If a female tried to get into the priesthood session of GC...

[pellegrino]

We can absolutely improve. But I dare say actions like this talk have much more to do with satisfying the needs of the one at the expense of the ninety and nine.

It's nice to have a change of pace every once in a while, don't you think?

[BigFatMeanie]

Folks are taking it elsewhere and not coming back to the church. From the interview of Chieko Okazaki, for example:

I wonder how many folks will take it elsewhere if the OW movement achieves its goal?

[myboynoah]

Where? Seriously, where can conversations like this happen in a way that reaches the general body of the church? Sure, the internet has proven to be a gathering place for like-minded Mormons, but that just gives them a way to bitch and moan. It does nothing to start a meaningful dialogue between members who differ on issues like this, which is what really needs to happen. As uncomfortable as it is to the orthodox members, I think there have to be times when uncomfortable topics like this are discussed and alternate points of view are put forth, even in Sacrament meeting.

I think AA covered it. Lot's of places they can take it. Sacrament Meeting is a worship service.

[pellegrino]

I wonder how many folks will take it elsewhere if the OW movement achieves its goal?

Probably the same number of people who took it elsewhere when blacks got the priesthood. If the brethren announce it in GC and issue an official declaration then I don't think it will matter one bit to 90% of the rank and file. They'll be as excited about it as they were with the "historic revelation" about lowering the priesthood age.

[All-American]

I don't think her intent was to be divisive. I honestly think it was a lot of pent up emotion that just boiled over. I get what you're saying about sacrament meeting, and I'll concede that it wasn't the BEST place to have that conversation. The problem is that things that are on the opposite end of the spectrum (women should only be mothers, they must dress modestly to avoid tempting males, they shouldn't work outside of the home) are regularly said in sacrament meeting and nobody so much as bats an eye over it. As I've said before, the most conservative viewpoint will almost always get a free pass in any church meeting, regardless of how sexist, exclusionary, or even flat out false it is. If sacrament meeting is supposed to be a pace for communing with Christ, then perhaps the church should do a better job at ensuring that neither end of the spectrum has a strong voice in that meeting. Until then, I applaud the courage it took for her to give that talk, even if it offended 99% of the congregation. Mormons need to wake up and realize that the status quo isn't cutting it anymore.

Yeah, the Eagle Forum types shouldn't have a place at the pulpit any more than the OW people do. And yeah, it's likely that the right wing gets away with it because of leaders who secretly agree, even if they can't be on the record. But I don't think the solution is to see if two wrongs make right.

[Pheidippides]

Agreed. Take it elsewhere.

My wife and I did.

[pellegrino]

I think AA covered it. Lot's of places they can take it. Sacrament Meeting is a worship service.

Then it should be worship for all, not just for the ninety and nine and shit like "women should [insert sexist comment here]" shouldn't be said anymore than "women should [insert feminist comment here]". Unfortunately I can think of three or four times in the past year in my ward alone where I and a decent percentage (10) didn't feel welcome, or like it was much of a worship service. What are we to do when we feel a speakers' words are divisive, intentionally or not? Why do they get a pass and she doesn't?

[DrumNFeather]

My wife and I did.

Meh, sort of. Right?

[All-American]

Then it should be worship for all, not just for the ninety and nine and shit like "women should [insert sexist comment here]" shouldn't be said anymore than "women should [insert feminist comment here]". Unfortunately I can think of three or four times in the past year in my ward alone where I and a decent percentage (10) didn't feel welcome, or like it was much of a worship service. What are we to do when we feel a speakers' words are divisive, intentionally or not? Why do they get a pass and she doesn't?

Neither should get a pass. So is the solution to set them at each other's throats? Might make for a good show, I grant you that, but I wish it were made clear that neither talks like this nor that 5th Sunday lesson in eastern Idaho have a place in our worship services.

[Solon]

Probably the same number of people who took it elsewhere when blacks got the priesthood. If the brethren announce it in GC and issue an official declaration then I don't think it will matter one bit to 90% of the rank and file. They'll be as excited about it as they were with the "historic revelation" about lowering the priesthood age.

If anything, I think this is a failure of leadership.
Mormons should demand more of their leaders than vague generalities & press releases.

[pellegrino]

Neither should get a pass. So is the solution to set them at each other's throats? Might make for a good show, I grant you that, but I wish it were made clear that neither talks like this nor that 5th Sunday lesson in eastern Idaho have a place in our worship services.

that's a nice thought, but you and I both know that the conservatives get a pass all the time and there is absolutely nothing out there that indicates a change in the way that works. As to whether or not solving this by setting them at each other's throats is the right path, no, I don't think it is. However, the fact is that the two factions are on a collision course and unlike the sheep on the edge of the flock in the past, there is a growing number of marginalized Mormons who are tired of being pushed around and they're fighting back. In other words, the status quo is pitting members against each other, simply because the one is tired of being pushed around and the ninety and nine are unwilling to listen to them, even when they voice their opinions in a reasonable manner, according to the standard rules of engagement.

If anything, I think this is a failure of leadership.
Mormons should demand more of their leaders than vague generalities & press releases.

You are correct, but Mormons will not demand more of their leaders because a) they don't know what to demand and b) they don't think it is their place. Their job is to sustain and obey, not to voice opinions. Those who do are seen as ark steadiers and we all know what happens to them.

[All-American]

that's a nice thought, but you and I both know that the conservatives get a pass all the time and there is absolutely nothing out there that indicates a change in the way that works. As to whether or not solving this by setting them at each other's throats is the right path, no, I don't think it is. However, the fact is that the two factions are on a collision course and unlike the sheep on the edge of the flock in the past, there is a growing number of marginalized Mormons who are tired of being pushed around and they're fighting back. In other words, the status quo is pitting members against each other, simply because the one is tired of being pushed around and the ninety and nine are unwilling to listen to them, even when they voice their opinions in a reasonable manner, according to the standard rules of engagement.



You are correct, but Mormons will not demand more of their leaders because a) they don't know what to demand and b) they don't think it is their place. Their job is to sustain and obey, not to voice opinions. Those who do are seen as ark steadiers and we all know what happens to them.

I think there is more reason for optimism than you do, but that's less important. If your point is that there are too many boneheads on both sides of the spectrum doing things that have no place in our worship services, I'm with you. If you're saying you hope the noise the clashing boneheads make cause members and leaders of the church to think about what might be provoking the boneheads, I think I'm still with you. I stop short of cheering any of the boneheads on.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

The Herald Extra speaks the truth!

http://m.heraldextra.com/news/opinio...ile_touch=true

[Jeff Lebowski]

I wonder how many folks will take it elsewhere if the OW movement achieves its goal?

Almost none. Everyone will immediately pretend that they were for it all along. And people will tearfully recount the absolute joy they felt when the announcement was made.

This will happen eventually. There just aren't many scriptural or theological reasons to keep it down long term.

[Pheidippides]

Meh, sort of. Right?

Not sure what you mean, but OW (and specifically the treatment of OW - she was never an active participant in the group) was the catalyst for my wife to leave.