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

[The_Douger]

Yes it will. Saw this quote recently:



Ban overturned 11 years later.

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, I don't suppose to know what they're thinking, what God thinks, or anything else. I just don't think they will.

I get that some women feel marginalized as far as leadership opportunities and other things that have been rehashed on here.

We're all just trying to do out best, to be the best people we can be, the Q12 and 1st presidency included. I'm sure it's something that will be discussed.

[The_Douger]

Oaks will be dead in 8 years or so.

He's about 80 or so, isn't he? We'll see. They seem to live exceptionally long lives. I remember being surprised David Haight was still there year after year. Well over half of the men who are there now were there when I was a kid.

[SoonerCoug]

He's about 80 or so, isn't he? We'll see. They seem to live exceptionally long lives. I remember being surprised David Haight was still there year after year. Well over half of the men who are there now were there when I was a kid.

He is 82 if I'm not mistaken.

[Commando]

Implied? If that is the case, don't you think it is a little disingenuous to refer to it as a specific revelation?

No- I never referred to it as a specific revelation-- pardon my clumsiness of phrasing. I mean the Priesthood came about through divine revelation, at which point and in the interim shortly thereafter instructions were given as to the particulars of its endowment and usage. No, there is no section in the scriptures that says women are not to be ordained to the priesthood, but since we presume our governing leaders to be subject to and guided by revelation, we would certainly be the first to hear about any change in the way things have always been done. (Also, if you believe Dallin Oaks is what a lot of us sustain him to be, he seemed to confirm today that this way of doing things hasn't merely been an administrative oversight)

[Surfah]

Indeed. I was reading it earlier tonight. Really ugly.

I just read some of that. Ugly indeed. One of the comments was interesting though. It said the number of likes for the OW page dropped 30% to 3000 after Oaks' talk. Is that true? Also, the page has just 2700 likes right now.

[DrumNFeather]

I just read some of that. Ugly indeed. One of the comments was interesting though. It said the number of likes for the OW page dropped 30% to 3000 after Oaks' talk. Is that true? Also, the page has just 2700 likes right now.

I don't think they ever had that many likes.

It will be interesting to see what the next move is from here, if anything.

[Uncle Ted]

Yes it will. Saw this quote recently:



Ban overturned 11 years later.

[All-American]

I don't think they ever had that many likes.

It will be interesting to see what the next move is from here, if anything.

I think they are going to have to go dark for a while. As careful as they were to avoid using terms like "protest" or "demonstration," that's exactly the way it came across, and those are the exact words that the media used to describe it. They can't claim to be faithfully advocating for change from within when members associate them more with the people holding up signs than the ones going in the building. I don't think they will be effective advocates for their cause under their current approach as long as that association (and Elder Oaks's talk) remains in the collective memory. They will likely need to wait it out or change their approach-- and the risks of the movement fizzling out under either of those two courses of action aren't insignificant.

[myboynoah]

I think they are going to have to go dark for a while. As careful as they were to avoid using terms like "protest" or "demonstration," that's exactly the way it came across, and those are the exact words that the media used to describe it. They can't claim to be faithfully advocating for change from within when members associate them more with the people holding up signs than the ones going in the building. I don't think they will be effective advocates for their cause under their current approach as long as that association (and Elder Oaks's talk) remains in the collective memory. They will likely need to wait it out or change their approach-- and the risks of the movement fizzling out under either of those two courses of action aren't insignificant.

They misjudged their appeal and the leadership is not all that insightful (wrong time, wrong target, wrong tactics, wrong message). Social activism needs a critical mass of people that sees itself as being harmed by the status quo. That doesn't exist now. It could exist in the future, but it's at least a generation away. Even then, The Church will act before it gets to that point.

I'm more interested in the moves The Church will take moving forward. A more independent RS? Doing away with PEC? Making more leadership positions open to women? What else?

[All-American]

They misjudged their appeal and the leadership is not all that insightful (wrong time, wrong target, wrong tactics, wrong message). Social activism needs a critical mass of people that sees itself as being harmed by the status quo. That doesn't exist now. It could exist in the future, but it's at least a generation away. Even then, The Church will act before it gets to that point.

I'm more interested in the moves The Church will take moving forward. A more independent RS? Doing away with PEC? Making more leadership positions open to women? What else?

All of the above would be welcome, in my opinion.

[Uncle Ted]

Sincere question here: Where is this revelation that says women can't have the priesthood?

Interesting read on the subject from D. Michael Quinn:

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171

In today’s church a woman who has received the temple endowment has more priesthood power than a boy who holds the office of priest. However, the priest has more permission to exercise his priesthood than does the endowed woman to exercise hers.

[SoonerCoug]

I don't think Ordain Women misjudged anything.

They got the media (including national media) involved, and the media are now openly criticizing the Church on the issue at hand.

The Church rarely receives pressure from within the Church, and so there is little impetus to change other than making those changes that serve the corporation.

That a few hundred women could elicit this response is remarkable. If church leaders were wise, they wouldn't even address it. Instead, they make PR blunder after blunder and turn it into a bigger story than it would otherwise be.

The most disgusting thing said in conference was when Dallin Oaks said that people should worry less about rights and more about responsibility. First of all, this was an obvious shot at Kate Kelly, leader of Ordain Women and a Washington DC human rights attorney. Secondly, since when are human rights less important than responsibility? Is that something he would have said to a slave? Worry about your responsibility, not your human rights! What an imbecile.

[Moliere]

Too bad the person that made that meme is misquoting Oaks. "They" refers to the Brethren and not Women.

[SeattleUte]

This is awesome. Well done! I've stolen it by the way. So if it goes viral you know why.

[SeattleUte]

It's fascinating to see Oaks paint himself and the LDS Church into this box. We are witnessing them self-destruct. There will be no saving them from this this public relations catastrophe and going down in history as famous holdouts for sexism and bigotry standing on Old Testament precedent, short of Jesus Christ himself coming down to earth and casting flames at all the universities, gays, the majority of Americans.

I don't know if 40 years from now gays will be married in the LDS temple by women. What I do think is more clear is that 40 years from now the LDS Church will be much marginalized and less consequential compared to today.