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

[CV75]

Romans 16:1 

 

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

No--that one is not what you think it is. But I can see that you think it is.

[smac97]

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.

No thanks. I appreciate the invitation, but I do not think this forum is an appropriate or healthy place to have such a discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

No--that one is not what you think it is. But I can see that you think it is.

Just out of curiosity, when the text says "diakonon," what do you think it means?

[Gray]

No--that one is not what you think it is. But I can see that you think it is.

 

I think it means what it says. I don't see any persuasive reasons to the contrary. I understand the need to reframe ancient scripture to fit modern traditions, but presentism isn't a great way to really understand the scriptures. That is, if we're trying to use the scriptures to understand ancient practices. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by Gray

[CV75]

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. 

That the scriptures often use masculine pronouns to include women, but to strictly apply that observation to all scripture isn't they way to go. D&C 107 is one of those cases, and shows that the pattern and manner of ordination pertains only to men since the pattern was father to son, and using male names without exception.

[Gray]

That the scriptures often use masculine pronouns to include women, but to strictly apply that observation to all scripture isn't they way to go. D&C 107 is one of those cases, and shows that the pattern and manner of ordination pertains only to men since the pattern was father to son, and using male names without exception.

 

When the scriptures refer to things applicable to both men and women, most often these are rendered using only male pronouns.

 

In any case, it's a mistake to think that any passage of scripture is a word for word transcription of the words of God. The scriptures use male pronouns as universal pronouns because that's the way our language used to work. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by Gray

[CV75]

Just out of curiosity, when the text says "diakonon," what do you think it means?

I don't think it will matter--I've Googled all the arguments pro- and con- just as anyone else here has!

[CV75]

When the scriptures refer to things applicable to both men and women, most often these are rendered using only male pronouns.

Yes, "most often..." not "always..."

[wenglund]

Then it becomes an issue of what each human party says God desires and who you believe.

 

At least they are looking to God instead of to themselves, which is a welcomed change of direction and one that increases the chances of humbly conforming to God's will.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

", 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?

 

Oh please, Cal. Rather than addressing the criticisms I had, the first line of her response launched into a condemnation of men who are demeaning those women.

 

The question I'm more concerned with is whether the criticisms being made of OW have been found to be demeaning in this thread. Specifics would be nice, rather than people launching into generalized diatribes about being demeaning. Such things can be interpreted rather broadly.

[wenglund]

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.

 

Would you agree that actions speak louder than words, and that defiant and manipulative public antics may tell us quite a bit about motives?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Cal, when you resort to these kinds of sarcastic personal attacks rather than addressing what is really being said, you don't really further the discussion. It should be evident to you by now that we all have to interpret what we read and try to understand the meaning behind what is being written. To dismiss that as "gifted mind read[ing]" is ridiculous.

 

Funny how when Fawn Brodie digs into Joseph Smith's mind that so many people think she's insightful. But when a man digs into what's going on in the minds of OW members via what they're writing, we are nothing more than <sarcasm> gifted mind readers </sarcasm>.

[Senator]

No thanks. I appreciate the invitation, but I do not think this forum is an appropriate or healthy place to have such a discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Then why have you been here, in this unhealthy place, lambasting others?

 

Why didn't you just advise us that this isn't the place, then excuse yourself?

[smac97]

Would you agree that actions speak louder than words, and that defiant and manipulative public antics may tell us quite a bit about motives?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

They "may," but I think we are better off refraining from publicly discussing each others' motives.

Personally, I think many of the folks in the OW group are sincerely devoted to the Church (I observed some of them first-hand as they protested on Temple Square in April), but that they are substantially misguided in their "agitation" (Kate Kelly's word, I believe) against the Church and the Brethren. I am also concerned that they have, perhaps unwittingly, signed on with a group that has aligned itself with an excommunicated apostate. I am also concerned that they do not fully realize how profoundly offensive and inappropriate it is to have openly, defiantly, and intentionally trespassed onto the Church's sacred ground and staged a protest there. During a sacred convocation. With the specific intent to distract from and disrupt that sacred convocation.

And now we have people on this thread rationalizing the OW group's actions on the pretty-darn-scary basis that "the ends justify the means."

I also believe that some critics of the OW group (perhaps, to some extent, including myself) have been overzealous in defending the Church against this agitation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 3, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

Then why have you been here, in this unhealthy place, lambasting others?

I have not "lambasted" anyone. I am defending the Church and the Brethren from what I find to be inappropriate, inaccurate, and demeaning criticisms.

Why didn't you just advise us that this isn't the place, then excuse yourself?

I think each of us can decide for ourselves the scope and breadth of our participation in online discussions. It's not an "all or nothing" deal.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

 

 

Funny how when Fawn Brodie digs into Joseph Smith's mind that so many people think she's insightful. But when a man digs into what's going on in the minds of OW members via what they're writing, we are nothing more than <sarcasm> gifted mind readers </sarcasm>.

 

Since this is the second time you've brought it up, i just wanted to point out that Cal's response to you has nothing to do with you being a man.  She would have said the same thing if you were a woman.  She has said essentially the same thing to women in the past.

 

And Cal certainly has never defended Fawn Brodie so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

[jwhitlock]

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

 

Since I'm being such a gifted mind reader in this thread, I find a number of responses in this thread to be absolutely schizophrenic in nature. It's like they can't agree with Kate Kelly and how she's doing things, but they have to stick up for her because a feminist is being criticized. I'm finding that precious few of the issues being brought up about OW are being addressed by people who are turning out to defend them.

 

Kind of like a common cause that has to be defended at all costs, and let's not look too hard behind the curtain.

 

Reminds me of Al Sharpton jumping on the Tawana Brawley case.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

. It's like they can't agree with Kate Kelly and how she's doing things, but they have to stick up for her because a feminist is being criticized. I'm finding that precious few of the issues being brought up about OW are being addressed by people who are turning out to defend them.

Sometimes it does indeed feel like this.

[juliann]

That the scriptures often use masculine pronouns to include women, but to strictly apply that observation to all scripture isn't they way to go. D&C 107 is one of those cases, and shows that the pattern and manner of ordination pertains only to men since the pattern was father to son, and using male names without exception.

You are only accounting for what you want scripture to say, not what it says. Any leadership pattern started in ancient times will reject women. Yet Hebrews 7:3  says Melchezedic's priesthood is....

 

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

 

I am guessing this was a counterpoint to the Aaronic priesthood which was by descent. At any rate, the higher priesthood does not flow through fathers or mothers, i.e., men or women. It can only be compared to the Son of God. In other words, there is no gender attached to it unless one tries to make the argument that Christ's maleness defines him rather than his station.

 

As for Phoebe, she is called a deacon. Now unless you can prove that the identical Greek word deacon does not mean deacon whenever you decide it shouldn't, there is no debate to be had here.

[jwhitlock]

"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?

 

No, it's a shallow understanding of the Priesthood to want to be able to tell others what to do.

 

I'm not sure your case has much relevance to what I actually said - especially since D&C 121 still applies in dealing with children.

[wenglund]

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

 

 

I don't know that it is per se, though at times it may rightly be set against men and women's limited grasp of moral principles. 1 Cor. 1:18-31

 

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.

 

One is less likely to fall into that trap by humbly looking to God and his chosen leaders rather than pridefully and arrogantly to oneself.

 

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

 

My bias is to look to God and his chosen leaders on this matter rather than to my self and my political views.  

 

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.

 

True. However, humans have a way of minimizing cognitive bias in this matter by humbly looking to God and those he has chosen. We increase the chances of cognitive bias by looking pridefully and arrogantly to ourselves.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bluebell]

Since I'm being such a gifted mind reader in this thread, I find a number of responses in this thread to be absolutely schizophrenic in nature. It's like they can't agree with Kate Kelly and how she's doing things, but they have to stick up for her because a feminist is being criticized. I'm finding that precious few of the issues being brought up about OW are being addressed by people who are turning out to defend them.

 

Kind of like a common cause that has to be defended at all costs, and let's not look too hard behind the curtain.

 

Reminds me of Al Sharpton jumping on the Tawana Brawley case.

 

People need to understand that sometimes their response to something is so unreasonable that it completely overshadows what was being responded to.

 

For example, (and this is just an example to illustrate my point so don't read too much into it), I just read a story about a father who beat up an 11 year old for bullying his 9 year old son.

 

That father had a very legitimate complaint.  What the 11 year old was doing was completely unacceptable and needed to be stopped.  However, the father's response was so completely unreasonable and illegitimate that it overshadowed everything else.  

 

Through his actions he essentially gave the 11 year old a free pass because what the 11 year old did was not as bad as what he did in response.  Now the news and his community will be discussing what a jerk he is and how he needs help (and rightly so) instead of discussing the 11 year old's actions and helping the 9 year old.  The police are now involved on the side of the 11 year old, as is the school, and a lot of the community.

 

Essentially, that dad shot himself and his cause in the foot because he let himself get out of control.

 

So, in similar fashion, that is why you often get people like Cal (who do not support OW) defending them on threads like this.  It's because sometimes the reaction to OW is so over the top and unreasonable that it overshadows their weaknesses completely and instead highlights the weaknesses of the people who are responding-making them and their unreasonableness the focus of the discussion.

[wenglund]

Just out of curiosity, when the text says "diakonon," what do you think it means?

 

Servant. (See the KJV)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 3, 2014 by wenglund

[Senator]

I have not "lambasted" anyone. I am defending the Church and the Brethren from what I find to be inappropriate, inaccurate, and demeaning criticisms.

Whatever

 

 

I think each of us can decide for ourselves the scope and breadth of our participation in online discussions. It's not an "all or nothing" deal.

Convenient, that.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Senator

[juliann]

 

Reminds me of Al Sharpton jumping on the Tawana Brawley case.

Seriously?  Women are now criminals and liars? And you wonder why there is no chance of a discussion on this?

 

Where have you seen anyone defending OW? Everyone in this thread has criticized them repeatedly, particularly Kate Kelly's hostility and ungraciousness. She has burned bridges with any moderates. Those  trying to make anyone who defends women against the nonstop nonsense said against them by those claiming to be the rightful heirs of the priesthood might just be a little weary of the attempts to demand that well known and prolific posters can never advance in a discussion.  Not only must we start from ground zero in each thread, we must make sure that we cite a pledge of allegiance to the evils of OW in each post.

 

I'm not playing. You can read my complaints against OW tactics in any thread I have been in....and there have been many.  Pretend my views are not laid out in exquisite detail at your own peril.  All it demonstrates over and over and over is that far too many of those claiming to be defending God do it by comparing faithful LDS women to Tawana Brawley so that they do not ever have to descend from their Rameumpton to engage in any meaningful way.