New Ow Discussion # 6 - Be The Change

[cinepro]

They are already teaching an equal partnership. How would adding a man should listen to the counsel of his wife change anything? He is supposed to be doing that now.

 

No where in the Temple are the words "equal" and/or "partnership" used.

 

It's great that the wife only has to "hearken" to the husband as long as he is "hearkening" to God's counsel (i.e. acting righteously).  But that isn't an "equal partnership".

 

As far as I can tell, this is what is taught in the Temple as far as the line of "authority" goes for the family:

 

 

As far as I can tell, what OW is hoping for is something more like this:

 

 

Obviously, the wife still has a direct line to God for personal revelation.  This is an organizational chart showing "authority".

Edited August 1, 2014 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

Seems circular, but fair enough.

 

So, if the Brethren feel inspired to make the change that OW is requesting, it means that it is part of the presentation and not the endowment.

I look at arguments and cases that can be made for and against them.  That is the way my mind works.

 

From a philosophical argumentation point of view, the distinction between the presentation of the endowment and the endowment itself is a giant loophole in the argument which allows them to define it anyway they like.

 

That is the structure of the argument.  It doesn't matter if it is IRS tax code, or church doctrine, a loophole is a loophole.

[rockpond]

I look at arguments and cases that can be made for and against them.  That is the way my mind works.

 

From a philosophical argumentation point of view, the distinction between the presentation of the endowment and the endowment itself is a giant loophole in the argument which allows them to define it anyway they like.

 

That is the structure of the argument.  It doesn't matter if it is IRS tax code, or church doctrine, a loophole is a loophole.

 

Okay... well it was you who made the distinction in post #12 when you said:  "The endowment has not been changed.  The PRESENTATION of the endowment has been."  I was just trying to clarify how you defined the difference between endowment and presentation.

[mfbukowski]

That would be a huge change, and while it might not make you blink, I suspect for most Temple-going LDS (and especially the leadership), it would require big shift in the way the marriage relationship is viewed.

 

That might be a good shift (which is what OW is advocating), but we shouldn't pretend it would be a minor or insignificant shift in Mormon culture and doctrine.

Well I don't know about where you live, but I think you are not that far from me- So Cal somewhere, and hereabouts everyone I know in the church sees women as equal partners with their husbands.

 

I don't see it as much of a shift at all.

[mfbukowski]

Okay... well it was you who made the distinction in post #12 when you said:  "The endowment has not been changed.  The PRESENTATION of the endowment has been."  I was just trying to clarify how you defined the difference between endowment and presentation.

No sir it was not me- THAT is in the endowment if you listen.  That was my point.

 

My point is that there is no way to define it except the way they want to define it.   I guess we are just not communicating.

[JLHPROF]

Okay... well it was you who made the distinction in post #12 when you said:  "The endowment has not been changed.  The PRESENTATION of the endowment has been."  I was just trying to clarify how you defined the difference between endowment and presentation.

 

To me, the presentation is the theatrical portion, although even that contains parts of the endowment proper.  The Endowment to me is exactly that - the knowledge or blessings we are endowed with.  This includes the items that we are taught, covenant to do, have given to us, and and are tested upon.

 

Now, which parts were altered in 1990?  Honest answer, both.  The endowment itself has been altered frequently in more than presentation dating back to the 1920's when the first changes to content outside of presentation methods were made.

 

But as long as the changes were by revelation then Joseph's statement that the ordinances were established unchangeable before the earth was even formed becomes unimportant...

Edited August 3, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

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

They're after plausible deniability. They can coyly claim they're not seeking followers, even though in essence that's what they do by taking an advocacy position and promoting small group discussions about it. Edited August 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Here's a report about Kate Kelly's remarks at today's Sunstone Symposium:

LDS officials have said that simply asking about the possible ordination of women to the all-male priesthood is not a problem, but the approach taken by Ordain Women is.

In other words, a question’s "tone" more than its tune is what makes it off-limits for Mormons.

I think this is inaccurate. Kate Kelly was excommunicated for more than her "tone."

 

Yet there is no acceptable tone for LDS leaders since these feminists are challenging the status quo, said several speakers Saturday on the last day of the annual Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City, .

The women, speaking on a panel discussion about "Making History and Challenging Patriarchy in the Digital Age," included Ordain Women founder Kate Kelly, who was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in June for her efforts to push for priesthood.

Panelists agreed that Ordain Women had worked hard to create respectful discussions of the issue, maintaining their support for leaders and asking them to pray about female ordination.

I do not agree with this assessment.

Defying the Church and trespassing and protesting on its sacred property during a sacred convocation was not respectful.

 

Aligning against the Church with an excommunicated apostate was not respectful.

Kate Kelly repeatedly defaming her bishop and stake president to the media was not respectful.

Demanding the priesthood and saying "nothing less will suffice" was not respectful.

Publicly accusing the Church of behavior on par with Jim Crow laws is not respectful.

 

Kate Kelly calling the Church to repentance is not respectful.

 

Kate Kelly encouraging Latter-day Saints to "raise hell" in the Church is not respectful.

 

Kate Kelly threatening to sue her stake president (and likely the LDS Church as well) is not respectful.

 

Much of Kate Kelly's behavior prior to, during and after her excommunication has been profoundly lacking in respect.

The group was "very intentional about tone," Kelly said. "We were trying to set a tone and make an open space for active Mormon women … and for those who were no longer LDS."

Wow. So much for the conjecture on this board about Kate Kelly being tone deaf, boneheaded in her tactics, etc. All debate about that seems to be swept away by her statement that her group has been "very intentional about (its) tone."

In April and October, the women walked quietly to Temple Square in Salt Lake City to ask for standby tickets to the all-male priesthood session of the faith’s General Conference. They dressed in Sunday best, carried no signs, chanted no slogans. They were turned away each time — in the fall after being asked by LDS public-relations officials not to enter Temple Square.

To the church, respectful meant deferential, Kelly said, and, no matter how they voiced their concerns, participants in the Ordain Women movement were not perceived as adequately submissive to authority figures.

Janice Allred, who was excommunicated in 1995 for her writings, argued that the faith’s structure doesn’t allow for such concerns to reach the highest authorities.

"There are no proper channels to petition for rights," she said. "There is no way to address systemic problems in the LDS Church."

I would like to see more clarification about Church members expressing concerns about the Church, and the appropriate mechanism to do so.

These remarks seem to demonstrate that Kate Kelly and her ilk view the Church as akin to a government and its leaders as elected officials answerable to their constituencies. I don't think that is an accurate or workable view of the Church.

Women’s tone can cut another way, too, said panelist Nancy Ross, who heads the social media committee for Ordain Women.

She said Mormon women often use an infantilizing way of speaking in public — adopting a so-called Primary voice that is most often associated with children — even when addressing adults and mature topics.

"It’s a voice you do not respect, but look down on," Ross said. "It’s one you do not want to use."

Adopting that Primary voice is one more way, she said, women have been demeaned and disrespected in a church run by men.

I am not familiar with this "Primary voice."

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

Here's a report about Kate Kelly's remarks at today's Sunstone Symposium:

I think this is inaccurate. Kate Kelly was excommunicated for more than her "tone."

 

I do not agree with this assessment.

Defying the Church and trespassing and protesting on its sacred property during a sacred convocation was not respectful.

 

Aligning against the Church with an excommunicated apostate was not respectful.

Kate Kelly repeatedly defaming her bishop and stake president to the media was not respectful.

Demanding the priesthood and saying "nothing less will suffice" was not respectful.

Publicly accusing the Church of behavior on par with Jim Crow laws is not respectful.

 

Kate Kelly calling the Church to repentance is not respectful.

 

Kate Kelly encouraging Latter-day Saints to "raise hell" in the Church is not respectful.

 

Kate Kelly threatening to sue her stake president (and likely the LDS Church as well) is not respectful.

 

Much of Kate Kelly's behavior prior to, during and after her excommunication has been profoundly lacking in respect.

Wow. So much for the conjecture on this board about Kate Kelly being tone deaf, boneheaded in her tactics, etc. All debate about that seems to be swept away by her statement that her group has been "very intentional about (its) tone."

I would like to see more clarification about Church members expressing concerns about the Church, and the appropriate mechanism to do so.

These remarks seem to demonstrate that Kate Kelly and her ilk view the Church as akin to a government and its leaders as elected officials answerable to their constituencies. I don't think that is an accurate or workable view of the Church.

I am not familiar with this "Primary voice."

Thanks,

-Smac

I would like to see them accuse Sheri Dew of having a "Primary voice".  

[smac97]

I would like to see them accuse Sheri Dew of having a "Primary voice".

Hah! That's exactly the same thought I had.

This claim about a "Primary voice" reeks of contempt for women who speak in Church meetings.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

    

 

So just what kind of statement is she making with this dress?

[Calm]

That she likes bright colours and strong stripes.

[smac97]

 

So just what kind of statement is she making with this dress?

Dunno. I'd rather we focus on her verbal/written statements, rather than her perceived sartorial ones.

Thanks,

-Smac

[VideoGameJunkie]

Will she try harder now that she's been excommunicated or will she lighten up?

[JAHS]

Dunno. I'd rather we focus on her verbal/written statements, rather than her perceived sartorial ones.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hmm. I learned a new word today: sartorial.  Thanks

[Tacenda]

Dbl post

Edited August 3, 2014 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

I went to the Sunstone Symposium today, had time for only a couple of sessions and caught one with Kate Kelly. She's a very likeable person. I told her in the restroom afterward that she did a good job. Wish I had the nerve to just talk , I could have asked questions and shared what she said here.

[bluebell]

    

 

So just what kind of statement is she making with this dress?

 

I like the dress.  It's pretty.  

[bluebell]

Hah! That's exactly the same thought I had.

This claim about a "Primary voice" reeks of contempt for women who speak in Church meetings.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

While some women who speak in GC do tend to use a more immature way and soft tone of expressing their thoughts (hence the term 'primary voice'), the problem with making that an issue is exactly what you have stated here-she just threw all those women under the bus.  

 

Not only did she make it plain that they are wrong to use that voice (something i'm sure they are not doing on purpose) but she has said that she and others look down on women who do.  

 

And it's also a bit ironic given that the panel is upset that their 'tone' is being maligned but try to make that argument by maligning other women's tone.

[Tacenda]

While some women who speak in GC do tend to use a more immature way and soft tone of expressing their thoughts (hence the term 'primary voice'), the problem with making that an issue is exactly what you have stated here-she just threw all those women under the bus.  

 

Not only did she make it plain that they are wrong to use that voice (something i'm sure they are not doing on purpose) but she has said that she and others look down on women who do.  

 

And it's also a bit ironic given that the panel is upset that their 'tone' is being maligned but try to make that argument by maligning other women's tone.

That's funny you mentioned the "Primary" voice.  I kept thinking, while at the Symposium, how I really like that soft tone, even the male leaders of the church have it.  It is sort of a reverent voice.  I listened to a panel talk that were of other faiths, about church discipline.  And kept comparing them with some of our LDS leader's mannerisms and soft spoken tones, but it may be just what I'm use to and what I've grown up with.   

[bluebell]

That's funny you mentioned the "Primary" voice. I kept thinking, while at the Symposium, how I really like that soft tone, even the male leaders of the church have it. It is sort of a reverent voice. I listened to a panel talk that were of other faiths, about church discipline. And kept comparing them with some of our LDS leader's mannerisms and soft spoken tones, but it may be just what I'm use to and what I've grown up with.

I don't think there's a thing wrong with preferring that kind of tone.

It's probably fine not to like it either.

I think the problem is when someone decides that they can dismiss a woman speaker because they don't like her voice.

When the church talked about the tone of OW, I don't believe for a second they were referring to the way their voices sounded or the inflection they used when they spoke.

[JLHPROF]

That's funny you mentioned the "Primary" voice.  I kept thinking, while at the Symposium, how I really like that soft tone, even the male leaders of the church have it.  It is sort of a reverent voice.  I listened to a panel talk that were of other faiths, about church discipline.  And kept comparing them with some of our LDS leader's mannerisms and soft spoken tones, but it may be just what I'm use to and what I've grown up with.   

 

At my house we refer to it as "prayer voice", and we consider it to be an offputting false affectation that is permanently adopted by many who want to appear reverent and righteous.  They want to personify the "still small voice".

 

But based on scripture and records the prophets of God were not softspoken.  The trend started around the turn of the century somewhere with the advancement of audio technology.

Joseph, Brigham, John, even the Savior all spoke to multitudes with no electronic aid and their voices carried.  Some were said to have voices of thunder, or to be like roaring lions.  Prayer voice doesn't = righteous.  It just means we now have microphones.

[wenglund]

    

 

So just what kind of statement is she making with this dress?

 

Are you referring to the circus tent motif as a metaphor for her PR campaign?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

I would like to see them accuse Sheri Dew of having a "Primary voice".  

 

They'd probably like to see Sheri Dew actually speak in conference in this century.

[cinepro]

Hah! That's exactly the same thought I had.

This claim about a "Primary voice" reeks of contempt for women who speak in Church meetings.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

If you can't see it, I won't ruin future conference talks by pointing it out to you. 

 

 

Actually, I will.  Listen to any part of this talk.  Pick a few lines, and after she says them, pause the video and then try and repeat them using the exact tone and cadence that she uses.   The closer you can get, the more obvious it will become.  If you have trouble, pretend like you're talking to a three-year-old.  That usually does the trick.

 

And to be fair, some male speakers have a similarly affected delivery (Elder Nelson **cough**),  and some women don't.

Edited August 3, 2014 by cinepro