Response to Mraynes-What Would Jesus Do
After quoting some sad examples of her perceptions of events from her life, the author then goes on to apply the same skewed logic as those who attack the church from other venues. For example, the Anti-Mormons and the Mountain Meadows massacre. The whole underlying false, but desired inference which most Anti-Mormons make in that arena, after sharing biased historical accounts that please their private desires, is that to claim: "See that is just how Mormons are!
It is a strange human phenomenon among the low information readers, that tragedy somehow brings credence to the victim of the tragedy. For example, when Mrs. Sheehan lost her son in war, society suddenly elevated a women who was clearly ignorant of defense strategy, political realities, or any geopolitical understanding, and elevated her to be an expert. Why?.... because they felt sorry for her loss. The real tragedy is that not only did many wrongfully conclude that somehow suffering a loss, suddenly made her into an expert on national defense, but they did so in direct contravention to the indisputable fact that those who suffer grief, are actually less able to employ their reason, and since their bias is extreme their ability to see things in a just and reasonable manner is severely hampered. Thus not only should Mrs. Sheehan not have been thought to have become an overnight defense expert, but the opposite should have occurred and her statements and ranting should have been seen as suspect because she was suffering from grief.
It would be a huge mistake to grant the same type of false credibility to this author, who, though she may have suffered as she claims, is by reason of that suffering clearly more biased, and her claims more suspect than others. It is a fallacy of logic to conclude that one's private understanding or experiences equate to everyone else. Here is where an understanding of doctrine is so vital. When church members or leaders act contrary to doctrine, then they are the exception, if the doctrine is clearly not in support of those actions. Thus it is a fallacy for others to try to take actions done contrary to doctrine and impute upon the church that it somehow supports those actions.
Her ignorance of the teachings of Paul with regard to stumbling blocks, indicates a radicalized and self centered view of how the conduct of women impacts others. The interesting irony of it all is that she wants to impute blame upon the church for the actions of some few leaders she has known, while faulting the church for doing the same thing in her mind, with regard to women and modesty.
Finally the author provides snippets of scriptures without context to prove what we already know to be a truism, that Jesus loved and respected women and their divine and holy roles. The key point overlooked by the author is that she proves Jesus' love and respect for women in the same paragraph in which she admits that he did not ordain women! The obvious conclusion then must be that the non-ordination of women, cannot equate to a degraded, or lesser view of women, and so must be based on something else. She proves that it is possible to not support ordination of women, while still being one who "cared about the feelings, questions and experiences of women!" OW would do well to recognize and accept that point.