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

[wenglund]

Thanks for the interesting dialogue, Wade 

 

I very much enjoyed it, Gray, and grew from the experience. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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

 

I would simply add that such public discussions are beyond the purview for affecting meaningful change--except perhaps within our own hearts, and are thus presumptuous if not so much hissing in the wind, though certainly the domain of busy bodies--well intended or otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[juliann]

Smac, again....the methods of the OW group stand apart from the general agreement about the need to give women more visibility in the church. It can't be separated.

 

And to those with short memories, here is a thread about the blog Cal and I did that once again makes it pretty darn clear where we stand...and when something as highly circulated as this blog is on record,  perhaps the blow back to the  constant and inaccurate mind reading of others' thoughts and intentions will become more clear.  This is a thread about the blog which further demonstrates how old and tiresome and destructive these accusations against fellow members are.

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63178-these-are-our-sisters/

 

The blog....

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/03/26/these-are-our-sisters/  

Edited June 3, 2014 by juliann

[bluebell]

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

 

I agree that right now most of the more outrageous posts are coming from a few male posters.  That makes sense in that there are more active male posters than female posters most days in general, and most of the females that do post are moderate in their religious leanings while the males tend to be more conservative on this topic.    

 

That doesn't have anything to do with what Cal said though, or who she would say it too.  Cal is fairly active online in general and has taken women to task for being over the top just as often as she has men (maybe even more, since in other venues where this is a popular topic, females tend to outnumber the males).

[juliann]

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.

How in the world is "look in the mirror" ever considered to be anything but an insult?  And to Blue Dreams, of all people? Why are you treating our most gentle posters so disrespectfully when they politely disagree? All you are proving is that it isn't about who is polite and using the proper words, it is about disagreeing...you smear them with the same broad brush as those who disagree more vehemently.

[CV75]

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

 

 

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. 

 

 

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

 

 

You are only accounting for what you want scripture to say, not what it says.

***

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.

juliann, you do not know that I am "only accounting for what want scripture to say, not what it says." Such a sentiment is irrelevant to the debate anyway.

 

But since you mentioned your take on Hebrews 7:3, I think that anything that is prepared from the foundation of the world is by definition without ascent or descent in relation to the earth’s temporal timeline and the operation of the power of God within that timeline. So the order of the Son of God originates with the Son of God alone; hence it is without ascent or decent as far as we are concerned. It begins and stops with Jesus, to whom all the keys will be returned.

 

I also think the order is also without father or mother because it is found in its fullness only in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. It begins anew with every couple when that couple is sealed together and is without ascent; the children must enter the new and everlasting covenant on their own and so it is also without descent.

 

The debate over Phoebe and whether “deacon” as used in her case is a priesthood office is being well handled by others who are far more engaged in that topic than I am, and I must say I think they have the stronger argument. I don't think Hebrews 7:3 serves as an adequate counter for that.

[bluebell]

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

 

I hate to drag him into it because it was a post he made at the very beginning and for all i know he has tempered his thoughts on it, but for example, when Mola said that OW were acting like children.  That was over the top and unreasonable.

 

There have been others since then but i'm not going to come thru this giant thread looking for examples.  We should all be able to recognize it on our own without having to have it pointed out to us.

 

Nothing against Mola personally-we all get over the top and unreasonable sometimes when emotions get strong.  My point wasn't that some people are evil for doing that.  I was only pointing out that when we do allow ourselves to do that, we can't really be upset when people start to focus on our reaction instead of the original topic.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I would simply add that such public discussions are beyond the purview for affecting meaningful change--except perhaps within our own hearts, and are thus presumptuous if not so much hissing in the wind, though certainly the domain of busy bodies--well intended or otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If I wanted to effect change, I'd say that recognizing and acknowledging that there is a problem is step one. For women who don't feel they have a seat at the table, effecting change "within our own hearts" might be the best they can do for now.

Edited June 3, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[juliann]

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.

So if we don't agree with priesthood holders demeaning women, we see the movement superficially.  That would be a lot more convincing if there was any in depth discussion whatsoever of the movement aside from their methods and "hearts".

[bluebell]

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.

 

We can probably legitimately blame a lot of things on OW, but we certainly can't blame any contention that is developing in this thread on them.  It's very possible to disagree about issues and not become divisive.  If we can't manage to do that, then shame on us, not shame on OW.

 

Any negative feelings that come out of this thread belong completely and entirely to the posters involved and no one else.  

[USU78]

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. 

 

Not quite:  "burden of persuasion" lies, or should lie, with him who wishes to affect a change in status quo.

 

In contrast, courts in the US in constitutional cases place the burden of persuasion and proof on him who would defend status quo, so long as he who would change status quo can leap a very low hedgerow.

 

Since we ain't in Court, and there are those who would persuade public opinion, and thence 50 E No Temple, to change gender-specific priesthood rules, those seeking change bear the burden of persuasion.  Since you seem to have aligned yourself with the OW group, I brought up the issue of burden of persuasion and how, when encountered by an arguably ambiguous text in the NT, arguments from silence on what one wishes the text said generally fail to persuade, leading to a failure of argument based upon what the text shoulda/coulda said.

[why me]

The problem with OW is the example that they set for other groups within the church that can start with their own demands for the GAs to pray over issues that concern them. For example, I can see a day with members form a group and require the GAs to pray over SSM. Or a group of mormons coming together asking the GAs to pray for a reinstatement of polygamy. With identity politics the amount of groups can quickly multiply with each identity groups attempting to further their own cause. Not good for a church that should be at one.

[bluebell]

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 don't think that it's hypocritical, but i do think that it's completely unhelpful (though i understand why Smac wouldn't want to jump into that on this thread and have no issues with him not wanting to do that).

 

IF there are things that we can change about the roles of men and women, and IF there are ways that the church can improve how it relates to women, then talking about them is the first step to moving forward and actually improving.  There are wards right now who, under the direction of their area authority, are discussing these issues.  It's not a dangerous topic when it's done in the right way.

[Tacenda]

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.

The last sentence in your post is what OW have been saying all along, good work!

[wenglund]

If I wanted to effect change, I'd say that recognizing and acknowledging that there is a problem is step one. For women who don't feel they have a seat at the table, effecting change "within our own hearts" might be the best they can do for now.

 

Affecting change in our own hearts is what the gospel is all about--that is, as long as the affected change conforms to God's will.

 

However, some people get this confused with presumptuously wishing to affect change within the Church. Such confusion often results from people failing to recognize the limits of their personal stewardship and pridefully minding other peoples business, not realizing that this is contrary to the practical focus and intent of the gospel.

 

It also demonstrates a lack of faith and trust in God and his chosen leaders, and a greater trust in oneself.

 

Yet, for the life of them, they don't see it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

We can probably legitimately blame a lot of things on OW, but we certainly can't blame any contention that is developing in this thread on them.  It's very possible to disagree about issues and not become divisive.  If we can't manage to do that, then shame on us, not shame on OW.

 

Any negative feelings that come out of this thread belong completely and entirely to the posters involved and no one else.  

And here is the perfect example of the postmodern guilt trip. I see no contention on this thread but I do see honest discussion and that is what it should be: honest. And what does it mean to be divisive? This word is loaded and designed to be a conversation smack down. It goes along with condemning, unchristlike, demeaning etc.

[Senator]

I don't think that it's hypocritical, but i do think that it's completely unhelpful (though i understand why Smac wouldn't want to jump into that on this thread and have no issues with him not wanting to do that).

 

IF there are things that we can change about the roles of men and women, and IF there are ways that the church can improve how it relates to women, then talking about them is the first step to moving forward and actually improving.  There are wards right now who, under the direction of their area authority, are discussing these issues.  It's not a dangerous topic when it's done in the right way.

 

How dare you go off and sooth my savage heart......

[why me]

The last sentence in your post is what OW have been saying all along, good work!

Who decides just what the right women is? OW? the GAs? the membership? Heavenly Father? etc?

[Scott Lloyd]

We can probably legitimately blame a lot of things on OW, but we certainly can't blame any contention that is developing in this thread on them.  It's very possible to disagree about issues and not become divisive.  If we can't manage to do that, then shame on us, not shame on OW.

 

Any negative feelings that come out of this thread belong completely and entirely to the posters involved and no one else.  

In the sense that every individual is accountable for his/her own behavior, you are right. (I even gave you a rep point for saying so.)

 

However, that does not excuse any of us from being circumspect in our own behavior with a thought toward how what we do might impact or even provoke others.

 

I'm engaged in writing an article right now (on a topic that is totally separate from this one). In the course of that, I have been reminded of this passage of scripture:

 

“And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

 

 

 

If fathers bore no personal responsibility for things they do that provoke their children to wrath, I doubt there would be this scriptural admonition. (And lest this become an age of accountability thing, I believe this applies regardless of whether the children are young or grown.)

 

I believe this principle transcends father-children relations.

 

And I have to agree with Smac that a course of public faultfinding of the Brethren is not a wholesome thing -- in any venue. The animus that has developed here among ordinarily like-minded individuals is a case in point.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

I don't think that it's hypocritical, but i do think that it's completely unhelpful (though i understand why Smac wouldn't want to jump into that on this thread and have no issues with him not wanting to do that).

In this thread I have A) criticized the OW group's actions which I find to be problematic, and B) defended the Church and its leaders.

I don't think either of these are "completely unhelpful."

I also don't think the OW group should be immune from criticism because it is comprised mostly of women. I think LDS women who behave inappropriately should be called on it, just like we call out LDS men who behave inappropriately.

 

IF there are things that we can change about the roles of men and women, and IF there are ways that the church can improve how it relates to women, then talking about them is the first step to moving forward and actually improving.

I agree with talking. In contrast, I do not think that any of the following things are helpful in discussing the role of women in the Church:

• 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.

I am also quite troubled that the above actions are being excused or justified on the grounds that "the ends justify the means." I find that reasoning, such as it is, deeply troubling as applied in these circumstances.

I am also quite troubled at Latter-day Saints publicly disparaging the Church and its leaders, like this:

• "(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."

I am also troubled that Latter-day Saints are vilifying other Latter-day Saints who disagree with them on points of doctrine.

 

There are wards right now who, under the direction of their area authority, are discussing these issues.  It's not a dangerous topic when it's done in the right way.

Agreed.

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

[Gray]

Not quite:  "burden of persuasion" lies, or should lie, with him who wishes to affect a change in status quo.

 

In contrast, courts in the US in constitutional cases place the burden of persuasion and proof on him who would defend status quo, so long as he who would change status quo can leap a very low hedgerow.

 

Since we ain't in Court, and there are those who would persuade public opinion, and thence 50 E No Temple, to change gender-specific priesthood rules, those seeking change bear the burden of persuasion.  Since you seem to have aligned yourself with the OW group, I brought up the issue of burden of persuasion and how, when encountered by an arguably ambiguous text in the NT, arguments from silence on what one wishes the text said generally fail to persuade, leading to a failure of argument based upon what the text shoulda/coulda said.

 

I am advocating for the scriptural status quo, which seems to be women's ordination. I haven't aligned myself with OW specifically, although I do support women's ordination. 

[juliann]

 

 

But since you mentioned your take on Hebrews 7:3, I think that anything that is prepared from the foundation of the world is by definition without ascent or descent in relation to the earth’s temporal timeline and the operation of the power of God within that timeline. So the order of the Son of God originates with the Son of God alone; hence it is without ascent or decent as far as we are concerned. It begins and stops with Jesus, to whom all the keys will be returned.

------------------snip

 

 

The debate over Phoebe and whether “deacon” as used in her case is a priesthood office is being well handled by others who are far more engaged in that topic than I am, and I must say I think they have the stronger argument. I don't think Hebrews 7:3 serves as an adequate counter for that.

It makes no sense to say priesthood has no descent, it's very purpose is to "descend" from Christ or it would not be available to anyone. Again, anything about priesthood has to be measured against the known priesthood...that which was dependent on descending from fathers. But this more powerful priesthood does not descend from fathers and mothers. You have to insert Christ because he is not included in the verse. That makes the addition of mothers even more interesting. At any rate, this is just another example of how we have let traditional readings settle in as the only true reading when there are other readings available and plausible.

 

Pheobe is but another example of tradition given primacy. At this point, all that can be responsibly said is that it can go either way. Traditional readings settled in before the role of women in the household and how that applies to house churches was examined.  It is particularly nonsensical to say that deacon always means servant when in Phil 1, the words deacon and servant are both used [NRVS] when applied to men.  The context gives other clues when it comes to women...but the mere fact that Paul addresses so many women in his letter introductions just can't be ignored because of traditional readings. There is so much more that goes into this than throwing out definitions of single words.

Edited June 3, 2014 by juliann

[juliann]

 

 

I agree with talking. In contrast, I do not think that any of the following things are helpful in discussing the role of women in the Church:

• 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.

I am also quite troubled that the above actions are being excused or justified on the grounds that "the ends justify the means." I find that reasoning, such as it is, deeply troubling as applied in these circumstances.

Smac, I can't say I am as familiar with Gray (who seems very reasonable,) for instance, as I am with the more long term posters. But I would like to know who you think is in opposition to any of the above...or who has not spoken out about some or all of this...and even more?  In other words, are you arguing with anyone in particular or just making a position stand?  I really don't understand the purpose of this other than to denounce certain "kinds" of women who are doing things that even moderate feminists think are holding us back.  In other words, these means impede those ends that all agree on. Where are you getting the idea that destructive acts justify anything at all?  For the record, I would put Kate Kelly (and Kathryn Skaggs) down as the worst Mormon spokeswomen of the year and try very hard to not let their ill tempered remarks define everyone else around them.  All those goofy discussion lessons mean to me is that they are running out of fuel.

[Calm]

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-

Yes, but we need to be very careful not to read too much into actions especially if we choose to ignore how people actually describe themselves and the realities of the situation which in this case includes the high probability that visible membership in OW will result in less power for its members within the Church structure itself even if women receive the Priesthood in their lifetime as well as the known risk that I have seen expressed quite often by some OW members especially at the beginning of their leaders disciplining or even excommunicating them.

Has anyone seen a known agitator assume a role of authority in the Church in the last hundred years? (honest, not rhetorical question)

[smac97]

Smac, I can't say I am as familiar with Gray (who seems very reasonable,) for instance, as I am with the more long term posters. But I would like to know who you think is in opposition to any of the above...or who has not spoken out about some or all of this...and even more?  In other words, are you arguing with anyone in particular or just making a position stand?

A bit of both. Ben McGuire in this thread has forwarded an "ends justify the means" rationalization for the actions of the OW group. I find that line of reasoning, such as it is, deeply troubling.

I really don't understand the purpose of this other than to denounce certain "kinds" of women who are doing things that even moderate feminists think are holding us back.

I am not denouncing "women." I have been criticizing the OW group for their actions, which group I understand to be comprised of both men and women.

I am not criticizing the OW group because of their gender, but because of their actions.

I am not characterizing "kinds" of women.

In other words, these means impede those ends that all agree on.

I'm not sure about what the particular "ends" you have mind here are. In any event, my objection to the OW group has been primarily their "means," not their "ends."

Where are you getting the idea that destructive acts justify anything at all?

Ben McGuire has presented an "ends justify the means" excuse for the actions of the OW group. This is a troubling and dangerous line of reasoning for Latter-day Saints vis a vis their posture toward their own church.

For the record, I would put Kate Kelly (and Kathryn Skaggs) down as the worst Mormon spokeswomen of the year and try very hard to not let their ill tempered remarks define everyone else around them.  All those goofy discussion lessons mean to me is that they are running out of fuel.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac