- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
silentstruggle wrote:
The question I have is why don’t they do something stronger? “We as priesthood body have made ordaining women to the priesthood a matter of fasting and prayer, and the Lord has revealed to us that it is not His will at the present time.” It seems the church has bypassed its revelatory roots.
Excellent point!!! They could have at least showed they listened. But the answer was “no, we aren’t going to pray about it, we aren’t going to entertain the idea”.
But I do have a question — if they did agree to validate ordain women by praying about the women/priesthood issue, would this not make the Q12 and FP obligated to pray for revelation about every change that any group with special interests in the church brought to their feet?
And is this a precedent you would want to set if you were in their position?
DarkJedi wrote:Hawkgrrrl, I love you and we agree 99% of the time, but I’m sorry, I after to disagree a bit. I think Kate did publicly and deliberately act in opposition to the church’s faithful leaders if only by protesting at General Conference when they asked her not to (and asked quite nicely, actually). Seriously, the thing is on TV now – probably because of OW – they really didn’t need to “try to get in” again and it’s hard to construe that action as just wanting the prophet to pray about it.
Well, here’s where I’m coming from, my recap of what should have happened at every step that didn’t and why it inevitably esclated:
– Oct event: KK should have declared victory when they decided to broadcast it.
– Oct event: When OW showed up, they should have just let them in rather than acting like girl cooties are gross.
– Apr event: OW shouldn’t have done the event at all. It was repetitive and obvious it would end badly.
– Apr event: The church shouldn’t have tried to relegate them to the anti-Mormon area. They also shouldn’t have touted having meetings with feminists but deliberately excluded OW (especially since they met with the awful MWS group). They shouldn’t expect a “feminist cookie” for the absolutely tiny concessions they’ve made like posting women’s pictures in the conference center or creating a Women’s Conference that was still more of the same problem: women only speaking to women & children.
At any time, the church could have directly engaged with OW, but they never did. PA is not really the same thing as the leadership, except apparently it is. Also, something I really don’t think most men have thought about, women don’t engage with the church hierarchy in the same way men do. I can’t speak for Kate, but as a woman, I’ve spent 46 years ignoring how the PH works because it’s not something that has anything to do with me. So trying to get anything done in the church, you have to deal with it, but as a woman, we have no idea how that would happen.
The summary of it is, though, at every turn, the church had a chance to show they took women seriously, and they did the wrong thing. And Kate had a chance to show that progress could be made without full concession, and she didn’t.
hawkgrrrl wrote:DarkJedi wrote:Hawkgrrrl, I love you and we agree 99% of the time, but I’m sorry, I after to disagree a bit. I think Kate did publicly and deliberately act in opposition to the church’s faithful leaders if only by protesting at General Conference when they asked her not to (and asked quite nicely, actually). Seriously, the thing is on TV now – probably because of OW – they really didn’t need to “try to get in” again and it’s hard to construe that action as just wanting the prophet to pray about it.
Well, here’s where I’m coming from, my recap of what should have happened at every step that didn’t and why it inevitably esclated:
– Oct event: KK should have declared victory when they decided to broadcast it.
– Oct event: When OW showed up, they should have just let them in rather than acting like girl cooties are gross.
– Apr event: OW shouldn’t have done the event at all. It was repetitive and obvious it would end badly.
– Apr event: The church shouldn’t have tried to relegate them to the anti-Mormon area. They also shouldn’t have touted having meetings with feminists but deliberately excluded OW (especially since they met with the awful MWS group). They shouldn’t expect a “feminist cookie” for the absolutely tiny concessions they’ve made like posting women’s pictures in the conference center or creating a Women’s Conference that was still more of the same problem: women only speaking to women & children.
At any time, the church could have directly engaged with OW, but they never did. PA is not really the same thing as the leadership, except apparently it is. Also, something I really don’t think most men have thought about, women don’t engage with the church hierarchy in the same way men do. I can’t speak for Kate, but as a woman, I’ve spent 46 years ignoring how the PH works because it’s not something that has anything to do with me. So trying to get anything done in the church, you have to deal with it, but as a woman, we have no idea how that would happen.
The summary of it is, though, at every turn, the church had a chance to show they took women seriously, and they did the wrong thing. And Kate had a chance to show that progress could be made without full concession, and she didn’t.
Yep.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I’m late to this party, apologies. When I read the official statement it sounded exactly right. All these official first presidency statements do. I guess that means I’m a TBM.
Regarding Kate:
I assume this topic has already been beat into the ground here, but someone raised it here so I’m responding here with my opinion.
I initially wanted to give Kate the benefit of the doubt. But it’s become more clear to me she is not simply asking questions. She named her group “Ordain Women” not “Help me understand why women don’t have the priesthood.” My wife has been up to the OM website and apparently there are 6 “missionary” discussions Kate encourages people to present to other Mormons. Their are videos mocking church patriarchy. It’s apostasy.
It’s really very simple: If Christ is the head of the church, then he doesn’t need us to tell him how to do it. That is pride. When you lead a group to try to force Christ to do things your way, that is apostasy. When your church leader tells you to stop and you keep doing it – apostasy. When you are excommunicated but vow to continue anyway – apostasy.
shoshin: I think all your assumptions are based on the notion that the Q12 and Jesus are always lock step. That’s been proven inaccurate throughout church history. Quote:If Christ is the head of the church, then he doesn’t need us to tell him how to do it.
But we do need him to tell us how to do it, and church history shows that he only does this when we ask.
Quote:That is pride.
Is it prideful to ask or to think you know the answers? If it’s the latter, then given that church leaders have deliberately avoided stating they’ve asked, are you also accusing them of pride?
Quote:When you lead a group to try to force Christ to do things your way, that is apostasy.
Given that women have no institutional power, how would it be possible for them to force the church to do anything? Women understand this very well. Even the idea that women could force the church to do anything is a joke.
I appreciate that your view is the party line. I understand that. But can you see how others see it differently when they simply don’t assume that church leaders are always lock step with Jesus’ will? Given that church leaders each individually have their own opinions that differ from each others’ opinions, it’s obvious they can’t all be lock step with Jesus’ will. We all must work out our own salvation with fear & trembling. Even church leaders.
Just pointing out here Shoshin that while I agree there are no surprises in this statement, the definition of apostasy in handbook 1 was not at all clear prior to this. In the only disciplinary council I sat on where the person was excommunicated for apostasy, we spent a great deal of time discussing exactly what apostasy was related to the case at hand (it was quite complicated, actually) as the circumstances did not fit the vague description in the handbook. In the end we decided it was apostasy and took it to the Lord to confirm. The way you define apostasy in your post does seem to fit the clarification given last week, but did not necessarily fit the definition in handbook 1. (I do realize that the hand book has been updated since the time of the incident described here, but I’m not sure the definition changed – perhaps someone with access could clarify.) Also interesting as I (try to) recall the handbook is the actual lack of reference to apostasy and Christ – it talked only about the church, not Christ. And I agree with Hawkgrrrl – I don’t assume Christ runs the day to day affairs of the church or actually interferes or otherwise interacts much at all. The Holy Ghost likely plays a bigger role in the administration of the church than Christ himself does, and even then he does not interfere the the prime directive of free agency.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.