Rewriting History: Women Praying In Conference And Other Things

[Calm]

Like I said before in a now closed thread, OW is now getting credit for events that they did not cause. For some strange reason, people are rewriting history.

Tacenda first credited them with the conference prayers by women which was corrected by me but apparently not comprehended by all as this was followed by MNB's:

Thirty years of respectful letter writing and within a year of my sisters committing ... cover your eyes, Smac97 ... misdemeanor criminal trespass, we have women praying in conference.

Newbie either misunderstands or misrepresents what went on for thirty years when he dismissively labels it as "[t]hirty years of respectful letter writing"...so much for being supportive of women working towards greater visibilty, equality, and understanding of female roles in the Church. He causes them to disappear with a casual wave of his hand in favor of his hero, Kate Kelly.

Then he misrepresents the timing of Let Women Pray and the trespassing of Temple Square by the OW group.

So to make it clear yet again I will now post a timeline of events:

All Enlisted's Wear Pants to Church Day: Dec 13, 2012*****

All Enlisted's Let Women Pray campaign started: Jan 11, 2013

Email from Scott Trotter informing schedule set: abt Jan 14, 2013

Ordain Women organized: Mar 17, 2013

Sis Jean Stevens prays in conference at end of First Session: Apr 6, 2013

First OW public meeting hours later during Priesthood Session: Apr 6, 2013

OW Fast: Aug 26, 2013

OW attempts to enter Priesthood Session: Oct 5, 2013

OW commits trespass having been directed to stay in the free speech zone for their protest: Apr 5, 2014

****Kate Kelly's level of commitment to the cause at the time: Didn't show up in pants that day because she doesn't like them.

---------------------------------

So unless Newbie knows that OW had a time machine, I don't see how he can claim that there was any causation between OW and Sister Stevens praying in conference.

So much for alleged causes....

Edited July 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Like I said before in a now closed thread, OW is now getting credit for events that they did not cause. For some strange reason, people are rewriting history.

Tacenda first credited them with the conference prayers by women which was corrected by me but apparently not comprehended by all as this was followed by MNB's:

Newbie either misunderstands or misrepresents what went on for thirty years when he dismissively labels it as "[t]hirty years of respectful letter writing"...so much for being supportive of women in the Church. He causes them to disappear with a casual wave of his hand in favor of his hero, Kate Kelly.

Then he misrepresents the timing of Let Women Pray and the trespassing of Temple Square by the OW group.

So to make it clear yet again I will now post a timeline of events:

All Enlisted's Wear Pants to Church Day: Dec 13, 2012*****

All Enlisted's Let Women Pray campaign started: Jan 11, 2013

Email from Scott Trotter informing schedule set: abt Jan 14, 2013

Ordain Women organized: Mar 17, 2013

Sis Jean Stevens prays in conference at end of First Session: Apr 6, 2013

First OW public meeting hours later during Priesthood Session: Apr 6, 2013

OW Fast: Aug 26, 2013

OW attempts to enter Priesthood Session: Oct 5, 2013

OW commits trespass having been directed to stay in the free speech zone for their protest: Apr 5, 2014

****Kate Kelly's level of commitment to the cause at the time: Didn't show up in pants that day because she doesn't like them.

---------------------------------

So unless Newbie knows that OW had a time machine, I don't see how he can claim that there was any causation between OW and Sister Stevens praying in conference.

So much for alleged causes....

I noticed these glaring fallacies in his post and thought what a shame it was that the thread was closed before anyone could challenge them.

 

Bravo!

[bluebell]

I think that OW assumes a lot of things about their power and grandeur that are not apparent to people who aren't a part of OW.

[Calm]

Nothing was ever achieved before OW got to work and hit Temple Square....no change to allow single or married to nonmember women who did not go on missions to get their endowments, no change to temple ceremony to meet the needs of modern women, no change in missionary ages so women wouldn't have to choose between a family and a mission, no change in the different budget approaches between Young Men and Young Women, no official change in allowing women to give opening (or closing prayers) in Sacrament Meeting, no women included in ward councils, no female spokesperson for the Church...

Anyone else have some favourite changes that apparently never occurred inspite of all that "letter writing".

Nope, all of us feminists (and women who don't identify as feminist but still worked towards creating a more nourishing faith community for themselves, their family and their friends and fellowmembers at all levels along with men who were committed to that task as well) that have been working for decades...we all now stand on Kate Kelly's shoulders due to her work with OW. Any change must be accredited to her and her companions and not to women actually talking and working directly with or in church leadership positions. Why would any man listen to them?

Edited July 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

Is that sarcasm coming from Cal?

 

[Calm]

I break out in it on occasion.

[Mars]

[Sleeper Cell]

Like I said before in a now closed thread, OW is now getting credit for events that they did not cause. For some strange reason, people are rewriting history.

Tacenda first credited them with the conference prayers by women which was corrected by me but apparently not comprehended by all as this was followed by MNB's:

Newbie either misunderstands or misrepresents what went on for thirty years when he dismissively labels it as "[t]hirty years of respectful letter writing"...so much for being supportive of women working towards greater visibilty, equality, and understanding of female roles in the Church. He causes them to disappear with a casual wave of his hand in favor of his hero, Kate Kelly.

Then he misrepresents the timing of Let Women Pray and the trespassing of Temple Square by the OW group.

So to make it clear yet again I will now post a timeline of events:

All Enlisted's Wear Pants to Church Day: Dec 13, 2012*****

All Enlisted's Let Women Pray campaign started: Jan 11, 2013

Email from Scott Trotter informing schedule set: abt Jan 14, 2013

Ordain Women organized: Mar 17, 2013

Sis Jean Stevens prays in conference at end of First Session: Apr 6, 2013

First OW public meeting hours later during Priesthood Session: Apr 6, 2013

OW Fast: Aug 26, 2013

OW attempts to enter Priesthood Session: Oct 5, 2013

OW commits trespass having been directed to stay in the free speech zone for their protest: Apr 5, 2014

****Kate Kelly's level of commitment to the cause at the time: Didn't show up in pants that day because she doesn't like them.

---------------------------------

So unless Newbie knows that OW had a time machine, I don't see how he can claim that there was any causation between OW and Sister Stevens praying in conference.

So much for alleged causes....

 

You forgot:

 

Sleeper Cell convinces his priesthood leaders and the Relief Society President to allow a sister to teach the lesson to his high priest group  -- approx. 2002. 

 

Therefore,  I should be getting the credit for women praying in conference, not KK.

  

 

Sleeper Cell -- the father of the modern LDS feminist movement. 

[Tacenda]

Like I said before in a now closed thread, OW is now getting credit for events that they did not cause. For some strange reason, people are rewriting history.

Tacenda first credited them with the conference prayers by women which was corrected by me but apparently not comprehended by all as this was followed by MNB's:

Newbie either misunderstands or misrepresents what went on for thirty years when he dismissively labels it as "[t]hirty years of respectful letter writing"...so much for being supportive of women working towards greater visibilty, equality, and understanding of female roles in the Church. He causes them to disappear with a casual wave of his hand in favor of his hero, Kate Kelly.

Then he misrepresents the timing of Let Women Pray and the trespassing of Temple Square by the OW group.

So to make it clear yet again I will now post a timeline of events:

All Enlisted's Wear Pants to Church Day: Dec 13, 2012*****

All Enlisted's Let Women Pray campaign started: Jan 11, 2013

Email from Scott Trotter informing schedule set: abt Jan 14, 2013

Ordain Women organized: Mar 17, 2013

Sis Jean Stevens prays in conference at end of First Session: Apr 6, 2013

First OW public meeting hours later during Priesthood Session: Apr 6, 2013

OW Fast: Aug 26, 2013

OW attempts to enter Priesthood Session: Oct 5, 2013

OW commits trespass having been directed to stay in the free speech zone for their protest: Apr 5, 2014

****Kate Kelly's level of commitment to the cause at the time: Didn't show up in pants that day because she doesn't like them.

---------------------------------

So unless Newbie knows that OW had a time machine, I don't see how he can claim that there was any causation between OW and Sister Stevens praying in conference.

So much for alleged causes....

http://www.the-exponent.com/women-praying-in-general-conference/

 

Is this the letter writing campaign you're referring to?  Also Cal, will you refresh my memory, it's bad lately, do you have a reference that the church was planning all along to enable women to pray in conference before the letter campaign.  I vaguely remember you correcting me in the past over this, and must have totally forgotten it when including that change having to do with OW.  

 

ETA:  Couldn't Scott Trotter had heard through the grapevine that the women were going to start a letter campaign?

 

Cal, I agree with you're quote here...."OW wasn't organized when this was being pushed by Let Women Pray. I wonder how much more could have been accomplished if they had kept moving with small cultural changes that brought recognition without a huge longlasting negative response instead of moving to immediately demanding a massive cultural and doctrinal change in female ordination which led to many at the member level being leary of any change, the very group needed to be persuaded in order to move forward as a culture."

 

Edited July 20, 2015 by Tacenda

[KevinG]

 

You forgot:

 

Sleeper Cell convinces his priesthood leaders and the Relief Society President to allow a sister to teach the lesson to his high priest group  -- approx. 2002. 

 

Therefore,  I should be getting the credit for women praying in conference, not KK.

  

 

Sleeper Cell -- the father of the modern LDS feminist movement. 

 

 

Wow!  How soon after that were you excommunicated?

[Calm]

No, it was Newbie's comment that reference letter writing I was referring to:

"Thirty years of respectful letter writing..."

I do not have a reference because I've never claimed the Church had planned all along forwomen to pray in conference prior to the Let Women Pray campaign.

I've said it is possible given the Church statement a few days after the campaign started that the schedule was set though others assumed Scott Trotter was passing on a lie (whether he knew it or not). I think the probablity is given the discussion that was going on, leadership was aware this was a point of contention and moved to address it as a very easy fix, the same reaon that All Enlisted chose to focus on it. I am not claiming the church leadership came up with it all by themselves out of the blue.

[MorningStar]

OW gave women the right to vote.  Don't forget that one. 

[Scott Lloyd]

To calmoriah, re: the OP.

 

There you go, running up your rep point total again.

[Tacenda]

No, it was Newbie's comment that reference letter writing I was referring to:

"Thirty years of respectful letter writing..."

I do not have a reference because I've never claimed the Church had planned all along forwomen to pray in conference prior to the Let Women Pray campaign.

I've said it is possible given the Church statement a few days after the campaign started that the schedule was set though others assumed Scott Trotter was passing on a lie (whether he knew it or not). I think the probablity is given the discussion that was going on, leadership was aware this was a point of contention and moved to address it as a very easy fix, the same reaon that All Enlisted chose to focus on it. I am not claiming the church leadership came up with it all by themselves out of the blue.

Sorry, thank you. 

[ERayR]

To calmoriah, re: the OP.

 

There you go, running up your rep point total again.

 

But you can not deny they are well earned.

[Scott Lloyd]

Newbie has a history of rewriting history.

 

To hear him tell it, white Mormons never hoped for or looked forward to the priesthood being granted to all worthy males and only grudgingly accepted it after it happened.

 

And you can't persuade him otherwise. He was probably born in the '90s or later, which means he knows everything.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

But you can not deny they are well earned.

In case you couldn't tell, it was feigned annoyance.

[why me]

I noticed these glaring fallacies in his post and thought what a shame it was that the thread was closed before anyone could challenge them.

 

Bravo!

This should not be a surprise. Being on the defense of the lds church for as long as you have, you should know that critics can use information, twist it a little or a lot, and attempt to convince others that they are correct. How often have we seen critics use fallacies as truths? Or repeat fallacies enough, and suddenly these fallacies become truths for many. It is a sad commentary on the critics. And yet, when a person attempts to set the record straight, and believes that they are succeeding, suddenly the critic goes back and repeats the fallacies. Such is life.

[Scott Lloyd]

This should not be a surprise. Being on the defense of the lds church for as long as you have, you should know that critics can use information, twist it a little or a lot, and attempt to convince others that they are correct. How often have we seen critics use fallacies as truths? Or repeat fallacies enough, and suddenly these fallacies become truths for many. It is a sad commentary on the critics. And yet, when a person attempts to set the record straight, and believes that they are succeeding, suddenly the critic goes back and repeats the fallacies. Such is life.

Daniel Peterson and Bill Hamblin identified the phenomenon years ago when they envisioned a hypothetical biopic about "Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventures in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell."

[ERayR]

In case you couldn't tell, it was feigned annoyance.

 I knew that.  I know you have been under attack lately but relax I am your friend.  I hope.

[Scott Lloyd]

 I knew that.  I know you have been under attack lately but relax I am your friend.  I hope.

Of course. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[mormonnewb]

OW gave women the right to vote.  Don't forget that one. 

 

Even I have to admit, that was a good one.  Touche!

[mormonnewb]

Newbie has a history of rewriting history.

 

To hear him tell it, white Mormons never hoped for or looked forward to the priesthood being granted to all worthy males and only grudgingly accepted it after it happened.

 

And you can't persuade him otherwise. He was probably born in the '90s or later, which means he knows everything.

 

I don't want to derail this thread, but to be quite clear, I think that white Mormons were largely indifferent to the priesthood/temple ban and simply supported it because "the Brethren said so."  So in 1978, I don't think it was a big deal for most Mormons either way.  There may have been some relief that the Bob Jones people would from then on hold the undisputed title as "Most Racist Christians," but I doubt that there was all of the uncontrollable weeping on the side of the road that has become folk lore four decades later.  But please feel free to follow Calmoriah's example and PROVE me wrong.  Just ONE picture of one of those crying-induced traffic jam, or heck, even ONE mention from a 1978 news source about open rejoicing from amongst the saints, and I will GLADLY admit that I am wrong.  But please start another thread to do that because I don't want to derail this important conversation.

Edited July 20, 2015 by mormonnewb

[ERayR]

I don't want to derail this thread, but to be quite clear, I think that white Mormons were largely indifferent to the priesthood/temple ban and simply supported it because "the Brethren said so."  So in 1978, I don't think it was a big deal for most Mormons either way.  There may have been some relief that the Bob Jones people would from then on hold the undisputed title as "Most Racist Christians," but I doubt that there was all of the uncontrollable weeping on the side of the road that has become folk lore four decades later.  But please feel free to follow Calmoriah's example and PROVE me wrong.  Just ONE picture of one of those crying-induced traffic jam, or heck, even ONE mention from a 1978 news source about open rejoicing from amongst the saints, and I will GLADLY admit that I am wrong.  But please start another thread to do that because I don't want to derail this important conversation.

 

My question:  Why, four decades later are you still beating this horse? 

[why me]

I don't want to derail this thread, but to be quite clear, I think that white Mormons were largely indifferent to the priesthood/temple ban and simply supported it because "the Brethren said so."  So in 1978, I don't think it was a big deal for most Mormons either way.  There may have been some relief that the Bob Jones people would from then on hold the undisputed title as "Most Racist Christians," but I doubt that there was all of the uncontrollable weeping on the side of the road that has become folk lore four decades later.  But please feel free to follow Calmoriah's example and PROVE me wrong.  Just ONE picture of one of those crying-induced traffic jam, or heck, even ONE mention from a 1978 news source about open rejoicing from amongst the saints, and I will GLADLY admit that I am wrong.  But please start another thread to do that because I don't want to derail this important conversation.

This is because you were not there. Nor were you there in priesthood meetings when blacks and the priesthood were discussed. And you weren't there when it was announced that blacks could receive the priesthood. I was. And there was rejoicing and some tears too. And I know that other old timers on this board would concur with my post. But will you believe it? No. You are too comfortable in your belief maze. Sad, really. But nothing to do about it. You seem to be locked into your own comfort zone with your negativity and perhaps just a little racist when it comes to white members who you seem to believe are racist. And we need to remember that whites were not the only members in 1978. There were many hispanics who were members too. Not to mention asians etc. Why make it a white black issue?