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

[jwhitlock]

Surely you realize that this can be turned around and said about the men demeaning these women.   If OW only wants power, then the men who denounce them can quite legitimately be painted as only wanting to keep that power for themselves.

 

There is an alarming lack of introspection in responses that merely go after one segment for asking what another already has and expects to keep. The only difference is that one segment's motives are impugned and the others' elevated....the only support seems to be a possession is 99% of the law kind of thing.

 

And saying an excommunicated member is going to magically be part of the church if the undesirable element has what the elevated element has?  Strawman in the extreme.

 

Again, I reject the claim that criticizing OW is akin to demeaning them. And turning it around must assume that I am in a leadership position, which I am not. Frankly, I don't have any of the administrative power that OW seems to be so keen on obtaining. In fact, the RS President in our ward has far more power in virtually every aspect of functioning in the church than I do, as far as I am concerned.

 

I find a remarkable lack of introspection in responses that defend OW just because they are feminists, without considering who (read: Toscano) is helping to drive their agenda. To dismiss her as a strawman as if she would magically disappear were OW to reach her goals is to gloss over something significantly troubling about OW.

 

To characterize all men in the church as "haves" and women as "have nots" is to ignore the principle of keys in relation to the priesthood. There seems to be this fantasy out there that if you're a man with the priesthood, you've got it made and can do all kinds of things that women can't do. As I've mentioned, the RS President can do far more with the priesthood authority she has been given than I can.

 

But those are, after all, inconvenient things to consider, aren't they. It's far easier to paint men as a clear enemy consisting solely of "haves" or do so at the expense of the "have nots". Seems to me to be an untenable simplification of a complex situation that involves introspection on both sides of the fence.

 

And for the record, criticizing OW is NOT akin to going after and demeaning all women who have concerns about issues in the church.

[jwhitlock]

If this was the only thing they were mentioning in regards to priesthood I would agree, but they also mention giving blessings and other things associated with the Priesthood.

In church language there has been confusion between administrative power and the Priesthood in how it is presented. That these women make the same error is hardly surprising.

And the others they would like to contribute making decisions for and to be -"able to tell others what to do" include their daughters and sons.

Is it a shallow understanding of the Priesthood when men are grateful for having stewardship over others to be able to tell them what to do?

 

They mention quite a few things, but I continue to sense from reading what they're saying that what they really want is administrative power above everything else.

 

And yes, it is a shallow understanding of the Priesthood to want to be able to tell others what to do. D&C 121 is rather specific about that.

[Calm]

", I reject the claim that criticizing OW is akin to demeaning them"

Good thing that wasn't what she said then.

Do you believe that some forms of criticism can be demeaning?

[Calm]

They mention quite a few things, but I continue to sense...

So you see yourself as a gifted mind reader or at least someone who can see things that are not in public view but internal to the individual.

I don't accept that as a valid logical argument myself.

[Calm]

"And yes, it is a shallow understanding of the Priesthood to want to be able to tell others what to do"

So desiring to have the Priesthood as a father in order to be better at providing guidance to one's children including setting up family rules is a shallow understanding of its purpose in your view?

Or is it just desiring to be a parent to be able to help others fulfill their potential the shallow understanding?

Edited June 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

.

I find a remarkable lack of introspection in responses that defend OW just because they are feminists, without considering who (read: Toscano) is helping to drive their agenda. To dismiss her as a strawman as if she would magically disappear were OW to reach her goals is to gloss over something significantly troubling about OW.

To characterize all men in the church as "haves" and women as "have nots" is to ignore the principle of keys in relation to the priesthood. There seems to be this fantasy out there that if you're a man with the priesthood, you've got it made and can do all kinds of things that women can't do. As I've mentioned, the RS President can do far more with the priesthood authority she has been given than I can..

What is frustrating is having to recreate all the nuances in one's argument everytime one posts coupled with being critised with by applying criticisms globally when it is much more specific.

Please identity who is saying any criticism of OW at all is demeaning.

I do find the one criticism claiming (because you "sense" it) that OW is in it to tell people what to do is demeaning given a number of OW probably never anticipate or even desire to be part of the adminstrative branch or at least not a bishop or anything higher (even if willing to serve if called like most men I know). I don't doubt there are some who are power hungry just as some men see their Priesthood as a means to power over others as wrong and shallow as that understanding is, but that it is an inherent requirement of membership in OW or is a core mission goal I see little evidence for (won't say no evidence, but then I won't say there is no evidence that Priesthood for men isn't a power grab either...I think there is little evidence for both and better interpretations...especially given that any intelligent individual must realise at this point visible membership in OW will decrease the likelihood of them being placed in a power rich position even if Priesthood for women in general becomes a reality.

Edited June 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[smac97]

There is one session devoted to men.

And one devoted to women. And all the others are for the general membership of the Church.

I guess I'm just not comfortable with the proposal that we inject identity politics into the Restored Gospel. I believe the leaders of the Church are chosen by God and, in the main, are led by inspiration from God. I therefore don't like the idea of nose-counting, of implicitly suggesting that a talk from President Monson has less value to us because he is a man, or because is caucasian, or old, or American. I believe the message of the Restored Gospel is intended to transcend race, gender, age and culture.

 

Again, what you are saying can be turned around. Assigning talks by "priesthood" is a de facto gender quota.

So much for a unity of the Saints.  We are now reducing ourselves to nose-counting and quotas.  Oh well.  Here are my thoughts:

 

The structure of the leadership has a much larger number of men than women:

• Presiding High Priest: 1 (M)
• Counselors: 2 (M)
• Quorum of 12 Apostles: 12 (M)
• Presiding Bishopric: 3 (M)
• Presidency of Seventy: 7 (M)
• First Quorum of Seventy: 67 (M)
• Second Quorum of Seventy: 21 (M)

TOTAL GENERAL AUTHORITIES: 113 (M)

In addition to the above General Authorities, there are several other leadership positions (not including 3rd through 8th Quorum of Seventy members, who are not general authorities):

• Relief Society General Presidency (3 in Presidency, 9 on Board) (F)
• General Primary Presidency and Board: (3 in Presidency, 9 on Board) (F)
• Sunday School General Presidency (3 in Presidency, 6 on Board) (3 in Presidency and 4 on Board are Male, 2 on Board are Female)
• Young Men's General Presidency (3 in Presidency, 5 on Board) (M)
• Young Women's General Presidency (3 in Presidency, 9 on Board) (F)

TOTAL: Presidency Mbrs (M): 6

TOTAL: Presidency Mbrs (F): 9

TOTAL: Board Mbrs (M): 9

TOTAL: Board Mbrs (F): 29

 

Total General Authorities and Auxiliary Leaders (M): 128

Total Auxiliary Leaders (F): 38

 

Here are some statistics from the last General Conference:

 

Total Number of Talks Given (All Sessions): 38

Talks by General Authorities: 32

Talks by Auxiliary Leaders: 6

Talks by Female Auxiliary Leaders: 5

Talks by Male Auxiliary Leaders: 1

 

I believe General Conference is intended to provide the Saints with guidance from the general leadership of the Church.  The General Authorities presently consist entirely of men.  But if we look at talks given by church members in auxiliary leadership positions which are available to women, the number of talks given by women in those positions outnumbered men in those positions 5 to 1.

 

I recognize that in our age of identity politics, affirmative action, quotas, etc., a secular criticism can be made against the Church.  But I am surprised that some Latter-day Saints are adopting those secular criticisms.

 

Women are over half of the church.

 

And most of the leadership of the Church are men.  And as best as I can tell, the gender-based restriction on the priesthood, and hence on general authority leadership positions available to women, is positioned by the Church as being of divine origin.

 

But this is all a waste of time, really.  That's the pernicious thing about fault-finding: one will pretty much always succeed at it.

 

They should be in leadership positions that do not require priesthood.

 

They are in leadership positions to that do not require the priesthood.  I understand that there are some few positions about which there is some dispute regarding whether the priesthood is required (the Sunday School presidencies, both general and local, I believe).  Is this the bone of contention you have in mind?  Or is there something else?

 

And we do not get a good number of talks from women.

 

There are a fairly limited number of speaking slots in General Conference.  Most of these are taken up by the General Authorities.  At the last General Conference, there were only six talks given by auxiliary leaders (non-GAs).  Of these, five were women.

 

As for talks given in Church, I have not observed any significant discrepancy in the male:female speaker ratio.  My ward is, I believe, pretty close to 50/50 in terms of talks from ward members.

 

But this is all a waste of time, really.  That's the pernicious thing about fault-finding: one will pretty much always succeed at it.

 

It is embarrassingly low in a church that claims women are so special that they have attributes men do not.

 

I am not embarrassed by the Church.  I am saddened to hear that you are, and that you are broadcasting that embarrassment publicly.

 

Yet those attributes are so insignificant the men do not need to learn anything from them.

 

And now you appear to be bearing false witness.  Please show me any leader of the Church, or even any participant in this thread, who has stated or implied that the attributes of LDS women "are so insignificant the men do not need to learn anything from them."  I have never said anything of the sort.

 

Surely if women are as important as the church claims, they should be seen and heard in equal numbers. If not, any claim that women are equally important and valuable are not sincere.

 

What an appalling calumny, particularly as it appears to be aimed at the Church generally and the Brethren specifically.  They are, after all, the ones who choose the speakers at General Conference, who constantly teach about the worth of women, and who are now accused, by you, of lacking sincerity because they have not imposed a purely gender-based quota system on General Conference talks.  So much for guidance from the Spirit, huh?  Just go with a quota system.

 

I believe the Church is what it claims to be.  It is blossoming into a worldwide Church.  In my lifetime it has grown from 3 million to 15 million members.  There is much diversity in the Church, including in the upper echelons, with much more to come.  But that diversity will come as a result of revelatory guidance from God, not because self-appointed critics demand quotas based on gender, or race, or national origin.  I have a hard time lending credence to race- or gender-based quotas in the secular world, let alone in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

These kinds of attitudes simply cannot be sustained now that they are being examined and thoughtfully analyzed.

 

I was going to ask what kind of attitudes are meeting with your opprobrium.  But never mind.  This thread is already generating enough ugly attacks against the Saints by other Saints.

 

Much better reasons will have to be constructed if the church is going to continue to relegate women to the sidelines while claiming their input is of inestimable worth.

 

I am at a loss for words.  Such slurs are not helpful.

 

I believe the Church is what it claims to be.  I believe the Brethren are sincere in their teachings about the value of women.  

 

I utterly reject the notion that their sincerity can be questioned due to or gauged by gender quotas relating to General Conference speakers.  

 

I utterly reject the allegation that the Brethren have taught or implied, or that I have said or implied, or that there exists in any material sense in the Church, a sentiment that LDS women have "attributes (that) are so insignificant the men do not need to learn anything from them."

 

I see nothing about General Conference that makes me embarrassed of the Church.  I find the leaders to be men and women who are sincere and devoted to the Gospel.

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

Edited June 3, 2014 by smac97

[why me]

Again, I reject the claim that criticizing OW is akin to demeaning them.

This is the problem I brought up earlier. If one is critical of OW, one is demeaning them or condemning them. Strange. To be critical is no longer allowed. One must accept all groups that wish to be recognized and whose demands should be heard. If one is critical of them, one is victimizing them. I have no idea just how postmodernism came to the lds internet sites.

 

The lds church has a grand narrative of truth which is claimed to be led by god. I have no idea just how a postmodern take on it can exist with such a narrative. The catholic  church also has a grand narrative but they still seem to have control of the conversation. I think that the lds church has been so shell shocked by the Internet war, that it has becomes soft in the battle. And the members don't seem to want to rock the boat by taking up the battle against social pressure groups that challenges the church.

Edited June 3, 2014 by why me

[smac97]

", I reject the claim that criticizing OW is akin to demeaning them"

Good thing that wasn't what she said then.

Do you believe that some forms of criticism can be demeaning?

 

Yes I do.  Here are a few examples:

 

• "(The number of General Conference talks by women) is embarrassingly low in a church that claims women are so special that they have attributes men do not."
• "(In the LDS Church the attributes of LDS women) are so insignificant the men do not need to learn anything from them."
• "(Failure to have 50% of the talks given at General Conference by women necessarily means that) any claim (by Latter-day Saint leaders) that women are equally important and valuable are not sincere."
• "(The LDS Church continues to relegate) women to the sidelines while claiming their input is of inestimable worth."

 

These criticisms are demeaning to the LDS Church, its members, and its leaders.

 

They are also largely unfounded and inflammatory.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 3, 2014 by smac97

[why me]

And one devoted to women. And all the others are for the general membership of the Church.

I guess I'm just not comfortable with the proposal that we inject identity politics into the Restored Gospel. I believe the leaders of the Church are chosen by God and, in the main, are led by inspiration from God. I therefore don't like the idea of nose-counting, of implicitly suggesting that a talk from President Monson has less value to us because he is a man, or because is caucasian, or old, or American. I believe the message of the Restored Gospel is intended to transcend race, gender, age and culture.

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

Identity politics is what it is all about today, especially on the Internet. What is amazing is just how many members are taking up with it in challenging the lds church. If one is critical of any group that seeks social pressure as a vehicle for change, one is condemning and intolerant and lacks the love of christ. This is the mantra. Church members need to be more accepting and show christlike love for all. If one is against these social pressure groups, one is showing the church in a bad way.

 

On the internet one can see the tactics of social pressure groups when they bring this up: church members should be tolerant of them and their cause. On the other hand, such groups show very little tolerance for the rights of members. So, they can protest on temple square by making their demands known in front of members who wish to attend an event. Or they can attempt to marginalize those members who speak out against them. And they can put men in a secondary role in their own organization.

Edited June 3, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

This is the problem I brought up earlier. If one is critical of OW, one is demeaning them or condemning them. Strange. To be critical is no longer allowed. One must accept all groups that wishes to be recognized and whose demands should be heard. If one is critical of them, one is victimizing them.

keep pushing that strawmen...you might 'win' the argument because those who are actually trying to listen and interact get bored and drop out.

[why me]

 

Yes I do.  Here are a few examples:

 

• "(The number of General Conference talks by women) is embarrassingly low in a church that claims women are so special that they have attributes men do not."
• "(In the LDS Church the attributes of LDS women) are so insignificant the men do not need to learn anything from them."
• "(Failure to have 50% of the talks given at General Conference by women necessarily means that) any claim (by Latter-day Saints) that women are equally important and valuable are not sincere."
• "(The LDS Church continues to relegate) women to the sidelines while claiming their input is of inestimable worth."

 

These criticisms are demeaning to the LDS Church, its members, and its leaders.

 

They are also largely unfounded and inflammatory.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

God seems to be an unjust god according to some unless of course, the lds church is a church that is only led by human beings who just happen to be men who are extremely immersed in patriarchy. One must make a choice,

[why me]

keep pushing that strawmen...you might 'win' the argument because those who are actually trying to listen and interact get bored and drop out.

I see no strawman since ideology is playing a big role in the debate. One must call it for what it is. The battle is over ideology whether it is radical feminism or postmodernism or a mixture of both. I must be critical of the ideology and bring it out in the open for discussion. I can cloak my beliefs in churchisms too. For example, I am very politically oriented. In priesthood meetings when I was a young man I always cloaked the ideology that I supported in churchisms. I was far left and it was easy for me to get people to speak on poverty, profit, consumeriism etc in meetings. My intent was to be critical of capitalism cloaked in the gospel. And it worked quite well. And I never mentioned the ideology that I was supporting nor did I mention capitalism.

 

So, I understand OW tactics very well. They now have a public forum in the media and in the social media and I see their churchisms quite well too. But their ideology is no friend of the church. And in the end, that is what it is all about; ideology. I have heard other women who are more moderate in their approach and I do believe that these women have their hearts in the right place and I have no disagreement with them and their intent because their words are not cloaked in radical feminism.

[Calm]

Smac, I have to call it a night in hopes of my brain turning off at some reasonable time for sleep, but I wanted to make sure given that there are at least two conversations going on in this thread by my count you know I am not including you in my own criticisms of the claims that anyone criticising OW is seen as inappropriately attacking, etc. You are very good at using specific comments and actual actions in your criticisms which I greatly appreciate even in the times I disagree with you.

I do have to say that I am disappointed that you chose to use as examples of demeaning only examples from one post that you had already treated at great length instead of from a variety of posters with a variety of positions, pro and con. I think it is too easy to fall into tunnel vision and I usually look to you as someone who contributes to avoiding that with your use of concrete, external behaviours we don't have to guess about or worry too much of how much is your interpretation and how much is the person/group you are commenting on.

(aside: I plan on addressing that treatment more tomorrow unless something occurs to render that unnecessary or I just don't have a chance..life having a way of interfering with plans).

I will continue the conversation tomorrow, I have got to stop thinking, but I will rest easier now in hopes I am not being too misunderstood by you (some misunderstanding is inherent in all human communication, the Internet...lacking tone, body language and very limited interaction is very, very prone to it so I should be grateful if half my stuff is understood but I am greedy and want it all).

Edited June 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I see no strawman since ideology is playing a big role in the debate. One must call it for what it is. The battle is over ideology whether it is radical feminism or postmodernism or a mixture of both. I must be critical of the ideology and bring it out in the open for discussion. I can cloak my beliefs in churchisms too. For example, I am very politically oriented. In priesthood meetings when I was a young man I always cloaked the ideology that I supported in churchisms. I was far left and it was easy for me to get people to speak on poverty, profit, consumeriism etc in meetings. My intent was to be critical of capitalism cloaked in the gospel. And it worked quite well. And I never mentioned the ideology that I was supporting nor did I mention capitalism.

 

So, I understand OW tactics very well. They now have a public forum in the media and in the social media and I see their churchisms quite well too. But their ideology is no friend of the church. And in the end, that is what it is all about; ideology. I have heard other women who are more moderate in their approach and I do believe that these women have their hearts in the right place and I have no disagreement with them and their intent because their words are not cloaked in radical feminism.

You singing your own praises does not in anyway convince me you know what you are talking about. Actually engaging what someone said would.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

 

I am not advocating that women be ordained to offices in the priesthood. In theory, if we accept the notion that women have the priesthood - that they have been endowed with the priesthood, then we could move on to a different kind of discourse, that fleshes out ways in which they can utilize that priesthood.

 

Ben M.

In that case we are in agreement on this point.

[Senator]

Do you have any particular area of inquiry in mind?

 

 

No, none in particular.

 

Given that you have said, "the Church has room for improvement in many respects, including the role of women", I'm interested in what improvements you think could be made in regards to the role of women in the church.

[CV75]

QUOTE:

"I am not advocating that women be ordained to offices in the priesthood. In theory, if we accept the notion that women have the priesthood - that they have been endowed with the priesthood, then we could move on to a different kind of discourse, that fleshes out ways in which they can utilize that priesthood.
 
Ben M."

---

I think women have been endowed with priesthood power in many ways, the temple endowment being one formal way in whcih we think about that; temple sealing as well. But I think there are many other ways that women can have and use priesthood power. Faith of course is a principle of power, and any time they use faith they are using the priesthood, not as officers but as "drawers" of the power of God. Of course men do this also.

 

In no particular order, i also see power and authoritywith bearing and raising children, standing as a witness of God in all times and places, moral authority, temple service, forming a council in partnership with her husband, heading the family council with her husband, participating in Church councils.

 

This article gets into that: https://www.lds.org/...-women?lang=eng

 

I think the power and authority of God granted to men and women overlap in many ways, both for those in and out of the Church. I think inasmuch as personal power is aligned with the light of Christ, people have moral authority and when focused on revealed religion, and in keeping the covenants, even more so.

 

Temple covenants and sealings give women the power and authority of God. Up until being sealed, the covenants give them personal power (faith in it, influence for the office holders) in the priesthood. Once sealed, a couple has power in the priesthood together, irrespective of the priesthood office one of them holds, and more power than either spouse can possess alone. Service of course is found in work for the dead and some women are also ordinance workers.

 

So I see that some kinds of power and authority of God come with simply being a child of God, additional power comes through the ordinances of the Gospel  and then the temple, some comes with conferral of keys, and so forth. Not everyone has everything but everybody has something. I don't think salvation so much a matter of having the exact same thing as someone else but how one uses it.

[Gray]

I think you answered this yourself.

That's a tough distinction to make epistemologically speaking. We can't know the "mind of God", just what our filters allow us to postulate. In essence we invent what seems right and is confirmed by the spirit. That's about all we can do.

 

Agreed

[Gray]

Acts 9: 

 

 

Just because it doesn't specifically say Ananias, in laying hands on Saul/Paul, ordained as well as blessed/healed him, doesn't mean he didn't.  In other words:  arguments from silence don't make a case, and you bear the burden of persuasion here.

 

Great, now apply that argument to Phoebe. 

[Gray]

LOL... why not address what I actually said?

 

But since you've pulled this twice in a row, and just keep repeating disproved arguments that have no authentic basis, I won't expect you to!

 

CFR the ordination of women to priesthood office. The references for males being ordained to priesthood office have been posted.

 

Romans 16:1 

 

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.

[Gray]

You need to do better than that!

 

Show how the use of the "men" and "son" and the individuals named in D&C 107 is about the ordination of women to priesthood office, such as in verses 40-52. And yes, this is scripture, not tradition of men (for the 2nd time).

 

No, I think I made my point. The scriptures often use masculine pronouns. If we were to strictly apply them in a literal way, women would be shut out of religion altogether. 

[Gray]

You may have a point were priesthood callings a function of justice, fairness, and presumed capability. It isn't. Rather, it is, as it ought to be, a function of the will of God--except perhaps in your divergent world view.

 

How can God's will be set against good moral principles?

 

 

Again, you may have a point were I, like you, to trust predominately in my own thinking rather than trusting in God and his chosen spokesmen on earth.. I am not confirming my bias, but rather subjecting myself to God. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

It's easy to fall into the trap that only we understand the mind of God, and those who disagree with us are deceived or subject to cognitive bias.

 

Given your political views, doesn't your assumption of what God's mind is on this matter confirm your own biases?

 

Human beings can never fully escape cognitive bias. We deceive ourselves if we think we can do so, even more so if we think we have a personal bat phone to the mind of God.  We can have perceptions and intuitions, but we still see through that glass darkly

Edited June 3, 2014 by Gray

[juliann]

 

 

So, I understand OW tactics very well. They now have a public forum in the media and in the social media and I see their churchisms quite well too. But their ideology is no friend of the church. And in the end, that is what it is all about; ideology. I have heard other women who are more moderate in their approach and I do believe that these women have their hearts in the right place and I have no disagreement with them and their intent because their words are not cloaked in radical feminism.

You disagree with every moderate on this board, there are rarely any OW supporters in sight.  Your tactic is to take anything said by moderates and frame it and them as extreme so you do not ever have to enter a meaningful dialogue with those moderates.  It is very telling that you think you can judge a woman's heart with a vocabulary test.

[smac97]

Smac, I have to call it a night in hopes of my brain turning off at some reasonable time for sleep, but I wanted to make sure given that there are at least two conversations going on in this thread by my count you know I am not including you in my own criticisms of the claims that anyone criticising OW is seen as inappropriately attacking, etc. You are very good at using specific comments and actual actions in your criticisms which I greatly appreciate even in the times I disagree with you.

I do have to say that I am disappointed that you chose to use as examples of demeaning only examples from one post that you had already treated at great length instead of from a variety of posters with a variety of positions, pro and con.

A few thoughts:

First, could you explain what you mean by "pro and con" positions? These positions are for and against what, exactly.

Second, if by "pro and con" you are referring to being for or against female ordination, then I do not accept that dichotomy. I am neither "for" or "against" it. I believe the current state of the Church's position on priesthood ordination is in accordance with God's will. I am open to the possibility that God could reveal to us a change wherein women could be ordained to the priesthood. I do not think that will happen, but I am open to it.

If by "pro and con" you are referring to the OW group, I'd have to say I am against it. I find the behavior of its founders and participants to be repellant, offensive and unseemly. I think it is spectacularly inappropriate to publicly demand the priesthood and say that "nothing less will suffice," to affiliate with an excommunicated apostate, to invite an excommunicated apostate to be a key speaker at its founding event, to invite an excommunicated apostate to participate in a panel discussion at its founding event, to intentionally schedule that founding event to conflict and distract from General Conference, to publicly protest against the Church during General Conference by marching onto Church property solely for the spectacle value in the media and to attempt to make the Church look bad, to request entry to the Priesthood Session and then fail to listen to it when actually given the opportunity (this happened both last year and in April), to publicly defy the Church after receiving instructions to not enter Temple Square and declare to the media their intention to enter anyway and protest on it, to put the Church in a no-win situation where it either has to arrest the OW folks or else let them trespass and protest on sacred ground, to actually trespass onto Temple Square after being met at the gates of Temple Square and being asked not to trespass and protest, to actually protest on sacred ground (something even the most offensive anti-Mormon protesters don't do), to prepare "six discussions" materials which denigrate and criticize the Church's doctrine, to promulgate these materials amongst the Saints, and so on.

The OW group has done all of these things and more. But in this thread their actions are being justified because "the ends justify the means." That is just plain scary.

Third, I have not been following this thread closely. Juliann made some public criticisms which appear to be demeaning to the Church in general and the Brethren in particular. I treat such public sentiments differently than the run-of-the-mill online sniping that can occur between private individuals. We should all be kind to each other, but I seldom have interest in trying to play the role of Civility Police. However, church members publicly denigrating the Church and its leadership is a different matter. I am more willing to call people out when that happens.

 

I think it is too easy to fall into tunnel vision and I usually look to you as someone who contributes to avoiding that with your use of concrete, external behaviours we don't have to guess about or worry too much of how much is your interpretation and how much is the person/group you are commenting on.

I do not believe I have ever commented on the morals or worthiness of the members of the OW group. Nor have I called for discipline or anything like that. I do not know their hearts, so I will not judge their hearts. I do, however, judge their actions. I also do not believe it is within my province to call for discipline or speculate about that. I leave such matters to the appropriate parties.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 3, 2014 by smac97