Ow - Yet Another Church Statement Saturday Night

[Bikeemikey]

Actually it is not a problem for me at all. But it would be for the church. I would be interested in how it would all pan out. I said before I think that it would be great for females to get the priesthood. I would sit back and watch the show. Quite a few women would leave, relief society would be history, visiting teaching too. Not to mention the merging of young women's and young mens's. The male 'dress code' would go the way of the Delorean etc. The structural change would be so great, it would be interesting to see the reactions from members especially when the first female bishop with her male counselors are called and the first female elder's quorum president is called with her male counselors.

 

However, for the sake of the church, I hope that it doesn't happen. I don't need to be amused. 

 

You keep vacillating between the objectives of the group and the methods of the group. I was not talking about the objectives of the group, I was talking about the methods. You responded to the objectives. 

 

So to clarify, you have no issue with the objectives of the group but you have a problem with the methods of the group.

 

I don't have a problem with either and so far neither does the church.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[awyatt]

So to clarify, you have no issue with the objectives of the group but you have a problem with the methods of the group.

 

I don't have a problem with either and so far neither does the church.

 

I'm hoping this was simply a misstatement on your part.

 

The Church *does* have a problem with the objectives of the group. If it didn't have a problem with their objectives, then certainly Elder Oaks' talk was out of line, right?

 

The Church may have fewer problems with the methods, but the fact that the Church asked the leaders of OW at least twice to not bring their group onto Temple Square, it seems to me that they have at least some problems with the groups' methods.

 

-Allen

[Bikeemikey]

I'm hoping this was simply a misstatement on your part.

The Church *does* have a problem with the objectives of the group. If it didn't have a problem with their objectives, then certainly Elder Oaks' talk was out of line, right?

The Church may have fewer problems with the methods, but the fact that the Church asked the leaders of OW at least twice to not bring their group onto Temple Square, it seems to me that they have at least some problems with the groups' methods.

-Allen

Oaks talk was not a recrimination of the groups objectives, it was simply informing the group they couldn't help them via policy change.

The idea that oaks talk was a recrimination of the group just doesn't stack up.

As for the groups methods it seems no major objections thus far, except for turning up on temple square during phood where they were non-combative and left quickly afterwards.

[Sleeper Cell]

They used a  religious meeting of the church to protest church doctrine (or “policy” if you prefer), and trespassed on church property in order to do so. 

 

 Suppose another “social action” group formed to oppose ordaining women.  Would it be OK for them to use church property and the occasion of a church meeting to stage a “counter-protest?”  For example, by voting  “No” when asked to sustain a ward member who participated in the Ow “action”  on Temple Square?   Purely as a “social action,” of course.  After all, voting “No” does not preclude subsequently  supporting someone in their calling.  Indeed, one on the parables suggests that it  is far better to initially vote  to not sustain someone and faithfully support  him/her afterwards, than it is to vote to sustain someone, and not support him afterwards.  

[Scott Lloyd]

This woman's concern was that there seemed to be two faces presented.  One, to the sisters, themselves (cordially greeted, even hugged and reassured) and then the public article, stating something that didn't seem to occur or felt contrary to what actually happened that evening.  I can understand their feelings about this.

 

If church leadership really felt that way about what the ladies were doing, why wasn't that expressed (again) while they were standing in line?  Why were they not asked to leave?  Then, the article would have been viewed as more accurate.  Nothing like that occurred.

So because the Church representatives were trying to be as civil as possible under the circumstances they are now criticized as being two-faced?

 

What do you suppose would have been the public perception had the Church people appeared hostile to the women who barged onto the grounds after it had been made clear they weren't welcome to protest there?

 

Clearly, this is another case of being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I fully agree... You can see similar communication patterns in many corporations - initial response to request an action does not occur, an official declaration that they will not actively oppose the action from happening, an expression of disappointment the action did happen.

Some of this is liability driven, some is safety-security, some is about avoiding unintentional precedent... The number of reasons for issuing a statement like this are huge. For that reason I don't read ecclesiastical motive in it as a) it is not attributed to a prophet, it does not cite inspiration, it does not acknowledged by ecclesiastical leaders, it did not come through a medium we accept as scripture etc etc.

Your steadfast refusal to recognize the Public Affairs people as anything less than official representatives of the Church is unreasonable.

[theplains]

"Such divisive actions are not the kind of behavior that is expected from Latter-Day Saints"...in other words, the Church spokesperson has publicly labelled their actions as not in keeping with Church membership.

 

I wonder if a similar thing happened when members of the LDS Church were trying to lobby for

a priesthood open to all worthy male members before 1978.

 

Regards,

Jim