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

[Gray]

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

 

And neither should be understood as a word for word transcript of the words God spoke at some point. 

[wenglund]

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.

 

The "debate" isn't whether Pheobe was called a deacon or not in the Greek Mss, but rather the intended meaning of the word given that "diakonon" has multiple connotations, most if not all of which are not necessarily priesthood specific (servant, messenger, wiater/waitress, etc.), not unlike the English word "teacher", which may refer generically to instructors or to those holding an office in the Aaronic priesthood. A female primary instructor may be referred to as a "teacher," but this doesn't suggest that she holds the Aaronic priesthood.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gray]

 

 

 

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

 

I think all we have to go on is our limited grasp of moral principles. 

 

 

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.

 

Unfortunately, this approach also relies on the arm of flesh

 

 

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

 

Again, still the arm of flesh. Is it coincidence that your poilitical views coincide with your views on this matter? Maybe not

 

 

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.

 

I don't think your approach is accomplishing that. I also don't think that seeking to develop one's ability to discern morality is prideful. 

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited June 3, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

The "debate" isn't whether Pheobe was called a deacon or not in the Greek Mss, but rather the intended meaning of the word given that "diakonon" has multiple connotations, most if not all of which are not necessarily priesthood specific (servant, messenger, wiater/waitress, etc.), not unlike the English word "teacher", which may refer generically to instructors or to those holding an office in the Aaronic priesthood. A female primary instructor may be referred to as a "teacher," but this doesn't suggest that she holds the Aaronic priesthood.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

This isn't very useful unless you're willing to apply it bilaterally. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by Gray

[juliann]

The "debate" isn't whether Pheobe was called a deacon or not in the Greek Mss, but rather the intended meaning of the word given that "diakonon" has multiple connotations, most if not all of which are not necessarily priesthood specific (servant, messenger, wiater/waitress, etc.), not unlike the English word "teacher", which may refer generically to instructors or to those holding an office in the Aaronic priesthood. A female primary instructor may be referred to as a "teacher," but this doesn't suggest that she holds the Aaronic priesthood.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I had to take Greek classes :-)  Unless you have some basis to assume that the writers, who knew the words for servant, messenger, etc., assumed that the word used for men deacons would magically take on a different meaning if put in front of a woman's name you have no case here. BTW, some are trying to make "slave" mean "servant", too.  People often feel more comfortable thinking "hades" means Dante's inferno, too.  But it meant what hades means. A trip down the river and past Hades into the land of the shades.

[eddie]

I had to take Greek classes :-) Unless you have some basis to assume that the writers, who knew the words for servant, messenger, etc., assumed that the word used for men deacons would magically take on a different meaning if put in front of a woman's name you have n

o case here. BTW, some are trying to make "slave" mean "servant", too. People often feel more comfortable thinking "hades" means Dante's inferno, too. But it meant what hades means. A trip down the river and past Hades into the land of the shades.

She is called a servant in the KJV of the Bible, the version the church uses. The Joseph Smith translation makes no attempt to change that to deacon, even though it did change Christ's "touch me not" to "hold me not" when talking to Mary Magdalene.

The D&C also clearly states men are ordained deacons, not women.

So was Joseph Smith inspired or not?

[wenglund]

 

 

 

 

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

 

I think all we have to go on is our limited grasp of moral principles. 

 

 

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.

 

Unfortunately, this approach also relies on the arm of flesh

 

 

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

 

Again, still the arm of flesh. Is it coincidence that your poilitical views coincide with your views on this matter? Maybe not

 

 

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.

 

I don't think your approach is accomplishing that. I also don't think that seeking to develop one's ability to discern morality is prideful. 

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

 

Again, to me, it is a matter of degrees. While we mortals can't entirely eliminate our cognitive biases or our reliance on the flesh, there are ways of minimizing limiting impact of those things. Do you disagree? 

 

If so, then wouldn't one of the best ways for doing so be to rely and trust more on God and his chosen spokesmen regarding the things of God, than in ourselves?

 

Asked another way, do you view humility as a beneficial attribute, and pride as a dis-beneficial attribute, and if so, how do you differentiate between the two?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

This isn't very useful unless you're willing to apply it bilaterally. 

 

I am willing, and I do (as evinced by my previous comments on context).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

 

Since you asked, (even as a non-supporter of OW) I found the following from you demeaning (defined as "causing someone to lose their dignity and the respect of others."):

 

There's quite a bit that I agree with here. But let me ask my question again, with the proper emphasis:

 

 If someone is demanding the priesthood, what is it that they actually want?

I think that equality is not really what is driving their agenda.

And here we have, in a nutshell, the whole reason as understood by OW supporters for having the priesthood - to wield administrative power, to be able to tell others what to do.

 

What a shallow understanding of what the priesthood is really all about.

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.

You have repeating questioned OW motives and have stated that they are not concerned about equality, but power. You provide no justification for this. You read their minds. How can you know that they want power for themselves and not equality (note: equality here refers to the idea that men and women should not be treated differently just because of their gender, and should not be confused with Wade's equality which includes horse ordination)?

Is it so inconceivable to you that the supporters of OW rather than wanting to be bishop, merely want to see women bishops?

Is it so inconceivable to you that the supporters of OW rather than wanting to be in charge, see getting other/any women high ranking authority as the best possible way of address gender inequality in the church?

Is it so inconceivable to you that the supporters of OW want to have their sons and daughters look up to and see women (again not necessarily themselves!) with administrative authority in the church?

Have you ever heard an OW supporter demand a position of authority? Could it be possible that they desire no such thing, but simply want all women to have the opportunity to use their god given talents in such a manner should they be called?

None of these things need to come from a personal desire to "administrative power." To suggest that OW is lying about their desire for greater equality and suggest that rather they really just want administrative power is demeaning.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I had to take Greek classes :-)  Unless you have some basis to assume that the writers, who knew the words for servant, messenger, etc., assumed that the word used for men deacons would magically take on a different meaning if put in front of a woman's name you have no case here. BTW, some are trying to make "slave" mean "servant", too.  People often feel more comfortable thinking "hades" means Dante's inferno, too.  But it meant what hades means. A trip down the river and past Hades into the land of the shades.

You know that is fine and dandy. But, I want to know exactly what they meant. Wade's comments about being a teacher are apt and they apply directly to this. Did they mean that she was an ordained member in the priesthood? As some assume, or did they mean something else. I think the fact that traditionally, women were not ordained, I think we should not assume she was. So unless you have something more than "I think they knew what they were doing when they wrote what they did" then I am going to have to reject what you are pushing here.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

The lines between the sexes are fairly well drawn in this particular discussion.

[jwhitlock]

 

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.

 

So how has the reaction to OW on this thread been over the top and unreasonable?

[juliann]

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.

 

I'm returning to this to make darn sure this misrepresentation is exposed.  Women are being demeaned. We have men in this thread claiming to know what is in women's hearts and then making judgements as to their worth based on his "findings". That is just one example. 

 

The problem you are running into is that OW and the moderate feminists, whom we are to believe can be supported, although no support is evident, .largely agree until it gets to the priesthood and tactics.  There just isn't that big of a list of things that can be done to be more inclusive to women sans priesthood.  So anyone who claims to tolerate moderate feminists must also tolerate that list that both moderates and liberals agree on. So enough of the divide and conquer game. It isn't that divided.  Which means the next tactic is to go after "Kate Kelly" as a euphemism for all the women who won't toe an imaginary line. But that just comes off as mean spirited.

 

And there is another issue....and that is the now well developed dialogue going on everywhere else. Feminists have honed their message, they have made themselves aware of the pitfalls so they don't fall into them, they have learned to be more gracious.  The Bloggernacle has multiple blogs up from varying perspectives every day.  The daily burning Kate Kelly in effigy along with the other wimmenz who won't use the approved vocabulary looks positively primitive in comparison to the finely worked, detailed, and logically laid out discussions going on elsewhere.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Give me a break, Juliann. You know full well I wasn't comparing LDS women to Tawana Brawley and calling them criminals and liars, yet you still make this kind of asinine accusation. When you talk about engaging in a meaningful way, you need to take a look in the mirror at your own slash and burn methodology as has been demonstrated on this thread.

 

Your post here is more over the top than anything that has been posted here and isn't worth responding to further.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You know that is fine and dandy. But, I want to know exactly what they meant. Wade's comments about being a teacher are apt and they apply directly to this. Did they mean that she was an ordained member in the priesthood? As some assume, or did they mean something else. I think the fact that traditionally, women were not ordained, I think we should not assume she was. So unless you have something more than "I think they knew what they were doing when they wrote what they did" then I am going to have to reject what you are pushing here.

What I find interesting is that so many posters want this deep look at the bible to be a one way street.

Some say: "The scriptures are absolutely clear that only men are to be ordained."

Others say: "What about Pheobe or Junia of the prophetesses, priestess and judges that were women?"

Some say: "Well, if you look at the translation and the word root and the .... that doesn't count."

Others say: "Well shouldn't we apply that same scrutiny to other verses in the bible then?"

Some say: "Nope, the scriptures are absolutely clear that only men are to be ordained."

[juliann]

So how has the reaction to OW on this thread been over the top and unreasonable?

I find comparing Mormon women to liars and criminals to be more than reasonable. We just wouldn't understand otherwise.  Not to mention what a wonderful example it is of the high regard priesthood holders have for the right kind of women!  It is so motivating to women to know what the right kind of woman is.

[Scott Lloyd]

Whatever

 

 

Convenient, that.

There's nothing unreasonable in Smac's response.

 

All of us pick and choose what discussions to involve ourselves in here; I know I certainly do. And that includes occasionally making general statements about my outlook on this or that topic while refusing to be egged on to provide particulars when I don't think this an appropriate setting for such a thing.

[jwhitlock]

 

Since you asked, (even as a non-supporter of OW) I found the following from you demeaning (defined as "causing someone to lose their dignity and the respect of others."):

 

 

You really don't understand what demean means, do you.  Look it up, rather than using a cherry picked definition like you did. You're basically saying that we can't criticize them or their methods without being demeaning. I reject that as ridiculous.

 

None of the examples you gave of what I posted fall in the category of demeaning them.

 

None of them.

[Scott Lloyd]

What I find interesting is that so many posters want this deep look at the bible to be a one way street.

Some say: "The scriptures are absolutely clear that only men are to be ordained."

Others say: "What about Pheobe or Junia of the prophetesses, priestess and judges that were women?"

Some say: "Well, if you look at the translation and the word root and the .... that doesn't count."

Others say: "Well shouldn't we apply that same scrutiny to other verses in the bible then?"

Some say: "Nope, the scriptures are absolutely clear that only men are to be ordained."

Welcome to the reality that Latter-day Saints are not bound by a sola scriptura dogma. We can accept the Bible insofar as it supports true precepts as revealed by the Lord. To the extent that anything in the Bible appears not to conform to revealed truth -- or to the extent that others interpret it so -- we are free to reject such reading.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

This isn't very useful unless you're willing to apply it bilaterally. 

 

I don't think you get the concept of burden of persuasion and how/why it is assigned.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

delete.

Edited June 3, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[USU78]

The lines between the sexes are fairly well drawn in this particular discussion.

 

AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE!!!!!!

 

{whew!}

 

This, jw, is the best point made in this very full and very lengthy thread:  There is only one person I can think of that would be pleased with this linedrawing.

 

Cui bono analysis almost invariably tells us why something becomes a line-generating issue, in my experience.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Welcome to the reality that Latter-day Saints are not bound by a sola scriptura dogma.

So why does the church PR statement respond as follows?

I suppose we do not know all the reasons why Christ did not ordain women as apostles, either in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon, or when the Church was restored in modern times. We only know that he did not, that his leaders today regard this as a doctrinal issue that cannot be compromised

Why not state, the "Lord's latter-day prophets have sought the will of the Lord on the matter and the Lord says no."

[wenglund]

I had to take Greek classes :-)  Unless you have some basis to assume that the writers, who knew the words for servant, messenger, etc., assumed that the word used for men deacons would magically take on a different meaning if put in front of a woman's name you have no case here. BTW, some are trying to make "slave" mean "servant", too.  People often feel more comfortable thinking "hades" means Dante's inferno, too.  But it meant what hades means. A trip down the river and past Hades into the land of the shades.

 

If you did study Greek, then I expect better of you, particularly given your grasp of the varied meanings of other terms, particularly over time..

 

Absent sufficient contextual clarification (as the case in question), one cannot confidently assume a given connotation for the word diakonon regardless whether the word is associated with a male or female.  

 

For that matter, absent sufficient contextual clarification, one cannot confidently determine whether any of the 5 or 6 instance of the word diakonon in the New Testament was priesthood specific (especially as the word is understood today), regardless of its association with males or females.

 

However, in cases where a given context clearly uses the word in male-specific terms (as the case with 1 Tim 3, particularly verse 12) it is evident that the meaning of the word in that context is to be interpreted differently than when used in association with females. 

 

In short, because of the lack of clarifying context, Rom. 16:1 cannot reasonably be used as evidence that women were ordained to the priesthood, and given 1 Tim 3, there is reason to believe otherwise.

 

This is my case, which is valid and sound and stands in contravention to Gray's unwarranted if not logically discredited assumption. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 3, 2014 by wenglund

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

I know I fit into this, so I'll state my position more bluntly: That's your perception and problem, not mine. All of our positions have been very congruent: critique the platform, critique the behaviors you disagree with (with provided evidence), but don't attack the character of a person without any actual evidence minus your perceptions ...and especially when the person isn't even here (all you've given is minor, out of context quotes and then said things like "seems to me...{insert something negative}"). If you have actual proof that Kate Kelly or the organization are actually two-faced or wolves in sheep's clothing or somehow subtly malicious to the church or power hungry.....if you have Kate somewhere stating she doesn't actually believe in the church but wants to disrupt it. Or that she wants power and control and to feel more important. Then please, do share. But I haven't seen ANY REAL EVIDENCE for this. And that's my problem, it's unnecessarily alienating to people who are probably just good people who we believe are in some way or fashion misguided in their approach/beliefs.

 

And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with her being a feminist. (How is this even productive.....shifting claims of mind reading of people who aren't here to mind-reading a chunk of people who are?) I'm a feminist who has a very different concept of where and how change should occur than OW. I disagree with Kelly's position on very fundamental perspectives. In almost EACH post I've mentioned this.....as has Juliann, as has Cal, and just about everybody who's stated her personal character and heart shouldn't be up for the critiquing block. I don't have some deep urge to defend her position....and I haven't. I do have a deep issue with unnecessarily besmirching someone's character with NO REAL evidence. And it has absolutely nothing to do with some form of feminist solidarity....I don't even know if anyone else on this thread would consider themselves a feminist.   

 

And for pete's sake, could you please not pull in overgeneralized and hyperbolic comments. That's the problem that's been cycled through again and again. You keep going well beyond any of our arguments, moving the argument to something none of us said. The core point to just about everybody who's "come to her defense" is simply to not go beyond the immediate evidence in criticism. There has been very little evidence for Kelly's actual desires/character. End point. No one has said don't  say anything bad ever about Kate or her organization. All anyone has stated is focus on her actual points and tactics, not some form of spiritual heart-reading. You're not going to have a lot of room for critiquing this, when the discussion is constantly being sucked up into stating in 8 different ways that Kate is first and foremost our sister and deserves to be respected as such. This is basic respect 101. If you want the discussion to move to our disagreement about her position and tactics, you'll get that. All of us have here and in other places....many, many times.

 

 

With luv,

BD