Women leaders ordered off the stand

[Amulek]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

If a bishop is hard to recognize without him sitting on the stand every week instead of once every three months, seems like this is a good argument for making other leaders in the ward easier to recognize and seek out, interact with, etc given most have much less visibility than the bishop for ward members not directly lead by them.

I pretty much agree, and I can see there being a benefit (potentially multiple benefits) in doing something like what you have suggested. If I were a bishop I wouldn't be opposed to implementing something like that.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

In your view.  I have explained multiple times why I see it would be contributing to the sense of unity in the ward,

What if these folks don't want to sit on the stand, but do it out of a sense of obligation?  Won't that obligatory service start to rankle for some, particularly those who see sitting on the stand, with no doctrinal or practical purpose, as not being worthwhile?

What if more disruptions arise because substantial numbers of parents are separated from their children during Sacrament Meeting?

What if sitting on the stand comes to be seen as a matter of privilege/status/prestige to be sought, envied, etc.?

What "sense of unity" is there to be created in these?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

help people make connections with other leadership beyond just the bishopric…

I have zero recollection of feeling "connected" to anyone on the stand.  To teachers and quorum  presidents, sure.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

and since being one is a commandment of the Lord, that seems like a very meaningful purpose to me.

That the folks advocating this took it to the Tribune, aired the dirty laundry, are trying to embarrass/coerce the Area Presidency into changing course, etc., is not conducive to "being one."

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Argue if you want that it would not be effective, but don’t misrepresent that the reason for doing such is not meaningful.  That is false.

I think the story in the article is an example of low-grade activism in and against the Church.  While it may not seem as objectionable as the high-grade, in-your-face stuff we saw from folks like Kate Kelly and Sam Young, the low-grade stuff can end up being more caustic. 

I would have more sympathy, and perhaps even support, for advocates of this proposal had they not resorted to coercive pressure tactics.  That they did is, to me, a suggestion that their hearts are not in the right place.  I think they want to turn sitting on the stand into a status symbol.  It even reminds me a little bit of the 19th-century practice in some Protestant churches of "selling" a specific pew - often at the front of the congregation - to a family for its exclusive use.  In fact, reading the article in the OP even reminded me a bit of Jacob 2:13:

Quote

And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

I don't see a lot of daylight between putting on airs via "the costliness of your apparel" and putting on airs via "Hey, look at me as I sit on the stand in Sacrament Meeting, even though I'm not actually doing anything in the meeting."

Blech.

I spent 11+ years sitting on the stand, first as a member of the High Council, then as a member of the bishopric.  I think pretty much all but those "aspiring" (of the "that they may be seen of men" variety (Matthew 6:5)) have no interest in sitting on the stand.  I was very happy to rejoin my family when I was released.  And those few who might want to sit on the stand for some non-aspiring reason would not have resorted to pressure tactics like going to the Salt Lake Tribune to vent their spleen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 28, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You saying this makes it clear you haven’t been paying attention to what I have proposed.  There is no way you could have missed the fact I think it best to rotate so there are only 3 additional people on the stand each week if you were actually reading my posts.  This is not a good faith effort to understand someone.  I am very, very disappointed, Smac.  

The fact that you engage with the idea later while still leaving in an accusation condemning a misrepresentation of my idea initially is a very poor argument.  

A proposal involving a rotation of people who have no substantive purpose being on the stand is still just tokenism.  And it's just a variation on the story in the Salt Lake Tribune.  Sure, it might mitigate the logistical headache, or it might not.  What if this or that "president" wants to sit on the stand every week?  What if they don't want to sit on the stand at all?  What if the "president" does not want to sit on the stand, but his/her counselors do?  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This is a habit of yours I have commented about before.  You make a false conclusion about someone’s idea, argue against it; later (as in the next sentence or two) realize that wasn’t the position, but still do not delete your mistake.

Read the whole post first, Smac, if you aren’t going to correct your misrepresentations if you don’t want your credibility to suffer…or give me one good reason why it makes sense to put effort into arguing something that is incorrect and then refusing to take even a few seconds to go back and delete the comment when you find out that you are wrong.

Seriously, Smac.  Think of how this looks to others.  You are willing to argue but not willing to be accurate in your argument?  What do you think that says about your priorities?

I'll give your comments some thought.  Broadly, though, I dispute that I reached a "false conclusion."  I didn't talk to the Tribune.  I didn't characterizing sitting on the stand as an exercise in "representation."  I am taking that proposal and discussing its likely ramifications.  That's not "a false conclusion" about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, that I find that consistent with what the scriptures teach. I recommend taking the high road always, and any other beatitude-like approach.

I personally don't regard the SLT very highly because eh journalism isn't very good (maybe this was just an opinion piece which has a place in any paper), which is why I check out several news sources on the same topic. Is this addressed independently in other papers?

I doubt it.  The Tribune's bar for "newsworthiness" for stories involving the Church is really low.  In fact, I think most of these mundane-and-banal-local-controversy-dressed-up-as-"news" items come from the keyboard of one person: Peggy Fletcher Stack.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not the writer or people referred to in the opening post.  

But you're in a thread discussing the topic in the opening post.

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

How about responding to me in a post that you attach my name to instead of using me as a springboard for your criticisms of others, at least if you don’t state that is what you are doing as in “in regards to the OP…” or whoever else you are critiquing in a post you start by responding to me.  Separate the conversation to avoid confusion and the waste of both of our efforts.

If you want to respond to the opening post, then do so.  Don’t use me as an opener and then have nothing to actually say to me for your post.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  How does the "completely handled by the priesthood" work vis-à-vis distributing the Sacrament?  What is the difference between (A) "{a} girl passing it to a mother nursing a baby" or "passing it to the person next to you" and (B) the Deacons handing the tray to the person at the far end of a pew?

There are scriptural instructions for the preparation and blessing of the Sacrament, but Brunson is claiming - perhaps correctly - that there is no scriptural instruction about the distribution/passing of the Sacrament.  

I am speaking generally that the Sacrament is a priesthood ordinance and should be handled and controlled by priesthood brethren. The deacons take the priesthood responsibility for making sure each member gets the sacrament passed to them in the congregation. This is just my opinion, but to me that responsibility is part of the ordinance.  Regular members of the congregation or girls are not responsible for that. 
Besides what else are the Deacons going to do if not that? It also prepares them mentally and spiritually to take on greater responsibilities as they advance in the priesthood. Girls would never be able to bless the sacrament unless they did have the priesthood.
Historically it has been done by non priesthood holders and even women, like during the war in Nazi Germany, but those are unusual circumstances.
 

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And this one. Repeated over and over and over......

When themes and topics on this board develop into patterns repeated "over and over and over," there's not much point in re-inventing the wheel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

Just now, smac97 said:

When themes and topics on this board develop into patterns repeated "over and over and over," there's not much point in re-inventing the wheel.

Thanks,

-Smac

I dunno.  I think you think there is something to be gained by picking three or four descriptive words then repeating them over and over. Maybe it works.  I know get tired of it.  It is really a tedious way to make an argument. 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Quote

Okay.  How does the "completely handled by the priesthood" work vis-à-vis distributing the Sacrament?  What is the difference between (A) "{a} girl passing it to a mother nursing a baby" or "passing it to the person next to you" and (B) the Deacons handing the tray to the person at the far end of a pew?

There are scriptural instructions for the preparation and blessing of the Sacrament, but Brunson is claiming - perhaps correctly - that there is no scriptural instruction about the distribution/passing of the Sacrament.  

I am speaking generally that the Sacrament is a priesthood ordinance and should be handled and controlled by priesthood brethren.

Okay.  I agree and I appreciate that.  But "handled and controlled by priesthood brethren" currently involves a deacon handing the Sacrament tray to the person at the end of the pew, who then passes it on.  If the person in the pew can pass it on, why can't the person standing at the end of the pew be a young woman?

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The deacons take the priesthood responsibility for making sure each member gets the sacrament passed to them in the congregation.

Okay.  But is this a "priesthood responsibility?"  A mother in the pew gets the tray handed to her and makes sure each of her little ones gets the piece of bread.  

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

This is just my opinion, but to me that responsibility is part of the ordinance. Regular members of the congregation or girls are not responsible for that. 

Nor, in scripture, are the Deacons.  I think that's Brunson's point.

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Besides what else are the Deacons going to do if not that?

All sorts of things.

Meanwhile, the Young Women are typically not called upon to fulfill any function during Sacrament Meeting.  We previously had ushering/greeting as a "priesthood responsibility," but not now.  We previously had only men offer prayers in General Conference, but not now.  

I don't like tokenism or pandering.  But passing the Sacrament is not that.  It is a significant symbolic act.  Receiving the Sacrament is the centerpiece of Sunday worship.  If there is no doctrinal/scriptural directive or constraint, and if Deacons passing the Sacrament is only a matter of longstanding tradition, then perhaps the Brethren should reconsider that tradition.

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

It also prepares them mentally and spiritually to take on greater responsibilities as they advance in the priesthood.

Service in the Church does that.  For all of us.  Some forms of service necessarily require the individual to hold the priesthood.  But is passing the Sacrament one of those?  If not, perhaps the Brethren ought to consider a change in policy.

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Girls would never be able to bless the sacrament unless they did have the priesthood.

Girls grow into women with all sorts of responsibilities.  Missionary service.  Temple service.  Humanitarian service.  Family history.  Marriage.  Parenthood.

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Historically it has been done by non priesthood holders and even women, like during the war in Nazi Germany, but those are unusual circumstances.

I am not sure if we are discussing a scripture-and-doctrine-based practice/policy, or else a longstanding practice that is rooted more in tradition than in scripture and doctrine.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 28, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I dunno.  I think you think there is something to be gained by picking three or four descriptive words then repeating them over and over. Maybe it works.  I know get tired of it.  It is really a tedious way to make an argument. 

Well, there's plenty of tedium to be borne by my side of things as well.  Your criticisms of the Church are pretty repetitive and redundant, yet you constantly rehash them.

More broadly, I think anti-Mormonism has been stagnating for many years now.  You guys just don't have much substance to offer these days.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What if these folks don't want to sit on the stand, but do it out of a sense of obligation?  Won't that obligatory service start to rankle for some, particularly those who see sitting on the stand, with no doctrinal or practical purpose, as not being worthwhile?

There are many times in our callings where some of us don’t see much doctrinal or practical purpose, do not see something as worthwhile and yet members agree to do it because they trust leaders’ intent.  
 

For a real life example, I well remember so many teachers and leaders complaining about the two deep rule for men and then for both men and women when it was first instigated in my wards as well as comments elsewhere.  Some men were offended because it was, in their view, an assumption because they were men, they were abusers.  When I tried to insist upon it for an overnight camp for 11 year olds because it was also the rule for Scouts Canada (but mostly because it was 13 boys and an old van and if the leader got injured, they would have been screwed), every man brushed me off as it wasn’t needed, wasn’t worthwhile, no one else could take the time up to and including the bishop and the camp went on with one leader only.  And I saw a lot of rankling in some teachers, including being asked to be released and stating they would no longer serve if they weren’t trusted to be on their own.

How would you have responded to these members?  To my bishop for going against very strong instruction from the Church as well as Scouts Canada saying a troop could lose its standing with SC by breaking this rule on the basis in his view it wasn’t practical and wasn’t needed. Obviously sharing safety concerns and encouraging them to follow instructions from Salt Lake wasn’t enough in that case since I was very clear, everyone knew the SC rule already and just didn’t care and I had the Handbook to back me up.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Calm

[JAHS]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do we know he didn’t use “Society” for other groups?  It would help pinpoint his intent was almost for sure the Church.  I do think it is the most likely reading.

I wonder at times what the Church would be like if Joseph had been able to live another year or two or even just 6 months.

Joseph Smith said:
"that the society should move according to the ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuou[s] and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests an in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day - that it is the privilege of each member to live long and enjoy health—" (See Joseph Smith papers)

In printing the original minutes of the prophet's talk after his death, the official History of the Church by BH Roberts (1902) changed the third “Society” above to “Church of Jesus Christ”, to clarify which organization he was referring to. He summarized the notes in the following way:

"The Lord was going to make of the Church of Jesus Christ a kingdom of Priests, a holy people, a chosen generation, as in Enoch's day, having all the gifts as illustrated to the Church in Paul's epistles and teachings to the churches in his day--that it is the privilege of each member to live long and enjoy health. He then blessed the Saints."
(See B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 4:570.)

So I guess he understood what the prophet was referring to. 

[JAHS]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure if we are discussing a scripture-and-doctrine-based practice/policy, or else a longstanding practice that is rooted more in tradition than in scripture and doctrine.

I agree it it is partly due to tradition, but it is currently they way our Church leaders think it should be done and so it is. I don't think they are going to change it any time soon. 
It would just give those few women advocating for women ordination more ammunition to push their agenda. And when that doesn't happen, and I don't think it will happen, they will be very disappointed.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I really pushed for my friend to take me to mass when I was a teen, but other than that I haven’t been to any service besides a wedding. I am jealous.  I wish I hadn’t been so shy about it before it became difficult. It was always something I planned to do when….

I always thought about going to Mass on Christmas Eve, but do remember watching it while wrapping gifts and getting Santa's gifts ready at midnight. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Tacenda

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What if more disruptions arise because substantial numbers of parents are separated from their children during Sacrament Meeting?

What if sitting on the stand comes to be seen as a matter of privilege/status/prestige to be sought, envied, etc.?

What "sense of unity" is there to be created in these?

By not just having it happen, but consciously going about the change, most of these problems could be relatively easily addressed.  Explanations of what was happening and why, that it had everything to do with helping the ward interact better as a community and was not a privilege, but a service to sit up there would surely be understood because the bishopric sitting up there as part of their calling could be used as an example of how it helped better serve the ward.  

Since it would be a weekly thing, it would make sense to call a young woman and young man or more if needed to help sit with the kids.  Assigning one youth and a backup to a family would spread out the work.   This could even help give some youth a sense of purpose in the community, always a plus.  Parents could help by suggesting items for a quiet bag that youth could put together and keep in the library for this purpose or having the Sunday youth act as a babysitter on other days (paid of course, this is not an excuse to take advantage of the youth).  Since youth were called to this position, they could visit with the families they knew they would be helping on Sunday for a short time so kids could get to know them or if that wasn’t possible, start the rotation with an auxiliary where this wasn’t an issue and let the youth sit with the families a few weeks while parents are there.  Parents of the youth could should support for their child in their calling by getting to church early enough so they can arrange to have their family sit next to the family their child is serving, so there is not less family time in that sense.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

have zero recollection of feeling "connected" to anyone on the stand.  To teachers and quorum  presidents, sure.  

And it probably is the same way for most if you see someone randomly sitting up front and you don’t know why they are there.

Being able to see people acting in their calling, even if it is by simply being where they are supposed to be on Sunday can be meaningful to many.  I would not expect it to be meaningful to all, especially at the beginning, but if this was done from top down (not agitating for it, just exploring the idea) and incorporated into a leader’s calling, it would acquire meaning just as having someone who says and does nothing has meaning now because we understand it is part of fulfilling their calling’s duties (the nonconducting counselor).

Edited November 29, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A proposal involving a rotation of people who have no substantive purpose being on the stand is still just tokenism.  And it's just a variation on the story in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Thank goodness my proposal has a substantive purpose.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Calm:  

and since being one is a commandment of the Lord, that seems like a very meaningful purpose to me.

Smac:  I think the story in the article is an example of low-grade activism in and against the Church.

Again you use me as a springboard for the OP when I specify I am talking about my own variation and not anything else.  Can you not see how this implies I am the one being the activist you are criticizing?

Quote

  I think pretty much all but those "aspiring" (of the "that they may be seen of men" variety (Matthew 6:5)) have no interest in sitting on the stand. 

I agree…unless the seats are more comfortable than the pews, there was a benefit there with my back at times.  If vote for getting more comfortable pews for that issue though, lol.

In my view, rotating leaders is about the members they serve, not the leaders except in that it might make their calling easier (I for one would likely be spending my time on the stand looking at those I serve and connecting them with their families better in my memory, which would make it easier as a Primary leader to make a comment about a child to the parent if I happened to run into them in the hall, at school or even see them on a walk (this last happened at times in Canada as we had a ton of members living in our neighborhood, but would be more a Utah thing).

Edited November 29, 2023 by Calm

[Buckeye]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are many times in our callings where some of us don’t see much doctrinal or practical purpose, do not see something as worthwhile and yet members agree to do it because they trust leaders’ intent.  
 

For a real life example, I well remember so many teachers and leaders complaining about the two deep rule for men and then for both men and women when it was first instigated in my wards as well as comments elsewhere.  Some men were offended because it was, in their view, an assumption because they were men, they were abusers.  When I tried to insist upon it for an overnight camp for 11 year olds because it was also the rule for Scouts Canada (but mostly because it was 13 boys and an old van and if the leader got injured, they would have been screwed), every man brushed me off as it wasn’t needed, wasn’t worthwhile, no one else could take the time up to and including the bishop and the camp went on with one leader only.  And I saw a lot of rankling in some teachers, including being asked to be released and stating they would no longer serve if they weren’t trusted to be on their own.

How would you have responded to these members?  To my bishop for going against very strong instruction from the Church as well as Scouts Canada saying a troop could lose its standing with SC by breaking this rule on the basis in his view it wasn’t practical and wasn’t needed. Obviously sharing safety concerns and encouraging them to follow instructions from Salt Lake wasn’t enough in that case since I was very clear, everyone knew the SC rule already and just didn’t care and I had the Handbook to back me up.

I wish I could give more repoints here.
 

Unfortunately, I was once a blazer leader who thought he could disregard the primary president’s authority re the number of campouts in a year (handbooks says 3; I wanted a 4th). She politely but firmly corrected me, for which I’m grateful.

[Buckeye]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

And it probably is the same way for most if you see someone randomly sitting up front and you don’t know why they are there.

Being able to see people acting in their calling, even if it is by simply being where they are supposed to be on Sunday can be meaningful to many.  I would not expect it to be meaningful to all, especially at the beginning, but if this was done from top down (not agitating for it, just exploring the idea) and incorporated into a leader’s calling, it would acquire meaning just as having someone who says and does nothing has meaning now because we understand it is part of fulfilling their calling’s duties.

I like this. Here’s an add-on suggestion.
 

 The ward council already is charged with helping their bishoprics select topics for sacrament talks and music. Why not extend that so each org rotates weeks in which they extend the speaking assignment and have a presidency member sit on the stand in support of their speaker. That person can even control the podium level (the most powerful seat in the chapel!)

Bishopric still has a member on the stand each week to give announcements and oversee the sacrament, but otherwise it’s the org leader who conducts the meeting. As each org has 3 presidency members and this responsibility rotates, it won’t be overly burdensome on anyone and let’s the bishopric members sit with their families most weeks. 

[Buckeye]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I always thought about going to Mass on Christmas Eve, but do remember watching it while wrapping gifts and getting Santa's gifts ready at midnight. 

My wife’s mother was raised catholic. We love going to Christmas mass. You should try it. You won’t feel a stranger. Mass is very welcoming and meaningful. 
 

I’ll add, when traveling in a new city I know of no better way to really understand the place -it’s people, architecture, history, etc - than to go to church service. My family tries to go to an LDS service followed by another denomination. Mass is a great option. I know some families like to skip church when on vacation but I’ve felt this habit is one of the best things Sis Buckeye have done for ours. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Buckeye

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Broadly, though, I dispute that I reached a "false conclusion."  I didn't talk to the Tribune.

Why would you need to talk to the Tribune about my idea?  You can ask me any necessary questions.

If you concluded that having 20+ people on the stand was awkward, etc, it was a false conclusion when you were responding to me because I have never suggested having all the auxiliaries on the stand at one time.  And as far as I remember neither did the article, so I am not sure where you got the idea from.  False assumptions lead to false conclusions.

Quote

  I am taking that proposal and discussing its likely ramifications.

If you mean here the one in the opening post, which is only tangentially related to my comments, there is no reason to be responding to me since I am talking about something different.

If you are going to respond to my post, then actually respond to it please.  If you want to respond for another time to the opening post, then use the OP again.  Don’t use a post that isn’t talking any longer about the OP.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What if these folks don't want to sit on the stand, but do it out of a sense of obligation?  

What if more disruptions arise because substantial numbers of parents are separated from their children during Sacrament Meeting?

What if sitting on the stand comes to be seen as a matter of privilege/status/prestige to be sought, envied, etc.?

What "sense of unity" is there to be created in these?

There's a million what-ifs about the negatives of having anyone on the stand and/or asking people who used to be on the stand to get off of it as well.  But the presence of what-ifs haven't stopped us yet from doing things how are doing them.  Maybe they also aren't a reason not to do something?

Quote

I have zero recollection of feeling "connected" to anyone on the stand.  To teachers and quorum  presidents, sure.  

I think by "connection" Calm is referring to knowing who they are.  

Quote

That the folks advocating this took it to the Tribune, aired the dirty laundry, are trying to embarrass/coerce the Area Presidency into changing course, etc., is not conducive to "being one."

Is asking women to get off the stand "dirty laundry" then?

Quote

I think the story in the article is an example of low-grade activism in and against the Church.  While it may not seem as objectionable as the high-grade, in-your-face stuff we saw from folks like Kate Kelly and Sam Young, the low-grade stuff can end up being more caustic. 

I feel similarly to you in some things, but I can admit that they can end up doing some good too, like when they got the Brethren to allow women to pray in general conference for example.

Quote

I would have more sympathy, and perhaps even support, for advocates of this proposal had they not resorted to coercive pressure tactics.  That they did is, to me, a suggestion that their hearts are not in the right place.  I think they want to turn sitting on the stand into a status symbol.  It even reminds me a little bit of the 19th-century practice in some Protestant churches of "selling" a specific pew - often at the front of the congregation - to a family for its exclusive use.  

I don't think any of us can reasonably say that these women's hearts are not in the right place without getting really close to that "judging unrighteous judgments" line.  We don't know enough about their motivations to do so.  

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

So I guess he understood what the prophet was referring to. 

Or he guessed.

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There's a million what-ifs about the negatives of having anyone on the stand and/or asking people who used to be on the stand to get off of it as well.  But the presence of what-ifs haven't stopped us yet from doing things how are doing them.  Maybe they also aren't a reason not to do something?

I think by "connection" Calm is referring to knowing who they are.  

Is asking women to get off the stand "dirty laundry" then?

I feel similarly to you in some things, but I can admit that they can end up doing some good too, like when they got the Brethren to allow women to pray in general conference for example.

I don't think any of us can reasonably say that these women's hearts are not in the right place without getting really close to that "judging unrighteous judgments" line.  We don't know enough about their motivations to do so.  

 

Yes. And while I don't like what the RSP said I'm willing to give her the benefit of doubt that she meant something different. Or that she was quoted wrongly - after all my words were in the paper 3 times and I was quoted wrongly in two of them - and one even had my exact words written down by me!