The June 1

[Pheidippides]

I don't know that it's a different process for gender so much as it is for priesthood office. Isn't a male holder of the Aaronic priesthood subject to the same disciplinary process-- first Bishop, then Stake President-- as women?

I get that this sort of begs the question, since the church doesn't ordain women to the Melchizidek priesthood, but it matters at least a little that this is incidental to that first distinction rather than an additional instance of distinction.

It's certainly not evidence of hatred or dislike of women. Misogyny is far too inflammatory a term to be dropped any time you see a gender-based distinction.

Yes, let's treat our women like we do our teenage boys. That's not misogynistic at all. While we are at it, why don't we focus on bullshit semantics too?

My point is that you are helping to make Kate's argument for her, whether you mean to or not. And that we lawyers have a real problem just saying what we mean, dammit, and fight over a bunch of nuances while ignoring the real world.

This post may or may not be influenced by the fact that I have been yelling at a bunch of asshole lawyers for two weeks for clogging up my deal with bullshit semantics. So I may or may not be tired of this profession of snivelling CYA weasels I have joined.

I don't care if you call it misogynist, sexist, or banana fruitcake. It's the same damn thing.

[ERCougar]

I guess I'm confused why what she's done is so awful. If I'm doing something that's right, I'm fine with my name being attached to it.

[All-American]

Yes, let's treat our women like we do our teenage boys. That's not misogynistic at all. While we are at it, why don't we focus on bullshit semantics too?

My point is that you are helping to make Kate's argument for her, whether you mean to or not. And that we lawyers have a real problem just saying what we mean, dammit, and fight over a bunch of nuances while ignoring the real world.

This post may or may not be influenced by the fact that I have been yelling at a bunch of asshole lawyers for two weeks for clogging up my deal with bullshit semantics. So I may or may not be tired of this profession of snivelling CYA weasels I have joined.

I don't care if you call it misogynist, sexist, or banana fruitcake. It's the same damn thing.

It's not the same thing, and its not a distinction without a difference. It's not even putting women in a worse position than men, unless you think the first Presidency is more likely to overturn a stake president than a stake president is to overturn a bishop.

[SeattleUte]

Based on her original stated objective, and the stated goals of ordain women, it would appear she got bad advice in her approach. However, I recognize that her objectives now appear to be a moving target and as such, she's probably doing what is best to maintain her martyr status and as you say, humiliate the LDS church. For someone in your position who doesn't have anything to lose with regard to your church status, membership, etc...I suspect you'd advise her very much the same way. Sure, from a faithful perspective it would seemingly bad advice. For people who want to see the church fall on its face, the advice is probably spot on.

Well put.

[Moliere]

It's not the same thing, and its not a distinction without a difference. It's not even putting women in a worse position than men, unless you think the first Presidency is more likely to overturn a stake president than a stake president is to overturn a bishop.

Just a thought on an appeal process. Generally an appeal should be made to someone independent of the original decision. The FP is obviously much more independent from a SP than a SP is from a bishop. In fact, a bishop cannot convene a council without the SP's consent. I'd say the appeal process for APH and women is flawed in this sense....but I say that while recognizing that due process isn't a pillar of church administration and I'm not sure I want it to be....at least not in the form it exists in the US legal process today.

[Moliere]

I guess I'm confused why what she's done is so awful. If I'm doing something that's right, I'm fine with my name being attached to it.

Identifying the accusers? That seems fine....although it's true she is the one that identified herself first although she claims the SP was going to go public with the council (not sure I've seen evidence that proves this). Also, identifying the bishopric counselors is not fair to them as they likely have no say in this matter at all until the council is convened. In fact, most times the bishopric counselors don't know who the accused is until a briefing that is given by the bishop directly before the accused is brought into the bishop's office.

Identifying personal details of the accusers (employer, political contributions)? At best it's petty and at worst it's a call to see if she can damage them in their own personal lives.

[creekster]

I guess I'm confused why what she's done is so awful. If I'm doing something that's right, I'm fine with my name being attached to it.

Your opinion here is right, isn't it? So why don't you self-publish your full name, address, employer and job title? No problem attaching your name to it here is there?

[Non Sequitur]

Just a thought on an appeal process. Generally an appeal should be made to someone independent of the original decision. The FP is obviously much more independent from a SP than a SP is from a bishop. In fact, a bishop cannot convene a council without the SP's consent. I'd say the appeal process for APH and women is flawed in this sense....but I say that while recognizing that due process isn't a pillar of church administration and I'm not sure I want it to be....at least not in the form it exists in the US legal process today.

Does anyone even pretend that there's a meaningful appeal process? The decisions made in Church courts are purportedly the result of prayer and inspiration. Overturning those decisions is tricky, because it implies that the previous praying was inadequate or the resulting inspiration was wrong. You might as well appeal to a tree stump.

[SeattleUte]

Your opinion here is right, isn't it? So why don't you self-publish your full name, address, employer and job title? No problem attaching your name to it here is there?

This shouldn't be a problem for people like them. People like them should have the courage of their convictions, like Kate has demonstrated she does.

[Pheidippides]

It's not the same thing, and its not a distinction without a difference. It's not even putting women in a worse position than men, unless you think the first Presidency is more likely to overturn a stake president than a stake president is to overturn a bishop.

Like usual, I think you are dead wrong. But at least you are loquacious about it!

[ERCougar]

Your opinion here is right, isn't it? So why don't you self-publish your full name, address, employer and job title? No problem attaching your name to it here is there?

I've been very public about my opinion, on here, in person, and on Facebook (the three places I've talked about it). I'm pretty easy to track down.

[ERCougar]

You guys keep saying that Kate initiated the publicity. Actually, she was told to publicly declare that she was not a member in good standing, or her stake president would do it for her. That's exactly what she did.

[creekster]

This shouldn't be a problem for people like them. People like them should have the courage of their convictions, like Kate has demonstrated she does.

People like them? How about people like you? Why don't you put it out there for everyone, proving the courage of your convictions?

In my mind her behavior suggest that she does not believe the church is the instrument of God on earth. If she did, she would not behave this way, even if she held her currently stated opinions on gender issues and sought a change in those policies in the current organization. Instead she, like many here and elsewhere, is treating the church like it is a social club and acting like she wants to change the charter to suit her interests. I understand the implications of both of these positions, and that I understand there are merits for both positions, but the fact is that those two positions are not likely to be reconciled at the level of protecting perceived doctrine or orthodoxy and her behavior shows where she falls. As someone else said in this thread, she should not be surprised that she is being treated this way and her current behavior simply reinforces the views of those who see her as an unreasonable, non-believer who is threatening the church (whether or not she is trying to burn it down).

[creekster]

I've been very public about my opinion, on here, in person, and on Facebook (the three places I've talked about it). I'm pretty easy to track down.

I have no idea who you are.

[ERCougar]

I have no idea who you are.

And that fact has nothing to do my opinion on this, and more to do with the same reason everyone doesn't know who you are.