The June 1

[Blueintheface]

That was a good read. I was wondering if the author was Mormon and clicked on her name to reveal she is part of OW.

Or you could have seen that at the top of the article and known that before you read it.

[Moliere]

Or you could have seen that at the top of the article and known that before you read it.

So is this the first really big challenge to correlation in the internet era?

[Pheidippides]

So is this the first really big challenge to correlation in the internet era?

http://youtu.be/VB0iOc7t7e4

[ERCougar]

But Buddha was male. Since the god revered by buddhists is male, females will always be considered second class citizens.

There are so many problems with this, so I'll just leave it at....nonsense.

[ERCougar]

A solid op-ed from the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...id-of-dissent/

Yes.
My issue is far less with whether women get ordained than with how the church treats dissent. There are things that Waterman (and Snuffer) writes that I think are nutty (but actually that a conservative Mormon may like), and other things that i like, but I like having his voice in the church. It stimulates thought and growth (and revelation).

[wuapinmon]

But Buddha was male. Since the god revered by buddhists is male, females will always be considered second class citizens.

Doesn't Solon have a great post somewhere talking about female goddesses?

[Northwestcoug]

Anybody else notice the street number on the invitation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/187_(slang)

Apparently the proceedings will involve the Stake Presidency, the High Council and a few local Danites.

That escalated quickly.

[Portland Ute]

Has this been posted?:

http://thestyleofbeing.blogspot.ca/2...narky.html?m=1

This is one of the gems I read before completely losing interest:

There is a movement that has raised itself in direct opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that accuses God of being oppressive to women. Yep, I mean LDS women trying to leverage the church into ordaining them. Some of you may cringe over the way I've phrased this, but can we be real for a few minutes? Can a group of people who admittedly oppose the doctrine, to the point of launching a media campaign, really consider themselves as being 'within' the church?

[Pheidippides]

Has this been posted?:

http://thestyleofbeing.blogspot.ca/2...narky.html?m=1

This is one of the gems I read before completely losing interest:

Wow. I don't even know where to start with that one.

[All-American]

The June 2

Yes.
My issue is far less with whether women get ordained than with how the church treats dissent. There are things that Waterman (and Snuffer) writes that I think are nutty (but actually that a conservative Mormon may like), and other things that i like, but I like having his voice in the church. It stimulates thought and growth (and revelation).

There's dissent, and then there's what OW is doing. Demonstrations at general conference. Putting together the six "discussions." I'm perfectly comfortable with the church saying they are over the line.

[Portland Ute]

Wow. I don't even know where to start with that one.

I saw it when my sister reposted it on Facebook. I imagine she did so because she agreed with the content of it. I replied:

"There is a movement that has raised itself in direct opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that accuses God of being oppressive to women." I think this statement is misleading and inaccurate. I think there is far too much hyperbole surrounding this issue. My $0.02.

I'm sure somewhere my dad is disappointed and my mother, a relief society president, is near tears.

I think this is the first time I've replied to anyone, family, in particular, regarding the OW movement.

I'm sure they'll be blowback.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I saw it when my sister reposted it on Facebook. I imagine she did so because she agreed with the content of it. I replied:



I'm sure somewhere my dad is disappointed and my mother, a relief society president, is near tears.

I think this is the first time I've replied to anyone, family, in particular, regarding the OW movement.

I'm sure they'll be blowback.

For that? You must have a very sensitive family.

[Moliere]

There's dissent, and then there's what OW is doing. Demonstrations at general conference. Putting together the six "discussions." I'm perfectly comfortable with the church saying they are over the line.

I've never read the 6 discussions, so I decided to pull up the first and skim through it. First impression is that it's incredibly dumb (Patriarchy Bingo? Sacrament meeting thought exercise?) which is disappointing given the intelligence of the women that put them together. They do however have some really good facts that show the obvious patriarchy in the church. I think the demonstration at GC was what got things going and the 6 discussions did them in. The first demonstration at GC was fine and the church didn't seem too peeved about it. The second one the church shot across their bow and they charged forward. It was a spectacle, and a tired one. They should have changed course before that time.

While I don't like the thought of them being silenced by a disciplinary council, their actions are clearly apostate IF (this is a big if) you believe that women not holding the PH is doctrine. I've talked with local church leaders (not progmos by any means, but just family and friends that are bishops or stake position) that would not call it doctrine and even say there is no canonical support to withhold the PH from women.

The 6 discussions are clearly a way to actively recruit people to their side....which again I don't have an issue with but the church does.

The best thing they could do is to have agitated a bit less vocally, put themselves into leadership positions where they do have a voice, and then push gently to make changes to the patriarchy. Women do have a lot of influence in this church, they just don't have ecclesiastical power (which is a big thing), and maybe, just maybe, they could push for a diminishment of PH power and a return to a more independent RS....similar to the earlier church and much different than today's PH-correlated organization.

[Portland Ute]

Well, if you can't get the Priesthood leadership to respond, what do you sugggest?

The Prophet, FP or Qo12 could have nipped this in the bud early on. They could have met with them, stated they have taken this issue to the Lord and the Lord said.... whatever the Lord said in response. Or that they haven't yet gotten a response.

Instead, they and their sincere questions were ignored. And when they didn't quit agitating/raising the issue, they were threatened with a church court.

I mean, I can almost imagine how the section heading would read had this come up in Joseph Smith's time:

"In May of _____, a group of sisters including ________, __________, _________ and others approached the Prophet Joseph Smith regarding the possibility of women receiving the keys to the priesthood. In response, Joseph Smith sought out the Lord for an answer to the sincere query. After much prayer and fasting, the Lord revealed the following to Joseph on August _, _____.

Behold, I say unto you, that as my servant Sister ________ has desired a witness at my hand regarding the ordination of women to my priesthood....

Instead, there is a summons to church court.

[Pheidippides]

I've never read the 6 discussions, so I decided to pull up the first and skim through it. First impression is that it's incredibly dumb (Patriarchy Bingo? Sacrament meeting thought exercise?) which is disappointing given the intelligence of the women that put them together. They do however have some really good facts that show the obvious patriarchy in the church. I think the demonstration at GC was what got things going and the 6 discussions did them in. The first demonstration at GC was fine and the church didn't seem too peeved about it. The second one the church shot across their bow and they charged forward. It was a spectacle, and a tired one. They should have changed course before that time.

While I don't like the thought of them being silenced by a disciplinary council, their actions are clearly apostate IF (this is a big if) you believe that women not holding the PH is doctrine. I've talked with local church leaders (not progmos by any means, but just family and friends that are bishops or stake position) that would not call it doctrine and even say there is no canonical support to withhold the PH from women.

The 6 discussions are clearly a way to actively recruit people to their side....which again I don't have an issue with but the church does.

The best thing they could do is to have agitated a bit less vocally, put themselves into leadership positions where they do have a voice, and then push gently to make changes to the patriarchy. Women do have a lot of influence in this church, they just don't have ecclesiastical power (which is a big thing), and maybe, just maybe, they could push for a diminishment of PH power and a return to a more independent RS....similar to the earlier church and much different than today's PH-correlated organization.

A feminist critique that I have seen (not from OW, mind you) is that the women who are in leadership now and who generally get called to what few leadership positions there are are those who support the patriarchy and therefore simply perpetuate the problem. In other words, if the entire system is what's broken, you can't fix it from within.

I am not sure if I agree or not, to be frank. Depends on whether or not the example trotted out before me is Chieko Okazaki or Julie Beck.