Ny Times Article: Kate Kelly And John Dehlin Threatened With Excommunication

[Tacenda]

http://mormonstories.org/flawed-but-trying/

 

The latest on Mormon Stories...John is spelling out why he is what he is.  Not if any or most of you care to read, but it may give insight.  I have struggled for years, gave up so much of who I should have been, because this church's curriculum wasn't honest in the years I was growing up at least.  I can't let it go, do I want an apology?  Maybe.  I know why people say that someone like me can't leave it alone.  John couldn't leave it alone, he had to expose it.  He was the stalwart kind, it sounds like.  So many are.  I hope for the church to be the honest guy here.  It's always had that integrity, or so I thought.  It's members are struggling to grasp.  I want to remain LDS for the most part.  I just need less PR and good old fashioned peculiar again.  The church has a history, if it's true why the harm to tell it like it happened?  Then members will not be shocked when they read something.  I thought most people knew about JS's polygamy and the reasons for it, since a lot of people on this board told me they did, until I sat in a Primary class and the teachers told the same old "widow's needed to take care of them story".  When is that essay going to come out? 

 

Morning Star...I hope this rant's ok.  I think it is why John and others do what they do.             

[halconero]

Bravo, Calmoriah. Bravo.

 

Edited June 21, 2014 by halconero

[smac97]

An Op-Ed article by Terry Tempest Williams was published by the Trib today.  In it she accuses the Church of hatred of women ("organizational misogyny"), claims that the Church's form of organization "is not tolerated in the United States of America" and "should not be tolerated by those of us who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," and - in the most charming bit of all - she compares the Church's doctrines about priesthood ordination to "sexual assault, rape and repeated acts of violence," calling the Church's position "its own act of violence (against women)."

Lovely stuff. Here we see a church member publicly declaring to other members that they should not "tolerate" the Church's doctrinal stance.

And in what world does she think she's doing any favors to anyone by accusing the Church of metaphorical rape?

And since she is claiming to "stand with" Kate Kelly, I wonder if Kate Kelly will disavow such deplorable rhetoric against the Church she claims to love.

Here's the link: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58085699-82/women-church-equal-mormon.html.csp

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 21, 2014 by smac97

[MorningStar]

An Op-Ed article by Terry Tempest Williams was published by the Trib today.  In it, she accuses the Church of hatred of women ("organizational misogyny"), claims that the Church's form of organization "is not tolerated in the United States of America" and "should not be tolerated by those of us who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," and - in the most charming bit of all - she compares the Church's doctrines about priesthood ordination to "sexual assault, rape and repeated acts of violence," calling the Church's position "its own act of violence (against women)."

Lovely stuff. Here we see a church member publicly declaring to other members that they should not "tolerate" the Church's doctrinal stance.

And in what world does she think she's doing any favors to anyone by accusing the Church of metaphorical rape?

Ans since she is claiming to "stand with" Kate Kelly, I wonder if Kate Kelly will disavow such deplorable rhetoric against the Church she claims to love.

Here's the link: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58085699-82/women-church-equal-mormon.html.csp

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow, that is disgusting. 

[teddyaware]

An Op-Ed article by Terry Tempest Williams was published by the Trib today.  In it, she accuses the Church of hatred of women ("organizational misogyny"), claims that the Church's form of organization "is not tolerated in the United States of America" and "should not be tolerated by those of us who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," and - in the most charming bit of all - she compares the Church's doctrines about priesthood ordination to "sexual assault, rape and repeated acts of violence," calling the Church's position "its own act of violence (against women)."

Lovely stuff. Here we see a church member publicly declaring to other members that they should not "tolerate" the Church's doctrinal stance.

And in what world does she think she's doing any favors to anyone by accusing the Church of metaphorical rape?

Ans since she is claiming to "stand with" Kate Kelly, I wonder if Kate Kelly will disavow such deplorable rhetoric against the Church she claims to love.

Here's the link: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58085699-82/women-church-equal-mormon.html.csp

Thanks,

-Smac

Looks like she's itching for excommunication/martyrdom status as well.

[bluebell]

An Op-Ed article by Terry Tempest Williams was published by the Trib today.  In it, she accuses the Church of hatred of women ("organizational misogyny"), claims that the Church's form of organization "is not tolerated in the United States of America" and "should not be tolerated by those of us who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," and - in the most charming bit of all - she compares the Church's doctrines about priesthood ordination to "sexual assault, rape and repeated acts of violence," calling the Church's position "its own act of violence (against women)."

Lovely stuff. Here we see a church member publicly declaring to other members that they should not "tolerate" the Church's doctrinal stance.

And in what world does she think she's doing any favors to anyone by accusing the Church of metaphorical rape?

Ans since she is claiming to "stand with" Kate Kelly, I wonder if Kate Kelly will disavow such deplorable rhetoric against the Church she claims to love.

Here's the link: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58085699-82/women-church-equal-mormon.html.csp

Thanks,

-Smac

 

In all of that, she never mentions God's will.  

[Mystery Meat]

http://mormonstories.org/flawed-but-trying/

 

The latest on Mormon Stories...John is spelling out why he is what he is.  Not if any or most of you care to read, but it may give insight.  I have struggled for years, gave up so much of who I should have been, because this church's curriculum wasn't honest in the years I was growing up at least.  I can't let it go, do I want an apology?  Maybe.  I know why people say that someone like me can't leave it alone.  John couldn't leave it alone, he had to expose it.  He was the stalwart kind, it sounds like.  So many are.  I hope for the church to be the honest guy here.  It's always had that integrity, or so I thought.  It's members are struggling to grasp.  I want to remain LDS for the most part.  I just need less PR and good old fashioned peculiar again.  The church has a history, if it's true why the harm to tell it like it happened?  Then members will not be shocked when they read something.  I thought most people knew about JS's polygamy and the reasons for it, since a lot of people on this board told me they did, until I sat in a Primary class and the teachers told the same old "widow's needed to take care of them story".  When is that essay going to come out? 

 

Morning Star...I hope this rant's ok.  I think it is why John and others do what they do.             

 

Tacenda, after a few years on boards like this, my experience is that people in a similar position to you and Dehlin aren't capable of being completely rational with themselves when it comes to church history. A lot of the problematic stuff in Church history is, well, speculation (did Joseph Smith consummate his marriage with Helen Mar Kimball?). A lot of people must want there to be issues because they jump to every single "bad" conclusion they possibly can. John Dehlin flat out ignores people who provide him with evidence that contradicts some of those conclusions and goes as far to allow interviewees to make claims that are not supported by the evidence with nothing but sympathy and nodding of the head. 

 

So honestly, after all this time, I am not sure what the Church should be apologizing for. Should they be apologizing for a Dehlinesque interpretation of Church history, when that interpretation is no more based in reality than the same old "widows need to be taken care of story?" Yet, I get the impression that that is exactly what you, John Dehlin, and others want. 

 

And even then, I am pretty sure that wont be enough.

[JAHS]

Kelly has written her letter for her defense at the disciplinary hearing and of course has shared it for all to see:

 

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Kate-Kelly-Letter-of-Defense.pdf

 

Along with a rather lengthy statement on why they should not hold the council and why she should not be charged with apostasy:

 

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Brief-Submitted-by-Nadine-Hansen-in-Defense-of-Kate-Kelly.pdf

Edited June 21, 2014 by JAHS

[MorningStar]

What I don't get is if Kelly hasn't transferred her records to a new ward and this "six discussions" thing starts while she's away, who is supposed to hold her disciplinary council? 

Edited June 21, 2014 by MorningStar

[Senator]

Has it ever dawned on you that the very reason why men hold the priesthood and preside in the Church is so that there will be an equality between the sexes? The combined facts that women seem to mature faster than men, have stronger innate senses of responsibility than most men, have greater inborn emotional breadth and strength than most men, have greater capacities to feel empathy and express compassion than most men, have greater wisdom and insight than most men, are more attuned to reality than most men, are more forgiving than most men, have the ability to bear children (the role of men in the biological process of bringing forth life is pitifully minimal by comparison), have a greater ability to lovingly bond with and wisely nurture their children than most men, and are, most assuredly, the crowning glory of God's creation (the woman was the last and greatest of God's progressively noble creations) are reasons enough to give men the priesthood so that they can be motivated and inspired to progress and not devolve into mere drones in the "hive" of humanity!      

 

Absolute drivel!

 

Lets not fall to the temptation to find explanations to God's ways for which he has not given an explanation, so that we can avoid the embarrassing official future denunciations of the same.

 

You know, lets learn from history.

[MorningStar]

This is a remarkable post. I have a mom, sisters, and sisters-in-law. As a single man it is nearly impossible to comprehend what mom's go through. I am a little overwhelmed by this post. It makes me admire you ladies a bit more, yet not nearly as much as I should. 

Thank you.  It is extremely rough.  I'm in an awesome choir that started this year and I'm the soprano secretary.  I've had multiple sopranos tearfully tell me that they don't think they can return next season because they are either having a baby or had a baby.  They love their babies, but they also love the choir.  They just feel like they can't have both.  Performing in concerts is very hard because we can't bring the babies backstage, so a friend or relative will have them in the hall somewhere so you can run over and feed them between sound check and the concert.  We don't ever hear men saying that their wives had a baby, so they're going to have to take a break.  I'm having a baby in November and plan on being one of the moms who brings the baby to rehearsal as long as possible, but I know it's going to be rough.  I can't bear to take another long break from singing. 

 

I even had a soprano tell me that she's taking a break because her daughter is doing poorly in school and with rehearsals being Thursday nights, the daughter's homework hasn't been getting turned in on Fridays.  Her husband hasn't been very helpful in that regard.   

[MorningStar]

In all of that, she never mentions God's will.  

Because she's making the assumption that lack of priesthood makes us unequal and since God couldn't ever treat us unequally, it's God's will for women to have the priesthood. 

[bluebell]

Tacenda, after a few years on boards like this, my experience is that people in a similar position to you and Dehlin aren't capable of being completely rational with themselves when it comes to church history. A lot of the problematic stuff in Church history is, well, speculation (did Joseph Smith consummate his marriage with Helen Mar Kimball?). A lot of people must want there to be issues because they jump to every single "bad" conclusion they possibly can. John Dehlin flat out ignores people who provide him with evidence that contradicts some of those conclusions and goes as far to allow interviewees to make claims that are not supported by the evidence with nothing but sympathy and nodding of the head. 

 

So honestly, after all this time, I am not sure what the Church should be apologizing for. Should they be apologizing for a Dehlinesque interpretation of Church history, when that interpretation is no more based in reality than the same old "widows need to be taken care of story?" Yet, I get the impression that that is exactly what you, John Dehlin, and others want. 

 

And even then, I am pretty sure that wont be enough.

 

My biggest question when accusations of 'i can't believe in the church anymore because they did not teach me the whole truth when i was young.  If they had just been honest then everything would be fine' come into play (and i'm not speaking about your specifically Tacenda but just the accusation in general) is why do the truth claims of the church stand or fall depending on when you learn them?

 

I mean, if polygamy is of God, for example, then, while finding out about polygamy when you are a child might make it easier for you to accept, whether or not you learned about it in primary has absolutely no impact whatsoever on whether or not it's true doctrine.

 

And the same is true for any doctrine.

 

I completely agree that being more honest is a good thing, and that it does help people and therefore is a very valid thing to aim for-but the reason it helps people is because when we learn about something in our youth, it is usually easier for us to accept.  It does not help people because doctrines taught at an earlier age are more likely to be good and true doctrines.   As i said before, whether or not a doctrine is good and true has nothing to do with the timing of when we learn about it.

 

So while i understand struggling with knowing whether something is of God, i do not understand the argument that had the church just been more honest, the struggle would not need to exist.

[bluebell]

Because she's making the assumption that lack of priesthood makes us unequal and since God couldn't ever treat us unequally, it's God's will for women to have the priesthood. 

 

I always love the 'God must agree with me so you need to change what you are doing right now' argument from people who claim to believe that God uses prophets to reveal revelation and direction to His church.

[MorningStar]

I always love the 'God must agree with me so you need to change what you are doing right now' argument from people who claim to believe that God uses prophets to reveal revelation and direction to His church.

The scriptures are unequal.  It mentions men way more than women, so OW should demand that more women stuff be added retroactively.  Hmmm.  Maybe I'll start my own movement for that one.

[Tacenda]

You have misunderstood my post. "status" has more than one meaning, I am using state of being and not "level of fame, etc" unless it is preceded by " class".

I am not saying class status (as in how the world views someone as valuable or not) is important to you, even it appears you see it as important enough to discuss and that there is something to be gained by using such labels in this context. I can't tell why you chose to do so from what you wrote. It may or may not be because you are a class conscious person, it is irrelevant to my point. What is relevant is that you are apparently insisting that thestatus (as in state, not prestige) of being able to perform certain ordinaces must be so important to women that we and others must see ourselves as second class since we are not currently in the category of baptism ordinance performers.

But it is you who have defined class status as being tied to that category of potentially performing certain ordinances and not performing ordinaces and labeled those outside of that category as second class and I see nothing that compels anyone to accept that standard as inherent or having either intrinsic or reasoned value.

I can see some other variables as much better potential candidates for judging class status, but not being able to perform an ordinance where the performance is not salvific for the giver even if it is for the receiver...not seeing valid reasoning here, more of emotional judgment of how nice it is to be able to participate in God's giving such a wonderful covenant to an individual...but men are not part of that covenant and beneficiaries of its blessings anymore than the women who watch. Only our own baptism has that impact for us. Emotionally valuing that experience is fine for weighing what something means to you but for categorising half the membership as second class...I think that should be based on something more substantial...something that might prevent us from being in full fellowship or not have full access to the saving ordinances based solely on our gender.

It is insulting for you to presume to tell an entire category of individuals (LDS women) that we must be second class because we dont meet a standard you impose on us. It would be insulting for me to tell men they were second class because they can't participate in the really cool female initiatories. It is insulting for an American to tell Canadians they have a second class nation because they lack some attribute the individual finds very appealing in his own country, but that Canadians themselves don't value in the same way.

Of what value are those standards? Which should we give greater respect to it than our own standards that see ourselves as valued, first class members of our faith community? And biggest question is why should we alter our standards in such a way? Of what value is that to us?

It is insulting to just tell someone that, without justifying why we must find your definition so definitive that we will change our view as to see ouselves as having less value to our community than we currently view ourselves. To me it is comparable to telling a brunette sheis second class to a blonde or a computer tech that he is second class to a doctor. My response is second class in what meaningful way to me? I see no need to setup arbitrary standards that class how important people are to a community.

"I am happy though that you imply in your second second sentence above that because you see things differently that you are somehow above the fray and better than others. "

Where am I implying I am better than others for seeing things differently? My refusal to allow myself to be called second class based on an (as far as I can tell) artificially imposed standard of class differentiation has nothing to do with any internal sense of superiority, it is based on the logic of the argument not being either substantive or valid..at least not at this point.

"Yes indeed. Even though you are told you are not...you really are a second class citizen in the Kingdom of God.......rather sad isn't it?"

And it is insulting to claim I am too ------- (fill in whatever you think causes me to not be able to see the sad tragedy of my second class life along with a good majority of LDS women) to realise just how second class I am.***** Am I really a second class citizen if I consciously choose to fly second class because I believe the benefits of such limitations will provide me with much better long term value? If my current actions in no way limit my ability to achieve the purpose of the Kingdom of God, full participation in exaltation, oneness with God and all that means, eternal life and a fulness of joy I can start experiencing now, in what meaningful way can someone claim I am second class in God's Kingdom?

*****just as it would be insulting to tell someone they are too brainwashed by the standards of the world to know how blessed they are. People choose what is of value to them individually as well as being part of a community that sets categorisation standards for equality. Not all such standards are created equal, but just being different does not automatically demonstrate they are not appropriate for that particular community even if it might be inappropriate in another context.

Recognising that for many outsiders, our faith community doesn't treat women in the way they would as equals does not require I or our faith community use their standards in our own evaluation of standing.

Chapter 13

Mormonism’s Odd Couple: The Motherhood-Priesthood Connection

Sonja Farnsworth

 

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=975

 

This is a good read so far, not finished.  It might have some significant points. 

 

ETA:  This was an eye opener!

 

[308] For example, in the 1850s Brigham Young said that “women can never hold the priesthood apart from their husbands.”³⁹ Although phrased in negative form, this statement clearly expressed the belief that women held the priesthood, albeit “with their husbands.” In the 1880s John Taylor built upon the negative approach, saying “it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the priesthood, only in connection with their husbands.”⁴⁰ This statement diminished the link by suggesting that male priesthood was a “calling” while female priesthood was not. Then in 1907 Joseph F. Smith severed the association completely. “A wife does not hold the priesthood with her husband,” he asserted,“ but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him.” ⁴¹ Thus were women gradually detached from any genuine sense of priesthood.

Still LDS sisters valued their inclusion, however evanescent, and attempted to be forthright about it. The results were often depressing. Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency publicly corrected and characterized as doctrinally naive those women who expressed confidence in a legitimate priesthood connection: “There [is] a revival among … the sisters of the idea that they hold the priesthood. Sisters … have said to me, ‘But I hold the priesthood with my husband.’ ‘Well,’ I say, ‘What office of the priesthood do you hold?’”⁴² When LDS women expressed faith in their own priesthood empowerment, their words backfired, resulting in numerous official statements chastising them and depicting them as buffoons.⁴³ The discourse shows that women’s sense of priestly privilege was an enduring one. Inevitably, however, the discouraging atmosphere took its toll on their confidence and vision. Eventually the definition of priesthood completely excluded them. By the 1940s women no longer participated in blessing the sick or administering to others, except rarely and in secret.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Tacenda

[teddyaware]

Absolute drivel!

 

Lets not fall to the temptation to find explanations to God's ways for which he has not given an explanation, so that we can avoid the embarrassing official future denunciations of the same.

 

You know, lets learn from history.

I believe your point of view is absolute drivel, so we can politely agree to disagree.

[smac97]

An Op-Ed article by Terry Tempest Williams was published by the Trib today.  In it she accuses the Church of hatred of women ("organizational misogyny"), claims that the Church's form of organization "is not tolerated in the United States of America" and "should not be tolerated by those of us who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," and - in the most charming bit of all - she compares the Church's doctrines about priesthood ordination to "sexual assault, rape and repeated acts of violence," calling the Church's position "its own act of violence (against women)."

Lovely stuff. Here we see a church member publicly declaring to other members that they should not "tolerate" the Church's doctrinal stance.

And in what world does she think she's doing any favors to anyone by accusing the Church of metaphorical rape?

And since she is claiming to "stand with" Kate Kelly, I wonder if Kate Kelly will disavow such deplorable rhetoric against the Church she claims to love.

Here's the link: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58085699-82/women-church-equal-mormon.html.csp

Thanks,

-Smac

I have submitted an inquiry to the OW website and asked if Kate Kelly and the OW group, with whom Terry Williams "stand(s) in solidarity," concur with the accusations in this article against the LDS Church, particularly pertaining to misogyny and metaphorical rape.

I will update the board with any response I receive.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

I believe your point of view is absolute drivel, so we can politely agree to disagree.

No

 

I would like to hear your defense of your position.  I would like you to demonstrate how God has taught us about the inherent deficiency (by His design) of men as a gender, thus unequally yoking them with the predisposition to fail (as opposed women) usless given some ad hoc authority/responsibily.

 

I'm open to be taught.

[ERayR]

In all of that, she never mentions God's will.  

 

Why should she this is not about God's will.  It is about what she wants.

[ERayR]

My biggest question when accusations of 'i can't believe in the church anymore because they did not teach me the whole truth when i was young.  If they had just been honest then everything would be fine' come into play (and i'm not speaking about your specifically Tacenda but just the accusation in general) is why do the truth claims of the church stand or fall depending on when you learn them?

 

I mean, if polygamy is of God, for example, then, while finding out about polygamy when you are a child might make it easier for you to accept, whether or not you learned about it in primary has absolutely no impact whatsoever on whether or not it's true doctrine.

 

And the same is true for any doctrine.

 

I completely agree that being more honest is a good thing, and that it does help people and therefore is a very valid thing to aim for-but the reason it helps people is because when we learn about something in our youth, it is usually easier for us to accept.  It does not help people because doctrines taught at an earlier age are more likely to be good and true doctrines.   As i said before, whether or not a doctrine is good and true has nothing to do with the timing of when we learn about it.

 

So while i understand struggling with knowing whether something is of God, i do not understand the argument that had the church just been more honest, the struggle would not need to exist.

 

But at what point is it enough?  Do we have to have a special Sunday School class to cover "everything I may want to know but didn't know enough to ask"?

[teddyaware]

No

 

I would like to hear your defense of your position.  I would like you to demonstrate how God has taught us about the inherent deficiency (by His design) of men as a gender, thus unequally yoking them with the predisposition to fail (as opposed women) usless given some ad hoc authority/responsibily.

 

I'm open to be taught.

You're overcomplicating things. Based on my nearly sixty five years of experience, I have observed that everything I said in the post you dispute is true. Also, I see no deficiency in men as long as "beauty" is around to help tame and civilize the less-refined male "beast." Men also have areas in which they "shine more brightly" as well. It was Paul who said it best: "Man is not without the woman and woman is not without the man in the Lord." Heavenly Father Himself abides by His own council. and as a happy consequence He is our perfect God and there is nothing at all "deficient" about Him.

It is this same Father God who said that "it is not good that man be alone." So God created the woman to be his ideal helpmeet and essential complimentary companion -- He did not create another man to be at Adam's side. Men and women eternally need and compliment each other's inherent divine nature. When inspired by the Spirit of the Lord. men help women to be better women and women help men to be better men. This is the Lord's perfect design. That's why Adam said...

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2)

Edited June 21, 2014 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

I have submitted an inquiry to the OW website and asked if Kate Kelly and the OW group, with whom Terry Williams "stand(s) in solidarity," concur with the accusations in this article against the LDS Church, particularly pertaining to misogyny and metaphorical rape.

I will update the board with any response I receive.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm only vaguely aware of Terry Tempest Williams. How active and committed to the Church has she been up to now?

[Senator]

You're overcomplicating things. Based on my nearly sixty five years of experience, I have observed that everything I said in the post you dispute is true. Also, I see no deficiency in men as long as "beauty" is around to help tame and civilize the less-refined male "beast." Men also have areas in which they "shine more brightly" as well. It was Paul who said it best: "Man is not without the woman and woman is not without the man in the Lord." Heavenly Father Himself abides by His own council. and as a happy consequence He is our perfect God and there is nothing at all "deficient" about Him.

It is this same Father God who said that "it is not good that man be alone." So God created the woman to be his ideal helpmeet and essential complimentary companion -- He did not create another man to be at Adam's side. Men and women eternally need and compliment each other's inherent divine nature. When inspired by the Spirit of the Lord. men help women to be better women and women help men to be better men. This is the Lord's perfect design. That's why Adam said...

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2)

 

That is all lovely well and true. However what you fail to mention at all in this response, which was the point of your first post, is.... the priesthood.  Yes, men and women are different and have complimenting qualities.

 

But in your theory, this statement would need be revised thusly, "Man is not without the woman (as she is), and woman is not without the man (accept he be coupled with an- ad hoc-human-quality-character-buiding-power and certificate).

 

If anything, priesthood power and authority (according to modern vernacular) is given to both men and women alike, and is to act upon them both in their respective capacities in order for both to obtain their highest potential.

 

In other words, women need the priesthood, and exercise in the priesthood, just as much as men do.

 

I reject the notion that men are basket cases, unlike women, unless some special dispensation is given them, "the priesthood", in order to level the playing field.

 

This is a poor explanation of why men only are given the priesthood, and is akin to the historical explanations of why African Americans couldn't hold the priesthood.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Senator

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm only vaguely aware of Terry Tempest Williams. How active and committed to the Church has she been up to now?

Just read the op-ed piece.

She uses the phrase "active members and dissident members like me." I guess that answers my question.