"these Are Our Sisters"

[Calm]

I think the blog posts come at this issue from the side of 'what can/should we do.'   

 

In that pretext, what anyone else is doing is completely irrelevant.  As i often tell my children, "the only person you can control is you, and whether or not someone else is being a jerk does not justify bad behavior on your part.  'He started it' is not an acceptable excuse for your actions.  You need to make choices based on what is right, not based on what someone else is doing."

Yep, not only that, but one of our concerns that caused us to write the blog has been seeing the tendency of the insults, etc. to lead those who weren't originally associated to see themselves as aligned with OW.  I don't think OW sees this as a bad thing….

[Calm]

And these women who do not want the priesthood are saying please don't sow contention and division when we all should be of one mind and depend on revelation.

Well, some of them are.  Others are contributing rather vigorously to the contention and division unfortunately.

 

Pogi's comment about "one mind" is dead on, imo.

Edited March 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Critics use this against the lds as a weapon. It sort of makes the playing field less fair. 

If the only point was winning the argument, then that might be a point to consider.  However, the context of the discussion has moved way past just who is right and who is wrong and into "who is with me and who is against me" and even "who shall we kick out of our home".  Remember these are LDS sisters and brothers we are talking about talking with even if some of them have assumed a role of critic.  

 

Not that dealing only with nonmember critics would justify insults as an appropriate behaviour in my view.

 

It seems bizarre to me to be attempting to defend the use of insults, etc. to defend the Church when the Church itself has asked us not to.

Edited March 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I see it different. I don't think these comments were "veiled insults".   They are responding to the demands of the OW stating that "nothing less will suffice."  This kind of statement marginalizes them from the "millions" of women in the church who do not share this view.  They are are a minority group of women demanding the priesthood for the majority of women who disagree with them.  That is all that they are pointing out here.  It is a good point too.  I think that they are saying, "please don't make demands for all women in the church to receive the priesthood when the vast majority don't agree with you".

I agree.  OW is talking about making changes that will affect every woman in the Church.  It is appropriate to place their demands into the context of that greater majority's perspective.

[Gray]

Or they could do it the mormon way: ask heavenly father in his son's name. Either way, it would be far better than social activism. I think that OW when they decided to use social activism actually betrayed their true motive: to cause contention within the lds church, especially among the women. To pray would have been too peaceful and uncontentious.

 

Activism is a great tool that has brought about much positive change

[pogi]

And yet, one could use reason and still use anger or even be mad. It can perhaps be healthy to use both feelings when on the internet. However, both within reason. I do believe that Joseph Smith also became angry on occasion. It is a normal reaction.

 

I think that the aspiration should be to act in the spirit above even reason.  Yes, Joseph became angry on occasion, I don't think that he acted in ager a whole lot though.  Even Joseph admits that he was imperfect, so it doesn't mean much that he did this. 

 

I agree that it is healthy and normal to feel angry. I disagree that we have to let that anger dictate how we interact with others.  We can let the river of emotion pass through us without jumping in.  We can stand on the banks and let the river pass before we react in anger.

 

A simple search for the word "anger" in lds.org brought up a ton.  Here are a few good ones which demonstrate my point, as well as the position of our leaders and prophets:

 

L. Lionel Kendrick of the Seventy taught:

“Christlike communications are expressed in tones of love rather than loudness. They are intended to be helpful rather than hurtful. They tend to bind us together rather than to drive us apart. They tend to build rather than to belittle.

”Christlike communications are expressions of affection and not anger, truth and not fabrication, compassion and not contention, respect and not ridicule, counsel and not criticism, correction and not condemnation. They are spoken with clarity and not with confusion. They may be tender or they may be tough, but they must always be tempered.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/11/slow-to-anger

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/04/agency-and-anger?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/02/the-case-against-anger?lang=eng&query=anger

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/09/dealing-with-anger-and-contention?lang=eng&query=angerElder%C2'>

[wenglund]

I say bravo.

 

And, I say (using the immortal words of the modern poet, Pharrell Williams):

 

Here come bad news, talking this and that (Yeah)

Well give me all you got, don't hold it back (Yeah)

Well I should probably warn ya, I'll be just fine (Yeah)

No offense to you, don't waste your time, here's why

Because I'm happy!....

 

Bring me down

Can't nothing bring me down

My level is too high to bring me down

Can't nothing bring me down, I said...

 

Words to live by and for every gender to take to heart.

 

Thanks,, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Love this variation on the theme, especially the vulnerability part of "what to do":

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2014/03/no-more-strangers/

 

Anyone else have good blogs/articles similar to these?

[Scott Lloyd]

I can understand this. However, we can take it to the extreme too. I have been on the boards for quite some time. I have seen critics really mock the lds church, use a tone that is not very desirable, and be disrespectful. And when a lds member responds harshly, they get the be christlike lecture. Critics use this against the lds as a weapon. It sort of makes the playing field less fair. So, what happens? The critics use judgment and they can use contention. And yet, we must be kind and christlike. However, to assume that christ never got angry would be a stretch. I am sure that he did but perhaps his angry outburst were left of the gospels because they would not be so faith promoting. We need to remember that the New Testament was written by men who wished to give a very faith promoting narrative for the early church. But at the end of the day, christ was also a human being who had a childhood, who was a teenager and who was a young adult. I would find it hard to be believe if he never got angry and used words accordingly when he was a teenager.

This doesn't square with the understanding that Christ is the only person to have ever lived a perfectly sinless life in mortality -- unless what you are saying is that there was no sin in what you characterize as His angry outbursts.

[Scott Lloyd]

Love this variation on the theme, especially the vulnerability part of "what to do":

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2014/03/no-more-strangers/

Anyone else have good blogs/articles similar to these?

This sentence makes me uncomfortable:

The Church’s Public Affairs department has also entered the fray.

It seems to sustain the notion I have objected to earlier, that the Public Affairs Department is an autonomous entity acting on its own part instead of what it actually is: an official agent acting at the behest of and representing the Church leadership.

[Calm]

This sentence makes me uncomfortable:

It seems to sustain the notion I have objected to earlier, that the Public Affairs Department is an autonomous entity acting on its own part instead of what it actually is: an official agent acting at the behest of and representing the Church leadership.

It is not perfect...I dislike portraying the Church as part of the contention myself, I think one can be involved without being in conflict...and words like "fray" I think contribute to the idea that a fight is going on involving the Church.

But then I can think of a few errors in our blog so overall I still really like it, especially the picture she gives of how the Church adapts its structure in order to meet the varied obstacles of its members to gathering together as we need to strengthen us as a community and in faith.

[cinepro]

However, I think the PR arm of the Church could use a lesson in respectful dialogue as well. In my opinion, the statements from Sister Todd and Jessica Moody made deliberate comments to marginalize and togive thinly veiled insults to the OW group. For example "Millions of women in this church do not share the views of this small group..." and "Women in the Church, by a very large majority, do not share your advocacy..." Each comment, in my opinion, was a calculated statement designed to marginalize the group and to discourage others from looking into the OW group.

 

Those are interesting statements, because each of them could be evaluated from on objective standpoint (i.e. are they literally "true"?) 

 

I suspect they are, and as someone who has criticized the Church for not being forthcoming with the truth in the past, it seems a little silly to start criticizing them for making what I suspect are truthful statements.

 

I don't even see what is "marginalizing" about them.  If an outside (or inside) observer might overestimate the degree to which LDS women support OW, then it is entirely logical for the Church to clarify the scope of the issue.

 

But if you have evidence to the contrary for either of those statements, do share.  I don't know what kind of hard data the PR arm of the Church has, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to knowing what the vast majority of LDS feel about certain issues.  They do tend to pay attention to such things.

Edited March 29, 2014 by cinepro

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

A recent blog on Fairmormon title "These are our Sisters" calls for a more respectful dialogue with our Sisters in the Ordain Women group.

 

Here are few good statements:

 

"Rather than engaging in a respectful and compassionate discussion of what is obviously an extremely divisive topic, many participants have responded with derogatory and dismissive remarks. ... By always responding with kindness in our disagreement, we will be better able to create a safe space for all, without pushing those who feel marginalized to the more extreme positions."

 

"Why does the way we speak to each other matter? The gospel is supposed to be a refuge for all. It welcomes all, and so must we as church members."

 

"We can share his message not only those who have left the faith, but also with members who may wonder if they are even still welcome. We can stop the rejection, insults, and condemnation and make a place on the pew for all who want to follow Christ."

 

 

 

 

I say bravo.

This issue has been around for the 35 years, that I have been a member, I have never known anyone to be unkind. I certainly never have never been so...I don't think kindness is a new idea.

[juliann]

I'm more than a little stunned to see the latest Feminist Mormon Housewives blog.  It is so vulgar I don't think I can link to it from this board so you will have to google it. I'm not sure why they would mock church members so publicly right before the Priesthood session event.  I have never seen anything even close to this coming from those who do not want ordination. I have to say I am really, really, really disappointed.

[mtomm]

I'm more than a little stunned to see the latest Feminist Mormon Housewives blog.  It is so vulgar I don't think I can link to it from this board so you will have to google it. I'm not sure why they would mock church members so publicly right before the Priesthood session event.  I have never seen anything even close to this coming from those who do not want ordination. I have to say I am really, really, really disappointed.

I just think it has too many big words.

[Mystery Meat]

I'm more than a little stunned to see the latest Feminist Mormon Housewives blog.  It is so vulgar I don't think I can link to it from this board so you will have to google it. I'm not sure why they would mock church members so publicly right before the Priesthood session event.  I have never seen anything even close to this coming from those who do not want ordination. I have to say I am really, really, really disappointed.

 

I can't seem to find it.

[Calm]

Go to mormonfeministhousewives dot org.  It is the "why I can no longer support Mormon Feminism" blog.  You need to read the pdf itself to get the full effect, though I would not suggest that anyone do so because it is what Juliann said.  What is very unfortunate are the not so veiled references to real people.  The parody would suggest, imo, that these people are among other things, obsessed with sex and demonstrate useless and idiotic scholarship.

[why me]

 

You agree with the authors that the dialogue should be respectful and compassionate. The blog did not call for agreement with or advocacy of OW. So what is you point with those verses? Are you using those verses to suggest that the dialogue should not be respectful or compassionate?

I think that it depends on the group that is wishing for change in the church and the tactics that they use. How to control the conversation when one side is aggressive and the other is compassionate? When one is using an aggressive media campaign and the other side is respectful? I also don't see any dialogue between the two sides. Usually the church doesn't send representatives to OW video presentations like occurred on the SLT.

 

Lets look at it this way: the church leadership meets with OW for a respectful and compassionate dialogue. Both exchange their views. Nothing changes. OW goes to the media and reports what happened. The media takes up the conversation in more aggressive and critical ways. And members respond with compassion and respect but not with hard hitting dialogue. Who will win the hearts and minds of the members?

 

I have no answer to the question but I can present the possible problem.

[why me]

I'm more than a little stunned to see the latest Feminist Mormon Housewives blog.  It is so vulgar I don't think I can link to it from this board so you will have to google it. I'm not sure why they would mock church members so publicly right before the Priesthood session event.  I have never seen anything even close to this coming from those who do not want ordination. I have to say I am really, really, really disappointed.This

This may have been an April Fool's joke. But only time will tell but sometimes even an april fool's joke is no joke.

Edited April 2, 2014 by why me

[Buckeye]

I'm more than a little stunned to see the latest Feminist Mormon Housewives blog.  It is so vulgar I don't think I can link to it from this board so you will have to google it. I'm not sure why they would mock church members so publicly right before the Priesthood session event.  I have never seen anything even close to this coming from those who do not want ordination. I have to say I am really, really, really disappointed.

 

I agree with why me.  This appears to be an April Fool, though I too was at first taken aback.

[Calm]

I know Juliann is aware it is meant as a joke. The parody itself is problematic in its extremes and in its targeting.

[stemelbow]

I know Juliann is aware it is meant as a joke. The parody itself is problematic in its extremes and in its targeting.

 

Even as a joke it's pretty divisive stuff.  This type of stuff seems far more in line with trying to set sides, put on a show for PR or political reasons, then it is anything genuine.  This is disappointing.

[why me]

I know Juliann is aware it is meant as a joke. The parody itself is problematic in its extremes and in its targeting.

I can understand you. I think that they betrayed who they really are by including it on their website. They should now remove it since many will not take it as an april fool joke a month from now.

[Tacenda]

I thought it was dumb!!  The spirit left the house!!