We're Baaacckkk! -- Next Ow Action

[smac97]

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.

I don't follow. I have never heard of an organized movement involving men insisting on attending, say, the Women's Session of General Conference or weekly Relief Society meetings during the Sunday services. In other words, women do have "men free meetings."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

There is not reason for them to give up. But this tactic is far less revolutionary than demonstrating on temple square.

I think this tactic is far less visible than protesting on Temple Square, but I am not yet persuaded that it is far less revolutionary ("rebellious" would I think be a more appropriate term). That said, I think this will ultimately be far less effective than creating a public spectacle through protests during General Conference sessions in Salt Lake City. I even think those tactics were quickly losing steam, largely because the novelty of seeing Latter-day Saints protest against their own Church and disrupt their own meetings doesn't remain novel very long.

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 think most of this stems from Kate Kelly and her attempt to import the tactics of contemporary social activism into matters of church governance. I think it is not working that well as far as winning the hearts and minds of church members.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

A few thoughts:

I appreciate your thoughts, even if I disagree with some.

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.

If men were treated with less respect than men I'd be all for it. Protest has a purpose sitting behind it. They aren't protesting to protest. They want respect.

 

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)?  

I think their point was clear regarding attending general conference. They want to be treated with the same respect as men. If they can get women ordained then women would be attending these special meetings like the men who get to attend.

• 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.

We'll see in time how big of an issue this becomes. You've given them plenty of ideas to throw around. The problem they face in going the type of route you are talking, they don't have enough supporters it seems to me. If the issue of women being considered less than men, at least in their view, becomes more pervasive, protest more locally might make sense.

 

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

Fair point. But let's not forget that many local priesthood leaders have denigrated their constituents in embarrassing fashion as well. Most often, though, they don't get the public recognition like Kate Kelly did. I'm not trying to defend her attacks though. Those are inexcusable.

[ksfisher]

I don't follow. I have never heard of an organized movement involving men insisting on attending, say, the Women's Session of General Conference or weekly Relief Society meetings during the Sunday services. In other words, women do have "men free meetings."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think what juliann is talking about is a bishop or stake president attending a relief society training meeting.  Or even general authorities speaking at such meetings.

[ksfisher]

I think most of this stems from Kate Kelly and her attempt to import the tactics of contemporary social activism into matters of church governance. I think it is not working that well as far as winning the hearts and minds of church members.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

It may not be working well from a numbers point of view, but it has the potential of sowing seeds of dissension in some hearts.

 

One of the troubling aspects of the OW website, to me, is the number of people who've submitted profiles in which their children are shown.  What are these children going to grow up believing?  It's not difficult to imagine that the feelings of the parents will rub off on many of the children and they will be lost to the church.  The sins of the parents really do fall upon the children.

[smac97]

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.

I do not think the OW group's claims about "imploring the Brethren to seek additional revelation" are made in good faith. They have repeatedly said that they want the priesthood "and nothing less will suffice" (see here, here and here). This is a non-negotiable, my-way-or-the-highway approach which is logically incompatible with concomitant claims that the OW group is "imploring the Brethren to seek additional revelation." For the OW group, it is what Kate Kelly wants, not what the Lord wants, that is determinative.

 

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 Church is unpalatable to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Some people would join but for that pesky Word of Wisdom, or the Law of Chastity, or the Law of Tithing, or serving full-time missions, or serving in the Church for free. The thing is, the principles which have been revealed to us are what make the Church palatable to those who do accept the Restored Gospel, as much as make the Church unpalatable to those who do not. So I think the answer is not to use coercive means to affect change in the Church, as Kate Kelly has done, but to instead seek to affect change through person righteousness, prayer, fasting, "by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned" (D&C 121:41). I see no "persuasion" or "long-suffering" or "gentleness and meekness" or "love unfeigned" in the rebellious and coercive tactics used by Kate Kelly and her accolytes.

At the end of the day, the LDS Church claims to be guided by revelation. It is not a social club to be molded by the dictates of self-appointed folks like Kate Kelly. So while I am certainly open to a revelation expanding priesthood ordination to women, I utterly reject the means and objectives of the OW group. "Nothing less (than what I want) will suffice" is a concept foreign and repugnant to the LDS Church's teachings on revelatory guidance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I don't follow. I have never heard of an organized movement involving men insisting on attending, say, the Women's Session of General Conference or weekly Relief Society meetings during the Sunday services. In other words, women do have "men free meetings."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Except for all the men who preside at the meetings.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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

 

As mentioned before, non member men can attend priesthood session. We are talking about a GENERAL Priesthood meeting. It discusses issues of priesthood. All are impacted by this meeting. They can read it. they can watch it. So why choose one way to exclude them from a meeting they want to participate in? It's nonsensical.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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

 

This is why it is so offensive. You are equating the women to swine.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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.

Women will only receive the priesthood AFTER exaltation? How do you explain the women who are ordained Priestesses and participate in blessing their husbands in the Second Annointing?

[why me]

 

 

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 ...

I would consider the church more palatable if the church would abandon the law of chasity. Or even the word of wisdom. Or giving 10 percent of income. If the church would abandon these princisples, the church would be more palatable to many people. But what to do? The principles are still there. How many investigators lose interest over the 10 percent? Many I am sure. So, your comment is pointless when such comparisons are given.

Edited September 18, 2014 by why me

[smac97]

I appreciate your thoughts, even if I disagree with some.

Thanks!

 

If men were treated with less respect than men I'd be all for it. Protest has a purpose sitting behind it. They aren't protesting to protest. They want respect.

First, having a meeting set apart for women or a meeting set apart for men cannot be reasonably construed as the Church having "less respect" for one gender or another.

Second, protesting church services is inappropriate, regardless of who is doing it.

Third, the OW group has constantly denied that they are "protesting," which is rhetorically and factually dishonest. I'm glad to see that folks like you aren't buying into it.

 

We'll see in time how big of an issue this becomes. You've given them plenty of ideas to throw around.

Nothing I've said required anything more than five minutes of conjecture. Figuring out ways to disrupt LDS meetings is not exactly rocket science.

 

The problem they face in going the type of route you are talking, they don't have enough supporters it seems to me.

Hence their efforts at recruitment (along with their rhetorically dishonest claim that they are not seeking recruits). But what happens if they do get enough supporters? Do they ramp up their game then? And what happens if they start to fade into irrelevancy? Will they resort to even louder and more disruptive tactics to garner the public's dwindling attention? Look at how well the Westboro Baptist folks do using that tactic. Their numbers are tiny, but they attract huge amounts of press by engaging in over-the-top antics. Frankly, I do not think the OW group would go that route. They have already alienated huge swaths of LDS folks, and going over-the-top would likely kill the movement altogether.

 

If the issue of women being considered less than men, at least in their view, becomes more pervasive, protest more locally might make sense.

I don't think the issue is "of women being considered less than men." That's the subjective viewpoint of the OW folks, which is why they tie priesthood ordination to "full equality." But it seems that this is a minority view in the Church, among both women and men.

 

Fair point. But let's not forget that many local priesthood leaders have denigrated their constituents in embarrassing fashion as well.

First, this has not happened in any material, systemic way that I have seen. CFR, if you please.

Second, the tu quoque fallacy is not a persuasive justification. Church members denigrating priesthood leaders is wrong, and priesthood leaders publicly denigrating church members (which, again, is not something we've seen in evidence) is also wrong. The existence of one does not justify or make right the other.

Third, Kate Kelly has been dishonest about many material aspects of the disciplinary process against her.

 

Most often, though, they don't get the public recognition like Kate Kelly did. I'm not trying to defend her attacks though. Those are inexcusable.

I am not familiar with the events you are describing. Can you provide some clarification here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 18, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

Except for all the men who preside at the meetings.

Who are there in their capacity as priesthood leaders. Men who are not functioning in a priesthood capacity are typically not in attendance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[tonie]

Third, Kate Kelly has been dishonest about many material aspects of the disciplinary process against her.

 

 

You are a lawyer aren't you? Seems your comment - is this a statement of fact on your part - borders on defamation?

 

Edited September 18, 2014 by tonie

[MorningStar]

I think what juliann is talking about is a bishop or stake president attending a relief society training meeting.  Or even general authorities speaking at such meetings.

Every once in a while, our bishop might come speak to us in Relief Society, but it's pretty rare.  Last time it happened in my ward, he came in and wanted us to ask any questions we wanted about anything.  There was also a situation where a sister had strongly encouraged another sister to leave her husband, so he felt like he needed to talk to us about that. He said even as a bishop, it was never OK for him to tell a spouse to leave their spouse.  That had to be their decision. 

[why me]

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.

 

.

As someone already told you you may have gotten this wrong since the bretheren were discussing the blacks and the priesthood issue for years, quite often having debates about it in their meetings. It had very little to do with social pressure. It was also assumed that blacks would receive the priesthood at the right time. This cannot be compared witht the women and the priesthood issue. Also, it is a misnomer to claim it is about women. It is actually about females receiving the priesthood. One thing that I do know from my own survey: not many want the priesthood and they would feel not very good if it were forced upon them. And of course, they would be expected to say yes if ithey were granted the priesthood as the males are.

[smac97]

You are a lawyer aren't you?

I am.

Seems your comment - is this a statement of fact on your part - borders on defamation?

I don't think what I've said is defamation, both because it is not false (I think Kate Kelly really has been dishonest), and also because calling someone "dishonest" is pretty subjective, so it would probably not qualify as an actionable "statement of fact." It's more a statement of opinion, and such statements are usually not actionable as defamation.

I am not persuaded that Kate Kelly is as litigious as all that. Her threat to sue her stake president was likely just posturing. Baseless, contemptible posturing, to be sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

I am.

I don't think what I've said is defamation, both because it is not false (I think Kate Kelly really has been dishonest), and also because calling someone "dishonest" is pretty subjective, so it would probably not qualify as an actionable "statement of fact." It's more a statement of opinion, and such statements are usually not actionable as defamation.

I am not persuaded that Kate Kelly is as litigious as all that. Her threat to sue her stake president was likely just posturing. Baseless, contemptible posturing, to be sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

Moreover, Kate Kelly is arguably a public figure, and the burden of proof in defamation allegations is higher in the case of a public figure, if I'm not mistaken.

[6EQUJ5]

Moreover, Kate Kelly is arguably a public figure, and the burden of proof in defamation allegations is higher in the case of a public figure, if I'm not mistaken.

 

That sounds about right to me.

[stemelbow]

Thanks!

 

First, having a meeting set apart for women or a meeting set apart for men cannot be reasonably construed as the Church having "less respect" for one gender or another.

Second, protesting church services is inappropriate, regardless of who is doing it.

Third, the OW group has constantly denied that they are "protesting," which is rhetorically and factually dishonest. I'm glad to see that folks like you aren't buying into it.

I don't think they claim lack of respect because they aren't attending a certain meeting. They feel a lack of respect because priesthood is needed for the top leader positions in the Church. A woman can't preside over a ward, stake, nor can a woman hold the position of Apostle. In their view, women in these positions would put women and men on equal footing, or at least closer to equal footing. Without such a set up women are, in their view, disrespected.

 

Nothing I've said required anything more than five minutes of conjecture. Figuring out ways to disrupt LDS meetings is not exactly rocket science.

Only for a genius like you. for them it'll take months of meeting.

 

Hence their efforts at recruitment (along with their rhetorically dishonest claim that they are not seeking recruits). But what happens if they do get enough supporters? Do they ramp up their game then? And what happens if they start to fade into irrelevancy? Will they resort to even louder and more disruptive tactics to garner the public's dwindling attention? Look at how well the Westboro Baptist folks do using that tactic. Their numbers are tiny, but they attract huge amounts of press by engaging in over-the-top antics. Frankly, I do not think the OW group would go that route. They have already alienated huge swaths of LDS folks, and going over-the-top would likely kill the movement altogether.

Perhaps. But in time, perhaps they will gain a audience with the LDS folks they have alienated. "Issues" aren't issues, often, until someone points them out. They often don't even stand out as issues after getting pointed out. But in time, issues become important to the majority when context is better understood. Give it years and we'll see where this all ends up. I don't see OW making much of an impact for a long time. The majority of LDS don't take them seriously or know anything about them.

 

I don't think the issue is "of women being considered less than men." That's the subjective viewpoint of the OW folks, which is why they tie priesthood ordination to "full equality." But it seems that this is a minority view in the Church, among both women and men.

I agree. For now, you are absolutely right. The majority, by and large, do not accept that women are less than men, in the Church. But as this movement continues, as this gets discussed more, we'll see what happens. I tend to think, at some point, women and men will start to see the inequality that OW generally articulates. They'll see it and want to make some changes. I don't know that it will lead to outright ordaining of women.

 

First, this has not happened in any material, systemic way that I have seen. CFR, if you please.

I did not suggest it happened in any "material, systemic way". I'm only saying just like Kate Kelly has denigrated a bishop and SP in Virginia, there have been times when a bishop and SP have wrongly denigrated another. It happens. I don't think her mistake on that front is unforgivable or in and of itself should disqualify one for service in a leadership position.

Second, the tu quoque fallacy is not a persuasive justification. Church members denigrating priesthood leaders is wrong, and priesthood leaders publicly denigrating church members (which, again, is not something we've seen in evidence) is also wrong. The existence of one does not justify or make right the other.

I agree. I'm only pointing out that we all make such mistakes. Hers was very public, no doubt. But it is a very forgivable offense. I would guess the Bishop and SP have already forgiven her. Maybe not, but I wouldn't doubt it at all.

Third, Kate Kelly has been dishonest about many material aspects of the disciplinary process against her.

Again, that may be. But her sins are her sins. They don't mean much to me. We all sin. We all fall short, as they say. And we all may be forgiven. I'll just let her sins be hers and not worry about them.

 

I am not familiar with the events you are describing. Can you provide some clarification here?

Thanks,

-Smac

If you disagree that there has been a situation in which a bishop or SP have said denigrating things about others, then by all means, continue to think that way. I don't think that's the case. I felt it appropritate to point out, that while KK said some pretty unfair and harsh things about others, priesthood leaders have said some pretty harsh things about others from time to time too. With that, the priesthood leaders, when having done so, haven't had a public audience, no doubt. But the sin happened, and no doubt has been repented of.

[wenglund]

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!

 

If they really wish to make a valid point (rather than a mere pretense), they would come early to the Stake Centers and help set up the chairs. Or, maybe even bring some treats for everyone to eat.

 

Besides, it will be difficult to make much of show (as is their wont) sitting in the darkness along with a bunch of dozing men and boys. 

 

If they would like, I would be happy to meet with members of OW before hand at my Stake House. We could gather together in one of the class rooms and reverently sing several rounds of Helen Reddy's song,  I am Woman--bell bottom pantsuits are optional.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

This is why it is so offensive. You are equating the women to swine.

No, that is you reading into my comments something I never once said. Please don't put words into my mouth. I simply stated that Christ restricted things all the time. You are not making a serious effort to dialogue. Your bully tactics wont work on me.

[Scott Lloyd]

If they really wish to make a valid point (rather than a mere pretense), they would come early to the Stake Centers and help set up the chairs. Or, maybe even bring some treats for everyone to eat.

 

Besides, it will be difficult to make much of show (as is their wont) sitting in the darkness along with a bunch of dozing men and boys. 

 

If they would like, I would be happy to meet with members of OW before hand at my Stake House. We could gather together in one of the class rooms and reverently sing several rounds of Helen Reddy's song,  I am Woman--bell bottom pantsuits are optional.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's a shame that Reddy has become typecast as the 1970s feminist poster girl.

 

In reality, her interests are many and varied, and they include genealogy. I recall being told back in the '80s and 90s, that she regularly visited the LDS Family History Library (then called the Genealogy Library) whenever she was in Salt Lake City.

[wenglund]

I don't think they claim lack of respect because they aren't attending a certain meeting. They feel a lack of respect because priesthood is needed for the top leader positions in the Church. A woman can't preside over a ward, stake, nor can a woman hold the position of Apostle. In their view, women in these positions would put women and men on equal footing, or at least closer to equal footing. Without such a set up women are, in their view, disrespected.

 

Most men in the church, like myself, won't hold certain high leadership positions, and none of the children in the Church will hold the same as children. Are you suggesting that we all are disrespected by the Church?

 

It seems more than a little ironic, and perhaps even the height of hypocrisy, that, by way of public protests and degrading criticisms, OW would show such disrespect towards Church leaders in the process of falsely accusing Church leaders of disrespect.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kenngo1969]

Moreover, Kate Kelly is arguably a public figure, and the burden of proof in defamation allegations is higher in the case of a public figure, if I'm not mistaken.

You're not.  (But ... [shhh!] ... you didn't hear that from me, since I'm not a lawyer! )