Episode 261: The Church’s PR and Kate Kelly

25 comments on “Episode 261: The Church’s PR and Kate Kelly”

  1. Jon Reply

    The Hobby Lobby issue is a property rights issue and it is unfortunate that people need to use a religious exemption in order to protect their property rights. It is interesting that people are up in arms about this when they aren’t even banning all contraceptives, just ones that would be abortive.

    I don’t think anyone would say:

    – Help! I have been denied access to housing because my employer won’t pay my mortgage
    – Help! I have been denied access to clothing because my employer won’t pay my Nordstrom bill
    – Help! I have been denied access to leisure because my employer won’t pay my resort bill
    – Help! I have been denied access to child care because my employer won’t pay my nanny
    – Help! I have been denied access to food because my employer won’t pay my grocery bill

    Yet half the country seems to be saying

    – Help! I have been denied access to birth control because my employer won’t pay for it

    It should not be necessary to say this, but apparently it is:

    – The government’s reluctance to ban an activity does not constitute an endorsement
    – The government’s refusal to subsidize an activity does not constitute a ban

    via http://www.coyoteblog.com/

      • Jon Reply

        OK, I’ll have to listen to the beginning of the podcast again. Thanks for replying!

  2. icebreaker Reply

    Ok – So Kate publicly, repeatedly and in an organized way stood in opposition to the church on one main issue and was Xed.

    John Dehlin – publicly, repeatedly and in an organized way stood in opposition to the church on a LOT of main points of the church INCLUDING the ONE that Kate stood for publicly.

    I wish them both well and by no means mean this as an attack on John or either of them – but here is the question I have for the Church –

    What’s taking so long to kick John out? Or does Kate have an extremely valid point she was fighting for?

    • Max Reply

      Dehlin will eventually be excommunicated. People like him cannot indefinitely exist within the church environment as it is right now. The church is not about inclusion as much as it is about it’s members being slavishly obedient to “counsel”.

      Kate made the church uncomfortable about something that they are VERY behind the times when compared to society i.e. gender equality. The more time they gave her to question as a member would mean more time for the national spotlight to be on their sexist attitude of leadership. So they cut her out.

      John Dehlin on the other hand is more associated with LGBT rights, which is something the country is still somewhat divided over (although more and more are finally coming to their senses). The church can afford to bide their time with him because it is still a societal debate. But like I said, with his views and opinions he cannot indefinitely exist within the church paradigm.

  3. jack Reply

    lol . that beautifully tingly feeling after one is spanked as a child”. wtf .

  4. David Clark Reply

    A question for Mike. I noticed that through most of your commentary, you would say things like “The scriptures say, ‘X'” or “I don’t have to follow the leadership of the church when they are in contradiction with scripture.” While I am in 100% agreement with the sentiment, is there any evidence that the LDS authorities care at all what scripture has to say? Has been a time in recent memory where rank and file members point out that top leadership is not in harmony with scripture and they admit their mistake and change their teaching?

  5. Kent Reply

    Maybe I misunderstood John at the beginning of the podcast, but am I to understand that we are to never comment on a woman’s appearance even if we feel that she dressed a certain way to send a deliberate message to the world? I believe that in a previous podcast, it was discussed how some people “signal” others with their choice of dress, mannerisms, and speech.
    To me, it seems that the signal Kate Kelly was sending is that she is more conservative than the average female Mormon, while Ally Isom was sending the message that she is just as progressive and powerful as any corporate officer. I believe that both women carefully chose their look to send those messages.
    If there were comments made demeaning either woman for the way she dressed, I do find that offensive.
    Thank you for another entertaining and educational podcast!

    • Jen Reply

      Kent, your question implies that you can look at the way a person is dressed and assume that you understand what message they’re trying to send by dressing that way. If you’re making assumptions like this, I guarantee you’re getting it wrong more than you’re getting it right. So, to answer your question… yes. You should never comment on a woman’s appearance based on your assumption of what she may or may not mean by it.

      I get so tired of all the conversations about Kate Kelly’s clothes and what signals she is sending. I personally love her unique, vintage style, but I’m not reading any messages into it. And seeing as Kate is a pretty damn authentic person, I would even venture to guess that she doesn’t get up in the morning, look in the closet, and say “What should I wear to best suit my message?” It is, however, entirely possible she looks in there and says, “Ooh, I love this shirt and I haven’t worn it in a while. I think I’ll wear it today.”

      • Kent Reply

        You are intelligent enough to look beyond her physical appearance and listen to her message. Her target audience (faithful members of the LDS Church) is very concerned with image. I’m not criticizing her, I think her look is appropriate for what she is trying to accomplish. I don’t think she just pulled “whatever” out of her closet. And now I’ve made a bigger deal out of it than I wanted to by commenting, proving your point. 🙂

  6. jack Reply

    lol . “its like being gang raped by the care bears”. some good quotes from this episode . just donated 20 quid

  7. Robert(1) Reply

    I can’t tell hot women they look hot even though 10/10 times they enjoy the comment. But when Mike makes a “gang rape” joke the panel bursts out in laughter. ..really?

      • Robert(1) Reply

        Yes I’m sure…friends, coworkers, dating…sometimes random girls who i might stop and say I’m sorry no disrespect but I just have to tell you. .. “You’re gorgeous”…always returned with a smile and thank you. …keep in mind it’s rare that it’s a stranger(okay maybe only a handful of times in my adult life) but this idea that it’s offensive only serves the unattractive. And the word hot is synonymous with like words not necessarily the actual word. This society has become way to easily offended in my opinion.

  8. Ingrid Reply

    This episode was great but still a little manplain-y. Lindsay has some great things to say, I want to hear more from her!

  9. Joe Reply

    I listened to the Mormon Expression podcast for the first time today, and will not listen again. Regardless of the message, the language was extraordinarily vulgar, which is an automatic turn-off to those of us who are already despairing of the decline of civility and refinement in our culture.

    I would expect it from the likes of Howard Stern, but not from a supposedly intellectually stimulating discussion. The host thinks it’s cute, I think it low life.

    • Joshua Reply

      Thank God (and President Monson) that we have Joe to safeguard civility and refinement for us. I can’t tell you how grateful I am for douchebags who set themselves above the rest of the real world to maintain some delusional high-minded concept of “civility.” It’s American hubris, by the way, because swear words are not taboo in other cultures the way it is here. It’s nothing for a swear word to be heard in an evangelical service in Australia, for example. But I’ll tell you this. The most vile and vulgar, uncivil, and unrefined comments I have heard in my life came from a pulpit and never once used swear words. Let’s discuss that.

    • Rude Dog Reply

      Decline of civility and refinement? Joe? Really? An organization goes out of its way to thwart the human rights and advancement based on skin color, gender and sexual orientation. An organization that murdered in cold blood 120 men, women and children in a quiet meadow in Southern Utah, then keeping the orphans unto themselves until the last minute, and looting the goods left over from the act. An organization that commits cultural imperialism by robbing the ancestors of the ancient Mayan, Aztecs and Incas of their heritage, telling them that it couldn’t have been dark skinned savages that built the great cities and societies of Meso -America, developing a written language that may have only taken place 3 or 4 times during our tenure as Homo sapiens, but had to be fair skinned Israelites. An organization that claims although we live on a tiny blue planet in the backwoods of a massive spiral galaxy located in an insignificant part of a huge universe teeming with even more massive galaxies, overwhelmed with hopeless gravity, appalling energy, and the despair of distance, this was all made for you. And you don’t see that as vulgar and uncivilized? When does one realize the franchise of the restored gospel has failed to reach even a tiny fraction of humanity, making the plan of salvation a horrific inefficient message, rendering it if true, a plan for the dead and not the living, and you bat not an eye at that yet high center on swear words?

      The solipsism staggers.

  10. Jeff Reply

    Towards the end of this podcast it was brought up that Ally Isom said that there is room to ask questions in church (in Sunday School and RS/Priesthood, specifically). The Sunday after Kate Kelly got ex’d, the subject of Ordain Women came up in my ward’s Sunday School, and I spoke up. Nothing big really — I just pointed out where people were making assumptions about OW that did not match the reality(encouraging people to read their website before making a judgement as to tone and motive), and pointed out that OW did not in fact picket at temple square.

    Fast forward one week, I got pulled into the bishop’s office where we had an hour-long conversation as a result of my bishop having heard about my benign comments in Sunday School the week before. At one point in the interview, I brought up the Ally Isom interview and quote and asked him if Sunday School is a safe place to ask questions, to which he replied yes — it is. But the whole rest of the conversation consisted of him pointing out that any time we cause anybody to doubt that the brethren are DIRECTLY guided by Jesus Christ himself, we are “walking on thin ice”. From this I took that no — my ward is not a safe place to ask questions.

    And, this is the best ward I’ve ever been in. They really are sincere, likable people.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *