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

[Scott Lloyd]

spencer, is there any reason to NOT CONSIDER an endowed member as the Lords annoited? Aren't we annoited with our endowment?

 

If that's the case, you are applying your own custom-made definition to the Lord's anointed, not the normative one in an LDS context.

 

You are welcome to continue your smear campaign, i think you should just have the hutzpah to own up to it.

 

smac has no obligation to "own up" to your hostile and unjust characterization.

[Scott Lloyd]

Fair enough.  Subtle nuances like that tend to get lost in a medium such as this.  (Which is part of the reason why I think we'd get along famously if we were afforded the opportunity to converse face-to-face ...)

I'm amazed you did not initially recognize my response as being facetious.

[smac97]

spencer, is there any reason to NOT CONSIDER an endowed member as the Lords annoited? Aren't we annoited with our endowment?

You are welcome to continue your smear campaign, i think you should just have the hutzpah to own up to it.

With respect, I decline to pursue this point with you.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Calm]

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.

I agree that it is very consistent…Smac is one of the most consistent and nonhypocritical posters on the board, imo.  He is willing to go the extra mile to find the evidence for his position and doesn't appear to usually drawn conclusions until he has made his observations.  But I also agree his decline to do so helped the conversation to stay in a more unproductive rut when something more positive than pointing fingers might have occurred.

 

I agree with Smac that it is important to defend Church brethren against inappropriate criticism.  I think Juliann does too.  I doubt she founded FAIR and financially supported it in its early years to a great extent (I am tooting her horn on this because she won't) because she wanted to tell others what to do .  I have already told Juliann elsewhere that I disagreed with how far she took that post.  While I am capable of taking it in the context of a myriad of other comments where she has made clear her recognition of the sincerity and good will (and other extremely respectful views) of the Church leaders, given the time and place she chose to say it, it was a mistake to post it.  Even taking into context what I know about her POV, I think she went too far and got careless in her use of words, something that I recognize in myself happening when I feel like I am banging my head against the wall and start using sharper and sharper 'tools' in an attempt to break through and get a glimmer of understanding of just my position, who cares about acceptance of it.  Invariably such methods only make the wall thicker.

 

I recognize that some here will feel I am giving Juliann too much of a benefit of the doubt and if I thought it would be useful to anyone, I would go back and itemize (which was my original plan last night to respond in detail to Smac's detailed appraisal) what and where I thought she veered off the road due to the context of the thread and board and where she veered off no matter who was listening/reading but at this point there is way too much other clutter in the thread and I think it would do no more good than a simple public recognition of disagreement.

Edited June 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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

Oh please….

[Calm]

 I see no contention on this thread but I do see honest discussion….

Another mindblowing post from you...

[Calm]

 

 

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 think we need to be careful not to assume too much of the "animus" is attributed to this one part of the criticism.  For myself, I am only referring to it in a very few posts where I mentioned it.  

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Your "criticism" included name calling - something that I haven't done in referring to OW. If you're going to make accusations of me being demeaning, you need to have solid evidence rather than tenuous rationalizations.

[jwhitlock]

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

 

Straight out of the anti-Mormon playbook. If someone disagrees with you, tell them they're calling you a liar. And then tell them that they're being demeaning.

 

Cal tried to use that tactic and I didn't fall for it. Nor am I going to fall for it from you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Only if they are taken up….

 

Scott, I have been involved in plenty of discussions that have disagreed on the level of just how wrong OW tactics and intents are and they have not involved divisiveness.

 

If there is divisiveness in this thread, it is solely the responsibility of those people who are here.

 

I have not been led by anything OW has done or said to be more lenient in my position towards women getting the Priesthood or anything else.  OW to me has not demonstrated any convincing arguments or otherwise.  The reason I am in here defending against the level the criticism has been taken to is because I am attempting to follow the instruction of our church leadership and especially Sister Todd who so well expressed both her disagreement with OW's purpose while accepting them as the daughters of God that they are.

 

I admit to allowing myself to be less than civil in one case (why me…I don't know why he just pushes my buttons and I should really just put him on ignore, there is a lot of stuff he says I agree with but when we disagree, it tends to be major disagreement), though I haven't said anything I wouldn't say to my own brothers and sisters today if I thought they were being inappropriately overcritical of someone.  I would not be surprised if jwhitlock thinks I have been uncivil to him, but considering how he thinks that what he has written at times has not been demeaning, it would seem we are both seeing each other in ways different than we see ourselves.

I made a careful effort not to take sides in my comment but, rather, express how it saddens me to see people whom I have come to regard highly for their opinions and articulateness of expression manifesting any degree of animosity toward one another.

 

I made my comment about divisiveness, because I rarely see this happening, and I daresay it would not be happening now were it not for the wholly unwise and inflammatory behavior (as distinguished from viewpoints) of the OW movement.

[Calm]

You are the one consistently leading the leading the mob, with pitch fork and torch in hand...

Oh yeah, this is really helpful.  

 

(yes, this was sarcastic)

Edited June 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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

Hate that song.    

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Straight out of the anti-Mormon playbook. If someone disagrees with you, tell them they're calling you a liar. And then tell them that they're being demeaning.

 

Cal tried to use that tactic and I didn't fall for it. Nor am I going to fall for it from you.

Person A: I believe X

Person B: No you don't. You believe Y.

Person A: Are you calling me a liar?

Person B: Of course not. Why are you being such an anit-mormon?

 

So to be clear, you agree with Person B's position and see no problem with it.

 

If you disagree with their tactics. That's fine. That's fair. If you are telling me that you disbelieve their stated motives, that means you think they are either a)lying or b) deluded. This is fine, but it is both demeaning and not productive for discussion.

[Calm]

 

 

Blech!

Edited June 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Their activities seem pretty unpalatable to me, inherently so

 

Would you have us all be ignorant of them?

The OW organization would seem to prefer people know about their activities the amount of work they've put into getting them publicized.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Your "criticism" included name calling - something that I haven't done in referring to OW. If you're going to make accusations of me being demeaning, you need to have solid evidence rather than tenuous rationalizations.

I didn't name call. I just disagreed with you. I described you as "bitter", just as you have described OW as power hungry. Please note that I don't think you are bitter and I don't think OW is power hungry.

[jwhitlock]

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

 

And of course, you don't give any specifics about what I've said, just more subjective generalities. That, of course, has been the problem all along. Rather than telling me how I've demeaned women (and seekingunderstanding is the only one that gave it a try, though it was strained at best) all I get is emotional (re: juliann) responses about how lousy I am. Add that blatant misrepresentations of what I've said, top it off with attributing contrived name calling to me, and for once, senator is actually right.

 

This is no longer a discussion.

 

I don't think it actually ever had the potential to be that way. What I'm seeing is that criticism of OW in any way is verboten. It's off limits - to men. Women can have issues with OW, their methods and tactics, but let a man open his mouth about it and the ranks close tight against the real, patriarchal enemy.

 

See what juliann's accusations bring out in me? And yet I haven't come anywhere close to her denigration of me. Nor do I intend to, despite being dishonestly accused of such. 

[Calm]

Is Seeking Understanding male? I've been careful not to make that assumption, though I admit my mental vision of him/her is male.

Yes…I got that from one of his posts and checked his profile to be sure even though his reasonableness and well thought out posts had previously convinced me he was a woman.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Yes…I got that from one of his posts and checked his profile to be sure even though his reasonableness and well thought out posts had previously convinced me he was a woman.  

Don't tell my wife.

Edited June 3, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Senator]

I agree that it is very consistent…Smac is one of the most consistent and nonhypocritical posters on the board, imo.  He is willing to go the extra mile to find the evidence for his position and doesn't appear to usually drawn conclusions until he has made his observations.  But I also agree his decline to do so helped the conversation to stay in a more unproductive rut when something more positive than pointing fingers might have occurred.

 

Then I do apologize to Smac for those undeserving words.  I was perhaps stretching for words to express my dismay/frustration at what appeared to be a willingness to criticize others' issues while withholding his own.  I actually thought it would instructive to see how he would word a problem he has with the church without it being  worthy of being labeled demeaning, faultfinding, disparaging.

[jwhitlock]

I didn't name call. I just disagreed with you. I described you as "bitter", just as you have described OW as power hungry. Please note that I don't think you are bitter and I don't think OW is power hungry.

 

Try quoting what you actually said: "you are a bitter man who hates uppity women and just wants to oppress them."

 

That's demeaning. I haven't posted anything like that concerning OW.

[Calm]

I'm only familiar with SU from the board but I have had a long association with Ben. He is a consistent defender of the church and one of the most brilliant minds in Mormonism. He always has unique perspectives....I still remember his talk at FAIR in which he found David and Goliath themes in the BOM.  He is being made an offender for a word for refusing to fall in line with an ideology that has lost the ability to explain itself without resorting to finger pointing and shaming.

Yes, I would really like him to get into more detail on how he is using ends justify the means.   I am wondering if he is using it as applied in the Atonement where repentance coupled with the purifying blood of Christ the negative effects of mistakes are removed, the eternal consequences of our sins disappear and such.

[Scott Lloyd]

You have to hurry and let Kenngo know you are kidding, or he will get downcast. I just found that out.

[Calm]

Well, I'd rather be Margaret than Al...assuming I have any say.

For some reason I got a sudden urge to break out into a Paul Simon song

 

(for those who are not familiar with his work:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULjCSK0oOlI&feature=kp )

[Senator]

and for once, senator is actually right.

My life is now complete

What I'm seeing is that criticism of OW in any way is verboten.

Equally verboten it seems, is the criticism in any way of the church's status quo in regards to women's roles on a Mormon themed discussion board.