Ow Movement Tactics

[Bikeemikey]

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.

 

Rubbish...

 

He has actively raised on this board his status as an inactive member, I have not called out anything he has not himself offered. I have never suggested he is not able to have valid input into the conversation (though Why Me has consistently stated that the exmormon and inactive mormon membership of OW are reason to doubt their intentions). 

 

I am honestly curious what drives and inactive member to still be so earnestly engaged in these issues, as well as what drives him to take such a defensive stance.

 

If Why Me is concerned with my direct questioning then he can let me know himself... however, given that he has shared his inactive status multiple times I doubt he is either concerned or offended by my question.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[why me]

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.

But I still have a testimony based on my spiritual experiences when I was active. But we all make choices in our lives and I made my choices. I suppose that I have my own free agency. I still love the church and do not want to see it harmed. Maybe I am an old school inactive. Back in my day an inactive was not a person who hated the church or did not believe in the church but members who could not live up to the standards that one should live up to. Thus, we went inactive. But the love was still there.

 

My reaction to the OW group comes from my experience with social action groups. I think that they are not handling it rightly. An lds social action group does not protest outside on temple square when members are trying to worship. Nor do they go to the press as a social pressure technique. They need to find a different way.

 

I am not going to write the tactics that they should do because I wouldn't want to give them any ideas. But there would have been a better way to get the message across. But we all can agree that they failed to get the numbers that they were hoping for.

Edited April 6, 2014 by why me

[why me]

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. 

 

 

I don't take offense. I have experienced his line of reasoning on exmember boards when I defend the church. They also have a hard time relating to me defending the church. But I have come to see it as a generational thing. As I just wrote many inactives back in the day were inactive because they decided to make choices in their lives that did not measure up to church standards. And this is why when one hears talks back then, the GAs stressed coming back to church in an active way by living the standards. They never shunned us. And at times you can still hear the old school GAs talk about this. But for the new generation this line of reason is bogus now. Members leave over history etc but not because of sin or sin is the least of it.

[why me]

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.

This is the bottom line. And you were right, you heard some wise counsel and guidance given which is what general conference is all about. It is to inspire members to live better and to do better but not to be perfect in all that we do. Hopefully the OW leadership was listening. If they continue with the same tactics, they may (and I stress may) paint themselves as less than active by many members.

Edited April 6, 2014 by why me

[VideoGameJunkie]

Put trust in the GAs.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't take offense. I have experienced his line of reasoning on exmember boards when I defend the church. They also have a hard time relating to me defending the church. But I have come to see it as a generational thing. As I just wrote many inactives back in the day were inactive because they decided to make choices in their lives that did not measure up to church standards. And this is why when one hears talks back then, the GAs stressed coming back to church in an active way by living the standards. They never shunned us. And at times you can still hear the old school GAs talk about this. But for the new generation this line of reason is bogus now. Members leave over history etc but not because of sin or sin is the least of it.

I dont have any issue with you choice to defend the church, nor do I think you have no right to do it. I was just curious what your motivators were consider you are not active.

 

Thanks for the insight.

 

To what extent do you think your reasoning, "I still have a testimony of the church based on spiritual experiences", could be a justification for Margaret Toscano and other ex-mos/inactives associated with OW movement to do what they are doing, just as you are?

Edited April 6, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[cdowis]

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

 

May I suggest that you read and study the scriptures, in this case, the D&C.  You are very much mistaken.

[Vookman]

cdowis, with all due respect, I would like to request you provide references from the D&C stating passing the sacrament is a priesthood function.  D&C 20 details the duty of priests, teachers and deacons.  Preparing the sacrament is there by way of assisting priests and teachers, but I don't see any direction about passing the sacrament.  According to D&C 20:58 they cannot administer the sacrament, baptize, etc, so I am pretty sure that is not a statement about passing the sacrament.

 

Anyway, I believe in the inspiration of the current gifts of administration which have given us the current policies and practices, but I was just offering some ideas which I think are options.  I did look to see something in the D&C which would refute my thoughts.  I couldn't find it.  Assuming your statement was not just some statement from impulse, I would very much appreciate you providing those references I am mistakenly missing.

[cdowis]

Brother, just forget I said anything.

Edited April 7, 2014 by cdowis