Ow Movement Tactics

[Bikeemikey]

The organizational Church has no problem with it, either. That's why the OW leaders were asked to join others in the free speech areas around Temple Square. They do, however, have a problem with protesters coming onto Temple Square itself.

 

The OW folk don't want to be labeled as "protesters," though they really are. It strikes me as odd that they want to come onto Temple Square -- even after being asked not to -- and request tickets -- even when a recent request was denied -- and still, somehow, be viewed as sustaining, supportive members of the Church.

 

-Allen

 

I fully agree. There is a big difference between the church saying please dont come protest on the grounds during conference and we want your organization and its agenda to go away permanently. Just as OW will be at fault if they opt not to adhere to the request by the PR department, so to are those opposed to the OW group at fault if they think the PR statement is a repudiation of the OW movement as a whole.

 

It is interesting however that we do not know where OW will be and much of the badness of the group is going predicated on future actions that have not happened yet, and they may not happen.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[awyatt]

It is interesting however that we do not know where OW will be and much of the badness of the group is going predicated on future actions that have not happened yet, and they may not happen.

 

I'll let you know. ;-)

 

-Allen

 

[why me]

I fully agree. There is a big difference between the church saying please dont come protest on the grounds during conference and we want your organization and its agenda to go away permanently. Just as OW will be at fault if they opt not to adhere to the request by the PR department, so to are those opposed to the OW group at fault if they think the PR statement is a repudiation of the OW movement as a whole.

 

It is interesting however that we do not know where OW will be and much of the badness of the group is going predicated on future actions that have not happened yet, and they may not happen.

However, they claimed in the recent article that they will be on temple square with their silent protest waiting for tickets. So, I think that they are playing their hand. And since Sister Kelly seems to like the attention, I would predict more protests and demands. But only time will tell.

[why me]

 

The OW folk don't want to be labeled as "protesters," though they really are. It strikes me as odd that they want to come onto Temple Square -- even after being asked not to -- and request tickets -- even when a recent request was denied -- and still, somehow, be viewed as sustaining, supportive members of the Church.

 

-Allen

It is not so odd really since the group is a social action group. Action does mean action and a silent protest is an action. It is also not about listening to the church leaders. It is all about listening to themselves through the media. The point is: it is not about women but about females, both girls and women. Girls would also need to get the priesthood and so the name OrdainWomen in regards to the lds church is a media catching name.

[Bikeemikey]

It is not so odd really since the group is a social action group. Action does mean action and a silent protest is an action. It is also not about listening to the church leaders. It is all about listening to themselves through the media. The point is: it is not about women but about females, both girls and women. Girls would also need to get the priesthood and so the name OrdainWomen in regards to the lds church is a media catching name.

 

You keep coming out with these wild statements unfounded in any kind of real world evidence...

 

Next time your traveling circus passes through VT let me know... your obviously great at both mind reading and predicting the future. Ill come and get you to read my palm.

[JLHPROF]

I am loathe to enter into yet ANOTHER discussion on OW, but a thought just occurred.

 

We have frequently said "there was no revelation banning women from the priesthood" or something to that effect.  And I agree with this.

 

So here is my question, and I would ask that we look a little deeper that "tradition" or "society" for the answer.

 

When the priesthood was restored to Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery (by JTB for the Aaronic, by P,J&J for the Melchezidek and by M,E,E etc for the priesthood Keys) why or how was it decided that only men could be ordained?

 

I mean, did Joseph and Oliver never say, "Let's go home and ordain our wives as elders too."  Was it really just tradition?  Did the idea of ordaining the female members of their family never occur to them?  Were they told to only ordain men?  When Christ ordained the Apostles and the Apostles later ordained the Seventies did nobody say, well I have a daughter that could do this or my wife would make a great seventy, or my niece would be an excellent Bishop?  Was it really just tradition?

 

I know there is no record of this, but in this case I'm okay with your specualtions.  Speculate away.

[randy]

I'm a simple man.  The Lord knows of the OW supporters desires...as well as their motivations.  The Lord's Servants know their desires as well.  It's all on record. They should just let the "revelatory process" work it's magic, and in the meantime it would seem to me that the OW folks would be wise, and would regain perhaps a shred of credibility.. should they just dial things back...and be fully supportive of their leaders, and be patient. Their continuing to agitate for their cause in this manner is unsettling and disappointing for the vast majority of the faithful (yes, my opinion only).

[Calm]

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.

Last year, there was someone from Germany who paid their own way, I am sure.

 

It would not surprise me that many international OWers might come.  From the profiles, they seem to run to many professional women who likely have the income to be able to travel.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm a simple man. The Lord knows of the OW supporters desires...as well as their motivations. The Lord's Servants know their desires as well. It's all on record. They should just let the "revelatory process" work it's magic, and in the meantime it would seem to me that the OW folks would be wise, and would regain perhaps a shred of credibility.. should they just dial things back...and be fully supportive of their leaders, and be patient. Their continuing to agitate for their cause in this manner is unsettling and disappointing for the vast majority of the faithful (yes, my opinion only).

Great, and I respectfully disagree.

[randy]

Bikeemikey,   to which part do you disagree : 1)  "and be fully supportive of their leaders, and be patient           2) "just dial things back etc...   or   3) "continuing to agitate for their cause in this manner is unsettling and disappointing" etc?

[Bikeemikey]

1) nothing in their actions so far would demonstrate that they are not being patient or that they do not support their ecclesiastical leaders.

2) I see no reason for them to dial things back. So far the most extreme thing they have done is threatened to stand in a line, oh and they have also encouraged others to stand with them.

3) I do not consider their actions either unsettling or disappointing. Though many of the responses to the OW movement I find unsettling and disappointing, though I also support the rights of those opposed to the OW movement to disagree.

[bluebell]

Last year, there was someone from Germany who paid their own way, I am sure.

 

It would not surprise me that many international OWers might come.  From the profiles, they seem to run to many professional women who likely have the income to be able to travel.

 

I have no doubt that there are international members of OW who pay their own way. 

 

But i do think it's noteworthy though that OW is actively soliciting people to come and protest with them by offering to pay their way.  I'm not suggesting that it's noteworthy bad or good, just noteworthy.  

[mtomm]

And if I may interrupt another Ordain Women thread with the following interesting development at the Conference Center.  A Brian Kershisnik print is being hung today in the conference center.  Beautiful isn't it.  It is entitled "She Will Find What Is Lost."   

 

[JLHPROF]

1) nothing in their actions so far would demonstrate that they are not being patient or that they do not support their ecclesiastical leaders.

2) I see no reason for them to dial things back. So far the most extreme thing they have done is threatened to stand in a line, oh and they have also encouraged others to stand with them.

3) I do not consider their actions either unsettling or disappointing. Though many of the responses to the OW movement I find unsettling and disappointing, though I also support the rights of those opposed to the OW movement to disagree.

 

Oh, now come on.  That really is an issue of perspective and phrasing.

 

2 - Not threatened to stand in a line.  Cause a media scene by trying to gain entrance where they knew and were already told they'd be denied and had been asked not to come.

[teddyaware]

I'm a simple man.  The Lord knows of the OW supporters desires...as well as their motivations.  The Lord's Servants know their desires as well.  It's all on record. They should just let the "revelatory process" work it's magic, and in the meantime it would seem to me that the OW folks would be wise, and would regain perhaps a shred of credibility.. should they just dial things back...and be fully supportive of their leaders, and be patient. Their continuing to agitate for their cause in this manner is unsettling and disappointing for the vast majority of the faithful (yes, my opinion only).

As I've said elsewhere on this board, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised, when the nature of the priestesshood of LDS women is revealed, if it turns out to be an organization of divine authority parallel to but not the same as priesthood of men (possibly a more empowered version of the Relief Society and Young Women's organizations designed to compliment the priesthood power held by men). If this turns out to be the case, the LDS feminists will not be satisfied with such an arrangement as they appear to want nothing less than the same authority and leadership possibilities extended to the men of the Church. By natural extension, this would mean the OW group would want the opportunity to become Bishops, Stake Presidents, Seventies, Apostles and even the President of the Church (let's face it, this has got to be the long range goal of OW because total equality between men and women is what modern feminism is all about).

Edited April 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[Senator]

I just wish I could be there to hand out complimentary white shirts and ties.

 

That may cause them to rethink it next year.

[Bikeemikey]

Oh, now come on. That really is an issue of perspective and phrasing.

2 - Not threatened to stand in a line. Cause a media scene by trying to gain entrance where they knew and were already told they'd be denied and had been asked not to come.

I never said it wasn't.

For you it's a big deal, for me it's not.

[Bikeemikey]

Oh, now come on. That really is an issue of perspective and phrasing.

2 - Not threatened to stand in a line. Cause a media scene by trying to gain entrance where they knew and were already told they'd be denied and had been asked not to come.

The only way it would me a media scene is if the church decided to refuse women access to temple square. The whole idea of that is utterly implausible.

[Bikeemikey]

I just wish I could be there to hand out complimentary white shirts and ties.

That may cause them to rethink it next year.

I don't own a white shirt and have managed to be a worthy priesthood holder for a long time now.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The presupposition is that LDS leaders have NOT asked JAH, because they haven't approved the ordination of females. How does OW know thart Monson has not petitioned JAH and JAH said "No."?

Since they say "nothing less will suffice" would it do Monson any good to announce that JAH had told him "No." to the ordination question? And if it wouldn't do any good anyway- why go out of his way to make such a proclamation?

Can't win for losin', poor guy.

Edited April 3, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Bikeemikey]

The presupposition is that LDS leaders have NOT asked JAH, because they haven't approved the ordination of females. How does OW know thart Monson has not petitioned JAH and JAH said "No."?

Since they say "nothing less will suffice" would it do Monson any good to announce that JAH had told him "No." to the ordination question? And if it wouldn't do any good anyway- why go out of his way to make such a proclamation?

Can't win for losin', poor guy.

 

There is no presupposition that they haven't asked because women aren't ordained. 

 

There is a reasonable notion that they haven't asked because they have not been informed A) that the question has been asked or B) that there is a direct answer to the question.

 

There is clear prophetic precedent with Mckay in asking a question, reporting that he had asked and what the answer was, even though it was not popular.

[Bikeemikey]

As I've said elsewhere on this board, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised, when the nature of the priestesshood of LDS women is revealed, if it turns out to be an organization of divine authority parallel to but not the same as priesthood of men (possibly a more empowered version of the Relief Society and Young Women's organizations designed to compliment the priesthood power held by men). If this turns out to be the case, the LDS feminists will not be satisfied with such an arrangement as they appear to want nothing less than the same authority and leadership possibilities extended to the men of the Church. By natural extension, this would mean the OW group would want the opportunity to become Bishops, Stake Presidents, Seventies, Apostles and even the President of the Church (let's face it, this has got to be the long range goal of OW because total equality between men and women is what modern feminism is all about).

 

Your timing could not be better nor your representations of "LDS Feminists" more wrong.

 

Here is a post from feministmormonhousewives about the very thing you are claiming LDS feminists will not be satisfied with.

 

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/04/is-assimilation-the-answer-mormon-women-and-parallel-priestesshood/

 

Most feminists I know are not really interested into an induction to the priesthood, though the view the conversations occurring as a result of the OW movement as very helpful.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[teddyaware]

Your timing could not be better nor your representations of "LDS Feminists" more wrong.

 

Here is a post from feministmormonhousewives about the very thing you are claiming LDS feminists will not be satisfied with.

 

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/04/is-assimilation-the-answer-mormon-women-and-parallel-priestesshood/

 

Most feminists I know are not really interested into an induction to the priesthood, though the view the conversations occurring as a result of the OW movement as very helpful.

Perhaps you didn't read the article carefully enough? The point of the author of the article is that parallel priesthood and priestesshood narratives should be explored as an alternative to full assimilation (I find it interesting the author had to go to misogynist Islam for a for a possible template), but she laments that this parallel narrative approach is not popular with the more powerful voices of the OW movement. Here's her quote,

But for now any stories that exhibit any potential for a parallel narrative to that of the priesthood are, at best, left alone. At worst, they are dismissed in a way that leaves those of us who would be very happy to leave the priesthood narrative alone feeling deeply unsatisfied (Faith S. Watson, March 2014)

Based on this article, it would seem the movers and shakers at the top of the OW movement are not interested in anything but total priesthood equality and assimilation. But I will concede it's good to know there are at least some sisters who would be satisfied with parallel priesthood/priestesshood narratives.

 

Edited April 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[Bikeemikey]

Perhaps you didn't read the article carefully enough? The point of the author of the article is that parallel priesthood and priestesshood narratives should be explored as an alternative to full assimilation (I find it interesting the author had to go to misogynist Islam for a for a possible template), but she laments that this parallel narrative approach is not popular with the more powerful voices of the OW movement. Here's her quote,

But for now any stories that exhibit any potential for a parallel narrative to that of the priesthood are, at best, left alone. At worst, they are dismissed in a way that leaves those of us who would be very happy to leave the priesthood narrative alone feeling deeply unsatisfied (Faith S. Watson, March 2014)

Based on this article, it would seem the movers and shakers at the top of the OW movement are not interested in anything but total priesthood equality and assimilation. But I will concede it's good to know there are at least some sisters who would be satisfied with parallel priesthood/priestesshood narratives.

My posting of this article was in response to your comments about LDS feminists, not a comment you made about OW feminists. You said, "LDS feminists would not be satisfied", not OW would not be satisfied. This article clearly proves your assertion incorrect.

The OW movement is not the only feminist voice in the LDS community, nor are they the majority voice. They are currently the voice pushing the conversation that is all.

To equate LDS feminism with the OW movement would be a pretty big misreading of the current LDS feminist landscape.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[teddyaware]

My posting of this article was in response to your comments about LDS feminists, not a comment you made about OW feminists. You said, "LDS feminists would not be satisfied", not OW would not be satisfied. This article clearly proves your assertion incorrect.

The OW movement is not the only feminist voice in the LDS community, nor are they the majority voice. They are currently the voice pushing the conversation that is all.

To equate LDS feminism with the OW movement would be a pretty big misreading of the current LDS feminist landscape.

I suppose I mistakenly equated the thinking of the women at the top of the OW movement with other Mormon feminists who would be satisfied with a parallel priestesshood (until I read your article, I didn't even know they existed). But you can be sure it will be the most radical women who will get all the mainstream media publicity.