Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[why me]

Should I stop this? I also don't feel jealousy, I feel grateful that she is talented and able to contribute to our families financial stability while doing something she is talented at and likes.

 

Some men would be jealous. And some mormon men would not want their wives to be alone with their male counselor at church in the evenings. Or some mormon women would not want their bishop husband to be alone with his female counselor on a thursday night as they discuss church business in the church every week. Human nature is human nature.

 

The church would not risk it. Too much wiggle room for something to happen. Not good for a ward if the bishop is caught having an affair with his or her counselor.

[why me]

"We need to remember that the relief society would disappear"

No we don't. That is one possibility, but it is not a requirement. It would be easy enough to meet together and then split up just as they do now into age groups more or less and just add a gender division as well. Those who want ordination generally are not demanding men and women do everything together. It is a relatively simple concept to blend somethings and keep others separate.

 

Do you really believe that the ordain women's movement would not want an equal seat at the table? That they would be in favor of keeping men and women apart? And where exactly would the female elder's quorum president be? In relief society or in priesthood meeting? I am afraid that true equality if there is such a thing would require that all eat at the same table and have equal opportunity to have a say at that table.

 

Where would women elders be if not in elder's quorum?

Edited March 29, 2014 by why me

[why me]

And it would be easy enough to remove mothers with young children from the list of eligible choices just as they do for seminary teachers. There are a number of callings that have restrictions based on family status and age in the Church, this is nothing novel.

And the ordain women's movement would be in favor of this? I would think they would be against it. They would claim that men could also be removed from eligible choices. It would create gender divisions.

[Stone holm]

However, the relief society is there to help women in need and this would mean baby sitting, cooking for those who lack the time or who can't cook or who need help with cleaning etc.  The relief society's slogan *charity never failth would be history since we would have no relief society...nor would we have visiting teachers to help out. As any bishop would tell you...the calling drains time not to mention the time spent in regular work.

 

Have you ever spoken to women who work? Many feel guilty about being away from their children even during regular work. Not to mention the time it takes to be bishop, stake president or elder's quorum president.

Wow, just wow. Didn't you at least flinch when you proofread this? I know several sisters who would hand you your head if you actually uttered anything like this in their proximity. Statements like this are exactly why OW is protesting. I mean I have talked about the gender stereotyping in the Declaration before, but this is just legendary in its breathtaking classical Victorian role stereotyping. You do realize that in many Wards the majority of the women already work outside their homes.

[Calm]

Do you really believe that the ordain women's movement would not want an equal seat at the table? That they would be in favor of keeping men and women apart? And where exactly would the female elder's quorum president be? In relief society or in priesthood meeting? I am afraid that true equality if there is such a thing would require that all eat at the same table and have equal opportunity to have a say at that table.

 

Where would women elders be if not in elder's quorum?

Yes. I have heard a number say how much they value the gender separate time.

Again, one could treat the groups just as they do now...after shared opening meeting, the high priests could meet together, the high priestess , the elder's quorum, the sisters' quorum (or elderess), priests, priestesses, male teachers, female teachers, deacons, deaconesses...not that complicated really.

Again there is already separations into quorums in priesthood after being together. There is no reason to suppose that most women proordination see that aspect of meeting together much differently afterwards. the major policy decision making that is a concern does not take place in priesthood meetings.

[Calm]

And the ordain women's movement would be in favor of this? I would think they would be against it. They would claim that men could also be removed from eligible choices. It would create gender divisions.

And men are removed from eligibility already in some cases, so not that big of an obstacle to overcome. Single men can't be bishop, can't serve in the temple past a certain age, etc.

Again you seem to think that if female ordination were to become part of the LDS faith, that it would have to be done exactly as certain leaders inthe OW movement want. You have not given any reason why this would have to be so.

If ordination of women comes through revelation, then it makes sense to me that those organizing the implementation of it would be seeking not only inspiration from God, but also input from all women in the faith, not just the more radical ones.

Edited March 29, 2014 by calmoriah

[why me]

Yes. I have heard a number say how much they value the gender separate time.

Again, one could treat the groups just as they do now...after shared opening meeting, the high priests could meet together, the high priestess , the elder's quorum, the sisters' quorum (or elderess), priests, priestesses, male teachers, female teachers, deacons, deaconesses...not that complicated really.

Again there is already separations into quorums in priesthood after being together. There is no reason to suppose that most women proordination see that aspect of meeting together much differently afterwards. the major policy decision making that is a concern does not take place in priesthood meetings.

 

Sounds very complicated. Even the names sound too victorian. The ordain women's movement is all about radical feminism and patriarchy. They would never consent to the above since they would claim that true equality does not support exclusion but inclusion. All have an equal seat at the table and that would include general priesthood meeting.

Edited March 29, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

I am not talking about how Ordain Women would structure the Church if they had a chance. I am talking about how it could be structured including female ordination.

And unless you can show me your certificate for higher level mind reading, I won't be considering you the expert on what or what not OW women will tolerate. Honestly I am getting really tired of you making claims for them.

Complicated is not equivalent to either bad or hard. Once set up, after a few years people would be used to it and it wouldn't seem any more complicated than having three different quorums for Young Men's plus two for adult men.

And feel free to call the quorums anything you want...might be good practice for your imagination.

Edited March 29, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

Some men would be jealous. And some mormon men would not want their wives to be alone with their male counselor at church in the evenings. Or some mormon women would not want their bishop husband to be alone with his female counselor on a thursday night as they discuss church business in the church every week. Human nature is human nature.

The church would not risk it. Too much wiggle room for something to happen. Not good for a ward if the bishop is caught having an affair with his or her counselor.

So why not just rise above human nature?

[Bikeemikey]

And the ordain women's movement would be in favor of this? I would think they would be against it. They would claim that men could also be removed from eligible choices. It would create gender divisions.

It's not up to the OW movement.

They are vocalizing the question. They have no control over the answer.

[Bikeemikey]

Sounds very complicated. Even the names sound too victorian. The ordain women's movement is all about radical feminism and patriarchy. They would never consent to the above since they would claim that true equality does not support exclusion but inclusion. All have an equal seat at the table and that would include general priesthood meeting.

So let's not do it that way because why me thinks it's complicated and the OW movement might not approve.

[Calm]

So why not just rise above human nature?

It does get confusing sometimes in that we are pushing as a faith to live the highest ideals, but in somethings it feels like we are setting things up because we expect the least of our fellow saints (such as sometimes in talks about modesty). I get not putting unnecessary temptations in front of people but too much protection means little growth.

[Bikeemikey]

It does get confusing sometimes in that we are pushing as a faith to live the highest ideals, but in somethings it feels like we are setting things up because we expect the least of our fellow saints (such as sometimes in talks about modesty). I get not putting unnecessary temptations in front of people but too much protection means little growth.

I don't get holding back the best talent from a specific position because a man and women may need to talk together unattended.

It seems a little odd to me.

[Calm]

I don't see callings in the church based on who is the best talent for them (either in theory or practice) so that isn't one of my issues at least.

[VideoGameJunkie]

But in my ward the Bishops are always well off businessmen with like 5 kids.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't see callings in the church based on who is the best talent for them (either in theory or practice) so that isn't one of my issues at least.

 

Well that really is a discussion for another thread.

[Bikeemikey]

But in my ward the Bishops are always well off businessmen with like 5 kids.

 

The time commitments of lay clergy service tend to make it easier if you have a certain amount of fiscal security. 

 

Who has five kids these days?

 

Where do you live? Must be Africa or Utah

[Stone holm]

The time commitments of lay clergy service tend to make it easier if you have a certain amount of fiscal security. 

 

Who has five kids these days?

 

Where do you live? Must be Africa or Utah

Uh Mike, I have 7 of my own, three additional by marriage and one foster son. It does happen. But he is right in many wealthy Wards this is the case. Course, my son just transferred to a Spanish speaking Ward to get outside that bubble.

[Scott Lloyd]

The question arises is the person doing God's will or the will of someone who only thinks he's speaking for God?

It can also be seen as humble to seek out God in all sorts of places. Try to learn His truth and will from many sources, including personal inspiration and revelation. This may in the end, cause one to question the standard tradition or concept from the Church, but perhaps the Church is wrong.

It is the role of the prophets and apostles, not the individual Church member, to seek and receive revelation as it pertains to governing the Church as a whole. It is contrary to the order of heaven that God would reveal something to an individual He has not seen fit to make clear to the governing body of prophets and apostles.

I've had occasion to make this statement on more than one occasion here on this board. I'll say it again now: When faced with the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

Uh Mike, I have 7 of my own, three additional by marriage and one foster son. It does happen. But he is right in many wealthy Wards this is the case. Course, my son just transferred to a Spanish speaking Ward to get outside that bubble.

 

 But you are from the old'n days.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[urroner]

During the early 80's, there was a huge push here in America for the ERA or "Equal Rights Admendment."  The Church actively opposed it, but there were plenty of members who supported it.  As far as I know, the Church never considered these members apostates.  The vast majority of these people simply disagreed with the stance the Church had taken, but they didn't fight against the mission of the Church.  I only heard of one person who was exed and claimed that it was because of her stance against the position the Church had taken on the ERA, but it turned out that she had made some really bad choices in her life before she was excommunicated and these choices had nothing to do with the ERA.

[Bikeemikey]

During the early 80's, there was a huge push here in America for the ERA or "Equal Rights Admendment."  The Church actively opposed it, but there were plenty of members who supported it.  As far as I know, the Church never considered these members apostates.  The vast majority of these people simply disagreed with the stance the Church had taken, but they didn't fight against the mission of the Church.  I only heard of one person who was exed and claimed that it was because of her stance against the position the Church had taken on the ERA, but it turned out that she had made some really bad choices in her life before she was excommunicated and these choices had nothing to do with the ERA.

 

I have not met anyone ex-member in the last 15 years who was exed because of a political position they had taken or a doctrinal belief they had that was not fully mainstream. Even the few exings that occurred during the whole California prop 8 period, that I am aware of, were related to activities out of harmony with the moral expectations of the church, not due to political issues.

[stemelbow]

It is the role of the prophets and apostles, not the individual Church member, to seek and receive revelation as it pertains to governing the Church as a whole. It is contrary to the order of heaven that God would reveal something to an individual He has not seen fit to make clear to the governing body of prophets and apostles.

I've had occasion to make this statement on more than one occasion here on this board. I'll say it again now: When faced with the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets.

 

I think there is plenty of room to go with most of what you say but then also think someday somehow God will inspire someone to disagree with the Church and that someone is correct.  That's already happened in a sense.  Lowry Nelson saying not only the policy but also the explanation for the ban was wrong.  he was right, at least partly. 

 

So there is precedent out there supporting my view.

[Stone holm]

But you are from the old'n days.

Yeah, back when the dinosaurs were still roaming around, yet there are still Wards where the dinosaurs have lingered.

[why me]

I don't get holding back the best talent from a specific position because a man and women may need to talk together unattended.

It seems a little odd to me.

It is not a question of a man and woman having to talk together. When someone is called to be a bishop, it can be for five years or more. The counselors usually stay the same. To be with someone in meetings with the opposite sex every wednesday evening talking church business etc can be a little dangerous over time. Human nature is human nature. And as we know, conversations can also become personal. I don't think that the church would risk it.

 

Most affairs occur from an innocent conversation in the workplace to more conversations in the workplace etc. And when one of the people involved may be having relationship issues with their spouse.

 

Not to mention jealousy which is a common human trait as it is among baboons. Human spouses tend not to want their spouse meeting the opposite sex in the evenings on a usual basis.

Edited March 30, 2014 by why me