New Ow Discussion # 6 - Be The Change

[JAHS]

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/OW6BeTheChange_July-1.pdf

 

Notice they changed them from 6 Discussions to 6 Conversations. Gee I wonder why? ;-)

Interesting how they manage to plug in quotes from general authorities to support their position:

 

Some of their suggestions for change:

 

Encouraging partnership in marriage and eliminating the

idea that husbands preside over their wives

 

Inviting women in Church leadership positions to speak

and pray during General Conference in numbers equal to 

the participation of men, including during the Priesthood 

Session

 

Consider further wording changes to temple ceremonies

and ordinances such that both men and women make the 

same covenants and enjoy the same promises

 

Examining all Church positions to determine whether

they can be filled without regard to gender

 

The list goes on.............

Edited August 1, 2014 by JAHS

[VideoGameJunkie]

Not to get into temple content, but they have changed wording in the temple ceremonies from past years to make men and women more equal.

[JLHPROF]

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/OW6BeTheChange_July-1.pdf

 

Consider further wording changes to temple ceremonies

and ordinances such that both men and women make the 

same covenants and enjoy the same promises

 

Joseph Smith: "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles."

 

Isaiah 24:5 "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."

 

Of course that's what an apostate organization would want.

[VideoGameJunkie]

This Ordain Women group won't give up.

[Tiki]

"The Brain That Wouldn't Die" is a great B-thriller.

[VideoGameJunkie]

If they all get excommunicated I bet they still wouldn't give up their cause.

[Yirgacheffe]

Not to get into temple content, but they have changed wording in the temple ceremonies from past years to make men and women more equal.

 

 

Joseph Smith: "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles."

 

Isaiah 24:5 "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."

 

Of course that's what an apostate organization would want.

 

So they have been changed but they can't be can't be changed?

 

[why me]

Interestingly, they have a drawing of a catholic nun at the beginning of the discussion. I wonder why? Of course, the catholic church does not allow women priests.  Nuns are not exactly symbols of women's liberation since they live a very controlled life, at least some orders do. And mother thersa was not a catalyst for the possiblity of women receiving the priesthood in the catholic church.

 

OW put a lot of work into this discussion. The problem is that it really doesn't matter. They still do not understand that such changes acquire a revelation. Their discussions are geared toward convincing women to fight for the priesthood by being the change in the church. But it leaves out the notion of a father in heaven who gives revelation accordingly.

 

So, there discussions don't actually work at all. Since the lds church claims that it is not a man made church but a church that is guided by god, a god who has organized his church, it is god that can change it and not human beings. It is what god wants and not what humans want that matters.

 

Here is mother theresa speaking to priests:

 

http://www.motherteresa.org/11_Priests/YearPr_7m.html

 

I must also say that mother theresa was not fighting for women to become priests. In fact, within her own order there are missionary of charity priests who mainly serve the organization. And of course there are missionary of charity sisters and brothers. Mother Theresa is not a good example of change in the catholic church when it comes to women's ordaination. In fact, it is the priest that can forgive sins in the catholic church as she states in the beginning. Which means that women cannot forgive sins. But mother theresa knew the power of the priesthood in the catholic church and supported male ordination and supported women becoming sisters if called for that vocation.

Edited August 1, 2014 by why me

[readstoomuch]

There have been some changes in the temple between 1981 and today. I have been there.

Are these a compromise for their position in that not of your quotes mentioned ordaining women or is that in the rest of the document?

[Sleeper Cell]

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/OW6BeTheChange_July-1.pdf

 

Notice they changed them from 6 Discussions to 6 Conversations. Gee I wonder why? ;-)

Interesting how they manage to plug in quotes from general authorities to support their position:

 

Some of their suggestions for change:

 

Encouraging partnership in marriage and eliminating the

idea that husbands preside over their wives

 

Inviting women in Church leadership positions to speak

and pray during General Conference in numbers equal to 

the participation of men, including during the Priesthood 

Session

 

Consider further wording changes to temple ceremonies

and ordinances such that both men and women make the 

same covenants and enjoy the same promises

 

Examining all Church positions to determine whether

they can be filled without regard to gender

 

The list goes on.............

 

Sounds great to me.  I have always wanted to be a Relief Society President.

 

Suggestion #2 (require equal numbers of male and female GC speakers) and Suggestion # 4 (determine whether church positions can be filled without regard to gender) seem to be contradictory.   

 

Somehow, I got the impression that when one makes a covenant with God, the terms God proposes are pretty much non negotiable.  Even in those instances where the wording has been changed, it seemed to me to be to be more of a matter of clarification of the meaning of the original wording.   

 

While we are at it, perhaps we should eliminate “gender inequality” from  the scriptures as well, starting with Adam and Eve being given different punishments for committing the same transgression.  

 

OW’s  last suggestion has some merit, except I would substitute the word “priesthood” for “gender.“  I have long advocated examining church positions to determine whether they can be filled without regard to holding the priesthood.  Not as a matter of “gender equality,” but, in large part,  as a way to better understand priesthood.      

Edited August 1, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[bluebell]

OW can do whatever they want with their 6 discussions.  My only complaint was their charge that ward membership lists and bulletins should be used to get the word out about them, and that they be used to actively proselyte among members to the OW agenda.

 

As an aside-their desire that women are represented equally in GC and priesthood meeting makes no sense to me.  First, men are not usually represented equally in women's conferences and that doesn't seem to bother them, and second, given the percentage of women and men GA from which to choose speakers and prayers from, to represent women equally seems like it would actually be a huge inequality in favor of women.  

 

Wouldn't our women leaders need to speak every year if not every single GC instead of once every 8 years or so like most of the male GAs (leaving out the apostles and prophet) to pull that off?

[mfbukowski]

So they have been changed but they can't be can't be changed?

 

The endowment has not been changed.  The PRESENTATION of the endowment has been.

 

The distinction is made clearly in what is said before the endowment begins.  But of course no one actually listens to what is said, after all, it's nap time.

[rockpond]

The endowment has not been changed.  The PRESENTATION of the endowment has been.

 

The distinction is made clearly in what is said before the endowment begins.  But of course no one actually listens to what is said, after all, it's nap time.

 

By that logic, OW is also only asking for the presentation to be changed.

[Kenngo1969]

... But of course no one actually listens to what is said, after all, it's nap time.

 

 

I'm sorry.  Did you say something?

 

[mfbukowski]

By that logic, OW is also only asking for the presentation to be changed.

Well I suppose that is subject to interpretation about how the "Endowment" as an ordinance differs from the presentation.  It's an interesting distinction with far-reaching implications.

 

But gender roles are deeply deeply established in this church- as I personally think they should be- and I don't think that is going to go away.

 

You have to realize that OW represents a tiny, tiny minority of women in the church regardless of the amount of noise they generate, and the attention they get on this board.

 

I know of no one in my stake who actually supports them, or for that matter even has heard of them as far as I can tell.  Arguably at this point, (though I am not advocating this) agreeing with them could in some circles be seen as grounds for getting one's recommend revoked as an "organization opposed to the church".

 

The brethren have a huge ship to turn, and I think they are setting a course to clarify and increase the role of women as much as they can.  But on the other hand there have been a bunch of talks and messages about standing up for "what is right" in a world which is seen as changing in the wrong direction.

 

Clearly the church is distancing itself more and more from "popular morality", or really popular immorality, and entrenching itself more in core doctrines, as far as I can see.

 

I think the church will become a refuge for traditionalists.  Who knows- we may have a new look at that 144,000 number as time goes by. 

 

"Choose the Right" as a slogan becomes more and more a double entendre. 

[rockpond]

Well I suppose that is subject to interpretation about how the "Endowment" as an ordinance differs from the presentation.  It's an interesting distinction with far-reaching implications.

 

But gender roles are deeply deeply established in this church- as I personally think they should be- and I don't think that is going to go away.

 

You have to realize that OW represents a tiny, tiny minority of women in the church regardless of the amount of noise they generate, and the attention they get on this board.

 

I know of no one in my stake who actually supports them, or for that matter even has heard of them as far as I can tell.  Arguably at this point, (though I am not advocating this) agreeing with them could in some circles be seen as grounds for getting one's recommend revoked as an "organization opposed to the church".

 

The brethren have a huge ship to turn, and I think they are setting a course to clarify and increase the role of women as much as they can.  But on the other hand there have been a bunch of talks and messages about standing up for "what is right" in a world which is seen as changing in the wrong direction.

 

Clearly the church is distancing itself more and more from "popular morality", or really popular immorality, and entrenching itself more in core doctrines, as far as I can see.

 

I think the church will become a refuge for traditionalists.  Who knows- we may have a new look at that 144,000 number as time goes by. 

 

"Choose the Right" as a slogan becomes more and more a double entendre. 

 

My point was not whether OW is right or wrong.  I was just pointing out that the endowment has changed.  You said only the presentation has changed.  If that's true in light of the changes we've seen thus far, then what OW is asking for would also fall under a "presentation change" as well.

[wenglund]

With the deep reverence given to the notion of gender equality by OW I am shocked to not to see the following partnership suggestions: 

 

Eliminating the idea that wives get the last say and are always right.

 

Eliminate the idea that since men aren't women they can't rightly speak to or not have much of a say on women's issues.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2014 by wenglund

[Avatar4321]

Suggestion #2 (require equal numbers of male and female GC speakers) and Suggestion # 4 (determine whether church positions can be filled without regard to gender) seem to be contradictory.   

 

 

That would be because they are contradictory:)

[Avatar4321]

I do agree with one thing they are saying, we need to be the change.

 

Not for OW. But for Zion. We need to be stepping up our efforts in building Zion, eliminating our weaknesses through faith and humility, standing for what's right. Etc.

 

It's time we break off the shackles around our necks and get power with our priesthoods and the power of godliness in our lives. So that the Gospel can be proclaimed by the weak and foolish among us with great power from Heaven.

If we do that, and are truly born of God, we will revolutionize the world.

[JAHS]

It appears there are even more "conversations" yet to come. From their website:

 

"It has been suggested that the title “Six Discussions” was ill-conceived, particularly since Ordain Women does not seek members or followers. Rather, it provides a space where Mormons can openly speak about their concerns about gender inequality and hope that the prophet and apostles pray about women’s ordination. The decision to assemble faithful yet thought-provoking discussions was about conversation, not conversion. Since Ordain Women tries to be responsive to legitimate concerns, we have retitled them “Conversations,” and we’ll soon add a seventh compiled by and specifically geared toward men who also hope for the ordination of women. The previous conversations have been updated to reflect these changes."

[bluebell]

It appears there are even more "conversations" yet to come. From their website:

 

"It has been suggested that the title “Six Discussions” was ill-conceived, particularly since Ordain Women does not seek members or followers. Rather, it provides a space where Mormons can openly speak about their concerns about gender inequality and hope that the prophet and apostles pray about women’s ordination. The decision to assemble faithful yet thought-provoking discussions was about conversation, not conversion. Since Ordain Women tries to be responsive to legitimate concerns, we have retitled them “Conversations,” and we’ll soon add a seventh compiled by and specifically geared toward men who also hope for the ordination of women. The previous conversations have been updated to reflect these changes."

 

Are they saying that these conversations are specifically for those who already support ordination of women?

[JAHS]

Are they saying that these conversations are specifically for those who already support ordination of women?

 

It appears so, but rather than just hoping for a change it can result in pulling more and more of these members into acts and attitudes of apostasy.

Edited August 1, 2014 by JAHS

[Buzzard]

My humble take on what OW is up to these days:

 

[bluebell]

It appears so, but rather than just hoping for a change it can result in pulling more and more of theses members into acts and attitudes of apostasy.

 

That is a change.  I wonder if it stems from KK's disciplinary council, and if OW is trying harder not to rock the boat among members and to stay on the right side of the 'apostasy' charge?

[VideoGameJunkie]

The members of OW who are members of the church should think about how important their membership is.