Female "Priesthood Session" Held At University Of Utah Saturday Night

[Damien the Leper]

Stop insulting Father Abraham!

Don

You and your love for biblical hippies! Abraham...Jesus...the guy on the street corner selling hookas.

[jwhitlock]

Toscano has never openly opposed the church itself. She has opposed certain aspects and positions. She's not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Criticizing the church doesn't make you an anti-Mormon or an apostate. That's just silly.

Those certain "aspects and positions" have included opposition to and criticism of church leadership, both general and local. While claiming she just wants to explore dissenting thought and other viewpoints, she presents a perspective of the church and how it treats women as something only designed to validate her feminism. It is not what happens in the real world, which is far more complex than her over-simplifications.

I provide the following links so you can read and judge for yourself. The first is her interview with PBS for their "The Mormons" program in 2006. It's well worth noting the subtle (and some not-so-subtle) messages she sends out that are critical of the church. I happen to have a little additional knowledge about some of what she talks about, and it is clear to me that she has presented a very one sided and not totally accurate account of events. The other links are reviews of what the Toscanos have written; I felt it appropriate to let some of the Maxwell Institute people from years past, including Bill Hamblin, give us their take on her.

PBS Interview.

Gary Novak review.

Bill Hamblin review.

Brian Hauglid review.

[KevinG]

Nope! Not gonna happen. I will keep my man-card thank you very much.

I gave that up when I let my little girls (now women) paint my toenails and braid my hair. However I traded it for a Father card and that was worth it.

[Brenda]

This whole thing saddens me beyond what I can express. These are good, well-intentioned people who are misled. Elder Holland's talk on Sunday said it well in urging us all to be kind and forgiving.

I wholeheartedly support the First Presidency. When and if women are ordained, it will be on the Lord's time and not a moment sooner regardless of who and how many clamor for it.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Brenda

[Stone holm]

Those certain "aspects and positions" have included opposition to and criticism of church leadership, both general and local. While claiming she just wants to explore dissenting thought and other viewpoints, she presents a perspective of the church and how it treats women as something only designed to validate her feminism. It is not what happens in the real world, which is far more complex than her over-simplifications.

I provide the following links so you can read and judge for yourself. The first is her interview with PBS for their "The Mormons" program in 2006. It's well worth noting the subtle (and some not-so-subtle) messages she sends out that are critical of the church. I happen to have a little additional knowledge about some of what she talks about, and it is clear to me that she has presented a very one sided and not totally accurate account of events. The other links are reviews of what the Toscanos have written; I felt it appropriate to let some of the Maxwell Institute people from years past, including Bill Hamblin, give us their take on her.

PBS Interview.

Gary Novak review.

Bill Hamblin review.

Brian Hauglid review.

I don't doubt you are right knowing very little of Toscano and you seem to know a lot. But tell me, how is it in reality, all my non-member daughter in laws, and actually suspect my member daughter in laws think the Church comes across as sexist and engages in gender stereotyping . I am too old and confused I guess. Is it something more than women no longer being willing to stay in their assigned places?

[jwhitlock]

I don't doubt you are right knowing very little of Toscano and you seem to know a lot. But tell me, how is it in reality, all my non-member daughter in laws, and actually suspect my member daughter in laws think the Church comes across as sexist and engages in gender stereotyping . I am too old and confused I guess. Is it something more than women no longer being willing to stay in their assigned places?

"Assigned places"? "Sexist"? "Gender stereotyping"? Use of those phrases gives me a fairly good idea of where you're coming from. Sounds quite a bit like the same talking points Toscano espouses.

It's interesting how the radical feminists who want to mold the church in their own image are so willing to walk out all the examples of disaffected Mormon women and portray them as the norm. The real world, of course, is a bit more complicated that that. For all your "reality", as you claim, there is another reality of many, many women who thrive in the church and with the covenants of the gospel as they are structured. They see a loving God who cares about them and church leaders who care about them. They lead rich, full, spiritual lives unencumbered by the trendy causes of the world.

You want to know what the problem is with radical feminists who demand the church change? It's all about them. It's "me, me, me". That very self-centered attitude - exemplified by Toscano in the interview she gave to PBS - is absolutely incompatible with the principles of Christ and the gospel, which tell us to lose ourselves in service to others in order to find our own salvation. Self-centeredness is going to always find something to be offended about.

What a waste of a life to live that way.

[Damien the Leper]

Those certain "aspects and positions" have included opposition to and criticism of church leadership, both general and local. While claiming she just wants to explore dissenting thought and other viewpoints, she presents a perspective of the church and how it treats women as something only designed to validate her feminism. It is not what happens in the real world, which is far more complex than her over-simplifications.

I provide the following links so you can read and judge for yourself. The first is her interview with PBS for their "The Mormons" program in 2006. It's well worth noting the subtle (and some not-so-subtle) messages she sends out that are critical of the church. I happen to have a little additional knowledge about some of what she talks about, and it is clear to me that she has presented a very one sided and not totally accurate account of events. The other links are reviews of what the Toscanos have written; I felt it appropriate to let some of the Maxwell Institute people from years past, including Bill Hamblin, give us their take on her.

PBS Interview.

Gary Novak review.

Bill Hamblin review.

Brian Hauglid review.

I'm familiar with the links you provide. However, I'm in agreement with Toscano. Gender roles don't mean much.

There is nothing wrong with being critical. No man, woman or institution, religious or secular, is above criticism. To suggest such, even to the slightest degree, is idolatrous

Edited April 10, 2013 by Valentinus

[bjw]

I think the new video series the church released on the web a couple weeks ago does a good job of addressing this issue. I think it does a good job of showing how men and women actually have equal roles in the household, even if their respective tasks are different. The church timed the release of the videos pretty well and did good by mentioning them at General Conference.

[Brenda]

there is another reality of many, many women who thrive in the church and with the covenants of the gospel as they are structured. They see a loving God who cares about them and church leaders who care about them. They lead rich, full, spiritual lives unencumbered by the trendy causes of the world.

You want to know what the problem is with radical feminists who demand the church change? It's all about them. It's "me, me, me".

As harsh as it sounds, I agree. I do feel that I thrive in the Church. And do I feel short-changed that I cannot baptize or give a blessing? No. I'm just happy that someone is being baptized and that blessings are available to all who need them.

But I understand that my feelings and perceptions are not common to all women, so I'm trying to empathize. However, faith and humility always seem to be the bottom line.

[smac97]

As harsh as it sounds, I agree. I do feel that I thrive in the Church. And do I feel short-changed that I cannot baptize or give a blessing? No. I'm just happy that someone is being baptized and that blessings are available to all who need them.

But I understand that my feelings and perceptions are not common to all women, so I'm trying to empathize. However, faith and humility always seem to be the bottom line.

I spoke with my wife about this issue, and she expressed a similar sentiment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You want to know what the problem is with radical feminists who demand the church change? It's all about them. It's "me, me, me". That very self-centered attitude - exemplified by Toscano in the interview she gave to PBS - is absolutely incompatible with the principles of Christ and the gospel, which tell us to lose ourselves in service to others in order to find our own salvation. Self-centeredness is going to always find something to be offended about.

I was thinking about women getting the priesthood. Well, for one thing I would be less likely to be a Bishop. If that happened then the chances just got cut in half. (I know it doesn't work like that but...) On another note could you imagine a ward council with a female bishop? It would never end. I mean it is bad enough as it is. No offence intended.

[jwhitlock]

As harsh as it sounds, I agree. I do feel that I thrive in the Church. And do I feel short-changed that I cannot baptize or give a blessing? No. I'm just happy that someone is being baptized and that blessings are available to all who need them.

But I understand that my feelings and perceptions are not common to all women, so I'm trying to empathize. However, faith and humility always seem to be the bottom line.

Thanks for your input. While I recognize that not all women thrive in the church, there are many that do. The same applies to men.

My comments were meant to be harsh. There's a certain aura of self-centeredness in radical feminism that is troubling to me. You always feel like you have to walk on eggshells around them, for fear of offending them or saying something "sexist". What I read from Toscano is flatly contradicted by what my own wife experiences, along with many others I know. Her radical feminism is not the norm in the church; it is the exception.

One point in particular bothers me when women talk about wanting the priesthood. They say (as Smac has noted) that they can't be as spiritual or have the blessings that men have as priesthood holders. That's just plain bunk. My wife has a rapport with the Spirit that leaves me in the dust; I seek her input quite a bit in decisions that need to be made because of that gift of spiritual insight she has - without the priesthood.

I'm reminded of President Eyring's talk in conference, where he was considering whether to leave Ricks College for another opportunity. His wife, who is also very spiritually in tune, said that she didn't feel it was the right decision to leave. President Eyring said that was good enough for him, but his wife said he needed to get his own spiritual confirmation - and the Lord "allowed" him to stay on at Ricks for a while more. One of my favorite talks, but also clear evidence that women in the church aren't one bit behind men when it comes to the Spirit just because they don't hold the priesthood.

[jwhitlock]

I'm familiar with the links you provide. However, I'm in agreement with Toscano. Gender roles don't mean much.

Gender roles are significant; to infer in any way that there is no significant difference between men and women in how they think, act, or perceive the world around them is to take leave of all common sense. Those differences can either be complementary - such as in a marriage that works well - or conflicting, when self-centeredness is evident in demands for unrealistic sameness in all things.

There is nothing wrong with being critical. No man, woman or institution, religious or secular, is above criticism. To suggest such, even to the slightest degree, is idolatrous

Then you shouldn't have any problem with me criticizing Toscano. However, there is a line crossed when criticism is intended to tear down or attack destructively. That kind of criticism, which Toscano engages in, can be inappropriate. To suggest that there's nothing wrong with that kind of criticism is to condone the destructive nature of our current society.

[smac97]

There is nothing wrong with being critical. No man, woman or institution, religious or secular, is above criticism. To suggest such, even to the slightest degree, is idolatrous

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "idolatrous?" I don't quite get what you are saying.

Also, I disagree with your sweeping statement that there "is nothing wrong with being critical." Yes, there is. Criticism can be misplaced. It can be based in inappropriate motives. It can be excessive. It can be based on faulty data or just differences of opinion. It can be expressed in inappropriate ways and circumstances.

A few nights ago I had a run-in with my rather strong-willed 11-year old son. I was attempting to correct his behavior, but it became apparent that I was not doing it well. Later that night, I spoke with my wife privately, and she pointed out what I had done wrong. She was free with her criticism, and I in fact requested it. I spoke with my son the next day, explained that I had spoken with his mother, that we had discussed my remarks and had determined that I needed to apologize to him. My son, ever the forgiving soul, freely forgave me.

There could have been several ways my wife's criticism of me could have gone badly. I think a wife openly criticizing her husband's parenting skills (or vice versa) in front of the children can undermine parental authority, can also create divisiveness in the family, can create in the children a sense of competing loyalties, etc. Instead, my wife waited until the appropriate moment (involving privacy and a contrite husband) to voice her criticisms. I was grateful that we had that discussion privately rather than in front of the children, and that my wife and I have a relationship wherein I love her, she loves me, we both know of each other's affection, and we are equal partners in the parenting of our children.

I can't help but compare this experience to the repellant comments being made against the Brethren and the Church by some of the women who want the priesthood.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 10, 2013 by smac97

[KevinG]

I'm familiar with the links you provide. However, I'm in agreement with Toscano. Gender roles don't mean much.

There is nothing wrong with being critical. No man, woman or institution, religious or secular, is above criticism. To suggest such, even to the slightest degree, is idolatrous

You should have been there in 1991 when I was with a group of young Bishopric members that Boyd K Packer took to preaching repentance to for not honoring our wives. The church is not and has not been above criticism. However some people make their lives into one long gripe session and would destroy the house of order because there were a few cockroaches in the kitchen.

[EllenMaksoud]

Here: http://www.sltrib.co...on-lds.html.csp

Even the Salt Lake Tribune (!) recognizes the adversarial nature of this event:

A) The article notes that this meeting was scheduled to conflict and compete with the Priesthood Session (which the men who attended this event missed);

B) The message of this event appears to conflict with the message given by Elder Ballard earlier in the day (thus the "But" separating the quote from Elder Ballard with the quote from the Margaret Toscano); and

C) The Trib juxtaposes the Church's position (reflected in comments made by Elder Ballard during General Conference) with the position of this group (presented by an excommunicate speaking on its behalf during a meeting timed to compete with General Conference).

I wonder how much traction this group, which purports to be headed by a "devout Mormon," will have now that it is openly aligning itself with, and even represented by, a person who was excommunicated for apostasy.

In all candor, this event looks like an in-your-face challenge to the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do some research into what has happened to churches that did ordain women. See if it made them better? See if membership increased? I agree that a Mother should participate in the blessing of HER baby.

[smac97]

Do some research into what has happened to churches that did ordain women. See if it made them better? See if membership increased? I agree that a Mother should participate in the blessing of HER baby.

I do not see the value of such research. Our Church is not a social organization. It is the Kingdom of God, guided by prophets who seek out and receive revelation from God. While some matters of church governance can be modified by the leaders prayerfully considering the learning and experiences found in other organizations, I do not think a doctrinal change such as the one under discussion is a matter to be determined by how that change has panned out in other religious groups.

This is an issue to be decided through counsel, faith, fasting, prayer, and humility. These are tools which are largely being spurned by agitators, who prefer public relation campaigns against the Church and other inappropriate actions.

Regarding a mother participating in the blessing of children, the CHI provides: “Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name” (D&C 20:70). In conformity with this revelation, only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may participate in naming and blessing children."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 11, 2013 by smac97

[EllenMaksoud]

I do not see the value of such research. Our Church is not a social organization. It is the Kingdom of God, guided by prophets who seek out and receive revelation from God. While some matters of church governance can be modified by the leaders prayerfully considering the learning and experiences found in other organizations, I do not think a doctrinal change such as the one under discussion is a matter to be determined by how that change has panned out in other religious groups.

This is an issue to be decided through counsel, faith, fasting, prayer, and humility. These are tools which are largely being spurned by agitators, who prefer public relation campaigns against the Church and other inappropriate actions.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, for what purpose and under what authority are people who want women ordained meeting? I've only been with the Mormons a little over two years, and I consider it an undeserved blessing. My purpose in making the statement in my previous post is that I think it will be demonstratable that ordaining women had no positive effect. I still maintain that I have plenty to do without being ordained, who needs it?

It's similar to the same old Ev new testament argument about the gift of tongues. It is all about oneupsmanship and pridefulness with some people. Heavenly Father most certainly has the power to give anyone what they need to perform his will. That includes priesthood priveleges for women, authority to baptise, and temple priveleges. I personally don't think I need ordination, I'm good without it.

Edited April 11, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[Damien the Leper]

Gender roles are significant; to infer in any way that there is no significant difference between men and women in how they think, act, or perceive the world around them is to take leave of all common sense. Those differences can either be complementary - such as in a marriage that works well - or conflicting, when self-centeredness is evident in demands for unrealistic sameness in all things.

There are anatomical and physiological advantages to both genders. However, I reject gender complimentarianism. That is a mess embraced by Reformed people. Gender egalitarianism is the more appropriate and logical response.

Then you shouldn't have any problem with me criticizing Toscano. However, there is a line crossed when criticism is intended to tear down or attack destructively. That kind of criticism, which Toscano engages in, can be inappropriate. To suggest that there's nothing wrong with that kind of criticism is to condone the destructive nature of our current society.

Criticize Toscano all you want. I've never read or heard anything by Toscano that was meant to "destroy" the church. That is just petty self or projected victimization. That's just silly. You are being overly dramatic here.

[Damien the Leper]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "idolatrous?" I don't quite get what you are saying.

What I mean is that if you believe there are persons or institutions above rebuke, reproach, correction or criticism then you have committed an act of idolatry.

Theodore Roosevelt put it best:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

The principle stands true no matter the circumstances.

Also, I disagree with your sweeping statement that there "is nothing wrong with being critical." Yes, there is. Criticism can be misplaced. It can be based in inappropriate motives. It can be excessive. It can be based on faulty data or just differences of opinion. It can be expressed in inappropriate ways and circumstances.

You're reading too far into what I said. Criticism itself is not wrong. I agree, it can be misplaced.

A few nights ago I had a run-in with my rather strong-willed 11-year old son. I was attempting to correct his behavior, but it became apparent that I was not doing it well. Later that night, I spoke with my wife privately, and she pointed out what I had done wrong. She was free with her criticism, and I in fact requested it. I spoke with my son the next day, explained that I had spoken with his mother, that we had discussed my remarks and had determined that I needed to apologize to him. My son, ever the forgiving soul, freely forgave me.

Good.

There could have been several ways my wife's criticism of me could have gone badly. I think a wife openly criticizing her husband's parenting skills (or vice versa) in front of the children can undermine parental authority, can also create divisiveness in the family, can create in the children a sense of competing loyalties, etc. Instead, my wife waited until the appropriate moment (involving privacy and a contrite husband) to voice her criticisms. I was grateful that we had that discussion privately rather than in front of the children, and that my wife and I have a relationship wherein I love her, she loves me, we both know of each other's affection, and we are equal partners in the parenting of our children.

I can't help but compare this experience to the repellant comments being made against the Brethren and the Church by some of the women who want the priesthood.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is an odd comparison. There are huge dynamics of differences between the two scenarios. The most interesting dynamic is that in one scenario, there was a meaningful dialogue and understanding. In the other, there is nothing but indirect remarks and silence. Hardly the same or comparable.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

You should have been there in 1991 when I was with a group of young Bishopric members that Boyd K Packer took to preaching repentance to for not honoring our wives. The church is not and has not been above criticism. However some people make their lives into one long gripe session and would destroy the house of order because there were a few cockroaches in the kitchen.

I find it interesting that you diminish the value of something a person(s) is "griping" about considering that it doesn't mean all that much to you. This is historically typical. I remember in my women's studies course learning about the women who were anti-ERA. I thought it fascinating how easily dismissive and "gender role" embracing these women were. Now they are mere specks on the sidelines of history.

[jwhitlock]

There are anatomical and physiological advantages to both genders. However, I reject gender complimentarianism. That is a mess embraced by Reformed people. Gender egalitarianism is the more appropriate and logical response.

Then you reject the real world in favor of philosophical "logic". In reality, things don't work as neatly as you want them to. It's why all the trendy "equality" demands are so disturbing. Implement the philosophical social experiments and leave others to pick up the broken lives that result.

Criticize Toscano all you want. I've never read or heard anything by Toscano that was meant to "destroy" the church. That is just petty self or projected victimization. That's just silly. You are being overly dramatic here.

It would be more accurate to say that you've never accepted any evidence that Toscano attacks the church, it's leaders, or its members. What I posted was clear evidence to the contrary. Dismissing that evidence with your usual personal sneers seems to be the only real response you can muster.

Want something that points to Toscano's true character and her ability to denigrate organizations and people who she disagrees with? Try reading the PBS interview where she sneeringly attacks her brother in law. The video is better than the transcript, because "sneer" is what she actually does when she accuses him of being "patriarchal". The problem is, there are people who know her brother in law and who know about the situation and who were absolutely incensed at her misrepresentation of the situation. And that's because with her, it's always about her. Forget anyone else; if they don't see things her way, then they deserve what she dishes out.

It's the same for her other misrepresentations in the interview.

So perhaps you really applaud people like that and don't see anything wrong with that kind of character trait. It would appear that as long as someone has the same worldview that you do, they can't really do anything wrong. It's hardly "petty" as you so sneeringly phrase it, to identify apostate behavior for what it is.

[Brenda]

Thanks for your input. While I recognize that not all women thrive in the church, there are many that do. The same applies to men.

My comments were meant to be harsh. There's a certain aura of self-centeredness in radical feminism that is troubling to me. You always feel like you have to walk on eggshells around them, for fear of offending them or saying something "sexist". What I read from Toscano is flatly contradicted by what my own wife experiences, along with many others I know. Her radical feminism is not the norm in the church; it is the exception.

One point in particular bothers me when women talk about wanting the priesthood. They say (as Smac has noted) that they can't be as spiritual or have the blessings that men have as priesthood holders. That's just plain bunk. My wife has a rapport with the Spirit that leaves me in the dust; I seek her input quite a bit in decisions that need to be made because of that gift of spiritual insight she has - without the priesthood.

I'm reminded of President Eyring's talk in conference, where he was considering whether to leave Ricks College for another opportunity. His wife, who is also very spiritually in tune, said that she didn't feel it was the right decision to leave. President Eyring said that was good enough for him, but his wife said he needed to get his own spiritual confirmation - and the Lord "allowed" him to stay on at Ricks for a while more. One of my favorite talks, but also clear evidence that women in the church aren't one bit behind men when it comes to the Spirit just because they don't hold the priesthood.

I don't think being ordained in the priesthood enhances anyone's spirituality ..... I mean, it can .... but not necessarily. I can be just as spiritual as any man. But I also don't think women generally are more spiritual than men. Maybe some women just express it more .... or rely on it more ..... but it's an individual thing, not a gender thing. IOW, I don't trust generalities, unless I make them.

However, being a male with the priesthood, can afford some opportunities for spiritual environments or experiences, which are not available to women. For example, my husband has served in bishoprics and stake presidencies and has told me of the many times the Spirit has led them in obvious and undeniable ways. Many of his own experiences have happened in stake presidency meetings and even in disciplinary councils. I most likely will never sit in any of those meetings.

Do I feel deprived? No. I feel blessed through my husband. As he shares these experiences with me, I appreciate how it strengthens him and that I am blessed to have a man whose character is rock solid. His strength becomes my blessing. I support him, and the benefits to me are huge.

Do I feel deprived that I was not able to bless or baptize or ordain my children? It frankly never crossed my mind at the time. But you see, and this is important to me ..... my love for my husband is such that him putting his hands on their heads and pronouncing the blessing, is like it is our hands. We are united as a couple and progressing towards having that perfect one-ness that we hear of in the scriptures. It's not him or me. It's us.

We don't know why women don't receive the priesthood, but I have one guess. Strong marriages are of paramount importance. And if the husband and wife both had all roles intermixed, then we lose an element of dependence on each other. I need my husband's priesthood power. I need him to provide. He needs me to do what only I can do. We take care of and support each other. Eliminating all male and female roles can create independence, and could possibly weaken the marital bond. Just a thought.

Plus anyone who thinks it would be a good idea for men and women to serve together in presidency, is very naive, IMO.

[KevinG]

... and even in disciplinary councils. I most likely will never sit in any of those meetings.

I certainly hope you don't have to sit in a disciplinary counsel dear sister! ;-)

It's not him or me. It's us.

We don't know why women don't receive the priesthood, but I have one guess. Strong marriages are of paramount importance. And if the husband and wife both had all roles intermixed, then we lose an element of dependence on each other. I need my husband's priesthood power. I need him to provide. He needs me to do what only I can do. We take care of and support each other.

Bravo!

[Damien the Leper]

Then you reject the real world in favor of philosophical "logic". In reality, things don't work as neatly as you want them to. It's why all the trendy "equality" demands are so disturbing. Implement the philosophical social experiments and leave others to pick up the broken lives that result.

Real world according to whom? You? The LDS church? Me? Toscano? Who? We all have perceptions and biases. Again with being over dramatic.

It would be more accurate to say that you've never accepted any evidence that Toscano attacks the church, it's leaders, or its members. What I posted was clear evidence to the contrary. Dismissing that evidence with your usual personal sneers seems to be the only real response you can muster.

I have read much of Toscano's work and watched videos involving her that date back to even the late 70s and early 80s. I don't perceive her in the same way that you do.

What personal sneers?

Want something that points to Toscano's true character and her ability to denigrate organizations and people who she disagrees with? Try reading the PBS interview where she sneeringly attacks her brother in law. The video is better than the transcript, because "sneer" is what she actually does when she accuses him of being "patriarchal". The problem is, there are people who know her brother in law and who know about the situation and who were absolutely incensed at her misrepresentation of the situation. And that's because with her, it's always about her. Forget anyone else; if they don't see things her way, then they deserve what she dishes out.

Is this the same brother-in-law that would not allow her to help put temple clothing on her sister for a funeral? If so, how dare she be upset that she isn't able to participate in something meaningful to not only her but her sister.

It's the same for her other misrepresentations in the interview.

So perhaps you really applaud people like that and don't see anything wrong with that kind of character trait. It would appear that as long as someone has the same worldview that you do, they can't really do anything wrong. It's hardly "petty" as you so sneeringly phrase it, to identify apostate behavior for what it is.

Perhaps you could point out her misrepresentations.

BTW, would you like to be the pot or the kettle? You seem to have no problem indulging in this smear campaign.