notquiteperfect

I would never bring up the subject in RS like she did.  She opened that can of worms knowing it was going to irritate the majority of the women in the room.  We come to church to be uplifted - not listen to that. 

The subject of one's excommunication should never be a part of a Relief Society lesson or a Sunday School lesson.

I don't really care for your example.....not very nice

How could you EVER use concentration camps as an example?  Those people were starved, beaten and worked to death.  And those were the lucky ones.

Soy can cause thyroid issues.  I'm sorry he's allergic to it but that might be a blessing in disguise.

I second LP.  Check your library.
 
Also - look over these:  http://thecarolblog.com/?tags=&s=weight
 
As far as reasons - I'd add side effects of medications

Let's say you are 100% correct, and that there were women ordained to priesthood office in the past.
 
The current doctrine of the church revealed to the current prophet and apostles says that women are not to hold administrative priesthood callings. 
 
What say ye to this?

The more I read, the more I wondered how things could go this wrong. This stuff would never happen in my ward. We've got HTs that you can't keep away from doing things for you, especially the few of us who are single women. I can't imagine a bishop who would comment on whether someone was healing fast enough after surgery. Geez Louise.
 
If I'd been an investigator in this kind of ward, I would never have joined. If this kind of garbage was going on currently in my ward, I'd probably stop going or just sit in on another ward's Sacrament Meeting  until they told me to stop. I might have to get up in somebody's face if they said something stupid/harassing to me.
 
And, may I ask, where were the missionaires? They should have helped with the sprinklers if no man in the ward was willing to do so.
 
Because this is a college town, our ward members are from all over.  I've never heard anyone say they were in a ward, anywhere, with this kind of behavior.

Surely you must understand that "extreme" is a relative status. When the church says "extreme groups" they mean as compared to the church and it's teachings, not as compared to society as a whole. Clearly, the church itself is an extreme group if you compare it to regular folk.

The bloggernacle, with few exceptions, isn't much more welcoming to conservative/orthodox Mormons than MWS has been to OW. Millennial Star has had some thought-provoking posts recently on the "you attack, we defend--for a while" paradigm that seems to permeate the 'nacle and tends to lead to conservative burn-out.And it's worth noting that MWS doesn't exist merely to provide another forum for kvetching-- er, open discussion; and as far as I know, never claimed such a purpose. OW started a Facebook group for that--and after two years, it has garnered a little over one tenth of the "likes" that MWS got in two months. I can certainly understand why OW so desperately wants to turn the MWS Facebook page into its own mouthpiece to parrot its tales of woe and historical half-truths to a captive audience of actual believing, practicing Mormons that is tenfold as wide as anything it has managed to reach to date--but MWS' organizers are by no means "extreme" for their refusal to allow their resources to be thus hijacked.
I'll take a look, thanks. You may be right, but my initial observation would be "if you don't want people to develop a bunker mentality against your ideas, don't try to assault/publicly humiliate them and don't pal around with people who do."It strikes me that the root of the problems bijulie cites are (unrighteousness use of) hierarchy, not patriarchy. I believe she even mentions an unpleasant run-in with an RS president. Ordaining women won't end that--unless you buy into the "females-are-inherently-more-righteous" argument that OW supporters are only to happy to mock when it is made by defenders of the status quo. The subtext I see in Otterson's letter is "this abuse-of-authority issue may well be a discussion worth having; but we won't be having it with them" (which should come as no surprise to OW, one of whose founders (Margaret Toscano, I believe) was excommunicated for trying to shame the church into "having a dialogue" on that issue).

I used to teach sexual harrassment classes to the military.  For a male boss to comment on a pretty blouse or a dress to a female is actually not against the law.  Unless he puts it in a way like "wow the style of that dress really brings out those curves and makes you sexy."  If he is simply complimenting her on her dress or blouse is another thing.  Or if she has been losing weight and he makes mention of it and congratulates her on her accomplishment is not against the law.  It becomes a sexual harrassment issue if that female employee tells her boss that she is uncomfortable with those types of comments and he continues to do so after being told.
 
Should he do it?  That's the fine line.  A sincere compliment that is nothing more than a compliment can be taken in so many different ways.   

I don't understand how you see MWS as an extreme group.  Their mission statement reads:
 
Mormon Women Stand is a collaborative online effort to join like-minded female members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who share a desire to make a public stand as witnesses of Jesus Christ and in support of 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World'. We believe standing together will reflect the divine nature and power that LDS women are endowed with to influence others for good. We unequivocally sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—commissioned by God and sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. We support how the Lord has delegated priesthood authority to organize and administer the gospel among all of His children.
 
What is wrong with a group that is standing together for the beliefs that many women in the church hold and that is supporting our leaders, supporting the Proclamation to the World regarding families and supporting the Priesthood as was organized here on earth under the direction of Jesus Christ himself?

Wingy, why do you feel if a boss (or someone with authority over you) compliments your physical appearance is harrassment?  Obviously, if one feels uncomfortable with the compliment, then that is an issue.  But, to make a blanket statement that something as benign as "that's a nice blouse" equates to harrassment confuses me.
 
And for the record, I don't mind catcalls....on the other hand, the mooing is disturbing....

+1.
 
While I know there are things like this that do happen (I've been mistreated myself by ward leadership, and I'm not a female or a feminist) I find that when there is a consistent pattern of supposed problems like this (assuming it isn't all fabricated to get a rise out of everyone) then there's something amiss with the offended more than the accused offenders.
 
For example, we have a family in our ward that has gone inactive because of "abuse". I have been personally involved in much of the effort around them and there has been nothing but love, invitation, kindness, help, service, etc., etc. shown towards them. But according to them they are constantly abused, belittled, judged, mistreated, berated, hated, and marginalized.
 
It's easy to throw one-sided accusations at church leadership. I wonder what the local leaders would say were they willing to accuse back. I wonder what would really come out in an honest, fair, both sides, legitimate assessment.
 
These are easy, safe attacks on the church. The best the church can do to defend themselves is with content like in this letter, because the bishops and stake president don't publish the issues, tell their side of the story, etc., because it would break confidences and offend even worse.
 
The church is, and has been, working to solve legitimate issues. The letter makes that clear for anyone who didn't already believe it (not that those who didn't believe it before will believe the letter). Frankly, the church is, and has been, working to solve non-legitimate, irrational issues too.
 
It will never be enough. The efforts of Satan to tear down the church can never be satiated. No matter how many policy changes, doctrinal alterations, and management re-orgs occurred (even up to and including replacing the entire leadership of the church with women) it will NEVER be good enough for those unwilling to humble themselves and look past human imperfection to God's will, ways and means.
 
We live a spoiled-brat existence in these latter-days. The current cultural climate breeds entitlement.  Entitlement is not God's way.

I've been a member for 50+ years and I've never seen anything that even remotely comes close to this and I grew up in a military family as well and moved around.  And was married to a retired military person.
 
I've been in numerous leadership positions in the church and our opinions were taken seriously.

Here are the list I have done and I wanna ask some of your opinion what do I still lack
 
 
1. studied the scriptures+institute manuals
2. read Preach my Gospel
3. work with the Missionaries every week
 
 
basically that's all, I do wanna study "jesus the christ" they say it's a great book for missionaries .
 

I assume you're referring to Phoebe in Romans 16:1.  I used to be president of a small branch in rural Virginia and we had our own Phoebe.  In the earliest days of the branch, there was only one priesthood holder who was the branch president.  His job required him to travel a lot and many Sundays, he had to be out of town.  On the weekends when he wasn't there, one of the Relief Society sisters would lead a scripture study, report attendance, visiting teaching, and other information to a stake high councilman.  She visited members and did missionary work.  She and a few other sisters were really the ones responsible for the branch surviving its "infancy" and surviving in a remote area some two hours away from the rest of the stake.  
 
This faithful sister would scoff at the very idea that women should be ordained to the priesthood, but believe me, no branch president or elder's quorum president would be stupid enough to discount this lady's wisdom and experience.  If we were in biblical times, I'm sure Paul would have mentioned her in an epistle.  

Oh, dear.  I can imagine how difficult this is.  So in case it helps - 
I went home and attended to my mom the last 3 months of her life.  I wouldn't/couldn't have done it if I hadn't forgiven her first.  That process took years.  Anyway, I consider those three months a huge blessing in my life so even if forgiveness comes later/after the fact for you, you may see your efforts differently down the road.  Hold on to that and bless you!

Maureen, you seem to be basing your conclusion on a vary shaky foundation given how utterly inappropriate it would have been for Kelly's leaders to go public with the content of that December meeting in December or, indeed, at any time prior to Kelly's actual excommunication.  It does appear, from the notice of probation, that there were concerns about Kelly misrepresenting her conversations with priesthood authorities, certainly as early as that May 22 letter and very likely at least as early as her meeting with her stake president on May 5.
 
Moreover, Kelly's and her leaders' versions of the December meeting (as you recite them here) are not explicitly contradictory.  Kelly concedes, in her FMH post, that the meeting was held at her leaders' request.  She further concedes that her leaders "do not agree with me" in the immediate aftermath of that meeting. 
 
Now, they are implicitly contradictory in that Kelly suggested that her leaders had essentially green-lit her activities whereas her leaders maintain that they actually encouraged her to desist.  But to accept Kelly's version of events (and her analysis of their meaning) is to believe that a Mormon bishop and stake president would time out of their personal schedules and call a random Church member in for a discussion with the two of them, together (I have never had this happen to me, and have never heard of it happening to anyone else) merely to say "we don't agree with what you're doing--but by all means, keep on doing it and we promise you'll never, ever be disciplined for it no matter what you might do hereafter in furtherance of your goals!"  A non-Mormon who believes that bishops and stake presidents are inherently a group of vacillating ogres might buy into that notion; but It's an idea that is completely foreign to most of our experiences as Mormons. 
 
And even more bizarre is the suggestion that Kelly's stake leadership--whom she has acknowledged disagreeing with her--would seek a meeting with her in December of 2013, when not a lot was happening with OW; but would not seek another meeting with her in March or April of 2013 right when Conference time was approaching, the Church had publicly asked OW to desist, and things generally were really heating up. 
 
Now, we Mormons are happy to believe rather unlikely fact scenarios (God appearing to a fourteen-year-old farm boy.  Really!)--if the Holy Spirit confirms to us that we should.  But that hasn't happened; and in its absence, I'm going to stick with the old "out of the mouths of two or three witnesses" routine.

Quote - I have asked him again and again why he is this way? His answer is: You would have to do all of this if you were single, so what is the difference?
 
Well then, Iggy - what I would do is act like I'm single.  Cook only for myself, watch what I want to watch when I want to watch it, listen to what I want to listen to, etc., etc.  Until he steps up, I wouldn't!
 
He may be 72 but that's not too old to learn new tricks.

On the other hand, it didn't really change Benson's mind or reconcile him to the Church . . . also, as I recall, Benson's concerns included the alleged "propping up" of his infirm grandfather by the rest of the apostles for public display; so it wasn't really a policy disagreement so much as it was a personal/family issue that happened to involve the highest echelons of the Church authorities.
 
And if such a discussion were to happen re women's ordination:  why must it take place with the leadership of OW rather than with--say--the General Relief Society Presidency?
 
 
Boy, I've got to tread softly here.  I think (hope!) I've been pretty clear with my disapproval of the tone OWE is striking.  Outright name-calling is the province of the witless.  (Irony alert!)  However . . .
 
I do not think that Kate Kelly's individual conduct, or beliefs, are completely off-limits in this discussion.  To the degree that Kelly has misrepresented historical facts, misled her following as to her current Church disciplinary status, or withheld pertinent information about her disciplinary process--she should be called out on that; and openly so.  If she's going to claim that her bishop had no just cause to excommunicate her, then she's inviting a very close scrutiny of her personal conduct.  If she's going to claim that due to a unique revelation she has more insight into the mind of God than the First Presidency and the Q12 do, then she'd better be ready to demonstrate that her righteousness is on a par with theirs.

I agree. If Sister Kelly hadn't taken this situation to the extremes that she did, she would still be a member of the Church. As it is, she pushed her agenda to the point where she has and still does encourage people to turn away from the Church. She seems to have forgotten the correct order of how things are done in this church which she claims to still believe is true, which is that the church is run and guided by Jesus Christ Himself, through revelation given to His Prophets, of which there are currently 15, and she is not one of them.
 
Revelation for the Church does not come through common members, it comes through those ordained and holding keys, and those who hold those keys have stated repeatedly that so far there has been no revelation given to them that women are now to be given the priesthood. Sister Kelly has and is still unwilling to accept that, and now she has stepped up the fight, to presume to speak for Christ, and to know better than those who have been entrusted with receiving revelation for the Church. When you claim to believe in a church that purports to be run by Christ through revelation and Prophets on the one hand, yet on the other hand claim that those same Prophets aren't receiving the proper revelation and that you know better, there's a bit of a contradiction in your way of thinking.
 
But Sister Kelly went even a bit further. She upped the ante when she started up a group with the basic premise that the leaders of the church are/were wrong, and that if enough people joined her cause, they could push the Church into changing its stand on the issue through public pressure. She seems to have forgotten that this church which runs by revelation, doesn't take public opinion polls to Jesus in order to receive its revelation.
 
Quite simply, in my opinion, she was in the wrong church. There are plenty of churches out there that operate and change doctrine through polls and bowing to public pressure, The LDS Church has not been and is not now one of them. SHe the one who went to the extremes. She separated herself from the Church a long time ago. The recent excommunication merely made it official.

Thanks, Pam!  Been out of town (and checking in here instead of unpacking).  :)

- a poinsettia with a ribbon tied around it (can find at Lowes, Home Depot for $1 on Black Friday)
- a thought book with different quotes and recipes (saw them at the dollar store)
- a taper candle with a scripture advent (check google)
- handmade cards or tags tied with a ribbon
- snowman soup (hot chocolate, marshmallows, candy cane in a cellophane bag) with poem (love google!)
- a small tin with dried fruit or nuts (healthier than sweets in case some are watching their weight)

I may be off in my thinking but I can't help thinking that the days of separating the wheat from the chaff have begun or is accelerating.