Ordain Women Group Publishes "six Discussions" To Proselytize For Its Agenda

[smac97]

Here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57978283-78/women-ordain-lds-discussion.html.csp

Some excerpts/observations:

 

Ordain Women has rolled out the next phase of its push for ordination to the all-male LDS priesthood — and it doesn’t involve trooping to Temple Square.

But it does involve, in true Mormon fashion, attending meetings — either online or in person.

The group’s debut tactic was to try to get in the males-only priesthood session of LDS General Conferences in October and again last month. On both occasions, hundreds of women, dressed in their Sunday best, walked en masse to downtown Salt Lake City’s Mormon Tabernacle to request, one by one, standby tickets to show, organizers said, their readiness for the priesthood.

Both times, they were rebuffed — and they said they would not make a third attempt.

Well, I suppose that's a good thing.

 

So Ordain Women is striving instead to build grass-roots support within the 15 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by creating small discussion groups to find more proponents among the vast majority of Mormons who say they are comfortable with the current gender roles and division of labor in the Utah-based faith.

The feminists have created "Six Discussions" — modeled after an earlier LDS missionary strategy for teaching potential converts — describing Mormon theology, scriptures, history and interpretations that provide context for potential ordination of women. They also spell out differences between how men and women are treated in the contemporary church and raise questions about those practices.

Here is a link to those discussions: http://ordainwomen.org/six-discussions/

Currently only the first two are available. The rest will be rolled out over the next few weeks.

In "Discussion One," entitled "See the Symptoms" (the Church has a disease, apparently) is a game called "Patriarchal Bingo." It's essentially an exercise in cherry-picked griping.

One of the questions in this discussion states: "How can we cherish the parts of the gospel we love and treasure, while at the same time think critically about the ways in which we have been harmed or discriminated against?"

There is also an article, "Feminism 101: Patriarchy" by Ingrid Asplund. It's not particularly well-written, but it is not overtly critical of the Church, either.

There is another brief article, "Equality is Not a Feeling," by Heather Olsen Beal. This one is a bit more overt in its criticism of the Church:

 

TWO-PART PROCLAMATION FROM ME:

1. I don’t know what I think about God these days, but this much I know: God is not the author of inequality. I don’t care who claims otherwise. I’m not buying what you’re selling.

2. Separate but equal is bollocks. I don’t buy it in movie theaters, schools, water fountains, hospitals, government, laws, train cars, soda counters, or busses. I sure as heck don’t buy it in my church.

Here she is explicitly publicly accusing the Church of behavior on par with Jim Crow laws. That's troubling.

There is another section, "Ask a Feminist," by Chelsea Shields Strayer. This includes a laundry list of grievances about why she feels "unequal."

Discussion Two is entitled "Know the History." It is an attempt to present a historical/doctrinal basis for women to receive the priesthood. It consists mostly of three articles, a Dialogue article about an interview with Chieko Okazaki, a Sunstone article by Linda Newell, "A Gift Given: Washing, Anointing, and Blessing the Sick among Mormon Women," and an excerpt from the minutes of the 1842 organization of the Relief Society by Joseph Smith.

There is also a timeline which goes back to biblical times, and which asserts that Phoebe held the priesthood office of "deacon" and Junia held the priesthood office of "apostle" (citing Romans 16). I think this is a bold claim, both because it is disputes (there is considerable dispute about Phoebe being a deacon (see here: http://tinyurl.com/mu3lb2p) and Junia being an apostle - see here: http://tinyurl.com/nypuujz).

The page introducing these discussions (http://ordainwomen.org/six-discussions/) encourages people to "Please consider starting your own local discussion group (similar to a book club, all viewpoints are welcome)." It also includes a "Getting Started Packet" (http://tinyurl.com/kkjxdrf) which includes the following list of "Objectives of the 6 Discussions":

 

• To foster conversations that help people reflect on their own thoughts and experiences

• To reaffirm our faith in God and testimony of continuing revelation

• To encourage continued membership and full fellowship in the LDS Church as we explore the topic of women’s ordination

• To effect change through faithful agitation as a united group of LDS women

The first three bullest sound nice, but "faithful agitation" has a rather repellant ring to it.

And none of these materials reference the OW group's alliance with Margaret Toscano, an excommunicated apostate. That seems rather dishonest to me. I think the OW group needs to be open about this sort of thing, as I am reasonably sure that most LDS women are not going to be comfortable taking cues from a group which invited an excommunicated apostate to be a key speaker and contributor at its founding event.

Back to the Trib article:

 

The next step, says Kelly, a churchgoing Mormon, is to "visualize the future."

"We want to know what the future could look like," she says. "We want to be part of that future and to frame [divine] revelation as a participatory process."

This is a much different tack from the militant we-want-the-priesthood-and-nothing-less-will-suffice posture they previously exhibited.

 

That effort has already begun, Kelly reports. "We have heard from women all over who are inviting friends and neighbors."

Lisa Torcasso Downing, an LDS convert in Dallas who blogs at Life Outside the Book of Mormon Belt, organized one such online group across five time zones with participants who range from mainstream Mormons to moderate members to feminist believers.

The group’s first meeting was "lively, intelligent, considerate and probing," Downing said. "We’ve all grown, but not all members have grown toward embracing the idea of female ordination."

For her part, Downing — author of young adult novels "Island of the Stone Boy" and "Get that Gold!" — sees female ordination as a "viable goal."

To argue against it as a possibility, Downing says, "demonstrates a lack of faith ... in modern revelation and the power of the priesthood to receive the word of God as direction for these latter days."

I'm not comfortable with this. I seem to recall a whole bunch of hand-wringing about how the OW group had been mistreated in some online comments (I acknowledge that these comments I read were inappropriate and offensive). But now the OW group is accusing others who disagree with them of "a lack of faith." Will there be a similar outcry?

Personally, I agree that we should consider female ordination as a "possibility." But I'm not willing to publicly denigrate those who disagree with me as "demonstrat(ing) a lack of faith."

I do give major props to Sis. Downing for her next point:

 

Still, Downing parts ways with Ordain Women organizers when they try to bring about change in the church through "faithful agitation," listed as an objective for the Six Discussions.

These feminists’ "efforts to agitate are alienating mainstream LDS women who see them as demanding and attempting to unrighteously usurp power and authority," Downing says. "That estimation may be unfair, but it exists nonetheless."

I'm not as concerned about usurpation of power and authority, but rather denigration of the Church and the Brethren, defiance of instructions from the Church, trespassing and protesting on sacred ground, disregarding the revelatory process in the Church ("nothing less will suffice"), and the OW group's now conveniently obscured alignment with an excommunicated apostate.

Back to the article:

 

The group’s founder acknowledges that the language of social activism is unfamiliar to most Mormon women, but she believes it is useful to borrow vocabulary and tactics from activist efforts.

I think this is the crux of Kate Kelly's boneheaded approach to this issue. Mormons will not, I think, ever like to see other Mormons deploying adversarial "social activism" against their own church. It's not that Mormons are "unfamiliar" with this approach, it's that they reject it when applied to a profoundly important doctrinal matter which can and should only be discussed with humility, sanctity, reverence, and submission to God's will as discerned through the Spirit and revelation.

Agitation (aka "direct action" against the Church), such as PR campaigns against the Church, defying the Church, trespassing and protesting on sacred ground, repeated deliberate attempts to disrupt and distract from sacred convocations, aligning with excommunicated apostates, and so on, is the hallmark of "social activism." And as much as it has alienated so many LDS from the overall message of the OW group, Kate Kelly seems too wedded to it to try a more appropriate approach. That's bone-headed.

 

"Part of what we are doing is new in every conceivable way," Kelly says, "For women to take direct action and communicate their message with their bodies and showing up in the tradition of social movements is 100 percent new."

It is, she says, "revolutionary."

And, Ordain Women backers hope, revelatory — since all they’re asking is for the LDS prophet to inquire of the Lord.

Of course, they want God’s answer to be yes.

I continue to lose respect for the OW group. They are not "asking," they are demanding. And they are demanding more than "the LDS prophet to inquire of the Lord," because they have repeatedly declared that "nothing less (than female ordination) will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 27, 2014 by smac97

[mnn727]

Since they fail to understand that this is Gods Church rather than mans Church, that in itself would make them ineligible for the Priesthood

[Ahab]

I'm hoping it, the OW movement, will just go away if I keep ignoring it, but I kinda doubt that it will. Oh well. At least my own wife knows better.

[The Nehor]

"We want revelation and we want it now!!!!!!"

So why are they going to the press and church leaders......neither of whom can give divine revelation. It is almost as if these people are deeply stupid.

[Ahab]

"We want revelation and we want it now!!!!!!"

So why are they going to the press and church leaders......neither of whom can give divine revelation. It is almost as if these people are deeply stupid.

Pretty soon they'll start thinking they can get revelation from God, themselves, and then what will happen? I have a feeling they're not going to like what our Father will tell them, which is the same thing we men with the priesthood have been trying to tell them.

[Scott Lloyd]

"We want revelation and we want it now!!!!!!"

So why are they going to the press and church leaders......neither of whom can give divine revelation. It is almost as if these people are deeply stupid.

In that regard, I am reminded of an analogy used by Elder Dallin H. Oaks given in an address in 2001 which was reprinted last year in the Ensign:

 

About 35 years ago, when I was president of Brigham Young University, we were making plans to persuade the president of the United States to speak at the university. We had particular times that would suit our convenience, and we had in mind some things we wanted him to say and do while he was there. But all of us were wise enough to know that we could not contact the highest authority in the United States and invite him to come to the BYU campus—even to speak to 26,000 people—and put conditions on his appearance.

We knew that in inviting the president, we had to say in effect, “We will welcome you whenever you can come and for whatever time you choose to be here and for whatever you choose to say and do while you are here. We will accommodate our schedules and our arrangements entirely to your visit.”

Now, if that’s the way a community of 26,000 people must approach the highest authority of a nation, it should not be surprising that one person—however important—is in no position to put conditions upon or to impose personal timing upon a visit or communication from the Highest Authority in the universe.

 

[why me]

The OW movement will not go away. They are too much into agitation for that to happen. I am sure that the leadership of OW would love more media coverage and interviews. They seem to relish in it. The movement is political because in feminism, the personal is political. So, they are also a political movement that advocates change in the lds church clothed in church vocabulary. But since they are a radical feminist movement, focused on patriarchy they have a foundation in seeing men as the enemy and that would include the church male leadership.

 

Their radical feminism will isolate many of the church members. Their problem is simple: they seem to have little respect for the male GAs because these leaders according to OW  are men who are antiwomen. Their radicalness will alienate them from the general female membership.

[smac97]

The OW movement will not go away. They are too much into agitation for that to happen. I am sure that the leadership of OW would love more media coverage and interviews. They seem to relish in it. The movement is political because in feminism, the personal is political. So, they are also a political movement that advocates change in the lds church clothed in church vocabulary. But since they are a radical feminist movement, focused on patriarchy they have a foundation in seeing men as the enemy and that would include the church male leadership.

 

Their radical feminism will isolate many of the church members. Their problem is simple: they seem to have little respect for the male GAs because these leaders according to OW  are men who are antiwomen. Their radicalness will alienate them from the general female membership.

I think your analysis is interesting. And saddening. While I concur with your conclusion that the OW group's "radicalness" will alienate most Latter-day Saints, I am concerned about how many Saints will be influenced by it to their detriment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Raharu]

I wonder if there was a group that called itself Ordain Africans or something like that 50 years ago.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wonder if there was a group that called itself Ordain Africans or something like that 50 years ago.

There was a group called Genesis that was formed in 1971 as a fellowship organization for black Latter-day Saints. It was formed under the auspices of the Church leadership. Elders Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson and Boyd K. Packer were all very involved in supporting it.

 

These faithful Latter-day Saints waited humbly and patiently for what they were given to understand would eventually come about. In this, they were quite unlike the Ordain Women movement.

[The Nehor]

Do the six discussions include commitments with "Will you..." questions?

[cdowis]

 

 

The feminists have created "Six Discussions" — modeled after an earlier LDS missionary strategy for teaching potential converts — describing Mormon theology, scriptures, history and interpretations that provide context for potential ordination of women. They also spell out differences between how men and women are treated in the contemporary church and raise questions about those practices. (emphasis mine)

 

In my view, they have made a major step towards an organized apostate group in publishing such "Six Discussions", and inviting group meetings to discuss them within a doctrinal context.

 

Those participating in these group discussions would be subject to the temple recommend questions regarding affiliating/associating with an apostate group.

Edited May 27, 2014 by cdowis

[bluebell]

What I think bothers me most about the six discussions is that OW is advocating using church resources (such as ward bulletins and email lists) and church members to teach against church doctrine and sow discontent within the membership.

 

Plus, their whole interpretation on some of teachings of the church is completely negative.

 

This is their definition of patriarchy-

 

"It’s where men have all the authority and are necessary leaders for the organization to function. Women are subordinated. Women have roles, and they might be needed, but they are overseen by men and they are not necessary to the governing, rule-making, and ultimate decisions of the culture like male leaders are.”

Edited May 28, 2014 by bluebell

[Raharu]

Those participating in these group discussions would be subject to the temple recommend questions regarding affiliating/associating with an apostate group.

 

Anyone with a friend, relative, coworker, neighbor or acquaintance "whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is subject to that temple recommend question. That's mostly everyone.

[Storm Rider]

Anyone with a friend, relative, coworker, neighbor or acquaintance "whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is subject to that temple recommend question. That's mostly everyone.

 

that is a cute distortion of reality; a friend, a relative, a coworker, a neighbor, nor an acquaintance is a GROUP that is committed to the destruction of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Let's be clear and honest; the OW group is not interested in the Church of Jesus Christ; they are interested and committed to creating a church that meets their needs on their own terms.  They follow in the same steps of all apostates from the beginning.  They have itching ears and are looking for a new drug. There is no humility, no subservience to God or God's will; there is only "me" and what "I" want. 

[The Nehor]

This is their definition of patriarchy-

 

"It’s where men have all the authority and are necessary leaders for the organization to function. Women are subordinated. Women have roles, and they might be needed, but they are overseen by men and they are not necessary to the governing, rule-making, and ultimate decisions of the culture like male leaders are.”

 

They really think that men and not God are making the rules and ultimate decisions don't they?

 

OW: Men rule us!!!!

Apostle: God rules us.

OW: We demand a voice!!!!!

Apostle: That you want a voice means you are not cut out for this. We take orders and counsel more then we dispense it. God does not seek our opinion on what the rules should be or what decisions should be made.

OW: Women can do your job as well as you can.

Apostle: They might be able to but women in your organization.....meh.....probably not.

[strappinglad]

I seem to recall a couple of " restoration " churches that will currently ordain any woman who qualifies. Do those churches have referral forms?

[Avatar4321]

Im worried about these women. They are going dangerously into the territory of full out apostasy.

[mfbukowski]

Here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57978283-78/women-ordain-lds-discussion.html.csp

Some excerpts/observations:

 

Well, I suppose that's a good thing.

 

Here is a link to those discussions: http://ordainwomen.org/six-discussions/

Currently only the first two are available. The rest will be rolled out over the next few weeks.

In "Discussion One," entitled "See the Symptoms" (the Church has a disease, apparently) is a game called "Patriarchal Bingo." It's essentially an exercise in cherry-picked griping.

One of the questions in this discussion states: "How can we cherish the parts of the gospel we love and treasure, while at the same time think critically about the ways in which we have been harmed or discriminated against?"

There is also an article, "Feminism 101: Patriarchy" by Ingrid Asplund. It's not particularly well-written, but it is not overtly critical of the Church, either.

There is another brief article, "Equality is Not a Feeling," by Heather Olsen Beal. This one is a bit more overt in its criticism of the Church:

 

TWO-PART PROCLAMATION FROM ME:

1. I don’t know what I think about God these days, but this much I know: God is not the author of inequality. I don’t care who claims otherwise. I’m not buying what you’re selling.

2. Separate but equal is bollocks. I don’t buy it in movie theaters, schools, water fountains, hospitals, government, laws, train cars, soda counters, or busses. I sure as heck don’t buy it in my church.

Here she is explicitly publicly accusing the Church of behavior on par with Jim Crow laws. That's troubling.

There is another section, "Ask a Feminist," by Chelsea Shields Strayer. This includes a laundry list of grievances about why she feels "unequal."

Discussion Two is entitled "Know the History." It is an attempt to present a historical/doctrinal basis for women to receive the priesthood. It consists mostly of three articles, a Dialogue article about an interview with Chieko Okazaki, a Sunstone article by Linda Newell, "A Gift Given: Washing, Anointing, and Blessing the Sick among Mormon Women," and an excerpt from the minutes of the 1842 organization of the Relief Society by Joseph Smith.

There is also a timeline which goes back to biblical times, and which asserts that Phoebe held the priesthood office of "deacon" and Junia held the priesthood office of "apostle" (citing Romans 16). I think this is a bold claim, both because it is disputes (there is considerable dispute about Phoebe being a deacon (see here: http://tinyurl.com/mu3lb2p) and Junia being an apostle - see here: http://tinyurl.com/nypuujz).

The page introducing these discussions (http://ordainwomen.org/six-discussions/) encourages people to "Please consider starting your own local discussion group (similar to a book club, all viewpoints are welcome)." It also includes a "Getting Started Packet" (http://tinyurl.com/kkjxdrf) which includes the following list of "Objectives of the 6 Discussions":

 

• To foster conversations that help people reflect on their own thoughts and experiences

• To reaffirm our faith in God and testimony of continuing revelation

• To encourage continued membership and full fellowship in the LDS Church as we explore the topic of women’s ordination

• To effect change through faithful agitation as a united group of LDS women

 

The first three bullest sound nice, but "faithful agitation" has a rather repellant ring to it.

And none of these materials reference the OW group's alliance with Margaret Toscano, an excommunicated apostate. That seems rather dishonest to me. I think the OW group needs to be open about this sort of thing, as I am reasonably sure that most LDS women are not going to be comfortable taking cues from a group which invited an excommunicated apostate to be a key speaker and contributor at its founding event.

Back to the Trib article:

 

This is a much different tack from the militant we-want-the-priesthood-and-nothing-less-will-suffice posture they previously exhibited.

 

I'm not comfortable with this. I seem to recall a whole bunch of hand-wringing about how the OW group had been mistreated in some online comments (I acknowledge that these comments I read were inappropriate and offensive). But now the OW group is accusing others who disagree with them of "a lack of faith." Will there be a similar outcry?

Personally, I agree that we should consider female ordination as a "possibility." But I'm not willing to publicly denigrate those who disagree with me as "demonstrat(ing) a lack of faith."

I do give major props to Sis. Downing for her next point:

 

I'm not as concerned about usurpation of power and authority, but rather denigration of the Church and the Brethren, defiance of instructions from the Church, trespassing and protesting on sacred ground, disregarding the revelatory process in the Church ("nothing less will suffice"), and the OW group's now conveniently obscured alignment with an excommunicated apostate.

Back to the article:

 

I think this is the crux of Kate Kelly's boneheaded approach to this issue. Mormons will not, I think, ever like to see other Mormons deploying adversarial "social activism" against their own church. It's not that Mormons are "unfamiliar" with this approach, it's that they reject it when applied to a profoundly important doctrinal matter which can and should only be discussed with humility, sanctity, reverence, and submission to God's will as discerned through the Spirit and revelation.

Agitation (aka "direct action" against the Church), such as PR campaigns against the Church, defying the Church, trespassing and protesting on sacred ground, repeated deliberate attempts to disrupt and distract from sacred convocations, aligning with excommunicated apostates, and so on, is the hallmark of "social activism." And as much as it has alienated so many LDS from the overall message of the OW group, Kate Kelly seems too wedded to it to try a more appropriate approach. That's bone-headed.

 

I continue to lose respect for the OW group. They are not "asking," they are demanding. And they are demanding more than "the LDS prophet to inquire of the Lord," because they have repeatedly declared that "nothing less (than female ordination) will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think men should agitate for equal temple blessings. 

 

Women's temple blessings are far more reaching than those for men, and it is my belief that the responsibility inherent in embroiling oneself in the "blood and sins" of others must be assumed as a risk by those who take on the priesthood.

 

There is a difference between the temple blessings of men and women which reflects that.  I believe the OW women don't have a clue of the theological implications of what they are requesting.

 

Bishops in effect take upon themselves the responsibility for the sins of others if the Bishop judges incorrectly.  Women don't have that responsibility.  Why anyone would want it, is beyond my understanding.

[Calm]

Women take on the sins of their children if they don't teach them correctly.

It seems likely to me that if anyone leads another astray whether through teaching or judgment or whatever, they bear that responsibility as far as they are personally accountable.

[why me]

I think your analysis is interesting. And saddening. While I concur with your conclusion that the OW group's "radicalness" will alienate most Latter-day Saints, I am concerned about how many Saints will be influenced by it to their detriment.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is one of the problems with Mormon feminism. Such a feminism needs to be tied to one branch of feminism in general and this group by focusing solely on patriarchy has centered itself in the radical branch of feminism. Radical feminism has its roots in critiquing patriarchy and critiquing male power.

[why me]

I think men should agitate for equal temple blessings. 

 

Women's temple blessings are far more reaching than those for men, and it is my belief that the responsibility inherent in embroiling oneself in the "blood and sins" of others must be assumed as a risk by those who take on the priesthood.

 

There is a difference between the temple blessings of men and women which reflects that.  I believe the OW women don't have a clue of the theological implications of what they are requesting.

 

Bishops in effect take upon themselves the responsibility for the sins of others if the Bishop judges incorrectly.  Women don't have that responsibility.  Why anyone would want it, is beyond my understanding.

Interestingly, if one looks at OW for what they say, they seem to wish to sow conflict between men and women inside the church. By making it a question of male power and centering the male squarely in the middle of the struggle they wish to sow contention between the sexes. Of course it didn't have to be this way. It could have been a question of revelation and a hope that a revelation will come. But by standing in the priesthood line, attempting to challenge what they see as male power they showed that they are radical feminists.

[Storm Rider]

Im worried about these women. They are going dangerously into the territory of full out apostasy.

 

Yes, and they will reap the whirlwind for sowing these seeds.  It will not surprise me to then hear them wailing about being victims.  They are following in the footsteps of those who only see themselves as victims and never responsible for any of the choices or actions.  They willingly put upon themselves a nose ring and then  bemoan the fact they are lead around by the nose.  

[Bikeemikey]

I'll be worried about the group when the leadership of the church expresses that sentiment.

In the mean time this thread seems flooded by fear mongers who have jumped the gun on where the church actually is on the subject.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"The group’s founder acknowledges that the language of social activism is unfamiliar to most Mormon women, but she believes it is useful to borrow vocabulary and tactics from activist efforts."

 

I wonder, has she read rules for radicals?