Ow Movement Tactics

[why me]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57765886-78/women-church-lds-priesthood.html.csp

 

This is quite an interesting article. However, this is what I have noticed from the text.

 

"Women are coming from as far away as New Zealand, Germany and Mexico City just to participate in this event," Kelly said. "To deny them the opportunity to ask themselves [for tickets] would be extremely disappointing for women who already feel so marginalized.

 

Kelly maintains her group’s ticket-request strategy is sound. After all, it was her idea.

"The entire point is for women to assert themselves, to ask for what they want and need," she said, "and to have this conversation with the church and with the Lord."

 

Questions: has the lord marginalized these women? And why would he do so? and Was the part about the lord just put into the sentence for effect. I ask the final question because I don't see the connection...personally, I would just take it to the lord and not protest on temple square.

Edited April 3, 2014 by why me

[why me]

However, when I now see this event that will also be staged as people go to worship, I must say enough is enough. It seems that General conference is becoming a staging ground not just from exmormons and atheists, but also from mormon groups such as OW.  It doesn't look good for the people who just want a chance to worship in peace.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57765900-78/atheists-church-march-convention.html.csp

Edited April 3, 2014 by why me

[Storm Rider]

I never needed to talk with the media to have a conversation with the Lord.  In fact, I never needed permission from anyone else to talk with God and the only one in that relationship that did any degree of marginalization is me.  

[bluebell]

I know that OW was raising money and soliciting people who would be able to come if their way was paid. Last I heard they had raised something like $8,000 but that was a while ago.

Given that I'm not surprised there are going to be international members present.

[Bikeemikey]

I know that OW was raising money and soliciting people who would be able to come if their way was paid. Last I heard they had raised something like $8,000 but that was a while ago.

Given that I'm not surprised there are going to be international members present.

I have a great friend who flew from New Zealand (at her own expense) to attend conference and show solidarity with the OW movement.

She had tickets to many of the conference sessions including the women's conference. However, it appears there was an error in how many women's conference tickets were issued and she, along with many others, were not able to attend the women's conference as it was to full.

She did however get invited to a private meeting with the the office of priesthood administration (need to check that exactly) and spent a few hours talking about women's role in the church, gender reform in the church and other women's issues. She said it was an excellent conversation.

[bluebell]

I have a great friend who flew from New Zealand (at her own expense) to attend conference and show solidarity with the OW movement.

She had tickets to many of the conference sessions including the women's conference. However, it appears there was an error in how many women's conference tickets were issued and she, along with many others, were not able to attend the women's conference as it was to full.

She did however get invited to a private meeting with the the office of priesthood administration (need to check that exactly) and spent a few hours talking about women's role in the church, gender reform in the church and other women's issues. She said it was an excellent conversation.

That's really interesting. Is she affiliated with OW?

That's really cool too that women's conference was full. Not cool in the sense that some didn't get in but cool that so many wanted to be there. I was under the impression that there were many empty seats visible on the broadcast. I must have misunderstood.

[Kenngo1969]

I wonder why other facilities weren't employed to accommodate an overflow, such as the Assembly Hall on Temple Square.  

 

P.S.  And a measly eight grand?!  C'mon people!  Put your money where your mouth is!  (Does anyone mean to tell me that such a worthwhile endeavor as Ordain Women doesn't have at least one wealthy benefactor?! )

Edited April 3, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[ERayR]

I know that OW was raising money and soliciting people who would be able to come if their way was paid. Last I heard they had raised something like $8,000 but that was a while ago.

Given that I'm not surprised there are going to be international members present.

 

Where does one go to sign up for the free trip?

[why me]

I never needed to talk with the media to have a conversation with the Lord.  In fact, I never needed permission from anyone else to talk with God and the only one in that relationship that did any degree of marginalization is me.  

Which is why I think the reference to the lord was mentioned for affect. One does not need to go to temple square, have a protest, request a conversation the the GAs to talk directly to god. However, as I said before, the reference to the lord would need to be mentioned to keep up with the mormon imaging of the movement. But there is a contradiction.

[Bikeemikey]

That's really interesting. Is she affiliated with OW?

That's really cool too that women's conference was full. Not cool in the sense that some didn't get in but cool that so many wanted to be there. I was under the impression that there were many empty seats visible on the broadcast. I must have misunderstood.

 

yeah there were. A lot of people were quite angry about it.

 

There was some kind of issue and hundreds of people got turned away but when the conference started there was large areas of unoccupied seating.

 

When you fly around the world and spend 4K on tickets alone I can understand why people might get upset.

[bluebell]

yeah there were. A lot of people were quite angry about it.

 

There was some kind of issue and hundreds of people got turned away but when the conference started there was large areas of unoccupied seating.

 

When you fly around the world and spend 4K on tickets alone I can understand why people might get upset.

 

Definitely.  At least she didn't just come for that conference alone.

 

I'm still curious, is your friend affiliated with OW?

[Bikeemikey]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57765886-78/women-church-lds-priesthood.html.csp

 

This is quite an interesting article. However, this is what I have noticed from the text.

 

"Women are coming from as far away as New Zealand, Germany and Mexico City just to participate in this event," Kelly said. "To deny them the opportunity to ask themselves [for tickets] would be extremely disappointing for women who already feel so marginalized.

 

Kelly maintains her group’s ticket-request strategy is sound. After all, it was her idea.

"The entire point is for women to assert themselves, to ask for what they want and need," she said, "and to have this conversation with the church and with the Lord."

 

 

Thats a good quote and provides some clear insight into how some LDS women are feeling.

 

 

 

Questions: has the lord marginalized these women? 

 

 

Who said that the Lord had marginalized these women? This quote does not mention anywhere that they have been marginalized by the Lord. That may be an interesting question but one that has no bearing quote provided or the OW movement in general.

 

 

 

Questions: And why would he do so? 

 

 

 

Again, no one has said the Lord has marginalized anyone so discussions on why the Lord may or may not have seem a little premature.

 

 

 

Questions: and Was the part about the lord just put into the sentence for effect. I ask the final question because I don't see the connection...personally, I would just take it to the lord and not protest on temple square.

 

 

If a group of people are seeking change within the church community I am assuming that you would want the Lord involved in the conversation? Or would you prefer that the Lord not be involved in the conversation about change in the church? Your response to the inclusion of the lord in the statement is baffling to me. Do you think people should not have conversations with the Lord, is that the objection? 

 

Taking a question like the role of LDS women in the church to the Lord in the temple is obviously a laudable action. However, if you feel that the answer from the temple is that the time has come for a more expanded role in the church you should then take the same question to your leaders as they have the authority and mandate to enact such change. Such a change should then be done in conjunction with the Lord, via revelation...

 

All this is so obvious that I am again confused why you are taking issue with the inclusion of the term Lord in the quote? Any faithful LDS member should want to have the Lord involved in any conversation of substance.

[Bikeemikey]

Definitely.  At least she didn't just come for that conference alone.

 

I'm still curious, is your friend affiliated with OW?

 

Not as an official member to my knowledge, but yes she is a supporter of the movement and a very vocal commentator on the church and LDS culture. 

 

I think its great someone met with her.

[JAHS]

From the Ordain Women website:

 

"Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings.....As much as possible, encourage the Mormon community to coalesce around the goal of women’s ordination. Help them see that anything less is insufficient to address the gender inequality in the Church."

 

"Anything less"  sounds like they will never take No for an answer; even if church leadership tells them No. 

[bluebell]

Not as an official member to my knowledge, but yes she is a supporter of the movement and a very vocal commentator on the church and LDS culture. 

 

I think its great someone met with her.

 

I think it's very interesting, especially considering that there are very vocal leaders in OW and other organizations which have complained that no one in church leadership will speak with them.

[why me]

Thats a good quote and provides some clear insight into how some LDS women are feeling.

 

 

 

 

Questions: has the lord marginalized these women? 

 

 

Who said that the Lord had marginalized these women? This quote does not mention anywhere that they have been marginalized by the Lord. That may be an interesting question but one that has no bearing quote provided or the OW movement in general.

 

 

 

 

They said that women are marginalized in the church and they want a conversation with the church and with the lord. So, I am assuming that the lord is marginalizing these women by not giving them the priesthood and they want to have a conversation with him about it and about marginalization in general. I can only go by what she said in the article. 

[juliann]

yeah there were. A lot of people were quite angry about it.

 

There was some kind of issue and hundreds of people got turned away but when the conference started there was large areas of unoccupied seating.

 

When you fly around the world and spend 4K on tickets alone I can understand why people might get upset.

I read that the church blocks out seating areas for families of speakers, etc. and that is why there were empty seats. I don't know how this works, but a rule that reserved seats must be occupied 15 minutes before starting time or given to others would be nice.

[why me]

Thats a good quote and provides some clear insight into how some LDS women are feeling.

 

 

 

 

Questions: has the lord marginalized these women? 

 

 

Who said that the Lord had marginalized these women? This quote does not mention anywhere that they have been marginalized by the Lord. That may be an interesting question but one that has no bearing quote provided or the OW movement in general.

 

 

 

 

Questions: And why would he do so? 

 

 

 

Again, no one has said the Lord has marginalized anyone so discussions on why the Lord may or may not have seem a little premature.

 

 

 

 

Questions: and Was the part about the lord just put into the sentence for effect. I ask the final question because I don't see the connection...personally, I would just take it to the lord and not protest on temple square.

 

 

If a group of people are seeking change within the church community I am assuming that you would want the Lord involved in the conversation? Or would you prefer that the Lord not be involved in the conversation about change in the church? Your response to the inclusion of the lord in the statement is baffling to me. Do you think people should not have conversations with the Lord, is that the objection? 

Well, I would like to ask just how to involve the lord in the conversation? For example, they wish to have a conversation with the leadership about the possibility of ordaining women. And they want to include the lord in the conversation. Why? If it has been the lord decision not to ordain women, what do the women present wish to ask him? And how will they do this? And what can the GAs do about it, if it is up to the lord? I would think that the OW movement can have a prayer day to the lord about it so that the GAs can have a revelation. That would be the best way to approach the lord.

 

However, maybe a protest on temple square as exmormons and atheists are demonstrating outside the gates is a good way to go. Why not. Anything goes these days.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57765900-78/atheists-church-march-convention.html.csp

 

"We hope [Latter-day Saints] will join us who are wanting to come out or would like to be able to identify as their more authentic and true selves to let the world know that they are atheists; that they don’t have to try to maintain the facade of being LDS, when they’re not," Dan Ellis, president of Atheists of Utah, said Wednesday. "Hopefully, it will be cathartic for people who are participating."

 

So, we have the church members approaching temple square as the atheists and exmormons are protesting...the lds members have to pass the shouting and hollering. Then they enter temple square and see the protest of the women standing at the door as they enter the proceedings. Does that sound great? Maybe we can have a Mormons for Polygamy protest on temple square too. Why not? Everybody should have a voice these days when the lds have their conference.

 

It is actually quite serious because what is basically happening are special interest groups interfering with a people who wish to worship in peace. What this says is that the rights of a certain community of people who wish to worship in peace can be over ridden by special interest groups focusing on their own individual claims. Thereby, limiting the rights of the community involved in the worship.

Edited April 3, 2014 by why me

[Bikeemikey]

Well, I would like to ask just how to involve the lord in the conversation? For example, they wish to have a conversation with the leadership about the possibility of ordaining women. And they want to include the lord in the conversation. Why? If it has been the lord decision not to ordain women, what do the women present wish to ask him? And how will they do this? And what can the GAs do about it, if it is up to the lord? I would think that the OW movement can have a prayer day to the lord about it so that the GAs can have a revelation. That would be the best way to approach the lord.

 

 

You ask the Lord via the church leaders, by asking them to ask the Lord. This is not a complicated concept that requires a lot of hand wringing and consternation. It is very simple. As individuals we do not have the authority to petition the lord for change with in the church. However, the prophet and apostles have that exact authority. The OW movement have asked the church leaders to go to the lord. That is how the lord is included.

 

 

However, maybe a protest on temple square as exmormons and atheists are demonstrating outside the gates is a good way to go. Why not. Anything goes these days.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57765900-78/atheists-church-march-convention.html.csp

 

"We hope [Latter-day Saints] will join us who are wanting to come out or would like to be able to identify as their more authentic and true selves to let the world know that they are atheists; that they don’t have to try to maintain the facade of being LDS, when they’re not," Dan Ellis, president of Atheists of Utah, said Wednesday. "Hopefully, it will be cathartic for people who are participating."

 

So, we have the church members approaching temple square as the atheists and exmormons are protesting...the lds members have to pass the shouting and hollering. Then they enter temple square and see the protest of the women standing at the door as they enter the proceedings. Does that sound great? Maybe we can have a Mormons for Polygamy protest on temple square too. Why not? Everybody should have a voice these days when the lds have their conference.

 

You right... this is horrible. Men coming to priesthood may see women standing in line as they enter the conference center. This is an outrageous offense to our liberty as priesthood holders. 

 

The OW movement have been to conference already as a group. They stood at the door in an orderly fashion and no issue was generated. If men in the church are so affronted by women in lines expressing a view point then we really have a much larger gender issue than I thought.

 

 

It is actually quite serious because what is basically happening are special interest groups interfering with a people who wish to worship in peace. What this says is that the rights of a certain community of people who wish to worship in peace can be over ridden by special interest groups focusing on their own individual claims. Thereby, limiting the rights of the community involved in the worship.

 

Sure, if thats how you wish to look at it. Doritos ads on TV is also special interest messaging undermining my right to live in a flavor neutral chip world. 

 

You are framing the issue in an extreme manner and thereby producing extreme conclusions. 

 

What is happening is far less sinister and severe. Some people, primarily active LDS members of the church in good standing and many with temple recommends, are going to stand in a line quietly and respectfully and in so doing request that their view point be given consideration by the LDS church leadership and that their access to the priesthood be present to God and revelation sought on the matter.

 

That is actually what is going on.

[cdowis]

Given that I'm not surprised there are going to be international members present.

 

This may also be a clever propaganda trick.  It is very possible that these "international"  individuals may have aleady been visiting relatives and planning to attend conference anyway.  The OW may have had nothing to do with their traveling to conference.

 

Just a  PR stunt.  We have seen this before -- years ago when a small group yelled out "No" during the sustaining of the prophet, for example.  They will get their moment in the spotlight as they pretend to be members oppressed by the church.  The media loves it.

Edited April 3, 2014 by cdowis

[Bikeemikey]

This may also be a clever propaganda trick.  It is very possible that these "international"  individuals may have aleady been visiting relatives and planning to attend conference anyway.  The OW may have had nothing to do with their traveling to conference.

 

Just a  PR stunt.  We have seen this before -- years ago when a small group yelled out "No" during the sustaining of the prophet, for example.  They will get their moment in the spotlight as they pretend to be members oppressed by the church.  The media loves it.

 

Why the insistence on reading the worst of intentions/motives into every action or non-action OW make?

 

This is a group made up primarily of active LDS members.

 

I have friends who were traveling to Salt Lake anyway and have been excited to be able to support the movement.

 

I have friends who wished they could travel to support but were not able to.

 

I also have friends who travelled specifically to support the group.

 

None of these people are formal members of the OW, nor do any of these people support everything the OW group supports. However, they support the need for the conversation in the church.

 

Why are you opposed to the conversation?

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[randy]

Bikeemikey,

 

Would I be correct in saying that the OW leadership have already petitioned the Lord through his servants already..and have made their wishes known?  If so, then why can they not cease and desist in their protests until such time as their petition is answered by the Lord through his servants?  Why do you feel they must persist on this path of "civil disobedience" as it were?  Just curious.

[JAHS]

Why the insistence on reading the worst of intentions/motives into every action or non-action OW make?

 

This is a group made up primarily of active LDS members.

 

I have friends who were traveling to Salt Lake anyway and have been excited to be able to support the movement.

 

I have friends who wished they could travel to support but were not able to.

 

I also have friends who travelled specifically to support the group.

 

None of these people are formal members of the OW, nor do any of these people support everything the OW group supports. However, they support the need for the conversation in the church.

 

Why are you opposed to the conversation?

 

I don't call what they are doing conversation. That would be done within the privacy of the church structure.  What I call it is making their demands known through social and public pressure.

[randy]

I'm the Father of six children and 19 grandkids.  Many times over the years I've had wonderful and meaningful conversations with them.  Sometimes during those conversations a desire was made known which I considered during that conversation. Sometimes at the end of those conversations their answer was a heartfelt and sincere "no".  Sometimes when they got their "no" they persisted...and persisted.........annnnnnnnd persisted.  No doubt you have experienced this in your own family.  No different.  Sometimes its best to accept the "no" and move on until such times as things or circumstances change.

 

From my side of the fence...the OW group appears to be that child that is laying prone on the floor kicking and screaming..pitching a fit....then getting up and holding their breath until their face turns blue.  At the end of the day....the OW group to me appears to be acting somewhat childish in how they're persisting in their approach.

[hoo rider]

I don't call what they are doing conversation. That would be done within the privacy of the church structure.  What I call it is making their demands known through social and public pressure.

 

The problem is that church leadership have set up policies and procedures so it is near impossible for an individual member to petition those who have authority to make changes.  Write a letter to a GA and it gets returned to your stake president.  Talk to your Bishop and hope it gets passed up the chain to the prophet?  Good luck with that.

 

I think the OW is out of place in some of their demands and we can debate whether they should have accepted the first "no" and quietly went away.  Obviously the OW feels their demands are appropriate and it is appropriate for them to continue voicing them. So the better question is how should they be voicing their opinion to church leadership?  If what they are doing is inappropriate, how would you have them do it?  

Edited April 3, 2014 by hoo rider