The church clearly stated that there is nothing wrong with asking questions.
Asking is not the problem. The problem comes when you dont like the answer and
you try to FORCE changes and cause a big stink when things don't go the way
YOU want! I find it very interesting how when the ordain women group complained
that they were at risk of excommunication, the media was all over it! But I have
yet to see the churches response anywhere but local news. The media is only
interested in the anti church news and wants nothing to do with the churches
It is inaccurate to attribute to Kate Kelly the "caricature of Mormon men
and leaders as . . . 'cowardly and un-Christlike.'" She only used
that language to describe the decision to hold her disciplinary council in
absentia.What an ironic caricature.
Lovingly and thoughtfully stated.
Here's an idea, why don't we just strive to serve others, perform
those callings and responsibilities that we are asked to do, study, pray and
listen with a contrite spirit to those who are called to lead the church. Too
many have the idea that the church is some kind of democratic organization that
we can petition for changes. Stop worrying about equality for everything. Women
and Men and not equal, all men are not equal, all women are not equal. We are
not and never will be equal to one and other. We are individuals with strengths
and weakness. This equality debate is getting old, and within the church I fear
will be a great distraction that will lead many to apostasy.
I appreciate this article. I appreciate thoughtful statements on
both sides of this issue.
"Ordain Women seems not to want to discuss but to impose, does not ask
questions as much as claim to have answers".Try that same
sentence and substitute "The LDS hierarchy" for "Ordain
Women".Hiding behind the supposition that "Jesus only
ordained men" is a cop out. Jesus didn't ride in a car or use a
computer or (we assume) shave his beard. We do know that he preached
inclusion--welcoming men and women, rich and poor. No one is claiming that he
said anything about restricting representation to Caucasian males, or that women
had some mysterious "purpose" in life which meant that certain roles
would be closed to them.Referring to lowering the age for
missionaries as "addressing women's concerns" is laughable. Did
you not notice that the lowered ages are still different for men and women?
folks that don't like the church's position on issues ought to start
their own and leave the rest of us alone
Maybe Sister Kelly's comment applies to her own actions, as it interesting
that she moved about the same time disciplinary action by the local Church
officials was about to begin. The local leaders could have moved her records to
her new residence ward, but the new area's local Church officials would
have had to start all over with interviews, etc. She had the option to return
for her Church disciplinary meeting, as well. Perhaps it was decided to go ahead
if in fact she determined not to return for the meeting. If she had indicated
to those local Church leaders that she would rather have the meeting with the
Church leaders in her new location, I am pretty sure they would have
accommodated her. Just my thoughts, as I only know what I have read. One thing I
know, the Church will survive and become stronger for it and those investigating
the Church will see Sister Kelly's actions for what it really is.
There is a huge difference, between having a sincere question and asking for an
answer. When you ask, you need to be prepared to accept the answer given.The way you react to the answer, is an expression of your real intent
when asking. We don't always get what we think we should get. Does that
mean the adult way to respond is to hold candle light vigils chanting to people
you supposedly love and care for? That is a bit creepy for me. Do you run to the
media every time you have felt you were wronged?The ordained women
have written in their stance which embraces gay marriage. They feel all doctrine
can be changed and should be changed by social pressure, by those who have not
been given authority.With that said not everyone embraced Jesus
Christ when he was here on the earth. There were plenty that didn't like
His doctrine then as there are now. Back then the solution was to turn him over
to the people and authorities. They in turned crucified Him. Now dissenters feel
they are entitled to do the same again today.
I find it disconcerting that some would pretend to dictate to a private
organization how they should administer their affairs. People like Ms.
Bilington and others appear to have motives that have very little to do with
revelation and more to do with pushing their own personal agenda.This is not the church of Ordain Women, it is the Church of Jesus Christ. If
you don't believe that the leadership of the Church speaks on behalf of the
Savior, maybe it is time to either humbly reconsider and change your position or
find something more in line with what your believe system really is.I thought this article was masterfully written and dead on as to the position
of the Church and most believing members. If and when changes are appropriate
they will come through the appropriate channels after the revelation has been
received, not because of outside pressure from some self-serving individuals or
Very well written. Thank you.I have known few members without
questions or concerns of some kind at some point in their lives. Questions
imply a seeking for divine answers.Where an individual or group
decides that the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve are wrong and that they
are right, that is not a question. It is an answer. One that says that the
individual or group knows God's mind and will rather than those called and
sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. If that group or individual then
teach and promote that position, they in effect set themselves in the prophetic
position and put themselves in opposition to those so sustained.That
this would lead to a disciplinary council should have been a foregone conclusion
on the part of these folks.
Whoa, tone it down. Kate Kelly didn't call all LDS men and leaders
cowardly and un-Christlike. She called one action of one leader cowardly and
I am also weary of being referred to as a "mind-numbed, non-thinking,
reactionary" member of the human race because I choose to believe in ways
that aren't convenient or modern enough for those who choose to believe
that they have a newer and better way of thinking. I believe because I do think,
ponder and pray. I study. I try to listen to God speaking in my life. I trust
that God has set apart a Church that, although administered by humans, is
incredibly blessed with insight given through the Grace of God. I understand
that God's ways aren't man's ways and am looking for greater
light and knowledge, as I believe that to be the purpose of this life. Might the world not be a better place if we were all accountable to a power
outside of ourselves and refused to be victims because some times we get exactly
what we asked for?
"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself: and
though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but
shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my
servants, it is the same." -D&C 1:38I don't want to
criticize anyone in this ongoing issue. I will start off by saying that if the
Lord revealed to, his mouth piece on the earth today, Thomas S. Monson that
women of the Church were to receive the Priesthood tomorrow, I would have no
problem excepting that. Remember this is the Lord Jesus Christ's Church
and He is as the head. We ALL go through trials of faith and very personal
struggles. And if we go to the Lord in prayer and in secret He will help us.
Making a spectacle of a concern and bringing on media only gives ammunition that
the media can twist and represent both sides inaccurately. We are
all equal in the amount of love the Savior has for us. He created us. Let him be
your guiding strength in your trials of faith.
She hit the nail on the head! Thank you!!!!
I appreciate that only a minority of LDS women have any interest in exercising
Priesthood office. And I don't like the left-wing idea that people who
don't hold left-wing beliefs that are supposedly in their best interest are
suffering from "false consciousness." That said, since
people are different, it is rare for there to be anything near unanimity on
anything more controversial than whether the sky is blue. Therefore, whenever,
among a group, there is near unanimity about something, it is reasonable to
question whether there are tendencies in that group's culture that inclines
them to have the ideas they believe they are supposed to have.LDS
women know that they're not supposed to want to hold the priesthood, and so
they don't. Some of them would not in any event. Others might. The mere
polling right now, though -- ignoring the cultural tendencies towards conforming
with what the powers that be ordain -- really doesn't say much about how
people would think in the absence of those pressures.
I was raised in the church from the age of 8 when my family joined. I studied
seminary, institute and served a mission. I was never undermined by any leader
because of my sex. I was never treated differently from the males around me. I
was valued for who I was. If I had questions I was actively encouraged to ask
them, to study and look for the answers and ultimately to pray to know the truth
and growing up I asked a lot of questions.I am currently inactive.
I'm the one stopping myself from being active. It's my choice. I
admit I'm imperfect and my faith isn't very strong but at no time
since I became inactive have I ever felt that the church wasn't true.Ordain Women are wrong and show a clear lack of understanding of the
doctrines of the Church. I am not hiding behind any supposition. I know the
Church is true. I believe that the Church is being led by on-going revelation.
Thomas S Monson is a prophet.I am saddened that as members of the
church those belonging to Ordain Women don't know these things too.
The underlying assumption of the Ordain Women bunch is based on an erroneous
belief. They think they can change who gets ordained to the Priesthood the same
way they would change a department store's return policy on a dress (or
pant-suit perhaps) they don't like. Arguing with the clerk will get you
nowhere in this case. The manager cannot help either. You have to go
to the owner in this situation. And the owner is God. They have his direct line,
if they will use it. But they should understand that what they are asking is for
Him to rethink His entire creation. It is like asking him to change which gender
has babies. Of course, with God, nothing is impossible. However, it would seem
like a more reasonable request to ask God for understanding about why He did
things the way He did.
Sounds strangely reminiscent like when the Church pushed against passing the ERA
because "the ERA was not the answer." Since the ERA, have
there push other alternative pushed forward? Sometimes, alternatives, as
uncomfortable as they make some people feel, can be addressed, investigated,
I don't agree with the OW cause or methods obviously the author of this
article doesn't either - however the title of this article seems to
inadvertantly admit an inequality exists. Right? I by indicating that OW is not
the 'answer' on Mormon women's equality seems to recognize there
maybe an inequality or problem to be solved, even if it isn't through OW.
Freudian slip :) ??
I thought you feminists got all equal righted up in the 60's, so stop your
whining and take it like the man you really want to be.
I applaud Ashley's essay and agree 100% with what she has written. Exactly.
I'm puzzled: this far overstates OW affect on the Church.A far
lesser opponent was running his mouth at Muhammad Ali at their pre-fight
weigh-in. Muhammad Ali ignored him for a while then turned to him and said,
"If you every hit me, and I find out about it..." This is how I see the
purported match between the restored Church and OW. That's how
OW's buzzing about in their self-importance strikes me. We've always
had noisy apostates and we likely always will. For some reason, each edition
prances about as if it were special, runs its course, and goes away. Is anyone
still campaigning for Sonia Johnson and her issue?
Another rock and a hard place situation- the Church did not have the OW group
that tried to get into Priesthood session arrested, even though they clearly
were protesting on the private property. So does this mean the angry men yelling
about Joseph Smith can now protest their way all the way to the door of the
conference center with no problems? If the Church now arrests the angry yelling
guy, is it showing favoritism to these women over the angry men? Now the Church
has to choose between inequality of treatment (which I am sure OW doesn't
mind when it would be in their benefit) or having protesters all the way to the
door of General Conference.
OW website has a lot of untruths. They are spinning the truth, not telling the
RE: Twin Lights, “I have known few members without questions or concerns
of some kind at some point in their lives. Questions imply a seeking for divine
answers”. True,In(D&C 84: 6-17) the line of priesthood is
given from Moses to Adam. verse 13, Esaias, who lived in the days of Abraham.
Esaias is a Greek with priesthood authority. there are exceptions.
Modern N.T. translations haveIsaiah instead of Esaias,see(Romans 9:27,29
In the name of equality, compassion, and diversity Ordain Women probably support
tolerance for some Muslims who make similar sounding political demands. I
assume many of them are familiar with the works of Saul Alinsky.The
great irony herewith is the shrift these misguided ladies will get from the
imposition of Sharia Law that changing demographics eventually will cause in the
coming years. Imagine, men will be able to declare themselves divorced and the
women will have to suffer behind their veils.These women may want to
be careful about what they pray for. The Lord just might answer their prayers
with a most unappealing result.
Woolley: "Ordain Women also counterproductively makes ordination synonymous
with equality."But what other possible conclusion can there be?
The converse of the statement is "lack of ordination [on the basis of sex]
is synonymous with inequality." This logically clear as a matter of
definition, unless the LDS Church wants to redefine "equality."
It's fine if the LDS Church, like the Roman Catholic Church, wants to
withhold or allocate church privileges and status on the basis of sex as a
matter of interpretation of doctrine, just don't try to call it equality.
"Separate but equal" is never equal. If certain people are denied
certain benefits or powers, they are not equal, even if you maintain that they
have "equivalent" different benefits. Just be honest and say, "We
have an unequal system. That's the way it is. Deal with it."
That's much better than trying to foist the charade of equality on us.
This article is absolutely right on the money. "Ordain Women" most
certainly does not speak for me and because they think themselves somehow
enlightened, a certain scripture comes to mind about when they are learned they
think they are wise. They are neither wise nor enlightened only being lead
astray down a path that will not end well for themselves.
Message for Ms. Bilington: The caucasion males are not there to represent the
membership of the Church. They represent Christ, who's church it is.
Ordain Women should take their issues to Him.
"Whatever its original intent, it ironically demeans Mormon women as well as
men and hinders progress on women’s issues."And those
issues in the LDS Church on which progress is needed would be exactly what?
Laura BilingtonMaple Valley, WA"Hiding behind the
supposition that "Jesus only ordained men" is a cop out. Jesus
didn't ride in a car or use a computer or (we assume) shave his beard. We
do know that he preached inclusion--welcoming men and women, rich and poor. No
one is claiming that he said anything about restricting representation to
Caucasian males, or that women had some mysterious "purpose" in life
which meant that certain roles would be closed to them."Also,
"We do know..." in addition to His not using modern technology that in
His contemporary society women did not serve on the Sanhedrin or other governing
bodies. Since you are a woman, I would have assumed that you are also aware of
the feminine "....mysterious 'purpose' in life..." otherwise
known as childbearing. That is a "certain role" that is surely closed
to men in our society. When are we (men) going to be liberated?Lastly, representation (whatever that means?) is not restricted to Caucasian
males in the LDS Church. So many of us cannot see the point you are trying to
Excellent job Ashley. Good for you.
I love, respect, and admire the fifteen men that most members of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.
The collective wisdom and spirituality of the First Presidency and Quorum of the
Twelve Apostles is a great source of strength and inspiration. I have found,
over my lifetime, as I read, ponder, and pray about what they have said and
written that the Lord speaks to me personally, helping me with the challenges of
mortality. I hope that I will always be found following in their footsteps as
they sincerely try to do what the Lord would have them do. It always amazes me
that some people, who claim membership in this church, think that they know
better than these ordained Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I believe there are several 'culture' changes that can be made to
improve the image of LDS women. Why not changes the culture.1. The R.S.
president should sit on the stand during sacrament with the Bishop. The RS
president should participate in interviews with female members. Women should
present longer and more talks at General Conference. There should be RS
councils from the General President in Salt Lake to local Stakes. Women need
more women... The RS magazine was a great magazine...RS meetings during the
week were great ways to keep women connected and the mother education and
culture refinement meetings are well needed again. We don't need to always
wear long skirts and denim and polyester. And crafts are not our highest
priority. Change the culture and you change the conversation. I didn't
say change doctrine, I said change the culture
I like the article, but I am having a hard time determining how there is
inequality? I share in the priesthood every time I make a covenant with
Heavenly Father. I have been sealed to my husband for time and all eternity
through the power of the priesthood. I take sacrament every week and am
grateful for the priesthood holders who pass it, including my son. I have the
bishop, high priesthood holders, and stake priesthood holders consult with me
about Family History questions and problems, as well as indexing questions and
issues. Someone tell me how I am being treated unequal? I sided
with Women's lib in the 60's for a lot of reasons, mostly work
related. But I just don't get this one. The only thing I would like to be
able to do is be able to wear some of my nice pant suits to church, but
don't because I have been instructed not to - and having seen some of the
teenagers attire, I understand completely. Whatever President Monson directs, I
will do. Ordain Women would do well to remember that. And remember who they
I appreciate this thoughtful response to the current situation. I find it ironic
that some women in the Church associate ordination with equality. Church
leaders have been addressing women's equality since the early days of the
Restoration. Brigham Young said, “Priesthood is to be used for the
benefit of the entire human family, for the upbuilding of men, women, and
children alike. There is indeed no privileged class or sex within the true
Church of Christ." Imagine a comment like that in the mid-1800's!
Doctrines of the Church do not diminish women - they exalt them! I suspect that
concerns about women's equality may stem from the Church's emphasis on
mothers not working outside the home whenever possible. Only those who do not
understand the value of motherhood and the importance of the work done at home
would feel that this recommendation is demeaning to women.
How can someone say they believe the church is the true restored Gospel on this
earth and wake up one morning deciding he or she wants a major change in the
institution of the church and will do just about anything to get it, to include
activism? On what planet does that occur? if this were the Methodists who vote
by council or the Baptists who pretty much do what they want, I'd
understand it. But the LDS church has always said revelation comes from one
source, and that doesn't mean some person who decides that's the way
it's going to be after her morning bowl of Cheerios.
The author of the article states "On the other hand, the church may hesitate
to make changes to avoid appearing bullied or shamed by Ordain Women."Shouldn't the church make changes because it is the right thing to
do, regardless of who gets the credit?
@ WI_Member"Shouldn't the church make changes because it is
the right thing to do, regardless of who gets the credit?"Shouldn't the church stand by it's doctrine because it comes from
God? The church is not a democracy and should not be influenced by outside
activists, regardless if you believe if it's right or wrong.
Many women are aware of their glorious, exclusively feminine role as co-creators
of life with God. They might feel demeaned by those who would have them look
Ordaining LDS women of wisdom and knowledge as deaconesses per Romans 16:1-4 is
the ONLY answer. In The Church of Jesus Christ (WHQ: Monongahela, Pennsylvania)
we have done exactly that since at least 1862. We have ordained possibly a few
1000 such women/sisters since then.
"On the other hand, the church may hesitate to make changes to avoid
appearing bullied or shamed by Ordain Women."I devoutly hope
not. I would not like to think that the Church would avoid making
changes that ought to be made because of fear of *appearances.* Do what is
right, let the consequence follow.
If your Church membership and all of the blessings that stem from it, including
temple blessings,are precious to you, why would you risk losing it all to speak
against the status quo? Ms. Kelly is divorcing the Church over irreconcilable
differences. She could have reconciled, but she wouldn't, knowing the
divorce was inevitable. She made a choice of what mattered most. I am truly
sad for her. And this DN article is right on. Ordain Women has done far more
harm than good to the Church it claims to care about.
Outstanding op-ed. Well thought out. Thanks for writing.
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus
The women of the church make a tremendous contribution in every ward and stake
and in the general leadership of the church.They are essential to its success
and ( I believe }, will continue to be a great asset to the growth of the
church.Don't be mislead by a few detractors in or out of the church.If you
have a Testimony of the church you will know and understand the score.
I have served in several bishoprics. I have never known of one man who aspired
or wanted to be bishop. So it's interesting to hear of the OW sisters who
want to be bishops or stake presidents. And as for my experience serving in
bishoprics, I can only say we valued the voice of the sisters in the church very
much (ward council meetings, welfare meetings, etc.). My wife was relief society
president for many years, and the bishop constantly sought her council and
opinion. It almost felt like she was the third counselor in the bishopric. So
for the OW crowd to say they don't have a voice? Really? I have a feeling
these women were critical of the prophet long before this issue became public.
"The Church is like a great caravan—organized, prepared, following an
appointed course, with its captains of tens and captains of hundreds all in
place.What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of
the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The
caravan moves on.Is there a ravine to cross, a miry mud hole to pull
through, a steep grade to climb? So be it. The oxen are strong and the teamsters
wise. The caravan moves on.Are there storms that rage along the way,
floods that wash away the bridges, deserts to cross, and rivers to ford? Such is
life in this fallen sphere. The caravan moves on.Ahead is the
celestial city, the eternal Zion of our God, where all who maintain their
position in the caravan shall find food and drink and rest. Thank God that the
caravan moves on!" - Bruce R. McConkie, Oct. 1984 General Conference
Perhaps I might also claim that my rights of equality have been violated when
the bishopric of our ward was changed a year ago and I wasn't called as the
new bishop. I am a high priest, I try to be worthy, but still, I didn't
get called.And that is fine. I am an organist and I love to serve
as an organist and I report directly to the music chairman - a woman - and she
makes decisions and I have no problem with that as I have witnessed her
inspiration in serving in her calling.Before any of us feel that we
are not an integral part of the church because of our gender or some other
reason, perhaps we might ask ourselves if we are not an integral part because we
aren't contributing in ways that are best suited to us and as needed by the
congregation in general.
"What does it matter...that predators claim those few who fall by the
way?"To heck with those losers. It's all about the ninety
and nine.Never one of my favorite talks. The thing about caravans:
It's not enough that they keep moving. It also matters *where they are
To: WI_MemberAppleton, WIThe author of the article states
"On the other hand, the church may hesitate to make changes to avoid
appearing bullied or shamed by Ordain Women."Shouldn't the
church make changes because it is the right thing to do, regardless of who gets
the credit?They will!!!
In the laws of the land "sameness" is apparently the only measure of
equality. But I'm so tired of being told that I'm not equal to a man
if I'm not the same as a man. I am a woman. I am not the same as a man.
I don't need someone with a degree in gender theory trying to convince me
otherwise. Theocracy is a real blessing.
Eileen FullenwiderI am so glad that when I served as Relief Society
president in my ward I was not required to sit on the stand during Sacrament
Meeting! Who cares about all this recognition? Are we here to be honored or
here to serve? There are a lot of people missing the point of the gospel when
they go about asking for more respect and recognition. Just go out and serve!
To Vince here, I am not sure what you intended by your statement about the
ERA, but the Church was in agreement with a majority of the population when it
stated that the ERA was not the answer. A popular slogan of those days was
"Equal Rights Yes! ERA No!" The reason for the opposition to the ERA,
for both the Church and a majority of population, was the vague wording of the
amendment. The Church made many statements supporting the equal rights issue
itself, but not the specific amendment.Several states adopted
similarly worded amendments after the ERA didn't go through, and what ended
up happening, especially in cases in Maryland and Pennsylvania, was that women
were deprived by the courts of spousal and child support as direct results of
ERA-type state laws. This is what the Church was speaking out against, as it
deplores men that shirk their responsibility of providing for their children.
I always find these kind of groups strange and illogical, where it's Ordain
Women, some similar groups of Catholic nuns, etc. They claim to be faithful
members of their faith, but they reject core tenets of their faith -- especially
the divine inspiration of their leader(s). If any LDS person believes the
prophet is, indeed, a prophet of God and that God directs the church, then they
shouldn't be arguing vehemently with that God-given direction. Instead,
they might encourage consideration or dialogue, but should save their hardest
questions for God.If, instead, they believe the prophet is just a
man running a faulty organization on his own whims, then they should probably
just admint it and join (or found) a different church.
It is said that JS was in favor of women receiving the priesthood and in fact
gave it to Emma. So was he wrong, again.
There are almost no women helping to decide church policies. There are very few
women in higher positions of church leadership. Women don't even write
their own manuals anymore. Our church has very sexist policies such as: A man
can be married up to 4 women. A woman must have her first husband's
permission to get a temple divorce. There are no women zone leaders. There are
no women Sunday School presidents. There should be no reason why women cannot
lead in these positions and be treated equally in the temples, which by they way
they are not. Officiating is not the same as leading. Mostly women are treated
well on a personal level. But any church "court" only in involves men
often sitting in judgment of women. There is great room for improvement in
these areas. Women should be able to hold their babies when being blessed. As
of now they are not. Don't tell me that our church believes in full
equality. I was taught as a youth in Seminary that I had to accept polygamy if
I wanted to go to the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom. Has this
The LDS women whom I have spoken to, are somewhat embarrassed by such a
suggestion. I know of a woman years ago who left the Church and
joined NOW. She was married and had several children. My wife and she were
clode friends. Inviting my wife to lunch one day, she tried to
"convert" her to to her point of view. My wife basically told her that
she had her own views and supported the Priesthood and the brethren she knew and
loved who were an active part of it, just as she was an active part of the
Relief Society. She told her friend that she loved her and that would never
change, regardless. They never met again, as the lady would have nothing to do
with my wife after that.When the Church says it is an incorrect
position, we both support that direction.
Both men and women in the LDS church have promised to strive to build up the
church. If I break that promise and continue to break that promise, and refuse
to repent, it is a serious sin and the church has the right and responsibility
to excommunicate me.
One of the two photos accompanying the article states that it includes the
Church Office Building. Des News appears to have cropped the building out of the
photo without revising the caption.
After a short illness, our Stake Patriarch died and a new one was called and his
wife was called as his assistant; so much for women in the church not having a
priesthood calling. Does anyone know of a Patriarch who is single or widowed?
@TheProudDuck: "I appreciate that only a minority of LDS women have any
interest in exercising Priesthood office."Call to the Priesthood
is a call to go to work. Women have it easy as they are not so called. They
should be jumping for joy rather then moaning and complaining.Of
course, they are encouraged to teach in various church auxiliaries and to go on
missions but they're not considered derelict if they don't.@Thats what I thought: "...the Church did not have the OW group that
tried to get into Priesthood session arrested..."You don't
arrest women for this sort of stuff. Period.@Old But Not Stupid:
"The great irony herewith is the shrift these misguided ladies will get from
the imposition of Sharia Law that changing demographics eventually will cause in
the coming years."I don't know, but it could be Shariah was
imposed, in the Muslim world, on females because they got a little uppity.@Eileen Fullenwider: "I didn't say change doctrine, I said
change the culture."Women have unique roles... in their youth to
middle age they are supposed to be attractive... some say 'sexy.' Men
@Neanderthal: "Call to the Priesthood is a call to go to work. Women have
it easy as they are not so called. They should be jumping for joy rather then
moaning and complaining."If women are given the priesthood they
should be required to wear a suit, white shirt, and tie to church... and keep
their hair cut short. Anything else would be discriminatory.