Well, Ow's Moment Has Been And Gone Again...

[JLHPROF]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57778960-78/women-square-church-temple.html.csp

 

Well, the OW march has been and gone for another conference.  200ish women showed up.  They were turned away just like last time.  No press or reporters (but a few pics tweeted).  No real impact on Conference and no goals achieved.

According to the article describing their attempt only 8% of Mormon women even think they should be given the priesthood.

 

Why do we give so much attention to this group?  Why am I even linking this article?  What is the fascination?

...and yet we continue to watch.  Maybe that is the goal after all.

[Alvino]

Maybe because deep down people feel they should be thinking about what they say and whether it's correct, not whether more people think like them or not.

[juliann]

Thanks for the link.

 

The organizing group, Ordain Women, hoped for about 500 women and men to show up. In the end, the crowd was closer to 200 — still nearly twice as many as took part in a similar event at last October’s semiannual conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

That is not good news for them at all. And they were claiming higher numbers than this report for Oct, which I suspect is more factual.

[Bikeemikey]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57778960-78/women-square-church-temple.html.csp

Well, the OW march has been and gone for another conference. 200ish women showed up. They were turned away just like last time. No press or reporters (but a few pics tweeted). No real impact on Conference and no goals achieved.

According to the article describing their attempt only 8% of Mormon women even think they should be given the priesthood.

Why do we give so much attention to this group? Why am I even linking this article? What is the fascination?

...and yet we continue to watch. Maybe that is the goal after all.

Which is exactly what happened last year. So why all the angst from people talking about how OW would be a big embarrassment to the church etc?

[MorningStar]

For me what is most irritating about them is that they give the impression to non-members that most Mormon women are unhappy in the church, which is an assumption that people often make anyway, but they are just confirming that opinion with their nonsense.  A lot of people don't even understand what it means to have the priesthood in our church or just how involved women are in it. 

[juliann]

Elder Oaks put to bed any remote possibility that women will be ordained.

[Bikeemikey]

For me what is most irritating about them is that they give the impression to non-members that most Mormon women are unhappy in the church, which is an assumption that people often make anyway, but they are just confirming that opinion with their nonsense. A lot of people don't even understand what it means to have the priesthood in our church or just how involved women are in it.

I doubt that is the case... Most coverage actually included the stat that over 90% were opposed to the movement.

If anything this round of coverage clearly demonstrated that the OW group is a small minority.

[erdoch]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57778960-78/women-square-church-temple.html.csp

 

Well, the OW march has been and gone for another conference.  200ish women showed up.  They were turned away just like last time.  No press or reporters (but a few pics tweeted).  No real impact on Conference and no goals achieved.

According to the article describing their attempt only 8% of Mormon women even think they should be given the priesthood.

 

Why do we give so much attention to this group?  Why am I even linking this article?  What is the fascination?

...and yet we continue to watch.  Maybe that is the goal after all.

 

Maybe because women participated in the Priesthood more fully in the past (laying on of hands, healing blessings, etc.). Maybe because the New Testament refers to a female apostle and a female deacon (which is clear in the original Greek and in other translations of the Bible than the KJV). Maybe because much of the temple (though not all) seems to square well with a more equal partnership in the Priesthood between men and women. Maybe because all are equal in the sight of God, both men and women. And maybe even because power structures are unequal without women participating. 

 

Clearly the OW group is a small minority - and most LDS women are fine with not holding the Priesthood (as at least a couple of surveys show). But that doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons for women holding the Priesthood. I'd like to see that time arrive in the Church. I'm less sure how much to "push" for it seeing that I don't hold the keys to ask and receive direction for the Church. I do think it's a good conversation to have though, which is why I'm sympathetic to OW. 

[readstoomuch]

Perhaps OW went to far and still wouldn`t stop when it was clear that things were not changing at General Priesthood meeting. On the other hand the dialogue may end up causing changes within the structure of the Church that will be good for all involved. Women have input in the Church, but could it be more? Does the statement that women have Priesthood authority bring the opportunity for women to exercise that authority in clearer and more profound ways? Even if you are personally angry about OW, can you still treat them as sisters and brothers in the gospel?

[Calm]

Elder Oaks put to bed any remote possibility that women will be ordained.

Haven't had a chance to watch it. Was it presented as not ever, never or is there still a reasonable position that future revelation might change things(not that even in a not ever, never situation things might change due to revelation but there was a sense of anticipation with all worthy males and I am wondering if that possibility was removed or at least would be considered removed by most).

[JLHPROF]

Maybe because much of the temple (though not all) seems to square well with a more equal partnership in the Priesthood between men and women.

 

Yes it does.  But there is a doctrinal reason for that if you really think about the setting portrayed in the temple.

[Bikeemikey]

Haven't had a chance to watch it. Was it presented as not ever, never or is there still a reasonable position that future revelation might change things(not that even in a not ever, never situation things might change due to revelation but there was a sense of anticipation with all worthy males and I am wondering if that possibility was removed or at least would be considered removed by most).

He blew the conversation wide open in my opinion... It was almost like he was opening the door with one hand and then slapping the face of the person trying to get through

It was an excellent talk... I'll need a lot of time to figure it out.

[Traela]

The Church wasn't fully organized until its women were organized. And how the women were organized was the Relief Society. I am fine with that, although I believe that we don't yet fully understand what the Lord intends it to be. Perhaps another quorum of the Priesthood, although without ordinations? Regardless, I actually think it's a good thing that women don't hold the Priesthood, as we understand it. Among other things, I think it gives us more flexibility.

[Calm]

I doubt that is the case... Most coverage actually included the stat that over 90% were opposed to the movement.

If anything this round of coverage clearly demonstrated that the OW group is a small minority.

But factual coverage doesn't have the same effect as the visual and emotional impact of a good story and women are happy is not a good of a story as women are oppressed etc. (a book or video without conflict of some sort doesnt grab people's attention). What will stick in peope's minds may not be what is really going on.

Not saying it is intentional by the media to cause this, just that both our culture and the natural interest in conflict/crisis that people have will contribute to the consequence of misperception.

For example, while research showed that LDS were no more racist than those in their surrounding communities (and in some cases iirc less so), the public perception was of Mormons as significantly racist individuals because it was assumed that would have to be the driving motivation for the Ban...understandable for those who don't believe our faith is driven by revelation with all that implies on how things change over time. Outsiders will likely view refusal to change to include ordination for women in the same way, IMO, and that will have implications on their perception of how women are treated and what they should really be feeling (an extreme example of something potentially seen as culturally similar is how it is often the women more so than the men in my understanding who insist on girls in their culture undergoing female circumcision as traditional while outsiders see them as total victims).

Edited April 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

But factual coverage doesn't have the same effect as the visual and emotional impact of a good story and women are happy is not a good of a story as women are oppressed etc. (a book or video without conflict of some sort doesnt grab people's attention). What will stick in peope's minds may not be what is really going on.

Not saying it is intentional by the media to cause this, just that both our culture and the natural interest in conflict/crisis that people have will contribute to the consequence of misperception.

To true.

I guess I'm just more into data...

[juliann]

He blew the conversation wide open in my opinion... It was almost like he was opening the door with one hand and then slapping the face of the person trying to get through

It was an excellent talk... I'll need a lot of time to figure it out.

Well, that is one way of putting it.  LOL   But I do think that there is no longer any rational reason to think women have any chance at the priesthood. A revelation is always a possibility on any given topic so I don't think that is too relevant to what is happening right now. So Cal, I don't see a way to break through when it comes to priesthood given what he said. More inclusion and visibility, yes. He said Pres. Burton, I believe.

 

And someone needs to create a graph or something out of what he said.

[Bikeemikey]

Well, that is one way of putting it. LOL But I do think that there is no longer any rational reason to think women have any chance at the priesthood. A revelation is always a possibility on any given topic so I don't think that is too relevant to what is happening right now. So Cal, I don't see a way to break through when it comes to priesthood given what he said. More inclusion and visibility, yes. He said Pres. Burton, I believe.

And someone needs to create a graph or something out of what he said.

I support the graph idea! Excellent thought.

[Calm]

To true.

I guess I'm just more into data...

Me too....which is why I always prefer to look at actual research rather than using common sense etc when it comes to studying people.

[Thinking]

I don't think the OW group is thinking this through. If they get the priesthood, they won't be able to have their girls night out twice a year during the priesthood session when the waiting time at restaurants (in Utah at least) is shorter than normal.

[Calm]

Well, that is one way of putting it.  LOL   But I do think that there is no longer any rational reason to think women have any chance at the priesthood. A revelation is always a possibility on any given topic so I don't think that is too relevant to what is happening right now. So Cal, I don't see a way to break through when it comes to priesthood given what he said. More inclusion and visibility, yes. He said Pres. Burton, I believe.

 

And someone needs to create a graph or something out of what he said.

Thanks to both of you. Bad day today so haven't been able to watch anything, did get some decent sleep though so hoping to catch some tomorrow.

[Bikeemikey]

Thanks to both of you. Bad day today so haven't been able to watch anything, did get some decent sleep though so hoping to catch some tomorrow.

Good luck!

[Calm]

Perhaps OW went to far and still wouldn`t stop when it was clear that things were not changing at General Priesthood meeting. On the other hand the dialogue may end up causing changes within the structure of the Church that will be good for all involved. Women have input in the Church, but could it be more? Does the statement that women have Priesthood authority bring the opportunity for women to exercise that authority in clearer and more profound ways? Even if you are personally angry about OW, can you still treat them as sisters and brothers in the gospel?

I would love it if those involved in OW were able to accept this and shift their attention to changes that can work with the system (both cultural and doctrinal) we have now. If they could, I see great potential for overall this being a positive benefit for the Church as I don't believe the conversation has been a waste of time and do believe that the higher visibility of women's roles and the importance to adapt to changing needs (which is the basis IMO for why continuing revelation is essential...life is never static and thus the Church shouldn't be either) is a good thing because it seems to me in my experience that we as a culture may be a bit too fond of traditional ways (I think there is a great need for tradition, but it should be a conscious choice of value and not just assuming it should be that way because this is how 'we always done it').

And that last question is so very, very important and speaks to what we are as a community of Saints and if we really follow the doctrine that we are of the family of God or just use that teaching to make us feel good.

Edited April 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Good luck!

Thank you kindly...today is a day where I am hungering some for a bit of sympathy and for someone to pat my head with a 'there, there' even if most times I mention health just to explain things.

[smac97]

I was on Temple Square during the protest. I was listening to the session on my phone, but I observed a few things while walking around:

1. Number of protesters as of 6:15: Less than 100

2. Number of protesters listening to the session: 0

3. There was a lot of chatting, picture taking, hugging, laughing, some dancing telling of jokes. Not reverent, but not very disruptive either.

4. everyone was cleared out by about 7 o'clock or 7:15. I asked a participant where they had gone. She said it was too cold to remain outside, so they had all gone to a hotel, apparently to listen to the remainder of the session she said.

5. The church had apparently assigned a woman to assist the Tabernacle ushers in working with the protesters. she greeted each protester as they stepped up in the standby line, she spoke with them, and then they moved on to be hugged by one of the protester group's leaders. the protesters behaved very well.

I am headed home. I will post a bit more later.

Thx,

Smac

[Calm]

Great report, smac.

Given that they can listen in the future to the session I don't think much can be concluded about not listening to it then.

Now if it is played up again like it was last year (being forced to listen over cell phones while shivering in the park)...that would be significant but not in a way signifying whether what was being said was actually important to them as opposed to the symbolism of being there (I thought Kelly's comment last year of not getting anything out of what she listened to because it didn't speak to her very telling as it wouldn't have changed what she heard to be sitting down hearing it in person).

Edited April 6, 2014 by calmoriah