The June 1

[creekster]

I had no idea that was a racist term.

It isn't racist. It's origin has nothing tondo with the ethnic slur. But people are confused by it now.

[FMCoug]

It isn't racist. It's origin has nothing tondo with the ethnic slur. But people are confused by it now.

Yeah I knew that but it is one of those things that is at least a hot button now for some and thus best avoided (i.e. niggardly).

[myboynoah]

Yeah I knew that but it is one of those things that is at least a hot button now for some and thus best avoided (i.e. niggardly).

So what do we call this now?

garden-spade-01.jpg

[Pelado]

So what do we call this now?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4450[/ATTACH]

Bloody shovel?

[Moliere]

I doubt Kelly is blatantly lying about the content of the December meeting, but I'd bet she and the bishop saw the meeting very differently even though they were both in the same meeting.

However, one meeting is not enough. Most bishops would take the time to have several meetings to discuss the issue and to resolve concerns.

This just goes to show that excommunication is hardly ever the answer. There are many other options that should be used first.

[SeattleUte]

I doubt Kelly is blatantly lying about the content of the December meeting, but I'd bet she and the bishop saw the meeting very differently even though they were both in the same meeting.

However, one meeting is not enough. Most bishops would take the time to have several meetings to discuss the issue and to resolve concerns.

This just goes to show that excommunication is hardly ever the answer. There are many other options that should be used first.

This is the most likely explanation. Why would she lie, and we're talking about frail human perceptions in a complicated situation. And then the excommunication proceeded with the speed of light. I submit again that the excommunication ocurred because she is some kind of scary alien being -- a fully liberated professional woman who wants to share power with priesthood holders.

What if a white middle aged man named Smith or Young or Sorensen were agitating against the use of marijuana keeping him from getting a temple recommend? He shows up at the temple and politely and peacably protests the LDS church's marijuana ban and asks to be admitted to do his temple work. This is in Washington so marijuana is legal. Like Kelly he's agitating for a change in policy, not of doctrine. Right? I submit they would not excommunicate him.

They're misogynists. The specter of women like her helping them to run the church is horrifying, and they also say to themselves how dare SHE get on her hind legs and challenge us like this.

[Clark Addison]

I think it's a great idea to use a racist figure of speech in the title of an article defending the Church's stance on women.

http://johnadamscenter.com/2014/06/o...spade-a-spade/

If you don't want to use the term, I can understand, but I think calling it a "racist figure of speech" when it clearly isn't just adds to the problem.

[SeattleUte]

The statement at issue was in her defense letter, not the brief. The brief could still be considered BRILLIANT by erudite Northwest attorneys in spite of the problems with the defense letter.

This is hilarious that you're Monday morning quarterbacking her defense in that kangaroo court of hatred.

[Pheidippides]

Dehlin now has a Q & A up on Mormon Stories. I think his speculation as to how Whitney Clayton and company were involved is probably spot on.

[imanihonjin]

When Kate says:

I can't decide if this is just a way to manipulate people and garner sympathy or if she truly believes that her eternal salvation and eternal togetherness as a family are in jeopardy.

I go back and forth alternatively either thinking that Kate did a great job bringing some attention to this issue of sexism in the Church or that she screwed up by coming on way too strong, not understanding what would work for her Mormon audience.

Honestly I can't understand how she could possibly feel this way. Either she is right in this whole ordeal and God will smile upon her or she is wrong and should have simply recognized this and followed the counsel of her leaders. She seemed so confident that she was right. If she is worried about how this impacts her in the eternities that would, to me, indicate that she isn't as confident as she wanted others to believe she was. If she truly believes that this impacts her in the eternities, then she could have followed the counsel she was given.

[DrumNFeather]

Dehlin now has a Q & A up on Mormon Stories. I think his speculation as to how Whitney Clayton and company were involved is probably spot on.

Do you think this guy knows how to be brief?

[byu71]

I just thought the people in your office used old time vernacular. I don't think you are lying, and I'm not very smart.

The heck you aren't smart. I had to go google "vernacular".

[Pheidippides]

Do you think this guy knows how to be brief?

No. I like John but making fun of him for his 10 hour 5 episode podcasts is a favorite pastime.

[DrumNFeather]

No. I like John but making fun of him for his 10 hour 5 episode podcasts is a favorite pastime.

I mean...he should attend his hearing just to see how long he can filibuster.

[Uncle Ted]

I doubt Kelly is blatantly lying about the content of the December meeting, but I'd bet she and the bishop saw the meeting very differently even though they were both in the same meeting.

However, one meeting is not enough. Most bishops would take the time to have several meetings to discuss the issue and to resolve concerns.

This just goes to show that excommunication is hardly ever the answer. There are many other options that should be used first.

I don't know why y'all are arguing if Kelly lied or not. The bottom line is she was told that she should stop with the OW thing at some point before her disciplinary council and she didn't. In fact, she is still not going to stop with it given every thing she said recently.

The question I have is the whole thing about why these church courts (or disciplinary councils or "courts of love") work very differently for men and women. Let's review the facts:

1. Kate Kelly was endowed and even sealed in the temple.

2. Many high ups in the church have implied that women receive some kind of priesthood when they go to temple. In fact, as late as 1979 women were assisting in giving priesthood blessings. There are all kinds of articles that imply this, for example the following seems to be a nice summary of that logic and other mental gymnastics: http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCassl...allardDew.html

3. From what I understand unlike a man with the priesthood Kate Kelly's court consisted of her bishop and his two counselors in advisory roles (and most likely a clerk). A man with the priesthood would have a church court (or disciplinary council or "court of love") consisting of at least 15 men. At least one man is assigned to be his advocate to argue his case. Kate Kelly had no advocate to argue her case.

4. Kate Kelly mentioned in her MSNBC interview that her appeal will be to her area president (one man). On the other hand, a man that appeals does it to the First Presidency.

So why are these "courts of love" so different for men and women? The standard answer is men have the priesthood. Many argue that a woman that is endowed in the temple and wears the "garments of the priesthood" have some sort of priesthood as well. So the real answer must be that women do not have any form of the priesthood no matter how many quotes one can find and anything that represents a real court is reserved only for men with the priesthood. Everyone else is subject to one man's decision and a second man's decision if they appeal. That are the rules.

Given that women don't really have any form of priesthood even if they are endowed then it seems logical they should remove the garments of the priesthood (and wear something sexier).