Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Scott Lloyd]

The scriptures are best understood as vehicles for moral teachings. Getting hung up on the language is an exercise in futility, IMO. 

You're entitled to your opinion about how to understand scripture. But to suggest that it is entirely metaphorical and never to be taken literally -- as you seem to here -- strikes me as quirky.

[rockpond]

I submit that you are reading too much into a general conference speaker's exercise of personal privilege in altering the written form in which his own talk appears. It could have been that he wanted to avoid the sort of confusion you are exhibiting here, where you don't seem to recognize that a revelation may amount to directive that an action be performed, not necessarily a pronouncement of new doctrine.

 

Are you listening to yourself, Scott?  He changed "revelation" to "guide" to avoid confusion even though it's a revelation?

[Bernard Gui]

Problem is people are going away because they are not convinced that we have those words.  Its tragic, but we are losing people in droves as they leave high school.  Of course its not just our Church, but there seems to be a growing distaste for religion as being obsessed with sex, and the college educated are leaving it behind.  (BYU excepted of course.)  If we had a Church sponsored marriage mill like BYU out here in the East it might help, or if they prefer the politics of the Confederacy, then down in the South -- but somewhere in the East.

 

Wait....we are losing people because religion is obsessed with sex?

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you listening to yourself, Scott?  He changed "revelation" to "guide" to avoid confusion even though it's a revelation?

Are you listening to me, rockpond?

 

I suggested one possible reason President Packer himself might have chosen to alter the wording: to avoid possible confusion in the minds of those -- like Gray -- who cannot or will not differentiate between revelation that conveys a directive and revelation that conveys new doctrine. The former category may well apply to the proclamation, but the latter would not.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

I agree with Tacenda that the focus should be on the Lord. And I'd like to add that a lot of people leave when they find out history lessons about the church that they might not like, but they should remember it's a perfect church run by imperfect people. The church will never be wrong, though it's leaders are not perfect.

 

The people that leave built their testimonies and foundation on sand and it washed away. They should have built it upon rock.

One should keep in mind the temple covenants of consecration.

[Bernard Gui]

I don't think God gives literal words of revelation. I believe we awaken to truth in terms of broader concepts. I don't think anyone has ever managed to get a direct quote from God.

 

My personal opinion, of course. 

What is your opinion of the direct quotes from God given to prophets in all our scriptures?

Edited March 26, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[awyatt]

Sometimes they don't seek it, as in the examples brought up by Sister Okazaki. Including women in the quorum would instantly solve that problem. 

 

Assuming facts not in evidence. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they didn't seek Sis. Okazaki's input. They may, very well, have sought (and received) input from other females. Or they may not have. We don't know.

 

-Allen

[Gray]

"One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

 

How about this one then?  Is it just an example of moral teachings?

 

Of course it is. What value is scripture if not for the transmission of a moral teaching? 

[Gray]

Assuming facts not in evidence. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they didn't seek Sis. Okazaki's input. They may, very well, have sought (and received) input from other females. Or they may not have. We don't know.

 

-Allen

 

They didn't seek it from the RS presidency. 

[Gray]

And there's the question of what constitutes "the female perspective." Is it that women ought to be ordained to the priesthood? Apparently a vast majority of the women in the Church don't share that perspective. In fact, if you rely on the Pew study, the males in the Church who believe women should be ordained outnumber the females who believe they should -- although not by much. So as pertaining to Church members, it is more of a male perspective than it is a female one.

 

I don't think this argument has improved any since the days of women's suffrage 

[Gray]

You're entitled to your opinion about how to understand scripture. But to suggest that it is entirely metaphorical and never to be taken literally -- as you seem to here -- strikes me as quirky.

 

I have no idea which stories have a literal element. Many do not, some undoubtedly do. What I'm saying is the literal element is not what's important at all. 

[Scott Lloyd]

They didn't seek it from the RS presidency. 

And she's the only one we know of who was bothered by it. Or have we heard from the other two members?

[Gray]

What is your opinion of the direct quotes from God given to prophets in all our scriptures?

 

In most cases I think it's a literary device

[smac97]

Sometimes they don't seek it, as in the examples brought up by Sister Okazaki. Including women in the quorum would instantly solve that problem.

Would it really? A handful of (presumably older) women would represent "the female perspective?" What about young women? We would need a delegation to include their "perspective." And divorced women. And widowed women. And never-married women. And women with minor children. And women with adult children. And women from each socio-political group. And women from different economic strata. And women from each ethnicity / culture / region / country.

And we'd also need teenagers, both male and female, in the quorum from all of these categories so that decisions are made with input from their perspective.

And we'd also need young men in the quorum (married / divorced / widowed / never-married / with children / childless / ethnic / region . . . etc.).

You cannot credibly claim that the Brethren, a bunch of old men, lack discernment and a right to revelation on behalf of women, but that they do have discernment and a right to revelation for these other groups. Either the Lord works through the Brethren for all of the Church, or He does not. If He does not, then delegations from all categories is required. There is nothing unique about "women" as a category that entitle them to a delegation that should not likewise be extended to many other categories.

And how would such delegations be chosen, anyway? It would apparently not involve revelation because, by the OW group's reckoning, they want they priesthood "and nothing less will suffice." Priesthood ordination is therefore not a matter of revelation, but of PR campaigns and pressure tactics. So the various delegations would be selected by . . . popular vote? (This is not a facetious question.)

Thus we see the futility and divisiveness of the OW movement. Identity politics should not play a role in something so sacred as the priesthood. Treating the priesthood as a commodity to be haggled over and demanded, as the OW group has done, is profoundly inappropriate.

If the Brethren have the keys of the Priesthood, then they exercise them for all of God's children.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

DUPLICATE

Edited March 26, 2014 by smac97

[Gray]

And she's the only one we know of who was bothered by it. Or have we heard from the other two members?

 

She was a very courageous women. She was outspoken in a culture that does not value outspokenness. That does not make her unfaithful, but sadly some people equate the two

[awyatt]

They didn't seek it from the RS presidency. 

 

Again, you don't know that. You only have Sis. Okazaki's words (reported by Greg Prince) that she wasn't asked. She wasn't speaking for anyone else, unless you are privy to information you haven't presented.

 

-Allen

[Gray]

You cannot credible claim that the Brethren, a bunch of old men, lack discernment and a right to revelation on behalf of women, but that they do have discernment and a right to revelation for these other groups.

 

 

I think you're coming at this with a lot of assumptions about revelation that human beings can't possibly live up to 

[Gray]

Again, you don't know that. You only have Sis. Okazaki's words (reported by Greg Prince) that she wasn't asked. She wasn't speaking for anyone else, unless you are privy to information you haven't presented.

 

-Allen

 

I believe Sister Okazaki was telling the truth. 

 

 

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.”

Edited March 26, 2014 by Gray

[smac97]

DUPLICATE

Edited March 26, 2014 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

In most cases I think it's a literary device

Why?

[smac97]

She was a very courageous women. She was outspoken in a culture that does not value outspokenness. That does not make her unfaithful, but sadly some people equate the two

Has someone accused the late Sis. Okazaki of being "unfaithful?" CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2014 by smac97

[mtomm]

I'm not inclined to regard Sister Okazaki's fussing about not being consulted on the wording of the proclamation as a wholesale indication that they don't seek it or that there is a "problem" that needs to be solved by creating the position of female apostle in the Church. I'd be interested to hear from other general women's auxiliary leaders -- present and past -- on this topic.

 

 

At the end of the video Aileen Clyde during a Q&A segment she comments on the lack of the RS Presidency's input on the Proclamation.  Maybe they are out there but they are not so easy to find.  Q&A starts at 20 min in and is quite short.

http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/cms/id/27

[smac97]

I think you're coming at this with a lot of assumptions about revelation that human beings can't possibly live up to

I don't think so. Meanwhile, I think you have a lot of assumptions about revelation in the Church (such as the possibility that the upper quorums in the Church can receive revelation despite lacking a first-person proportional "perspective" from women, from singles, from widowers, from twenty-somethings, from poor Bolivians, from middle-class Italians, and on and on and on...).

Thanks,

-Smac

[mtomm]

I've read that women were consulted in bringing together the Proc but it was not those who held positions in the auxiliaries but instead associates of those who did put together the Proc.

 

 

(I don't say apostles because I believe it was actually put together by a committee, which probably included apostles and 70s,  and then presented to the Quorum and FP.  Don't ask for a CFR because I've only read it in comments and no one has documented it.  Plus, I don't think that is a bad thing.  I expect that is how a lot of things are done in the Church.  But it also takes away the notion that it was a revelation received and written down by the Twelve and FP like we think of revelation.) 

What this says to me, if is true, that women were consulted but perhaps they chose women that they knew already had an idea of what they wanted to say and why they wanted to say what they did.