Ow Movement Tactics

[Calm]

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.

If I understood it correctly...haven't finished reading it, it also presents Pants Day as if started knowing it wasn't against any rules, but there was a lot of conversation that I remember where people involved were acting as if there was some official guidelines rather than wear what you have that works for you as Sunday best. I knew it was okay due to knowing some who wore them for health and work reasons (one was confined to a wheelchair), but there was quite a bit of "oh, really?" when the Church came out officially and said there was no issue with it.

It was extraordinarily sad that some who saw themselves as defenders of the Church go to such extremes as threats.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Public Affairs represents the Church leadership on this and other issues. You are kidding yourself if you think they are acting on their own part.

 

Listen to the conference proceedings tomorrow for some clear direction on Who it was that decreed that it be males who hold the priesthood.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Pot meet kettle.

 

It is you who have been insinuating that the Public Affairs Department is acting on its own part and not at the behest of the Brethren. That's an absurd notion.

 

Consider the ban on journalists on Temple Square. That is rather extreme move, not the sort of thing Public Affairs would undertake on its own without receiving direction from the highest levels.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

 

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

 

 PA does represent the church whether the prophet's name is on it or not.  I have talked with PA reps, certainly not as often or as many as Scott, but there is just no rational justification for thinking otherwise.

Edited April 5, 2014 by juliann

[Bikeemikey]

PA does represent the church whether the prophet's name is on it or not. I have talked with PA reps, certainly not as often or as many as Scott, but there is just no rational justification for thinking otherwise.

I have no issue with the PR department representing the church... It just doesn't represent God. The prophet does.

I'm not going to take any third party correspondence as a message from god when there is a living prophet who can tell me him self.

If I am going to wrest against my conscience I need a better reason to do it than someone I don't know from a PR department I don't care about.

Given that us Mormons get away with declaring that stuff that actually comes directly out of a church leaders mouth is not always prophetic utterance I think there is going to be a long up hill battle trying to claim that stuff unsigned )and not even formally acknowledged as originating from the prophet) then published via the PR deparent is prophetic utterance.

However this whole PR issue is silly any way as all they said was please stay off our lawn like everyone else. A totally reasonable request that should be followed. However, not following it only disrespects the lawn, not necessarily God the prophet etc etc.

[Bikeemikey]

Pot meet kettle.

It is you who have been insinuating that the Public Affairs Department is acting on its own part and not at the behest of the Brethren. That's an absurd notion.

Consider the ban on journalists on Temple Square. That is rather extreme move, not the sort of thing Public Affairs would undertake on its own without receiving direction from the highest levels.

The church is an enormous corporate institution. There is no way every PR release is vetted by the qurom of the 12 member, let alone a full qurom, let alone a full qurom with first presidency.

I have direct personal experience with exactly this situation during the church college closure in NZ. A GA from Utah came over and closed the school. Then as if that was not enough they decided to announce that they were going to tear it down.

Some members took action against the plan. Multiple GA's came out and said The Lord wants this to happen and the prophet has spoken... Please get in line.

People continued to "protest" and eventually had the property declared a national heritage building so that most of it could not be pulled down.

One of the people involved in this opposition died of cancer... People suggested it was divine retribution for opposing the prophet. To balance it one of the GA's died of cancer too, though that was just a normal health ailment.

Anyway, the prophet came out a a couple of years back on the tail end of this. He have a series of talks in NZ.

During his talk to the saints in the area where the dispute was occurring he apologized for the issues the original development plan had caused and said he had had no idea about the development plans to pull down the building until he arrived in the country (almost 2.5 years after the plans were announced). He then organized a membership group to work in parallel with the development efforts.

If the prophet doesn't know about hundreds of acres of property development in NZ including the lay offs of about 70 church staff (school teachers) and a medium sized revolt against the plans by a large LDS population why would he know about a letter by the PR department that could have almost been written to any group looking to use the church grounds as a protest area.

Many in the church over-estimate the prophets involvement in minute details of church governance, not because of excessive faith, but out of a total lack of knowledge about corporate systems.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Public Affairs represents the Church leadership on this and other issues. You are kidding yourself if you think they are acting on their own part.

Listen to the conference proceedings tomorrow for some clear direction on Who it was that decreed that it be males who hold the priesthood.

I listen to every conference and so far have missed the announcement about the addition of the PR department to the church canon.

Corporations operate with roles and responsibilities being assigned to individuals and/or groups who then operate with in specific areas of delegation and autonomy. With out that they would not function due to the need for excessive micro management.

As a person with a lot of corporate management experience I hope the prophet and apostles are not spending a huge amount of their time dealing with such things... They are the spokes people of god and I hope they are not having to excessively micromanage the enormous corporate infrastructure of the church... That seems like an enormous waste of the prophetic mantle.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[teddyaware]

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.

It's hardly conjecture to make the observation that the PR people wouldn't dare to go off as half-cocked renegades and take it upon themselves, without any input or authorization whatsoever from the Church leaders, to caution OW to stand down and do the right thing by calling off their publicity stunt; it's hardly conjecture to say that OW has very unwisely thrown in their lot with an excommunicated apostate, thereby calling into question the legitimacy of their motivations and intentions; it's hardly conjecture to say OW are apparently going to disobey the counsel of the Church and go ahead and embarrass the Church with petulant antics that are going to sully and make a mockery of a sacred occasion; it's hardly conjecture to think that possible eventual excommunication hasn't at least crossed the minds of some of the OW members, yet they press on in defiance anyway.

[why me]

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.

If the group were made up of exmormons, it would not matter at all. But since OW claims to be made up of members of the church who are active, then it does matter. Are social action groups bad? No. However, when it comes to a church and how a church should be of one mind, well, then a social action group that challenges the church leadership can sow division within the church. Now is that bad? Maybe not. But is it good for a church to have one, two or three social action groups, each one challenging the decisions that are made or not made? Yes. Peace and harmony are destroy from within the body of church which is actually the body of christ.

[why me]

From the blog:

 

“Don’t ever consider what another person will think about you while choosing what you are going to wear,” she wrote. “I want you to wear clothes that are comfortable, that fit well, that make you feel good about yourself and give you confidence, that match your personality and that you like, and are appropriate for the activity. So please, stand in front of the mirror and think about the opinions of the people who mean the most: yourself and God.

 

I remember when I was a young adult and I attended the NYC ward. I came to church in shorts. The temperature was 95 degrees at times and I just didn't want to go home and change my clothes. Nor did I want to wear a suit to church. I just wanted to be comfortable. This was back in the 70s. No one said that they were offended by my shorts. As a born catholic, back in the 60s, my mom would make me wear a suit to church. I had on my sunday best, including a tie. The girls wore dresses. And the adults wore their best clothes too and women also wore dresses but with a difference. Women had dresses with a veil covering their head. This was catholic modesty at church and clothes that were respectful to god.

 

On January 12, 1930, the Sacred Congregation of the Council issued an instruction to all of the world’s Bishops, ordering them to address, from the pulpit, at least once a year, on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, as appropriate, the subject of women’s modesty.

 

 

http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.fi/2008/12/truth-unvieled-head-covering-still.html

 

However, the modesty part began to change in the 70s. People began to wear shorts, tank tops, bluejeans, flipflops etc. All clean clothes on their back but not so formal. Church was becoming rather a place where informal clothes were proper. And the catholic church is still like this. However, I do see people dressing a bit more modest these days.

 

Should the lds church be the same? Why not. I would love to come to church in a nice pair of shorts and a polo shirt, especially if it is hot outside. Now what I do is carry the shorts in my bag and after church, I go to the men's room and change and walk out of the chapel with my shorts. I don't wear a suit or tie and I don't wear a white shirt.

 

When it comes to women wearing pants, I would also say that men should stop wearing white shirts and suits. I have been jealous of women who can wear dresses in summer when the men are in suits. The poor guys seem hot and sweaty on a hot summer's day. I think that it would be great for men to wear pink shirts, blue shirts, black shirts, polos, casual shirts etc. And khaki pants too. Why not?

 

So, on a hot summers day, and if I attend the catholic church, I wear a pair of nice shorts. And when I go to the lds church, the shorts are in my bag. Am I crazy?

Edited April 5, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Now something has crossed my mind: lets say women got the priesthood. And lets say they were allowed to wear pants, dresses and clothes more suitable for the weather in summer and not have to wear women's suits with a white shirt.  In other words, women did not have to wear women's business suits like the men need to wear men's suits with white shirt. Would this automatically change the dress code for men? Why for example could women elders in church wear a vast array of styles and colors and the poor men just a suit and a tie with a white shirt? There are very nice stylish women's business suits but I cannot link them here. Should it be culturally acquired for them to wear such suits as a sign of equality to men?

 

And in terms of women wearing pants, I think that men should also show their liberation and start by wearing a shirt with a different color than white. First white shirts are difficult to iron. I hate to iron white shirts that  are100 percent cotton which is one reason I don't wear a white shirt to church. And why should men wear suits and be uncomfortable in church, especially in summer?

 

So if women wish to wear pants. No problem. Just be prepared to wear them in summer too when the poor men are in their suits. This would be a great way to show solidarity. If not, good ol' why me will be certainly wearing his shorts because for women to wear pants in winter and then dresses in summer and the poor guy is in his suit in winter and during the hot summer too just doesn't seem fair.

 

Now I feel like a true revolutionary.

Edited April 5, 2014 by why me

[Yirgacheffe]

Now something has crossed my mind: lets say women got the priesthood. And lets say they were allowed to wear pants, dresses and clothes more suitable for the weather in summer. In other words, women did not have to wear women's business suits like the men need to wear men's suits with white shirt. Would this automatically change the dress code for men? Why for example could women elders in church wear a vast array of styles and colors and the poor men just a suit and a tie with a white shirt?

 

And in terms of women wearing pants, I think that men should also show their liberation and start by wearing a shirt with a different color than white. First white shirts are difficult to iron. I hate to iron white shirts that  are100 percent cotton which is one reason I don't wear a white shirt to church. And why should men wear suits and be uncomfortable in church, especially in summer?

 

So if women wish to wear pants. No problem. Just be prepared to wear them in summer too when the poor men are in their suits. This would be a great way to show solidarity. If not, good ol' why me will be certainly wearing his shorts because for women to wear pants in winter and then dresses in summer and the poor guy is in his suit in winter and during the hot summer too just doesn't seem fair.

 

Now I feel like a true revolutionary.

Women can't wear pants?

[why me]

Women can't wear pants?

Yes, they can. But culturally speaking...no. Likewise men do not have to wear suits and white shirts. But culturally speaking they do. So, we are talking about breaking down culture barriers for men and for women. So, if it becomes culturally acceptable for women to wear pants, it should become culturally acceptable for men to wear shirts of color and khakis with or without tie etc. Church does have a community imposed dress code

[Yirgacheffe]

Yes, they can. But culturally speaking...no. Likewise men do not have to wear suits and white shirts. But culturally speaking they do. So, we are talking about breaking down culture barriers for men and for women. So, if it becomes culturally acceptable for women to wear pants, it should become culturally acceptable for men to wear shirts of color and khakis with or without tie etc. Church does have a community imposed dress code

So they can wear pants but everyone is going to view them poorly?

[why me]

So they can wear pants but everyone is going to view them poorly?

I don't think that people care if a woman wears pants. But for some strange reason, they usually wear skirts or dresses. And the men are in suits with white shirts. I think that it is more monkey see monkey do. And converts can quickly begin to dress the part. I pride myself on wearing khakis with various colors of shirts depending on my mood. But I would love to wear shorts to church in summer. I can...but....out of respect for others I don't. I don't think that it would fair for me to wear shorts while my brothers are sweating in suits.

 

Of course, the wear pants to church group was not thinking about the men at all. What they basically were saying was that they should be free to wear pants too but without the suit jacket and white shirt. Not fair at all.

[Bikeemikey]

If the group were made up of exmormons, it would not matter at all. But since OW claims to be made up of members of the church who are active, then it does matter. Are social action groups bad? No. However, when it comes to a church and how a church should be of one mind, well, then a social action group that challenges the church leadership can sow division within the church. Now is that bad? Maybe not. But is it good for a church to have one, two or three social action groups, each one challenging the decisions that are made or not made? Yes. Peace and harmony are destroy from within the body of church which is actually the body of christ.

Just start or finish this with in my opinion and so far not supported by the church and your fine.

So far the church has not even suggested any of the things you have suggested. All they have asked is for protests to stay off the ground, they never requested that the protests or group stop its actions.

Again. Given you are not active I find it interesting that you care so much. As you said in another thread, you aren't currently using your phood - so why so invested?

[Monster]

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.

Because the the "lords servants" react to pressure better than revelation.

[Bikeemikey]

Because the the "lords servants" react to pressure better than revelation.

Or that some revelations are sought as a result of pressure.

However, I don't insist that they continue doing this... I just don't object to THEIR decision to continue doing it.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

It's hardly conjecture to make the observation that the PR people wouldn't dare to go off as half-cocked renegades and take it upon themselves, without any input or authorization whatsoever from the Church leaders, to caution OW to stand down and do the right thing by calling off their publicity stunt;

 

A PR department for a corporation does not need input from the CEO to issue a notice that asks people to respect the posted assembly requirements of said corporations private property. Such a statement has no bearing at all on whether the corporation approves of the messaging of said group. The PR statement read like a slightly modified form letter about appropriate use of church grounds. I would not be surprised if the church issues many such letters every year to different groups looking to engage in protest. Granted this is also a unique situation with most of the "protesters" being active members.

 

 

it's hardly conjecture to say that OW has very unwisely thrown in their lot with an excommunicated apostate, thereby calling into question the legitimacy of their motivations and intentions; 

 

It is not conjecture to say that members of the OW movement are ex-ed members, inactive members, and non-members. However, it is absolute conjecture to draw any conclusions about their motivations and/or intentions from this fact. The "excommunicated apostate" you so expertly avoid naming is a womens rights advocate with a long history as a commentator on the Church, both before and after her membership ended. It seems obvious that she would have something to contribute to any conversation about womens roles in the Church.

 

 

it's hardly conjecture to say OW are apparently going to disobey the counsel of the Church and go ahead and embarrass the Church with petulant antics that are going to sully and make a mockery of a sacred occasion; 

 

if conjecture is another word for your opinion then I guess your right. It is also evident that the OW movement is not going to adhere to the PR statement, though more recent statements from the Church have clearly articulated that church security has not plans on restricting access to the grounds for OW members. It is conjecture that PR statements should be considered ecclesiastical direction, it is conjecture that the OW actions will embarrass the church, it is conjecture to refer to their actions as petulant antics, and it is conjecture to say that their presence in the standby line will sully and make a mockery of a sacred occasion. It didn't last time, why would it this time?

 

 

it's hardly conjecture to think that possible eventual excommunication hasn't at least crossed the minds of some of the OW members, yet they press on in defiance anyway.

 

The idea that they would be excommunicated based on their current actions seems very unlikely to me, as it should be. Has it crossed their minds, possibly, but you're the mind reader not me so I will take you word for it. However, if this is the case it is your conjecture to conclude defiance rather than bravery. 

 

Personally I believe that the Church will not be embarrassed by showing its maturity and capacity to have difficult conversations with its members. Nor do I think they church is sullied by those who wish to make a different perspective known. I also am very happy that the Church is able to be a place where people can come forward with questions of revelatory, theological, social and spiritual significance and be given the freedom to explore these questions.

 

Everything that has happened during this process so far has made me proud of my religious institution. Freedom of thought and expression, tolerance for difference and dissent, and an openness and willingness to engage in difficult and painful conversations are all the hallmarks of an extraordinary institution.

 

My confusion and disappointment has come from members who are saying things on this forum and other places that seem to wish the church was not doing these things; rather they are hoping for a speedy excommunication of OW members and a swift silencing of the OW questions about women's ordination.

[why me]

 

My confusion and disappointment has come from members who are saying things on this forum and other places that seem to wish the church was not doing these things; rather they are hoping for a speedy excommunication of OW members and a swift silencing of the OW questions about women's ordination.

Actually the the problem is with how the OW members are making their voices known: through the media and by protesting on temple square. It is really as simple as that. Like I said earlier, other groups will also be able to come to temple square and demonstrate also: exmormons, exmormon atheists, Mormon gay rights activists etc. Temple square can become a gathering place for protests during conference.

[teddyaware]

A PR department for a corporation does not need input from the CEO to issue a notice that asks people to respect the posted assembly requirements of said corporations private property. Such a statement has no bearing at all on whether the corporation approves of the messaging of said group. The PR statement read like a slightly modified form letter about appropriate use of church grounds. I would not be surprised if the church issues many such letters every year to different groups looking to engage in protest. Granted this is also a unique situation with most of the "protesters" being active members.

 

 

 

It is not conjecture to say that members of the OW movement are ex-ed members, inactive members, and non-members. However, it is absolute conjecture to draw any conclusions about their motivations and/or intentions from this fact. The "excommunicated apostate" you so expertly avoid naming is a womens rights advocate with a long history as a commentator on the Church, both before and after her membership ended. It seems obvious that she would have something to contribute to any conversation about womens roles in the Church.

 

 

 

if conjecture is another word for your opinion then I guess your right. It is also evident that the OW movement is not going to adhere to the PR statement, though more recent statements from the Church have clearly articulated that church security has not plans on restricting access to the grounds for OW members. It is conjecture that PR statements should be considered ecclesiastical direction, it is conjecture that the OW actions will embarrass the church, it is conjecture to refer to their actions as petulant antics, and it is conjecture to say that their presence in the standby line will sully and make a mockery of a sacred occasion. It didn't last time, why would it this time?

 

 

 

The idea that they would be excommunicated based on their current actions seems very unlikely to me, as it should be. Has it crossed their minds, possibly, but you're the mind reader not me so I will take you word for it. However, if this is the case it is your conjecture to conclude defiance rather than bravery. 

 

Personally I believe that the Church will not be embarrassed by showing its maturity and capacity to have difficult conversations with its members. Nor do I think they church is sullied by those who wish to make a different perspective known. I also am very happy that the Church is able to be a place where people can come forward with questions of revelatory, theological, social and spiritual significance and be given the freedom to explore these questions.

 

Everything that has happened during this process so far has made me proud of my religious institution. Freedom of thought and expression, tolerance for difference and dissent, and an openness and willingness to engage in difficult and painful conversations are all the hallmarks of an extraordinary institution.

 

My confusion and disappointment has come from members who are saying things on this forum and other places that seem to wish the church was not doing these things; rather they are hoping for a speedy excommunication of OW members and a swift silencing of the OW questions about women's ordination.

 

Well as the saying goes, the proof will be in the pudding. We're going to have to be patient and wait to see how everything eventually comes out in the wash on this issue.

 

But there's one possible influencing factor in the ordain women movement that, as far as I can tell, has not been considered thus far (probably because it's too intellectually distasteful to bring up), and that is what the devil might be up to in all of this. Any time members get together, for whatever reason, to protest, make demands on the General Authorities and bask in the light of the mainstream media's publicity machine, there's little doubt the devil and his minions are lurking nearby to see how they might maneuver behind the scenes to capitalize on the situation. But like I said, bringing up the possible role the adversary of all righteousness might be playing here will only get one tagged as a nut job. So I guess since I already dared to cross that line -- troglodyte that I am -- I suppose I'll just have to sit back and take my lumps for bringing up a crazy conspiracy theory.

Edited April 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[Vookman]

I can easily see the Church once again encouraging women to give blessings through faith in Christ, as was the common practice of the Church until the mid-20th century.  The practice ceased largely due to the leadership at the time citing the scriptures that if one is sick to call the elders, etc.  Yet I think Joseph Smith's view was women giving blessings was perfectly acceptable, and they did so not just in remote areas of the Church, but in the meetings of the sisters when having priesthood holders minister would have been simple.

 

So women, I think, could potentially be given more latitude in giving blessings.  Heaven knows my wife has more of the Spirit than I typically do.

 

I also think women could be given more authority over running the Relief Society and Young Women's organizations.  In most wards bishoprics are typically simply ratifying the inspired recommendations of the sisters.  This is in practice very similar to Stake Presidents calling Elder's Quorum Presidents or High Priest Group Leaders.  Bishops make those recommendations, and then the stake approves and calls them.  The difference is that the Stake Presidents are required by scripture to organize and call these leaders (though no HPGL is mentioned in the scriptures), whereas the RS is not defined.

 

Lastly, I think we could have women and girls also pass the sacrament.  The current assignment to deacons is not scripturally required.

 

Everything above would simply require a change in policy and practice, not new scripture or revelation.  I support the current state of things from the Brethren, but I would not be crushed to see such changes.

[Bikeemikey]

Actually the the problem is with how the OW members are making their voices known: through the media and by protesting on temple square. It is really as simple as that. Like I said earlier, other groups will also be able to come to temple square and demonstrate also: exmormons, exmormon atheists, Mormon gay rights activists etc. Temple square can become a gathering place for protests during conference.

 

Can you please answer why, as an inactive member of the church, you have such a strong response to what the OW group are doing?

 

I am still very confused by you.

 

You have very strong views for an inactive member.

[Bikeemikey]

Well as the saying goes, the proof will be in the pudding. We're going to have to be patient and wait to see how everything eventually comes out in the wash on this issue.

 

But there's one possible influencing factor in the ordain women movement that, as far as I can tell, has not been considered thus far (probably because it's too intellectually distasteful to bring up), and that is what the devil might be up to in all of this. Any time members get together, for whatever reason, to protest, make demands on the General Authorities and bask in the light of the mainstream media's publicity machine, there's little doubt the devil and his minions are lurking nearby to see how they might maneuver behind the scenes to capitalize on the situation. But like I said, bringing up the possible role the adversary of all righteousness might be playing here will only get one tagged as a nut job. So I guess since I already dared to cross that line -- troglodyte that I am -- I suppose I'll just have to sit back and take my lumps for bringing up a crazy conspiracy theory.

 

Thanks for sharing you real views on this...

 

It is not because it is intellectually distasteful to bring it up, it is because it is intellectually irrelevant... this notion that the OW group has been co-opted by the devil has nothing to do with intellectual thought at all. In my opinion it is the last desperate vestiges of anti-intellectualism that would need to stoop to such argument... If you can't make your case reasonably then just say the devil made them do it.

 

Even if it is true,it would be as unknowable to any third party as the assertion that the devil inspired you to post what you just wrote.

[randy]

BikeeMikey....honestly...for you to emphasis WHY ME's  status in the church borders on offensive. To infer that he's not entitled to a view on the issues being discussed here simply because he may not be as "active" as you is extremely insensitive and shameful.  His activity status is totally irrelative to whats being discussed. He makes some very valid points. 

 

Listen, bottom line....I just finished listening to conference....and I heard some very wise counsel and guidance given.  I hope the members of the church who support the OW movement heard it too and will act and will make any future decisions within that organization accordingly.