On No! They Got In!

[JAHS]

I was invited to participate in the Tooele/Grantsville/Stansbury (Utah, USA, for those of you in points hence ) choir that sang in the afternoon session yesterday.  One of the tie colors offered for men is purple, and that's the one I chose.  Does that mean, despite my public proclamations to the contrary, that I have latent sympathy for the aims of Ordain Women?  

 

P.S.: Will any of the group's members attempt to attribute such sympathy to those of us who wore purple?

Did anyone notice the purple flowers that were placed directly behind the speaker's podium? I wonder who was responsible for that? Coincidence?

[MorningStar]

Not Kate Kelly:

"I did not actually see this broadcast. One: because I live in Kenya and it happens at 3am where I live and, two: because I find it generally offensive that at something called a “Women’s Meeting” men attend, preside over and give the keynote speech. However, I heard about the news the next day"

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/10/sister-mkhabelas-prayer-a-time-to-mourn-and-a-time-to-dance/

Oh brother!  I suppose she would be offended if Jesus showed up to speak to us because He's a man.   

[saemo]

Why would you want to be where you aren't wanted? Being allowed in, just shows how subject you are to those who allowed you in.

[Lachoneus]

What do you believe they accomplished . . .?

 

The only thing they accomplished was to demonstrate to the Lord, to themselves and to those around them that they possess a rebellious and disobedient spirit. This is not an accomplishment any rational person would celebrate.

[Scott Lloyd]

Exactly.  It's not like a person can attend a priesthood general meeting and not be ordained -

 

Seriously - it's like if some non-member managed to sneak into the temple and observe the goings on.  It's not like they come out being endowed.

A couple of sisters getting into a priesthood meeting means absolutely nothing to either doctrine, policy or "progress" (if you can call it that).

How did Shakespeare put it?

 

A poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. ... A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Bsix]

I was at the Marriott Center last night. The deliberate trespass of a few women into the meeting was not disruptive. In fact, there were so few, I couldn't see them from where I sat.

 

A few observations:

 

1. the true objective of this meeting trespass was to protest as a part of a bigger strategy to force the ordination for women in the LDS Church

 

2. The small number of Ordain Women who sought to admit themselves suggests the movement is not catching fire. (Maybe in the future, but not last night.)

 

3. The numbers were so few and any media-friendly confrontation missing...this was pretty much a PR and rallying-point bust for Ordain Women.

 

4. For the most part only a few Ordain Women members, the Salt Lake Tribune, and critics of the Church will take note and care this morning after.

 

I am personally agnostic on the subject of women holding the priesthood in the LDS Church. As a believer, I trust that the Lord will make his will known. If he decrees that women should hold the priesthood...I'd consider it a privilege to sustain or ordain women, if asked to do so.

 

However, I see a fundamental dichotomy in the Ordain Woman movement. This group demanding to be a part of priesthood authority and are seeking to obtain it in a manner that is fundamentally opposed to that authority. Ms. Kelly (the apostate, excommunicated leader of Ordain Women) is a perfect example of this dichotomy. She wants the priesthood bestowed on her. Yet in the matter of her crusade and disciplinary process she is openly critical and opposed to the priesthood leadership, order of the priesthood, administration and policies of the priesthood, and the authority and keys by which the priesthood function.

 

Likewise, the women who attended the meetings last night took part in an apostate act. They were non-confrontational. Attending a meeting is a pretty benign thing. However, their intent was a step in the process that is opposed to the very thing they seek.

[Nofear]

I was addressing the quote by a sister where she implied that being let into the meeting was an accomplishment.

When announced last Sunday that all the sessions would be shown the 2nd counselor specifically mentioned that the sisters would be welcome to attend the Priesthood session if they wanted. I doubt he even knew about the OW stratagem.

[tonie]

 

I was at the Marriott Center last night. The deliberate trespass of a few women into the meeting was not disruptive. In fact, there were so few, I couldn't see them from where I sat.

 

A few observations:

 

1. the true objective of this meeting trespass was to protest as a part of a bigger strategy to force the ordination for women in the LDS Church

 

2. The small number of Ordain Women who sought to admit themselves suggests the movement is not catching fire. (Maybe in the future, but not last night.)

 

3. The numbers were so few and any media-friendly confrontation missing...this was pretty much a PR and rallying-point bust for Ordain Women.

 

4. For the most part only a few Ordain Women members, the Salt Lake Tribune, and critics of the Church will take note and care this morning after.

 

I am personally agnostic on the subject of women holding the priesthood in the LDS Church. As a believer, I trust that the Lord will make his will known. If he decrees that women should hold the priesthood...I'd consider it a privilege to sustain or ordain women, if asked to do so.

 

However, I see a fundamental dichotomy in the Ordain Woman movement. This group demanding to be a part of priesthood authority and are seeking to obtain it in a manner that is fundamentally opposed to that authority. Ms. Kelly (the apostate, excommunicated leader of Ordain Women) is a perfect example of this dichotomy. She wants the priesthood bestowed on her. Yet in the matter of her crusade and disciplinary process she is openly critical and opposed to the priesthood leadership, order of the priesthood, administration and policies of the priesthood, and the authority and keys by which the priesthood function.

 

Likewise, the women who attended the meetings last night took part in an apostate act. They were non-confrontational. Attending a meeting is a pretty benign thing. However, their intent was a step in the process that is opposed to the very thing they seek.

 

 

How was there a trespass? And for accomplishing a bust, they seemed to have ruffled your feathers, enough for you to take note of them.

[Scott Lloyd]

How was there a trespass? And for accomplishing a bust, they seemed to have ruffled your feathers, enough for you to take note of them.

If being obnoxious enough to annoy people is their purpose, maybe they have succeeded after all.

[bluebell]

When announced last Sunday that all the sessions would be shown the 2nd counselor specifically mentioned that the sisters would be welcome to attend the Priesthood session if they wanted. I doubt he even knew about the OW stratagem.

Maybe not.

The church, in their statement on the issue, claimed it gave instructions to local leaders on how to handle women who wanted to attend. But that doesn't mean every single leader got the same message.

Edited October 5, 2014 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe not.

The church, in their statement on the issue, claimed it gave instructions to local leaders on how to handle women who wanted to attend. But that doesn't mean every single leader got the same message.

I didn't see the memo. But issuing a blanket invitation from the pulpit, as this bishop's counselor apparently did, is beyond what was intended, I daresay.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[katherine the great]

It sounds like it was handled graciously on the men's part.  Maybe I'm a little old fashioned in that way, but I have to say that I don't really get it...

[Robert F. Smith]

I was invited to participate in the Tooele/Grantsville/Stansbury (Utah, USA, for those of you in points hence ) choir that sang in the afternoon session yesterday.  One of the tie colors offered for men is purple, and that's the one I chose.  Does that mean, despite my public proclamations to the contrary, that I have latent sympathy for the aims of Ordain Women?  

 

P.S.: Will any of the group's members attempt to attribute such sympathy to those of us who wore purple?

Purple is the color of royalty, and was once restricted solely to the royal family.

[Senator]

When announced last Sunday that all the sessions would be shown the 2nd counselor specifically mentioned that the sisters would be welcome to attend the Priesthood session if they wanted.

 

Personally a can't see how our attitudes and/or "policies" would ever have been anything else. 

 

KtG, if this is what you meant by "I really don't get it", then I would have to agree.

[juliann]

Regardless of the value, or lack of, in attending what I find notable is how few there were participating. They are losing steam. Badly. To me, this only shows how weakened they are and I'm wondering how much longer newpapers can justify writing articles about such poor participation.

[Kenngo1969]

Did anyone notice the purple flowers that were placed directly behind the speaker's podium? I wonder who was responsible for that? Coincidence?

Probably someone in the General Relief Society leadership!  Ordain Women now has sympathizers in the very highest level of Church leadership!  It's a cabal!  

[bluebell]

Purple is the color of royalty, and was once restricted solely to the royal family.

 

It's also a favorite color of many women, as well as being used as a common 'awareness' color in bringing awareness to domestic violence and quite a few diseases.  I believe it also is used in support of Black History month, but maybe i'm remembering that wrong.

 

I have to admit that it bugs me that OW has attempted to take over the color purple, just as it bugs me that those who support gay and lesbian rights have taken over the rainbow.  It's one thing to say "if you support us, on this day and at this event, please wear this color".  It's way different to try to imply that anytime anyone or anything shows up in that color that they are implying support.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Regardless of the value, or lack of, in attending what I find notable is how few there were participating. They are losing steam. Badly. To me, this only shows how weakened they are and I'm wondering how much longer newpapers can justify writing articles about such poor participation.

Perhaps.

 

Then again, keen interest in the movement to vilify and embarrass the Church over the matter of performing proxy temple ordinances for the deceased faded away a long time ago, yet the Salt Lake Tribune, dutiful stenographers that those folks are, faithfully report every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of Helen Radkey.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

Regardless of the value, or lack of, in attending what I find notable is how few there were participating. They are losing steam. Badly. To me, this only shows how weakened they are and I'm wondering how much longer newpapers can justify writing articles about such poor participation.

 

One of the things that i admire about their new approach is that it, coupled with the reaction of the church to it, greatly lessens their impact and media relevance.  I admire that they were willing to do that when continuing their presence on temple square every 6 months would probably have guaranteed more coverage and visibility for a few years to come.

[Senator]

It's also a favorite color of many women, as well as being used as a common 'awareness' color in bringing awareness to domestic violence and quite a few diseases.  I believe it also is used in support of Black History month, but maybe i'm remembering that wrong.

 

I have to admit that it bugs me that OW has attempted to take over the color purple, just as it bugs me that those who support gay and lesbian rights have taken over the rainbow.  It's one thing to say "if you support us, on this day and at this event, please wear this color".  It's way different to try to imply that anytime anyone or anything shows up in that color that they are implying support.  

 

Perhaps they weren't attemting to "take over the color", but simply used it, as in you examples above.

[bluebell]

Perhaps they weren't attemting to "take over the color", but simply used it, as in you examples above.

 

That's probably a fair interpretation, as it hasn't really been OW that has tried to take the color over, but just some supporters who are constantly pointing out things that are purple at church meetings and implying that it might mean more....

 

I'm thinking of the time that Elder Uchtdorf wore a purple tie and some people were all atwitter about it.

[Storm Rider]

Let me see; Conference Priesthood sessions have always been published so whether you actually got to attend or you had to wait until the Ensign or other church publication came you everyone read the same things for all meetings.  Hard to argue there is something special going on.....except for the fact that men got together on the actual evening of priesthood session.  God forbid; that dirty rotten men got together without women in abundance present.  

 

I find this such a yawn and I find those who want to claim some victory as being over-reaching.  But, really it is whatever makes you happy.  If some sisters just cannot stand allowing brothers meeting together; then that is a personal problem they have to deal with.  

 

Too often I find many of the topics on the Forum to just be ones that cause me to roll my eyes.  Someone please pass me the red jello. 

[The Nehor]

Exactly.  It's not like a person can attend a priesthood general meeting and not be ordained -

 

Seriously - it's like if some non-member managed to sneak into the temple and observe the goings on.  It's not like they come out being endowed.

A couple of sisters getting into a priesthood meeting means absolutely nothing to either doctrine, policy or "progress" (if you can call it that).

Actually sneaking into the Temple and going through a session does mean you are under those covenants. Some people are quite damned.

[Rain]

My son wore purple last night. He got the shirt to wear to school on competition day since purple was one of the school colors. He had no idea of a connection with OW.

When I saw him before he left it didn't even cross my mind. I'd forgotten anything about it till it was mentioned above. I was just glad he was going.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Rain

[Kadahow]

I asked my wife if she wanted to go to Priesthood with me.  Her answer was no, why should I.  If a woman wanted to go to be spritually fed I don't think anything would ever be said, but if you go to show your rebellion than it was, IMO a waste of time and effort.  I can say here in Idaho at my session there were no women who showed.