- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:
What I really want to say is, “Quit being an asshole.”
I imagine Jesus felt this way all the time.
Not quite in those words, but he did say as much to the scribes and Pharisees.Some of the New Testament translations from the original language are fairly blunt. I like to think Christ would be proud.
LookingHard wrote:I agree that I think Kate was a bit naïve, or at least played that card.
I think her movement was bold, but not effective. It was too much change too fast. Had she called the movement.
“Women of Faith” or something like that, and pressed to have women receive expanded callings (like Sunday School counselors or president), Assistants to the President in missions, and slowly initiated change that merely pressed on borders, without trying to shatter them, she might have made a long-term difference. Ghandi’s movement took most of his life. She moved too quickly.
SilentDawning wrote:LookingHard wrote:I agree that I think Kate was a bit naïve, or at least played that card.
I think her movement was bold, but not effective. It was too much change too fast. Had she called the movement.
“Women of Faith” or something like that, and pressed to have women receive expanded callings (like Sunday School counselors or president), Assistants to the President in missions, and slowly initiated change that merely pressed on borders, without trying to shatter them, she might have made a long-term difference. Ghandi’s movement took most of his life. She moved too quickly.
I agree it was a bit too much (not the core “can you guys ask HF about women being ordained). But it also may have helped Women of Faith as some of what they have been pushing for (and being ignored) were now seen as the “reasonable” women to maybe give some ear to (and it seems to me they are, such as the women in the ward council are asked to give input into Sacrament meeting planning – i.e. what talks are given on what subject.”LookingHard wrote:SilentDawning wrote:LookingHard wrote:I agree that I think Kate was a bit naïve, or at least played that card.
I think her movement was bold, but not effective. It was too much change too fast. Had she called the movement.
“Women of Faith” or something like that, and pressed to have women receive expanded callings (like Sunday School counselors or president), Assistants to the President in missions, and slowly initiated change that merely pressed on borders, without trying to shatter them, she might have made a long-term difference. Ghandi’s movement took most of his life. She moved too quickly.
I agree it was a bit too much (not the core “can you guys ask HF about women being ordained). But it also may have helped Women of Faith as some of what they have been pushing for (and being ignored) were now seen as the “reasonable” women to maybe give some ear to (and it seems to me they are, such as the women in the ward council are asked to give input into Sacrament meeting planning – i.e. what talks are given on what subject.”Totally off topic but kindof involved in what you are saying LH,…when are women going to be involved in disciplinary councils from the perspective of being a judge on the panel, and not just a recipient of the decision making?
I mentioned this in another post, but I know a woman tried for her membership at the stake level–17 men and 1 woman. Come on…what is up with that!?
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03303/pane__3303817b.jpg Congrats! You’ve got an all male panel!
#allmalepanel
When I used to be more involved in certain political issues, those organizations felt it was important to take a much stronger public stance than they as individuals truly felt. They felt that only through taking a very bold stance was any change going to actually occur. When negotiations started, if they started from an extreme, they could negotiate to a more nuanced, rational place. I saw Kate Kelly utilizing those tactics. Those tactics work in a democracy’s political system. Those tactics don’t work in a religion with a hierarchy framework, as the power is all with the religion’s authority figures. There is no way to negotiate when all the power is held by a central authority that is not voted into office though a popular vote or electorate college. There is no negotiation, they just remove your membership and move on.
amateurparent wrote:When I used to be more involved in certain political issues, those organizations felt it was important to take a much stronger public stance than they as individuals truly felt. They felt that only through taking a very bold stance was any change going to actually occur. When negotiations started, if they started from an extreme, they could negotiate to a more nuanced, rational place. I saw Kate Kelly utilizing those tactics.
Those tactics work in a democracy’s political system. Those tactics don’t work in a religion with a hierarchy framework, as the power is all with the religion’s authority figures. There is no way to negotiate when all the power is held by a central authority that is not voted into office though a popular vote or electorate college. There is no negotiation, they just remove your membership and move on.
OK…I don’t want to be trite with saying this…but this resonates with me RIGHT HERE. Because of this oligarchy structure, there really is no need for the Q15 to listen or even acknowledge those who are under them–they make the rules, they decide who gets to be heard, and they control the terms of engagement.
There seems to be a shift from the more historical times to now. Isn’t a large portion of the D&C the result of people going to JS and asking him to ask the Lord about specific questions they had? That certainly isn’t the way it is now.
The thing that bothers me is the trickle down affect. The very questions themselves are proscribed.
Am I wrong in this?
From my perspective, reforms in governments, religions, societies, etc. have multiple threads of aggravation. I think that while society likes to believe that it’s the moderate methods that are effective, historically, these moderate methods are frequently accompanied by more extreme efforts that made theirs seem more reasonable. I do think Ordain Woman prompted more conversations about women in the church and how their voices can be better recognized. There has also been a defensive reaction, but Kate Kelly’s “movement” has prompted some action, all-be-it small. It’s all very slow but I don’t think this would have been an even slower process had it not been for the major public interest in Ordain Women’s protests which prompted conversations about women in the Church.
I don’t think we’ll ever know what Kate Kelly’s strategies were.
Fwiw, today’s excommunication structure and rate of use is MUCH better than it was early in our history. It actually is quite interesting to see how much better it is now than then – even if I still want it to continue to change. Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, today’s excommunication structure and rate of use is MUCH better than it was early in our history. It actually is quite interesting to see how much better it is now than then – even if I still want it to continue to change.
Does anyone have any real idea of the return rates?
When I was young, if someone got X-ed, there was a general announcement to the “adult” members of the ward about that person. The humiliation must have been overwhelming for that person–scarlet letter type of stuff.
I wish there were some statistics about this….
I have no idea what the exact rate of return is. I know it is higher for sexual misconduct than for apostasy, but I don’t have numbers for this one. Also, just to be clear, I said the structure and USE rate (meaning how often someone was excommunicated) were better earlier in our history. It used to be much looser, allowing excommunication to occur for things we would consider quite silly or trivial now, so it used to happen much more frequently than it does now.
Old-Timer wrote:I have no idea what the exact rate of return is. I know it is higher for sexual misconduct than for apostasy, but I don’t have numbers for this one.
Also, just to be clear, I said the structure and USE rate (meaning how often someone was excommunicated) were better earlier in our history. It used to be more looser, allowing excommunication to occur for things we would consider quite silly or trivial now, so it used to happen much more frequently than it does now.
I would be very curious to see how many execommunications are appealed to higher authorities. My understanding is you can appeal to the stake level, then does it go right to the Q12,..and is there a higher one to Q3?
I know of no contemporary examples where someone has appealed to a higher court.
IIRC, one can appeal a bishop’s decision to the stake presidency and the to the FP. It would appear that the Q12 have some input on those appeals because DHO made a comment in the press conference on apostasy (for lack of a better title) that sometimes excommunications are overturned by the FP on those appeals. That was the first I had ever heard of that happening and I know no one to whom it has happened. The only ones who have appealed to that level that I am aware of are Kelly and Dehlin. DarkJedi wrote:IIRC, one can appeal a bishop’s decision to the stake presidency and the to the FP. It would appear that the Q12 have some input on those appeals because DHO made a comment in the press conference on apostasy (for lack of a better title) that sometimes excommunications are overturned by the FP on those appeals. That was the first I had ever heard of that happening and I know no one to whom it has happened. The only ones who have appealed to that level that I am aware of are Kelly and Dehlin.
I have spent a moment thinking about Kelly and her situation. What chances are there for her reinstatement? I mean really? Would she have to publicly denounce everything she was saying and fighting for, which would seem like crawling back on hands and knees groveling for forgiveness?
Sometimes I wonder,…I REALLY wonder if people simply say to themselves: “Well, this will all be worked out in the next life.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.