The June 1

[Joe Public]

She has shown herself to be a cunning linguist, that's for sure.

.

[DrumNFeather]

Jeez. I keep reading she's getting bad advice. Whether or not she's getting bad advice depends on her objectives. I doubt her true end game is to be reinstated in the LDS Church as your regular female drone. If her objective is to make herself a martyr to progressive mos and exmos and humiliate the LDS Church in the secular or at least the liberal press she's doing spectacularly well. She's going to have iconic, legendary status at the rate she's going and has inflicted damage on the LDS Church. It's a lot more fun to be a cult hero than a member in good standing of the LDS church. I want to hire her publicist!

Also, all this talk by members of the patriarchy that she's getting bad advice seems to me pretty condescending and sexist. She's a lot smarter than the old men who are after her head from what I've seen.

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.

[Moliere]

I guess the next question is who gets the short end of the stick in this case of disparate treatment. Just as a hunch, I would guess that you would be more likely to get more scrutinizing review by a stake president of a bishop's decision than by the first presidency of a stake president's decision. It would take some glaring issues, I would think, for the first presidency to decide against deference. I'm not sure this form of "unfairness" doesn't actually inure to women's benefit.

While I'll admit I had to look up the word "inure", I can really only respond to Kate Kelly's situation in terms of fairness. For a high profile case like this I think it's unfair. I'd love for this case to make it to the FP solely so we can get their final inspired take on her apostasy. It would be great to have the FP basically say "Leave her alone" as they did with Juanita Brooks.

[All-American]

Of course that same authority considers gender-based disparate impacts in employment without justification to be discrimination, so...

That says little more than that sometimes treating men different than women is bad. Of course it is. My point is only that our societal disavowal of "separate but equal" comes from a much, much different context.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is this moving her closer to seeking to "burning it down?"

Ha. Good one.

I don't think it helps her odds, that's all. On the other hand, I can't imagine dealing with the abuse she is taking and not wanting to lash out.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Disagree. I think it's quite cunning.

How so?

[YOhio]

Ha. Good one.

I don't think it helps her odds, that's all. On the other hand, I can't imagine dealing with the abuse she is taking and not wanting to lash out.

SU thinks she's doing a good job burning it down.

[Pheidippides]

Ha. Good one.

I don't think it helps her odds, that's all. On the other hand, I can't imagine dealing with the abuse she is taking and not wanting to lash out.

Exactly. In other news, John D supposedly has been given a journal of a muckety-muck from the time of the September Six and wants the help of a historian to go through it. That also sounds pretty scorched earth to me too.

[Jeff Lebowski]

SU thinks she's doing a good job burning it down.

Of course he does.

[San Juan Sun]

Exactly. In other news, John D supposedly has been given a journal of a muckety-muck from the time of the September Six and wants the help of a historian to go through it. That also sounds pretty scorched earth to me too.

What is the potential significance of this?

[Green Monstah]

That says little more than that sometimes treating men different than women is bad. Of course it is. My point is only that our societal disavowal of "separate but equal" comes from a much, much different context.

I think it says more than that. It says you have to have a reasonable basis for the distinction. What's the reasonable basis for having a separate disciplinary and appeals process based on gender? If behavior is considered discriminatory in a secular context, I'm not sure use of "misogyny" is that far off.

[All-American]

How so?

SU said it pretty well, I think.

[Pheidippides]

What is the potential significance of this?

I don't have first hand information, but the idea is that the journal has information about the September Six and the specific involvement of the top brass, so to speak.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't have first hand information, but the idea is that the journal has information about the September Six and the specific involvement of the top brass, so to speak.

I.e., a June Surprise.

[All-American]

I think it says more than that. It says you have to have a reasonable basis for the distinction. What's the reasonable basis for having a separate disciplinary and appeals process based on gender? If behavior is considered discriminatory in a secular context, I'm not sure use of "misogyny" is that far off.

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.