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

[Lachoneus]

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.

 

PAUL and Timotheus, the servants [Greek douloi - "slaves"] of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons [Greek - diakonois "servants" "ministers" "deacons"]  (Philippians 1:1). NOTE: diakonos literally means "through the dust." In other words, one who bows his head down to the dust of the floor.

 

There is nothing here the least bit nonsensical, unless we are talking about your reply. Every language has words that are synonyms. In Greek doulos and diakonos are not exactly synonyms, but they have similar meanings.

 

[bluebell]

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.

 

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.

 

Agreed.

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

 

I think you have read my post and applied it to a broader conversation than it was intended.

 

It had nothing to do with your thoughts on OW, OW's tactics, or defending church leaders.  It was specifically centered on your statement that you didn't want to get into discussing the ways that the church could improve it's relationship with women.

 

I was simply saying that in general, an attitude of not wanting to discuss ways that the church can improve or things that need to change is unhelpful.

[CV75]

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.

I agree, there is nothing more powerful than the power of God, and it is manifest in many ways (I think I brought this up before but I’m posting in another thread as well). Some ways are common to all forms of life, others common to human beings only o to those in the covenant, others are specific to the planets and natural laws, or specific to various orders, keys, offices and delegation. Elder Oak’s recent talk parses all that out pretty well. Some ways the power of God is manifest are specific to women per Elder Cristofferson’s talk.

 

So I think Hebrews 7:3 is broader than conferral of priesthood office—it is about the superior order that begins and ends with Christ. Because of this, I think “ordained” falls more in line with the covenantal pronouncement of the temple sealing upon couples that opens the way for them to be “made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually” than it is with the laying on of hands for priesthood office, which I see as a subordinate aspect of the order that conducts the administration of ordinances so that the more important activity of couple and family exaltation can follow. My read of D&C 107 is that this administrative aspect is conferred upon men by eternal design and is not a fallible accommodation of the traditions of men in the canon.

[bluebell]

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.

 

I agree with Scott, who pointed out that the thread was becoming divisive and therefore contentious.  It seems pretty obvious when even just an acknowledgment of some heated disagreements garners a response like this.   

[bluebell]

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:

 

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.

 

I see what you are saying...

 

But I'm not sure that that means that anytime anyone get's mad at someone else, the other person bears some fault.  Sometimes people get angry and it's no one's fault but the person.

 

I'm no fan of OW, and I think that Kate Kelly is a pretty bad spokesperson who has done some damage, but.....i'm not sure i'm ready to say "OW has provoked me to anger so they are obviously bad."

 

Maybe they are guilty of this sin.  I'm just not convinced yet myself.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you have read my post and applied it to a broader conversation than it was intended.

 

It had nothing to do with your thoughts on OW, OW's tactics, or defending church leaders.  It was specifically centered on your statement that you didn't want to get into discussing the ways that the church could improve it's relationship with women.

 

I was simply saying that in general, an attitude of not wanting to discuss ways that the church can improve or things that need to change is unhelpful.

I think what Smac said is that he didn't want to get involved in a discussion of it on this forum (and he subsequently gave good reason for not doing so). I don't see him as saying it should not be discussed in some more appropriate setting.

 

And his comment came in response to someone who was trying to pressure or shame him into getting involved in what he sees as public faultfinding of the Brethren. Refusing to do so is perfectly understandable.

[bluebell]

And his comment came in response to someone who was trying to pressure or shame him into getting involved in what he sees as public faultfinding of the Brethren. Refusing to do so is perfectly understandable.

 

And i agreed that refusing to do so on this thread, in response to the other poster's question, was perfectly understandable.

 

What I believe is unhelpful is not wanting to discuss it in this forum.  I understand that you and he believe that is an understandable position to take; i was simply explaining that I disagree.  

[smac97]

I think you have read my post and applied it to a broader conversation than it was intended.

Okay. Similarly, I think you are taking my position and applying it to a broader conversation than was intended.

It had nothing to do with your thoughts on OW, OW's tactics, or defending church leaders.

That is pretty much the extent of my participation in this thread. I don't think public free-for-alls in this forum about sacred topics such as the role of women in the Church are going to be very productive, particularly given the recent climate in this forum.

It was specifically centered on your statement that you didn't want to get into discussing the ways that the church could improve it's relationship with women.

That's right. I don't want to discuss this topic in this forum. I don't think it would be fruitful. And given the current climate of faultfinding in the Church and its leaders, I think this forum is not presently conducive to the Spirit. If the Spirit is not present, I'd rather not discuss such a sacred and important topic.

I was simply saying that in general, an attitude of not wanting to discuss ways that the church can improve or things that need to change is unhelpful.

I do not have this attitude "in general." Just for this forum and at the present.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

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.

I wasn't being sarcastic in the least...which demonstrates the problem with attempting to read motivation into words when one lacks context of tone and other things.

[Scott Lloyd]

I see what you are saying...

 

But I'm not sure that that means that anytime anyone get's mad at someone else, the other person bears some fault.  Sometimes people get angry and it's no one's fault but the person.

 

Very true.

 

I'm no fan of OW, and I think that Kate Kelly is a pretty bad spokesperson who has done some damage, but.....i'm not sure i'm ready to say "OW has provoked me to anger so they are obviously bad."

 

Maybe they are guilty of this sin.  I'm just not convinced yet myself.

 

I'm trying here to focus on criticism of the behavior as opposed to judging the individual doing the behaving. Making that distinction is easier said than done, I suppose.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[frank_jessop]

I don't think public free-for-alls in this forum about sacred topics such as the role of women in the Church are going to be very productive, particularly given the recent climate in this forum.

That's right. I don't want to discuss this topic in this forum. I don't think it would be fruitful. And given the current climate of faultfinding in the Church and its leaders, I think this forum is not presently conducive to the Spirit. If the Spirit is not present, I'd rather not discuss such a sacred and important topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

And how much of the current climate that isn't conducive to the spirit are you responsible for?

If it were not for your efforts the vast majority here would not know the activities of OW.

You are the one consistently leading the leading the mob, with pitch fork and torch in hand, letting us all know how our Sister with Ordain Women eat with apostates and sinners.

But you are not here to smear OW before the jury, are you? You are just here to present the facts? You have no motive but altruism in your post regarding OW. All but for the exact words, in this thread you have presented OW wolfs in sheep clothing.

While you are contemplating sacred things and people, your Sisters of OW are very likely "the Lord's Anointed". And it for the Lord, via proper Priesthood Authority, to remove such. Until then, well I am sure you get the message about "the Lord's Anointed".

[juliann]

PAUL and Timotheus, the servants [Greek douloi - "slaves"] of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons [Greek - diakonois "servants" "ministers" "deacons"]  (Philippians 1:1). NOTE: diakonos literally means "through the dust." In other words, one who bows his head down to the dust of the floor.

 

There is nothing here the least bit nonsensical, unless we are talking about your reply. Every language has words that are synonyms. In Greek doulos and diakonos are not exactly synonyms, but they have similar meanings.

 

 I'm not sure what your point is.  But you need to source your translations. I am using Liddell and Scott.  The primary meaning is servant, the secondary minister...which I have not seen acknowledged here. So we could accurately refer to Phoebe as a minister instead of deacon but I doubt that would solve the problem of trying to keep women out of what we now consider to be priesthood positions. Since Romans and Philippians are considered Pauline, they can be considered typical of Paul's usage. In Philippians, Paul calls himself a slave of Christ in the same sentence he refers to bishop/overseer and deacons.  So it would be nonsensical for Paul to be using deacon to mean servant when a few words earlier he had used douloi for servant.  He is making a distinction between servant/slave, bishop/overseer, and deacon in the same sentence.

[Calm]

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 am not sticking up for Kate Kelly. I have been quite harsh about things Kelly has said in the past in fact. OW is much more than Kelly though and I find making global criticism rather than pointing to specifics (and I have made my focus the specific criticism of being the claim they are motivated by what they allegedly really want, the power...the ability to tell people what to do)

Those who have been verbal in criticising the global/generic criticism and the hypothesizing of motivations have discussed in detail elsewhere on this board issues with specific actions, such as in the recent discussions use of ward resources and the overwhelming negative introduction to the patriarchy in the Church, the nonnegotiable demands which makes it obvious why they have not been invited to discuss issues with PA like others have, the lack of engaging with what is available to them right now (evidence being such as Smac's observation that he was the only one listening to the Priesthood Session on his cell phone in Temple Square and my frequent repeat of Kelly's comment that the talks just didn't speak to her) are a few among many criticisms I've seen and made from those who take issue with how a few in this thread are approaching OW criticism.

Do we really need to trot out the list each time in order to prove our fundamental disagreement with OW's approach?

[Kenngo1969]

We all need to have a group hug and sing Kumbaya!

[bluebell]

Okay. Similarly, I think you are taking my position and applying it to a broader conversation than was intended.

That is pretty much the extent of my participation in this thread. I don't think public free-for-alls in this forum about sacred topics such as the role of women in the Church are going to be very productive, particularly given the recent climate in this forum.

That's right. I don't want to discuss this topic in this forum. I don't think it would be fruitful. And given the current climate of faultfinding in the Church and its leaders, I think this forum is not presently conducive to the Spirit. If the Spirit is not present, I'd rather not discuss such a sacred and important topic.

I do not have this attitude "in general." Just for this forum and at the present.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

This is just one of those instances where we disagree on whether or not the topic is 'sacred' and whether or not it is unhelpful to discuss it here.  I was merely voicing my disagreement with your thoughts on it when i said it was unhelpful.  

Edited June 3, 2014 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

We all need to have a group hug and sing Kumbaya!

And get in touch with our inner child?

 

Blech!

[Scott Lloyd]

And how much of the current climate that isn't conducive to the spirit are you responsible for?

If it were not for your efforts the vast majority here would not know the activities of OW.

 

Their activities seem pretty unpalatable to me, inherently so

 

Would you have us all be ignorant of them?

[Scott Lloyd]

This is just one of those instances where we disagree on whether or not the topic is 'sacred' and whether or not it is unhelpful to discuss it here.  I was merely voicing my disagreement with your thoughts on it when i said it was unhelpful.  

Hmm. Whether the role of women in the Church and Kingdom of God is to be approached from a sacred vs. a profane mindset, may very well be at the heart of this whole controversy.

 

Clarification: I am using the word profane here in the sense of this dictionary definition:

 

relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular rather than religious.

 

Edited June 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

Hmm. Whether the role of women in the Church and Kingdom of God is to be approached from a sacred vs. a profane mindset, may very well be at the heart of this whole controversy.

 

Whether or not the only choices are between 'sacred' or 'profane' is probably also an issue at the heart of this whole controversy.  

[Calm]

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.

Let me rephrase that slightly because I think we are likely in agreement.

 

It is a shallow understanding of the Priesthood to assume it is a tool meant to be used to tell others what to do.

 

I don't think it is inherently shallow to want to be able to tell others what to do (unless that is the sole purpose).  Doctors, teachers, parents, personal trainers, some presidents…all of these we applaud because they got into work where they tell others what to do…but we applaud them because of what their end goals are, which are generally making life better for those others.

 

So even if someone says they want to be able to tell others what to do, I don't think we should assume a "shallow understanding" of life and their purpose here, but if they think of the Priesthood as a vehicle for that…man or woman, it is a shallow understanding of what the Power and Authority of the Priesthood actually is and how it works.

 

And imo, if any member of OW or the Church in general is approaching a desire for Priesthood or the use of their Priesthood they already have, they need to go and study the scriptures much more diligently to correct that misunderstanding of its function.

Edited June 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[smac97]

And how much of the current climate that isn't conducive to the spirit are you responsible for?

Well, perhaps some. But I have not disparaged the Church or its leaders. I have not demanded that the Church make doctrinal changes, and that "nothing less will suffice." I have not aligned myself with an excommunicated apostate against the Church. I have not organized protests on sacred ground during sacred convocations. I have not thereafter rationalized these actions by claiming that "the ends justify the means."

If it were not for your efforts the vast majority here would not know the activities of OW.

I think you are right. My father, who is a very well-read and well-informed man as to the Church, did not know about the OW group's affiliation with an excommunicated apostate, or that they had her speak at the group's founding event and had her participate in a panel discussion at that event. He also did not know that they had actually protested on Temple Square, and that they did so by trespass and in direct defiance of the Church's instructions.

I feel no qualms about educating my fellow Latter-day Saints about what the OW group is doing.

You are the one consistently leading the leading the mob,

"Mob?"

with pitch fork

"Pitch fork?"

and torch in hand,

"Torch?"

letting us all know how our Sister with Ordain Women eat with apostates and sinners.

I have reported objective fact: That the OW group has affiliated itself with an excommunicated apostate, that they had her speak at the group's founding event and had her participate in a panel discussion at that event.

I would rejoice if Margaret Toscano rejoined the body of the Saints in fellowship with the Restored Gospel. However, I do not rejoice when LDS women align themselves with her against the Church.

And I have said nothing about "sinners."

But you are not here to smear OW before the jury, are you?

"Smear" = Let other people know what they are doing.

Yeah, I plead guilty to that.

You are just here to present the facts? You have no motive but altruism in your post regarding OW.

I seem to recall there being a lot of huffing and puffing about how we should not question the motives of the OW group. So why is it okay for you to question mine?

All but for the exact words, in this thread you have presented OW wolfs in sheep clothing.

I have presented, in summary form, their more offensive and inappropriate behaviors to the general public (gleaned, I might add, almost entirely from news reports instigated by the OW group and by my personal, first-hand observations of their protest on Temple Square).

I have not accused them of being wolves in sheep's clothing. Those are your words and your conclusions. Don't impute them onto me.

While you are contemplating sacred things and people, your Sisters of OW are very likely "the Lord's Anointed".

Perhaps you should re-consider this claim. As I understand it (I am open to correction/instruction here), in the LDS paradigm the phrase "the Lord's anointed" is fairly specific. I am not sure the OW group will appreciate their supporters using this designation to refer to them (the OW group).

And it for the Lord, via proper Priesthood Authority, to remove such. Until then, well I am sure you get the message about "the Lord's Anointed".

No, I'm afraid I am not getting the message. Are you claiming that Kate Kelly and her compatriots are "the Lord's anointed?" Have they made this claim for themselves? Or are you coming up with it on your own?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

 

 

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.

And in that defence against generic criticism and hypothesizing about motivations (something that Smac is leery of as well, which is why I am always interested in his posts because I know I will get substance), there is no making excuses for what OW is doing wrong.  Their weaknesses are still there and as they have been addressed in the past, they will be addressed again in the future when the conversation heads that way.

[Scott Lloyd]

Whether or not the only choices are between 'sacred' or 'profane' is probably also an issue at the heart of this whole controversy.  

I can see whether there may be a mixture of both.

 

But I'm not understanding what other choices there are. Something is either sacred or it isn't (the definition of profane, as I am applying it here, being not sacred).

[Kenngo1969]

We all need to have a group hug and sing Kumbaya!

 

 

And get in touch with our inner child?

 

Blech!

Ahem!  Well ... Just trying to lighten the mood a bit.

[Calm]

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

Seeking Understanding and Ben were not females last I checked.