Monday, March 17, 2014

Which Conversations Were Those Again?

Some wonderful conversations have been held over recent years, and are continuing to be held, relative to women in the Church and the invaluable contributions we make...Declaring such an objective to be non-negotiable, as you have done, actually detracts from the helpful discussions that Church leaders have held.

con·ver·sa·tion noun

1. an informal talk involving a group of people : the act of talking in an informal way

2. exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas

3. A form of interactive, spontaneous communication between two or more people... It is polite give and take of subjects thought of by people talking with each other for company...Contributions to a conversation are response reactions to what has previously been said. They are essentially of an interactive nature

Synonyms :
chat, colloquy, converse, dialogue (also dialog), discourse, discussion, exchange

(Source. Other Source. What the heck am I talking about?) Any relationship between this post title and that of adjacent ones on at the time of posting is entirely intentional but is not necessarily meant to be read as a response to said posts nor to foster ill will with writer[s] thereof.)


  1. "Which Conversations Were Those Again?"

    That's easy, discreet conversations that go through the proper channels... You know, the Lord's way for deal with issues like these.

    1. Proper channels in the modern church is by definition a one-way street where information is only freely passed from the top down. That is the antithesis of conversation. Regardless, I am very skeptical of anyone who claims to know "The Lord's way" regardless of their office or authority.

    2. Which dictionary did you get that definition from? I'm not just being a smart aleck, but trying to point out the many faith claims in your comment that are not of divine origin.

    3. Check again; I was careful to source my definition! I'm not, however, sure what faith claims you're referring to; my OP didn't attempt to make any, or even to make an argument about OW. I just responded to one element of the church's letter on its own absurd terms. If you're talking about my last comment, I'd suggest that my reluctance to conflate the man-made inertia of church bureaucracy with the divine will is the position more conducive to faith in God. Given that a few posts ago I had ex-mormons breathing down my neck for my supposed defense of the same church hierarchy, I must be doing something very right or very wrong :)

    4. I did not see any cited definition of communication through the proper channels within the modern church.

    5. Now, Jeff I've tried to be polite but you're starting to sound willfully obtuse. I'm not interested in discussing "proper channels". If the church wants to declare, "This is God's revealed will, end of discussion" that's its prerogative, but it cannot pretend there's been a conversation when the other side is permitted to speak only at the discretion of the church. I think we're going in circles, though, so I'm probably done with this conversation. Cheers!

    6. My basic point, I suppose, is that the are other ways of having a conversation than the one way that OW is trying to do it. There is and always have been conversations about this topic happening outside of the public eye. My point isn't very deep, but it does seem somewhat obvious.

  2. I hope that the Lord's way is listening to and respecting everyone. I think that God loves to listen to what His children have to say.

  3. Last fall an employee of the Church's Research Information Division conducted interviews in my ward last fall with parents, youth, and ward mission leaders regarding changes in missionary ages. It was the only time the central church organization had solicitated my opinion about anything, so I wrote a post describing the experience: The Research Information Division