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

[byu71]

If Joanna Brooks started her own religion, what form would it take and how many followers would there be? Would they perform
different-sex marriages?

She probably doesn't want to have to go to all the work. She probably would like to find one already functioning and reform it to her way of thinking. I will bet she voted for Obama and I will also bet she teaches college or is a jounalist..

[Sullyute]

Of course that would be if you felt the church was an organization that should bend to the will of the people.

D&C 26:2 "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen."

She probably doesn't want to have to go to all the work. She probably would like to find one already functioning and reform it to her way of thinking. I will bet she voted for Obama and I will also bet she teaches college or is a jounalist..

I don't know about the first, but you are correct on the second. She teaches at SDSU.

[byu71]

D&C 26:2 "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen."

I have heard that scripture. I wish someone like Ms Brooks would take on something more beneficial like getting the honor code changed. That would probably be an easier vote to get.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is what JB said:

Church PR's statement to Ordain Women today is an effort to discourage women like me (who care about women's issues but have mixed feelings about ordination) from joining OW's respectful, poignant, determined effort to advance equality within the LDS Church. It is incorrect and inconsistent with the historical record for LDS Church Public Affairs spokespeople to state that there has been a good "conversation" in the Church about women's issues.

If there has been, it is because generations of Mormon feminists have continued to ask faithful but agitating questions of the faith we love, even when it has discouraged, rejected, and disrespected us. Today's statement reflects a Church PR strategy of trying to avoid serious conversation by disparaging those it feels threatened by.

I respect what OW has done to advance serious conversation about women's equality in Mormonism. I will stand with them this April. Please join me.

What a heretic, eh?

[Paperback Writer]

Oh, I am not real familiar with the Jewish religion. Do women hold the Priesthood in their religion?

I can see how she might be ticked he could go to a LDS Priesthood meeting and she can't. Of course that would be if you felt the church was an organization that should bend to the will of the people.

I met a female rabbi once so some Jewish demoninations do ordain women. However, the orthodox Jewish sects do not.
If Mr. Brooks attends the priesthood session, he would be doing so on the Jewish Sabbath, at least until the sun sets. Perhaps if the LDS church allows woman to attend the general priesthood session of conference then the meeting will be moved to Sunday. Who wants to go to a church meeting on Saturday night?

[byu71]

This is what JB said:



What a heretic, eh?

I don't think so, but I would say she does have a healthy opinion of herself. The churches statement was meant to disourage women like her? However, she is strong enough to not only not be discouraged but she will join and and ask her minions to also join.

Wow, I am impressed. She has her followers and the church has their's. Why don't they just have a vote and get it over with.

[Surfah]

Depends on what you mean by "damaging". If you mean which is most likely to have a lasting impact on the church, it would be Brooks by a mile.

I was joking but I agree with you because the court case is a complete joke. But truthfully the Church is not going to be hurt at all by any of this. What was the fallout last year? Local coverage. A couple religious blogs. It's mostly forgotten. The Church drew the line in the sand and pulled the God's law card. What is OW going to do now? The Church forced their hand with this move. OW says they're not protesting against the Church, but the Church's letter defined them as protesters. And when OW shows up to Temple Square it's going to look an awful lot like protesting even if they're not carrying signs and burning effigies of the Prophet and are polite as I expect them to be.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't think so, but I would say she does have a healthy opinion of herself. The churches statement was meant to disourage women like her? However, she is strong enough to not only not be discouraged by she will join and lead the charge.

Wow, I am impressed. She has her followers and the church has their's. Why don't they just have a vote and get it over with.

I was going to post something about this reminding me of a typical BYU freshman letter to the editor, but then I realized that would be an insult to BYU freshmen. Even the really dumb ones.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Ouch. The OW movement plans to try to attend priesthood again. Church responds with a hardline response:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...-dialogue.html

Tells them they are out of line, a fringe minority group (like that matters), and are protestors therefore will be restricted to the free speech zone.

Unreal. Why not just let them in? What would that hurt? Men are allowed to attend the women's meeting and unordained and even non-LDS men are allowed to attend priesthood.

What a horrible statement and decision by the church.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I was joking but I agree with you because the court case is a complete joke. But truthfully the Church is not going to be hurt at all by any of this. What was the fallout last year? Local coverage. A couple religious blogs. It's mostly forgotten. The Church drew the line in the sand and pulled the God's law card. What is OW going to do now? The Church forced their hand with this move. OW says they're not protesting against the Church, but the Church's letter defined them as protesters. And when OW shows up to Temple Square it's going to look an awful lot like protesting even if they're not carrying signs and burning effigies of the Prophet and are polite as I expect them to be.

The smart move for the church would have been to let them in. That would immediately defuse the issue and they (OW) would have to move on to some other method of agitation.

With the recent articles such as the one in the NY Times, you can make a good argument that the OW movement has picked up a lot of steam in the past year. This will simply ensure that it is kept in the spotlight. Sure, 90% of the members (allegedly) are against ordination, but this keeps the conversation going. I don't think anyone realistically expects this issue to be resolved quickly.

[byu71]

I was going to post something about this reminding me of a typical BYU freshman letter to the editor, but then I realized that would be an insult to BYU freshmen. Even the really dumb ones.

There you go again pulling the you're dumb and I am smart card. No wonder you are such an admirer of MS Brooks. Sounds like you both are into helping the dumb people see the light.

Sadly I am too dumb to appreciate your help. I do appreciate though you were smart to put together this board. I do wish we could vote on how things are done though. Perhaps Ms Brooks would take up the cause.

[Paperback Writer]

I was going to post something about this reminding me of a typical BYU freshman letter to the editor, but then I realized that would be an insult to BYU freshmen. Even the really dumb ones.

Would church leadership offer the standard reply to OW that BYU admin offer to BYU freshmen: If you don't like it here, go somewhere else - there's plenty of others who would be happy to have your spot.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Would church leadership offer the standard reply to OW that BYU admin offer to BYU freshmen: If you don't like it here, go somewhere else - there's plenty of others who would be happy to have your spot.

I can't imagine they would say that as it wouldn't make a lick of sense in this case.

[Surfah]

The smart move for the church would have been to let them in. That would immediately defuse the issue and they (OW) would have to move on to some other method of agitation.

With the recent articles such as the one in the NY Times, you can make a good argument that the OW movement has picked up a lot of steam in the past year. This will simply ensure that it is kept in the spotlight. Sure, 90% of the members (allegedly) are against ordination, but this keeps the conversation going. I don't think anyone realistically expects this issue to be resolved quickly.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what the Church did. Like Joanna, this isn't one of those bosom burning causes for me. But I tend to agree with you though that a more savvy move PR-wise would be to just grant them access. Personally I don't care if women are present. Though I suppose it may be awkward for some to be told to stop looking at porn in front of their wives or mothers. I have seen women present in chapels so I don't understand the difference. I also don't understand why getting into priesthood conference means so much to OW. Attending priesthood conference isn't any sort of prerequisite to obtaining the priesthood. Which I guess makes it seem silly that both the Church and OW see it as some big deal.

[byu71]

I can't imagine they would say that as it wouldn't make a lick of sense in this case.

Without calling me dumb, please seriously answer this question.

Her saying that she really wasn't into this, but now the church has done this they will have to battle her doesn't sound like someone who thinks her crap doesn't stink?

Now I, along with probably 90% of the members have never heard of her. Maybe it is just me though who hasn't. Is she really that powerful that the boys in the big offices are now wishing they hadn't ticked her off?

As I said originally though, I agree they should have let them have their little protest. It is like buying tons of insecticde because someone saw a gnat in the house.