Sources confirm that June Olds Bennett was forced by her local Stake President to resign her position as a board member for Mormon Women Stand, a social media driven LDS women’s organization that actively opposes inclusion of feminists and other progressives in Mormon congregations.
June Olds Bennett of South Jordan, Utah, says her stake president told her she would have to leave Mormon Women Stand’s board if she wanted to keep her so-called temple “recommend.” The Salt Lake Tribune reports she thought she had little choice but to comply because she wanted to attend her brother’s temple wedding.
Local Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints officials issue “recommends” to devout Mormons attesting to members’ worthiness to participate in the faith’s most sacred temple rituals. They confirm through interviews that members’ beliefs and actions conform to standards of the church.
Mormon Women Stand opposes expanding the all-male Mormon priesthood to include women, despite the church’s belief in ongoing prophetic revelation. According to June’s stake president, she also failed to “mourn with those that mourn and weep with those that weep” preferring instead to focus on “the mote in her neighbor’s eye rather than the beam in her own.” [1]
But Bennett also expressed concern about the policies that forced her to choose between her beliefs and her family. “I think it’s unfortunate that the policies allow this at this time. I hope that someday the policies will be adjusted so that people can freely judge and ostracize others without worrying about being kept away from important family events like weddings.”
Bennett was also compelled to remove 11 posts from her blog, which discussed ways in which those women who feel marginalized have brought it on themselves, a tactic her bishop, Randall Johnson, referred to as “blaming the victim” while shaking his head patiently. He added, “I appreciate her fervor, but it unfortunately deviates from the savior’s mandate to love one another and to welcome all to partake of the atonement. If only she put as much time and effort into reaching out to others and showing them love, we might not have gotten to this point.” Her stake president could not be reached for comment.
Many conservatives fear this may be the beginning of a church-wide crackdown on those who cling to the status quo and who create a judgmental atmosphere without remembering that Jesus’ message was one of change, repentance, and reaching out to those on the fringes. They remember all too well the recent actions taken against Cliven Bundy, a renegade conservative Mormon who made headlines last year when he refused to obey the laws of the land, one of Mormonism’s most basic “articles of faith.”
The world of fanatical Mormon conservatives is small. Most members of the faith are more moderate politically, hesitant to side with conservative sects that consider them a cult and criticize their beliefs openly in the media; many remember the role of evangelicals in ensuring Mitt Romney’s defeat in the last two presidential elections and are reluctant to associate with groups that so openly oppose their faith. Association with such groups jeopardizes a member’s ability to obtain and renew a temple recommend, as Ms. Bennett has so recently discovered.
“June has brought this action on herself,” added Bishop Johnson. “We have every hope that now that she has reconsidered the damage her position has done to other members of her faith community, she will repent and stop criticizing and silencing those who disagree with her radical position that the status quo should never be challenged or changed through the process of ongoing revelation we hold so dear.”
Discuss.
[1] Her stake president just likes “scare quotes.”
Wheat & Tares 
It’s about time that the church takes action like this! Someone pinch me, so I can tell I’m not dreaming.
Oh, you’re definitely dreaming. This is satire. Here’s the real story: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/18/us/ap-us-mormon-women-priesthood.html?_r=2
Is she on the board of Ordain Women, or Mormon Women Stand? Or is this satirical, like changing the story to give it a different meaning?
My understanding was that OW was asking the upper church leaders if they could ask the Lord if it was possible that women could hold the priesthood. I find it odd that they have not had their question answered. Given that bit of disrespect, I don’t expect this issue to go away – just more underground (or not so underground). I don’t think we can excommunicate this issue away. I can’t say I agree with all the tactics of OW, but I don’t have much pride in the response my church has given this group.
Geoff Aus: It’s satire written as if we lived in an alternate universe in which conservative extremists (like Mormon Women Stand) were corrected in the way moderate progressives are. These stories about April Young Bennett quickly became national news in the US this past week.
:::applause:::
Brilliant.
Well, that had me going for a sec. Back to reality.
This is an outstanding counterfactual, hawkgrrrl! I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.
I wish this satire were true. That group is so severely un-Christlike in their refusal to accept people who doubt or feel differently from themselves. It disturbs me that they are not under heavy observation as well. All extremists need watching, imho.
Good satire – it amused me and broke my heart all at the same time.
OK, I get it. Just don’t think this is as good as some other stuff you’ve done along these lines.
Oh if wishes were fishes. MWS is a major trigger for me, all of my family have joined and when I talked to my bishop he told me they were a great group. I just. can’t. handle. that people think this exclusionary crap is ok. Oh wait, the PRethren love them. I forgot.
The sad thing about this is that it actually made more sense to me than the real story. Imagine a universe where the church cared more about whether people were acting in a Christlike way than covering its own rear end.
I’m crying. Of course, I am a “fanatical Mormon conservative,” so I’m not sure how that works…
I know what the point of the post was, but trying to force a tension between a movement that defines itself in terms of standing with the priesthood leadership on the one hand (whether they are for or against patriarchy is very much conceptually down-stream from this point) and standing with the priesthood leadership on the other is pretty contrived.
🙂 🙂
“There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.”
GEORGE ORWELL
:slow clap:
Jeff G, it’s not so much that they define themselves as standing with priesthood leadership – it’s that they go farther than that to clearly delineate that there should be NO questioning, NO doubts – and those who do are NOT welcome in that group…. and further implied that those who do so are not valiant, have testimonies, or should be welcome. They can shout all day that all they are doing is supporting the Brethren, but the are 100% anti-feminist, and anti-doubts, anti-questioning. They very much respond in kind to the mormon feminist movement; when someone says or does something big, they have to respond in a more Rameumptom manner: ” 17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell [for we are wheat and they are chaff]; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God. And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. [chosen by PR and the Brethren to be most holy and humble and faithful] Amen.”
“They can shout all day that all they are doing is supporting the Brethren, but the are 100% anti-feminist, and anti-doubts, anti-questioning.’
Quite the exaggeration….
Have you tried to be a mormon feminist who has doubts and questions and be a part of the group? or voice your questions and doubts in a faithful way? I just went back and looked at their mission statement, they seemed to have changed it. It used to say questions and doubts are not welcome……. I don’t think it an exaggeration at all to call them antifeminist, antidoubts, and questioning. I think if you asked the leaders you would find them all agree with my assertion. Perhaps those who all “like” the group don’t identify that way or see they are supporting the organization – but it most certainly is a “line in the sand” group.
It’s for this reason that the thing that hurt most out of all the drama the past two years is when PR met with MWS and layered them with praise, all the while being antagonistic to other women with questions asking for meetings. I am no less faithful or devout; and my heart literally broke that their unchristlike exclusionary tactics were praised by PR/brethren. That was just as faith shaking for me than the details of Joseph’s polygamy.
I don’t think it is contrived. The reason that I personally declined various invites to join MWS is that I felt that we didn’t need more “ites” in the church.
I actually have known LDS zealots against whom church action of one form or another was taken. The thing is, on the conservative side, their respect for church chain of command tends to kick in and keep them from being excommunicated.
In the case of the real Ms. Bennett, she had sent a letter to the church, received a polite response that included a request, and ignored the church’s request. That was the most problematic thing.
If MWS also declined such a request from church headquarters, I hope trust there would also be consequences.
I don’t think it is contrived. The reason that I personally declined various invites to join MWS is that I felt that we didn’t need more “ites” in the church.
I actually have known LDS zealots against whom church action of one form or another was taken. The thing is, on the conservative side, their respect for church chain of command tends to kick in and keep them from being excommunicated.
In the case of the real Ms. Bennett, she had sent a letter to the church, received a polite response that included a request, and ignored/denied the church’s request. That seemed to be the most problematic thing.
If MWS also declined such a request from church headquarters, I trust there would also be consequences.
le i actively picket against them>As fr as I know, the names April Young Bennett. This whole satire in the news about being “forced” to do this or that in our church is outrageous. There is no “forcing” going on. Bishops and Stake presidents do not say- hey, we are forcing you to come to this council and forcing to take away membership rightd if you dont do exactly as we say. Having a temple recommend is a privilege and if one is not complying by the rules they first adhere to and promise to then the church has a right to revoke the recommend. Sister Bennett was asked to refrain from her post at Ordain Women after they had caused several disruptions and riffles in the church and on church grounds. The church has come out and said its okay to have a disagreeing voice but its in the way you present it that makes all the difference. Ordain Women is not a group that is in alignment with the church and in fact opposes the church current leadership and authority. They have cause d several disruptions and are clearly not in alignment with proper church conduct. The analogy, is kind of like me working for Walmart but before every shift I go out and picket in front and tell people not to shop there and even try to prevent people from entering. Should i be able to retain my employment and the benfits and privileges with them? No. And so it is with the church. The temple recommend is given only after a strict set of guidlines are discusse dand that member agrees to all of the principles and rules and lives worthy for the recommend. Being on the borad of a group who is in opposition to the church brings that participant into judgment by the church to revoke that privilege.
Kristine,
I have met far too many of the MWS that are decidedly pro-feminism to agree with you on that point. They are, however, anti-questioning in a very relevant sense which, as their name suggests, boils down to following rather than pressuring the leadership. On that issue, you and I definitely agree.
Good thing Jesus was so against causing any sort of disruption or riffle. Oh wait.
Took me awhile to even remember what Mormon Women Stands was. Of course, it is impossible to appreciate the satire without that.
@21: If there are punitive consequences enacted by an authority upon someone for declining a request, then it was not actually a request.
(in case that doesn’t work, Well Done)
“I don’t think it an exaggeration at all to call them antifeminist, antidoubts, and questioning. I think if you asked the leaders you would find them all agree with my assertion. ”
OK, I will accept your challenge and see what they say.
This. Is. Awesome.
I would nominate this for Wheaties, but try to remember this for next year.
I think the leaders are anti-feminist but not anti-female.
Pro-feminism MWS? Next you’ll be telling me about unicorns!
Kristine A, the PR meeting with MWS was also the event of last year that hurt me most.
C’mon, it’s not difficult stuff here people.
They are anti-activism since this is intrinsically at odds with following the priesthood leaders. They are not anti-women’s-rights/issues – at least not the one’s that I know. Does this make them anti-feminism? Who cares.
Choco: I have it on fairly reliable authority that the PR team was not aware that they were talking to nut jobs before that event.
Hawkgirl,
I don’t see this through your lenses. In my view, Mormon Women Stand is the norm in the church, and Ordain Women is the radical view.
Jesus fought against corruption of the ruling class (the Roman Prefect, Sadducees and Pharisees), not authority. He was solely focused on preaching repentance and encouraging others to keep the commandments. You can call this promoting social justice or looking out for the fringe of society, but I call it preaching the Gospel.
Comments like Ken’s (In my view, Mormon Women Stand is the norm in the church, and Ordain Women is the radical view) and Rob Osborn’s #23 reduce me to sputtering incoherence. I despair of filling in all the blanks that would be necessary to address the depth of ignorance inherent in a sentence like “Bishops and Stake presidents do not say- hey, we are forcing you to come to this council and forcing to take away membership rightd if you dont do exactly as we say” when that is exactly what’s happening here.
But since it’s after 10 PM, and I didn’t sleep so well last night anyway, I’m just going to let it go. Go read, brethren, and come back informed. This is like listening to someone who’s read nothing but “The Godmakers” try to talk about the temple.
“…not difficult stuff here people.” Is this like saying it’s easy and you’re dumb? And “Who cares.” Is this like saying this is so simple and why waste time with this, fools? So I ask, why do you? You come from your place of male privilege of priesthood and talk so disparagingly to the hurt and those clearly not advantaged like you. I cringe as a priesthood holder seeing such crass insensitivity and lack of compassion. Sure, there is probably a range of people in their group, including those for some women’s rights. But how dare you claim that activism is intrinsically at odds with following the priesthood. An inactive priesthood is a dead priesthood. God (our Heavenly Parents) set us up in *this* world, not just to follow but in love to lead.
“You come from your place of male privilege of priesthood and talk so disparagingly to the hurt and those clearly not advantaged like you.”
This is one of the most annoying and tired arguments for feminism to me. I think everyone needs to figure out where they want to be on this spectrum, but please stop with this idea that only men don’t agree with more radical/liberal/whateveryawannacallit approaches to feminism and the Church. There are a lot of women who don’t agree with OW and a lot of what Mormon feminists say and do online, and that is why MWS was created (even though that doesn’t necessarily reflect what all Mormon women feel, either).
I think there are a lot of us who are somewhere in the middle seeing valid points on both ‘sides’ of the cycle of online discussion. And I think neither ‘side’ feels heard by the other. The lack of compassion really can go both ways.
No. It’s more like saying that when people refuse to make that important distinction, they are quite obviously trying to bias the discussion and thus should not be trusted.
Here is how MWS responded to my question about the following statement made earlier on this blog:
“”it’s that they ( Mormon Women Stand) go farther than that to clearly delineate that there should be NO questioning, NO doubts – and those who do are NOT welcome in that group…. and further implied that those who do so are not valiant, have testimonies, or should be welcome. They can shout all day that all they are doing is supporting the Brethren, but the are 100% anti-feminist, and anti-doubts, anti-questioning.”
MWS responds:
“Genuine questions, not advocating that which is contrary to doctrine and/or current policies are always welcome.”
I realize this will never satisfy the entrenched beliefs of some, but it is a response.
After reading the above, I’m tempted to create a faux Facebook persona of the ultimate MWS caricature, infiltrate the group, haughtily denigrate a few of them when they show the slightest deviation or independent thought, and then suddenly post something like:
“I just read the church essays on polygamy, and I must say, I was ALMOST tempted to doubt when I read that our beloved prophet married a 14 year old little girl—but then I remembered where doubts really come from, and the Spirit testified to me that Heavenly Father truly wants his 14 year old daughters to start bringing precious spirits to earth as quickly as possible. I just pray that Susan, my 12 year old, will be ready when her time comes!”
Does this make me evil?
Gee, Nick, I was under the impression you already had one!
Jeff, thanks for your field research. I suppose here’s the rub: ““Genuine questions” [some like to denigrate the questioner as not being sincere, being a wolf in sheep’s clothing–outside perspectives are a secret threat]
“not advocating” [in my experience this is a key difference between libs & conservatives – conservatives cry “advocating” whenever the status quo from which they benefit is questioned]
“contrary to doctrine and/or current policies” [if it’s not contrary to doctrine or current policy, whence the question?]
Hawk,
You make a great point. I’ve never had an experience where there was a major dust-up in a class when a question was asked. Some times eyebrows are raised and a few chuckles come out of the crowd, but no real issues with questions.
I do worry about the ultra conservatives who cling to old tales when they have been de-bunked and discredited. They typical do this without any level of scholarship and study.
#42 – No, it makes you a busybody with too much time on your hands. If you’re James Young of Styx it’s OK (and you have to be a “Jet Fuel Genius who can solve the world’s problem w/o even tryin’…), else, devote your efforts to more PRODUCTIVE pursuits, please.
From what I undestand, the Ordain Women org has been designated as “apostate” due to its actions AGAINST the Church. This sister’s continued participation in its management would therefore be inconsistent with membership in the Church, let alone having access to the House of the Lord. Were I Sis. Bennett’s bishop or SP, whatever sympathies I might have for her feelings re: women and the PH could not override a clear directive that would have to given to her to make a choice: OW or the Church.
This in contrast to some years ago I was on a newsgroup re: LDS and Libertarian politics. A brother was asked to refrain from commenting on Prop 22 (the ‘traditional marriage’ initiative in CA prior to Prop 8) by his PH leaders. It was clear that he felt chafed by that direction, and perhaps said direction was heavy-handed. However, he made it clear that it was better to obey than to indulge his ego, so he went silent for awhile. AFAIK, each of the sisters involved in OW have been advised no different.
re: Poster on the OP.
Hawk, where’d you get THAT poster? It looks like a WW2 Soviet propoganda poster varying on the theme “loose lips sink ships”. Unfortunately, IDK how to ferret the original out. Some of them are a hoot if you comprehend Russian idioms.
Jeff, I agree that I don’t see dust ups in GD class or RS even. People are pretty polite in person. But MWS is connected through social media, and they have thousands of like-minded conservative voices blending together. It’s very easy for them to police their borders in a way that would impolite in a class of 20-30 ward members who have to see each other every Sunday and might need a casserole from these people in the future.
I guess they take “moderation in all things” to a different level…” They seem like nice people to me….
So, how are we defining dustup here?
I’ve certainly gone eyeball to eyeball on the Fam Proc not being scripture, with both the class teacher and other class members in GD.
And in RS, a discussion on what on the priesthood (Lorenzo Snow lesson in which he heals a boy in Italy) lead to a vigorous discussion on healing blessings by women (yep that was me too) and resulted in a visit by our Bishop the following week to tell us women in no uncertain terms that this wasn’t our role.
Hedge,
“I’ve certainly gone eyeball to eyeball on the Fam Proc not being scripture, with both the class teacher and other class members in GD.”
I had a similar experience teaching in HP before Christmas when I decided to discuss April 6th as Jesus’ birthday. It is traditional in the Church to believe that, but not doctrinal and a number of scholars as well as some Apostles have doubted it.
I asked the question, “Is this doctrinal?” A few came back “yes” and a few came back “no.” I presented a few quotes including one from Bruce R. McConkie where they did not accept it as doctrinal.
One brother piped up and said, “it is revelation.”
I just looked at him and said, “No, it’s not.” and moved on.
#46 Douglas:
Not only do you miss that my comment was joking, but you also clearly misunderstand the original post. You’re getting all mixed up between Ordain Women and Mormon Women Stand.
#52 – Hawk sez that it’s a parody. That’s what I understood from reading it.
However, so-called “Conservatives” have also been ‘slapped-down’…comes under the category of “Ark-Steadying”, an activity that yours truly is all too familiar with. You see, not ONLY disaffected ex-LDS gay guys can have “too much time on one’s hands” (oh, to be getting the royalties from ‘Paradise Theater’ that ‘No Doubt’ Mesrs Young, DeYoung, Panozzo (the bassist, his brother, the drummer, passed away in ’96), and Shaw are raking in…). The late Bruce R. McConkie was quite critical in his day of “Gospel Hobbyists” for reasons which must appear evident.
When Gen. Patton was asked, after making one of his ‘colorful’ speeches to the troops, if the men knew WHEN he was joking, responded that it wasn’t important for THEM to know…only for HIMSELF to know. I take the General’s method to heart. Like “Nuke LaLoosh” in “Bull Durham” being advised to throw one at the Bull (mascot), I let ’em fly every now and then to keep the peanut gallery nervous. Just as long as I know when it’s deliberate versus a true wild pitch…
” It’s very easy for them to police their borders in a way that would impolite in a class of 20-30 ward members who have to see each other every Sunday and might need a casserole from these people in the future.”
And satire like this is what you would do in polite company?
C’mon, Hawk. Everyone’s got their ways of dealing with bloggernacle frustration. Yours is no different in terms of potential harm for warm feelings in a ward, or even in a group of people who actually might have a real conversation if defense mechanisms were down.
I also think it’s just important to understand MWS’s purpose. It’s not to have knock-down, drag-out discussions about controversial topics. There are a bazillion other places to do that. It was created to give women who are tired of such online stuff a place to share their own thoughts and feelings about things that matter and to stand in a way that feels right to them. To have boundaries to maintain that kind of place makes sense. Even if you disagree with how they do it or whatever, I think you hurt your argument by acting like somehow they are victimizing you by creating their own space. Because they don’t feel safe in bloggernacle spaces.
Again, it cuts both ways.
MWS is not victimizing me or anyone, but it was formed specifically in reaction to the valid questions raised by OW as a way to assist the church in silencing the “minority” viewpoint of women who felt that there was potentially no real divine justification for female exclusion from decision-making bodies in the church. The fact that this justification has still not been given (it’s always been that way isn’t evidence of divine origin, and the idea that the savior didn’t ordain women is disputed by most biblical scholarship as well as just a simple reading of the NT), shows that MWS was very effective at its aim: telling the church it was fine to ignore the disturbing questions it wanted to ignore anyway.
The satire here points to the fact that the church protects some while attacking others, but not necessarily based on correct or even predictable Christian principles. When people tell you what you want to hear, they are protected. When people ask tough but sincere questions, they are silenced and excommunicated. THAT is the point of this satire. MWS asks no difficult questions but instead is a “safe haven” where people can high five themselves for fitting so well with the status quo.
Is it unsafe for rich, white people to walk through a ghetto? Perhaps it does feel less safe. But the class system that benefits them created that ghetto whether they realize it or not.
“When people ask tough but sincere questions, they are silenced and excommunicated. ”
I think you overstate this. When people ADVOCATE and create a following about taking questions to work against the Church after being warned multiple times, then sometimes excommunication sometimes happens.
Well, I had to take a step back from this discussion for several days. I’m going to have to disagree with their assertion that they welcome genuine, sincere questions. (see BCC “dear bishop” post) I have done nothing but voice my genuine sincere questions, and have been shouted down.
I’m not just a blog commenter. I do publicly advocate for moderate mormon feminism – I have my own blog I publish, I was in the Rexburg newspaper for wearing pants, I have a facebook fanpage so I can share mofem views away from my personal page (with my own “followers”) so I can avoid losing friends/family.
I’ll tell you what, everything that has been said to Kate Kelly has been said to me: that I’m apostate, that I’m destroying people’s testimonies, that I’m stoning the prophets, that I don’t understand the Gospel or plan of Salvation, that I lack faith, that I’m steadying the ark, etc. . . . and without fail, every single one of these people who has shouted me down has been a member of Mormon Women Stand.
I had a close friend who was so angry and upset that I would question out loud that perhaps the restriction on female priesthood is a policy instead of unchangeable doctrine that she cut off all contact with me; as soon as Elder Oaks gave his talk in April she was one of the MANY women who sent me an invite to “like” the MWS page – it was clear to them, a line in the sand and I was either with the Lord or against Him. Every time I’ve walked out of a class the last two years at church it’s because the teacher has said that “those women who wear pants and march” don’t understand the gospel/plan of salvation. And the teachers were, without fail, MWS.
My testimony, knowledge, faith, and diligence is questioned/doubted/torn down at every turn by the women at MWS. I didn’t know that being a public mormon feminist negated my temple worship, my valid TR, my VT, my service in callings, my personal diligence and study and prayers before the Lord.
So, Jeff, I’m sorry if you know women in the leadership of MWS and they “swear” genuine questions are welcomed. I’m not buying it. They regularly delete questioning comments from other women I know.
It just comes down to perspective, I believe part of sustaining my leaders and building Zion is helping it to become better; for the thousands of young women who are single or, like me, childless – we must do and be better and value their discipleship in every whit as much as mothers. We are NOT doing that. Let’s improve, let’s be better. And from what I can tell, my specific bishops and Stake Presidency members whom I have talked to have all been grateful that I’ve spoken up – they want to know what’s going on and how people are feeling. By and large they understand those satisfied with the “status quo” don’t need to speak up. My SP 1st Coun. specifically asked me to, and I’ll continue to follow their counsel.
Oh my gosh, Michelle, a safe place to share their opinions that they are happy with the status quo? Have you been to 3 hours of church every week? And VT, and Enrichment, and etc. lolz for dayz.
Once again, we see the real divide is political. MWS is conservative and believes in bolstering authority, majority rules, and status quo. OW is progressive and believes in advocating change, representing minority views, and loyal opposition. To conservatives, “loyal opposition” is an oxymoron. This is why people are talking past each other.
My experience and observations have been like Kristine’s that MWS was solely formed to fight against Mormon feminism, although I would also bet that many MWS are actually feminists without claiming it. Honestly, most of the women in RS are feminists. They hate polygamy (despite the celestial lobotomy we are promised to make it all somehow OK). They believe women who do work should be paid equally. They (whether openly or subconsciously) don’t appreciate the guilt trips designed to drive them back into the kitchen and nursery, even if that’s where they prefer to be. They aren’t ready to give up their right to vote or drive cars. They don’t think they are mentally or otherwise inferior to men. They do think men should have female input in all decision making or that their decisions won’t represent female interests. That’s a feminist.
#59 – Hawk wrote: “OW is progressive..”
No, Hawk, OW is APOSTATE, and members have been advised to have nothing to do with it. In the course of a TR interview, an applicant is ask if (s)he affiliates with any apostate groups or has sympathies. True, this question was originally intended to ferret out polygamists (not all that effectively), but its intent is quite applicable. Who’s on the LORD’s side, Who? or “Choose ye this day” (Joshua 24:15)
Amazing how liberals like yourself have the arrogance to suppose that THEIR peculiar viewpoint is representative of all women, Latter-Day Saints, or LDS women, or best serves their interests. Is MWS an example of Latter-Day “Astroturfing?”. Perhaps. But just as membership in the Church is itself voluntary, so is participation in groups like MWS. Of course, I DON’T strictly qualify, but having the need for a jockstrap doesn’t disqualify me from rational thought on the subject or the ability to express a cogent opinion.
Since by the observation that some MWS members are actually feminists, I suppose Phyllis Schafly of the Eagle Forum would likewise ‘qualify’. Naturally, Mrs. Schalfy and her detractors would vehemently object to her being labelled as a ‘feminist’. All in the eye (or pen) of the beholder, I suppose.
selfdo59: I’m not a liberal (I’m also not a conservative). I’ve never heard of “astroturfing.” I don’t see how OW’s stated aims qualify as apostate when their stated aim was to ask that the brethren seek revelation on the matter. That’s a faithful request, not apostate. Whether individual members of the movement are apostate is for a(n all male) disciplinary council to determine. I’m not involved in OW either directly or indirectly. But OW is definitely progressive, meaning it favors social reform.
“members have been advised to have nothing to do with it” Well, I certainly missed that memo. There are hundreds of people with OW profiles that have not received any church discipline. They are all right there, publicly on display. Yet they continue to attend the temple and church weekly. Is it leadership roulette? Is it that individual members of the movement may or may not be apostate? Is it that only leaders of the movement are targeted?
Regardless the reason, I would hope that all groups that think they have the “right” interpretation of doctrine would be under equal scrutiny (which is to say not much scrutiny at all). God will be the judge. But if the church is only going to throw punches at OW, it should take a closer look at the behaviors of the thousands who belong to MWS who gleefully celebrate the ostracism of their sisters.
“having the need for a jockstrap doesn’t disqualify me from rational thought on the subject or the ability to express a cogent opinion.”
As a fellow jockstrap wearer, my observation is that this doesn’t *necessarily* disqualify you, but when you make statements like that OW has been labeled apostate and everyone has been warned to stay away, you’re kind of disqualifying yourself.
#61 – re: Astroturfing – it’s the intellectually dishonest practice of fomenting an action group with the appearance of being a spontaneous movement, but in reality is carefully groomed by its sponsor organization to serve its interests…ergo, instead of grassroots, it’s artificial in its origin, hence like the original ‘artificial’ grass (which I had the displease of playing on many moons ago, one may as well pave the field and paint it, thanks for that AND the Agent Orange, Monsanto…)
As for the continued activity of OW LDS members, AFAIK the Church doesn’t conduct pogroms. Actual Church discipline is supposed to be a prerogative of local leadership, since presumably its for the benefit of the ‘transgressor’. I doubt each applicable SP gets a call from Church HQ with the opener, “I see we have Sis so-and-so on the rolls of OW, what, President, do you intend to do about it?”. Yep, Church discipline is UNEVEN, and on other posts I have griped about it, but given the ‘hands off’ approach taken with supervising local leaders, it shouldn’t be a surprise. And BTW, I hope that no one, whether they participate in MWS or similar (or not), would “gleefully” look upon the excommunication of anyone as something to be happy about. I would rather take joy in a fellow members repentance. It’d help if I’d focus on mine own…
Funny, I ALSO consider myself NEITHER liberal or conservative (Libertarian, and not merely in party registration), but my political and social ideals have elements of both and neither. Where I labelled one as yourself ‘liberal’ is the trendy (actually the dusting off of an old label) as “Progressive”…let me give you a hint…Teddy Roosevelt you ain’t (but in some ways, that’s a very good thing).