We're Baaacckkk! -- Next Ow Action

[VideoGameJunkie]

How about next up trying to get BYU Co ed dorms. Haha

[ksfisher]

If anyone is focusing on who is attending rather than the meeting...well....

 

I have yet to see a feminist who thinks that there should not be all men and all women situations.  The problem we have is that men are allowed into the women's meetings at the general level and ward level without any fuss at all. Tales of women going into priesthood meetings to teach or watch are quite rare.   Women should be just as entitled to men free meetings as men are to women free meetings. So until that little blip is fixed, I don't think men have grounds to complain about women invading their space.

 

If the intent of OW was to go to the priesthood meeting to learn I think we (the church) would be having an entirely different conversation.  However, the intention is would seem to clearly be to further the OW agenda.  The intent of OW changes the spirit of the meeting.  It's divides us into those who support OW and those who don't (and I guess those who haven't noticed).  

 

I very much support the increased role of women in leading the church, but the OW agenda does not seem to be in harmony with the spirit.

 

On another note, I've attended several women's training meetings as a male leader and felt humbled to be there.  The spirit that the female leaders of the church bring to their callings is an example to all.  It's helped me tremendously in my responsibility to assist the female leaders in my stake.  The reason I was in attendance was because I was asked to go as part of fulfilling my calling.  I was invited.

[guerreiro9]

Quickest way to diffuse the situation:

 

Re-name the session to the General Men's meeting.

 

Explicitly state that all are allowed to attend a streaming broadcast, but that women are encouraged to watch from home when possible to allow for a gathering of men.

 

Remind all of the parallel General Women's meeting which all are allowed to attend, but men are encouraged to watch from home when possible to allow for a gathering of women.

 

Go on with our lives....

 

-guerreiro9

[Calm]

Priesthood is authority to act for God, no? Is Heavenly Mother something less than God? Does she not hold authority? I would assume authority is nothing more than God's sanctioning to do what He needs done.

There may be more than one form of authority….such as civil and military authority in a government.

Edited September 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[slamarwi]

One has to ask, what is the ultimate goal for OW? 

[emarkp]

One has to ask, what is the ultimate goal for OW? 

 

It's not obvious?  It's to tear down the church and remake it to their liking. Listen to any interview with whats-her-name.

[Storm Rider]

We used to fill up the cultural hall during Priesthood Sessions.  The first time the session was streamed online we didn't even fill up the chapel. 

 

So I guess the real question is what will the OW do if they show up and it's only them and a few other men?  Will they stay and watch the whole two hour session, or leave?

 

We used to go as fathers and sons to listen to the priesthood session and then afterward go out for dinner together or for ice cream.  All this will do is ensure that we don't go to church to listen with the other brethren, but invite people to the house, listen together and have a potluck at home.  It works out well.  

 

If these....individuals feel compelled to attend another meeting when they can watch it at home, go for it.  It will at least let the leadership know where problems are. 

[BCSpace]

Good news, bad news!

 

OW will NOT be assembling en masse at Temple Square to try to gain admittance to the priesthood session.  Instead, OW members will be attending their local priesthood sessions at stake centers across the world.

 

http://ordainwomen.org/next-action-october-priesthood-session/

 

Damn, I love these women!

 

Gluttons for punishment I'd say. Priesthood session is not directed at women. How boring is would that be?

[Rain]

One has to ask, what is the ultimate goal for OW?

I was just thinking I would love for someone to ask them why they want to attend. Serious question.

[why me]

Good news, bad news!

 

OW will NOT be assembling en masse at Temple Square to try to gain admittance to the priesthood session.  Instead, OW members will be attending their local priesthood sessions at stake centers across the world.

 

http://ordainwomen.org/next-action-october-priesthood-session/

 

Damn, I love these women!

There is not reason for them to give up. But this tactic is far less revolutionary than demonstrating on temple square. I suppose mormonnewb it comes down to one thing: does a member of the church believe in revelation or not. It seems that many of these women do not because they are attempting to use social pressure. I suppose that if you support these women you can have your own protest by exclaiming during the conference in your own stake center that women should hold the priesthood. Eventually, we should stand for what we believe regardless of the outcomes.

[why me]

One has to ask, what is the ultimate goal for OW? 

The ultimate goal is to destroy the church by showing that the church bows to social pressure. Does one really believe that an apostate would return to church if women received the priesthood? It would just confirm that they made the right choice in leaving. One must see the reasons behind the support. I know that if I were an apostate I would be among them hoping that the church would bow to our pressure. I would then go to the post and ex sites and exclaim our victory in proving the church false by showing that it is just run by men and not by god. It is always good to see the possible motive behind the action and why certain people support the organization.

Edited September 18, 2014 by why me

[Stargazer]

So what. It's exclusionary. We could exclude non-members from attending if we wanted to but why?

Yes- Moral High Ground, ie acting as Christ would act. Christ would not exclude the women from a meeting they wanted to attend. The priesthood impacts every person, whether male or female so the women do have a natural interest. So we prevent them from attending? Why tell them to go watch it at home. That's just rude and unnecessary.

 

You appear to be quite confident about what Christ would or would not have done.  If I recall correctly, and I do, the Lord never called any woman to any office in the priesthood.  All the apostles were men.  The Church that the apostles led had a male-only priesthood.  So with these facts, how would you know that the Lord would never exclude a woman from a meeting?  Just because you think it's exclusionary?

 

There is and there will always be a lot of exclusion.  Those who rejected Christ's Father-chosen Plan of Salvation lost their first estate and were excluded from ever receiving physical bodies. Those who achieved the Second Estate, but who reject a Terrestrial Law will be excluded from the Terrestrial Kingdom.  Those who reject the Christ will be excluded from the Celestial Kingdom.  Those worthy of the Celestial Kingdom but who reject eternal marriage will be excluded from Exaltation.

You state correctly that women will eventually hold and exercise the priesthood. But that will occur only after they are Exalted, after they and their husbands have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will respect and live by the authority of God. Those who reject that authority, as they of OW are in fact doing, will lose that exaltation. Unless they repent.

[Stargazer]

I'm confused.

 

Which is it?  Will women hold the priesthood, or do they hold the priesthood?  One is saying that it will happen in the future, and the other says it's already happened.  I'm not seeing how both statements can be true at the same time.

Of course women hold the priesthood. They even exercise it at certain times and places. I assume you've been endowed. Answer this question, then: who performed the ordinances associated with your washing and anointing?

[mormonnewb]

The ultimate goal is to destroy the church by showing that the church bows to social pressure. Does one really believe that an apostate would return to church if women received the priesthood? It would just confirm that they made the right choice in leaving. One must see the reasons behind the support. I know that if I were an apostate I would be among them hoping that the church would bow to our pressure. I would then go to the post and ex sites and exclaim our victory in proving the church false by showing that it is just run by men and not by god. It is always good to see the possible motive behind the action and why certain people support the organization.

 

Was the goal of the few saints who were urging the Church to change its stance on blacks and the priesthood to destroy the Church?  If so, they chose a funny way to go about it.  By imploring the Brethren to seek additional revelation, they made it possible for me and countless others to join the Church because there is no way that I would have joined this Church as a second-class citizen.

 

Perhaps, the Church's current "destroyers" have the same agenda -- to make the Church palatable to countless women who would otherwise reject joining a church (or are leaving a church) in which they do not have the same ecclesiastic authority routinely granted to 12-year-old BOYS.  Just a thought ...

[Stargazer]

The ultimate goal is to destroy the church by showing that the church bows to social pressure.

I actually don't think that is what they intend. It is however, the likely unintended consequence.

 

Does one really believe that an apostate would return to church if women received the priesthood? It would just confirm that they made the right choice in leaving.

You're right that for some apostates their choice in leaving would be confirmed.

But that greatly depends upon the apostate, does it not? If OW got its way, there might be some who return. But their expectation would then be that they could agitate for whatever changes they felt were needed, and then one of two things might happen: 1) the apostates would end up running the place, or 2) the Church would never respond again to social agitation and the apostates would leave again.

 

One must see the reasons behind the support. I know that if I were an apostate I would be among them hoping that the church would bow to our pressure. I would then go to the post and ex sites and exclaim our victory in proving the church false by showing that it is just run by men and not by god. It is always good to see the possible motive behind the action and why certain people support the organization.

There are some who would be relieved to "discover" that the Church is just the same as any other, and they would stay for that reason. But the Church would have lost any moral authority it might have had for them. Those who didn't like being told to keep the WoW would ignore inconvenient things like the Word of Wisdom, the principle of Tithing, or the Law of Chastity. Just think, we could have collection plates in Sacrament meeting! What fun! If you didn't like your bishop or stake president, well, just attend in a different ward or stake, where the leaders are less exercised about little details like who is sleeping with whom!

We could become just like the Community of Christ (former RLDS Church)! Wouldn't that be grand?

Edited September 18, 2014 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

Was the goal of the few saints who were urging the Church to change its stance on blacks and the priesthood to destroy the Church?  If so, they chose a funny way to go about it.  By imploring the Brethren to seek additional revelation, they made it possible for me and countless others to join the Church because there is no way that I would have joined this Church as a second-class citizen.

 

Perhaps, the Church's current "destroyers" have the same agenda -- to make the Church palatable to countless women who would otherwise reject joining a church (or are leaving a church) in which they do not have the same ecclesiastic authority routinely granted to 12-year-old BOYS.  Just a thought ...

The Brethren were contemplating and discussing the matter among themselves well before there were any but the few black members asking them to reconsider the policy/doctrine, whichever it was.

And there were faithful black members who considered their pride far less important than sustaining God's chosen Prophet, regardless of their personal disappointment. Do you think that the Lord will not honor them for their faithfulness? Or will He rather consider them Uncle Toms?

There were large self-organized LDS congregations in Nigeria, Ghana and Ivory Coast well prior to the 1978 revelation. All of them recognized the authority of God's prophet in Salt Lake City. Despite the fact that, as some or many of them must have known that they could not hold the priesthood. Just as there were blacks in Apartheid-ridden South Africa who were faithful members of the Church, and who suffered themselves to be led by white priesthood holders in their own wards and branches (since Apartheid made it difficult for both white and black LDS to meet together). There were all these faithful members who bore with an uncomfortable situation, unable to lead their own congregations, while you, who have all the advantages they lacked, would have rejected Christ's restored Church just because He wouldn't permit you to lead in it?

Oh, and one of the greatest driving forces causing the Brethren to importune the Lord for a change was the aforementioned self-organized black congregation leaders in Africa writing SLC begging them to send missionaries. Not the self-important boat-rockers and ark-steadiers in the US whose primary concern was causing trouble and seeking publicity. Which rather reminds of OW.

When I say "He wouldn't permit you to lead in it," I say it not because He didn't want you to lead in it, but because He did not tell the FP and Q12 to change the policy until, apparently, He was good and ready to do so. Since I've been a member (1966) I've wanted the priesthood restriction removed. The only difference between you and me on that score is this: I was willing to wait until it was the Lord's will that it be done away with.

The problem with OW is that they are not content to "wait upon the Lord". They are in full-out rebellion against the Lord because they want their way, and they want it NOW. I seem to recall something about a War in Heaven that happened some time ago. I was there, I just don't remember any details. But the actions of OW have the same flavor.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Stargazer

[Calm]

One has to ask, what is the ultimate goal for OW?

Mission statement:

 

The fundamental tenets of Mormonism support gender equality: God is male and female, father and mother, and all of us can progress to be like them someday. Priesthood, we are taught, is essential to this process.  Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings.

Last year the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed its commitment to equality: “The Book of Mormon states, ‘black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God’ (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.” Ordain Women embraces this statement. We are committed to work for equality and the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

Based on the principle of thoughtful, faith-affirming strategic action, Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormon women to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood. We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer.

Usually what follows "must" in a mission statement is either something that leads to the ultimate goal or the ultimate goal itself.

[Boanerges]

I do not see it causing much of a stir at the local level as there is always plenty of seating, unlike at the conference center.

 The conference center is not filled during the priesthood session.

[HappyJackWagon]

"BTW Christ restricted things all the time."

Christ broke down many cultural norms that were considered "pure religion" because in reality they were the creations of men, not God. Woman taken in adultery, Good Samaritin etc. Can you help me remember WHEN Christ restricted anyone from listening to him or his apostles?

How do I know that women will/do have the priesthood at some point, whether in this life or the next? Simple. The temple teaches this in the initiatory, sealing and endowment. And of course with the second annointing, it seems pretty clear that women, if they don't hold priesthood office now, will.

[Storm Rider]

"BTW Christ restricted things all the time."

Christ broke down many cultural norms that were considered "pure religion" because in reality they were the creations of men, not God. Woman taken in adultery, Good Samaritin etc. Can you help me remember WHEN Christ restricted anyone from listening to him or his apostles?

How do I know that women will/do have the priesthood at some point, whether in this life or the next? Simple. The temple teaches this in the initiatory, sealing and endowment. And of course with the second annointing, it seems pretty clear that women, if they don't hold priesthood office now, will.

 

Do we need to list all the times he moved the apostles away from the crowds so he could talk to them alone?  How about the Mt. of Transfiguration; hmm, how many examples do you want?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do we need to list all the times he moved the apostles away from the crowds so he could talk to them alone?  How about the Mt. of Transfiguration; hmm, how many examples do you want?

He also spoke of it generally, to not cast pearls before swine.

[stemelbow]

There may be more than one form of authority….such as civil and military authority in a government.

Sure. So is another form something other than priesthood? And then we must ask, well what is authority that God has granted to us?

[stemelbow]

It's not obvious?  It's to tear down the church and remake it to their liking. Listen to any interview with whats-her-name.

How would ordaining women tear down the church? Extending priesthood to another group of people has happened before and the Church wasn't torn down in the process.

[stemelbow]

Do we need to list all the times he moved the apostles away from the crowds so he could talk to them alone?  How about the Mt. of Transfiguration; hmm, how many examples do you want?

Is the general membership of men equal to the apostles? The apostles and first presidency meet alone too.

[smac97]

A few thoughts:

 

1. I have no problem with sisters attending the Priesthood Session to listen.  I do have a problem with sisters (or anyone else, for that matter) attending in order to protest, to disrupt and distract from the meeting.  It's a low-grade protest, but it's a protest nonetheless, and hence disruptive and offensive to the Spirit.  If a group of men made a corollary announcement regarding their intent to insist on attending the Women's Session as a form of protest, I would find that inappropriate as well.

 

2. Kate Kelly and the OW group has openly defied the Church and have encouraged their followers to "raise hell" in the Church.  I am concerned that low-grade protests such as this are but opening salvos.  Today we have folks planning to disrupt the Priesthood Session of General Conference.  There are all sorts of ways this sort of thing can expand.

• Wards in our stake have PEC meetings (Priesthood Executive Committee) every other week.  Are these meetings going to be crashed?  
• What about stake priesthood meetings?  Are the OW folks going to invite themselves to attend High Council meetings?  Ward- or stake-level disciplinary councils (where they are not the subject of the council, but are there to demonstrate/protest)?  
• What about priesthood meetings during the three-hour block?  Are we going to start hearing about women attending the Elders Quorum or High Priests Group, designating themselves as "prospective / potential elders" or "prospective / potential high priests?"  
• Are adherents to the OW movement going to have sister missionaries change their name tags from "Sister Johnson" to "Elder Johnson" (using the same "we're not protesting, we're demonstrating our faith" rationale the OW group has used to defy the Church vis-à-vis protesting on Temple Square)?
• What about unauthorized ordinations and unauthorized priesthood ordinances?  This has happened before in the Church.  When I was a missionary in Taiwan I encountered an apostate fellow who was traveling the island as a self-appointed missionary, evangelizing and baptizing (although I think he only succeeded in baptizing his wife and children).  Douglas Wallace is another example of this (he ordained a black man to the priesthood in 1976).  In fact, I would not be surprised to see Douglas Wallace used as an example/justification for OW folks engaging in unauthorized ordinations and unauthorized priesthood ordinances.
• What about disrupting temple worship?  I know that sounds way out of bounds, but then so did the idea of Latter-day Saints trespassing and protesting on Temple Square just a year ago.

From the Trib article on this subject: "After all, a year ago, officials in the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a letter to all its local leaders, saying that if women came to a stake center and asked to be admitted, the male leaders were 'to inform them that the meeting is for men and that men are invited to attend.'  However, Mormon meetinghouses 'should be places of peace, not contention,' the letter went on, so if women 'become insistent' about entering the priesthood session 'to the point that their presence would be disruptive, please allow them to enter and view the conference.'"  So I think we can anticipate some "insistence" in terms of attending the Priesthood Session.  The question now is how strong and how pervasive and expansive these notions of "insistence" will become in other church venues.

 

3. I find it ironic that the very people who are demanding to be ordained to priesthood authority are the same people who have openly defied and disrespected that authority when it suits them.  For example, what a singularly poor priesthood leader Kate Kelly would be.  Who on earth would sustain a priesthood leader who has publicly denigrated her own priesthood leaders, calling them "cowardly" and "unchristlike," threatening to sue her stake president, etc.?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac