"ProgMormons"

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You seem to like to read a lot into things.

You seemed to be excusing / justifying / rationalizing improper conduct by claiming, essentially, that "the ends justify the means."

But I'll leave the matter.  I'll just chalk it up to a misunderstanding on my part.

Quote

Yes, bad things arise out of persecutions.  You were the one who brought up the BY quote that the church is only "kicked upstairs".  I merely pointed out its applicability to the situation we were discussing.

But we seem to be taking different lessons from the BY quote.  But I guess I'll just leave it at that.

Quote

God will be the judge of whether or not Kelly, Viegas-Haws, and Pearson were justified in what they did.  To borrow a Greg Prince-ism, nobody wears only a white hat or a black hat.  Not Kate Kelly and not Brigham Young.

Well, you have a point.  God is the ultimate arbiter of such things.  But when Kate Kelly calls for others to leave the Church as she has, or to stay but "raise hell" within it, then I think we need to exercise sound discretion and judgment.  And when Carol Lynn Pearson publicly demands that the Church disavow revealed doctrines because she dislikes them and because she conducted a specious Facebook poll about them, again, I think we need to exercise sound discretion and judgment.

I will leave "judgment" about Sis. Pearson to her priesthood leaders.  But as to her proposals, I am at liberty to reject them and explain why.

Quote

As long as you continue to turn those who disagree with you into caricatures and exaggerate rather than seek to understand, this dialogue won't be very productive.

Well put.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seemed to be excusing / justifying / rationalizing improper conduct by claiming, essentially, that "the ends justify the means."

But I'll leave the matter.  I'll just chalk it up to a misunderstanding on my part.

But we seem to be taking different lessons from the BY quote.  But I guess I'll just leave it at that.

Well, you have a point.  God is the ultimate arbiter of such things.  But when Kate Kelly calls for others to leave the Church as she has, or to stay but "raise hell" within it, then I think we need to exercise sound discretion and judgment.  And when Carol Lynn Pearson publicly demands that the Church disavow revealed doctrines because she dislikes them and because she conducted a specious Facebook poll about them, again, I think we need to exercise sound discretion and judgment.

I will leave "judgment" about Sis. Pearson to her priesthood leaders.  But as to her proposals, I am at liberty to reject them and explain why.

Well put.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, the ends do not justify the means.

I've never argued in favor of everything Kelly did and I disagree with much of it... especially as the movement progressed.

I'm curious when/where Pearson made these demands.  Could you share a reference for that?

 

[CV75]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

While I am not a support of Ordain Women, I thought that their "stand at the door and knock" campaign was a good approach.  They went, lined up outside the conference center and asked to be let in to the priesthood session.

Please describe this well-known action's ultimate objective, and how the action met (or was intended to meet) the objective.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please describe this well-known action's ultimate objective, and how the action met (or was intended to meet) the objective.

 

I just did...

They went, lined up outside the conference center and asked to be let in to the priesthood session.

Their objective was to show a readiness to receive the priesthood.   One can argue that it wasn't the right way to go about it but I thought it was effective and based on scripture.  

[CV75]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

I just did...

They went, lined up outside the conference center and asked to be let in to the priesthood session.

Their objective was to show a readiness to receive the priesthood.   One can argue that it wasn't the right way to go about it but I thought it was effective and based on scripture.  

According to scripture, readiness to receive the priesthood is established between the individual and the priesthood leader. For example, the Lord sent John to  Joseph Smith (D&C 27:8) that he might be called and ordained as Aaron (Hebrews 5:4), so that no one take the honor upon himself; the 5^th Article of Faith supports this. Readiness is a very individual, intimate, one-one-one sort of pastoral process. That is why I thought it odd for you to transition from giving an example of one of the three individuals' approaches to that of a larger and broader organization's.

The Sermon on the Mount reference about knocking (Matthew 7:7, Luke 11:9, D&C 88:63-65) is an invitation conditioned on the Lord’s will.

How does an organizational campaign observe the council process between those who feel ready to receive the priesthood and their priesthood leader who has the keys to make the determination, and how does it differentiate between the Lord’s will and that which is not expedient?

[Gray]

On 7/30/2016 at 5:22 PM, waveslider said:

I think you are mistaking how God works when it comes to His church. It isn't a democratic process:

"11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13  Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"
Ephesians 4:11-14

God has made it clear that he has his way of doing things. One of which is to come to Him in prayer, first and foremost:

Unless you think the general authorities of the church hear and answer our prayers, this doesn't really get at the issue. If church leaders were able to make decisions in an environment free of outside inputs, they wouldn't need to implement pilot programs in the church to test out their ideas. They would simply say, "this new program is revelation, implement it church-wide."

 

Quote

"And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;"
Luke 18:1

"Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man."
Luke 21:36

I do agree 100 percent that works are just as much a part of it, but who's works are you thinking should be done? Our own Godless desires, or God's? I'm not saying to do nothing after prayer, but rather what the Holy Ghost directs you to do. Even the things we ask for in prayer need to led by the Holy Ghost:

Are your desires godless? Mine are not.

 

Quote

"Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
Romans 8:26

How much more then do we need to be led by the Holy Ghost to do our works, if we are to be led in what we pray for as well?: Do we need to steady the Ark of the Covenant, and die for it?

If the ark ever shows up outside of the giant government warehouse at the end of Indian Jones, I'll be sure not to steady it. Otherwise a reference to ancient artifacts is irrelevant.

Quote

Or do we need to keep God's laws, and follow things his way. How does protesting God's way of doing things not fit within the category of. "..... by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness.....," if it isn't directed by the Holy Ghost to do so. When I said this, I didn't mean to not do any works, but rather to do the works God's way, which starts out with personal revelation:

Your unspoken assumption is that every decision made by church leaders is "God's way of doing things." That cannot possibly be so.

Quote

If you do feel that the Holy Ghost is still directing you to go protest the church, after sincere prayer, then by all means knock yourself out. It isn't for me to judge, but the one who's church it is that you will be protesting.

Let me be clear - I think respectfully speaking up is a more effective strategy than protesting, but it behooves every individual of conscience to do what they feel is right.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Gray

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

According to scripture, readiness to receive the priesthood is established between the individual and the priesthood leader. For example, the Lord sent John to  Joseph Smith (D&C 27:8) that he might be called and ordained as Aaron (Hebrews 5:4), so that no one take the honor upon himself; the 5^th Article of Faith supports this. Readiness is a very individual, intimate, one-one-one sort of pastoral process. That is why I thought it odd for you to transition from giving an example of one of the three individuals' approaches to that of a larger and broader organization's.

 

 

 

 

The Sermon on the Mount reference about knocking (Matthew 7:7, Luke 11:9, D&C 88:63-65) is an invitation conditioned on the Lord’s will.

 

 

 

 

How does an organizational campaign observe the council process between those who feel ready to receive the priesthood and their priesthood leader who has the keys to make the determination, and how does it differentiate between the Lord’s will and that which is not expedient?

 

This is not an issue of an individual being told that they cannot enter a priesthood meeting and cannot receive the priesthood.  This is an institution telling half the church members that they cannot.  Thus the campaign, rather than the individual/leader relationship.  Further, they have no access to the individual nor the council that have the power to seek the Lord's will on the matter (which was OW's original stated goal). 

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

That was AFTER the Ordain Women group tried to be admitted to the priesthood session.

And even now, women who are not members of the press are not allowed to attend the priesthood session.

Trouble makers aren't welcome in most public meetings of any type.

That is simply not true. Either sex is allowed into Priesthood Meetings, and Relief Society Meetings. Of course there is a preference for men at Priesthood Meetings and women at Relief Society Meetings, but the is no exclusion based on sex.

[Calm]

They are not admitted to the Conference Center, but they are now allowed to go to the overflow in the Tabernacle and anywhere else.  Iow, they can watch the Priesthood Session in the same way the vast majority of men do, just not how the 21,000 men who are given tickets watch it.

Given they didn't to listen to it after they were barred from entering the first time but preferred to socialize, it appears that it is about the symbolic meaning of being there rather than listening to the speakers as they speak.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Trouble makers aren't welcome in most public meetings of any type.

That is simply not true. Either sex is allowed into Priesthood Meetings, and Relief Society Meetings. Of course there is a preference for men at Priesthood Meetings and women at Relief Society Meetings, but the is no exclusion based on sex.

With respect to the live General Conference Priesthood Session, women are not allowed to enter.  Do you disagree with that?  Because you seem to be using some less precise wording in your responses as if you are trying to get around that fact.  Please take a look at this SL Trib article discussing the OW efforts:  http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56987610-180/women-priesthood-conference-church.html.csp

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

They are not admitted to the Conference Center, but they are now allowed to go to the overflow in the Tabernacle and anywhere else.  Iow, they can watch the Priesthood Session in the same way the vast majority of men do, just not how the 21,000 men who are given tickets watch it.

Given they didn't to listen to it after they were barred from entering the first time but preferred to socialize, it appears that it is about the symbolic meaning of being there rather than listening to the speakers as they speak.

Is that a new change?  I thought that during their first attempt they weren't allowed in the Tabernacle overflow either?

[Calm]

Yes, it occurred with the change to public broadcasting of the session, something my husband is grateful for btw.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, it occurred with the change to public broadcasting of the session, something my husband is grateful for btw.

That makes sense.  That change was announced after the OW group requested admittance to the live session.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

This is not an issue of an individual being told that they cannot enter a priesthood meeting and cannot receive the priesthood.  This is an institution telling half the church members that they cannot.  Thus the campaign, rather than the individual/leader relationship.  Further, they have no access to the individual nor the council that have the power to seek the Lord's will on the matter (which was OW's original stated goal). 

You said the individuals wanted to show a readiness to receive the priesthood by way of ordination (individual readiness, not their OW organization’s readiness, of course).  My interpretation is this means in the same manner the men do when receiving an office. No matter how many we have, each member is an individual and is treated as such, as shown by the manner in which we enter into covenants, and the way in which those covenants are structured and administered.

OW as an institution may be telling women they cannot have the priesthood, but the message from the Church on the subject of women receiving the priesthood is very different, and as the Bride, her messages originate from the Lord Himself.

Bishops and other servants of God represent both the Bride and the Lord. Where a member and he work together on an issue, they constitute a council. The bishop then may request the additional involvement of those with more keys than he, and thus matters are addressed at the appropriate decision-making council level.  Each member has the same route and the same access. A "campaign" is obviously not a correct understanding or application of the scriptures that I mentioned, nor those about councils.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You said the individuals wanted to show a readiness to receive the priesthood by way of ordination (individual readiness, not their OW organization’s readiness, of course).  My interpretation is this means in the same manner the men do when receiving an office. No matter how many we have, each member is an individual and is treated as such, as shown by the manner in which we enter into covenants, and the way in which those covenants are structured and administered.

OW as an institution may be telling women they cannot have the priesthood, but the message from the Church on the subject of women receiving the priesthood is very different, and as the Bride, her messages originate from the Lord Himself.

Bishops and other servants of God represent both the Bride and the Lord. Where a member and he work together on an issue, they constitute a council. The bishop then may request the additional involvement of those with more keys than he, and thus matters are addressed at the appropriate decision-making council level.  Each member has the same route and the same access. A "campaign" is obviously not a correct understanding or application of the scriptures that I mentioned, nor those about councils.

Again, they aren't being denied because they aren't ready or worthy as individuals per a meeting with their bishop.  They are being denied at the institutional level because of their gender.  Thus, highlighting their desire to the institution seems appropriate to me given that they are denied access to the individual leaders with the power to seek a change at the institutional level.  You keep coming back to councils but it isn't an issue that can be addressed at local councils and in this matter, those local councils aren't going to go upward for more guidance.  Women don't have access to THE council that could address it.  This was their attempt.

So, they went, knocked, and asked.  I see nothing particularly terrible about what they did.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Again, they aren't being denied because they aren't ready or worthy as individuals per a meeting with their bishop.  They are being denied at the institutional level because of their gender.  Thus, highlighting their desire to the institution seems appropriate to me given that they are denied access to the individual leaders with the power to seek a change at the institutional level.  You keep coming back to councils but it isn't an issue that can be addressed at local councils and in this matter, those local councils aren't going to go upward for more guidance.  Women don't have access to THE council that could address it.  This was their attempt.

So, they went, knocked, and asked.  I see nothing particularly terrible about what they did.

They didn’t bother to see their bishops (at least that isn’t touted as a good-faith step the campaign)! That would at least have allowed for a scripture-centered, council approach. The campaign is structured more like a mob than a priesthood council. As President Hinckley said, “Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program.” https://www.mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church That sounds like a personal decision on the Lord’s part.

Yes, I emphasize priesthood councils because that is how decisions are made in the Lord’s program. You don’t know the outcome of such councils as questions are asked.

The “terrible” thing about what they did was to their selves; it was a good way to further entrench their ignorance on the Lord’s way of doing things… unless they were quick enough to observe and repented of their ways. (2 Timothy 3:6). They don’t seem to understand what it really means to receive the priesthood, and that hurts them.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Prog Mormons are just one step away from apostasy.

This is not appropriate. Knock it off.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

They didn’t bother to see their bishops (at least that isn’t touted as a good-faith step the campaign)! That would at least have allowed for a scripture-centered, council approach. The campaign is structured more like a mob than a priesthood council. As President Hinckley said, “Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program.” https://www.mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church That sounds like a personal decision on the Lord’s part.

Yes, I emphasize priesthood councils because that is how decisions are made in the Lord’s program. You don’t know the outcome of such councils as questions are asked.

The “terrible” thing about what they did was to their selves; it was a good way to further entrench their ignorance on the Lord’s way of doing things… unless they were quick enough to observe and repented of their ways. (2 Timothy 3:6). They don’t seem to understand what it really means to receive the priesthood, and that hurts them.

As you have noted here, the decision to let women hold the priesthood would need to come from the top.  I don't know how many of those women met and spoke with their bishops and neither do you.  So you can't condemn them on that.

But I think we both know what the outcome would likely be... look at what you've written.  Do you honestly think that a bishop would go ahead and escalate the request for a woman to receive the priesthood?  That if he did, it would then be escalated by a Stake President?  And onward?

So, they expressed the desire in a way that they hoped would be noticed by their prophet and apostles (since any direct access to them has been formally cut off by the institution).

Since I see nothing from the Lord regarding a prohibition against women holding the priesthood, I don't see these women as having entrenched any ignorance.  I do, however, feel that you have entrenched your ignorance with your posts here.  Sorry.

 

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As you have noted here, the decision to let women hold the priesthood would need to come from the top.  I don't know how many of those women met and spoke with their bishops and neither do you.  So you can't condemn them on that.

But I think we both know what the outcome would likely be... look at what you've written.  Do you honestly think that a bishop would go ahead and escalate the request for a woman to receive the priesthood?  That if he did, it would then be escalated by a Stake President?  And onward?

So, they expressed the desire in a way that they hoped would be noticed by their prophet and apostles (since any direct access to them has been formally cut off by the institution).

Since I see nothing from the Lord regarding a prohibition against women holding the priesthood, I don't see these women as having entrenched any ignorance.  I do, however, feel that you have entrenched your ignorance with your posts here.  Sorry.

 

Yes, the decision would need to come from the Lord, and would involve the councils.

Seeing their bishops is not a step in the campaign, and if they are dependent on being led by their institution, it is reasonable to assume that, in general, they haven’t – it would have been a big talking point if they had.

I do not know what the outcome would be if faithful people follow the council process, but I do know the outcome would be of the Lord. My quote from President Hinckley was to show that it is the Lord's, and not an institutional, decision, nothing more.

The ignorance is in not understanding the processes the Lord Himself provided and instead entering a non-covenant construct to show Him their “readiness” to receive ordination (and really, just how ready is that?) or more in line with what you said, to influence His servants to represent their readiness to receive ordination through a non-covenant construct to Him, which would border on blaspheme.

I don’t see a valid scriptural basis for their approach; and apparently neither do you!

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, the decision would need to come from the Lord, and would involve the councils.

Seeing their bishops is not a step in the campaign, and if they are dependent on being led by their institution, it is reasonable to assume that, in general, they haven’t – it would have been a big talking point if they had.

I do not know what the outcome would be if faithful people follow the council process, but I do know the outcome would be of the Lord. My quote from President Hinckley was to show that it is the Lord's, and not an institutional, decision, nothing more.

The ignorance is in not understanding the processes the Lord Himself provided and instead entering a non-covenant construct to show Him their “readiness” to receive ordination (and really, just how ready is that?) or more in line with what you said, to influence His servants to represent their readiness to receive ordination through a non-covenant construct to Him, which would border on blaspheme.

I don’t see a valid scriptural basis for their approach; and apparently neither do you!

Though I disagree, I respect your interpretation. 

But you are incorrect in saying that I don't see a valid scriptural basis.  I do, as noted.  And while I don't agree with everything they've done, I don't see a problem with their initial request to enter the live session.  

[salgare]

ProgMormons? good heavens an endless flow of attempts to even label it.  By my postings here, one might think I'm against the ProgMormon.  This is not the case at all.  What I'm against is a leadership that will not/cannot support them at this time (but will rapidly change as the OrthoMormon's decress in number).  My objection is to apologetics for the ProgMormon that has not a single voice of support from the GA's and hence even among their ranks they must walk on thin ice (i.e. Brushman recently causing big cracks).

Why are they treated poorly in the Orthodox community?  Because they are put at and remain the fringe, that which is still to be feared from the leaders.  Who cares who we have persecuted in the past, when the time for change comes (fringe becomes the center) we (GA's) do not ask for apologies, nor will they be giving any out.  The cannon fodder of the current fringe be damned .

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by salgare

[waveslider]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Unless you think the general authorities of the church hear and answer our prayers, this doesn't really get at the issue. If church leaders were able to make decisions in an environment free of outside inputs, they wouldn't need to implement pilot programs in the church to test out their ideas. They would simply say, "this new program is revelation, implement it church-wide."

 

Are your desires godless? Mine are not.

 

If the ark ever shows up outside of the giant government warehouse at the end of Indian Jones, I'll be sure not to steady it. Otherwise a reference to ancient artifacts is irrelevant.

Your unspoken assumption is that every decision made by church leaders is "God's way of doing things." That cannot possibly be so.

Let me be clear - I think respectfully speaking up is a more effective strategy than protesting, but it behooves every individual of conscience to do what they feel is right.

You obviously don't truly understand how prayer and revelation works, judging by your comments here. I am not at all implying that general authorities hear and answer prayers. What I am saying is that they receive revelation from the exact same God to whom we are praying to, so when God wants them to change it they will receive that revelation to do so. If you are prompted to ask them to pray about it then your very own revelation to take that action will help to get them to receive revelation. If you simply try to just coerce them to make changes outside of revelation you aren't following God's plan for how He runs His church, so in essence you are following Satan's plans.

All desires are Godless if they go against God's plan, just ask why Lucifer got cast out of Heaven if you think otherwise. "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."
Mosiah 3:19 This scripture doesn't seem to mix too well with protests, unless of course you think that being, "....as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord Seeth fit to inflict upon..." us is part of protesting.

My reference to the handling of the ancient artifact called the ark of the covenant is what I was referring to (handling, being the key word), not the artifact itself. What I meant was that God's way of allowing His authority take care of things doesn't need our intervention just because we think it should be taken care of differently.

My unspoken assumption isn't an assumption: ".....whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
D&C 1:38

Respectfully doing anything that the Spirit prompts you to do is by far a more effective strategy, and yes it does behoove every individual of conscience (which is really the light of Christ anyway) to do what they feel is right. Protesting isn't how God runs things because it isn't a democratic church, It is run by only one, whom it is that we are worshiping in prayer anyway. This is why the first step should always be to pray about it and then take action accordingly, which is usually by going through the proper channels that the Lord has set in place for us already. If you do however feel that after prayer that you should buck the system by protesting or something, then by all means do it. It isn't any of us whom you need to be judged by, but rather He who's church it is that you would be protesting anyway.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Though I disagree, I respect your interpretation. 

But you are incorrect in saying that I don't see a valid scriptural basis.  I do, as noted.  And while I don't agree with everything they've done, I don't see a problem with their initial request to enter the live session.  

I don't think you provided a scripture reference that supports organizing outside of the Church structure, presuming to show a readiness to receive and request ordination. We have the example of Simon the sorcerer who essentially did the same thing (Acts 8), and this discourages such practices.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't think you provided a scripture reference that supports organizing outside of the Church structure, presuming to show a readiness to receive and request ordination. We have the example of Simon the sorcerer who essentially did the same thing (Acts 8), and this discourages such practices.

Standing at the door, knocking, asking is supported by scripture.

Your imposition of the idea that it somehow amounts to "organizing outside of the Church structure" is not a concept I need to provide support for.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Prog Mormons are just one step away from apostasy.

In all fairness, it depends on the individual. Some are at least three or four steps away.

We had a family in our ward when I first moved here 13 years ago who imagined themselves more 'progressive' than the average Saint, and it took them till last year before they formally resigned their memberships, and it was only yesterday that I first noticed the wife parroting anti-Mormon boilerplate on Facebook.