Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Bikeemikey]

If OW describes itself as a social action organization, it would tend to be on the side of advocating and not of asking.

 

But why is that an issue?

 

I honestly thought we all agreed that advocacy can't force God or the prophet to change. Then I read that your daughter (and maybe you) think that advoacy may be able to force the prophet to change even if it is against the will of God. Perhaps that is the root of the concern?

 

There are some who are concerned that such "advocacy" could lead to changes God doesn't want, they are concerned that the advocacy could result in women being ordained against God's wishes. They are thus opposed to advocacy as they are worried about change we shouldn't have.

 

There are some who are not concerned that such "advocacy" as they do not think advocacy could lead to changes God doesn't want, they are more inclined to think, "oh well, let them advocate; the worse that can happen is we can learn that God wants change".

 

What sayest thou?

[Stone holm]

But why is that an issue?

 

I honestly thought we all agreed that advocacy can't force God or the prophet to change. Then I read that your daughter (and maybe you) think that advoacy may be able to force the prophet to change even if it is against the will of God. Perhaps that is the root of the concern?

 

There are some who are concerned that such "advocacy" could lead to changes God doesn't want, they are concerned that the advocacy could result in women being ordained against God's wishes. They are thus opposed to advocacy as they are worried about change we shouldn't have.

 

There are some who are not concerned that such "advocacy" as they do not think advocacy could lead to changes God doesn't want, they are more inclined to think, "oh well, let them advocate; the worse that can happen is we can learn that God wants change".

 

What sayest thou?

But some are just opposed to change. It's one of the logic traps that we fall into when we preach an unchangeable God.

[mtomm]

I found the following the comments in  the op-ed piece in the SLTrib about the intimidation of OW.  

 

 

April  Rational Thinker • a day ago  I was one of the four women to whom that letter was addressed. It was published in the Deseret News before I even received it. I think it is interesting that the News Room has publicized our ticket requests, but has neither publicized nor responded to our letters requesting private meetings with church authorities.

April  Rational Thinker • a day ago

I was not specifically informed that we would not be invited until the Deseret News published the response letter. That is how I was informed of the response to our request. And as the op points out, if the church wanted to make a public statement, they could have easily done so with a news release, instead of publishing a letter addressed to me, with my name written across the top, that I had not even received yet.

 

 

 

April  Rational Thinker • a day ago

Peace to you as well. And actually, we publicly announced, long before this letter was publicized, that we do not intend to seek admission to the priesthood session (it is not the men's session) again any time in the near future.

Edited March 23, 2014 by mtomm

[why me]

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.

 

But of course, people have been excommunicated in the past for advocating a position. Maybe times have changed now. But if i go back 20 years ago, there would be no question that I would be excommunicated for advocating polygamy. And most likely the people of OW would be also. I don't think that a church can be of one mind once identity groups begin to advocate for their own version of what is right and what is wrong. We see what happened to the more liberal churches. They seem to have lost credibility.

 

And I do believe that there would be bishops today who would call me in to the office if I were advocating a return to the principle.

[why me]

But some are just opposed to change. It's one of the logic traps that we fall into when we preach an unchangeable God.

I have always said that if the church looks like it caved to social pressure it would have a problem. Revelation is revelation and social action and social pressure are at two opposite ends.

[mormonnewb]

I have always said that if the church looks like it caved to social pressure it would have a problem. Revelation is revelation and social action and social pressure are at two opposite ends.

But didn't the Church cave to political pressure with OD1? As I read it, Pres. Woodruff wasn't saying that he received a revelation that plural marriage was wrong, but rather that if we continue the practice, there won't be a church left to practice it. I'm don't think that the OW movement presents an existential threat to the Church, but I do think that our policies can and have been influenced by social pressure.

"The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue--to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead? (OD 1)"

[Bernard Gui]

Where do you draw the line between asking and advocating?

And demanding.

[Stone holm]

But of course, people have been excommunicated in the past for advocating a position. Maybe times have changed now. But if i go back 20 years ago, there would be no question that I would be excommunicated for advocating polygamy. And most likely the people of OW would be also. I don't think that a church can be of one mind once identity groups begin to advocate for their own version of what is right and what is wrong. We see what happened to the more liberal churches. They seem to have lost credibility.

 

And I do believe that there would be bishops today who would call me in to the office if I were advocating a return to the principle.

Back when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth and I was Bishop, you advocate for polygamy you get exed and have to have 1st Presidency approval for rebaptism, don't know what the standard is now, but my bets are you put some real effort into advocacy, and you still get shown the door. By advocacy, I mean advocating that it is something that God approves of, not advocating that people should have the freedom to engage in it. That is an important distinction.

[Tiki]

But didn't the Church cave to political pressure with OD1? As I read it, Pres. Woodruff wasn't saying that he received a revelation that plural marriage was wrong, but rather that if we continue the practice, there won't be a church left to practice it. I'm don't think that the OW movement presents an existential threat to the Church, but I do think that our policies can and have been influenced by social pressure.

"The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue--to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead? (OD 1)"

You forgot this part of OD1:

"But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me."

There was no caving to social pressure.

A problem arose, The Prophet went before The Lord with the problem and The Lord told the prophet what to do.

[Stone holm]

You forgot this part of OD1:

"But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me."

There was no caving to social pressure.

A problem arose, The Prophet went before The Lord with the problem and The Lord told the prophet what to do.

So do you believe that God never has a hand in culture. I don't think that this is some kind of ball game, Mormons vs The World. I seenoreason why The Lord would not play a hand in culture in general. There may from time to time exist a mental or other block in the minds of Church leadership, which The Lord needs to remove from the outside. An example of this being The Lord playing a role in preparing the American nation to treat Blacks as equal, and then raising up and especially preparing a Prophet to overcome the racist culture within the Church leadership. I believe it is error to believe that the Church operates in a vacuum, or that The Lord never applies pressure from the outside on His people. If we discern nothing else from the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, we should at least understand that. Or do we feel we are a vastly superior people to the Israelites and Nephites of old?

[why me]

Back when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth and I was Bishop, you advocate for polygamy you get exed and have to have 1st Presidency approval for rebaptism, don't know what the standard is now, but my bets are you put some real effort into advocacy, and you still get shown the door. By advocacy, I mean advocating that it is something that God approves of, not advocating that people should have the freedom to engage in it. That is an important distinction.

However, lines are now being blurred. For example if I am exed for advocating a principle that was once practiced, along with other advocates of the principle and OW advocates a principle that was never in place to be begin with and its members are not exed, would it be fair to ex me and not them? Maybe not. Social pressure creates division because of the need to take sides in the advocacy.

Edited March 24, 2014 by why me

[why me]

But didn't the Church cave to political pressure with OD1? As I read it, Pres. Woodruff wasn't saying that he received a revelation that plural marriage was wrong, but rather that if we continue the practice, there won't be a church left to practice it. I'm don't think that the OW movement presents an existential threat to the Church, but I do think that our policies can and have been influenced by social pressure.

"The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue--to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead? (OD 1)"

Tiki has more or less answered your post. Churches that cave in to social pressure begin to lose their credibility because there is always another social action group ready to demand something else. It never ends. Either the church is overseen by the thoughts of human beings or by god. Most likely it is a mixture of both. But major decisions should be coming from god.

 

We also need to remember that the lds church is a world wide church. In the US, identity politics is very fashionable. Each group fights for its own cause. Such politics replaces community involvement because issues mainly concern specific groups. In the rest of the world, identity politics is not so fashionable. I tend to doubt that the world wide church would understand the lds church caving in to a group that is concerned with a specific identity enhancement such as the OW group has.

Edited March 24, 2014 by why me

[Stone holm]

However, lines are now being blurred. For example if I am exed for advocating a principle that was once practiced, along with other advocates of the principle and OW advocates a principle that was never in place to be begin with and its members are not exed, would it be fair to ex me and not them? Maybe not. Social pressure creates division because need to take sides in the advocacy.

 

Fair?  Where does fairness come into it?  Because of our historical issue of trying to distance ourselves from polygamy, it makes sense to ex people from advocating the practice in the Church.  However, strategically, if the Church starts exing people for supporting OW, then they make those people martyrs for the cause -- which is what advocacy of the type they are pursuing kind of wishes to provoke.  Viewed strictly from a PR aspect, exing members who are vocally supportive of ordaining women -- would be like publicly calling for Mormons to support Prop 8.  You win the battle but get hit with a big tsunammi of sympathy for the cause espoused by the people you exed.  Its kind of like the Pope banning a book which instantly creates a best-seller.  Yes, social pressure attempts to get people to take sides -- religion tends to do the same thing -- so its just part of the territory.  No religion can remain vibrant if it smothers dissent with that kind of argument.  Its like making clear that if you advocate a position that you are not being faithfull in supporting the Prophet, and then turning around and saying, "See, hardly anyone supports your position."  That is simply a crock of an argument.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

We are talking about the Public Affairs Department of the Church, which is tasked with the responsibility to convey the authorized position of the Church on issues of interest to the public. Public Affairs is not going to act on their own accord on such things. The very idea is absurd.

 

I have some personal experience with this, as I deal quite frequently on a professional basis with Public Affairs.

 

Edited to add:

 

I see here a recurring phenomenon. Critics of the Church within its own ranks don't want to be viewed as being in opposition to the Brethren. So they find some ancillary or functionary agent on which to focus their disapproval.

 

More often in the past it has been the Correlation Department. In this instance it's Public Affairs.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The Brethren know how to sign a letter. They do it frequently when an issue is important enough.

As calmoriah has noted, there are some matters on which they may deem it more prudent to act through an official spokesman or spokeswoman.

 

They have been doing this for many decades; is there any reason in particular they would not be doing so now?

[rockpond]

As calmoriah has noted, there are some matters on which they may deem it more prudent to act through an official spokesman or spokeswoman.

 

They have been doing this for many decades; is there any reason in particular they would not be doing so now?

 

There are a couple threads on this subject, so maybe I haven't said it here so I'll clarify...

 

Of course the church and even the Brethren can speak to the public through a PA spokesperson (or possibly better, a spokeswoman, in this case).  I think that's fine.  And, I think that Kelly & the OW group should abide by the requests in the letter.

 

But, I don't consider a PA letter to contain "church counsel" that members of the church are under some spiritual obligation to obey.  OW should cancel their "protest" (or whatever they want to call it) in response to the letter out of civil respect/decency because the request by Moody on behalf of the church was polite, appropriate, and legal.  (Politeness isn't a requirement -- I just thought it was worth noting.)

[mormonnewb]

You forgot this part of OD1:

"But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me."

There was no caving to social pressure.

A problem arose, The Prophet went before The Lord with the problem and The Lord told the prophet what to do.

 

This is a distinction without a difference.  My argument is that social pressure can force the Church to change its position on an issue -- in this case, polygamy.  You counter that God told the Prophet to change course because of the social pressure, but that does not change the fact -- social pressure caused a change in Church doctrine.

 

Therefore, to the larger point, agitating for change CAN have an effect on the Church in that it can cause God to tell the prophet to change course.  Coincidentally, this seems to be just what the OW movement is seeking -- that the leaders go back to God to get a new revelation.  Now, I will agree that if God does not provide such a revelation, then that should settle the matter.  However, at this point, I think that OW has reason to suspect that perhaps the Brethren haven't asked "hard enough" yet.

[Gray]

But no one other than the Church president has the right to receive personal inspiration that governs the entire Church. If someone professes to do that and he is at odds with the president of the Church, it is a sure sign he is in apostasy.

 

While I agree, I'm not sure how it is relevant 

Edited March 24, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

http://rationalfaiths.com/why-arent-the-women-included/

 

 

The part of this interview that surprised me the most was finding out that the General Relief Society Presidency was not even notified that “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was in the works. They were not informed of it, they were not asked for consultation of any kind in its drafting, and they were not asked if there were specific concerns for women that might need to be included. When she was presented with the finished product, her response was as follows:

 

“How come we weren’t consulted?”

Greg Prince: You didn’t even know it was in the works?

Chieko Okazaki: No. They just asked us which meeting to present it in, and we said, “Whatever President Hinckley decides is fine with us.” He decided to do it at the Relief Society meeting. The apostle who was our liaison said, “Isn’t it wonderful that he made the choice to present it at the Relief Society meeting?” Well, that was fine, but as I read it I thought that we could have made a few changes in it. Sometimes I think they get so busy that they forget that we are there.”

[Scott Lloyd]

The statement from the Church spokeswoman referring to a "long-standing" ban of news media cameras on Temple Square during general conference is an unfortunate error. The fact is, news photographers routinely shoot pictures on the temple grounds during the two-day conference. I, myself, have done so as a representative of a news organization. I expect that routine will continue.

 

I think what needs to be conveyed is that the news media at any given time are allowed on the grounds as guests at the pleasure of the Church, which reserves the right to disallow public demonstrations of protest, news conferences and the like on the temple grounds along with news photo coverage of the same.

Just got some clarification on this.

 

What is happening now that has not been so much the case in the past is that media photographers (and, I assume, videographers) will need credentials from the Church to be on Temple Square taking pictures.

 

This is pretty much consistent with what I said in the post above about the media being there at the invitation of and with the approval of the Church.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

on the prior occasion when this quote was posted:

 

Sister Okazaki does not define Church doctrine or policy and, in my opinion, was out of line in saying such a thing. The Proclamation was not dependent upon the setting in which it was presented; thus, neither Sister Okazaki nor any of the general Relief Society presidency had ownership over the Proclamation.

 

Also this:

 

t seems that she is saying that because she wasn't consulted in advance on the wording of the Proclamation, that it therefore lacks the force and stature it otherwise would have had.

 

I take strong exception to that notion. When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, acting in their authority as prophets, seers and revelators, draft a proclamation to the world, they are under no obligation to have anyone else sign off on it. The setting in which the Proclamation was first presented is of no great moment. It could have been delivered just as effectively and appropriately in the priesthood session of general conference or one of the general sessions. It would have carried as much authority if it had simply been printed in one of the Church publications or sent out to the individual wards and branches to be read over the sacrament meeting pulpit. The fact that the setting was the general women's meeting doesn't give Sister Okazaki or anyone else any degree of ownership over it.

 

 

And this:

 

My disapproval would be just as strong had such public criticism come from a former member of the presidency of one of the other auxiliary organizations of the Church, be it male or female. If there is ever a choice that must be made between the two, I take my direction from prophets and apostles, not former members of auxiliary presidencies.

 

Edited March 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

I don't know what your intent is in posting this, but we have seen it on here before.

 

My response then was that Sister Okasaki was assuming a prerogative that neither she nor the other members of the general Relief Society presidency had.

 

The proclamation on the family transcended their presidency and Relief Society organization. The fact that the women's meeting was the forum for its announcement did not give them the right of sign-off for its presentation.

 

Edited to add:

 

For the record, here's what I said on the prior occasion when this quote was posted:

 

Also this:

 

 

And this:

 

You're entitled to your opinion on the late Sister Okasaki. As you probably suspect, I disagree. Your comments illustrate, to me, why women need to be ordained to have a voice in the church. 

[mtomm]

I don't know what your intent is in posting this, but we have seen it on here before.

 

My response then was that Sister Okasaki was assuming a prerogative that neither she nor the other members of the general Relief Society presidency had.

 

The proclamation on the family transcended their presidency and Relief Society organization. The fact that the women's meeting was the forum for its announcement did not give them the right of sign-off for its presentation.

 

Edited to add:

 

For the record, here's what I said on the prior occasion when this quote was posted:

 

Also this:

 

 

And this:

 

Either we are a vital part of the process or our opinion is neither sought  or wanted.  Which is it?  It seems all that praise heaped upon women is strictly hollow words.  If the brethren in SL do not consider a women's point of view on something so important as the Proclamation why would leaders at a ward or stake leader think it is important for more trivial matters?  

 

You cannot heap praise with one hand and take it away with the other.  We notice stuff like.   

Edited March 24, 2014 by mtomm

[Mystery Meat]

 

Either we are a vital part of the process or our opinion is neither sought  or wanted.  Which is it?  It seems all that praise heaped upon women is strictly hollow words.  If the brethren in SL do not consider a women's point of view on something so important as the Proclamation why would leaders at a ward or stake leader think it is important for more trivial matters?  

 

You cannot heap praise with one hand and take it away with the other.  We notice stuff like.   

 

 

Is the Church led by revelation? 

[sunstoned]

 

Either we are a vital part of the process or our opinion is neither sought  or wanted.  Which is it?  It seems all that praise heaped upon women is strictly hollow words.  If the brethren in SL do not consider a women's point of view on something so important as the Proclamation why would leaders at a ward or stake leader think it is important for more trivial matters?  

 

You cannot heap praise with one hand and take it away with the other.  We notice stuff like.   

 

This is why women need to have the priesthood.  Without it, they will continue to be treated as second class members.