Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[stemelbow]

Even if they are right, it doesn't merit disrespectful and divisive behaviour.

 

If they are right, then for me that totally falls into God's call.  If they are right perhaps He is inspiring the very move to be disrespectful. 

It gives me the most excitement, peace, and joy to think God is inspiring many individuals to do many things in order to move His work along.  If this be one such case, i'd be as ready as any to embrace it. 

[stemelbow]

Personally, I don't really support what they are proposing to do, but I am beginning to have a lot more sympathy for their cause mainly because of the reaction of some members. And I always have that gnawing concern as to whether I am siding with the modern day Pharisees and Sadducees -- a concern which makes me waffle sometimes, even though we have been repeatedly assured that it can't happen now.

 

Same here.

[Disciple?]

It seems like the church might start being aggressive towards OW; in terms of, excommunication and using propaganda. That will only serve to damage the church in various ways. One potential way is losing the reputation the church has fostered to the world-- the same world we are trying to convert. Namely, within the US, the church is starting to be seen as more tolerant of differing views. I understand what the leadership is faced with on this issue; they have made concessions with nothing to be shown. It seems like that leaves them with two choices: concede or aggresiveness. That is, however, a false-dictohomy; there is a third more fruitful option. The church should just go silent on the issue - do not respond or bring OW up in coference - to tame the rebellion. If you do a cost-benefit analysis of each option - aggresive and silent -- aggresiveness will surely prove more costly.

[teddyaware]

It seems like the church might start being aggressive towards OW; in terms of, excommunication and using propaganda. That will only serve to damage the church in various ways. One potential way is losing the reputation the church has fostered to the world-- the same world we are trying to convert. Namely, within the US, the church is starting to be seen as more tolerant of differing views. I understand what the leadership is faced with on this issue; they have made concessions with nothing to be shown. It seems like that leaves them with two choices: concede or aggresiveness. That is, however, a false-dictohomy; there is a third more fruitful option. The church should just go silent on the issue - do not respond or bring OW up in coference - to tame the rebellion. If you do a cost-benefit analysis of each option - aggresive and silent -- aggresiveness will surely prove more costly.

It would seem likely the following wise counsel from the Lord Himself will be followed by those at the head of the Church of Christ until the harvest is fully ripe.

6 But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also.

7 Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo, the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned.

8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers— (D&C 86)

 

Edited March 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[smac97]

Lack of respect to who or what?  The Church?  The Church Leadership?  The Lord?  How much respect was shown to the Temple Leadership when Christ whipped the money changers at the Temple?  The Leadership at the time felt that He should never have pulled that one.

The irony of this claim is staggering. The moneychangers were driven out because they were profaning the sacred space of the temple. They were engaging in inappropriate behavior at an inappropriate time at an inappropriate place.

Personally, I find little value in comparing the OW group's planned protest to the historical cleansing of the temple. To the extent there is a comparison to be made, the OW group would be aptly compared to . . . the moneychangers. Note, however, that they are being treated with kindness and respect, despite their stated intention to defy the Church and trespass on its property. So the comparison doesn't have much value, does it? The situations are not the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

They showed a clear lack of respect to protest on the Church's property to begin with.  They never should have pulled that one. 

 

Lack of respect to who or what?  The Church?  The Church Leadership?  The Lord?  How much respect was shown to the Temple Leadership when Christ whipped the money changers at the Temple?  The Leadership at the time felt that He should never have pulled that one.

 

This comparison is so profoundly inappropriate in so many ways it is breathtaking.

 

Yep.  Whose House was it, anyway?  If I remember correctly, I think the first time Christ cleansed the Temple, He took them to task for defiling "my Father's House," while the second time he cleansed the Temple, he took them to task for defiling "my House."  There is much room to discuss the role of women in the Church and what changes might be advisable to expand that role to the fullest extent possible while still staying true to doctrine.  And (while I am in no way comparing anyone in Ordain Women to the moneychangers), there is a time and a place for that.  

 

If anyone says, "They have no choice: otherwise their pleas will fall on deaf ears," I would ask, "Then how did women praying in General Conference, and General Relief Society Presidency pictures in the Conference Center, and changes in leadership for sister missionaries, and similar things come about?"  (Granted, these are all small changes, relatively speaking, but we're talking about the allegation that General Church leadership at the highest levels is completely deaf to the prospect of expanding roles for women.)  Again, if General Church leadership is so profoundly deaf, then how did these other changes come about?  And to someone who says, "Well, if Ordain Women is, in even the minutest way, like the moneychangers, then God should come set the membership straight personally; members shouldn't be accountable to any man or men," I would wonder whether she really wants to bring that about (i.e., whether she would really like the results if that were to happen).

 

Nope.  When it comes to ensuring that the proper spirit prevails at meetings of His Church and on grounds which have dedicated to Him, all He has to work with are human beings.  That should be more than adequate.  (While perhaps I'm alone in this regard, I shudder at the prospect that the Lord would feel the need to do that Himself.)  If the membership or leadership of Ordain Women want to stand as accusers at the Judgment Bar for any unfair treatment they allege at the hands of those human beings, they're more than welcome to do so.  Personally, if I were responsible for making decisions about what takes place on property dedicated to the Lord, I would want to err on the side of incurring Ordain Women's wrath rather than on the side of incurring the Lord's wrath.  But, that's just me!

Edited April 1, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

Personally, I don't really support what they are proposing to do, but I am beginning to have a lot more sympathy for their cause mainly because of the reaction of some members.

I am troubled that some Latter-day Saints have responded to the OW group with vituperation. That shouldn't be happening. However, the OW group should not be actively working to provoke such vituperation. I feel that I am a fairly moderate and patient person. But the notion of a self-selected group of Latter-day Saints carrying out a protest on Church property . . . in defiance of instruction from the Church . . . during General Conference . . . while standing shoulder to shoulder with apostates against the Church . . . with orchestrated media coverage . . . and actively recruiting other Latter-day Saints to join them . . . well, that is hard to stomach.

 

And I always have that gnawing concern as to whether I am siding with the modern day Pharisees and Sadducees -- a concern which makes me waffle sometimes, even though we have been repeatedly assured that it can't happen now.

I don't see the Brethren and The Church as "modern day Pharisees and Sadducees." What pharisaical philosophies can be found in, say, The Ensign? I'm not seeing such things in the counsel we receive from church leadership.  Frankly, I find the insinuation hard to accept in good faith.

In the OW group, we have a small group of self-appointed folks who have demanded the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will suffice." They have aligned themselves with an excommunicated apostate, even featuring her on the front page of their website (fifth from the left):

 

 

They are now publicly defying the Church and planning to trespass on its property, and they plan to do so in such a way and in such a a fashion as to detract and disrupt a sacred convocation of the Saints.  And I think we can be sure that they will do everything they can to make sure there is as much adverse media coverage of their antics as possible.  They are actively asking other people, including Latter-day Saints, to join them in their efforts.

 

I know the Church has a lot of ways it can improve, but not this way.  God's house is a house of order.  

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 1, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

It seems like the church might start being aggressive towards OW; in terms of, excommunication and using propaganda. That will only serve to damage the church in various ways.

First, I am not sure that church disciplinary action against inappropriate conduct is "being aggressive."

Second, such decisions are largely left to the local leaders of individuals.

Third, you are correct in your assessment about asymmetrical warfare. The OW group can be "aggressive" against the Church, but the Church responding with disciplinary action could result in bad press from sympathetic media. It's a game of "heads" the OW group wins, "tails" the Church loses. No matter what, the OW group, in engaging in such unseemly tactics against their own faith, will be able to simultaneously garner praise for themselves and condemnation for the Church.

 

One potential way is losing the reputation the church has fostered to the world-- the same world we are trying to convert. Namely, within the US, the church is starting to be seen as more tolerant of differing views.

So letting a specific group engage in protests on Church property, simply because some of them are church members, is a stifling of "differing views?" Sorry, not buying that.

 

I understand what the leadership is faced with on this issue; they have made concessions with nothing to be shown. It seems like that leaves them with two choices: concede or aggresiveness.

Or additional kindness and patience. That's what they Church has been doing so far. Additional kindness and patience will either A) bear fruit, such that the OW group will back off their current unseemly approach to this issue or, B) not bear fruit, such that the OW group will ratchet up their unseemly behavior. If A, fine. If B, then I think they will run out of steam fairly fast. Observant Latter-day Saints are not going to fall in line with an increasingly antagonistic group.

 

That is, however, a false-dictohomy; there is a third more fruitful option. The church should just go silent on the issue - do not respond or bring OW up in coference - to tame the rebellion. If you do a cost-benefit analysis of each option - aggresive and silent -- aggresiveness will surely prove more costly.

Well said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 1, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

DELETE

Sorry, I shouldn't have written this one.

Edited April 1, 2014 by smac97

[cdowis]

If they are right, then for me that totally falls into God's call.  If they are right perhaps He is inspiring the very move to be disrespectful. 

It gives me the most excitement, peace, and joy to think God is inspiring many individuals to do many things in order to move His work along.  If this be one such case, i'd be as ready as any to embrace it. 

 

Not sure what church you are associated with.  There are many churches who decide on doctrines from popular opinion, and grassroots organizations.  The LDS church is governed by prophets who have the keys to administer the church. 

 

But I'm sure you can find many churches who agree with your view.

Edited April 1, 2014 by cdowis

[stemelbow]

Not sure what church you are associated with.  There are many churches who decide on doctrines from popular opinion, and grassroots organizations.  The LDS church is governed by prophets who have the keys to administer the church. 

 

But I'm sure you can find many churches who agree with your view.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

 

Its reasonable, in my view, to think the leadership may be mistaken from time to time.  I feel no concern on that.  We'll get through any mistakes of men.  It's good that we learn to test all assumptions.  It's good that we learn for ourselves.  Afterall for the bulk of the human race, God works sans the LDS Church.  Most people who live, if God loves, inspires, teaches, chastises, exhorts, are so guided/directed without the LDS Church.  Good for them...Great of God.

[why me]

It seems like the church might start being aggressive towards OW; in terms of, excommunication and using propaganda. That will only serve to damage the church in various ways. One potential way is losing the reputation the church has fostered to the world-- the same world we are trying to convert. Namely, within the US, the church is starting to be seen as more tolerant of differing views. I understand what the leadership is faced with on this issue; they have made concessions with nothing to be shown. It seems like that leaves them with two choices: concede or aggresiveness. That is, however, a false-dictohomy; there is a third more fruitful option. The church should just go silent on the issue - do not respond or bring OW up in coference - to tame the rebellion. If you do a cost-benefit analysis of each option - aggresive and silent -- aggresiveness will surely prove more costly.

But we do have a problem then of being of one mind. Very few churches survive well with being tolerant of differing views inside the church. In fact, it is just the opposite. Most tolerant churches seem to be in decline. A church with too many differing views can come off as a church of men and women but not of god. What many people seem to appreciate these days are churches who take a stand, swim against the beliefs of men and women and rely on god.

[why me]

I am troubled that some Latter-day Saints have responded to the OW group with vituperation. That shouldn't be happening. However, the OW group should not be actively working to provoke such vituperation. I feel that I am a fairly moderate and patient person. But the notion of a self-selected group of Latter-day Saints carrying out a protest on Church property . . . in defiance of instruction from the Church . . . during General Conference . . . while standing shoulder to shoulder with apostates against the Church . . . with orchestrated media coverage . . . and actively recruiting other Latter-day Saints to join them . . . well, that is hard to stomach.

 

I don't see the Brethren and The Church as "modern day Pharisees and Sadducees." What pharisaical philosophies can be found in, say, The Ensign? I'm not seeing such things in the counsel we receive from church leadership.  Frankly, I find the insinuation hard to accept in good faith.

In the OW group, we have a small group of self-appointed folks who have demanded the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will suffice." They have aligned themselves with an excommunicated apostate, even featuring her on the front page of their website (fifth from the left):

 

 

They are now publicly defying the Church and planning to trespass on its property, and they plan to do so in such a way and in such a a fashion as to detract and disrupt a sacred convocation of the Saints.  And I think we can be sure that they will do everything they can to make sure there is as much adverse media coverage of their antics as possible.  They are actively asking other people, including Latter-day Saints, to join them in their efforts.

 

I know the Church has a lot of ways it can improve, but not this way.  God's house is a house of order.  

 

Thanks,

-Smac

What I find interesting is just how they are dressed for the role. All are in traditional mormon modest clothing, looking like they are on their way to church. I find imaging to be very important in convincing people that the protest group is just like them. I have found the same type of imaging on an exmormon site. Regardless if the photos of people may be photo shopped or real, all look like mormons, full of smiles and modest dress and clean cut.

 

As in the advert above, the message is clear: we are you.

 

However there is something missing from the photo. There should also be a girl among the women since girls will also get the priesthood. But for some reason they seem to ignore the girls.

 

Edited: on closer inspection it doesn't seem like one of the women is wearing garments (first from left) and another who is the fourth from the left is not either. But I have no idea of garment style these days for women.

Edited April 1, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Not sure what church you are associated with.  There are many churches who decide on doctrines from popular opinion, and grassroots organizations.  The LDS church is governed by prophets who have the keys to administer the church. 

 

But I'm sure you can find many churches who agree with your view.

This is true. And that was my point to the poster named Disciple? Paul cautioned the church in the NT that it should be of one mind in order to avoid splits and contention within its membership. I believe that this was a major problem for paul and he cautioned about it a few times.

 

What I see with the OW group is the desire for contention. It is organized to convince women that they have a right to the priesthood, regardless of what god may think.

[Stone holm]

But we do have a problem then of being of one mind. Very few churches survive well with being tolerant of differing views inside the church. In fact, it is just the opposite. Most tolerant churches seem to be in decline. A church with too many differing views can come off as a church of men and women but not of god. What many people seem to appreciate these days are churches who take a stand, swim against the beliefs of men and women and rely on god.

Absolutely, intolerance is the road to success.

[Stone holm]

What I find interesting is just how they are dressed for the role. All are in traditional mormon modest clothing, looking like they are on their way to church. I find imaging to be very important in convincing people that the protest group is just like them. I have found the same type of imaging on an exmormon site. Regardless if the photos of people may be photo shopped or real, all look like mormons, full of smiles and modest dress and clean cut.

 

As in the advert above, the message is clear: we are you.

 

However there is something missing from the photo. There should also be a girl among the women since girls will also get the priesthood. But for some reason they seem to ignore the girls.

Not sure I understand this post. Do you expect all women who disagree with Church leadership regarding gender segregation to dress like sluts, or possibly to dress like men or something?

[teddyaware]

Not sure I understand this post. Do you expect all women who disagree with Church leadership regarding gender segregation to dress like sluts, or possibly to dress like men or something?

Let me help you. He's talking about the old wolves in sheep's clothing thing.

[why me]

Not sure I understand this post. Do you expect all women who disagree with Church leadership regarding gender segregation to dress like sluts, or possibly to dress like men or something?

To dress like normal women outside the church, summer shorts, tank tops. short dresses etc. When I visit my cousins who are not members, they do not seem to dress like mormons to cover their garments or to dress modestly. They have stylish normal clothing for women. I don't expect an exmormon site to keep up the mormon imaging.

 

The image of the exmormon site is simple: we are out of the church, but we are still just like you who are in the church.

Edited April 1, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Let me help you. He's talking about the old wolves in sheep's clothing thing.

True. We need to remember the mindset and stereotyping. All the women in the photo fit the mormon stereotype. One should at least be wearing a pair of pants but what we find is that although all may be feminists, they still find it necessary to dress like Molly Mormon for the photo. Why? To attract lds women to their cause.

 

In my ward, most of the women do not dress like Molly Mormons from Utah as seen in the OW photo. I would bet my cowboy boots that when this photo was discussed among the women involved, the decision was made to dress for the stereotyping church dress. Even, who I believe to be, Margaret Toscano is dressed for church. (fifth from left in the above photo)

 

However on closer look, it does seem that two are not wearing garments, even though they seem to be dressed for church. Maybe they made a small mistake which can barely be noticed.

Edited April 1, 2014 by why me

[Stone holm]

To dress like normal women outside the church, summer shorts, tank tops. short dresses etc. When I visit my cousins who are not members, they do not seem to dress like mormons to cover their garments or to dress modestly. They have stylish normal clothing for women. I don't expect an exmormon site to keep up the mormon imaging.

We Mormons don't have a lock on modesty. It's really arrogant for us to express surprise that women are going to dress themselves in a degrading way just because they may disagree with us on some religious point of view. I have heard it said that Western Mormon women wear too much make up and spend too much time with hair spray which is an equally arrogant thing to say even if it appears to be true at times.

[Stone holm]

True. We need to remember the mindset and stereotyping. All the women in the photo fit the mormon stereotype. One should at least be wearing a pair of pants but what we find is that although all may be feminists, they still find it necessary to dress like Molly Mormon for the photo. Why? To attract lds women to their cause.

Wow.

[Calm]

To dress like normal women outside the church, summer shorts, tank tops. short dresses etc. When I visit my cousins who are not members, they do not seem to dress like mormons to cover their garments or to dress modestly. They have stylish normal clothing for women. I don't expect an exmormon site to keep up the mormon imaging.

The image of the exmormon site is simple: we are out of the church, but we are still just like you who are in the church.

Chances are that photo was taken last October outside of the Tabernacle overflow. Of course they would be dressed for Church, they were hoping to be in one.

And it is not an exmormon site even if some of its members are exMormons.

And if it wasn't last October who cares? We would expect nonmember men attending the Priesthood Session to dress typically lds so it is appropriate for them to dress for that function that way.

Edited April 1, 2014 by calmoriah

[mtomm]

They might not be dressed in their cutesy immodest non-LDS looking clothing because it was an evening the first of April in Utah.  I'd say I always put lots more clothes on when its about in the 50s.  YMMV.  

 

These comments about their clothing are a real part of the reason that groups like FMH and OW exist.  

[why me]

Chances are that photo was taken last October outside of the Tabernacle overflow. Of course they would be dressed for Church, they were hoping to be in one.

And it is not an exmormon site even if some of its members are exMormons.

I was writing about the postmo site.

[why me]

They might not be dressed in their cutesy immodest non-LDS looking clothing because it was an evening the first of April in Utah.  I'd say I always put lots more clothes on when its about in the 50s.  YMMV.  

 

These comments about their clothing are a real part of the reason that groups like FMH and OW exist.  

Actually that may be. But not really. On the postmo site, all the photos on their homepage give the mormon stereotyping. I would prefer that mormon groups both in or out of the church get rid of the stereotyping both for women and for men. Mormons dress in diverse ways and Sunday dress is no different. The women in my ward wear short dresses at times and the men can wear a black shirt with a gray tie or a blue shirt etc. We all don't look alike. Some even have beards.