Is There Room For Jethro In The Lds Church?

[stemelbow]

What does this mean then?

"One of these days someone will start to realize....That person will learn......That person will know.....and will be able to move beyond..... That person will learn....."

"Someone come along and show us the way"

Who is "that person" and how is that not leadership?

I'm not sure what you're hung up on. Everyone has some leadership in life. In speaking with Wade he seemed hung up on the notion that I was speaking about the church's leadership in a sentence I did not mean to convey such. So I clarified.

[wenglund]

Whew!  Good thing the text/audio/video of Elder Oaks was made available mere hours after it was delivered.  Kind of makes your jab at these women a little, shall I say, silly.

 

Unless, of course, I'm missing your point.  Are you trying to marginalize these women because they may not have heard the address live?  Somehow attempting to invalidate the concerns/arguments of these women by pointing out some obscure point indicates that you don't have full confidence in simply addressing arguments, rather than people.  Much easier to dismiss these silly women and their wickedness.

 

Is there moral superiority of hearing GC addresses live?  If so, I guess I can see why the Saints in Utah -- and the rest of the US -- are such shining emblems of Christlike charity, kindness, and love.

 

(Of course, given that KSL broadcasts GC live we have no way of knowing whether these women heard it live -- perhaps even on their smartphones using I Heart Radio etc...)

 

I think it is fair to say that you very badly missed the point--which had less to do with not having immediate or later access to the talk and more to do with what Judge Judy likes to call "not having your listening ears on."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

The lead sentence of your brief paragraph that I quoted was: "I think all sorts of leaders are needed--" So, clearly, the subject of that paragraph was leadership. Perhaps you don't know what you are saying, or don't know how to correctly say it.

Wow this is exhausting. Here is what was said to clarify:

Calmoriah said to me:

"So we need a leader to show us leaders aren't really needed?"

I responded (she brought up the term leader):

"I think all sorts of leaders are needed--I didn't mean to suggest otherwise and going back don't see how that was interpreted from my words. I'm saying one of these days someone's going to come along and break through the barrier that seems to hold us all back."

My response is essentially trying to suggest my point was not about leaders. So I tried to clarify. But it seems the conversation was misunderstood by us all.

 

Whatever the case, even if the alleged barriers holding us all back that you have in mind, aren't leadership related, but supposedly our assumptions (i.e. our not knowing what we think we know--whatever that means), I don't personally see it that way. Again, for myself, I am having difficulty keeping up with where I have pragmatically progressed in the gospel, and am constantly being stretched rather than held back. 

 

But, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Great.

Edited May 16, 2014 by stemelbow

[rameumptom]

The process is to send suggestions up the chain of command.  This way the suggestions can be vetted, handled on the lowest level possible, and the non-crazy ones can get to the top.  My stake president has already discussed the possibility of a sister Stake Sunday School president with those above him, and the response is "not yet."

 

The concept of ordaining women is not a new one. Margaret Toscano and others were pushing it over 20 years ago, and were told "no" back then.

 

Even then, many changes have occurred that have been suggested up the ranks: women praying in Gen Conf, for instance.  So they do consider the requests.

 

The problem with OW is how they are doing it. They have received an answer and are still demanding publicly to have their way. They are not acting like Jethro, but like others in the story of Moses as we see below:

 

When Aaron and Miriam publicly demanded more authority, God smote Miriam with leprosy for a week (Numbers 12). and when Korah and other Levites demanded the full Aaronic Priesthood, they were swallowed up by the earth (Numbers 16).

[Calm]

I'm not saying anyone special. And if one person breaks through, that person may not even be noticed, even if others follow suit.

Then how is that person showing the way as you stated in your original post?

I am not trying to harass you, but understand your comment. If you want me to just drop it I will.

Btw, I used the term "leader" for that "someone" because usually someone showing the way is referred to as a "leader".

[sethpayne]

I think it is fair to say that you very badly missed the point--which had less to do with not having immediate or later access to the talk and more to do with what Judge Judy likes to call "not having your listening ears on."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I think it is fair to say you have incredibly poor reading comprehension skills.

 

Thanks for playing.

 

Refrain from insults.

[stemelbow]

Then how is that person showing the way as you stated in your original post?

I am not trying to harass you, but understand your comment. If you want me to just drop it I will.

Btw, I used the term "leader" for that "someone" because usually someone showing the way is referred to as a "leader".

Beats me. Here's what I said, "One of these days someone will start to realize, in a real way, that he/she is not dependent upon another when it comes to direction from God. That person will learn that direction from God comes in many forms to many different people, most of whom are outside the Church of Jesus Christ. That person will know the value of the chosen leaders of the Church but will understand them to be what they are, and will be able to move beyond the clutches of institutional expectation. That person will learn to look upon all others with more admiration than any member currently looks upon the top 15. Once we start to see that way and learn to live, we'll be able to have a godly perspective.

I fear we're a bit stuck.

Someone come along and show us the way. "

I'm not sure someone will. I guess I hope. I guess I assume we'll learn as a people and someone will start poking through the barrier. But it's also possible that if someone does, that that person will do so without much notice. Others may follow but not necessarily because they saw the person poke through. At the end I offered a little plea is all.

But as I said, we're all leaders to some extent, in some way.

[wenglund]

Wow this is exhausting. Here is what was said to clarify:

Calmoriah said to me:

"So we need a leader to show us leaders aren't really needed?"

I responded (she brought up the term leader):

"I think all sorts of leaders are needed--I didn't mean to suggest otherwise and going back don't see how that was interpreted from my words. I'm saying one of these days someone's going to come along and break through the barrier that seems to hold us all back."

My response is essentially trying to suggest my point was not about leaders. So I tried to clarify. But it seems the conversation was misunderstood by us all.

 

Your interactions here would be less exhausting for you if you learned to better communicate your ideas. If you had separated into different paragraphs the sentence about leadership from the sentence about barriers, and had more clearly identified the alleged "barriers," in the second sentence/paragraph, you might have greatly decreased the confusion and subsequent frustration--which confusion occurred with multiple participants.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I think it is fair to say you have incredibly poor reading comprehension skills.

 

Thanks for playing.

 

Your playful, though unwarranted projection is duly noted.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

"Unless, of course, I'm missing your point.  Are you trying to marginalize these women because they may not have heard the address live?"

I guess I am going to be marginalising them some because I don't get people who are willing to bring in the press in order to pressure church leadership into letting them have the opportunity to sit in the Tabernacle so they could listen to it live and yet not any took advantage of the opportunity to listen to it live outside the Tabernale (as reported by eye witnesses).

[sethpayne]

"Unless, of course, I'm missing your point.  Are you trying to marginalize these women because they may not have heard the address live?"

I guess I am going to be marginalising them some because I don't get people who are willing to bring in the press in order to pressure church leadership into letting them have the opportunity to sit in the Tabernacle so they could listen to it live and yet not any took advantage of the opportunity to listen to it live outside the Tabernale (as reported by eye witnesses).

 

I guess what I'm wondering is why it matters?  Now, if they NEVER listened and considered Elder Oaks' talk I think that is something to discuss.  I'm just not getting why *when* they listened makes any difference.

 

But as always, Cal, I'm always interested in your perspective.

Edited May 16, 2014 by sethpayne

[DBMormon]

Okay, so maybe we're getting somewhere here.  Helpful suggestions are okay, but not public complaints and criticism (two of my favorites ... for sure).  Okay, I might be able to go with that.

 

Of course, my ignorance of the Prophet's personal itineraries exceeds yours, but my passing familiarity with mathematics tells me that it's impossible for all 15 million members to meet face-to-face with the Apostles.  Fortunately, that isn't necessary because we have "Suggestion Boxes" in each temple, right?

 

Okay, perhaps that's asking a little much.  But seriously, is it encouraged (or at least, not frowned upon) to send suggestions to Church leaders?

I have sent on my own thoughts and been asked on several occasions to send my thoughts and both have been responded to positively.

[Storm Rider]

I have sent on my own thoughts and been asked on several occasions to send my thoughts and both have been responded to positively.

 

I am glad you contributed on this. Although I have heard of other similar situations, I have never written to an apostle or General Authority.  I appreciate it hearing about this types of personal responses to individuals.  

 

I am one of those who think they are too insulated from the world at large and these experiences give me hope that they may be experiencing more than I have given them credit.

[Nofear]

The process is to send suggestions up the chain of command.  This way the suggestions can be vetted, handled on the lowest level possible, and the non-crazy ones can get to the top.  My stake president has already discussed the possibility of a sister Stake Sunday School president with those above him, and the response is "not yet."

 

Though I lack a source were one to CFR, I vaguely recall this being the case with the perpetual education fund. The Brethren did not originate the idea nor was it originally revealed to them. Some business leaders who happened to be members approached with the idea... the Brethren discussed it, sought divine approval for such a program, made adjustments, and implemented it.

 

As you note, it's ok to offer ideas -- it can lead to very good things. But there is a proper way and method to do it. The OW do not seem to me to be approaching it the right way. Matthew 7:15-20 seems applicable.

[pogi]

I thought you meant Jethro Tull with some flute playing during sacrament meeting...

 

Poor guy is living his nightmare - "too old to rock and roll and too young to die". 

[pogi]

deleted 

Edited May 16, 2014 by pogi

[stemelbow]

Your interactions here would be less exhausting for you if you learned to better communicate your ideas. If you had separated into different paragraphs the sentence about leadership from the sentence about barriers, and had more clearly identified the alleged "barriers," in the second sentence/paragraph, you might have greatly decreased the confusion and subsequent frustration--which confusion occurred with multiple participants.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

nah...it was your guys' fault. (-;

But I will try to accommodate, if ever I feel the desire to chime in again.

Edited May 16, 2014 by stemelbow

[juliann]

The process is to send suggestions up the chain of command.  This way the suggestions can be vetted, handled on the lowest level possible, and the non-crazy ones can get to the top.  My stake president has already discussed the possibility of a sister Stake Sunday School president with those above him, and the response is "not yet."

 

The concept of ordaining women is not a new one. Margaret Toscano and others were pushing it over 20 years ago, and were told "no" back then.

 

Even then, many changes have occurred that have been suggested up the ranks: women praying in Gen Conf, for instance.  So they do consider the requests.

 

The problem with OW is how they are doing it. They have received an answer and are still demanding publicly to have their way. They are not acting like Jethro, but like others in the story of Moses as we see below:

 

When Aaron and Miriam publicly demanded more authority, God smote Miriam with leprosy for a week (Numbers 12). and when Korah and other Levites demanded the full Aaronic Priesthood, they were swallowed up by the earth (Numbers 16).

If Miriam is a parallel, then we have to remember that the camp refused to continue their journey until she was back with them. I agree that OW has made some bad moves, but that has nothing to do with the priesthood question. And it is a Catch 22....it is hard to deny that they have advanced the dialogue yet at the same time, I do believe they have also forced the church into some resistance that will slow progress in the short term. I am much, much more concerned about enlarging the narrow role women have been squeezed into than who has the priesthood.

 

As for "the chain of command" everyone knows darn well those who aren't going to sit down have no hope of getting to the top. They will be squashed at the local level.  So I consider that expectation to also be irrelevant to the priesthood question.

[stemelbow]

weird dupe

Edited May 16, 2014 by stemelbow

[juliann]

I am glad you contributed on this. Although I have heard of other similar situations, I have never written to an apostle or General Authority.  I appreciate it hearing about this types of personal responses to individuals.  

 

I am one of those who think they are too insulated from the world at large and these experiences give me hope that they may be experiencing more than I have given them credit.

I think there is a difference between being informed and understanding at the level necessary to engage those who are troubled. I certainly think are leaders are very informed, and aware of all problems.  This shows in how one words things. Someone who understands will avoid unnecessary triggers words and phrases but even amidst some very understanding talks, there are always some that dive into multiple triggers that can easily be avoided with understanding. The talk reprinted in the Ensign saying women get the man they dress for is an excellent example of this. That the Ensign then published an exemplary article the next month that did not address modesty as a woman's duty to protect men showed understanding.

[halconero]

I am glad you contributed on this. Although I have heard of other similar situations, I have never written to an apostle or General Authority. I appreciate it hearing about this types of personal responses to individuals.

I am one of those who think they are too insulated from the world at large and these experiences give me hope that they may be experiencing more than I have given them credit.

My roommate had a 2.5 hour skype conversation with Elder Bednar in response to a letter concerning homosexuality. A convert in my YSA branch also emails another apostle regularly with questions after meeting him at a conference.

They listen.

[mormonnewb]

The process is to send suggestions up the chain of command.  This way the suggestions can be vetted, handled on the lowest level possible, and the non-crazy ones can get to the top.  My stake president has already discussed the possibility of a sister Stake Sunday School president with those above him, and the response is "not yet."

 

The concept of ordaining women is not a new one. Margaret Toscano and others were pushing it over 20 years ago, and were told "no" back then.

 

Even then, many changes have occurred that have been suggested up the ranks: women praying in Gen Conf, for instance.  So they do consider the requests.

 

The problem with OW is how they are doing it. They have received an answer and are still demanding publicly to have their way. They are not acting like Jethro, but like others in the story of Moses as we see below:

 

When Aaron and Miriam publicly demanded more authority, God smote Miriam with leprosy for a week (Numbers 12). and when Korah and other Levites demanded the full Aaronic Priesthood, they were swallowed up by the earth (Numbers 16).

 

I forgot all about Miriam, Korah and other Levites.  Well, that certainly adds a different perspective, doesn't it?

 

By the way, did OW get an answer to their request -- that the Brethren earnest beseech the Lord in prayer?  I know that the Brethren made clear in April that women will not be ordained, but did they make clear that they had actually sought confirmation from HF and were told "No"?  It seemed to me that the answer they gave was, "We're not even entertaining your request because we're quite sure what the Lord's will is on this one."

 

In short, OW's request was not answered.  Now, in all practicality, I can't imagine that these same men would get a different answer if they asked, but until they do, it doesn't seem unreasonable for OW to keep making its request.  PERHAPS, if the Brethren had been constantly asking on the race question from 1969 to 1978, they may have gotten OD2 a little sooner (or maybe not).

[mormonnewb]

I think it is fair to say that you very badly missed the point--which had less to do with not having immediate or later access to the talk and more to do with what Judge Judy likes to call "not having your listening ears on."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You get two NEGATIVE rep points for quoting Judge Judy!!!

[smac97]

Whew!  Good thing the text/audio/video of Elder Oaks was made available mere hours after it was delivered.  Kind of makes your jab at these women a little, shall I say, silly.

Then how much more "silly" you must find their protest (on sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, in defiance of instructions from the Church), which was based only on their not being able to attend the session in person.

 

Unless, of course, I'm missing your point.  Are you trying to marginalize these women because they may not have heard the address live?

First, I am not trying to "marginalize" anyone. I am criticizing inappropriate behavior.

Second, I am not criticizing "women." I am criticizing Kate Kelly and her OW group. Their gender is irrelevant to their outrageous conduct.

Third, neither Kate Kelly's gender nor her status as a church member gives her license to defy the Church regarding its property, trespass onto Temple Square and stage a protest on sacred ground and during a sacred convocation.

Fourth, quit infantalizing Kate Kelly. You are implicitly suggesting that we cannot criticize her because she is a woman (keep in mind that you are the one focusing on gender, not me). If we are going to discuss Kate Kelly, let's discuss her ideas, not her status as a member of a particular gender.

 

Somehow attempting to invalidate the concerns/arguments of these women by pointing out some obscure point indicates that you don't have full confidence in simply addressing arguments, rather than people.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

And I note that you are again injecting gender into the discussion. I'm not. I don't think women are so weak and infantile that they need to be defended based solely on their gender. I am assuming that you don't think that either (right?).

 

Much easier to dismiss these silly women and their wickedness.

Here's a third time you are injecting gender into the discussion. I am focusing on their actions not their gender. You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that they should be immune from criticism because of their gender. How patriarchal is that, dude?

I'm willing to criticize Kate Kelly, regardless of her gender. I just don't care about it. I am equally critical of the men in her group who defied the Church, trespassed on Church property, and protested on sacred ground during a sacred convocation.

And I've said nothing about "wickedness," either. My, the stink from the pile of red herrings you are building in this thread is starting to get a bit much.

 

Is there moral superiority of hearing GC addresses live?  If so, I guess I can see why the Saints in Utah -- and the rest of the US -- are such shining emblems of Christlike charity, kindness, and love.

Um, you are undermining Kate Kelly here. She was protesting because she could not attend the live Priesthood Session. If you think getting huffy over attendance at that event is stupid, then why are you jumping to Kate Kelly's defense about it?

 

(Of course, given that KSL broadcasts GC live we have no way of knowing whether these women heard it live -- perhaps even on their smartphones using I Heart Radio etc...)

I have a way of knowing. I was there. In person. Listening to General Conference while observing the OW group's protest on temple square. Not a single one of them was listening to a smart phone or radio. Not a single one.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 16, 2014 by smac97

[Calm]

I guess what I'm wondering is why it matters? Now, if they NEVER listened and considered Elder Oaks' talk I think that is something to discuss. I'm just not getting why *when* they listened makes any difference.

But as always, Cal, I'm always interested in your perspective.

If when doesn't matter, I don't see much reason for where mattering either.

The OW group was protesting to be allowed to watch it at a particular where and when, but while they couldn't have access to the where they did have full access to the when, yet did not take advantage of it (as reported by Smac)

Edited May 16, 2014 by calmoriah