The June 1

[imanihonjin]

Couldn't resist.

You guys are unbelievable.

People said the exact same things about MLK Jr and about civil rights and protests on black men and the priesthood.

"There is a right way and a wrong way."

"MLK Jr is just setting things back."

K Kelly is no MLK Jr, but she is serving the same purpose for Mormon women. This is how change happens.

How many people got excommunicated over black men and the priesthood before things changed? Hell, some priesthood leaders were intentionally giving black men the priesthood in protest.

Things don't change without a little turmoil. K Kelly is moving things forward. She is not responsible for any church leaders who do the wrong thing and decide to wait longer to give women the priesthood. Don't blame her for the bad behavior of sexist church leaders. The Church is responsible for their own discriminatory policies. If they delay, it's their own fault.

30 years from now you'll look back and feel stupid. Imagine people talking this way about a civil rights activist. "Look at how he slowed things down by bringing attention to injustice!"

Lastly, a side note--since federal research contracts are no longer allowed with institutions who discriminate, what does this mean for BYU?? Maybe Lebowski knows the answer?

So because of her cause she is incapable of being an idiot?

[New Mexican Disaster]

Good grief. Dumb move.

Can't help but wonder if the OW movement will set things back (re: women's issues in the church), rather than move things forward.

I hate to be obtuse, but how could women's issues go much further backward? There does not seem to be much of an acknowledgment of women's issues or any kind of change other than a woman saying a prayer at GC.

If we agree that issues move forward or backward aren't we then recognizing that the Church is a political organization that responds to outside forces rather than one that stands by eternal principles? Isn't that an acknowledgment that it can be a reactionary organization?

[YOhio]

I hate to be obtuse, but how could women's issues go much further backward? There does not seem to be much of an acknowledgment of women's issues or any kind of change other than a woman saying a prayer at GC.

If we agree that issues move forward or backward aren't we then recognizing that the Church is a political organization that responds to outside forces rather than one that stands by eternal principles? Isn't that an acknowledgment that it can be a reactionary organization?

I also hate that you're obtuse. Everyone loses.

[Pelado]

Lastly, a side note--since federal research contracts are no longer allowed with institutions who discriminate, what does this mean for BYU?? Maybe Lebowski knows the answer?

In what way are you suggesting that BYU discriminates?

[imanihonjin]

I hate to be obtuse, but how could women's issues go much further backward? There does not seem to be much of an acknowledgment of women's issues or any kind of change other than a woman saying a prayer at GC.

If we agree that issues move forward or backward aren't we then recognizing that the Church is a political organization that responds to outside forces rather than one that stands by eternal principles? Isn't that an acknowledgment that it can be a reactionary organization?

You truly don't think woman's issues could go further backward? I am sure that women in middle east look at the way Mormon's treat their women and think to themselves...."I can't believe how badly their women are treated."

[imanihonjin]

In what way are you suggesting that BYU discriminates?

Bishops are paid far more handsomely than relief society presidents.

[Paperback Writer]

In what way are you suggesting that BYU discriminates?

If BYU is going to be called out, why does Notre Dame get a free pass? The Roman Catholic church has discriminated against women by withoulding the priesthood far longer than the LDS church.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I hate to be obtuse, but how could women's issues go much further backward? There does not seem to be much of an acknowledgment of women's issues or any kind of change other than a woman saying a prayer at GC.

If we agree that issues move forward or backward aren't we then recognizing that the Church is a political organization that responds to outside forces rather than one that stands by eternal principles? Isn't that an acknowledgment that it can be a reactionary organization?

Of course the church responses to outside forces. But no matter the movement, strategy can make a huge difference in terms of effectiveness (take Hamas for example). I am just wondering out loud if the OW movement would be (or would have been) more effective with a lighter touch. The "let women pray" thing was low key and it worked. The "attend priesthood meeting" thing was too aggressive and I think it backfired. And the "discussions" thing was just stupid. And now here we are with a letter from KK to her SP that seems like your garden-variety, scorched-earth backlash, and I guarantee you that all of her critics in the church will point to this and say "I told you so." I fully understand her anger and frustration, but as someone who once argued that KK was a moderate voice of reason, I find it embarrassing and counter-productive.

[Moliere]

If BYU is going to be called out, why does Notre Dame get a free pass? The Roman Catholic church has discriminated against women by withoulding the priesthood far longer than the LDS church.

Because they are a BCS school

[imanihonjin]

Of course the church responses to outside forces. But no matter the movement, strategy can make a huge difference in terms of effectiveness (take Hamas for example). I am just wondering out loud if the OW movement would be (or would have been) more effective with a lighter touch. The "let women pray" thing was low key and it worked. The "attend priesthood meeting" thing was too aggressive and I think it backfired. And the "discussions" thing was just stupid. And now here we are with a letter from KK to her SP that seems like your garden-variety, scorched-earth backlash, and I guarantee you that all of her critics in the church will point to this and say "I told you so." I fully understand her anger and frustration, but as someone who once argued that KK was a moderate voice of reason, I find it embarrassing and counter-productive.

Did you read Nadine Hansen's letter of support? It was laughably bad. Its hard to believe that both KK and Hansen are attorneys, considering their arguments and writing were so horrendous.

[Clark Addison]

Couldn't resist.

You guys are unbelievable.

People said the exact same things about MLK Jr and about civil rights and protests on black men and the priesthood.

"There is a right way and a wrong way."

"MLK Jr is just setting things back."

K Kelly is no MLK Jr, but she is serving the same purpose for Mormon women. This is how change happens.

How many people got excommunicated over black men and the priesthood before things changed? Hell, some priesthood leaders were intentionally giving black men the priesthood in protest.

Things don't change without a little turmoil. K Kelly is moving things forward. She is not responsible for any church leaders who do the wrong thing and decide to wait longer to give women the priesthood. Don't blame her for the bad behavior of sexist church leaders. The Church is responsible for their own discriminatory policies. If they delay, it's their own fault.

30 years from now you'll look back and feel stupid. Imagine people talking this way about a civil rights activist. "Look at how he slowed things down by bringing attention to injustice!"

Lastly, a side note--since federal research contracts are no longer allowed with institutions who discriminate, what does this mean for BYU?? Maybe Lebowski knows the answer?

Welcome back Sooner! I hope you keep posting.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Of course the church responses to outside forces. But no matter the movement, strategy can make a huge difference in terms of effectiveness (take Hamas for example). I am just wondering out loud if the OW movement would be (or would have been) more effective with a lighter touch. The "let women pray" thing was low key and it worked. The "attend priesthood meeting" thing was too aggressive and I think it backfired. And the "discussions" thing was just stupid. And now here we are with a letter from KK to her SP that seems like your garden-variety, scorched-earth backlash, and I guarantee you that all of her critics in the church will point to this and say "I told you so." I fully understand her anger and frustration, but as someone who once argued that KK was a moderate voice of reason, I find it embarrassing and counter-productive.

Do you think the Church claims that it responds to outside forces? I think it does not acknowledge that policies are developed or instituted in reaction to outside forces, but instead insists that the Church responds only through revelation. Of course, I don't believe that is true and even a cursory look at history will rouse suspicion. Having said that, I think that Sooner's argument that a peaceful, orderly, quiet opposition may never have any real effect is certainly worth considering. I have come to believe that a "lighter touch" would likely result in minimal or non-existent change, especially because it does not increase pressure. I believe that the real pressure for change will come from outside forces rather than an internal women's movement, and that visibility is key to that having an effect. Furthermore, the notion that OW is overly aggressive is laughable to people outside of the culture or at least it has been to the people outside the Church who ask me what is going on.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Do you think the Church claims that it responds to outside forces? I think it does not acknowledge that policies are developed or instituted in reaction to outside forces, but instead insists that the Church responds only through revelation. Of course, I don't believe that is true and even a cursory look at history will rouse suspicion. Having said that, I think that Sooner's argument that a peaceful, orderly, quiet opposition may never have any real effect is certainly worth considering. I have come to believe that a "lighter touch" would likely result in minimal or non-existent change, especially because it does not increase pressure. I believe that the real pressure for change will come from outside forces rather than an internal women's movement, and that visibility is key to that having an effect. Furthermore, the notion that OW is overly aggressive is laughable to people outside of the culture or at least it has been to the people outside the Church who ask me what is going on.

Sure, but people outside the culture are less likely to understand the culture.

As for outside pressure, I would argue that the Catholic church dwarfs the LDS church in terms of visibility and impact. Until they change, I would be surprised to see a lot of outside pressure on the LDS church. And with the church digging in its heels on gay marriage, etc. all this talk about the church bending to outside pressure might make the leaders more resolved to hold the line. Dunno. Time will tell.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I think I just saw a ghost!

The Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones.

[Nakoma]

Couldn't resist.

You guys are unbelievable.

People said the exact same things about MLK Jr and about civil rights and protests on black men and the priesthood.

"There is a right way and a wrong way."

"MLK Jr is just setting things back."

K Kelly is no MLK Jr, but she is serving the same purpose for Mormon women. This is how change happens.

How many people got excommunicated over black men and the priesthood before things changed? Hell, some priesthood leaders were intentionally giving black men the priesthood in protest.

Things don't change without a little turmoil. K Kelly is moving things forward. She is not responsible for any church leaders who do the wrong thing and decide to wait longer to give women the priesthood. Don't blame her for the bad behavior of sexist church leaders. The Church is responsible for their own discriminatory policies. If they delay, it's their own fault.

30 years from now you'll look back and feel stupid. Imagine people talking this way about a civil rights activist. "Look at how he slowed things down by bringing attention to injustice!"

Lastly, a side note--since federal research contracts are no longer allowed with institutions who discriminate, what does this mean for BYU?? Maybe Lebowski knows the answer?

Glad to see your self-imposed exile has ended.