≡ Menu

Faithfulness Doesn’t Look Like That

I started this post on April 9th, but never had the heart to finish it. Maybe now I do.

Faithfulness Sneer

Last fall I wrote a post titled A Christlike Response to Radical Mormon Feminism. I’m not part of the Ordain Women group — because I have some differing opinions on outcome/approach — but I see them as my sisters in the gospel, worthy of love, respect, and consideration. And, as you probably know, I’m outspoken on gender issues in the church because I think we have far, far to go in that respect.

As the Mormon church’s gender relations have become more heated, the rhetoric often spins out of control. What surprised me, however, is that the vitriol within the church comes so overwhelmingly from those who claim to be the “faithful” who are “standing for truth and righteousness.”

I’ve read and read and read articles, posts, pages and sourced quotes directly from actual members of the Ordain Women movement and have seen almost nothing that wasn’t qualified, measured, and respectful. A few exceptions, of course, but not many have crossed my screen.

It may be that my anecdotal experience is extremely unusual. I’m willing to consider that idea and to see real, counter-examples. But I tend to believe that those who are part of Ordain Women have made a thoughtful decision to respond exclusively with Christlike regard for the other parties. Sometimes the difference is so stark that I’m reminded of the civil rights activists who”protested” that status quo by sitting at the “whites only” lunch counter. They sat quietly and politely while they were cursed at, spit upon, had food poured on them, and worse. 

That is not to say that the majority of mainstream (for want of a better word) members are responding in this repugnant manner, but a conversation on the topic of LDS gender issues can only rarely occur without a vocal minority of patronizing, sarcastic, hateful, and/or misogynistic statements being made. And few of the other “faithful” ever step up to defend.

To be clear, I’ve never expected proponents of the status quo to change sides in the matter, but I was sure they would openly refute hateful commentary. But they rarely do. That is astonishing to me.

A couple of weeks ago this came up in conversation and the person I was speaking to was cynical. She openly disbelieved that any good Mormons would respond with anything but kindness and love in their defense of the church. As she said, “It would be counterproductive!” And I agree. Just today another reader noted, “I haven’t personally been exposed to the nastiness that others have reported.”

I wish it were a figment of my imagination, but I can’t get away from it. Below are a few choice quotes I collected in just a short time on April 9th and again today. Sadly, it was easy pickings. I didn’t even have to look for it, I happened upon it almost everywhere I went.

These are real people who posted in public forums. As I write this, their names are still in the text. I’ve decided to remove them, contrary to my usual modus operandi. Yes, I do think we should all be accountable for our actions, but the point of this post is not to pick on particular individuals, but to point out a problem. The problem is not that people have opinions, make judgments, or discuss hard issues. Rather, it is that they are setting themselves upon a pedestal they label “righteous” while behaving in a way that doesn’t match their rhetoric.

I hope you get it.

…OW movement appears to be a media-hungry enterprise that cares more about acceptance from the world than working together with the everyday Mormon woman and is solely seeking for everyone, including the prophet, to confirm that its opinions are right.

At what point is it OK to start viewing these people as little more than children in the back of the van asking “Are we there yet?” ad nauseum?

So long as they keep acting like petulant children, I would hardly classify them as mature.

You don’t see men crying “foul” at every turn. It is embarrassing to me that the women of this church do! I might consider it anti-Christ, even.

How much more immature can you get? And not only immature, but ineffective. And I think the way that these women interpret men’s responsibilities into “power” that they “don’t have” is whiny and even prideful.

I don’t think that our causing a scene or whining is the way to go about getting something to change.

If they are that unhappy, maybe they should start their own church and run things how they see fit.

How about being feminine instead of being feminist?

What do I think feminists do, you ask? Oh, they just whine.

I [sic] you are a “believing member” of the church I think it is evidently clear which side of the fence ordain women is on. If it wasn’t evident before elder oaks’ [sic] conference address it should be with the excommunication of their leader.

…this must be an insecurity thing…

Maybe it would be better if I said something more to a feminist’s liking, like “All men are pigs”

…show them how smart we aren’t, but how good we are at whining! 

…Ms. Kelly is infected with a vicious and deceiving spirit. It is necessary for her to be turned over to “the buffeting of satan” to protect her ward, stake, even the Church from that lying spirit in her. This is also the best way for The Father to save His daughter.

The self-absorbed quality of Mormon feminists is both amusing and a little sad. Women were send [sic] on proselyting missions before the dawn of the 20th century and have doing [sic] a fine job of it every [sic] since. As for women praying in General Conference—better them than me, but I suspect the vast majority of changes we’ve seen in the church, many well in advance of society’s evolution on gender issues, is the simple fact that so many of us are married to extraordinary women. [uh…]

So my sadness comes from the reality that Ordain Women activists just have no respect for men at all. Their willingness and intent to disrupt General Priesthood is just mean-spirited bullying and the rhetorical nonsense they are using to justify their activities; transparent dishonesty.

These women are becoming a “shame” to themselves and the LDS Church.

These women are clueless on LDS Doctrine and it will be interesting to see how far they push before facing some type of church discipline.

This woman is a fame monger. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but when one intentionally organizes to draw people away from the gospel teachings, then it is wrong.

This woman is unrepentant, arrogant, and full or herself. Go away! Believe as you wish and let those of us who truly understand the principles of the gospel continue to live what we believe!!

…it requires a certain arrogance to reject the wishes of 90% of the women who do not want the priesthood and put their own interests before them. Cheap publicity stunts are not the way to convince The Lord, but they are certainly a way to garner press. One sees their goal isn’t great understanding merely greater press.

Kate Kelly acted irresponsibly and like a secularist. I don’t think the Church would be better with her in it; at least not like she ended up. We need fewer Feminists in the Church and more Women of Faith.

Rules are rules. She is a very smart lady and she knew this would happen. I believe she wants to become a Martyr for her own personal crusade.

…when a small group decide that what 90% of the women want is irrelevant, they are indeed elitist. When they claim to speak for and represent women who reject the very premise of their existence, they are more than elitist, they are arrogant. It appears to me that such an attitude does not lead to democracy or equality merely a grab for power or the presumption of power. They do not understand what the priesthood is, nor does it appear they even understand what women want. Their desire is only based on what they want, and that is itself selfish.

So they reject the stance of women and the priesthood. They reject that stance of prophet and apostles, and indeed doctrine. It would seem they are on the side that rejects God and celebrates personal wants and desires. This is only magnified by the somewhat cheap carny act of using the color purple in an attempt to artificially enhance their numbers for publicity. Charlatan is a word that comes to mind, but it is usually associated with males.

Next time I get out the chainsaw, paint buckets, rakes, hammers, ladders, lawn mowers, garden tillers and so forth, I want a list of these gals so they can help me out with a couple of widow’s I know homes and yards to give service to. Are they willing to travel on their own dime to help out and come to Cache Valley?

Either the LDS church has leadership that is inspired or it isn t. If these misguided twits think they will be anymore successful than the delightful Sonya Johnson,they really need to get a grip on reality as well as theology.

Women who fight for priesthood equality truly do not understand the gospel.

Mormon feminism is essentially a well to do East Bench (or geo-economic equivalent), smarter then thou, click [sic]; that has to be “seen” having power rather then find power within, and let nature run its course.

Well I have and I remain unconvinced of their sincerity.

…the tactics are decidedly self centered and a rejection of the very people they claim to represent (most women don’t want the change and by most I mean almost all). That by its definition is little more than seeking power for one’s own purposes. Much like Simon in Acts of the New Testament, the organization presumes to “purchase” the priesthood through publicity. At its heart it shows they do not understand the priesthood, or why it exists.

…what you have just basically said is that nothing matters except what you want. That is the height of selfishness as well as elitism. The priesthood belongs to no one, it is not a possession and it cannot be purchased or demanded. It can only be given and then, only given by God. And THAT is illustrative of why you don’t understand the priesthood

I have taken the fine ribbons off and simply exposed the rather self centered position some people claim to have. And yes it is extremely selfish. If Pew asks LDS whether or not they should have the priesthood and 90% of the LDS women said NO. You in effect have the entire question of democracy removed from who your organization claims to be, claims to represent, and claims to purport. That alone undermines your claim.

I see your post projecting a great deal on the injustices in the past and the victimization of women in the past. There is nothing in it that show the fault on God and not one of those things makes you more equal or less in front of God’s eyes. What you are chasing after, some sort of redress for past wrongs from an entity that did not promulgate those wrongs, is the hubris of your own desires and has little to do with coming closer to God, in effect you only end up separating yourself from him. I believe it to be the least desirable outcome.

The more important aspect however, is that God, and the priesthood are not elected bodies or elected powers that are chosen by a council be it Nicene or a group of women in the Latter-days. If you feel that is the case, then please feel free start another organization, elect yourself a god, elect what you call the priesthood to all those in attendance and then enjoy your new organization. However, if you truly believe in God’s organization, in His authority, and that He speaks through a prophet, then your argument is not with the prophet, it isn’t with the organization, it isn’t even with me. Its [sic] with God, and frankly, I don’t see you holding a winning hand.

I am not of any real opinion on the priesthood and women. I am however more than leery of groups that attempt to usurp or buy the priesthood through publicity as your organization does. I am also leery of groups that claim they represent women when those self same women have rejected the basis of your organization. I don’t judge your motives I point out the facts and how your tactics reflect who you really are. That is not of my doing it is your own.

In terms of doctrine: I follow the prophet and apostles and believe in modern revelation, I am not sure what doctrine you believe in or follow…that is for you to sort out. Let us hope you decide to align yourself with The Lord and let the progressives, whatever that is, progress in their own journey towards whatever system or goal they want in their own organization. They cannot buy the priesthood to do it, and their publicity tactics bear out how far misaligned they are with The Lord.

It is rather dishonest to seek to force the church to do something through cheap publicity and then blithely say no one is forcing anyone to do anything. It speaks to a moral challenge that you will personally have to wrestle with. This reflects on the inability to understand the priesthood.

The basic premise is false. In the first part it is implied The Lord has stated that women should have the priesthood, He hasn’t, He certainly hasn’t stated that. The organization has chosen to seek various means to change the mind [sic] of the church leaders mind you […uh] (not The Lord). This implies that they do not see The Lord as the source of the priesthood which speaks to their lack of understanding as to what the priesthood is. Agency comes into play when The Lord provides us with the means and choice, not when a group, be it Ordain Women or Nicene who decide who gets what.

Then there is the method of attempting to embarrass the church in order to gain the priesthood. This speaks volumes of their complete lack of concern and a certain “ends justifies the means” mentality. So like Simon in Acts, they seek to “purchase” the priesthood through the means of publicity. They are just like Simon in their lack of understanding.

KateKelly is a heretic, such are burned at the stake…no pun intended!

Your somewhat snide remark aside, I hope you understand this and make the connections as to why it is wrong. I doesn’t bother me if women have the priesthood or not, it does bother me when people presume for their own reasons to force their views upon everyone else and to create doctrine while attempting to cover their insincerity with concepts they apparently care very little about.

In regards to the rest of your missive — I don’t always succeed in showing priesthood virtues. But that doesn’t mean I don’t know what they are, and an organization, unlike an individual “plans things”. They did not nor chose to seek out priesthood virtues, they planned the publicity stunt. These speaks to their motivation and to the side they are really on

Apparently the organization feels Relief Society is a non entity and the women belonging to it, running it, and indeed in charge of it, are of no consequence. This alone speaks volumes to their agenda and what they want to do.

I think their hypocrisy lies in stating they are democratically representing the women in the church, and their guile is the use of publicity to buy the priesthood. Not once but several times. They are, I believe, blinded by their own definition of virtue and their own hubris in the matter.

…you are so caught up in being angry I suggest you walk away from the computer take a few deep breaths and allow…and I to discuss the issues.

Finally I suggest you read more carefully as I distinguished between an individual and an organization. Now calm down

I suppose women can strip nude before the church headquarters to show they are just like men, but hey, as long as they are making their voices clear right?

True…I presumed your lack of clear understanding was due to your anger, there are a myriad of reasons you may not understand, forgive me for thinking it was only anger, it could be much much deeper.

And you presume that no one has spoken to the prophet and apostles regarding this. How uncaring you must think those holding the priesthood are.

If you are so unhappy with the way the Church is organized, why do you stay? We are happy with it and don’t want it to change. I am not saying that to be mean or impolite. But there are other organizaiton or churches you can join and be happy such as The Community of Christ, the Re-organized LDS Church,etc. Why don’t you just leave?

Women play a certain role in the home and in the church. We hav the beautiful opportunity to give birth and go through pregnancy and having a special bond with our children, men hav the wonderful opportunity to support their families with the priesthood, your mocking the power of God by distrusting his plan and how it needs to work.

There are things that we can not understand in this life, if you truly beleived in the Book of Mormon and this faith than you would have the faith and repect that God knows what is best and what we need, if you do not beleive that men are the only ones who can obtain God’s power than this is not the church for you.

We support the priesthood by respecting its power and boundaries and you are all tempting a power far greater than any of you can handle. There are plenty of tough women in this world and far too little feminine women.

I feel that your pleads for the priesthood are selfish and greedy and it grieves me deeply that you have aloud [sic] Satan to corrupt your thoughts so far as to think that this is something you need. I realise this is a challenge that you have been given in order to overcome, but it makes me very sad that ladies that I could be looking up to for support, are succumbing to the adversary. I ask that you please reconsider your thoughts, and ask yourselves if you actually feel comfortable with degrading the other symbols of Christ.

…I am being a wonderful disciple of christ, and I am upholding the covenants I made at baptism just fine, I am not judging you directly I am making inferences on what I hav [sic] seen on your page, so yes I have an opinion on the things I have seen portrayed by you. You wouldnt justify yourself so harshly if you didnt feel guilty for something…

…you are majorly twisting and manipulating the words of Christ. Continue murmuring if you would like, but do not question me of my faith, which I guarantee is not the same as yours.

I believe Kate Kelly is in a conundrum. She obviously doesn’t believe that the prophet receives revelation, but that is the cornerstone of our religion.

Kelly’s charges are false, inflammatory, and ridiculous; constitute apostasy; and contributed to Kelly’s excommunication. Her only interest in ordination appears to be the press she has garnered for herself.

I predict the following:

  1. She will claim martydom
  2. Her “anguish” and anger will become more shrill
  3. She will seek to be a leading voice, and realize that she won’t be
  4. Other feminists will see her as a tool, but certainly not an ally since their view of the church is one of “evil patriarchy”
  5. She will then either repent, or join/galvanize with them.

I think she may realize that the vast majority of women do not care a whit about holding the priesthood. Though I do believe more respect and understanding could be accorded to sisters, especially in other nations. The shame of it is that Kate Kelly could have been a good force for such elevation of saints everywhere, instead she chose to cut herself off.

Why are Mormon women so obsessed with becoming ordained and getting the priesthood. DO you not understand that the Lord loves and cherishes his daughters ??We have all the blessings without the responsibility. [cough]

It would also be one thing if I was filled with the spirit when reading your posts, but instead I am filled with discomfort. It hurts me to see how strongly you are set in your ways when you are only a few degrees off from the straight and narrow.

It would be one thing if the Brethren were saying things that were patently and genuinely objectionable: eating puppies, promoting Justin Beiber music, calling for the OW agitatiors to be put into stocks or wear “scarlet T” (for twit).

Oh No!!!Purple ties and shirts in the Choir…now all the OW’s are giving each other high fives…

The goal, as states [sic] in the article, shouldn’t be to get the “attention” of the general authorities. These women have no clue what the purpose of the priesthood is. I feel sorry for them.

I really hope that some of them are sincere and the doctrine taught by Elder Oaks will help them see things differently…Loved the chastisement at the end of his talk on rights verses obligations.

I’m curious how long it will take Katie Kelly and Peggy Fletcher Stack to begin arguing “it’s not binding because the statement was in Oak’s voice only instead of the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.”

Of course, there was never any possibility that the agitators, expatriates, and apostates would take “no” for an answer, but we can hope and pray for our brothers and sisters whom they deceived.

As a member who takes covenants seriously, I mourn for people who placed their covenants secondary to their personal doctrinal perceptions and their own pride which led to hubris.

Our faith is built on what God wants…not what people want…I could not leave my faith on what people do…if I was to do that then it would be on what OW is trying to do with this church….which is to throw away that the church had to be restored because of a great apostasy…and that it is run by the Lord through prophets…and prophets are told by God what he wants the people to do …the people don’t tell God what they want….

…OW DEMANDED it or else through public blackmail. I believe Ordain Women would gladly hurt the church in order to get what they want. I don’t think that builds the case to convince The Lord that women, certainly not those women understand or deserve the priesthood. That is not what the priesthood is about. Power moves do not create an atmosphere conducive to priesthood revelation, or control. The prophets have spoken it and if you are still questioning their words after heartfelt study and prayer, then these women to need [sic] move on and either accept or leave.

Let’s face it no amount of platitudes or discussion will placate Ordain Women. This will only be settled when the LDS church has women apostles.

Ordain women has 2360 likes on Facebook. Mormon women stand has 9902. Four times as many faithful rather than the rancorous, obnoxious OW movement. OW claim to be faithful Sisters, they claim they are the church. Simple reason dictates an group less than 5% of the faithful Mormon group is NOT representative, not my sisters. They proselytize members, trying to get them to be just as miserable as themselves. If that’s not a cancer… cancer doesn’t exist.

This also shows just where Kate Kelly’s heart is, not with the core concepts of salvation and sharing the gospel, but in political unrest and contention.

Ms Kelly lives in a free country. She is free to start her own church or join one that does have women in the Priesthood. End of story. But it makes her feel better to try and make an organization bow to secular wishes, right Boy Scouts?

More added, just for fun:

They want the answers that they want to hear or nothing.just like a rebellious teenager! So tired of it!

okay…. can we please STOP hearing about this stupid woman now ????

You obviously have your own ignorant opinion on the matter, and that is okay. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It’s just that yours is wrong, and stupid


Addendum: Can we please stop using the silly “90% of Mormon women don’t want the priesthood” argument? First, it’s irrelevant. Second, it’s not a real statistic.

{ 63 comments… add one }

  • MB June 27, 2014, 11:36 am

    You’ve got quite a collection there.

    If it’s helpful to your psyche there was a discussion over at Segullah the other day where some of “the other ‘faithful’” did step up to articulately defend. It was good to read.

    My experience: the organized OW people have, generally (always there are exceptions) tried to maintain a civil dialogue. And the organized church leaders and spokespeople have as well. It’s the loose cannons on both sides that have been firing nasty potshots born of fear or pride.

  • ChanJo June 27, 2014, 2:22 pm

    Bravo! I keep hearing the same stuff on Facebook and it makes me so mad…and I don’t support O W at all!

  • JenMo June 27, 2014, 9:23 pm

    Here are some comments I found on the fox13 thread regarding Kate’s clothing choices tsk tsk.
    MSOC she said she valued her membership. .that would be dressing as if she still wore the garment. I see she jumped right into wearing a sleeveless dress. . That makes a statement right there
    Like • Reply • 7 • 44 minutes ag
    JCH This is all ridiculous! She knew the consequences and from the looks of it, she isn’t too serious about our religion. Yes, you cannot wear garments, but to go straight to a tank top isn’t what someone would do who fully believes in the gospel. But I guess if she understood the gospel we wouldn’t be hearing all this crap about women holding the priesthood either.
    HT She’s so sad to be ex’ed. Yet she plans to keep moving on. Uh… contradictory. Then bam… in a tank top. That seems a little in your facey. I know she was told no more garments, but so modesty is immediately out the window? lol.
    Like • Reply • 46 • about an hour ago

    SC I feel bad for her. She thinks being a Mormon is important to get yet she flagrantly goes against the teachings. She is still arrogant and not at all torn up about being kicked out. Didn’t take her long to change her type of clothing. Is she truly believed, she would be repentant and wouldn’t change the way she dresses. She can’t say its important and continue to fight against the church at the same time. Sad.
    Like • Reply • 2 • 7 minutes ago

    NL You get excommunicated, and immediately start dressing inappropriately? This lady has problems.
    MKN Especially if she plans to appeal… I would think she would want to be following temple standards.
    MHWhat happened to her moving to Africa?? One day with no garments and she’s already showing off her shoulders.
    Like • Reply • 8 • about an hour ago

    KN she was so torn up about being ex’d, but a day after and she’s already taken off her garments?? I guess we know she’s been on this path for a while now

  • Oregonian June 27, 2014, 9:27 pm

    Those people aren’t faithful. :(

  • Angela June 28, 2014, 7:49 am

    These things bother me too. Glad to see this post is still (mostly) free of Lewis’ Law – type comments. :)

  • sam June 28, 2014, 8:16 am

    I’m sorry, but I’ve got to disagree with you in this one. Their words, and their online rhetoric may is well thought out and maybe even kind. However, their actions do not match. It was not kind of them to show up in protest at the Priesthood Session of General Conference after being specifically asked not to. And it has not been kind of them to go to the media on countless occasions in order to further their agenda. In doing so, a great deal of contention has been stirred and it has made the church look very poor to the outside world. The general membership of the church may have a long way to go towards being more Christlike toward the Ordain Women movement, but well-chosen words do not make up for the disrespect and the shame being brought to this church through the contention being caused.

  • David Lezette June 28, 2014, 8:53 am

    Hey, I made the cut!

    I also don’t think that pointing out the obvious is “patronizing, sarcastic, hateful, and/or misogynistic”.

    Kate Kelly is a lawyer. Though I do not know her personally, reason suggests that due to her profession, she is intelligent, and very knowledgeable of matters relating to laws and rules. One can infer that she is quite up to speed on the rules and regulations of the Church (seeing as how she is trying to openly amend those rules).

    Reason also suggests she knew the Church would be forced to respond the way that it did.

    So my statement remains true, she knew this would be a failed attempt but she went forward with it anyways so that she could become a Martyr for her own personal crusade.

  • Charla June 28, 2014, 10:10 am

    Do you know what I love? People who judge unrighteously even when we’ve been specifically commanded to not to judge one another. The second greatest command is to love our neighbors as ourselves. I don’t see that anywhere in this post. We’re also commanded to mourn with those that mourn and comfort those that stand in need of comfort. I don’t see that anywhere in this post. You may be embarrassed or offended by OW or its supporters, but I would be horrified if someone who wasn’t LDS read this post and thought we all supported thoughts like this.

    I can’t take away your right to think, believe or write whatever you want, but you can’t tell me that the Spirit didn’t flee faster than I ever remember when I read this post.

  • David Lezette June 28, 2014, 11:00 am

    I do not recall ever reading “do not Judge” in the Scriptures.

    Here’s the scripture for your reference.

    Matthew 7:1-3
    1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    The same judgement I am using to condemn Kate Kelly’s actions are the same Judgement the Church has used to determine her membership status.

    “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:” I hope that if I had taken the same actions as Kate Kelly, I too would be excommunicated from the Church. Therefore, I feel justified in my judgement.

    We are supposed to pass judgement. “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Does not mean that we should ignore all wrong doing, not form an opinion, or stand for what is right.

    We just need to be mindful that by the same measure we judge, we too will be judged.

    So again, saying that I agree with the Church’s decision and speculating on her motivation does not qualify as “People who judge unrighteously”.

    In fact, I do love Kate Kelly and I hope that she repents, and does what is necessary to return to the church. If I didn’t love her, I wouldn’t care if she returned or not.

  • Charla June 28, 2014, 11:21 am

    David, you’re correct about the judgment aspect of my comment. I suppose we’re entitled to judge, but I would never want anyone to judge me as harshly as I’ve seen Kate being judged. Maybe I’m too afraid (or sinful :), but I personally think it takes a lot of pride and lack of humility to judge others so harshly, especially when we don’t know them personally and what we’re using to judge is, at best, second or third hand accounts. I’ve just generally been very disappointed with the response to Kate’s excommunication by those who claim to be righteous members of the church. It seems like there’s too much celebrating going on.

    This quote is admittedly taken out of context, but from Oaks’ “Judge Not and Judging” talk. “Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities. Some time ago I attended an adult Sunday School class in a small town in Utah. The subject was the sacrament, and the class was being taught by the bishop. During class discussion a member asked, “What if you see an unworthy person partaking of the sacrament? What do you do?” The bishop answered, “You do nothing. I may need to do something.” That wise answer illustrates my point about stewardship in judging.”

    What I’m seeing are, in my opinion, judgments all over the place made outside the sphere of personal responsibilities. In all seriousness, what is the point of a post like this? It is dripping with sarcasm and condescension. You may care whether Kate returns to church, but I think this post makes it pretty clear what others think. What does this do to uplift, spread love, charity, or the gospel?

  • CW June 28, 2014, 3:16 pm

    Elder Oaks aptly clarified how the scriptures teach us how to effectively judge. It’s interesting how Matt 7:1-4 no longer includes the previous footnote that had indicated an error which Joseph Smith had fixed and included the injunction “but judge righteous judgment.”

  • MamaBerg June 28, 2014, 3:56 pm

    Clara,
    Thank you for your posts! Inspiring, truthful, and filled with love and charity. It was so nice reading your comments after the massive amount of negative comments in and after this article. I wish that more women like you (from both sides) would share their thoughts and opinions. It definitely would be a more enlightened conversation :)

  • Emily June 28, 2014, 4:53 pm

    “I do not recall ever reading ‘do not Judge’ in the Scriptures.

    Here’s the scripture for your reference.

    Matthew 7:1-3
    1. Judge not”

    That’s all I’m going to say.

  • Alison Moore Smith June 28, 2014, 5:16 pm

    Thank you all for the comments. I won’t be able to respond until later, but thought I’d share this:

    Judging the Judgmental: Telling Women to Stop Thinking Is Not “Empowering”
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Scrumptious Greek SaladMy Profile

  • Marlene L June 29, 2014, 1:52 am

    Thank you for speaking up. It’s been making me sick all month.

  • Charla June 29, 2014, 7:04 am

    Restating what others have already said in countless ways isn’t “thinking”. I don’t know why I keep coming back here. You don’t feel the Spirit reading OW profiles and I literally feel it leave my body reading your post (although admittedly the post before yours about there being room for everyone was good). Funny how we all have different perceptions of evil, huh?

  • Holly June 29, 2014, 6:16 pm

    Wow. I feel like I just watched the Mormon version of “Mean Girls”.

  • John2 June 29, 2014, 7:26 pm

    Yea, Charla, I’ve been saying for years now that articles written by women are of the devil. In fact, when I read your comment, the spirit left my entire home. My wife came running in to ask what happened.

    Of course, I told her that if she didn’t already know the answer, she should just leave the church.

  • Amber June 29, 2014, 8:14 pm

    Wow, some of the comments on here can just be added to your list! I think part of the problem is that we have been so trained as Mormons to defend the church and the church leaders, in order to protect our world view of the one true perfect church, that we can’t even admit Kate Kelly might not be all wrong, maybe she at least has a point? And we can’t admit to ourselves that the church may have done something wrong too, that it is not all black and white, right and wrong, there is some good and there’s some bad in all people and in all organizations. Once we Mormons can acknowledge that the church can and does do some wrong, then maybe we’ll get somewhere. Thank you Kate Kelly for starting this conversation, this is obviously long past due!

  • jennycherie June 30, 2014, 10:16 am

    Is it just me? I am having a hard time following and understanding the comments. Maybe if there were some quotes used to show to what section people are referring? For example:

    Charla said: ” The second greatest command is to love our neighbors as ourselves. I don’t see that anywhere in this post.”
    Do you mean the original post? I thought it was showing great love to an organization with which the author disagrees. Or were you referring the comment by David Lezette?

    Charla also said: “you can’t tell me that the Spirit didn’t flee faster than I ever remember when I read this post.”
    ? The original post or one of the comments specifically?

    MamaBerg said, “Clara, Thank you for your posts! ”
    Wait, who’s Clara?

    Holly said: “Wow. I feel like I just watched the Mormon version of “Mean Girls”.”
    ?? What do you mean? The original post? The comments by Charla that I think are directed at the original post but could also be directed at the commenters?

    Amber: “Once we Mormons can acknowledge that the church can and does do some wrong, then maybe we’ll get somewhere.”
    I totally agree! We are a church of humans. General Authorities have said (0ver the pulpit in conference) that they have sometimes been mistaken. It doesn’t mean the gospel isn’t true.

  • Roni June 30, 2014, 10:51 am

    JennyCherie,

    I agree that General Authorities, particularly the First Presidency and the Apostles, can be wrong. They have been wrong before on important matters like polygamy, African-Americans and the Priesthood, excommunicating Helmuth Hubener for fighting Hitler, and now excommunicating Kate Kelly because she called media attention to women and the Priesthood. Because of this, I’m not sure what is of God and what is of man. I’m beginning to think that much of what comes from Salt Lake is of man.

  • Brook June 30, 2014, 12:14 pm

    I have been reading through these comments and I have to say that my heart is broken. I get that this is a controversial topic and that there are strong feelings on both sides but what I do not understand is why we seem to have forgotten that we are all children of God and that none of us are perfect.

    Maybe I don’t know enough. I admittedly do not live in Utah and have not kept up on the issue. I do know, however, that not one of us knows everything that went on behind closed doors. Not one of us knows exactly what was in the hearts of the parties involved. Only God knows.

    On more than one occasion, like probably everyone else here, I have been in unjust and/or unfair situations in my life. Sometimes the only thing that has given me comfort is the knowledge that in the end, Heavenly Father knows the truth and he will see to it that everything is made right. I am most grateful for the fact that I am not the person who has to judge or determine the eternal reward of my brothers and sisters. What a blessing it is that we are free of such a tremendous burden!

    I very recently lived in the Oakton, Virginia Stake. My husband and I were there for almost 6 years. I was not in Kate Kelly’s ward, but I will say that overall, the people in that area, while very blessed, are good. Our bishop and stake president were wonderful people. The spirit was always very strong when I met with them. I am not saying that these people are not also human beings and are subject to making mistakes but I am saying that I think people do the best they can.

    I personally want to believe that Kate Kelly did what she believed was right and that her bishop/bishopric did the same.

    Either way, thankfully, it isn’t up to us to decide, it is up to The Lord. We do not have the right to make that decision. Thank heavens we don’t.

    My wish is that we could all band together in these last days and support one another rather than allow contention to separate us. To be honest, it’s frightening me. What are we doing here? Let’s not allow persecution from the inside! Heaven knows we have to deal with it enough from the outside!

  • Alison Moore Smith June 30, 2014, 12:15 pm

    jennycherie, no, you are not alone. :)
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Tangy Tasty Greek Salad DressingMy Profile

  • Thrawn June 30, 2014, 2:34 pm

    That’s quite a collection of posts. And you know what? As I read through them, there were a few that I thought were too nasty, but most of them were simply blunt. The guilty take the truth to be hard, folks.

    I don’t think most people are *celebrating* Sister Kelly’s departure, but when she has thrown down the gauntlet and demanded that the Church give her what she wants, she can expect “repent or leave” in reply. If you draw a line in the sand, then it’s time for you to pick your side.

  • Alison Moore Smith June 30, 2014, 3:33 pm

    What was the “line in the sand,” Thrawn?
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Faithfulness Doesn’t Look Like ThatMy Profile

  • Cardiomom July 1, 2014, 12:11 am

    I think it’s another case of blindly quoting what someone thinks they heard someone say someone said.

    What gauntlet?

  • jennycherie July 1, 2014, 8:19 am

    I’m not Thrawn, but I think the line in the sand was where Kelly said that only ordination of women is an acceptable solution. I can’t find that exact wording in anything at the moment, other than an article stating that she would only want to return to the church “once women are ordained.” I think that is a clear line in the sand – it’s fine for her to ask questions and struggle, but if she says there is only one answer that is acceptable to her, then that is a clear line. At that point, she isn’t questioning or struggling, but giving an answer/making a demand.

  • Alison Moore Smith July 1, 2014, 9:41 am

    I haven’t ever seen her say that, and that’s the problem. I’m not a Kate Kelly expert and didn’t follow her closely, but I sure see a ton of things attributed to her that have no source.

    For example, you know scouting is spur in my saddle. I don’t think getting rid of scouting (although I’d LIKE to) is “the only acceptable solution.” But I do think the only way for there to be any remote appearance of parity in the youth programs is to (1) get rid of scouting or (2) create a program for females that has a similar infrastructure, credibility, funding, etc.

    Is the fact that I think those are the only two reasonable ways to solve the problem an apostate action?

    Sincerely, I don’t understand.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Slow Cooker Enchilada LasagneMy Profile

  • jennycherie July 2, 2014, 9:12 am

    “Is the fact that I think those are the only two reasonable ways to solve the problem an apostate action?”

    No – I don’t think so. I think there is a HUGE difference between suggesting one possible answer is the only answer verses there are two possibilities. Even opening up to two possibilities allows for discussion of options instead of “my way or the highway.”

    Regarding ordination, I think it is important for us to be open to the possibility that it is just not God’s will for women to be ordained. Ultimately, it’s up to Him.

  • jennycherie July 2, 2014, 9:47 am

    Found it in her own words on her profile on her website:

    ” I truly believe that God wants us all to equally share the burdens and blessings of the priesthood. The ordination of women would put us on equal spiritual footing with our brethren, and nothing less will suffice.”

  • Alison Moore Smith July 2, 2014, 3:31 pm

    I’ve seen that. I don’t see how that’s teaching false doctrine. You might disagree, but she clearly states it’s her opinion.

    Do those who claim this is apostasy believe God does NOT want women on “equal spiritual footing”?

    I think we need to either get rid of scouts or create a similar organization for girls in order to have parity — and I think nothing else will accomplish that. (I’m open to hearing other ways, but after DECADES thinking and talking about it, I STILL think those are the only two options that would reach that goal.) Is that false doctrine?

    Like I said, I don’t understand the supposed distinction. She thinks women should be ordained. I don’t see that as being some earth-shattering, particularly given our priestess and female deity doctrines.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Slow Cooker Enchilada LasagneMy Profile

  • jennycherie July 3, 2014, 8:47 am

    I don’t necessarily think it is apostasy to have such a strongly held opinion, but I believe that many others think so. Because she “drew a line in the sand” by saying there was only one acceptable solution and left no room for discussion or for ‘this is God’s will for now’, I think that is why so many have reacted so strongly to what she is saying and I think that is what ultimately led to her ex-communication.

  • thedeathstar July 3, 2014, 9:52 am

    Be careful jennycherie. According to this entire post it’s hateful to try interpreting her motives. Which is what over half of those quotes were. Most of them didn’t have any meanness to them.

    So, in case that direct quote from Kate Kelly didn’t spell it out for you, here you go. “Nothing less will suffice.”

    How does that one line (no need to ignore the core of what’s actually being said this time) not make the idea that they ONLY want the first presidency to pray about it (yes, there are a lot of people who think this) anything more than platitudes.

    People post things that you may think are negative because there are so many lies out there, and the group or some members in the group are just throwing out straw men to keep their protests seem more faith based, and also to trivialize the responses from the church leaders (“I guess it isn’t ok to ask questions…” is the worst but only one of many. If you would like me to expound, I can.)

  • Alison Moore Smith July 3, 2014, 6:28 pm

    I understand, I just don’t think anyone who is immovable defers to her leaders to ask God for revelation on the matter. That’s not coherent to me. It seems to me that even though she had a strong opinion about what was right she was (1) willing to defer to leaders and (2) willing to hear another option.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Argumentum Ad Hominem – Logical FallacyMy Profile

  • Alison Moore Smith July 3, 2014, 6:34 pm

    thedeathstar:

    The comments I listed certainly vary on the scale of unkindness, but I actually intended to remove any that were insignificant. If there are some you think are such, let me know. That said, why would anyone try to divine someone else’s motives? Discussing facts is fine, but that’s not what has been going on.

    If you’re going to quote Kelly or anyone else, do it in context. I’ve already addressed that and given an example. If you’re going to stick your head in the sand about it, there’s nothing to discuss with you.

    I don’t believe anyone said they “ONLY” want the first presidency to pray about it. But how else could such significant change ever occur in the church? Given their goal, of COURSE they want it. I’m not part of OW, but I’ve wanted the same thing for decades. Is there something mysterious about the request?

    Rather than throw out blanket accusations, if you have a particular issue to discuss, please be specific.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Simple FHE Ideas: Spiritual HabitsMy Profile

  • David Lezette July 4, 2014, 4:20 am

    Here is the thing that I find issue with.

    Kate Kelly has made this a public issue. She was the one who ran to the press everytime she received a private message from the Church. This is not making assumptions about her motives. Her case has been made quite public by her. By making a private matter public, she deserves any feedback she gets from it. She wants the public to discuss it (obviously) so here we are.

    Second, based on quotes I have seen from her, she is a liar. She is telling the media that she is being “silenced” by the church. That she’s not allowed to have an opinion of her own. She has been untruthful about the circumstances surrounding her case.

  • Alison Moore Smith July 4, 2014, 10:51 am

    David Lezette:

    Kate Kelly has made this a public issue. She was the one who ran to the press everytime she received a private message from the Church.

    I agree she went to the press. Was this in question? I’ve also suggested the idea that there is a valid reason to go to the press. Here it is again: general membership has no access to those who can make a difference on such issues.

    When we have general leaders who publicly state a particular subset of Mormons generally hold particular opinions that many don’t hold, that is a good indicator that their is information they aren’t privy to.

    We are told explicitly NOT to write letters to general leaders (and, for the record, even if you do, it’s generally screened by a secretary who returns a form letter — because, volume) but rather to talk to local leaders. When this is done the response is generally either (1) they don’t get it (sometimes followed by blackballing the “unfaithful member) or (2) they sympathize, but can’t do much more. In a very small minority of cases, the information is “passed up.” How often does this information get to those who are actually decision makers?

    When Emma had a huge problem with the filth at the School of the Prophets she had one huge advantage. She lived with the guy who could make a difference. Thus the Word of Wisdom. Most of us have no such access.

    This is not making assumptions about her motives.

    I didn’t state that noting she went to the press would be synonymous with making assumptions about motives, so I’m unsure how to respond to this straw man. My statement about motives was in direct response to thedeathstar, who said, “According to this entire post it’s hateful to try interpreting her motives…”

    I asked what purpose could be achieved by pretending you can do as much.

    By making a private matter public, she deserves any feedback she gets from it. She wants the public to discuss it (obviously) so here we are.

    There you have it, folks. The new Christian dogma. If someone discusses an issue publicly, s/he deserves what she gets! Carte blanche to forget that silly old “be Christlike” creed. Null and void in the public sphere. PLUS you can still call yourself faithful! Go get ‘em, tiger!

    Second, based on quotes I have seen from her, she is a liar.

    As I’ve said, if you have a problem with a specific statement, please QUOTE it and let’s discuss rationally. You won’t get away with equivocation here, David, and you won’t be allowed to impugn others with emotional blanket charges.

    If, for example, you would like to bring up a quote where she discusses being “silenced” it will have to be discussed honestly. (You like that honesty thing, right?) We probably both agree that her use of the term did not mean that “the church” covered her mouth with duct tape and stripped her of internet access and fingers. Correct? Then — in an honest discussion — we ask what SHE meant (given that it’s HER quote) and whether or not it was accurate, easily misunderstand, misleading, etc.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Best Toys RoundupMy Profile

  • Thrawn July 7, 2014, 10:32 pm

    @jennycherie: Yes, that\’s exactly the statement I was thinking of when I referring to drawing a line in the sand.@Alison: The idea that a person who speaks in public will be chastised in public is good doctrine, and is not new. It is clearly set out in Doctrine and Covenants 42:88-93.As for Sister Kelly\’s honesty, when she claims to been completely surprised by her excommunication, I have to assume that she is either unintelligent (but that doesn\’t make sense for the leader of thousands of people), or shortsighted (which would be fair enough, but would cast a lot of doubt on her credibility to lead), or else lying in order to make a stronger emotional appeal to the press.

  • Alison Moore Smith July 10, 2014, 4:11 pm

    Thrawn:

    I don’t think most people are *celebrating* Sister Kelly’s departure, but when she has thrown down the gauntlet and demanded that the Church give her what she wants, she can expect “repent or leave” in reply.

    Repent or leave? Repent for saying that she only sees one solution to the problem she’s discussing? Repent for “demanding that the church give her what she wants” — by, you know, actually DEFERRING to the powers that be with regard to her solution?

    Sincerely, what is the big deal? Did she start ordaining people on the sly? Did she claim that God has set her up as the new prophet?

    Or did she say: X is a big problem (to many), the only solution (in her opinion, obviously) is Y. Will you pray about that, pretty please???? And in the meantime, do you think we could sit in those empty seats in the room for the meeting that you (now) televise anyway? (And, you know, given that men attend and KEYNOTE at the general women’s meetings and we can’t ban them…)

    As I said, I see very few possible solutions to the irrational youth gender disparity. Is that my “gauntlet”? Are you going to tell me to “repent or leave”?

    Look at any of historical problems that are FINALLY being addressed by the new church essays (the latest on the Book of Abraham this week). Are you saying that all the people who’ve been noting, researching, discussing these problems for DECADES were apostate and should have been excommunicated for seeing them because the church hadn’t officially made sense of them?

    When I say that the church has some real problems with the polygamy issue and they are going to have to try to make sense of it SOMEDAY (probably after the next big public mess), do I need to “repent or leave” because it’s another “gauntlet” thrown down?

    The idea that a person who speaks in public will be chastised in public is good doctrine, and is not new. It is clearly set out in Doctrine and Covenants 42:88-93.

    It behooves those who cite scripture to support their positions to carefully read said scripture first. You seem to have conveniently skimmed over the first couple of verses. They say:

    (1) If you are offended go directly to the person who offended you and try to reconcile
    (2) If that doesn’t work out, go NOT TO THE MEMBERS, but to the ELDERS to have a meeting that is “NOT BEFORE THE WORLD.”

    I think we’re hard pressed to think that every time a Mormon does something in the public sphere that we disagree with or that bugs us, we are entitled to throw out the public rebuke of our choosing and call it scripturally sanctioned.

    I mean, you posted on this blog, right? I guess I can egg your house and spit on your kids because I think you’re stupid?

    But be clear that Kelly was told by her stake president that if she didn’t make the matter of her discipline public, HE would. (Hello?)

    That aside, dude, I blog. I’ve long held that public behavior (offensive or not) is open to public discussion. (I hold a higher bar for those in power.) I have no problem with people discussing pros, cons, agreement, disagreement on public behavior. Kelly’s or anyone else’s.

    The point of this post (in case you missed, you know, the title and all) isn’t to note that public discussion of public behavior is evil. (Which would be odd given that the post itself is public discussion of public behavior.) It’s to note that the din from the self-proclaimed “faithful” on this issue is pretty darn vicious, hateful, and awful.

    If we’re claiming to be all over the gospel message, maybe we ought to act like we understand some of it. And maybe — just maybe — that’s not the kind of “rebuke” that Christ meant.

    As for Sister Kelly\’s honesty, when she claims to been completely surprised by her excommunication, I have to assume that she is either unintelligent (but that doesn\’t make sense for the leader of thousands of people), or shortsighted (which would be fair enough, but would cast a lot of doubt on her credibility to lead), or else lying in order to make a stronger emotional appeal to the press.

    Honestly, this was full of so much rubbish it’s probably not worth the time for the public rebuke it deserves. (Plus egging and spitting.)

    Personally I wasn’t surprised she was excommunicated, but I was very hopeful she would not be. I’m not a member of her group and don’t support everything they have done or all their positions, but I am sympathetic to the sever problems presented by sexism in the church.

    Over the decades, I have seen the enormous, long-term damage done by past attempts to silence those who would speak to obvious cultural/historical issues in the church. I have seen the loss of credibility when the church fails to respond in a timely way. I have seen the harm done by the “faithful history” that failed miserably when the internet (whoopsy!) exposed it.

    So, yes, I hoped we had moved on as an institution. I thought we had come to realize that “truth will prevail” and we should welcome it and deal with it and work through it together. Even when it’s complicated and tough and confusing and messy. And so I really hoped that we could behave (institutionally) in a more enlightened way.

    In the end Kate Kelly just seems to have had more faith in the church institution than I have. And for that you impugn her character. Interesting, no?
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Clean One-Pan PastaMy Profile

  • Thrawn July 15, 2014, 11:09 pm

    @Alison: I’m quite well aware of the obligation to address issues privately first, and if Sister Kelly had kept her feelings about Church policies private – eg in discussions with her ward and stake leaders – then no matter how strongly she expressed her opinion to those leaders, she would probably not be excommunicated today.

    You can feel that Scouting is being mismanaged if you want (it barely happens in Australia at all). You can express your concerns to the appropriate people. That’s all good. If your leaders have said No, then you have an obligation to support their right to make that decision, but you can still disagree. However, when you gather people around you to put pressure on your leaders and try to make them change their minds, that is *not* OK. And when those leaders are the Apostles, and they have clearly stated “This is God’s pattern, and this is not”, and you just shout louder…well, that seems a lot like fighting against God.

    It’s not very honest to say, “This change is essential, nothing less will do, we will campaign until you give us the kind of equality we want, and we will actively recruit others to join us,” in the face of very clear statements that the change will not be made, and then when consequences are imposed, claim “Oh, we just wanted them to ask.”

    If you really feel the need to egg me, I would consider that out of proportion to what I may have said, but it’s your choice. But regardless, you should of course leave my family out of it.

  • Alison Moore Smith July 16, 2014, 2:22 am

    I’m quite well aware of the obligation to address issues privately first…

    Then what was your point about public sanction? As I said, “I think we’re hard pressed to think that every time a Mormon does something in the public sphere that we disagree with or that bugs us, we are entitled to throw out the public rebuke of our choosing and call it scripturally sanctioned.”

    Do you disagree? Does the scripture you quoted somehow justify the comments quoted above?

    …if Sister Kelly had kept her feelings about Church policies private…then no matter how strongly she expressed her opinion to those leaders, she would probably not be excommunicated today.

    Perhaps. But, as has been said ad nauseum, their is no means with which to address such issues. Strongly expressing her opinions to her bishop has about zero likelihood of moving to someone in authority to DO anything about the issue, but a huge likelihood of local sanctions.

    You can feel that Scouting is being mismanaged if you want…You can express your concerns to the appropriate people. That’s all good.

    Who would “the appropriate people” be?

    And when those leaders are the Apostles, and they have clearly stated “This is God’s pattern, and this is not”, and you just shout louder…well, that seems a lot like fighting against God.

    Actually, the clearest statement was from Oaks who called it a “divinely decreed pattern.” I’ve been asking my entire life where the “divinely decreed” part of that shows up. (We all get the pattern, more or less.) And now a few days ago church PR says there is a pattern, but the divinely decreed part doesn’t actually exist. Whoops.

    Rather than “fighting against God,” I’d say it’s asking those in authority to think about things and clarify things that were never serious issues before. Like it or not, they are now, and going on tradition doesn’t work very well as we see from all the explanatory essays coming out piecemeal.

    It’s not very honest to say, “This change is essential, nothing less will do, we will campaign until you give us the kind of equality we want, and we will actively recruit others to join us,”

    What’s not very honest is claiming that Kelly said that. She didn’t.

    in the face of very clear statements that the change will not be made, and then when consequences are imposed, claim “Oh, we just wanted them to ask.”

    Thrawl, what’s a priestess? If women are ordained to become priestesses (and they are), we’re missing a big chunk of the picture. Maybe it’s time to figure out what our real, recorded, canonized doctrines of female priesthood and female deity are all about.

    If you really feel the need to egg me, I would consider that out of proportion to what I may have said, but it’s your choice. But regardless, you should of course leave my family out of it.

    In case you actually missed the point, it was that the fact that you wrote a public response I disagree with doesn’t justify an inappropriate attack on you. Neither does it on Kelly.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…No Squeegee, No Wipe, Self Sheeting, Streak Free Window CleanerMy Profile

  • Thrawn July 16, 2014, 10:57 pm

    If someone does something in the public sphere that we disagree with or that bugs us, we can criticise their action in public. Aren’t we doing that right now?

    More than 50% of the quoted comments did not seem, to me, extreme or offensive, so the question of whether they are “justified” doesn’t make sense for me. The rest – yes, it’s still rude to be unnecessarily rude.

    There doesn’t have to be a process for members to bring about change, because the Church is not a democracy; it’s a kingdom. If you or Sister Kelly really feel that Church-wide change is needed, then your best avenue is to pray for it, because God is the only one entitled to tell the President of the Church what he should be doing.

    Sister Kelly didn’t say those things? The OW mission statement declares “Ordain Women believes women must be ordained”; “We are committed to work for…the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.”; “As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.” Yes, it also asks Church leaders to make it a matter of prayer, but there is no indication that OW will accept “No” for an answer. They have 6 discussions – linked from every page on their site – aimed at promoting their views to Church members. Their ‘Actions’ page currently talks about the vigils that they are holding at LDS chapels – including PA systems! – to protest Sister Kelly’s excommunication *primarily for recruiting others to her cause*. And she has already been quoted as saying “The ordination of women would put us on equal spiritual footing with our brethren, and nothing less will suffice.” How, exactly, did she not say everything I attributed to her?

  • Thrawn July 16, 2014, 11:02 pm

    As far as divinely-decreed patterns go, I can’t think of a document that has a clearer stamp of approval than the Proclamation on the Family. It was issued by all 15 Apostles, not acting for themselves, but declaring themselves to be the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, solemnly proclaiming and declaring certain truths to the world. If that is not to be considered a divine decree, then nothing from the Apostles ever is.

    And do you know what OW has to say about it? From their FAQ: “The Church’s Proclamation on the Family declares that men preside over their wives and families, thus preserving an antiquated and unequal model in both the domestic and ecclesiastical realms.”

    Could they be any clearer about the fact that they will not accept any answer they do not like?

  • Alison Moore Smith July 17, 2014, 11:42 am

    If someone does something in the public sphere that we disagree with or that bugs us, we can criticise their action in public. Aren’t we doing that right now?

    Yes, we are and, yes, I agree that is fine.

    More than 50% of the quoted comments did not seem, to me, extreme or offensive, so the question of whether they are “justified” doesn’t make sense for me. The rest – yes, it’s still rude to be unnecessarily rude.

    The fact that we have a different standard of what is “extreme and offensive” should go without saying. I won’t argue if you say, “Many of those comments don’t bother me.”

    The point being that apparently at least some of them DO seem “extreme and offensive” — and they come from those claiming to be on the pedestal of righteousness — is the point of the entire post.

    There doesn’t have to be a process for members to bring about change, because the Church is not a democracy; it’s a kingdom.

    I have never claimed that there must be a mechanism. (I don’t even know what that means.) The church may be Christ’s kingdom, but it is run by humans who have now (finally) explicitly stated that they make mistakes. (A fact which should have been obvious to anyone who knows anything about the church or any other institution.) If an organization has problems and no mechanism with which to address the problems, it is itself another problem. You can claim it doesn’t have to be addressed, but pretending that doesn’t create more problems is foolish.

    If you or Sister Kelly really feel that Church-wide change is needed, then your best avenue is to pray for it, because God is the only one entitled to tell the President of the Church what he should be doing.

    And this is where we part ways.

    Yes, of course, I recognize that no one is “entitled to tell the President of the Church what he should be doing” except God. No one is talking about either entitlement nor of dictating (although many seem to like to characterize things with such false narratives).

    Telling members that the best way to solve institutional problems is to pray ALONE is, frankly, absurd. The pattern (if we want to talk about patterns) is that God answers the questions that are asked and almost never poofs down magical information from on high. The other pattern is that people ask about things that are ON THEIR RADAR, not things they don’t think are worth praying about.

    Remember President Hinckley saying no women were “agitating” for the priesthood and LDS women were a happy lot? Do you think HE was praying about this issue, given that he thought no one cared about it? Or, do you think he prayed about things HE actually saw as being important, relevant, and critical?

    How is it that male LDS leaders — the only ones (as acknowledged by both me and OW) who have the authority to address these and other policy issues — would come to know about these questions and concerns? (Hint: praying in the closet doesn’t actually do it, per the PATTERN.)

    Sister Kelly didn’t say those things? The OW mission statement declares “Ordain Women believes women must be ordained”; “We are committed to work for…the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.”; “As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.”

    Good heavens, how many times must it be pointed out that context matters or that entire sentences matter? How many times must logic be inserted forcefully before statements are made?

    Let’s just start with your FIRST semi-quote, which is the foundation for ALL the rest. Shall we?

    The actual OW mission says this “Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings.”

    First, let’s parse the “must.” What can “must” mean in the context of the non-authoritative women in OW?

    Can it mean they will force it to happen against God’s will? (Perhaps by kidnapping priesthood holders and forcing them to place their hands on women’s heads and mouth ordinations? And then forcing the coerced ordination to be ratified by God?) Can it mean they will fire bomb the tabernacle if they aren’t made deacons by September 6th? Can it mean that they will take over the universe if they don’t get what they want?

    [Hint: no to all of the above.]

    So what DOES “must” mean?

    Second, the “must” is specifically qualified IN THE SAME SENTENCE. Subsequently, excluding their own qualification and explanation seems at least disingenuous and perhaps intentionally misleading.

    The position of those in OW is that they believe in order for the the church (as an entity) to reflect the equality that the church professes (per the church’s myriad statements, such as this: “The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.”), the solution is to provide women with the blessings, opportunities, positions, voice, etc., offered to men through priesthood ordination.

    It might be worth noting that this particular statement is the reason I chose NOT to join OW. While I share many concerns and views with them, I do not believe this is NECESSARILY the primary solution to the problem. Although, it would be a great starting point for reasons obvious to almost anyone with genuine interest in logic.

    For example, I believe that developing the DOCTRINES of female deity and female priestesshood (whether that is the same priesthood or another and what it entails) COULD be ways that our church could actually practically express the claimed equality and repair the current inequity.

    Right now we are left with mostly token changes, such as including photos of our general auxiliary leaders (for the first time this past May) in the Ensign “leaders centerfold” and in the Conference Center and allowing women to pray (for the first time last year) in General Conference. To be clear, these were welcome changes, but the fact that such minuscule gestures are seen as monumental is laughable to most of the country. (Literally.)

    One of the most positive changes — allowing women to serve missions at 19 — was somewhat mottled by the move to allow men, inexplicably, just a LITTLE more privilege than the women. As if keeping men ahead is of primary importance in church policy.

    Yes, it also asks Church leaders to make it a matter of prayer, but there is no indication that OW will accept “No” for an answer.

    Thrawn, what does that even mean? It’s utterly nonsensical. It’s true they might continue to discuss the issue and make points about it and note historical relevance and, gasp, use prophetic statements and real, written authoritative statements that supports their issue and that has never been refuted. But they can’t force the church to do anything. They have no power to make change.

    You seem to confuse actions of those in power with those with none. The government can demand I pay taxes or go to prison. I can only plead in response.

    In other words, they have no option BUT to “accept ‘no’ for an answer.”
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Clean One-Pan PastaMy Profile

  • Alison Moore Smith July 17, 2014, 12:08 pm

    Thrawn, you seem somewhat unaware of the church’s history on gender issues. Do you know what early church prophets (“divinely decreed”!) taught with regard to gender? Have you noticed the changes? When were you endowed? I was endowed in 1985. Do you know what the temple ceremony (talk about “divinely decreed,” right?) USED to say with regard to women’s “place”? Do you know that it’s changed, even if incrementally? And more with the newest three films (albeit slightly)?

    As far as divinely-decreed patterns go, I can’t think of a document that has a clearer stamp of approval than the Proclamation on the Family.

    You’re saying that The Family says women can’t hold the priesthood? Please show me where that is, because I’ve missed it all these years! (And tell the church PR spokeswoman, Ally Isom. She missed it, too!)

    [Hint: the word "priesthood" is not to be found in the document at all.]

    And, just for fun, how does that idea work with what we are taught in the temple?

    The Church’s Proclamation on the Family declares that men preside over their wives and families, thus preserving an antiquated and unequal model in both the domestic and ecclesiastical realms.

    I suppose that your objection to this statement is the word “antiquated.” Am I correct? You do NOT think that having men preside over both church and home is an outdated notion. Am I correct?

    I ask because that is really the only part of that statement that is remotely arguable. Everything else is simply factual.

    The problem with The Family (which, ftr, is hanging on the wall of our family room), is that it suffers from some internal cognitive dissonance that most don’t bother to address.

    Men preside over the church and preside at home as well (which has always seemed odd given the church’s support of women’s “place” being in the home (and I am a full-time homemaker, btw)). Only massive equivocation can call this equality.

    I assume you understand that having one person in the position of authority over another is NOT equality. Right?

    So here is what the proclamation actually says: “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness… fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

    By definition, you can’t preside while being equal. These two claims are at conflict with one another.

    OW has chosen to embrace the church teaching of EQUALITY over the church teaching of PRESIDING. Given that the church emphasizes the former over the latter in the past many years, this would be a wise move and seems indicative of where there church is moving, albeit very slowly.

    If you embrace the latter over the former, you must at least acknowledge that is what you are doing. If you believe you embrace both, it’s nonsense.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Best Toys RoundupMy Profile

  • Alison Moore Smith July 17, 2014, 5:06 pm

    This post by my friend James Olsen has some very thoughtful ideas: Thoughtful Priesthood Narratives?
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Best Gifts: College Finals Survival KitsMy Profile

  • Thrawn July 17, 2014, 9:34 pm

    So you, too, object to what is in the Proclamation on the Family.

    Why bother, then, asking the prophets to ask God about something, when you’re willing to reject the answer if you don’t like it?

  • Alison Moore Smith July 17, 2014, 10:08 pm

    Thrawn, I was pretty clear in the comments above. I brought up multiple problems with your position, but you choose to leap to ad hominem rather than just respond. (Typical…eh? And kind of humorous in light of the topic at hand…)

    The Family (ftr, it’s not called “Proclamation on the Family”) does not say women can’t have the priesthood nor does it even have the word priesthood in it. The answer isn’t in that document and the issue isn’t addressed.

    The document presents conflicting ideas that are not resolved (as, duh, do lots of authoritative comments and scriptures). I presented the one that impacts this particular discussion in detail. If you’d like to address it, please do. If you can’t do so in a rational way, I understand.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Argumentum Ad Hominem – Logical FallacyMy Profile

  • Brook July 17, 2014, 11:43 pm

    I think I am missing something… what are these “patterns” I am reading about and what is the “oops” moment from the church regarding? What I am gathering from this discussion is that patterns are essentially chains of command. Is this the case? Can you explain? I have been an active member my whole life and do not know what you’re talking about.

    Also, what are these new essays coming out? Are they church responses to OW? Can you point me in the right direction? Because I’d like to read them.

  • Angie Gardner July 18, 2014, 6:39 pm

    Brook, I’m not sure about the patterns part of your question but as for the essays, they are topics that the church is putting out on various topics. They are not in response to OW – or at least on the surface they aren’t. They are just in response to people’s questions. Some of them are on rather controversial topics. For example, just this past week one was released on the Book of Abraham.

    They can be found at lds.org/topics. There is an alphabetical list there. Not all topics are controversial, but ones on race and the priesthood, BOA, First Vision, polygamy, etc. have been.

  • Alison Moore Smith July 18, 2014, 7:36 pm

    Thanks, Angie.

    Brook:

    …what are these “patterns” I am reading about…

    Not sure what you’re referring to. Some guesses…

    Oaks stated that only men had the priesthood as part of a “divinely decreed pattern.” The “pattern” part of that, I get as most of the historical record excludes women from it (as well as others). It’s the “divinely decreed” part that eludes me…and apparently everyone else.

    In a recent interview with Ally Isom, (which I transcribed just for you, Brook!) she was asked directly (repeatedly), “The question is where does it say in Mormon doctrine that women cannot hold the priesthood?”

    Isom’s response: “It doesn’t.”

    Which is kind of what I’ve been saying since I was four.

    So when people keep insisting that “the doctrine” says women cannot hold the priesthood, there isn’t anything they can point to other than…tradition. :/

    Brook:

    … and what is the “oops” moment from the church regarding?

    In last General Conference, President Uchtdorf said,

    And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

    I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

    I think this is kind of a “duh” moment if you know anything about church history, but given that this was an authoritative statement in an authoritative venue was significant. So maybe suggesting as much won’t be called heresy anymore.

    Another “oops” indicator is the black/race essay, which says:

    There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.

    In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Slow Cooker Enchilada LasagneMy Profile

  • Brook July 18, 2014, 11:24 pm

    Thank you so much for the clarification, Angie and Alison! I’m off to read the transcript. Your blog is so interesting that I cannot keep my eyes off of it!

  • Thrawn July 21, 2014, 8:45 pm

    Well, Alison, I could answer your statements about the Proclamation on the family, but if you believe it to be an inspired document, as I do, then I don’t need to defend it; or if you don’t believe that, then clearly we don’t see eye-to-eye on matters of prophetic revelation and what constitutes scripture – which is at the heart of this whole situation. So, it’s probably best if we call it a day and part on relatively-peaceful terms.

  • Cannon July 21, 2014, 10:32 pm

    Thawn, you can’t be a church apologist if you don’t engage in the real conversation. Apologists don’t just move from blog to blog and thread to thread saying things like, “Well, if you disagree with me it’s apparent you don’t understand the gospel and are apostate.” They don’t say, “Yes! The church is right no matter what!”

    Instead, they look at hard issues, research them, and try to come up with an a way to rationally explain them that is in keeping with the faith. When they can’t, they honestly recognize the problem and continue to search for answers. You aren’t doing that.

    As for the proclamation, Allison is right. It doesn’t make any claims about who can hold the priesthood. As a priesthood holder I can’t figure out why Thawn would say that. I’ve been trying to answer the question to my daughters (and congregants when I was a bishop) for a number of years. I don’t believe there is a doctrinal source for this. I’ve never ordained a woman but the only reason I can see why we don’t is tradition. Since all traditions are sexist at the root, we should look at our own traditions carefully to weed out problems when we can.

  • Cannon July 21, 2014, 10:35 pm

    I’m sorry I misspelled your name, Alison!

  • Alison Moore Smith July 22, 2014, 8:41 am

    Thrawn, if you choose not to engage in further discussion on the matter, of course I accept that. If you want to claim to be taking the higher road, right after impugning my character, then at least be clear it’s not really a higher road.

    The bottom line is that the document you claim gives the divinely decreed female priesthood ban doesn’t have the word “priesthood” in it even once. In addition to that, yes, it’s really hard to explain how someone can preside over someone while being their equal. Because it defies the definitions of the terms.

    According to President Uchtdorf: inspired ≠ perfect

    If you don’t believe his words to be inspired, then I guess we don’t see eye-to-eye on matters of prophetic revelation.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Latter-day Saints and Excommunication – KUER RadioWest Podcast TranscriptMy Profile

  • Thrawn July 22, 2014, 10:25 pm

    “As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.”
    - President Dieter F. Uchtdorf

  • Alison Moore Smith July 23, 2014, 1:14 am

    Except when “leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.”

    Thrawn, are you intentionally obfuscating or is this really confusing to you? Yes, the church will follow its course fulfill it’s destiny. Which is…wait for it…to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

    The leaders can make lots of mistakes without the church failing in its purpose, don’t you think? As in hundreds of thousands.

    Please notice something, I’m taking the reading that allows BOTH of Uchtdorf’s authoritative comments to be true. You are inexplicably embracing one and ignoring the other. (You heretic!)

    The Proclamation (which you seem unwilling to acknowledge has ZERO to do with declarations about priesthood ordination) has conflicting statements within it. Sorry, it’s just true. Rather than address the issue, you jump from one thing to another. As I said, if you can’t address the point, fine. But don’t pretend you are addressing it when you aren’t. (And you’re not.)
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Cranberry Veggie Quinoa SaladMy Profile

  • Thrawn July 27, 2014, 2:41 pm

    I wasn’t ignoring President Uchtdorf’s statements, Alison, but to me, the clear reading of them was, Yes, individual Church leaders can make mistakes, but you don’t need to let that worry you, because Church government doesn’t rely on individuals, it relies on God. Focusing on the mistakes of the few misses the reality that when important decisions are made, it is by inspiration.

  • Thrawn July 27, 2014, 2:45 pm

    The point is not whether the Proclamation says who should have the Priesthood. The point is, in their public statements about it, OW has shown a willingness to dismiss the words of the prophets that conflict with them – even when those words have been plainly stamped as revelation (how could they be any plainer?).

    So when OW claims that they want the President of the Church to ask God a question, I’m sceptical. I don’t trust that they will accept an answer they don’t like. Like the person quoted above, I remain unconvinced of their sincerity.

  • Alison Moore Smith July 27, 2014, 4:35 pm

    Focusing on the mistakes of the few misses the reality that when important decisions are made, it is by inspiration.

    Contrary to what most people think, THIS is what begging the question really is!

    When important decisions are made, they are made by inspiration
    therefore
    Any mistakes don’t really matter because they weren’t important anyway

    Thrawn, if you were a black man or woman and were not allowed to be sealed to your family and, in fact, were told you could NEVER be sealed to them, would you call that an insignificant mistake? I’m sure you’ll make some snappy comment about that but, seriously, that was a major and damaging faux pas. Still damaging to the church, too.

    What about Mountain Meadows Massacre? No big deal? Inspiration? The church says otherwise, so argue with them.

    The church realizes the “faithful history” doesn’t cut it in the information age. They are systematically going through all the historical issues that have been publicized and dealing with them HONESTLY. That is the correct approach.

    Also, if you want to have a real conversation, don’t call your own opinions the “clear reading.” They aren’t. They are your opinion. That’s not what Uchtdorf said.

    The point is not whether the Proclamation says who should have the Priesthood.

    Of course the point of the discussion about The Family — given that YOU brought it up as the doctrinal sources for disallowing female ordination — is that is does not even mention the priesthood at all.

    Now would be the time for you to say something like, “Oh, yea. I was mistaken about that. I was thinking the bit about roles distinguished that, but I guess it doesn’t.”

    I won’t hold my breath.

    The point is, in their public statements about it, OW has shown a willingness to dismiss the words of the prophets that conflict with them – even when those words have been plainly stamped as revelation (how could they be any plainer?).

    What words “have been plainly stamped as revelation”? As I said, there are references TO a doctrine for which no one has produced a source.

    I don’t trust that they will accept an answer they don’t like.

    So what? I mean, sincerely, they don’t have to convince you of their sincerity or their future hypothetical behavior. As far as I know, only one person I actually know is a member. I know he is sincere and quite ernest in both his faith and questions/concerns.

    That said, I’m baffled by the supposed purpose of judging how people you do not know will respond in a situation that has not occurred and that you are not directly involved with on either end.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Slow Cooker Enchilada LasagneMy Profile

  • Thrawn July 28, 2014, 3:18 pm

    Alison, the misrepresentations in your comment are making me doubt your own sincerity. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer this time, but probably not again.

    If you read more carefully, then from the very addresses where Brigham Young spoke about this, he declared that at some future day, Negroes would have all the blessings that anyone has. He apparently believed that this would occur only in the Resurrection; he was mistaken about that. But he never said that the restriction would be eternal – quite the contrary – and despite his apparent *error in personal belief* about how long it would last, the Church has never said that *the decision to restrict priesthood ordination* was a mistake. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism#Church_asked_to_repudiate_past_declarations

    We both know that the Mountain Meadows Massacre was not approved by the councils of the Church, and that as soon as Brigham Young learned of what was about to happen, he ordered them to stop, too late :(. It was a mistake, absolutely, but not one approved by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve.

    Re President Uchtdorf, I did say, “to me, the clear reading is…” ie this is how I understand it. Feel free to disagree with my reading, but my original quotation of him was not dishonest, it was quite consistent with what I understand him to have said.

    I brought up the Proclamation not as a statement about priesthood, but as an example of a divinely decreed pattern that OW rejects. Re-read my original comment about it and I think you’ll see that.

    When a document begins with “We, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that…” and goes on to declare God’s will, I think we have a pretty clear case of “Thus saith the Lord”.

    And the relevance of doubting OW’s sincerity is that the person whom you quoted as an example of being “snarky” had what looks to me like good reasons for his/her statement. Many others whom you quoted are in a similar boat.

    I think, at this point, I’ve said my piece: I sympathise with over half of your quotes and think they are justified rather than nasty. Is there anything more to say?

  • Alison Moore Smith August 3, 2014, 1:42 pm

    Thrawn, you have a troubling go-to position. Here it is:

    Someone disagrees with me
    Therefore I doubt their sincerity
    Therefore they are wrong

    Doesn’t work that way.

    I don’t know how old you are, but you sound younger than I am. In other words, you sound like you are too young to have heard things — from general authorities — that counter what you seem to believe. You can’t rewrite history. Real apologetics involves dealing with truth, not denying it.

    Yes, Brigham Young said blacks would have all the blessings anyone has (ahem…I guess he meant black men) after the resurrection. And, yes, he was wrong. So, we agree it’s OK for our leaders — even the prophet — to be wrong and we also agree it happens.

    It’s a convenient categorization — after the fact — to say his erroneous positions were “personal belief,” but that contradicts Brigham Young himself and assumes authority you don’t have.

    BY did not present his race ideas as “personal belief,” he presented them as doctrine. He explicitly called it “true principles and doctrine” and “true eternal principals the Lord Almighty” that blacks should not have the priesthood “until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood [sic], until the redemtion [sic] of the earth.”

    [Check out his speech to the joint session of the legislature when he was governor (February 5th, 1852), titled "Slavery: Blacks and the Priesthood." It's in the church archives and probably online (it's on Amazon) if you care to…um…"read more carefully."]

    The doctrinal declaration of “no priesthood until resurrection” (which has been proven wrong) was authoritatively confirmed a number of times. For example (emphasis mine):

    First Presidency under direction of George Albert Smith:

    The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.

    The same letter, btw, also confirmed the “not as valiant in the preexistence” idea (“The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality…”) which has been formally repudiated.

    Let’s also note a couple of other authoritative sources (that proved wrong):

    Hugh B. Brown (First Presidency – died 11975) and N. Eldon Tanner (First Presidency – died 1982):
    “Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, ‘The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God…Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.’”

    Mark E. Petersen (Quorum of the 12 – died in 1984):

    If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection.”

    George F. Richards (Quorum of the 12 – died 1950):

    The Negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom.

    Thrawn:

    …the Church has never said that *the decision to restrict priesthood ordination* was a mistake.

    Except they did last December.

    In a nutshell, the church said, “We are super racially diverse and inclusive! (Except for the one time — ‘much of [our] history’ — when we weren’t.) About that hundred plus years, well, everyone was pretty racist, plus slavery, so it’s totally understandable that Brigham Young would be influenced by all that old timey icky stuff. (Hey, we never made black Mormons go to their own buildings!) So, yea, Brigham Young said they blacks couldn’t be ordained or go to the temple and after that everyone just followed suit. But, um, well…all the reasons we gave for that…well…’none of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.’”

    Better yet (for these reading carefully) there’s this:

    Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

    That’s the very definition of repudiate. (And, hey, if remember, if you still defend the past church racism, you’ll be Bottified!)

    The issue (according to the church essay) got on the radar of those in authority and with the ability to make policy changes because of cultural changes, public input, missionary challenges, etc. Perhaps the same will happen with systemic sexism.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Best Toys RoundupMy Profile

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv badge