Columns Jana Riess: Flunking Sainthood Opinion

Younger Mormons far more likely to be troubled by women’s roles in the LDS Churc …

In late October on a trip to South America, Russell M. Nelson, the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was asked by an Argentine reporter to explain women’s roles in the Church.

Here is some of that exchange, according to Church News editor Sarah Jane Weaver, who wrote about it last week:

“Many churches are ruled by men, at the exclusion of women,” said Mr. Rubin. “Is this the case for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

“Well,” said President Nelson, “you should talk to a woman about that.”

President Nelson then turned and looked at Sheri Dew, executive vice president of Deseret Management Corporation, the CEO of Deseret Book Company, and former Relief Society General Presidency member.

“Can you help with this answer about the role of women in the Church?” he asked her. He motioned her into camera range.

Sister Dew told Mr. Rubin that he would have a hard time finding a church where more women have more authority than in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“There are hundreds of thousands of women, right now, who have legitimate leadership opportunities and expectations. As women in the Church we teach and preach, we expound doctrine, we serve missions as full-time proselyting missionaries, and we have leadership responsibilities,” she said.

Then she added, “I actually feel ennobled by being a Latter-day Saint woman. Every opportunity for growth I have ever had has come because of the Church.”

I’m intrigued by this encounter, in part because it reveals some of the generational divide in the LDS Church about women’s roles. A male leader of the Greatest Generation delegated a question to a female leader of the Baby Boomer generation to try to convince people decades younger that Mormon women are thrilled with their position.

Dew focused on the short list of things that women can do in the LDS Church, rather than the longer list of things they cannot.

Women can teach and preach; they can be missionaries. All of that is true. They have “leadership responsibilities,” which in its own way is also true: Mormon women can have leadership responsibilities over other women and over children.

But religious leadership in other denominations goes beyond teaching and preaching. In the Mormon tradition, women are largely shut out from ritual authority and entirely shut out from administrative authority. Here are some helpful questions we can ask about religious authority, both ritual and administrative:

  • Can women baptize?
  • Can they be in charge of congregational finances?
  • Can they plan and conduct weekly services?
  • Can they plan and conduct special services (weddings, funerals, and holidays)?
  • Can they supervise fellow religious leaders who are male as well as female?
  • Can they formally counsel church members in an official capacity?
  • Can they bless and serve communion?

The answer to all of these questions, in the Mormon context, is no. In fact, of the top seven denominations in the United States, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only one that answers all of these questions with a “no.” In the Catholic Church, the largest denomination in America, women can’t be ordained as priests but can be lay ecclesial ministers with heavy responsibilities; in the United Methodist, PC(USA), and ELCA denominations, there are no restrictions at all on what women can do.

On social media in recent days I have seen various reactions to the comments by President Nelson and Sister Dew, mostly negative.

Several people, in fact, accused them of “gaslighting,” but that’s a misuse of the word. Gaslighting has become synonymous with “you disagreeing with me and trying to convince me of your point of view.” But the real meaning is much narrower: “you trying to convince me of a point of view which you already know to be false in order to cause me to doubt myself and my sanity.”

Gaslighting requires that its perpetrators actually know and understand that they are wrong. Gaslighters proceed anyway because they care more about undermining another person’s sense of authority than they care about the truth.

So in the Nelson/Dew case, “gaslighting” is not at all what’s going on. They completely believe that Mormon women lead the world in liberation.

In this, they are similar to many Mormons of their respective generations.

In the Next Mormons Survey (see here for methodology and further info), there was a clear divide between how older Mormons feel about women’s roles compared to younger ones. For example, only 24% of Boomer/Silent Mormons agreed that “the fact that women do not hold the priesthood sometimes bothers me,” meaning that the vast majority of these older generations are not troubled by the restrictions placed on women in the Church.

It’s a different story for younger Mormons. Among Millennials, roughly six in ten say they are bothered that women don’t hold the priesthood, a jump of 35 points.

That’s just the picture among people who still identify as Mormon. Among those who no longer consider themselves Mormon, three-quarters are bothered by women not holding the priesthood.

What’s more, for many of the women in the former Mormon sample, this was a strong enough frustration that it helped to push them out of the Church. Among former Mormon women, “the role of women in the Church” was the third most common reason cited out of thirty possible reasons for leaving the religion.

What we are seeing here is a generational shift. The answers that have worked for President Nelson and Sister Dew are less accepted among a generation that has grown up with women’s leadership being taken for granted everywhere . . . except at church.

About the author

Jana Riess

Senior columnist Jana Riess is the author of many books, including "The Prayer Wheel" (2018) and "The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church," which will be published by Oxford University Press in March 2019. She has a PhD in American religious history from Columbia University.

149 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • On the Next Mormons Survey methodology page, where the representativeness of the sample is compared to the Pew sample, why isn’t the political affiliation breakdown included? Both surveys collected that data.

  • So Jana, you hit the nail on the head. The reason women’s roles have not expanded, and will not in the near future is because Present Nelson and his ilk “…completely believe that Mormon women lead the world in liberation.” Sadly, those blinders won’t be coming off any time soon. Especially with the Sheri Dews telling him what he wants to hear. And in the interim, many women feel stymied, stagnated, become more frustrated, and leave.

  • As a Baby Boomer and a non-participating “recovering” or “Jack” Mormon, I am not troubled by official Mormon sexism, racism and homophobia, because I stopped giving energy to their nonsense about a decade ago. Having my arm twisted to “support” the Church’s efforts to pass Prop 8 in California to take away the new right of Equal Marriage was pretty much the last straw for me, clear back in 2008. Being stubborn and 5th generation Mormon, it took me another two years to find the exit door for the last time. I have not been back since, not even to see grandkids “baptized” or “sheep-dipped” as my cattleman grandfather would have termed it (so not a compliment coming from a cattleman).

  • “Profit” Nelson is coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs. There’s nothing mediocre, much less “greatest” about the 15 old bigots running the Church. Just because they were born as spiritual pygmies among war-hero giants does not make them “great” for being so old.

  • Yet here you are again, boring us with your weekly rant against a church you don’t believe in… seems like you do believe otherwise you wouldn’t be here week after week assuring all that you don’t.

    I bet if you were smitten with a real challenge, you’d drop to your knees and beg God to forgive you before turning to the elders for a priesthood blessing.

  • The main reason that women can’t do any of those things on the list is of course because they are not ordained in the Priesthood. This will never change unless God provides a revelation for that to happen, which is unlikely. There, that’s not gaslighting is it?. Other than that they can do everything else men can do in the church. In fact they are given priesthood authority to perform sacred ordiances in the Temple.

  • Nice. Too bad you made yourself a “false prophet” on that bet. The church has been at the center of most of the life challenges that I have had to overcome. So far, it has had zero to do with “solving” any of my life challenges. But Mormon holy hypocrites have to do their thing, too.

  • I understand that you don’t need the priesthood to be a financial clerk, or a Sunday school president, for that matter, which would give women the chance to supervise males.

  • Does anyone remember when Gary Stevenson was called as an apostle? He thought he was giving this inspirational talk but inadvertently revealed how little women are valued in the church. He talked about how he was called into the first presidency and offered a call to be an apostle. he accepted without ever talking to his wife. He told her later that day at a park. WTF? Even when I was in the bishopric we had enough consideration to have a spouse come in before offering a calling. But the prophet did not even bother and Stevenson did not stand up to him. Sorry women.

  • So I just wrote this amazing response, and I have since deleted it because I don’t want to lose what “authority” I do have as a healthcare chaplain with an LDS endorsement. Sheesh –

  • And things like that can happen where you might have a small branch where there aren’t enough priesthood holding men to fill those positions. Also when counting money a member of the Bishopric has to be one of the two people doing it and it would be safer to not have a man and finance clerk woman working alone together each week.
    By the way, I am a finance clerk now and I don’t supervise anyone and never have in the 20 years that I have been one in different wards.

  • My comment was misleading. The statement about supervising males pertained to Sunday school presidents only.

  • 9 years ago, when I was still a fully active member, I thought my baby was dying. (Turns out he was fine, but in the moment I fully believed he was dying or severely brain damaged for life.)

    Prayer and priesthood blessings were not on my mind at all. I was kind of disappointed to realize that, but it opened my eyes to my true beliefs.

  • LOL. I’d be just as confident in a spell from Harry Potter. Interesting how the mortality rate in Utah County hospitals is below average than the nation. But keep peddling the snake oil, friend.

  • (I tried posting earlier — hopefully this won’t show up twice!)

    I don’t buy your gaslighting argument. What you describe as the real meaning sounds *exactly* to me like what Dew and Nelson are doing.

    The way I see it, we have a few options. They are either: 1) gaslighting, 2) ignorant, or 3) stupid.

    I’ll eliminate stupid – Dew and Nelson both seem to be very intelligent.

    Do you really expect me to believe they are *that* ignorant? The leaders of the church reassure us regularly that they are not ignorant of the world around us. I do not buy for one second that Dew or Nelson truly are not aware that women in other churches have authority they lack in the LDS church.

    That leaves gaslighting.

    Well, I guess there’s another possibility: 4) “carefully worded denials.” That’s probably the most likely here. In their minds, they’re probably thinking of very specific requirements for what qualifies as “a church,” and they eliminate all the ones you talked about from their definition. Actually, this would be a form of gaslighting, so I’m going to have to go back to that.

    ~~

    You also say that “gaslighting has become synonymous with ‘you disagreeing with me and trying to convince me of your point of view.'” I have participated in and observed a ton of Mormon conversations online recently, and I am not seeing that usage very often. People seem to be pretty well aware of what it means, and in the rare instances that they use it incorrectly, they are taught quickly.

  • Eh, maybe I’m wrong in my previous comment where I say most people understand what gaslighting means. Here’s an example of where jhardy355 doesn’t understand it.

  • Here we go again. The prophets and apostles must be out of touch and not understand God’s will because they are old and male. Sexism is condemned while ageism is really nifty. Did I mention that the apostles are, horrors!, old? God, who is really old, is obviously also out of touch and needs our polls to figure this out and could not possibly have intended for differences in roles between the sexes because that does not meet with 21st Century American ideals, and we all know for certain that whatever is politically correct for youngsters in 21st Century America must be eternal TRUTH unchallenged. All the previous generations and cultures were just ignorant. How we all got so smart coming from all those old, religious dummies is an evolutionary mystery. Yup, the word “troubled” certainly applies to this thinking.

  • Again Jana, It makes me sick what this Cult puts woman through. Stop being its Enabler & help these woman who are treated like Objects.

  • You’re right. Your comment is not gaslighting because you admitted that women don’t have as many opportunities, and explained why. However, that’s not what Nelson and Dew did. Their answer didn’t even acknowledge any imbalance between men and women, and implied that women have just as much responsibility and opportunity as men, when they know very well that this is not the case.

  • I think the key phrase in this article is,
    “Here is “some” of that exchange, according to Church News editor Sarah Jane Weaver,”
    How do we know that priesthood was not also explained as part of the reason to that journalist in that interview?

  • Jana,

    In all fairness have you considered doing a survey of the same individuals asking their opinion about the New Testament Church established by Jesus Christ and the role of women in leadership at the time? As far as I am aware, all of the early Church leaders were men, including the apostles, bishops (see books of Timothy and Titus) and others. I am sure that women had various leadership opportunities at the time, but were “shut out from administrative authority.” It would be interesting to see the similarities or differences of opinions regarding the early Christian Church customs and current practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    Of course, there would be two differing opinions on this issue regarding the early Church. Some might feel that the pattern established in the early Church by Jesus was just following the cultural norms of the day regardless of how wrong they might be and that He was too timid to correct the discriminatory practices of the Church which He created. While others would say that the Savior knew what He was doing even though we might be left to wonder why.

    Wouldn’t you be interested to see how young people feel today about the early Christian Church?

  • I’m not going to hunt down and watch the entire original interview, if it even exists online, but I’m willing to bet this was not discussed, unless the interviewer pressed them further. The part of the interview that’s published on LDS dot org does not say anything more.

    This is how they do things, we all know this. There’s never any acknowledgement that any policy or doctrine is negative in any way. Everything’s always positive positive positive. Optimism is great, isn’t it? All is well in Zion. But the fact is all is not well, and saying so doesn’t make it so. Ignoring the problems just allows them to continue along with the hurt that they are causing. Until they get a “revelation” that something needs to change, and even then they don’t admit that it was ever wrong before (think blacks and the priesthood).

  • 2 things to think about. First, to say women can sometimes fill in when “there aren’t enough priesthood holding men” hardly puts men and women on equal footing. They are only being used as a last resort.

    Second, though I think it’s a valid policy to avoid putting a man and women working alone together on a weekly basis, the bishop is allowed to be alone together multiple times a week interviewing women and teens from the ward, and some of those may be recurring weekly interviews with the same person.

  • You’re right. We should take the priesthood back from the blacks and restore polygamy. Heck, let’s reinstate slavery, and take away women’s suffrage. Younger generations always think peoples’ rights are so important, but clearly the older generations were right. /s

  • I think this is a great question, though I’m willing to bet the results would be about the same. Those who think today’s policies are rooted in cultural norms rather than doctrine are likely to believe the same about New Testament times.

  • I don’t think it’s the same as the blacks not getting the priesthood. This doctrine is too solidly grounded since Adam and Eve were placed here and all through the scriptures. It’s all part of the Partiarchal order of things as God set it up.

    “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Gen 3: 16)

    So I don’t think it will ever happen in this life time. However, men and women are promised that they can become Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses in the eternity, so it might come to them in the next life if they are faithful in this life.
    What I don’t like about this article is that she is comparing us to other churches.
    “See they do this so why don’t you?”
    We don’t do something just to go with the flow of the man made religions of the world or the opinions of the secular world today.

  • And along with your comment, Clark, the member of the Bishopric overseeing the counting of the money could alternate each week.

  • I’m with Clark here. The fact is during Jesus’ time women had no leadership opportunities. Most were married away and having children by the age of 14. They had no political or religious power whatsoever, most were illiterate because the men didn’t allow them to attend school or learn to read. They were not allowed to speak to men in public and had to keep their faces veiled. I think most young people today would think the lack of female leadership in the early Church was an extension of the way women were treated in society. Why didn’t Jesus try to change this? We do not know; any attempt to explain is just conjecture. But seeing the way women have been denied these sort of things by men in every culture since the beginning of time, it’s not hard to see why most young people feel the denial of the priesthood to women is an unfortunate remnant of a darker time in human history.

  • I hate patriarchy, but then I don’t like matriarchy either. I much prefer partnership
    .
    Patriarchy can and has engender the ideology of male superiority that has reigned for 1000s of years rendering women as being less than and subservient to men and male power.

    A perfect example of the harmful effects of patriarchy is a statement made by Apostle George Q. Cannon concerning Mother-in-Heaven (and consequently, all women). The patriarchal paradigm he lived in caused him to believe and preach that males were superior to females. He hated the idea of equal status between the sexes stating “…there is too much of this inclination to deify our mother in heaven. In the revelation of God the Eternal Father to the Prophet Joseph Smith there was no revelation of the feminine element, and no idea was conveyed that any such element was equal in power and glory with the masculine.” The patriarchal paradigm can be and has been extremely harmful to women.

  • Yes, and I guess that’s the problem with taking all scriptures literally as the word of God. It keeps us from tossing out bad ideas when we would have otherwise matured beyond them. But I guess that’s a whole different argument.

  • I got an email from Mormon.org just yesterday–you should let them know they’re not following the prophet either. Since apparently that’s your job.

  • Real questions: Would ordaining women to the priesthood improve the doctrines and practices of the Latter-day Saints? If so, how (other than the tautological “not ordaining women is bad, so ordaining is good”)? Would anything valuable and enduring be lost? Is the trade-off worth it? Or would ordaining women just make the church appear more “equitable” and “fair” and less “sexist” to those (typically liberals, but not exclusively) who believe that failure to ordain women is a misguided cultural remnant of the pre-“woke” world?

    The broader question is this: is ordaining women improving religion? Growing its appeal? Bettering the lives of its adherents? Or, perhaps most importantly to the believers, saving more souls? Is it working? The macro trends suggest not, but I’m open to being rebuffed.

  • Most of these questions were asked by the men in charge when women were demanding the right to vote (less than a hundred years ago in the U.S., as crazy as that sounds). There was great fear that things that were “valuable” and “enduring” would be lost. That giving women the right to vote would ruin the political process. But now I think we would all agree (I hope) it was a good thing. From what I hear from friends who belong to churches who ordain women the results have been similar. They love it. To them it feels right. Did giving women the right to vote improve the country? I feel it did because it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO. And that’s really the only way to measure these things, irregardless of what the “macro trends” are.

  • This is such a Mormon response to anything that does not enthusiastically show the Church in a positive light. There is a certain amount of sarcasm. There is a certain passive aggression. There is logic that actually works if you accept the faulty assumption set out at the beginning. It attempts to create a straw man that can be defeated using what is believed to be the same logic that the speaker thinks others are using. It also fails to address any substantive issue brought up in the article. I loved the response – it took me back to my Elder’s quorum days.

  • And what’s your vested interest in retaining the word Mormon, huh ?

    At least with Jana using it, we know it’s purely for her financial gain.

  • In Romans 16:1-2 Paul called Phoebe, a deacon (diakonos) and a leader. She wasn’t a deaconess, but a deacon. In Romans 16:3-4, Paul called Priscilla and Aquila, his fellow workers in Christ Jesus. In Romans 16:6 and 12, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis are women whom Paul called hard workers in the Lord, describing them with the same Greek word he used when speaking of his own ministry of preaching and evangelism. Then in Romans 16:7, are Andronicus and Junia whom Paul said were “outstanding among the apostles.” Clearly men and women worked side-by-side in kingdom business in the first-century church.

  • Makes me think of Chesty Puller on the marines’ change of maneuver at the Chosin Reservoir, “We’re not retreating, we’re just attacking in a different direction.”

  • Which part, the New Testament or Old? The Gospels or the Pauline stuff? The actual Pauline epistles or the forgeries?

  • Well, that’s the huge leap, isn’t it. That “Christ’s church” = the LDS church. That what this church does is what Jesus would do. Do you really want to examine those assumptions in detail? I’m a voluntarily resigned former returned missionary, high councilman, bishopric member, seminary teacher, married in the temple under the old throat-slitting disemboweling temple ceremony. I know your playbook. Do you want to play?

  • Whether Paul was referring to Junia in Romans 16:7 as an apostle, or just stating that she was well known to the apostles seems ambiguous. There is a wide difference of opinion among biblical commentators. Regardless, I appreciate your comments.

  • Thank you Porter. And I agree with you. My only reason for mentioning it is that Paul appreciated her efforts and held her contributions in high esteem.

  • Well, you have three extraordinary claims embedded in your question: 1) that a rabbi commonly referred to as Christ rose from the dead, 2) in his undead state he appeared to people in the Western Hemisphere, and 3) those people were Israelite immigrants existing somewhere in one or both of the American continents.

    I’m not the one asserting those propositions, you are. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. It is not my responsibility to disprove these amazing propositions. A basic Hitchen’s maxim is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I won’t do that to you. Please just provide competent evidence for one or more of your assumptions that leads a rational person to believe there is a high degree of probability such events occurred.

    I look forward to your response. And now, sigh, I begin my day.

  • The problem here is Jana does not believe that this actually is the Church of Jesus Christ, that it is His church and he is in charge and directs who shall recieve the priesthood and who shall not. When people don’t believe this fact, then they run into all sorts of difficulties and can be persuaded by all winds of belief, doctrine or fads of the world… who think they know more than the Lord.

  • The Mormons would be wise to look at the example of the Episcopal Church. They opened their doors to female leadership in the 1990s and they have lost almost half their membership since then. The median age of an Episcopal layperson is 62.

  • I think you’re implying the loss in membership was due to allowing female leadership. Do you have any evidence 1) the Episcopal Church wasn’t already losing members before integrating females into leadership, and 2) members primarily left because…women?

  • Or Fairmormon.org, or mormonnewsroom.org. As Homer would say, “Doh!!!!” Yeah, it’s a bitch changing the name of a 501(c)(3) entity. But Jesus don’t care about no stinking tax rules. (Channeling my inner Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Fred Dobbs is one of my favorite characters.)

  • Nice try. You “defend” Nelson by trying to be offensive. No cigar, not even a chewing gum cigar.

  • Let’s see. It’s not at all “offensive” for you to call far better men than you are “bigots” but it is “offensive” for me to turn your spite back on precious little you.

    Got it.

  • It’s surprising that arguments from the calendar keep getting trotted out as if they mean something.

    They don’t.

    What is the most important thing about the Priesthood? For believing Latter-day Saints it is simply this: The Lord saw fit to send heavenly messengers to restore the Priesthood to the earth in 1829.

    That’s it.

    There is not, and cannot ever be, any consideration more important than this.

    If the statement is true, then the fact that the Priesthood is restored, and is operating again on the earth is of vast importance, while envious little nit-picks about who gets to be ordained are not only irrelevant, they are downright ungrateful to God, who has so abundantly blessed us.

    But if the above statement is not true, then the Priesthood is nothing at all, and has no meaning, and nobody is missing out on anything by not participating in it.

    The Priesthood is delegated authority. If millennials can’t grasp the fact that nobody can demand to have someone else’s authority delegated to them, then they need to learn some basic logic.

    The Church of Jesus Christ is not just a social club. The Priesthood is not just shorthand for a leadership group.

  • CL: “You’re right. We should take the priesthood back from the blacks and restore polygamy. Heck, let’s reinstate slavery, and take away women’s suffrage.”

    I search Tom’s comment in vain for anything that any reasonable person might construe in this light.

  • Which is absolutely fine. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be a restoration of New Testament Christianity, not GenX political correctness.

  • And if you notice, the brethren just as clearly appreciate the women in their ecclesiastical circles and hold their contributions in high esteem.

    But when they say so, the terminal fault-finders insist that it’s all just lip service.

  • The rapid decline of liberal Protestant churches is probably not solely due to any one factor, such as female leadership. However, I tend to suspect that female leadership is one manifestation of an overall liberal mindset of “Let’s change the world first and figure out why things are the way they are afterwards.”

    However, I have heard it argued that, when women are admitted into what was previously considered a “male space,” they are never content with merely being included. They want to then make it over into a “female space.” This is called “feminisation,” and leads rather inevitably – and not slowly – to male disengagement.

    Male led congregations are seen as including everyone, unless they rather explicitly say otherwise. Female led congregations are seen as being “for the women.” It needs little enforcement of the rules for men to lose interest in such places.

  • Cinco: “Most of these questions were asked by the men in charge when women were demanding the right to vote (less than a hundred years ago in the U.S., as crazy as that sounds). There was great fear that things that were “valuable” and “enduring” would be lost. ”

    Were they? Can you document that, or do you merely assume that it must have been so?

    A little familiarity with history shows that voting rights were originally restricted to those who were thought of as having skin in the game, such as landowners and/or war veterans. Over time, this gradually expanded, and in almost every place, women suffrage appeared very quickly after universal male suffrage. In some places, women demonstrated and formed suffrage movements, but not everywhere; yet women got the vote in other places as well.

  • The first rule of honest dialogue is that we begin with an assumption of good faith. You begin with an assumption of bad faith.

    There is no “gaslighting” in view.

  • Little Racist Tabby Nackle be Hatin. Dont be be hatin little Tabby Nackle. You are laughed at by the entire world. Its Sad. My friends play a game with the kids,….Its called Caus Yer Black,……..Daddy I want to be in the Quorum of 12………….Daddy says, You Cant,………Why not Daddy,…….Caus Yer BLACK !!!……..Young African Americans are taught that Bigotry by Rednecks is not OK !!!

  • And now for the non-bigoted version:

    Little baby says “Daddy I want to be in the Quorum of the 12.” Informed daddy says “You can’t.” Kid says “Why not, Daddy?” Informed daddy says, “Because nobody can. It’s a calling. You can’t apply for it.”

    Did you not know that, or were you, to coin a phrase, “gaslighting?”

  • If you are White, You are OK. Black, No way. You can run from the facts but its in your Blood it called Stupid Redneck Racist. Do you know how easy it is to Crank up Racist Redneck Tabby Nackles ???? You Rednecks make me laugh sooooo Hard.

  • Let’s see.

    You make all manner of assumptions about me, based upon what you assume my “race” to be – but I’m the “racist.”

    Got it.

    Ngā mihi.

  • Gotta Go you little Racist Maggot. Unlike you I live in the real world. Im sure your kids are sooooo proud of you being a Racist Biggot.

  • Spot On. These 90 year old Racist Maggots are not Americans. They are simply 90 year old Racist Maggots.

  • Danny: “Well, that’s the huge leap, isn’t it.”

    No.

    Danny: “That ‘Christ’s church’ = the LDS church.”

    That is what we believe, yes.

    Danny: “That what this church does is what Jesus would do.”

    We’re not perfect, but in the main, yes.

    Danny: “Do you really want to examine those assumptions in detail?”

    Why not?

    Danny: “I’m a voluntarily resigned former returned missionary, high councilman, bishopric member, seminary teacher, married in the temple” [spiteful misrepresentations redacted.]

    Let me tell you something that obviously nobody else has ever told you: other people’s sacred observances are not a spectator sport.

    I’ve never had to tell any decent person that more than once, and I don’t expect I ever will.

    Danny: “I know your playbook. Do you want to play?”

    Pick me! Pick me!

    You see, I know the “I’m a former (etc. etc.) who saw the light and left the Church, and I’ll try to intimidate you with a list of callings to pre-emptively shut you up” playbook. Ed Decker used it before you.

    It didn’t work for him, either.

  • Well, she titled her forthcoming book ‘The Next Mormons’ before the direction from Pres Nelson. Since that announcement by Pres Nelson she hasn’t worked to alter the title of the book and she has written 5 new blog posts with the term Mormon in their titles.

    Either she is deliberately disobeying the Prophet or she’s using that term so that her book isn’t deemed redundant before it is even released.

  • “But Jesus don’t care about no stinking tax rules”

    Hmm, no.

    Matthew 22:21 Jesus said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s;and to God the things that are God’s.”

    Romans 13:1 “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.”

  • Try to be fair, AP. The Church is still using its old domain names such as mormon.org, mormonnewsroom.org and lds.org, and I would argue that it should keep them. It’s one thing to start referring to the Church by its true and correct name; it’s quite another thing to immediately drop all references to well-known shorter names or nicknames. That’s a process that takes time, and even the institutional Church is taking time to accomplish this. Let’s be a little bit charitable before we attribute motives, shall we?

  • ‘Charitable’?

    No, when holding up a mirror to Jana so she can see what she is doing that is the most charitable thing I can do.

    Jana has made a choice to antagonize the church and allow hatreds of the church to be repeated continually on her blogs.

    It’s one thing questioning but it’s another thing altogether when working to try and lead people astray with words and actions.

  • So, Dave– three things:
    1. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does have a black/African-descendant in the Quorum of the Twelve you will
    A. Join the Church
    B. Apologize for all your racial and profane epithets you have ever uttered or hurled towards this faith
    C. Apologize for insulting me, like you are not a raging troll
    D. All of the above

    2. I concur, Jesus knows me and you and watches all, knows all

    3. Are you at all aware that my parents are black?

  • Danny: God will answer all three of those questions if you search it out and ask Him with pure sincerity. You will receive the answers, I promise you. Extraordinary evidence will be available to you, and Joseph Smith left it in over 700 plus pages. It confirms the Bible, which contains extraordinary witnesses of Christ’s resurrection.
    It’s on me to testify to you. It is up to you to find out. You can.
    Best of luck.
    Sigh—we finish the day in peace and harmony.

  • EDK: “Are you at all aware that my parents are black?”

    Unfortunately, Dave seems to assume that anyone who disagrees with him must be white.

    You should be prepared to be called an “Uncle Tom,” a racial epithet used to poison the well against Black conservatives and any Black person who rejects a radical anti-white agenda.

  • Katie: “The way I see it, we have a few options. They are either: 1) gaslighting, 2) ignorant, or 3) stupid.”

    You missed one: 4) They see things differently than you do – and possibly know things that you don’t.

    Are you capable of even imagining that that could be the case?

  • Well, if you won’t do it to be charitable, try basic good manners.

    This is Jana’s blog. My friend Dan Peterson – a conservative, believing Latter-day Saint, BTW – describes his blog as his “virtual living room.” Would you, if invited as a guest into someone’s house, sit on the couch, help yourself to the snacks, and then insult your host?

    Unlike the real wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing pseudo-Mormon bloggers, Jana permits people to disagree with her views. That tells me that, whatever our disagreements may be, she’s not hostile to the Church.

    Lastly, if there’s no other reason to not attribute motives, please consider Doctrine and Covenants 6:16. You cannot know the thoughts and intents of Jana’s heart. Only God can do that.

  • I am sorry that is how you feel.

    However, you do not know who I am, what I think, or what is in my heart.

    Do you really care so little about being an honest person that you would *risk* the potential of lying in the very outburst? Doesn’t the bible warn of “false accusers?”

    “But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.”

    Such outbursts reveal more about the individual lashing out than anything else. It is hard to hide a bad spirit… it eventually exposes itself.

  • These questions–among many more that you may recognize–were absolutely asked. A simple search of “arguments against women’s suffrage” will reveal plenty of documentation. Men were convinced that allowing women to vote would ruin politics and government and everything they held dear. Here’s one speech given in 1911: https://sfpl.org/pdf/libraries/main/sfhistory/suffrageagainst.pdf. It’s a doozy.

    As far as women’s suffrage appearing “very quickly” after universal male suffrage, I suppose that depends on one’s definition of “very quickly.” All white men in the U.S., regardless of whether or not they owned property, were granted voting rights in 1856. Women weren’t until 1920. That’s quite a gap. I’m assuming you’d agree they should have had the right to vote in 1856 when men did? I think you would also agree (as any sane person would) that the arguments against giving women the vote now look (and are) ludicrously sexist. Most were focused on the fact that because women were fundamentally different from men physically and mentally they belonged in the home taking care of the children and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Many arguments elevated women saying they were purer than men and didn’t need the vote, that they would only be lowered by being involved in politics. And so on…

  • Good manners?

    She allows people here who ridicule my beliefs in an attempt to destroy the church- how is she showing good manners to me?

    The fact is that Jana condones speech that attempts to destroy the church whereas the catholic blogger on RNS drew a line, and now he bans certain hate-mongers. He banned them because they belittled any good the catholic church tries to do.

    Jana allows those who refuse to acknowledge one iota of goodness coming from our church.

    Why you stick up for her actions, I don’t know. Christ didn’t empower those who fought against his church but Jana is empowering those who despise and actively work against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

  • Im not done with you. I think I should start with a few sayings about the Filthy Swines sayings in the Fake Bible. Are you ready ???

  • Were gonna be here a few months going over the wonder versus of the Fake Bible towards Blacks. Are you ready ?? Im not gonna away, You are so brainwashed.

  • I have a copy of the Church of the Fake Bible Lds. These versus about Blacks are really really Nice. Are you ready for a thousand Versus of Wonderfulness Towards them ???????

  • The Lds has never apologized for banning Blacks as Priest. It was only when the US Government forced them to stop & take away there Tax Exempt Status. Then they made up some Stupid Ass story to all the Tabby Nackles that Dead Smitty called Dead Briggs & they talked to God & had a Revelation to allow Blacks in. Im not makin this Wacco Stuff up. The Lds needs to for one and for all Apoligize to Blacks for the Severe Bigotry.

  • Quote from Briggs. Now how Lovely is that ?????????? I have a fem more thousand. When all said and done you may Kneel to Jesus and ask for forgiveness and escape this Cult & become Saved.

  • Quote,Book of Mormon aka Church of the Fake Bible……..< If the White Man that belongs to the Chosen Mixes his Seed with the Seed of Cain The penalty under the Law of God is Death on the Spot > End Quote………Isnt that Precious ???????

  • Alexander, I’m quite astounded by your inability to be civil, even to fellow believers, such as Kiwi57. What’s interesting and disturbing is how you mold the situation to be about you. You believe Jana having a blog, and allowing a wide range of views, is an insult to you. Sir, you are a living example of how religion does not necessarily improve people or make them good. In my opinion.

  • Nobody, actually. Just my opinion. But, then, who are you to attack Jana? By challenging me, you apparently did not see the irony reflecting on you. You are a constant attacker and scold of Jana.

    See, my work in the real world involves courtrooms. The essence of a trial is to throw punches without getting one back for the same reason. You, sir, not only throw out punches that leave you wide open to counterpunches, but you don’t even seem to know when they’ve landed. Which suggests you are a narcissist. Plenty of them go to churches.

    You call me a hypocrite. How so? I mean if it applies, then I will have to consider that. What standards do I promote that I secretly or openly contradict by my actions?

    I’ve called you out before because your comments seem to me utterly to contradict the tenets of Christian behavior.

  • Jana puts her filth on the web and I respond by telling her what she has said is crap. If you are offended, that’s your fault. .

  • Welcome to the insane world of Jana’s making.

    If you call people out for their hatreds then you are obstructing their free speech, which is actually hate speech.

  • Dave: you and Adolph Hitler seem to share some traits in rhetoric. Have you read Mein Kampf lately? Sounds like that would be your type of kool aid.
    So many people must love and admire you. Keep it up, your bio will be a best seller.

  • i love it when you talk dirty to me big boy. Are you ready for 1000 hatred hatred hatred hatred hatred hatred Versus against this fine Black Race ??????

  • Oh Baby, I miss you soooo Much. Lets talk about those Black Versus in the Church of the Fake Bible !!! I miss you Baby, Please dont Leave Me !!!

  • 1. It’s not from the Book of Mormon. It’s from a talk by Brigham Young, then territorial governor of Utah.
    2. Did you notice who the “death penalty” applied to? That’s right – it was the white guy.
    3. Later on, when Brigham had the chance to enact his views into law, there was no “death penalty” anywhere in sight.

    The facts don’t support your bigotry.

  • I’m sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but your claim is a lie. There was never any threat to the Church’s tax exempt status. That particular anti-Mormon masturbatory fantasy is a complete fabrication.

  • From the Magna Carta in 1215 to universal (white) Male suffrage in 1856 was 641 years. From there to women’s suffrage in 1920 – and you guys were really slow off the mark – was 64 years. (It was much quicker in New Zealand. And Utah, too.) But even then, that was really very quick, wasn’t it?

  • I call BS. Your Priesthood is an illusion. The Corporation has done a great job blowing smoke up your a$$ and making you feel the “specials” all while separating you from your money and agency.

  • Maybe this is the reason the Brighamite version of Mormonism is shedding members at record levels. 2/3rds of all members have run away and aren’t coming back. Look away from the Emperor, he thinks he is wearing clothes.

  • If you consider that all Religion is all just a narcissistic man made construct to exact obedience you can see why women have the positions they have.

  • Thank you for that erudite, articulate response. I don’t know how you come up with them.

    Actually, whether an abusive spouter like yourself believes it is irrelevant to my point, which is simply that the Latter-day Saints believe it.

    You don’t call BS, you generate it.

  • Thank you for sharing your unfaith. You and the rest of those in your spite-fest just keep on telling each other that, if it gives you comfort.

  • Yes, if we assume that everyone else is as cynical, self-centred and malicious as morminion, we will reach the conclusion that everyone else is as cynical, self-centred and malicious as morminion. That’s how it works when you smuggle your assumptions into your arguments.

  • I can’t change the reality that Mormonism sucks, even for the majority of Mormons. Ever wonder why no one else gets called to clean the church?

  • Comparisons are sometimes interesting when they bear some relation to the topic, but I don’t see any connection here to suffrage. I’m not particularly interested in anecdotal evidence of people’s feelings either. Again, the argument that IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO is tautological and, if one doesn’t believe it or simply wants to better understand the reasons for the decision, it’s not very helpful. I’ve asked questions that, if answered, might help me or others understand whether it is, in fact, the right thing to do. And if congregations are shrinking worldwide — particularly in more liberal-leaning denominations — and people are losing faith in religion, but the increasingly small “Remainers” feel good about the liberal trajectory of church policy, that might be reason for religious leaders to pause before following the liberal lead, especially of those leaders see their future growth not in the Liberal West but in more conservative parts of the world. I’m not blaming the decline in Western religiosity on ordaining women alone, but it — together with flipping homosexuality from a sin to at least an acceptable act and often a celebrated virtue — has played a big part.

    Finally, your point about macro trends is a good one. I’ll just say that leaders who believe they are inspired by God should do what they believe God has inspired them to do, regardless of micro or macro trends and regardless of the direction the ideological winds blow.

  • Actually, it wasn’t a threat (though I can see easily how a reasonable person could perceive it as such.) More like a fair warning. I mean, if you’re gonna get in the ring–fair warning.

    Your earlier responses granted are intellectually honest, and frankly the only ones available, ie, yes, that is what we believe. My responses over and over will be, but what evidence is there to suggest your answers have any merit? How do those beliefs reconcile with known facts and our personal experiences? And from time to time, I’ll throw in some derision, like any good Monte Python heckler would. Some of this stuff just begs for it. The Mormon position is just not tenable in any consistent way.

ADVERTISEMENTs