Ep 153 – Kate Kelly’s small-minded Op Ed Smackdown

Written by on February 10, 2015

Kate Kelly is taking heat again.  This time for unapologetically claiming that “…only the least talented, least articulate, least nuanced thinkers, least likely to take a stand against abuse, and the least courageous people thrive in the Church today.”  Pretty sketchy, huh?
Jake, Erica, Chelsea, and Glenn smack it all down.

Tagged as , , , ,

  1. Hyloka   On   February 11, 2015 at 3:25 am

    I don’t think Kate needs to apologize. While they exist in droves within the church, talented, articulate, nuanced thinking and courageous people don’t thrive. They must hold their tongues, bow their heads and choose between the label of apostate and its impact on themselves and their family or live on the intellectual down-low, not daring to go off the script provided by Salt Lake.

    • Brad   On   February 11, 2015 at 3:47 am

      I disagree. You cannot generalize to that extent. You can’t say anyone who thrives in the church is not talented, etc…. Broad, sweeping generalizations are not healthy, no matter who is making them.

    • Glenn   On   February 11, 2015 at 4:17 am

      It really becomes a matter of semantics, doesn’t it. Because there are dozens of ways to rephrase what Kate said that make the point much better — and much less ridiculous (i.e. worthy of ridicule) than the way she actually chose. If she had said it the way you re-phrased it there, Hyloka — that talented, couragous, intelligent members have to keep their outrage at injustice on the down-low — well, if she had said it thst way, then I would agree with you that she doesn’t have anything to apologize for. But she didn’t. She said they were the least talented, least courageous, yada yada, and created an insulting false comparison. It’s a simple correction to avoid that. You did it. Why can’t she?

      • Erica   On   February 11, 2015 at 5:13 pm

        I think this entirely depends on your perspective. Jake stated in the podcast that what Kate Kelly wrote was “unacceptable.” How? And according to whom? All cultural Mormons or just the hand-wringing pseudo-apologists?

      • Adam Beckham   On   February 16, 2015 at 7:14 pm

        He seems to think it is Kate Kelly’s job to advance “the cause” in a way that Jake finds palatable.
        A roundtable of men shaming a woman speaking out against a paternalist/patriarchal system.
        A court of love in its own right.

      • Glenn   On   February 16, 2015 at 9:57 pm

        Round table of men? Did you even listen? Well, truth be told, I’d be happy to shame you, too, Adam. Something tells me it’d be easy.

      • Adam Beckham   On   February 17, 2015 at 12:13 am

        I absolutely listened.
        Look at the positions taken among the hosts and guests by gender. The de facto role of the women in that discussion was to provide a context for understanding Kate’s words that the men seemed unable or unwilling to provide for themselves.
        Was this punching up?
        And shame away, Glenn, whatever that involves. Enjoy yourself.

      • Sean   On   February 11, 2015 at 7:06 pm

        Well said Glenn. When I first read the piece I read it in relation to what was occuring with John Dehlin and saw it as her way of bolstering support. I wondered if she didn’t make the statement, as others have implied, with the ironic intention of stating that those who stand up for what they beleive, thoughtfully question, and face the consequences are strong and wonderful people via a contrast point. But to me, and it sounds like many others, it didn’t come accross this way.I wouldn’t label it unacceptable as that term is grounded in mutually agreed upon standards and I don’t beleive any really apply here. What I would suggest is that as an advocate for those questioning beliefs or memberships and seeking change within the LDS church she likely disenfranchised people who have few advocates and, whether intended or not, over generalized and gave fair cause for insult and harm to some. We can’t hold others emotional response to what we do, but we can try to avoid being a dick…and that comment, in my opinion, was a bit dickish. I agree that there were likely better ways to convey appreciation and support for John Dehlin, question the current state of LDS dissent handling, and show compassion for all. That said, I can also reasonably empathise, based on the small peices of her reality she has shared, that this process has been deeply painful, frustrating and affectively taxing and, in some regards, if you poke at anything enough, regardless of how mild mannered it is, your chances of getting bit increase. Maybe this was her biting. But only she really knows I suppose.

      • Erica   On   February 11, 2015 at 7:19 pm

        But this is where perspective comes in. To the majority of the world, Kate Kelly said absolutely nothing that is unacceptable.

      • Sean   On   February 11, 2015 at 7:38 pm

        For sure and perhaps I didn;t word that as clearly as I could have. I wanted to take “acceptability” off the table as it is really subjective when used outside of a clearly defined and mutually agreed upon set of norms and move from a binary acceptable or unacceptable to a shades of grey (at least 50…and likely billions) looking at individual affective experience. Acceptable or not (if such a thing exists) some people likely felt hurt or challenged which may or may not have been the point.

      • Erica   On   February 11, 2015 at 8:02 pm

        As a complete outsider, the only way I see for anyone to be hurt or challenged by Kate Kelly’s sweeping generalizations is to be a Mormon or have close friends and family who are still Mormons.
        The Infants themselves have said far, far more inflammatory things than Kate Kelly ever has. And I really don’t see very many people posting how unacceptable Matt’s sweeping generalizations about Christianity is. Randy (I believe) outright called Mother Theresa a cunt the other day. Where’s the bristling ire for that? There’s none because those opinions do not challenge Mormonism.
        I really believe this is seen as a bigger deal than it actually is because of the culture of Mormonism. Challenge, differing opinions, or obvious dissent is a threat. It’s the clannishness of Mormonism that’s a little on display here. And like I wrote earlier, the black and white thinking the church seems to incubate.
        But I’m probably completely out of line monologuing about all of this as an outsider to Mormonism. I was just surprised by the disconnect in this episode. Jake himself challenges the LDS church repeatedly with his Youtube videos, yet when Kate Kelly states similar opinions it’s unacceptable.

      • Allison   On   February 11, 2015 at 11:57 pm

        It’s seen as a big deal because Kate’s anger is sadly misplaced on people who don’t deserve to be called the leftover losers, basically. The other things aren’t seen as a big deal because they aren’t talking about victims of a controlling, fundamentalist religion. It was an arrogant, thoughtless statement. I don’t care if she apologizes, but I’m gonna call a spade a spade.

      • Brother Jake   On   February 12, 2015 at 1:53 am

        Well, I think you left out one reason one might take issue with Kate Kelly’s sweeping generalizations: she’s wrong. And the reason she’s wrong is related to the point you made when you say that it is driven by knowing people that are Mormon. This is the case with me–the reason I reacted so strongly to this statement is that I just know too many smart, talented, articulate, courageous Mormons that believe, attend regularly, hold/fulfill callings, and generally find joy in Church participation (and if that’s not “thriving,” what is?) to not see “…only the least articulate, etc. thrive in the Church today” as unfair to current members and grossly overstated.
        Now, that being said, I absolutely agree with the more toned-down restatements of that quote that I’ve seen in the comments–that Mormonism systematically reinforces characteristics that I don’t like (blind obedience, narrow-mindedness, etc.) Had she said that in the first place, I would have agreed wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, she elected to (by using the phrase “only the least articulate…members”) throw all current believers under the bus rather than critiquing the system.
        Ultimately, the reason this is so frustrating to me is that I believe and support what Kate represents, so when she shoots her mouth off, it ostracizes the people I most hope will start to listen and agree with her. If this was an LDS apologist saying equally inflammatory things about [insert group here], I wouldn’t give a shit because I don’t agree with or support the things s/he stands for.

      • Erica   On   February 12, 2015 at 4:12 am

        It was an opinion piece in The Guardian. No one was supposed to read her article as literal truth.
        I read the article before listening to the podcast and I understood her meanings exactly as all of you did: that the LDS church suppresses dissent while rewarding blind obedience. But I also understood her to be using hyperbole. Do you honestly think people reading that article are going to take Kelly’s words so literally?
        That’s why I was so taken aback by you guys’ reactions. You agreed with her sentiment but are incensed by her wording.
        There have been MUCH more dismissive, hurtful and offensive things said in this podcast in several episodes. But I understand that sweeping generalizations are a way of expressing opinions. (Especially when those opinions are from a place of hurt and anger.)

      • Brother Jake   On   February 12, 2015 at 2:21 pm

        So, are you agreeing with how Chelsea said Kate saw that paragraph (as being intentionally ironic or hyperbolic)? I just didn’t get that at all from reading it–nothing else in the piece indicated that any of it was meant ironically.
        I’m not bothered by it because I’m worried that people will take what she said “literally” from a non-Mormon perspective. I’m bothered because there are a small but significant cohort of people in the Church that relate to feminist issues within Mormonism and could be persuaded to agree with what Kate stands for. So when she shifts from her very valid critiques of the system to invalid critiques of the membership, I think it’s going to ostracize the people I hope internalize her message. She jumps the shark, and this one invalid criticism taints the many valid criticisms she makes. It doesn’t ruin the whole thing, but I see it as an unforced error. Plus, it’s a shitty thing to say about a group of people (ONLY the LEAST articulate/courageous thrive today? C’mon.), and based on the rest of the article, I don’t see any reason to view that paragraph as ironic while the rest seems in earnest.
        True, we’ve been more inflammatory than what she said in the article on the podcast, but I think we try and keep it centered on the institution and the theology of Mormonism, rather than criticizing the members themselves. And I admit that I am holding Kate to a higher standard because 1) she’s an activist leader for a cause I believe in and 2) it’s in a much more formal medium than podcasting (and through a much wider channel than a bunch of asshats with USB mics).
        However, you’re completely right in that how one views the article depends on their perspective. I’m approaching it as a former Mormon with a lot of believing friends and family. It’s really interesting to me to see how differently you interpreted the Op-Ed as a never-Mo (especially how I’m latching onto things that totally flew under the radar for you).

      • Erica   On   February 12, 2015 at 4:38 pm

        “So, are you agreeing with how Chelsea said Kate saw that paragraph (as being intentionally ironic or hyperbolic)?”
        Absolutely. Although not with irony, but hyperbole. I absolutely understood her to be using generalizations for dramatic effect. To a point that you Glenn’s reactions confused me so much I went back and re-read the article to check if I was missing something.
        “So when she shifts from her very valid critiques of the system to invalid critiques of the membership, I think it’s going to ostracize the people I hope internalize her message.”
        I understand what you mean. But I feel like this is a lot wagon-circling pathos for a hypothetical. I feel like you’re not giving people a benefit of doubt about their ability to understand the sentiment behind Kate Kelly’s words.
        “Plus, it’s a shitty thing to say about a group of people (ONLY the LEAST articulate/courageous thrive today? C’mon.)”
        I agree that’s it’s a shitty thing to say about a group of people. But where’s your outrage when a fellow Infant calls an elderly (now dead) woman a cunt? Like I wrote earlier, there’s none because that doesn’t effect your Mormon friends and family. And it’s the clannishness, the cultism of Mormonism I’m trying to get you to see in this specific situation. (And I only say that because it’s what I’m seeing and I like to be right.)
        “I’m approaching it as a former Mormon with a lot of believing friends and family.”
        Sure, I get that. As a Catholic, I bristle when someone says something generalizing and false like Catholics worship statues or some such nonsense. But the vast majority of the time that generalizing person knows damn well that Catholics do not worship statues. He or she is simply using hyperbole to express an opinion on Catholicism. (Either that or Hitchens was drunk again. He usually was, but who am I to judge?)
        And I am simply an unofficial student of Mormonism and its effects on people. So I can only give my observations and opinions from the outside looking in.
        In fact, I’ve never even met a Mormon in real life. I’ve never even been to Utah. (See what I did there?)

      • Brother Jake   On   February 13, 2015 at 2:36 pm

        Ok. I see what you’re saying. And I agree that the reason I’m reacting so strongly to this as opposed to other things (like the Mother Theresa comment, for example) is mostly driven by my association with the group in question–I know a lot of Mormons and I don’t know much of anything about Mother Theresa, so one incites a stronger reaction than the other. In the same way, I’m guessing the fact that you don’t know any Mormons personally is a major factor in your ambivalence toward Kate’s “only the least thrive” comment.
        This conversation brings up an interesting concept that I’ve never thought much about before–it seems like having a strong reaction (as opposed to a head shake or shrug) to a perceived wrong is driven as much by our association to the wronged party as it is to the wrong act itself. It’s kind of sick when you think about it…

      • Randy_Snyder   On   February 12, 2015 at 8:33 am

        Yes, it was I who called Mother Theresa a cunt. But I can back that up. She loved and admired despot leaders, she took millions in donations because people believed she was helping the needy when she let thousands suffer and die unnecessarily bc of her radical belief that suffering was the true path to heaven (based on the nurses in Calcuttas’ testimony) and her relentless and intolerant message of no birth control of any kind helped deepen the socio-economic dilemma of myriad Catholic-devoted 3rd world communities. So you don’t like the word cunt. I don’t think it’s a strong enough word for such a figure of pain and suffering that’s been propped up as a figure for all to aspire to.
        But can Kate Kelly back up her puerile sweeping statement that the only people remaining in Mormonism are inarticulate, untalented, uncourageous, etc? No. She can’t hold a candle (nor can I) to many believing Mormons intellectually. All she had to say was the vetting process the church employs to select their leaders skews to obedience and loyalty to the status quo. That would have been accurate and still appropriately scathing.
        And I don’t give a shit about her apologizing but she doesn’t get a pass for being sloppy in a carefully written op-ed for the Guardian for chrissakes just bc she’s on my exMo team now.

      • Heather_ME   On   February 13, 2015 at 3:59 pm

        My only quibble with your word choice is that I fail to see how it’s an insult to call someone a term used to refer to a piece of the female anatomy that you most likely find quite pleasurable. Wouldn’t it be more apt to call her a colon? Or maybe smegma? ;^)

      • Randy_Snyder   On   February 13, 2015 at 9:09 pm

        If I were the god of taboo words in my culture I would certainly replace cunt with smegma which is actually unisexual. So mother Theresa was totally a smegma. Hmm, lacks the fricative punch though…

      • Allison   On   February 14, 2015 at 2:06 am

        I think it sounds awful. Way worse than cunt. Sure it doesnt have the harsh consonants most swears have in common, but it’s got that nasty, make-a-gross-face-when-you-hear-it quality that words like “moist” have. Shudder. But it doesn’t need an article. “She is smegma,” not “she is a smegma.”

      • Erica   On   February 16, 2015 at 2:31 am

        Hey, how about you guys take a nod from Jake and say, “She was wrong.”
        To be honest, I can’t help but step back and marvel at adults who are new to secularism and see how you people can out-adolescence each other. Cunt? Smegma? Colon? Keep applying that to a woman who at death was the same age as your grandmothers.
        I’m being completely honest. I want Heather to think, next time she sees or thinks of her grandmother, SMEGMA.

      • Allison   On   February 16, 2015 at 3:43 am

        This is where reading emoticons can help. My tone and heather’s tone was meant to be taken as a joke. Out-adolescence- each other? Yep. Usually. Hence the name of the podcast. 😉
        You’ll have to take it up with Randy about his disdain for Mother Teresa and the words he chooses. We were making light more of Randy’s indignation and word choice than anything else.
        I don’t know enough about Mother teresa to say if she should be called smegma or a cunt or a saint. But I do know that her age has nothing to do with her ability to be a terrible person or not.

      • Daved6   On   February 12, 2015 at 12:45 am

        No it’s not a matter of semantics (do you and johns sp know what that means?). Ur rephrasing is just as stupid. Like u or she has any knowledge of the many people who thrive in Mormonism around the globe. Bigoted comments result often from bigoted or ignorant thinking.

    • Mike   On   February 11, 2015 at 11:32 am

      Except I know too many people who are those things and *do* thrive in the church. I know a guy who’s an absolutely brilliant engineer, doing cutting edge research, and he loves the church. His engineering talent doesn’t have much to do with church teachings one way or another. The fact is, there are so many ways of being talented/articulate/courageous that don’t in any way conflict with church teachings.
      I also know a woman who is incredibly accepting, kind, and courageous. She isn’t comfortable with the church’s teachings on homosexuality, but she loves the church and is 100% committed. And honestly, she doesn’t have to censor herself, even in an extremely conservative ward, because people know she’s 100% committed and that what she says comes from a place of love.

    • Mike   On   February 11, 2015 at 11:52 am

      Also, not everyone who goes “off script”, even publicly, gets labeled an apostate. Most do not receive any church discipline.

    • Zelph   On   February 12, 2015 at 5:05 am

      I agree, I don’t think she should apologize and precisely for the reason you listed. You gotta be the cream of the crop in order to rise up the ranks of Mormonism. And ironically/paradoxically to become the cream of the crop you must be apart of the dregs of open-minded free-thinkers. (too many metaphors I know) The church wants provincial, ahem excuse me Randy I mean to say myopic, unoriginal ciphers and yes-men to rule and carry on the baton of authority. I don’t care if TBMs or exMormons suffering from Stockholm syndrome are offended. If you want to become SOMEONE in the Mormon church take notes from President King who exed Dehlin. Chelsea you let me down on this one, although anyone getting tripled teamed has little hope to win the match.

  2. Gabriel von Himmel   On   February 11, 2015 at 9:55 am

    Latest Story can’t post on mormonstories
    My Excommunication
    John Delhin can’t post on your latest:
    As follows:
    Priestcraft Explosted
    Mormonism Reloaded
    Peering through the looking glass into Mormon Stories confirms that all are being watched from on hight and here, down below –– a passion play of sorts.
    “This Religion Making is a messy business.” –– the Religion Making Business I mean.
    The parables, it seems can spin all the way back to Jesus himself. This is a danger; Judeophiic Mormons wish not the comparison.
    The Philo-Semitic Corporate entity has misjudged the true prize. Moral Hazard has infected the righteous.
    In 2015 who would think that Franz Kafka would poke a finger with such existential poignance . Voltaire warned of these occurrences long ago. Ossification is reserved for the worthy –– perhaps . . .
    The Mormons have put up another parking lot; they don’t know what they got till it’s gone, and it will be all sorted out in the end.
    Beware: John Delhin is a mental health professional who has dedicated his life, wife and family to being a better human being.
    The Pharisees, Minders of the temple are a species of another time.
    personally I believe John Delhin deserves a Mac Arthur Genius Award.

  3. Leslee   On   February 11, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    Chelsea– you are my fucking hero. Every time you come on IoT I feel like there is a breath of much-needed reality checking. You keep your cool and respond with intelligence and passion, bringing up the feminist point of view which most of us (both men and women) don’t have enough practice exercising. Still listening to the episode, but I just can’t keep from gushing. My. fucking. hero. Thank you!

    • Christopher Allman   On   February 11, 2015 at 4:03 pm

      More often than not, the feminist point of view is that of female supremecy based on balancing out historical abuse. However, I don’t support the supremecy of either gender. Male chauvinism sucks and so does female chauvinism. Feminism teaches female chauvinism. And it’s sense of history is way skewed. Women in European cultures (such as North America) have always had lots of power and been well respected. The 1800’s are named after a woman of such ENORMOUS power and cultural influence that an entire era of human history is named after her, The Victorian era named after Queen Victoria. Prohibition was led by women. The white feather campaign 100 yrs ago was led by women etc etc.
      Feminism teaches women that they understand male psychology and motivations better than men do. That when we say or do x, we really mean ‘I hate women’ or ‘I hate powerful women’. But we don’t! At all! The original symbol of America was the Goddess Columbia, a strong confident woman with a sword. Or the statue of liberty, a strong confident woman. Why choose those as symbols of our nation if we hate strong, confident women? Other than the 1950’s,( after 2 world wars, dustbowls, the Spanish flu. The great depression, leading to a one generation cult of domesticity) women have ALWAYS worked outside of the home.(unless they were rich enough to afford not to). In the 1920’s, women were 50% of college students. And our culture has always ALWAYS been against rape and spousal abuse. 100 yrs ago, the ku Klux Klan had the whipping and beating of wife beaters and rapists as two of their main objectives.
      Besides, even if women had been ‘oppressed’ which they weren’t (oppression happens on lines of race and class, not gender), trying to now ‘get back’ at men and give us a ‘taste of our own medicine’ is the same type of thinking that inspired Saddam Hussein, Jospeh Stallin and Israel’s treatment of PalestInians etc. We should all treat everyone as fully equal human beings, period. No need to invoke history. And neither gender is entitled to special treatment, no matter how much they insist that they are.
      A lot of men are simply afraid to speak up, worried they will be accused of mansplaining and misogyny. I was once one of those men, a devout feminist and recently I decided ‘fuck it’. feminism is like an emotionally abusive relationship for men, where we are always ALWAYS the villain and women are always the good one. #killallmen, ban men, unfollow a man day. All the new gendered insults, mansplaining, manspreading, man slamming. Endless lists, websites, tumblrs ,instagrams, deceptively made videos which have no other purpose than to mock and belittle men. The website ihatemen.org which is fully dedicated to man hating. the whole ‘ironic’ misandry thing. The open and gleeful misandry. The mocking of men’s issues ‘wut about teh men’s’ ‘I bathe in male tears’ etc Feminism is racist, classist and unbelievably sexist!
      I’m sick of it!
      Feminism, whatever good it may have done in the past, has become mean spirited, petty and hypocritical. The only thing about it that has anything to do with equality is the dictionary definition, which means the dictionary definition is wrong.
      I reject the entire frame work precisely because I DO believe in and feel strongly about gender equality. And no matter what inflammatory labels feminists (and male feminists are typically the worst) choose to give me, I don’t care. I have mentally liberated myself from feminism, which is narrow and dogmatic, just like I mentally liberated myself from Mormon ism, which is equally narrow minded and dogmatic.

    • Aaron   On   February 12, 2015 at 1:45 am

      One thing that’s unclear is if Chelsea was an activist for equality before Ordain Women became a thing. Is she just riding the OW wave? Or does her activism pre-date OW? Nobody knows.

      • Craig S.   On   February 12, 2015 at 4:20 am

        You obviously didn’t listen to this episode. She spent quite a bit of time talking about how she is one of the founding members of the LDS Wave website, which was one of the precursors to Ordain Women. She also talks about how she was the one who introduced Kate Kelly to the world of feminist activism. So, no. It’s not that nobody knows. It’s that you didn’t know, and apparently didn’t make any effort to try to find out, either.
        But besides that, what does it matter? So what if she did start her activism with Ordain Women? Would that somehow discredit her in your eyes?

      • Aaron   On   February 12, 2015 at 11:26 pm

        She said it like 10x, one way or another. She took Kate Kelly to her first feminist event (told that story at least twice, + two other podcasts). Yeah, I heard it. I knew. I was just being an a-hole about it.

      • Glenn   On   February 13, 2015 at 6:48 pm

        Newsflash: We Infantile infants may or may not have had a little informal insider wager on when — if at all — Chelsea would once again bring up that she took Kate to her first Feminist Rally. Less than 3 minutes into our discussion it came out — Jake and I were both laughing under our breath — so now you know, Chelsea 😉
        FWIW, the winner was Bob. 🙂

  4. Christopher Allman   On   February 11, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    Glen, I was happy to hear you push back on one of the most frustrating elements of feminism, which is the insistence that women and girls be excempt from the normal social codes of behavavior. Feminists have been telling us ‘don’t put women on a pedestal’, so then we don’t and it seems they see it as another sign of male oppression, then demand to be put back on the pedestal. It can’t go both ways. If women want to be treated as equals (which they deserve to be) they can’t just choose the good parts and reject the bad parts. One consequence of power is being the target of criticism. If you were to NOT have done an episode critical of Kate Kelly, that would have been special treatment, pedastaling, the thing feminists tel us not to do.

  5. Erica   On   February 11, 2015 at 4:16 pm

    The perceived contrariness of a believing Mormon wearing a tube top speaks volumes. The black and white thinking, the child-like morality the LDS church fosters is pretty well represented in that observation.

  6. Ted   On   February 11, 2015 at 6:56 pm

    By outright dimissing the entire membership of the church as talentless, feckless drones who are inferior to her noble and high minded ways of thinking, Kate Kelly is not only more easily dismissed but can be outright villified. While I doubt Kate Kelly meant to insult the entire membership of the church, that is exactly what she does in that article. And while she doesn’t need to apologize…as Lindsey suggested, she should hire an editor. Insulting the entire membership is not only ineffective, it is completely counter-productive and damaging to the OW cause.
    And maybe it is as Glenn pointed out, a matter of semantics. Had Kate simply made clear that she was speaking of the leaders of the church or those who ambitiously aspire to become the leaders of the church, she would have made an effective argument. But by being ambigous and seemingly attacking the masses, she became just as dismissive, arrogant and abusive as the leaders who excommunicated her.
    She doesn’t need to apologize to her target (which I assume is the leaders), but she should clarify her statement and apologize to the masses….but only if she wants to be effective. And for hell’s sakes, hire an editor. It isn’t all about you Kate.

  7. Susan Mowers   On   February 11, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    Although I understand where Chelsea comes from in trying to balance the scales of gender equality by having things swing in the opposite extreme, I think this is where feminists get the most flack – when they want preferential treatment in not being held accountable for offensive things because men aren’t held as accountable. That seems to undermine the ultimate goal of equality. Seems to me that instead of saying it’s okay for Kate to be offensive because men are, the solution seems to be that we need to be more active in calling our the bat-shit crazy stuff men say and hold them more accountable.
    The problem Chelsea pointed out was that she could quote 50 men for not being held accountable for offensive things – well, let’s start calling them out! Let’s work on men calling other men out and for them to hold each other more accountable. Seems to be that’s really where she felt things are disproportionate.

    • Bob Caswell   On   February 12, 2015 at 5:19 am

      Agreed. Honestly, I can’t take seriously quantitative generalizations used for dramatic effect. I’m ready and waiting to see this list of 50 bat-shit crazy and offensive quotes from progressive Mormon men (i.e., Dehlin or others) that should be called out.

    • Craig Keeling   On   February 13, 2015 at 4:32 am

      “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
      I think Chelsea is focusing on the “long” aspect of that reality. If everyone’s being honest, it’s clear we aren’t there yet.

      • Susan Mowers   On   February 13, 2015 at 5:55 pm

        Definitely there is an imbalance, and we aren’t “there” yet. However, fighting inequality with inequality doesn’t seem to be a great way to gain equality in my book.

      • Chicago   On   February 13, 2015 at 6:55 pm

        I am an outsider, but a pretty attentive observer of the Mormon world, I found Kelly’s column to be wholly inoffensive. So one paragraph comes off as bitter and ungracious? Big surprise there! Can an angry jeremiad be effective without being totally fair-minded, temperate and even-handed? Of course.
        John Dehlin seems like a lovely man, but he has surreptitiously recorded conversations with local leaders, improperly (I think) divulged the contents of private conversations with LDS authorities, and, rather outrageously blamed specific Conference Talks for teen suicides. I don’t hold any of this against him, he is fighting a dirty adversary and getting a bit muddy himself. Neither he nor Kelly deserve a “smackdown” from humorists.

      • Matt   On   February 13, 2015 at 9:05 pm

        It’s not about if they deserve it. If exmos stop being critical of exmos then we all lose credibility. We layeth the smackdown on whomever. No one who puts their words out there should be immune from a careful critique.

  8. guest   On   February 11, 2015 at 9:08 pm

    Erica gets self-awareness points for recognizing that the paragraph in Kate’s article that we all agree needs rephrasing is the only part that warrants any type of interesting discussion. Erica’s a keeper! I like her! And Glenn’s “news flash” interruptions…good stuff.

  9. Daved6   On   February 11, 2015 at 9:26 pm

    8 minutes in. That she said it isn’t the sad and, therefore, funny thing. That she thinks it and people agree with her. She nor anyone else knows all the people who thrive in the church.
    It’s really just bigotry. We’ll see if you guys are able to point that obvious out.

    • Glenn   On   February 12, 2015 at 6:56 pm

      So… were we able to point that out? Not sure that “bigotry” came up, exactly — but, I gotta admit, I’m a little confused by all your comments here Dave. You seem to be upset by a lot of this — but I can’t quite put my finger on what it is.

      • Glenn   On   February 12, 2015 at 9:49 pm

        Confused about whether or not you are really intetested in engaging in a discussion or not. But it’s becoming more and more clear.

      • Daved6   On   February 12, 2015 at 10:56 pm

        No need to fret about my intentions. I offered some thoughts and I’m more than willing to discuss. Why such cynicism?

      • JRon   On   February 13, 2015 at 8:32 am

        Brother Mckonkie was wrong! Would you not also greet the great whore of the earth with a measurable amount of cynicism? I mean look at you man, you’ve been slutting it up all over the place. Drive by commenting here, Mormon Stories, Mormon Expression, some other place, SLTrib. You must be exhausted! I nominate you to settle down and and appear before the Royal Court of Infants so that your fresh and unique perspective on the Dehlin matter may be better represented.

      • Daved6   On   February 13, 2015 at 4:54 pm

        Huh? sure I get out and read the news and sometimes I like to read the comments and even comment. Have I ever gotten a comment through on Mormonstories? I dont’ think so. He normally rejects comments that aren’t praising him or something. I think I made one comment on Mormon expression when John stopped hosting suggesting essentially it isn’t as good as it was. SLTrib? yeah I’ve commented here and there. I guess drive by works. I comment then go about my daily life. Don’t mean to just drive by, but sometimes those comment sections explode and it’s worse to go back to them sort through and find any responses, then to just leave it be. Here the comments are pretty few and far between so it makes it easy.
        With that said, I don’t think I’ve seen your name on anything before. Thanks for following my caboose around. I’m sure it’s been delightful for you.

      • JRon   On   February 13, 2015 at 7:40 pm

        I’d have to see it first before the “delightful” assertion becomes valid. It wasn’t that hard I click on your profile and it reflects your high trafficking behaviors at all the hot beds of mormonism. So yes who would not be excited when they “got a live one” on the reel.

  10. Orrin Dayne   On   February 11, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    Chelsea is a baller. I picture her in some sort of martial arts movie fending off people coming from all angles. Great stuff.

  11. Daved6   On   February 11, 2015 at 9:47 pm

    No, regarding Dehlin, the leadership has never said it’s because of SSM and OW. The SP letter doesn’t say that’s the cause of excommunication. But he deceptively record a conversation between he and the SP which has John repeatedly wanting the SP to talk about SSM and OW and tying it to any possible discipline. But they did not, even as he tried to slyly get them to.
    It really has nothing to do with the two issues and it hasn’t been made clear at all. It really is just that he has argued to persuade people to disbelieve the core teachings of the Church. The same with Kelly. The Church would ignore them both if they just advocated for Social issues. It’s more about them pulling people away, influencing and creating a following, which following largely rejects the core elements of the Church.

    • Craig S.   On   February 12, 2015 at 4:27 am

      Hoo boy, we’ve got a live one here! Sounds like a true blue believer. Either that or a really good TBM whisperer. Daved, are you a regular listener of Infants on Thrones?

      • Daved6   On   February 12, 2015 at 2:39 pm

        Does listening to 5 or so episodes over the past few months count as a regular listener? Feel free to put me in your camp of 10 or 11 regulars if that helps the egos.

      • Craig S.   On   February 13, 2015 at 12:35 am

        Sure, that counts in my book. I was just wondering what you get out of the show, since from your comments here, you don’t seem to like the the show or the hosts very much.
        And since you seem to be interested in who is or is not one of the hosts, I am not. I’m just a listener.

      • Daved6   On   February 13, 2015 at 4:45 pm

        I like to hear other people’s perspectives…at least sometimes. I’m fairly generous that way.

      • Craig S.   On   February 13, 2015 at 5:21 pm

        Lol. How big of you. Well, you seem to like giving the smackdown in the comments, so we’ll keep bringing it if you do. Cheers!

    • Randy_Snyder   On   February 12, 2015 at 7:33 am

      Hey Daved6, if that is your real name, I thought you “weren’t interested enough” to give feedback. Well it seems you can’t help yourself. Keep listening brother. We don’t ask for money but your continued listenership is so delicious to my taste. 🙂
      And if you want a real voice, I’ll set up a conversation with me on any topic you want to tackle brother. Put me in my place. 😉

      • Daved6   On   February 12, 2015 at 2:38 pm

        Any topic? My goodness you so well versed you think you can tackle anything? I have no desire to put anyone in their place on some open ended topic, Randy. But I don’t mind offering my two-cents when I see fit. Are you one of hosts on this podcast? Were you chiming in on Kate’s embarrassing piece? I thought I just tabbed that as a topic to discuss. She seems far too unstable to me to lead such a brave movement. She simply can’t make it about her so much and hope to be successful. That was far too easy for the Church. Now she’s lost amidst all the hostile voices that are even easier to dismiss. But listening to part of this episode and reading from folks like Glenn above makes it clear, your input, as adorable as it is, does nothing but offer a tribe mentality. Why is that? I guess that can be our new topic if you wish to punt on the Kate Kelly piece.

      • Daved6   On   February 12, 2015 at 9:32 pm

        Damn you, you forgot one of my “d”s . And what do you mean by having me back? Where was I? And do I know you? And are you a host on this podcast? And how much to you weigh?

      • Randy_Snyder   On   February 13, 2015 at 4:48 am

        Man, you are one confused son of a bitch. Where am I? Did I remember to put my pants on? Who are you? Where’s my medication?

      • Daved6   On   February 13, 2015 at 5:05 pm

        Oh settle down. I just didn’t know this Bro Jake had seen me around before. It surprises me that I left a comment some weeks ago and some of you guys are still quoting it. That threw me off. Plus I’ve known tons of Jake’s in my life. maybe, somehow, he figured out who I was and he was like reaching out to me in a personal way.
        If he responded with his weight I might be able to match it up with one of the Jake’s I’ve known, I figured.

      • Brother Jake   On   February 13, 2015 at 2:44 pm

        Can’t believe I forgot the d! amnit!
        It’s been a couple weeks since you left a comment that you “just weren’t interested enough” to listen to the podcast. I was just saying it’s great you circled back and gave it another shodt. (I threw an extra d in there to make up for last time.)

      • Daved6   On   February 13, 2015 at 4:44 pm

        I think that’s the second or third time someone has quoted me about that. Shoot, didn’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings or get into anyone’s head. You guys are alright. Don’t take criticism so personally and I won’t try to hurt your couple of feelings. Deal?

      • Randy_Snyder   On   February 13, 2015 at 5:12 am

        Yes, I so well versed I let you pick topic. You tell me topic we speak. I do research on topic we debate topic. But I get it. Troll comfortable in natural habitat. No want to debate on air. BTW, any of the seven of us could have blocked all your insipid comments. We haven’t so don’t cry and pull the censorship card. We welcome your vapid voice. 🙂

      • Daved6   On   February 13, 2015 at 4:41 pm

        Debate a topic on air? I didn’t know that was your offer. Debate? Like some formal debate with opening comments and closing comments? What makes you think I have a topic that I want to debate with you? Don’t even know your position on anything, to tell the truth. You seem upset about Mormons in general. But I don’t know there’s a debate to be had there. Help me out, what do you have in mind? Have you assumed that I disagree with you on some general topic or something? if so, please advise.

    • Craig Keeling   On   February 13, 2015 at 5:01 am

      What could possibly be the evidence or reasons he would argue to persuade people (if that’s his goal)?
      That’s the more interesting question, isn’t it?

      • Daved6   On   February 13, 2015 at 4:47 pm

        For some, sure. I’m not sure I care too much if he just wants to maintain some amount of fame and fortune among LDS people. Or if he wants to set it up to make more money, or if he wants to play this just right in hopes to be crowned head of LGBT rights. Really….don’t know and not sure I care. But if you have ideas, I’d be happy to listen.

  12. Daved6   On   February 11, 2015 at 10:06 pm

    Kate has expressed anger/resentment/hate, non-support if you will, for many women in the Church. In a response to a Mormon Stories podcast with Nylan, Fiona Givens, Margaret Young…maybe Valerie Hudson? She called them “so-called feminists,” and narcissists along with the selling out their souls (not in those words) to the church accusation.
    I was like, odd how projection works….

  13. Daved6   On   February 11, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    It’s so hurtful to be excommunicated from ones faith community but they’re all losers anyway. I mean, they’re like the worst. Notice how I implied I’m so talented and stuff? Yeah that’s right… Millions of Mormons are a waste of human bodies but I’m the best. I guess if I was able to complete my coupe and lead them those losers had a chance. I’m the best! Don’t you forget it.
    Now post this on a credible locale on the Internet and get those I o t guys to downplay my offenses with some of my non Mormon friends so we can continue to look down our noses on Mormons in our own special way

  14. Nick   On   February 12, 2015 at 12:17 am

    First of all, thanks so much for those news breaks, which nearly caused me to get into a car wreck because I was laughing. Jerks. Second, I’m convinced that there are two approaches when you’ve said something controversial and inflammatory. If you stand by what you’ve said, don’t bother defending it again, griping about the criticism you see, or engaging with critics. There is very little as powerful as somebody who says something and then stands like granite as the storms swirl around. If you think you may have been wrong or overly strong, apologize without reservation. Just my opinion, but it’s best to let the haters hate while you shake it off.

  15. Mellie   On   February 12, 2015 at 1:51 am

    Chelsea, I thought your perspective on this episode was awesome! I really enjoy the back and forth of this conversation, I’m excited to listen to the next episode – I don’t think I’ve ever had two IOTs before, I usually listen immediately. It’s very exciting!

  16. jeff   On   February 12, 2015 at 3:25 am

    if this is conversation is any indication of what the future would bring, i’d be fine if you don’t ever have chelsea back. i found her frustrating. she kept insisting that she is hyper-rational and then jumped from issue to issue. her ridiculous stance that kate shouldn’t apologize for saying something dumb because feminists would lose too much reminds me why, despite being a feminist, i don’t think the ordain movement has any hope of accomplishing what the group claims to want.
    it isn’t a case of we’d rather be right than effective–that would be an upgrade to kate’s position in the guardian article and an upgrade to chelsea’s position in this podcast. no, this is a case of “id rather be pissed than effective.”
    if that is your goal, well done.

  17. Craig S.   On   February 12, 2015 at 5:30 am

    This was a really interesting conversation, lots of good stuff to think about. I especially appreciated Chelsea’s comments about how the tone of Kelly’s words change when you think of them as coming from a believer as opposed to a non-believer. Not that it excuses them completely, but it does come across differently.
    I’m not really sure what to think about Chelsea’s closing remarks regarding respecting religion and not encouraging people to leave religions. I see the point that if moderates leave religion that can leave to radicalization of the remaining organization, which can obviously be negative, but it can also lead to a marginalization of the radical fundamentalists. To provide a counterpoint to her example that moderates leaving leads to groups like ISIS, it also leads to Westboro Baptist Church being a shell of what it was at one point. Now the ones that are left are basically only capable of being a laughingstock to the rest of society.
    I also think that the “don’t leave” attitude runs the risk of ignoring the well-being of the people who might leave in in the hopes of improving the well-being of the impersonal organization. Will the LDS church be healthier if it has liberal, nonbelieving participants in addition to the staunch orthodox literalists? That’s up for debate, but I think so. But will those liberal members be better off staying in the church than leaving? That’s a completely separate issue. Certainly some liberal members can thrive in some places within the church. But I think there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that being in the middle like that causes a lot of hardship that could in many cases be alleviated by separating from the institution. Is it worth it to ask people to put themselves on the line in that way to try to reform an institution that causes them so much pain? If someone feels truly called to try then I will wish them well, but I would have a hard time with someone who argues that they have an obligation to do so.
    But maybe it’s me that’s getting off topic now. Those were some of my thoughts about Chelsea’s remarks, but I’m not sure that’s exactly what she meant.

  18. Erin   On   February 12, 2015 at 3:44 pm

    I LOVE ERICA! Keep her coming on the podcast! As an academic-intellectual-feminist I really appreciate Chelsea’s academic-intellectual-feminist perspective too. However, Chelsea’s approach is just not as fun as the snark and smackdown chemistry that the Infants share. Erica seems to fit the Infants’ tone better. Like Matt, I listen to Infants because I want to laugh.

    • Allison   On   February 13, 2015 at 5:08 am

      Erin, I hope you don’t take this too harshly, because I don’t want to seem unkind: I love Erica too. 🙂 She did a phenomenal job on this episode. But lately, I’ve been seeing this more and more: people comparing the women on the podcast to each other. It’s starting to get annoying. I wish it would stop, personally.
      Each episode has a different flavor, and everyone contributes to that. I like the variety. Seriousness, humor, smack downs, personal stories, creativity, etc. Its style is unique to every other mormon-ish podcast out there and I think that’s a definite positive. Having a variety of panelists on is part of that.
      (And I’m pretty sure nobody says stuff like this about any of the male guest panelists. Just sayin’… )

  19. rugratwes   On   February 12, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    I was on board all the way until Chelsea started saying that peoples personal religion was to be respected. It’s not that I think people of religion are dumb or otherwise inferior. It has to do with the fact that when these beliefs are beyond reproach we end up with the Hobby Lobby court decision, the Francis saying religion is beyond criticism (over the Charlie Hebdo shooting), Mr Oaks about apology, the West Borough Baptist Church (God hates everything we do), and the list goes on an on. The extreme members of any religion or belief structure may be the problem, that doesn’t exclude the fact that it’s the moderate believers that make excuses and provide cover for these individuals (usually in some form of the No True Scotsman Fallacy).
    As a side note Atheism isn’t a belief, so there really isn’t any hierarchy or social structure based upon it. So pointing to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as extreme atheists I find rather disingenuous, it isn’t their non-belief in god that drives their actions, it’s their beliefs about what religion is or that religion does that drives them to sometimes make extreme or outrageous remarks.
    It’s a good show I’ve enjoyed the ex-mo perspective because of my upbringing.

  20. Craig Keeling   On   February 13, 2015 at 4:39 am

    I still don’t think what Kate said in the article was small-minded. I think it was a nuanced way to slam the church (not the members) but was unexpected and hyperbolic in its tone. Exactly how one of you said was possibly “the genius of it” if that’s what she meant, because it would get more coverage.
    It’s likely there would have never been an IoT episode otherwise?

  21. Sharon Dymond   On   February 13, 2015 at 5:21 am

    Didn’t actually read the editorial that sparked this kerfuffle but would like to note that natural selection is a process that works over time. If I recall the GA who commissioned the Dehlin survey said something like, “We’re losing our best and brightest.”

  22. JRon   On   February 13, 2015 at 10:05 am

    I spent 82 minutes listening. By minute 83 I began to ask myself has there been anything redeemable about this show? BLAM! Finally there is a payoff and momentary satisfaction to this masturbatory circling back and forth of “Heyyy! Offensive”
    “I totally agree, butt John Dehlin…”
    Omg stop comparing the subject of this show to John Dehlin. John Dehlin has saved scores of people’s lives and families. The fact that some people are pretty much instinctively compelled to bash, compare, and critique Brother Dehlin in such a perverse manner while flying the banner of womanhood is disturbing as all FUCK.

  23. RandyFarr   On   February 14, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    I’m old enough to remember the 1968 Olympics when Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood on the medals platform. As the national anthem played both of these black athletes raised their fists in the air and bowed their heads. On their fists were black gloves.
    I remember a world-wide outcry of disgust (myself included). It seemed a universal rejection by both white and black – even from strong civil rights proponents. ‘How could these two world-class athletes lower themselves and demean the lofty principles of the Olympics.’
    Today, decades later, these two men are among my heroes. Why? Precisely because they did something that cast light on a painful wound in our society; and precisely because they knew there would be near-universal outrage and hate directed at them.
    This outcome may or may not apply to Kate Kelly. It may take years to discover. But I’m willing to wait (withhold judgment) to to find out.

  24. Jeff   On   February 16, 2015 at 10:23 am

    For what it’s worth, when I read Kate’s editorial I took it to mean the leadership of the church, not the general membership at large. You have to be a yes man to rise in the ranks of church leadership. I’m just thinking of any Stake Presidency I’ve ever known. In other facets of their lives some of these men are quite well respected, successful, educated, etc., but that’s not what makes them good leadership material. They aren’t placed in those callings because of their secular abilities.

  25. Gabriel   On   February 18, 2015 at 1:09 am

    Sorry I was so late getting here (I didn’t hear the podcast until last night). I generally love IoT, but found myself annoyed with Glen and the others. It was impossible for me to imagine Glen demanding an apology from Dehlin or any other church critic for publicly saying what Ms. Kelly wrote in her oped. I listen to a variety of ex-mo type podcasts and hear a lot of well-deserved crap shoveled on church leaders in a demeaning way. I’ve never heard Mr. Ostlund (spelling?) suggest any of these critics apologize. Now a woman says something and he’s all over it? Coincidence?

    • Bob Caswell   On   February 18, 2015 at 6:33 am

      Not a coincidence as much as it is someone picking their favorite variable (gender) in an unsubstantiated way to fit a narrative already preconceived. Don’t confuse an isolated instance of correlation with causation… unless it makes you feel better!

    • Levi P   On   February 18, 2015 at 9:45 pm

      I felt uncomfortable with this one as well, not because they were attacking a woman for using strong, offensive words, but because they were attacking anyone for that. The IoT say all kinds of offensive things about members all the time so I was a little shocked to hear them go after someone else for doing the same thing, albeit in a different way and through a different medium.

      • Glenn   On   February 18, 2015 at 10:24 pm

        Levi (and everyone else so surprised and upset and spinning this in such a narrow way) – do me the courtesy of being specific here and point me (or Jake, since we were the two perma-infants in this discussion) to the place and time where we have said strong offensive (and untrue and unfair) comments about members of the church in general. I’m not suggesting they don’t exist — I’m saying show me, like we took the time to do here regarding this one specific Op Ed — and then let’s see if we are willing to apologize for those statements or not.
        The reason I have been called “TBM Whisperer” on this podcast is because I am often saying something like “hang on, let’s look at this from their perspective” — I make a pretty conscious effort to not disparage believers – I don’t really even like the “TBM” label, but still use it occasionally just because it’s such a useful shortcut. But I am a big believer in giving other people the benefit of the doubt — even to Kate in this case — which I think is evident during the course of the discussion for those with ears to hear EVERYTHING I said and not just some misrepresentative sliver that then eclipses everything else.
        For what it’s worth, I never demanded that Kate issue an apology. I do, however, think that I made it abundantly clear that I very quickly lose respect for a person — male or female — who is unwilling to apologize and take responsibility for making mistakes in the way they say things.
        So do I think Kate should apologize? I don’t really care, honestly. But I think she should be willing to say something like, “yeah, that was unfair of me to say. I didn’t mean that all members are the least talented, least courageous, etc — just that the church sets up their system that way — I was being critical of church leadership, not church members.” And maybe she has said something to that point. I don’t know. And like I said, I don’t really care. But in the context of this discussion, it simply boiled down to a case study for “should people be willing to own up and apologize if necessary” and I stand by my conclusion — yes, I think people should.
        That’s what I was going for, at least — but if I said something contrary to that, point it out — show me. I’m willing to look at it and reconsider. Cuz if I am not living up to that standard myself, by all means, i want to be shown where I am being a hypocrite. I will absolutely own it.
        But let’s not spin this as some Feminist-script violation where some horrible small-minded man is telling some courageous and noble woman that she doesn’t have a voice or she needs to change her tone. Please. If anything, let’s compare it to the Brother Jake video about cults. I think we gave Jake some pretty honest feedback and he reconsidered his position by the end of that discussion. And John Hamer came on the comments and ripped him a new one. So, come on — this is not just a “women always get attacked and men get ignored” issue.
        Unless of course you really really want it to be, and then I guess you can spin it to become anything you want.

      • Levi P   On   February 18, 2015 at 11:20 pm

        Are you suggesting that you don’t believe you say things on your podcast that could be offensive to a believer? Or that could be taken as a character attack rather than a “more effective” way of them seeing your side? BTW, I don’t think Kate should apologize for anything, and I don’t think IoT has anything to apologize for. Also (and I’m guessing this critism was not directed at me assuming you read my comment), I don’t think your critism of Kate had anything to do with her gender. It just felt odd given the nature of your podcast (which again, is the best podcast out there, its my go-to), which pokes fun at mormon beliefs, mormon culture, etc. that you would target the tone of someone like Kate Kelly. I totally agree that what she said would be offensive from the perspective of a TBM, but that wasn’t her audience. And plenty of what you guys say and talk about, would be offensive from the perspective of a TBM, but that’s not your audience. I guess if you’re dying for an example, have Jake go back and listen to his rants on the BoA smackdown. Or more recently, your guys’ discussion and tone on the LGBT Smackdown. Those are a couple that immediately come to mind. BUT AGAIN, I LIKE IT! DON’T STOP BEING IRREVERENT AND OFFENSIVE! All I’m saying is that it felt a little hypocritical for you to attack someone else for something that you guys, at least from my perspective admittedly, do on a regular basis.

      • Bob Caswell   On   February 18, 2015 at 11:29 pm

        Context is important too. And you still haven’t given a specific example with quotes, and remember to look for something that says something to the same wide sweeping degree of all active Mormons are unilaterally the least blah blah blah. And I think Infants shooting the shit back and forth, often calling each other out when passionate by outrageous stuff is said, well, that does feel different than carefully (or not so carefully) crafting an article for The Guardian.

      • Levi P   On   February 18, 2015 at 11:40 pm

        That was my point about the medium Kate was using. It’s in print so it’s low hanging fruit, easy to criticize. I gave you examples of episodes you guys did in the past, but no, I’m not going to go back and listen to hours of audio just so I can satisfy your need for a “specific example.” If you just want to sit back and throw darts without being a little introspective by considering that maybe all these people who were surprised by the content of this episode may be on to something, then fine. I really don’t care. Like I said, this is based on my perspective of your podcast and the tone and content you normally have. Your favorite expression seems to be “shitting on people” for hell’s sakes.

      • Brother Jake   On   February 19, 2015 at 1:53 am

        Levi, I think you do bring up a good point with my tone on the BoA smackdown. That topic got me more riled up than I anticipated, and there were several points at which I was overly disparaging of believers. I’ve reigned in my approach since then. So yes, there are times at which we (or at least I) have been guilty of the same thing we’re criticizing Kate of.

      • Levi P   On   February 19, 2015 at 4:16 am

        Thanks (and sorry) Jake, didn’t mean to call you out, just responding to Bob’s and Glenn’s incessant need to get specifics. To reiterate, I don’t think you guys, nor Kate, have anything to apologize about. I love the banter, I love the rants — they express passion and emotion that we’ve all felt. You guys are doing great stuff. Keep it up.

      • Glenn   On   February 19, 2015 at 8:47 am

        Oh, come on Levi… show me exactly where I was “incessant.” 😉
        (the above comment is meant a joke, as indicated by mr. winky)
        ((this disclaimer brought to you by the SSSC, the Special Society for the Sarcastically Challenged))

      • Mike   On   February 23, 2015 at 3:45 pm

        I personally have no issues with the way you guys responded. I personally don’t remember any time that IOT have said things like what Kate said. That all members are such and such.
        It makes me wonder too. Because Kate is a believer right? Wasn’t she upset that she was Ex’d? But then she turns around and says “the least talented, least articulate, least nuanced thinkers, least likely to take a stand against abuse, and the least courageous people thrive in the Church today. ”
        She’d still be a member if he hadn’t been Ex’d. So she is special because she got kicked out? She didn’t up and leave on her own because she realized that the church wasn’t false.
        My wife is still an active member. And she is talented, articulate, courageous …. she is just still following the church that she was brought up in.
        I never look at believers as being stupid or less then thinkers. I believed it for 35 years. And now I don’t. I know many many very smart people who still believe it. They aren’t less then Kate. IMO maybe she should get off her high horse. Because if it wasn’t for the church, then she’d still be one of these “less then” members.

      • Glenn   On   February 19, 2015 at 1:13 am

        I get it, Levi — I wasn’t responding to just your comment, but a general sentiment/theme I have been seeing from others besides yourself — and I am not taking it personally, so no worries there.
        But there is a huge different between a tone of IOT that would be offensive to members (i.e. criticizing Oaks for his LGBT disingenuousness, which members would find offensive because you are not allowed to irreverantly mock the Lord’s anointed) and making a direct (and inaccurate) claim that only the least talented, least courageous, etc etc, thrive in the church.
        So to be clear — we are not criticizing Kate for tone. Not at all. But for the specific, incorrect, disparaging remarks that — as I said in the podcast — become a weak link in an otherwise very strong chain.
        And I don’t see that IOT makes specific disparaging remarks about believing members. Even if we do have a lot of fun cow-tipping their sacred cows.

  26. calabiyau   On   February 27, 2015 at 8:43 pm

    I think Kate K is jealous she wasn’t invited to the Meet the Mormons VIP screening. She checked out Shaytards video from the reception, “MEETING APOSTLE JEFFREY R. HOLLAND!” and then punched a hole through the wall of her house in Kenya.

  27. Bitherwack   On   March 6, 2015 at 7:38 pm

    I think that Kate, in the ‘problematic paragraph’ was meaning that she is genuinely concerned about the DNA of the church… as thinking, creative, or progressive mormons leave, the church will become gradually more cognitively dissonant, calcified, and homogenous.

    • Allison   On   March 7, 2015 at 6:21 am

      This is an interesting take. If she would have been more clear about it, if this was what she meant, I’d agree.

Leave a Reply

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

Please visit Appearance->Widgets to add your widgets here
%d bloggers like this: