OW_HeaderOn this inaugural episode of Mormon News Review we have:

Please give us feedback and let us know if you like this format!



  1. European Saint September 25, 2013 at 5:34 am - Reply

    Thank you for doing this interview, John. My only criticism would be the moderate/middle choice (and to be clear, this is *not* a personal criticism of Mr. Grover) — I think that your middle selection here really falls more on the left. This question probably merits a discussion: who could be considered a moderate in the church these days? Jim Faulconer? Terryl Givens? Richard Bushman? What are the criteria for being a moderate? Otherwise, well done.

  2. They Call Me Israel September 25, 2013 at 8:48 am - Reply

    One, and only one, reason exists for why women will receive the LDS priesthood. The priesthood of the LDS church is man made and not from God, as fashioned by early 19th century fables. The LDS 15 (first presidency and quorum of 12) know the priesthood is man made and not from God. Knowing this, they will have no problem extending it to women.

    If the priesthood is never extended to women it is because the LDS 15 know the LDS priesthood is man made and not from God and they need to preserve their priesthood fables in order to exercise the element of ecclesiactical control over the membership. Keep in mind that Ralph’s description of his female relatives and their view of priesthood represents the majority of female LDS believers. As we move into the future, as long as true believers accept the teachings of the church as it relates to exclusive male priesthood, the church has no reason to change their position.

  3. Judy Bray September 25, 2013 at 9:10 am - Reply

    Sound is very soft????! Mine is. Just me???
    Hard to listen to when it is soft even at 100% volume.
    Interesting discussion.

    I don’t want to be able to hold the priesthood.
    I think the men will sit back thankfully – many of them – and leave it to us.

    Once long ago when my husband was called as Ward Clerk I was asked what I thought of his new calling.
    I replied that I was dismayed – I had enough to do without helping him with his calling.
    I was told it was HIS calling, and I was not expected to help him at all.
    In actuality – there was a thing to sort out and neither the issuer of the call nor my husband had time to devote to it – I forget the details – very long ago. I was asked as a special one-time dispensation whether I would review the material and find the errors, and make recommendations. I did. I have not been asked to help since then – many years.

    I appreciate most of the conversations being held on Mormon Stories. Thank you.

    • Tom September 25, 2013 at 12:02 pm - Reply

      I totally agree with Judy. Hell, lets take back voting from women. They don’t need that pressure either. I see that they were making Judy’s argument back in the nineteenth century. If it was true then, it is true now.:

      “This whole movement for female suffrage is, at least in its motive and beginning, a rebellion against the divinely ordained position and duties of woman, and an ambition for independence and the honors of a more public life; as if any greater and diviner honor could be given to woman than those which God has assigned her; as if the sanctities of home and the sacred duties of wife and mother, with all their sacrifices, were not a higher sphere and a truer glory—a glory she shares with the world’s Redeemer—than the vulgar publicity of the polls and hustings, or even the Senate and the bar.”

      “The practical tendency of women’s suffrage, as all must see, is to impair the unity of the family as a social organism, being itself a denial of it, and to create discord and rivalries between husband and wife, who by the divine ordinance are “no more twain but one flesh,” but by this act are legally declared to be not one but two. Besides, such suffrage is a tacit declaration that the husband and father cannot be trusted to protect the interests of wife and daughter in political as in domestic affairs, which is a sure method of relaxing his sense of responsibility and loosening the ties of family affection. Where there is true affection, the wife, if she vote at all, will vote with her husband, even against her own interest; and where there is not, the multiplying of causes of discord will not remedy but only aggravate the evil.”

      “Not the least disastrous result would be the intolerable burden thrust upon women’s shoulders by imposing political questions and duties in addition to those already borne. Domestic and social duties, never so onerous and distracting as now, the care and nurture of children, with the high and sacred responsibilities involved in these, are enough, and more than enough for most women in this age. To add to these the cares of public life and the turbulent excitements of politics, would be indeed to break the bruised reed.”

      –Rev. Prof. H. M. Goodwin, 1884

    • Steve October 7, 2013 at 2:12 pm - Reply

      I’m with Judy. I don’t want to be able to hold the priesthood either. The problem is I’m a guy, and as a 12 year old boy I didn’t have a choice. I was told by my leaders that I wouldn’t be allowed to stay in Primary, and the only place where I could go during the second and third hours of the block were with the YM. I was also told that the other YM would start resenting me if they had to do things like collect fast offerings and I wasn’t willing or able to help.

      One thing I think is being ignored in this discussion about women and priesthood is the fact that 12 year old boys are basically stuck if they aren’t leaders and want to serve in other ways.

  4. Judy Bray September 25, 2013 at 9:16 am - Reply

    Probably better to change my name if you are able…
    Make it “South African Saintess”

  5. Jeremiah September 25, 2013 at 9:28 am - Reply

    The Mormon Church standing for marriage and advocating living a fully thriving, flourishing life, rather than a lifestyle, is uplifting but so much more could be done. With all of the resources at their disposal, LDS members could be a stronger source and guide toward a healthier marriage culture in the United States. One thing I cannot understand is why every Mormon has not signed the Manhattan Declaration. Is it not in line with Mormon teaching?

  6. Junior September 25, 2013 at 10:08 am - Reply

    If women want to attend a meeting where they’ll be shamed for not doing enough home teaching and looking at naughty pictures on the internet, I say let them. They’ll also be treated to sports stories in an attempt to relate to the young people. I can’t remember the last time an important announcement was made in any meeting, let alone general priesthood, but let them be there in person the next time the missionary age is changed or another quorum of seventy is formed. Let them be ordained so that they can compile monthly home teaching statistics (always about 25%), tithing receipts, and fast offerings. But remember, before they get to participate in all those glamorous higher duties of the priesthood, they need to be ordained as elders and function as the ward’s moving service. Awesome patriarchal power! You know you want it, ladies. Forward, sisters!

  7. VJ September 25, 2013 at 10:13 am - Reply

    It seems to me that Ralph was the moderate in the conversation on the priesthood – certainly the overwhelming majority of members; the center – are more in line with his position than Tom’s etc… So much about these issues is how it is “framed” unfortunately I don’t think we are always that good at understanding how the Lord frames issues. Stick with the prophets…

  8. Women, the Priesthood, and the Cookie Jar September 25, 2013 at 10:16 am - Reply

    […] Beal, Tom Grover, and Ralph Hancock, a political science professor at BYU recently participated in Mormon Stories podcast that addressed the role of women in the church).  Inadvertently, I believe, Mr. Hancock laid bare […]

  9. EpiSaint September 25, 2013 at 11:39 am - Reply

    My main observation was that Tom was probably left of center, but admittedly that is probably a difficult position to fill.

    My other observation is that Heather really didn’t seem like she wanted to be there. She came off, in my opinion, as full of negativity and boredom.

    Honestly, I entered the episode in passive support of Ordain Women, but really left with a bad feeling about it due to some of the comments and dispositions of Kate Kelly and Heather Olsen Beal. I didn’t ever expect such a quick change like that, but that was my response.

  10. Randal September 25, 2013 at 12:22 pm - Reply

    Ralph seriously is very closed minded. Does he not remember that it was Emma Smith who was the impetus for the Word of Wisdom? He is clearly conservative and not up for changes.

    • Chris September 26, 2013 at 3:27 am - Reply

      I see your point, and I agree. It does not bring anything to the debate to have a too predictable right-winger on the panel…

      Progresiv left can bring up crazy new ideas on the table. (Enough said!)
      Moderate center build bridges and mediate through humble and analytical intelligence – a person who gets both sides but always represents common-sence.
      But, a right-winger who just regurgitate church stances (who we all ready know) or dream back to the “good-old-days” (which will never come back) would not add to the debate.
      Moderator – JOHN IS PERFECT – push the panelists to deepen their arguments, gives smart and sharp questions, and moves the show forward.

  11. Joe September 25, 2013 at 2:22 pm - Reply

    This is really a great idea!!! Keep up the good work!

  12. Ryan Wimmer September 25, 2013 at 7:00 pm - Reply

    I suggest joining the Community of Christ and get all the priesthood you want. Then when the “revelation” comes to LDS you can return. But I see no need to stay part of something you disagree with and try to reform it. It is a club, not a government taking rights, therefore clubs can be joined and un-joined at your leisure.

  13. kay September 25, 2013 at 9:11 pm - Reply

    You know what this means, if women get the priesthood, don’t you? They will have to put away their own dam chairs after RS. In my ward the RS always would announce “the Priesthood will be here to put away the chairs”. I later told the bishop that “The Priesthood” was an office, a calling, an intangible, and that only people could move chairs. So please say “brethren” or “priesthood holders”. Or men. But still they say “the Priesthood”. We’re screwed, sisters; we will have to put away our own chairs.

    • Maddy September 26, 2013 at 7:48 pm - Reply

      Thanks for the laugh Kay!
      It has been interesting reading the comments on Deseret News article about the “Ordain Women” group. It certainly touched a nerve with many LDS men. If women were given the priesthood, I don’t see them taking over men’s role in the church as much as I see women being given a tool to administer to each other and use within their families.
      I appreciated Heather’s input. I found her thoughtful responses of value. I do think we have much to learn from each other, especially when we’ve had different life experiences–such as Heather’s experience being a Mormon minority (and the only woman on the panel).
      Thanks again John. I think this will be an interesting series.

  14. Xenophon September 25, 2013 at 10:20 pm - Reply

    “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:3-4)

    In the fast approaching October 2013 General Conference we will have the opportunity to receive more sound doctrine, truth spoken in love and clarity, and counsel from on high. We are free to choose whether we will give heed to that truth or be turned to fables.

    • Chris September 27, 2013 at 5:58 pm - Reply


  15. Missouri September 25, 2013 at 11:24 pm - Reply


    I enjoyed the format. Perhaps for a future discussion…

    I am wondering how many people are stirred frankly to tears to see Pope Francis speaking and living so in harmony with the fundamental teachings of Christ. We Mormons seems to so heavily emphasize restorationist doctrine, at times to the exclusion of the basic doctrines of really loving God and our fellow man. I would love to hear some panel comments about this. I have to say that I wish I saw more of this advocacy and discipleship coming from SLC. I don’t want to be disrespectful of the Church leaders but sometimes they come across more as corporate administrators with a side calling as disciples of Christ. Any thoughts?

    • Nik September 26, 2013 at 8:38 am - Reply

      I agree with you Missouri. How come the 12 and 1st presidency aren’t among the people? How come they’re rarely seen in public? I struggle with this. Christ was among the people visiting them. I understand that this is something that we all need to be doing, but it starts at the top.

    • Courtney September 26, 2013 at 2:13 pm - Reply

      Yes, I am stirred to tears by Pope Francis being willing to be introspective in public and living in such a beautiful way. What an inspiration for all of us.

      Thanks John, for this great format! You did a fabulous job moderating. I’m wondering if you have a link to what you mentioned Daniel Peterson said about women and the priesthood

    • hkobeal September 26, 2013 at 9:25 pm - Reply

      We had hoped to talk about Pope Francis, but we just had too much to talk about.

      Hopefully in the future. And yes, I agree with several of you here who mentioned how moved you are by the Pope and his visibility and humility. I’m with you.

  16. Missouri September 25, 2013 at 11:46 pm - Reply

    I guess I wish I saw more discipleship and less administration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints per se. Honestly, other than Church functions, meetings, dedications etc, I don’t really see the leaders of the Church seeking a global voice (general conference doesn’t count) that would really stir the masses to follow Christ (whether or not they join the LDS Church). This is what is see in the Pope and it is touching…and yet troubling to a lifelong LDS Church member (+mission and temple sealing) with a fragile faith in the restoration/organized religion.

  17. Chris September 26, 2013 at 2:42 am - Reply

    Loved the idea!
    Would be great if you could get Mike Tannehill, former on Mormon Expression, as the Right-wing debater. (I think he was kicked of ME for beeing too far bluntly to the right…) He seems very intelligent, and up to par with the latest news.
    Would be great to have a young right-winger, who understand how the left-wingers reason, rather than some old conservative TBM who will just quote the church-manual – too predictable.
    I hope I did not offend anyone…

  18. Nik September 26, 2013 at 6:52 am - Reply

    I really enjoyed the whole concept of the show. I liked hearing from the different panelist and their ideas on the issues discussed. I didn’t feel that Tom was to far to the left, he was left of center but I felt he did a good job being in the middle.

    On a side note, I find Mormon Stories to be the best and most balanced LDS themed website on the internet. John, you do an excellent job addressing the issues through other’s experiences. I struggle with my Mormonism, but Mormon Stories has shown me that I am not alone in this. I love the church and what it has done for me, but I doubt many aspects of Mormonism. Your podcast give me hope that things will get better. Thanks.

  19. Glen September 26, 2013 at 10:28 am - Reply

    I think Jesus said it well:

    “And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.”

    Current Mormon Church = old bottle
    new bottle = ?

    unless what you want is a broken bottle, and spilt wine. Wine is to drunk and not spilt. ;-)

  20. European Saint September 26, 2013 at 6:31 pm - Reply

    I am sure some will take this sincere question to be less-than-compassionate (*not* my goal), but did anyone else out there hear the “I hurt, therefore I’m right” argument from Heather? To accuse Ralph of failing to mourn with those who mourn simply because he disagrees with her stance seems holier-than-thou (ironically, exactly what Ralph gets accused of frequently… and probably will some more after I post this). We can all assume we know what others are going through (whether their views are right, center, or left), but we just don’t. Period. It’s not because someone is white/male/living in Utah that his life experience is less challenging or less diverse than someone else’s. So let’s all increase our compassion while at the same time accepting that compassion does not equate to carte blanche endorsement of all the ideas/decisions of the object of our love and concern. I am beginning to think more and more that the way we understand charity (loving someone deeply while refusing to call evil acts good, or loving someone by telling them that whatever they want to do in life is like having brown eyes) greatly contributes to our right/left/center leanings.

    • Dp September 27, 2013 at 8:16 am - Reply

      I think they both used that argument. “Can’t you empathize with me?” Which is an important point. Which is why this podcast is brilliant. Hopefully bringing people face to face will help us see and hear ourselves more honestly and within the context of a community. Hopefully it wil help us all be less afraid and more hopeful and desirous to take new roads like pope Francis. I hope we will all be more hopeful and optimistic as we start to talk to one another. Less afraid and less prone to attack and accuse. More able to thoughtfully consider and show deep respect one for another. Understanding like pope Francis that we are all first sinners. We are all imperfect. We are all striving for the good.

      John. Please don’t feel like these need to be limited to one hour. Give it 2 hours. That way people won’t be able to make the excuse that “of course” they could go into more subtle and deeper philosophical points but they can’t due to time. I want to hear the deep and the subtle. I want to hold people accountable to their supposed brilliant positions. Lets lay it all out on the table so we can all see how silly a lot of it is on both sides. Then our walls will come down and we will be able to see perhaps a little better and with more kindness

    • Craig September 27, 2013 at 11:42 am - Reply

      No, European Saint, Heather’s argument was not “I hurt, therefore I’m right.” It was “I hurt, therefore if you care about mourning with those who mourn, you should listen to me and take my concerns seriously.” And throughout the podcast, there was little evidence that Ralph was taking her seriously. He said that he had lots of empathy for the OW women, but a few minutes before he called their entire movement “silly, petty, and dispiriting.” That’s not empathetic, that’s dismissive and condescending. The whole issue is that he kept trying to claim he understood their concerns and just disagreed while everything he said showed he didn’t understand them at all.

      And regarding gay people, you show through your words that you don’t understand their issues either. Being gay is not just choosing “whatever [you] want to do in life.” The reason Heather said it’s like having brown eyes is because it’s not something you can choose about yourself. Even church leaders are coming around on this point, but you apparently haven’t gotten that memo.

      One last thing. “It’s not because someone is white/male/living in Utah that his life experience is less challenging or less diverse than someone else’s.” Less challenging? Maybe not. Less diverse? Almost certainly. If you are a white Mormon living in Utah, you are much more likely to be surrounded by people like you in those respects than, say, a black Mormon living in New York. That doesn’t mean that you are automatically wrong about everything, but it does mean you might have a few more blind spots about others’ experiences because you haven’t come across the experiences of those who differ from you in certain specific ways. Being aware of those blind spots is very valuable in helping us have more compassion.

      • Chris September 27, 2013 at 5:52 pm - Reply

        Are you saying that because you have a tendency towards same sex attraction that that gives you a pass to act on those desires? By that logic those who are attracted to children should have a pass to act on those desires, or a married individual who has desires to have sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage should be given a pass to commit adultery, or those who desire what belongs to another should be given a pass to steal. Look we all have tendencies to want things that are not in harmony with the commandments of God. We must all fight the urge to be “natural men”. That is the reason we are here. To take up our cross and endure to the end. You cant simply say I desire, therefore I should be entitled to have. What exactly do you expect the church to do? Do you think that the church should reverse its standing on homosexual relations because it is difficult for some to overcome the desire to act on those tendencies? Perhaps you would like the church to do away with the ten commandments while they are at it. Or do you really believe that just because you have homosexual tendencies and you did not choose to be homosexual that this is evidence that God made you this way and therefore he condones it?

  21. European Saint September 27, 2013 at 1:51 pm - Reply

    Craig, I disagree with basically everything you wrote, but I appreciate your response all the same. Perhaps someday I will evolve to the point where I see that, were I to have homosexual tendencies, I would have no other choice but to act on them. But for the time being, folks like Josh Weed and Ty Mansfield show me that there is more to the issue than you claim to think. Also, I have met plenty of folks in my many years in Europe and on the East Coast who — so far as I can tell, albeit in my un-evolved state– are far less versed in diversity than others who just happen to live in Provo right now. Food for thought.

    • Craig September 30, 2013 at 9:54 am - Reply

      You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say, and I’d appreciate it if you’d stop. I never said that gay people had no choices about their actions. I said they didn’t have a choice about being gay, ie, they don’t choose to be attracted to members of their own sex any more than you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. That’s why the comparison with the color of your eyes was appropriate. Also, I’m not completely sure what your motive is in bringing up Josh Weed and Ty Mansfield. I will say that I am well aware of them and I have absolutely no interest in putting all gay people in a particular kind of box and saying “you’re gay, therefore you must act this way.” They have come to a solution that works for them and I say great. I’m very happy for them. But if you are implying that the fact that they have worked out a solution means that all gay people can and should use that same solution (I’m not sure if you are implying that, but if so), then Josh Weed has this to say about that. “If you ever hear my story being used in a derogatory and disrespectful way, feel free to say “I heard Josh Weed out of his own mouth say not to try to use his story to pressure others to make the choices he has made. Doing that is the opposite of unconditional love.”” https://circlingthewagons.org/josh-weed-SLC-2012.php

      I don’t know what your point is regarding the people you know in Europe on the East Coast. I also don’t know what definition of diversity you’re using. Provo is one of the most homogeneous cities in the U.S. 85% of the people who live there are white, and 88% are Mormon. Compared to a lot of other places, that’s not very diverse. It’s not a value judgment on residents of Provo, it’s just a recognition of reality.

  22. Chris September 27, 2013 at 3:54 pm - Reply

    For the life of me I can’t understand why women would want to hold the priesthood. Do they see it as something glamorous, instead of a calling from God to serve?? Do they see it as domething to aspire to and llust after?? What blessings do they think will be theirs as priesthood holders that they do not currently enjoy?? Or is it that they simply feel they are so superior to men that they could do a vastly better job as priesthood holders than us evil, power hungry men?? There have always been those who felt they knew more, knew better, where more enlightened and wanted to dictate how things should be done. And they always have what they feel are justifiable reasons for their argument. These arguments are almost always selfish. They almost always include language like “I want, I should be allowed, I am entitled” etc. Satan felt he knew better than God and Jehova. He couldn’t accept the plan as it was presented. He faught and railed against it. His motives were not just, they were selfish. And in the end it destroyed him and those who listened to him. God did not change because a third of the hosts of heaven did not agree with him, and the church will not change and start ordaining women to the priesthood because a group of self centered, self righteous, men hating women believe that they should be entitled to the priesthood as well. Instead they will rail, and struggle against the church and find in the end that the only ones damaged by their actions are themselves and their families.

    • Ziff September 27, 2013 at 10:01 pm - Reply

      Seriously, Chris? Women wanting their voices heard in the administration of the Church are prideful? Why are men not prideful for hanging on so tightly to it and so doggedly defending their right to exclude women?

      The OW women *want* to serve. That’s why they want the priesthood. You can jump to all your conclusions about how they’re after glamor and power, but they only want to be able to do more good. Do you not think men can do more good with the priesthood than without? If so, wouldn’t the same be true for women?

      • Chris September 28, 2013 at 10:46 am - Reply

        Please provide me a scriptural reference where the Lord through revelation has declared that the priesthood should be given to women. You can’t do it. So what exactly is OW trying to accomplish? Do you believe this is a church governed by the Lord or popular opinion. I believe it is the Lord’s church and governed by the Lord. What he commands, we do. I am not against women being ordained to the priesthood because I hate women or want to exclude them. I am married and have three beautiful daughters that i love more than life itself. If I felt that men were dictating the discrimination of my wife and daughters then I would come to their aid. I do not believe the church discriminates against women because they aren’t asked to have the priesthood. They serve in other capacities that are equally important. They are not second class members in the eyes of the church because they don’t hold the priesthood. They are only second class members in the eyes of OW. You do not help women see their true value as daughters of God, instead you make them feel less worthy because they are not the same as men in every regard. And to say that women’s voices are not heard in the direction of the church is just rediculous and an insult to all the good women of the church who serve with dignity. My take on OW is that they are a group who has no testimony of this church. They do not believe it is the church of Christ nor do they believe the church is guided by a prophet and modern revelation. Instead they think that the first presidency and the quarum of the twelve are just a bunch of old fashioned, out of touch men in a good old boys club who hate women and want to exclude them. So if that is what they believe then why would they want to be members of this church? They are free to leave and start their own if that is how they think it should be done. Do as the mormon fundamentalists did when they could not accept the declaration of the prophet that polygamy would no longer be practiced in the church. They left. And look at them now. Has the Lord’s hand blessed them? No it hasn’t. And He does not bless the efforts of OW to embarass the church and force it to do things the way they think it should be done instead of the Lord’s way.

        • Ziff September 28, 2013 at 6:08 pm - Reply

          “I do not believe the church discriminates against women because they aren’t asked to have the priesthood. They serve in other capacities that are equally important.”

          It’s okay that you don’t believe it, because it exists whether you believe it or not. You might not have noticed, but calling them “equally important” does not actually *make* them equally important. Only actually *treating* women as equally important (i.e., opening up all positions in the Church to women) will actually *make* them equally important. Talk is cheap.

          Also, your black-and-white “leave and start your own church” approach is foolish. If you really want to encourage *anyone* who’s unhappy with *any* part of the Church to leave, I think you’ll find yourself in a pretty small church pretty quickly.

          • Chris September 28, 2013 at 9:08 pm

            How do people as rediculous as you Ziff actually make it in life???

            Having individuals like you leave the church would not be such a bad thing, nor do I believe that there are many like you. Sure, every ward has a few non conformists such as you who do not believe the rules apply to them, but you are the exception not the rule. The majority of the members of this great church are good, faithful people who try to do the will of the Lord not their own. Let me give you a little heads- up …….the kingdom of God is not all inclusive. Only those who abide His law will dwell with Him in His kingdom. And if you think that you can get there by complaining and protesting until God changes his way of thinking to meet yours then you are going to be very disappointed on judgement day.

          • hkobeal September 28, 2013 at 10:05 pm

            Chris, your comment is just so unkind. I know there are plenty of Mormons who don’t agree with Ordain Women, but I am grateful for the Mormons who still show as communicate love and respect to those of us who do.

          • Chris September 28, 2013 at 9:18 pm

            And you never did give me a scriptural reference where the Lord has declaired that women should be ordained to the priesthood. Without that you are just kicking against the pricks. This is the church of Christ not the church of Ziff.

            “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:3-4)

          • Ziff September 29, 2013 at 5:01 pm

            I would be interested to see a reference in the scriptures that says *only* men should be ordained to the priesthood. I think it’s pretty clear that male leaders have assumed that of course women shouldn’t be ordained, without actually ever asking God.

            Also, thanks for the invitation to leave the Church. That’s totally in line with President Monson’s focus on purging the Church of anyone who you don’t agree with. I hear tons of Conference talks about that.

        • Mary October 24, 2013 at 12:07 am - Reply

          Chris, first of all “ridiculous” is spelled r-I-d-I-c-u-l-o-u-s. You might be taken more seriously if you learned to communicate in standard English. Second, you asserted that there is no scriptural reference where the Lord through revelation has declared that the priesthood should be given to women. Do you consider Joseph Smith a prophet? Do you believe he received revelation? What do you make of the fact that he ordained women to the priesthood? What do you make of the fact that the Bible speaks of female priestesses? Does that count, or should we just pretend those things didn’t happen? Third, I’m curious what your thoughts are about the fact that in today’s institutional church women are given leadership positions exclusively in auxiliary capacities and are excluded from virtually all positions of authoritative decision-making in church doctrine and policy. How would you classify that status? As first class? If you as a man were a member of an organization in which every official decision and all rules were established by a woman with men as auxiliary “counselors,” how would you characterize the status of men in that organization? Be honest. It would feel humiliating. It would feel unnatural. We’re so accustomed to the paradigm of man as leader and woman as counselor and helpmeet that anything else just seems abnormal. Fourth, you clearly have a lot of anger. It might be worth while asking yourself what your hostility is really about.

  23. Corrina September 27, 2013 at 10:17 pm - Reply

    Liked the format of this podcast. Keep it up!

    I appreciated that Heather responded to Ralph, after he discussed how his daughters and daughters-in-law (who are intelligent, capable women) do not feel any of the feelings that Heather and Kate expressed. Hence, these feelings of OW or other MoFems are automatically not valid, because they are not the “norm”.

    To me, this logic turns the conversation into another “Mommy War” battle. If I were to have these type of conversations with my ward sisters or Mormon friends who are perfectly content with their current church role, I believe we would be able to have a very empathetic and understanding conversation. I abhor this perceived pull between these groups of women in the church. We see the tension lots on FB posts and blog posts, but in reality, when we have face-to-face, heart-to-heart conversations, I feel there is much more understanding among Mormon women despite their different view points.

    I strongly disagreed with Ralph when he said, “It is not something that girls are born with–to perceive the role differentiation as a slight.” I believe we are born with it, but unfortunately, it is socialized out of us Mormon girls so quickly.

  24. European Saint September 29, 2013 at 2:43 pm - Reply

    I agree with Heather that those of us who aren’t on board with OW should nonetheless convey love and respect to those who do.

  25. Martine September 29, 2013 at 9:30 pm - Reply

    Chris, here is the scriptural reference you were asking for:
    “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” 9th Article of Faith

    You’re sounding like a fundamentalist; maybe you’re the one in the wrong church.

    • Chris September 29, 2013 at 9:57 pm - Reply

      LOL….you people are laughable. That doesn’t say that the priesthood should be given to women. When the prophet says it, then I will believe it. But your group of apostates and there attempts to make a scene at conference, like the thugs they are, will not make it so. Only the Lord if it be his will.

  26. Chris September 29, 2013 at 10:10 pm - Reply

    My guess..a majority of the people who post on this site in support of this drivel are not active members of the church, have had some form of disciplinary action taken against them, and do not hold a current recommend or a calling in the church. I’m right arent I??You are bitter because you couldn’t hack living the gospel. This is a forum for all the malcontent apostates to get together and cry about how picked on they are and how terrible the church is. Pathetic!

    • KC September 30, 2013 at 12:20 am - Reply

      The church is changin brother, you dont like it, but if its to remain relevant it will change, albeit slowly. Personally, Im undecided on the issue but my wife dosent want the priesthood, says, why do I want all that extra grief. Im prob not for ordaining women but do think they should have more leadership responsibilities at corporate and local levels. As far as your comment that most who post on this site are not active members… is just ignorant. Your pushback is fine, but why do you have to be so obtuse in doing it.

      • Chris September 30, 2013 at 8:07 am - Reply

        First of all KC don’t call me brother. We don’t sound like brothers to me. Secondly man does not change the church to make it “more relevant”. More relevant to whom?? The world that becomes more wicked with each passing year. Why would the church want to be “more relevant” in the eyes of the world. This is the Lord’s church and he is the the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Here is a litmus test KC to see what sort of member you really are. Do you think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and should they be allowed to marry in the temple? Give me an honest answer and I am certain you and I will be on opposite sides of the spectrum. The church is not something that can be altered by political action committees “brother”.

        • J October 1, 2013 at 3:03 pm - Reply

          Chris. We are all brothers. What your pedaling sounds evil. I’m having a hard time taking you seriously. Your acting like a revers troll.

  27. Martine September 29, 2013 at 10:35 pm - Reply

    Your guess would be wrong, Chris. In church every Sunday standing in front of my ward leading Sacrament Meeting music and getting praised by members for my “inspired” choices week after week. I’ve tried resigning from my calling, they won’t let me! My husband was the previous bishop.

    The 9th Article of Faith says we’re open to new revelation from God which is all the Ordain Women movement is asking for. And you show your ignorance of the way revelation has come to the church in the past with your comments. Not to mention your ignorance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by calling others names and telling them to leave, which, of course, you have no authority to do. You should go have a chat with President Uchtdorf; he could teach you a thing or two about “living the Gospel.” I’m sure he’d be thrilled to hear your views of your fellow members.

  28. Chris September 30, 2013 at 8:29 am - Reply

    And if you are truely an active member who carries a temple recommend then you lied during your temple recommend interview when you were asked if you associate with any apostate groups. Dont lecture me. Any member who thinks they direct revelation through political action groups has no idea how revelation works in the church. I think you have been playing on your cell phone too much during gospel doctrine class. True…I get a little hot under the collar when speaking with subversives such as yourself. But in comparison to the apostate doctrine you people peddle here….. well it is a small thing. You people are all the same. You speak lies and trash the church then call the members un-Christ like if they don’t agree with you. Get a new argument … that one is pretty lame. Bottom line, the Lord directs this church. He decides the doctrine of the church and reveals it is hrough his prophet. He doesn’t take direction from groups like OW. He doesn’t change to make himself more relevant. He has given the priesthood to the men of the church. I don’t know why he chose the men…he just did. But pissing and moaning about it won’t change it. Talk about not being relevant..this whole topic is non- relevant. You can’t dectate what the Lord does any more than you can change the color of your eyes. I am done talking about it. It will never happen so it doesn’t matter anyway. But if it makes you feel better you can discuss it with your apostate friends until your faces turn blue. And just because you lead the music in church each work doesn’t mean you are not an apostate.

    • Craig September 30, 2013 at 10:04 am - Reply

      Chris, if you truly believe that this is an apostate group, then you better get out of here, or you risk losing your temple recommend. You are associating with us, after all.

  29. Leslie Wilson October 1, 2013 at 11:48 am - Reply

    As a clinical psychologist (who works for LDS Services),it saddens me to see the underlining anger from members like Chris when it comes to “change” in the church. Having worked repeatedly with LDS closeted homosexuals, one thing I’ve noticed over the last decade of study and practice is how angry many become just before coming out of the closet. I have a feeling Chris may be struggling with these feelings. Brother Chris, the healing begins once you confront who you are. Let the healing begin brother, let it begin.

    • Stacey October 1, 2013 at 6:15 pm - Reply

      OOOOOOO not cool Leslie Wilson. If you truly are a clinical psychologist that works for LDS family services you could be in alot of hot water for that comment should Chris decide to make an issue out of it. As a health care professional you can’t make accusations like that. I am an attorney, and know.

    • Missouri October 2, 2013 at 8:19 am - Reply

      I feel sorry for Chris. He is hurting because no one wants to see something held dear under attack (or just changing). We can all appreciate this. It is difficult to adapt to change. As many have said, the Church IS changing and HAS changed. Unfortunately, many members have very dogmatic views of “doctrine” when there is much debate among church leaders themselves. They (church leaders) ultimately present a unified front (like good parents). This helps to understand why sometimes it can take a long time for official change to happen (e.g blacks and the priesthood). But it does. How it will ultimately change relative to homosexuality…who knows? But it already has changed to being more accepting and loving of all of our brothers and sisters.

      Leslie Wilson, from a physician’s perspective, how can you so quickly make a diagnosis of Chris with such limited history? The differential diagnosis is very broad.

      • Jeff Hill October 2, 2013 at 11:45 am - Reply

        Although I must say I chuckled when reading Leslie’s comment, it indeed must be a joke. I’m actually surprised it made it past the moderator’s review.

  30. Joy October 2, 2013 at 1:53 pm - Reply

    To Ralph, I, like Kate Kelly, believe that there is not male/female equality in the Church. I am doubtful that a plea to ordination will result in a removal of that inequality, but I wholeheartedly commend Kate in the way she is approaching this, her respectful demeanor and her honorable desires. To me the underlying unhappiness and dissatisfaction with the status quo is not “petty and silly” to use your words. When you use those words, I am greatly saddened. Women (and men) like me need our voices to be heard. We need a respectful dialog on these issues to ensue. History has shown that it is easy to silence women’s issues by calling them “petty and silly.” Would you be willing to look into these things again and consider that there might be a basis for the dissatisfaction that a growing number of women are feeling? I am likewise educated and thoughtful as you describe your female family members, and yet I do not have the perspective that they have relative to male priesthood administration. My perspective is worthy of consideration too.

    • LOD October 4, 2013 at 6:14 pm - Reply

      As a male, I agree fully with Joy–great comment. I thought Ralph came across as completely out of touch the way he was so dismissive about the Ordain Women movement. And, frankly, it seemed like whenever any tough issue came up on this episode and next, Ralph has to flip through some large binder of “ammunition” before he can respond. It appears that he has picked up the mantle of Dan Peterson as chief apologist for the Church.

      Interesting discussion…audio needs to be improved.

  31. R October 3, 2013 at 9:19 pm - Reply

    I just wanted to comment about Ralph’s comment about girls not being born with views like your female panelist shared. Indeed some children seem to develop views such as those of their own accord. I am a mother of 5 year old twin girls and one of my girls regularly of her own accord expresses a desire to serve as the boys/men do at church…passing the sacrament, being bishop, etc. Just last week she told my husband and I that she wanted me, her mom, to baptize her. Our other daughter – same house, same gene pool, same associates, same ward, same friends, has yet to express any such opinion…

    So, I disagree. My twin children came with profoundly different personalities. I see more and more each day that they came who they are. Their spirits having a history that I can’t see, reveal themselves more and more to me each day. I can say for sure, that we haven’t parented them differently! They came as distinctly unique individuals. I love this aspect of life. That we are each unique and that we grow as we come to know and strive to understand each other.

    John, Thanks for providing these podcasts. It is nice to hear diverse voices that so often are quiet or silent in the wards & Mormon groups I’ve been part of.

  32. Get Understanding October 7, 2013 at 12:22 pm - Reply

    Good concept to have a panel of speakers on hard topics. I suggest to be very careful who you ask to speak, however, or you drive more wedges than you create bridges. This country is torn enough by strong opinions.

    On the LGB issue – THIS RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE SEEN!!! (https://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-navigating-the-labyrinth-surrounding-homosexual-desire)

    We talk about “openly gay” without saying if “open” means out of the closet or if “open” means living in homosexual sin. We say “gay” without specifying if it is an orientation or a life-style. That’s where all the misunderstanding lies!! According to the research only 1/3 of individuals in the US who identify as same sex attracted have acted on it. Most live in heterosexual marriages! We must be more careful to encourage love and understanding of individuals without encouraging sin. Doctrine and love can go hand in hand!

    Read the research and see where listening to the prophet meets up with love and with same sex attraction.

  33. LDSgirl October 17, 2013 at 2:28 am - Reply

    In regards to the first question posed by European Saint who asked,
    “who could be considered a moderate in the church these days?” I think maybe many of the young scholars some might not yet know of fall into this group. Ben Park, Joseph Spencer, Kirk Caudle, another persons like them. I only know them from the blogs and articles but they all seem extremely bright and not to extreme on either side.

Leave A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.