logic. Some examples follow:
1. Temple Endowment. The author's point is based on the faulty premise that priesthood authority is the same a priesthood power. Obviously she does it because it suits her purpose in trying to show contradiction where none exists. The inexcusable part is that it is done in light of the latest talk by Elder Oaks which explains it all perfectly. Additionally the writer takes the quotes of Elder Ballard and Elder Packer out of the contexts in which they were given. In context Elder Packer is speaking of men, who act outside of their authority, merely because they have been endowed, and is not referencing women at all.
2. Temple Marriage: In this section the poster bases her claims on two false premises: 1st that all priesthood is synonymous, which it clearly is not, and 2nd, for her private purpose she tries to
equate the patriarchal priesthood with all other priesthoods, which is in error. She also messes up again on not understanding that priesthood power and priesthood authority are two different things, thus her argument fails, as it is essentially tied to the false premise of power and authority being equivalent. The third faulty premise is the assumption that priesthood callings are also synonymous to priesthood power, and infers wrongfully that one cannot have power
without a calling.
3. Obviousness: The writer totally misses the point of Elder Packer's talk, as in context he is making it clear that only authorized and sustained priesthood leaders can confer the priesthood. He is not speaking of women, but rather of men who follow the protestant course of assuming a priesthood of believers. That she purposefully takes Elder Packer out of context of the entire talk, in order to set up a false conclusion, indicates intellectual dishonesty.
The remainder of the article is subject to the same twisting of definitions and contextual
gerrymandering. A spirit based and humble reading of Elder Oaks Talk in the April Session of General conference, will clarify and make OBVIOUS the true doctrines with regard to Priesthood power, Priesthood Authority and Priesthood Ordination. It is only the willfully ignorant, who do not want to see the truth because it destroys their private prejudices, that remain confused after such a clearly outlined and doctrinally based discourse.