We're Baaacckkk! -- Next Ow Action

[HappyJackWagon]

"

HappyJackWagon, on 18 Sept 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

 
 
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."

 

It may not be the intent of what you say, but that's what many women hear. They might hear the basic argument -"We exclude people for all kinds of reasons. We don't want to cast our pearls before swine." And they reasonably think, "Oh, we're valued about the same as swine." You may not like it but that's a very reasonable takeaway from this kind of discussion.

 

[wenglund]

"

HappyJackWagon, on 18 Sept 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

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."

 

It may not be the intent of what you say, but that's what many women hear. They might hear the basic argument -"We exclude people for all kinds of reasons. We don't want to cast our pearls before swine." And they reasonably think, "Oh, we're valued about the same as swine." You may not like it but that's a very reasonable takeaway from this kind of discussion.

 

You demean women by painting them as prone to misreading and unable to reasonably interpret what is said.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

It may not be the intent of what you say, but that's what many women hear. They might hear the basic argument -"We exclude people for all kinds of reasons. We don't want to cast our pearls before swine." And they reasonably think, "Oh, we're valued about the same as swine." You may not like it but that's a very reasonable takeaway from this kind of discussion.

A takeaway? Perhaps.

 

Reasonable? Hardly.

[stemelbow]

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?

Of course not, because men do fall into those positions. Even if granted most women wouldn't be in many leadership positions eithers, but potentially, some women would. That's the point, I do believe, for OW.

 

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-

And then faithful members show them more disrespect because they show such disrespect for Church leaders. And then we come full circle worrying about each other's sins.

But in the end, with all this running around in circles we may still be in a place that is not desirable, in regards to how the Church treats and talks about women.

[HappyJackWagon]

HappyJackWagon, on 18 Sept 2014 - 1:07 PM, said:

 

It may not be the intent of what you say, but that's what many women hear. They might hear the basic argument -"We exclude people for all kinds of reasons. We don't want to cast our pearls before swine." And they reasonably think, "Oh, we're valued about the same as swine." You may not like it but that's a very reasonable takeaway from this kind of discussion.

Scott Loyd: A takeaway? Perhaps.

 

Reasonable? Hardly."

 

How is this unreasonable? Here we are having a discussion about whether or not women should be permitted to attend a meeting. Many reasons are given to support the exclusion. One of those reasons is that Christ has denied many people to participate in various activities. As evidence we are reminded of the general warning not to cast our pearls before swine. There is a natural development to the conversation and the line of thinking becomes more clear.

 

Christ can deny women access to priesthood meeting just like we are supposed to be cautious about casting our pearls before swine. Again, you may not like that your words take us further down this path but they are your words. I've explained why I think it is reasonable. Would you explain why it's unreasonable based on what was said.

 

[smac97]

And then faithful members show them more disrespect because they show such disrespect for Church leaders. And then we come full circle worrying about each other's sins.

I don't think disagreeing with Kate Kelly, or characterizing her dishonest behavior as dishonest, is disrespectful. I also do not think a woman should be immune from criticism on account of her gender, but that seems to be a fairly common trope when discussing Kate Kelly. Denver Snuffer was criticized for his behavior, but nobody ever suggested such criticisms were disrespectful because he is male. So Kate Kelly and her supporters can't have it both ways. They can't complain about gender inequality in the Church and then hide behind Kate Kelly's gender, or claim her gender entitles her to preferential treatment, when she encounters criticism of her actions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[wenglund]

Of course not, because men do fall into those positions. Even if granted most women wouldn't be in many leadership positions eithers, but potentially, some women would. That's the point, I do believe, for OW.

 

And then faithful members show them more disrespect because they show such disrespect for Church leaders. And then we come full circle worrying about each other's sins.

But in the end, with all this running around in circles we may still be in a place that is not desirable, in regards to how the Church treats and talks about women.

 

If it is disrespectful towards whole groups of people, then by all rights it is disrespectful towards partial groups, and vice verse. Thus, your highly selective (discriminatory) reasoning isn't logical. Women aren't being disrespected in not being able to hold certain leadership positions, nor are most men or all children or all non-members or animals or plants, etc. It is inane to suggest otherwise.

 

Also, while respect is due to holders of Church positions, it is not disrespectful to not hold Church positions. OW doesn't correctly understand the later, and has subsequently violated the former.

 

Furthermore, It is not disrespectful to matter-of-factly point out your's and OW's errors in thinking and the hypocrisy of their deeds. So, your claim about circularity is likewise illogical.

 

In the end, if there is any real disrespect or undesirabilty in all this "running around," it is disrespect of God and the undesirable pride of men in leaning on the arm of flesh in preference to looking to God and those he has chosen to lead his kingdom. 

 

But, leave it to the servants of pop culture in this upside-down world to give utmost priority to less weightier maters.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 18, 2014 by wenglund

[mnn727]

The only question that really matters:

Are they coming to PH Session out of a desire to be instructed by their leaders or as a protest of those very same leaders?

[stemelbow]

If it is disrespectful towards whole groups of people, then by all rights it is disrespectful towards partial groups, and vice verse. Thus, your highly selective (discriminatory) reasoning isn't logical. Women aren't being disrespected in not being able to hold certain leadership positions, nor are most men or all children or all non-members or animals or plants, etc. It is inane to suggest otherwise.

 

Also, while respect is due to holders of Church positions, it is not disrespectful to not hold Church positions. OW doesn't correctly understand the later, and has subsequently violated the former.

 

Furthermore, It is not disrespectful to matter-of-factly point out your's and OW's errors in thinking and the hypocrisy of their deeds. So, your claim about circularity is likewise illogical.

 

In the end, if there is any real disrespect or undesirabilty in all this "running around," it is disrespect of God and the undesirable pride of men in leaning on the arm of flesh in preference to looking to God and those he has chosen to lead his kingdom. 

 

But, leave it to the servants of pop culture in this upside-down world to give utmost priority to less weightier maters.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My goodness. it's pretty simple. On the position of OW, it is disrespectful to women to not grant them the priesthood. It is disrespectful to women to not have women in the vaulted positions of Bishop, SP, and Apostle, for instance. I've already said in this thread, that I personally am not sure it is necessary that women be ordained for women to be treated well. But I do grant that they have a voice and a fairly reasonable position at the very least. I don't find their position inane.

It is not disrespectful on their position to challenge the established position of men only priesthood. Sometimes shows of disrespect is subjective.

[stemelbow]

I don't think disagreeing with Kate Kelly, or characterizing her dishonest behavior as dishonest, is disrespectful. I also do not think a woman should be immune from criticism on account of her gender, but that seems to be a fairly common trope when discussing Kate Kelly. Denver Snuffer was criticized for his behavior, but nobody ever suggested such criticisms were disrespectful because he is male. So Kate Kelly and her supporters can't have it both ways. They can't complain about gender inequality in the Church and then hide behind Kate Kelly's gender, or claim her gender entitles her to preferential treatment, when she encounters criticism of her actions.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think a woman should be immune to criticism. I also don't think criticizing leaders ideas is disrespectful. I personally am not saying OW and kate have not been disrespectful because they probably have in some cases.

Edited September 18, 2014 by stemelbow

[smac97]

My goodness. it's pretty simple. On the position of OW, it is disrespectful to women to not grant them the priesthood.

That's not simple at all, largely because it is A) not self-evident, B) fairly nonsensical on its face (is it likewise "disrespectful" to men to not call them to be president of the Relief Society, or YW president?), and C) the issue is, I think, squarely a matter of revealed doctrine.

It is disrespectful to women to not have women in the vaulted positions of Bishop, SP, and Apostle, for instance.

Again, this is not anything close to being self-evident.

I've already said in this thread, that I personally am not sure it is necessary that women be ordained for women to be treated well. But I do grant that they have a voice and a fairly reasonable position at the very least. I don't find their position inane.

Nor do I. To the contrary, I think a reasonable case can be made for the possibility of female ordination.

It is not disrespectful on their position to challenge the established position of men only priesthood.

That's a matter of some dispute, I think. Reasonable and principled disagreement is, I think, fine. But Kate Kelly and her acolytes have engaged in patently disrespectful behavior.

Demanding the priesthood and saying that "nothing less will suffice" is disrespectful.

Defying the Church's instructions, trespassing on and protesting on its property during a sacred convocation is disrespectful.

Using coercive means to compel doctrinal change in the Church is disrespectful.

Kate Kelly accusing her bishop of lying and of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike" is disrespectful.

Kate Kelly publishing to the world her accusations against her bishop is disrespectful.

Kate Kelly publicly denigrating and threatening to sue her stake president is disrespectful.

Kate Kelly encouraging her followers to "raise hell" in the Church is disrespectful.

Sometimes shows of disrespect is subjective.

And sometimes a pattern of behavior is cumulatively rather objective.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

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?

You shouldn't depend upon "edge cases" to disprove the general case. Edge cases tend to prove the general case. You know this, I think, as "the exception that proves the rule."

Besides that, you don't surprise me at all, I stated this in response to someone else earlier:

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?

What women do not hold is the priesthood for the general case. Outside the temple only men exercise it. The story is told of Eliza Snow/Smith, who instructed the priesthood holders in her wagon train to administer to her oxen so they would be able to continue to pull her wagaon. They did so, and oxen stood up again and regained their strength. What she DIDN'T do was to use the priesthood herself to perform the blessing. She was a prominent woman, considered by some to be an unofficial prophetess, and still she honored the priesthood by honoring its lawful holders -- rather than attempting to pull a OW.

[mormonnewb]

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.

 

Just to be clear, the WoW, law of chastity or tithing are not MANDATORY for membership in the Church.  In fact, if they were, there would be very few members at all.  Sure, they are "commandments" but one can disobey them and still be an active member in this Church (although not "worthy" to enter the temple).  On the other hand, no woman can pass the sacrament, regardless of her desire to be "worthy."  So, in terms of comparison, you're absolutely right.  The CURRENT priesthood ban is FAR more restrictive.

[mormonnewb]

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?

 

 

 

This same argument could be used to keep, say, blacks out of every position of power.  After all, most whites won't be CEOs.  And no children can be CEOs.  So why should blacks complain that they are prohibited from being CEOs?  Seems kind of silly when you think of it in those terms, doesn't it?

[mormonnewb]

... 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.

 

Harriet Tubman is quoted as saying, "I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

 

I bring up this quote not to say that the women in this Church are slaves.  But rather, my point is that the consent of the subjugated does not justify their subjugation.

 

There were many slaves who were probably quite comfortable with their enslavement.  So it does not surprise me that there are many women who are quite comfortable with the CURRENT Church policy.  After all, we treat our women a heck of a lot better than masters treated their slaves.  And if some of the slaves could find contentment in their treatment, then certainly many women can find contentment in their treatment by the Church.  But contentment doesn't make right.

 

Of course, I understand that many of you think that the Brethren "make right."  However, on this score, they don't have the best track record.  Regardless of WHY you think the racial policy changed, its effects were detrimental to the Church.  There are many blacks who will never even consider our wonderful version of the Gospel (at least, not on this side of the veil).  Furthermore, there are a number of whites who also reject us out of hand as that "racist church."  Being approached by a Mormon missionary is the equivalent of being approached by the Westboro Baptist Church or the Bob Jones people.

 

And finally, this policy WILL change.  Because it will simply become unpalatable for the Church to take this stand.  Can you imagine what have become of this church if we were still using the racial restrictions?  If you can't, just think of Bob Jones.  The same will be true, in the future, of any church employing gender restrictions.  The only real question is whether we will change our current policy BEFORE the damage is irreversible.  Given our track record, it's still an open question.

[why me]

Just to be clear, the WoW, law of chastity or tithing are not MANDATORY for membership in the Church.  In fact, if they were, there would be very few members at all.  Sure, they are "commandments" but one can disobey them and still be an active member in this Church (although not "worthy" to enter the temple).  On the other hand, no woman can pass the sacrament, regardless of her desire to be "worthy."  So, in terms of comparison, you're absolutely right.  The CURRENT priesthood ban is FAR more restrictive.

Not really. If I live the word of chasity I do so because this is what god wants. And yet, I may not want to do it. Likewise for the priesthood and why it has not be given to women. If it is what god wants what should I do? Protest god?  Likewise for the WoW. I do it because it is what god wants and yet, I may wish to have a cup of coffee with my friends. But I don't drink it because it is what god wants and not me. So, my comparisons still stand. Women can be very active members without the priesthood. But can men? I am sure that some men would refuse the priesthood but what then? Do they really have a choice? Not really. So, why do they accept it? Because it is what god wants. As such, if women were ordained and girls too, they will not really have a choice as to whether to accept or not accept. All should accept because it is what god wants. And if they don't accept what meeting do they attend? There will be no more relief society. And if women do have a viable choice why not men?

 

Either we have faith that the GAs are doing god's work or we don't. It is obvious that the women protesting do not.

Edited September 19, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Harriet Tubman is quoted as saying, "I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

 

I bring up this quote not to say that the women in this Church are slaves.  But rather, my point is that the consent of the subjugated does not justify their subjugation.

 

There were many slaves who were probably quite comfortable with their enslavement.  So it does not surprise me that there are many women who are quite comfortable with the CURRENT Church policy.  After all, we treat our women a heck of a lot better than masters treated their slaves.  And if some of the slaves could find contentment in their treatment, then certainly many women can find contentment in their treatment by the Church.  But contentment doesn't make right.

 

So, women are now like slaves in the lds church but better treated. Thank you for letting me know. I will make sure that I will make a revolutionary speech in priesthood explaining why lds women can be compared to african american slaves. Don't you think that you as a man are a little condescending to lds women by your insinuation that many do not know that they are oppressed in the lds church? Maybe they are content because after careful consideration, they do not share your concern. I think that most lds women are very intelligent.

 

I have perhaps less regard for the men.

Edited September 19, 2014 by why me

[mormonnewb]

So, women are now like slaves in the lds church but better treated. Thank you for letting me know. I will make sure that I will make a revolutionary speech in priesthood explaining why lds women can be compared to african american slaves. Don't you think that you as a man are a little condescending to lds women by your insinuation that many do not know that they are oppressed in the lds church? Maybe they are content because after careful consideration, they do not share your concern. I think that most lds women are very intelligent.

 

I have perhaps less regard for the men.

 

How many times did I state EXPLICITLY that I was NOT saying that women are slaves in the LDS Church?  I was simply pointing out that consent of the subjugated does not negate the subjugation.

 

As for any condescension, I certainly don't take offense to Harriet Tubman's statement that some of MY ancestors were content in a situation in which they shouldn't have been content.  I don't see it as disparagement of my race.  I simply see it as her honest assessment of the situation she found herself in -- fighting for the equality of some persons who did not see the need for it.  I imagine that this assessment would fit every race and gender at some point in history.

[mormonnewb]

 

Either we have faith that the GAs are doing god's work or we don't. It is obvious that the women protesting do not.

 

As a follower of Christ, I do NOT have faith in the GAs.  I have CONFIDENCE in them.  But for me to say that these well-meaning men can not err (even in important ways) makes them gods in and of themselves.  And I didn't join the Church of the Brethren of Latter-day Saints.

 

I can certainly understand how intelligent and well-meaning people can interpret scripture to conclude that it is not God's will for women to hold the priesthood.  I disagree but, as I am often wrong, I'm willing to entertain the idea.  But for me to conclude that the ban is just solely "because the Brethren say so" makes a mockery of prayer and scripture study.  Why in the world should I WASTE my time in those endeavors if the answer is always simply, "The Brethren are right"?  In that case, I could better use that time playing Madden 15 (assuming that the Brethren first say its okay). 

[why me]

How many times did I state EXPLICITLY that I was NOT saying that women are slaves in the LDS Church?  I was simply pointing out that consent of the subjugated does not negate the subjugation.

 

As for any condescension, I certainly don't take offense to Harriet Tubman's statement that some of MY ancestors were content in a situation in which they shouldn't have been content.  I don't see it as disparagement of my race.  I simply see it as her honest assessment of the situation she found herself in -- fighting for the equality of some persons who did not see the need for it.  I imagine that this assessment would fit every race and gender at some point in history.

I misunderstood your reference that lds women are subjugated rather than being slaves and that those lds women who submit to this subjugation of not having the priesthood may need to be enlightened . I see the difference. However, your reference to slavery and the role of women in the lds church may still be considered offensive by some lds members even by the women who you are attempting to enlighten from their subjugation through the reference of slavery. That is just my opinion, of course.

 

I suppose that it is the referring to slavery and lds women being subjugated that is the problem no matter how one sweetens the words.

Edited September 19, 2014 by why me

[smac97]

How many times did I state EXPLICITLY that I was NOT saying that women are slaves in the LDS Church?

Well, I think some readers took your post as one where you were speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Yes, you denied saying that LDS women are "slaves," but then you proceeded to say - repeatedly - that they are "subjugated." To "subjugate" means, of course, "1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master" and "2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave."  Also consider the various synonyms of "subjugate":

• conquer
• enslave
• coerce
• compel
• crush
• enthrall
• force
• overcome
• overthrow
• quell
• reduce
• rule
• subdue
• suppress
• tame
• triumph
• vanquish
• bear down
• beat down
• bring to heel
• bring to knees
• hold sway
• keep under thumb
• kick around
• put down
• reel back in
• rule over

So of course you were comparing LDS women to slaves (and, implicitly, the LDS Church and its leaders to slavemasters).  You just threw in a clumsy denial as some sort of pathetic preemptive attempt at plausible deniability.

 

I was simply pointing out that consent of the subjugated does not negate the subjugation.

We all know what your were doing. You were claiming that LDS women are "subjugated," which is largely equivalent to "conquered," "enslaved," "coerced," and so on.

I have long blanched at the history of slavery in the world. I am likewise appalled when it is trivialized to make a grossly unfair, Godwin's Law-like rhetorical attack on someone else, as you have done here. Accusing the LDS Church of "subjugating" (that is, "enslaving" or "coercing" or "conquering") women is a detestable falsehood.

As for any condescension, I certainly don't take offense to Harriet Tubman's statement that some of MY ancestors were content in a situation in which they shouldn't have been content.  I don't see it as disparagement of my race.  I simply see it as her honest assessment of the situation she found herself in -- fighting for the equality of some persons who did not see the need for it.  I imagine that this assessment would fit every race and gender at some point in history.

You grossly trivialize the issue of slavery in antebellum America when you compare it to the current environment for women in the LDS Church. The words "pathetic," "shameful" and "have you no decency" come to mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

That's not simple at all, largely because it is A) not self-evident,

It is on the OW position.

B) fairly nonsensical on its face (is it likewise "disrespectful" to men to not call them to be president of the Relief Society, or YW president?),

Not the same. RS pres and YW pres are reporting to men-only positions.

and C) the issue is, I think, squarely a matter of revealed doctrine.

Of course you think. And I think that's grand. They don't think the same. Thus, we're left with a dispute.

Again, this is not anything close to being self-evident.

Nor do I. To the contrary, I think a reasonable case can be made for the possibility of female ordination.

That's a matter of some dispute, I think. Reasonable and principled disagreement is, I think, fine. But Kate Kelly and her acolytes have engaged in patently disrespectful behavior.

Demanding the priesthood and saying that "nothing less will suffice" is disrespectful.

I don't see how.

Defying the Church's instructions, trespassing on and protesting on its property during a sacred convocation is disrespectful.

Its been disputed, as I recall, that they trespassed. And no one, as far as I can tell, complained that the "protest" was disrespectful in any way.

Using coercive means to compel doctrinal change in the Church is disrespectful.

Not really.

Kate Kelly accusing her bishop of lying and of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike" is disrespectful.

Sure is.

Kate Kelly publishing to the world her accusations against her bishop is disrespectful.

Sure is.

Kate Kelly publicly denigrating and threatening to sue her stake president is disrespectful.

That's interesting. Didn't hear it, but, yes that would be.

Kate Kelly encouraging her followers to "raise hell" in the Church is disrespectful.

No.

And sometimes a pattern of behavior is cumulatively rather objective.

Thanks,

-Smac

But she's just one person. We can move on and forgive, as I see it, and still see that overall she may have a point in regards to women's roles in the Church and whether priesthood should openly be given to women.

[JAHS]

In our ward the men always go to the Bishop's house after the Priesthood session  to have pizza. 

Are they going to crash that party too?  Order more pizza!!

[mormonnewb]

I have long blanched at the history of slavery in the world. I am likewise appalled when it is trivialized to make a grossly unfair, Godwin's Law-like rhetorical attack on someone else, as you have done here. Accusing the LDS Church of "subjugating" (that is, "enslaving" or "coercing" or "conquering") women is a detestable falsehood.

You grossly trivialize the issue of slavery in antebellum America when you compare it to the current environment for women in the LDS Church. The words "pathetic," "shameful" and "have you no decency" come to mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

"Pathetic" is definitely the word that comes to my mind when you accuse ME of trivializing slavery, the vestiges of which I still live under to this very day.  While your feigned indignation MIGHT fool one of your juries, you are still on the wrong side of history ... AGAIN.

 

Perhaps, your righteous indignation would have better served the blacks who served as ACTUAL slaves in the last slaveholding territory of America -- Brigham's Utah.  Or perhaps, it would have better served the faithful blacks who were denied the benefits of the temple until the third season of All In the Family.  Or perhaps, it would better serve the women who currently feel stifled and bridled by a CURRENT dogma that doesn't allow them to fully serve the Church they so dearly love.

 

But for you to accuse a black man of trivializing the history of oppression is like the pot calling the kettle ... "MORMON."

[Avatar4321]

I don't think it's slavery to respect the authority of the Lord. I think it's a sign of humility