Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

Why I quit Times and Seasons

April 08th, 2009 by G.

Why did I quite Times and Seasons? I was tempted to tell you that it was none of your business, by which I would have meant that I was too lazy to explain, but then I remembered I’d sent a long email to my former cobloggers a few months ago that was maybe good enough.

The context is that my former coblogger Kaimipono Wenger said something I disagreed with, implying that Church teachings on the family were tantamount to racism, and in my courteous way I gently remonstrated with him in the comments by calling him a low-down skunk, a boil on a spavined horse’s ass, and someone I wouldn’t cross the street to spit on if he were dying of thirst.

A ruckus naturally ensured behind the scenes on the blog and I ended up sending this email. Its a little out of date and I don’t know if I still stand by every single thing in it, but its good enough. Everything here is my characterization: you can take it with a grain of salt if you like.

Update: edited to remove confidences.


Here’s my case. It’s mostly serious but it does include a few flippancies and irrelevancies. I realize the case would be stronger without them, but I’d rather laugh on the gallows than long-face my way to liberty. I ask you to read the whole thing before you make up your mind.

1. I cuss that what I am about to say is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

2. Call me Ishmael.

3. On April 29, 2008, KW posted about a conversation he had with his young sons. This is the “D” post. http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4525#more-4525

4. In the D post, KW told about laughing with his kids at the longstanding Church doctrine of the male priesthood. The doctrine was described as “dumb” and “discriminatory.”

5. In the comments, http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4525#comment-261306 , KW raised three questions

Why is it that women aren’t allowed to be prophet? Why is it that Blacks weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood? Why is it that same-sex couples aren’t allowed to marry in the church?

6. His answer to the first question was “its patriarchal bullshit.”

7. After I kicked up a fuss on the list, this was changed to “its patriarchal nonsense.”

8. KW did not answer the other two questions at that time.

9. In the D post thread cobloggers Matt Evans and (in one comment) Frank McIntyre, opposed KW’s characterizations of the priesthood.

10. Cobloggers Julie Smith and Ardis Parshall also participated in the comments but did not oppose KW’s characterizations of the priesthood.

11. No other cobloggers participated in the thread.

12. On the back list I asked KW to remove the D post or, failing that, for the list to vote to remove the D post.

13. KW did not remove the post.

14-15. . . . [a discussion of my former coblogger’s behind-the-scene’s responses to the D post]

16. I lost the vote to remove the D post by a big majority.

17-20. . . . [boring]

21. Y’alls reaction was a collective shrug, as some of you would be willing to admit.

22. Any “sport” where the entrants “perform” “routines” is not a sport?

23. It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

24. After the spectacular failure of the D post vote, I decided to resign. My wife and a few friends convinced me that I should think it over for a couple of weeks before doing anything.

25. Also, resigning would be stooping, and I never stoop. Also, the terrorists would win. So I did not immediately resign.

26. I did not tell anyone on the list that I was planning to resign. In the past cobloggers have used resignation threats to create drama and sympathy and to get their way and I have resolved not to do this.

27-29. . . . [a bunch of pointless drama. Long story short, I didn’t resign pending a discussion about some new blog rules which I hoped I could influence to resolve my concerns.]

30. About this time I came across a Snarkernackle post alleging that a prominent bloggernacle blogger was also New Order Mormon who hung out at an ex-Mormon/New Order Mormon site. I followed one of the links, skimmed it, was disturbed, and sent an email to the list saying that I would have a problem if any of us cobloggers were “Cafeteria Mormon,” the individual at the link.

31. Kaimipono Wenger told me it was him.

32. . . .

33. Given a lack of time, and a comment from someone I consulted on the matter, I figured I’d misread the link and dropped the subject. My intention was to read the Cafeteria Mormon’s postings at some later point when I had the chance. But I didn’t get around to it until very recently.

34. It is better to crawl a mile on broken glass then to crawl it twain.

35. My Martian Rose presentation was awesome, FYI. Check out the sidebar link to a photo. It’s the only one where I don’t look like Paul Potts’ body double.

36. In June we got into another long discussion concerning a posted remark that “you probably do not have to accept Mormonism and its ordinances in this life or the next for Christ to save you and perhaps for God to exalt you.”

37-39. . . . [description of the discussions]

40. Given the opportunity presented by this new discussion, I pushed aggressively for some resolution to address my concerns. . . . I felt at the time that if I had not been pushing hard nothing would have been done. After reviewing the relevant comments threads, I still feel that way.

41. I caught a lot of flack in the resulting discussion. I was accused of being “orthodoxy police,” of trying to “exercise a heckler’s veto,” of “depicting Jehovah as a pagan storm god,” and of being a hockey-style “doctrinal enforcer.” [Ed. note–yeah, baby. Also, it should be noted that these were not universal concerns. I leave them up not because they were representative, but because they were awesome. If you’re going to be argumentative, be it in style].

42. We eventually got what I thought was a very good bolog norm against, among other things, using T&S as a platform for criticism. But I was ultimately dismayed to discover that the norm was as much aimed at me as at anyone else. Apparently some of my cobloggers thought I shouldn’t be allowed to post or link much on gay marriage politics or abortion.

43. I thought and still think that this was unjust and uncalled for, but decided to stomach it in the interests of the blog. A new norm, I thought, would go over better if it had more than one apparent target.

44. I am bearded like a pard. I am also full of strange oaths. See #1.

45. I wanted to make sure the D post was unacceptable under the new norm. A blog where it was acceptable was a blog from which I would resign.

46-61. . . . [More backlist debate. I eventually let the matter drop after receiving some private assurances]

. . . . [Pointless, tedious drama about the ratio of out pro- Prop. 8 posts to our anti- Prop. 8 posts]

62. Clouds are pretty.

63. Three days ago I remembered that I had been planning to look a little more at KW’s “Cafeteria Mormon” links. I did a quick search at the site and was very disturbed by what I saw.

64. Two days ago I put up a critical post on a recent decision holding that a fertility doctor was required to help impregnate a lesbian woman over the doctor’s religious objections. http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4733#more-4733

65. In the comments Julie Smith hypothesized a comparison between race discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. ECS suggested that opposition to same-sex marriage was tantamount to opposition to “miscegenation.” http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4733#comment-272263

66. I said it was “wicked and offensive” to make that equation (later in the day, but I believe before we had our blog contretemps, I struck out wicked and replaced it with wrong). I also indicated that I would remove further attempts to equate the Church’s ecclesiastical/moral view on non-traditional sexual relations with racism. In my mind the equation is little more than name-calling and is wholly inappropriate coming from church members.

67. Despite my statement that further comments on those lines were not welcome, KW put up a defense of ECS’ comment. He said that “the comparison was an apt one for many observers,” compared the fertility doctor to a Jim Crow doctor, and said that relying on revelation wasn’t enough because our prophets and apostles had also been Jim Crow supporters.

68. I moderated the comment and notified KW.

69. He then posted a series of arguments for and against comparing the Church’s moral stand with racism. The arguments he offered “against” were weak and, unlike with the “for” arguments, he provided counterarguments. For instance, he said that the alleged empirical bases for distinguishing sexual morality from racism were of the kind that a prior T&S post had tried to explode. http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4734#more-4734

70. I lost my temper and said things I regret, though in degree, not in kind. For instance, I wish I had said “wrong and offensive” instead of “wicked and vile” and at Neil Penzo’s urging I updated that comment to include an apology for the language used.

71-72. . . . [More back list drama]

73. That same day I took a more in-depth look at KW’s postings as “Cafeteria Mormon” at the ex-Mormon/DAMU site www.thefoyer.org

74. A cafeteria Mormon is one who picks and chooses among Church doctrines, revelations, and practices without a feeling of guilt or “Lord, help thou mine unbelief.”

75. The purpose of www.thefoyer.org is to “provide a place for open, honest, robust discussion on Mormonism from the viewpoint of disaffected Mormons and post-Mormons.” Reading the discussions there is not pleasant.

76. I set down to read KW’s postings in detail. http://www.thefoyer.org/search.php This moderated the very negative impression I had from the day before .

77. The impression that emerged after wading through it all was of a man who did not believe in Mormonism but thought there was a fair amount of good in it and was dedicated to keeping his family together by going to church without allowing his children to be contaminated by the bad, Mormon doctrines and practices.

78. In short, KW aka “Cafeteria Mormon” is a New Order Mormon.

79. A New Order Mormon is one who no longer believes most (or all) of the specific dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church but who wants to maintain membership. See, for instance, the definition of the New Order Mormon “middle way” here — http://www.newordermormon.org/ — and KW’s defense of his “middle way”here — http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=56782#56782.

80. As I said, I came away with a more favorable impression than the one I went in with. KW spent a lot of time defending Mormons and the Church on various points where he thought the denizens of the site had gone too far.

81. I do not now, nor have I ever, had a dog named Checkers.

82. Nonetheless, there were several KW/Cafeteria Mormon postings that were very disturbing.

83. In this post, KW agreed that the Church’s commandments on sex should be ignored because Church leaders are not young and virile. http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=56422#56422

84. In this post, KW encouraged a man who wanted to “de-program” his kids with “anti-FHEs”. http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=50456#50456

85. In this post, KW encouraged a man who doesn’t believe in the gospel but had been called to be first counselor in the bishopric. KW advised him to accept the calling and gave him suggestions about how he could keep people from finding out that he didn’t believe in any of it. These included acting as if any questions about his faith were judgmentalism and urging the questioners to be more loving and civil. “You can’t go wrong if you take every opening to be judgmental.” http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=56216#56216


86. In this post KW describes questions about Book of Mormon historicity as questions about “what a bunch of people who didn’t really exist did or didn’t say to each other 2000 years ago.” http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=56742#56742

87. In this post KW acknowledged that : “it’s also clear that more orthodox Mormons would not consider me one of them; and that, if they knew my particular belief configuration, they might try to expel me from the community,” http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=48123#48123

88. In this post KW describes his cafeteria, middle-way, New Order Mormon approach to the Church:

–“Mormonism is not a sole conduit to God. And I see other, very serious problems in the faith. There are serious problems with certain Mormon truth claims. And there are both personal and structural deficiencies in the community, both at the local and global levels.”

–” there’s a lot to reject. The problematic ideas about women’s roles, gender essentialism, Women who Know, gender imbalances in the temple — that whole ball of wax.”

–” The emphasis that only one right type of family is acceptable, and the rejection of others — particularly gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgendered — who do not fit that bill.”

–” I’m happy to draw from other religion traditions, from . . . Wicca. And I look to various interpretational aids like Fowler’s Stages of Faith.” Kaimi has linked several times a goddess-pagan-feminist-Mormon blog on the sidebar.


. . . . [harrumphing and my claims of disproportionate treatment]

Our blog has recently been much more concerned with angry reactions to what looks like apostasy than with apostasy itself.

My recent reaction was angry and was excessively angry. I admit this and I apologize. However, if the blog continues in the course it is on, I will continue to react the same way, if not in the same degree. Our blog cannot hold itself out as a faithful Mormon blog while allowing bloggers to chip away at Church policies, especially if those bloggers do not have testimonies.

I have been with this blog since the beginning. I have put in a lot of time running it, posting, commenting, and keeping it going. This is where I announced the death of my daughter. This project means a lot to me. But I’m not willing to keep participating at any price.

. . . .[quixotic calls for dramatic action]

Comments (205)
Filed under: Deseret Review | Tags: , , , ,
April 08th, 2009 09:41:05

Adam G.
December 1, 2009

According to the latest sidebar link (on the Manhattan Declaration) being against abortion means ‘declaring war on people who accidentally get pregnant’ and being for keeping marriage the same means ‘declaring war on gays’ and stating your religious affiliation means ‘declaring war on other religions.’

This, on the other hand, I can agree with:


Mark Brown
December 30, 2009

Snark! Because its funny.

Adam G.
December 30, 2009

BCC is now questioning celibacy outside of marriage.


Liberal Mormons–the cutting edge of the 1930s.

December 31, 2009

Let’s not lose focus, people. This thread is about *me*. If you need a place to bash on BCC generally, I can open up a post for you at T&S, or you can open one here.

Besides, I’m certain that my documentable faults make anything you can find at BCC pale in comparison . . . put together. Steve Evans is French for poseur.

(The only exception is Aaron Brown. But if you’re going to document his faults, you’re going to need a few more posts, and some research assistants.)

Bruce Nielson
December 31, 2009

Kaimi, you’ve got a fantastic sense of humor. You and Adam are more similar than either of you realize (and I mean that as a compliment to both of you.)

I have a sincere question for you. What’s wrong with documenting things like this?

I personally really liked Kevin’s post. But if this bother’s Adam (and I can see why it might) I think commenting on it has got to be seen as legitimate as when you are someone else criticizes the LDS Church leader’s teachings.

I’m uncomfortable with what I see as a “dual standard” of sorts on the bloggernacle – though I do not believe it’s intentional. It seems to me that the more “liberal” points of view are seen as “personal” and thus “off limits” for direct criticism. (Or at least we all recognize those that do as being jerks.)

But the “standard beliefs” are somehow “not personal” and thus it’s okay to criticize them with much harsher and often mocking words and no one ever calls people on it in quite the same way.

I, for one, think mocking is always wrong (though one person’s mocking might be another person’s legitimate ribbing I suppose. I’m not saying we should remove color from our conversations) but I rather think we have to learn to treat all questions of belief equal before any real dialog can start – even if we’re talking about one person’s personal beliefs.

For me, that starts with us all coming clean about what we believe so that we can actually share and learn from one another. I think it’s wrong for someone to hide their beliefs while criticizing others beliefs.

Mark Brown
January 1, 2010

Yes, I can.

January 10, 2010

Có tất cả những mẫu thông dụng hàng ngày: mẫu đơn, mẫu hợp đồng, biên bản, công văn, báo cáo, các mẫu phiếu, mẫu đăng ký…
Tất cả đều được soạn thảo cẩn thận, và hoàn toàn MIỄN PHÍ. Bạn có thể download, chia sẻ tự do mà ko cần qua bất kỳ một khâu đăng ký, ghi danh nào hết.
Tại sao phải bỏ tiền để mua các Mẫu văn bản, tại sao phải mất công để soạn hợp đồng?

Rất hay!

January 11, 2010

Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn

Julie K
January 17, 2010

Hi guys!
I was a very faithful reader of T&S for many years starting in the summer of 2004. Adam, Kaimi, Steve Evans, and Nate O were constantly discussing controversial subjects and opening my eyes to subjects that I had never ever considered as a very faithful member of the LDS church. Watching you four interact and disagree about everything taught me the art of critical thinking, and I have since put it to good use examining my beliefs. As a result, I no longer consider myself a mormon. And that is nothing short of miraculous!

Thank you sincerely from the bottom of my heart (and soul) for helping me see things that I never would have seen without your help!
Best wishes to you and yours.
Warmest regards, Julie K

January 17, 2010

Hi Julie,

It’s good to hear from you. I’m glad that the blog played a role in your spiritual journey. I don’t think that exit from the church is the right option for everyone; but it seems to make some people happier, and if our discussions helped you find a place of understanding and growth in your own life, then I’m glad that we were able to have those discussions with you. Thanks for sharing your story.

(I do suspect that others’ opinions may vary somewhat from my own.)

Adam G.
January 18, 2010

Precisely. I left T&S because at least some of its bloggers could be glad they helped someone on their spiritual fall out of the church.

Julie K
January 19, 2010

Adam, I think of it more as a graduation out of the church…no falling involved. 🙂

January 19, 2010

Further reinforcing Adam’s point.

Jan Riley
April 7, 2011

Simplify: Living the commandments of God brings light aka “the law is a lamp.” Entering into a covenant relationship to obey all the commandments is rewarded with a promise to receive all light and all glory possible. Less commitment is rewarded with less light. And so on. There are as many degrees of light and glory as there are sons and daughters of God. We have our agency to decide where we want to land on the spectrum. Have at it. 🙂

Adam G.
May 17, 2011

I just discovered that T&S Stakhanovite poster Dane Laverty is a leading member of a group formed to ‘agitate’ to change LDS priesthood doctrine.


Puts a new light, though, on Dane Laverty’s recent post where he described New Order Mormons in positive terms.

Adam G.
October 26, 2011

This description of Occupy Wall Street irresistibly reminded me of my time as a T&S coblogger:

November 2, 2011

Adam, this should build your appreciation of the Book of Mormon. You, too, now know what it is to get out of Jerusalem just before the Babylonians take over.

Adam G.
December 12, 2011

The ‘just asking’ questions defense is now the ‘just speculating’ defense:


John Mansfield
December 13, 2011

When Descartes wrote up his thoughts on how to reason, he included as a sample explanation some theorizing on the circulation of blood through the body. I might expect that someone working on a theory of Mormon theorizing might try applying it first to some random topic from a wide range of possibilities, but I would be missing the point.

December 14, 2011

When you do it, it’s speculating. When I do it, it’s making well-reasoned and logical deductions from the standard works and pronouncements of the modern prophets.

May 7, 2012

That’s hilarious (on both sides).

May 8, 2012

Ralph Hancock gave words to what I’ve long thought.

May 8, 2012

I wish I had the ability to keep my cool and try reason with those I disagree with like that.

May 8, 2012

I think one of Hancock’s theses, perhaps not stated directly, is that it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to reason with those who have such opposite underlying assumptions or “givens.”

In the arena of ideas, I think too much has already been ceded, such that reclaiming the hearts and minds of many adults is impossible at this time. Our only hope in staving off the current slide into deeper degradation is in a course correction in the institutions of education and media, and to raise up future generations with correct thinking.

The moral relativists have controled education and media (news and entertainment) for 2 generations now. It’s a losing battle, because for every “convert” that is made to correct thinking, schools and media just churcn out more liberals.

Adam G.
July 25, 2012

T&S has just linked to an ex-Mormon article at City Weekly talking about how untrue the church is, how miserable missions are, and how oppressive it is that Church culture pressures us to pretend that missions are OK and the Church not built on lies.

Lovely stuff.

Camilla G.
August 8, 2012

That Adam’s disclosure of KW’s identity drew more condemnation than KW’s (somewhat deceptive) portrayal of himself as a believing Latter-day Saint interests me. In his credit, his postings since have seemed admirably open. Does the right to privacy (online or elsewhere) include the right to deception? My personal moral judgment is against it.
In interest of full disclosure, I ought to mention I tend to be a partisan of Adam’s and am a close blood relative.
In a recent CES fireside, it was noted that online debate tends to be more civil and of higher quality when people posted under their real identities. Even the New York Times (hardly a bastion of ultra-conservatism) has adopted such a posting policy on its website. I believe the fireside was May 2009 and Elder Bednar was the speaker, but I may be mistaken in that.
Adam certainly is not shy in his criticism, but if he can dish it out he can take it too. I admire his refusal to conceal his true views, a trait that characterizes him in person as well as online.

August 9, 2012

I resemble the remark about posting under true names. My employer has asked that I do otherwise. I am tempted at times to tell him to blow it out his ear, since I doubt he’d actually dare to sanction me for posting under my real name, but I haven’t quite worked up the nerve yet.

Adam G.
September 17, 2012

Today T&S put up a sidebar link with Elder Oaks warning against the danger of rightwing militias.

One hopes that all the right wing militiamen in the T&S readership take the warning to heart.

September 17, 2012

Is the take-away that center/left militias are okay?

(Got your year supply of ammo?)

November 1, 2012

My music is so lousy, I have to spam completely unrelated sites to get any listeners at all.

November 1, 2012

This thread is still going? Oh, my.

[Adam G.–Indeed. The last comments have been spam and T&Sers kvetching. Obsession–its not just a perfume in Egypt.]

Apparently some people can leave T&S, but they can’t leave T&S alone. : )

[Adam G.–I never left T&S. Granted, I don’t participate there anymore. But as a liberal T&Ser, I reject these narrow and oppressive notions that one must be part of an institution to be part of it.]

Alison Moore Smith
November 1, 2012

Adam, as you know, I’ve been with T&S for a few years now, but blogging at Mormon Momma for almost a decade. All this drama predates me, but I’d like to make a couple of points, if you’ll allow:

(1) While I write at T&S, I don’t manage the sidebar links. I am free to post what I like, as are others perms. Your comment implies that the sidebar links are somehow representative of the collective thinking at T&S — and they are not.

(2) I believe all perms agree to keep the private backlist conversations private. At least I did. Yet you post them here. I think that’s inappropriate even if you think it helps your case.

(3) I actually ended up here because you posted a new column in T&S. Honestly, I don’t understand. You hate T&S. You have a running post (here) about why. Yet you still publish closed-comment posts over there to drive traffic to your site?

Honestly, I don’t get it.

Adam G.
November 1, 2012

Miss Alison,
thanks for coming over to comment on the Earned Respect, Unconditional Love post. I hope you enjoyed it. Your comment seems to have been eaten, so please post it again or else email it to me.

Alison Moore Smith
November 1, 2012

I didn’t say I came over to comment on the post. I said I came here because of your duplicate post on T&S. I saw the link at the bottom and clicked over to see what you are up to.

I was disappointed to see this post and, even more, that you are still updating it with complaints about the site/people you are using for traffic generation.

It seems an odd choice.

And, hey, it’s Mrs. Alison, to you. 😉

The Junior Ganymede Club Committee
November 1, 2012

Please disabuse yourself of the notion that Junior Ganymede tries to generate traffic. We are far too fond of the black ball to throw open the doors wide. We are exclusive, Madame, and were it not chivalrous, we would take umbrage.

We regret your disappoint extremely. Alas, this world is a vale of tears. Expect more disappointment to follow at irregular intervals, as the mood takes us.

November 1, 2012

“Please disabuse yourself of the notion that Junior Ganymede tries to generate traffic.”

Then what exactly is the purpose of cross-posting at T&S?

Adam G.
November 1, 2012

Cross-post? Not I. I’m comfortable in my blogality.

The Junior Ganymede Club Committee
November 1, 2012

Mr. G. is pleased to be jocose. Knowing his character, we can assure the gentleman that he cross-posts to generate traffic for Times and Seasons. His motives are philanthropic. We trust that clears up all your questions, which are no doubt kindly meant.

In the future, if T&S regulars wish to submit our membership to interrogation, let them use email or combine their quibbles into one comment, to avoid the odious impression of generating traffic here. We exempt the ladies, of course.

November 1, 2012

I didn’t say I had any quibbles, I just found that statement odd. The only reason TO cross post is to generate traffic for your blog post, something I have no issue with mind you. If, in the future, I ever have a quibble though, I’ll be sure to take it up with you via e-mail.

Bertie W.
November 1, 2012

Flippant statements are odd? Oh, I say. I find them to be perfectly normal, dash it.

November 1, 2012

Speaking for myself, as a person who is literally not Adam: I wouldn’t visit Times and Seasons at all if it weren’t for his cross-postings.

November 1, 2012

I don’t follow Vader. Why would his cross-posting the posts encourage you to visit T&S? I mean, the fact that they are cross-posted here at Jr. Ganymede should make T&S irrelevant, particularly since the comments are closed at T&S and folks are redirected to this blog to discuss the posts. I mean, unless you simply enjoy prefer “big brown’s” WordPress layout. It is rather eye-catching.

Ye ed., aka The Blogger Mighty and Strong
November 1, 2012

This has got too dull and niggling for words. Since this navel-gazing does not involve Pier Angeli’s midriff, it will now cease.

Ask not for whom the comment-deletion hammer looms. It looms for thee.

November 2, 2012

Very well, Marc. You’ve convinced me that there’s no good reason for me to visit Times and Season just because Adam cross posts there once in a blue moon.

[Ye ed. — Egads. Stop it, stop it, stop it, or I shall start to whine.]

[…] Adam G., commenting on his own post “Why I quit Times and Seasons” at Junior Ganymede: […]

Adam G.
March 13, 2013

Carpers gonna carp.

Did you know conservative Mormons, in addition to being Mormon, are also not Catholic or Protestant? True story. They are also, if you can believe it, not even Buddhist or Wiccan. They have so many motes in their eyes, its a wonder they can see. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/03/the-shoes-on-the-other-foot/

Adam G.
March 21, 2013

A man is angry that women don’t have to have the priesthood:

March 21, 2013

I just find Kaimi’s insistence that he’s still Mormon (when he pretty much rejects everything about the church and wants to remake it in his own image) quite funny.

John Mansfield
March 21, 2013

The funny part for me is that if you think that it’s a good thing that those women who want to should fill roles as spouses to other women or as infantry soldiers, well then, we get it, you think EVERY role should be open to women. If woman’s spouse measures a 10 on the masculinity scale, and infantryman somewhere in the same vicinity, then priest measures how high? By some lines of thought it would be up around 10 as well, but generally such a role seems as masculine as being a school teacher. It only makes sense to specifically voice support for women as priests, if you don’t already support women as women’s spouses.

Ask a Liberal Mormon
May 21, 2013

I love how Adam Miller sidesteps the question. But how dare Peterson ask questions based on a single sentence about embracing atheists as part of Mormonism? He’s so judgmental. I wouldn’t let *him* sit beside me at church, that’s for sure.


[…] Culture, and setting safe zones/boundaries, is the primary means of controlling the conversation. This is what I mean when I saw boundaries on the Bloggernacle are culturally enforced. You quickly get the hint you aren’t wanted there. Those that doubt are within the safe zone and those that believe aren’t. […]

Leave a Reply