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

[The Nehor]

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

 

I wouldn't say that. It could change but it would require a "1978-style" revelation to change it.

[jwhitlock]

 

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.

 

I tend to rubberneck at accidents on the highway, too.

[halconero]

I wouldn't say that. It could change but it would require a "1978-style" revelation to change it.

 

I would say possibly more than that. It would seem implied by Oaks that a visitation from a celestial being on par with the Kirtland bestowals would be necessary to give the First Presidency and the Apostles the key for female ordination.

[cdowis]

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).

 

Apparently not so clear.

 

The translation of the verse presents two problems:

• The majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts give a female name Junia; a minority give a masculine name Junias.^[3]
• The phrase translated "of note among the apostles" (KJV) can be read two ways, as illustrated by the two readings in the NIV; "outstanding among" (NIV main text) or "esteemed by" (NIV footnote).^[4]

These two questions are still under scholarly debate.

 

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

[The Nehor]

I would say possibly more than that. It would seem implied by Oaks that a visitation from a celestial being on par with the Kirtland bestowals would be necessary to give the First Presidency and the Apostles the key for female ordination.

 

A visitor would be necessary if it required new keys. It might but I am not convinced it would require them.

[Duncan]

well, if the OW members were listening to Pres. Monson then they probably will have courage and keep going in their quest

Edited April 6, 2014 by Duncan

[why me]

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.

Because they are in the media in such a prominent way. Of course, they are in the utah media and since many people on this forum may be from the mormon corridor, OW becomes bigger than they actually are.

[why me]

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. 

Also, most nonmembers probably think that the lds church is run like any other church witch has pastors and priests. In other words that one must study for the pastorship or priesthood and be assigned a mormon church. I think that very few understand that the priesthood is given to boys and that most of the male population in the lds church have the priesthood.

[why me]

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.

The structural change in the church would be too deep if females got the priesthood. I think that the GAs know this. The way the church is now setup doesn't support females receiving the priesthood. If one would ask women about women receiving the priesthood and the disappearance of relief society they would be against getting the priesthood even more. I think that most women in the church appreciate relief society, an organization that would need to go, if females received the priesthood.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I put my trust in the first presidency and the apostles. They know what is best for the church so I won't even worry about the issue.

[The Nehor]

well, if the OW members were listening to Pres. Monson then they probably will have courage and keep going in their quest

 

Quests are supposed to be heroic and involve danger and perseverance in spite of the danger. Showing up at a building twice a year to get turned away makes for a pretty pathetic quest.

Edited April 6, 2014 by The Nehor

[smac97]

Okay, here's a more complete synopsis of my observations of today's events (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:

The number of protesters on Temple Square as of 6:15 was, by my count, less than 100. I entered the Tabernacle at about 5:15 and exited about 6:10 (I wanted to walk around Temple Square while listening to the Priesthood Session on my phone), and I was in the vicinity of the Tabernacle for the remainder of the session. News reports prior to the event predicted 500 protesters (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57765886-78/women-lds-church-priesthood.html.csp, http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_10464.shtml ). One news source reported 500 actual attendees (http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/kate-kelly-founder-of-ordain-women-leads-500-supporters-news-photo/482981045 ), but that seems way off. However, according to the SL Tribune, "journalists at the (City Creek) park pegged it at closer to 200" (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57778960-78/women-church-ordain-square.html.csp ). Fox 13 puts the number at "an estimated 300" (http://fox13now.com/2014/04/05/hundreds-advocate-for-changes-to-lds-church-policies-regarding-women/ ).

The OW Group "said they carefully logged Saturday’s turnout, putting it at 510" (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57778960-78/women-church-ordain-square.html.csp). If journalists at the protest's starting point provide a number of "closer to 200," and if my personal observations of protesters on Temple Square were around 100, then I don't see how this number could be at all accurate. The Trib article above states that "Marchers also carried proxy cards with the names of 300 people who would have attended if they could have." Perhaps the OW Group is getting creative in their definition of "turnout" (200 protesters, plus 300 "proxy card" protesters = 500).  But then, that wouldn't explain this AP article's specific claim that "the church allowed nearly 500 men and women in the Salt Lake City square Saturday afternoon."
 
Well no, Brady, there weren't "nearly 500."  Not even close.

 

EDIT to add: Jennifer Dobner gives the OW group's count the benefit of the doubt: "Initially, about 200 people appeared to be taking part in the action, but a spokeswoman for the group put the number of participants at 510."  Brady McCombs is also sticking with the 500 number by deferring to the OW group's count.  Interestingly, Kate Kelly apparently co-authored an article in which she states: "A group of about 200 Mormon women who want ecclesiastical equality sought but were denied admittance to a male-only session of their faith's spring conference on Saturday, in their bid to promote the ordination of women into the lay priesthood."

 

2. Mixed Signals by the OW Group:

Was the OW Group's presence on Temple Square "allowed" by the Church or not? The following was reported earlier today by the AP:

Kate Kelly, the group's founder, said Friday that she expects about 500 members to gather and march into Temple Square and ask to be allowed into the all-male priesthood meeting. Two police officers her group hired for crowd security told her that Mormon officials plan to allow the women on to Temple Square. Kelly hopes that happens.

"Women already feel so marginalized and excluded," she said. "It would be a really hurtful blow."

Strangely, the URL for this article (http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/f6c3c9b7f94949619db41271d8a9c5da/UT--Mormon-Conference-Womens-Demonstration/#.U0A-MvldW8Q) omits the claim about the police officers and the quote from Kate Kelly about women feeling "marginalized and excluded." Instead, it quotes an email from a spokesman for the Church:

A Mormon women's group pushing for females to be let in the priesthood was allowed on church property Saturday, but the group still was not let in all-male meeting its members asked to attend.
...
Despite the order, the group said it would insist on being allowed on church property so its members could get in the standby line, reprising a similar demonstration from last year.
...
The potentially acrimonious showdown never materialized as the church allowed hundreds of men and women in the Salt Lake City square Saturday afternoon...
...
Kristen Howey, a spokeswoman for the church, called the protest "disappointing."

"Despite polite and respectful requests from Church leaders not to make Temple Square a place of protest, a mixed group of men and women ignored that request and staged a demonstration outside the Tabernacle on General Conference weekend, refusing to accept ushers' directions and refusing to leave when asked," Howey said. "While not all the protesters were members of the Church, such divisive actions are not the kind of behavior that is expected from Latter-day Saints and will be as disappointing to our members as it is to Church leaders."

So the article begins by saying that the OW group "was allowed on church property," but then it goes on to say that the OW group was planning to defy the order, and then it quotes the response from the Church, which characterized the group's presence on Temple Square as unauthorized ("a mixed group of men and women ignored (the Church's request to 'not make Temple Square a place of protest') and staged a demonstration . . . and refusing to leave when asked..."). So which is it? Was the OW group "allowed" on Church property? Or was it a trespass? Or were they allowed onto church property, only to end up misbehaving and drawing the critical response from the Church quoted above?

KSL's write-up (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29361198&nid=148) does not really clarify this point:
 

A group of just more than 200 women and their male supporters entered through the gates of Temple Square Saturday seeking admission to the male gathering of priesthood holders at LDS general conference, despite requests from church officials that they not do so.

The Trib's write-up (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57778960-78/women-church-square-ordain.html.csp?page=2) seems to provide the most detail as to what happened, and what happened was . . . defiance and a trespass:

LDS officials initially had asked Ordain Women not to enter Temple Square this conference, but by last week apparently had accepted that the group intended to enter.

On Saturday, the women were met at the gate by a church representative, who asked them to go to the public protest area outside the square, Kelly said. Instead, they walked onto the square, where they formed a line circling the Tabernacle and, one by one, asked a church spokeswoman for tickets to the priesthood session. Each woman was rejected.

Ordain Women had hired police officers as escorts Saturday night.

Kelly called the church’s statement after the event "unnecessarily harsh." She said once the women were inside the square, they were not asked to leave.

A few more questions here:

A. Who were the "police officers hired for crowd security?"

B. Did these police officers lie (when they said "that Mormon officials plan to allow the women on to Temple Square") or were they lied to (the Church prohibited the protesters from Temple Square, then changed its mind and let them on, then changed its mind again and had its spokesperson issue the email above)? Or was it some sort of misunderstanding (an oddly specific misunderstanding, to be sure)?

C. The AP article has a "First Posted" time of "April 05, 2014 - 10:23 pm" and a "Last Updated" time of "April 05, 2014 - 10:26 pm." That first time is simply not true, because I posted a link to that URL this afternoon (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63252-latest-development-no-media-allowed-on-temple-square/?p=1209365707). Granted, the article is very different now from the one I read this afternoon. In fact, they are two different articles (compare the version I quoted in the above URL with the current version). So why delete the previous article and replace it in the same URL with the current article? Why send the earlier article down the memory hole?

 

3. Listening to Priesthood Session:

Number of protesters listening to the session: Zero. Zip. Nada. Instead, There was a lot of chatting, picture taking, hugging, laughing, some dancing telling of jokes. Not reverent, but not very disruptive either. Nevertheless, I find that problematic coming from group of people who claim to want the priesthood, but who A) disobey the Church's instructions when they feel like it, B) trespass on Church property, and C) cannot be bothered to listen to priesthood leaders speaking at the very session to which they are seeking admission. And no, I'm not buying the "They can listen to it later" excuse. By that rationale, no priesthood holders need attend.

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.

4. Interaction with Ushers:

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 gray-haired lady in the photo on the front page of http://ordainwomen.org/). So the protesters behaved very well, despite having trespassed on Church property.

5. Genuine Emotions:

Several of the female protesters, when speaking with the femail usher apparently representing the Church, were quite emotional. I could not hear what they were saying, but there were lots of tears, sobbing, and so on.
 
Thanks,
 
-Smac

Edited April 6, 2014 by smac97

[The Nehor]

Protesting by proxy? That is taking vicarious work a little too far and don't you actually need someone there as an actual proxy? Seriously, this is giving protesting itself a bad name. I thought I was lazy.

 

Kind of sad how it ended up. Even if they went to the hotel and actually watched or listened to conference they probably missed the talk by Elder Oaks. There is a delicious bit of irony there.

[smac97]

Protesting by proxy? That is taking vicarious work a little too far and don't you actually need someone there as an actual proxy? Seriously, this is giving protesting itself a bad name. I thought I was lazy.

 

Kind of sad how it ended up. Even if they went to the hotel and actually watched or listened to conference they probably missed the talk by Elder Oaks. There is a delicious bit of irony there.

 

There is no "probably."  They definitely missed the talk by Elder Oaks.  I stood there listening to him on my phone while also watching them all not do the same (seriously, there wasn't a single person listening to it).  In that moment I too marveled at the irony.

 

And yeah, the protesting by proxy thing seems pretty lame, particularly if they used them to puff up their numbers from around 100 to the 500 protesters being reported by the AP (see here, here, here, here, and here).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited April 6, 2014 by smac97

[cinepro]

I can recognize why there might be confusion about the number of protestors. 

If we're counting actual feet on the ground, we might get 100 or 200 people.

 

If we're counting Mormon-style, where anyone who is associated with the group, or has been and isn't anymore but hasn't officially renounced their support, or was at Temple Square anytime in the last few months but not necessarily tonight, or donated some money to the group at some time in the last few months, and counting the young children of OW members who aren't officially members but are being raised by their parents to be OW members in the future, then there might have been a couple thousand "protesters".

[why me]

Okay, here's a more complete synopsis of my observations of today's events (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).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

The press basically go by what OW tells them. Also, it seems that OW is not about listening to church leaders or their representatives but about attention grabbing. I think that they will claim victory because they were on temple grounds. i also think that some of the posters here are changing their mind about OW and are becoming more critical. And I think that will be the general feeling among members.

[canard78]

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

 

[Calm]

Both of which are accurate. It was and is not the Church's intention to change doctrine. Even in asking for the OD2 revelation, they were waiting for God to reveal his Will about it.

It required revelation to change the previous ban and would require revelation to change the current one.

Edited April 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[why me]

God can change his own law. I see no problem with that. And that is what Oaks is saying. Women can't do it and neither can men. But god can.

 

Of course, those of us in the know knew that Abel had the priesthood as did his grandson. Not to mention one of two others. The problem with being a general authority is very simple: all statements made are attributable to god by many church members and critics. It is one of those bedbugs that just can't go away.

Edited April 6, 2014 by why me

[mormonnewb]

well, if the OW members were listening to Pres. Monson then they probably will have courage and keep going in their quest

 

I hope so.  In light of Christ's discussion of prayer in Luke 11, aren't they supposed to keep going?

 

 

⁵ And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves;

⁶ For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him?

⁷ And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee.

⁸ I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.

⁹ And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

¹⁰ For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

 

I read this to mean keep on knocking.  The Brethren may answer, "Trouble me not: the session is closed and Elder Oaks has spoken on the matter.  The thinking is done."  Yet, I say unto OW, "Though they will not let you in because of any great love or compassion, yet because of your importunity (and the PR nightmare), they will let as many of you in as you request."

 

Keep knocking, sisters! 

Edited April 6, 2014 by mormonnewb

[why me]

 

Keep knocking, sisters! 

I guess it depends on how they are knocking. Of course every special interest group in the church can go to temple square during conference and knock away. Some by standing silently, some by holding up signs, some by hollering and some by going to the media.

 

Or they can pray often without seeking attention. What would you suggest?

[mormonnewb]

I guess it depends on how they are knocking. Of course every special interest group in the church can go to temple square during conference and knock away. Some by standing silently, some by holding up signs, some by hollering and some by going to the media.

 

Or they can pray often without seeking attention. What would you suggest?

 

I suggest the one that makes someone so uncomfortable that they awaken from their slumber and (even if begrudgingly) share the blessings of the priesthood with our sisters.

 

Amazingly, it seems that the issue many faithful members have with OW is that they have stirred up "trouble."  Well, that's what Christ did.  In fact, He stirred up so much trouble that the religious leaders saw Him as a threat that needed to be "neutralized."  So this idea that "good saints" are meek and reverent and never cause contention makes for a wonderful community, but I'm not sure it makes for wonderful CHRISTIANS.

 

Christians cause trouble (and not just for gays).  Christians topple social orders (e.g., slavery and segregation).  Perhaps, that's why Christ handpicked as His successors, people like the sword-wielding Peter and Judas the Zealot -- a freedom fighter.  Of course, He also picked John the Beloved, so there is a place for both types, so I think there's a place in the kingdom for OW as well.

Edited April 6, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Kenngo1969]

I wouldn't say that. It could change but it would require a "1978-style" revelation to change it.

Yes, but the trajectory of the two issues/questions involved is different: there always was a contingent of leadership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which anticipated the eventual 1978 revelation (even though they didn't know when it would occur), while there has never been a contingent among the Brethren/leadership of the Church that has anticipated the ordination of women.

[cdowis]

I hope so.  In light of Christ's discussion of prayer in Luke 11, aren't they supposed to keep going?

 

 

snip

I read this to mean keep on knocking.  The Brethren may answer, "Trouble me not: the session is closed and Elder Oaks has spoken on the matter.  The thinking is done."  Yet, I say unto OW, "Though they will not let you in because of any great love or compassion, yet because of your importunity (and the PR nightmare), they will let as many of you in as you request."

 

Keep knocking, sisters! 

 

Thank you for giving us your personal interpretation of this scripture.  "Keep knocking" does not mean to continue to disrupt General Conference, picketing, agitating with the media, continuing to harass the leaders of the church, following the leadership of an an exmormon.  

 

Christ gave a parable, not a code of conduct for continued disunity in the church.

 

They can humbly continue to bring up this issue with the Lord, not the media.

Edited April 6, 2014 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

Yes, but the trajectory of the two issues/questions involved is different: there always was a contingent of leadership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which anticipated the eventual 1978 revelation (even though they didn't know when it would occur), while there has never been a contingent among the Brethren/leadership of the Church that has anticipated the ordination of women.

Yes, but if I am called as an Apostle there will be.