The June 1

[Commando]

Jon Huntsman Jr's daughter, Abby Huntsman, gives her opinion on MSNBC...

http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch...h-290985539952

left behind? That's funny.

[Uncle Ted]

left behind? That's funny.

Yeah, I thought she left the church behind some time ago.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Jon Huntsman Jr's daughter, Abby Huntsman, gives her opinion on MSNBC...

http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch...h-290985539952

So we get Kirk Cameron? I'll take it!
left-behind-movie-kirk-cameron-vhs-cover-art.jpg

[Omaha 680]

Jon Huntsman Jr's daughter, Abby Huntsman, gives her opinion on MSNBC...

http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch...h-290985539952

I want to know what Meghan McCain thinks.

[Jacob]

2. I spent over an hour looking through Ordain Women materials and have yet to find what, exactly, that organization teaches that could be considered heretical or apostate.

I admittedly haven't perused the OW website. Not even a click. But I would have thought that they are advocating ordaining women to the priesthood; contrary to current church practice,teaching, doctrine, customs. If they don't,sure seems like a silly name.

Are folks preaching polygamy not apostate because they are able to cite scripture and church practice to support their criticism of current church practices?

I agree with the OW movement, but that doesn't mean they are not heretical. I'm a simple man, so I use things like Wikipedia.

Heresy is any provocative belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. A heretic is a proponent of such claims or beliefs.[1] Heresy is distinct from both apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one's religion, principles or cause,[2] and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion.[3]

I think the simple definition suffices. OW is clearly heretical but not likely apostate or blasphemy. Do you disagree with the definition?

[Northwestcoug]

I want to know what Meghan McCain thinks.

First time anyone ever said that.

[byu71]

Jon Huntsman Jr's daughter, Abby Huntsman, gives her opinion on MSNBC...

http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch...h-290985539952

Cool. I didn't think this was getting any national coverage. Glad to see MSNBC on top of it. It would be even cooler if the big hitters like Sharpton and Mathews were on it, but at least they are covering it.

Unlike Fox which is covering little stupid things like the IRS.

[Solon]

I admittedly haven't perused the OW website. Not even a click. But I would have thought that they are advocating ordaining women to the priesthood; contrary to current church practice,teaching, doctrine, customs. If they don't,sure seems like a silly name.

Are folks preaching polygamy not apostate because they are able to cite scripture and church practice to support their criticism of current church practices?

I agree with the OW movement, but that doesn't mean they are not heretical. I'm a simple man, so I use things like Wikipedia.

I think the simple definition suffices. OW is clearly heretical but not likely apostate or blasphemy. Do you disagree with the definition?

I think that's a fair point, that OW tiptoes around being a heretical movement.
But they're very careful to avoid advocating directly for women's ordination. The website is quite clear that they are asking the LDS leadership to consider the issue. Rhetorically, the website lays out all of the reasons the leadership should probably conclude that ordaining women is the answer to the inequalities in LDS structure, but it stops short of actually drawing the conclusion for them. Maybe that's just a semantic point; maybe. I think it's a shrewd point.

It's too bad (like Jacob points out) that OW chose that name. IMO, the main strength of that website/movement is the way it lays out the stark contrasts between female & male in the church. Regardless of how any of us feels about female ordination, that is a helluva strong point, grounded in fact, and where this conversation really should be focused. And this, IMO, is where the both OW & the LDS church have failed us all: we've been sidetracked into analyzing the doctrinal appropriateness of ordaining women when we really should be evaluating the everyday messages we send to LDS women & girls. Of course, it wasn't Kelly & OW who terminated the conversation (in fact, there really was never much of a dialogue).

It really feels like a missed opportunity.

[Goatnapper'96]

I think that's a fair point, that OW tiptoes around being a heretical movement.
But they're very careful to avoid advocating directly for women's ordination. The website is quite clear that they are asking the LDS leadership to consider the issue. Rhetorically, the website lays out all of the reasons the leadership should probably conclude that ordaining women is the answer to the inequalities in LDS structure, but it stops short of actually drawing the conclusion for them. Maybe that's just a semantic point; maybe. I think it's a shrewd point.

It's too bad (like Jacob points out) that OW chose that name. IMO, the main strength of that website/movement is the way it lays out the stark contrasts between female & male in the church. Regardless of how any of us feels about female ordination, that is a helluva strong point, grounded in fact, and where this conversation really should be focused. And this, IMO, is where the both OW & the LDS church have failed us all: we've been sidetracked into analyzing the doctrinal appropriateness of ordaining women when we really should be evaluating the everyday messages we send to LDS women & girls. Of course, it wasn't Kelly & OW who terminated the conversation (in fact, there really was never much of a dialogue).

It really feels like a missed opportunity.

But don't these types of "reforms" have to have some type of goal that is quantitative? Whenever I read about women's rights in the developing world statistics are always quoted referencing birth rates and whatnot.

I think you make a good point about discussion and the name but reality is that there has to be some type of symbolic goal around which to rally folks.

[pellegrino]

I think that's a fair point, that OW tiptoes around being a heretical movement.
But they're very careful to avoid advocating directly for women's ordination. The website is quite clear that they are asking the LDS leadership to consider the issue. Rhetorically, the website lays out all of the reasons the leadership should probably conclude that ordaining women is the answer to the inequalities in LDS structure, but it stops short of actually drawing the conclusion for them. Maybe that's just a semantic point; maybe. I think it's a shrewd point.

It's too bad (like Jacob points out) that OW chose that name. IMO, the main strength of that website/movement is the way it lays out the stark contrasts between female & male in the church. Regardless of how any of us feels about female ordination, that is a helluva strong point, grounded in fact, and where this conversation really should be focused. And this, IMO, is where the both OW & the LDS church have failed us all: we've been sidetracked into analyzing the doctrinal appropriateness of ordaining women when we really should be evaluating the everyday messages we send to LDS women & girls. Of course, it wasn't Kelly & OW who terminated the conversation (in fact, there really was never much of a dialogue).

It really feels like a missed opportunity.

they tried that with groups like WAVE and other organizations, but they got absolutely no response from the Mormon community or the corporate church. We can criticize OW for their approach, and tactics, but for a year's worth of activity they produced some serious results. Never underestimate the power of a fringe group that demands to be heard.

[Solon]

But don't these types of "reforms" have to have some type of goal that is quantitative? Whenever I read about women's rights in the developing world statistics are always quoted referencing birth rates and whatnot.

I think you make a good point about discussion and the name but reality is that there has to be some type of symbolic goal around which to rally folks.

You're probably right.
I think there are a couple of things going on here.

I think there is the "stated goal" of having the brethren consider/pray on the issue.
And then the real goal of seeing women take a more equal role in administration & leadership, which LDS church structure requires to be priesthood-holders.

Either way, IMO, the main point of female roles is being obscured by this ordination talk.
Yet another reason for a professionally trained clergy, IMO.

[byu71]

You're probably right.

And then the real goal of seeing women take a more equal role in administration & leadership, which LDS church structure requires to be priesthood-holders.

If women got the Priesthood, wouldn't the system work out basically the same as it does now for the men. The more conservative or orthodox you are in your thinking, the more apt you are to rise in leadership positions.

Why wouldn't it work the same for women. The very women who would rise to the top of leadership roles would be the very women who don't support the OW movement.

Can you see someone like Kate actually rising to a leadership position? How about a male Kate counterpart. Any of them rising to leadership positions?

You folks behind this movement don't just want priesthood for the women, you want an overhaul or even a revolution. Revolutions come from a popular groundswell. It just isn't there.

[Solon]

If women got the Priesthood, wouldn't the system work out basically the same as it does now for the men. The more conservative or orthodox you are in your thinking, the more apt you are to rise in leadership positions.

Why wouldn't it work the same for women. The very women who would rise to the top of leadership roles would be the very women who don't support the OW movement.

Can you see someone like Kate actually rising to a leadership position? How about a male Kate counterpart. Any of them rising to leadership positions?

You folks behind this movement don't just want priesthood for the women, you want an overhaul or even a revolution. Revolutions come from a popular groundswell. It just isn't there.

I would argue that, historically, most revolutions have been effected by a well organized minority.
I can support this with infinity examples.

[byu71]

I would argue that, historically, most revolutions have been effected by a well organized minority.
I can support this with infinity examples.

You might be able to. Just give me two that don't involve class or economic status. It isn't like in this case women of wealth get the priesthood and those who are poor don't.

[Goatnapper'96]

I would argue that, historically, most revolutions have been effected by a well organized minority.
I can support this with infinity examples.

But they often tap into a majority sentiment. That sentiment isn't there, at least it isn't there yet. One other issue against it is that amongst those that can be relied upon, i.e. the majority of those trully committed to staying in the LDS Church, I don't think there is a majority of unhappiness with the status quo. Certainly as society views the LDS stance with more and more disregard more and more mormons will adopt societal views, but I would think the issue is there are so many other LDS beliefs that popular society will disregard that many, if not most, of those mormons persuaded by societal views will likely put on their walking shoes and leave. Many, if not most, of those that stay will be content with the argument of different roles and perhaps even charged/excited to belong to a religion that is skeptical of changing societal values. The LDS Church does a good job of convincing its members it is peculiar and set apart from the world as part of this binary world view.