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

[Scott Lloyd]

As I, with considerable discomfort, watch the escalating ill will developing on this thread between parties who typically are in agreement on most things here, I see with stark clarity how divisive methods such as those being employed by the OW movement can be.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So why does the church PR statement respond as follows?

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

It seems to me that, in effect, it has been so stated.

[wenglund]

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."

 

My comments don't fit either side of that alleged conversation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Still intent on misrepresenting me, juliann? That's too bad. Seems like you're all too willing to throw anyone under the bus when you think they get on your wrong side, even when you have to manufacture accusations against them that are clearly false.

 

This is the kind of stuff Margaret Toscano - associated with OW - spouts off. Congratulations.

[Senator]

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.

Smac has no problem criticizing others' issues with shortcomings in women's roles in the church on this unhealthy forum. (in which he contributes to make it such). But when asked to contribute his own issues (which he admits he has) then all of a sudden he get pious on us.

Seem s bit of a double standard if not hypocritical.

[wenglund]

So why does the church PR statement respond as follows?

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

 

Because, to the reasonably minded, it goes without saying.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 3, 2014 by wenglund

[juliann]

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.

But I am not pushing and when responses are labeled as such, all chance of meaningful dialogue dies.  I went to probably the most liberal college to study New Testament and early Christianity. (This most liberal college started the first Mormon Studies program).  There is a heck of a lot more than looking at one Greek word in deciding what it means. I see no willingness to have the kind of discussion it would require for an exegesis. This thread has become a requirement to denounce the wrong kind of Mormon women and nothing more. That is why those who merely object to that and refuse to do it are being vilified.

 

Bottom line is that when the same word used in one instance is used in another, the default position will always be that it has the same meaning. It matters who the author is and how he uses other words but I don't see any semblance of an attempt to build a position here. There are several factors that must be taken into account. But putting our own inflexible ideas of what ordination means back into such a sketchy time period isn't going to be taken seriously by specialists and language experts.  For starters, there seems to be an assumption that Jesus was ordaining everyone.

 

I'm not saying anything about Phoebe other than what she is indisputably called. There is just no argument there. She is a deacon. Now you can insist that it wasn't a "real" deacon but there has to be textual evidence...or something beyond protestation.  The fact of the matter is that there is disagreement even among the experts as to what this means. What that means is that it is an open debate not a decided fact. But what isn't debatable is that Phoebe has deacon in front of her name and that does mean something.

[Scott Lloyd]

Smac has no problem criticizing others' issues with shortcomings in women's roles in the church on this unhealthy forum. (in which he contributes to make it such). But when asked to contribute his own issues (which he admits he has) then all of a sudden he get pious on us.

Seem s bit of a double standard if not hypocritical.

I see Smac making a convincing case about the impropriety of the behavior of the OW movement while choosing not to take part in the discussion here about what policy changes the Church should make.

 

Those strike me as separate issues; I see no double standard here.

[wenglund]

But I am not pushing and when responses are labeled as such, all chance of meaningful dialogue dies.  I went to probably the most liberal college to study New Testament and early Christianity. (This most liberal college started the first Mormon Studies program).  There is a heck of a lot more than looking at one Greek word in deciding what it means. I see no willingness to have the kind of discussion it would require for an exegesis. This thread has become a requirement to denounce the wrong kind of Mormon women and nothing more. That is why those who merely object to that and refuse to do it are being vilified.

 

Bottom line is that when the same word used in one instance is used in another, the default position will always be that it has the same meaning. It matters who the author is and how he uses other words but I don't see any semblance of an attempt to build a position here. There are several factors that must be taken into account. But putting our own inflexible ideas of what ordination means back into such a sketchy time period isn't going to be taken seriously by specialists and language experts.  For starters, there seems to be an assumption that Jesus was ordaining everyone.

 

I'm not saying anything about Phoebe other than what she is indisputably called. There is just no argument there. She is a deacon. Now you can insist that it wasn't a "real" deacon but there has to be textual evidence...or something beyond protestation.  The fact of the matter is that there is disagreement even among the experts as to what this means. What that means is that it is an open debate not a decided fact. But what isn't debatable is that Phoebe has deacon in front of her name and that does mean something.

 

Let me repeat: 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 (contrary to what you assume above). 

 

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-

[jwhitlock]

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

 

It's interesting to note that all of the phrases that I'm being accused of demeaning OW with (two faced wolves in sheep's clothing, liars, etc.) have not come from me. They've come from others who are defending OW. The discussion has been about disagreement and tactics, but it has been moved off of that by all of you with the accusations of demeaning that have not happened in the way you claim they have.

 

So look in the mirror when you talk about hyping things. Your post above is more than a bit ironic in that respect.

[Gray]

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-

 

No, I don't think that method could be used to minimize cognitive bias - church leaders are just as human as you or I, and just as subject to cognitive bias. I think the best course is to take all good messages in due consideration, and then to utilize one's internal moral compass in trying to discern what is right and what is wrong (ie, the Light of Christ, conscience, etc). In this way we learn to become moral agents, and we're better able to navigate gray areas without needing to be told what to do. Along the way we will make mistakes. We will come to wrong conclusions. But that's the only way to grow.

 

Regarding humility, yes, I think it's beneficial. I'd define it as the willingness to entertain the idea that one has come to the wrong conclusions.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Gray

[Senator]

Yeah I think this no longer a discussion.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Senator

[Gray]

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.

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-harold-b-lee/chapter-7?lang=eng

 

 

"If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation. It is man’s own personal opinion, to put it another way; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the standard by which you measure all truth."

 

I'm not saying that's the final word on things, but if someone chooses to take a sola scriptura approach, they are in good company. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

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

 

I think I understand it. And arguments against scriptural evidence for ordination of women apply equally well against the notion that men should be ordained. 

[why me]

As I, with considerable discomfort, watch the escalating ill will developing on this thread between parties who typically are in agreement on most things here, I see with stark clarity how divisive methods such as those being employed by the OW movement can be.

Much has to do with not knowing certain facts. Many may see the the movement superficially....only seeing the surface and listening to certain catch words such as equality etc. However, what is important is to keep the conversation going even if one side may use connotative words such as demeaning, condemning etc.

[smac97]

Smac has no problem criticizing others' issues with shortcomings in women's roles in the church on this unhealthy forum. (in which he contributes to make it such). But when asked to contribute his own issues (which he admits he has) then all of a sudden he get pious on us.

Seem s bit of a double standard if not hypocritical.

Um, no. I am criticizing the disparagement of the Church and its leaders. If I were to turn around and disparage the Church and its leaders, then I would be hypocritical. But I haven't, so I'm not.

I am also not holding myself to a different standard than that to which I hold other Latter-day Saints. I don't think it is appropriate for us to disparage and demean the Church and its leaders in the ways we are seeing in this thread. That would include me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I don't think that method could be used to minimize cognitive bias - church leaders are just as human as you or I, and just as subject to cognitive bias.

I see assertions like this quite often on here, and I find them a bit bothersome.

 

No one denies that Church leaders are human; that doesn't mean they are just as prone to error as anyone else.

 

I see the Brethren as being individually much farther advanced than the average person in terms of wisdom, knowledge, experience, spiritual strength, spiritual receptivity, enjoyment of spiritual gifts, disposition to obey the commandments of God, etc.

 

In short, while "all men are created equal," not everyone is equal. We progress at different rates, depending upon life experiences, choices, spiritual fortitude, etc.

[why me]

I see Smac making a convincing case about the impropriety of the behavior of the OW movement while choosing not to take part in the discussion here about what policy changes the Church should make.

 

Those strike me as separate issues; I see no double standard here.

However, in some way they are related and cannot be avoided especially if it is seen that the church is complying with the Movement on other issues. I think that smac has presented the problem and is satisfied with others picking up the mantle. And at times he makes his own observations.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You really don't understand what demean means, do you.  Look it up, rather than using a cherry picked definition like you did.

Interesting. I typed "demeaning" into google and I copied and pasted the definition at the top. I guess you can take your complaints up with google for cherry picking their definitions!

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.

Let me hold up a mirror for you:

Jwhitlock, you have been very passionate in your posts about the OW movement. You have stated that you have examined the statements from OW and sense that they really just want power. After reading your posts however, I know this is not true. I can tell that in actuality that you are a bitter man who hates uppity women and just wants to oppress them.

Do you consider the above criticism demeaning? Do you find anything in it worthy of discussion? If I were to debate you in this fashion, how long would I be able to stay in this thread. This is exactly how you and a select few other posters are treating OW.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It's interesting to note that all of the phrases that I'm being accused of demeaning OW with (two faced wolves in sheep's clothing, liars, etc.) have not come from me. They've come from others who are defending OW. The discussion has been about disagreement and tactics, but it has been moved off of that by all of you with the accusations of demeaning that have not happened in the way you claim they have.

 

So look in the mirror when you talk about hyping things. Your post above is more than a bit ironic in that respect.

So saying that they don't want equality, but really want power is not accusing them of lying?

[BlueDreams]

It's interesting to note that all of the phrases that I'm being accused of demeaning OW with (two faced wolves in sheep's clothing, liars, etc.) have not come from me. They've come from others who are defending OW. The discussion has been about disagreement and tactics, but it has been moved off of that by all of you with the accusations of demeaning that have not happened in the way you claim they have.

 

So look in the mirror when you talk about hyping things. Your post above is more than a bit ironic in that respect.

 

I'm well aware that you haven't said a number of these things.....that's why I didn't quote you. But if you're truly interested about our actual concerns and what our concern in this (general) discussion... and why our (generalized) responses aren't actually (generally) schizophrenic. Then this is it. Others who've stated thing are free to correct me. But if you cannot see how some of the things that have come up do not fit into the category of disagreement and tactics, then there's nothing I can say to help you see another perspective in this. I don't generally hyperbolize. And I'm not known for jumping the gun. But Jwhitlock, a number of these posts have brought Cal to be more sarcastic than she usually ever is. That should say something. I almost never show frustration on this board even when I inherently disagree with another position....ever. That should say something.

 

But I'm good for now. This is probably fruitless and I've got other things to get done today. 

 

With luv,

BD

[wenglund]

No, I don't think that method could be used to minimize cognitive bias - church leaders are just as human as you or I, and just as subject to cognitive bias. I think the best course is to take all good messages in due consideration, and then to utilize one's internal moral compass in trying to discern what is right and what is wrong (ie, the Light of Christ, conscience, etc). In this way we learn to become moral agents, and we're better able to navigate gray areas without needing to be told what to do. Along the way we will make mistakes. We will come to wrong conclusions. But that's the only way to grow.

 

Regarding humility, yes, I think it's beneficial. I'd define it as the willingness to entertain the idea that one has come to the wrong conclusions.

 

Interesting.

 

There is clearly a strong element of independence in what you say. And, I have to admit that there was a time when I was similarly disposed--that is, until I not only entertained the idea that I may have come to a wrong conclusion, but where the outcomes of my life made it abundantly clear that in a number of areas in my life, different people, and for different reasons, weren't just as fallible or subject to cognitive bias as me. I found that secular teachers and business people knew more than I did about certain things, and thus were not as vulnerable as me to error, and that it was advantageous for me to rely more on their advanced wisdom than on my own. I also found that in my own experience in Church callings that when the mantel of authority from God is bestowed, I had greater insight and was somewhat less vulnerable to fallibility than when the divine mantel was removed. From that experience I was able to logically and beneficially generalize this to other Church leaders. In short, from my experiences I saw the value in growing and maturing from dependence, to independence, to interdependence.

 

It seems that your experience suggests otherwise. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 3, 2014 by wenglund

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But Jwhitlock, a number of these posts have brought Cal to be more sarcastic than she usually ever is. That should say something. I almost never show frustration on this board even when I inherently disagree with another position....ever. That should say something.

This.

[Gray]

Interesting.

 

There is clearly a strong element of independence in what you say. And, I have to admit that there was a time when I was similarly disposed--that is, until I not only entertained the idea that I may have come to a wrong conclusion, but where the outcomes of my life made it abundantly clear that in a number of areas in my life, different people, and for different reasons, weren't just as fallible or subject to cognitive bias as me. I found that secular teachers and business people knew more than I did about certain things, and thus not as vulnerable as me to error, and that it was advantageous for me to rely more on their advanced wisdom than on my own. I also found that in my own experience in Church callings that when the mantel of authority from God is bestowed, I had greater insight and was somewhat less vulnerable to fallibility than when the divine mantel was removed, and I was able to logically and beneficially generalize this to other Church leaders. In short, from my experiences I saw the value in growing and maturing from dependence, to independence, to interdependence.

 

It seems that your experience suggests otherwise. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Thanks for the interesting dialogue, Wade 

[smac97]

However, in some way they are related and cannot be avoided especially if it is seen that the church is complying with the Movement on other issues. I think that smac has presented the problem and is satisfied with others picking up the mantle. And at times he makes his own observations.

I agree they are related. I also agree that I have limited my participation in an online discussion about what the Church can/should do regarding the role of women in the Church.

The behaviors of the OW group are playing out in the public sphere, so I think there is some necessity to discuss those behaviors in the public sphere. In contrast, what the Church can or should do regarding the role of women in the Church is not, in my view, a topic that is well-addressed in a forum such as this, particularly given the divisions manifesting amongst the Saints in this thread.

Scott was right when he said this: "As I, with considerable discomfort, watch the escalating ill will developing on this thread between parties who typically are in agreement on most things here, I see with stark clarity how divisive methods such as those being employed by the OW movement can be."

I think that the Spirit is not, and will not, be in a discussion in which Latter-day Saints are taking it upon themselves to publicly find fault with the Church and the Brethren. I find the topic of women in the Church to be important, even sacred. But we make no progress in it when discussing such issues under the auspices of discussing the OW group, the repellant and unseemly actions they have taken, the "ends justify the means" reasoning being utilized to excuse those actions, and the public disparagement of the Church and its leaders in this thread. Consequently, I will defend the Church and its leaders from the unseemly disparagements asserted against them in this thread, but I will not otherwise contribute to this increasingly toxic discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 3, 2014 by smac97