Critics of Mormonism Are All the Same

The feminist Mormon group Ordain Women explains on its website:

“Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormons to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.”


Kate Kelly, founder of Ordain Women, seeks entrance into the October 2013 LDS priesthood session

Last October (2013) Ordain Women put itself in the public eye as a group 200 strong showed up at the Mormon Church’s General Conference priesthood session with a request to be admitted. The request was denied.

A little more than two weeks from now, on April 5th (2014), a group representing Ordain Women plans to again approach the General Conference priesthood session and “reverently seek admission.” The Mormon Church issued a statement this week in the form of a letter, which says in part:

“Your organization has again publicized its intention to demonstrate on Temple Square during the April 5 priesthood session. Activist events like this detract from the sacred environment of Temple Square and the spirit of harmony sought at General Conference. Please reconsider.

“If you feel you must come and demonstrate, we ask that you do so in free speech zones adjacent to Temple Square, which have long been established for those wishing to voice differing viewpoints. They can be found on the attached map.”

The Washington Post summed this up:

“Mormon women seeking tickets to the faith’s general priesthood session next month will not only be denied access to that all-male meeting, but also may be shut out of Salt Lake City’s historic Temple Square altogether.”

This forewarned banishment of faithful (though critical) Mormon women from Temple Square has Mormon feminist blogger Jana Riess asserting, “I’m a Mormon feminist, not an anti-Mormon protestor.”

Ms. Riess’ surprise is evident as she’s come to understand that in the eyes of LDS leadership, all critics of Mormonism are the same. She writes,

“There is something deeply symbolic about yesterday’s statement, for it reveals what the Church apparently thinks of the feminists within its fold. We, as faithful and active members of the Church, are being lumped together with the same anti-Mormon protestors who routinely crash General Conference and shout that the Mormon religion is of the devil. These protestors have started fistfights with conference-goers and even stomped on or burned temple garments. I have little in common with those people.”

Eric Johnson in the Free Speech Zone, Brigham City, Utah

Eric Johnson in the Free Speech Zone, Brigham City, Utah

We at Mormonism Research Ministry (and many other so-called anti-Mormon groups) also have little in common with the behavior of people who start fistfights and stomp on temple garments; nevertheless we, too, are “lumped together” with those who do these things, both in the way Mormon Church leadership responds to us and our concerns, and the way Mormons in general think of us.

Ms. Reiss’ blog article discusses some of the ways she and her feminist ideas are treated within Mormonism. If a few identifying words were to be changed here and there, the article could very well be discussing Mormonism Research Ministry’s efforts to challenge Mormon doctrinal positions. Some things Ms. Reiss and I share in our respective areas of faithful passion for change are these (as expressed in her blog article):

  • “I am being told my views are anathema.”
  • The Church “wants to make [critics] appear powerless and insignificant….[it] positions Mormon [critics] as a lunatic fringe, a mere distraction, a mosquito to be swatted off Temple Square.”
  • The critical group’s “members are detracting from ‘helpful’ discussions about Mormonism and” [fill in the topical blank].
  • We wonder, “where, exactly, are these ‘thoughtful discussions’ about [our concerns] in church allegedly happening?”
  • Critics are “dangerous enough that they need to be banned from Temple Square.”
  • “So we blog, and we speak out in unofficial ways about the need for change, since there is such a limit to what we’re allowed to express within institutional channels.”
  • “Mormon [critics] will continue speaking out in all our variety.”

Ms. Riess, as viewed by LDS leadership, critics of Mormonism are all the same. To them you are an “anti-Mormon protestor.”  As Mormon Apostle M. Russell Ballard once explained in General Conference,

“…in the Lord’s Church there is no such thing as a ‘loyal opposition.’ One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of God’s prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed.” (“Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers,” Ensign, 11/1999, 64).

Faithful Mormon members of Ordain Women, Welcome to the club.

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in General Conference, LDS Church, Mormon Culture and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Critics of Mormonism Are All the Same

  1. MJP says:

    “So we blog, and we speak out in unofficial ways about the need for change, since there is such a limit to what we’re allowed to express within institutional channels.”

    Call me crazy, but this sounds like she is saying there are indeed limits to what one can say and question within the LDS program. Alisha, if you are still around, do you have a rebuttal?

  2. faithoffathers says:


    So, do you believe that women should be ordained ministers in Christian churches? In your church, what would you think about a minority group of people who agitated for fundamental structural changes in the church that went against the doctrine of the church and who adopted very visible, public methods for garnering attention and support for their cause?

  3. MJP says:

    FoF, that’s an interesting question. There are people who believe women should be ordained in the Christian church. I happen to think they should not be, but I respectfully disagree with them and would not shun them aside. I would want to talk to them, and be respectful to their positions, not put them down or minimize their positions at the expense of protecting an image.

    The response from the LDS seemed to be that they were more concerned with “the sacred environment and spirit of harmony” at Temple Square than they are about conversations and the points these women are making.

    This really demonstrates the charge some of us have made against your church how it is more concerned with image than it is with real issues.

  4. grindael says:

    So, do you believe that women should be ordained ministers in Christian churches?

    This wasn’t even the point of the article. You are trolling. If you continue to do this FOF, you will be banned from commenting. The article was about how dissenting groups are treated, not whether their cause was right or wrong in Mormon or Chrisitan thought or tradition. Stick to the topic, or don’t comment. You have no other options here. You have run out of them.

  5. faithoffathers says:


    I find it interesting that you cannot understand the relevance of asking how a person with dissident ideas and demands is treated generally in Christian churches. The point is to get people to think about how they themselves would respond to the equivalent protesters in their own church. I get that you don’t want to think about that, or maybe you cannot imagine that scenario.

    Does the church have the freedom to define its own doctrine and practices? The church has taught the doctrine on this matter pretty clearly for a long time. I get that you cannot support the church in any possible scenario. But whether you like it or not, the church has the right to respond to protesters in this way. It is utter hypocrisy for a person who spends their time generating arguments and criticism against another church with the justification that you are in a spiritual war against error and heresy to turn around and point the finger at the LDS church for drawing this line.

    The people from Ordain Women have been treated respectfully by the church. But drawing a line after repeated attempts by such party to publicly smear the church or engender negative feelings from this type of public display is very reasonable. And to demonstrate that, I turn the question to those here who have nothing better to do than criticize the church. How would YOU respond to protesters of this type? Would you give them the chance to speak to your church from the pulpit, giving them preferential treatment?

    Pejoratives and misnomers removed. – mod.

  6. grindael says:


    I find it interesting that you cannot understand the relevance of asking how a person with dissident ideas and demands is treated generally in Christian churches. The point is to get people to think about how they themselves would respond to the equivalent protesters in their own church. I get that you don’t want to think about that, or maybe you cannot imagine that scenario.

    First, here you go again FOF. Putting thoughts and words in my mouth. I never said anything about the OP. Not one word. I simply said that your question was not appropriate for this thread. We have done many threads on Women & the Priesthood, if you have a question like that, ask it on one of those. What would you know about what I think about? AGAIN, this is simply hyperbole on your part, that has nothing to do with anything, but trying to denigrate me. I notice that you, yourself have not said how YOUR CHURCH should treat these women. You SAY that they have been “treated respectfully”, but you do not say what YOU would do. This is typical of you FOF, and disingenuous.

    Does the church have the freedom to define its own doctrine and practices?

    Yes. But it can and should be questioned when they offer contradictory statements and label former “prophets” doctrines and revelations as folklore.

    The church has taught the doctrine on this matter pretty clearly for a long time.

    So? They did that with the Priesthood Ban against the Blacks, too. How is this relevant?

    I get that you cannot support the church in any possible scenario.

    That is simply wishful thinking on your part. I would support the Church if they would be honest about their History and Doctrine. And I applaud the Word of Wisdom, but NOT as a forced regulation. I was a member of the Church for decades. I went on a mission and went to BYU.

    You know nothing about me, or what I would “support”, or how I really feel about the church, my Mormon friends or anything else. When I respond here, it is directed at Church Hierarchy and the Doctrine and History of the Church, and in answering people like you, I do so with candor, honesty and resolve.

    You don’t like it, because I constantly catch you in error, lies and false statements. You are certainly NOT like ANY of my Mormon friends and associates. You are the intractable one here. As I have shown elsewhere, you have gotten progressively worse, and because of this, only your RELEVANT points will be allowed. All else will be trashed. So if you want to “represent” here, as you say you do, be careful how you do it.

    But whether you like it or not, the church has the right to respond to protesters in this way.

    Yes it does. SO? How is what I like or don’t like relevant to the OP? No one is contesting that they CAN respond the way they do, what some are questioning is WHY. Are you short on things to argue about that you have to make such statements?

    It is utter hypocrisy for a person who spends their time generating arguments and criticism against another church with the justification that you are in a spiritual war against error and heresy to turn around and point the finger at the LDS church for drawing this line.

    Unfortunately for you, I haven’t pointed the finger at anyone … yet. I have yet to make my stance on this known. You see how you constantly jump the gun with accusations without any merit? And “pointing the finger” is so hyperbolic. Try and think of something else to do with the limited space you have to comment here instead of trying to match wits with someone that you have shown (by your error filled and hyperbolic comments) that you are incapable of comprehending or understanding. Are you only here to denigrate me, Sharon or MRM, or to make others see how Mormonism is all that you claim it is? That’s just not a very good way of achieving that goal now, is it?

    The people from Ordain Women have been treated respectfully by the church.

    Have they? How? Is barring them from Temple Square treating them with respect? They are, after all, faithful members of the church who only have a different point of view. And they are a small minority to boot.

    But drawing a line after repeated attempts by such party to publicly smear the church or engender negative feelings from this type of public display is very reasonable.

    So, all they do is attempt to “smear the church and engender negative feelings? Can you back that up with their statements that this is their mission? Examples? Remember, you must prove that all they do is “smear the church and engender negative feelings”. And from what I have learned (never having researched them before this), they are concerned with more that just being ordained into the Mormon Ministry, and they have legitimate gripes and about 15% of the Church agrees with them.

    And to demonstrate that, I turn the question to those here who have nothing better to do than criticize the church.

    To demonstrate what, exactly? What is your point, besides dismissing these movements out of hand? You have not shown at all WHY the church “drew a line”. What line? When? What did they do that caused a line to be drawn? And how would you know we have nothing better to do? So you know what we all do? Your comment is ignorant and again, hyperbolic. Future comments like this from you, won’t be tolerated.

    How would YOU respond to protesters of this type? Would you give them the chance to speak to your church from the pulpit, giving them preferential treatment?

    It wouldn’t be up to me, I’m not the Pastor of a Church. But I’m not against that. I would not be against that if it was proposed by any Pastor of any Church. You see, Mormons have individual worship services. Twice a year they have a CONFERENCE for the ENTIRE CHURCH, but only a few have input into that. Church policy was changed when one of those in charge decided that he didn’t want other’s input and wanted to create a ruling hierarchy that shut out anyone that disagreed with him. Mormon “prophets” are theocratic dictators. Very rich ones, who can’t even live their own higher “Law of Consecration”.

    If it is (as it is taught) a church of common consent, then everyone’s voice should be heard. But do you see that in Mormonism? Does anyone EVER get the chance to cast a different vote than what is decided by the Hierarchy and allowed to debate it? NO. They have a legitimate gripe, because the Church changed its stance on this very early on (and amended scripture to do so):

    The principle of common consent has functioned in the Church since its inception, though the actual practices incorporating this principle have evolved significantly. The revelation on LDS Church government, received when it was organized in April 1830, states: “No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church” (D&C 20:65). This instruction was reemphasized three months later: “All things shall be done by common consent in the church” (D&C 26:2). LDS practices may have been influenced in these earliest years by the Book of Mormon model of theocratic government that conducted its “business by the voice of the people” (Mosiah 29:25-26), and by biblical example (e.g., Ex. 24:3; Num. 27:19).

    Evidence from accounts of some early meetings and conferences indicates that many of the New England leaders of the Church felt that the membership should be directly involved in decision-making meetings, including making motions on policy issues, following standard parliamentary procedure for public meetings, and voting to finalize decisions. Individual members sometimes exercised the prerogative to call a meeting, and once it was in session, anyone had the right to address the group. The conduct of their meetings followed the congregational model that was familiar to them. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

    Then you have a big HOWEVER in this article, which can be read here.

    As priesthood councils and priesthood quorums were introduced into the Church organization, general discussion of policy issues and decision making became more their responsibility in council meetings, and less an agenda item for conferences, which in turn focused more on preaching the gospel.

    In fact, not “less” but totally absent. So is everything done then, by “common consent”? Not really, it is done by “priesthood council”. The church is not really a church of common consent then, is it? Do people that have alternative votes get to address that in Conference when they sustain? No. You will be ejected. That is not “common consent”, it is dictatorial when anyone who does have a problem sustaining is ejected if they wish to say why. Is there any kind of forum that they church has set up to hear any kinds of gripes? No. Everything is done in secret, and by individuals, like Bishops and Stake Presidents. People cannot unite and be heard. This is manipulation and intimidation.

    Each individual Christian Congregation operates differently. You then have the problem of broadbrushing, which you do so very well. If you have individual objections to how each treats this problem, please bring them up and I’ll be happy to discuss them. But don’t ascribe to me, how I would treat anyone with a legitimate concern about this.

    And what, exactly is “preferential treatment”? Wanting your voice to be heard? Ordain Women says their Mission is,

    Based on the principle of thoughtful, faith-affirming strategic action, Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormon women to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood. We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer.

    Have the “brethren” done this? Legitimately prayed about it? Should they pray about this, FOF? In an article by Peggy Fletcher Stack she says,

    [Church Spokesman] Moody’s letter invites the women to “view the live broadcast of the priesthood session on, the Mormon Channel or BYUtv.” Last fall, the LDS Church broadcast the all-male meeting live for the first time.

    Why can they only watch it on TV and not be invited to the meeting itself? Why the snub? Where is that policy in the Mormon scriptures? Why is the content of the meeting broadcast to the world and anyone can watch it, yet the meeting is segregated?

    We all know that most people in the Church don’t want women to have the priesthood:

    A 2011 Pew Research Center national survey found that 90 percent of LDS women and 84 percent of men oppose allowing women to enter the Mormon priesthood.

    So why is the Church barring them from some meetings? It seems that they are the ones creating a problem, not the women who want to be ordained. Remember, the problem with the Blacks started this way, and the Church then changed a policy they said they would NEVER change until all the white people got the priesthood. The Church was also heavily against the Woman’s Rights Movement of the 70’s. Why?

    “Although the official Mormon stance is that its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment is a moral one, not one that involves political issues,” Diane Divoky of the Sacramento Bee wrote in May 1980, “Mormons have been central in the anti-ERA movement that has brought ratification of the amendment to a halt.” Sonia Johnson’s sin was not her pro-ERA rhetoric, Divoky argued, but her descriptions of the role of her church in calling Mormon women “out of their homes to lobby against ERA with funds which were raised with the blessings of church authorities in Salt Lake City.” (Dialogue, Vol.14, No.2, p.57)

    This is the attitude that the church had about women wanting equal rights to be treated equally under the law. They definitely used Church money to fight an issue of law. Here it is,

    Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

    Sonia Johnson spoke out on these issues and was excommunicated for this speech.

    Was that being “treated with respect”? What has changed? Not much. So what can those women expect. We shall wait and see. They caved to worldly pressure about the Priesthood Ban and Polygamy. They may do so, if more people in the Church change their minds. That, is what they may be afraid of and why they may not want these women to be heard.

  7. falcon says:

    Yea our Mormon troll would love to turn this into a forum/discussion on Christian practice when it comes to the ordination of women into the clergy.
    This blog, as grindael has pointed out, has nothing to do with Christian practice, unless it is to draw a sharp distinction with Mormon doctrine. But this is what the Mormon trolls always do here on this blog; try to turn the discussion to Christianity.
    But anyway, what do these priesthood holders in the LDS sect do? Pray for people, baptize people, serve as home teachers, what else? Who has a list?
    I don’t understand why a women can’t do these things.
    As far as Christianity goes, I look at the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and I don’t really see what if any are gender specific. A woman could prophesy, speak in tongues, interpret a message given in tongues, have the gift of healing, have the gift of wisdom, word of knowledge, miracles, and distinguishing of spirits. No reason why a woman couldn’t baptize people or distribute holy communion.

    Perhaps LDS women should consider joining the Community of Christ Mormon sect.

    In Community of Christ, some men and women are called and ordained to particular responsibilities and ministries for the sake of the community, the congregation, and the world. These called and ordained disciples make up the priesthood of Community of Christ. Priesthood ministry promotes the witnessing, revealing, redeeming ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    There are two orders of Community of Christ priesthood, the Melchisedec and the Aaronic.

    The Aaronic Order: offers ministry of presence, modeled on Jesus’ ministry as comforter, peacemaker, and friend. Ministers in these offices focus on inviting individuals, families, congregations, and communities into deeper relationships with each other and with Jesus Christ.

    The Melchisedec Order: offers ministry of mission and vision, helping the church focus on what matters most. They also share insight into the ever-deepening call to discipleship that is resident in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    So what do women get to do in the LDS church besides the Relief Society and work in the nursery on Sunday?
    Let’s face it, if it would bring in more money to the coffers of LDS Inc., the power structure would ordain every female over the age of 11 to the priesthood.

  8. Mike R says:

    Falcon asks , ” So what do women get to do in the LDS church besides the Relief Society and
    work in the nursery on Sunday ? ”

    Well one thing that Mormon women would like to do is wear pants to church . There’s a
    movement among them to effect that .
    A serious issue is the fact more and more Mormon women are waking up to the fact of just
    how far removed from a normal christian family value their leaders have succumbed
    with their counsel that it is not appropriate behavior for Mormon women ( and men ) to talk
    to their Heavenly Mother . There’s a ground swell in the Mormon church among women
    who find that a terrible doctrine and no way to treat their loving Mother .

    Mormon women have been short changed in more ways than one . May they dismiss their
    leaders . These men can’t be trusted as consistently reliable guides — for anyone .

  9. fifth monarchy man says:

    FOF said,

    So, do you believe that women should be ordained ministers in Christian churches?

    I say

    1) Christian ministers are not the equivalent of Mormon priests.

    2) Christian women are Priests


    and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
    (Rev 1:5-6)


  10. Mike R says:

    I think that Mormons like Fof F are more prone to label those in ministries like this one as
    more than just ” critics” . He’s in a position that can produce a superior attitude much more
    readily because he has worked long and hard to gain knowledge to become a physician , but
    added to that level of accomplishment is his earning the Mormon style of priesthood authority .
    This combo can produce a attitude of superiority in a way that others do have . He has exhibited
    such an attitude . He’s stuck in a scholarly world and it’s difficult for him to get down to our level.
    We’re mental midgets compared to his accomplishments . What was it that he said about those
    persons who leave the Mormon church and join another christian church ? I believe it was that
    generally they have taken a big step down and backwards intellectually , spiritually , and
    morally . Morally? Really ? Ouch !

    Anyway , this ministry and others like which love the Mormon people and wish to see them
    experience God’s best will continue to reach out to these sincere people with the truth about
    Jesus . Mormons like F of F who try and thwart our efforts will fail because to much information
    has gone out about MormonISM and people are being informed .

    There’s good news for Mormons : It’s Jesus , not Joseph !

  11. falcon says:

    What’s the purpose of this blog?
    For me it’s to bring Mormons to Christ so that the may receive the gift of eternal life that God is offering them. It really isn’t to debate arrogant TBM types. These types merely provide opportunities for us to expose Mormonism for what it is; an aberrant heretical religious sect that masquerades as a Christian church. A side benefit is that these arrogant TBMs are also exposed.

    I have no way of knowing how many LDS folks that we have assisted in their journey out of Mormonism but I check with Sharon from time to time to get an idea of the number of “hits” this site receives on a daily basis. Let me just say that it’s a great encouragement to me to know the role we are playing in the spiritual lives of those LDS who come here for information.
    It’s no wonder that our TBM FARMS reps get so testy when they post. The LDS church is hemorrhaging members like never before and the TBMs who try to put their fingers in the dike soon find that they don’t have enough fingers.
    Just think about how frustrating it must be to realize they can’t do anything to stop a ministry like this but to try and impugn, malign, distort and when all else fails lie.

  12. johnnyboy says:

    @mike r

    nobody in the mormon church can pray to a heavenly mother cus they honestly don’t know who they are praying to!

    There could be a million different heavenly mothers out there busy making spirit babies!

    (I was taught this in EQ. No joke)

  13. Mike R says:

    johnnyboy, if I was a Mormon this doctrine would cause me to realize that I was following
    men whose claims to be Jesus’ apostles sounded convincing at first but they turned out to
    be a good counterfeit . Rev 2:2 .
    The Mormon people deserve better .

  14. johnsepistle says:

    I think FoF’s questions merit some manner of answer, so here are my answers:

    I belong to a denomination that, at present, does not ordain women to be pastors. I disagree with this stance, and I look forward to the first time that it comes up at National Conference so that I can present the case in favor of female ordination and vote for it. However, we as Protestants do believe in the priesthood of all believers. I believe in it quite strongly. Thus, I already accept my sisters in the faith as being as full participants in Christian priesthood as I am.

    Now, as for the issues of protest, that’s a distinct issue, and one made complicated by the mode of protest. All that Ordain Women has been doing here is peacefully standing in line for admittance to a typically men-only meeting, since there are men present at the General Relief Society Conference. (If the LDS Church were to make the latter a genuinely women-only meeting, they’d be on much firmer ground in their response to Ordain Women.) There is no real analogy to that sort of meeting in my denomination, as even the closed sessions of my National Conference include many women as voting members in their capacity as lay delegates. So the same mode of protest simply could not occur.

    Now, supposing that some female members of our churches decided to actively protest with signs outside of the building wherein our National Conference is held, I suspect and hope that our collective response would be this: Okay, let them do so; so long as they aren’t physically obstructing our access to the building, they aren’t really bothering us. And if it makes us think more about the issue and discuss it at a greater level of depth, that’s wonderful.

    Of course, FoF might object that this scenario is talking about a protest with which I have sympathy, whereas he has none for the Ordain Women group. So, to tweak the scenario: Suppose that the people protesting, as members of our churches, were advocating instead for the ordination of ‘practicing homosexuals’ to ministerial positions. By all means, so long as it was a peaceful protest outside of the building, I would not like to see them banned from the area. Let them protest; we know where we stand. But, then again, my denomination doesn’t have a track record of changing its stances through pressure-occasioned “revelations”.

    So, turning the focus back to the LDS Church: Perhaps the wiser approach would simply be to let Ordain Women engage in their peaceful protest, to reflect more deeply and substantively on the issues involved, to spend more time in prayer about it, to rectify any other unnecessary sorts of inequity (i.e., the numerous non-doctrinal ways that women are treated unequally in the LDS Church), and to issue careful, detailed, non-inflammatory statements detailing the LDS Church’s position and interacting with Ordain Women’s case.

  15. falcon says:

    I’ve been sitting here waiting for someone to bring up the Catholic church, the role women play in ministry and the feminist movement to bring ordination to women.
    I guess since I’m the resident lapsed Catholic, I’ll take a shot at it. The CBS program did a feature on this topic some time ago. They’ve assigned a bishop to the protesting group to listen to and answer their concerns. The bottom line is that the Catholic church is not going to ordain women.
    The Catholic church takes abuse for its stance on a variety of issues and the protests that FOF whines about are a joke compared to this:

    ” Buenos Aires, December 2nd, 2013 ( – Extremely disturbing video footage from Argentina shows a mob of feminists at a recent protest attacking and sexually molesting a group of Rosary-praying Catholic men who were peacefully protecting the cathedral in the city of San Juan from threats of vandalism.

    The women, many of them topless, spray-painted the men’s crotches and faces and swastikas on their chests and foreheads, using markers to paint their faces with Hitler-like moustaches. They also performed obscene sexual acts in front of them and pushed their breasts onto their faces, all the while shouting “get your rosaries out of our ovaries.” (Note: Some of the most graphic content has been removed from the video. Uncensored footage is available here. Viewer discretion strongly advised.)

    According to InfoCatolica, some of the women chanted a song, with the lyrics: “To the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, who wants to get between our sheets, we say that we want to be whores, travesties and lesbians. Legal abortion in every hospital.”

    During the attack some men were visibly weeping. None of them retaliated against the abuses heaped on them.”

    In the interest of taste, I won’t link to the video and article.

    So we have a group of LDS women who wait quietly outside a meeting wanting to be admitted and FOF and his comrades wet their collective pants over it. I’d say grow-up and act like an LDS man. Oh wait, they are.

  16. falcon says:

    So to continue on and by no means can this topic of women in the priesthood as it relates to the Catholic Church be exhausted. Do a google search and you will see that (the topic) has spawned a cottage industry. FOF and the LDS church need to put dry their eyes and put their handkerchiefs back in their pockets.
    The point of Sharon’s article points to how the LDS church deals with what they see as adversity. Generally it’s to collect a “poor me” stamp. “Look how nasty we’re being treated.” Or they attack and paint those they see as a threat to their status quo in much the same way.

    But back to the issue of women and how it relates to the Catholic church.

    From an article:

    In the Catholic church, priesthood is power. No decision-making structures include anyone who is not ordained. This is why ordination is even more politically important than it is in most mainline Protestant churches, where major decisions are made by representative bodies that include lay people.

    Some in our movement are uncomfortable with a focus on issues of power rather than of ministry, but to me it is very important to also think of power. For the good of the whole church, women need to be empowered within it.

    Women who want to be ordained have always had strategies for claiming their power and exercising their ministry. Many now perform priestly functions, either within small, autonomous communities without official sanction, or within the church, without official authority, and often in limited roles. Others do it by leaving: going to another church and becoming a priest or minister. I support the efforts of these women, but in a political sense these strategies are limited.

    Women’s ordination is a central symbolic issue for the Catholic church. The priest is at the heart of the church, the person most identified with its sacraments and its teaching. The inequality that exists can’t be solved by people doing their own thing and ignoring the official life of the church. Ordination is a church function. It is an internal issue. It requires a decision for the church as a whole and I argue that despite papal pronouncements, the dialogue continues within the church. Indeed, the Vatican’s intense reactions indicate the high level of our success.

    The article than gets into tactics and strategy and I think it reveals just how mild, tame and differential the LDS women are. Oh my, they may wear pants as a protest! Yikes, hide the children!

  17. Kate says:

    The LDS church only changes doctrine or policy when confronted or pressured, we’ll see where the protesting gets these women. Maybe if they get enough media attention and the church is seen in a bad light , something will change.
    Personally I don’t know why these LDS women want to put more on their plates. I had a bishop tell me once that women are the backbone of the church . I agree. I know so many LDS men who wouldn’t even give the church the time of day if it wasn’t for their wives pushing them. Many LDS missionaries would never go on a mission if it wasn’t for their girlfriends pushing them into it. I see frazzled LDS women everyday who are struggling to raise large families and keep up with their visiting teaching, church callings, funeral food, trying to keep up on who is sick or who just had a baby and may need meals brought in, etc. Who plans and takes care of Ward parties, etc?
    If women are allowed the priesthood, would that mean they could one day become the prophet? That would mean men will no longer be needed in the church. No wonder men are so against it. Of course men would still be needed to enter the celestial kingdom but here on earth women could do it all without them. Just a thought.

  18. Kate says:

    I was just thinking, if women had the priesthood would they be able to be bishops, stake presidents, or mission presidents? Just how far would it go? I don’t think we will ever find out and these women protesters will be looked down upon and criticized by other women in the church who know their place. I wonder if these faithful LDS protesters will be called in for a court of love?

  19. falcon says:

    The question for me is how the LDS church deals with those they view as a threat to the “truth” of the restored gospel. In this case it also gets at the LDS church structure and how it functions. The point is that the “church” must be seen as the victim.
    This will be a hard do because these women aren’t appearing to be obnoxious or nasty. My heavens, they are threatening to wear pants! The men, after all, are suppose to wear the pants. This pants wearing is very symbolic but may be a metaphor for the LDS church power structure.
    If the LDS women ever wake-up the LDS church structure is in trouble; as it is currently structured.
    Joseph Smith was a master manipulator of women. You just have to convince these LDS women that the prophet is speaking for the Mormon god and they certainly aren’t going to question that.

  20. Kate says:


    I have a short comment in mod jail but I was just thinking about the can of worms it would open up if LDS women are allowed the priesthood. How far would they get? Bishops? Stake presidents? Mission Presidents etc.? Who would be allowed what job and what responsibility? In Mormonism men and women have specific roles. My husband and I took a marriage and family class at church for like 6 or 8 weeks. In the manual we were taught our specific roles, as husband and wife, mother and father, etc. Women having the priesthood would throw everything out of LDS order.

    “My heavens, they are threatening to wear pants! The men, after all, are suppose to wear the pants.”

    Wearing pants to church blurs the gender roles lol! What a huge problem that would create! I will be honest here, I felt so free wearing my cute Capri pants to church the first Summer I was a Christian. My friend worked for an LDS disabled man and as his aide she had to take him to church. She was respectful and wore a skirt but she made the mistake of wearing cute flip flops. She had a LDS lady confront her and she told her that her shoes were inappropriate. This girl isn’t even LDS and she was working lol! Yep, flip flops and pants are sure “a threat to the truth of the restored gospel.”

  21. falcon says:

    It’s all about maintaining control. That’s the whole deal. I was watching the testimony of Kitz Nelson that Aaron posted on YouTube. When her husband was in the process of slipping away from the fold he dared to wear a colored shirt to church. She talks about how embarrassing it was for her. It’s the little stuff like this that keeps everybody in line. To not conform is a really big deal in these control freak religious sects.
    I’d ask these folks, “What are you so afraid of?” I’ll answer the question. They are afraid of losing control of the environment which controls the members.
    I must admit though, I’m a little uncomfortable with how some folks dress for church. Let’s just say it’s the fairer sex I’m talking about. I’d give an example but I know I’d end up in mod jail.

  22. johnnyboy says:


    I literally had a member of the bishopric come up to me during sacrament and tell me that the bishop wanted me to wear a tie. I knew he was bs’ing me so I replied “tell him he can ask me himself”. Then I laughed right in his face. He knew I had called his bluff because our bishop was the most easy going guy around. It was the counselor who was bothered, not the bishop.

    I also wore colored shirts, sport coats and blazers instead of suits. Suits are for business meetings at the office. Not church. I would throw a tie on once a month just to screw with everyone. Generally I was left alone because I was the “rock n roll” guy of the ward. Secretly, some wives (who cared about how schlubby their husbands looked) would ask me during primary for advice on where I got something or what tailor I used etc.. They loved that I knew clothing designers and I knew how to pronounce their names (gasp!) hahah.

    My wife and I had a running joke to see how long it would take before someone would comment to me when I actually DID wear a suit to church. I would always bet within the first 5 minutes. Once I won the bet when a sister texted me less than 30 seconds as we walked in the door and said her husband noticed I was wearing a suit. 30 SECONDS!

    What was weird is people concerned themselves with what I was wearing almost every single sunday, but had no idea how horribly dressed they looked. Most men wore REALLY bad, ill-fitting suits. Or they wore the classic khakis with ugly belt, oversized parachute white shirt, and round or square toe’d shoes with giant, chunky soles (most likely carried over from their mission). All of this while sporting horrible power ties from Mervyns or Kohls. I was more offended by peoples lack of tailoring than anything else at church 😉 I’m no fashionista, but I at least know how to dress well, and I certainly would never comment to any other man about how he looked or dressed. Especially while at CHURCH!

    But it was always strange to me how obsessed people were with how others looked at church. Always.

    Mormonism loves to make every single aspect of your life bland and dull. Every. Single. Thing. Even down to your underwear.

  23. Kate says:

    I’m uncomfortable with how some folks dress for everyday life lol! I understand what you are saying. I haven’t seen anything shocking at the church I attend. Everyone is covered and yes sometimes we wear dresses and skirts.
    You say it is a control thing and I do agree somewhat. I was always taught that it is reverence. That I was to show respect for the Lord by dressing modestly and wearing appropriate clothing in the church, which is God’s house. I believe most LDS women agree with this. I remember when white shirts for men was really pushed. I haven’t been in years now so I don’t know if that is still the rule or not. White shirts and no facial hair…. It’s weird but when you are living it, it doesn’t seem like you are being controlled. Take a step back and it becomes a bit more clear. I mean who else would we allow to tell us how to dress and how to act? I can’t think of anyone. I’m the type of person that if someone told me I couldn’t do something, I’d do it 5 times just to show them I could lol! Yet, I conformed to the LDS cookie cutter life for years.

  24. Kate says:

    “If you feel you must come and demonstrate, we ask that you do so in free speech zones adjacent to Temple Square, which have long been established for those wishing to voice differing viewpoints. They can be found on the attached map.”

    The message here is loud and clear to these women. Move over in the free speech zone with all the other aunt tyes. I’m actually surprised they sent a message at all. Gone are the days when every woman on the site would be brought in and given a warning from their bishops. Where is the court of love? Disfellowship? Excommunication? Aren’t these women blatantly and openly going against church doctrines and teachings? Aren’t they teaching this to others who are going to their website? I’ve read stories of excommunicated members who did far less than this. Maybe it’s just too public and the church doesn’t dare punish them or excommunicate because it would generate too much publicity? I can’t see how these women are being allowed to question leaders, protest and push the boundaries without having some sort of church discipline.

  25. falcon says:

    Kate & JB.
    Here’s a good one for you. I go to what I’d describe as an “alternative” worship service. One of the Elders of the church told me that it just drove his mother nuts to see the associate pastor in jeans. The elder was laughing as he told me. Actually the jeans are pretty typical of what you’d buy at a Lucky’s or the like. Not ripped or anything. I go to a clothing store with a gay diva guy as one of the sales associates. The guy is way too stereotypical but he picks out great stuff for me.
    At the church service I attend, the edgy one, you’ll see all variety of apparel. No one really seems to care much. I grew up in a small German community in the Midwest and I remember this guy use to wear his bowling shirt to church. It was probably the best shirt he had. Thankfully I exited the Catholic church before such experimental things like polka mass. No dancing, but polka style “sacred” music.

  26. Kate says:

    As I was reading through your post a line from the Robin Hood (Kevin Costner, Morgan Freeman) movie popped into my head….. Morgan Freeman’s character was asked by a little girl if God painted him and he said ” Surely, Allah loves wondrous variety!” Well I believe our Christian God loves wondrous variety! Just look at us all 🙂

  27. falcon says:

    Here is the summary statement of Sharon’s article:

    “Ms. Reiss’ blog article discusses some of the ways she and her feminist ideas are treated within Mormonism. If a few identifying words were to be changed here and there, the article could very well be discussing Mormonism Research Ministry’s efforts to challenge Mormon doctrinal positions.”

    I don’t know if LDS Inc. PR department is a “one trick pony” but we do know that the LDS church treats any criticism as persecution. This is a fairly common tactic among a variety of groups. I think it’s called “playing the victim”. It often works well to solidify opinion within the group as the leadership circles the wagons. But in this case I think what the LDS leadership is doing is forming a circular firing squad. They’re shooting a bunch of their own members and in turn end-up shooting themselves in the foot and various other parts of their anatomy.
    I would guess these women who are petitioning for the LDS church to open the priesthood to women members is a fairly small group. They do get at least passing attention from the media however.
    The problem is that the LDS church has a history of excluding members from the priesthood as they have done with blacks. Interestingly enough, feminism in its various forms, comes out of other social movements. We saw it in the Civil Rights movement and the protest movement against the War in Vietnam.
    Oberlin College in Ohio caused quite a stir back in the 19th century because not only did they allow men and women to sit in classes together but they allowed for the mixing of the races (in classrooms).
    Will these women get very far? It’s hard to say. I don’t see anything that would prohibit women from holding the Mormon priesthood. The CofC does it. The real challenge will come with allowing openly gay individuals into the priesthood. How about “sealing” two gay individuals to each other for time and eternity.
    Little known fun fact; it was a practice in the Utah church for leaders to build their celestial kingdoms by having men sealed to them. It was called “the law of adoption”. Whatever happened to these “plain and precious truths”?
    Yea, it was a long time ago, it was someone’s opinion, it’s folklore…………………………

  28. falcon says:

    What we know about Mormonism is that the doctrines, beliefs and practices are all pretty arbitrary and subject to change. Once Mormons catch on to that and quit making excuses for the leadership and those things (doctrines etc.) from the past that seem pretty goofy, they are set free. LDS Inc. responds to pressure. Think about it, polygamy was a mainstay sacred doctrine and practice. They dumped it when the federal government started threatening them because it was going to effect the bottom line.
    There are multiple sects of Mormonism all started by some man who got miffed at the establishment or got the latest hot revelation and bolted the main line LDS corporation. The rule in Mormonism is if you can get enough people to follow you, start your own program. This doesn’t say much for the restored gospel and the one true church since there are so many of them.
    Once even a little doubt creeps into the faithful Mormons mind, the erosion starts. Pretty soon a whole lot of things are questioned and the house of cards gets blown over by the winds of evidence and disgust in the system.

  29. falcon says:

    The problem for the LDS church is that they have a “limited set” of responses that they apply across the board to any individual or group that they determine is a threat to the sect.
    We see that here with the arrogant TBM types who show-up (here) doing their best impression of FARMS apologists. What works down at the wards to supply simplified answers to troubling questions for the rank and file members, gets shut down pretty quickly here. While the members get their hair blown back pretty easily and stare with wide eyed wonder at the wanna bee apologists for the church, the boys aren’t accustomed to going any further than the first level of questioning.
    So the fall back position is to try and muddy the waters, take the discussion in some nefarious direction or just out right lie. In the end it’s pretty much bear the testimony and back slowly out of the blog door.
    Now we do get another type who are labeled the “drive byes” or the “bomb throwers”. Their tactic is to post a two sentence incoherent statement and then run. They aren’t interested or equipped to deal with any form of challenging discussion.

    None-the-less, we are challenged by the NT writer Jude to contend for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the believers in Christ.

  30. falcon says:

    So how can the LDS church respond to what amounts to as “bad reviews”. Well if you’ve got a bad product, it’s pretty hard to compensate for what is a truthful report. That’s the problem that the LDS church has is that it’s not that the bad reviews that are killing them, it’s that what’s being reported is true. If it weren’t true people would figure it out and cut the sect some slack. But when the cover is pulled back and people see what’s underneath the fancy quilt, there’s not much that can be said. That’s why we see the persecution card played so much. Again, this works for the true believers but to those who don’t drink the Kool-Aid it’s a whole other story.
    Mormon missionaries have to count on prospects being ignorant of the facts of Mormonism and the LDS church. It’s getting more difficult to get away with the bait-and-switch con with the internet around.

  31. falcon says:

    Let’s face it. Mormonism has a pretty steep hill to climb to attract and maintain members.
    First of all a person has to be convinced to read the BoM and accept the premise that if it makes them feel good that that’s a confirmation from God that the tome is a real actual history. Secondly there’s the Joseph Smith story itself. The LDS church has to camouflage the real story and dress-it-up in a way that might be accepted by those who might be interested. And finally there’s the whole temple Mormon program. How many people are going to want to dress up in costumes, do rituals lifted from the Free Masons with the caveat that it will eventually lead to them becoming “gods”. Were talking small numbers here.
    Then to maintain those members for any length of time is a real task. The LDS church has all sorts of subtle and not so subtle methods of keeping people in tow. Not least among these methods is fear and intimidation.
    Those of us outside the LDS corral don’t react to fear and intimidation. So for us and for LDS dissidents there are other methods that the sect employs; many of those listed in the article above.

    Is it a losing proposition for the LDS church. I’d say probably so. One member has suggested that the church spend more time in strengthening the commitment of members. I don’t know. You can just squeeze so much out of a member even a true believer.

  32. Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Smackdown Edition!! » Main Street Plaza

  33. falcon says:

    From the above ping back link:

    “The press release’s female authorship and informal format has another important implication as well: it gives the Church’s leadership plausible deniability with respect to the letter’s central assertion that the all-male priesthood is a “matter of doctrine” and that female ordination is “contrary to the Lord’s revealed organization for his Church.”

    Isn’t this rich? How many of you are familiar with the changes that have gone on not only in doctrine and practice of the LDS/Mormon church but also the organizational structure. Joseph Smith had a bunch of people leave early on when he decided to restructure the church.
    I think that the modern day LDS leadership ought to remain true to the idea of “progressive revelation” and structure the church in such a way as to allow women to hold the priesthood. I don’t know what the big deal is. Nothing in Mormonism lasts forever and since it’s a new era with a new generation, just get with the times!

  34. Mike R says:


    You’re correct about the teaching behavior of Mormon leadership , they can’t be trusted to be
    consistently reliable guides in their gospel preaching . They’ve proven that by their record .
    ( they may call their behavior ” progressive revelation ” but that is a misnomer because it is
    little different in what they have accused all other churches /leaders of , i.e. unstable , feeding
    their flocks ” the precepts of men ” and calling it ” gospel truth ” etc ) .

    The way these appear in the Mormon church among women especially is that there will be
    changes in some doctrines soon . The Hierarchy can’t stand negative publicity . I’m thinking
    that the next change will be that they will change the disrespectful doctrine they created where
    they’ve told their flock that it is inappropriate behavior to talk with their Heavenly Mother .
    They’ll be slick in how they change this but it will happen and that will then make it easy for
    them later to introduce another new doctrine of adding Her to the Godhead to join Her
    husband and the two of Her sons who are there now .
    That’s my prediction .

    Glad I don’t follow such prophets .

  35. falcon says:

    Who are the two sons? One is Jesus right?

  36. falcon says:

    As long as they’re making it up as they go along, why not include heavenly mother in the godhead? If these ladies want to drive the LDS honchos nuts, they should say they’ve been praying to HM to talk to HF to let them into the priesthood. Then to really put the guys in total bizzaro mode, say that they are having daily prayer groups imploring HM to intercede on their behalf. They could also say that HM has talked to them, better yet appeared to them, and told them to continue on and their request will be honored.
    This would be classic Joseph Smith style Mormonism right out of the 19th century. Why not say they were in the LDS temple and they saw through the veil into the spirit world and blah, blah, blah.
    What do you think?

  37. Mike R says:


    Mormonism : Heavenly Father and wife(s) sexually produced millions of sons and daughters
    in heaven. Two of these sons after finally learning enough to become Gods were picked by H.F.
    to sit with Him in the three God committee Mormons call the Godhead . These two sons were:
    Jehovah( Jesus ) and the Holy Ghost .

    Sad that people follow prophets who teach this . MK 13:22-23

  38. Mike R says:


    you asked , ” As long as they are making it up as they go along , why not include Heavenly
    Mother in the godhead . ”

    I mentioned above that this new doctrine is coming , and why not ? Mormon leaders have ran
    past teaching about One true God in favor of believing in Gods, Goddesses and Grandfather Gods
    so why should’nt they consider adding their own Mother above to the Godhead ? That way She
    would get the recognition She deserves and be available along side Her husband and two of Her
    sons in a corporate decision making position to help Her children on earth .
    As long as you teach false doctrine about God why not go all the way and treat the Goddess you
    believe in with equal devotion and service ?
    Mormon leaders have not revealed the true God to their flock , they’ve drifted away from the
    truth . The Mormon people deserve better . May they anchor their beliefs about God in the
    teachings that His true prophets and apostles have revealed in the Bible . That’s safe ground
    in these latter days when false prophets are abundant .

  39. Kate says:

    Heavenly Mother will never be added to the godhead in Mormonism. Which one would they add in? Isn’t the LDS god a polygamist? If he has millions of wives helping him procreate spirit babies for this earth, which one becomes part of the godhead? His first wife would be the best choice but she isn’t the mother of all spirits like he is the father of all spirits. Which wife is the mother of Jesus and the Holy Spirit? You see how crazy this all gets? I highly doubt they will ever add a woman to the godhead, the Mormon program has an order to it and women aren’t at the top.

  40. Mike R says:

    Kate, you rightly pointed out what a mess a man made doctrine ( heavenly Mother[s] ) can create.
    I still think though that a major change concerning Her is coming in the near future because
    more and more LDS women especially are waking up to the fact of how they have been denying
    her respect She deserves by not being permitted to talk to Her ( a normal value etc ) because
    church Hierarchy deems that inappropriate . Something is going to change reguarding Her
    and it won’t be long . Mormon leaders declaring that one of H.F. wives will sit in the Godhead ?
    Would such a doctrine really be shocking given the unstable teachings about God which
    Mormon leaders have exhibited ever since they arrived on the scene ? Sadly many Mormons
    would just accept it .

    Mormon women are being short changed —- by false ” modern day “apostles and false doctrine .

  41. Kate says:

    Look how the women wanting the priesthood are being treated. They’ve been told to stand with all the other aunt tyes during general conference. Women won’t get the job done. The LDS god’s kingdom has a certain order to it. Yes, the members would follow the prophet if he revealed a heavenly mother in the godhead, I just don’t believe that will ever happen. We were taught never to speak of heavenly mother because she is just so sacred and god wants to protect her. He can’t protect her if she’s front and center.

  42. MJP says:

    So the heavenly mother is someone other than either Mary or Eve?

  43. Kate says:

    In Mormonism god is a polygamist with many, many wives. This is why the first 5 or so LDS prophets practiced polygamy, so they would have enough wives to populate their own world when the time comes. Brigham Young had over 50 wives. The more wives sealed to them the better. Each of these polygamist wives will spend eternity pregnant or somehow procreating spirit babies to populate the Mormon god’s world with people to worship him. So we do not all share the same heavenly mother, but we do share the same Heavenly Father.
    Assuming Adam makes it to god hood and the celestial kingdom, Eve would be one if his polygamist wives. If you buy the whole Adam/god doctrine then I suppose Adam is our Heavenly Father and Eve is one of his many wives. It’s all so bizarre!
    In order for heavenly mother to be added to the godhead, she would need the holy priesthood. If I remember correctly, the first presidency is patterned after the godhead. No women there either. It’s not their divine calling or role.
    As far as Mary, she was just Jesus birth mother here on earth. I guess if one believes that her husband Joseph followed the Mormon system and was also a polygamist, he may get his own world and Mary will carry on just as all polygamist wives will.
    I can’t see heavenly mother being given the priesthood and a spot in the godhead Which heavenly mother? Did the same heavenly mother birth Jesus and Satan or did they have different mothers? Is your heavenly mother the same one as mine? If a heavenly mother is brought into the godhead will we pray to her even though she isn’t the mother of us all? Would she stand as proxy for all the mothers? Not only would it open up an unending can of worms, it doesn’t fit with the roles of men and women in the restored gospel. There’s an order to it all.
    I’m typing this from my phone do I hope it sort of makes sense 🙂

  44. Kate says:

    Just a thought about Mary ….. Would she be able to choose which god she wanted to spend eternity with? Would she be with her god the father creating spirit babies(ewe) or her earthly husband Joseph? See how sick and twisted it all gets when you ask the next question and then the next?

  45. Kate says:

    Oh my heck I need to proof read! I meant how “sick” and twisted sheesh!

    [Fixed – grindael]

  46. Mike R says:


    I appreciate your perspective on this man made doctrine of Mormonism . You and the other
    ex-Mormons on here are a blessing to partner with to reach the Mormon people with the good
    news about the True God and salvation in Jesus alone .

  47. MJP says:

    Kate, interesting thoughts. I wonder if it is normal for Mormon gods to come onto a planet, pick a woman, and physically impregnate her.

Leave a Reply