Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[why me]

Oh course, they don't see it as being against the Church but as helping to motivate leaders to make positive changes to help the Church progress.

I think that it is difficult to look into their hearts...I am sure that for some it is against the church or to cause the church a problem down the road. I would say that the organization is made up of a mixed bag of people. I do believe that their ultimate goal is to sow contention.

[Calm]

I think that it is difficult to look into their hearts...I am sure that for some it is against the church or to cause the church a problem down the road. I would say that the organization is made up of a mixed bag of people. I do believe that their ultimate goal is to sow contention.

If it is difficult to look into their hearts why are you so eager to attribute to some a contentious motivation?

[why me]

If it is difficult to look into their hearts why are you so eager to attribute to some a contentious motivation?

By their actions. Also, if one excepts an apostate as a spokesperson, one must assume the motivation. The problem with such organizations is to keep out the haters. And this is no easy task. I am sure that there are women who joined only because they want to be active against the church and use this issue as a way to do so. As the organization grows and exmembers join, the situation will change and maybe sister kelly will have a problem on her hand, the same that John Dehlin had with mormonstories chapters and podcasts.

 

I remember what feministmormonhousewives used to be. A small group of women who were active, writing about this or that but nothing challenging to the church. But as the site grew, they began to have a problem of keeping control of their name. Some women wished to start chapters and the problem was how to control these chapters if permission were given. And what is the site now...a far cry from what is was.

 

One must keep out exers and the critics if one wishes to have a faith promoting site or organization.

[Bikeemikey]

Ascertaining whether the current disputed point, gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination, has a doctrinal/scriptural foundation is "irrelevant?"

All I can say is: "Oh."

Agreed.

Agreed.

I disagree. Faithful black members of the Church did not wage an in-your-face PR campaign against the Church. They did not align themselves with excommunicated apostates. They did not demand the priesthood and say "nothing less will suffice." They did not protest during and disrupt General Conference. They did not defy the Church and trespass on Church property. And on and on.

There is very little similarity between the A) humility and earnest yearnings of the pre-1978 black Saints and B) the unseemly and inappropriate tactics used by the OW group.

In any event, similarities in "the change and the process" do not particularly interest me. Without first understanding the doctrine, arguing over the propriety of "change" to doctrine is a waste of time.

I've read it, and I enjoyed it as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not suggesting the OW movements actions are similar to the actions preceding the 1978 revelation.

I'm suggesting that the result of the two decades leading up to 1978 made the question of black ordination unavoidable. That is the similarity.

The church is now in an era where the question of women's ordination will be with us for the next many decades.

This will make the issue central to the brethren over the next many years. Revelation will be sought. Some change will be inevitable. Will it be what OW are asking for, I have no idea.

Does that mean OW are correct in their actions? That's not a question I really care much about. Given the OW movement can not force change on the church that god does not sanction via revelation I fail to see any real harm.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

By their actions. Also, if one excepts an apostate as a spokesperson, one must assume the motivation. 

No, you have the choice of making that assumption and making the accusations….contrary to what the Church encourages us to do, btw.

[rockpond]

And here we go! CFR, please for the "scriptural and revelatory reasons" you cite here. (If you are earnestly willing to have this discussion, perhaps we should start another thread - just let me know).

 

...

I am saying that I think the pre-1978 race-based restriction on the priesthood was difficult/impossible to "square with the revelations," with "the four standard works" which are "the measuring yardsticks . . . by which we measure every man's doctrine." I am also saying that, in contrast, I think the ongoing gender-based restriction is squareable (is that a word?).

 

 

And I agree that looking back, the pre-1978 race-based restriction on the priesthood & temple is difficult/impossible to "square" as we look back from our current perspective.  But, prior to 1978 it was not so easy to dismiss the scriptural basis (Abraham 3, "curse of Cain") and the revelatory basis ("direct commandment from the Lord" -- George A. Smith & counselors).  Some individuals tried...  For a glimpse into that period of time, take a look at the Elder Stapley - Gov. Romney letters from 1964 or the Dr. Nelson - 1st Presidency letters from 1947.  The ban was based in the "revelations of the Lord touching the preexistence" and was "doctrine of the church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders" from the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

If you view the priesthood ban as not being solidly based in revelation or scripture, then do you consider it an error?

[Stone holm]

And I agree that looking back, the pre-1978 race-based restriction on the priesthood & temple is difficult/impossible to "square" as we look back from our current perspective.  But, prior to 1978 it was not so easy to dismiss the scriptural basis (Abraham 3, "curse of Cain") and the revelatory basis ("direct commandment from the Lord" -- George A. Smith & counselors).  Some individuals tried...  For a glimpse into that period of time, take a look at the Elder Stapley - Gov. Romney letters from 1964 or the Dr. Nelson - 1st Presidency letters from 1947.  The ban was based in the "revelations of the Lord touching the preexistence" and was "doctrine of the church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders" from the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

If you view the priesthood ban as not being solidly based in revelation or scripture, then do you consider it an error?

I tend to agree. It was so engrained in the teachings and thinking of the Church, that it was necessary for The Lord to raise up an especially prepared Prophet to undo it. So the question is, is The Lord rearing up an especially prepared Prophet to change the gender role stereotyping we have developed by projecting hunter/gather work sharing habits to eras in which they no longer apply?

[smac97]

I'm not suggesting the OW movements actions are similar to the actions preceding the 1978 revelation.

I'm suggesting that the result of the two decades leading up to 1978 made the question of black ordination unavoidable. That is the similarity.

The church is now in an era where the question of women's ordination will be with us for the next many decades.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The biggest problem with the pre-1978 priesthood restriction was its lack of revelatory provenance. We did not know where it came from, and its support in scripture was nigh unto non-existent. In contrast, I think there is a substantial body of scriptural/doctrinal support for the ongoing gender-based restriction.

 

This will make the issue central to the brethren over the next many years.

We'll see, I suppose.

 

Revelation will be sought. Some change will be inevitable.

Change in practices? Sure. We've seen that already. Change in doctrine being "inevitable?" I'm not so sure.

 

Does that mean OW are correct in their actions?

No, they are not. We don't need to wait to see what happens in the future to discern that protesting against the Church is wrong, aligning with excommunicated apostates is wrong, demanding the priesthood and saying "nothing less will suffice" is wrong, planning to continue agitating regardless of the answer they are given is wrong.

 

That's not a question I really care much about.

Hm. I've found it to be a question very much worth asking and answering.

 

Given the OW movement can not force change on the church that god does not sanction via revelation I fail to see any real harm.

That is not the concern I have, either. But I can see real harm in forming a group that engages in wrongful behavior, even if that behavior does not culminate in a change in doctrine. I see real harm in LDS women telling other LDS women (and men) to protest against their own church, to disrupt sacred convocations for media publicity, to defy the Church's instructions and trespass on its property, to attend an unsanctioned "priestesshood" session which was specifically scheduled to conflict with General Conference, to have an excommunicated apostate be a key speaker and member of a panel discussion during that "priestesshood" session, to demand a profound change in doctrine and say that "nothing less will suffice," and so on.

The OW group forcing a change in doctrine has never been a concern for anyone, so suggesting that is just a red herring.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 30, 2014 by smac97

[Bikeemikey]

Perhaps, perhaps not. The biggest problem with the pre-1978 priesthood restriction was its lack of revelatory provenance. We did not know where it came from, and its support in scripture was nigh unto non-existent. In contrast, I think there is a substantial body of scriptural/doctrinal support for the ongoing gender-based restriction.

 

This is an area that warrants further discussion. Having said that, as we have already agreed that in an alternative universe The Book of Mormon could contain explicit directives against women ordination and that would not matter at all if the current prophet received revelation that it was time for women's ordination. As such examining historical scriptural precedent and doctrinal notions relevant to the discussion is more an exercise in sociology than anything else. 

 

Such an inquiry will only highlight how we as present day folk respond to and draw current meaning from the past. It will have nothing to do with what God wants to do today.

 

All that said, a couple of decades prior to 1978 there was no issue in the church regarding the revelatory provenance of the ban. Brigham Young got up in conference and pronounced... " if no one has said it before let me say it now, the negro can not have the priesthood" (abridged :-) ). The problem with scripture and revelation is that our understanding of it is always context driven. As the same texts were read by a new generations the interpretations of the past gave way to new ways of looking at things.

 

As such, by the time 1978 came around there really was no "revelatory provenance" (great phrase by the way, might want to TM it) in the Church. That is very different from the idea that there "never" was revelatory provenance in the church for the ban.

 

 

Change in practices? Sure. We've seen that already. Change in doctrine being "inevitable?" I'm not so sure.

 

 

Sure. I have no issue with that idea. I never quantified or stipulated the type of changes that will occur. I only ever stated that women's status in the church is now a part of the discourse of the brethren change will occur on the topic of womens role/inclusion/priesthood in the church. Might be big, might be small.

 

No, they are not. We don't need to wait to see what happens in the future to discern that protesting against the Church is wrong, aligning with excommunicated apostates is wrong, demanding the priesthood and saying "nothing less will suffice" is wrong, planning to continue agitating regardless of the answer they are given is wrong.

 

But I can see real harm in forming a group that engages in wrongful behavior, even if that behavior does not culminate in a change in doctrine. I see real harm in LDS women telling other LDS women (and men) to protest against their own church, to disrupt sacred convocations for media publicity, to defy the Church's instructions and trespass on its property, to attend an unsanctioned "priestesshood" session which was specifically scheduled to conflict with General Conference, to have an excommunicated apostate be a key speaker and member of a panel discussion during that "priestesshood" session, to demand a profound change in doctrine and say that "nothing less will suffice," and so on.

The OW group forcing a change in doctrine has never been a concern for anyone, so suggesting that is just a red herring.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

*** This last quote is slightly edited but I do not believe I have altered your meaning in anyway ***

 

 

This is just an area of disagreement. 

 

I can see the OW groups actions as being disruptive, uncomfortable, frustrating, embarrassing, creating undue attention, and many other things... I just don't see any of these issues as substantial enough for the church to intervene and, as a prophetic and priesthood request, formally assert its right to stop the actions. They haven't thus far, and I am skeptical that they will, assuming the OW movement maintains the current method of engagement on the topic.

 

You talk alot of the real harm that you see... but I just don't see it. That does not mean you are wrong, just that I don't see that harm you are referring to. So far the harm has been defined by the actions that cause the harm... perhaps if you highlighted how this is harmful  in more detail I would be able to understand you point better.

[cdowis]

"If women received the priesthood, who would watch the kids?"

 

This ranks with the silliest argument I have ever heard.

 

No one has addressed my question of every female temple ordinance being re-done.  To me, that would indicate a change, not just of a practice, but of a doctrine.

Edited March 31, 2014 by cdowis

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't think so.

My point is that if Nelson was only expressing an opinion, it can't be viewed as a precedent for someone other than the Church president receiving revelation to govern the entire Church.

[rockpond]

Perhaps, perhaps not. The biggest problem with the pre-1978 priesthood restriction was its lack of revelatory provenance. We did not know where it came from, and its support in scripture was nigh unto non-existent. In contrast, I think there is a substantial body of scriptural/doctrinal support for the ongoing gender-based restriction.

 

But you understand that prior to 1978 (and in many respects, prior to the Randy Bott interview fallout) the temple/priesthood ban was not seen as lacking revelatory provenance.  We did know where it came from and we saw plenty of support in scripture.

[stemelbow]

My point is that if Nelson was only expressing an opinion, it can't be viewed as a precedent for someone other than the Church president receiving revelation to govern the entire Church.

 

And that's a fair point.  my point is the doctrines, practice, and policies of the Church might be wrongly attributed to being set by revelation.  Granted if so, that would be in extremely rare cases.  But the possibility is there.  Its possible no one knows there is error.  But it's also possible someone knows it's error, whether by revelation or not.

[stemelbow]

But you understand that prior to 1978 (and in many respects, prior to the Randy Bott interview fallout) the temple/priesthood ban was not seen as lacking revelatory provenance.  We did know where it came from and we saw plenty of support in scripture.

 

That's what makes this all the more interesting to me.  Much like the priesthood restriction for women, leaders gave the impression that they knew what they were talking about when it came to the explanation for the restriction to black males.  Now, though, it appears the past leaders were wrong in their reasons behind it.

 

Perhaps we are wrong now to withhold the priesthood from women--thinking our explanations for the restriction is God-inspired.  Once the leaders are open to accept that, we may see something similar to '78.  Who knows?

[rockpond]

That's what makes this all the more interesting to me.  Much like the priesthood restriction for women, leaders gave the impression that they knew what they were talking about when it came to the explanation for the restriction to black males.  Now, though, it appears the past leaders were wrong in their reasons behind it.

 

Perhaps we are wrong now to withhold the priesthood from women--thinking our explanations for the restriction is God-inspired.  Once the leaders are open to accept that, we may see something similar to '78.  Who knows?

 

I agree.

[stemelbow]

I agree.

 

What I keep going back to on this question is, I imagine Mother in Heaven has far more power and authority than anybody on earth does.  if so, women also need priesthood, just like men, in order to practice it, be a part of it, learn from it. 

[rockpond]

What I keep going back to on this question is, I imagine Mother in Heaven has far more power and authority than anybody on earth does.  if so, women also need priesthood, just like men, in order to practice it, be a part of it, learn from it. 

 

Yep, we certainly know that women (or some women) will act in the priesthood in some capacity in the next life.

[Scott Lloyd]

Couple of things:

I was initially puzzled by wording in the letter from the Church to the OW group referring to a "longstanding" policy of disallowing news cameras on Temple Square for general conference coverage. In fact I and other news representatives have routinely shot photos on the grounds at past conferences.

Having seen news reports over the past couple of days, I think I now understand better the Church's position ( though let it be known I am not acting here as a Church spokesman).

If the Church representatives say there has been a longstanding policy, I won't contradict them. It could be viewed as a policy that has been in place in the past but not enforced because up to now there has not been a compelling need to do so. Kate Kelly and her group have changed the landscape such that now there is such a need.

 

It could be likened to a suspended jail or prison sentence. The sentence is always present -- in suspension, as it were -- but is not to be executed unless the convicted person fails to comply with conditions imposed by the court.

My second point has to do with whether their planned action constitutes a protest demonstration. There can be no reasonable conclusion otherwise. The Church has already given a blanket response in advance to their request for tickets. Thus, there can be no other purpose for their waiting in the standby line than to make a public show.

In this, it can be compared to the sit-ins or the picketing of the 1960s. Granted, it's not as disruptive, although it is to a degree, because it imposes an element of adversarial confrontation in an atmosphere that conference-goers expect to be sublime and reverent. Moreover, it occupies places in line that are intended for those who are eligible for admission and have a realistic chance of gaining it.

In requesting that the Church reconsider the ban on news photographers on Temple Square during the conference, the Society of Professional Journalists has not made a persuasive case. Everyone knows that at least some media companies will use the privilege to record and publicize the actions of the OW group. And there is already ample means of broadcasting and disseminating the general conference even without allowing carte blanche admission to news photographers. The Church administration therefore would have nothing to gain by allowing the OW group on the grounds in the first place or by allowing news photographers there to facilitate the public show that they intend.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

People who focus on the priesthood, or rather the equitable distribution of the priesthood and offices therein, or more particularly focus on taking upon themselves to counsel God and his chosen leaders about the equitable distribution of the priesthood and offices, have a wildly different grasp of the gospel of Christ than I.

 

To me, they are attempting to attain leadership and authority in a religious faith they don't rightly understand. How backwards is that?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

People who focus on the priesthood, or rather the equitable distribution of the priesthood and offices therein, or more particularly focus on taking upon themselves to counsel God and his chosen leaders about the equitable distribution of the priesthood and offices, have a wildly different grasp of the gospel of Christ than I.

 

To me, they are attempting to attain leadership and authority in a religious faith they don't rightly understand. How backwards is that?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So members should not give counsel to leadership, it should be strictly a downward flow?  Understand the concept, and I suspect there is some Scriptural authority for it, just want to make sure that is what you are saying.  In other words, shut up and obey, and if we need your opinion we will give it to you?  Is that how the Church should run?

[stemelbow]

People who focus on the priesthood, or rather the equitable distribution of the priesthood and offices therein, or more particularly focus on taking upon themselves to counsel God and his chosen leaders about the equitable distribution of the priesthood and offices, have a wildly different grasp of the gospel of Christ than I.

 

To me, they are attempting to attain leadership and authority in a religious faith they don't rightly understand. How backwards is that?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Nobody sees this as a desire to counsel God at all.  The question is have leaders erred?  Surely its possible.  We know that because they have erred in the past.

[stemelbow]

So members should not give counsel to leadership, it should be strictly a downward flow?  Understand the concept, and I suspect there is some Scriptural authority for it, just want to make sure that is what you are saying.  In other words, shut up and obey, and if we need your opinion we will give it to you?  Is that how the Church should run?

 

No.  That's an attempt to create robots. I'd imagine God wants more animation out of us--hoping each of us learn for ourselves. 

[wenglund]

So members should not give counsel to leadership, it should be strictly a downward flow?  Understand the concept, and I suspect there is some Scriptural authority for it, just want to make sure that is what you are saying.  In other words, shut up and obey, and if we need your opinion we will give it to you?  Is that how the Church should run?

 

No reasonably minded person with adequate reading comprehension skills could extrapolate anything of the sort from my comments. Not only did you misread the tertiary aspect of what I said, but you clearly failed to grasp my key and secondary points. Please take more care in your reading.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Nobody sees this as a desire to counsel God at all.  The question is have leaders erred?  Surely its possible.  We know that because they have erred in the past.

 

Whether one reasonably sees it as people presuming to counseling God, or whether one sees it simply as people presuming to judge whether the leaders are in err and presuming to take upon themselves to rectify the presumed leadership error,  is not only a meaningless semantic quibble (if it walks like a duck...), but it is beside the key and secondary points of my comments--which, since two of you thus far appear to have missed it, perhaps I should have bolded the words "focused" and "gospel of Christ" for your benefit.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

No one has addressed my question of every female temple ordinance being re-done.  To me, that would indicate a change, not just of a practice, but of a doctrine.

 

If priesthood is not currently required for women, it would seem doctrinal that it is not required for them for temple ordinances to be valid but is an additional blessing for the future.  If so, it is an ordinance that can be added for a woman without having to redo others.  It could be done pretty fast, much like baptisms for the dead.