Participant In Ow Protest Describes Being Mocked And Harassed By Conference Goers

[Gray]

I can't ever imagine an LDS man yelling at women that they're supposed to submit to their husbands or comment that they should be home baking.  This guy starts off by trying to convince us he's indifferent, but it's not very believable.  Indifferent people don't go to the trouble to go to the conference center to obtain tickets for people who aren't invited to go to Priesthood session. 

 

One encounters such men among any population, unfortunately 

[smac97]

The OW group had better be careful about the half-truths they are allowing their supporters to state to the media.

Based on what has been described by reporters and witnesses they've overinflated their attendance numbers and now someone is claiming to have received verbal abuse.

 

So far OW has at the very least been honest and sincere.  If they allow a few members into exaggeration territory they might find their cause losing some credibility.  I don't think that it's all of OW heading down that path, but it's important to stick to the facts.

 

Personally, I think the whole trespass-to-protest-on-Temple-Square-after-being-asked-twice-not-to thing was a very, very poor decision.  Mormons have a lot of affection for their temples, and co-opting temple grounds to protest - something not even the most rabid anti-mormons do - will not look good in the long run.

 

The cliché question "Is nothing sacred?" is, unfortunately, a question to which the OW group must now answer "Nope."  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, to be honest, I was uncharitable by starting a thread yesterday in which I compared the OW group to anti-mormon protesters and asked which was more contemptible.  I regret that, and I apologized in that thread and sent a note to the mods asking them to lock it.

 

However, I have never advocated any harassment or unkind treatment of the OW folks.  I think the OW folks acted wrongfully, but I've never been a fan of the "right back atcha" mentality.  The Church's representatives did a great job of being civil and polite to the OW folks, even as those folks trespassed and protested on sacred ground.  I commend the Church for that.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Smac are you aware you can lock your own threads?

 

Unless I have a privilege that you don't (which I doubt) you can click on a link at the top of your thread, "Topic Moderation." It's right next to "Reply to This Topic." Clicking on it will give you the option to lock the thread.

[readstoomuch]

Sounds like the OW can be faulted for not adhering to the wishes to not show up at the

meeting and not enter Temple Square, otherwise they were civil. I would say the Church did the best they could to be the same. OW folks sounded like the Church representative (a woman) was outstanding. It would be nice not to have more negative said about the Church. Unfortunately, the women want/need the publicity and no matter what some articles are going to see negative comments come. OW should be going out of their way to make the publicity around the whole affair be as positive for the Church as possible. IMO would be an opportunity to show allegiance to the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Personally, I think the whole trespass-to-protest-on-Temple-Square-after-being-asked-twice-not-to thing was a very, very poor decision.  Mormons have a lot of affection for their temples, and co-opting temple grounds to protest - something not even the most rabid anti-mormons do - will not look good in the long run.

 

The cliché question "Is nothing sacred?" is, unfortunately, a question to which the OW group must now answer "Nope."  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

For this reason, I have wondered whether Kate Kelly is so new to the Church that she doesn't understand this mindset among the membership.

 

But I note that she attended BYU and is a returned missionary, so she ought to have some awareness.

 

Or is it symptomatic of a general widespread irreverence for most things, a characteristic endemic among today's younger generations?

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

Smac are you aware you can lock your own threads?

 

Unless I have a privilege that you don't (which I doubt) you can click on a link at the top of your thread, "Topic Moderation." It's right next to "Reply to This Topic." Clicking on it will give you the option to lock the thread.

 

I don't have that option (perhaps you have to have "contributor" status to lock your own thread instead of merely "member").

Not sure how you earn that particular promotion.

[Ahab]

People get angry if Is don't wear pants to church.

Yeah, like kilts aren't allowed, or sonething.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't have that option (perhaps you have to have "contributor" status to lock your own thread instead of merely "member").

Not sure how you earn that particular promotion.

Hmm, I'm not sure either. Perhaps it has to do with number of posts in one's posting history.

[stemelbow]

If he's lying about some of this, that's pretty low. 

 

I personally cannot imagine most of what he describes to have happened.  I'm pretty open to the possibility of many LDS people being mean and rude, but this just seems incredibility uncharacteristic even for the mean and rude ones.

[Scott Lloyd]

If he's lying about some of this, that's pretty low. 

 

I personally cannot imagine most of what he describes to have happened.  I'm pretty open to the possibility of many LDS people being mean and rude, but this just seems incredibility uncharacteristic even for the mean and rude ones.

I've seen posers come on these message boards before, masquerading as naive, intolerant, bigoted but active, churchgoing Mormons. Their facade is fairly easy to see through.

 

This for me has the same sort of feel.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[frank_jessop]

So what's the point of you throwing that (random anonymous) quote out there?

Doesn't seem germane to the discussion, except to demonstrate that people can be idiots. And potentially to try and derail the thread.

Please direct your attention to post 2 of this thread.

The profile linked to the person who posted on Facebook that all minority activist should be shot in the face, indicated he was a BYU Student. His response was directed at those who females who were going to where pants to Church. The facebook page of the individual indicated, at the time, he was a editor for the newspaper at BYU (IIRC). If you view his current webpage you will see numerous links to LDS themed entities. My rational profiling of him tells me he is or was very likely LDS at the time of the comment was posted.

Now go back to post number two, again.

Edited April 9, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Calm]

Smac are you aware you can lock your own threads?

 

Unless I have a privilege that you don't (which I doubt) you can click on a link at the top of your thread, "Topic Moderation." It's right next to "Reply to This Topic." Clicking on it will give you the option to lock the thread.

He is a "contributor" so should be able to.

[Stargazer]

Hmm, I'm not sure either. Perhaps it has to do with number of posts in one's posting history.

 

One is automatically awarded "Contributor" status when one reaches 3,000 posts.  Being on Limited might change this, however, I don't know.

[Tacenda]

So what's the point of you throwing that (random anonymous) quote out there?

Doesn't seem germane to the discussion, except to demonstrate that people can be idiots. And potentially to try and derail the thread.

He is showing that it may have happened, since that quote was an LDS, I believe. So it is pertinent.

[Tacenda]

Hmm, I'm not sure either. Perhaps it has to do with number of posts in one's posting history.

Nah, if that were the case, I wouldn't be on "limited" status, I would think.

[why me]

 

Or is it symptomatic of a general widespread irreverence for most things, a characteristic endemic among today's younger generations?

Kelly is ideological and so her ideology would overrule her church understandings or her church understandings would be overruled by her ideology. Feminism is an ideology. if one is teaching university political science or international relations, one must cover the feminist understanding of these two subjects. Or if one is teaching green politics, one must cover the role of ecofeminism. This iis why I have said that mormon feminism in a false concept because mormon feminists take their feminism outside the confines of the lds church. And the type of feminism kelly believes in would guide her struggle within mormon thinking. 

 

A common refrain from feminists both past and present is: the personal is political. So, it is difficult to separate what OW is doing inside the church from the political and the personal. They are tied together in their social protest.

 

The Political Meaning

Carol Hanisch's essay explains the idea behind the phrase "the personal is political." A common debate between "personal" and "political" questioned whether women's consciousness-raising groups were a useful part of the political women's movement. According to Hanisch, calling the groups "therapy" was a misnomer, as the groups were not intended to solve any women's personal problems. Instead, consciousness-raising was a form of political action to elicit discussion about such topics as women's relationships, their roles in marriage, and their feelings about childbearing.

Her essay "The Personal Is Political" said that coming to a personal realization of how "grim" the situation was for women was as important as doing political "action" such as protests. Hanisch noted that "political" refers to any power relationships, not just those of government or elected officials.

 

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/a/consciousness_raising.htm?p=1

 

Can we see the personal is political within the OW movement? But what is unfortunate is that many mormon 'feminists' have never heard of this concept. But the leaders of OW probably have.

 

I have used this concept with my own students to raise their own consciousness when discussing issues that are affecting their social commons.

Edited April 9, 2014 by why me

[awyatt]

Three general comments:

 

First, the writer of the article cited in the OP said that he had two tickets. Tickets are not given for admittance to the Tabernacle. They are given for admittance to the Conference Center. (See the picture of the tickets at the end of the article; they clearly say "Conference Center" on them.) So, the tickets would not have been any good for the OW action, unless someone tried to use them at the Conference Center.

 

Second, the word "Sodomite" is not in the general LDS lexicon; it just isn't used. It is used frequently by Street Preachers.

 

Third, the command "women, submit to your husbands" is very much in the minds of Street Preachers. When I discussed the OW event with Reuben Israel (one of the Street Preachers) earlier on Saturday before the OW event, his first reaction and statement to me was "don't they know the Bible says that women need to submit to their husbands?"

 

The reporter was attributing the actions of all those around him to Mormons. That shows either an astounding lack of observational skills or a desire to deceive; not sure which.

 

-Allen

[Storm Rider]

This experience comes across as total fabrication.  What is so shocking is that this poor individual actually thinks their story will have weight with their target audience.  That is just scary. 

[Senator]

Three general comments:

 

First, the writer of the article cited in the OP said that he had two tickets. Tickets are not given for admittance to the Tabernacle. They are given for admittance to the Conference Center. (See the picture of the tickets at the end of the article; they clearly say "Conference Center" on them.) So, the tickets would not have been any good for the OW action, unless someone tried to use them at the Conference Center.

He reported that he and his brother had obtained the tickets themselves, (an act I find dishonest) then handed them over to OW members. They probably weren't aware that the tickets were not valid at the tabernacle.

The reporter was attributing the actions of all those around him to Mormons. That shows either an astounding lack of observational skills or a desire to deceive; not sure which.

No, he wasn't.

He said that while standing in line to obtain tickets, many members were "lightheartedly mocking the OW movement". Which is totally in the realm of possibility, being that I could see myself doing the same.

He reported some of the rude statements came from individuals dressed in suits giving the appearance of members. He made the statement here that:

"At this point I want to stress that these gentleman do not represent the church and I doubt that any church member would support their actions particularly while on church property."

The other rude comment were obviously made while outside of temple square by the anti-hecklers.