Whether it be polygamy or same sex marriage. Would it be divisive? I understand why you brought this point up. However, the example you provided is only an argument against the OW movements actions if you start with the belief that they should not have the right to advocate dissenting views on female ordination in the first place. For me the point you raised is just another example of something people in the church should have the right to advocate for discussion and change on with out disciplinary action. I am not sure that anyone should ever be disciplined for advocating any principle. Some principles, when acted on, warrant disciplinary action. I'm not sure that any "thought" or "experssion" or "advocacy", totally distinct from action, warrants discipline. That said, agitation is a distinct idea from advocacy. Some agitation may be acceptable (non-violent and passive protest for example) and some agitation may not be (becoming violent for example). On this matter I do not currently believe the OW has crossed the bounds from passive advocacy-agitation to more extreme violent agitation. All you have demonstarted is that there is another area of thought you think should be silenced and I think should not be.
Recommended Posts