Ordain Women Is Returning To Temple Square

[busybee]

.  I don't believe the Lord took the Priesthood away from the women..BY did..bless his heart.

Women have never been ordained to priesthood office to have it taken away from them. They were able to do act with priesthood authority then, same way they act in their callings today with priesthood authority. But they have never held office in the Priesthood.  

 

CFR  that women had 'the priesthood taken away from them by Brigham Young.

 

Bless your heart

Edited September 1, 2015 by busybee

[JAHS]

Ah.  My apologies to JAHS, then.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Yes to what to Russell and Calmoriah said.  I guess I should have isolated the private property warning at the bottom of the sign. 

Edited September 1, 2015 by JAHS

[rockpond]

And you siding with almost every critic of the church makes me question whether you really are a member. Does that change the fact that you are? Does the fact that Scott accurately uses the term ssa to describe ssa make him any less a journalist?

 

Do I side with critics or is it just that I refuse to demonize them?  But, the answer to your first question, is "no".

 

With respect to your second question, let me ask you this:  The LDS Church has asked that it be referred to by its full name and not "the Mormon Church".  What would you think of a journalist that, in their writing, refused to use the full name of the Church and instead always called it the "Mormon Church"?

[bluebell]

Does anyone know if KK is a part of this?  

[Calm]

Your use of "SSA" makes me question your credibility as a journalist.

Would using SS for same sex and SSM for same sex marriage be a problem as well? In not, why not?

[rockpond]

Would using SS for same sex and SSM for same sex marriage be a problem as well? In not, why not?

 

I don't think SSM is offensive.  From what I have read (I provided a link to Scott way back when we had this discussion) and heard from people themselves, is that many, if not most, gay people feel that being called SSA is offensive.  For me, it doesn't matter why.  It just matters that it is offensive and we should call them as they wish to be called in the same way that we make similar requests:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide.

[Calm]

Went looking to answer the above question and found this instead.

From a blog from yesterday:

"Ordain Women is a group that is agitating for a revelation on this matter, consistent with President Hinckley’s statement. Such requests for revelation were common in Joseph Smith’s day. In fact, a large portion of the Doctrine and Covenants comes directly from requests for revelation taken to the Prophet. In our day, we cannot simply walk-up to the Prophet on the street and ask our questions; a lot has changed since the 1800s. Ordain Women was organized by a group of faithful LDS women, to take this request to the Prophet. It is important that this question comes from the women seeking ordination."

Earlier blog:

"We will let Church leaders know that it is time that women be ordained and take their place as full equals with their brothers in the church."

Where is there any hint that they care about revelation or the answer here? All they want to hear is "yes". Anyone think they would refuse it if the leaders said it was a policy change only, not revelation?

This is also how the blog describes it:

"Ordain Women will create a number of “living picture” representations of scenes from LDS history to highlight the diverse ways in which Mormon women have historically exercised their faith, participated in the Church, and spread the gospel."

Earlier blog:

"we will create vignettes using live participants, who will depict various times in Mormon history when women have had priesthood authority or exercised spiritual authority to perform blessings and other priesthood functions. These vignettes will remind our leaders that during the course of Mormon history, women have exercised much more authority than allowed today."

Given the other language used for the vignettes, got to wonder if they are communicating with each other.

As an aside I find it strange in a blog commenmerating the 19th Amendment and listing dates of countries giving the right to vote to women, there was no mention of Utah's attempt (first or second in the US, iirc) and then its removal by the Feds. Honouring one's past indeed.

Edited September 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Does anyone know if KK is a part of this?

She posted on the blog for Father's Day, so still involved in the group then.

[rockpond]

Does anyone know if KK is a part of this?  

 

She posted on the blog for Father's Day, so still involved in the group then.

 

I agree that she is likely still involved but I had heard that she was no longer on the executive board.  Their website seems to confirm this:  http://ordainwomen.org/contact/

[Guest]

Here is a new Facebook group describing OW's plans during General Conference.

I tried to copy and paste the text, but I'm having technical difficulties. Anyone else have the ability to post it for those who aren't on Facebook?

The tread title sounds like a movie tile returning to the Joseph Smith theater. On a serious note...are those who do this women who feel it is worth it to take a chance with Church Court? If already excommunicated or former members do they feel they still represent members in good standing? Also, if they feel a calling to the ministry there are many Churches that already ordain women to serve in what would be deemed the Priesthood, and well as RLDS (now Community of Christ)...a faith that recognizes the origins of our faith. Disagreement with this issue is a disagreement with one of the most fundamental doctrines of our faith and all Christian faiths up until recent history...and every age under any belief system since the age of Adam looking back. I don't say this just because I am a male or Priesthood holder, but by way of historical fact, nor as a reflection of my own opinions. Edited September 1, 2015 by Pa Pa

[ERayR]

I don't think SSM is offensive.  From what I have read (I provided a link to Scott way back when we had this discussion) and heard from people themselves, is that many, if not most, gay people feel that being called SSA is offensive.  For me, it doesn't matter why.  It just matters that it is offensive and we should call them as they wish to be called in the same way that we make similar requests:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide.

 

For what it is worth I am an old country kid that learned from the old folks that it is best to call something it what it is.  That way you avoid ambiguity. 

Edited September 1, 2015 by ERayR

[rockpond]

For what it is worth I am an old country kid that learned from the old folks that it is best to call something it what it is.  That way you avoid ambiguity. 

 

That's fine.  Just recognize that the preferred terms (by the individuals themselves) seem to be gay, lesbian, or homosexual and not SSA.  And those terms don't deny what it is.

[KevinG]

For me the distinction between SSA and Gay is attraction to those of the same sex vs. the practice of homosexual behavior.

 

I'm not sure how you would classify that group that has same sex attraction but chooses to be celibate in a way that does not imply homosexual behavior without using SSA as a description.  I'm all for using descriptions that those who identify as _____ accept, but what is the alternative if you don't necessarily want to imply someone is openly, actively gay?

 

The dark side of this discussion is that groups often change the accepted vernacular to form a barrier between outsiders and insiders.   

[why me]

I don't think SSM is offensive.  From what I have read (I provided a link to Scott way back when we had this discussion) and heard from people themselves, is that many, if not most, gay people feel that being called SSA is offensive.  For me, it doesn't matter why.  It just matters that it is offensive and we should call them as they wish to be called in the same way that we make similar requests:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide.

Too many americans find things offensive these days. SSA is not offensive. Gays and lesbians do have same sex attraction. One cannot change what is. I can be called DSA: different sex attraction. I see nothing offensive. People just need to chill out about all the political correctness.

 

On a different note: OW did not ask the leadership for a revelation. They protested for a revelation and organized a group of people for agitation. I don't remember this happening at the time of Joseph Smith. More likely someone had a request and they went to him for personal guidance. I saw no agitation present within the early saints. Likewise for the church at the time of Paul. Did any church organize a protest to have paul do something? And their website still declares that women MUST have the priesthood. No revelation necessary, thank you.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

On a different note: OW did not ask the leadership for a revelation. They protested for a revelation and organized a group of people for agitation. I don't remember this happening at the time of Joseph Smith.

.

You can disagree with them but this simply isn't accurate. Before their first event on temple square they asked for a couple of things.

 

1- To meet with church leadership to discuss the idea of female ordination. They never received a response to their request for a meeting.

 

2- They asked that the prophet take the matter to the Lord and seek revelation on the matter. To date I don't recall seeing anything from the church stating that female ordination has been a matter of prayer among top leadership.

 

Again, you can disagree, but don't misrepresent.

 

ETA- I don't have access to the original requests OW sent to the church and hven't been able to find them online.

Edited September 1, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[KevinG]

You can disagree with them but this simply isn't accurate. Before their first event on temple square they asked for a couple of things.

 

1- To meet with church leadership to discuss the idea of female ordination. They never received a response to their request for a meeting.

 

2- They asked that the prophet take the matter to the Lord and seek revelation on the matter. To date I don't recall seeing anything from the church stating that female ordination has been a matter of prayer among top leadership.

 

Again, you can disagree, but don't misrepresent.

 

Can you provide links to those requests or documentation that they were made?  I'm interested in seeing how they were presented.

[Tacenda]

Too many americans find things offensive these days. SSA is not offensive. Gays and lesbians do have same sex attraction. One cannot change what is. I can be called DSA: different sex attraction. I see nothing offensive. People just need to chill out about all the political correctness.

 

On a different note: OW did not ask the leadership for a revelation. They protested for a revelation and organized a group of people for agitation. I don't remember this happening at the time of Joseph Smith. More likely someone had a request and they went to him for personal guidance. I saw no agitation present within the early saints. Likewise for the church at the time of Paul. Did any church organize a protest to have paul do something? And their website still declares that women MUST have the priesthood. No revelation necessary, thank you.

I'm sure I heard or read that the women did have the PH somewhere in church history. I'm canning salsa today so will have to find time to find it and get back to you.

[rockpond]

Too many americans find things offensive these days. SSA is not offensive. Gays and lesbians do have same sex attraction. One cannot change what is. I can be called DSA: different sex attraction. I see nothing offensive. People just need to chill out about all the political correctness.

 

I'm sorry, but as a heterosexual person your declaration that "SSA is not offensive" doesn't carry much weight against the gay people that have told me it is offensive.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sorry, but as a heterosexual person your declaration that "SSA is not offensive" doesn't carry much weight against the gay people that have told me it is offensive.

What about people who have the tendency but do not act on it and do not want it implied that they do by having a label imposed on them due to lexicon imperialism?

[rockpond]

What about people who have the tendency but do not act on it and do not want it implied that they do by having a label imposed on them due to lexicon imperialism?

 

I don't know anybody outside of Mormonism that thinks that being called gay or homosexual is making a statement about their behavior.

 

But I strive to call people by the labels they prefer (when such labels are needed) including those who wish to be referred to as SSA.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know anybody outside of Mormonism that thinks that being called gay or homosexual is making a statement about their behavior.

The labels don't draw any distinction at all. That's the problem with them.

 

 

But I strive to call people by the labels they prefer (when such labels are needed) including those who wish to be referred to as SSA.

 

 

Then you will forever be at the mercy of political correctness. I don't envy you.

 

And I certainly won't be bound by your decisions.

[rockpond]

The labels don't draw any distinction at all. That's the problem with them.

 

 

 

Then you will forever be at the mercy of political correctness. I don't envy you.

 

And I certainly won't be bound by your decisions.

 

It's not political correctness, Scott.  It's kindness and consideration of others.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not political correctness, Scott.  It's kindness and consideration of others.

Give me a break.

 

It's promulgation of a political ideology and insistence that others get on board through the terminology they use, whether they agree with the ideology or not.

 

A term that accurately denotes a particular sexual orientation is not unkind or inconsiderate.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's not political correctness, Scott.  It's kindness and consideration of others.

No it is PC. Sorry but saying that that guy X over there has same sex attraction is not an issue, it is a fact, he is homosexual and gay. Those are all valid descriptions of what it means to be gay.

 

I guess you have a problem with the word "bossy" because Beyonce has a problem with it?

 

I find it offensive when people call me opposite sex attracted. Give me a break.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[provoman]

UTAHAN Edited September 1, 2015 by provoman