Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[readstoomuch]

Thanks, WhyMe. I read my daughters OW profile and I have got to say it all rings hollow with what I see going on. It has been a long day. Not what I was expecting from a family reunion on the 4th.

[ksfisher]

You are still using the same fallacious reasoning.

As cal and I have both tried to convey to you (she perhaps more clearly than I), the fact that the severest penalty is attached to those things cannot be taken to mean that they are regarded by the Church to be equivalent in seriousness. It only means the Church is limited in the severity of penalty it can/will impose.

Perhaps the severity of the penalty is more apparent in the road needed to be taken to come back into the church.

[Duncan]

Thanks, WhyMe. I read my daughters OW profile and I have got to say it all rings hollow with what I see going on. It has been a long day. Not what I was expecting from a family reunion on the 4th.

 

 

I took a gander on the profile page, I saw a guy on there who's wife has a profile. it doesn't say what he thinks but only her. I was dumbstruck to see someone I knew!

[readstoomuch]

It kind of blows your mind doesn't it. I never thought my daughter would go as far as she did

[Duncan]

It kind of blows your mind doesn't it. I never thought my daughter would go as far as she did

 

yeah! how did she hear about all this?

[Abulafia]

Scott, believe it or not, one of the reasons I come here is to be disagreed with, and I am not so narrow minded that I do not appreciate the point you are making (insults not withstanding).

But, when a matter of conscience from a good woman is treated with the same punishment as the most serious and horrific of crimes then I (and my non member husband who I have discussed this with) question the appropriateness of the punishment in KKs case.

Young children will learn in hushed tones that apostates (the label KK is being given and much worse) are on par with those who commit those henious crimes. They often don't understand the nuances that you rightly outline, and if the online conversations of many members are anything to go by, then many adults don't understand either.

I've seen death quoted as an appropriate punishment for these women, which I understand is an extreme reaction, but it isn't so far from the reasoning in some faiths whereby apostasy is a crime worthy of death.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

It kind of blows your mind doesn't it. I never thought my daughter would go as far as she did

I'm expecting to be a lone voice here, but if I were you I would be proud of my daughter, that she is willing to sacrifice all she holds dear on a matter of conscience. That is a brave, brave, thing to do given the environment and circumstances.

Surely one of the greatest gifts we have been given is free agency. My son is atheist, I would prefer he had some belief, but I utterly respect his choices.

My parents were inactive and I guess, knowing they were good, honourable people I never thought for one minute that their inactivity would divide us in the afterlife for instance.

For me, love is the great binder, the seal, the silken tie, and we should never let the details of our religion stop us from loving each other.

[readstoomuch]

yeah! how did she hear about all this?

.

She was a member of feministmormonhoisewives. I believe that is where it started for her.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................

Gordon B Hinckley brought up the term 'agitate', which some could understandably consider an invitation.

..................................

GBH's 1997 statement was not made in light of recent developments. One needs a bit of perspective.

 

Robert, the punishment Kate received was pretty much the same that a member who commits murder, child abuse and incest might receive.

When male leaders in Catholicism, for instance, protect the abusers, but excommunicate a woman for being ordained a priest by a *rogue* leader/priest, what message does this send about where the Catholic Church's priorities lie?

It's madness.

Again, one needs to bring perspective to these very different circumstances. Just because, for example, a criminal justice system sends both murderers and thieves to prison does not mean that murder & theft are regarded the same. I do not believe that LDS authorities regard murder and agitation by OW the same, and I know of no evidence to indicate that that is so, current or past Roman Catholic practice being no guide to us in such cases.

Boundary maintanence applies to both large and small infractions. The repentance required is very different.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Pahoran]

Scott, believe it or not, one of the reasons I come here is to be disagreed with, and I am not so narrow minded that I do not appreciate the point you are making (insults not withstanding).

But, when a matter of conscience from a good woman is treated with the same punishment as the most serious and horrific of crimes then I (and my non member husband who I have discussed this with) question the appropriateness of the punishment in KKs case.

If you understand what Scott and Cal have tried (apparently in vain) to explain to you, then you understand that excommunication is not applied to the offenses you've chosen to mention because they are "the most serious and horrific of crimes." It is applied to them because they are incompatible with the covenants we make as members of the Church.

And so, as it happens, is apostasy.

A church is a voluntary association of like minded people. By rebelling against the established authorities and seeking to proselyte Church members to an unlike way of thinking, Ms Kelly has placed herself outside that association.

By excommunicating her, no Church leader is declaring that she's as bad as a murderer or a child molester (and no rational person supposes that they are.) It's just that, being a church, there just isn't anything more serious we can do to murderers or child molesters. The torture chambers have all been made over into cultural halls, and instead of drawing and quartering, we have church basketball.

As smac97 has pointed out a number of times (with admirable patience, given the stubborn obtuseness that seems to prevail on this topic) many other bodies, including professional associations, routinely expel members for violating rules that seem relatively trivial. Organisations of lawyers, for example, expel people who are convicted of serious crimes as well as those who overcharge clients. Does that mean they regard people who can't get the numbers right on their bills are just as bad as murderers and child molesters?

Or -- more to the point -- does any intelligent person suppose that it means that?

Young children will learn in hushed tones that apostates (the label KK is being given and much worse) are on par with those who commit those henious crimes. They often don't understand the nuances that you rightly outline, and if the online conversations of many members are anything to go by, then many adults don't understand either.

I've seen death quoted as an appropriate punishment for these women, which I understand is an extreme reaction, but it isn't so far from the reasoning in some faiths whereby apostasy is a crime worthy of death.

Have you?

From whom, and where?

Let me say that I deplore the chorus of death threats these women have received. That is, I suppose they must have received them, because others have deplored them as well.

I must just be lucky that they've never actually surfaced in any of the places I visit online; they've only been alluded to as having been seen by others.

(A bit like the Loch Ness monster, when it comes to that.)

It couldn't possibly be the case that these threats are talked of because they play so well to the "heroic victim" narrative that these women are crafting for themselves, could it?

No. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[teddyaware]

I'm expecting to be a lone voice here, but if I were you I would be proud of my daughter, that she is willing to sacrifice all she holds dear on a matter of conscience. That is a brave, brave, thing to do given the environment and circumstances.

Surely one of the greatest gifts we have been given is free agency. My son is atheist, I would prefer he had some belief, but I utterly respect his choices.

My parents were inactive and I guess, knowing they were good, honourable people I never thought for one minute that their inactivity would divide us in the afterlife for instance.

For me, love is the great binder, the seal, the silken tie, and we should never let the details of our religion stop us from loving each other.

When an unwary Latter-day Saint daughter or son is persuaded by the sophistry of progressive secular humanist ideology to leave the safety of the tree of life, and to cast aside the eternal happiness promised by continually partaking of it's most precious fruit, it's going to hit a faithful father very hard, just as Father Lehi was emotionally troubled over the poor judgment shown by Laman and Lemuel...

 

2 And it came to pass that while my father tarried in the wilderness he spake unto us, saying: Behold, I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision.

3 And behold, because of the thing which I have seen, I have reason to rejoice in the Lord because of Nephi and also of Sam; for I have reason to suppose that they, and also many of their seed, will be saved.

4 But behold, Laman and Lemuel, I fear exceedingly because of you... (1 Nephi 8:2-4)

17 And it came to pass that I was desirous that Laman and Lemuel should come and partake of the fruit also; wherefore, I cast mine eyes towards the head of the river, that perhaps I might see them.

18 And it came to pass that I saw them, but they would not come unto me and partake of the fruit. (1 Nephi 8:17,18)

35 And Laman and Lemuel partook not of the fruit, said my father.

36 And it came to pass after my father had spoken all the words of his dream or vision, which were many, he said unto us, because of these things which he saw in a vision, he exceedingly feared for Laman and Lemuel; yea, he feared lest they should be cast off from the presence of the Lord.

37 And he did exhort them then with all the feeling of a tender parent, that they would hearken to his words, that perhaps the Lord would be merciful to them, and not cast them off; yea, my father did preach unto them. (1 Nephi 8:36-37)

 

The Lord in his bounteous mercy and love has seen fit to give the Latter-day Saints every teaching, doctrine, principle and ordinance needed in order for every man and women to have peace and happiness in this life, and full exaltation and perfect joy in the world to come. If the Church remains exactly as it is now until the Second Coming, without the women of the Church ever being ordained to the priesthood, the fact remains that the Church possesses all that's needed for its men and women to achieve personal fulfillment in this life and eternal fulfillment and perfection in the world to come. When some Church members cast aside these wonderful blessings, all because some unwise and ungrateful ark steadiers are unsuccessful in pressuring the Lord's chosen leaders to change the revealed order of the kingdom of God on earth so that it will conform to fallen man's uninspired notions  of worldly wisdom, it is one of the great recurring tragedies of the ages. There's no place for "fatherly pride" under such sad and lamentable circumstances. 

 

Edited July 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

If you understand what Scott and Cal have tried (apparently in vain) to explain to you, then you understand that excommunication is not applied to the offenses you've chosen to mention because they are "the most serious and horrific of crimes." It is applied to them because they are incompatible with the covenants we make as members of the Church.And so, as it happens, is apostasy.A church is a voluntary association of like minded people. By rebelling against the established authorities and seeking to proselyte Church members to an unlike way of thinking, Ms Kelly has placed herself outside that association.By excommunicating her, no Church leader is declaring that she's as bad as a murderer or a child molester (and no rational person supposes that they are.) It's just that, being a church, there just isn't anything more serious we can do to murderers or child molesters. The torture chambers have all been made over into cultural halls, and instead of drawing and quartering, we have church basketball.As smac97 has pointed out a number of times (with admirable patience, given the stubborn obtuseness that seems to prevail on this topic) many other bodies, including professional associations, routinely expel members for violating rules that seem relatively trivial. Organisations of lawyers, for example, expel people who are convicted of serious crimes as well as those who overcharge clients. Does that mean they regard people who can't get the numbers right on their bills are just as bad as murderers and child molesters?Or -- more to the point -- does any intelligent person suppose that it means that?Have you?From whom, and where?Let me say that I deplore the chorus of death threats these women have received. That is, I suppose they must have received them, because others have deplored them as well.I must just be lucky that they've never actually surfaced in any of the places I visit online; they've only been alluded to as having been seen by others.(A bit like the Loch Ness monster, when it comes to that.)It couldn't possibly be the case that these threats are talked of because they play so well to the "heroic victim" narrative that these women are crafting for themselves, could it?No. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.Regards,Pahoran

It is a bit more than a group of like minded people, and I suspect that The Lord has greater tolerance for divergence than we give Him credit for. But perhaps He does think everyone should move in lockstep with leadership. Seems sort of odd though if that is the case, that He would choose a country which revels in not being in lockstep to restore His Church.

[smac97]

As smac97 has pointed out a number of times (with admirable patience, given the stubborn obtuseness that seems to prevail on this topic) many other bodies, including professional associations, routinely expel members for violating rules that seem relatively trivial. Organisations of lawyers, for example, expel people who are convicted of serious crimes as well as those who overcharge clients. Does that mean they regard people who can't get the numbers right on their bills are just as bad as murderers and child molesters?

I am curious what the OW group would do if a member of its board began to publicly speak out against the OW group. Say, for example, that Hannah Wheelwright went to the Salt Lake Tribune and declared:

As one of the key individuals with the OW movement, I am publicly announcing that I have had a change of heart on the topic of female ordination. The joint statement from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve issued on June 28, 2014 states that "(o)nly men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices." While this does not rule out the possibility of change in the future, it is a definitive statement from the leaders of the LDS Church. I sustain these leaders, and as part of that sustaining I do not feel that further agitation on the part of the OW group is appropriate.  I also think the OW group should publicly announce their support of the position set forth in the June 28 statement and encourage all of its followers to stop agitating for female ordination.

 

I therefore encourage all Latter-day Saints to sustain the leaders of the Church and to do so by withdrawing their support for OW, and also to send emails to the leadership of this group asking them to prayerfully consider ceasing further 'direct actions,' to publicly express acceptance of the June 28 letter, and to disband the OW organization. I also encourage those not of our faith but who support decisions like mine to also step forward and publicly support me in this effort.  I will retain my membership and position in the OW group during this process because doing so will give greater weight to my voice, my opinion, and my decision to disagree with the OW group's current stance.  I will also vigorously oppose any effort by the OW group to expel me from it because of my views.  As an independent, thinking, LDS woman, I will not be silenced.

 

I believe OW should no longer agitate against the LDS Church and its policies, practices and doctrines, that it should publicly express acceptance of the June 28 letter, and should disband.  Nothing less than the OW group doing these things will suffice.

 

A few questions for Abulafia (and those who agree with her generally regarding the OW group and specifically regarding the excommunication of Kate Kelly):

 

1. If Hannah Wheelwright or some other member(s) of the OW group publicly posted a message like this, went to the media and sought out coverage of their decision to break with the OW group, bought a "DismantleOrdainWomen.org" domain and set up a website soliciting profiles of LDS and non-LDS supporters who want the OW group to disband, how do you think the OW group would react?  Specifically, would the OW group consider expelling these folks from the OW group?

 

2. If the OW group moved to expel Hannah Wheelwright from its ranks because she posted the above message and is not actively working against the interests of the OW group, would folks who believe that excommunication is a relic of the past castigate the OW group in a manner similar to the ways they have criticized the LDS Church for excommunicating Kate Kelly?

 

3. What if LDS women began writing "profiles" similar to the hypothetical one above and, in not insignficant numbers, submitting them to the OrdainWomen.org website.  Would the OW group be obligated to post these profiles?

 

4. If the OW group declined to post profiles like those described in question #3, would the writers of those profiles be justified in publicly accusing the OW group of "silencing" LDS women?

 

5. If Hannah Wheelwright, as part of her hypothetical effort to dismantle the OW movement, began to publish the minutes of private OW meetings and communications between the OW leaders and between the "behind the scenes" folks (Margaret Toscano, for example), do you think the OW group might be a bit offput by their private communications being made public without their consent?

 

6. If Hannah Wheelright organized a "direct action" against committee meetings of the OW group, which would involve Hannah Wheelright and her supporters showing up uninvited to such meetings and asking that they be allowed in, and if they invited the media cameras and reporters along to record these goings on, would the OW group let them in?

 

7. If Hannah Wheelwright and her supporters were excluded from such meetings, would Hannah Wheelwright be justified in accusing the OW group of trying to "silence" her?  Of accusing the OW group of being beholden to antiquated notions of "matriarchy?"

 

I could come up with hypotheticals like this all day long.  What would to OW group do if their tactics were turned against them?  If its own members and supporters began to make demands of the OW group that the leaders of the OW group find inappropriate and unacceptable?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 5, 2014 by smac97

[Sleeper Cell]

It is a bit more than a group of like minded people, and I suspect that The Lord has greater tolerance for divergence than we give Him credit for. But perhaps He does think everyone should move in lockstep with leadership. Seems sort of odd though if that is the case, that He would choose a country which revels in not being in lockstep to restore His Church.

 

Parahon did not say that that church members should move in “lockstep,” let alone advocate that one should be excommunicated, merely for being  “out of step.”  He said:

 

A church is a voluntary association of like minded people. By rebelling against the established authorities and seeking to proselyte Church members to an unlike way of thinking, Ms Kelly has placed herself outside that association. 

 

There is quite a difference between not moving in “lockstep” with leadership and outright rebellion.  Do you believe that nobody should ever be excommunicated for apostasy?

[Scott Lloyd]

I am curious what the OW group would do if a member of its board began to publicly speak out against the OW group. Say, for example, that Hannah Wheelwright went to the Salt Lake Tribune and declared:

As one of the key individuals with the OW movement, I am publicly announcing that I have had a change of heart on the topic of female ordination. The joint statement from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve issued on June 28, 2014 states that "(o)nly men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices." While this does not rule out the possibility of change in the future, it is a definitive statement from the leaders of the LDS Church. I sustain these leaders, and as part of that sustaining I do not feel that further agitation on the part of the OW group is appropriate. I also think the OW group should publicly announce their support of the position set forth in the June 28 statement and encourage all of its followers to stop agitating for female ordination.

I therefore encourage all Latter-day Saints to sustain the leaders of the Church and to do so by withdrawing their support for OW, and also to send emails to the leadership of this group asking them to prayerfully consider ceasing further 'direct actions,' to publicly express acceptance of the June 28 letter, and to disband the OW organization. I also encourage those not of our faith but who support decisions like mine to also step forward and publicly support me in this effort. I will retain my membership and position in the OW group during this process because doing so will give greater weight to my voice, my opinion, and my decision to disagree with the OW group's current stance. I will also vigorously oppose any effort by the OW group to expel me from it because of my views. As an independent, thinking, LDS woman, I will not be silenced.

I believe OW should no longer agitate against the LDS Church and its policies, practices and doctrines, that it should publicly express acceptance of the June 28 letter, and should disband. Nothing less than the OW group doing these things will suffice.

A few questions for Abulafia (and those who agree with her generally regarding the OW group and specifically regarding the excommunication of Kate Kelly):

1. If Hannah Wheelwright or some other member(s) of the OW group publicly posted a message like this, went to the media and sought out coverage of their decision to break with the OW group, bought a "DismantleOrdainWomen.org" domain and set up a website soliciting profiles of LDS and non-LDS supporters who want the OW group to disband, how do you think the OW group would react? Specifically, would the OW group consider expelling these folks from the OW group?

2. If the OW group moved to expel Hannah Wheelwright from its ranks because she posted the above message and is not actively working against the interests of the OW group, would folks who believe that excommunication is a relic of the past castigate the OW group in a manner similar to the ways they have criticized the LDS Church for excommunicating Kate Kelly?

3. What if LDS women began writing "profiles" similar to the hypothetical one above and, in not insignficant numbers, submitting them to the OrdainWomen.org website. Would the OW group be obligated to post these profiles?

4. If the OW group declined to post profiles like those described in question #3, would the writers of those profiles be justified in publicly accusing the OW group of "silencing" LDS women?

5. If Hannah Wheelwright, as part of her hypothetical effort to dismantle the OW movement, began to publish the minutes of private OW meetings and communications between the OW leaders and between the "behind the scenes" folks (Margaret Toscano, for example), do you think the OW group might be a bit offput by their private communications being made public without their consent?

6. If Hannah Wheelright organized a "direct action" against committee meetings of the OW group, which would involve Hannah Wheelright and her supporters showing up uninvited to such meetings and asking that they be allowed in, and if they invited the media cameras and reporters along to record these goings on, would the OW group let them in?

7. If Hannah Wheelwright and her supporters were excluded from such meetings, would Hannah Wheelwright be justified in accusing the OW group of trying to "silence" her? Of accusing the OW group of being beholden to antiquated notions of "matriarchy?"

I could come up with hypotheticals like this all day long. What would to OW group do if their tactics were turned against them? If its own members and supporters began to make demands of the OW group that the leaders of the OW group find inappropriate and unacceptable?

Thanks,

-Smac

May not be such a bad idea at that. We could all sign on to OW and then try to reform it out of existence -- the way some try to do with the Church of Jesus Christ.

[Abulafia]

GBH's 1997 statement was not made in light of recent developments. One needs a bit of perspective.

 

Again, one needs to bring perspective to these very different circumstances. Just because, for example, a criminal justice system sends both murderers and thieves to prison does not mean that murder & theft are regarded the same. I do not believe that LDS authorities regard murder and agitation by OW the same, and I know of no evidence to indicate that that is so, current or past Roman Catholic practice being no guide to us in such cases.

Boundary maintanence applies to both large and small infractions. The repentance required is very different.

I do appreciate where you are coming from. Historically, some of the leaders of the early christian communities reserved their harshest judgements for those who differed in doctrinal outlook, whether that be on the nature of Jesus, on atonement or the extent to which Jewish law was applicable to gentiles for instance.

Matthew 10:28 alludes to those who can kill the soul rather than the body and suggests those persons as being more dangerous. Those who can cause spiritual rather than physical death.

It's an age old tradition to demonize those who have a different theology than others, even where they are Jesus followers.

The question is whether KK presents such a spiritual danger because of her outlook. The church is sending a message that she does. I disagree.

[readstoomuch]

My daughter and others are more converted to the OW movement than the Church. If they really support the prophet and the brethren, where does this come from. Are we destined for an alternate Church with every thing centered around women, since that is all that will sue.

[Abulafia]

My daughter and others are more converted to the OW movement than the Church. If they really support the prophet and the brethren, where does this come from. Are we destined for an alternate Church with every thing centered around women, since that is all that will sue.

I don't think that is what ow want. They want parity in office. They dont want to start another church. It is the church that in some instances (it all seems rather messy and dependant on the outlook of local leaders) is rejecting them.

Is obedience to the brethren the first law of heaven, or obedience to conscience? I'm sure both sides are doing what they consider to be right.

[Abulafia]

Does the institutional church always reflect the mind and will of God? If the past is anything to go by then it surely doesn't. No one should be or feel obligated to follow against their conscience in my opinion.

[why me]

Does the institutional church always reflect the mind and will of God? If the past is anything to go by then it surely doesn't. No one should be or feel obligated to follow against their conscience in my opinion.

I think that in this case it does. It was a pretty firm no. However, OW had warnings in conferences from the speakers about priesthood power and also in the ensign about priesthood power. There was an article in the june ensign. OW should have gotten the message.

 

Abu would you give me the same support as OW if the church would excommunicate me for starting a group about polygamy, calling on the church to reinstate the principle and my request for a meeting with the prophet? And would you support my group's right to conduct missionary discussion about the principle among the members? Would that be okay with you? And if I staged a protest on temple square after the church asked me not to? Would you support my right to organize the group and if faced discipline such as excommunication, would you protest that decision as you are now?

 

How many pressure groups should a church allow to happen? And of course, after a couple of conference talks about why polygamy is wrong etc, I still advocated polygamy along with my 300 members, would you see a problem with this?

[why me]

It kind of blows your mind doesn't it. I never thought my daughter would go as far as she did

I wouldn't take it all to heart but I would still show her love and attention and I would avoid having a discussion about it. If it were my daughter I would just tell her that I respected her decision but can't agree with it. But I still loved her and let it go after that. Maybe later I would have a conversation with her about it all. But I would also know that my daughter might have been waiting for this kind of decision so she could leave the church because it was in her mind anyway.

 

I know that other website and I remember how it was a very faith promoting group of people when it was first organized. And I also would know that the group was hijacked by radical feminists when the founder began to lend the site to a more radical group and their blog posts. I remember that they were having a discussion about the future direction of the site when the name was being used outside the internet by women attempting to organize clubs with the name.

 

You just may need to remember that the seed was perhaps planted a long time ago and OW was just the motor to drive her in the direction that she went.

Edited July 6, 2014 by why me

[Anijen]

t to derail, but when is the Dehlin court?

 

ahem, that would be "not" instead of "t"

Edited July 6, 2014 by Anijen

[awyatt]

I don't think that is what ow want. They want parity in office. They dont want to start another church. It is the church that in some instances (it all seems rather messy and dependant on the outlook of local leaders) is rejecting them.

 

This seems a bit of a disconnect to me. You identify closely with what you perceive as the desires of OW, but not so closely with the desires of the "church." I can tell you, from personal experience with Church leaders at all levels, that they only desire the best interests of all members. Yet, you say that it is those same leaders that are "rejecting" OW.

 

Why do you see the Church leaders as doing the "rejecting" instead of the OW leaders? Do you have a personal blind spot at play here? Why, specifically, should the claims of the OW leaders be accepted as closer to the "truth" than the claims of the Church leaders?

 

-Allen

Edited July 6, 2014 by awyatt

[readstoomuch]

I keep running into (by internet) women affiliated with OW either leaving or modifying their activity in some way. As I hear it, my daughter thinks that she should be able to stand in the circle when her children are blessed. That was the triggering point for her. Apparently, after she blessed her first son, she decided that. She also states that it is out of extreme love for the gospel that she is doing this. I just don`t think Heavenly Mother sees that as what she is doing. I know I am confused. I am not sure if the garments are off because of protest, discipline or unbelief. If it is unbelief, she used to believe before got involved with OW. So what exactly is OW telling their women to do? When did they get more attached to OW, then the Church itself? When did the Church become a single issue organization?

[Duncan]

I keep running into (by internet) women affiliated with OW either leaving or modifying their activity in some way. As I hear it, my daughter thinks that she should be able to stand in the circle when her children are blessed. That was the triggering point for her. Apparently, after she blessed her first son, she decided that. She also states that it is out of extreme love for the gospel that she is doing this. I just don`t think Heavenly Mother sees that as what she is doing. I know I am confused. I am not sure if the garments are off because of protest, discipline or unbelief. If it is unbelief, she used to believe before got involved with OW. So what exactly is OW telling their women to do? When did they get more attached to OW, then the Church itself? When did the Church become a single issue organization?

 

 

what does her husband think of it all? if you don't mind me asking?