Ow Movement Tactics

[Bikeemikey]

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.

Radicals always get the media publicity. That does not mean that media publicity equates to a majority or consensus on what the media reports.

[Calm]

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).

If the organization is parallel, then it might be possible that bishops, etc. could be called from either organization.  If so, it is quite possible in my view this would work.

 

And no one has denied that I know of that the OW aim includes being part of the leadership, not to just being given the Priesthood.

[Calm]

The only way it would me a media scene is if the church decided to refuse women access to temple square. 

Why?  They didn't refuse to admit them last year and there was quite a bit of media going on.  

[Bikeemikey]

Why? They didn't refuse to admit them last year and there was quite a bit of media going on.

There is a big difference in my mind between media presence and a "scene".

But that's just difference in interpretation and semantics.

[Calm]

A "scene"…I was thinking in terms of "act 1, scene 3" kind of thing (in that sense anything the media protrays as a happening is a "scene").  You are talking more in line with what happens when juveniles get upset or perhaps at political rallies, I gather.  

Edited April 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

A "scene"…I was thinking in terms of "act 1, scene 3" kind of thing (in that sense anything the media protrays as a happening is a "scene"). You are talking more in line with what happens when juveniles get upset or perhaps at political rallies, I gather.

Exactly!

[why me]

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.

The claimed to be a social group, not me. I can only take them at their word. I have listened to Sister Kelly in  video discussion and read her statements in the press. She claimed to be a social action group. Not me. So, the statements are not so wild. Why do you find it so difficult to take them at their word?

[why me]

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).

unfortunately, being a feminist social action group, OW can not do this and sustain credibility among their supporters. Most are members because of the social action advocacy. Not because they wish to go through official channels.

[why me]

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.

 

This is not exactly true. They have done many video interviews which can be accessed on line. Also, they have had much media attention highlighting their mission and goal. Standing in line is the least of it. A social action group seeks attention from the media. This is what they have done. The next goal is to get enough members to begin to put pressure on the church  and attempt a

division in the church. Such is the nature of social action. I have been there and done that with other organizations not affiliated with the lds. 

 

For example, lets just say I was an union organizer. What is my main goal? To get people to join the union. Why? So that more pressure can be put on the company by the workers who will seek demands. The bigger the union membership in the company the more united we can be with our demands. Strength in numbers. Then, the union organizer organizes the factories by placing a shop stewart in each branch of the company were the workers are. Then, we begin to put pressure on the leaders of the company to implement our demands. Such is a social action group.

Edited April 4, 2014 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I think the tickets do state the seats must be occupied 30 minutes before starting time and seating is not guaranteed past that time.

[why me]

This is not exactly true. They have done many video interviews which can be accessed on line. Also, they have had much media attention highlighting their mission and goal. Standing in line is the least of it. A social action group seeks attention from the media. This is what they have done. The next goal is to get enough members to begin to put pressure on the church  and attempt a

division in the church. Such is the nature of social action. I have been there and done that with other organizations not affiliated with the lds. 

 

For example, lets just say I was an union organizer. What is my main goal? To get people to join the union. Why? So that more pressure can be put on the company by the workers who will seek demands. The bigger the union membership in the company the more united we can be with our demands. Strength in numbers. Then, the union organizer organizes the factories by placing a shop stewart in each branch of the company were the workers are. Then, we begin to put pressure on the leaders of the company to implement our demands. Such is a social action group.

Also, lets say OW leaves the temple grounds and begins their protest near the temple. Lets say that 200 women from the exmormon and atheist demonstration attempt to join the OW organization. Will Sister Kelly refuse them membership? No. So, lets then say that in april the OW movement is joined on temple square with 700 women looking for tickets, many exmormons and mormon atheists who show sympathy for the OW cause. What then? Strength in numbers.

[Scott Lloyd]

Also, lets say OW leaves the temple grounds and begins their protest near the temple. Lets say that 200 women from the exmormon and atheist demonstration attempt to join the OW organization. Will Sister Kelly refuse them membership? No. So, lets then say that in april the OW movement is joined on temple square with 700 women looking for tickets, many exmormons and mormon atheists who show sympathy for the OW cause. What then? Strength in numbers.

And ostensibly a more impressive show for the news media.

[why me]

And ostensibly a more impressive show for the news media.

I think that some people just need to understand the goals of a social activist organization. Most stick to the rule book of what such an organization is organized to do.

[GingerRed]

I saw on the news this morning the press will now not be allowed on Temple Square during the Priesthood meeting.  No cameras, no video. So these women will not be getting so much of the attention they were hoping for.

 

Good for Temple Square standing up to this group and doing what they can to prevent a media circus that is sure to happen!    I bet the press ain't too happy about it ,either!

[tsubotsubo]

I saw on the news this morning the press will now not be allowed on Temple Square during the Priesthood meeting.  No cameras, no video. So these women will not be getting so much of the attention they were hoping for.

 

Good for Temple Square standing up to this group and doing what they can to prevent a media circus that is sure to happen!    I bet the press ain't too happy about it ,either!

 

That's a bad idea imo. A lot of the press is already unfavorable towards the church, and this will just make things worse. The media people refused access will most likely have a more negative attitude towards the church in the future. The reality is, people hold grudges.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's a bad idea imo. A lot of the press is already unfavorable towards the church, and this will just make things worse. The media people refused access will most likely have a more negative attitude towards the church in the future. The reality is, people hold grudges.

I don't think this will matter a bit. You really think that allowing the press into the ground to video this event will make them favorable towards the church?

[randy]

bikeemikey.....I guess the thing I still can't get my head around is the fact that the OW leadership has petitioned the LDS leadership and have very clearly expressed what their desires are. The LDS leadership has, in return...through PR channels....communicated to the OW leadership the church's current position on those issues.  The LDS leadership has also respectfully asked the OW leadership to abide by certain standards regarding their activities on Church properties etc.

 

What I don't understand is why the OW leadership, given the fact that they espouse to be "mostly" faithful members of the Church (with a few very noteable exceptions which casts doubt on their motives in my view).....why do they persist in this manner of protest when they know they've been asked by their leaders who they say they support and sustain...have asked them sincerely not to do the things they persist in doing?  For me, this is the one glaring fact that casts that pall and black cloud over their motivations.  What is it in their mindset that keeps them from simply saying..."okay..we can do that until such time as we can dialogue again" ?

 

Try to explain it to me one more time....again.  I'm a simple man and simple minded...so keep it simple for me.   

[why me]

 

What I don't understand is why the OW leadership, given the fact that they espouse to be "mostly" faithful members of the Church (with a few very noteable exceptions which casts doubt on their motives in my view).....why do they persist in this manner of protest when they know they've been asked by their leaders who they say they support and sustain...have asked them sincerely not to do the things they persist in doing?  For me, this is the one glaring fact that casts that pall and black cloud over their motivations.  What is it in their mindset that keeps them from simply saying..."okay..we can do that until such time as we can dialogue again" ?

OW is a social action group. So, it is not in their interest to fold up shop and wait for an answer. They are about direct action even if this direct action is about wearing pants, wearing purple or standing in line. And they are about signing up new members because there is strength in numbers. They will also use the media every chance they have to promote their message. And don't be surprised if you begin to see OW chapters sprouting up throughout the US. Such is direct action.

 

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.^[5]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action

 

I just don't understand how some members here cannot see them for what they are. But then again maybe their defenders do see them for what they are but deny their tactics because it suits them to do so or they just don't understand social activism.

Edited April 4, 2014 by why me

[Bikeemikey]

OW is a social action group. So, it is not in their interest to fold up shop and wait for an answer. They are about direct action even if this direct action is about wearing pants, wearing purple or standing in line. And they are about signing up new members because there is strength in numbers. They will also use the media every chance they have to promote their message. And don't be surprised if you begin to see OW chapters sprouting up throughout the US. Such is direct action.

 

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.^[5]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action

 

I just don't understand how some members here cannot see them for what they are. But then again maybe their defenders do see them for what they are but deny their tactics because it suits them to do so or they just don't understand social activism.

 

You are mistaken.

 

I realize they are a social action group... I have no objection to this. There is nothing about being a member of the church that requires we believe social actions groups are inherently bad.

 

You have not failed to help me realize they are a social action group. You have failed to demonstrate that being such a group matters.

 

You have also not clearly demonstrated that the OW movement is only a social action group, though if they are this is still fine.

 

You disapprove of what they are promoting, hence the group is objectionable. I am not opposed to to what they are promoting, hence I have no issue with it.

 

Why should they fold up shop and wait for an answer... they have not had an answer to their question from the prophet, that is what they are seeking so why would they stop?

Edited April 4, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

bikeemikey.....I guess the thing I still can't get my head around is the fact that the OW leadership has petitioned the LDS leadership and have very clearly expressed what their desires are. The LDS leadership has, in return...through PR channels....communicated to the OW leadership the church's current position on those issues.  The LDS leadership has also respectfully asked the OW leadership to abide by certain standards regarding their activities on Church properties etc.

 

What I don't understand is why the OW leadership, given the fact that they espouse to be "mostly" faithful members of the Church (with a few very noteable exceptions which casts doubt on their motives in my view).....why do they persist in this manner of protest when they know they've been asked by their leaders who they say they support and sustain...have asked them sincerely not to do the things they persist in doing?  For me, this is the one glaring fact that casts that pall and black cloud over their motivations.  What is it in their mindset that keeps them from simply saying..."okay..we can do that until such time as we can dialogue again" ?

 

Try to explain it to me one more time....again.  I'm a simple man and simple minded...so keep it simple for me. 

 

The church has a prophet to act as a spokesperson of God, not a PR department. So far there has not been any statement on the group that the prophet (or any of the first presidency) have put their name to. 

 

Had the PR department published a letter signed by the prophet there might be a case, they published a letter signed by the PR department... I joined the church because it has a prophet, not a PR department.

 

The PR department has issued guidance to the OW group about the areas around the church square that are assigned for protest. That seems like a normal corporate response driven by normal corporate motives like liability, concerns about decorum, need for member security etc etc. There is no reason to read anything more into the PR statement than any other "don't violate posted property use conditions" as issued by any other corporation. If however the statement had been signed by the prophet it would have been an ecclesiastical statement, not a bureaucratic one.

 

I follow the commandments. I beleive that allows me legitimate grounds to still have differing opinions from the church, and to act on such differences with in reason.

 

If however the Prophet gets up in conference and asks the OW movement to please stop then we would be having a different conversation.

 

So far the prophet has not made such a request, nor has he answered the questions OW have raised.

[teddyaware]

The church has a prophet to act as a spokesperson of God, not a PR department. So far there has not been any statement on the group that the prophet (or any of the first presidency) have put their name to. 

 

Had the PR department published a letter signed by the prophet there might be a case, they published a letter signed by the PR department... I joined the church because it has a prophet, not a PR department.

 

The PR department has issued guidance to the OW group about the areas around the church square that are assigned for protest. That seems like a normal corporate response driven by normal corporate motives like liability, concerns about decorum, need for member security etc etc. There is no reason to read anything more into the PR statement than any other "don't violate posted property use conditions" as issued by any other corporation. If however the statement had been signed by the prophet it would have been an ecclesiastical statement, not a bureaucratic one.

 

I follow the commandments. I beleive that allows me legitimate grounds to still have differing opinions from the church, and to act on such differences with in reason.

 

If however the Prophet gets up in conference and asks the OW movement to please stop then we would be having a different conversation.

 

So far the prophet has not made such a request, nor has he answered the questions OW have raised.

Of course you realize it's very likely the PR Department only expressed the will of those in the highest councils of the Church. If the OW group casts aside wisdom and continues to up the ante until the Prophet gets involved, the consequences of what will look more and more like outright rebellion will be much more severe. By using the PR Department, the leaders are likely giving the OW people a chance to reconsider their course of action before things get really serious.  But a really serious encounter might be what some of them want anyway. I wouldn't even be slightly surprised to learn that Margaret Tuscano secretly hopes to have some company in the misery of her excommunication -- martyrs for the cause and all that. The mere fact that these women are willing to have an excommunicated apostate in the ranks of leadership is enough to cause one to seriously entertain the thought that they know excommunications are likely going to be the end result if they continue on in their course unabated. And deliberately utilizing pressure from the feminist allied secular main stream media, in order to force their issues and embarrass the Church, is not cool...

[Bikeemikey]

Of course you realize it's very likely the PR Department only expressed the will of those in the highest councils of the Church. If the OW group casts aside wisdom and continues to up the ante until the Prophet gets involved, the consequences of what will look more and more like outright rebellion will be much more severe. By using the PR Department, the leaders are likely giving the OW people a chance to reconsider their course of action before things get really serious. But a really serious encounter might be what some of them want anyway. I wouldn't even be slightly surprised to learn that Margaret Tuscano secretly hopes to have some company in the misery of her excommunication -- martyrs for the cause and all that. The mere fact that these women are willing to have an excommunicated apostate in the ranks of leadership is enough to cause one to seriously entertain the thought that they know excommunications are likely going to be the end result if they continue on in their course unabated. And deliberately utilizing pressure from the feminist allied secular main stream media, in order to force their issues and embarrass the Church, is not cool...

Perhaps you could explain in more detail why the involvement of the prophet is a bad thing or a thing to be scared or afraid of? This idea makes no sense to me.

I also have no reason to attribute anything to the prophet that does not have his name on it.

As for the rest... Keep your wild conjecture about the unknowable thoughts of others out of your discourse here... It reduces the entire tone of the conversation and is unfounded in anything other than your own imagination.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[strappinglad]

D&C 130:15 gives a hint as to what the Lord says to continued petitions when no answer is sufficient. ( double meaning intended)

[awyatt]

This piece just came out today. Gives a bit of interesting background on both the Wear-Pants-to-Church movement and the Ordain Women group:

 

http://the-toast.net/2014/04/04/testing-waters-mormon-feminists/

 

-Allen

 

ETA: And the comments are worth reading, as well. All very respectful.

Edited April 5, 2014 by awyatt

[juliann]

This piece just came out today. Gives a bit of interesting background on both the Wear-Pants-to-Church movement and the Ordain Women group:

 

http://the-toast.net/2014/04/04/testing-waters-mormon-feminists/

 

-Allen

 

ETA: And the comments are worth reading, as well. All very respectful.

 

Oops.   "The Ordain Women organizer Margaret Toscano was excommunicated in 2000." [emphasis mine]

 

This article also is trying to make it sound as if the pants day was an unorganized OW group.  But it had a name, All Enlisted. No mention here which I find puzzling. Then it mysteriously states "When December 2013 rolled around, Pants Day had lost its founder but gained, among other things, a self-described moderate Mormon feminist named Kristine Anderson."

 

But for a guy in Berlin it was an awesome article. The comments are amazing.