Mormon Women Stand for something

[Moliere]

Lol.

Funny how we want the church to butt out and let people express a variety of ideas. Until we don’t agree with the ideas. Then they need to drop the hammer!

You're capable of more nuance that this. This isn't some mommy blog by the Pri Pres in the Draper 106th ward. It's a blog that was pretty much started at the request of church leadership in response to the Ordain Women movement. It's a much higher profile blog than most. And no, it shouldn't be regulated, but when it is teaching something contrary to current church teachings then the church would be wise to do something...like contact them and let them know they are wrong.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You're capable of more nuance that this. This isn't some mommy blog by the Pri Pres in the Draper 106th ward. It's a blog that was pretty much started at the request of church leadership in response to the Ordain Women movement. It's a much higher profile blog than most. And no, it shouldn't be regulated, but when it is teaching something contrary to current church teachings then the church would be wise to do something...like contact them and let them know they are wrong.

Link? Evidence?

If they have to contact them periodically to regulate content then it becomes an official mouthpiece of the church. Which is precisely why they don't (and shouldn't) micromanage it.

[frank ryan]

bump.

Did wuap end up leaving the Church or is he still plying for attention by perennially threatening to leave?

I don't know, but it sure is classy to shove people out the door, when you could just ignore him.

[Walter Sobchak]

You're capable of more nuance that this. This isn't some mommy blog by the Pri Pres in the Draper 106th ward. It's a blog that was pretty much started at the request of church leadership in response to the Ordain Women movement. It's a much higher profile blog than most. And no, it shouldn't be regulated, but when it is teaching something contrary to current church teachings then the church would be wise to do something...like contact them and let them know they are wrong.

This is a hill you are ready to die on obviously. Please bump this thread when the next outrageous article is published. What RSS feed reader do you use?

I don't know, but it sure is classy to shove people out the door, when you could just ignore him.

Still true.

[MartyFunkhouser]

The church no longer advocates for gay transformation

Show me something from an official church channel that is inconsistent with what she advocates in her blog. I bet most of the Q12, if not all, would read that and think she is a good and faithful servant.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Show me something from an official church channel that is inconsistent with what she advocates in her blog. I bet most of the Q12, if not all, would read that and think she is a good and faithful servant.

Funk checking off another ex-mo stereotype: Insist that all LDS leaders are raging fundamentalists.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Funk checking off another ex-mo stereotype: Insist that all LDS leaders are raging fundamentalists.

Dude the concept that she advocates for is not a fundamentalist Mormon belief. If you look at an eternal perspective and believe the LDS church, transformation from the sinful gay will occur whether in this life or eternity.

This isn't the same as saying the Mormon church believes in reparative therapy. To their credit, they have at least condemned abusive therapy practices.

[creekster]

You're capable of more nuance that this. This isn't some mommy blog by the Pri Pres in the Draper 106th ward. It's a blog that was pretty much started at the request of church leadership in response to the Ordain Women movement. It's a much higher profile blog than most. And no, it shouldn't be regulated, but when it is teaching something contrary to current church teachings then the church would be wise to do something...like contact them and let them know they are wrong.

Contact them and let them know it is wrong? Gee, that sounds practical. Just how wrong would something need to be before the church is not just wrong but also immoral in not contacting the author? What if it is just a little wrong? What if it is an unfortunate typo that results in an inapposite meaning? And what do they say? Just a statement that "you are wrong, please remove the offending content?" Or do they need to correct the inaccuracy with the correct information? And who must be responsible for writing these little sermonettes?

Try thinking through how this would play out: someone at the church would be tasked with trolling the interwebs looking for content from active/current members that is "contrary to current church teachings" and then, presumably, would need to confirm the member's status, confirm that there is a contrary teaching that would most wisely be corrected, and then someone would need to be tasked with writing some sort of correcting note which it self will almost certainly be published and seen as doctrine, which itself results in the ossification of church policy and doctrine and will make it even harder to move the needle on changing old policies. Are you SURE this is wise?

It sounds like what you are looking for is something like the Spanish inquisition except the inquisition comes to YOUR house.

[Lost Student]

Contact them and let them know it is wrong? Gee, that sounds practical. Just how wrong would something need to be before the church is not just wrong but also immoral in not contacting the author? What if it is just a little wrong? What if it is an unfortunate typo that results in an inapposite meaning? And what do they say? Just a statement that "you are wrong, please remove the offending content?" Or do they need to correct the inaccuracy with the correct information? And who must be responsible for writing these little sermonettes?

Try thinking through how this would play out: someone at the church would be tasked with trolling the interwebs looking for content from active/current members that is "contrary to current church teachings" and then, presumably, would need to confirm the member's status, confirm that there is a contrary teaching that would most wisely be corrected, and then someone would need to be tasked with writing some sort of correcting note which it self will almost certainly be published and seen as doctrine, which itself results in the ossification of church policy and doctrine and will make it even harder to move the needle on changing old policies. Are you SURE this is wise?

It sounds like what you are looking for is something like the Spanish inquisition except the inquisition comes to YOUR house.

This part shouldn't be too hard since these bloggers are on the church's payroll.

[MartyFunkhouser]

This part shouldn't be too hard since these bloggers are on the church's payroll.

It's a living allowance, not payroll. The LDS church has unpaid clergy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's a living allowance, not payroll. The LDS church has unpaid clergy.

Check off another stereotype!

[Moliere]

Link? Evidence?

If they have to contact them periodically to regulate content then it becomes an official mouthpiece of the church. Which is precisely why they don't (and shouldn't) micromanage it.

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.ph...74&itype=CMSID

I guess you’re right. It definitely wasn’t started in response to OW, as per the words of the MWS group :rollseyes:

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.ph...74&itype=CMSID

I guess you’re right. It definitely wasn’t started in response to OW, as per the words of the MWS group :rollseyes:

This is proof it was "started at the request of church leadership in response to the Ordain Women movement."?

"We're not the church," Skaggs said in an email Tuesday.

Her group was not meant, Skaggs said, as a reaction to Ordain Women.

Craynor declined to comment on whether Otterson's statement of "support" constituted an "endorsement" of the group, or what the two parties talked about for an hour and a half.

And you mock my lack of nuance. Ha.

[Moliere]

This is proof it was "started at the request of church leadership in response to the Ordain Women movement."?







And you mock my lack of nuance. Ha.

I said it was pretty much started by the church, not that it was started by the church. I overreached but not by too much. Kind of odd for the church PR department to meet with the bloggers as they started up the blog. Seems almost like an endorsement, although Otterson stopped short of making it formal.

There’s a reason what the blogger is advocating is outside the mainstream, which she acknowledges. That’s because it’s wrong and hurtful and has pretty much been abandoned by the church.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I said it was pretty much started by the church, not that it was started by the church. I overreached but not by too much. Kind of odd for the church PR department to meet with the bloggers as they started up the blog. Seems almost like an endorsement, although Otterson stopped short of making it formal.

There’s a reason what the blogger is advocating is outside the mainstream, which she acknowledges. That’s because it’s wrong and hurtful and has pretty much been abandoned by the church.

I think everyone here pretty much agrees that they are nutjobs. That the church agreed to meet with them at one point in time does not mean that the church now has an obligation to police them. I can guarantee you that part of that meeting was "Please do not ever claim that you are officially sanctioned by the church or speak for the church."