Elder Oaks And Ow

[The Nehor]

I believe you mean libelous, not slanderous. All I'm saying is that Elder Oaks could easily join the ranks of prophets and apostles who are thrown under bus by future leaders who cite the arbitrary "speaking as a man" doctrine.

 

I said slanderous because I picture you reading your post out loud as you type like Grandpa Simpson does. I apologize if I was mistaken.

 

I would see no need to throw Elder Oaks "under the bus" if women are one day extended the Priesthood. He is stating things as they are now which is what should concern us and made no promises that it would be eternally unchanging.

[teddyaware]

I believe you mean libelous, not slanderous. All I'm saying is that Elder Oaks could easily join the ranks of prophets and apostles who are thrown under bus by future leaders who cite the arbitrary "speaking as a man" doctrine.

Now I clearly do understand where you're coming from. My perplexity over your point of view has been resolved..

[Bikeemikey]

http://m.imgur.com/xq3uIU8

Is this what it will looking like a decade from now?

[Bikeemikey]

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.

[barbarbar]

http://m.imgur.com/xq3uIU8

Is this what it will looking like a decade from now?

Possibly.

[why me]

Great talk. The brethren are being very direct and very specific about several issues so that the position is well understood.

 

I suspect, though, that OW will continue to agitate for a revelation labeled as such on the subject; <facetiousness> after all, a conference talk on the subject is really nothing more than Elder Oaks' opinion. </facetiousness>

Much more difficult to do so now. Of course, they can hope for a revelation and they can pray for a revelation but to protest for a revelation as they have done so far has been a failure. What a social action group would now do is to go back to the drawing room and discuss future strategy. The leadership is now in a pickle. If they are active members and they actively fight for the priesthood, they risk actively opposing the church by going against the GAs and not supporting them. If they reorganize and become less of a social activist group, they may survive but less potent in their message and with the media. They become an advocacy group by keeping the message alive in video discussions etc. But they would still need to tone down their rhetoric.

Edited April 6, 2014 by why me

[jchristopher]

Of course. I think you know what I was talking about, though. They'll never win with critics and the disaffected. Even if the glass is filled to the brim and running over (let alone not being "half-empty") they'll always see it as being completely empty.

Let's hope not. They are HF's children who need to make it home with the rest of us.

[rick7475]

Awesome talk! He clarified a lot of things. OW is a very very small group of women in the church. 90% of LDS women agree with the priesthood as it stands. There are dozens of differing beliefs in the church membership about change.OW is more visible because the topic is popular among feminists hence newsworthy. 

[jchristopher]

I can see his talk fanning the flames to the OW people

Some people take the truth to be hard. Sometimes the truth is repugnant to them. Oaks clearly stated that women do not hold the offices of the Priesthood by divine design. Hinckley said "it is not in the Lord's program." Period. End of discussion.

[GingerRed]

Wow I just watched Elder Oaks talk online at LDS.org....!  Awesome talk! He sure laid in on the line!

 

I wonder how those OW women reacted to all that!  They 'claimed' to have gather to watch it, I wonder if they really did?

 

I saw an article in KSL stating that some of the OW protesters were rude when directed by ushers and refused to leave when asked.  Not surprising.

 

Kate Kelly told the group before the march..."I have no right to remain silent because I love this church"......THAT'S love...?? Yeah right!!!

Edited April 6, 2014 by GingerRed

[why me]

I believe you mean libelous, not slanderous. All I'm saying is that Elder Oaks could easily join the ranks of prophets and apostles who are thrown under bus by future leaders who cite the arbitrary "speaking as a man" doctrine.

If I remember correctly, Thomas S. Monson in his beginning address called the talks inspirational and not doctrinal. In other words, members should find them inspirational and become inspired to be a better christian. Thus, the speakers are more or less speaking as men and as women who are giving inspiration on certain subjects. Now is there some doctrine being spoken about...yes...but the talks are basically inspirational.

[Duncan]

Some people take the truth to be hard. Sometimes the truth is repugnant to them. Oaks clearly stated that women do not hold the offices of the Priesthood by divine design. Hinckley said "it is not in the Lord's program." Period. End of discussion.

 

 

and this closes the door to revelation, wish Pres. Monson would say something about it!

[why me]

 

Kate Kelly told the group before the march..."I have no right to remain silent because I love this church"......THAT'S love...?? Yeah right!!!

If this is true and this is what kelly said one can see the beginnings of a narcissist. When addressing a group as a collective one should use we. But how can she use the word we if many present may not love the church?

 

Here is what should have been said to active members: We have no right to remain silent, sisters and brothers, because we love this church! And then she could have said: Not only do we love this church but we also cherish this church for the beauty and truth that it brings to the world!

 

I would be a wonderful speaker to rally the troops. But as i looked out and saw exmembers, apostates etc, I could not say such things without being tongue in cheek.

Edited April 6, 2014 by why me

[pogi]

I think this was the first talk ever addressed to women in a priesthood session.  Even though he never stated that it was addressed to them, I think it is obvious who this talk was for.   They might not have made it into the session physically, but they certainly made it into the session.

[The Nehor]

Kate Kelly told the group before the march..."I have no right to remain silent because I love this church"......THAT'S love...?? Yeah right!!!

 

I will gladly grant her the right to remain silent.

[jchristopher]

Great talk. The brethren are being very direct and very specific about several issues so that the position is well understood.

I suspect, though, that OW will continue to agitate for a revelation labeled as such on the subject; <facetiousness> after all, a conference talk on the subject is really nothing more than Elder Oaks' opinion. </facetiousness>

Yeah, there are certain people on this forum that don't understand the order of the Lord's priesthood and church, and consider conference talks to be no more than opinions. They're essentially saying the Holy Ghost means nothing and that we're no different from the Protestant religions. As Helaman said, they "deny the spirit of prophecy and of revelation...boasting in their own strength" and wisdom.

[why me]

Yeah, there are certain people on this forum that don't understand the order of the Lord's priesthood and church, and consider conference talks to be no more than opinions. They're essentially saying the Holy Ghost means nothing and that we're no different from the Protestant religions. As Helaman said, they "deny the spirit of prophecy and of revelation...boasting in their own strength" and wisdom.

I think that the talks are a mixed bag of doctrinal matters, inspirational matters and opinions. But mainly the talks are inspirational to inspire the lds to live better, to do better and to remember god.

 

The GAs can speak inspiration through the holy ghost or they can speak inspiration because they are good inspirational speakers even without the holy ghost. And this why members need to critically think their way through the talks.

Edited April 6, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

No need to get testy...not everyone enjoys the taste of kool-aid.

Right..because respecting the words of our leadership is equivalent to participating in a mass suicide....

Credibility plummets.

[Calm]

I think this was the first talk ever addressed to women in a priesthood session.  Even though he never stated that it was addressed to them, I think it is obvious who this talk was for.   They might not have made it into the session physically, but they certainly made it into the session.

Perhaps they put it in Priesthood because they figured they might be paying more attention to that session given the importance they have attached to it (somewhat tongue in cheek given what Kelly said last time around...yes, that comment did stick with me and has probably assumed unnecessary importance).

[smac97]

Wow I just watched Elder Oaks talk online at LDS.org....!  Awesome talk! He sure laid in on the line!

 

I wonder how those OW women reacted to all that!  They 'claimed' to have gather to watch it, I wonder if they really did?

They weren't listening to Elder Oaks or anyone else during the session itself. Perhaps they watched it afterwards.

I saw an article in KSL stating that some of the OW protesters were rude when directed by ushers and refused to leave when asked.  Not surprising.

I did not see anything like that. They were a bit loud/talkative, but not to the point of being disruptive. And I did not see any altercation or disagreement with the ushers. To the contrary, the interactions I observed were quite friendly, kind and compassionate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[frank_jessop]

egg on my face post, content deleted.

Edited April 6, 2014 by frank_jessop

[frank_jessop]

I think what was clear from Elder Oaks, is that the leadership of the Church can not, on their own accord, change was God has set in place. Experience teaches us that when the leadership of the Church seeks the Lord's guidance "changes" can come about.

[GingerRed]

Here's the link:  http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29361198&nid=148&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-1

 

 

For the second consecutive conference, the women were invited to view the meeting over broadcast outlets. But group organizers rejected church requests to not use the meeting, designed to bring instruction and fellowship to priesthood holders, or Temple Square as a place to demonstrate their desire for priesthood ordination of women.

But the action did not sit well with church officials:

"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," said Cody Craynor, spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"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," Craynor said.

Kate Kelly, founder of the group Ordain Women that staged the march, said, "I have no right to remain silent because I love this church," Kelly said to supporters before leading the march into Temple Square.

Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29361198#bceG4D1LAJHg3oAD.99

Edited April 6, 2014 by GingerRed

[Duncan]

Yeah, there are certain people on this forum that don't understand the order of the Lord's priesthood and church, and consider conference talks to be no more than opinions. They're essentially saying the Holy Ghost means nothing and that we're no different from the Protestant religions. As Helaman said, they "deny the spirit of prophecy and of revelation...boasting in their own strength" and wisdom.

 

 

well, aren't they though? well considered opinions. the place something is said doesn't make it true. I disagree with something said at Priesthood tonite because to me it makes no sense but so what?

 

are you or we denying revelation by saying we need no more revelation? why doesn't Pres. Monson just say "I talked to God about this and he said no"

[ERMD]

He addressed some little spoken of examples of women exercising priesthood authority, such as during the initiatory ordinances of the temple.

He also explained the fact that women serve with priesthood authority when they are set apart for their specific callings in the Church. There are no keys or ordination, but there are blessings and authority.

I think in a very clear, authoritative and kind way he was explaining to both men and women how the priesthood functions in all our lives, and in some ways most of us do not regularly consider.