The Ongoing Impact Of Ordain Women

[sethpayne]

Straw men are useful sometimes. I don't think that Ray thinks that what he said is fake. That is you imposing that on to him. He was basically saying that he doesn't care for what JD says even if it is true.

 

Hmmm..... am I being hyperbolic?  Yes.  But was ray dismissing the information based *solely* on the source.  Sure sounds like it.

 

Pardon me if I don't put much credence in anything from this source.

 

 

So if JD said water is H20, I guess we can't trust it.

 

As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Edited August 14, 2014 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

Yep, I know... the fact that women were invited to pay in GC for the first time after the petition was submitted was just coincidence.  It was already scheduled to happen.

 

And the opening up of priesthood session to be watched live at home had nothing to do with the OW request.

 

And pictures of the female leaders would have appeared on the walls of the conference center even without the publicity brought about by these groups.

 

Amazing coincidences but it is simply evidence that the Church was way ahead of all of these complaints.

 

As I said before, there is absolutely no way that Church leadership would ever be influenced by the complaints of members.  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hmmm..... am I being hyperbolic?  Yes.  But was ray dismissing the information based *solely* on the source.  Sure sounds like it.

 

 

So if JD said water is H20, I guess we can't trust it.

 

As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

That is not what I am saying. What it is is a case of not the message but the messenger. He is not even saying anything is false.

 

I don't care for MSNBC at all. I think they tell things that are true but I don't watch them. Why? Is it because I think everything they say is fake? That would be your take on it. Think about it for a few.

[rockpond]

Amazing coincidences but it is simply evidence that the Church was way ahead of all of these complaints.

 

As I said before, there is absolutely no way that Church leadership would ever be influenced by the complaints of members.  

 

Yep... the Church was way *ahead* of the complaints (even though the changes took place *after* the complaints).    

[CV75]

Do you really think the Church had this survey prepared before OW began making noise?

 

Yep, I know...

Both the Church and OW share a common experience with the issues at hand and approach them differently. This does not mean they are the cause of each others' responses. The Church's activities are not dependent on OW's recent activities any more than OW's activities are dependent on anything recent change in the Church's activities. The survey is as much a part of a grander approach as was the waiting-in-line-for-the-priesthood-session. and neither was a reaction to any new, specific action by either party.

[sethpayne]

That is not what I am saying. What it is is a case of not the message but the messenger. He is not even saying anything is false.

 

I don't care for MSNBC at all. I think they tell things that are true but I don't watch them. Why? Is it because I think everything they say is fake? That would be your take on it. Think about it for a few.

 

I understand your view but let's take a closer look at what Ray said:

 

Pardon me if I don't put much credence in anything from this source.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credence  :  mental acceptance as true or real

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anything :  a thing of any kind

 

So let's be more verbose:

 

Pardon me if I don't accept as true or real a thing of any kind from this source.

 

I didn't see any qualifications.  Seemed like a blanket statement, no?  Ray does not accept as true or real a thing of ANY kind from this source.  Well, these pictures are certainly "a think of any kind" and Ray has told us he doesn't accept anything from JD as "true or real."  Therefore, these screenshots are seen as untrue or unreal because they were sourced from JD.

 

Am I being quite literal?  Yes.  But I don't think I'm being unreasonable in how I'm reading Ray's comment.

[rockpond]

Both the Church and OW share a common experience with the issues at hand and approach them differently. This does not mean they are the cause of each others' responses. The Church's activities are not dependent on OW's recent activities any more than OW's activities are dependent on anything recent change in the Church's activities. The survey is as much a part of a grander approach as was the waiting-in-line-for-the-priesthood-session. and neither was a reaction to any new, specific action by either party.

 

Really?  You can look at this image:  http://mormonstories.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/LDSSURVEY1.jpg and tell me that the church is not reacting to the current events surrounding the OW movement?

[sethpayne]

Both the Church and OW share a common experience with the issues at hand and approach them differently. This does not mean they are the cause of each others' responses. The Church's activities are not dependent on OW's recent activities any more than OW's activities are dependent on anything recent change in the Church's activities. The survey is as much a part of a grander approach as was the waiting-in-line-for-the-priesthood-session. and neither was a reaction to any new, specific action by either party.

 

Wouldn't simple chance imply that the Church would make some of these announcements *before* OW (or others) raised a stink?  It seems very unlikely that the Church would trail public reaction each and every time if it, the Church, were considering these same issues in tandem.

 

Can we prove causality?  Nope.  But I think it strains common sense to think that the issues being raised with the press and on social media have not influenced Church statements, GC prayer givers, and the publication of women leaders in the Ensign.

 

ETA:  I don't think that the Church reacting to the actions/needs of its members is a bad thing in any way whatsoever.  All prophets have relied on both God and man (Paul being a great example) in fulfilling their duties.

Edited August 14, 2014 by sethpayne

[Calm]

Yep, I know... the fact that women were invited to pay in GC for the first time after the petition was submitted was just coincidence.  It was already scheduled to happen.

 

And the opening up of priesthood session to be watched live at home had nothing to do with the OW request.

 

And pictures of the female leaders would have appeared on the walls of the conference center even without the publicity brought about by these groups.

I do believe the middle is a direct result of OW action. Don't know about the pictures as I know the Church has all along been talking to a variety of people on the issues, including a number of self proclaimed feminists, and this may have been motivated by one of those discussions.

Simply because OW was the one the public was aware of doesn't mean it was the only influential voice the leadership might be listening to.

Having women pray in GC had been discussed for a significant time before the All Enlisted (iirc, not OW) group sent the petition or whatever they did. I trust my source among the leadership that I asked that the decision was made prior to the petition being made. I am not saying the Internet discussion and elsewhere had no effect, rather that leaders were looking for ways to improve visibility that would mean something to women and this could be seen as a sensible change. I don't remember and discussion about specfically having women leaders sit in the center but that too is a sensible approach to increasing visibility and I wouldn't be surprised if the suggestion was made in one of the many private conversations going on.

OW definitely had an impact on certain changes, but I know of at least one policy change that was sadly taken off the discussion table because of concern that it would encourage more to use pressure tactics, iow OW may have speeded up some changes but they also slowed thins down.

Would as much notice be given to women's issues if they didn't exist? Would Sharon Eubank's FM presentation be posted on the Mormonnewsroom website? I honestly can't say. We were having talks about such issues back when I was a student eons ago and my view is that they were slowly becoming more and more mainstream and who knows, the cultural dynamics that pushed OW into action may have been sufficient on their own for the positive movement forward as much had already happened (as ive mentioned before, my favourite was changes in allowing women to have endowments without marriage or mission being the cause), but it is impssible to say.

I have seen a lot of negative reaction, but probably mostly from those who weren't involved in the positive It has motivated those of us who are involved to look for better ways to get the conversation expanded since if people remain unaware of what is changing, more radical groups will have greater appeal. It has made it clear that people see a void (though imo many see it as much larger than it actually is due to the cultural habit about not talking about changes or actios until they occur) and are looking for someone to fill it. I really hope the Church becomes better at demonstrating leadership is engaging meaningfully concerns of members in this area. While I believe there are somethings it is good to learn to trust and take on faith that the leadership is aware and addressing those needs as inspired, I see others as being more beneficial to share how this is being done.

[Calm]

Both the Church and OW share a common experience with the issues at hand and approach them differently. This does not mean they are the cause of each others' responses. The Church's activities are not dependent on OW's recent activities any more than OW's activities are dependent on anything recent change in the Church's activities. The survey is as much a part of a grander approach as was the waiting-in-line-for-the-priesthood-session. and neither was a reaction to any new, specific action by either party.

I think there is some interrelated influence (even though OW pretty much rewrote any church action or reaction into their storyline regardless of how the Church presented it, even at times in what appeared to me a completely opposite interpretation to what was said), but definitely not as much as many claim. As you said, there is a much larger, much longer in existence ongoing cultural dynamic acting as a force on both those who created OW and church leaders.

[rockpond]

I do believe the middle is a direct result of OW action. Don't know about the pictures as I know the Church has all along been talking to a variety of people on the issues, including a number of self proclaimed feminists, and this may have been motivated by one of those discussions.

Simply because OW was the one the public was aware of doesn't mean it was the only influential voice the leadership might be listening to.

Having women pray in GC had been discussed for a significant time before the All Enlisted (iirc, not OW) group sent the petition or whatever they did. I trust my source among the leadership that I asked that the decision was made prior to the petition being made. I am not saying the Internet discussion and elsewhere had no effect, rather that leaders were looking for ways to improve visibility that would mean something to women and this could be seen as a sensible change. I don't remember and discussion about specfically having women leaders sit in the center but that too is a sensible approach to increasing visibility and I wouldn't be surprised if the suggestion was made in one of the many private conversations going on.

OW definitely had an impact on certain changes, but I know of at least one policy change that was sadly taken off the discussion table because of concern that it would encourage more to use pressure tactics, iow OW may have speeded up some changes but they also slowed thins down.

Would as much notice be given to women's issues if they didn't exist? Would Sharon Eubank's FM presentation be posted on the Mormonnewsroom website? I honestly can't say. We were having talks about such issues back when I was a student eons ago and my view is that they were slowly becoming more and more mainstream and who knows, the cultural dynamics that pushed OW into action may have been sufficient on their own for the positive movement forward as much had already happened (as ive mentioned before, my favourite was changes in allowing women to have endowments without marriage or mission being the cause), but it is impssible to say.

I have seen a lot of negative reaction, but probably mostly from those who weren't involved in the positive It has motivated those of us who are involved to look for better ways to get the conversation expanded since if people remain unaware of what is changing, more radical groups will have greater appeal. It has made it clear that people see a void (though imo many see it as much larger than it actually is due to the cultural habit about not talking about changes or actios until they occur) and are looking for someone to fill it. I really hope the Church becomes better at demonstrating leadership is engaging meaningfully concerns of members in this area. While I believe there are somethings it is good to learn to trust and take on faith that the leadership is aware and addressing those needs as inspired, I see others as being more beneficial to share how this is being done.

 

Yes, I think multiple efforts/groups have had an impact.  And that's the point -- I think the good men & women who lead our church do listen to concerns of the members.  I see no reason to diminish that.

 

And, I agree with you that some of OW's tactics probably slowed down movement toward their desired objectives.

[Calm]

Wouldn't simple chance imply that the Church would make some of these announcements *before* OW (or others) raised a stink? It seems very unlikely that the Church would trail public reaction each and every time if it, the Church, were considering these same issues in tandem.

Can we prove causality? Nope. But I think it strains common sense to think that the issues being raised with the press and on social media have not influenced Church statements, GC prayer givers, and the publication of women leaders in the Ensign.

ETA: I don't think that the Church reacting to the actions/needs of its members is a bad thing in any way whatsoever. All prophets have relied on both God and man (Paul being a great example) in fulfilling their duties.

The Church doesn't announce who is going to say prayers at conference ahead of time. They stated that those giving prayers and talks had already been chosen at the time of the petition.

One can choose to believe they were lying that the women were chosen to pray before the petition was written and that instead they were secretly altered. Due to who I have talked to about it, I am willing to take the word of the leadership. After all the idea of praying was not unique to All Enlisted even if the wearing pants to church one particular Sunday was. There have been changes going on here and there for a long time. Leadership could hardly not be aware aware that it would be timely to have a very visible change and what could be easier than having a woman pray? Again this was a suggestion that I have seen discussed elsewhere. If I have time, I will try and demonstrate this if you yourself hadn't noticed it among the lists of changes that got published from time yo time long before OW.

Add-on: Here is a blog that repeats a list from FMH from back in 2010...

http://empoweringldswomen.blogspot.com/2010/11/non-doctrinal-changes-to-improve-gender.html

Edited August 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[juliann]

I'm more interested in whoever put in responses to those questions. When you are saying no no no for the entire thing it belongs in studies that throw out the highest and lowest to get to the most unbiased. And defining apostasy as having a different opinion than the church?  Oh, please.  It ceases to be a question of who initiated the conversation to who you can discuss it with.

 

What is good about this is it can no longer be said the church isn't talking to anyone...the bad is we will probably never know the results.

 

There seems to be a concerted effort to show that OW is responsible for everything good that is happening even as they become more irrelevant. But that is not a bad legacy.  They discarded the moderates who are now charging forward and that was OW's fatal mistake, in my opinion. What needs to be done is bring this to "traditional" Mormons, most of whom are largely unaware. That is why I am so excited about Eubank's talk...not so much the content (obviously she can only go so far,) but for the bridge she created from nonscary traditional talk to we need to make some changes. Now we can start talking about these things in RS!  McBaine gives more detail for follow through.

 

This survey is wonderful.

[rockpond]

I think there is some interrelated influence (even though OW pretty much rewrote any church action or reaction into their storyline regardless of how the Church presented it, even at times in what appeared to me a completely opposite interpretation to what was said), but definitely not as much as many claim. As you said, there is a much larger, much longer in existence ongoing cultural dynamic acting as a force on both those who created OW and church leaders.

 

Well put.

[sethpayne]

Well put.

 

Agreed.

[rockpond]

I'm more interested in whoever put in responses to those questions. When you are saying no no no for the entire thing it belongs in studies that throw out the highest and lowest to get to the most unbiased. And defining apostasy as having a different opinion than the church?  Oh, please.  It ceases to be a question of who initiated the conversation to who you can discuss it with.

 

What is good about this is it can no longer be said the church isn't talking to anyone...the bad is we will probably never know the results.

 

There seems to be a concerted effort to show that OW is responsible for everything good that is happening even as they become more irrelevant. But that is not a bad legacy.  They discarded the moderates who are now charging forward and that was OW's fatal mistake, in my opinion. What needs to be done is bring this to "traditional" Mormons, most of whom are largely unaware. That is why I am so excited about Eubank's talk...not so much the content (obviously she can only go so far,) but for the bridge she created from nonscary traditional talk to we need to make some changes. Now we can start talking about these things in RS!  McBaine gives more detail for follow through.

 

This survey is wonderful.

 

I agree... I think that OW really caused the discussion to expand and gain some traction.  I believe OW even brought attention to issues that then resulted in actions within the Church.  And then they pushed it too far and drove off the cliff of irrelevancy (within the Mormon community).  Sad, really.

[sethpayne]

The Church doesn't announce who is going to say prayers at conference ahead of time. They stated that those giving prayers and talks had already been chosen at the time of the petition.

One can choose to believe they were lying that the women were chosen to pray before the petition was written and that instead they were secretly altered. Due to who I have talked to about it, I am willing to take the word of the leadership. After all the idea of praying was not unique to All Enlisted even if the wearing pants to church one particular Sunday was. There have been changes going on here and there for a long time. Leadership could hardly not be aware aware that it would be timely to have a very visible change and what could be easier than having a woman pray? Again this was a suggestion that I have seen discussed elsewhere. If I have time, I will try and demonstrate this if you yourself hadn't noticed it among the lists of changes that got published from time yo time long before OW.

 

I agree with you, Cal.  And I'm absolutely not accusing the Church of lying about GC prayer line-ups.  But you do have to admit that for a non-interested outside observer the timing worked out pretty well.  Of course, it is just as likely that someone got wind of the discussions at the COB and decided to "help" things along with "All Enlisted."  To me, a connection of some kind -- even if not explicit -- is likely to exist.  But a connection in no way implies dishonesty or duplicity.

[Calm]

Yep, I know... the fact that women were invited to pay in GC for the first time after the petition was submitted was just coincidence.  It was already scheduled to happen.

According to reports it was already scheduled to happen.

And it wasn't a coincidence. The same reason why it occurred to All Enlisted that it would be a good idea was probably the same reaon why it occurred to some church leader it was a good idea who then submitted the idea to others. Though the leaders may not have known a petition would be started (and maybe they did, I don't know how public the discussion was so perhaps they saw it was going to happen so did it first), given it had been talked about for years and pushed as an issue and example of the lack of visibility, is it really that hard to imagine that someone noticed the discussion, made a suggestion and it went through the process of approval before the petition got sent?

[rockpond]

According to reports it was already scheduled to happen.

And it wasn't a coincidence. The same reason why it occurred to All Enlisted that it would be a good idea was probably the same reaon why it occurred to some church leader it was a good idea who then submitted the idea to others. Though the leaders may not have known a petition would be started (and maybe they did, I don't know how public the discussion was so perhaps they saw it was going to happen so did it first), given it had been talked about for years and pushed as an issue and example of the lack of visibility, is it really that hard to imagine that someone noticed the discussion, made a suggestion and it went through the process of approval before the petition got sent?

 

You and I have discussed it before and I think that your interpretation of events is likely accurate.

[Calm]

Amazing coincidences but it is simply evidence that the Church was way ahead of all of these complaints.

 

As I said before, there is absolutely no way that Church leadership would ever be influenced by the complaints of members.

Hardly way ahead, but why not slightly ahead? Does it take clairvoyance to figure out that after years of it being discussed as an significant indicator of the lack of visibility of women in the Church that it might be seen as an important change?

[sethpayne]

Hardly way ahead, but why not slightly ahead? Does it take clairvoyance to figure out that after years of it being discussed as an significant indicator of the lack of visibility of women in the Church that it might be seen as an important change?

 

No.  I agree the Church has been thinking about these issues for a while.  I've heard a few things from folks closer to the situation than I am.

 

But I don't think it is unreasonable to think that public pressure accelerated -- or in some cases hampered (as Julie mentioned) -- discussions and public statements from COB.

[Calm]

I agree with you, Cal. And I'm absolutely not accusing the Church of lying about GC prayer line-ups. But you do have to admit that for a non-interested outside observer the timing worked out pretty well. Of course, it is just as likely that someone got wind of the discussions at the COB and decided to "help" things along with "All Enlisted." To me, a connection of some kind -- even if not explicit -- is likely to exist. But a connection in no way implies dishonesty or duplicity.

For those who have no reaon to trust leadership, I don't have an issue if they think they are lying to pretend they were ahead of he curve on this no matter how barely ahead.

I just see it as problematic if it appears members think they are lying (I assume first they are unaware that the Church announced the choices had already been made, but if it appears they knew of this announcement, it troubles me).

And honestly, I want the credit for changes to go to the women and men who have been plugging along for ages in spite of little obvious success at times rather than OW whose claimed founder (Kate Kelly for some reason corrected an interviewer that she was not a cofounder, but the founder) states that she never got involved until her pet project was created, couldn't even be bothered to support All Enlisted by wearing pants one day because she doesn't like to wear them. There are undoubtedly women and men in OW that have been at this for ages and they should be applauded, but the ones who jumped on it as the cause of the moment....it just bugs me to see them claiming glory for hard efforts and suffering in comparison to those who have been slogging for decades.

Edited August 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

You and I have discussed it before and I think that your interpretation of events is likely accurate.

Thank you. I was confused earlier by the way you stated things in connection with OW. It would seem you are using them as a catch all for those pushing for changes. Am I correct?

(for some reason I missed some posts and thought earlier posts of yours and seth's were actually later ones and I responded to them as if they were, essentially repeating myself after you had actually agreed with me, my apologies if it looks like I was harassing you.)

Edited August 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[CV75]

Really?  You can look at this image:  http://mormonstories.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/LDSSURVEY1.jpg and tell me that the church is not reacting to the current events surrounding the OW movement?

It was that image from your OP that I responded to originally. Listing the same old list of examples and reposting the same images doesn’t offer any deeper insight into your argument.

 

Maybe I can go a little deeper: The image represents a very small part of a much larger picture. The Church had been dealing with women’s issues for years. Some who became impatient with the Church’s progress on them reacted through OW and then pushed the envelope on doctrine and behavior. The Church continues to respond to members’ doctrinal needs and behavioral expectations in various ways. Without OW doing what OW did/does, I’m sure the issue(s) it champions would inevitably have come to a head as most social pressure does, and there would have been Church action to promote the involvement of women, including follow-up surveys. For example, this was the case when the US economy went south and the employment program was assessed through focus groups and so forth—quite proactively as well as in follow-up.

Wouldn't simple chance imply that the Church would make some of these announcements *before* OW (or others) raised a stink?  It seems very unlikely that the Church would trail public reaction each and every time if it, the Church, were considering these same issues in tandem.

 

Can we prove causality?  Nope.  But I think it strains common sense to think that the issues being raised with the press and on social media have not influenced Church statements, GC prayer givers, and the publication of women leaders in the Ensign.

 

ETA:  I don't think that the Church reacting to the actions/needs of its members is a bad thing in any way whatsoever.  All prophets have relied on both God and man (Paul being a great example) in fulfilling their duties.

Common sense is not the same as popular sense; I think I am using the former and you the latter. Both have a place, common sense one of the bases for slow change and popular sense one of the bases for abrupt change. Then there is spiritual sense, something else altogether.

 

Neither OW nor the Church operates in a vacuum; they breathe the same air and face the same issues. OW reacted to the Church (not so much for what it did but for how long it was taking), which Church had been organized in its means to address women’s issues a lot longer that OW was.

[Darren10]

Did I say anywhere that he has a bad hairdo?

LOL!