Article About Kate Kelly

[Calm]

I do think there needs to be a "safe space" just so that women can develop their own language, I think men should have it as well and youth of both genders etc.  I think there is a good reason we have RS meetings separate, etc etc.

 

Having said that, it bugs me and it is getting more and more annoying to me when certain reporters and certain groups that will remain nameless in this post  continually use emotional reactions as the main focus of the reason why women need to have a safe space as opposed to solely including developing different concepts and approaches or for other justifications of change.

 

Even if in an argument I might on occasion tear up (and it has been a long, long time since this has happened....like teenage years), it was still always what I was saying that I wanted to be noticed. It never stopped my ability to think and speak what I meant but people would jump in because they saw it as me needing protection or dismissed what I was saying because I was overwhelmed in their view.  They were wrong on both counts.  This kind of reporting only promotes these types of connections imo.  Responding to tears (of men, women or children) out of pity without real regard to what they were thinking at the time and why never accomplished any change of long lasting value that I have noticed. Quick bandaids to stop the emotional outbursts are what are given. To attempt to grab attention and support for those ideas by putting the spotlight on emotional reactions just detracts and devalues substance imo.

 

I am not saying the women shouldn't be crying if they feel like it, I am saying it shouldn't become the lead item in the article and assume such exteme importance.  Emotions as a focus, imo, are better left for a firsthand experience rather than second or thirdhand as reported by others.  

 

Humans are emotional creatures and I would never say ignore those emotions when present, but they are not the main story imo whether one is speaking of reason or spiritual experience and to confuse them as such causes issues, not solves them.

Edited June 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[smac97]

I do think there needs to be a "safe space" just so that women can develop their own language, I think men should have it as well and youth of both genders etc.  I think there is a good reason we have RS meetings separate, etc etc.

I think there are good reasons for women to have some meetings to themselves, and for men to have some meetings for themselves, etc. But I guess I take exception to the terminology of "safe space ... (for) women," since implicit in this concept are the ideas that A) women are generally in "danger" (hence the reference to "safe space") and B) men are the ones who are creating this "danger."  (Hmm.  I think on balance I'm probably overreacting to the term.)

I guess I also take exception to it because I am not sure that, in the context of the "marketplace of ideas" (specifically online discussions), there is a need for "safe space" specifically for women. Men can be on the receiving end of unkind / rude / threatening / vulgar statements as well.

In a social setting, I treat women with particularized deference and courtesy. I open doors for women, offer them my seat on public transportation, stand when a woman enters or leaves a room, etc. I do so specifically due to their gender. I do so as an outward expression of respect.

However, in an adversarial setting, I do not give a person's opinion or position any deference due to the person's gender. In an adversarial exchange of ideas, I strive to treat my opponent with decorum and civility. But gender does not enter into the equation. So if a person is attacking my faith, I will defend my faith, regardless of gender.

 

Having said that, it bugs me and it is getting more and more annoying to me when certain reporters and certain groups that will remain nameless in this post  continually use emotional reactions as the main focus of the reason why women need to have a safe space as opposed to solely including developing different concepts and approaches or for other justifications of change.

I guess I just don't understand the gender-based "safe space" concept.

 

Even if in an argument I might on occasion tear up (and it has been a long, long time since this has happened....like teenage years), it was still always what I was saying that I wanted to be noticed.

I think that's entirely appropriate. I think I must have a somewhat skewed sense of how these things work. I see female lawyers operate all the time in adversarial contexts, and I virtually never see tears or emotive pleas from them. In fact, the only example I can think of in 12 years of courtroom experience is when I was clerking for a judge up in Tacoma, and a female lawyer nearly went to pieces during a hearing on a criminal case. She was pretty much on the verge of tears (I'm not sure why). The judge had little patience with this attorney, told her to stand up straight, take a few deep breaths, collect her thoughts, regain her composure, and present her argument. Unfortunately, the attorney couldn't quite do all of that. I think she was just too nervous.

I thought my judge was perhaps unduly harsh with this attorney, but I kept my thoughts to myself. (The judge, by the way, was a woman.)

 

It never stopped my ability to think and speak what I meant but people would jump in because they saw it as me needing protection or dismissed what I was saying because I was overwhelmed in their view.  They were wrong on both counts.  This kind of reporting only promotes these types of connections imo.

It's not just the reporting (Peggy Stack's sympathies are clearly on display throughout). The OW folks are constantly going to the well of public sympathy by playing up "tears" and "shock" and other wo-is-me-I'm-a-victim protestations. Peggy Stack is enabling them, but the "Fainting Couch Feminist" sentiments on display in the article are being volunteered, again and again, by Kate Kelly and her crew.

 

Responding to tears (of men, women or children) out of pity without real regard to what they were thinking at the time and why never accomplished any change of long lasting value that I have noticed.

Agreed. Particularly in the context of an adversarial exchange of ideas.

 

I am not saying the women shouldn't be crying if they feel like it, I am saying it shouldn't become the lead item in the article and assume such exteme importance.  Emotions as a focus, imo, are better left for a firsthand experience rather than second or thirdhand as reported by others.

Well said.

 

Humans are emotional creatures and I would never say ignore those emotions when present, but they are not the main story imo whether one is speaking of reason or spiritual experience and to confuse them as such causes issues, not solves them.

Agreed. My sentiments on this subject arise because A) we are speaking of an exchange of ideas in an adversarial and hostile way (the hostilities having been instigated by Kate Kelly and her group), and B) my personal experience working in adversarial settings every day has probably made me seem a bit more callous than the average Joe. I'm actually quite a softie in person. But when a person comes along and attacks my faith, I will defend it. And I will expect the aggressors to not call for special kid glove treatment simply because of their gender, or because they seek to portray themselves as victims of the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2015 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

I find it facinating that you devote so much attention to Kate Kelly, her comings and goings. It is also facsinating that you have called her a dishonest - which amounts to calling her a liar; yet all the while you appear to claim neutrality.

 

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

Kate Kelly's public comments seem quite intemperate.  Perhaps she was so angry that she could not control the invective, but her comments about church members in general mark her as a deliberate liar.  I say that as a long time feminist.  Nothing can justify the gross lies she felt had to be spread.  Her husband seems a bit out of control as well.

[why me]

I've been wondering about this. Here are a few excerpts from the article (emphases added):

 

Such melodramatic hyperbole does not do much to impress. The OW folks constantly draw attention to things like their "tears" and "weeping" and "wounds," to their dainty selves feeling "shocked" (a la Captain Renault) and "horrified," and to their self-proclaimed and self-serving status as victims of the big ol' mean LDS Church.  All of this seems to reinforce the perception that they are not quite ready for Prime Time, that they can't handle the vicissitudes of life, and the natural and shoulda-seen-'em-coming-from-a-mile-away consequences of their more outrageous statements and antics.

 

Not only this, but it shows women to be rather weak and emotional. Not a very good feminist statement. I am trying to imagine a woman CEO who for some reason, didn't get the business deal, suddenly weeping, in tears and suffering emotional wounds. Of course such words that were used are used for emotional, persuasive reasons to influence the reader. But I think that it has the opposite effect. I believe that many readers find it a real turn off.

[Calm]

women are generally in "danger"

 

I am not into the history of the use of the term.  I just go by what it means to me and how I've heard other women around me using it which is I feel safe enough to open my mouth without feeling like someone is going to jump on me and instead is going to try and listen....and I will do the same for them.  And for the others, they've expressed it that they don't need to worry about being dismissed or ignored or mocked as being emotional or childish or passive aggressive, etc.

 

As someone who grew up terminally shy in an outgoing family and who has a child who was up to about a year ago even worse in her social anxiety, "safe space" means a place where I can talk/write without a overriding fear I am going to be humiliated or embarrassed, most often unintentionally looking back...though there were enough jerks to keep the fear habit level high for several years into college.  PE and Driver's Ed and certain parts of the school area were not a safe space for me, teachers were not kind in those classes to shy kids. 

Edited June 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[smac97]

I am not into the history of the use of the term.  I just go by what it means to me and how I've heard other women around me using it which is I feel safe enough to open my mouth without feeling like someone is going to jump on me and instead is going to try and listen....and I will do the same for them.  And for the others, they've expressed it that they don't need to worry about being dismissed or ignored or mocked as being emotional or childish or passive aggressive, etc.

I understand and respect what you are saying here, except that I do not get the need for gender-specific "safe space." Shouldn't everyone have a place where they feel "safe enough" to speak their minds? Whence, then, the specialized need for a safe space for women?

As someone who grew up terminally shy in an outgoing family and who has a child who was up to about a year ago even worse in her social anxiety, "safe space" means a place where I can talk/write without a overriding fear I am going to be humiliated or embarrassed, most often unintentionally looking back...though there were enough jerks to keep the fear habit level high for several years into college.  PE and Driver's Ed and certain parts of the school area were not a safe space for me, teachers were not kind in those classes to shy kids.

Okay. I think I'm starting to understand.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

Who claims to be an enlightened?  Who claims to be a liberal?

 

As for smac97 being honest; that is for Christ to judge and for smac to reflect on.

See you say that, but I can't help but notice you are judging him. Yet I don't see him being dishonest in the slightest.

Personally I fail to see why it's bad to recognize dishonesty in others. Should we bury our head in the sand and pretend they are being honest if they clearly aren't? How can we embrace the truth if we act as though we have no right to use our God given gifts to determine truth from fiction?

The Holy Ghost is given to us to help us discern truth. Why would He be if we have no right to do so? I think it's our responsibility to seek out and determine truth from fiction

[Avatar4321]

Tonie has been removed from the thread.

 

Skylla

Wish I had seen this.prior to my last post

[Avatar4321]

I don't understand how she can claim she went into the disciplinary council naive about the chance of being excommunicated. Are we really supposed to believe that she had no clue that excommunication was possible and quite likely after months of counsel being ignored and flagrant rebellion?

If someone continually warns you that you need to stop doing a or b will happen, can you really claim to be naive when b happens when you continue a?

[Calm]

I understand and respect what you are saying here, except that I do not get the need for gender-specific "safe space." Shouldn't everyone have a place where they feel "safe enough" to speak their minds? Whence, then, the specialized need for a safe space for women?

Okay. I think I'm starting to understand.

Thank you,

-Smac

I think every group that feels the need should be able to find it.  I thought I made it clear in my comments, sorry if not. It has been at times difficult for women to find it in nontraditional groupings for them.  I assume men have many of the same problems, but I am more familiar with feeling out of place in an engineering department than a home ec or child education department because I didn't frequent that latter.

Edited June 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

Kate Kelly's public comments seem quite intemperate. Perhaps she was so angry that she could not control the invective, but her comments about church members in general mark her as a deliberate liar. I say that as a long time feminist. Nothing can justify the gross lies she felt had to be spread. Her husband seems a bit out of control as well.

You're a "long-time feminist" who supports the Church's separate but equal policy when it comes to the priesthood? It is your deep yearnings for the equality of women that leads you to support NONE of them having the ecclesiastic authority of a 12 year old BOY? Interesting view of feminism.

Edited June 24, 2015 by mormonnewb

[why me]

I understand and respect what you are saying here, except that I do not get the need for gender-specific "safe space." Shouldn't everyone have a place where they feel "safe enough" to speak their minds? Whence, then, the specialized need for a safe space for women?

Thank you,

-Smac

There used to be plenty of safe spaces for men and for men. In the past, in public schools men and women had separate teaching rooms where teachers can talk during breaks. Not now. Or there were specific clubs for men. Not now. There are other examples were separate safe spaces were encouraged because, as the assumption went, the genders were different and having separate spaces could allow for freer conversation. But the feminist movement found such safe spaces sexist. So such spaces were abolished in favor of gender equality.

 

Virginia Woolf claimed in her essay that women need a room of their own. And the need for their own space in literary pursuits because of the subordination in patriarchy.

 

The essay is generally seen as a feminist text, and is noted in its argument for both a literal and figural space for women writers within a literary tradition dominated by patriarchy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Room_of_One%27s_Own

[why me]

You're a "long-time feminist" who supports the Church's separate but equal policy when it comes to the priesthood? It is your deep yearnings for the equality of women that leads you to support NONE of them having the ecclesiastic authority of a 12 year old BOY? Interesting view of feminism.

 

Why not? If you believe that heavenly father guides his church, one must take it to Him. Is heavenly father a feminist? Is the bible a feminist text? I am referring to both the old and new testament. You do believe in the bible. So what would be your 'feminsist' take on it? And why didn't jesus have women apostles? Was he afraid of sexual temptation? Was he afraid of contention between the men and the women if the disciples were co-ed? Most feminists see the bible as an antifeminist text.

Edited June 24, 2015 by why me

[Bobbieaware]

You're a "long-time feminist" who supports the Church's separate but equal policy when it comes to the priesthood? It is your deep yearnings for the equality of women that leads you to support NONE of them having the ecclesiastic authority of a 12 year old BOY? Interesting view of feminism.

If as a consequence of not holding the priesthood on earth the women of the of the Church were to be denied any blessing of salvation in the eternal world, then you would have a legitimate gripe. But they aren't. Even as the church is set up today the women are promised, through covenant, the fullness of the salvational blessings nestowed through the atonement of Christ. So in the long run they are not being held back from any blessing in any way.

But the sure promise of the fullness of eternal blessings is never good enough for progressives because to them that whole "eternal world" thing is just pie in the sky stuff anyway, and all that really matters is what happens on this earth prior to its redemption. According to progressives, even if there are to be an infinite and eternal fullness of blessings poured out without measure upon the women of the church, that doesn't amount to a hill of beans, as all that really matters to them is that the church, as Paul said, conforms to the "fashion of this world" so that the progressive members don't have to be embarrassed by the haughty unsaved mockers who point and laugh from the windows of the great and spacious building called Babylon the Great.

Even if an angel came down from heaven and told the progressive members that the order of the church today provides more than ample preparation for the women of the church to prepare for receiving the fullness of glory in the eternal world, that wouldn't be good enough for those who have supplanted revelation and duly-constituted prophetic authority with " "human reason."

Edited June 24, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Storm Rider]

I dislike the term progressive, because it is anything but progressive; it is liberal.  

 

True feminism does not require a woman to be a man or vice versa.  That is what is so frustrating when these discussions come up.  There are the absolutists who think that equality means there is an impossibility of difference and that all must fit into the same mold without any differences allowed or accepted.  There is a blind requirement that to be equal means that there is no differentiation of roles; every one is a CEO or everyone is a laborer; roles cannot change or evolve because of a twisted sense of equality.  

 

It has nothing to do with true equality; one where valuing one another equally and understanding that all are needed and valued in order to make a society, a culture, a team, a couple function at its highest efficiency; in a state where all are actualized fully.  

 

Too often this devolves into the politics of power - "I don't have it and I want it".  In this twisted paradigm that is so often promoted by most feminists there is nothing about equality; it is more about who is in power.  They use the word equality, but only in the sense of it being a farce.  They place no value on equality and their real intent is to be in power in the sense of being a dictator.  

Edited June 25, 2015 by Storm Rider

[carbon dioxide]

I dislike the term progressive, because it is anything but progressive; it is liberal.  

 

 

I think the whole progressive label was invented to make liberals feel like their views are ones of progress.  Since progress is generally positive, if one is not progressive or against the progressives, then one is against progress.  Even liberal is probably not a good term as at one time liberal meant something different than it does today.  Communists, socialists, government worshipers, and other related terms probably is more accurate depending on the spectrum they are on. 

 

The feminists do not represent women.  They represent themselves and their desires.  They say their ideals are the best and any woman who does not desire what they want to obtain is a lesser woman in their minds.  Kate Kelly represents herself and a small, vocal group of women but does not represent the majority of LDS women.  The best thing for Kate Kelly and OW is not to excommunicate them but have the women of the Church stand up united and denounce their tactics of changing the Church.  Who wants to be in a church where basic doctrines and practices are changed as a result of a vocal minority demanding their pet cause to be accepted by everyone?

[stemelbow]

Who wants to be in a church where basic doctrines and practices are changed as a result of a vocal minority demanding their pet cause to be accepted by everyone?

Take race and the priesthood as an example and you soon realize any member is a part of such a Church. It used to be the restriction based on race was due to doctrines deeply ingrained and intertwined with what the Church was. Not any more.

[mormonnewb]

If as a consequence of not holding the priesthood on earth the women of the of the Church were to be denied any blessing of salvation in the eternal world, then you would have a legitimate gripe. But they aren't. Even as the church is set up today the women are promised, through covenant, the fullness of the salvational blessings nestowed through the atonement of Christ. So in the long run they are not being held back from any blessing in any way.

But the sure promise of the fullness of eternal blessings is never good enough for progressives because to them that whole "eternal world" thing is just pie in the sky stuff anyway, and all that really matters is what happens on this earth prior to its redemption. According to progressives, even if there are to be an infinite and eternal fullness of blessings poured out without measure upon the women of the church, that doesn't amount to a hill of beans, as all that really matters to them is that the church, as Paul said, conforms to the "fashion of this world" so that the progressive members don't have to be embarrassed by the haughty unsaved mockers who point and laugh from the windows of the great and spacious building called Babylon the Great.

Even if an angel came down from heaven and told the progressive members that the order of the church today provides more than ample preparation for the women of the church to prepare for receiving the fullness of glory in the eternal world, that wouldn't be good enough for those who have supplanted revelation and duly-constituted prophetic authority with " "human reason."

I'd be tempted to fall for the "any inequality on earth is okay because it will all be made right in the end" argument, if (1) it couldn't be used to justify every injustice ever committed; and (2) women received equality in our version of the CK.

Let's be clear. HM is not equal to HF in Mormonism. No earthly woman would stand for never being mentioned, acknowledged or thanked for her contributions. Nor would she allow herself to be part of a harem.

As far as gender equality goes, it only gets worse in the eternities.

[carbon dioxide]

Take race and the priesthood as an example and you soon realize any member is a part of such a Church. It used to be the restriction based on race was due to doctrines deeply ingrained and intertwined with what the Church was. Not any more.

Yes but the change did not occur because some small vocal group of black members got a campaign going to cause the change.  Had that been the case, I don't believe the majority of members would have accepted the change as being inspired and many today would still disagree with it.  I have no trouble with change to Church occurring.  If God wants women to be ordained, who am I to disagree.  If change comes God will initiate the change.  It will not be from the membership making demands and expecting God to give in.

[stemelbow]

Yes but the change did not occur because some small vocal group of black members got a campaign going to cause the change.  Had that been the case, I don't believe the majority of members would have accepted the change as being inspired and many today would still disagree with it.  I have no trouble with change to Church occurring.  If God wants women to be ordained, who am I to disagree.  If change comes God will initiate the change.  It will not be from the membership making demands and expecting God to give in.

Could be. But it's not as if there weren't members who desired a change, per priesthood. OW just represents members and non-members who want to see a change. If it does change the church can claim it was all by revelation, but it doesn't mean the members had no impact.

[carbon dioxide]

Could be. But it's not as if there weren't members who desired a change, per priesthood. OW just represents members and non-members who want to see a change. If it does change the church can claim it was all by revelation, but it doesn't mean the members had no impact.

Sure and I have no problem with women who desire the priesthood.  My problem with OW is not their objective but the means to obtain that objective.  They have decided that women need to be ordained.  They want president Monson to pray about and and get the revelation they desire to make what they want official.  That is like me deciding that there is something we need to do in our ward and asking my bishop to pray about it so he would get the revelation that I am right and it needs to be done.  Honest, sincere prayer begins with the individual who then asks God on the subject.  If what I am asking is right, my bishop will pray about the issue himself without direction from me to do so.  If President Monson feels inspired to pray to God about the issue, he will and God will inspire him to do it.  OW are asking Monson to ask an insincere prayer not on his behalf but on behalf of OW to get an answer that complies with the desires of OW. 

[bluebell]

I'd be tempted to fall for the "any inequality on earth is okay because it will all be made right in the end" argument, if (1) it couldn't be used to justify every injustice ever committed; and (2) women received equality in our version of the CK.

Let's be clear. HM is not equal to HF in Mormonism. No earthly woman would stand for never being mentioned, acknowledged or thanked for her contributions. Nor would she allow herself to be part of a harem.

As far as gender equality goes, it only gets worse in the eternities.

 

From my perspective, there's sometimes a difference between something being unequal and something being unfair (or unjust).  

 

I fully acknowledge that there is some inequality between genders in the Mormon church.  It just doesn't bother me because i do not believe the inequality is unfair.  So, in that way, it's not weird at all to me that to think of myself as feminist (though a conservative one) and also not press for women's ordination.

 

And as an aside, i'm extremely confused on why you think you have any ability or right to speak for 'all earthly women'.  Don't you think your stepping outside your manly bounds a bit with that declaration.  

[Calm]

 No earthly woman would stand for never being mentioned, acknowledged or thanked for her contributions. Nor would she allow herself to be part of a harem.

On the contrary, there are a lot of women that have been okay with that.  You probably shouldn't assume the role of speaking for women in absolutes, but allow women to have individual points of view if you are concerned about inequality.

[Scott Lloyd]

Could be. But it's not as if there weren't members who desired a change, per priesthood. OW just represents members and non-members who want to see a change. If it does change the church can claim it was all by revelation, but it doesn't mean the members had no impact.

Those who desired a change back then were wise and humble enough to recognize it was God Who was calling the shots and were patient enough to wait until He decreed it. Moreover, they fully expected it would happen, because it had been promised.

Those are crucial differences between those who desired change back then and the shrill and strident voices of today.

[bluebell]

Another part of the article that i thought was interesting was how KK pressed for OW to be limited to LDS members only, but others wanted to include ex and non members so she was overridden.

 

The article later says that it was a good thing that OW set itself up the way it did because otherwise, KK, as an ex mormon, would not be allowed to be a member of the group any longer.  

 

What struck me about that was that i wonder if KK and OW might not have been seen as heading down the road toward apostasy if they had not had ex mormons doing the rally cry?  Maybe if she had gotten her way, it would have been easier for her to claim she was not supporting apostasy?  I doubt it would have made a difference in the end, but it does make me wonder....